T Nation

What Was Obama's First Official Act?


#1

Didn't he say it was to close GITMO or something? Instead, was it signing this?

Executive Order 13489
"Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise

of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection

(a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive

privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any

such determination.
(And no, I didnâ??t switch the B and A around .. it was like that in the order - so much for attention to detail or were we a bit rushed to do this at the time?)

What this says, is that only the Attorney General and Council to the President, are able to review recordsâ?? requests and determine if they can be made public or not (what they deem appropriate)."

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1629

Does this have something to do with his birth certificate and/or his college records? I thought it was settled that he was born in Hawaii and that George Soros paid for his college.


#2

Have you been following the case of Maj. Stefan Cook?

He was ordered to go to Afghanistan and filed a lawsuit seeking clarification of the order on the basis that if Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, the orders are illegal and he could be found liable for war crimes.

While there probably isn’t a precedent for this, I, and many others, would think that this sort of action quickly would have gotten one court martialed.

Instead, the orders were revoked, thus making the suit moot and it was subsequently dismissed.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/520/story/778093.html

Very interesting that the Army would choose to go this route.

It is nice to see that this is finally garnering some media attention. The ledger-enquirer has been reporting on the Cook case for a while. The LA Times and Miami Herald also mentioned it. Hannity mentioned it on his show last week, and Rush continues to make comments in passing about Obama’s lack of a BC. Lou Dobbs is talking about, and CNN even ran a brief interview.

Even Lynn Samuels is on this:

Finally we have this at a town hall meeting:

This issue is finally picking up steam and it is about time that Obama comes clean. It is now a foregone conclusion that he is hiding something of significance, and at this point a foreign birth seems to be the most likely thing to hide. As narcissistic as this man is, he will do everything he can to keep all records hidden, as you have shown, as likely won’t go down without a battle. I predict that this is going to end very badly for the whole country, all because the media, states, and congress refused to do their job to ensure this candidates eligibility before he took office.


#3

Prediction (just a personal opinion): If all this is ever opened up despite his lawyers having gotten very many relevant sources of records sealed, what will come out is not that he wasn’t born in the US, but that he has had dual citizenship and maintained and exercised it as an adult, up until quite recently (2004 I think it was) for a trip to Pakistan.

While dual citizenship is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it’s a reasonable argument that divided allegiance was exactly what the Founders were insisting could not be allowed for a President. Obama did not want that coming up during the election and does not want it coming up now.

Of course, some could argue that Obama’s lawyers have gone to all this effort and expense of sealing all these very many ordinary things just as a lark or way to fill their otherwise empty days or other such thing, that there is nothing of any sort that needs hiding. Oh how could anyone suspect there was anything to hide, from all this hiding. No he just wants to establish privacy precedents for future Presidents and candidates, or some such thing. It’s out of nobility, that’s what it is.

Each can judge for himself how likely that is.


#4

[quote]tedro wrote:
Have you been following the case of Maj. Stefan Cook?

He was ordered to go to Afghanistan and filed a lawsuit seeking clarification of the order on the basis that if Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, the orders are illegal and he could be found liable for war crimes.

While there probably isn’t a precedent for this, I, and many others, would think that this sort of action quickly would have gotten one court martialed.

Instead, the orders were revoked, thus making the suit moot and it was subsequently dismissed.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/520/story/778093.html

Very interesting that the Army would choose to go this route.

It is nice to see that this is finally garnering some media attention. The ledger-enquirer has been reporting on the Cook case for a while. The LA Times and Miami Herald also mentioned it. Hannity mentioned it on his show last week, and Rush continues to make comments in passing about Obama’s lack of a BC. Lou Dobbs is talking about, and CNN even ran a brief interview.

Even Lynn Samuels is on this:

Finally we have this at a town hall meeting:

This issue is finally picking up steam and it is about time that Obama comes clean. It is now a foregone conclusion that he is hiding something of significance, and at this point a foreign birth seems to be the most likely thing to hide. As narcissistic as this man is, he will do everything he can to keep all records hidden, as you have shown, as likely won’t go down without a battle. I predict that this is going to end very badly for the whole country, all because the media, states, and congress refused to do their job to ensure this candidates eligibility before he took office.
[/quote]

I was shocked that all he got was ‘Order Cancelled’ when I heard. That was bizarre. I think the administration simply doesn’t want to go down this path.

Having the final say-so on what can be revealed was never meant to cover up stuff like this, as Nixon discovered. The fact that it was THE very first thing he did is definitely intrigueing. Kind of like how Hitler burned down his home town in Austria as soon as he had annexed it…revealing.


#5

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Prediction (just a personal opinion): If all this is ever opened up despite his lawyers having gotten very many relevant sources of records sealed, what will come out is not that he wasn’t born in the US, but that he has had dual citizenship and maintained and exercised it as an adult, up until quite recently (2004 I think it was) for a trip to Pakistan.

While dual citizenship is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it’s a reasonable argument that divided allegiance was exactly what the Founders were insisting could not be allowed for a President. Obama did not want that coming up during the election and does not want it coming up now.
[/quote]

I completely agree with the second part of this, but I have considered your prediction before and find it unlikely. If the issue was only one of dual-citizenship, I would think that Obama would have released his long-form birth certificate long ago. If he was indeed born in Hawaii, the birth certificate itself would provide zero evidence of dual citizenship. He could have silenced all the critics last summer by releasing his birth certificate. The issue then never would have gained the traction that we have been seeing these last couple of weeks. Talk of passports and college records would have seemed outlandish.

There are plenty of liberals making this argument on his behalf already.


#6

Not to hijack but speaking of his education, I was very surprised to watch Obama be given a tour of a plant that makes wind turbines. He was shown the propeller blades and he asked what they are. They explained and he looked like he had no idea what the propeller does. He genuinely didn’t seem to know what he was looking at and asked to be explained. WOW! Just how Isolated do you have to be to not know THAT! Common basic things like this are known by everyone, aren’t they?

Anyway i found that odd.


#7

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tedro wrote:
I was shocked that all he got was ‘Order Cancelled’ when I heard. That was bizarre. I think the administration simply doesn’t want to go down this path.

Having the final say-so on what can be revealed was never meant to cover up stuff like this, as Nixon discovered. The fact that it was THE very first thing he did is definitely intrigueing. Kind of like how Hitler burned down his home town in Austria as soon as he had annexed it…revealing.

[/quote]

You pulled the thoughts out of my head.

Also i stated in past threads when he was still campaigning he always gave me the shifty eyed vibe. Something about him looked distant like he was indeed hiding something. The way they got all the Journalists on another plane to trick them so they couldn’t grill him and all that. All Very odd and Shady for a future Leader of the FREE world. He should be embracing journalists. He Isn’t because there may be dirt under the surface that they’ll get if they get too close.


#8

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Not to hijack but speaking of his education, I was very surprised to watch Obama be given a tour of a plant that makes wind turbines. He was shown the propeller blades and he asked what they are. They explained and he looked like he had no idea what the propeller does. He genuinely didn’t seem to know what he was looking at and asked to be explained. WOW! Just how Isolated do you have to be to not know THAT! Common basic things like this are known by everyone, aren’t they?

Anyway i found that odd. [/quote]

Link?


#9

Dear Fellow Republicans:

I’m not a fan of Obama either, in fact I think he’s the least qualified man to ever hold the highest office in the land. But, some of you sound just a bit like the “get Bush at all cost” fanatics who filled these pages after 2000 and 2004.

Remember all of the secrets that Bush was hiding? “If we could just dig deep enough then the tyrant would be exposed, and impeached” they used to say. You can find all sorts of links on this board mentioning how the Bush presidency was going to come toppling down any minute, just as soon as that one piece of evidence could be uncovered. Remember how foolish they seemed? The sillyness of the whole thing was just mind boggling, remember?

You want that last election over turned just like the liberal democrats wanted Bush ousted. We all sat back and laughed heartily at the futility of their words. Now a role reversal has many of you playing the same role that some democrats played not long ago. But this is different you say, something really stinks that they’re trying to cover up, uh huh, yes that does sound familiar.

Take heart when nothing comes of this there is another way. In about 3 1/2 more years we’ll have another Presidential election and in fact in about 18 months the Presidential race will be back on the front burner. If the republicans are smart enough to nominate a candidate who can capture the hearts and minds of the American people, as Mr. Obama did, we just may take back the White House. Until then, lift weights, play with your kids, go to work and pay your (excessive) taxes and try to be productive members of the greatest nation on earth and know that you can’t win them all, and when you do lose do so with some grace.


#10

So why do you think such considerable effort and no doubt expense was gone to to seal all these various records?

Who goes to the trouble to seal their elementary school records? Their passport records? And etc.

Or are you a subscriber to the “going to very considerable trouble and expense to hide everything doesn’t even begin to suggest there is anything to hide” explanation?

Just speaking in the general, not in reference to Obama: Most people, when they see great and unusual effort put to hiding things that ordinarily are not hidden, figure that the driving force is that of having something to hide. It’s just one of those general principles that’s probably right over 99% of the time.

As for your attempted Bush comparison: Bush hid no private records. His college records, medical records, even driving records were all open for all to see. As for executive records on various things, particularly related to terrorism and national security, it’s completely usual for such records to not be generally available. It’s not at all like getting one’s elementary school records sealed. Invalid comparison. And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this. Bush, as nice as it may be to blame him for everything, just has no relevance whatsoever to the matter of Obama hiding all these things that never before have been hidden by a Presidential candidate and hardly are ever hidden by anybody, for that matter (except those with something to hide.)


#11

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Not to hijack but speaking of his education, I was very surprised to watch Obama be given a tour of a plant that makes wind turbines. He was shown the propeller blades and he asked what they are. They explained and he looked like he had no idea what the propeller does. He genuinely didn’t seem to know what he was looking at and asked to be explained. WOW! Just how Isolated do you have to be to not know THAT! Common basic things like this are known by everyone, aren’t they?

Anyway i found that odd. [/quote]

He’s a reptilian, who wouldn’t understand such things. Haven’t you seen all the youtube videos? :wink:


#12

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Dear Fellow Republicans:

I’m not a fan of Obama either, in fact I think he’s the least qualified man to ever hold the highest office in the land. But, some of you sound just a bit like the “get Bush at all cost” fanatics who filled these pages after 2000 and 2004.

Remember all of the secrets that Bush was hiding? “If we could just dig deep enough then the tyrant would be exposed, and impeached” they used to say. You can find all sorts of links on this board mentioning how the Bush presidency was going to come toppling down any minute, just as soon as that one piece of evidence could be uncovered. Remember how foolish they seemed? The sillyness of the whole thing was just mind boggling, remember?

You want that last election over turned just like the liberal democrats wanted Bush ousted. We all sat back and laughed heartily at the futility of their words. Now a role reversal has many of you playing the same role that some democrats played not long ago. But this is different you say, something really stinks that they’re trying to cover up, uh huh, yes that does sound familiar.

Take heart when nothing comes of this there is another way. In about 3 1/2 more years we’ll have another Presidential election and in fact in about 18 months the Presidential race will be back on the front burner. If the republicans are smart enough to nominate a candidate who can capture the hearts and minds of the American people, as Mr. Obama did, we just may take back the White House. Until then, lift weights, play with your kids, go to work and pay your (excessive) taxes and try to be productive members of the greatest nation on earth and know that you can’t win them all, and when you do lose do so with some grace.

[/quote]

That was more presidential than an Obama speech. Well done!

You and Thunderbolt would make good running mates. :slight_smile:


#13

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Dear Fellow Republicans:

I’m not a fan of Obama either, in fact I think he’s the least qualified man to ever hold the highest office in the land. But, some of you sound just a bit like the “get Bush at all cost” fanatics who filled these pages after 2000 and 2004.

Remember all of the secrets that Bush was hiding? “If we could just dig deep enough then the tyrant would be exposed, and impeached” they used to say. You can find all sorts of links on this board mentioning how the Bush presidency was going to come toppling down any minute, just as soon as that one piece of evidence could be uncovered. Remember how foolish they seemed? The sillyness of the whole thing was just mind boggling, remember?

You want that last election over turned just like the liberal democrats wanted Bush ousted. We all sat back and laughed heartily at the futility of their words. Now a role reversal has many of you playing the same role that some democrats played not long ago. But this is different you say, something really stinks that they’re trying to cover up, uh huh, yes that does sound familiar.

Take heart when nothing comes of this there is another way. In about 3 1/2 more years we’ll have another Presidential election and in fact in about 18 months the Presidential race will be back on the front burner. If the republicans are smart enough to nominate a candidate who can capture the hearts and minds of the American people, as Mr. Obama did, we just may take back the White House. Until then, lift weights, play with your kids, go to work and pay your (excessive) taxes and try to be productive members of the greatest nation on earth and know that you can’t win them all, and when you do lose do so with some grace.

[/quote]

No. This is getting traction. Only traitors quit now.

I’m heading to Alaska. 33 hour flight with lay overs. hell yeah


#14

[quote]tedro wrote:
Have you been following the case of Maj. Stefan Cook?

He was ordered to go to Afghanistan and filed a lawsuit seeking clarification of the order on the basis that if Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, the orders are illegal and he could be found liable for war crimes.

While there probably isn’t a precedent for this, I, and many others, would think that this sort of action quickly would have gotten one court martialed.

Instead, the orders were revoked, thus making the suit moot and it was subsequently dismissed.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/520/story/778093.html

Very interesting that the Army would choose to go this route.

It is nice to see that this is finally garnering some media attention. The ledger-enquirer has been reporting on the Cook case for a while. The LA Times and Miami Herald also mentioned it. Hannity mentioned it on his show last week, and Rush continues to make comments in passing about Obama’s lack of a BC. Lou Dobbs is talking about, and CNN even ran a brief interview.

Even Lynn Samuels is on this:

Finally we have this at a town hall meeting:

This issue is finally picking up steam and it is about time that Obama comes clean. It is now a foregone conclusion that he is hiding something of significance, and at this point a foreign birth seems to be the most likely thing to hide. As narcissistic as this man is, he will do everything he can to keep all records hidden, as you have shown, as likely won’t go down without a battle. I predict that this is going to end very badly for the whole country, all because the media, states, and congress refused to do their job to ensure this candidates eligibility before he took office.
[/quote]

He is the son of a natural born citizen, being foreign born would not disqualify him from being POTUS. If John McCain was eligible to be POTUS, Obama certainly is (as McCain was born OFF of US soil). Headhunter raises a valid criticism regarding abuse of executive privilege but this natural born citizen crap is nutty.


#15

His first official act was committing internationally televised perjury in the guise of taking the oath of office.


#16

[quote]valiance. wrote:
He is the son of a natural born citizen, being foreign born would not disqualify him from being POTUS. If John McCain was eligible to be POTUS, Obama certainly is (as McCain was born OFF of US soil). Headhunter raises a valid criticism regarding abuse of executive privilege but this natural born citizen crap is nutty.[/quote]

Funny you say this, seeing as natural-born citizen has never been defined in this country in regards to its context in the constitution. It is commonly believed that the framers took the term from Vattel’s law of nations, where it is defined as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice that parents is in the plural.

However, this is neither here nor there, seeing as Stanley Ann Dunham was not yet old enough at the time of birth to even pass on US citizenship to Obama, let alone the question of natural born citizenship. See U.S. Code Title 8, section 1401.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

You can read through the whole thing yourself, but by Obama’s own admissions part (g) is the only subsection that would be of relevance in this case.

i a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person…[/i]

So as you can see, if Obama was indeed born in Kenya, then we needn’t even define natural born citizenship, as he clearly couldn’t have been a US citizen of any kind. If you can overcome this hurdle we can start discussing what a natural born citizen is and question if he can be one given that his father was not a citizen.

None of this even considers the possibility of dual or even tri-citizenship.

EDIT: I left out one key bit of information, this has only been in effect since 1986. Before that time it read …period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years… As Stanley Ann was only 18 at the time of Obama’s birth, there is no way she could have attained the four years after age 14 that would have been required.


#17

[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
He is the son of a natural born citizen, being foreign born would not disqualify him from being POTUS. If John McCain was eligible to be POTUS, Obama certainly is (as McCain was born OFF of US soil). Headhunter raises a valid criticism regarding abuse of executive privilege but this natural born citizen crap is nutty.

Funny you say this, seeing as natural-born citizen has never been defined in this country in regards to its context in the constitution. It is commonly believed that the framers took the term from Vattel’s law of nations, where it is defined as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice that parents is in the plural.

However, this is neither here nor there, seeing as Stanley Ann Dunham was not yet old enough at the time of birth to even pass on US citizenship to Obama, let alone the question of natural born citizenship. See U.S. Code Title 8, section 1401.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

You can read through the whole thing yourself, but by Obama’s own admissions part (g) is the only subsection that would be of relevance in this case.

i a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person…[/i]

So as you can see, if Obama was indeed born in Kenya, then we needn’t even define natural born citizenship, as he clearly couldn’t have been a US citizen of any kind. If you can overcome this hurdle we can start discussing what a natural born citizen is and question if he can be one given that his father was not a citizen.

None of this even considers the possibility of dual or even tri-citizenship.[/quote]

Interesting. Thanks for that I didn’t know about the age provision–which seems more than a bit silly to me. The point is moot anyway since BHO was indeed born in Hawaii.

Where’s the evidence for dual or triune citizenship?


#18

[quote]valiance. wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for that I didn’t know about the age provision–which seems more than a bit silly to me.
[/quote]

See my edit, I left something out. Silly or not, it is the law.

I ask you the same question, by what evidence?

He was a dual citizen up until the age of 19 by his own admission. His father was a British subject at the time of his birth (Kenya was a British colony), thus making him a British citizen as well.

He may have also been an Indonesian citizen well into adulthood. He was supposedly adopted by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, although he has not provided any documentation of this. It is speculated that Lolo may have rejected Barack’s US and British citizenship so that he could acquire Indonesian citizenship. Indonesian public schools, such as the one Obama attended, were only open to Indonesian citizens and Indonesia, at the time, did not allow dual citizenship. It would not actually affect his US citizenship had Lolo renounced the citizenship of Obama’s behalf as US law will not let a parent renounce a child’s citizenship, but it could have been enough to acquire Indonesian citizenship. An Indonesian passport would explain his travels to Pakistan in 1981 when US citizens were not allowed into the country.

While nothing is said in the constitution about dual-citizenship affecting natural born status, it does seem to go directly against the founders intent and should be addressed by the USSC. If the USSC deems it to not have been sufficiently defined, it should be defined in a constitutional ammendment.


#19

This Supreme Court will never agree to hear a case that could remove Obama as President. The only way they would ever take such a case would be if they were certain beforehand that they could make a fine argument with favorable decision by a large majority of the justices.

But, so long as all relevant evidence is sealed, they would have no way of predicting what cans of worms might open up if they took such a case, so they won’t take it.

(As personal opinion.)


#20

[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for that I didn’t know about the age provision–which seems more than a bit silly to me.

See my edit, I left something out. Silly or not, it is the law.
[/quote]

Duly noted.

[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
The point is moot anyway since BHO was indeed born in Hawaii.

I ask you the same question, by what evidence?
[/quote]

All the evidence thus far?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

The kicker here is that 2 Hawaii newspapers published birth announcements within weeks of Obama’s birth.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php


I get the skepticism of the government and people in power, I really do, but the evidence here is all on one side. This birther stuff is really driven by racism, xenophobia, and maybe just plain hate of BHO. This goes well beyond reasonable skepticism of government or politicians, it’s highly irrational conspiracy theory stuff, and I think the birth announcements nail it even if everything else does not. It’s beyond loony to believe that the Dunhams, in anticipation of a future political career for their grandson, placed these ads in the newspaper to cover up the real location of his birth in Kenya, or on the Moon, or in Atlantis or wherever the hell these people think he was born.

[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Where’s the evidence for dual or triune citizenship?

He was a dual citizen up until the age of 19 by his own admission. His father was a British subject at the time of his birth (Kenya was a British colony), thus making him a British citizen as well.

He may have also been an Indonesian citizen well into adulthood. He was supposedly adopted by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, although he has not provided any documentation of this. It is speculated that Lolo may have rejected Barack’s US and British citizenship so that he could acquire Indonesian citizenship. Indonesian public schools, such as the one Obama attended, were only open to Indonesian citizens and Indonesia, at the time, did not allow dual citizenship. It would not actually affect his US citizenship had Lolo renounced the citizenship of Obama’s behalf as US law will not let a parent renounce a child’s citizenship, but it could have been enough to acquire Indonesian citizenship. An Indonesian passport would explain his travels to Pakistan in 1981 when US citizens were not allowed into the country.

While nothing is said in the constitution about dual-citizenship affecting natural born status, it does seem to go directly against the founders intent and should be addressed by the USSC. If the USSC deems it to not have been sufficiently defined, it should be defined in a constitutional ammendment.

[/quote]

Interesting but, as you note, inconclusive. I still see no reason to assume BHO is lying or covering up any dual or triune citizenship. It’s POSSIBLE he is, but then again anything is possible. Even if he is, as you rightly state, that doesn’t necessarily constitute a legitimate challenge to his ability to serve as POTUS.