Parody Civics book
I have had commenters here swear that they were taught in their high school Civics class that (a) anyone born in the United States could be President or (b) only those born in the United States to citizen parents could be president.
Now IÂ personally don’t remember the subject coming up at all, but then that was a very long time ago and I don’t remember a lot of high school anyway. I think high school classes pretty much follow high school text books, and so the truth of the matter probably lies in those books. So I offer this challenge:
Come up with a text book published in the last 100 years that explains US presidential eligibility and in particular, what “natural born citizen” means.
Please, verifiable entries only.
I realize that a high school text book will not settle the legal question, but it will help settle the question of what the expectations of the American people were prior to the current marketing effort supporting a certain view.
Jon Stewart’s book, America (the book) Teacher’s Edition: A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction (2004), pictured above, does address the question by saying:
You must be a native citizen of the United States. Very important. Imagine having fought for years to win your independence from England only to have King George get on the ballot and win. Very embarrassing. (Page 40)
Stewart, as many writers and court decisions have, uses the phrase “native” and “natural” interchangeably.
One thing I do remember vividly is our civics teacher (who was also a local political functionary) explain how to buy votes with whiskey. We got it straight from him (the facts, not the whiskey).
Glenn Beck has to prove to my satisfaction that he does not kill kittens. Until he does, I will believe the internet rumors.
i have no recollection whatsoever of the topic being covered in school.
that said, having never thought seriously about the subject, certainly never before birfistan declared its independence, my understanding always had been that any american could run for president. i have since learned that naturalized citizens aren’t eligible, and that there is only one other type, who are all eligible.
I read this great article about the history of the secret ballot last year. Fascinating stuff!
I remember my middle school civics teacher discussing natural born citizenship and how there wasn’t an explicit definition anywhere.
Talk about backhanded compliments; from a fan to Taitz:
“Were you a man, you would make a heck of a linebacker.”
I learned 35 years ago from my Civics teacher who was also a practicing lawyer, that you had to be born in this country to be able to serve as president. A Naturalized citizen cannot serve as president. There is also a minimum age of 35 years.
You might find the section on “Presidential Eligibility” on pages 189-192 from “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” (2006), edited by Edwin Meese (Reagan’s Attorney General) – to be enlightening:
http://tinyurl.com/y9bcu3u
That particular section of the book was authored by James C. Ho – you can find an excerpt of Ho’s 2008 testimony before Congress here: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/james-c-ho-birthright-citizenship-the-14th-amendment-and-state-authority/
Commentaries on the Law of Persons and Personal Property (Dwight, 1997), p. 125
http://tinyurl.com/yd2xaw6
A somewhat different take on things, from this treatise written in 1883:
An exposition of the constitution of the United States (Wright, 1883) at page 87
http://tinyurl.com/ye2gu2v
It’s also in our Constitution, if you look closely enough, that you have to be a white Christian.
Orly, Mario and Leo say this, so it must be true.
Those were some great examples. I remember also from school that if you were born in the US you were a “natural born citizen” and would be eligible to be President. And until Obama ran for President, that is what most people assumed.
Also it looks like Leo wasn’t the first so called attorney to try and figure a loophole in the State of HI laws to try and violate Privacy laws….
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-hawaii-manipulating-obama-related.html
“The Constitution requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen of the United States…”
(emphasis mine)
Preparing for citizenship : an elementary textbook in civics (1913) by Guitteau, William Backus
Guitteau, William Backus
http://www.archive.org/stream/preparingforcit02guitgoog#page/n217/mode/1up
I have a distinct memory from Jr. Hi. In 1982, we were living in Germany. A discussion came up in my Social Studies class about whether or not children born of American parents overseas were eligible to become President. I can remember the teacher saying that you had to be born in the US and that military bases are not considered US soil. I can remember it distinctly.
More recently, I took a college government class. During the class, we discussed the upcoming election (it was before the whole birther thing blew up) and part of what we were taught was that a natural born citizen is one born in the US OR born to US citizens elsewhere. Not “and”.
Messed up by emphasis – mean’t to only emphasise “native-born”
A similar reference to “native-born” occurs in The American Federal State: A Text-book in Civics for High Schools and Academies (1908) by Ashley, Roscoe Lewis.
http://www.archive.org/stream/americanfederal01goog#page/n335/mode/1up
Interestingly both authors wrote other text books some using the term “natural born” some native-born” which emphasises that the terms were regarded as synonyms:
A conservative textbook published in 1985 by The National Center for Constitutional Studies has this to say about it:
To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of the their own native-born fellow citizens. [emphasis added]
“The Making of America” by W. Cleon Skousen, p. 528
The author clearly sees no distinction between “natural born” and “native born.”
Another conservative textbook, “American Government and Economics in a Christian Perspective” (Beka Books, 1984) doesn’t specifically address the qualifications for President, but does say this:
Anyone born within the fifty states or American-held territories (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia) is considered a native-born citizen. p. 96
In a discussion of the 14th Amendment, the book says …it [the 14th Amendment] stated that anyone born in the United States, whether his parents were citizens or not, was a citizen of the United States and of the particular state in which he resided. The only exceptions are children born to diplomatic representatives of another country or children born to enemies during a wartime occupation. p. 254
Hey everyone: Here is my open letter to Mario Apuzzo.
It’s not a “textbook,” per se, but as I pointed out on my blog, my copy of Black’s Law Dictionary has a definition for “natural-born citizen”:
“A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
Beck went to Switzerland to file a lawsuit? I had no idea.
I guess he went ti the intl agency that administer domain names… and lost. Do you have a link?
Odd: Taitz’s site is auto-redirecting to Vistaprint’s (the “free” business card folks).
Beck went to the WIPO in Geneva, because he knew he did not stand a chance in the States. Like all conservatives, he is a flaming hypocrite.
http://gb1990.net/legal/response/ct_oc_re_stipulation_proposed_final_xmt.pdf
http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009-1182%20Response%20Brief.pdf
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/beck-v-eiland-hall
http://gb1990.net/legal/response/annexes-to-d2009-1182-response-final.pdf
I have edited my blog, and have put in hyperlinks. Thanks for noting that; I overlooked it.
Yes, it must be RACISM! You are one sick Christian hater.
Looks like textbook malicious javascript imbeded in a user comment. Guess that shuts off the PayPal donations.
Now where am I going to get my daily dose of paranoia, megalomania and delusions?
Misha,
I fail to see the point of your letter. I also note that your hate-filled letter has some underlying contradictions which expose the shallowness and insincerity of your position.
You accuse those who now question Obama’s eligibility to be President to be white racists. Yet you state Obama is “someone who was elected fair and square, unlike the 2000 election.” Your reference to the 2000 election is to President Bush, who we know is white. So you are saying that Bush did not fairly win the election. It is clear that you are questioning Bush’s legitimacy to be the then-President just like those who are questioning Obama’s legitimacy to be President today. But does your questioning Bush’s eligibility make you a racist or some other loathsome thing like in your opinion those who are questioning Obama’s eligibility are?
You then criticize Glen Beck for defending himself, saying that he was “lampooned and starts squealing like a stuck pig. Knowing full well that parody is protected by the same Constitution that he hides behind for his hatchet jobs, he has a hired gun send threatening letters to the satirists . . .”
Did I not “lampoon” Obama for not releasing to the American public his real birth certificate and other historical documents that would have allowed the public, media, and political institutions to properly vet him for the Office of President? Have you and other Obama supporters not been “squealing like a stuck pig. Knowing full well that parody is protected by the same Constitution that you hide behind for your hatchet jobs?” Are you one of Obama’s “hired guns” who now has published your letter attacking me for doing nothing more than representing clients in a legal case that questions Obama’s eligibility to be President?
So, like so much concerning those who pass judgment on Obama, you want a double standard. You are perfectly normal in questioning Bush’s presidential eligibility, but those who question Obama’s eligibility are white racists. It is perfectly acceptable for you to defend your constitutional right to complain about Glen Beck, but it is not acceptable for those who would use that same right to question Obama’s eligibility to be President.
I recommend that you honestly re-examine your position in this whole matter and re-evaluate the sincerity of your expressed feelings which we all need to do from time to time in order to stay the proper course.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Right here!
Mario, Misha is clearly of the reservation. (Oh no, RACISM again!)He/She is a jealous, mean spirited America hater who also happens to depise organized religion save Judaism.
He/She also fails to provide facts when making an argument and, like all liberals, wields a toothpick as though it were a baseball bat.
It is people like he/she that make up the vast majority of Obummer supporters. That being said, we can see that easy victory is on the horizon.
Kepp fighting to good fight. This one can be won with one hand tied behind your back!
I am a card carrying member of The International Jewish Conspiracy™.
“happens to depise organized religion save Judaism.”
Oh, no. I was educated by Jesuits; my degree is from a Jesuit school. And my wife from China, is a follower of the Dalai Lama.
“This one can be won with one hand tied behind your back!”
Obama will be re-elected, and Corey Booker will follow. Bon voyage!
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I always appreciate feedback from avid readers.
Mario,
Since when have you been concerned with contradictions. While I am quite over Bush’s election, I recognize the dispute- it was contentious enough that even the Supreme Court was divided on the final decision. Election counts have been disputed before. But President Obama is the first one to have his birthplace questioned- and he just happens to be the first African-American President with a Muslim sounding name, that many right wing pundits still consider a Muslim. Does that mean we have ‘proof’ that racism is behind alot of this? No, but there is as much ‘proof’ that Racists are behind this as there is ‘proof’ that President Obama is not eligible to be President.
Why do you question the racism accusations yet wholeheartedly embrace every Anti-Obama accusation? Contradictions- yeah
You haven’t lampooned President Obama at all. You have made spurious and knowingly false accusations towards the sitting President of the U.S. Perhaps you misunderstand the word ‘lampoon’?
Finally, I think its of course constitutional for any citizen to question any President’s eligibility. That is a political speech right.
However, as the plaintiff in Court, you do realize you have the obligation to provide some proof that he is not eligible?
Now that is hilariously ironic Mario
The parody is that you claim that there exists such a Constitutional requirement for Obama to release any and all papers to be vetted by the Media. When in fact the Constitution clearly assigns this role to Congress. Of course, no such requirement has ever existed, certainly not for former President. While those who support the Constitution can point to how it protects defendants from lawsuits by providing a minimum bar called Standing, Judiciability and Jurisdiction, your position appears to be based more on what you hope the Constitution should do, rather than what it actually does spell out.
And your presence on this blog is doing no more than representing your clients in a case?
My purpose was to simply answer misha’s letter, not debate the constitutional issues regarding Obama’s eligibility. I was also hoping to hear from misha, not the peanut gallery.
My purpose on the blog is to exercise my 1st Amendment right to free speech, just like all you and all your partners are doing.
Mario,
I have a serious question this time. I looked up the Kerchner case and I see issue 54 that it was illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan.
That claim now seems to be an Internet Hoax.
1) Do you have any evidence to back up that 1981 Pakistan claim?
2) Can a Federal judge toss a case if he finds that even one of the arguments is unsupported by any evidence?
3) If one of the 380 arguments is invalid, then are not all of the other 379 suspect?
Well, the peanut gallery is talking to you Mario. If you want a private tête-Ã-tête with Misha then perhaps her blog would be more appropriate?
I understand your 1st amendment rights, of course, you do understand that such rights do not extend to these private blogs? Furthermore I was just curious how the rights of your clients impacts your 1st amendment rights?
Silly Mark,
Mario doesn’t answer direct questions.
It’s a verified complaint. How did the plaintiffs verify the accuracy of this Pakistan travel ban?
(Previously, Apuzzo has there was “de facto” ban, i.e., discouragement from traveling.)
“I was also hoping to hear from misha, not the peanut gallery.”
As noted above: Thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I always appreciate feedback from avid readers.
My wife thinks I’m witty. But my premise remains the same: I think your crowd are nothing more than character assassins. And you, Orly and Leo are intellectually dishonest.
Maybe I am in the wrong business.
I am a programmer and we have a QA group that takes my code and tries to break it. Any logic flaw, no matter how tiny, means fail, try again. A 1,000 line program is crap if there is a typo in line 489 that calls a broken link.
Mario’s strategy seems to be throw 380 untested charges against the wall and if even one of them sticks it is called a huge victory.
Why do Federal judges allow these fishing expeditions conducted at taxpayer expense?
Why not “1981 Pakistan ban is a lie, you are under arrest for perjury”?
The crux of the argument is what passport Obama traveled under, not whether the US Government discouraged travel to Pakistan in 1981 (WHICH IT DID NOT). If travel was legal for American citizens, then there was no reason Obama could not have traveled on a US Passport. End of story.
I would say that anything in a complaint is “suspect” or it wouldn’t be an allegation and that each claim stands alone.
The Pakistan travel ban is not a typical “Internet hoax” but a published lie (on WorldNetDaily). There is irrefutable evidence that such a ban did not exist. See the article here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-traveled-to-pakistan-on-an-indonesian-passport/
Mario Apuzzo: My purpose on the blog is to exercise my 1st Amendment right to free speech, just like all you and all your partners are doing.
I do not think you have any 1st Amendment right to free speech on this blog, any more than I have on yours.
his blog. Sorry Misha
Yes, I would draw a distinction between “lampoon” and “smear”. A lampoon takes a fact and exaggerates of makes fun of it. A smear takes a lie or misrepresentation and claims it is true, or cleverly words a technically true statement to lead a casual reader to a false conclusion.
When someone taunts Mr. Apuzzo about DWI, that is a lampoon. When Mr. Apuzzo (in Kerchner) says: “It is not known whether the birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health indicates a Hawaii birth or whether it was generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan or other foreign birth in Hawaii”, that is a smear. [The birth certification said the place of birth was Honolulu.]
Perjury requires materiality, that is, the lie has to be material to the subject at hand. Let’s say in a DUI case the officer says the car was red when it was really blue (and the officer knew it was red). Now that may be a lie, but it is unimportant to the case.
As for preventing fishing expeditions, that is exactly what motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction (and failing to state a claim) are all about. They’ll be no fishing until the government files and answer, which it won’t have to do if the motion to dismiss is granted.
You, however, have been far more gracious than Apuzzo (and Taitz, etc.) in allowing dissenting voices.
SFJeff,
There is hope for you.
Dr. Conspiracy,
You are almost correct. Yes, the issue is what passport did Obama use when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. With Obama refusing to tell the public which passport he used, he invites speculation as to just what type it was. Hence, in the absence of Obama being forthright with that information, it becomes important to know what the Pakistan country conditions were, for those conditions could have influenced him for whatever reason to have used one passport over another for travel to that destination.
So as you see, it is Obama’s failure to publicly release innocuous information that itself creates so many of the theories surrounding his life.
I have already gone over this. There was a travel advisory for Pakistan. For the many reasons that I have already outlined, Pakistan was not a place an “average” American would travel to in 1981. Hence, it is not unreasonable to say that there was a de facto travel ban there.
Yes, blame the victim…
Hilarious…
If it’s important to know the conditions in Pakistan at the time of Obama’s travel, couldn’t you look at the New York Times Travel piece? It was written within a few months of Obama’s travel to the country?
If Obama refusing to say what passport he traveled under invites speculation that he traveled under a foreign passport, does your refusing to say when you stopped beating your wife invite speculation that you haven’t stopped?
The “travel advisory” simply said that Americans needed a 30 day visa which would be issued at the border. It is significantly less ominous than the current travel advisories from the CDC reminding people that China can be a place of rampant swine flu. Less ominous, even, than the current State Department travel alert noting that India was the target of terrorism recently.
Does that mean that no one travels to China or India? Like, say, a New York Times Travel Writer?
Your claims, Mario, aren’t just frivolous, but laughable!
To answer the question above, an attorney is required, by rule 11, to do basic research into the claims he makes in papers. A claim that is utter devoid of factual support (travel ban, anyone?) could, conceivably, subject the attorney to sanctions.
Mario Silly Mario. Perhaps Pakistan wasn’t the popular travel destination for your “average” white upper-class east coast New Jersey-ite, but lots of people did and do travel to Pakistan. That’s why airlines flew there. Because they could make money flying passengers there. Mostly asian people, you realize Pakistan is part of Asia, right? A travel advisory is not signaling something bad. It is advice. Like, oh, say, US citizens can only get a 30 day visa in Pakistan. You can get one when you arrive. If you are not a tourist, you have to get your visa before you leave. Even travel warnings from the state dept don’t forbid travel. They warn citizens about the country, but they don’t forbid it. Maybe you can sell your “travel advisory” foolishness to the backwood rube birthers that never left BumEff, Georgia, but it doesn’t fly here.
Except you did not allege any of that in your verified complaint. The complaint says “ban” not “de facto ban.”
With Obama refusing to tell the public which passport he used, he invites speculation as to just what type it was.
And how does speculation make it into a verified complaint?
“Pakistan was not a place an “average” American would travel to in 1981. Hence, it is not unreasonable to say that there was a de facto travel ban there”
Ummm even I recognize the two things are not the same. I travelled alot in 1980, and met an American woman who travelled solo by bus, car whatever from South Africa to Egypt. I met an American woman who had travelled across the Middle East in the 1950’s. I met American’s who had travelled across almost every country in Asia.
None of these places are where an ‘average’ American would travel at the time. Heck when I went to Hungary in 1982, ‘average’ American’s didn’t go there. By your standards, all of us should have our passport status questioned?
Really Mario- intellectually dishonest. You folks said it was prohibited for Americans to travel to Pakistan, and now that the evidence is clear that it wasn’t prohibited, you change what you say you said.
Provide some evidence President Obama ever used a non-U.S. passport.
The Federal courts have recently tightened up pleading standards. A good thing if you listen to defendants, a terrible thing if you listen to plaintiffs.
Basically, after the recent decisions, Twombly and Iqbal, a plaintiff has to allege more than a hypothesis that could, if the facts come out exactly right, lead to recovery, they have to plead something that plausibly leads to recovery.
It’s the difference between “If I hit a royal flush, the defendant will have to pay me,” versus, “if I get a pair, the defendant will have to pay me.” The first is possible, the second is plausible.
Mario’s drawing to a royal flush, with a rainbow flop, two non-suited cards in his hand, and a turn that shows the fourth suit. He doesn’t need a miracle card to make his hand, he needs aliens to come down and convert his cards into the winning hand!
Mario:
“So as you see, it is Obama’s failure to publicly release innocuous information that itself creates so many of the theories surrounding his life.”
Excuse me? The Birthers keep coming up with an ever expanding list of documents and information that President Obama is supposed to be supplying to the ‘public’. The theories preceded his not supplying the information.
Put it in another way- here is how it has worked.
X says, I wonder if Barrack Obama might not have been born in the United States- after all his father was from Africa.
Y says, we don’t know- why hasn’t he shown me his birth certificate?
Then someone else starts off with the next theory- he might have travelled with a Indonesian passport- why hasn’t he shown us his Indonesian Passport? Why doesn’t anyone remember his birth? Was his mother a Communist? Was his father a radical terrorist Muslim? Is Obama a Commie, Muslim, wife beating, homosexual, drug using, Fascist, Socialist, Liberal, baby killer? Does he kick the new puppy?
Everytime a birthers question is answered, two more new ‘theories’ presented as proof emerge. Why should he bother cutting off more heads in that case?
Nonsense. The easily-verifiable fact is that Pakistan International Airlines had regularly scheduled service between JFK Airport in New York and Pakistan in 1981, and PIA’s website even has a photograph of one of its jets at JFK in August, 1981:
http://www.historyofpia.com/unusualaircraft.htm
It’s the second photo on the page. Why PIA would have been flying in and out of JFK in 1981 if no Americans were traveling to Pakistan is a mystery to me.
And if Americans traveling to Pakistan was so rare in 1981, why did the New York Times Travel section publish are article about it in June, 1981?
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html
As others have pointed out, the State Department travel advisory was nothing more than a reminder that American tourists should not expect to be able to extend their visas beyond 30 days of issuance. This was standard procedure in Pakistan and had nothing to do with perceived or actual dangers to Americans in the region.
The fact of the matter is that even now there is no ban, actual or de facto, on Americans traveling to Pakistan. The State Department has issued a travel warning because of terrorist activity in Pakistan, but no ban. And PIA continues to have regular air service between Pakistan and JFK.
There was not a travel ban facto or de facto. I get very angry when someone craps on my blog.
No, it is outright lies, slanders and misinformation created by the members of you and your murderous tribe of professional and volunteer character assassins that create the outrageous stream of rumor and innuendo that are the constituents of this controversy. “Blame the victim” — is that what they taught you in lawyering school?
You turn the ordinary into the suspicious. You turn the innocent into the questionable. Some have said that the “unpardonable sin” described in the Bible is to call good evil, and to call evil good. I believe there is no greater crime against democracy than to misinform the body politic.
Be thankful that I am not your judge.
[I get seriously pissed someone tries to peddle cleverly worded lies on my blog.]
Bob: You, however, have been far more gracious than Apuzzo (and Taitz, etc.) in allowing dissenting voices.
I do not think that I am being gracious, or at least that I deserve any credit for being so. The so-called “dissenting voices” discredit themselves. The more clearly they are heard within a context of open debate, the more shrill and outlandish they appear.
Greg: Your claims, Mario, aren’t just frivolous, but laughable!
I think dishonest is the better word.
Freedom is not without cost.
The judges seem to be getting tougher. We are seeing them assess court costs, and issue sanctions against attorneys for filing these frivolous cases. Nevertheless, a federal judge cannot prejudge a case. They must treat all cases according to the same set of rules. When a case is filed under certain circumstances, the judge can look into the merits of a case and summarily dismiss it with no argument (some of the nobama cases were dismissed the same day they were filed), but in other cases the rules require a defendant to respond and a process to be followed that takes time. While it is frustrating that lawsuits can be used as a publicity tool (thy name is Orly), still the rules protect the rights of legitimate plaintiffs as well.
In Apuzzo’s case, one of them sticking would be a huge victory. If he could force a trial with discovery, it would be a huge propaganda victory. However, in the case of the 380 charges, Apuzzo has a problem. The court could dismiss the case just because failed to state its claim succinctly. Defense attorneys should not be required to “fish out a gold coin from a bucket of mud.”
From wikipedia, quoting the tax protester FAQ:
Funny, the Tax Protester FAQ has a section on “natural born” citizens! So does the ADL’s idiot legal arguments page.
This isn’t a coincidence.
In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” \\Secretary\legalfiles\Political\Obama\Pakistan\Travel Advisory Sheets Archive.mht; http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf. “The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared,” insist the State Department travel advisory. ” “We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared,” added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel. “Travel warnings, which the State Department has been making public to American travelers since 1978 and which cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns, originate with the U.S. embassy or consulates of a specific country. Then the Bureau of Consular Affairs—and, occasionally, other agencies—weighs in, with the final decision coming from the office of the Undersecretary of State. The State Department subsequently revisits the warnings, usually every six months.” http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1. That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.
When Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, the country was going through a civil war and was under martial law. It was experiencing serious social, political, and religious upheaval. A few years earlier, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown the government of Bhutto by way of coup. Zia-ul-Haq even created a separate electoral system for non-Muslims. Courts were created to make sure the country’s laws were not repugnant to Islam. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahedeen operated in Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. Government-issued visas to foreign visitors were good only for 30 days. The Government had in place Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, which allowed the Government to prevent any person who was in Pakistan from leaving the country even though they had valid travel documents without, in the name of “public interest,” even giving a reason for the action. Any person violating that ordinance faced 5 years of imprisonment. Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least. Also, there is currently a U.S. State Department travel warning for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan. “The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against non-essential travel to Pakistan in light of the threat of terrorist activity. This replaces the Travel Warning dated February 25, 2009, updates information on security incidents and reminds U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Pakistan.” http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html. Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban” on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one.
Furthermore, ff there was no problem traveling to Pakistan in 1981 as you suggest, tell me the following:
1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981.
2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country.
3. What was the purpose of their trip there.
4. How long did they stay there.
5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country.
6. Why were they refused those visas.
7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan.
8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.
9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never speak about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it.
10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.
11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who–in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief–visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam.
12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan.
13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections.
14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies.
So as you see, trying to downplay the danger that existed in Pakistan for an “average American” in 1981 is really not getting you any where.
Excellent! Thank you muchly!
Hear hear!
BRAVO!!!
I guess that when caught in a lie, one strategy is to shout the lie louder and make it bigger. I am really tired of your bullshit. I came within a hair’s breadth of deleting the abomination you wrote that by happy accident was caught in the spam filter. It may be that there a few weak-minded individuals who read this blog that would be fooled by your lies, and your misinformation, and your changing the subject from the plain and direct lie in the Kerchner suit to the fuzzier lie you make now. But I am not fooled, nor I hope are many others.
The truth (a hard concept for you, Apuzzo) is that any American could saunter up to the desk at the airport and Pakistan, flip out their US Passport, and get a visa for free into Pakistan. Pakistan was very friendly to American tourists. Your “questions” are nothing more than an attempt to raise suspicions where none are warranted by the facts. It is, to use a technical legal term, a “smear”, the lowest and most despicable form of political discourse.
This is from the New York Times, June 14, 1981 (excerpted from a longer piece):
It is amazing Dr. C how Mario has still totally ignored the original question. He was asked directly why he included as evidence that there was a so called ban against Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when further investigation showed that there never was a travel ban for Americans. Instead of admitting he was wrong or that he made a mistake, he ignored the question and finally when he attempts to answer it, he makes baseless and repugnant claims along with asking irrelevant questions. The bottom line is that Mario included in his so called evidence wrong information. No matter how much he wants to sidestep the issue, he cannot. There was no travel ban. Period. So saying so in his filing he was lying, either intentionally or by mistake. Either way it makes anything else he claimed in his filing suspect. That is probably why he is loathe to admit his mistake. However that shows all of us what kind of man and lawyer he really is.
That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.
It does, “technically,” make you a liar.
And since you technically filed a verified complaint, you technically committed perjury.
Your ridiculously unconvincing tap dancing when caught in this lie shoots your credibility right in the butt. Technically speaking.
More rubbish from Mario. He uses the old trick of insisting on answers to questions which are unanswerable and/or irrelevant. It matters not how many Americans traveled to Pakistan in 1981 or what reasons they had for going there. The only relevant fact is that any American holding a U.S. passport could travel to Pakistan in 1981 and obtain a visa for a visit of up to 30 days. Although Obama has said that he visited Pakistan to visit the family of one of his fellow students, the reason for his visit and what he did there also is irrelevant to the “issue” of his eligibility to be president. These questions are raised only to fuel the suspicions of those who believe that Obama is a Muslim who hates America.
Mario, there is no such thing as a “de facto” ban on travel to a country. Travel is either banned or it is not banned. I was in the Phillipines in 1967 and 1968. During that time the country was fighting the Communist Huks and in 1968 there was an Army mutiny. Travel in the country involved going through armed checkpoints on all major roads. There was ongoing violence between Christians and Muslims. Yet there was no ban on travel to the Philippines, and in fact Americans routinely traveled to and from the country.
Give it up, Mario. The “Pakistan travel ban” is a sham, and you know it. The problem is that you don’t have the integrity to admit it.
1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981.
39,508
2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country.
20% students
5% teachers
75% rodeo cowboys
3. What was the purpose of their trip there.
To study at extremist madrassas
4. How long did they stay there.
28.5 days
5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country.
5 hippies with long hair were refused visas
6. Why were they refused those visas.
Having girly hair
7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan.
His own.
8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.
Credit cards, like all college kids living beyond their means.
9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never speak about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it.
He has, it just more fun for all of us not to tell you about it.
10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.
I think the response within the campaign was “Hey look, more crazy rumors”
11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who–in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief–visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam.
Oh most certainly. Besides being a Homosexual commie Muslim, he is an ardent Azzamite.
12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan.
Just long enough.
13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections.
Bob and Carol. Leo wasn’t availible and Abdul refused his call.
14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies.
Those books were actually ghost written by Glenn Beck, and he forgot to tell Glenn about the trips.
Low even by your standards Mario….
SFJeff: 13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan.
He visited his college roomate’s family. Otherwise you’re spot on.
Symptomatic of your wrong-headed approach to all arguments. This tidbit of information, 28 years after Obama traveled to Pakistan, has nothing whatsoever to do with the travel advisory in place at the time.
Travel warning, travel advisory. 2009, 1981. Who cares. It’s all the same. Obama’s evil, so any factoid that we can throw against the wall, whether related or not…well, we’ll throw!
And, heck, why actually READ the articles you cite to. That would get in the way of the egregious quote-mining. If you can get an article that says travel advisories are vital to ensure that travelers are informed, throw that in, regardless of the fact that the travel advisory is warning US Citizens that British trains are dangerous. Clearly, no American travels to Britain!
Let’s see, 1980s Travel advisories for:
India
Bangladesh
Nepal
And, you’ll see by comparing Pakistan’s page and Sri Lanka’s that there IS a difference between a “travel advisory” and a “travel warning” and Pakistan had no “travel warning.”
JFJeff
I knew a jackass who would not move until his owner came and made him move.
“I knew a jackass who would not move until his owner came and made him move.”
You knew him too? Ah the memories I have of Burro….
Last week the State Department issued a Travel Alert about Germany. In Mario World, this must mean that there is a de facto ban on travel to Germany.
http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3241.html
Rickey: In Mario World…
Here?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1277072128/tt0108255
The Yale law journal, Volume 2, By Yale Law School
Volume II
October, 1892 – June, 1893
The Citizen of the United States, Simeon E. Baldwin, pg.94
“There is no difference in right between the native-born citizen and the naturalized alien, except that the latter cannot be made president or vice-president of the United States.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=ynIuAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=&f=false