Mr. Øb☭ma fails to perform

Posted On: Friday - August 14th 2020 9:30AM MST
In Topics: 
  Books  Dead/Ex- Presidents

"You didn't write that!"

"...yet", says Penguin Random House, ex-President Øb☭ma's book publisher.

Look, Peak Stupidity would have been glad to have never heard from, read of, or written of, this "community-organizing" phony Constitutional scholar for the rest of our blog-life. This little tidbit regarding the retired President is worth mentioning due to the I-told-you-so effect. The first of our Affirmative Action Presidents (Kamel-Toe, or Tamil-Ho*, being a likely 2nd), I never thought Mr. Øb☭ma was a git-er-done type of guy.

I mean, increased Socialism, continued war-mongering, and the purposeful continuation of the immigration invasion aside, I figured, hell if this guy could racially heal this country, then maybe it would be worth putting up with 8 years of his condescension and ignorance of what made America great. I don't feel the healing right now, though. Maybe we were healed for a while, and I just missed it. If that's the case, it didn't take!

The ex-President, early-on AntiChrist candidate Øb☭ma has been reneging (wheww, thank you, spell check!) on a 3 y/o contract to write another book, or get someone to write another book for him. Per The American Spectator, Publishers Fret Over Obama’s ‘Failure to Perform’ his next book was to be published almost 2 years ago. In this short article it is also mentioned that Mr. Øb☭ma also blew off a book deal in the early 1990's, and kept most of his $125,000 advance anyway, because, poverty:
According to Osnos, the publisher [an "imprint"(?) of Simon & Shuster] asked that Obama return at least some of the advance. According to biographer Christopher Andersen, Obama had spent $75,000 of the advance and could not pay it back. The publisher let Obama keep the money only after he pled poverty due to “massive student loan debt.”
Later on, in 1994, Mr. Obama was convinced to finish the book for Random House, unfortunately, as that became the racist whine called Dreams from my Father (his father being the reprobate that ditched little Obama and Mom - forget it, Jake, it's Africa).

For this most recent book from Obama, we are talking real money this time, $65,000,000. I'm just glad it's not my tax money. It'd be great if we never heard another word from this guy, and I'd never even pick up the book from the library. We are eagerly awaiting the latest Dogman book though, to be titled Grime and Punishment.

* Another great piece of wordplay by the illustrious commenter Reg Caesar.

Monday - August 17th 2020 7:54AM MST
PS: Thank you for that movie recommendation, Mr. Ganderson. I'm sure, being that old, it won't be PC, so I'm looking forward to it. Lee Marvin comes across as a bad-ass in all the movies I've seen him in.
Monday - August 17th 2020 6:06AM MST
PS. One of my favorite movies is “The Professionals” with Burt Lancaster, Ralph Bellamy, Claudia Cardinale (hubba hubba) and, perhaps the coolest Hollywood actor ever- Lee Marvin. And it ends with one of the best lines ever- (the BEST Jerry...)

Lee Marvin: We made a contract to save a lady from a nasty old kidnapper.
...Who turns out to be you

Ralph Bellamy: We both made a bad deal, Mr. Grant.

Marvin: You lose a wife, and we lose 10,000 dollars apiece.

Bellamy: You bastard!

Marvin: Yes, sir. In my case, an accident of birth. But you, sir,
you're a self-made man.
Sunday - August 16th 2020 7:52PM MST
PS; Thank you, Mr. Smith, for that great treatise on the case law involved, and especially that important US v Wong Kim Ark case. (I remember some of that from the Coulter column.) I followed 75% of the portion involving differences between the Roman law and the feudal law, so I'll have to read more, a few times over.

Regarding dual citizenship, I think it should not be allowed even for citizens who are not officials of government. You need to be on one side or the other. If it's about travel back and forth, other arrangements can be made with visas.

Lastly regarding this post, that $65,000,000 is an advance, meaning Mr. Øb☭ma received the money back in '17 and maybe spent half of it, who knows? Maybe you understood that and were just referring to the money being asked for back. That doesn't work, cause racism and legacy of slavery.

"Yes, Mr. Øb☭ma is a bastard, but his father was married to his mother at the time of his birth." Heh!
Sunday - August 16th 2020 7:35PM MST
PS: Mr. Smith, yes "The Boys from Brazil" is a pretty good suspense movie.
Adam Smith
Sunday - August 16th 2020 1:34PM MST
PS: Good afternoon Mr. Moderator...

By my interpretation of the natural born citizens clause, Øb☭ma would not have qualified.

I am under the impression that the natural born citizens clause is applicable to the VP. (For obvious reasons.)

Miss Coulter brings up a few interesting points about the anchor baby nonsense.

For example, on June 2, 1924, Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.

Why would they do that if everyone born on our magic soil was already a citizen under the 14th?

The civil rights act became a law April 9, 1866, and provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, John Elk, who was an Indian (feather not •) went to the Supremes to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supremes ruled that the 14th amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. (For obvious reasons.)

The following case is a very interesting read... (If you enjoy jurisprudence and history)...

In a 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supremes granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions. This is apparently the case currently cited in support of birthright citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supremes ruled 6-2 in his favor...

Like the dissenting judges, I too cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case. However, the majority opinion is evidence in support of my theory that the 14th amendment subjected the u.s. citizen to a feudal arrangement, or serfdom.

The majority opinion in Ark hinges on the English common law rule that “every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.”

The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liege men to their liege lord.

I agree with Vattel (Law of Nations) that “The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers.”

And Bar... “To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent. It is almost a universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it, that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent.” (Yes, Mr. Øb☭ma is a bastard, but his father was married to his mother at the time of his birth.)

I agree with the dissenting Supremes who wrote...

“The framers of the constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin; and there is nothing to show that in the matter of nationality they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing.”

“When the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated.”

“There is, it is believed, as great a difference between the territorial allegiance claimed by an hereditary sovereign on feudal principles and the personal right of citizenship participated in by all the members of a political community, according to American institutions, as there is between the authority and sovereignty of the queen of England and the power of the American president; and the inapplicability of English precedents is as clear in the one case as in the other.”

“The United States, in recognizing the right of expatriation, declined, from the beginning, to accept the view that rested the obligation of the citizen on feudal principles, and proceeded on the law of nations, which was in direct conflict therewith.”

“It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States.”

“In respect of the act of 1795 Lord Grenville wrote... No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the American law of naturalization, devest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the king's subjects would, instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part.”

“Nevertheless, congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English rule, and in requiring the alien, who would become a citizen of the United States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our government, to affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.”

Here is the oath of allegiance that one recites as part of the naturalization ceremony...

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

(However, Afroyim v. Rusk seems to have taken the force of law out of this part of the oath. It would seem that the u.s. does tolerate dual citizenship, in my opinion to our detriment. If it were up to me I would definitely not allow people who possess multiple citizenship to hold any office in any level of “government” anywhere in the land.)

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and “not owing allegiance to any foreign power”, are citizens.

The majority in Ark argued that the words “and not subject to any foreign power” should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.

But there were others in respect of whom the exception was intended, namely, the children of aliens (Kamala Harris), whose parents remained subject to a foreign power.

It was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of aliens like Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan, merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States, that the words were inserted.

Kamala cannot claim to be an American jus sanguinis, by “right of blood,” but only jus soli, by “right of soil,” i.e., simply by virtue of having been born here. She is the “anchor baby” candidate, the poster child for “birthright citizenship.”

I think that it is erroneous to conclude that “natural born Citizen” applies to everybody born within the tract of dirt known as the United States and that the children of those subject to a foreign power who happened to be born upon our magic dirt tract are eligible to the presidency.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, my opinion is utterly irrelevant.

Adam Smith
Sunday - August 16th 2020 11:45AM MST
PS: Thanks for the movie suggestion Mr. Moderator...

I downloaded a copy of "The Boys from Brazil".
I hope it's good.

It seems that Kamala is eligible for the VP and the presidency for reasons I'll explain in my next post...

And because the Constitution means almost nothing anymore...

About that Øb☭ma character...
He might want to finish that book...

Sixty five million dollars is a whole lot of bananas...

Adam Smith
Sunday - August 16th 2020 11:31AM MST
PS: Good afternoon Mr. MBlanc...

In the case of John McCain there is a ton of precedent and jurisprudence that supports the notion that a child of an ambassador born abroad or a child of an American serving on a military base is in fact a citizen.

I did not know that Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state. That is interesting to me. I do think he qualified as a natural born citizen as both his parents were citizens. His father Baron was born in Los Angeles in 1866 and his mother Josephine was born in Bowen, Illinois in 1876.

I hope you have a nice day.

Sunday - August 16th 2020 7:37AM MST
PS In my opinion, the “natural born” requirement would matter hardly at all at this late date if we were talking about Heritage Americans rather then Third World imports. Who cares that Arizona wasn’t a state when Barry Goldwater was born or that John McCain was born in the Canal Zone where his father was on active military service? It’s only when it’s the likes of Obama or Harris are the issue that the status as Americans matters.
Adam Smith
Sunday - August 16th 2020 6:23AM MST
PS: Cheers to your health Mr. Ganderson... No worries about grammar and spelling errors...

I love Sierra Nevada...

Why not make it two billion...

Money is cheap right now.

Saturday - August 15th 2020 9:20PM MST
PS make it a billion, then. Money well spent..
Saturday - August 15th 2020 9:01PM MST
PS: Mr. Ganderson, I copied that Obama with the sickle some years ago and keep pasting it in for fun. That O with a slash kinda looks Russian, but I just checked, and it's not in their Cyrillic alphabet. I agree that the Danes and Norwegians are not exactly Commie, but the O with a slash must stay for site consistency. ;-}

This blog started during the last 2 months of his Presidency, so I really haven't got a chance to give him much grief. I bet we spend that $100 million pretty quickly already on the security services for he and the ex-first-Wookie.

Enjoy your ale, Sir.
Saturday - August 15th 2020 8:55PM MST
PS: Mr. Smith, that would have made Obama not qualified, would it not? I would agree with everything the Founders intended, as they were the wisest people to ever form a government. As we both would agree on, the Constitution means almost nothing anymore.

Ann Coulter, a lawyer, had a case for the misunderstanding of Amendment XIV that allows this anchor-baby crap in one of her columns some years ago. I honestly couldn't follow it all the way and definitely not enough to explain. I will check out your Newsweek post.

How could we possible get 5 SC judges that go by the letter of the US Constitution? I could see it in the movies with an evil scientist type, played by me, making clones of Ron Paul - "The Boys from Brazil II - Dr. No Returns"

BTW, even if we could imagine that Camel Toe / Tamil Ho's problem would be brought up when Dementia Joe kicks it, can she legally run for VP, Adam?

Saturday - August 15th 2020 3:31PM MST
PS. And Mr. Smith, I would love to see some I take that to court. Since the president doesn’t seem inclined to do so. By the way any grammar or spelling errors in these posts are on account ofsierra Nevada pale ale, And the fact that dictation really isn’t what it should be.
Saturday - August 15th 2020 3:29PM MST
PS Not to be pedantic, which of course is one of those phrases that means the opposite of what it actually says the “ø“ is Danish and Norwegian. Now those places have their issues, but they’re not commies. Well, kinda, but not really. I’m with you though, I wish Barry Obama would just go away and never be heard from again. I would be in favor of taking $100 million from the public fisc, to pay him to go away. IThe condition would have to be that he would never say anything ever again nor never appear on anything other than some rag where a sneaky photographer get his picture. Especially if the picture had a scantily clad rent boy.
Adam Smith
Saturday - August 15th 2020 11:53AM MST
PS: Kinda off topic...

Kamala Harris is not an African American, though she tries to play one on TV. She is an upper caste •Indian whose Tamil mother identified as a caucasian. Her father is a Jamaican mulatto who claims to be a descendant of Hamilton Brown.

More importantly... (in my opinion)...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Kamala Harris is not a "natural born Citizen". As her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth in Oakland, Kamala owed her allegiance to a pair of foreign powers (Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother) and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood. For example, the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the 1920s were not viewed as citizens, nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s.

Some of the above I pasted from John C. Eastman who addresses some of this here...

Ted Cruz is not, in my opinion, a "natural born Citizen" either. His mother was a citizen of the u.s. at the time of his birth in Calgary. He is a naturalized citizen.

I understand that the constitution is mostly a dead letter, not really the legally binding contract or corporate charter that some would like us to believe it to be and that my interpretation is more strict than most. I do however think the founders included the "natural born Citizen" clause for a reason and it would be foolish to dismiss this out of hand. This idea of "birthright citizenship because of birth on our magic soil" only gained momentum after the immigration and naturalization act of 1965 that our friend Achmed luvs so much.

If Kamala Harris is eligible to be president then the "natural born Citizen" clause is meaningless and any anchor baby can one day be president.

Saturday - August 15th 2020 8:32AM MST
PS: The esteemed Mr. Prufrock: Hey, I didn't elevate anybody. I guess that was the people who didn't want to be called names, not me. Yes, I think society has been pretty much destroyed, and we will have to start over some how.
J Alfred Prufrock
Saturday - August 15th 2020 7:43AM MST
PS He totally nailed the comradette kommissarina Kamala pick.
Any criticism of the immaculate first wymyn preezy of the steezy is wayciss and sexiss!
Any society that elevates someone like sobama to demigod status is already destroyed.
Friday - August 14th 2020 8:31PM MST
PS: Part Hindu, part Dindu. I like it. Thanks for writing in, Petrus.
Friday - August 14th 2020 8:30PM MST
PS: Yes, Mr.Blanc, that article goes into the question of who really wrote the other books. Hell yeah, give the ghost writer 1/4 of the advance. I'd even do it, as long as Obama wouldn't see it until it was published. Might be a few remarks about his sexual orientation stuck in there, if I could slip this past the editors.
Friday - August 14th 2020 2:26PM MST
PS Reg Caesar's names are good, but I like Hindu Dindu even better.
Friday - August 14th 2020 1:54PM MST
PS As I understand it, someone else (Bill Ayres is a common opinion) wrote all of Obama’s stuff? He got a huge advance. He can’t just hire a ghost writer and get it done? What a putz.
WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)