Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Help STOP DREAM AMNESTY!!!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-875238.html#875238

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

As an aside, I have wrestled for a couple of days over my earlier posting being modified, and, as you will note, I have capitulated on my earlier decision to just leave Alipac. I'm back conditionally, and I'm testing the waters.

My nose is still bent out of shape because my innocent and lawful comments (IMHO) were misinterpreted and struck from my post without consideration or discussion with me. To me, this smacks of unbridled censorship, and I don't approve of censorship in forums of this nature.

I also don't like the hit and run tactics of the unidentified whiner who asked the mod to strike my comments. For all I know, it could have been another Obamabot who is chartered at keeping all truth and common sense discussions pointed away from his master.

Because the original complainant remains unidentified, and because the moderator will never identify him or her, you and I will never know who it was. Makes me wish this was open court where I could face my accuser.

So, after some thought, I believe there are two reasons why these postings might be censored: 1) because they offend poor defenseless Obama, and 2) because they may be used by law enforcement against Alipac. I won't address a possible third reason (retribution on Alipac by Chicago thugs).

I reject the first reason because Obama is quite knowledgeable in his actions, both good and bad (he is a lawyer and is clearly consciously competent) and he deserves to get the heat when he screws up. Obama is not some sort of protected species, any more than our previous legitimate President Bush was, and in our old country (and maybe what's left of it today), citizens had a right to complain about Jefe's actions, especially if they are viewed as being criminal in nature.

Regarding reason number two, the First and Second Amendments are there for a reason, and if any law enforcement personnel wants to arrest me for discussing my personal interest in going out to a s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g range, let him/her have a go at it. And, in fact, to make it easy for law enforcement, contact me by pm and I'll tell you exactly how to find me.

In case no one has noticed, there is a shortage of g-u-n-s and a-m-m-o in sporting goods stores these days because there are millions of people who are really concerned about our lawless government and the degrading economic conditions in America today, and of the clear and present possibilities of a-r-m-e-d c-o-n-f-l-i-c-t in America. OMG!

Again, and in my opinion, if American citizens aren't awake enough to see the very real problems going on around them, they do themselves and their families a huge disservice by not looking and by not being prepared. But, hey, I guess that's why Darwin is here - to sort out the survivors from the non-survivors.

I think a topic like First Amendment rights for conservatives might be a good topic for somebody like Glenn Beck to discuss in the open. All of this behind the scenes censorship crap is discouraging, especially while the libs are getting away with their verbal, written, and conspiratorial crapola (Latin for B.S.).

I'm still waiting for the signs that law enforcement is going after the lawless socialists and statists - the true enemies of our free country, who advertise openly they want certain specific conservatives killed or tried for war crimes (???).

Speaking of law enforcement, I consider all Americans to be in law enforcement - not just our neighbors who wear the badges. We citizens have slacked off for too long, and now it's up to us to do what we can and help support and enforce our own nation's laws. That's what Orly Taitz is doing. She's doing our job for us. Bless her Russian soul - she's got it - she understands. She's holding lawless people accountable for their actions. That’s more than Congress can boast these days.

So, the question of the day: Do we have a functioning First Amendment or do we not? If the answer is no, maybe I'll go publish my unedited comments in Pravda as Mark McGrew does. I'm wondering if Russia has a freer press these days than does America. Anybody know?

Can't have it both ways, folks. We are either a free people or we are slaves. What's it going to be?

Your call.

Juan

Veritas vos Liberabit!

I agree that this is not a forum to incite violence or to have a "call to arms" There is nothing beneficial in this type of speech on a site like this.

However, tip toeing around the elephant in the room is unacceptable also. While I personally have no plans to purchase a weapon at this time, it is a fact that millions of others have and/or are planning on purchasing more. There is a waiting list at a number of gun shops for ammo. I know of a shooting range where one year ago you could walk in and pay for an hour of practice. Today you need to reserve your spot ahead of time. The next open "appointment" is over a month away. The FACT that Americans are arming themselves is in no way encouraging violence, many who are buying guns for the first time, and learning how to use them safely at the ranges, hope never to have to fire them off the range. Some are looking at a NEED to hunt meat as the falling dollar will make purchasing meat impossible, others are afraid of increase in crime because of the economy and looking to defend their family and property from criminals breaking in. Simply stating that you are going shooting is not encouraging violence IMHO, but making a statement that this person is preparing for the worst. We all hope it never gets so bad we need to hunt our own food or defend our homes, but the possibility exists.

BORN IN THE USA?
Citizen grand jury indicts Obama
Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 31, 2009
8:35 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Orly Taitz
President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.

The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.

The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency.

Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his Rise up for America website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama's eligibility, as well as his performance in office.

"I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury," he said.

Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.

Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of British common law on which U.S. law is based.

He said the members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations about Obama, telling WND that remains confidential at this point because of the possibility of a prosecution.

However, the website explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.

"If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury," it says. "The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."

Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.

He told WND that since the action in Georgia, he's been contacted by groups in at least 20 other states who want to pursue a similar action.

Meanwhile, Taitz told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."

Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.

"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.

"By each relator's constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.

"In arguendo of Respondent Obama's burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!

She told WND the case was filed in the District of Columbia because the district recognizes the procedure. Taitz, who is working on her cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, cites a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama's eligibility to be president.

She previously submitted a similar case to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'


President Obama

"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the civil cases already have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."

What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.

According to the online Constitution.org resource: "The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

According to author Chester Antieau in his "The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies," Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.

"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the 'relation' of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."

Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, "Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. ..."

Its first recognized purpose, he said, is "to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers."

Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.

As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called "evidence" of Obama's constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?

"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."

Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."

WND also has reported that Taitz' appeals have been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department, where officials confirmed they received the paperwork.

WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he's taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.

Other members of Congress have been reading from what appears to be a prepared script in response to queries about Obama's eligibility:

Among the statements from members of Congress:


Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."


Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."


Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."


U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.: "The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii." The response provided no documentation.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.


Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.


Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.


In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.


Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.


In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.


In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.


In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.


In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.


In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.


In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation also has confirmed to WND a civil case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging Obama's eligibility will be appealed.

WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.

"The judge's ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution," Kreep said.

"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case explained.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=93481

Gun ownership by individuals is formally acknowledged to be LEGAL, and protected by the Constitution's Second Amendment, although the narrow vote of SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller

http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf

now comes with the additional caveats that:

a) We have an Attorney General who briefed an Amicus Curie to SCOTUS arguing in favor of the opposite position from that which the Court took;
b) We have a putative President (pending proofs of eligibility as "natural born citizen" ) who supported gun control legislation while he was a state elected official, and now, having assumed the office of POTUS, is setting about undoing that which SCOTUS tried to do -- protect individual rights to ownership of weapons.

http://www.morebans.org/

And where did he start? Well, he's starting with the pilots of aircraft who might be interested in protecting not only their lives and aircraft but your lives, too, when you are passengers on a commercial craft.

http://www.morebans.org/obamadisarmspilots.html

Obama and those who are like-minded have a plan for everyone. And it is a plan to render the law-abiding citizen into the defenseless citizen, piece by piece, law by law. Many who are of this view might hold it with the "best of intentions" in the belief that banning guns will eliminate crimes. Why, then, did England's progressively greater restrictions and bans on gun ownership end up with an increase in violent crimes involving use of guns, owned illegally by criminals?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

A counting of all the states with shooting ranges listed on this website turns up all 50 plus some U.S. territories.

http://www.wheretoshoot.org/

Most people have probably seen this testimony from the woman doctor whose parents were killed by a lunatic gunman in broad daylight at a restaurant, as she expressed regret that her personal concern about the quiltwork of local Texas laws had prompted her to stop carrying a gun in her purse.

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=9jqtl25z2y

Her closing words bear repeating, and viewing again. She mocked a room full of Senators who appeared to believe that only hunting is a legitimate use of a weapon. She pointed out that the 2nd Amendment was not directed at hunting at all. Then, waving her arm at the Senators at an elevation above her own (symbolic of their "power" from on high, perhaps?) she noted that the Amendment really intended to protect Americans' rights and liberties against assault by the powerful and therefore, to protect average Americans "against all of you."

I'm not a hunter although my dad was and some of my siblings still are. But we all learned how to use a gun. Along with my spouse and kids, I visit a gun range at least once a year. It's a life skill to know how to safely handle and fire a weapon, one that we got from parents and passed along to our children. My own preference would be to never need to shoot at anything other than clay pigeons or a row of cans perched on a fence, and to never find the "stakes" any higher than a friendly family wager for who has to pay for lunch at Smokey Mountain Pizza.

Someone who says they go to a shooting range is someone who, it seems to me, is acknowledging their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and someone who probably would like to keep their use of weaponry limited to the sphere of practice only.

Meanwhile, from Democratic Underground ... where the topic was "fascist" Bush and the 2nd Amendment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=738842

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=739052

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=739288

Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box-- to be used in that order....as another DUer is fond of saying.

Right to speech about perceived abuse of power
Right to vote out of office those who abuse of power
Right to fair trial of abusers of power or those prosecuted by such abusers
Right to self-defense against armed abuse of power

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Gun ownership by individuals is formally acknowledged to be LEGAL, and protected by the Constitution's Second Amendment, although the narrow vote of SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller

http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf

And more...

FreedomFirst, thanks for the Second Amendment support. Good material.

Juan

Someone who says they go to a shooting range is someone who, it seems to me, is acknowledging their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and someone who probably would like to keep their use of weaponry limited to the sphere of practice only.

According to some people, acknowledging this constitutional right is interpreted as inciting violence.

Is anyone maintaining outside contacts with key players fighting this take-over power play?

PM for a list of email addresses of attorneys, journalists, bloggers, and other key persons involved with the Obama ineligibility cause.

I don't know how widespread this knowledge is, but it is worth noting and fighting.

ALERT! The DREAM Act amnesty is re-introduced in the House and Senate!
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) have introduced their latest version of the DREAM Act (S 729 and HR 1751). In spite of the lofty rhetoric, the legislation is really a sweeping amnesty for a broad range of illegal aliens who meet certain minimal educational requirements.

In fact, the amnesty is even more expansive than last session's DREAM Act. The legalization would cover "children" up to the age of 35, a five-year bump above the previous version. Adult amnesty recipients, or minors when they turn 21, could then petition to bring in other relatives.

When 12 million American citizens are unemployed, and middle-class families are unable to seek the higher education of their choice because they lack sufficient funds, we do not want a new amnesty that increases the competition for these scarce resources.

The misconceptions about "natural born" continue ...

http://media.www.themhnews.com/media/st ... 5443.shtml

Basking in the Obama glow
By: Larisa Sunderland
Issue date: 4/2/09 Section: Entertainment

While I was home for spring break, my Brazilian grandmother was also paying a visit to my parents. Looking for something truly refreshing to do with her free time, she did what I did not: she picked up a book.

The book she chose was Barack Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father. She was excited to read the book for a couple of reasons. Like Obama, my grandmother was raised without her father (in Brazil) because he was from, and lived in, another country (France). Like Obama, her heritage is disparate and her family, half of whom she does not know, is foreign and far-flung. She feels connected to Obama because of her perception of their shared experiences as exterior to the dominant culture of the United States. But there are, of course, many differences between my grandmother and our president.

For one thing, my grandmother is not black. When she first came here in the 1940s, this made it difficult for people to believe that she is also Brazilian. She is, actually, Brazilian, and herein lays another difference between my grandmother and President Obama. Unlike Obama, she could never be the president; she's not a natural-born United States citizen.

She was thrilled when Obama was elected, so I was a little surprised when I hobbled out of bed one morning to find a very distraught 88-year-old lady thrusting Dreams from My Father at me. "The glow," she pronounced, slamming her book shut, "is gone. I respect Obama, I am very glad that he is our president, but the glow is gone."

My first thought was, I can't deal with her pontification (she's got a real knack for it) at 11 a.m. on a vacation morning. My second thought was, so what juicy stuff did you write to make that "glow be gone," Mr. President?

In Dreams from My Father, Obama writes about his experience of going to see a showing of Black Orpheus, the first foreign film his mother had ever seen, with his mother in 1983. Black Orpheus, a 1959 Brazilian film made by French director Marcel Camus, is a modern adaption of the Greek myth set in a black community in Rio during Carnival. Obama's mother loved Black Orpheus. My grandmother loves Black Orpheus. Our President did not love Black Orpheus-in fact, he walked out on it.

Obama writes of watching his mother's reaction to the film, "I felt as if I were being given a window into…the unreflective heart of her youth. I suddenly realized that the depiction of childlike blacks I was now seeing on the screen…was what my mother had carried with her to Hawaii all those years before." Obama accurately observes that white depiction of black culture (as "childlike" or otherwise) is inherently racist. And I believe there is a further case to be made for the implicit racism in adapting a Greek myth to black Brazilian culture. For Obama, these observations are chillingly personal. The implications of Black Orpheus being what his mother "carried with her to Hawaii," the place of his conception, are as haunting as they are complex.

For Obama, Black Orpheus represents the "exoticism" of blacks in American culture; what his mother desired to use to escape her own culture; the racist roots of his own birth; a chilling reminder that blacks were, and are, sometimes perceived as "foreigners" in America. What he forgets is that he was watching a foreign film, and so, to his American sensibility, it's logical that the portrayals appeared exotic.

My grandmother did not care to hear about any of this. She was too busy being furious that Obama had just dismissed the first Brazilian film that was popular in America; the reason, really, that Antonio Carlos Jobim and Bossa Nova became internationally admired; the movie that allowed her American friends to hear her language and to see her country; the movie that caused Americans to become, for a moment, interested in Brazil. For my grandmother, Black Orpheus was, and is, a symbol of her third world country breaking into a first world international conscience. In 1959, Black Orpheus was undoubtedly ground-breaking for these reasons.

Obama in 1983, she said, didn't understand the movie. I don't think she's entirely wrong, either. What he interpreted as a "childlike depiction of blacks" probably has more to do with the relaxed spontaneity that characterizes Brazilian culture (you can hear this in the music, too). He's critical of the white director's depiction of-and willingness to use-black culture. My grandmother's critical of Obama's American depiction of-and willingness to use-Brazilian culture.

I think that in this particular instance, both critics fail to see beyond their lenses (race, ethnicity, time-period) and rob themselves and their understanding in the process. But perhaps I only say this because it's something I can afford to do. After all, I'm a white natural-born citizen. I look and speak like the dominant culture here, and so, I don't always have to be on the defense. Consequently, it takes a lot to make me slam a book shut or walk out on a movie-and that, regrettably, sure does feel like a privilege.

Interesting article, FreedomFirst,

Brazil, unlike much of Latin America, was colonized by the Portuguese, not the Spanish. When the period of 'abandonment' by the Europeans occurred in the 1820s, the Spanish and the Portuguese both took all semblance of government with them when they picked up their marbles and returned to Europe.

In Brazil, there was remaining a large percentage of black slaves from Africa, Indians from Brazil, and some Caucasians. Portugal left all the residents free, and the result is they have guiltlessly intermarried and produced the large mulatto culture we see there today. It does seem like a very relaxed culture.

So, it seems the blacks in Brazil have a totally different view of life than the blacks in America because of the evolution from having a government to having none; from being slaves to being free and accepted. Inasmuch as the Portuguese probably didn't intend to do so, it looks like they did the black citizens of Brazil a great favor in their method of departure from the country.

That's all an interesting aside, and our American history is obviously quite different.

What I really want to say is that, inasmuch as I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, it would seem that Obama may have some anger issues with his parents he has never worked through and resolved.

Some issues may be connected specifically with his vacuous relationship with his absentee black father and his always trying to fill or satisfy some perceived void with his dad.

Maybe this is what keeps him from being a kind and loving guy, and what creates the angst and the anger he shows us by his actions.

I'd be interested in knowing what a real analyst would suggest as a result of observing Obama in action for the last thirty or forty years.