...looks like Obama’s people have looked into matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006

Give Us Liberty ^ | Friday, June 10, 2011 | Mitchell Langbert

[Brown Deer]

Why Was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II?

first published in 2008

Contrairimairi has forwarded a post from Insight Analytical concerning Sarah Herlihy's article that was also discussed in the blog Count us Out. Someone had forwarded Herlihy's article to me and I blogged it on November 29. Herlihy works for the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis out of their Chicago office. The kicker is that Herlihy's article was published in the Kent Law review in 2006 and, notes Count us Out Blogger Creative Ogre:

"While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE caught my eye, and had to read it…

"I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP

"Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

"In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama

"So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of "If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world."

Looks like the article has been scrubbed???...LINKS not working? Contact Sarah and ask for a copy! LOL

[philman_36]

Here ya go...
A Conspiracy to Change the “natural born Citizen” Requirement

[gunnyg]

first attempt was in 1975...

[gunnyg]

Nope,it all began in ‘75 and continued...conspiracies can be much larger than any of our imaginations...

[philman_36]

Actually, I was off by a couple of weeks.
Try a couple of months...
obama eligibility 2008 site:freerepublic.com

See - July 26, 2008
And earlier...

Is There Legitimate Doubt About Obama's Eligibility to be President? 7/6/2008

I didn't bother looking past the first two pages.

[philman_36]

Just use banned FReeper LorenC's reply as a guide.
You’ll further find that there were no threads where anyone posited any ‘two-citizen-parent’ requirement until AFTER the election.
You sound just like LorenC.

[philman_36]

Aw, well. Good luck in finding it then.

[Cottonbay]

Bttt

[Gena Bukin]

See - July 26, 2008
And earlier...

Sure, there were many threads discussing Obama's eligibility issues during the Summer of 2008. Why wouldn't there be? Philip Berg had a lawsuit during this time. The issue is that all the posters were arguing Berg's talking points. Obama was ineligible because he was Born in Kenya and his mother was not old enough to transmit citizenship or Obama is ineligible because he was born in Hawaii but became a citizen of Indonesia.

What I'm looking for, specifically, are references to the "Vattel" two U.S. citizen parent argument that predate the election. The reason being is that Obama's parentage was well-known during the campaign and if Vattel's definition was equally as well-known (as so many posters have claimed), why was nobody talking about this until Donofrio raised the issue after the election?

[Faith]

EVIDENCE BROADENS OBAMA NATURAL BORN CONSPIRACY

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm

[clearcarbon]

I recall that there were some questions about John McCain's
eligibility to run in the 2008 campaign based on citizenship.
Maybe that's another reason the LMSM selected him to run
and lose against comrade obama.

[wintertime]

I just posted this on another thread. I think it is appropriate here, as well.

Comment: Personally, I am heartsick.

Obama’s eligibility is about far, far more than Obama. It is like pulling a bandage off a wound and seeing the hopeless, festering, and malodorous gangrene underneath. Fundamentally, every legislator, secretary of state, all state attorney generals, the entire electoral college, the Supreme Court and lower level judges, our highest military, all law enforcement agencies, and the conservative media are **CHOOSING** to overlook the oozing petulance of identity theft, impersonation of a Commander in Chief, election fraud, and fraudulently taking millions of dollars in campaign donations.

All of the above people, whose job it is to be our nation's watchdogs, are willing to let a very likely usurper have access to all of our nation's most sensitive secretes, and who can, with a nod of his head, bring down the world's economy, starve billions, and send forth the world's most destructive military power since the dawn of creation.

Unbelievable! There isn't much hope for this nation. If it isn't Obama that brings this nation to its knees it will soon be something else. The moral core of this nation is rotten. No one is willing to stare down evil. Is there even *ONE* real man in this nation?

I pray that God will have mercy on us.

[noinfringers2]

Thanks for posting and I have bookmarked it. I have for some time wondered what the true arguments were against the Constitutional mandate for POTUSA to be a “natural born citizen. This paper makes it very clear it/these arguments are based on the intent for globalization and the supporting features for globalization such as ‘fairness’ for anyone wanting to be POTUSA for any purpose. The paper explains to me the many reasons I have for holding to the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers were well aware of as to nations. I say this as one of the ineligible who was a vet of WWII and a lone brother who was killed on Okinawa. Our parents were immigrants. To add to my story I married a Swedish lady and we had two sons before my wife was ‘naturalized’. Tough luck for my boys as to ‘natural born’ but life in the USA has it’s shortfalls but not it’s opportunities. However, we are all for the USA as an exceptional Nation. In Obama’s case I doubt he and his enablers truly believe the USA is exceptional as to history and spirit and as such want their ‘change’, and I’m more glad than ever the Founding Fathers believed and acted as they did. As far as worth of the paper goes it is most important in that the author admits to the uniqueness and authority of the Founder’s document.

[little jeremiah]

Great comment, wintertime.

Our country was founded on the principles that the rule of law trumped persons.

Not any more. There is much to say and much that will be said, and has been said.

But when the foundation of truth and rule of law is gone, then it will only spiral downward, and we have history to teach us what will happen next.

Unless somehow we are brought back from the brink.

[JustTheTruth]

The article implicitly defines "natural born" as foreign born, with no reference to the citizenship status of the parentS of the person in question.

Tthis was undoubtedly a deliberate omission or attempted misdirection with the Obomination squarely in mind.

[philman_36]

...why was nobody talking about this until Donofrio raised the issue after the election?
Is that supposed to show or prove something?

[Kleon]

See - July 26, 2008 And earlier... Is There Legitimate Doubt About Obama's Eligibility to be President? 7/6/2008 I didn't bother looking past the first two pages.

Your link actually proves that Gena is correct. There's an obvious difference between that thread and what you will read today. Nobody in that link seems to know anything about a two citizen parent definition of natural born.

[gunnyg]

Thanx for posting, great author and very thorough, although he seems to have missed the 2003 attempt by sen orin hatch to delete the natural born requirement to the Constitution—or maybe that was bs?

That caper was thought to be on behalf of Arnold The Impregnator, at the time, but now...???

Gunny G
aka: Dick G
*****

[philman_36]

So I'll ask you the same question...
Is that supposed to show or prove something?

[Kleon]

Is that supposed to show or prove something?

It shows that nobody now claiming that this is a clear and indisputable fact had any inkling of it before Obama was elected. You can interpret that however you want, but I think it shows that this definition they've currently settled on isn't clear at all, and they have no basis for calling those who don't follow their logic "Obama supporters."

[bgill]

Yes, we all knew about Herlihy back when but it’s always good to revisit and refresh memories.