Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Spaulding
Obama never said he was a natural born citizen, he said: "I am a native born citizen of the U.S.", which is a State Department definition, a statute, meaning born on our soil but not necessarily of citizen parents.

I don't know much about this document. But seems interesting that his books talk about his Kenyan father yet he signs this natural born citizen document.

also Why Was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II?

from article

"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.

AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE SARAH P. HERLIHY. INTRODUCTION

thread

42 posted on 01/09/2011 3:44:09 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: opentalk

Thank you for posting the Herlihy comment/documentation. Personally, I have always seen that as a genuine smoking gun. Why DID she come out with such a singular position at just that moment in time? In police/detective work there is a saying: there’s no such thing as a coincidence. Anybody who thinks Herlihy’s comment is ‘just a coincidence’ isn’t really thinking to begin with. It’s all part of the big picture—and a very damning picture it is.


44 posted on 01/09/2011 3:52:31 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: opentalk
I don't know much about this document . But seems interesting that his books talk about his Kenyan father yet he signs this natural born citizen document.

Opentalk, this is the one document which could cause Obama some discomfort. There was, before 2008, a requirement for this attestation to natural born citizenship in Hawaii, but a substitute document was delivered, leaving out the phrase in 2008. No other state required natural born citizenship in order for a candidate to appear on the ballot, which is what this form is for.

I can only guess that because this document is the responsibility of Nancy Pelosi, since the Democratic Party Corporation (yes, its a private corporation) is responsible for the document, Barack can claim he never saw it. It was notarized in Virginia in November of 07, but received two weeks later. It contradicts Barack’s own web site on which he stated that he was born a dual citizen, and in particular, was born a British Subject. Neither a dual citizen nor a British subject are born of parents with sole allegiance to the U.S. and its Constitution. Barack said, on his own web site, “I am a native born citizen of the U.S.” Were he a natural born citizen, the requirement for the presidency, he would have said as much. To say it, given his non-citizen father, might have stimulated legal action. But he cleverly told the truth, making any challenge that he lied about his citizenship likely to fail. He is depending upon the control of Federal Judges - political appointees - to quash eligibility questions.

Barack's minions have conducted a very sophisticated disinformation mission which made the measure of the ignorance of most citizens about natural born citizens. Missing birth certificates are easy to understand. Who had read Law of Nations, or the supreme court cases in which the common-law definition is repeated?I was one of the ignorant citizens, but Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz (yes, she was quite clear about the need for citizen parents in a Dec 2008 press conference in which Berg revealed his complicity in the campaign by avoiding jus sanguinis - parental allegiance - entirely) led me to read original sources. Our founders were clear and unambiguous. The originator of the 14th Amendment was unambiguous. Four Chief Justices of the Supreme Court were unambiguous. Every one of our legislators is caught in the trap of his own complicity. They will claim they were preventing riots. The choice was not theirs to make. They are complicit in the destruction of our republic.

Your observation about Kagan and Herilhy was new to me, and certainly interesting. Sarah Herlihy reported directly to Christopher Landau - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Landau was the legal council to the McCain Justice Advisory Committee. Where there's smoke... McCain played a major role in the cover-up. Landau was defending McCain against whom there were two lawsuits by Democrats contesting his ineligibility. The excellent analysis by Law Professor Gabriel Chin of U. Of Arizona leaves no wiggle room. The bill proposed by Clair McCaskill in Feb 2008, SB 2678, did not get Senate Support - a bill to make foreign born children of military citizens eligible for the presidency. McCain, from his own birth certificate, was born in Colon, not sovereign territory, but even Coco Bolo Naval Base was not sovereign territory in 1936. That was addressed by Congress in 1937, but the law is not retroactive.

So McCain was only too well aware of questions about his ineligibility. Once Obama became the Dem candidate the questions about McCain's eligibility suddenly stopped. "If you don't ask we won't either," was the effect of the quid pro quo. That is why Obama is in office. Perhaps he was stronger than Hillary. That isn't clear. But the Constitution is perfectly clear, and Kagan, who covered for Obama’s Harvard adviser and Constitutional Law Professor, Larry Tribe, when he was caught plaigerizing, is a not unexpected beneficiary of the web of silence.

Without Kagan and Sotomayor refusing to recuse themselves, given Robert's smarmy pandering to the left (wonder what else they have on Roberts?), the Court would have done their duty to resolve the current Constitutional crisis. To progressives, as Larry Klein stated a few days ago, the Constitution is "over one hundred years old!", and (paraphrasing) "most people don't understand it anyway." They don't respect the Constitution. Why should they preserve and protect it. Our legal foundation is what "The Ruling Class" thinks it should be, and as Sarah Herlihy pointed out in her 2005 essay, Article II Section 1 clause 5 is a "stupid provision." She also quoted sources describing the eligibility clause as "racist" and "based upon fear of foreigners." The Ruling Class remains a minority, since twenty six attempts to amend Article II have failed. The Obama team figured out how to trump that, and how to circumvent congress, and how to silence the courts. We must fix it or be destroyed by arrogant elites whose careers don't involve manufacturing or designing. Their careers are based upon running our lives.

127 posted on 01/10/2011 11:41:31 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson