Dec 13 2008
The Obama Administration Is Now Damaged Goods, Obama Lied To America
Update: A consensus is brewing about Obama’s pending troubles – see here, here, here and here.
Major Update Below!
The big dominos seem to be falling already, less than a week from the news breaking.  I simply cannot fathom the damage Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have done to their incoming administration, a month before it takes office. But I do know they dealt hit a critical blow this week.  Barack Obama has just been exposed as a liar to the American people. He lied to us in a manner that puts him in the same league as Bill Clinton, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Robert Torricelli, Rep Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Rep William Jefferson. We have yet to know what, if any, crimes Obama has committed. But the fact is this week he went out and lied straight to the American people. He tried to cover his tracks.
Here is the lie, which caught my eye because of the phrasing Obama was using during his press conference on Daschle’s appointment:
“I had no contact with the governor’s office. I did not speak to the governor about these issues. That I know for certain.â€
It is a lie because now we know Obama’s Chief of Staff provided Blagojevich Obama’s list of candidates he thought should fill his seat. The news broke last night:
Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
…
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
Emphasis mine. Does Senator Obama really think the American people care about the parsing of ‘talked’ verses ‘sent my list of candidates through my Chief of Staff’? Come on! Who gave the list to Emmanuel? Obama of course! It was Obama’s list of candidates Blagojevich was working with. OMG – are these people morons?
Barack Obama, the next President of the United States, just wagged his finger into the camera and said “I had no conversations with that Governor, Blagojevich, on the candidates for my senate seat’. Of course sending the list of candidates through Emmanual doesn’t somehow count as ‘conversation’.Â
Obama won the election by gaining the trust of the majority of the voters. He was preparing to take office with the added trust of many like me who were willing to give him a chance to prove us wrong. There are no perfect politicians. I was more than willing to give Obama a shot. But his followers were living a dream come true – or so they thought.
I will not be lied to and right now my view of Obama is totally shattered. But my blowback on Obama is going to be mild compared to all those true believers who voted for ‘change we can believe in’. The entire Obama administration is now in a shambles because it’s load bearing characteristic has failed in a devastating manner. Obama is not only just like all other pols, he is inexperienced klutz as well. Â
Obama could not trust the American people to simply tell them he exchanged information with Blagojevich on the matter of the vacant senate seat. All of us would have been shocked at his ineptitude if he hadn’t been pre-planning his transition. But Obama failed America by failing to trust us with obvious details. So he lied and tried sell the idea his ‘office’ had nothing to do with ‘the issue’ (his office of course being his senate office, not his transition team).
And it may get worse. As I noted previously, when reviewing the infamous November 10, 2008 conference call, there were some counter offers from team Obama to team Blagojevich to try and tone down the quid pro quo, to make it less apparent to the public. The first one listed in the criminal complaint covers a two year ‘quiet period’ so that the connection of the quid pro quo to the senate seat would not be so damn obvious. The Team Obama proposal got a big response out of Blagojevich:
[statement 6] ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up†for two years and do nothing and give this “motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.â€
Note he is not saying ‘get nothing’ forever, he is complaining about getting nothing for two years. This delaying tactic comes up later in the conference call as well, when discussing what seems to be the final solution, a three-way deal with the SEIU and a golden parachute job for Blagojevich and/or his wife:
[statement 8] HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability. HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
…[Gap 5]…
[statement 9] One of ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s advisors said he likes the idea, it sounds like a good idea, but advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH to be leery of promises for something two years from now.
…[Gap 6]…
[statement 10] ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said they would take the job now.
…[Gap 7]…
[statement 11] Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others on the phone call discussed various ways ROD BLAGOJEVICH can “monetize†the relationships he is making as Governor to make money after ROD BLAGOJEVICH is no longer Governor.
If Team Obama proposed a delaying tactic to make any payback more stealthy, they are in trouble. If, as the last statement appears to indicate, they agreed on an even more stealthy plan using the SEIU it would be worse. We don’t know how deep Team Obama got into the muck, but we do know they were in it. And for Obama to claim the opposite was probably the biggest crime of all.Â
He had America’s trust, but could not trust America to deal with the obvious aspects of government. He tried to spin a fantasy picture and he is going to be exposed as a charlatan. And when he tries to spin his facade as The One, with answers of hope and change for America, it will all now be seen by many as a lame joke.
This is what many of us feared from the neophyte, from the Junior Senator from Illinois. The man is inept. Â I, like many, are going to be going out and get those ‘don’t blame me, I voted McCain-Palin’ stickers. Obama has completely and utterly bungled this matter. His credibility is now shot. He has bungled so many things (Iraq to name an obvious one), but this one is probably the worst because he made fools of his most ardent followers. They can no longer claim he is The One, that he will fix politics, that he is different. It really is a stunning fall.
BTW – Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has just lost all standing in this matter. Now that we know Obama provided her name to Blagojevich via Emmanual she cannot be calling for anything related to this case. She really needs to sit down and be quiet and make sure her name gets cleared. I am not saying she did anything wrong, but for her to put pressure on any of the key players in this could be seen as self serving.
This is such a mess.
Major Update: The yacking pols in Illinois are digging the hole deeper. Just about anyone would agree that controlling who is an allowable candidate for selection to fill Obama’s seat is absolute control over who gets selected. The same story from above notes that Blagojevich could only work from an approved list from Obama, according to one of the candidates and her discussions with Rahm Emmanuel:
Schakowsky also spoke of a conversation she had with Emanuel shortly after he was named chief of staff. She said she called Emanuel “to get some intelligence” on whether Obama might approve of her selection as senator.
“He indicated that the president-elect would be fine with certain people and I was one of them,” Schakowsky said, adding that he did not share the identities of others on the list.
Clearly this indicates Obama had veto power on who could be considered. And since we now know Obama provided Blagojevich the allowable list of candidates it is clear Obama WAS heavily involved in who was selected. No wonder Blagojevich was threatening to seat Jesse Jackson, Jr – he was not on Obama’s list!Â
Yeah Barack, you had nothing but ‘interest’ in who was selected to fill your seat. You were dictating terms and Blagojevich was dictating terms. That is what we call a ‘negotiation’.
joesixpack……….yep, you might have cause for concern if what you wrote is not a joke. Did you feel even a tickle down your leg as peeps were walking around with signs w/blood running down Bush’s face? A real tolerant bunch it has been for the last 8 years. BTW………is that you McCain? If so, I voted for you, so trash me. I read on almost all boards about the ‘new’ hateful people that do not want to get along. Give me a freaking break.
If Obama is clean, I do believe he decended from heaven and he is the Chicago Miracle.
In the tradition of the Clintons … he has lied his ass off, over and over. It’s just a matter of time, when all his past associations catch up to him, and his chickens come home to roost.
Jimmy Lewis
SCS, Michigan
Blog: http://rougerevival.blogspot.com/
Of course Obama lied. I do think it is interesting how the Obamabots try to drag Bush into this. As if he were responsible for the fact that Obama is a crook. And btw, Bush did not lie. He might have given the people from the Clinton administration intel community more credit than they deserved, but he did not lie.
Do any of you know what United means?
Yes, I do. It’s pretty obvious that Democrats only bother paying lip service to the idea when they hold power and can use it to accuse Republicans of disloyalty to their country.
“Dissent is patriotic.” Get used to hearing that, friend. And realize that you and your ilk popularized the phrase.
Schadenfreude, baby!
You want unity? Okaaay. My blood is boiling over the way the MSM is reporting the Shoe. And I read the comments by those lovers of peace and unity…………cheering. The MSM is my enemy as surely as the terrorists. They are the bald faced liar. If I had been anywhere in that room in Iraq, I would have tried to have taken that MSM creep down.
Now listen up………I would have done the same if the President was Obama. Got that? Most of the left does not get it. When Obama becomes my President, he is MY President. I might not like him, but you let anyone prance around with his head on a bloody pike sign, and I am against them. Got it? Where were you for Bush? Anyone that throws their spit at President Obama, if I am close, I go after. Got it? I doubt it. There seems to be a real difference between that lip service the left gives about unity and what is really HATE. Laughing at the shoe and running it on front pages is hate. Oh good grief, I do hate. MSM.
The Constitution is a non-issue?
Just drop it?
No I will not. I will drop the questioning of Obama’s eligibility if
the case is heard in full in both of the challenges,
firstly that Obama was not born in Hawaii and is not a US citizen
by birth or secondly that he is not a natural born citizen because of
holding multiple nationalities.
I expect to see forensic document experts analyze the real
birth certificate, if one even exists, not Polarik, and not Strata.
But as long as the courts just turn down cases based on the
stupidly narrow issues of standing then the case is not heard and
I will not shut up about it.
Note to Owl, When “Obama becomes president”, he will still not
be my president.
You can call me any names you want, that is a typical lefty strategy,
discredit the questioner. You saw it in spades with Joe The Plumber,
and we see it to a lesser extent here.
Leaving all pixel wars aside, I just ask the following question:
Why has “Obama” hired three legal firms and spent something
in the region of 800,000 bucks to ensure his records stay sealed
if there is nothing to hide? There is no answer.
The shoe incident is bizarre. The strange is, that as far as the left is concerned of course, this guy is representative of the Iraqi people. Not Maliki. Not the police and army who train with Americans. Not the Iraqis who have said this brings shame to their culture…no, the one loud mouth idiot throwing shoes is representative.
But gosh, it is not like the left is hateful or anything.
I wonder what the Iranians will think of Obama if he really does nuke them? The ones that are left alive anyway. After all, in 8 years Bush has never threatened to nuke anyone.
dave:
I really do think that Obama is a citizen. I think the issue of the birth certificate is a waste of time. That does not mean I like the guy…but I think a lot of time and energy has been wasted on the issue of his eligibility.
Terry e,
That is the line here. But I do not think Obama
is a natural born american, and several hundred thousand others
agree with me.
AJ likes to throw around the cult word. If I ask this question I am a
cultist. Sorry, no worky. I was once in a cult, for a short time,
until I fought like hell and got out. I know better than AJ, I think, what cult
behavior is.
There is a concerted effort to shut up this question and I simply ask
what have you got to lose? What has anyone to lose by letting a
proper investigation into Obama’s eligibility proceed? Go on,
make an argument. I doubt that you can.
We followed AJ strategy. I voted for McCain. I argued for moderation.
Utterly stupid and I am glad I am mostly living outside the USA,
in the middle of nowhere, and have a good chance to survive what is to come.
(If McCain had those shoes thrown at him, he would have picked them
up himself and beat himself around the head with them and then
offered his respect to the Iraqi thrower. )
But in the meantime, I suggest none of you tell me to shut up. I can
get that kind of behavior any day of the week at infoshop or dailykos.
I invite you to ban me. “Obama” would, and you’ll be in good company.
Until that day, I will continue to report on our usurper and the efforts
made to unseat him.
Have a happy Christmas and a productive New Year.
One of those AOL polls – not that they were that accurate in
calling the winner of the presidential contest.
“Do you think there is substance behind the controversy
surrounding Obama’s birth certificate?
47% – Yes
46% – No
7% – Not Sure
poll here:
http://www.thecommentary.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/obama-poll.jpg
Off Topic:
IBD/TIPP Takes Top Honors Again
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, December 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election: Now that the ’08 tally is official, we note that for the second election in a row, the IBD/TIPP Poll not only came closest to the final margin, but was right on the money — tantamount to hitting a bullet with a bullet.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=314237563678183
Dave, I know you’re taking this stuff in part off Donofrio’s blog. Donofrio’s mistake is that he has his own personal interpretation of what “natual born citizen” means, but that interpretation of his is not backed up by ANY case law or ANY court, ever.
He’s got an interesting argument – problem for him and you is, that’s all it is. The courts have rejected his minimalist construction in favor of an expansive construction. Obama’s mother was a US citizen, therefore Obama is a natural born US citizen. His father’s citizenship is immaterial.
You should note that Donofrio also believes that John McCain was not a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama, even though his parents were only there because of US military service.
To put it in precise legal terms, Donofrio is a whack-job.
Date Set For Broe v. Reed
December 10, 2008
Contact: Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
Tel: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.
Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2009.
On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen†of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.
“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,†said Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for the plaintiffs. “What remains is to establish the duty of the Secretary of State, under Article III, Sections 4 and 17 of the Washington constitution, under RCW 29A.04.230 which names the Secretary as the state’s chief of elections, and under relevant administrative codes which also require the Secretary to act.â€
Pidgeon goes on to say that “each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to determine if the candidate is telling the truth.â€
http://decalogosintl.org/?p=75
Rahm’s calls on tape
The Blago scandal . . .
December 16, 2008
BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist
Sneed hears rumbles President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds — dealing with his boss’ vacant Senate seat!
A lot of chit-chat?
Hot air?
Or trouble?
• • To date: Rahm’s been mum. Stay tuned.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1333057,CST-NWS-SNEED16.article
Could the Blago scandal ensnare team Obama? You betcha.
If you don’t think it can, you don’t know prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
By Byron York
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTg2NzI4MWVhY2I1OWQ3NTE5YmNhNGRiM2E3OGQxMTY=
WWS
Actually, I am taking it off
http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm
I will paste the whole thing in and let Strata delete it.
The Obama File
Natural Born Citizen Chart
People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court.
For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a U. S. citizen, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner. His birth certificate is only relevant to answer the question, “what does Obama have to hide?”
(The actual chart doesn’t reproduce well on blogs, but feel free to go
there/)
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.
Perkins v. Elg’s importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Besides being a lawyer, I am an accountant as well. We know that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.
Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can’t change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de’tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.
Either way, three of the candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero are not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008. Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, then the 2008 presidential election and its results are void. Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a fact that is not in dispute.
From an attorney who practices in Missouri
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
So you say the father doesn’t matter whereas the supreme court
in 1868 and 1939 ruled that both parents must be US citizens
without foreign attachments.
I am sure you will soon blind me with pixelated science, but I note
that only the requests for immediate stays have been rejected
by the Supreme Court. Both cases are still alive.
PARENTS is plural, plural means more than one. Typically 2.
What Supreme Court decisions expanded this definition since 1939?
I did a gooogle search on natural born citizen and informed
of a US law expanding the meaning of the phrase.
However, that law has never been tested in the Supreme Court.
It is probably unconstitutional. Isn’t this the whole point
of the Donofrio challenge? Try to get the Supreme Court to
do it’s job?
Anyways, Google filters it’s results in a consensus engine
whatever that is. If you do a Copernic search
(Copernic is a search engine almagamator and I recommend it)
you find this:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
This is only a snippet, Strata let me paste in that other whole
thing, so I won’t abuse the privilege but the argument is
extensive:
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.†The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens†to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States.
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.â€
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.†This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.
————————————————————————–
So there are two tests,
Test1) Why are you spending a fortune to hide your birth
certificate?
Test2) The Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen
needs to be re-tested again.
And here is the KILLER PARAGRAPH from the above argument:
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
If one thinks that is “sexist” or out of date, then change the Constitution.
That hasn’t been done. Will the Supreme Court do it’s job?
I have no idea. But I now understand what the framers meant by
“natural born” and they specifically excluded an act of law changing
their understanding/interpretation of the laws of nature.
Finally, OBAMA KNOWS
He started his lawyers in 2006 to look at ways of getting around
the Natural Born clause.
First I found this tipoff from one of the best posters over at Texasdarlin
Mary writes:
I was doing some reading on the SCOTUS blogs and read this : http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/12/ideological-polarization-among-scotus-clerks.html
…â€clerks from the chambers of four conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy) sort themselves ideologically in their career trajectory: Since 1990, they increasingly go to conservative law schools or to law firms with prominent conservative mentors such as Kirkland & Ellisâ€â€¦
I remembered that name Kirkland & Ellis and looked it up – http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural
Yes, that is why I remembered it – Obama supporters and the lawfirm that had looked into the natural born aspect of the Constitution around the time that the pres-elect started his campaign.
The interesting article “AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLEâ€
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision†in the Constitution, “undecidedly un American,†“blatantly discriminatory,†and the “Constitution’s worst provision.â€
I am now wondering about SCOTUS remaining unbiased in their denials … I don’t know how anyone could NOT find this disturbing. No ‘proof’ but WOW what a coincidence! I’d hate to believe that there is ‘no justice’ (especially in the high courts). I, along with I am sure millions of others think that the entire issue needs to be resolved once and for all – someone has to speak up for the people of this country. Simple dismissials without given reasons are NOT acceptable!
Here’s the entry she is referring to:
http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural
Gosh, I Really Hope Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. But Why, Why, Why, Did He Have Kirkland & Ellis Try to Re-write the Clause in 2006?
wallstreetcaptain 4 days ago
Obama’s Friends Working to Amend the Natural Born Citizen Requirement right as he starts his presidential run?
::
Coincidence?
http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0 :
If the Facts Don’t Support the Theory, Destroy the Facts
Comment left by: CreativeOgre:
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…
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf
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 http://www.kirkland.com
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.
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)
In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the †Illinois Venture Capital Association’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!â€
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.
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
SARAH P. HERLIHY*
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision†in the Constitution, “undecidedly un American,†“blatantly discriminatory,†and the “Constitution’s worst provision.â€
Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.
Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.
OBAMA KNOWS HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
I rest my case.
First I found this tipoff from one of the best posters over at Texasdarlin
Mary writes:
I was doing some reading on the SCOTUS blogs and read this : http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/12/ideological-polarization-among-scotus-clerks.html
…â€clerks from the chambers of four conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy) sort themselves ideologically in their career trajectory: Since 1990, they increasingly go to conservative law schools or to law firms with prominent conservative mentors such as Kirkland & Ellisâ€â€¦
I remembered that name Kirkland & Ellis and looked it up – http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural
Yes, that is why I remembered it – Obama supporters and the lawfirm that had looked into the natural born aspect of the Constitution around the time that the pres-elect started his campaign.
The interesting article “AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLEâ€
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision†in the Constitution, “undecidedly un American,†“blatantly discriminatory,†and the “Constitution’s worst provision.â€
I am now wondering about SCOTUS remaining unbiased in their denials … I don’t know how anyone could NOT find this disturbing. No ‘proof’ but WOW what a coincidence! I’d hate to believe that there is ‘no justice’ (especially in the high courts). I, along with I am sure millions of others think that the entire issue needs to be resolved once and for all – someone has to speak up for the people of this country. Simple dismissials without given reasons are NOT acceptable!
Here’s the entry she is referring to:
http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural
Gosh, I Really Hope Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. But Why, Why, Why, Did He Have Kirkland & Ellis Try to Re-write the Clause in 2006?
wallstreetcaptain 4 days ago
Obama’s Friends Working to Amend the Natural Born Citizen Requirement right as he starts his presidential run?
::
Coincidence?
http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0 :
If the Facts Don’t Support the Theory, Destroy the Facts
Comment left by: CreativeOgre:
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…
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf
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 http://www.kirkland.com
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.
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)
In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the †Illinois Venture Capital Association’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!â€
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.
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
SARAH P. HERLIHY*
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision†in the Constitution, “undecidedly un American,†“blatantly discriminatory,†and the “Constitution’s worst provision.â€
Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.
Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.
OBAMA KNOWS HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
I rest my case