By Paul Hollrah, Guest Blogger
Paul R. Hollrah
By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, “How could every single member of Congress… all 535 of them… fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama’s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?”
For the past two years Americans have been flooding congressional offices with demands for answers to these questions. And now we know. The answer to the first question is, “No, Obama is not eligible to serve as president because he is not a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen.” The answer to the second question is, “The Jack Maskell Memorandum.”
But before we approach the question of who Jack Maskell might be, and the role he plays in what history will doubtless record as the greatest single crime of all time, let’s first review the facts surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “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 office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he had been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years at the time he was nominated. But is he a “natural born” citizen? What is a “natural born” citizen, and how do we prevent someone who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?
When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have affixed their signatures to a document that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States? Not likely.
That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…” At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country. And since the founders wished to exclude all those with dual citizenship (divided loyalties) from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration for those who were officially U.S. residents at the time and who might wish to serve as president or vice president after reaching the age of thirty-five.
For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president. But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years. Hence, as a means of qualifying a class of men for the presidency during the first thirty-five years of our nationhood, while preventing any man with dual or naturalized citizenship from ever serving as president, after a pool of “natural born” men had reached the age of thirty-five… limiting access to those offices only to those born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens… the founders included the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…”
Few Americans, not even our distinguished members of Congress, have ever stopped to consider what those sixteen simple words mean, or, more importantly, who they exclude from presidential consideration. That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.
In the days immediately following Barack Obama’s unlikely election in November 2008, members of Congress began flooding the CRS with questions about Obama’s eligibility. Jack Maskell, a CRS Legislative Attorney drew the “short straw” and was assigned to provide members of Congress with legal cover. Maskell’s recently-discovered memorandum, dated April 3, 2009 and distributed to all members of Congress, contains the following words:
“Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called ‘long’ version of a ‘birth certificate’ from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are ‘vetted’ for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status…
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
Clearly, Mr. Maskell overlooked the words of the 20th Amendment, which reads in part, “If a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified…”
When members of Congress swear that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and that they will “bear true faith and allegiance to the same… so help me God,” they take upon themselves, by direct implication, the obligation to rule on the qualifications of those who emerge from the Electoral College as President and Vice President-elect… in spite of what Jack Maskell’s opinion might be.
Under the U.S. system for selecting our president and vice president, there are three distinct vetting opportunities. The first occurs when the political parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed. And although it is customary for the parties to certify the eligibility of their candidates under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Democratic Party made that certification in 2008 only to the State of Hawaii, which has a statutory requirement that such certification be made. The remaining 49 states received no such certification in support of the eligibility of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The second vetting opportunity occurs when the members of the Electoral College meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. It is the obligation of all members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for individuals who are qualified, under Article II, Section 1. However, in spite of the clear knowledge that Obama had been born in 1961 with dual US-British citizenship, Democratic electors in December 2008 ignored that solemn responsibility.
The third and final vetting opportunity occurs during the first week in January following a presidential election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. It is the third and final fail-safe vetting opportunity.
So the question arises, can the Congress simply ignore its obligation to fully vet those selected as president and vice president-elect by the Electoral College? The answer to that question, in spite of Jack Maskell’s advice to Congress, is a resounding “no.” As Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient… Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such…”
But what if the members of Congress, on the advice of CRS counsel, fail in that responsibility? Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’ (emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement… Maskell memorandum or no Maskell memorandum.
When we consider the difficulties involved in reversing the effects of two years or four years of an illegitimate presidency, it is difficult to imagine any single written document in recorded history that has had, or will have, the devastating effect on freedom and the rule of law that the Jack Maskell Memorandum will ultimately have. When Maskell drafted his memorandum and affixed his signature, it is unlikely that he had any concept of the terrible consequences of his words. If only he had folded it into a paper airplane and tossed it out the window…
To read previous posts by Paul Hollrah, click here.
UPDATE 2/17/11 at 5:26 p.m. Central: World Net Daily is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hold a second conference on the matter of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president March 4.
61 responses so far ↓
1 Tweets that mention Understanding 'The Jack Maskell Memorandum' | Bob McCarty Writes -- Topsy.com // Nov 25, 2010 at 6:49 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alltop Politics, Bob McCarty Writes. Bob McCarty Writes said: Understanding 'The Jack Maskell Memorandum' – http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/ [...]
2 Byron Pershall // Nov 25, 2010 at 7:24 pm
In the words of everybody loves Raymond’s dad “Holy crap!”
My experience is “government” ignores the laws they write for everyone else.
Now you say they ignore the supreme law of the land when choosing our president?.
Excuse me I need a minute!
3 YeahRight // Nov 26, 2010 at 10:15 am
Great article and thanks for posting this Bob!
I have been saying this from the beginning but the ‘brithers’ could care less — all they wanted was a birth certificate. My argument kept falling on deaf ears when I would point out that that man stated in his first book he was not eligible simply when he said his father was British/Kenyan citizen.
What has happened to this country that we cannot read or understand the constitution? It is time our voices start getting louder than the birthers to get this usurper out of our house!!!
4 BCP // Nov 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Bob, your sight is the most fun I’ve had in a long time, Thanks.
Mr. Yeah Right remember the Rodney King riots?
Do you really want to remove him from office?
5 Granite // Nov 26, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Re: “is it even conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have affixed their signatures to a document that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States? Not likely.
Under strict construction principles, you are not allowed to “read into” the text on the basis of motives. The principle is if the law or the Constitution says it, it is true. If it does not say it, it is not true.
And, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids dual nationals from being president. Nor is there anything in the Federalist Papers.
Moreover, to think that dual nationality affects Natural Born Citizen status means that you think the presence or absence of a foreign law can determine whether a US-born citizen can become president. That is not a Conservative way of thinking about foreign laws and US laws, and it is not the way that the law has been interpreted.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
6 BobMcCarty // Nov 26, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Granite — For me, you lost the argument when you cited Sen. Flimsy Grahamnesty as an authority. Beyond that, Obama still hasn’t proven he was born in the USA.
7 Granite // Nov 26, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Re: Beyond that, Obama still hasn’t proven he was born in the USA.
Actually, he has. He has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration) and by the Republican governor herself, and there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home about it.
Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Re natural born status. You did not mention Edwin Meese, who was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general. Or Black’s Law Dictionary.
8 BobMcCarty // Nov 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Granite — You choose to believe the sources you cite. Many Americans, including myself, do not. Read my posts on the topic to understand where I stand on it.
9 Pershall // Nov 26, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Bob, I must say your readers are smart, informed and engaged. I feel better for our republic.
10 Granite // Nov 27, 2010 at 8:25 am
Re: “Many Americans, including myself, do not…”
Dream on. The reason that the US Congress voted 535 to nothing to confirm Obama’s election is that not one single member agrees with you. They agree with Meese and with Black’s Law Dictionary.
11 BobMcCarty // Nov 27, 2010 at 8:26 am
And they’re not always right, are they?
12 Granite // Nov 28, 2010 at 8:56 am
Obama was born in Hawaii as the official birth certificate of Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the Republican officials and the Republican governor of Hawaii.
Every single member in the 535 members of Congress agrees with Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general that:
““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
They also agree with Yale Law Review:
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.” (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)
And with Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) who, said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
13 jtx // Nov 28, 2010 at 4:13 pm
All Granite has done on this blog (as well as many oters since he’s a wwelld-known Flying Monkey – aka “Oot”) is regurgitate and further Jack Maskell’s weak positions.
Mario Apuzzo has it correct in the Kerchner et al action and EVERYONE should study his definitive website rfe the meaning of the Constitution ain this matter. I believe that the Supreme Court will agree.
After all, it is Obama himself who has brought us to this upheval (not those eraising the questions)along with his fans and backers such as Granite who do not seem to mind that there is a criminal in the Oval Office who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
14 68Truthseeker // Nov 28, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I am pretty sure this is illegal too but the US Congress has done nothing to investigate it.
Robert Gibbs Is Asked About Obama’s Connecticut Social Security Number
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Aahw3NT6E
Obama’s Social Security Number(s) – Jerome Corsi on the Jeff Kuhner Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRt64dO0opE&playnext_from=TL&videos=40nsx4e7eKM
Obama’s Social Security Numbers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4KWb8QjHRo
15 The Obama Timeline author // Nov 28, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Granite (and your White House or MoveOn.org handlers):
1. Read The Obama Timeline in full before you offer opinions based on half-truths and the misreading of history.
2. If the term “natural born citizen” means nothing more than “native born,” then the text of the Constitution as it relates to presidential eligibility makes no sense. It was worded that way for a reason.
3. If Obama was not born in Hawaii but his grandmother registered his birth claiming an at-home delivery, that would explain quite a bit. Whether the short-form COLB on FactCheck,org is legitimate or fraudulent, why does Obama refuse to release his long-form birth certificate? (And his school records? And his passport records?)
4. Will you and other leftists say nothing in protest if either Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are elected president? Although they were both born in the United States, I believe their parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their births. That means they are not natural born citizens. Just as Obama is ineligible to serve, so (possibly) are Rubio and Jindal.
If anyone knows for certain if and when Rubio’s and Jindal’s parents became U.S. citizens, please let me know. There is no need for the GOP to make the same mistake as did the Democrats. (Of course, the Democrats knew full well what they were doing. Pelosi, McCaskill, Obama, DNC officials, and others should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.)
16 The Obama Timeline author // Nov 28, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Excellent point, 68Truthseeker. If Obama was born in Honolulu and has a legitimate long-form birth certificate, why was it necessary for him to use multiple Socials Security numbers throughout his lifetime – with the most frequently used number having been stolen from a dead Connecticut resident who was born in 1890?
The Obots need to explain how someone who never lived or worked in Connecticut is using an SSN issued in that state. Obama broke federal law to use that SSN.
The same may be true of his purportedly fraudulent Selective Service registration document. He needed a fraudlent document for one of two reasons: he is a U.S. citizen who failed to register for the draft, or he is not a U.S. citizen and did not have to register for the draft. Either way, he would be prohibited from serving as president.
17 Foggy // Nov 29, 2010 at 6:34 am
So the reason Congress approved the vote of the Electoral College on Jan. 8, 2009 was because they read the Maskell memo that was written three months later.
That’s just brilliant.
18 Granite // Nov 29, 2010 at 10:11 am
Re: “2. If the term “natural born citizen” means nothing more than “native born,” then the text of the Constitution as it relates to presidential eligibility makes no sense. It was worded that way for a reason.”
Answer; the main reason that it says Natural Born citizen and not Native Born citizen is because Native Born was not a popular phrase at the time. Natural Born was used all the time, and always referred to birth in the country. It was a synonym for native born.
It makes sense to require the president to be a native born citizen. Doing that does two things: First it excludes foreigners, since the president must be a citizen. Second, it excludes naturalized citizens, since the president must be natural born, and hence cannot be a naturalized citizens. But that is all that it excludes. There is no evidence that the writers of the constitution considered that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners or that they were lower quality citizens or more to be distrusted than the US-born children of US citizens.
Re: ‘3. If Obama was not born in Hawaii but his grandmother registered his birth claiming an at-home delivery, that would explain quite a bit.’
Answer: In the second of their two confirmations, the officials in Hawaii stated that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. This could not refer to a birth at home without witnesses. It can only refer to a document that clearly shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. And that is what both the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth and the governor of Hawaii have said, that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. Then why doesn’t the hospital confirm, you may ask? The answer is that we do not know whether Kapiolani still has its records from 1961, and federal HIPPA law prevents disclosing their contents, if it still had them. Then why doesn’t Hawaii release the original? Because it stopped doing that for EVERYONE when the certification of live birth became the official birth certificate in 2001.
Re: ‘Whether the short-form COLB on FactCheck,org is legitimate or fraudulent, why does Obama refuse to release his long-form birth certificate?’
Answer: For two reasons. First because the COLB is the official birth certificate, and it—with the confirmations of the officials—is certainly sufficient. Second, because he does not have it. Hawaii did not send him the original, and Hawaii says that it does not send out the original anymore.
Re: (And his school records? And his passport records?)
Answer: Why should he? No president has ever shown detailed college records and no president has ever shown his passport records, and there is certainly no law that says that a president should. If in the next presidential election, the Republican candidate shows college or graduate school or passport records, Obama probably would too.
Re: “Will you and other leftists say nothing in protest if either Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are elected president? Although they were both born in the United States, I believe their parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their births. That means they are not natural born citizens.”
Answer; If they are elected, I will say then, as I say now, that they are Natural Born Citizens since they were born in the jurisdiction of the United States of America, and hence fall under the first of the two criteria listed by Black’s Law Dictionary:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Re: “multiple Socials Security numbers throughout his lifetime – with the most frequently used number having been stolen from a dead Connecticut resident who was born in 1890?”
Answer: It is odd that conservatives, who are normally suspicious of government, haven’t sensed the answer to this. It is because the Social Security database is MASSIVELY MESSED UP, with multiple SS numbers in hundreds of thousands of files. They are caused by clerks entering numbers in wrong, and the system never cleaning up the errors. In the case of the Connecticut number, it was caused by the zip code entered to generate it.
Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814 and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814. Notice that 0 and 9 are next to each other on the computer.
If there were anything wrong with Obama’s selective service registration, it would have been found out by the McCain or Hillary campaigns.
19 Ronald Nelson // Nov 29, 2010 at 5:22 pm
I believe that every member of Congress… both houses who presided over the installing of President Obama should be removed from office IF it is proven that he in fact is a usurper. There is no higher crime, no greater wrong short of TREASON that was committed should it be proven that Obama was not qualified to hold the Office of President.
The lame excuse or attempt to hide their gross malfeasance is no excuse. The People of the United States should rally in mass and demand everyone of them resign subject to new elections… where they are barred from running.
The greatest crime ever committed by our elected officials deserves such action.
20 Stan // Nov 29, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Granite, you’re playing with us.
(1) Apuzzo had addressed well the matter of what the founding fathers must have had in mind when they affixed the specific term “natural born citizen” to the requirement for the presidency, and no other federal office.
(2) You keep citing what the Hawaii officials have said ABOUT a document. Whether they’re Republicans or Socialist Worker Party members or Nudists, the American people are still being forced to buy a pig in a poke for their presidency. That is not natural. That is unseemly. That is an insult, to both the office and the American people. And then his immediate Executive Order to put all of his records off limits – what’s going on?
Those Hawaii officials couched their comments in very curious, finely etched legalese. If they SAY his original birth certificate is on file, and he is ‘the real thing’, (a) that could depend on their interpretation of the definition of an NBC, or (b) Obama’s real father could posssibly not be who we have been led to believe he was, and Obama was adopted at birth, for various reasons known to his nominated maternal grandparents – in short, no one knows the full truth of this matter until his long-form, vault-copy bc is released for inspection. As for your contention that the COLB on his website is enough proof, all I can s ay is: (1) Maybe for you; and (2) You have to be kidding.
As for why the Republican Party officials have not dug into this matter deeper, and required that, eg, his passport file be opened for inspection because of serious questions about how he traveled to Pakistan, let alone how he applied for financial help to go to the various colleges, etc etc: Who knows. One answer: the fix is in at the top, and the two-party system in America is a fraud. I wouldn’t trust either of them as far as I could throw them. So bleating what ‘Republicans’ have had to say about this matter cuts no ice with me, friend. And I hope it doesn’t with a huge number of American citizens, who deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their president.
Something is being hidden from them. They have a right to standing in a court of law. Full stop.
21 JEAN MACALLISTER // Nov 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Jack Maskell simply said that the Constitution did not demand the showing of a birth certificate. He neatly sidestepped the requirement that the person be a natural born citizen according to the Constitution. There are many other records which can show the citizenship of a person, which is why Obama refuses to let us see them.
22 cs // Nov 29, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I am not PC so I will NEVER censor myself to be tolerant of idiots that are traitors, you communist left traitors need to be tolerant of me!! That said, to the leftist communists america haters in this country who are and have been dumbed down by “Cultural Marxism” by the communist infiltration of our school systems since the communist card carrying John Dewey and edward r murrow brought the commie scholars from the frankfurt school in germany being thrown out by Hitler to america! yes, these scum where vetted out by mccarthy, he should have been elavated to sainthood but instead Murrow ruined him as murrow was an accomplice to the crime!! this pig illegal community “agitator” is exactly what you liberal scum need NOT ME OR ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE, NATIONALIST, AMERICA FIRST, GOD FEARING PATRIOT WANT!!! WITH GODS JUDGMENT AND HELP HE WILL BE BROUGHT DOWN, TRIED, CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED!!! NOT ONLY FOR THIS FRAUD BUT FOR ALL THE TREASONOUS ACTS HE HAS PERPETRATED UPON US WITH THE DEMISE OF AMERICA AS HIS AGENDA AS WELL!!!
23 Liberalinator // Nov 29, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Granite, you are too ignorant to know just how ignorant you are. You rely on anecdote as proof of your chosen bias. I.E. you said: “If there were anything wrong with Obama’s selective service registration, it would have been found out by the McCain or Hillary campaigns.” If this proves anything at all it proves that you have an agenda you are pushing and it includes the protection of your messiah BO.
I have one for you: If Obama has nothing to hide then why has he spent over $2,000,000.00 to conceal all his records and his first act as usurper in chief was to draft an executive order in an attempt to further conceal what would clear all this up? ? ?
Two can play at this game. Your comment relies on a passive assertion with a brief moment in time and mine relies on a premeditated, belligerent and continuous act that requires many people to maintain. All the while the scum bag that is committing the act thumbs his nose at everyone while violating the oath he swore to uphold. BO is a lawless scumbag who violates the law, his oath, and common decency!
For anyone to excuse his behavior is to be complicit in his crimes.
BTW, if you accept that joke COLB as authentic I have some photocopied money I’m sure I could use to scam you out of everything you own!
See a doctor, you may be suffering from a severe case of cranial rectal impaction!
24 Clarke // Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Stan, you have hit several nails squarely on their heads, especially pointing out the Exec Order to safeguard BO’s secrets about his true background and allegiances.
Paul Hollrah, thank you so much for writing this piece. I have been arguing since before BO was elected that we weren’t vetting this guy properly and that he was not a natural-born citizen, regardless of where was born. Jack Maskel has certainly contributed to denying the American electorate Constitutional government.
Granite, it is certainly clear that you can be counted among those that believe our Constitution is no longer relevant to “modern society”. You can count me among those that believe our great experiment will fail if we do not return to our Constitution and the principles which underlie our limited federal government. To my mind failure is not an option. Not only is my liberty at stake as well as my son’s liberty, the foundation concept of creator-given individual rights is at risk from you and others of your ilk.
We have not seen the “Concord Bridge” event in this fight, not yet. When that clarifying event happens we will see the beginning of the end for those in this nation whom deny creator-given individual rights.
Kerchner may make to the Supreme Court which will address this current problem. In the mean time we need to make sure this never happens again. We also need to vet every single elected official that is in the line of succession for the Presidency, e.g. V.P., Speaker of the House, SecState, etc. In my opinion we need to make sure that all of these possible Presidents are born within US jurisdiction of two citizen parents. That excludes folks like Jindal (his mother (citizen of India) was four months pregnant when she and her Indian citizen husband legally arrived in the United States).
Thank you again, Paul. Great article.
25 AntiStatistHistorian // Nov 29, 2010 at 9:36 pm
YeahRight, thank you for pointing out that, as I have told anyone who would listen, Obama admitted in his own words that he was not a natural born citizen.
BCT, I also remember the O.J. trial. So, what’s next? Are you planning to ignite the next urban riot?
26 Russ Henry // Nov 29, 2010 at 9:59 pm
On what basis does one know Obama was born in 1961 and is 35 years old? He has not produced a birth certificate!
Also, he allegdly spent several years in Russia in his early thirties. Might he not lived in the US for fourteen years before being “elected”?
27 Russ Henry // Nov 29, 2010 at 10:00 pm
See Obama’s Mombasa, Kenya birth certificate on website: http://www.RevoltAgainstMarxism.com, OBAMA BIO Tab.
28 Paul // Nov 29, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Arguments referencing Black’s Law Dictionary or what Flimsey Graham had to say on the subject of BHO’s eligibility are extremely weak and essentially useless. The simple fact of the matter is this: Barrack Hussein Obama has all but admitted his guilt of fraud and malfeasance of the highest order as a result of his actions to prevent any of his personal data pertaining to matriculation and birth to be presented for examination.
The Certification of Live Birth document which BHO put up on the Internet in 2008 is by no means the same thing as a Certificate of Live Birth commonly referred to as a long form BC. The Certification of Live Birth, was allowed by Hawaii to be entered into the record for children born outside the United States regardless of parentage.
Obama’s matriculation records at Columbia and Harvard would easily confirm whether his enrollment application was as a foreign student. One can only assume that his order to keep those records sealed was issued to prevent the truth being known, i.e. that he did indeed apply as a foreign student. It is most likely that he is a citizen of Indonesia having never applied for naturalization.
It is also amazing that the article spoke at great length on the memo written by CRS legislative attorney, Maskell, as having been presented to the Congress on April 9, 2009 well after Congress voted to confirm the electoral college vote in January. Therefore said memo could not have been used as justification for voting to confirm. Maskell could hardly be held accountable by history under such circumstances for aiding and abetting a fraud.
It is indefensible to argue that children born to foreign parents, i.e. non-citizens, in the territorial U.S. are natural born citizens as the constitutional framers intended for the purpose of satisfying eligibility requirements for the office of POTUS. I fully agree that they, the framers, were hypersensitive to the notion that anyone with foreign connections/allegiance, as would be the case if one or both parents were foreign citizens, could not be depended upon to show unfailing loyalty to the United States of America. For a POTUS, loyalty would be paramount. We have clearly seen disloyalty repeatedly exhibited by Obama when he has traveled abroad and spoken to foreign audiences.
Nothing is being asked of Obama that is not asked of each of us on more than one occasion throughout our lives whenever there is a need to establish proof of our citizenship, i.e. a long form BC. Only recently I had to do that when renewing my driver’s license. The examiner purused the document with the obvious intent to ensure it’s authenticity.
LtCol Terrence Lakin (Army Flight Surgeon charged with failing to obey overseas deployment orders) was requested to bring with him his BC when reporting for deployment. He naturally thought it appropriate that the POTUS present his BC to prove his eligibility to issue orders as the CnC.
29 Granite // Nov 30, 2010 at 8:36 am
Re: “Arguments referencing Black’s Law Dictionary or what Flimsey Graham had to say on the subject of BHO’s eligibility are extremely weak and essentially useless..”
Answer: They are correct, as is Edwin Meese, RONALD REAGAN’S ATTORNEY GENERAL, who said:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
Re: “ The Certification of Live Birth document which BHO put up on the Internet in 2008 is by no means the same thing as a Certificate of Live Birth commonly referred to as a long form BC. “
Answer: No, you are right, it is not the same thing. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. The long-form birth certificate is no longer issued. Hawaii does not send out copies of it any more. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the long-form birth certificate since 2001, even to people who were born before 2001.
Re: “The Certification of Live Birth, was allowed by Hawaii to be entered into the record for children born outside the United States regardless of parentage.
Answer: When Obama was born that was not the case. The law that allowed this was enacted in 1982, more than twenty years after Obama was born. AND, even after the law going into effect, it DOES NOT allow the birth certificate to lie about the place of birth. Yes, it allows a Hawaii birth certificate to be issued to the children of residents who had their children in New Jersey or Tasmania, but the document would say: “Hawaii Certification—place of birth: New Jersey (or Tasmania).” Obama’s certification clearly says on it that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and that is the fact that the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed. There were a total of four Hawaii officials involved: the original clerk who filled in the form for the certification from the facts on the documents in the file, the two top officials of the department of health and the department of vital records, and the Republican governor of Hawaii. There is even a witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth at Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii (the same hospital mentioned by the governor).
Re: “ Obama’s matriculation records at Columbia and Harvard would easily confirm whether his enrollment application was as a foreign student.”
Answer: It wasn’t because he was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate shows. However, IF the matriculation records had said anything about foreign student status, they would have been leaked years ago. There are Republicans on the boards of both Columbia and Harvard.
Re: “It is indefensible to argue that children born to foreign parents, i.e. non-citizens, in the territorial U.S. are natural born citizens as the constitutional framers intended for the purpose of satisfying eligibility requirements for the office of POTUS. “
Answer: There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners or that they were lower-quality US citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.
Re; “if one or both parents were foreign citizens, could not be depended upon to show unfailing loyalty to the United States of America. “
Answer: Do you really believe that a US-born child of a foreigner is likely to be less loyal than a US-born child of a US citizen? If so, tell that to Justices Alito and Scalia, whose fathers were born in Italy. It is possible (though I have not seen any reports either way) that the justices’ fathers were naturalized before they were born. But, according to Italian law at the time they were dual citizens of Italy. Are they any less loyal? Do they think that they are any less loyal?
If not, would they think that Franklin or Hamilton or any of the writers of the Constitution would think that the US-born child of a foreign citizen would be less loyal than a US-born child of a US citizen, and NOT TELL US if they did. If they did believe that, then they certainly would have told us. But they didn’t say anything. That being the case, there is no evidence that they considered the US-born children of foreigners any less reliable than the US-born children of US citizens.
30 Granite // Nov 30, 2010 at 8:37 am
Re: “there is a need to establish proof of our citizenship, i.e. a long form BC. ”
Obama has published the official birth certificate, and the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the long-form to anyone, even persons born before the Certification became the official birth certificate.
31 Granite // Nov 30, 2010 at 8:39 am
Re: “See Obama’s Mombasa, Kenya birth certificate on website: ”
That is a proven forgery.
If a person were born in Kenya, she or he would need a US travel document to get to the USA. That would be either a US visa on a foreign passport or the change to his mother’s US passport to include him. One or the other would have had to have been applied for at a US Consulate in Kenya and granted before the child would be allowed to enter the USA.
If such a document existed, it would be easy to find because the records of the application for the visa or for the change to the mother’s passport would still be in the files of the US State Department, filed under applications for visas and applications for changes to passports in Kenya in 1961. The Republicans were in charge of the US State Department until January 2009. No such document has been found. No such document exists.
32 Tucker Jenkins // Nov 30, 2010 at 9:05 am
Are facts and reason all you have Granite? :)
33 Granite // Nov 30, 2010 at 9:07 am
Re: “If Obama has nothing to hide then why has he spent over $2,000,000.00…”
Answer: He hasn’t. He has already shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. There has never been a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate. Others, such as demands for college records, he has every right to oppose. In our system, you have to fight every lawsuit, no matter how stupid it is.
Re: ‘his first act as usurper in chief was to draft an executive order in an attempt to further conceal..”
Answer: The above statement is both factually inaccurate and stupid. It is factually inaccurate in that the executive order made in HARDER for presidents and former presidents to seal their records. The stupid part is in thinking that an executive order of a president applies to state records (remember states’ rights?) or to the records of colleges and universities. Those have a responsibility to keep records private under existing federal law, and the executive order does not affect this in any way.
34 LitlBits // Nov 30, 2010 at 10:00 am
What bloggers above have neglected is the little clause that says, “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” – which means that in order for one to be a natural born citizen, a child born in this country MUST be born to two CITIZENS of this country who are subject to the jurisdiction of this country.
the reader above who quotes Heritage Guide to the Constitution has, like most liberals, chosen to pick out phrases which support his views and ignore those which do not! The Founders specifically have said that dual citizenship makes one ineligible because serving in that Highest Office in this country means one MUST have undivided loyalties!
You cannot pick and choose phrases to support your argument…in order to learn TRUTH – something which far too many are ignoring these days – one must READ AND RESEARCH all pertinent information!
It is because our schools have intentionally dumbed-down our kids that now people don’t know how to think for themselves….they have no idea how to dig for truth – because the schools teach them WHAT to think – and not HOW to think! If you have a brain, then use it! STOP TOEING THE LIBERAL (can you say Communist) line! I recall Kruschev stating with pride that they (the Communists) would take over this country from within – and, because of teachers’ unions and our public schools, they are succeeding!
GO BACK TO THE BASICS…The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are NOT difficult to understand IF YOU ALLOW YOUR BRAIN TO BE OPEN TO THE TRUTH!
35 Granite // Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59 am
Re: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” – which means that in order for one to be a natural born citizen, a child born in this country MUST be born to two CITIZENS of this country who are subject to the jurisdiction of this country.”
Answer: The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the laws of the USA. Everyone IN the USA, except foreign diplomats (who have special diplomatic immunity) is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Edwin Meese was Ronald Regan’s attorney general, and he was right when he said:
““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
Re: “The Founders specifically have said that dual citizenship makes one ineligible because serving in that Highest Office in this country means one MUST have undivided loyalties!”
Answer: They never said a word about dual citizenship (and Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual citizen, having been made a full voting citizen of France). Nor did they say a word about undivided loyalties. There is evidence that they believed that allegiance to a country comes ONLY from the place of birth:
Madison said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
Re: “READ AND RESEARCH all pertinent information!”
Answer: Not a single writer of the original constitution ever said that the president should have two citizen parents or that his father should be a citizen or that the US-born children of foreigners are not US citizens or that the US-born children of foreigners are not as good citizens as the US-born children of US citizens. Indeed, they had written in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
The two-parent theory implies that they really thought that the US-born children of foreigners are not equal to the US-born children of US citizens. If they had thought that, they would certainly have told us, and they didn’t.
Re; “and the Federalist Papers…”
Answer: There is not a word about two US citizen parents being required in the Federalist Papers, nor does it ever mention Vattel. It does mention the Common Law about twenty times, and under the common law, the meaning of Natural Born referred only to the place of birth.
36 Byron Pershall // Nov 30, 2010 at 11:34 am
We’re getting pumped up now. Cs love your passion. Remember folks this isn’t Greece or Spain. Picture beck’s T-Party times ten armed. We are Americans and when it gets right down to it, men like cs and ten million more like him armed (thats a pretty large ground force ey?) will not entertain despotism!
37 Byron Pershall // Nov 30, 2010 at 11:55 am
Furthermore, In the earliest law governing this republic before it was a republic, the founders made it law that the children of the republic have not only the right, but the duty by law to ‘throw off’ despots. It’s the law people. Its too bad that it landed on our generation but by law we must throw off this government. Bob, do you think the secret service reads you sight and will be paying me a visit. Isn’t it telling that that thought even has to cross my mind.
38 Observer // Nov 30, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Granite has hit the nail on the head. Repeatedly.
There is very little to add, but these points are noted.
The guest poster writes: “At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789, every citizen of the thirteen States of the United States was a citizen of the United States.”
Don’t think that is right.
The United States began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence, not in 1789.
By the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, United States citizenship was recognized by Britain: “Article 7: There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease.”
Also, it is written: “But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years.” Wrong again. Even the King recognized in 1783 that Washington was a U.S. citizen, so he could not have been the King’s subject for all his 57 years.
And did it really happen that “after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell”?
Very doubtful.
The electors were counted in December 2008.
The memo was not issued until April 2009
39 Paul H. // Nov 30, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Bob McCarty has invited me to “weigh in” on some of the responses to my “Jack Maskell Memorandum” piece published on his blog.
Just a few comments because I’m very right doing the research to show that Sarah Palin, in 2008, was far more qualified for the presidency than was Barack Obama.
To Foggy and Paul: I think you quote me out of context when you point out that the members of Congress, when they certified the votes of the Electoral College on January 6, could not have relied on a memorandum writen by Maskell three months later. That is certainly true, and I will admit to being misleading in that regard, However, in the very next paragraph I explain how members of Congress have hidden behind that memorandum ever since. I wrote:
“That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.
“In the days immediately following Barack Obama’s unlikely election in November 2008, members of Congress began flooding the CRS with questions about Obama’s eligibility. Jack Maskell, a CRS Legislative Attorney drew the “short straw” and was assigned to provide members of Congress with legal cover.”
To Observer: I believe you msiquote me. You quote me as saying that, “At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787, every citizen of the thirteen States of the United States was a citizen of the United States.”
That is not what I wrote. If you will reread the article you will find that I said, “At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country.”
This is to say that, the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist. But the day after the adoption they were suddenly citizens of the U.S. and, I might add, dual citizens.
That is precisely why they added the language
“or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…” It is a backhanded way of saying that anyone with dual citizenship cannot be, by definition, a “natural born” citizen.
To Granite: You have quoted both Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham on their definition of a “natural born” citizen. I would suggest to you that, when they had a chance to vote on the question, they voted quite differently.
Some historical perspective on the question:
Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
What does this tell us? It tells us just how concerned the Founders were that a man with divided loyalties, a dual citizen, shouod ever become president.
In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a natural born citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?
In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the “tin foil hat” brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue. In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”
This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0. The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.
Barack Obama does not meet that criterion.
40 Liberalinator // Nov 30, 2010 at 10:54 pm
To “granite”: Obama NEVER published/supplied anything for anyone to as you REPEATEDLY state in your diatribes. They were posted without legitimate authority.
Nothing was confirmed by anyone in a definitive legitimate way. They hint at it and beat around the obama on the issue. There is a simple way to prove the issue, SHOW THE LONG FORM YOURSELF OBAMA! That would settle the whole issue and none of us would have to investigate it.
Granite, you will spend hours defending the indefensible! Obummer would show the docs if he had integrity and cared about this country, the rule of law, and the oath he swore. Obummer couldn’t care less about this country, in fact, he hates this country and wants to destroy it. He is a foreigner in birth, mind, ideology, and policy. You defend a traitor and you know it because you are a traitor as well. You disdain everything America stands for and applaud anyone else who feels the same.
If you had integrity your wouldn’t argue why Obummer should keep antagonizing the situation and lie saying decptive things like “should I go around with my birth certificate on my forehead?” when he hasn’t shown it even once!
You say the Kenyan birth cert is a proven forgery? So was that COLB you claim proves Obummer is legitimate!
You twist law and anecdote into absurdity!
You claim states’ rights are absolute! BS! Then why does the fed tell states that their FFA legislation is of no effect and fed gun laws still apply. Pull your head out you propagandist! States’ rights don’t mean squat when the fed perverts the interstate commerce clause into absurdity almost as bad as you twist the law.
Once again the solution to this issue: SHOW THE LONG FORM YOURSELF OBAMA!
End of story, until the arrest for being an illegal alien usurper happens!
Birds of a feather flock together; so keep defending the other members of your murder you crow!
41 Liberalinator // Nov 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Template that granite uses:
Answer: Blah, blah, blah you are wrong!
Answer: Blah, blah, blah that was proven wrong!
Answer: Blah, blah, blah (insert the findings that you agree with and ignore the findings that contradict), see I am right!
Answer: Blah, blah, blah, (insert a denial of the existence of something contained within writings you never read thus requiring anyone attempting to disprove you to go read that which you insinuate you have read but haven’t), see I am an authority and you are wrong!
Answer: Blah, blah, blah (make a statement of pure unsubstantiated opinion as though it were irrefutable fact), see you are wrong again!
nswer: Blah, blah, blah (just say anything you have to say to protect the master and his scheme to keep anyone from knowing the truth), see you are wrong again!
Good job, now go drink more Kool-Aid!
42 The memo that changed America « The Radio Patriot // Nov 30, 2010 at 11:47 pm
[...] McCarty’s guest blogger Paul Hollrah has written a piece worthy of your inspection. It has to do with a memo that literally and figuratively changed the [...]
43 Tucker Jenkins // Dec 1, 2010 at 4:31 am
“Granite has hit the nail on the head. Repeatedly.”
True.
Granite, I agree with you, but you could spend from now until eternity trying to find the right form of words to change peoples minds here on this issue.
The evidence is there for those who want to consider it.
44 Tucker Jenkins // Dec 1, 2010 at 7:30 am
Paul H. There has been a lot written in this thread and I would like to get your argument straight in my mind. Reading your last comment (no 39), is it fair to say that you think Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not an American citizen?
45 Tucker Jenkins // Dec 1, 2010 at 9:12 am
Paul, three of the references you quote (the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution), emphasize the importance of parentage because they directly address Senator McCains eligibility to be president. They would therefore not discuss where he was born in order to prove he was eligible because he wasn’t born in the U.S. so that wouldn’t be very relevant to the argument.
That leaves the Bingham quote that relates to the citizenship of slaves. I hope we can agree that things have moved on since that was written, and that President Obama was not born a slave. I recommend anyone interested follows up Granites reference to “jus soli” (“right of the soil”), which is the relevant principle in law here.
46 Observer // Dec 1, 2010 at 9:15 am
Hollrath wrote: “To Observer: I believe you msiquote me. You quote me as saying that, “At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787, every citizen of the thirteen States of the United States was a citizen of the United States.”
That is not what I wrote. If you will reread the article you will find that I said, “At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country.”
This is to say that, the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist. But the day after the adoption they were suddenly citizens of the U.S. and, I might add, dual citizens.
Let’s try again.
Let me correct my posting.
Paul Hollrah wrote: “At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country.”
That is what he correctly states that he wrote.
That statement is historically incorrect.
At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789, every citizen of the thirteen States of the United States was a citizen of the United States, not a British subject, nor a citizen of some other country. Those are the historical facts.
The poster repeats the error when he states “the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist.”
That is absurd. The United States existed on the day before the adoption and on the day after.
Read the Constitution. The very first words are “We the People of the United States….”
The United States of America had existed since July 4, 1776, the date of the Declaration of Independence. Read it. The new nation sent and received ambassadors, signed a treaty with France, and waged the War of Independence, won it, and signed the Treaty of Paris with Britain. That Treaty recognized the independent nation that had existed since 1776 and its citizens.
The United States did in fact exist the day before the adoption of the Constitution. The citizens of the United States did not create a county when they adopted the Constitution, but instead adopted a new national government for that country.
The poster persists in his ignorance of elementary facts of American history, and cannot even distinguish between the Declaration and the Constitution. Since most of the essay is based on this incredible historical error, its conclusions must and do come to an erroneous end.
Once again, does the commenter really believe that “the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist”?
There were no “colonies” on the day before the adoption.
There were thirteen “States.”
The United States of America.
47 Observer // Dec 1, 2010 at 9:27 am
Paul H. wrote: “Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”
This statement is torn out of context. The lawyers were addressing the question of a candidate like McCain who was born outside the 50 States. They concluded that McCain was natural born because of his citizen parents.
This statement had no application to a person born in the United States itself, because all persons born in the U.S., subject to its jurisdiction, are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Read the memo itself. It says “And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”
When the entire memo is read, it give absolutely no support to the thesis.
48 Observer // Dec 1, 2010 at 10:01 am
Paul H wrote: “In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: ‘Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.’”
This statements is also taken out of context. It was made during debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and tracks the language of that Act. It was not made during the debate months later on the Fourteenth Amendment, which had different language.
In any event, it does not support the author Paul H’s thesis.
All persons who are within the United States, other than diplomats or hostile occupying military forces, owe allegiance to the United States, in the sense that they must not war against it or give aid or assistance to its enemies. All of their children born here also owe allegiance to the U.S. All infants born in the US owe allegiance to the US, just as under the common law all infants born within the realm of the King owed allegiance to the King, in return for the King’s protection.
Bingham’s statement in fact supports the principle that all persons born in the US are citizens at birth.
Still waiting for a discussion of how the United States did not exist on the day before adoption of the Constitution.
Would have been a big surprise to all who served in the government of the United States of Americanunder the Articles of Confederation.
49 Tucker Jenkins // Dec 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
“Still waiting for a discussion of how the United States did not exist on the day before adoption of the Constitution.
Would have been a big surprise to all who served in the government of the United States of American under the Articles of Confederation.”
Ouch!
I guess the clue should have been the name “United States Declaration of Independence”.
50 Observer // Dec 1, 2010 at 10:44 am
Paul H wants to shed “Some historical perspective on the question:
“Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, ‘These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?’
“What does this tell us? It tells us just how concerned the Founders were that a man with divided loyalties, a dual citizen, shouod ever become president.”
This is a ridiculous misuse of Hamilton’s views.
First, the quotation says nothing about natural born citizen and did not address that Clause.
Second, Hamilton did in fact propose the ideas that became the natural born citizen clause: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”
This was his real view. Anyone who was “born” as a citizen would be eligible. This is the policy that was embodied in the Constitution. That is exactly the conclusion of the CRS memo.
The policy excluded naturalized citizens, in order to prevent foreign powers from raising a creature of their own to the Presidency, as Hamilton warned in the Federalist. At the time the Constitution was drafted, many feared that the republic was in danger and that a foreign prince would be sought to lead it. Some of King George’s sons were ready for the role. The citizen by birth requirement prevented a future Congress from naturalizing a foreign prince, general or other leader and letting him lead the country. That was the purpose, just as Jay warned Washington.
It is truly a miscarriage of history to quote Hamilton, an immigrant himself, to support the crank constitutional theory that a natural born citizen must be born to two citizen parents.
51 Observer // Dec 1, 2010 at 10:49 am
Beginning of history lesson for Paul H:
“Articles of Confederation
“ARTICLE I
“The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.
“DONE at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennfylvania, the 9th day of July, in the Year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of America.
“The aforefaid articles of confederation were finally ratified on the firft day of March 1781; the state of Maryland having, by their Members in Congrefs, on that day acceded thereto, and completed the fame.”
I hope this corrects the misconception that “the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist.”
The U.S.A. was real — and it was spectacular!
End of history lesson.
52 Granite // Dec 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Re: ” Obama NEVER published/supplied anything for anyone to as you REPEATEDLY state in your diatribes. They were posted without legitimate authority.”
Answer: Who says? Obama’s Certification of Live Birth was posted on his campaign web site, and the physical copy of it was given to both FactCheck and Politifact, who also posted copies. The Factcheck copy is a detailed image, showing both the front and back.
Re: “Nothing was confirmed by anyone in a definitive legitimate way. ”
Answer: You are either poorly informed or delusional.
Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Re: ” Obummer would show the docs…”
Answer: Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only birth certificate that Hawaii has sent out since 2001. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the long-form birth certificate, and has not done so since 2001.
Re: “He is a foreigner in birth…”
Answer: Obama was born in Hawaii as his official birth certificate shows, and as the repeated confirmations of the Republican officials and Republican governor verify.
Re: So was “the COLB you claim proves Obummer is legitimate” being allegedly forged.
Answer; Only two guys who would not give their real names have claimed that it was forged. The McCain campaign looked into the allegation of forgery as it looked into the allegation of birth in Kenya, and found them both false.
Re: “You claim states’ rights are absolute! BS! Then why does the fed tell states that their FFA legislation is of no effect and fed gun laws still apply. ”
Answer: The difference is between a presidential executive order and a law. If there is a federal law, in some cases (not all by any means), it has more power than states laws. But a president’s executive order has no power over a state’s law AT ALL.
Re: “SHOW THE LONG FORM YOURSELF OBAMA!’
Answer: He does not have it because Hawaii did not send it to him. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the long-form birth certificate ever since the short-form birth certificate became the official birth certificate in 2001.
53 Granite // Dec 1, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Re: ““What does this tell us? It tells us just how concerned the Founders were that a man with divided loyalties, a dual citizen, shouod ever become president.”
Observer has answered this well. In addition, there is reason to believe that the writers of the Constitution did not believe in divided loyalties. They were concerned about barring loyalties to foreign countries and that the president should have loyalty to the USA, but they apparently did not believe in divided loyalties.
They followed Blackstone, who wrote that the idea of a divided allegiance was absurd, that a person could have only one allegiance, and that was to the country that was the place of her or his birth. Madison confirmed this when he wrote that there was only one criterion of allegiance in the USA, the place of birth:
‘It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
As you can see, parentage and place are criteria of allegiance, but place is the most certain and it is the only criterion that Madison says applies in the USA. This shows that Madison certainly did not think that two criteria had to apply, that a person required both citizen parents and birth in the country, since he says that only one of them apply. Moreover, even dual nationality does not affect the single criterion of allegiance, the place of birth.
In any case, there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel on the two-parent theory. Vattel was not even mentioned in the Federalist papers. Believing that the writers of the Constitution thought that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents requires you to believe that they thought that a US-born child of US citizens should have more rights because she or he was more to be trusted than the US-born child of foreigners. The writers of the Constitution never said any such thing.
54 Granite // Dec 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Re: “To Granite: You have quoted both Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham on their definition of a “natural born” citizen. I would suggest to you that, when they had a chance to vote on the question, they voted quite differently.’
Answer: They voted to confirm Obama’s election, like every other member of Congress.
55 Observer // Dec 1, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Granite wrote: “In any case, there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel on the two-parent theory.”
Right.
The English translation of Vattel that used the phrase “natural born citizens” was not even published until 1797, ten years after the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America, not in the colony of Pennsylvania.
If the framers had desired to use Vattel’s definition, they would have had to write that no person except an indigene of the Unites States may be President.
Can’t find that in the Constitution.
56 Paul H. // Dec 1, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Tucker Jenkins:
Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen precisely because his father was not an American citizen, but a Lou tribesman from Kenya. However, the place of his birth, as in the case of John McCain is seconday, if not irrelevant.
Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British colony. Let’s just accept that as true.
However, Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on British citizenship, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”
Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British law, it is clear that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother. However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain on December 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect.
Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows: “(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. (Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.)
“(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
In other words, on December 12, 1963, Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship and became, by automatic operation of Kenyan law, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. However, Kenyan dual citizenship had its limits. Chapter VI, Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows:
“(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
Subsection (7), referenced above, gave the Kenyan parliament the option to provide a grace period during which dual citizens could make their election of nationality after reaching age twenty-one. Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenships; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father. There is no evidence that he ever took steps to renounce either his British or his Kenyan citizenship.
The only way we will ever satisfy Granite and Observer on this issue is to allow the SCOTUS to sort it all out, but that will not happen because one person… Obama… will not allow it.
Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and cannot be President of the United States any more than I can become Pope of the Roman Catholic Church because I am not a Catholic. I can claim that I am the Pope, just as Obama claims to be POTUS, but he is not.
Who do we have to blame for this constitutional crisis? We have the Democrat Party and the Democrat electors to blame because they were so anxious to regain the power of the White House that they would have voted for a yellow dog if he had been on the ticket.
Shame on all of them.
57 American Citizens’ Demand for Justice Against the Overthrow of the U.S. Constitution| The Post & Email // May 31, 2011 at 9:47 pm
[...] http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/; [...]
58 Smoking gun - birth certificate is a fraud! - Page 79 - Christian Forums // Jun 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm
[...] Hussein Obama prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the office of U.S. President. http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/; [...]
59 American Citizens’ Demand for Justice Against the Overthrow of the U.S. Constitution « THE WAKING GIANT // Jun 9, 2011 at 6:12 pm
[...] http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/; [...]
60 Climbing the summit « bobsbox // Jul 14, 2011 at 1:37 pm
[...] the only thing we ever receive. And, most all of those responses are nothing but a regurgitation of Jack Maskell‘s unconstitutional vomit. Of course, one must realize that the process of sending out [...]
61 Jack Maskill is a Liar: More on the fraudulent Congressional Research Service Presidential Eligibility Memo // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:01 am
[...] http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/ [...]