From the beginning,
Obama, and those around him, knew that he was ineligible for the presidency as proven by a paper written by an associate
in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on the finance
committee for then Sen. Barack Obama. In the paper,
Sarah P. Herlihy
, advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's
requirement that a president is be a "natural-born" citizen,
calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates,
is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper is dated 2/22/2006 by Herlihy, just two years after Obama
was sworn in to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is
listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.
Kirkland, through its employees, was a top 20 contributor to
Barack Obama in 2008.
A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his
membership on the Sen. Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin finance
committees on the corporate website.
presents a "Globalist" perspective and was widely disseminated
on the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign as rumors
surfaced that Obama and possibly McCain did not meet the
"natural born" citizen requirement laid out in Article II,
Section 1, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution.
The article’s opening assertion is
that several "constitutional scholars" considered Article II,
Section 1, paragraph 5 "blatantly discriminatory" and "the
stupidest provision" of the U.S. Constitution. Herlihy
argues that the "natural born Citizen" clause should be
"amended," although she also uses the word "repealed" (2).
A constitutional provision is not "repealed;" it is changed by a
constitutional amendment requiring approval by two-thirds of the
Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures.
the same paragraph, Herlihy writes, "Although some of the
reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are
rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion"
(3). However, she fails to describe what those latter
"reasons" are, their origin, nor her claim of their basis in
"emotion." Rather, she maintains that "globalization" and
the fact that several prominent politicians such as Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Madeleine Albright cannot serve as president
due to their foreign births were reasons to amend the
Constitution (4). On the following page, the author
contends that "abolishing the natural born citizen requirement"
is "more necessary than ever," using the word "abolishing" twice
in the same sentence (5).
So in barely two pages, Ms.
Herlihy calls the "natural born" requirement "outdated and
undemocratic" and claims that it "incorrectly assumes that
birthplace is a proxy for loyalty" while citing no cogent
examples to support her statements. No other instances of
countries with foreign-born rulers or presidents are provided.
She also uses the terms "democratic," "undemocratic," and
"democracy" throughout the 26-page essay (6) to describe our
form of government, never once acknowledging that the Framers
established "a Republic," not a democracy. The
inaccuracies, repetitions and circular arguments presented in
the paper reveal either a high degree of ignorance of how our
government is supposed to work or an outright plan to subvert
Herlihy goes so far as to compare the natural
born Citizen clause to a social issue such as abortion when she
states: "In a country divided by race, religion, abortion, and
countless other issues, an unjustifiable distinction based on a
person’s place of birth merely contributes to the internal
divisions that already pervade America" (12). One of the
sources used to bolster her arguments on this page is an
editorial entitled "A More Perfect Democracy: Why Not a
Naturalized Citizen for President?" from the Dallas Morning News
(13). Another citation is from Wikipedia (14).
author also makes a statement which has resurfaced repeatedly
since the 2008 presidential election: "It is an unfortunate
truth that many Americans are racist" (15). Now why did
she mention that? Could it have been that her candidate of
choice for the next presidential election was a different race
from past presidents? She then paints the picture of
exactly how Obama and his operatives ran his campaign: "…black
candidates rarely generate enough votes to be elected, and
researchers believe that this is primarily because white voters
are reluctant to vote for a black candidate. This
reluctance…may cause voters to oppose amending the natural born
citizen clause because they fear that this is a first step
toward having someone who is not white occupying the White
House" (16). Astoundingly, Ms. Herlihy goes on to say,
"Although it is doubtful today that Americans would have much to
say if a Catholic was running for President, religion would
likely be a central issue if a Muslim were to run for the
highest office in America" (17).
The race card was played
continuously throughout Obama’s campaign, as anyone who opposed
him was automatically labeled a racist. Even worse,
Obama’s ties to Islam were obscured and dismissed by a complicit
media, and Obama himself lied about his relationship with the
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Trinity United Church of Christ,
and that organization’s own belief in Black Liberation Theology,
which is based on Marxism and has strong ties to Islam.
Written in 2006, how could Herlihy’s statements possibly be a
coincidence? How could she have known that someone "not
white," with a foreign background and ties to countries and a
religion which had perpetrated the worst attack on U.S. soil
since Pearl Harbor, might run for president? Why did she
mention "Muslim" in her paper? Why not Hindu, or atheist,
or Seventh-Day Adventist?
Herlihy cites a USA
Today/CNN/Gallup poll taken in November 2004 in which "only 31%
of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish
the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an
amendment" (17). While the poll is presumed accurate, Ms.
Herlihy did apparently not investigate the respondents’ reasons
for their opinions, so it is impossible to judge whether or not
those reasons were "based on emotion."
unsupported claim is "For a provision that excludes millions of
Americans from having the opportunity to become the next
American president, the natural born citizen requirement was
added to the Constitution with surprisingly little fanfare"
(18). Herlihy does not rationally mention, however, that at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution, the entire country did
not contain "millions of Americans." She completely omits the
fact that at that time, the colonies consisted of a few hundred
thousand people, and the Founding Fathers could never have known
the extent and breadth to which the United States of America
Herlihy practically predicts the situation in
which we now find ourselves: "…considering that the Founding
Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in
the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the
current stability of the American government and the intense
media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates
the possibility of a "foreigner" coming to America, becoming a
naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become
president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit
his homeland" (19). Her argument makes no sense because earlier
in the essay, she advocates exactly that scenario in the name of
non-discrimination. She states at the outset that naturalized
citizens should be able to become president, so why is she now
saying that the above scenario is almost impossible?
it really a coincidence that the author of this article now
works for a firm with ties to Barack H. Obama?
examples of what makes a "good American" show an astounding lack
of maturity in her writing. On page 283, her example of what a
"loyal" American might be is exemplified by Tom Hanks, and she
suggests that many people might find Martin Sheen "un-American
or disloyal because of his political views" (20). Then she
states that both are "natural born Americans" to make her
argument that even though both were born on American soil, one
might be considered a bad candidate for president. However, she
fails to mention any of the qualities that would actually be
possessed by a "good" president: honesty, integrity, and sole
allegiance to the United States of America.
On page 284,
the author refers to the United States as "a representative
democracy, where American voters vote for the candidate that
they choose. Currently, Americans cannot do that" (21). In other
words, no eligibility criteria should exist in this author’s
mind. Susan Bysiewicz, attempting to usurp the office of the
Connecticut Attorney General, feels the same way.
seems evident from this lengthy, poorly-written, reiterative
piece that the author was making an effort to convince her
audience that Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 should be
changed. The reasons she cites as compelling are
constitutionally unsound and clearly seek to undermine United
A Portent of Things to Come?
More seriously, Herlihy’s paper might be evidence of the
conspiracy that placed Obama in the White House without the
"intense public scrutiny" to which she frequently refers. On
page 289, under the subheading "Fear of Foreigners," she states,
and this is chilling:
Although people arguing against a
Constitutional amendment do not typically admit that they oppose
abolishing the natural born citizen requirement because they are
afraid that a naturalized citizen might actually be working for
a foreign government, the fear of foreigners amongst Americans
has increased in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Similar
to the fears that the Founding Fathers felt and the fear that
John Jay mentioned in his letter to George Washington, the
possibility that a foreigner will come in and somehow "take
over" America continues to exist in America, albeit in a
slightly different form. Although it seems unlikely and has even
been called ludicrous that a foreign power would conspire to
place someone with foreign allegiances in the White House, some
Americans more legitimately fear that a naturalized citizen will
somehow try to change America by promoting his own culture to
the exclusion of others" (22).
Without having surveyed
Americans herself, how could Herlihy have presupposed these
things? How could she have known that Americans were "afraid" of
a foreigner usurping the presidency at that time? Had it really
been on anyone’s mind before the 2008 election? Her circular
argument about why foreigners should not be trusted with the
presidency comes full circle when she illogically states, "the
truth is that many people simply distrust foreigners."
Since the essay contains very little factual information, it can
only be concluded that its purpose was to float the idea of a
foreign-born president to gauge the public’s reaction. The
scenario of a "foreign power" commandeering a presidential
election was not on most people’s minds in 2006. How, then, did
Herlihy ever come up with this idea?
If one uses the simple inferential rule of forensic
investigations, namely, that hoodlums never fear but what they
believe to be the truth, Herlihy’s "fears" in 2006 and her
connections to Obama through her law firm would tend to give
credence to the inference that Obama’s colleagues in law
believed in 2006 that he was a foreigner and thus ineligible to
be president, or at least that he’d be seen as such if he ran.
Given that Obama is a British citizen, that is understandable;
seeing that it appears he and his co-grandmother claimed he was
born in Mombassa, Kenya, that might have more to do with it.
Obama has still refused to answer Congressman Nathan Deal’s
request for his birth certificate and other documentation
requested in early December 2009, and there remains much
evidence that Obama is a foreign national.
The Post &
Email covered the foreign influences of George Soros on the
Obama campaign in detail here. Also having covered the
resurgence of the Students for a Democratic Society in a recent
article, it is interesting to note that none other than Barack
Obama was a speaker at the second annual conference of "Campus
Progress," the "modern-day equivalent" of the SDS, whose foreign
communist influences were well-documented.
(1) "Amending the Natural Born Citizen
Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle" by
Sarah P. Herlihy, The Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 81:275, Feb.
22, 2006, p. 275.
(2) Ibid, p. 276, para. 2.
(4) Ibid, page 276, para. 1.
(5) Ibid, p.
277, para. 1.
(6) Ibid, pp. 279, 284, 285, 286, 296.
(7) Ibid, p. 277, para. 3.
(8) Ibid, p. 277
(9) Ibid, p. 277, para. 4.
(10) Ibid, p. 276, para. 1.
(11) Ibid, p. 275, para. 3.
(12) Ibid, p. 281, para.
(13) Ibid, p. 281.
(14) Ibid, p. 283.
(15) Ibid, p. 294, para. 2.
p. 295, para. 1.
(18) Ibid, p. 277, para. 2.
Ibid, p. 282, para. 3
(20) Ibid, p. 283, para. 2.
(21) Ibid, p. 284, para. 2.
(22) Ibid, p. 289.