On February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known
as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The
bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).
Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1,
clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the
requirements of being a "natural born citizen" and hence; the entitlement to
run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that
similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such
The Natural Born Citizen Act were
known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a
shadow-cached copy left, that only
the most curious public can find.
Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and
legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II,
section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers
and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:
I find no fault with
the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what
is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a
natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham
in the United States House on March 9, 1866
From the days of
James Madison to the present, the
courts have held that the amendment process be justifiable in accordance
with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that
what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.
Within only five short weeks after Senate
Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again,
making another attempt with
Senate Resolution 511. On April 10,
2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding
resolution, recognizing John McCain as a "natural born citizen" in defiance
of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors,
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
"With questions -- however serious -- about whether Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born
outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy,
D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen.
Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution
expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a
"natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and eligible
for the highest office in the land.
Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and
Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass
One has to wonder -- what dire urgency could
there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate
into being a "natural born citizen?" Certainly providing a birth certificate
and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these
candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when
obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there
two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue,
twice, who were in direct competition with
John McCain in the 2008 election?
answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals
he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his
long-form at all. John McCain was born in an "unincorporated territory",
held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional
purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but
Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that
occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was
Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs
at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a
natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of
birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be
declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble,
cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to
While Senate Bill
2678 fell to the wayside,
Senate Resolution 511 was passed
on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However,
S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather,
a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve
written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened
yet; the push to
change our Constitution.
World Net Daily reported on
November 13, 2008:
More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been
filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack
Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector
meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.
An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints
"All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,"
she said. "There have been several lawsuits, but they have been
Perhaps someone should have informed
Obama’s spokeswoman that
many of these cases have not been
dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact,
Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer
from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of
fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of
THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.
Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest
could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her
proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or
rather a political one?
"In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack
Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential
elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She
has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign. McCaskill’s
support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in
February, 2008. She had been frequently
mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the
2008 run for the White House…"
So what we see is a definite political motive being
dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008
candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there
would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.
political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor,
Matt Blunt revealed that Sen.
McCaskill was involved in the "abusive use of
Missouri Law Enforcement". This was dubbed as the
"Truth Squad" during the election campaign by the media. The
Truth Squad was comprised of
Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri
and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they
engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also
issued cease and desist letters to
media station managers who carried
advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted
this response from Governor Blunt:
"Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator
Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the
Obama-Biden campaign. What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is
scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas
Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to
silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal
Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is
every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving
Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the
Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically
motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it
didn’t stop there.
Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the
Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen.
Theodore Olson and
Laurence Tribe -- both of whom are
extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R.
So controversial was that legal opinion,
that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor
Gabriel J. Chin of The University
of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14
Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out
implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in
fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the
suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen.
McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied
Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared "Fairness
Doctrine", the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the
intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding
resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with false facts. S.R.
511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as
Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said
resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from
The public responded, initially by way of
lawsuits contesting the eligibility
of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing
them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally
ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the
internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own
explosion of blogs, forums,
websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the
main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only
served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as
deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.
However, the greater proof is in the
activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from
the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be
unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks
to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than
trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our
Constitution, these representatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit
to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their
own political self-interests.
Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme
Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these
records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far
been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has
only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it