"Natural Born" Requirement Called Stupid

And so it begins folks, now they will attack the "Natural Born' requirement for a person to become President that is addressed in Article II of the US Constitution as evidenced by this report from WorldNet Daily:

A lawyer in a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then Sen. Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution' s requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American, " "blatantly discriminatory, " and the "Constitution' s worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."


"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.

"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.


She blamed support for the constitutional provision on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."

Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"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," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.


Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."

It looks like Obama's camp looked into the matter of 'natural born' back as early as 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of: 'If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!

Hawaiian Hospitals: Obama Not Born Here

A few months ago it was claimed that Obama's mother gave birth to him at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu.

After it was discovered that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister, Mary, claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. According to that hospital, Obama was not born there.

Hospital after hospital in Honolulu have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there.

All of these hospitals were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County!

The Queen's Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
Kapi' olani Medical Center Obama's sister claims Barack Obama born here
Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Obama's family and the entire nation of Kenya,which is about to have a national holiday for Obama,know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!

Read More Here

Constitutional Lawyer: Ramifications Of Obama BC Controversy

The Bulletin, A Philadelphia newspaper, published an article today quoting Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, on the question of whether or not Obama is a natural born US citizen.

Mr. Vieira states that if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."


Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Mr. Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."


Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama's platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."


Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama's continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

"If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said 'no,' I would tell him, 'you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I'm resigning as your attorney," said Mr. Vieira. "I don't think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so]."


Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading," the ruling reads. "We cannot condone this shocking conduct ... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."


Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

"[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there," said Mr. Vieira. "What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"


Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.

"If you don't produce it, you think it's going to go away," he said. "There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing."


Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.

"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' "


Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.

Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document's veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.

"I can't believe I'm the only lawyer who would think of this," said Mr. Vieira. "I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, 'yes, there it is.' And therefore they're caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying 'no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail' then that's the end of the Obama administration's legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it's not there, then that's really the end of the administration's legitimacy."