The above is a must read article by Sharon Rondeau at ThePostEmail.com. And the question that first popped in my mind when I saw this AP story in the Business Section of my local newspaper was … why now? First: Why is YouTube doing this now. Second: Why did the Associated Press decide to pump out a nationwide news story with Birtherism in the headline? In my opinion, the social engineers who manipulate public opinion are afraid of something going on in the background that is not being reported by the main stream media and are out and about on the eligibility and birther issues to try and keep the beach ball of persistent questions and the truth on those two issues suppressed and submerged below the water surface of public opinion. What is wrong about questioning the constitutional eligibility of a political candidate? What is happening to political free speech in our country?
(Jun. 25, 2019) — One of the Democrat wanna-be candidates yearning for the opportunity to get bludgeoned by President Trump in the 2020 general election is Sen. Kamala Harris. You will recall from her classless performance in the now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, she believes that the mere allegation of a crime – and particularly a sexual assault crime – is sufficient to warrant a conclusion of guilt in the alleged perpetrator.
Due process and the presumption of innocence – let alone actual proof or competent evidence of the actual commission of a crime – are principles of law which are foreign to Democrats in general, and seemingly altogether alien to Ms. Harris in particular. Interesting trait in a lawyer…, no?
These circumstances make it all the more ironic and hypocritical – par for the course with Democrats, of course – that Harris, a former San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General, would now claim that, because of her “prosecutorial” experience, she is the best situated candidate among the Democrat field to “go after Trump” once she is elected to the presidency. She has even analogized her zeal to pursue President Trump with a reference to a “rap” sheet concocted against the president.
But here’s the juicy part: she recently promised a crowd of supporters in South Carolina that she would “prosecute the case against Trump on the debate stage” prior to the election, if she were the Democrats’ nominee. Please…, please…, D’s…, nominate her and put her on stage next to Trump. Your faithful servant would pay a big-time sum for tickets to be in that same room when the questions begin flying.
One of the first questions that Trump should pose to Harris (regardless of whether it is ‘on topic’ as dictated by the moderators) is this: “Are you eligible under the Constitution as a ‘natural born Citizen?’” Her answer would likely be: “Seriously? You’re going to the ‘birther’ nonsense again? Of course I’m eligible. I was born in Oakland, California.” Trump (or whoever the moderators might be) should follow up: “But when you were born, were your parents already U.S. citizens?” Her likely response: “That doesn’t matter. I have it on good authority that anyone born here, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, is a natural born Citizen.” Trump should then grin and say: “Prove it.”
P&E readers, you see where this is going, right? As your faithful servant has attempted to explain over the years, it was the demonstrable intent of the Founders, for anyone willing to see, to absolutely restrict eligibility to the office of the “Chief Magistrate” – the President – to a “natural born Citizen,” and only to someone who met the criteria for same. That restriction, adopted by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, was taken from § 212 of The Law of Nations, the seminal work of one Emmerich de Vattel, a 17th Century jurist and philosopher. In order to be a “natural born citizen,” as opposed to a “native born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen,” both of one’s parents must be, at the moment of the person’s birth, citizens of the country where the birth occurs.
DeVattel’s work, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, was continually in the hands of the Founders as they labored over the drafting of the Constitution and was the work “most widely cited in the 50 years after the [American] Revolution.” See United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n.12 (1977).
As it turns out, Kamala Harris was born to a Tamil Indian mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, and a Jamaican father, Donald Harris. Given that one Barack Hussein Obama II continues to refuse to remove the dark cloud of constitutional ineligibility still hanging over his usurpation of the presidency, Ms. Harris might expect similar problems.
Bear in mind, Monsieur Obama’s “original Hawaiian birth certificate,” thought by many to be (and likely in reality) a computerized forgery, listed his father as being a citizen of Kenya, not the United States. Thus, even if the .pdf image of a document posted to the Internet which he claims is his “real deal” birth certificate were treated as “authentic,” he would still have been ineligible. The fact that his mother (some would even question that “fact”) was a U.S. citizen in 1961 is irrelevant: because his father was never a U.S. citizen, he was, as we say “from the get-go,” ineligible to hold the office of the president. The fact that he occupied the office illegitimately merely recognizes that he “got away with it.” So far…, that is.
Returning to the eligibility of Ms. Harris, because the available public records fail to confirm that both her mother and her father were, on October 20, 1964, naturalized U.S. citizens, her eligibility remains very much in doubt. The several deeply flawed and deceitfully structured Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) Memos and Reports from 2009, 2011 and 2016, seeking to prop up the purported (but false) legitimacy of Monsieur Obama as a natural born Citizen, will not help her. Memo to P&E readers: as noted here, the 2009 CRS “What to Tell your Constituents… Memorandum” has been scrubbed from the Scribd.com website and is no longer accessible there, but you can learn about what it said here, here and here. [Editors note: I have updated the link from “2009” in the upper part of this paragraph to a working URL to see the 2009 CRS Memo.]
(Jun. 28, 2019) — Well, well, well…, who woulda thunk? Following the first round of Democrat Loser Debates, it seems that a consensus is developing that the junior representative from Hawaii, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard may just be rising in the polls. In an unofficial “poll” conducted online by The Drudge Report during and following the debate, some 40% of around 50,400 respondents picked Gabbard as the winner of the debate, with her closest 2nd place rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, coming in at less than 12.5%.
Say what? A relatively unknown representative from Hawaii gets more than three times the number of votes than her second-place, far more well-known competitor, Senator Warren? While the poll sample size is minute compared to the entire electorate, what is up with that? Perhaps it is because (a) Gabbard is a military veteran, having served in Iraq and now commissioned as a full major in the Hawaii Army National Guard; (b) she decimated Congressman Tim Ryan (Ohio) by correcting him that it was members of Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, who destroyed the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01; and (c) she hails from a state that has already given us Barack Hussein Obama II.
Wait a second… while Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, faithful P&E readers know two things: (1) that assertion is likely false or, at minimum, unsubstantiated, and (2) even if true, the documentation he has supplied seems clearly to establish in any event that he is not (and was not when he usurped the presidency) a “natural born Citizen” as required under the Constitution.
But what about Gabbard? Apart from most of her goofy ideas and positions trending toward the radical-progressive wing of the Democrat Party (she was a vice-chair of the “Democratic [sic] National Committee” for a brief period of time before resigning to endorse Bernie Sanders for president in 2016… not the smartest move…), there is another impediment she will likely face. She, along with another Democrat presidential-wannabe, Kamala Harris, must prove that she is eligible as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.
This task arises, of course, because although from all appearances, both of her parents – Carol (née Porter) and Mike Gabbard – were both already U.S citizens on April 12, 1981, Tulsi Gabbard’s birth did not take place within the United States. Rather, it took place in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, American Samoa. As faithful P&E readers also know, under the provisions of § of 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations – and upon which tome the Founders “continually relied” while drafting the Constitution, including the “natural born Citizen” restriction of Art. 2, 1, Cl. 5 – in order for one to satisfy the eligibility restriction, not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil.
This is where it gets sticky. While American Samoa is a “territory” of the United States, it is not an “incorporated territory.” This is the same issue that faced Sen. John McCain in 2008, when he faced off against Monsieur Obama as discussed here. Among several issues in McCain’s case was whether he was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station hospital, a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, or whether he was born in a hospital in Colón, Panama, which has never has been a part of the United States. Parenthetically, in a case challenging his eligibility – Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) – the record indicated that a copy of McCain’s birth certificate was received in evidence, with the judge stating that the birth certificate “lists his place of birth as Colón.” Id. at 65.
Former Perkins Coie Partner, Obama White House Counsel Details Release of “Long-Form” Birth Certificate Image | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com
(Mar. 5, 2019) — On Monday, former White House Counsel Robert Bauer, also formerly of the law firm Perkins Coie, published a lengthy article at The Atlantic arguing that former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen last week made a compelling case that Donald Trump is both a “con man” and “a racist.”
The article is titled, “Michael Cohen Reminded Us Why Trump’s Birtherism Matters” and invokes Trump’s demand, voiced early in 2011, that the White House release proof that Obama was born in the United States and was therefore presumably eligible to the office of president, to demonstrate Trump’s alleged racism.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.” While much controversy has ensued over more than a century as to the exact meaning of the term as intended by the Framers, nearly all Americans understand that a person born outside the United States and later naturalized as a U.S. citizen cannot serve as president.
Some legal scholars go further, insisting that a birth on U.S. soil is not enough to qualify and that a candidate’s parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of the child and future candidate’s birth. That view is supported by the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett wherein the majority opinion stated that it was “never doubted” that a person born in the country to U.S.-citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.” As to other situations, the court wrote, “there have been doubts.”
Some reportage during Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign suggested he was “an immigrant” to the U.S. amid a myriad of contradictory reports as to his place of birth and citizenship status which were never reconciled.
For a number of years, and contrary to a number of credible news reports as well as a 1991 biography released by Obama’s first literary agent, Obama has claimed he was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children. In the early stages of his 2008 presidential campaign, at least three sources reported him as having been born at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, with some later amending their reports to say he was born at Kapiolani.
In addition to questions about his birthplace, Obama has claimed a father who was never a U.S. citizen. On his 2008 campaign website, “FighttheSmears,” Obama claimed that he “became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment” in response to the “lie” that he was not a “natural born Citizen.”
As Bauer noted in his article, he was White House counsel when an alleged “long-form” birth certificate image, reportedly obtained in the form of two certified copies by Judith Corley, Obama’s personal lawyer and also of Perkins Coie, from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) on April 27, 2011.
The event was widely reported by the mainstream media. During a press conference following the release of the image, Obama stated that the White House had “provided additional information today about the site of my birth.” He did not hold a document in his hand, nor was one displayed in the background or held by anyone else as he spoke.
Within hours and the following days, a number of published experts in the field of computer graphics and Internet engineering declared the “long-form” birth certificate image to be a forgery. Those claims eventually led to a request from 242 constituents of then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio for an investigation to protect the integrity of their votes in the 2012 election in the event the reports of forgery proved accurate. …
My observation and comment about a point Attorney Robert Bauer said in his new article:
I noted that Bauer in his article put great weight and emphasis on the earlier released short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document. That document was only shown in June 2008 to the general public as a computer image. It was also proven to be a computer generated forgery. That statement by Bauer is interesting since to my knowledge Hawaii officials have never validated in any way the short-form document or the image of it shown online in June 2008 … nor have they even ever stated or verified that they issued a short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document to Obama or his attorneys or agents in the spring of 2008, as was claimed by Obama as to when he got it. When one’s story is a lie, as is Obama’s early life narrative and which is parroted by his various Consigliere, it is very hard to keep all the claimed “facts” in agreement over time. This has happened with Obama statements time and time again. Bauer is now claiming that the original forged short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth form released in June 2008 is more official and important than is the long-form CERTIFICATE of Live Birth released in April 2011. That in itself, over and beyond the images being computer generated forged images, is an untruth unto itself.
Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be “born a Citizen” of the United States depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military. Adjectives mean something. Especially in terms in the Constitution and must not be ignored.
The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.
Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.