Is This What the Deep State Truly Fears? | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePost&Email
IN A SECOND TERM, WOULD TRUMP INVESTIGATE OBAMA’S “DOCUMENTS?”
(Feb. 26, 2020) — On Wednesday afternoon, citizen researcher, blogger and retired Navy Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. tweeted to President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, his thoughts on the “Deep State” and any potential probe the president might order into the findings that Barack Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are fraudulent.
“One of [the] major reasons the Deep State is after Trump is because he was questioning Obama’s pres[idential] eligibility & missing birth certificate,” Kerchner tweeted to Giuliani, who has been researching what he alleges is massive corruption involving the Obama regime, Ukraine, China and possibly other countries.
“Trump was labeled a Birther,” Kerchner noted in his tweet. “They fear Trump will some day investigate Obama key forged ID docs…”
Over a period of months in early 2011, Trump publicly called for Obama to release his original birth record to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, leading the White House on April 27 that year to post an image said to represent Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from Hawaii.
During the Obama years, The New York Times and other mainstream outlets as a bloc adopted and applied the term “birther” to anyone questioning Obama’s birthplace or eligibility, including Trump. Many Americans harbored doubts as to Obama’s eligibility in response to conflicting articles, many from the very same newsrooms [click here for examples], reporting Obama as having been born in Indonesia or Kenya and not Hawaii, as he claims. …
The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” | by Attorney Mario Apuzzo
Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans [in 2013] said:
“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”
[Editor’s Note: click here for more on Ted Cruz, Kamala Harris, and others who lack natural born Citizen of the United States status.]
Quasius’ argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos. Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo published in 2009:
“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’” In this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means. A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as: “1. A general idea 2. a belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1: Idea, conception 2: a belief held: opinion, view 3: whim, fancy .” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974). And this “opinion” only “appears to support” that notion. Here, we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.
While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, is true. He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.” As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement. … Continue reading this legal essay about who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, and the logical fallacies about same that were put out by the totally politicized Congressional Research Service to justify the running of Article II constitutionally ineligible candidates in both major political parties, and the comments about same at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html
(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.