Monday, December 19, 2011
by Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN
Des Moines, IA – More than half of Iowa Republicans do not believe Barack Obama is eligible to be president says a recent poll.
A Public Policy Polling survey taken December 16th through December 18th reveals that 52 percent of GOP voters in the Electoral lead-off state believe that Obama is either not a Natural Born citizen or they have doubts about Obama’s natal eligibility to hold the office of president.
While asking the respondent if they believe Obama was born in the U.S., the poll does not ask if the respondent is aware that Obama’s alleged father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth or if the respondent knows the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.
Historical and legal precedence warrants that natal geography is only one of three determining factors of Natural-born citizenship. The other determining factors are the citizenship status of both parents at the time of the birth, and the continuity of Natural-born status of the candidate from birth to election.
Along with Obama’s unsubstantiated birth place documentation, it has been proven that Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth and there is documented evidence that Obama lost his Natural-born status when he left the United States and was adopted as an Indonesian citizen by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro in 1967. The culmination of these facts renders Barack Obama an illegitimate president of the United States and criminal usurper of the office.
The poll shows that 31 percent of the nearly 600 respondents are certain that Obama is not a natural born citizen while another 21 percent have doubts about his Constitutional eligibility based solely on the question of his place of birth, not his foreign parentage or loss of continuity.
Interestingly, 65% of those surveyed said they do not have a favorable opinion of the Republican establishment in Washington D.C., yet, despite this political dissuasion, 56% of them are still not convinced Obama is a legitimate President. This indicates a growing trend that voters are becoming more aware of Obama’s ineligibility apart from party-based media propaganda and are more willing to separate their political affiliations from the facts about Obama’s biography. Democrats are growing less likely to accept Obama’s claim that he is constitutionally eligible.
The poll also shows that Government spending/National debt is the biggest concern of those surveyed (37%), not ecomony/jobs (30%) as government officials falsely portray.
Indicative of public consciousness about Obama’s past, nearly 1 in 7 respondents who voted for Obama’s party in the 2008 Caucus are at least doubtful that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, according to the poll.
This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but the New York Times portrayed its surveys in 2010 as being slightly biased toward Republican candidates.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Arizona resident and guest editorialist
for The Daily Pen
MESA, AZ. - Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, represents everything Barack Obama hates.
From Obama's perspective, the Sheriff is a legitimately elected, constitutionally eligible, white, middle-aged, vintage American endowed with the legal authority of his office to enforce immigration laws in a state which happens to share a border with a foreign country which is a major source of illegal immigrants and, therefore, votes for Obama. It doesn't matter to Obama that Sheriff Arpaio is right.
Yep, its becoming more apparent why Obama hates Arpaio, indeed. At least Arpaio is a natural-born citizen.
In the absence of political support by American citizens (Obama’s approval rating is around 35%) who, by the way, are legal residents, and given the fact that he is an ineligible, illegal candidate himself, Barack Obama is desperate for the Latino vote in the looming 2012 election.
Therefore, it begs the question. How does an illegal alien become eligible to vote? The same way an illegal candidate like Obama becomes president. First, get a criminal organization like ACORN to forge voting registrations. If that doesn't work, hurl guilt, shame and elitist accusations of ignorance at the Joe Arpaios of the world, who possess the right of authority endowed by their constituents, the local people and communities they serve.
The goal, taken right from Saul 'Diablo' Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" is to make them believe they don’t deserve authority more than those who never had the right to have it in the first place. This is how Obama and his minions have convinced the stanchions of power in America to believe his lies. Rather than tell the truth, they simply implement a vile campaign of guilt, shame and a benign standard of fairness based on bleeding heart, liberal lies and social justice advocacy.
How did America become so tragically obedient to such derangement?
Obama, a minority community organizer since the 1990’s, was so outraged by Arizona's Immigration Law (SB 1070), he ordered his Department of Justice to file a legal challenge, questioning its constitutionality. Nevermind this is the very same Obama administration who self-righteously deemed constitutional and passed a salaciously wrought federal health insurance mandate law, (which is illegal foremost because it was signed by an unconstitutional president), which unconstitutionally forces all free citizens of the United States to purchase something whether they want or need it, or not. Essentially, Obamacare is state sponsered slavery because the resources used by Americans to pay for Obamacare must be earned by their labor. The only way to opt out of Obamacare is to dispossess one's own body. In other words, in order to choose not to have health insurance under Obamacare, you must die! If Obamacare doesn't violate one's inalienable right to life and liberty, nothing does.
Since Obama’s disastrous administration refused to enforce federal immigration laws, Arizona was forced to pass its own comprehensive state statute to protect its citizens. In the wake of Mexican drug smuggling and violence on the border which resulted the deaths of at least four American citizens at the hands of illegal aliens, one being an Arizona rancher who was murdered on his own land, the Arizona law was still thoughtfully constructed to address the illegal immigration problem in Arizona while also stipulating that “racial profiling” in routine policing will not be tolerated. Remember, this law was created by Arizona because Obama's administration failed to enforce laws which already exist. Obama's failure to lead resulted in American citizens taking their own protection into their own hands.
Aside from the political argument, why any law abiding, legally residing Latino citizen of the United States would not consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to display the record of their American citizenry to police is a question Obama’s ignorance prevents him from asking. Latinos should be insulted by Obama for assuming that their community automatically supports illegal behavior by other Latinos. What kind of leader uses such racial generalities with such shallow political calculations? A community organizer bent on social justice and his own power, that’s who. Latinos are seen as nothing more than votes in 2012 to Obama. He could not care less about the Latino culture, their families or their welfare in places like Arizona. This complaint is nothing more than a political play by a man who is not even legally eligible to hold his own office, let alone defend the illegality of others in a place where he has absolutely no jurisdiction.
Sadly, Obama has been very successful in taking advantage of a ripe, socially dysfunctional time in America. Lasciviously, he has been effective in using blame, shame and slander to deceive the U.S. courts, Congress and the media into a delusional passivity about his unconstitutional status as a president. He and his momentary transient majority have actually leveraged the weight of lies and a social justice agenda by shaming enough ignorant white liberals into going along with a minority message that a black man deserved to be President, regardless of his eligibility or blatant intentions to implement the largest communist dictatorship ever attempted inside American borders.
Then, like Satan was able to deceive Eve in the garden of Eden, Obama convinced an immoral media and soulless co-political class, to not challenge or rule against his illegitimate candidacy using the rule of law, despite the fact that Obama is not a Natural born citizen and, therefore, not a constitutionally legitimate candidate. Obama slithered on into the White House like he owned it, simply casting aside generation of blood-ransom paid by worthier ascendants throughout our righteous and battle hardened history.
Now, with those carcasses in the bag, Obama is taking aim at the heart of vintage America which is symbolized in the mind of an obotic liberal vestige as a man just like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. After all, if Obama cannot circumvent the opposition of a legitimate American public by legitimizing the illegal votes of border jumpers and bean pickers, he must attack the authority of the very individuals who legally and constitutionally protect the people of the United States from them. People like Joe Arpaio.
Understanding these three prerequisites, it is not surprising to see what Obama is doing now.
The illegitimate Obama administration’s Justice Department, led by Eric “Fast-n-Furious” Holder, announced a complaint against Arizona municipal Sheriff, Joe Arpaio in the wake of a three-year DOJ investigation of the sheriff’s lawful and successful enforcement of illegal immigration laws in his state. The results of the investigation were announced on the anniversary of the murder of border patrol agent, Brian Terry, who was killed on the American border by drug smuggling Mexicans possessing assault weapons supplied to them by the Obama administration.
In response to the DOJ investigation and complaint, Arpaio vows to fight what appears to be typical liberal charges of racism against a white elected official. The timing of the complaint is also wrought with politically strategized accusations immediately following the Supreme Courts agreement to hear the case concerning Arizona SB 1070 Immigration Enforcement Law.
In a press conference this week, Arpaio made the following statement:
“Before we get started today, I want to say something to the citizens of Arizona and the rest of the nation.
On the surface, it may appear that today’s findings and actions by our federal government are directed towards this Sheriff and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. The truth of the matter is that this is a sad day for America as a whole.
Today, the federal government moved to do everything it can to put this agency out of the illegal immigration enforcement business.
We are proud of the work we have done to fight illegal immigration. We have been responsible for finding and identifying 25% of the nation’s illegal alien criminal offenders through the 287G program. Sadly, much of that work will no longer be permitted by the Obama administration.
Today the federal government cancelled our 287 G agreement. What that means is that we are no longer able to verify the immigration status of any criminal offender brought into our jails. This was a program responsible for detecting over 44,000 illegal alien criminal offenders since 2007, many of whom we can assume were deported by ICE officials back to their country of origin.
Now with the cancellation of this agreement, illegal criminal offenders arrested and brought into my jails will go undetected and ultimately dumped back onto a street near you. For that, you can thank your federal government.
By their actions today, President Obama and his band of merry men might as well erect their very own pink neon sign at the Arizona-Mexico border saying Welcome All Illegals to your United States.... Our home is your home.
On Sept 28, 2011, President Obama was questioned at the White House, by Hispanic journalist and asked why there was no resolution in the civil rights investigation against me for allegedly racially profiling Hispanics. He stated that he had to be careful to comment on individual cases handled by the DOJ. The president stated he challenged the AZ Law (1070) that was supported by me, because he thought there was a great danger of naturalized citizens with Latino surnames could potentially be vulnerable to questioning.
It is interesting that after 100 days in Office by President Obama, that the Democrat Chairmen of the judiciary Committee in Congress initiated this investigation.
After all this time, the head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, who reports to Attorney General Holder, held a press conference December 15, 2011, which is 2 days after the Supreme Court agreed to accept the 1070 lawsuit.
It’s also interesting that Perez came to Phoenix for the press conference on the anniversary of the brave border patrol agent Brian Terry’s death, who was killed because of the failed Justice department’s “Fast and Furious” case, which is presently holding hearings this week on Attorney General Eric Holder.
Just this week, two Democrat Latino US Congress men from Arizona, joined by several other Latino Legislatures want me to resign my office. All of these same Democratic elected officials, throughout the years, have been criticizing my enforcement of State and Federal Illegal immigration laws.
Candidates for President of the United States - Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann recently visited me in my office, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Mitt Romney also called me – all interested in my successful enforcement of illegal immigration and asked for my endorsement.
Recently in New Hampshire, I endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry for President of the United States. It should be noted that all this political activity made national news.
The Justice Department takes issues with our policies in the jails - it should be noted, the US Marshall Office, under the Department of Justice, gave my Office high marks. In the past when we did a crime suppression operation in Guadalupe, high homeland security officials were present and praised us for my operations stating we performed in a professional manner, even though this operation caused some controversy in that town.
We have a civil rights racial profiling case brought by the ACLU, which will be before a federal judge with oral argument on summary judgment next week. Is the DOJ press conference, among other reasons, geared to poison the court against our position in this civil rights case?”
Monday, December 12, 2011
TOP WASHINGTON D.C. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER: "A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS ONE WHO IS BORN TO A MOTHER AND A FATHER WHO ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS"
by Daniel Crosby
of The Daily Pen
New York, NY – Apologists and abettors of the most prolific political crime in American history have attempted for more than five years to conceal the facts about the birth and life of the man known as “Barack Obama”. Now, as part of an ever increasing consensus and growing body of evidence, a formal declaration by one of America’s most experienced legal professionals and a highly respected practitioner of Constitutional law thrusts a dagger of truth into the heart of the obotic deception.
“Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen to hold the office of the Presidency,” declares Dr. Herbert W. Titus, J.D., a Constitutional law expert with more than 30 years of experience serving as a juris counsel and partner with William J. Olson Attorneys in Washington D.C.
“The question of Obama’s birth…where he was born…is an important question. But, the more important question is whether or not he is a ‘natural born’ citizen because he was born in Hawaii,” says Dr. Titus.
“The conventional wisdom is, ‘…if he can produce a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, that would make him a natural born citizen…’ That is not true. That only makes him a ‘citizen by birth’, and there is a distinction between these two terms (‘natural born citizen’ and ‘citizen by birth’).”
Dr. Titus continues, “A ‘citizen by birth’ is a person who becomes a citizen because he was born within the geographical limits of the United States…and the parents were here lawfully…and therefore, by birth, he is a citizen. Now that’s because, in the first sentence of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, it states specifically that a person who is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen.”
Dr. Titus specifically addresses the misrepresentation of the relationship between the 14th Amendment and Article 2 of the Constitution. Many of Obama’s ignorant defenders attempt to argue in favor of Obama’s natural born status by associating his citizenship with the requirements prescribed by the 14th Amendment.
Dr. Titus then explains why the 14th Amendment fails to ascribe ‘natural born’ citizenship to anyone.
“Most people think that (the 14th Amendment) is a definition of a ‘natural born’ citizen, but people forget that the 14th Amendment was put into the Constitution not for the purpose of defining what a ‘natural born’ citizen is, as it applies to the president of the United States, but it was placed in the Constitution for the specific purpose of declaring that people who were part of the newly freed ‘slave class’ (in 1865) were citizens of the United States, and of the state in which they resided.”
Dr. Titus explains that the 14th Amendment was subsequent to the United States Supreme Court ruling in the Dredd Scott case in that a person who had been brought to the United States against their will could never become a citizen of the United States, much less a citizen of the state. This decision was made to prevent anyone from being forced to become a citizen if they did not want to. However, the decision was remiss in that it did not address those who were in the United States without citizenship to any nation and were not able to reintegrate.
Dr. Titus continues, “So, the place of birth which gives rise to ‘citizenship by birth’ was addressed to the question of what to do with this entirely new group of people who would otherwise be ‘stateless’, because they could not, under the Dredd Scott rule, become a citizen having been born in the United States.”
Dr. Titus’ explains that the chronological precedence of a ‘natural born’ citizen as it was predetermined by Article 2 of the Constitution draws a distinction from the era of ‘citizenship by birth’ as defined by the later 14th Amendment because Article 2 was in the Constitution 100 years before the 14th Amendment was ever included in the Constitution. This fact dooms Obama eligibility sympathizers who attach natural born citizenship to the 14th Amendment.
“Natural born citizen, as it relates to the Office of the President, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” says Dr. Titus, “The 14th Amendment’s definition of ‘citizenship by birth’ was not addressed at all to the question of one’s qualification to run for President of the United States. Even the language is different. It talks about a ‘Natural Born’ citizen.”
Those born of freed slaves after 1865 were not ‘natural born’ citizens because there were determined by the Dredd Scott ruling to not be citizens against their will.
Dr. Titus goes on to confirm the historical consensus of how a natural born citizen is defined by natural law, “What is a natural born citizen? Well, there is a law of the nature of citizenship, and if you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in some constitution or statute.”
Dr. Titus then makes a profound confirmation about natural born citizenry which has been well established by historical law, for centuries. He says a natural born citizen is one who holds such status because of the very nature of their birth and how the circumstance of that birth relates to the nations in which we are born. This is a very significant understanding because, as Dr. Titus describes, it draws a distinction between those who might never find citizenship with any nation due to either voluntary or involuntary circumstances, and “your relationship to the nation as a citizen.”
This is profound because only a President, among all other position of American government, is required to be a natural born citizen. Therefore, only a president must be born under circumstances which prevent him or her from being subject to any circumstance, voluntary or involuntary, which might disqualify them from a full and verifiable ‘natural born’ status.
Dr. Titus explains that, order to determine whether someone is a natural born citizen, we must understand the “laws of nature” as they apply to one being born into citizenship. These laws are those which are subject not only to the geographic location of birth, but, most importantly, to the biological identity of the birth. The citizenship status of the mother and the father at the time of birth.
“That is precisely what a natural born citizen is. One who is born to a father and a mother, each of whom is a citizen of the United States…” says Dr. Titus.
“What we have learned from Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was. But, Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of the presidency.”
The Daily Pen’s editor, Penbrook Johannson, echos Dr. Titus’ mordant exposition, “It’s funny. Many people ask, in reference to defending Obama, ‘What if a candidate does not know who their father or mother is? Does that disqualify them?’ In the case of being president of the United States…’Yes, it does.’”
Johannson expounds, “In their ignorant prejudices, Obots fail to see the exclusivity requirement in citizenship for the president, while completely failing to realize that such a candidate is permitted to serve in any other capacity in our government. The first condition is too strict, but the second is not good enough. They are hypocrites and ingrates. They want a pristine constitution to protect their selfish sense of entitlement, but when that same rule disqualifies them from their selfish grandeur, they seek sophomoric and illegal recompense. It’s quite disgusting.”
As we proceed toward the 2012 election, remember, this is the most revealing part of the liberal establishment’s true ideology about Obama’s eligibility. They have sold their souls to the vile edict that Barack Obama is entitled to be president, regardless of whether or not he is lawfully eligible. This is their premier symbol of the 50 year long reparative justice movement. Entitlement based on a cultivation of hatred for those who have what they do not have.
Moreover, they express nothing less than a haughty contempt for the Natural Born citizenship requirement. It is this very contempt which will unleash a savage justice wrought with wrath and blood ransomed redemption.
Those kept in the cage of liberalism exist in and feed upon a delusion that Obama was elected by a majority and, therefore, a majority a president makes. Lasciviously, thought, they refuse to be saved by the righteous truth that Obama would have never been elected by a majority if that majority had known beforehand that he was never eligible to hold the office in the first place.
Dr. Herbert W. Titus currently serves in counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional and common law for nearly 30 years at five different ABA approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
Friday, December 2, 2011
by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen
NEW YORK, NY – Jack Maskell is a liar and we have proven it. Someone wiser needs to tell him that shillery only compounds deviance.
First of all, however, let's understand the psychology of a man like Jack Maskell before we even discuss what he has attempted with is recent, delusional CRS memo in defense of Obama's fraudulent presidency.
When those who have committed epic crimes against humanity are, as a natural consequence, beginning to suffer the wrath they have created by such actions, they will often, as a final plea, forcefully and desperately attempt to over-intellectualize and elevate the reasons for their criminality by dismissing the validity of the original and fundamental truth which they have violated. Essentially, they attempt to deceive authority by making the reasons for their deviant behavior seem more complicated than our moral ability to comprehend, and therefore, they try to make the reasons for their destructive behavior the result of their "elite" understanding of righteousness and nobility.
In the end, though, we all know Obama is a liar, a criminal and a thief...and Maskell is just another abettor.
This behavior is a common defense mechanism which all living creatures attempt when the consequences of their foul actions become bigger than their ability to control them, or be accountable for them. This is not unique to fallen man. Even as early as the first moments of creation, Satan himself dismissed the validity of God’s constitution when he propositioned mankind to consider what God had intended, rather than what God had actually commanded not to do. Essentially, Satan masterfully and harmfully created a distinction between our behavior within the security of loving rulership and the motives of that rulership, causing us to doubt the consequences of violating the rules. Even then, the natural consequences of that single, historic violation of pristine rule led to three separate denials of responsibility on the part of three suspects along with division, hostility and the downfall of an entire species, as they blamed one another for their own transgression.
Tragically, reaching beyond the lies and crimes is always the irreparable damage to an essential alliance. Like the one between government and the people. For the first time, we became vulnerable to death and loss, having exceeded the moorings of our doctrinal commissions of safety, freedom, provision and security, by violating one simple command from our ultimate constitutional authority.
In the same spirit of Satan’s original aim, Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell’s recent release through the Congressional Research Service of a document called, “Qualifications For President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizen Requirement ” carries nothing more than the same millennial legacy of legalized deception into the realm of presidential eligibility, and even deeper into covert power mongering, usurpation and political horror.
In his 50+ page delusion, Maskell attempts to do one simple thing. He is acting as an Obama lobbyist to diminish the impact that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. That's it. Not very sexy, is it? However, even a propagandist like Maskell understands the cataclysmic impact this has on Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. Even a dreg like Maskell understand that if the ramifications of such biological facts about Obama reaches the domain of consciousness in the collective mind of courageous authority, the subsequent logic of the legal mandate will ensue and Obama and his Obotic minions will go down in history as the most prolific political criminal enterprise in human history.
On page 48 of his memo, Maskell writes, "In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that "it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
Quoting Case history, Maskell also includes the following from Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920):
"The Supreme Court also noted that It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Upon reviewing the actual case, we find that the Supreme Court said no such thing. Actually, contrary to Maskell's blatant lies, we find that the petitioner was actually born to U.S. citizen parents, not Chinese citizens. The father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of precedence set by US v. Wong Kim Ark. His mother was an American citizen by marriage to the father when the child was born.
Pathetically, Maskell also attempts to hinge his argument on the accusation that the petitioner had illegally acquired a false identity and that the citizen parents were not actually his real parents. The Supreme Court rejected the State’s "undisclosed" evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based on the assumption these were petitioner’s real parents. Therefore, having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.
Maskell attempts to make it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents in order to illustrate that a person who was born of "foreign biology" was determined by the highest court to be a natural born citizen. This is a bald faced lie, and that makes Maskell a liar and a shill for Obama.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was a natural born citizen because, in fact, he WAS born to two U.S. citizen parents, not that he was a natural born citizen in spite of being born to foreigners.
Let's take a closer look at Maskell's drudgery. First, his use of quotation marks and their strategic positioning is an attempt to deceive the reader into believing that the entire quote is from the Supreme Court decision. It is not!
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”
This is the genuine part of the quote from the Court’s opinion. Now, the lies begin. Notice the next two parts are not in quotation marks:
.....of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is.....
Notice here that Maskell doesn't actually state that the parents are citizens of China. Instead he uses the words CHINESE NATIONAL, knowing they are actually U.S. citizens who had immigrated from China at the time of the birth. Of course they were Chinese nationals! But they were immigrants who had become U.S. citizens!
Maskell's lies continue as he then shamelessly plugs the idea that natal geography plays the only role in determining natural born citizenship when he says, 'who were PHYSICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN PETITIONER WAS BORN..'
Maskell desperately wants his readers to believe that, based on this precedence, since Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii, though that has never been shown by any authority, it should not matter that his father was a citizen of Kenya (British Protectorate of East Africa) in 1961. Maskell wants his readers to accept the lie that Obama is a natural born citizen simply based on his geographic birth place, not his natal biology.
Unfortunately, for Maskell, Obama is a perfect example of the very candidate they intended to disqualify with the constitutional eligibilty clause. His father was even British for god's sake. If Obama had tried to run for president in 1787 using these tactics, he would have been arrested and executed as an enemy spy secretly working for the British crown! The irony in that fact is historically breathtaking.
Then Maskell jerry-rigs a benign excerpt from the case which has no connection to his previous line:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
When you see written in Maskell's propagandized memo, this is what it looks like:
"…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
Unfortunately for Maskell and abettors like him, the Supreme Court never said this!!!! Here is what the court actually decided about the case:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.” Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
Jack Maskell is an unadulterated liar. As presented in the memo, Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter, saying, “…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.
Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.
This deceiptful attempt to convey an argument based on a lie guts Maskell of his credibility as an attorney and reduces his memo to nothing more than thumbs up for a bad movie. The memo is propaganda meant to prop Obama failing attempts to conceal the truth about his identity.
Maskell exploits the Congressional Research Service moniker as lipstick on his pro-Obama pig. Maskell makes no effort to address Obama’s offense against the blood-ransomed, constitutional freedoms endowed to generations of vintage American people. Instead, he attempts to promote considerations for our founder’s intentions by implying they would have used a different language in the ‘Natural Born’ Eligibility Clause had they known a man, so worthy and entitled, like Obama were to seek the presidency in the future.
Maskell, rather than err on the side of distinction by promoting the blatant command of our forefathers’ pristine authority which says that only the most loyal, comprehensive and exclusive of citizenship may be eligible to be president, or suggest measures for amending what he clearly believes is an absurd rule, attempts to propel a deceptive and creeping warrant which challenges the definition and intended meaning of the words “natural born” used by the framers of our Constitution. Unfortunately for Maskell, this merely indicates yet another desperate, sad and transparently liberal attempt to over-intellectualize the meaning of constitutional doctrine rather than simply redeem the destruction caused by Barack Obama’s fraudulent presidency.
Civil savagery comes in many forms, as Maskell demonstrates. Even in his opening, Maskell writes:
“There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements…”
Here, Maskell implies incorrectly, that unless the judiciary approves it, presidential eligibility remains passive to interpretation. On the contrary, the constitution remains affirmative of the protections of American sovereignty, not passive to inclusiveness and plurality. The Constitution, rather than affording benefit of doubt under the absence of clarity, when the eligibility of a candidate is ambiguously defined, he or she is, by default, not eligible. Freedom to be declared a natural born American is available if circumstances and person are willing to provide such evidence of worthiness.
Contrary to this, however, Maskell’s fallow mooring portends as if legal constructs assume authority over political perception in the voter’s selection of a candidate. No legal mooring on earth will stabilize Obama’s political decline. Illegitimacy is greater than ineligibility at this point.
The weight of historical authority supporting the definition of “natural born” citizenship is distinct and unarguable based on common law which is a basic, most widely held understanding of doctrinal truth among a preeminent consensus, which are those who founded our Constitution. In this case, a “natural born” citizen is one who’s circumstances at birth prevent any legal or perceptible doubts as to his or her birthright to authority. Minimally...MINIMALLY...one must be born in a geographic location under the legal jurisdictions of the U.S. Constitution AND they must be naturally born unto parents who both are valid U.S. citizens at the time of birth.
As long as Obama remains, wrath will continue to store and vintage America will remain without executive representation in the world.