Wow! The following is a MUST READ! The Post & Email: Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?
IN 2006, LAWYER WORKING FOR LAW FIRM WITH TIES TO OBAMA FLOATED THE IDEA OF A “TAKEOVER” OF OUR GOVERNMENT BY A FOREIGN POWER
by Sharon Rondeau
Excerpts:
The article’s opening assertion is that several “constitutional scholars” considered Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 “blatantly discriminatory” and “the stupidest provision” of the U.S. Constitution. Herlihy argues that the “natural born Citizen” clause should be “amended,” although she also uses the word “repealed” (2). A constitutional provision is not “repealed;” it is changed by a constitutional amendment requiring approval by two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures.
In the same paragraph, Herlihy writes, “Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion” (3). However, she fails to describe what those latter “reasons” are, their origin, nor her claim of their basis in “emotion.” Rather, she maintains that “globalization” and the fact that several prominent politicians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madeleine Albright cannot serve as president due to their foreign births were reasons to amend the Constitution (4). On the following page, the author contends that “abolishing the natural born citizen requirement” is “more necessary than ever,” using the word “abolishing” twice in the same sentence (5).
So in barely two pages, Ms. Herlihy calls the natural born requirement “outdated and undemocratic” and claims that it “incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty” while citing no cogent examples to support her statements. No other instances of countries with foreign-born rulers or presidents are provided. She also uses the terms “democratic,” “undemocratic,” and “democracy” throughout the 26-page essay (6) to describe our form of government, never once acknowledging that the Framers established “a Republic,” not a democracy. The inaccuracies, repetitions and circular arguments presented in the paper reveal either a high degree of ignorance of how our government is supposed to work or an outright plan to subvert the same.
[I]t seems evident from this lengthy, poorly-written, reiterative piece that the author was making an effort to convince her audience that Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 should be changed. The reasons she cites as compelling are constitutionally unsound and clearly seek to undermine United States sovereignty.
Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that a commenter reveals:
12thGenerationAMERICAN says:
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 6:57 PM
“The article has apparently been scrubbed from all search engines.”
Found on Ixquick search engine:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12873456/Amending-the-Natural-Born-Citizen-Requirement-Sarah-p-Herlihy-Feb-22-2006
The author of the blog post responds:
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you. I will put the link in the article.
Live link:
Scribd.com: Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement Sarah p. Herlihy Feb 22 2006
Read all the links!!
Hat Tips to all links.
Hi Christine,
ReplyDeleteDid you manage to read that article by Herlihy? If you had, you probably noticed that if a conspiracy existed, it must have been much earlier than 2006--in fact, going back to the 1870s. I doubt that anyone would say that they were thinking Obama would be president in the 1870s. Even Orrin Hatch, a Republican, thought that people who has been naturalized for 20 years should be able to run for President. Republican Dana Rohrabacher, a House of Representative from California introduced a constitutional amendment to get rid of the requirement. It is unlikely that a Republican from California would introduce this in order to allow Obama to become president a few years later.
I also find the connection between Obama and this author unlikely. She works for a law firm whose partner did some work for Obama. That doesn't mean she was conspiring to get Obama elected--only if you want to believe a conspiracy theory. But this conspiracy theory doesn't have a bit of backing. As I said, the move to get rid of the constitutional requirement goes back to the 1870s.
It sounds like the author of this conspiracy theory stated that the article by Herlihy was 'scrubbed'--but all it took was a quick search to find it. I think she is too intent on finding President Obama guilty of something without doing all of her homework.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that a Constitutional amendment is needed in order to change the "natural born citizen" requirement for POTUS means that simple legislation passed by a bunch of Congressmen and Senators isn't enough to change it.
As far as the "scrubbed" situation is concerned, there has been a LOT of scrubbing of Obama articles from the Internet over the past two years. They have mostly been articles that contradict his biography and the books he (supposedly) has written.
Anyway, I'm going to watch the season finale of "Burn Notice" so will write the rest later.
Did you see my question about the protester in the Muslim garb in the other comment thread? Would really like to know what you think about his message.