An EoV Staff Report, October 18, 2012 •
The name Sarah P. Herlihy prompted a mental chain reaction here at EoV when we saw it referenced in a Don Fredrick post concerning his book, The Obama Timeline. His article presents a summary of extraordinary ‘coincidences’ and connections during Obama’s rise to power, all of which are documented in the book.
Mr. Fredrick notes in his timeline that Ms. Herlihy, an associate at the left-leaning law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, had written a 2006 paper advocating for the elimination of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” (NBC) requirement for president of the United States. However, the passage sparked memory of a series of reports from former Associated Press (AP) veteran Bob Unruh, now with World Net Daily (WND).
First, a little background on Kirkland & Ellis. Campaign finance disclosures reveal that Kirkland, through its employees, was a top-20 contributor to Barack Obama in 2008, giving at least $493,735. The firm’s attorneys leaned heavily (77%) Democratic in their political contributions during the 2008 election cycle, which were substantial ($579,976 as of 10/29/07). 
Kirkland & Ellis also has its own Political Action Committee (PAC), which gave 97% of its contributions to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle, as of 12/7/07. In fact, the firm’s members have given more money to Illinois Senator Dick Durbin since 1989 than donors from any other company or organization. Until Mr. Obama’s arrival, Senator Durbin had been considered the most uber liberal congressman in the upper chamber.
Mr. Unruh points out in his 2008 WND article that a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, Bruce I. Ettelson, had cited his membership on the finance committees for both then-Senator Obama and Senator Durbin on the corporate website. It has since been removed.
Curiously, Ms. Herlihy’s article has also disappeared from public access, once available online though Kent University law review articles. Keep in mind that it was published just two years after Barack Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate in 2004. It was also the same year Mr. Obama had delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, an exclusive showcase usually reserved for rising party stars and potential presidential candidates.
“Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle”
Mr. Unruh contends the Herlihy paper puts forward the view that the NBC requirement was most likely seen in a negative light by organizations linked to Mr. Obama in the months before his White House bid was announced in 2007.
He goes on to cite Ms. Herlihy’s work verbatim: “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.”
(Globalization, meaning global governance and the end of American Independence.)
Mr. Unruh continues: “She concludes that the “emotional” reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the “rational” reasons demanding a change.
“The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually 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.”
WND called Herlihy’s number listed on the law firm website, and a woman answered with, “Sarah Herlihy.” But when WND identified itself as a news agency, the woman said she didn’t think “Sarah Herlihy” was in, but would take a message. There was no return call.
In the body of her argument, 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.
(To which intense media scrutiny is she referring?)
“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.”
Question for Ms Herlihy: What part of American sovereignty do you not understand? But then she and the one-worlder posse knows perfectly that the American People will fight (to the bitter-clinger end if necessary) before surrendering our sovereign status to any sort of global governance.
Emotional? Absolutely, if the passionate defense of Liberty and the equally intense rejection of Tyranny qualify as emotion-based reasoning, then we don’t disagree.
Constitution Be Damned
It’s the same-old-tired-leftist-elitist argument; Americans are not evolved enough or too small-minded to choke down the progressive’s kumbaya kool-aid with a big gulp cup.
Clearly Ms. Herlihy was attempting to seed the legal archives with arguments against the Article II provision, however feeble her rationale. But the campaign to repeal NBC goes back to at least 2003, as Mr. Unruh reveals in a July 2011 post:
“There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy…”
It is important to note that these legislative attempts to abolish the NBC clause are on the Congressional record; these are documented facts, not unsubstantiated hearsay. Mr. Unruh cites Carl Gallups as the man who tracked the legal maneuvering. Mr. Gallups, a respected senior pastor for a quarter century, has a long history of community and law enforcement involvement, including 10 years as a Florida law enforcement officer.
His documentation for these activities come from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, February 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.
Mr. Unruh toplines the details below:
June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”
September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
February 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
September 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
January 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
February 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Mr. Obama and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors. (No surprise.)
Gallups reports that finally, on April 10, 2008, “unable to alter or remove” the requirement, the Senate changed the focus of the issue, with Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain’s qualifications as a “natural-born citizen.” Mr. Obama’s qualifications never were reviewed.
(Say it ain’t so, O.)
After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.
A video presentation of this account can be found at bottom and also at Internet Archive.
Justice for All
Some will decry this post as simply rehashing old news, except it never was new news. The tragic fact is the major “news” media outlets in this country have long made a concerted effort to suppress this information, along with virtually all other verifiable documents and records regarding Mr. Obama’s person. Most Americans have never been exposed to it, and likely never will — should the powers that be have their way.
For our part, these matters are not simply going to go away, even after Barack Obama does so next January with the swearing in of the 45th President of the United States. For what remains are questions of enormous magnitude and consequence: the compromising of our sovereign foundation and Rule of Law, only to be replaced with the corrupt rule of men (again).
At best, the events documented above represent an unprecedented national crisis of constitutional integrity, involving not only the executive and legislative branches, but possibly the judicial as well. The charges might even be proven to be treasonous if ever the motives of those involved can be brought into evidence.
Yet so long as these persons infest our government and willingly undermine the balance of power designed to safeguard us all, then no one is safe. It is therefore the Duty of the American People to persist in rooting them out and bringing to justice each and every one of them in the name of Liberty.
(A tip of the Liberty Cap to Bob Unruh, Pastor Carl Gallups, Don Fredrick, and the friends at Internet Archive.)
The Gallups Video Documentary:
# # #