Yesterday I read an article by ABC reporter, Huma Khan, titled "How Mitt Romney's Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President". Ms. Khan pounced on this topic because Romney mentioned this fact in his Florida debate with Newt Gingrich. In her article, Kahn quotes a CRS report [emphasis added]:
A Congressional Research Service report published in November comes closest to answering that question.
“There have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens,” the report states. “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.’”
As a "reliable source" Kahn turned to a Congressional Research Report conveniently published by CRS Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell on November 14, 2010 titled "Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Citizenship Eligibility Requirement". Maskell published this report following numerous FOIA requests to him which officially went unanswered. Those requests challenged a memorandum Maskell circulated to Congress on March 18, 2010 titled "Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility".
As an aside, my instincts tell me that Maskell is probably a Democrat because his wife Geraldine is registered as a Democrat; while she did not donate to candidate Obama, she did donate to Democrat candidate Gerry Connolly in 2008. One wonders whether or not Maskell's report was influenced by politics rather than facts.
New Jersey constitutional attorney Leo Donofrio analyzed Maskell's November report, and debunked it as shameful propaganda because of the way Maskell butchered quotations from SCOTUS findings, saying "This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility".
Knowing all this, I attempted to post a comment to Kahn's article. Unsurprisingly, my comments were not accepted, although others appeared following the timing of my comment, so keep ABC's political leanings in mind as you read on, especially when you see the article by Jeffrey Lord in American Spectator.
My comments to Kahn:
Dear Ms. Khan:
By relying on Mr. Maskell's congressional report analyzing the term "natural born citizen," you are behind the information curve and misleading your readers. First, I suggest you read "Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda", written as a rebuttal by attorney Leo Donofrio, available at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/ .
Second, you need to read the 50-page Amicus Brief also written by Donofrio, and accepted by Judge Malihi, for the Georgia hearing which was held on January 26, 2012. In case you are unaware, President Obama refused to comply with the subpoena to appear and give testimony. Through a default judgement, he will probably forfeit all Georgia delegates in the Presidential election.
In any case, multiple plaintiffs, represented by different attorneys, challenged Barack Obama's natural born citizenship status, claiming he is ineligible to have his name placed on the ballot because, among other reasons, his father was an alien when Obama was born in Hawaii. The Amicus Brief presents abundant historical evidence and Supreme Court precedents that preclude Obama from serving as President. The arguments also preclude people like Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio from serving as President. The brief is available for download on Scribd.
AMICUS BRIEF - Georgia POTUS
Furthermore, even INS recognizes that there is a delineation between natural born and native born citizens. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/ . The two terms should never be conflated to mean the same thing.
If you are a journalist in the truest sense of the word, regardless of whom you voted for in the Presidential election, you owe it to your readers to acquaint yourself with the evidence presented, and then share what you learn in a fair and balanced way.
Okay, so the CRS and ABC have done their parts to miseducate the public about natural born citizenship as it relates to the presidency. Moving on, ABC is now doing all it can to crucify Newt Gingrich's candidacy, and Republicans like Elliott Abrams, who should know better, have become useful idiots for the network's revenge campaign. Read on.
By Jeffrey Lord
January 27, 2012
As Ronald Reagan used to say: Well...
Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams' piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, "often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism." Abrams then goes on to cite " a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986."
Or sort of cites it.
In fact, I'm sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment's Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????
ABC News. Now here's a little juicy tidbit. What's been the big news with Newt's campaign in the last week? That's right. The ABC News "investigative" piece by Brian Ross in the form of an interview with Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne. Aired two days before the South Carolina primary, the incident famously backfired as Gingrich launched an attack on ABC during that now-famous CNN debate hosted by John King.
Typically, the liberal media of the day zapped Reagan. And sure enough, buried in that March 21, 1986 Gingrich speech on the House floor, Gingrich was tough on the liberal media's handling of Reagan's speech. And who -- quite specifically -- did he single out for criticism? You guessed it: ABC News.
All too often the news media itself is grotesquely uncritical and grotesquely willing to use Soviet language to explain Soviet behavior. Possibly it reached its epitome when ABC News put on a paid Soviet propagandist following the President of the United States.
In other words, 26 years ago Newt Gingrich was busy incurring the institutional wrath not just of the mainstream media in general but ABC News quite specifically over the issue of their "grotesquely uncritical" treatment of the Soviet dictatorship.
So, if you want to help Newt fight the establishment media and Republicans, why not contribute to a moneybomb that will serve as a counterbalance to Romney's campaign honeypot?
Go get 'em Newt!!