If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Creg Maroney

Kim Jong-Un is the youngest son and designated new leader of North Korea following his father's death on December 17, 2011

(Dec. 23, 2011) — Mr. Jack Maskell titles himself as ” legislative attorney in the American Law Division of Congressional Research Service.” He has sent out more then one memo with half truths trying to manipulate and mislead congress and the citizens of the United States. According to Mr. Maskell and the Congressional Research Service Kim Jong-Un, the son of the late North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, could have been President of the United States if only his birth had taken place on U.S. soil.   He also appears to confirm that Un’s parents’ foreign citizenship would have no burden on the requirements for the Presidency or commander of the entire U.S. Armed Forces.

The Congressional Research Service is described as “a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress,” which is defined as “the nation’s oldest federal cultural institution, is the world’s preeminent reservoir of knowledge, providing unparalleled integrated resources to Congress and the American people.”

Maskell authored three memos followed by a fourth memo published last month through the Congressional Research Service arm of the Congress in regard to the “natural born Citizen” issue and Barack Obama, all of which obfuscate or omit previous law cases’ precedent of considering the citizenship of the parents in regard to the child’s citizenship, including “natural born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett.

Mr. Maskell states in the latest “Qualification for President and the natural born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement” Congressional Research Service memo that “….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;”
Those are the indoctrinating words and opinion of  the Congressional Research Service and Mr. Jack Maskell which have put The United States of America in grave danger of a terrorist takeover if it hasn’t already happened.
The facts are that the law contradicts and repudiates their opinion aggressively beyond any reasonable doubt.
The Civil Rights Act, 1866 (from U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 14:27), reads, in part:
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
Note: “natural born [C]itizen” is not mentioned; only the term “[c]itizen.”
Sen. Lyman Trumbull was born in Connecticut, moved to Georgia and became headmaster of a school at the age of 20, and then relocated to Illinois, where he became a U.S. Senator

From the 1866 Congressional Globe  [2893], 14th Amendment Debate – Senate – May 30, 1866 Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois:

The provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof…. What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?  Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is, what it means.
The 14TH Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside….”
Note: “natural born [C]itizen” is not mentioned within the 14TH Amendment; only the term “[c]itizen.”
8 U.S.Code Sec. 1401: ” The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
Note: “natural born [C]itizen” is not mentioned in 8USC Sec. 1401; only “[c]itizen.”
Barack Hussein Obama was born subject to a foreign power known as the United Kingdom. His foreign citizenship was passed to him through his non-U.S. citizen father as he himself confirms. Furthermore, “born on U.S. soil” alone does NOT grant one 14TH Amendment U.S. citizenship or Article II “natural born” Citizenship.
According to Constitutional Law, the facts stand that children of alien parents born on U.S. soil are not U.S. citizens, and whoever is granting them U.S. citizenship is doing such under color of law:  The appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.
Man’s years are numbered to 100 because of evil, not righteousness. Perhaps Mr. Maskell and the employees at the Congressional Research Service are somewhere within the crowd weeping over dictator Kim Jong Il’s demise.


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The author states, “According to Mr. Maskell and the Congressional Research Service Kim Jong-Un, the son of the late North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, could have been President of the United States if only his birth had taken place on U.S. soil.”

    But there’s no longer any need to be born on US soil. Hawaii probably would have given him some form of birth certificate just like Hawaii gave to Sun Yat-Sen (a revolutionary who was born in China) and thousands of others born in other countries. According to Desert Conservative, Hawaii received millions, if not billions, in federal dollars over the decades by representing illegals as Hawaiian citizens. “That is why Hawaii is in collusion with Barack Obama. There were involved in massive welfare fraud and do not want this coming out.”

  2. Liberty Legal Foundation did file 2 lawsuits in Ariz and TN against DNC for DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on behalf of pres candidate John Dummett and others.
    Now they claim the individual state’s dem party has the duty whereas the DNC is the one who is the first entity that has the duty to vett their chosen candidate! The state’s has the authority to demand the DNC certify its candidate in the appropriate way (stating he/she meets the constitutional REQUIREMENT..) Whether they do it is another matter. In the case of Hawaii in 2008, they didn’t like what was in the DNC’s certification so they simply change the wordings in their own state party cert. reflecting that they rely on DNC’s cert thereby placing the burden back on DNC…….

    They are passing the bucks, making us go round and round in infinite loop so nothing ever gets heard/done.

    The recent suit against DNC will probably meet the same fate. Legally there is no recourse! Congress has the ultimate authority but we all know what happens!
    Short of a ‘velvet revolution’, there is no hope of getting rid of the usurper, unless by miracle, soetoro/obama/obama/bounel/shabbaz cannot steal the 2012 election!

  3. I have been doing a little “looking” for Capt. Barnett on the ballot challenge issue. I have yet to find any state whose Democrat party qualifies their presidential candidate before filing with the SOS/Election Commission etc.

    Rather than fuss with the NBC, BC, SS, issues it seems the first thing to do is call for an injunction to remove the candidate from the ballot until the responsible state elections entity sees bona fides pursuant to Art. II, Sec 1, of the U. S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

    The cool thing about this approach is that the registered elector has ultimate standing because he will be most injured by having an unqualified candidate on the ballot. If either an elected official or bureaucrat in the elections division is put on notice that he has committed an alleged unlawful act, that issue must be addressed, except in east TN.