Posted on 04/30/2010 2:25:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
Part II of an investigative series
In the first part of this investigative report, background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.
As noted in my initial report, the primary intent of this investigation has been to establish whether Barack Hussein OBAMA has indeed furnished the necessary proof to confirm his eligibility to assume the position of the President of the United States, and whether that proof has been properly authenticated. In other words, this investigation sought to determine whether there are any legitimate questions or concerns over the eligibility issue, or whether the matter has been sufficiently resolved. Or to put it yet another way, is there a legitimate reason to mock, belittle, marginalize, or otherwise consider the so-called “Birthers” as kooks living on the fringe of conspiracy?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
NBC Ping
The Birth Certificate is immaterial. His father was by O’s own admission a British subject. B.O. cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. Hence he is ineligible!!! Case (should be) closed.
Huh? Are you arguing that an arcane British law trumps American law? Nonsense. The birther arguments are getting sillier all time.
Is there not ONE member of the press with the gonads to ask Mr. Obama...why he will not produce the long form?
It should be mandatory that all presidentail candidates show they meet constitutional qualifications.
Why is this question not being asked? Why are non-press people who ask it immediately called crazy?
Somebody is hiding something.
Ah, so you have seen the long-form birth certificate I take it?
It has nothing to do with British law. The definition of natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens of the US. BHO Sr. was not.
You still don’t get it do you, Jim.
The constitution of America requires that a candidate be a natural born citizen, which he is not by his own admission.
Please try and understand reality at least a little bit.
From the article:
“From an investigative perspective, the most obvious and nagging question is why Barack Hussein OBAMA II has refused and continues to refuse to authorize the release of that document for review. Consistent with the background investigations I have conducted on behalf of Fortune 500 and 100 companies, such a refusal would be sufficient cause to automatically dismiss the individual seeking the high-level executive position from such consideration. By comparison to the 150 or so investigations of this type I have performed over the last 25 years, I have yet to find anyone under consideration for such a position to refuse this most routine and basic request. Moreover, I have never experienced anyone who has not only refused to do so, but spent extraordinary sums of money in legal fees to fight against such disclosure.”
“The authenticated long form birth certificate is not the only document of interest that OBAMA refused to provide, but it is the most salient and direct method of furnishing proof to answer the eligibility issue once and for all.”
It has nothing to do with British law, it is bammies's birth right passed to him by his father
British law simply recognizes his birth right.
It has nothing to do with British law, it is bammies’s birth right passed to him by his father
British law simply recognizes his birth right.
He ain’t no natchal bo’n citizen.
“The definition of natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens of the US.”
YOUR definition. It just doesn’t happen to be the same as the one the states, Congress & the courts use...
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
You still don’t get it do you, Jim.
The constitution of America requires that a candidate be a natural born citizen, which he is not by his own admission.
Please try and understand reality at least a little bit.
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
Again, why are you arguing that British law trumps American law on BO’s citizenship? I thought that conservatives believed that American law overrules British law when it comes to American citizens. Your arguments sounds like that of the Tories during the American revolution. Like or not, under American law (who cares about British law!) BO is an American citizen because his mother was a citizen.
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.