Posted on 02/07/2012 11:59:10 AM PST by Danae
This is possibly Leo’s best research so far.. such a tangled web!
The ‘birthers’ NEED a spokesperson, better PR, and a cohesive plan to get this info. out... this has such far reaching implications, yet, only a few are aware. National security’s greatest blind-side.
I agree. Leo is one of the best researchers out there!
As for a PR person, who would be doing the hiring? Who would be writing the checks? LOL I would do it. I am in Oregon, but if a SuperPAC wants to pay me... LOL I can write endlessly and I am pretty well versed in the subject.... (wink nod)
Bingo!
If we could only get a hold of some of his DNA and compare it to the families that are suppose to be his. Also, it would be great to find out if he really is half black as I could doubt it. He could just as well look Mid Eastern or Arabic. If he isn't African American (I have seen it said that the Obamas are actually Arabic transplants to Africa) how would all the blacks that voted for him because he is suppose to be black feel. At least they wouldn't riot if he was ousted. I really don't know who or what he is but sure would like to genetically find out.
Well, good luck getting THAT sample!
LOL
I just want the cretin out of office and preferably coolin his Al Green voice in the slammer.
Red Steel, check out Danae’s comment about Google scrubbing.
Well, there is a super pac —http://www.art2superpac.com in existence already.. there are hundreds of youtube videos on the subject. But we need a professionally made video to go viral...(good enough for TV ads) I’m not sure how to get it out of the ‘conspiracy theory’ zone though.. ..focus on the thought that the presidency could be hijacked, easily. IS there a group here in Free Republic, or could we create one to: Raise public awareness about the importance of the NBC clause in the Constitution and to propose a bill that would ensure that it is enforced nationwide??
“The armed forces prevent dual citizens from serving due to their questionable allegiance. They too must have sole allegiance to the United States.”
But they allow non-citizens to enlist?
“Enlistment into the U.S. Navy, or any branch of the U.S. military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess an Immigration and Naturalization Service Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551 — commonly known as a “Green Card”). Applicants must be between 17 and 35; meet the mental, moral, and physical standards for enlistment; and must speak, read and write English fluently.”
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=167
Oh my, I have no idea. FR runs on a shoestring budget as it is, so I don’t expect there is a solution there. I do know that those GOP-E’ers who are running things DO read FR. Beyond that, we are a somewhat unorganized bunch. But I do have to say, we were tea party before there WAS a tea party. So in that sense we do lead in a popularity sense. We are a good reflection of what mid right wingers are thinking and I think there is sincere value in that.
That being said, we are also a bit like herding cats, we all go after our own mice. :)
I’m behind on this issue. I thought there weren’t any more eligibility cases in the pipeline? What case(s) are still out there that might come to SCOTUS?
I don’t think this GA ballot issue can be appealed to SCOTUS because it’s up to the several states to determine eligibility to be on the ballot and now Malahi and GA’s SoS have both determined Obama is, by their lights, eligible to be on the GA ballot. Of course, I never thought it was within the purview of an ALJ to interpret “natural born citizen,” either.
It’s a little late for Obama but we have a full generation of “anchor babies” who, as it stands, are deemed eligible to run for POTUS. The evading this SCOTUS has done on this question is very unfortunate.
You are correct. I should have clarified those in authority, i.e. officers and their superiors are not allowed to be dual citizens. Those with security clearances are also not allowed to obtain them with dual citizenship.
Your post is most timely, however. Imagine green card holders enlisting from Iran and the commander in chief was also Iranian. Enlisted personnel are required in their Oaths to abide by the orders of their superiors without question, including their commander in chief. Would this not cause a conflict of interest and introduce a possible threat of a military coup?
If anyone questions this as being impossible, one should review their Civil War references, or any other nation within the past 50 years where a military coup was successfully completed.
Re: post 43 from this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2842686/posts?page=1
"your never really an American till you start shooting at people from the old country....ask Eisenhower"
How many generations does it take to become that "American"?
Now with this new research on the Binney boo-boo it appears Leo has made a convincing case that the much quoted “as much a citizen” passage was deleted as bogus in peer review at the law journal that published the final third edition of the paper.
As a result Leo is now taking the position that WKA was wrongly decided in even making WKA a citizen!
For those wanting to cut to the chase, here is the key section of Leo's piece as it relates to the WKA ruling:
quote
The note in the ALR version appears on pg. 13, and you can see that the following passage was stripped from the final edition:
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Justice Gray relied on this deleted, and discredited passage, not only on pgs. 665-666 of the Wong Kim Ark opinion, but he also relied on it in the holding, on pg. 693.
end quote
"WEll DUH" as the 14th was not an act to create an additional path to citizenship, it is an act to protect against the denial of citizens as defined by A1 & A2. It's nice to see him finally admit it and in doing so he has gained some of my respect back. Not all, just some. I'll wait and see where he takes it from here and if he really stands for or against our founding principles.
Thx. very interesting indeed. Here’s my response: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2843568/posts?page=34#34
Maybe, but it doesn't come across as useful research when it's filled with unnecessary asides:
"Still, the opinion doesn’t run and hide like a sissy from tough issues."
"Consider that Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur, a man born of an alien father. "
"Unfortunately, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, we have the second worst piece of stinky refuse the Court has ever passed wind upon."
"But first, let me stoke your paranoia."
Stuff like this waters down the point and its generally sloppy. Are lawyers supposed to be presenting this as part of their analysis?? Courts don't want to wade through a bunch of excessive verbiage any more than the average person. If we're going to attack WKA as the second worst SCOTUS decision, then you're asking a court to go way over its head.
It's great that Leo found a problem with the Binney citation. There are plenty of other problems in the WKA decision too, such as citations to dissent in cases that don't support Gray's conclusion, etc. Packaging and framing those problems will work if it can be done in a way that doesn't require a court to think it needs to overturn a landmark SCOTUS decision. How are these points of law specifically relevant to Obama??
Good grief. I would imagine that Leo can say what ever the heck he wants to on his blog. What better place to express ones OWN opinions and take on things? Leo has every right to.
The research stands on its own, and that’s the hallmark of good research.
He doesn’t appear to be writing a brief here, he is sharing a discovery. He has invested a lot of personal time into this, and simply offers it up for free to everyone. Cut the man some slack.
Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Volume 1
By Horace Binney, Pennsylvania. Supreme Court
The book is full view.
Vattel is referenced as law in Pennsylvania.
Dana, if Free Republic was Leo’s blog, then you might have a point. His research doesn’t necessarily stand on its own because it hasn’t been tested. If that’s too blunt, so be it.
Well, Leo doesn’t post here. In this case, I did. SO holding Leo responsible for that is nonsensical to begin with.
As for Leo’s research, every time he makes a claim, EVERY TIME, he sources it, and makes it available to everyone to see it for themselves. Are all his conclusions correct? Well, I have yet to see the man proved wrong, it doesn’t happen very often. His critical thinking is undeniably very acute indeed.
So if you want to challenge his conclusions, you are welcome to as it is part of a healthy discussion, which ultimately is the main point. If we do NOT discuss it and come to our own conclusions, then we are merely being dictated to by the powers that be who tell us what to do and think. Thanks but no.
So please do challenge Leo’s research, bring research of your own to the table and lets discuss it. But lets do so in a spirit of truth and a dedication to logical critical thinking. Not out of a blind knee jerk reaction due to a source who rubs you the wrong way. I will try to do the same! :)
FReep on Bro!
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.