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 ...
Who cares if the Brits changed their law? American law trumps British law. Period. I am beginning to wonder if some of the birthers also think that the American revolution was illegal because it rejected British law! Again, the birther argument are getting sillier and only serve to undermine the case against BO.
Your argument is moot.
We have NO IDEA where this man was born.
Don’t waste my time.
I don’t expect anyone to address the obvious fraud in the white house.
The die is cast, and the game will play.
A citizen, yes....but NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Such a simple concept yet lost on so many *sigh*
Neither Spiro Agnew nor Michael Dukakis had parents who were both citizens. It is odd that NOBODY made this argument against them. The birthers are invented their own law simply becaue they hate BO. Not enough a good reason.
WKA?
LOL, you’re still trying to ride that horse?
She was put away wet a long time ago.
First, we’re not debating them nor are they sitting POTUS’s
Secondly, Dukakis’s parents were natualized before he was born, same with Agnew...nice try.
Odd. I thought it was still a SCOTUS decision...and was cited in Indiana’s decision.
Your desperation has become blatantly obvious the last couple of weeks, you rehash the same crap over and over and over.
See ya.
The more we are exposed to BHO the more the truth is just a lie that remains undiscovered. For me, the issue has been whether or not he as natural born or not. It is my opinion, based on nothing more than the great amount of legal resources he has devoted to it, that he really does not want the public to see the real birth certificate. The reason must be that it will tell us the name of his biological father and it is a name that will cause him political harm. It certainly will cause him more than $1 million in harm or else he would not have spent more than that on the legal team.
But just consider all the documents with inconvenient information on them and how many people in how many different offices who have had access to them since BHO became a Senator. All it would take is one leak.
It is not the crime, it is the coverup.
While of course I am open to any credible explanation, Jack Cashill has opined that BHO’s biological father is Frank Marshall Davis, a self-admitted communist and subversive. If so, BHO is truly a synthetic man, for not even what you see is what is really there. He is a virtual man for the plastic reality of liberalism.
Woe to the republic for such a multi-level fraud. May the public have righteous anger and a long memory.
I cited the Supreme Court decision. You disagree with it, but have no contrary decision to point to in defining NBC.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
If 0bama is a natural born citizen, then why has he gone to great lengths to hide his birth certificate?
It's deliberate ignorance. *sigh2*
“Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.”
“Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii.”
SAY WHAT?
Operative words: "and allegiance".
If a person received citizenship in another country at birth from his father, the argument is that his "allegiance," as that term of law was understood at the time, was to that foreign country. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid -- e.g., a French prince fathering a son with an American, making the son a French citizen as well, and the son later taking power over the United States as President, while a French citizen by birth.
ML/NJ
From the SCOTUS decision previously linked to:
"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
See post 39...the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
FWIW - if it were up to me, you would be right, but I don’t get to define legal terms. The SCOTUS back in the 1800s disagreed with us both on what the term means...
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.