http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142619/posts?page=393#393
-
Adding links in case anyone missed them.
Profound comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts?page=86#86
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts?page=100#100
-
... and Barack Obama, Jr, was a British Citizen from his father at birth... it even says so on his website ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts?page=285#285
-
From Leo's letter to ABC issued today:
The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a natural born citizen. The word born has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate at birth. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status at birth. If one is not born a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts?page=294#294
-
Important comment, too long to repeat:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts?page=294#294
-
Important comment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts?page=324#324
I think Keyes has the best case. Leo’s I have far less confidence in.
Actually, he states that in arguendo as a best case scenario for Obama and a worst case scenario for his cause.
The fact is that none of us are sure, at this point in time, where Obama was born. If he were born in Hawaii, then it would be correct to say he had dual nationality at birth. However, if he were born in Kenya, he would have British nationality at birth but not American nationality at birth.