Fox News' Bret Baier: Dual Citizens Can't Be President (Finally They Get It Right!)

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.” - Obama's Fight the Smears and Factheck.org.

- See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/bret-baier-reports-obama-cruz-not-eligible.html#idc-container

“Not in the slightest. The court in Minor went on to explain that such statutory declarations fall under Congress’ authority to adopt uniform rules of naturalization. It’s probably why title 8 is labeled as “Aliens and Nationality.” These are the case of aliens and foreigners who have doubts about their citizenship that must resolved. Natural-born citizens do not have these doubts.”

So if a category is labeled “cats and dogs,” or “husbands and wives’” do you assume the cats are a subset of dogs and that husbands are a subset of wives? The laws dealing with aliens are in Title 8 and the law dealing with U.S. nationals are also in Title 8. The specific section is: “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth.”
You don’t really believe that a U.S. National and Citizen of the United States at Birth is describing someone who is a naturalized alien do you?

Most of lawsuits that I was referring to were subject to appeal and several were appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I said that some (not all or most) were not subject to appeal. Some of these cases also involved procedural objections, which had as much or more to do with the reason for failing on appeal. And you're only showing two cases appealed to the Supreme Court, which does not equal "several." But it doesn't matter. The legal foundations in these decision are all over the road. There are no consistent and sound legal foundations for reaching the conclusion that is clearly at odds with unanimous Supreme Court precedent. The most notorious of these cases is Ankeny which admits that its nonbinding conclusions are not supported by caselaw. These means the other cases that cited Ankeny (instead of the Supreme Court) have no legal basis. p

“To: WildHighlander57

Indeed. There is a possibility 3; It happened exactly as the HDOH says it did.

163 posted on Mon Aug 26 2013 05:07:45 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Natufian (t) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies | Report Abuse]”

IF (and I say IF) #3 were the case, then

1) the (so-called) LFBC shown on the white house web site is OK ... WHICH IT IS NOT... See the forensic analysts report to Sheriff Arpaio’s posse.

2) the birth cert numbering is OK... WHICH IT IS NOT ... See butterdezillions research.

3) The HDOH is honest.... WHICH IT IS NOT.... again, see butterdezillions research.

The posse would not have taken their case to congress if there wasn’t a problem with the HDOH ...... AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.

The selective service app is bogus (date postmarked vs date signed, he wasn’t in Hawaii those dates)

0 is using a soc sec number that was issued to ANOTHER PERSON.
The soc sec number is for a guy that had it issued late in life and he passed away without collecting benefits.
It was issued at a time where the first three numbers denoted area in which the person lived/ submitted the form.
The first three numbers for 0 are for Connecticut, and 0 wasn’t there at that time- probably not born yet.

So we have a pattern here; “ once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action”.

Butterdezillion, need links to your three analyses!

BC numbering problem: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/clue-2-obama-apparently-given-stig-waidelichs-bc/ More on it at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/the-hdoh-has-juggled-bcs-for-at-least-4-1961-bcs/

HDOH Dishonesty. WOW. There is too much to list. I’ve got a whole section on it at my blog but the BC numbering problem is a biggie. The falsification of the 1960-64 birth index is another (see http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/1960-64-birth-index-includes-legally-invalid-records/ )

Actually, the whole Putting-It-Together Series, parts 1-5, shows the progression and involvement of the HDOH. Parts 6 and 7 would finish it off but I can’t post those yet. There’s also other stuff that’s illegal as heck, like refusing to let Duncan Sunahara see his sister’s long-form BC, which is tied up in the whole thing of changing the Administrative Rules (which stipulate that standard copies must be reproduced by photographic, dry copy, or typing means - NOT by computer abstract) without going through the process necessary; the director does NOT have discretion to alter the rules that have been lawfully put into effect. There’s the lies about not having a form for doing verifications, along with Okubo’s lie that they don’t issue letters of verification any more even though it’s required by law. There’s the creation of the 2001 “memo” on the same day as Obama released the forgery. There’s the insistence that they can’t reveal anything from his BC but then publicly saying that his BC claims a Hawaii birth. There’s the Vexatious Requestor bill that Fukino requested in order to stop folks like me from being able to find out information that we are legally entitled to receive. There is just way, way too much stuff that could be said. There’s also stuff I can’t tell anybody because my source swore me to silence - stuff that shows a deliberate plan of disinformation and law-breaking on the part of the HDOH. The HDOH is a criminal enterprise. There are a couple of good guys there but as with all government agencies right now and what we’ve seen with both Snowden and Hastings, choosing to blatantly expose the regime can get you dead...

The Ankeny ruling was denied a hearing at the Indiana Supreme Court and not further appealed to the federal appeals courts. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruling seems to make sense to other judges, many of whom have cited it in subsequent rulings. The arguments for the defense in Ankeny were posited by Gregory Zoeller, the conservative Republican Attorney General of Indiana who represented Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana who is the former George W. Bush administration Budget Director.

No highly respected conservative constitutional attorney has taken an Obama eligibility lawsuit as a case. I’m talking about the constitutionalist legal foundations such as the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Landmark Legal Foundation or The Center For Individual Rights. Additionally none of the former Solicitors General in the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush or G.W. Bush administrations has gone near an eligibility lawsuit or appeal.

The quality of the lawyering is a primary reason why many eligibility-related civil actions have been dismissed on dispositive motions. Orly Taitz, in particular, has had lawsuits dismissed for failure to effect proper service of subpoenas upon the people she was suing. A competent attorney simply hires process servers whose job it is to effect proper service.

The first eligibility-related lawsuit (filed in March, 2008) to be dismissed for lack of standing (July, 2008) was Hollander v. McCain. New Hampshire Republican Primary voter Fred Hollander sued John McCain and the Republican Party claiming that McCain’s birth in Panama made him ineligible. Mc Cain’s attorneys and the Republican National Committee attorneys got the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds that Hollander did not have standing to bring suit.
The first Obama eligibility lawsuit (Berg v. Obama) was filed in August, 2008 and dismissed in October, 2008.

The Ankeny ruling was denied a hearing at the Indiana Supreme Court and not further appealed to the federal appeals courts.

The basis of the ruling was procedural. The appeals court said the governor couldn't be liable for vetting presidential candidates.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruling seems to make sense to other judges, many of whom have cited it in subsequent rulings.

Only when they ignore the footnotes where Ankeny admitted it had no legal precedent for it's assumptions. Second, subsequent arguments have dealt with the deficiencies in the Ankeny decision, and the couple of administrative judges who heard the cases ignored this while citing nothing to support the reason for doing so.

No highly respected conservative constitutional attorney has taken an Obama eligibility lawsuit as a case.

This doesn't mean anything. It's circular logic and it doesn't address whether there may have been political reasons to avoid getting involved in what was considered too controversial by the timid Republican leadership.

The quality of the lawyering is a primary reason why many eligibility-related civil actions have been dismissed on dispositive motions.

No question. I've never relied on Orly Taitz as being competent.

The first eligibility-related lawsuit (filed in March, 2008) to be dismissed for lack of standing (July, 2008) was Hollander v. McCain. New Hampshire Republican Primary voter Fred Hollander sued John McCain and the Republican Party claiming that McCain’s birth in Panama made him ineligible. Mc Cain’s attorneys and the Republican National Committee attorneys got the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds that Hollander did not have standing to bring suit.

Hollander's case was a little muddled, and it probably wouldn't have succeeded given the Supreme Court's historical reliance on the law of nations whose principles would make McCain eligible.

The first Obama eligibility lawsuit (Berg v. Obama) was filed in August, 2008 and dismissed in October, 2008.

Right, and that dismissed on a procedural basis, was it not? No one claimed it would be easy to get a court to grant legal standing or to allow cases to proceed in spite of other procedural hurdles.

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.