Posted on 12/14/2016 10:36:44 AM PST by JimGlove
Phoenix, Arizona – Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio will hold a press conference this Thursday, December 15th at 4pm MST at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Training Center to provide an update and a final conclusion to the Barack Obama Birth Certificate investigation.
This event will be closed but publicly streamed for all to view. If interested, please feel free to re-share this post on your own timeline.
You can tune into the live stream by visiting the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Official FaceBook page at the following link:
https://www.facebook.com/Maricopa-County-Sheriffs-Office-147344832098401/
Thank you, Cold Case Posse Administration ~
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
This is a novel narrative, FW! Kudos. I haven’t seen it suggested that Madelyn Dunham also went to Kenya. MD would also have a motive to park SAD out of the way with her problematic baby for that era.
SAD was a rebellious teenager and having gone the rails entirely with BHO SR. and refused to give up the child to the Salvation Army, perhaps the lure of a romantic life in the new nation of Kenya might appeal to her? BHO Sr. might have greatly embellished his standing there, being such a great liar!
So when the Constitution speaks, it is the highest authority and trumps all others, including the unwritten so called natural law. I would point out that natural law is INFERIOR to the Constitution. When the Constitution speaks, natural law has no weight.
Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 enumerates Congress with all powers regarding the rules of naturalization and citizenship. That includes:
- when naturalization occurs (after one’s birth)
- who needs to be naturalized
- who does not need to be naturalized (citizen at birth, i.e. naturally born a citizen)
- the conditions by which a person qualifies for citizen ship such as birth on US soil (14th amendment) and any other conditions Congress desires.
With regards to your questions - other countries are sovereign in their own right and can grant citizenship how they so please. However, their laws have no impact on US laws with regards to US citizenship.
To be clear, Seize, I don’t believe either Stanley Ann or her mother went to Kenya. I was only pointing out the impracticality of positing that the foreign arrival to HI—whose identity Obama’s enablers have done their best to hide—was either SA or her mother arriving from Kenya.
If it had been SA, then why burden herself and her family with the additional expense of flying almost immediately from Hawaii to WA state? Why not just stay in HI, and continue her education at the university where she started? What would she have gained by dragging the baby to WA, only to take two courses and then go to the expense of returning to HI?
If the foreign arrival was the mother, coming from Kenya, then why wouldn’t she have brought SA with her? And again, why wouldn’t SA have remained in HI, once she got there?
Plus, as has been mentioned, there’s the fact that no one in Kenya has ever claimed to know where, and how, SA lived during her pregnancy. Had she spent that time in Kenya, someone would have stepped forward with details by mow. The house/hut she lived in would probably be a shrine.
The only narrative that covers all the bases—and does so perfectly—is an under-the-radar stay in a home for unwed mothers in Canada. That explains the black hole in SA’S time line, and also accounts for her sudden, brief transfer to the University of WA. It all fits.
mow = now
When will the records at Occidental College and Columbia be unsealed so the public see how he is registered and all the background data??
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
It’s unbelievable that anyone is still having to argue the wisdom of the Framers , in excluding persons with divided loyalty at birth, from the WH. Who among us, having watched Obama do his dead level best, for eight interminable years, to destroy this country, can A, argue that Natural Born Citizen means, a person with dual citizenship at birth, and B, that placing people with divided loyalties in the WH is 1, what the Framers intended, and 2, a good thing?
SMH.
And Congress, acting under it’s authority enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 reflects this in current law. USC Title 8 Section 1101 which covers definitions sets up the same binary operation by establishing that naturalization only occurs after birth.
Further, USC Title 8 Section 1401 establishes the criteria one must me to be born a citizen. Those that do not meet these qualifications are not citizens at birth and must be naturalized, again, after their birth. Reflexively, those that meet the conditions are; by the conditions of their birth, they are then “by birth” citizens of the United States naturally without any need for naturalization.
Every time plaintiffs tried to use Minor v Happersett in Obama eligibility challenges they were shot down. Here’s one example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Can anyone watch it live on FB? Will it be on youtube too, anyone know?
http://www.abc15.com/live?_ga=1.221060696.1752987442.1481767872
abc15 is live now
The birth certificate of Johanna Ah Nee was the source document for the digital creation of the Obama birth certificate.
Does anyone have a clue how they knew Johanna Ah Nee’s was used? Can’t possibly have been a simple twist of fate, plus it can’t have been the only source document.
Unsealed Doug Vogt Formerly Sealed Affidavit filed at U.S. Supreme Court Names Obama BC Forger & Co-Conspirators
seems the Ah’Nee woman was wrongly accused, but the affidavit answers your question
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3505153/posts?q=1&;page=51
Thank you!
“...1963 after she changed her name with Social Security from Stanley Ann Dunham to Ann Dunham Obama...”
In 1961 she was 19, in 1963 she was 21.
If someone is 21 or over, it takes a court order to do a name change.
If under 21, one could go with their parents and file at the county records; no court paperwork (my mom did that, when she was under 21).
I wonder what supporting documents Stanley Ann used, when she went to court to do the name change.
I’m looking for that soc sec form someone posted, showing the name change.
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.