New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead
A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.
The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network–a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by 
Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.
Hagmann’s investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.
For example, neither of Obama’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.
But Hagmann’s investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama’s status or citizenship:
the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”
In other words, the ‘certification of live birth’ as touted by Obama apologists and the mainstream media as ‘proof’ Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution actually proves nothing.
In addition, Hagmann disputes the notion that birth announcements in local Hawaiian newspapers provide proof:
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
However, the key information in Hagmann’s report that casts doubts upon Obama’s eligibility is the fact that the very organizations that published the short-form certificate of live birth and the 2 birth announcements in newspapers have direct connections with Barack Obama.
The DailyKos is the primary suspect and the first entity to publish ‘proof’ of a birth certificate. The DailyKos is an ultra-Leftwing hate-group that not only is ‘in the tank’ for Obama but smears and seeks to destroy those who oppose extremist, Leftwing initiatives in politics.
‘Fight the Smears,’ which also pointed to these 2 erroneous pieces of ‘evidence,’ is owned by ‘Organizing for America,’ which was originally named ‘Obama for America.’ This speaks for itself.
And finally, there is the much-hallowed ‘Factcheck.org’–supposedly an independent, non-partisan clearinghouse that separates truth from fiction in the media and on the Internet. Hagmann’s investigation reveals that Factcheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which receives its primary funding from the Annenberg 
Foundation.
Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and past President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Thus, the supposed ‘neutrality’ of Factcheck.org can safely be called into question.
The bottom line is that so far absolutely no positive proof has been provided that establishes that Barack Obama was born on American soil.
Why is this important? An individual who would spend millions of dollars hiding his background and pertinent documents from the public, and who would make false statements about about his history, cannot be trusted to tell the American people the truth about what his policy initiatives are intended to do regarding the ‘fundamental change’ of America.
Shortlink:
10 Responses to New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead
Leave a Response
Translator
This is a great article, sadly the Obama Administration has done a great job at demonizing anyone who would want to seek the truth. Glenn Beck was the first to fall it seems and that caused many to no longer question the Presidents nationality. This may back fire on Glenn because the truth has a way of never dying. The argument that Obama just needs to provide a full birth record is so simple that to refuse the request will continue to raise eyebrows.
SEEK THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. One day the truth will be revealed. I just hope it is not too late for America. The question is ‘Why are so many Americans afraid to fully examine the truth? What are they afraid of?’ The damage that will result from Obama’s administration will create more than enough havoc to really show those Americans what real fear is all about!!!
This is a welcomed article, but this part I can’t accept (without much further explanation):
(Quote Begins) “neither of Obama’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.” (Quote Ends.)
I haven’t seen anything that establishes that the alleged mother of Barack Obama (Stanley Ann Dunham, at least that’s one identity used) was “not an American citizen” at the time of his birth or after. BUT I do recognize that Dunham WAS not of age and residence condition at the time of Obama’s (alleged) birth such that even if an American citizen, she was able to confer citizenship to a child what with the stated-father (Obama, Sr.) not being an American citizen.
AND (my second point here), I do not believe the “natural born citizen” requirement for the Presidency in Obama’s case has ever been established, NOR that it’s expressly satisfied by our Constitution as simply having been born on U.S. soil.
IN fact, the “natural born citizen” requirement means — from much decision on record, opinions, statements, decisions though it’s not Constitutionally defined and remains murky accordingly — a person born on U.S. soil (or on territory) TO PARENTS WHO ARE U.S. CITIZENS.
Obama has made a concerted effort to sell himself (his campaign website/s) as “native born” which means he’s avoided declaring himself to be “natural born” as a U.S. citizen and these are two distinctly different things.
“Natural born” as a U.S. citizen IS required to qualify for the Presidency and Obama’s avoided declaring himself as such (and I believe for good reason that he has — I do believe that the man knows he is not qualified on that basis for the Presidency) (perhaps on many more aspects, also, based upon his obvious efforts to thwart discovery about who he is).
“…an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility…”
Not according to the US State Department. The document provided by Obama is considered Prima Facie evidence for proving one’s citizenship for the the purpose of getting a passport.
This document, widely available on the internet, has been certified by the Hawaii department of public records and publicly verified in statements by the Hawaiian Director of Public Records and the Governor of Hawaii.
I suppose you won’t accept the document as proof of citizenship (although the US State Department does) because it is a “Certificate of Live Birth”, not a “Birth Certificate” (or its the “Short Form” not the “Long Form”, etc.). And the Hawaiian Governor is a Democrat, so ignore her public statements. And “Factcheck.org” is funded by the Annenburg Foundation which is supposedly liberal (although founder Walter Annenburg was close to Ronald Reagan and even received a Presidential Medal of Freedom from him). And those birth notices that appeared in local Hawaiian papers announcing Obama’s birth prove nothing (except they do prove he was born in Hawaii as the certificate states, unless you consider them fakes as well). And Obama’s parents were not born in the US (although his mother Ann Dunham was actually born in Kansas—unless you think her birth certificate is fake as well).
What else would be good enough for you crazy people?
No one questioned any other President or Presidential candidate as closely as Obama—not even McCain, who wasn’t even born in the US—he was born in Panama. Panama was a US territory at the time, but if still you would think there would be some controversy about this since the Constitution says nothing about being born in a US territory being adequate for eligibility for President.
It’s hard to come to any conclusion that the biggest driver of this non-controversy is that people have problems with Obama because he looks different than all our previous Presidents.
That’s quite a leap you make from legitimate questions and insufficient answers re: Obama’s birth to the cause being he “looks different than all our previous Presidents”.
That’s a non sequitur. The real reason we are enduring anarchistic chaos leading to tyranny in our Gov now is because of such abandonment of logic and Rule of Law. Please study up.
My comment is directed to Joseph P. who is also smearing legitimate questions&questionners rather than dealing with the facts.
google–vattel’s influence 1758-citizens who are natural born are of parents who are both citizens of USA. Children follow the conditions of there fathers and succeed to all there rights..the country of the father is therefore that of the children. Kenyan is what Obama is born natural born to. If born by a father a foreigner it is only the place of birth not his country.
Framers grandfathered this in.
Obama is naturalized not a natural born which is needed for presidency.
He should be made to admit to fraud
palma p is wrong.
Here is the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Besides, if what palma p said was true, then a host of people would have some real citizenship issues. For instance, Alberto Gonzalez would not be a US citizen, since his father was born in Mexico.
I was incorrect in my previous comment stating the reason that palma p is wrong, since it only pertained to whether being born in the US makes you a citizen, but not necessarily to the eligibility for being President.
However, there is no basis for palma p’s argument that the term “natural born citizen” was based on Emerich de Vattel’s legal treatise, which claims that ones father determines whether one is a “natural born citizen.” Emerich de Vattel is not mentioned anywhere in the correspondence of the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention. Neither is there any record of the topic of “natural born citizen” even being debated during the Constitutional Convention.
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton did submit a proposed standard for Presidential eligibility that read, “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Based on Hamilton’s submission, it is probable that “natural born citizen” was just the phrase used by the Founding Fathers to distinguish from naturalized citizens.
Thanks for the reminder that the proofs have been effectively sidestepped, for the moment. Interestingly enough I’ve also read that there were no witnesses the the wedding of Baracks mom and dad as well, nor any witnesses, other students, faculty, etc. who remember him at Columbia College in New York. Not quite putting him at the scene is somwhat of a pattern with the elusive Barack Obama. Good read.