Investigation Into Obama's Background Reveals Trouble Ahead

From Charging Elephant:

New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead


May 25, 2010 · 18 Comments

Anthony Martin



Conservative Examiner



Does it make any difference where Obama was born? Not really. Think about it, take two aspirins and call me in the morning.



Rational thought while observing a national charade, I’m J.C.



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.



(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall).





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.