Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
***Of course. But at the very least, at least now we have our forgery to fight their forgery. It’s like Pascal’s Wager of Forgeries. There are 4 cases to this approach. FightTheSmears CoLB = Forgery, Kenya CoLB = Forgery, We battle it out to get to the bottom of this. FightTheSmears CoLB = valid, Kenya CoLB = valid, we have a huge mystery on our hands, we battle it out to get to the bottom of this. FightTheSmears CoLB = valid, Kenya CoLB = Forgery, We lose. FightTheSmears CoLB = Forgery, Kenya CoLB = valid, We win. We have winning hands in 3 out of 4 of the cases.
Great analysis!
(waving!)
There is a poster here who does work in family law court. I don’t remember her name.
She has a theory that they were never married in Hawaii.
Sr didn’t know she claimed they were married.
She filed for divorce without him knowing about it.
This theory would be out the window if that BC is for real because he is the one that provided the info and said they were married.
I don’t see any evidence that they had a real marriage relationship.
Please detail how it is clearly a forgery.
Many are interested in the outcome and don’t want to be tricked.
So, how do you know this is a forgery? Please, supply the facts as you know them.
Judging from the folds and wrinkles...yeah.
With regard to the common law argument, George Mason, one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, stated: “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” Great Britain used the common law as its justification for impressing American sailors into their navy in the early 19th Century. We obviously did not agree with this interpretation, as we went to war in 1812 over the issue!
lol
Ah! Thanks.
But the question is whether this was the law in 1961. Although I am not a lawyer, I have been paying a lot of attention to the Obama BC issues. I have probably learned enough reading about the issue to be a lawyer. I am not kidding. For instance, let me throw out a couple of legal phrases: ex post facto, for one. See, ex post facto prohibits the attack on his presidency to be brought by way of the BC issue. Why? Because it is “ex” meaning from, “post” meaning after, and “facto” meaning facto or short for factor and the root of that word is “fact” and if you add an “s” you get facts. In other words, after the facors or after the facts.
That is why the tricky DemocRATS made everyone vote for that Bill to declare that Hawaii was a state (once again) on the fiftieth anniversary of its OWN STATEHOOD AND THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN THERE. I think if one goes back and examines that Bill, they just might see something fishy about it. It would not even surprise me if it were BACK DATED to predate the BC issues that have been raised. I have looked online and I can’t find it. If anyone has a link A VERIFIABLE LINK to it, please post same. Out.
I don’t think that Barack Sr. was his daddy. Probably says unknown on BC or has an American Communist as his daddy.
The whole saga is fishy. Ann having Barry in August. A month later she’s in Washington to attend college there. Supposedly Barry wasn’t with Gramps and Toot, so he must have been in Washington. How many women of that era left a month old baby to go to school full time? She enrolled as Ann Dunham, not Ann Obama. Went to Hawaii, Washington, back to Hawaii. Barry Sr. was already married so any marriage would be invalid in the US. Whole thing smells. IMHO there is no question that he’s hiding something, it’s just what is that something?
He would fit the profile of either a CIA operative or KGB.
I am the ONLY person right now that has brought about THE issue concerning the out of wedlock immigration law... over and over and over again to try to get people from misleading others and the public.
Why didn’t you do it?
There may have been others in the past that have tried to do this. If so, apparently everyone ignored them.
That may confer citizenship, but not the “natural born” kind.
I still believe there are legitimate questions as to Obama’s citizenship. He could clear this up very easily by releasing his official birth certificate. Why doesn’t he?
How to explain the Elg case?
Natural born citizen requirement for POTUS:
1. U.S. Constitution. Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5
2. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
3. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
The U.S. Consitution and the case law defines that to be eligble for POTUS a person has to be born on American soil to U.S. citizens.
After being married, she gave birth and went to Washington without him. I have never seen a mention that he went to college there. So many unanswered questions and “facts” that are dubious at best. I don’t think that Obmama Grandpa had to worry about his bloodline being sullied. My gut says Barack Sr. isn’t the baby daddy.
The reason it appears to me that the first sentences are in Polarik’s own voice saying that the Kenyan birth certificate is bogus, is the regular font here:
“However, the bottom line is that it’s another BOGUS BIRTH DOCUMENT. It’s not a birth certificate at all. Here are a few findings by the members of the group and from other contacts:”
Then the quoted statements change to italic font, until the end of the comment where the regular font returns with this:
“I also found a number of anomalies that shout, “Forgery.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=4121#4121
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.