Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA to APPEAR to Testify
Atlanta Admin Court ^ | 1/20/2012 | Judge Malihi

Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH

Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2012; ballot; bhocorruption; bhofascism; birthcertificate; certifigate; democrats; elections; eligibility; ga; georgia; naturalborncitizen; nobama; nobama2012; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 851-873 next last
To: Pan_Yans Wife

The safety and security of my own family has crossed my mind. Most specifically when the wiring in my husband’s van started sparking right next to the engine after looking an awful lot like the sheathing had been cut - the day after I was in contact with Lakin’s counsel and shortly before my computer went totally dead with a massive trojan.

I have definitely considered the consequences. I know what is at stake. The question is whether I want to die in a lawless, terrorist scenario like “The Dark Knight” or whether I want to blow up in a car explosion or rioting. I would rather die fighting for what was right than have my children live in slavery to lawlessness. Death is a one-way ticket Home, for me and for my children. I’m not afraid of death. There are things that are far, far worse than death.


651 posted on 01/21/2012 10:35:31 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Agreed.


652 posted on 01/21/2012 10:36:01 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

btw, I noticed that Leo relies heavily on what the court would have said if they meant such and such.

That is just ludicrous. That is his opinion. Courts often don’t say what you think they should say when they mean something - even the Supreme Court.


653 posted on 01/21/2012 10:36:48 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; Danae
Why????? No one argued that she wasn’t a citizen. Everyone agreed she was a citizen. Whether that citizen has a right to vote is a different issue. That was the question before the court. What was the holding? Be Exact. The holding was that the Constitution did not give women the right to vote. Their citizenship was irrelevant. Definition of NBC is not pertinant to this case. Where were the cites of cases,or the the arguments or in depth discussion. There is none because it is not relevant to the case. Thus, obiter dictum.

With the following sentence in MvH, the Court indicated that it had to consider Minor's citizenship.

It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
The Court immediately goes on to say that the basis of the plaintiff's argument is predicated upon her being a citizen.

The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
In order to address the question of whether or not Minor had the right to vote, the Court had to first address the plaintiff's assertion that Minor was a citizen because that was the plaintiff's sole basis for bringing the case. The Court agreed with the plaintiff's argument that Minor was a citizen. The Court disagreed that her citizenship inherently granted her the right to vote.

Obiter dictum, as you know, is latin for "said in passing." The Court did not comment on Minor's citizenship in passing. Their determination that she was a citizen before the adoption of the 14th amendment was a basis for their holding that no citizen, male or female, had an inherent right to vote granted by the Constitution.

654 posted on 01/21/2012 10:37:51 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

They weren’t rioting over OJ Simpson. They were rioting over the dismissal of LA police of criminal liability by a majority white jury in Simi Valley (not LA) who were caught on tape beating a “defenseless” Rodney King who was speeding to evade being pulled over by police. This was during the robert gates tenure as LA POlice Chief in which there was significant friction between police and the minority populace due to higher incidents of police brutality.

Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck by latino gang members in south central LA. After that most of the rioting involved was burning and looting of shops (predominantly owned by Koreans) in that area.


655 posted on 01/21/2012 10:39:53 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

People believe they need to protect themselves because they know that the police won’t get there in time. I stated above that we have to be aware of the irrational people who will target others. But, aren’t we fortunate to know that our neighbors believe in self-protection, too?


656 posted on 01/21/2012 10:40:23 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Yes. I meant Rodney King. I wrote that wrong. I do remember King, Gates and what happened.

I’m sorry. I wish I could edit what I said.

I’ve got tornado warnings on my mind right now, so I’m a little distracted. My apologies.


657 posted on 01/21/2012 10:43:07 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

People believe they need to protect themselves because they know that the police won’t get there in time.


Isn’t this true in any normal circumstance. When someone illegally and forcefully enters your home to burglerize it you think the police are going to arrive “just in the nick of time”?


658 posted on 01/21/2012 10:44:43 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Back to you.


659 posted on 01/21/2012 10:50:03 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; Seizethecarp; Danae
The question was whether the 14th Amendment provided suffrage to a female citzen. Not whether the female was a citizen.

That's exactly where you are wrong. Here is the question as written by the Court in Minor.

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. (...) The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
The plaintiff's whole argument is that Minor as a citizen of the U.S. had the right to vote. The Court agreed that she was a citizen but disagreed that such citizenship gave her the right to vote.

You are simply wrong on the face of your argument that her citizenship was not a question presented to the Court. The Court tells us in black and white that it was part of the question being decided because it was the basis of the plaintiff's argument.

660 posted on 01/21/2012 10:52:27 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

Prayers for your safety. I didn’t realize it was tornado season for GA.


661 posted on 01/21/2012 10:52:30 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

You’re trying to read something into my post which was not in fact said or implied. I was supplying the Department of State’s interpretation of how the citizenship of foundlings is determined in accordance with prevailing international law. While the case of BHO does not involve the issue of a foundling, the foundling principles in domestic and international law illustrates how there is an existing presumptive bias in such laws towards recognizing natural born citizenship in the event the father’s identity and status cannot be determined and the mother is a citizen giving birth out of wedlock. In the case of BHO, these particulars do not clearly apply, but they may provide a very flawed excuse for attempting to create the false appearance of a legitimate legal excuse. In any event, it is worthwhile to be aware of how the domestic and international law treats the issue of citizenship for foundlings. The next thing you know, someone is going to suggest Stanley Ann was never pregnant in the first place and found a poor foundling to mother...who then qualified as a natural born citizen....(LOL)


662 posted on 01/21/2012 10:53:27 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Bingo and in the SCOTUS case Ex Parte Lockwood it stated this refering to Minor v Happersett:

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116


663 posted on 01/21/2012 10:53:27 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Her citizenship was not in dispute.
It was a fact NOT IN DISPUTE.

NO ONE DISPUTED THAT SHE WAS A CITIZEN. Not Happersett, not the Court in Missouri...NO ONE. It is not part of the HOLDING.

I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.


664 posted on 01/21/2012 10:54:04 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I am sorry if you can’t understand the difference in a court of law.

Is Person “A” a citizen?

Versus

Does the sex of Person “A” preclude her from voting when she is a citizen.

The second question is what was before the court.

NO ONE DISPUTED THE MINOR WAS A CITIZEN.

Fact not in dispute.

The whole question before the Supreme Court was whether the 14th Amendment allowed for Suffrage.

HOLDING - NO.

The holding was not that she was a citizen. EVERYONE AGREED SHE WAS A CITIZEN.

The HOLDING was NO SUFFRAGE.


665 posted on 01/21/2012 11:00:04 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

I want you to show me the EXACT sentence where the Minor court says that her parents were American Citizens.

If her citizenship was in dispute surely there is a discussion of the citizenship of her Parents. Where were they born?

Where is the discussion. Show me the EXACT sentence.


666 posted on 01/21/2012 11:03:53 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

The reason they didn’t dispute she was a citizen was because “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” (Minor v Happersett).

Justice Waite did not say it is not necessary to solve the issue of “parental citizenship.” He solved it quite clearly. All persons born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It is a type of citizenship without doubt. They used Article 2 Section 1 to avoid the 14th. It’s really that simple to understand.


667 posted on 01/21/2012 11:12:37 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

So it just makes my point. And I apologize for not being more specific in the picture comment. There are no pics prior to 3 years old with any of the people he claims to be family...


668 posted on 01/21/2012 11:14:07 AM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I do not doubt at all that Hawaii learned of Barack Obama on August 4th, 1961. I do not accept that the newspaper announcements were forged, or created after the fact. I think the evidence for that is only speculative and inconclusive. At the moment I believe it is far more likely that those newspaper announcements are real, and reflect what was entered into the record at that time.

I certainly do not wish to argue the announcement theories but I think differently having been involved to some degree in that investigation personally. I do believe they are fabricated. But in either case it is not conclusive of anything without records of back up.

669 posted on 01/21/2012 11:19:04 AM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

The next thing you know, someone is going to suggest Stanley Ann was never pregnant in the first place and found a poor foundling to mother...who then qualified as a natural born citizen....(LOL)


For instance JoAnne Newman and Malik Shabazz (aka Malcolm Little)?


670 posted on 01/21/2012 11:21:34 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

So you are saying that he NEVER discusses the citizenship of her parents?

Her citizenship is in dispute and germane to the case according to you but he NEVER discusses the citizenship of her parents . He never states that her Parents were American Citizens. NOT ONCE. NO WHERE. A fact you claim is in dispute and germane to the case. A fact that is germane must be addressed.

So you claim he addresses a fact in dispute with this:

“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.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parentsAs to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen”

You better think about that for a minute.

He implies with this:

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE.

Maybe it will sink in to you.

But I doubt it.

Btw, a FACT in dispute has to be addressed outright. Not by implication.


671 posted on 01/21/2012 11:23:13 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; Danae; Seizethecarp; edge919; GregNH
Her citizenship was not in dispute. It was a fact NOT IN DISPUTE. NO ONE DISPUTED THAT SHE WAS A CITIZEN. Not Happersett, not the Court in Missouri...NO ONE. It is not part of the HOLDING.

I never said Minor's citizenship was in dispute. The Court didn't say it was in dispute either. The Court said in MvH that citizenship must be affirmed on the record before it can address any other question.

Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed.
The Court had to affirm Minor's citizenship before it could address whether or not she had the right to vote. Thus the affirmation of her citizenship was not mentioned in passing. It was the basis of the plaintiff's argument and the Court considered it and spoke extensively about it as part of their decision.

I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.

Strawman.

672 posted on 01/21/2012 11:29:57 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

My preposterous theory does not state who the bio daddy is. I happen to think he is BHO’s son but of another mother than SAD. I believe that mother is Phillipean and her name is Ann Obama.


673 posted on 01/21/2012 11:33:13 AM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; SatinDoll

Obama admitted he travelled from Indonesia to America as an Unaccompanied Minor. Unaccompanied Minors are taken into Federal Protective Custody by ICE Agents before they clear customs. Since Barry Soetoro, his legal name at 10 YO, was an Indonesian National he was tranferred Federal Foster Care. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut contracted with State Department to conduct child custodial service for Unaccompanied Minors taken into custody at the border. It was Catholic Social Services who flew BHO Sr to Hawaii in Dec, 1971 to determine a final resolution to legal custody. The Hawaii Court rule the Soetoro adoption anulled, the HAwaii COLB for Barry Soetoro seal and archived and the BHO II COLB “Barack Hussein Obama II” filed, and Catholic Soc Serv of CT to retain legal custody of BHO II until his age of majority. CATHOLIC SOC SERV OF CT FILED BHO’S II SSN AS HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN. He was an Indonesian Natl at 10 YO and a Permanent REsident Alien when Catholic Soc Serv applied for his SSN.


674 posted on 01/21/2012 11:33:21 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; SatinDoll

Obama admitted he travelled from Indonesia to America as an Unaccompanied Minor. Unaccompanied Minors are taken into Federal Protective Custody by ICE Agents before they clear customs. Since Barry Soetoro, his legal name at 10 YO, was an Indonesian National he was tranferred Federal Foster Care. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut contracted with State Department to conduct child custodial service for Unaccompanied Minors taken into custody at the border. It was Catholic Social Services who flew BHO Sr to Hawaii in Dec, 1971 to determine a final resolution to legal custody. The Hawaii Court rule the Soetoro adoption anulled, the HAwaii COLB for Barry Soetoro seal and archived and the BHO II COLB “Barack Hussein Obama II” filed, and Catholic Soc Serv of CT to retain legal custody of BHO II until his age of majority. CATHOLIC SOC SERV OF CT FILED BHO’S II SSN AS HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN. He was an Indonesian Natl at 10 YO and a Permanent REsident Alien when Catholic Soc Serv applied for his SSN.


675 posted on 01/21/2012 11:33:56 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Ping me anytime you’re feeling deprived by Orly haters and I’ll gladly give you an apple. :)


676 posted on 01/21/2012 11:38:57 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

I was thinking more of people roaming the streets and harming people that are just walking down the street, idling at an intersection in a car, riding the mass transit system. Like the misnamed “flash mobs”.

But yes, people are looking to protect themselves more at home and on the streets. And citizens who are concealed carriers are on the uprise.


677 posted on 01/21/2012 11:40:52 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Thank you for the prayers.


678 posted on 01/21/2012 11:42:38 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: Danae
“There is NO WAY Obama the Arrogant is going to change his narrative now.”

The publication of “The Other Barack” has not only given him cover to change the narrative, but actually requires that he change the narrative, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama 2012 campaign was actually behind the rather slick claim to have been born to a single mom.

Remember that in the Ayers penned “Dreams” the marriage was uncertain and relatives in Kenya said his Dad was not how his mother said he was...and Mooshelle said his mom was very single when he was born...so the “improbable love” was bordering on being out-of-wedlock from the very beginning.

Remember that the Obama voter doesn't give a crap about marriage or having married parents!!!

In 2008 Obama was reaching out to white middleclass voters who valued marriage (at least more than others). Now in 2012 his campaign has already signaled they are giving up on whites altogether and going for the blacks and progressives who could care less about marriage before childbirth.

679 posted on 01/21/2012 11:43:03 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
“I want you to show me where the court reached and held that Minor was an NBC. Show me where it says her parents were American Citizens.”

See prior link to Leo Donofrio. I consider your answer to be there. If you dont’ see it we will have to agree to disagree.

680 posted on 01/21/2012 11:44:41 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

What Minor decided not to decide was whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It was not necessary for the Court to make that decision because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen.” Now you can readily see from the different nomenclature included by the Founders and Framers in the Constitution (“natural born Citizen” v. “Citizen of the United States”) that Minor did not call such a potential citizen an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Nor could such a potential citizen be a “natural born Citizen” given the Court’s own definition of the phrase. We know that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 decided that such a person is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Wong did not hold that such a person is a “natural born Citizen.”


681 posted on 01/21/2012 11:55:04 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I appreciate the thought and work that you’ve put into this issue. I will worry about you now.

I worry about the nameless people who are working behind the scenes. I worry about the people who have gone to court, their lawyers, the families of these people. I worry about anyone who stands up loudly to give this issue publicity. I worry about their safety today and in the future.

I worry about countless citizens that do what is right in the face of injustice and then are struck down. It happens.

I think fighting evil is worth it. As for Obama and the people who have fostered this deception, they truly are doing the work of the devil, in my opinion. Stopping them is necessary. I hope this effort is successful because it is that important. America’s future is a stake.

In the end though, each of them will answer to God.


682 posted on 01/21/2012 12:01:14 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

I don’t if any of that is accurate, but if it is, it sure does explain a hell of a lot about the clues Hawaii has released.


683 posted on 01/21/2012 12:03:32 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; Fractal Trader
“CATHOLIC SOC SERV OF CT FILED BHO’S II SSN AS HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN.”

I regard this theory (unsupported by any document so far) as impossible because Barry's SS# was confirmed, IIRC, to have been issued in 1977, NOT 1971 when Barry returned to HI.

If Barry's US citizen grandparents were at the airport to meet him you think INS would turn him over to legal custody of a CT charity???

IMO, no chance. IMO, no documentation of any of your speculations.

Note that any recollections of unaccompanied travel in “Dreams” were processed through the brain of Bill Ayers to at least some degree according to forensic analysis by Jack Cashill.

684 posted on 01/21/2012 12:10:12 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Thank you for your post.


685 posted on 01/21/2012 12:13:53 PM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
“I believe that mother is Phillipean and her name is Ann Obama.”

I have not seen evidence of a single 1961-era document even hinting at the existence of an Ann Obama (I think you meant “Anna Obama”) who was NOT Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, while there are piles of documents, including INS files released in 2011 which affirm a baby born to SADO considered by the US INS to be the bigamously conceived child of BHO Sr and SADO.

686 posted on 01/21/2012 12:15:21 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; SatinDoll

“If Barry’s US citizen grandparents were at the airport to meet him you think INS would turn him over to legal custody of a CT charity?”

It is procedure for ICE to take an Unaccompanied Minor into protective custody at a border inspection station. International Child Trafficking is a tremendous problem. There is absolutely no way an ICE agent would allow an Unaccompanied Minor to clear customs without a relative or legal guardian to accompany him/her.

And your redefining the message with your false assertion Catholic Soc Services applied for Barack’s SSN in 1971. Catholic Soc Services was assigned custody Barry Soetoro in 1971 because he was an Unaccompanied Minor. Catholic Soc Services paid for transportation of BHO Sr to travel to HI in Dec, 1971 so a Hawaii Court could make a determination who should have legal custody of Unaccompanied Minor Barry Soetoro.

After a Hawaii Court hearing, the Soetoro adoption was annulled, the court ordered the Barry Soetoro COLB was sealed and archived in Hawaii DoH and the Barack Hussein Obama II COLB to be filed, Catholic Soc Services of CT retained legal custody of BHO II until his 18th birthday and Madelyn Dunham was assigned BHO’s II foster parent.

Catholic Social Services of Connecticut filed for BHO’s II SSN in Connecticut in 1976,77 because they retained legal custody of Barack Hussein Obama II. When the Court ruled the Soetoro adoption annulled, the Hawaii Court ruled it was in BHO’s II best interest to remain in the custody of Catholic Soc Services of Connecticut. The Soetoro adoption annullment didn’t change BHO’s II citizenship status as an Indonesian National.

In 1976,77, Indonesian National Barack Hussein Obama II was entitled to receive a SSN as a Permanent Resident Alien of the U.S. Catholic Soc Services of CT retained legal custody of BHO II in 1976,77 and filed for him as his legal custodian.

It’s ironic how people continually ask me for proof of Obama’s SSN application data and completely acquiesce when Obama refuses to provide documentation. Or you could subpoena Catholic Social Services if CT or the State Department or AFDC program of Hawaii. The AFDC program of Hawaii has complete and thorough documentation of BHO’s II citizenship status.


687 posted on 01/21/2012 12:56:52 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Sven, is any of your post based on verifiable fact, or is it all conjecture?


688 posted on 01/21/2012 1:11:58 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; Hotlanta Mike

WiskeyX: “The next thing you know, someone is going to suggest Stanley Ann was never pregnant in the first place and found a poor foundling to mother...who then qualified as a natural born citizen....(LOL)”

Interesting question. Has anyone ever seen a photo of Obama’s mother “with child”. Perhaps it was not just an immaculate conception - maybe it was also an immaculate gestation???


689 posted on 01/21/2012 1:12:02 PM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Here is the CBS news video feed on the story from last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpUwroYiqNg&feature=player_embedded


690 posted on 01/21/2012 1:48:39 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Please give us a link to the case you keep “harping” on. I would like to listen to it.

jd


691 posted on 01/21/2012 2:09:25 PM PST by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

If you look at the State Dept docs and the events at the time of WWII, dual citizens can be impressed into the military service of the other sovereign and compelled to war against the US. This is the basic concern that the founders had regarding their commander-in-chief not only that he have no personal allegiance to another sovereign but that no other sovereign have an enforceable claim in his allegiance under international law.”

I agree with you on this. If one holds dual citizenship, you can be pressed to serve in their military under the age of 35. Which just so happens to be the age you can be president in the US


692 posted on 01/21/2012 2:33:03 PM PST by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

I did. Or google it.


693 posted on 01/21/2012 3:24:41 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"Orly Taitz is a lunatic attention whore who couldn't properly write a brief if Chief Justice John Roberts dictated it to her verbatim."

I would point out that Lincoln said of Grant, "I can't spare this man, he fights."

He also said after someone pointed out that Grant drank a lot, "Find out what whiskey he drinks and send all of my generals a case, if it will get the same results."

Orly is shrill and socially inept, but she puts up more of a fight than many "natural born" Americans.

694 posted on 01/21/2012 3:31:09 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Well, they are running out of time. Perhaps they should be focusing on arguing directly with Judge Mahili.

They are doing exactly that. Check over there if you wish. This is the thread.

www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845&start=2550-

695 posted on 01/21/2012 3:35:56 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Really?? - I quoted you accurately, and what you wrote has important differences.

I’m sorry for you that you can’t see the differences.

Out.


696 posted on 01/21/2012 3:40:42 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
People believe they need to protect themselves because they know that the police won’t get there in time. I stated above that we have to be aware of the irrational people who will target others. But, aren’t we fortunate to know that our neighbors believe in self-protection, too?

I saw a good one the other day. It went something like this.

"A 357 Magnum is better than the police because the police arrives in 20 minutes while a 357 Magnum arrives in 250 milliseconds."

697 posted on 01/21/2012 3:40:58 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Very good.

Thanks for sharing.


698 posted on 01/21/2012 3:43:04 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
I certainly do not wish to argue the announcement theories but I think differently having been involved to some degree in that investigation personally. I do believe they are fabricated. But in either case it is not conclusive of anything without records of back up.

If someone comes up with a paper copy of one of those newspapers which shows that notice isn't in there, then I will of course re-evaluate my thinking on this. It is my understanding that someone is offering a reward for such now.

I just don't think the number of people who would have to be relied on to pull such a "planting" stunt off, could be trusted to keep their mouths shut. One leak or mistake and it would catch the lot of them. The Risk/Reward just doesn't make sense. It's not impossible, but to my understanding of human nature it seems improbable.

699 posted on 01/21/2012 3:48:22 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

M vs H (actual text)

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.


Nope, the case says that there is a class of citizen, the natural born citizen, that nobody doubts or contests their citizenship. These natural born citizens are persons born within the jurisdiction to 2 citizen parents. There are other people that have debatable or sometimes argued citizenship, but they don’t matter in minor v heppersett, because in this case the woman has NBC status.

You have to be able to read and comprehend several sentences to understand the ruling. Maybe you should try again more slowly this time.


700 posted on 01/21/2012 3:54:58 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 851-873 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson