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 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 851-873 next last
To: BuckeyeTexan

Oh really????

Find it in any of these cases:

Reynolds v. United States
Wilkerson v. Utah

Kilbourn v. Thompson
Same court.

If her citizenship was GERMANE to this case you would have have a discussion of her parents citizenship.

You want to see the difference??

Flores -Villar was a citizenship case.
Scotus discussed Nguyen in that case. This time oral arguments didn’t breath a word about NBC.

But as for citizenship - look at the difference between this when it is germane and Minor WHEN IT WAS NOT.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-5801

Minor was a VOTING case NOT a citizenship case.


701 posted on 01/21/2012 3:59:45 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
“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.”

Your unsubstantiated speculations do not explain why Barry fails E-Verify check for match of name and number. IIRC E-Verify fails to match Barry's SS# to various spellings of Soetoro, either.

You do not explain why the Grandparents, in whose apartment he was living, would not take legal custody of Barry and claim the tax deduction on him.

As far as I am concerned I will not believe that he even flew unaccompanied or any of your other claimed statements of fact without actual documentary proof.

702 posted on 01/21/2012 4:03:57 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
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.

Not only that, but one of those INS agents mentioned that Barack had gotten Stanley Ann Pregnant in his Memo. Looking for another mother is needlessly multiplying complications with very little evidence and to no benefit.

Stanley Ann's Aunt Virginia May Dunham Goeldner even said that Stanley Ann usually went by the name "Ann."

Virginia said her niece, who was called Ann, was actually named after her father because he wanted a boy so badly he named her Stanley before she was born. She said that throughout her life she went by her middle name of Ann.

http://www.sherwoodvoice.com/articles/2008/11/14/maumelle_monitor/living/liv01.txt

Now don't pay any attention to the part of the Story where it says "When Ann died at an early age, it was Virginia’s brother and sister-in-law who raised the future president."

The Guy that wrote that article got it wrong and corrected it in another article he wrote later that day. You can find links to both articles. Virginia Goeldner knows very well that Ann didn't die till much later because she describes her role as an anthropologist.

703 posted on 01/21/2012 4:04:46 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I don’t want to read Leo. I want you to show me the actual court sentence that says Minor’s parents were American Citizens.

There is no such sentence in that case.

There is an implication but there is no direct statement.

Come on, if it was germane to the case surely you know that would have had to be addressed.

The fact that Minor was a citizen was NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANYONE.

Any discussion of it was dictum because that fact was not in dispute. Her citizenship , in essence, was agreed upon. It was not an issue before the court.

The job of SCOTUS is to discuss and decide as their holding the ISSUE before them. Citizenhip wasn’t it. If Missouri had said that Minor wasn’t a citzen then it would have been an issue.

Surely you understand the difference.


704 posted on 01/21/2012 4:08:25 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

There is someone on this site that seems to be implying he has a copy of the paper in question.. I can’t remember his name. It was all very mysterious . I know it was not Greg H but I just don’t remember the name.


705 posted on 01/21/2012 4:11:37 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“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. “

btw, Richard K C Lee (of the birth certificate) later wrote a paper with one of the Nordyke twins..for the institute that was known to be connected to the CIA.

Interesting coincidence in the scheme of it all.


706 posted on 01/21/2012 4:15:11 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Maybe you should pay more attention.

No where does Minor say that her parents were American citizens. In a Supreme Court case ABOUT CITIZENSHIP they will discuss the citizenship of the parents. Read Flores-Villar for an example.

All you have is an IMPLICATION. Why the implication????? Why the discussion of NBC??????

Because for the PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, that was all that was necessary. She was an NBC because her parents were American Citizens

+++++++++++++++++++AS IMPLIED+++++++++++++++++++++++++ by the court.

No discussion necessary BECAUSE her citizenship was not in dispute and any discussion of it was dictum.


707 posted on 01/21/2012 4:21:07 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Hi, I admit I haven’t read this thread, but saw your comment and needed to add something about ICE taking unaccompanied minors through customs; my daughter is court ordered to travel to Sweden each summer to stay with her father and I register as an unaccompanied minor, so she has a stewardess take her to the plane and then brings her out PAST customs to either myself or, on the other end, her dad. Never has an ICE agent had anything to do with it. People unaffiliated with the airline/airport, and those without a valid flight pass are not allowed to fetch luggage or go through customs with their children. My daughter has done this since 2007 twice a year, and it is always stressful, but under no circumstances do Airports allow anyone to come through customs who is not official, nor do they assign anyone above and beyond airline staff to watch the children. In fact, the past few times she has seen traded from stewardess to just an airline staffer once she gets off the plane, and this summer she was one of four kids in the staffer’s care. I can’t imagine that it was even more stringent per-9/11.


708 posted on 01/21/2012 4:21:34 PM PST by Rutabega (No one reads these anyway, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Fuller wrote Lockwood. He also wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark.He never mentions that Minor decided the issue .he never says it set precedent. When he mentions Minor it is in the context of not having decided a certain issue.


709 posted on 01/21/2012 4:34:44 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Really?? - I quoted you accurately, and what you wrote has important differences. I’m sorry for you that you can’t see the differences.

Tex: There is one path to natural-born citizenship that mostly definitely is settled law: those born in the country to citizen parents. All other paths have unresolved doubts and are absolutely up for debate until the SCOTUS makes a ruling.

Triple: Wrong - There is one class of citizenship that is unquestioned, NBC (those born in country to two citizen parents). Other classes of citizenship may be challenged. in M Vs H the woman in question was NBC, therefore her citizenship was unquestioned.

We both agree that those born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens and that there can be no legal arguments to the contrary, do we not?

We both agree that for all others who claim natural-born citizenship, legal arguments can be made to the contrary, do we not?

I structured my statement to reflect the fact that those who are deemed citizens at birth or natural-born citizens by statute (and are not naturalized) may not be NBC for Constitutional purposes. The SCOTUS has not ruled on that path to natural-born citizenship. There may be only one path to a Constitutional NBC. Until the SCOTUS rules on the Constitutional status of statutory natural-born citizens, their path to NBC is unsettled law.

710 posted on 01/21/2012 4:38:12 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: Rutabega; SatinDoll

I’m not familiar with the customs procedure of Swiss authorities. You forgot to mention if your children were American citizens.

In America, foreign nationals who are Unaccompanied Minors cannot clear customs without a parent, close relative or guardian to assist them. The procedure is for an Unaccompanied Minor from a non-border country to be taken into protective custody. Keep in mind, Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian National traveling alone when he arrived in Hawai’i at 10 YO.

Furthermore, after SAD Soetoro took Barack “Soebarkah” Obama off her US passport, Barry Soetoro may not have had an Indonesian passport with him. We know from the Strunk FOIA documents that SAD Soetoro’s US Passport had expired when she returned to Hawai’i shortly after Barry landed in Hawai’i.


711 posted on 01/21/2012 4:41:27 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; All

I went there and it is truly amazing to me that these people are singularly focused on Orly. There are two other cases to be heard as well.

From many of the comments over there I suspect Vladimir Ilyich Lenin would truly be proud of these fogbutts as the useful idiots that they are.


712 posted on 01/21/2012 4:47:42 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
We're not discussing those cases. We're discussing MvH. I've shown you the Court's declaration that the question before the Court included the plaintiff's assertion that Minor was a citizen and the Court's declaration that it had to affirm Minor's citizenship before it could address her right to vote. If you still don't get that Minor's citizenship was not mentioned in passing, then I can't help you.
713 posted on 01/21/2012 4:55:21 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

an unacompanied minor (or anyone else) cannot board a common carrier plane fom a foreign country without a valid passport and visa for the US. Are you suggested he was smuggled in?


714 posted on 01/21/2012 4:56:16 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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.

I agree with this 100%. But if I wasn't part of the investigation and seen and heard what I have then I wouldn't make the statements. And believe me I have looked at it six ways to Sunday and still can't come up with any explanation other than the conclusions that were made. Believe me I find it scary and am not one who scares easily.

715 posted on 01/21/2012 5:08:09 PM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I can’t imagine SCOTUS ruling that a child with only one parent on their birth certificate couldn’t run for president if the mother was a US citizen at time of birth and father was unknown. Not in 2012.

I ask that people on this thread who are pro-life and hope that an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant but decides to keep the baby instead of having an abortion, stop calling the kids ‘bastards’. Is the blame the child’s?


716 posted on 01/21/2012 5:16:08 PM PST by Rutabega (No one reads these anyway, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

I am an American and so is my daughter and in America, I am not allowed to go through customs with my daughter. What you are claiming is not true.


717 posted on 01/21/2012 5:18:36 PM PST by Rutabega (No one reads these anyway, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Wait, I see the distinction you are making, and my daughter is in the US line to go through customs in the US, so perhaps that is the difference.

On a lighter note, it is ironic that someone with the handle Sven Magnussen confused Sweden with Switzerland. :)


718 posted on 01/21/2012 5:21:47 PM PST by Rutabega (No one reads these anyway, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
“I want you to show me the actual court sentence that says Minor’s parents were American Citizens.”

It is not in one sentence and it does not need to be in one sentence. The holding by the Court that Mrs. Minor was a specific type of citizen, that being a natural born citizen, explicitly affirms that her parents were US citizens because, as you posted, the Court declared (and I contend held) that “born in the country to parents who are citizens” is the definition of NBC.

If you can't see the inescapable logic of that all together in context being an affirmation that Mrs. Minor's parents were citizens, then we will have to agree to disagree. In any case, we all will have to await a SCOTUS ruling on what this all means in relation to Barry. We may not have to wait too long!

719 posted on 01/21/2012 5:21:48 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

He is talking about PERSONAL JURISDICTION. Article III talks about judicial power.

Btw, Minor was a CITIZEN of Missouri . This fact was not in dispute. How do you figure that she was a citizen of a different state than Happersett who was acting on Missouri’s law?

The court threw out the complaint. It made it’s way to SCOTUS.

Now tell me how the two parties are from different states?????

Btw,it is important to know what happens with a demurrer.The judge has to assume all material facts are true.

You got that????

It’s a “so what” if they are true decision.


720 posted on 01/21/2012 5:24:26 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Do you and Leo not understand that the lower court accepted as true all the material facts and THREW THE CASE OUT.

Citizenship was NOT AN ISSUE .

Right to vote was an issue.

What was before the court????? Not her citizenship because that was already accepted.

The issue before the court was whether a female citizen could vote. Not whether she was a female citizen. That had already been accepted by the lower court.

Both of you should look up the meaning of the word “HOLDING”

Btw, even if the holding was that Minor was an NBC , it is STILL NOT precedent because the issue was not one of her being born of alien parents. She wasn’t born of alien parents. NOT GERMANE TO THE CASE.


721 posted on 01/21/2012 5:30:16 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Rutabega
“I ask that people on this thread who are pro-life and hope that an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant but decides to keep the baby instead of having an abortion, stop calling the kids ‘bastards’.”

Fair enough, but in Barry's case declaring himself as born to a single mother (and no UK father and not being a UK subject at birth) he may save his presidency from being declared ineligible, if SCOTUS goes along with him being NBC (and born in the US).

The “law of bastardy” is no longer in effect as a “disability” for most US citizens. But it is a matter of national security for both the UK and US. Marriage still determines legal paternity for purposes of determining unitary vs dual citizenship or no citizenship of a child born outside the US to US citizen father (who may be married to someone else) and non-citizen mother.

But since the majority of children in some communities (and many European countries) are the children of unmarried parents being a “bastard” is passe as, unfortunately, is being married and being a Christian and complying with scripture on marriage and procreation.

The insult “he is a bastard” has a totally different meaning and partisans are eager to apply it to folks they disdain having nothing to do with whether their mothers were married. Witness MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan’s new book “Greedy Bastards” about the thieving Wall Street Bankers.

Heck, MSNBC caters to liberals and AA’s and 70% of AA’s children are born out of wedlock and I believe that Al Sharpton comes on right after Ratigan and doesn't seem to mind or comment on Ratigan’s book title.

But I do appreciate your concern and it did occur to me when I first heard the book title.

722 posted on 01/21/2012 5:43:38 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I went back and read the ENTIRE passage. Your understanding is much worse than I thought.

The court is using that passage to show that there have been many cases involving women and personal jurisdiction and not one raised an objection based on sex.

Good Lord, that excerpt has nothing to do with putting her own citizenship on the record.


723 posted on 01/21/2012 5:45:18 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
I want you to show me the actual court sentence that says Minor’s parents were American Citizens.

There is no such sentence in that case.

This is an important point. The Minor court did not specifically say that Virginia Minor was born of citizen parents, but it was understood by the Supreme Court more than 20 years later in Wong Kim Ark, when Justice Gray explained the holding in Minor:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

See?? Justice Waite did not specifically say Minor had citizen parents, but Justice Gray understood that she did AND he made sure to include this factor as part of the holding. Why do you think he did that??

724 posted on 01/21/2012 6:00:09 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“We both agree that for all others who claim natural-born citizenship, legal arguments can be made to the contrary, do we not?” -bet

Nope.

I am saying that if you were not born in country by 2 citizen parents, you are not NBC.


725 posted on 01/21/2012 6:14:11 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 710 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Justice Horace Gray was appointed by Chestur Arthur.

Arthur did a lot of document shredding a la a burning trash can before he died.


726 posted on 01/21/2012 6:28:19 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

For those that don’t understand the importance of Chestur Arthur and Horace Gray....Arthur’s father was naturalized AFTER he was born. Chester knew it.

British Father.

President born in the US.

Sound familiar????


727 posted on 01/21/2012 6:35:47 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Ummm, you didn’t answer my question. This sentence about the holding in Minor doesn’t help Chester Arthur, who would have been old news at the time of the WKA decision anyway. Let’s focus, chick. Why do both decision emphasize citizen parents??


728 posted on 01/21/2012 6:39:40 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Ummm, you didn’t answer my question. This sentence about the holding in Minor doesn’t help Chester Arthur, who would have been old news at the time of the WKA decision anyway. Let’s focus, chick. Why do both decision emphasize citizen parents??


729 posted on 01/21/2012 6:39:59 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The Ark case is a MESS. It is too time consuming to go through that case. People have done it ad nauseum.

The salient point is that Horace Gray was appointed by Chestur Arthur - a fraud who may not have been eligible for President - depending on the definition of Natural Born citizen.

His father was an alien at the time Chester was born. According to the decision in Ark, Chester was a citizen.

What would have happened if Gray had ruled another way?????

The fact is that Horace Gray had a vested interest in a decision and that may have been the reason it turned out the way it did and why it was such a mess.


730 posted on 01/21/2012 6:51:44 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Focus. The citation of the Minor holding is very simple and elegant and does NOT help Arthur nor does it involve Arthur. Why does Gray emphasize Virginia Minor’s citizenship was based in part on citizen parents when that was never specifically stated?? There’s a reason. Think about it and answer the question.


731 posted on 01/21/2012 6:56:46 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

This is a very interesting discussion on

http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/

“They are also attempting to keep their prior adjudication to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.”

And why does Gray need Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen???? Because he needs Chester Arthur to be a citizen????


732 posted on 01/21/2012 6:59:48 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You need to read this IN DEPTH and comprehend it.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/

I agree with Justice Stevens quote:

“A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”


733 posted on 01/21/2012 7:02:49 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

“I don’t know why you addressed that to me. I’m not a Paul fan. It doesn’t surprise me that he hasn’t addressed this. He’s a Congressman. He’s part of the system.”

I only copied you because you were also copied on the previous posting. It was not directed to you, and I offer my apologies if that was the impression that was given.


734 posted on 01/21/2012 7:09:15 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Ladysforest

It probably took about 5-6 people, if “Koa” and the Prius Chat poster were actually the workers at the Honolulu Advertiser who pulled off the switch of the microfilms.

It would not be hard at all to replace the microfilms, and there is decent evidence of how it was actually done at the Library of Congress. The box of microfilm had its label changed for a while and then changed back to its original number. So there would have been a while when only the person who changed the index number on the box knew where it was - until they didn’t need that microfilm hidden any more and changed the index number back so it would be filed again where people could find it. Unfortunately for them, the changes on the box were done in ink so they still show. They might have changed out that box by now but ladysforest has photos of it on her blog, I believe.

And unfortunately for them, the microfilm that’s now in that box has a tear in it and other indicators that it would never have passed the quality inspection for the microfilming company it supposedly came from. It seems almost certain that it came from somebody else.

That’s one example of the kinds of physical evidence I’m talking about. I’ve got other examples on my blog - scratches disappearing over time, provably false claims by the people who claimed to have made copies of the announcements from library microfilm, etc. There’s other stuff that I haven’t gone into because the birth certificate, birth index, Sunahara, etc stuff seemed more important. And ladysforest has a lot of stuff on her blog too. She’s really done a fantastic job of researching the birth announcements.

Regarding a paper copy, the Bishop Library in Hawaii has in its list of holdings a claim that it has paper copies of the old archived newspapers from this time period. But now they’re saying they don’t have any...

Of course, we were also told the HDOH didn’t have any birth records for Virginia Sunahara, but we know how that turned out.


735 posted on 01/21/2012 7:13:54 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
I think you have it.

Obama Sr. had nothing else to offer in 1971.

Bagging a vacation in Hawaii for a Kenyan passport and citizenship documents for Jr. was a sweet deal.

For Jr. the world was made right. His father traversed the globe to rescue him. He was a Harvard man, a Kenyan prince.
After so many beach sunsets and free lunches, Sr. rides into the sunset, his boys hero.

Americas first foreign citizen president arrived in 1971 and he would eventually rape the country that saved him. His American Identity became an enigma, lost but presumed. He furthered the cause for Islam and its Theocracies, and bankrupted America. He left an indelible mark, this Kenyan boy. He gave America what he felt it deserved for deporting his father. Economic ruin.

736 posted on 01/21/2012 7:15:27 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Thank you. I understand now what you were doing.

I apologize as well.


737 posted on 01/21/2012 7:15:40 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Look, you really don’t understand the Supreme Court if you can’t comprehend something was going on in that Wong Kim Ark Decision. Gray NEEDED Arthur to be a citizen. There may be other explanations for one of the most incompetent rulings ever handed down but Arthur’s citizenship at stake certainly fills the bill.

The statement about Minor is describing her situation. It is not a holding that the only definition of an NBC is jus soli and Jus sanguinis.

Get a grip on the reality of Wong Kim Ark and start to think about WHY they totally ignored evidence that would have shown the intent of Congress in the language of the 14th amendment and WHY did they twist it around to try to get around Elk? Why was there so much convoluted nonsense just to make Ark a citizen????????

There was a high intrigue in that decision. Were they paid off or was something else at stake???

This is the reason I don’t discuss Wong Kim Ark . People like you haven’t even BEGUN to think about what was really taking place in that decision.


738 posted on 01/21/2012 7:17:17 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; Spaulding; BuckeyeTexan; Danae; LucyT; GregNH; edge919
""Born in the country to parents who are citizens" COULD be ruled by this SCOTUS to include children of single US citizen mothers despite the plural "citizens," IMO, because such children are clearly not legally the children of aliens or foreigners and have US citizenship but both blood and soil. We just won't know until there is a ruling."

I'll concede that this scenario is not out of the realm of of judicial possibility. However, and I may be coming in here late (this thread has grown by over 200 posts since I went to bed last night here in Yokohama) and this point may already have been been gnawed over since I last weighed in, but just as food for thought:

If the founder's intention by inserting the NBC language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to minimize to the greatest extent possible the potential for divided loyalties in a person elected to wield the presidential levers of power, then simple logic would seem to dictate that a person with one foreign born parent, regardless of the legal parentage status of that alien progenitor, would have at least a theoretically higher chance of having sympathies with the foreign nation of the alien parent's origin than a child born to parents who are both citizens.

739 posted on 01/21/2012 7:39:18 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER; SvenMagnussen

I could easily back the events in SvenMagnussen’s #675 as the ‘post 1971’ events.

The main point being something of significant substance happened in 1971. And that should be investigated as much, if not more, intensely than what happened in 1961.


740 posted on 01/21/2012 7:51:48 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Those here posting about Wong Kim Ark should really really really read the brief by the Appellant - which was the United States.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

It talks about natural born citizen.

While reading it keep in mind that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision without exception.

after reading it some of you may understand why I bring up Chester Arthur and his relationship with Horace Gray.


741 posted on 01/21/2012 7:56:08 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Read the brief by the United States in Wong Kim ark
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

It is also helpful to find the lower court case.

I wonder if you will stop quoting Wong Kim Ark once you really see what went down.

Note that the person in question was deemed A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Supreme Court affirmed the decision without exception.


742 posted on 01/21/2012 8:08:53 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I bet the Georgia Democrat party will cancel their primary and just have a caucus instead. That way here’s no state ballot or election board issue for them to deal with, not until the fall anyway.


743 posted on 01/21/2012 8:38:45 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
"They are perfervidly speculating that it would actually be to Obama’s advantage to be stricken from the GA ballot."

Perfervidly. What a great word. Man, I love this place. FR Rawks! :)

744 posted on 01/21/2012 8:45:08 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Focus. You’re resorting to very bizarre deflections. Wong Kim Ark considered all kinds of original intent. That’s part of the reason why they concludes that NBCs were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. The question, for the third (or is it fourth) time: Why does Gray make a point of emphasizing that Minor’s citizenship was partially due to having citizen parents?? If you don’t want to admit what it means, just say so.


745 posted on 01/21/2012 8:48:11 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
The statement about Minor is describing her situation. It is not a holding that the only definition of an NBC is jus soli and Jus sanguinis.

Read the statement again. It includes BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. Why did Gray included jus sanguinis when, as YOU adamantly pointed out, it was NEVER described as her situation in the actual Minor decision?? What's his reasoning?? Think, chick, think.

746 posted on 01/21/2012 8:50:38 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

These questions would still remain for the general election though. Only eligible candidates can be on ANY ballot.

So if Obama doesn’t prove his eligibility he will disenfranchise all of Georgia’s voters.

Not a piddly thing.


747 posted on 01/21/2012 8:54:48 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

This is a good point. There’s really nothing to support the idea that the child of a single U.S. citizen mother would be a natural-born citizen in the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, especially the child of a British subject, whether he was a bigamist or not. There’s nothing to indicate that they would have only rejected those persons who were legitimately born to foreign national fathers.

The thing that we need to focus on too, is that this hearing is an administrative law hearing for an elections law issue. Marriage and legitimacy cases are conducted separately and can take all kinds of time to sort out and resolve. This judge is not going to accept weak and speculative claims about Obama’s mama being an unwed mother because Obama’s papa was a bigamist. It just ain’t gonna happen. Instead, I predict that either A) Obama tries to strong-arm the court with a fake birth certificate or out-of-court website evidence, B) Obama bails out and allows a default judgment, or C) His lawyers find a way to delay the case and/or get an injunction and convince a higher court to dismiss the case.


748 posted on 01/21/2012 9:00:15 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: Plummz; All

Article II Super PAC Providing Live Internet Video Stream
From Inside Obama’s 3 Georgia Ballot Hearings

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/article-ii-super-pac-providing-live.html


749 posted on 01/21/2012 9:02:53 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; edge919; BuckeyeTexan
“Note that the person in question was deemed A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

Not correct, IMO. But only SCOTUS can say ultimately regarding Obama, which is the question at hand.

WKA was deemed “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Note the distinction. Two different classes: citizens who are not NBC compared to citizens who are NBC. Both have the same citizen rights, but they are not the same regarding POTUS eligibility.

NBCs and other citizens have equal citizen rights, but the POTUS eligibility is a status at birth independent from citizenship rights.

The Minor court defined NBCs about which there were NO DOUBTS, but said there was doubt as to the citizenship but not the NBC status of children of aliens and foreigners born on US soil. The WKA court reached and resolved the citizenship doubts about WKA a baby born to alien parents on US soil. The WKA court did not change the NBC definition in Minor despite that claim in the non-binding dissent.

750 posted on 01/21/2012 9:04:41 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 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