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

Skip to comments.

Stanley Ann's passport records out
A place to ask questions to get the right answers ^ | July 31, 2010 | Apuzzo

Posted on 07/31/2010 6:25:47 PM PDT by jdirt

They don't have her records before 1965 !!

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Gardening
KEYWORDS: anndunham; birthers; certifigate; dunham; dunhampassport; foreigners; naturalborncitizen; obama; passport; sadopassport; sadpassport; soetoro; soetoropassport; stanleyanndunham; tpd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 661-664 next last
To: Natural Born 54

And swiped .. ;)


561 posted on 08/02/2010 10:19:35 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; Natural Born 54; Buckhead

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35189898/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10

The letter referrenced in the Comment section on the Post& E-Mail article is at this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35189898/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10

ADDRESSED TO MR O’SHEA, 1 MAY, 1974


562 posted on 08/02/2010 10:31:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Irony: An immigrant telling ME about illegals. Welcome to America Dan. My Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather, immigrated to America in 1747. Our family has been here ever since and fought in EVERY war to protect this nation from 1776 on, and I am a proud DAR.

You need to learn how to read and not how to spout off in utter ignorance. The American way of debate is taken from Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together.” It is the rest of the world that resorts to vile, vulgar and slanderous innuendos instead of logic, dispassion and reason.

That you would attack someone with whom you have never constructed a dialog is beneath dignity of civil response, yet I afford it on your behalf, of my own charity.

Let us now address your curt and insulting remarks: Cojones, (n) Spanish vulgarity for testicles. You would be right, I have none. I am a woman. You may wish to check into that situation outside of this conversation if you are confused as to the differences.

“my friend”.... Whom? Barack Husien Obama? Likely, English is not your primary language or else reading and comprehension are less than your strongest gifts. Any of even the slightest perusal of my postings, would hardly leave any such evidence. To the contrary and to be clear, in case you are in fact ignorant and not willfully stupid, BHO is the understudy for the Anti-Christ. That statement alone, should declare plainly my position on the matter. Even for the daft.

Sarah has addressed me. By my first name. In person. And at length. I know her, and her circle of friends. And have had more than one occasion in which to enter into discourse with her personally and will likely do so on many future occasions. I even have access to her personal email address.

Now, is there anything I have left out? Some subject matter worthy of further exchange?

Perhaps the very germane scope of this thread? Yes. Let me close on that point.

If you, Ron and the other rude, sexist, and juvenile posters are the public face of this issue, it is no wonder at all that we are all painted as loons. Your very heart, your soul, is what is exposed. For it is written: Luke 6:45 “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh”.

Good night!


563 posted on 08/02/2010 10:48:53 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I will make an exception for some. Several are sincere and try hard to stick to facts. Those few are worthy of respect and I’ll give it to them even while disagreeing. But most of the ones on this thread? Liars. And I despise liars.

I will agree with you and expand it further. Vile, sick, vicious, rabid and prolific liars. Full of angst, malice and blind rage. Seeking to outright slay that with which they cannot understand and refuse to reason. The exact words to describe them are these:

Romans 1:28-32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient..., undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

564 posted on 08/02/2010 11:05:59 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

And the reason for including me in your post ?


565 posted on 08/02/2010 11:17:25 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I pinged you once. And only once. And only because Ron pinged you when he insulted me. And I copied his ping list in that single reply. Please, read the thread in order if you are not sure which has begotten which.

Thanks.


566 posted on 08/02/2010 11:22:48 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

I see.

I’ve been reading your posts.

Respectfully, you’re quite a piece of work.

I deduce that you’re quite intelligent. You’ve
stated you come from good stock; but good
golly, lady, why so arrogant, snarky, cocksure
and supercilious ?

If you are a believer, quoting biblically as
you do, do you not know of that gem: faith
is the evidence of things unseen, and whose plan
is Supreme and ultimate?

We know not what is to come in the next hour,
never mind the midterms, nor whom will do what
in any given govt office, courtroom, network
or corporation, nor whom will be struck with
gnawing remorse or guilt, and confess a golden,
precious and vital truth ... NONE of it.

The wheels will turn and events will play out
as they will. But I do know that God will not
be mocked, and that there are forces for good
fighting the righteous fight .. at this very
moment ... unseen .. for this nation’s and
freedom’s preservation. And Amen.


567 posted on 08/02/2010 11:57:53 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

More than welcome to it... ‘tis mine to give, too.


568 posted on 08/03/2010 12:13:01 AM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
If you are a believer, quoting biblically as you do, do you not know of that gem: faith is the evidence of things unseen, and whose plan is Supreme and ultimate?

No. I have never heard such a thing.

I even googled it. Nada. No hits.

I do know something close to what you said, but it has a totally different meaning than that which you purport.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Let us examine the words.

First we have Faith and it is described not as you said something unseen, but as SUBSTANCE. Substance has mass. It is quantitative. Real. Substantial.

Secondly, it is EVIDENCE. Now, as an attorney I am very familiar with this word. And in the context it is SOLID EVIDENCE. That is to say immutable. Sure. Understood. Proven.

Your wording implied the very opposite. Something unknown, vague, outside of reason. I reject that totally, and with near hostility. Faith, as is my middle name, is something to which I am deeply aware and it is more real than any text we see on this board. The living God calls faith SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE. Not something ephemeral, mystic, or elusive.

It is because the substantive evidence is all around us our founding fathers, of which my 9th great-grandfather was one, used the words, "Self Evident Truths".

When I speak in these absolute terms, and claim unknown futures as fact, it is I who am being quantitative, real, evidential, and truthful.

When someone tells me they or I cannot know, cannot be sure, I see only those who have never encountered truth and lack faith and understanding.

It is the spirit of Pontius Pilate which asks, "What is truth"? It is the spirit of God which says, "I am the truth".

Sadly, what is missing in this debate, and I keep attempting to interject it, is that our path is ordered. Our future, from a religious or even a quantum mechanical point of view is already done and known. This is not a path of fear nor of ignorance. It is these and the distractions from the tasks at hand which will be the labors to the bitter fruits of our destruction.

If that is too deep of a concept for some, I will put it more basely. Rude, ignorant, insulting conservatives who are unable to reason with their own, are the greater threat to liberty than any outside force. If we are not united, we ARE divided. And it is not "us" who are doing the dividing. We bring only a point of view and ask for reason. We are met with abuse. This is the end of all that the abusers purport to be saving. They are the enemy within.

And they are known by their deeds!

569 posted on 08/03/2010 12:23:34 AM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith
Obama Is a Usurper - Illegal President - 20100802 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5
570 posted on 08/03/2010 12:59:47 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

For what purpose in the world are you linking me to this web page?

All I see is another scammer taking money from fools to support himself all the while laughing to the bank at how a sucker is born every minute.

Just how many bogus lawsuits do you intend we should fund? And how much should we give? Do you KNOW anything about this group? Who runs it. Have you spoken with them? In person? Do you know there past dealings? THESE are the things that matter. You are being duped by insipid emotions and have lost all reason.

These are the same cutthroat sharks who duped you all about Terri Schiavo. Now, don’t get me wrong. Let me be very clear. You remember the story? Well, the murdering scum of the earth who killed her, ordered those to kill her and abetted those who killed her, should all burn in the hottest fires of hell forever and ever. Are we clear on that? Good.

There is a BUT coming now... so hang on to reason and don’t let your emotions get the best of you....

But, those who raised money for her cause, of which not a DIME ever made it to her brother and family fighting for her, and MILLIONS were raised right here on FR links, posted by good intentioned but DUPPED FRiends.... those who raise... I mean STOLE money milking her cause, should go to hell FIRST and stay LONGER than eternity!!

How’s that?

Same for Obama. For his crimes. Punishment eternal without end. For the criminals pretending to be conservatives duping you all into thinking you are going to accomplish something, a hotter fire and a greater burden.

But know this.... these Birther fundraisers are telling you more and bigger lies than Obama is telling you.

Fact!

And they are dividing us!

Doubly important FACT.

Stop being a tool.


571 posted on 08/03/2010 1:31:17 AM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

Please review this thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts

We want to see Obama’s long form birth certificate to verify his father’s citizenship.

I recalled Theseus could not be a citizen of Athens based on Pericles citizenship law....born to citizen parents.

Locating old law dictionaries, and books on citizenship, reading the definitions of a natural born citizen.

It has been quite an adventure. There is plenty of information to cast doubt Obama is a natural born citizen.

We would like the Supreme Court to decide if Obama is a natural born citizen based on the intent of the Founders.

Perhaps your emotional attachments to Obama have shrouded your judgement.


572 posted on 08/03/2010 4:16:11 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.

Please tell us what naturels meant to the Founders?


573 posted on 08/03/2010 4:22:56 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Again, you’ve shown your inability to hear, see or read — to understand, to comprehend or to acknowledge research and clear logical discussion.


574 posted on 08/03/2010 5:33:44 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: svcw

What would be the consequences? Would he be removed and if so by whom?

No. It’s too late. About all it might do, is prevent him from another term


575 posted on 08/03/2010 5:48:16 AM PDT by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Locating old law dictionaries

You don't need to locate old law dictionaries. Just look up natural-born in an Oxford English Dictionary which is really a history of English language word usage. It's pretty clear from the OED that at the time of the drafting for the Constitution natural-born referred to the legal status of one's parents, and not even the place of birth. They suggest comparison with native born which referred to the place of birth and not the status of the parents.

People can come here blowing smoke all they want, but it is rather obvious why the Framers included this adjective and what they meant.

ML/NJ

576 posted on 08/03/2010 6:02:35 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

Ah, Tuxedo, you made me laugh - and that’s saying something on a day where everything that can go wrong has. Thanks!


577 posted on 08/03/2010 6:10:22 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Question: Then why would every single other of Obama’s records from kindergarten to law school to medical records etc be scrubbed, locked, sealed, hidden and/or forged?

Answer: He’s got something to hide.

That can not be disputed.


578 posted on 08/03/2010 6:17:11 AM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: deport; Candor7

Re: We are a little beyond 1774. What about the Constitution and the laws passed regarding Presidential Succession? You think they don’t apply?

King George had no doubt his law didn’t apply.


579 posted on 08/03/2010 6:23:30 AM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

The Constitution says that only Joe Biden can have the presidential powers, since Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009.

Anything that Obama has done using the presidential powers can - and should - be contested. That would include if he vetoes the repeal of healthcare reform (and hopefully a bunch of other unconstitutional crap) that the Republican Congress will pass.

This issue is far, far from being over. The dems are putting everything they’ve fought for on the line by keeping somebody who is documentably forbidden from having the presidential powers instead of letting Joe Biden do what is granted him in the Constitution. If they insist on having a fake in the office they will end up having NOBODY in the office from a legal perspective. Laws can be passed without a President’s signature, but only a President can veto. When we get a Republican Congress they will not be able to afford having no valid President - because it means nothing can be vetoed.

If we clean house in the elections, the fun can begin in earnest. We need to let our leaders know that - and know that both we and the law are on their side.


580 posted on 08/03/2010 6:33:00 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 661-664 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