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

Skip to comments.

With a Kenyan father Obama’s 18 year old mother couldn’t have Constitutional conveyed citizenship
coachisright.com ^ | Feb. 29, 2012 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

Posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:28 AM PST by jmaroneps37

Attorney Orly Taitz vowed to shove everything she had concerning Barack Obama’s evidentiary problem at last week’s eligibility challenge in front of Indiana’s election board. Taitz, whose airline ticket to the hearing was purchased by a concerned citizen presented evidence of a “stolen social security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate!”

She told WND reporter Bob Unruh that Indiana just removed their Secretary of State Charlie White for his discrepancies with voter registration irregularities over “minor” problems. Taitz said our sitting president’s eligibility problems are major in comparison.

But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.

Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery!

The law says: ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.

One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements!

Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”

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


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; obama; obamanbcproblem
At this point those who fight to keep him on theballot might be helping us more than they are the Democrats. Kicking off makes him a martyr and gives the Democrats a "reset" buttom to push.
1 posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:33 AM PST by jmaroneps37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Not “reset”, but “overcharge” was what the button said in Russian. Which is appropriate for Commander Zero.
2 posted on 02/29/2012 9:07:20 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Just one problem with the article. This is not a newly discovered law, and has been discussed many times on Free Republic. The law mentioned applies only to children born abroad. If Orly finally has proof of Kenyan birth, it works. It does not apply to a birth within the US.
3 posted on 02/29/2012 9:11:53 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Yes according to the U.S. Title Code at the time of his birth (IF on 8/04/61) this is true. SAD was a couple or more months short of age 19 on that date.


4 posted on 02/29/2012 9:12:57 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Yes


5 posted on 02/29/2012 9:14:00 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Taitz is a moron, and an embarassment to the legal profession. From the article:

”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.

By the express terms of the law linked in that same article, that only applies to children born overseas. It has nothing to do with children born in the U.S..

One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements! Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”

I'm not sure who these unnamed "commentators" are as well, but they're morons too. No U.S. law says anything about being old enough to register a birth, nor does the 14th Amendment say anying about the age of the mother, nor did English common law. These idiots are conflating a provision applicable only to overseas births, and pretending it applies to domestic births as well.

6 posted on 02/29/2012 9:14:23 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.

What website? It sure would be nice to be able to go there and read what is being said.
Google returns...@Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986

What Congressional rule change? Again, it sure would be nice to be able to go and read the law mentioned.

Thanks for so little info, coach.

7 posted on 02/29/2012 9:14:44 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

BINGO!!


8 posted on 02/29/2012 9:15:32 AM PST by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
My preliminary search shows that the law in question pertains to being born outside of the US.
More distraction, IMO.
9 posted on 02/29/2012 9:18:14 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Oops...it says it right there at the link provided...
@http://www.hotstockmarket.com/t/64693/obamas-birth-certificate-verified-by-state/120

Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States

10 posted on 02/29/2012 9:19:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

It would be interesting to ask people promoting this theory about the citizenship of children born to unwed teen mothers with unidentified fathers in that period. Were they utterly stateless?


11 posted on 02/29/2012 9:21:47 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
If Orly finally has proof of Kenyan birth, it works.

Even that's far from certain. The age requirement only applied to married women. It could be argued that Stanley Ann was not validly married, since BHO, Sr. already had at least one wife back in Kenya.

BTW, be sure to click through to the article and select "Over $9" in his poll.

12 posted on 02/29/2012 9:31:39 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

no there is a provision for that, read the law.


13 posted on 02/29/2012 9:32:37 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

An additional new factor arose recently in zero’s very confusing past. According to State Dept. documents, it seems that his father was married to a woman in Africa when he “married” zero’s mother prior to zero’s birth.

This, IMO, raises additional questions about zero’s true eligibility status on top of those already floating around about his citizenship.


14 posted on 02/29/2012 9:33:00 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Ok, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. This Birther movement is not going to get rid of Obama as much as people wish it would. The Birther movement is like a bright light at night drawing moth’s. It just keeps people wasting time on pointless pursuits instead of spending energy on electing patriots.


15 posted on 02/29/2012 9:44:36 AM PST by pwatson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
That would be expecting logical consistency, which I think is a bit much.

Great screennames think alike, eh?

16 posted on 02/29/2012 9:49:37 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

The Kenyan won’t be kicked off any ballot for the same reason he won’t be removed from office except by an electoral defeat (if he has not suspended the constitution before January 2013.) And they called Reagan the Teflon president.


17 posted on 02/29/2012 9:52:40 AM PST by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Thanks you saved me the trouble of pointing that out.
18 posted on 02/29/2012 9:53:22 AM PST by usurper (Liberals GET OFF MY LAWN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

If people actually read the law, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.


19 posted on 02/29/2012 9:56:05 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep; rolling_stone
If people actually read the law, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If Suzanne Eovaldi had actually read the law this article would never have been written.
Did she not see "Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States" at the top of the site page she linked to in her article?

Or is she somehow making the arbitrary decision that the person in question actually was born outside of the US?

20 posted on 02/29/2012 10:10:20 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
...it seems that...
How well does "it seems that" hold up in a court of law?
21 posted on 02/29/2012 10:13:26 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

But...but...how else would she attract hits to her site in the absence of anything new to say?


22 posted on 02/29/2012 10:15:00 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pwatson
Ok, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Just how many ballot challenges have been made in the past? Isn't this, except in one instance that I know of, the first time that this has been done?
Not buying your supposition.

23 posted on 02/29/2012 10:17:41 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
...how else would she attract hits to her site in the absence of anything new to say?
What if her intent isn't to attract hits to the, not her, website?
What other motive might she have?
24 posted on 02/29/2012 10:20:11 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
I'm just wondering if Taitz does have a point here because Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. If Barak Obama was born in 1962 then Hawaii had only been a state for about 3-4 years. So my question is does living in an American territory count as living in the USA? If it does not, then Taitz is right and young Stanley Ann could not have conferred citizenship. Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?
25 posted on 02/29/2012 10:21:28 AM PST by erkelly (Never underestimate the stupidity of the stupid party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: erkelly
If Taitz is using that law to advance her argument then she needs to go back to the drawing board.
Read the page linked to in the article. It says at the top, in bold,
Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States.
26 posted on 02/29/2012 10:27:52 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

In 30 years these guys will be telling their grandkids that Obama was never actually president... I wish FR would take Mark Levin’s stance on these birthers and just hang up. Of course, Mark Levin is a RINO sellout who doesn’t understand the constition according to birthers.


27 posted on 02/29/2012 10:46:34 AM PST by douginthearmy (Obamagebra: 1 job + 1 hope + 1 change = 0 jobs + 0 hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
A candidate's application: A state's election board has the moral duty to check every detail of a presidential candidate's application, such as the person's name and address.

1. And those election boards should routinely check a candidate's Social Security number to make sure it is not a fake or a stolen number.

2. What do the election boards, like the one in Indiana, do when it comes to a presidential applicant's Social Security number: Do they simply take the candidate's word that the number belongs to the candidate without any proof whatsoever?

3. For instance, what happens if the candidate is someone who no one has ever heard of? How do election officials in Georgia or any state know that the applicant has a valid Social Security number unless they check the number somehow, like using e-verify?

4. If election boards do not verify a presidential candidate's Social Security number somehow, like using e-verify, then the election board is not performing its moral duty to use every possible resource to prove that a presidential candidate's application is valid and that the candidate is who he claims to be in order protect we voters from fraudulent presidential applications.

5. Really, we are not talking about checking the Social Security number of hundreds or thousands of presidential candidates.

6. I would think that 10 candidates would be a lot, so how long would it take an election board to check the Social Security numbers of 10 presidential candidates using e-verify? Maybe an hour at most?

7. This is what is sad about this whole Obama eligibility mess: I bet that soon after the Nov. 2012 election, states will be jumping all over each other to pass presidential candidate eligibility laws for the next election in 2016, because Obama won 't be eligible to run in 2016, and so election boards will feel comfortable in passing eligibility laws when they can't be accused of passing such laws simply to attack Obama.

8. For instance, I see some eligibility requirements that will probably be listed in new eligibility laws:

a. A candidate must provide a copy of his long form birth certificate.

b. A candidate's Social Security number must be verified by using a system like e-verify.

c. A candidate must provide a copy of his Social Security original application, a copy of which any person can obtain from Social Security for a small fee. Check Social Security's own website for details.

9. If a candidate does not meet the requirements above, his name will not be allowed on the 2016 presidential ballot.

10. If e-verify is good enough for a small business to check out the Social Security number of a job applicant, then surely it should be good enough to check out the Social Security number of a presidential candidate who applies to run for President of the United States, shouldn't it?

28 posted on 02/29/2012 11:04:15 AM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erkelly
I'm just wondering if Taitz does have a point here because Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. If Barak Obama was born in 1962 then Hawaii had only been a state for about 3-4 years. So my question is does living in an American territory count as living in the USA? If it does not, then Taitz is right and young Stanley Ann could not have conferred citizenship. Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe one can shed more light. However, as you pointed out, Hawaii became a state before 0bama was born, so that wouldn't affect anything. In any case, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory. I was a little young to recall everything about the campaign, but I don't remember that being an issue.

29 posted on 02/29/2012 11:07:16 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

So, long story short, Obama’s still a bastard.


30 posted on 02/29/2012 11:15:48 AM PST by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erkelly
I'm just wondering if Taitz does have a point here because Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. If Barak Obama was born in 1962 then Hawaii had only been a state for about 3-4 years. So my question is does living in an American territory count as living in the USA? If it does not, then Taitz is right and young Stanley Ann could not have conferred citizenship. Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

Taitz does not have a point.

The Territory of Hawaii, prior to Statehood, was an incorporated territory of the United States. This means that unlike the Philippines, an unincorporated possession, the Territory of Hawaii was a fully integrated part of the national territory of the United States, it's people held citizenship by virtue of the Constitution, not by Act of Congress.

The Insular Cases* in the early 20th Century created a distinction between incorporated territories (The Indian Territory, Oklahoma Territory, Arizona Territory, New Mexico Territory, District of Alaska, and the Territory of Hawaii), and unincorporated possessions, owned by, but not part of the United States (The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa). the former were integral parts of the American nation, the latter just owned by the US.

*Note: I consider the Insular Cases to have been wrongly decided and repugnant to the Constitution. They allowed the Congress to create a situation in people were compelled to become part of the US by treaty, but denied the rights and benefits of citizenship. All territory belonging to the US should be fully incorporated into the United States national territory, without exception.

31 posted on 02/29/2012 1:47:09 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

False article, or misleading. This only applies if baby barack were born outside the us. No one has been able to prove it.

Though his using fake documents and stolen SS numbers is circumstantial.


32 posted on 02/29/2012 2:41:01 PM PST by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john mirse

Exactly. Will anyone have the nougats to ask Obama in the fall why he uses a stolen SS number? It goes like this :

“when you registered for the draft at 18, as well as [ name recent time he last used it] you used the SS # [whatever it is]. This number was previously used by [the dead guy’s name]. Can you explain this, please?”

WHO IS GOING TO DO IT?


33 posted on 02/29/2012 2:51:38 PM PST by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
How well does "it seems that" hold up in a court of law?

Ok, I'll be more direct. According to the State Department docs that were posted online, Obama's father had a wife in Africa when he "married" Stanley Dunham.

Is that more better for you??

34 posted on 02/29/2012 3:30:16 PM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
Exactly. Will anyone have the nougats to ask Obama in the fall why he uses a stolen SS number? It goes like this :

“when you registered for the draft at 18, as well as [ name recent time he last used it] you used the SS # [whatever it is]. This number was previously used by [the dead guy’s name]. Can you explain this, please?”

WHO IS GOING TO DO IT?

*******

Have you had a chance to look at a copy of Obama's Selective Service form on the internet?

I know a person's handwriting changes over the years, but Obama's signature on the form looks nothing like his present signature. Not even close, in my opinion.

That is, it looks like someone else signed the form.

35 posted on 02/29/2012 3:39:28 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Ok, I'll be more direct. According to the State Department docs that were posted online, Obama's father had a wife in Africa when he "married" Stanley Dunham.
So does that in any way change who the father was? Lots of men have illegitimate children and they're still their children.
36 posted on 02/29/2012 4:20:19 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: erkelly
Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

That depends. Do you want your answers to from from actual practicing litigators or from "google lawyers" who only post on birther sites?

37 posted on 02/29/2012 4:50:04 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

It may not change who his father was, but it adds to the confusion over his citizenship. In the early 60s, the US was much less tolerant of bigamy and, given this additional circumstance, raises additional questions.


38 posted on 03/01/2012 10:01:39 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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