Posted on 12/13/2012 12:20:29 PM PST by chuckles
“Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was”
It was Obama’s older sister, Auma who said that referring to her “mum,” Kezia. Kenya being a former Brit colony, mum would be a word for mom for Auma and not normally a word that mostly US raised Obama would have used.
Here is the passage from Dreams posted by FReeper thouworm in comment #28 of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377996/posts
(Obama narrating)
When I got home, told Auma how the meeting had gone. She looked away for a moment, then broke out with a short, bitter laugh.
“What’s so funny?”
“I was just thinking about how life is so strange. You know, as soon as the Old Man died, the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance. Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was. So of all of the Old Man’s kids, Mark’s claim is the only one that’s uncontested.”
Again Auma laughed, and I looked up at the picture hanging on her wall, the same picture pasted inside Ruth’s album, of three brothers and a sister, smiling sweetly for the camera.
“Jerome Corsi has screwed it up so badly that no one actually believes he has any credibility anymore. One minute Obama is born in Kenya, the next his father is not even Obama Sr. Which is it Jerome?”
IMO, Corsi reported extensively on the claims of Joel Gilbert (Dreams from my Real Father) in Corsi’s capacity as a journalist without personally advocating on behalf of those claims.
Corsi always made it clear that these were Gilbert’s claims and not his own personal claims.
My reading of the tealeaves is that Corsi, like Trump and Arpaio, was basically told to sit down and shut up and drop their own investigations and advocacy in anticipation of a Romney win and in the hope of preventing attacks on the GOP for being racist for going.
Corsi still had to earn a living for himself and WND, so he took pleasure in poking a stick in Obama’s eye by reporting on Gilbert’s video.
At one point when Corsi came back from HI he seemed to be wildly excited by “evidence” he had found but then only small incremental information was released. I don’t think Corsi was faking his earlier excitement. Only time will tell what comes out next.
Trump took a big risk, too, and with Romney’s loss Trump is exposed to all kinds of retribution from Obama unless further efforts, such as the impending attack on Obama teased by Carl Gallups, come about:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2966793/posts
It is irrelevant whether Obama attributes the utterance to Auma. In his book Obama is stating that his mother did not have any documents needed to prove who his father is.
Obama owns the narrative.
Thanks for the info. I'll try to check out the video.
I seem to remember hearing something about that. I suppose in the Moran family's case, the old bromide about the apple not falling far from the tree is appropriate. Jim Moran has been known to be quite a lout himself.
IMO, it is stretch to claim that by putting these words in his sister's mouth regarding Kezia and the situation in Kenya at the time, Obama is making an admission that back in HI there is no record showing his Sr. as his father, as the HI newspapers at a minimum indicate his mom and/or grandparents reported when they registered the birth (whether or not Barry was born there).
Ayers probably wrote this and failed to appreciate the implication you are suggesting for Obama.
The disclaimer that Ayers and Obama placed over the whole book means that Obama can deny anything in it that might make him look bad. Dreams is NOT a legal document or admission that could be considered evidence in any court.
Ayers, ever pushing race-victim status for blacks, might have made up the whole thing about how the children of the white mother got the estate and the children of the black mother didn't. Does that even make sense in post-colonial Kenya? Obama's relatives were paid off to keep quiet and telling the truth about discrepancies between Dreams and the truth is obviously the reason, IMO.
Dreams is so Ayers-infested, I don't take any of it seriously as fact.
Jim Moran’s son resigns from campaign amid video furor
It's not about being an "expert" ... Levin may have a learned opinion, but it is just ONE opinion. There were 9 Supreme Court justices in the Wong Kim Ark case that could not agree on whether the 14th amendment trump an international treaty. They did agree that birth on U.S. soil by itself was NOT sufficient to automatically make someone a U.S. citizen. They made a material distinction by quoting the UNANIMOUS Minor v. Happersett decision that all children born in the country to citizen parents were natural-born citizens and those who were born to alien parents BUT who had permanent domicial and residence were 14th amendment citizens by birth. Both these conditions inherently preclude Obama from any natural birth citizenship. They made a positive declaration of natural-born citizenship based on birth to citizen parents and they made a specifically NEGATIVE declaration that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Further, the Luria v. United States decison several years later declared that Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark was the precedent for Article II presidential eligibility. Again, Levin is entitled to his opinions, but these SCOTUS cases are pretty clear and self-explanatory for anyone who is honest enough to read them for what they actually say. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone pretending to be an expert.
We have had a bunch of crooked Congressmen over the years and I never witnessed an impeachment. They usually resigned after the ethics committee ruled. Some were censured but not removed. I will have to look closer into the Articles of the Constitution to see if it mentioned Congressman impeachment. I never noticed before.
There is a considerable amount of confusion over the subject of the impeachment of members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and it is for good reason. The problem arose when the House of Representatives impeached Senator Blount. See the U.S. Senate article:
1787-1800
February 5, 1798
To Arrest an Impeached Senator
When barely nine years old, the Senate confronted a crisis of authority. An impeached senator refused to attend his trial in the Senate chamber. Unlike the House of Representatives, or the British House of Commons, the Senate lacked a Sergeant at Arms to enforce its orders. On February 5, 1798, the Senate expanded the duties, title, and salary of its doorkeeper to create the post of Sergeant at Arms. It then directed that officer to arrest the fugitive senator—the Honorable William Blount of Tennessee (pictured).
A signer of the U.S. Constitution, William Blount in 1796 had become one of Tennessee’s first two senators. A year later President John Adams notified Congress that his administration had uncovered a conspiracy involving several American citizens who had offered to assist Great Britain in an improbable scheme to take possession of the Spanish-controlled territories of Louisiana and the Floridas. Blount was among the named conspirators. He had apparently devised the plot to prevent Spain from ceding its territories to France, a transaction that would have depressed the value of his extensive southwestern land holdings.
On July 7, 1797, while the Senate pondered what to do about Blount, the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, voted a bill of impeachment. The following day, the Senate expelled Blount—its first use of that constitutional power—and adjourned until November. Prior to adjourning, the Senate ordered Blount to answer impeachment charges before a select committee that would meet during the recess. Blount failed to appear. He had departed for Tennessee with no intention of returning.
On February 5, 1798, as the Senate prepared for his trial and still uncertain as to whether or not a senator, or former senator, was even liable for impeachment, it issued the arrest order. The Sergeant at Arms ultimately failed in his first mission, as Blount refused to be taken from Tennessee. A year later, the Senate dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction—and possibly for lack of Blount.
Reference Items:
Melton, Buckner Jr. The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998.
Melton, Buckner F., Jr. “Federal Impeachment and Criminal Procedure: The Framers’ Intent.” Maryland Law Review 52 (1993): 437-57.
As a consequence of the impeachment of Senator Blount and the aftermath of the failed effort to bring Senator Blount to trial in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Senate have expelled their own members rather than resort to the formal impeachment process requiring impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate.
Many sources have since claimed that a Member of the House of Representatives or a member of the Senate cannot be impeached, but such claims are not necessarily suppported by the actual language of the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of any person who is a Federal officer. A Federal officer is arguably any person occupying a Federal office. A seat in the Senate is a Federal office, so the occupant of the Senate seat is arguabkly a Federal officeholder and a Federal officer. A seat in the House of Representatives is a Federal office, so the occupant of the House seat is arguably a Federal officeholder and a Federal officer. So, it appears the Congress has effectively disregarded the plain language of the Constitution by reinterpreting the authorization for impeachment in a way which creates a false impression of a lack of authority to impeach. In this way each house of the Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, were able to expel its own members without the cumbersome involvement or cooperation of the other house or chamber of Congress.
The resulting practice of expelling their own members from their own chamber of Congress has led to the perhaps false assumption that the Constitution did not authorize the impeachment of Senators or Congressmen. nonetheless, the language of the Constitution is still there in the Constitution, and the House of Representatives could attempt to revive the conflict over the power to impeach a member of Congress, if and when it found sufficient reason to do so. Imagine for example a case in which a bi-partisan 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives impeached Senator harry Reid, and the Democrat majority in the Senate refused to bring Senator Harry Reid to trial or brought Senator Harry Reid to trial and acquitted him when the required 2/3 vote could not be obtained.
I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more creeps in 10 minutes, but I'm now concerned with the coming weapons ban from most likely our own congressmen after the Conn school shooting.
As Red Fox said, "This could be the big one!"
Thanks justiceseeker93.
Gate’s been open four years, horse is long gone, which is lucky for the horse, because the barn’s burning down.
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.