Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

*Breaking* Sister Maya’s Name Uncovered on Alleged Obama Birth Certificate
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/breaking-sister-mayas-birth-certificate-used-to-forge-obamas/#more-1493 ^ | 8/5/2008 | Texas Darlin

Posted on 08/05/2008 4:41:40 AM PDT by Neville72

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last
To: pissant

how do we know?


101 posted on 08/05/2008 7:05:00 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776

Yes, but she is reporting what Techdude, an associate of Pam Geller (Atlas Shrugs) has discovered.


102 posted on 08/05/2008 7:06:31 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

“Watch... Hillary will be sitting in the Whitehouse in 2009”

Perhaps this is the _real_ reason why Obama doesn’t want Hillary as a VP candidate.

She would have the ambition to be president.
She would have the knowledge and evidence to prove he was unqualified.
And she (and Bill) would have the will to “move” on him.

And - even if she chose not to make that move - Obama would always be under their influenece, knowing they had the goods against him....

- John


103 posted on 08/05/2008 7:08:56 AM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Who cares where he was born. The FACT that he forged his COLB, which is illegal, is enough to bring him down.


104 posted on 08/05/2008 7:08:56 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

That might be what springs to your mind, but you’d be 100% wrong.


105 posted on 08/05/2008 7:10:12 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
Now, Senator Obama faces a serious and urgent inquiry from Americans:

WHY WAS HIS SISTER MAYA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE USED TO MAKE HIS OWN?


just asking...
you know...
...as an American
106 posted on 08/05/2008 7:12:26 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Not fully Eligible. But I won’t burden you with information.


107 posted on 08/05/2008 7:13:51 AM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

I know it is ‘sealed’, but the original one already in their possession? Even so, all the reason to suspect that passage in his book as part of his long-term conniving.

It seems there’s enough biographical evidence from his Indonesian youth to merit a question from the alert and vigilant press.....bwhahaha!


108 posted on 08/05/2008 7:13:52 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Stanley Ann Durham could not "marry" Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. as he was already married in Kenya.
109 posted on 08/05/2008 7:14:34 AM PDT by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

Well heck, anyone can run for office.

The problem is that if something isn’t made of this subject now, as long as it has taken to uncover other things that has been scrubbed (such as some of his school records being “eaten by bugs”), he could waltz into office.


110 posted on 08/05/2008 7:14:56 AM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Because that is his half sister. She’s been in the news many times.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545473,BSX-News-wotreehh09.stng


111 posted on 08/05/2008 7:15:35 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

“I suppose that this announcement could be a fake too, but it was found by someone who would have appeared to have a motive not to find it. Until and unless reasonable doubt can be cast upon this announcement though, people who suggest that Obama was not born as Obama in Hawaii will look pretty foolish to me”

You are missing some details.

If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii as “Obama”, then the newspaper announcement is correct.

BUT - the evidence is suggesting that when his mother married Soetoro, the original birth certificate was changed, to show Soetoro as the father of record and the name legally changed from Obama to Soetoro. Thus the current COLB is a fake and misrepresentation because of the name and parentage.

It goes further. Was Obama’s _citizenship_ changed, as well, to Indonesian, as that of his adopted father?

If so, that would revoke his American “birth citizenship” if [indeed] he held as much.

Yes, I realize he would have had no control over this at his age. BUT - could he not “reaffirm” his _American_ citizenship at age 18? If so, what was required to do that? And - DID he ever do that? Would this involve a written record? If so, where is it?

Does Obama still hold “dual citizenship” of both Indonesia and the USA? Is such a “dual citizen” eligible to become president?

Just some thoughts...
- John


112 posted on 08/05/2008 7:16:47 AM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

I’m torn on that count. Ordinarily I think Hillary is a much worse opponent- if she had been the nominee from the get-go. But a large part of me believes the Dem train has left the station with Obama on it, and there is no turning back. Dem turnout for Hillary may be even worse than Obama if the nutroots throw in the towel and abandon the Dems altogether, and the middle ground votes mccain or not at all..


113 posted on 08/05/2008 7:19:49 AM PDT by visualops (artlife.us -nature photography desktop wallpapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

I agree with everything but the top one. The “marraige” in Kenya wasn’t legal by the British system of law, it was a “tribal” marraige.

But I still don’t think they were married. And even if they were, it doesn’t matter as Barack was apparently adopted by Lolo.


114 posted on 08/05/2008 7:21:52 AM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

The campaign will eventually deny any knowledge of the COLB even though it is on their site.

The silence of the Clinton’s right now is very suspicious.


115 posted on 08/05/2008 7:23:00 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: WellyP

But even then, nobody will make a move because of the threats of violence, rioting, and OMG, cries of RACISM!!!!
Nobody wants to be labeled a RACIST!


116 posted on 08/05/2008 7:31:39 AM PDT by a real Sheila (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
The silence of the Clinton’s right now is very suspicious.

Bubba is suddenly not so silent:

Bubba to ABC News yesterday: “I think everybody’s got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution.”
117 posted on 08/05/2008 7:36:31 AM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
"if you were alive in the 1700’s prior to the "

Yes, Helen Thomas is eligible.

118 posted on 08/05/2008 7:37:30 AM PDT by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: libertylover
Does this somehow prove that Obama is not eligible to be president? Otherwise, it’s in the “so what” category...

I agree that the Citizenship issue is likely a dead end and mostly serves to cloud the real issue. Obama and his campaign were party to creating and backing a forged COLB. This would really give a fair minded person pause. Obama is supposed to be better than you and me, and certainly far above this sort of crooked behavior.

If nothing else, and even though no laws are likely broken, we are faced with yet another set of questions about the man's judgment, character, and questions about just who he is.

119 posted on 08/05/2008 7:47:42 AM PDT by Jeff F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

“Because in Hawaii, the original birth certificate is destroyed when reissued for adoption.”

I can believe that the original BC is *sealed* by the court in which the adoption case is heard, but *destroyed* ... ? Maybe BO can’t produce his original BC because it was sealed by the court.


120 posted on 08/05/2008 7:48:29 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Miss Didi
Bubba to ABC News yesterday: “I think everybody’s got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution.”

LMAO!

Bubba must be mad as hell, he knows the media isn't going to report this but he dropped the hint anyway. Wonder what he will say in a week or so if no one reports on this.

121 posted on 08/05/2008 7:57:52 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman
“... when his mother married Soetoro, the original birth certificate was changed, to show Soetoro as the father of record ...”

Is it easy to change original birth certificates? Do you just contact the state's or county's Office of Vital Records to do so? Does it require a court order? Is there a statute of limitations on such changes (e.g., changing a baby's given name after a couple of days of reconsideration), or can this be done at any time, on a whim?

122 posted on 08/05/2008 8:00:14 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

When my ex-wife was adopted at 6, a new BC was issued as if the adoptive parents had “given birth.” The records of her previous connection were completely, and quite legally, expunged. I think it’s probable that there is no “hidden” “real” BC. But who knows what happened in Indonesia...


123 posted on 08/05/2008 8:16:58 AM PDT by Keith (Barack Obama -- Not-ready-for-prime-time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Well heck, anyone can run for office.

Correct. And if he knows he is not eligible, he would do anything to conceal this fact.

The problem is that if something isn’t made of this subject now, as long as it has taken to uncover other things that has been scrubbed (such as some of his school records being “eaten by bugs”), he could waltz into office.

Also correct. And the MSM won't even look at this matter until one of Hillary's operatives brings it up at the convention.

I do, however, like "the bugs ate my records" better than "the dog ate my homework". It is more credible.

124 posted on 08/05/2008 8:19:19 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Neville72; devolve; Fiddlstix; PhilDragoo; Liz; onyx; potlatch; MEG33; Grampa Dave; Lady Jag; ...

bumpski! pingski!


125 posted on 08/05/2008 8:27:41 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (McRINO needs reach across the aisle to Conservatives for a CHANGE! Dang him!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Thank you for the important ping and your FR dedication. FRegards ....


126 posted on 08/05/2008 8:29:40 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (The Dum-bama Banking Committee offers free breathalysers and inhilators for asthmatics in 58 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

Yes, speculation is a luxury - The real issue here is, at the very least, a forged document was presented as a legal one by a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.


127 posted on 08/05/2008 8:35:32 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Seinfeld was a show about nothing - so is Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I'd like to thank you for your well-reasoned reply.

The clause (if you really want to call it that....) does nothing more than authorize Congress to "define and punish ... Offences against" it.

Yet why give the general government that authority unless they were already bound by it?

The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation.
James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law

-----

Further, it's pretty clear that the "Law of Nations" does not refer to any specific body of internationally promulgated law;

True. The Law of Nations is the basis FOR international law.

[From the above link:]

The opinions of many concerning the law of nations have been very vague and unsatisfactory; and if such have been the opinions, we have little reason to be surprised, that the conduct of nations has too often been diametrically opposite to the law, by which it ought to have been regulated.

-----

It is, further, quite clear that the context of the term as used in the clause you cite is much different from any questions of Obama's citizenship.

Congress has no authority to decide who will or will not be a citizen, that is determined by the circumstances of a person's birth. The Law of Nations is the guideline Congress must follow when that birth occurs. The father's citizenship determines the citizenship of the child, and Obama's father was not a US citizen.

Why is the term 'natural-born citizen' so hard for people to understand?

-----

James Wilson argued in 1774 that the American colonies should be free from the rule of British lawmakers in his widely read Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. His writing soon led to involvement in the planning for American independence. He represented Pennsylvania at the Continental Congress from 1775 to 1776, and 1782 to 1783, and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
He later became an associate justice on the US Supreme Court, and, in the same year, was made the first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania.

With all due respect, I'll take Justice James Wilson's opinion over yours.

128 posted on 08/05/2008 9:04:47 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am not a legal, corporate, administrative, political or collective 'entity'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I have my doubts too. Why didn't the Clinton realized Obama’s ineligibility due to birth certificate and exploited that fact during the Dem primary?
129 posted on 08/05/2008 9:06:08 AM PDT by neefer (Big city turn me loose and set me free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Keith

Thanks for the information. I find it interesting, and troubling, that birth records can be destroyed (and not just sealed by a court).


130 posted on 08/05/2008 9:08:08 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP; Neville72; potlatch; devolve; ntnychik; Grampa Dave; Jeff Head; gonzo; LucyT; ...

131 posted on 08/05/2008 9:26:23 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

There is a dissenting opinion about Techdudes conclusion.

#

Joseph Cannon // August 5, 2008 at 6:12 am

My credentials are that I’ve been using Photoshop as an illustrator and graphic artist since it first came out. That was quite few years ago. If TD contacts me, I’ll explain how to contact the guy who ran the ad agency that introduced me to that program, and he’ll also describe some of the things I’ve been paid to do over the years.

That said, I’m always running into people who know things that I don’t. As Churchill once put it, I am always willing to learn, even if I don’t like being taught.

People like Joe are ridiculous. I’ve devoted many hours each day for months to making sure Obama does not get the nomination. Nobody paid me for that. In fact, I’ve lost a lot of money doing this work.

My record is out in the open.

And yet he thinks that I consider Obama my “Messiah,” simply becaue i think he’s wrong on ONE issue. The PUMA folks are becoming almost as paranoid and fanatical as the Kossacks.

I’ll continue to attack Obama on every other front. But this birth certificate stuff? If this thing pans out — great. But I don’t think it will.

Even a technical expert who can pass a voir dire examination in court cannot simply testify “I’m an expert. Take my word for it.” Usually, a jury will want to hear more than that. The expert must explain HOW he came to his conclusions if he wants to persuade his listeners.

Experts have been known to make mistakes, especially when the “want to believe” factor impairs judgment. Elsewhere, I’ve mentioned the case of Bruce Maccabee, a physicist and photo expert employed by the Navy and the NSA. His credentials are superb. But the fact remains that he “verified” UFO photos that were later proven to be fakes. I could also mention famed historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who authenticated the “Hitler Diaries,” later proven to be a hoax.

You could probably come up with several similar examples.

These controversies are never a matter of battling resumes. They are matters of battling arguments. It comes down to replicable experiment.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. So is an ad hominem argument.

Look, I’m going to give it one more try. But if I don’t see letters — if all I find are blobs — then I’ll publish blobs on my site.

On the other hand, I’ll always be open to ANYONE who can tell me how to transform those blobs into legibility. That’s fair, isn’t it?

I think Techdude’s behavior has been odd. He writes as though anyone can follow his instructions, yet his instructions are maddeningly unclear. He doesn’t even tell us what program he used! And he simply refuses to show (WITHOUT OVERLAYS) the results, so we can test the legibility for ourselves.

That’s not science.


132 posted on 08/05/2008 9:31:29 AM PDT by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

But then Barry could have gotten the same COLB for himself, even if he was born in Kenya (which I don’t believe he was). The way I read it is Maya could not get a COLB from Hawaii so this expert is full of it.


133 posted on 08/05/2008 9:49:22 AM PDT by sharkhawk (Here come the Hawks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo; Arthur Wildfire! March; y'all

Great pic there, Phil.

bump! bump! bump! y’all ...


134 posted on 08/05/2008 10:03:04 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (McRINO needs reach across the aisle to Conservatives for a CHANGE! Dang him!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: neefer

That’s the number one piece of evidence that this is all baloney. The lack of interest from serious news outlets with conservative/Republican leanings is another. When littlegreenfootballs and FR broke the Memogate story, the major media outlets all jumped on board immediately, even though many were generally anti-Bush, anti-Republican. There was real evidence, and no major media outlet wanted to get caught failing to get in early on what would obviously become a huge story. They’re ignoring this one because there’s no evidence that it’s anything but a kooky conspiracy theory being circulated by kooky right wing ideologues. Believing all these wild tales of Obama’s
“fake” birth certificate is akin to believing the CBS memo was real.


135 posted on 08/05/2008 10:22:08 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Yet why give the general government that authority unless they were already bound by it?

Again, you have to consider that "the law of nations" is more a philosophical position -- a generally accepted sense, shareed among nations, of what is right and wrong. But as the FindLaw discussion points out, the practical aspects of that position were not precise. Probably the best (relatively) recent example would be the Nuremburg trials following WWII. It was quite clear that real crimes had been committed by the Nazis, althoug there was no established body of international law that actually codified those crimes. In that case, the general sense of "criminal activity" would have been justified by the "law of nations."

Congress has no authority to decide who will or will not be a citizen, that is determined by the circumstances of a person's birth.

That's a false assertion. In the present context, Congress passed the law governing the definition of a U.S. citizen, as codified at USC 8.1401.

136 posted on 08/05/2008 10:31:42 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Stentor
He writes as though anyone can follow his instructions, yet his instructions are maddeningly unclear.

Amen.

ML/NJ

137 posted on 08/05/2008 11:00:52 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The lack of interest from serious news outlets with conservative/Republican leanings is another.

Does the name John Edwards mean anything to you?

ML/NJ

138 posted on 08/05/2008 11:06:06 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Edwards is a pathetic has-been. He currently holds no public office, is not a candidate for any office, and is obviously not on the possible VP list. Why should the media or anyone else pay any attention to him? A lot of people would just like to leave his dying wife alone, to spend whatever time she has left with her two young children. And the poor children will be left with John as their only parent when Elizabeth dies. What purpose would be served by a tabloidy media circus pointing out the obvious about John’s extracurricular activities?


139 posted on 08/05/2008 11:22:47 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
He currently holds no public office, is not a candidate for any office

Does the name Newt Gingrich mean anything to you?

ML/NJ

140 posted on 08/05/2008 11:44:31 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"What purpose would be served by a tabloidy media circus pointing out the obvious about John’s extracurricular activities?

Evenhandedness would be served. GOP people with a "personal life aren't exempt. Ask yourself what the media would do if they had juicy stories about any of the following private citizens:

Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Karl Rove, Rumsfeld.

141 posted on 08/05/2008 12:11:50 PM PDT by cookcounty (Obama, the last man to figure out the Surge ---Except for Nevada's Hopeless Harry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Again, you have to consider that "the law of nations" is more a philosophical position

Since Justice Wilson believed it to be binding, I do not have to 'consider' anything of the sort. Too many people wish to contort the meaning and purpose of the Law by using the 'it's just a philosophical idea' type argument.

IMHO, by doing so, you desecrate the entire purpose and intent of the Constitution, which was to protect the sovereignty of the People.

-----

It was quite clear that real crimes had been committed by the Nazis, althoug there was no established body of international law that actually codified those crimes. In that case, the general sense of "criminal activity" would have been justified by the "law of nations."

True, but the fact that nothing was 'codified' made no difference, precisely because the Law of Nations was already IN operation.

-----

That's a false assertion.

Telling me I'm wrong doesn't prove anything anymore than the straw-man argument concerning the Nuremburg trials did.

----

Congress can pass legislation till the cows come home, but they were not given the authority to create or define, merely to REGULATE.

A very definite but distinctive difference.

142 posted on 08/05/2008 12:47:44 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am not a legal, corporate, administrative, political or collective 'entity'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I applaud any beating the press gives Edwards over his affair.

It’s rich in irony that he got busted at the Beverly Hills Hilton hours after he was a featured speaker at a homeless conference in LA.

Two Americas alright. One for hypocrite Johnny and his pals and one for the rest of us.


143 posted on 08/05/2008 12:52:57 PM PDT by Rebelbase (Black dogs and bacon bombs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg

Pinging myself for later read.


144 posted on 08/05/2008 1:06:54 PM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Since Justice Wilson believed it to be binding

Binding in what sense ... especially considering that the phrase was written in 1789? What objective body of legislation are we talking about? I would certainly agree that the "law of nations" could be binding in a moral sense; however, the concensus at the time the clause was written, was that the term was sufficiently vague as to authorize Congress to define its terms, prior to specifying punishments for violation. In other words, "morally binding" was (and still should be) considered insufficient grounds for legal action. The rule of law requires that the legal basis for jurisprudence be fixed in the sense of being written, rather than felt. Clearly the "law of nations" is not that sort of law.

I don't use "philosophical idea" as a means of denigrating the concept of "the law of nations" -- the term acknowledges the important idea that there are universal concepts of right and wrong, after all.

However, it would be silly to make the entire Constitution generally subject to that particular sub-clause (and perhaps to go far beyond its intended context), especially since "the law of nations" is so vague as to require definition by Congress. The whole point of a written Constitution, after all, is to preclude the possibility Congress changing the rules based on vague principles.

True, but the fact that nothing was 'codified' made no difference, precisely because the Law of Nations was already IN operation.

Hm. So basically you're agreeing with my point. That the "law of nations" was "In operation" is to acknowledge the generally-agreed principle that Genocide is Wrong. However, ours is a society based upon the rule of law -- written law -- and you agree that there were no written laws at the time governing our authority to prosecute the Nazis for committing genocide. Here, in a nutshell, is the sort of situation that led to the Constitutional authorization for Congress to define the crimes committed (i.e., codify them into written law) in accordance with the philosophical precepts that form the "law of nations," so that the U.S. had a firm, "rule of law" basis on which to prosecute the Nazi war criminals.

Telling me I'm wrong doesn't prove anything anymore than the straw-man argument concerning the Nuremburg trials did.

Uh... I provided a direct cite showing that you were wrong in your assertion that Congress had no power to legally define the terms of citizenship. I don't see how that has anything to do with the Nuremburg trials....

145 posted on 08/05/2008 2:04:02 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: devolve; MeekOneGOP; PhilDragoo; Grampa Dave

Thanks for the pings!!


146 posted on 08/05/2008 2:55:04 PM PDT by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

I’ll keep checking my tire pressure.


147 posted on 08/05/2008 4:28:00 PM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (I voted Republican because no Conservatives were running.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
regarding the newspaper announcement. I have seen but just a bad jpeg of the "clipping". What is the date of the newspaper versus the date of the birth announcement.

Who placed the birth announcement--was is secured via live birth records, etc, or was is telephoned in by either Stanley or her mother in Hawaii. if "Barry" was born somewhere else, and then transported to Hawaii--of course his mother would want American birth certificate for him.

Or is this clipping a fraud also? Afterall, I have great newspaper articles printed on newsprint that speak of fantastic subjects relating the my museum objects.

148 posted on 08/05/2008 11:16:51 PM PDT by abigkahuna (Step on up folks and see the "Strange Thing" only a thin dollar, babies free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Thank you again, Meek.

Veddy, veddy interesting.


149 posted on 08/06/2008 3:11:55 AM PDT by Slip18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna
if "Barry" was born somewhere else, and then transported to Hawaii--of course his mother would want American birth certificate for him.

Really? Some 18 year-old gives birth outside the US, maybe in Indonesia someplace, and she is conniving enough and scheming enough to have a method for obtaining a US birth certificate for her child? Do you know of a single instance of such scheming aside from the one that you posit for Obama?

ML/NJ

150 posted on 08/06/2008 4:29:51 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-153 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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