Posted on 10/16/2008 11:25:39 PM PDT by Chet 99
Echoing the theme of recent John McCain campaign ads that claim Barack Obama associates with terrorists, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle told a small Henderson audience that in this presidential election “it’s the protection of your families that’s at stake.”
If the choice between the Republican and Democratic nominees is “posed in this fashion,” she said, then voters are “going to say McCain.”
Lingle’s stump speech for McCain attracted only about 60 people to the Henderson Convention Center on Wednesday afternoon — chairs were taken away shortly before she arrived. By contrast, nearly a thousand came to the same venue to hear Mitt Romney speak in August.
Besides mentioning McCain’s history of crossing party lines, Lingle hardly touched on the Arizona senator’s record and instead focused on Obama.
Policy wasn’t mentioned. In fact, she said the two candidates can “talk all they want” about their plans on issues such as health care and energy, but it “really comes down to: Who do you want to be sitting in the White House when it comes down to the security of America?”
McCain’s campaign has come under fire recently for what some have called scare tactics, and McCain was forced to diffuse the fears of his supporters and defend Obama at a recent rally: “He’s a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.”
Lingle, though, repeatedly framed the presidential election in terms of the physical safety of Americans and painted Obama as a mysterious figure who is uncomfortable with leadership.
She said voting for Obama would put the safety of the country’s children in the “hands of someone we hardly know.” (She also added that despite Obama’s touting he is from Hawaii, she has never met him and he has “never called me on the phone.”)
Ultimately the country judges the president by how he deals with the unexpected, Lingle said, and Obama “is not a person who will make the tough calls.”
Is she still around? Is the MSM camped out on her door?
I jumped the gun. She died in 1995 of ovarian cancer.
I think you are missing the point. The LAW is irrelevant. IF true - and I doubt it is - then what matters is the long running and deliberate deception.
It wouldn’t sway the 40% democrat base, but would change the minds of enough independents to put McCain in the White House...and that is a bit scary as well!
State law in Hawaii would recognise a common-law marriage contracted in another jurisdiction as binding in Hawaii, and, therefore, invalidating a subsequent marriage in Hawaii.
Unfortunately, many Americans will simply perceive the reports of his history in the US as justification for him being identifiable as a US citizen. If the law says he isn’t for sound reasons, they will tend to be just as amenable to change the law as to deny Obama his candidacy.
IMHO, its a ploy to allow illegal immigrants to be included in the voter records as a side benefit. The rest they feel they can spin in any direction.
One thing is obvious to me if one exhibits wherewithal.
Obama is reputed to be a Harvard trained lawyer whose specialty is Constitutional Law and has been raised within a broken family with unabashedly close to embedded ties to socialism.
Either he respects the institutions of volition, marriage, family, national and state governnance or he ignores them.
If he respected those institutions, I would fully expect to continuously hear his complements of our political systems which foster those institutions and a personal dedication to synthesize methods to bolster those institutions.
Not only do I not observe such thinking or behavior manifest of such thinking on his behalf, I repeatedly witness his association, statements, and arrogance associated with one who is an enemy of those institutions.
IMHO, most Americans never think that deeply about their elected government officials. Some are only interested in how they will effect their taxes and pocketbook. Some vote along social associations, such as if they grew up in a union, they tend to identify the label of Democrat with ally.
Most Americans don’t listen and hear what the candidates are actually saying. The scary thing is that Obama has been saying he is an enemy of volition, marriage, family, national governance with very simple statements throughout his adult history, even on the campaign trail.
If elected, the stage of arrogance for him is likely to be one of perceiving public encouragement of whatever he emotes. He will interpret an election into office as public acceptance and encouragement of his personal thinking.
If we think he is arrogant now, just wait until he gains more power.
IMHO, he is somewhat involved in a long running and deliberate deception, but he has behaved with it for so long, that I suspect he actually has become self-deceived. Now when he telegraphs this in open statements manifesting his arrogance, the American public just categorize his speaking not for his content, but as things politicians do when they campaign for office.
People are loosing any opportunity for an American dream with this month’s economic activity. After listening to Obama deliver a prepared roast-like, white tie, dinner speech last night, I couldn’t refrain from associating his jokes about people who’ve lost everything they have and their life savings to Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake.”
Obama, IMHO, is a study in arrogance.
Back in 1964? That is when she finalized the divorce from him.
His father bigamously "married" Stanley Dunham, Obama's mother. Under U.S. law, Barack Obama is illegitimate. The fact that his mother was legally unmarried means that the residency requirements, etc., that people have been talking about didn't apply to her and her son Barack, and therefore Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen through his mother. (No five-year residence requirement, but only one, I think is the rule.)
Therefore Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen by birth, and the challenge Philip Berg is putting up should fail, even if eyewitness and documentary proof is found, that Barack Obama was born in a Mombasa hospital.
Everything you said, except the names of people you mentioned, is false. By any definition, OBama is NOT a natural-born citizen, and the citizenship laws apply to Stanley Dunham whether she was formally married, married to a polygamist, not married, or artificially inseminated by an anonymous sperm donor selected at random.
The legal citizenship requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."The law applies to the place of birth, first, and the citizenship of Barack's mother at the time of his birth, regardless of how, and by whom, his mother was impregnated,
A female who has given birth to a child is the "parent" of that child in the strictest of terms, even if it is just biological -- for which Article II makes no distinction.
Obama was NOT claimed by anyone else other than Stanley Dunham as his or her child, so she is his "parent," period.
Even if a mother gives her child up for adoption, she is still the "biological parent," and that never changes,
The fact that Article II is concerned with the legal age, the citizenship, and the time of residency in the US, length of time the "parent" was a citizen and legal resident, and says absolutely ZIP about the moral and legal responsibilities of the mother who brought the child into the world, let alone the genetics involved in the process, should have been your first clue.
If Obama was not born in Kenya, the only way that he would gain US citizenship is through it being imputed to him through his mother after he reached the age of 18, and not before, provided that his mother had retained her US citizenship and residency requirements at the time.
For all the legal reasons why John McCain IS a natural-born citizen, are the same ones why Obama IS NOT a natural-born citizen.
“His father bigamously “married” Stanley Dunham, Obama’s mother. Under U.S. law, Barack Obama is illegitimate. The fact that his mother was legally unmarried means that the residency requirements, etc., that people have been talking about didn’t apply to her and her son Barack, and therefore Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen through his mother. (No five-year residence requirement, but only one, I think is the rule.)”
I’m sorry, but you are incorrect. The issues isn’t illegitimacy because even if she was illegally married, she was (not) married to a non-citizen. The citizien requirement would still fall to her, and she still doesn’t qualify.
“His father bigamously “married” Stanley Dunham, Obama’s mother. Under U.S. law, Barack Obama is illegitimate. The fact that his mother was legally unmarried means that the residency requirements, etc., that people have been talking about didn’t apply to her and her son Barack, and therefore Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen through his mother. (No five-year residence requirement, but only one, I think is the rule.)”
I’m sorry, but you are incorrect. The issues isn’t illegitimacy because even if she was illegally married, she was (not) married to a non-citizen. The citizien requirement would still fall to her, and she still doesn’t qualify.
“Is she still around? Is the MSM camped out on her door?
Inquiring minds want toknow!”
Inquiring minds are now informed she died in 1995.
I don't see how she doesn't "qualify". She was a U.S. citizen, I don't think anyone contests that.
The residence requirement on her (for conferring citizenship on her baby) was different, as an unmarried mother, from the requirement for married women; and she did satisfy the requirement as it existed then, so that she would have conferred citizenship on her baby simply by returning to the States and continuing to live there.
Since she was a single mother, the citizenship of the biodaddy/anonymous sperm donor was immaterial. He could have been an abominable snowman from Tibet, and it wouldn't have made any difference to the child's citizenship status.
Ok, can we just agree that the Obama is the spawn of Satan?
My understanding is that the law does indeed (or did indeed) distinguish critically between married and unmarried mothers, and impose different residence rules.
Until he dies eventually, anyway.
I think the Clintons are repping for the Antichrist, but that Obama is working for international Communism.
Does that clarify things?
I think it's been covered up, to conceal Obama's bastardy.
I think that's the big deal that he and his camp are obfuscating.
As I pointed out in another post, the way the country's been going with rising illegitimacy, that concern of Obama's seems a little dated, and almost quaint. By 2030, a quarter of the U.S. Senate will be bastards, the way we're going.
Since Senior and Kezia married in Kenya, which had (I'm guessing at this) the English common law as well as native organic law, a common-law marriage between Kezia and Senior would have been a valid marriage. Which would have invalidated Senior's second marriage, under United States law, since it is stipulated that he hadn't divorced Kezia before getting over on Stanley Dunham.
Staley Ann Dunham Obama was divorced from Obama Senior, in Hawaii, before she married her second husband.
The divorce would have been as invalid as the marriage, and wholly unnecessary. Whether they knew it or not.
This is fascinating, and very confusing! Could someone answer a couple of questions for me?
1. Am I correct in thinking that there are people here saying that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born or whether his mom was married, he would never be a natural born citizen? And therefore, would NEVER be qualified to run for President?
2, Was there some kind of procedure his parent had to do when Obama was 18 in order for him to become a US Citizen?
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.