Skip to comments.Obama’s Birth Announcement in 1961 confirmed
Posted on 12/11/2009 1:04:21 AM PST by Electric Graffiti
STAR BULLETIN EDITION OF AUG. 14TH, ON FILE AT BERKLEY IDENTICAL TO PUBLISHED IMAGES by John Charlton
The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
He's the one denying US proof of his citizenship.
If you cant put up, you should shut up.
Hysterical? Who in their right mind would fork out the kinda cash he has over a $12 document?
Put up or shut up!
Super messiah cant even show proof of citizenship! It's a FACT!
Until he shows his original LFBC his citizenship is only hearsay! And everybody knows it!
“He's the one denying US proof of his citizenship.”
As I noted, he has provided proof consistent with Hawaii's stated documentation practices. Hawaii isn't disputing it. That's a closed book in legal space. You simply refuse to acknowledge or accept that because you can't stand Obama so much that it's driven you around the bend. You've let him get inside your head, to use a sporting analogy.
“If you cant put up, you should shut up.”
What does this pointless phrase mean to you? Do you really think it demonstrates anything other than unfocused anger? Obviously I can't provide Obama’s birth certificate; it's his, not mine. That doesn't change the response I gave above. I routinely give far more detailed factual responses than the people bellowing “free the long form.”
“Put up or shut up!”
Again. Please note that I give details. You chant slogans. Which connotes actual thought?
“Super messiah cant even show proof of citizenship! It's a FACT!”
No, it's not. It seems like a fact to you because you don't want to accept that he gave proof, but that doesn't make it a fact. It makes it what is more commonly called a delusion.
“Until he shows his original LFBC his citizenship is only hearsay! And everybody knows it!”
No. Only the people in that fever swamp with you know it, and that's because you've allowed Obama to deprive you of your rational faculties. If you would defeat your enemy, you must first know him. Dispensing with delusions about him is essential.
Scream all you want. That doesn't turn delusions into facts. Birtherism is the kind of self-destructive stuff Conservatism had to purge itself of in order to set the stage for Ronald Reagan.
When develop the imagination and creativity to
make up put together what Beckwith and you have then I'll be just as bad.
And I notice that you didn't include the history that would show that in every single case you quoted, my post was in response to an insult first directed towards me. Unlike you and people like you, my stones are never cast first.
Simple pleasures for simple minds no doubt. I'm glad that I provide a source of amusement for you and your buddies. After all, y'all do the same for us so it's only fair we return the favor.
It did not tell what the rules were in the 60, 70, and 80ties???
Keep Tap-Dancing to the choreography of ballet dancer Rahm. You skipped mentioning his BRITISH citizenship!!!
He also bluntly said: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". And he bluntly called them "An Evil Empire" to your pal's huge chagrin. He certainly did not shy away to express opinions that was NOT in line with the P.C.!!!
We should accept a photoshopped image that looks almost like a real BC.
We shouldn't ask questions about his nationality because you said we shouldn't.
Sorry bub. I ain't drinkin the foolaide! No cigar for Fidel! Why don't you axe Larry to pass the meth pipe?
It could have been Madelyn Dunham who, in the first week after BHO II was born, may have been aware of how easily HI birth and US citizenship could be established and filed a report of home birth not knowing when or if Stanley Ann would return from Kenya.
It seems to me that there some kind of serious falling out between Stanley Ann and her parents (beyond just getting away from BHO Sr) for her to have moved to Seattle with an infant at age 18 just one month after the birth. Most new mothers cling to their mothers and vice versa.
This falling out leave open the possibility that a parent or parents may have been taking actions that were not coordinated with their daughter.
This appears to be incorrect to this admittedly non-lawyer.
There is no such precedent. Dicta doesn't set precedent. The opinion in Wong only declared plaintiff to be a citizen , not a natural born citizen, as the description of the case by the court clearly states. Confusing dicta conflating English natural born subject with citizen doesn't count as precedent.
An Indiana Appeals Court falsely interpreted dicta in Wong Kim Ark to mean that you can be a dual citizen at birth subject to a foreign power and still be an NBC, even if it is your your father that is foreign (we never passed the ERA).
In the Minor v. Happersett case SCOTUS specifically said it had not yet ruled on whether persons who didn't have two US citizen parents born on US soil could be NBC, and SCOTUS cited Minor in deciding Wong without refuting it.
Subsequently, SCOTUS has not ruled on any case on point with Obama’s eligibility, so there is no precedent for the Indiana court to cite. A case de nouveau for Obama would seem to be needed.
See D’Onofrio’s cashed blog page (including his his deletions of his amusing insults to SCOTUS, which may account for why he as taken down his blog):
Judge Carter, after hearing oral arguement from Kreep and Taitz, said “I haven’t made up my mind yet.” That, in my view, indicated that it was a close decision and close decisions can be reversed on appeal, which is pending!
Further, Judge Carter refuted the DOJ contention that POTUS was exempt from quo warranto and specifically referred the plaintiffs to the DC District Court. In quo warranto the burden of proof would be on Obama, and just this week D’Onofrio announced that he will bring a quo warranto action in that court on behalf of the Chrysler dealers.
Unfortunately, (non-lawyer guessing here) D’Onofrio would be forced to abandon his quo warranto action if the Chrysler dealers accept an out-of-court settlement offer. I certainly hope that doesn't happen!
D’Onofrio’s Chrysler dealer quo warranto:
I have seen no documentation of adoption of Obama in HI or Indonesia and I don't consider school record entries to be conclusive. Lolo could have just made the claims when registering Barry in school to save face or avoid problems.
It is certainly possible that Barry was adopted and also made an Indonesian dual citizen but this has no bearing on whether he had NBC status at birth, and only Obama himself could have renounced that.
It does remain highly suspicious that Obama attended Occidental by all appearances as a foreign student in the foreign student dorm surrounded by Muslims as would be appropriate for an Indonesian or Kenyan Muslim citizen.
Only discovery of Obama’s original vital records and further discovery on whatever they reveal (and discovery on competing Kenya BCs) plus a SCOTUS ruling will satisfy me as to his eligibility!
D’Onofrio was retained by the Chrysler dealers, according to the thread you linked. If they settle, there would be releases exchanged and the absence of a justiciable issue. Therefore a quo warranto would be dismissed if brought.
“When the subject-matter of the action is moot, applications for quo warranto are generally dismissed.4”
Even if D’Onofrio’s case gets dropped due to settlement, the legal pathway for others wanting to bring quo warranto will have been publicized widely as soon as it is filed,if filed.
The good news is that Obama’s enemies in all parts of the political spectrum are multiplying by the day. I suspect that the far left will soon be looking at attacking Obama’s eligibility as a means to defeat the escalation in Afghanistan by getting cut-and-run Biden in office.
Yeah, you said that before. I took as much stock in it then as I do now.
I never mentioned social security benefits. It is tied to employment and addresses. It’s a different animal. In school you take your child’s BC when they start kindergarten along with shot records and that follows them all through school and is transfered to college. If it gets lost then you cannot go on to college without it.You must get a copy and hand it over. One of our sons was not lost but we had a dickens of a time getting the schoolrto forward it with records.
DMV a child in California is 15 1/2 or 16 and they want proof they are not giving a ID to someone underage or someone stealing a ID.
Passports they want to know who is traveling where from the US. If they are citizens.
I cannot imagine any of you who consistently post in favor of Obama,want anyone in the White House whom you have no clue who he is. After 9/11 our commander in chief has no verifiable background and you condone that consistently.
Take a good look at the guy you condone.
“He also bluntly said: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. And he bluntly called them “An Evil Empire” to your pal’s huge chagrin. He certainly did not shy away to express opinions that was NOT in line with the P.C.!!!”
What color is the sky in your world? Acknowledging facts isn’t P.C. Reagan wasn’t some nut case insisting that up is down and living in denial like this birth certificate nonsense.
No. You should ask yourself why no one in the state of Hawaii is disavowing it. People falsely claiming to have been born in your state aren't protected by privacy laws. Hawaii could answer that question today, and would if the information it had contradicted Obama. You mindlessly insist it is photoshopped because you simply can't deal with reality.
And yes, of course, every court that doesn't do what the birthers want is doing something false. Obviously there is no honesty or professional competence outside birther circles. That's how paranoid conspiracy theories work. It just gets more and more obvious what they really are as more and more court rulings pile up.
So dicta are irrelevant, but one can read volumes into a judge simply being polite and dispassionate, which is his job. His opinion sure doesn;t read like a close call.
Cling to whatever hope you want. But no on versed in the law believes that appeal has a snowball's chance in heck. To believe that, you simply don't understand the reasons why dismissal was granted.