Posted on 02/04/2010 6:43:03 AM PST by milwguy
I damn sure question his faith, citizenship, Occidental grades and who paid the tuition, books, etc.his Harvard grades,plus how he got in both colleges? I question his rationale and all records and all documents for going to Pawkestawn. Are you a closet Muslim or for real?
Hell,your Rev was the pits, but; you loved him and that church for years. Those hate whitey sermons must have been a real thrill. You and your hate America preacher fit right in with the Black Panthers controlling that Phila polling area, yet Holder did zip to prosecute any fellow blacks. Now add your selective service registration-I want to see that. I could write for well over an hour about what I want to see.
Now, Pimp Daddy- I mean Mr. Pres, you are the CIC. Why did you let the underwear bomber be mirandized and allow him to be lawyered up? Holder is not your boss. You are the damn CO and you are responsible. Holder is like your staff officer. You are not to swift.
Quit blowing our money, get your wife off her shopping sprees on us, the taxpayers, fire her enormous staff we pay for,and DO YOUR JOB. QUIT BLAMING OTHERS.
I think the B.C. and the issue of divided citizenship are both important from the standpoint of one uncovers the other and our aims are accomplished in full with either being determined and presented in court.
I understand your issue on this, I too am a little irritated by their response. But just as the Globull Whining conspiracy has been revealed, so shall this be.
Then we are going to need their megaphone for the next step.
I tell you BOR, Coulter, Lis Whiel and the others bother me for their curt responses, Beck not so much and WhoreAldo is just so 1980’s and a wannabe relevant, never gonna be again.
We will get to his NBC and the jig will be up.
Umm...Maybe they're ale to sleep because they they KNOW that what you write above is not true.
Occums razor. The simplest logical explanation of the facts is usually the correct one.
Probably lousy, which is why he hasn't released them. I'll be someone will leak them, though, before 2012.
and who paid the tuition, books, etc.
You would be surprised at how many generous financial aid packages there are available for people, provided they have the right skin color.
his Harvard grades,
Better than the Occidental grades, by all accounts.
plus how he got in both colleges?
Affirmative action most likely has something to do with it.
Regarding Occam's Razor, we agree.
The simplest logical explanation of the fact that Obama refuses to authorize a blanket release of his HI vital records, despite his pledge of transparency and political damage from appearing to be hiding something, is that a release would show he is ineligible to be POTUS.
So if that is so, could you enlightening us all and tell us who is Barry Soetoro's (aka as BHO) father???
Please - none of your usually "tap-dancing" on the floor!!!
Once back in the states with her son, under Title III, section 322 of the same law, she could then immediately apply for her son to become a naturalized US citizen. All she would have to do is fill out another form and show the same documents, and her son would be a US citizen as soon as the paperwork was processed.
Is a naturalized US citizen eligible to occupy the White House??
If so, well then both Arnold, Jenifer and I all can run next time, hello???
Nope. If you had decent reading comprehension skills, you would realize that wasn't my point. My point was that even if Obama were born in Kenya, there would have been no motive for Mama Obama or Toot to committ felony fraud in order to register his birth in the USA. She could have scured his naturalized citizenship via perfectly legal means. Hence there is no reason to doubt the veracity of Hawaii's official record showing that he was born in the USA.
Now it's true Bambi wouldn't be able to run for president had his mom secured naturalized citizenship for him, but I seriously doubt anyone would risk a felony fraud conviction just to make her baby eligible to run for president decades down the road.
Or do you actually believe that Mama Obama committed fraud just in case her son would one day want to run for president?
1. You assume that Ann and Toot knew the US statute would permit easy naturalization of BHO II. You have no way of knowing that. You don't know what they knew or what they did based on what they thought they knew.
2. The fact that Obama won't release his HI vital records, including all amendments and corrections (if any), is a glaring reason to doubt that HI is the original place of birth in the record filed with the DOH Aug 8th 1961 that triggered the newspaper notices.
3. You have not eliminated other possible reasons to doubt that the original, unamended HI vital record has Kenya on them as a location of birth or hospital address.
Consider the Blaine long form BC as a hypothetical valid BC which maps perfectly to the summary fields on the Factcheck COLB with a location of birth showing Honolulu and the hospital address showing "Unknown - Kenya, Africa."
HI officials could refer truthfully to the unamended Blaine BC and declare that BHO II's location of birth was Honolulu, while ignoring the conflicting hospital address.
The Blaine BC demonstrates possible entries on an original long form BC, and a sequence of events (signature dates, statutory notation reflecting 1982 law change, and subsequent amendment) requiring no conspiracy by Ann and Toot.
If the Blaine document or hypothetical is true you have not accounted for a possible conspiracy by Obama and his agents to amend the HI vital records subsequent to 1982 to change the birth hospital address from "Unknown - Kenya, Africa" to "Honolulu."
HI officials would then be required to refer only to the representations in the amended vital record, while scrupulously avoiding mention or disclosure of the amendment or conflicting information. This also appears to be exactly what they are doing.
I assume no such thing. I am merely applying the reasonable person test that is standard in the courts. Any reasonable person, if unaware of the naturalization processes, would inquire into them. All it would take is a phone call to an immigration lawyer.
Are you seriously suggesting Toot and Mama Obama would do something illegal before at the very least asking a lawyer about their legal options?
And of course, you do realize, most lawyers do offer free initial consultations.
2. The fact that Obama won't release his HI vital records, including all amendments and corrections (if any), is a glaring reason to doubt that HI is the original place of birth in the record filed with the DOH Aug 8th 1961 that triggered the newspaper notices.
Sorry. No cigar. Hawaii already verified that his vital record shows Hawaii as the birthplace.
3. You have not eliminated other possible reasons to doubt that the original, unamended HI vital record has Kenya on them as a location of birth or hospital address.
Such as...
Consider the Blaine long form BC as a hypothetical valid BC which maps perfectly to the summary fields on the Factcheck COLB with a location of birth showing Honolulu and the hospital address showing "Unknown - Kenya, Africa."
Right. So Hawaii is going to say Honolulu is the birthplace, but then list Kenya as the hospital location? LOL. Birthers will believe anything!
To the extent that HI will say anything without a release from Obama, they will say what is on the most recent accepted vital records on file.
You insist that there couldn't possibly be evidence of a Kenya birth in Obama's vital record file that was subsequently amended to remove it.
Your ask us to assume that there is no possibility of an original long form showing the "hospital address" as being "Unknown - Kenya Africa" which may either have been ignored by HI officials in favor of a "birth location" of Honolulu or removed in an amendment that was filed by Obama and accepted by HI subsequent to 1982.
Obviously, there is a possiblity that Obama's orignial vital record BC had Kenya on it and was amended.
Obama's refusal to release his original vital records alone provides a sufficient basis to demand that he reveal them.
The HI short-form COLB is hearsay evidence which is "self-authenticating" but can be challenged and the underlying vital records discovered under the best evidence rule, should a plaintiff ever gain standing.
I believe Hawaii’s loose laws regarding COLB’s to foreign born just happened to work out for Zero. People in the Orient from the Phillipines to Mainland China knew Hawaii was the place to get USA citizenship.
I believe Hawaii’s loose laws regarding COLB’s to foreign born just happened to work out for Zero. People in the Orient from the Phillipines to Mainland China knew Hawaii was the place to get USA citizenship.
Yes I sure do and multiple S.S. numbers proves it clearly!!
Hawaii's laws are no looser than the average state's.
People in the Orient from the Phillipines to Mainland China knew Hawaii was the place to get USA citizenship.
That is simply not true.
That's right, because Hawaii did not register foreign births until 1982. If they tried to get a BC for him in 1961 for a birth in Kenya, they would not have given him one.
Your contention appears to be false based on the recent discovery of the text of Hawaii Territorial Law 57 in force in 1961.
See Hemenway's analysis posted by rxsid:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2423856/posts?page=1
"What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless."
Recent discovery? LOL. The law has always been publicly available, and I read it. My contention is correct.
See Hemenway's analysis posted by rxsid:
LOL. If you want to prove me wrong, quote the text of the law, not someone else's worthless "analysis" of it.
The text supporting my contention that out-of-state births could be reported by the local register prior to 1982 is provided, quoted and analyzed in context by Hemenway at the links I provided. Truth-seekers reading FR will have no trouble finding all of it and drawing their own conclusions.
Nonsense. There is no provision in the 1957 law for the legal registration of foriegn births. It simply does not exist, as anyone who actually read the text for himself would know.
But of course, like a typical birther, you never read primary source material for yourself, so you wouldn't know.
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.