That paternity has not yet been suitably, verifiably demonstrated. The question therefore still stands. . . 
Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
She is a attorney and lives in Atlanta and attends court there.
Hatfield puts Obama on the stand:
Hatfield: Mr. Obama ... is that your real name, or should I refer to you as Mr. Dunham???
Obama: mrrr, br, ffrrre
Hatfield: I’m sorry, I can’t understand you ...
Obama: I’m having trouble reading my teleprompter ...
Hatfield: Your name, sir??
Obama: Obama is fine.
Hatfield: And it’s your claim that your parents were not really married when you were born as your PDF shows??
Obama: Yes, that’s right. My father was already married in Kenya.
Hatfield: So this makes you a bastard???
Obama: Yes, that’s true, I’m a bastard.
Hatfield: Can we make sure this is entered properly. The defendant says he is a bastard. Sir, how do we know you’re really a bastard??
Obama: Ask anyone ... ask my wife, she’ll tell you. I’m a bastard.
Hatfield: But can you prove you’re a bastard??
Obama: It’s the truth. I’m a real, honest-to-Allah .. ummm God, bastard!! What part of “I’m a bastard” don’t you understand???
Jablonski: Objection
Malahi: Denied
Hatfield: So, Mr. Dunham ... ummmm, Obama, you claim you have a right to the office of president because you’re a bastard???
Obama: Absolutely, I’m a natural-born bastard and entitled to my position.
Hatfield: But do we have legal precedent? What other bastards have been president??
Jablonski: Objection, my client can only speak for his own condition as a bastard, not for other presidents ...
Malahi: Denied. Answer the question, bastard.
Very funny!
However I think the basic outline of Kezia’s likely testimony can be found in this Daily Mail story in which BHO Sr. is branded a bigamist:
“Until now, Barack Snr has been portrayed as a bigamist and a drunk.
“In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Barack admits being disappointed that his father became so bitter and unfocused in his latter years.
“Yet Kezia seems determined to defend the man’s reputation.
“True, he behaved appallingly sometimes. He could be selfish and became disillusioned. But she says he was also clever and talented.”
Sounds like a declaration that “I am a bastard” to me!
How's that for timing!
On the theory that I can credit BO's supporters with more than one shared brain cell between them, perhaps I can ask whether some of them might scratch their heads over the sudden trumpeting of his illegitimacy as a campaign angle.
Pan_Yans Wife, speaking for Danae, since I have never found fault with her reasoning, and she didn't respond directly, why should the Democratic Party care? The Republicans refused to vet Obama and ran their own ineligible candidate. They are just as complicit. Many prominent republicans are now lauding Marco Rubio as an ideal vice presidential candidate. Only Georgia's Congressman Nathan Deal had the courage to question Obama; the response with ethics charges was almost immediate. Deal retired and ran for Governor, and no one has said anything of consequence since.
Our legislature is quiet because they all know the truth, and hope that their numbers will lessen the outrage should the public gain the confidence to read Minor, or The Venus, or Perkins, or ... for themselves, and demand answers. Likely, they will all say something like “We felt there would be race wars if we raised the issue and forced his removal.” “Silence was the lessor of the evils.” And many would agree. But this writer believes that black people in the US are not incapable of seeing the consequences, indeed the fundamental racism, in assuming people of color do not understand the importance of a colorblind republic based upon laws, and not men.
You and I might ask, why not just bury this, as both parties are currently doing? Too many of us have taken the ten minutes or so to read Chief Justice Waite's definition, or 14th Amendment author Bingham’s definition, or Chief Justice Marshall's definition. Without exception, every one of our Representatives have failed to tell us why Waite, or Evans Hughes, or Marshall, or (thirty or so times)..., didn't really understand what they were saying. As in ignoring a legal challenge, failing to respond is a statement. They depend upon Alinsky’s observation about ridicule, assuming that few citizens will have the clarity and confidence in their powers of reason to challenge written decisions. I hope, perhaps vainly, that should the Republicans offer us another ineligible candidate, there will be an honest confrontation, since too many of us would refuse to tacitly establish the precedent contracting our framer's common-law and our Supreme Court's stare decisis - precedent - confirming the common-law, Minor v. Happersett.
For any who have any illusion that “originalist” Ron Paul is any better, he refuses to comment on the definition so absolutely clearly enunciated in Minor, and cited in over two dozen subsequent cases which confirm the court's recognition of Minor's precedent on NBC. That makes Paul even more a hypocrite than Barack, since Barack has always honestly admitted that he doesn't consider the Constitution binding. Barack honestly described himself as a naturalized citizen when he said “I am a native-born citizen of the U.S.” Words mean things. “Native-born” is the term used in Wong Kim Ark to descibe citizens naturalized by having been born on our soil. Barack never said, anywhere, that he was a natural born citizen.
Obama may have no interest in running again. Why should he? He has spent his career as a con-man, probably deployed by Axelrod, Soros, and perhaps, as claimed by Percy Sutton, for Whalid bin-Talaal, benefactor of Harvard's Islamic Studies Center and largest individual stockholder, after Murdoch, in News Corp, which owns the WSJ and Fox News. Someone, clearly not The Golfer, writes the scripts for the teleprompter. Why should he continue. From never having held a real job, unless the 31 Flavors stories are true, his income is over $10 million, and that on a salary of around $300k. If he decides to leave the future to Hillary, he can make even more than Bill with occasional speeches, and play golf, or whatever he likes, providing he stays out of jail. Does anyone believe the golfer wants to be a trainer for Acorn again? Barack is a product of the most elite prep school in Hawaii. He was groomed to capitalize on the racial quota politics of the 80s, and proved to be an effective pitch man who could probably pitch as effectively for the right, or for Gucci or Barney's if they would pay him.
Barack, or whatever his name is, can move to the vacation spot so popular with the Saudi families on the coast of Spain scouted by Michelle and her entourage, and live in a beautiful home for the rest of his life. Our courts won't go after him because they failed to protect our Constitution and they all know it. He has done his job well, making billions, perhaps trillions, keeping Goldman Sachs from Lehman Bros. fate, giving GM to the AFL/CIO and stealing from the non-union retirement funds of blue chip investors. Barack is a money machine. Like the dealers in Las Vegas, who learn that tragedy is part of the job, he has done his job, and neither has he any mission to complete, not having the allegiance described by John Bingham, as passed to him from his parents, nor guilt for what he has wrought upon the people who paid Rev Wright enough to live like an investment banker in Barack’s, Louis’, Bill Ayers’, fancy Chicago neighborhood.
Because the underlying principle of natural born citizenship is to guarantee sole allegiance to a single country I (for one) would not want to place a bet that SCOTUS would affirm the two parent qualification in the case of a single parent who was a US citizen at the time of birth of the child. It is not the child’s fault that he is a bastard and IMHO he should not be disqualified for the presidency. The guiding principle should be that there is no foreign influence. If there is no foreign parent, there is the likelihood of no foreign influence.
I've read the story before (notice how I mentioned in the Jablonski opening arguments (post #480) that Ann and Kezia talked to each other). This story gives a very mixed impression of the relationship(s) ... Barak Sr. comes across like Newt Gingrich with his quest for an "open" marriage. And the "until now" tends to downplay the bigamy angle. Was it a legal marriage to Kezia with the 14 cows that Barak Sr. sent to her family?? And what about those dates?? I've seen somewhere where Barak Sr. claimed he had left Kenya earlier than the dates of the marriage. Another date discrepancy is when Obama first went to Kenya. I've seen three different years listed (one of which would have been when he was still young enough to keep his Kenyan citizenship). Kezia isn't quoted as acknowledging the "bigamy" charge. It says she defends his reputation. Would she testify that he was bigamist?? I'm not so sure.
7 FAM 1118 FOUNDLINGS
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. Under INA 301(f) (8 U.S.C. 1401(f)) (formerly Section 301(a)(6)) INA), a
child of unknown parents is conclusively presumed to be a U.S. citizen if
found in the United States when under 5 years of age, unless foreign
birth is established before the child reaches age 21.
b. Under Section 201(f) of the Nationality Act of 1940, a child of unknown
parents, found in the United States, was presumed to have been a U.S.
citizen at birth until shown not to have been born in the United States no
matter at what age this might have been demonstrated.
c. See 7 FAM 1100 Appendix B (under development) for guidance about
evidence of citizenship of foundlings.
Here’s the thing: Bastard or not, bigamist or not, SAD made sure that Barry Soetoro met his listed birth father ... to ensure he had a relationship with him. And even though she divorced this man whom she had dreamed of living with in his home country, she promptly married a second foreign national citizen and moved herself and her son to his country instead.
If the idea of him being a bastard is to show that he has no other foreign influences, then this strategy fails immediately. The only thing that preserves Obama’s connection with the United States was through his grandparents, when SAD dumped him with them. Her inability to pick good husbands is not a compelling reason to consider Obama to be a natural-born citizen.
Also, natural-born citizenship isn’t citizenship by convenience or default — through the grandparents — while the mother goes back to living in a foreign country because she had to do something with him instead of keep raising him herself. And further, one doesn’t become a natural-born citizen because he is angry that he was abandoned by his mother.
The implication, to this non-attorney, is that a bastard child cannot be a natural born citizen. In many societies and their religions, Judaism being just one of them, membership is carried by the mother, because she can usually be associated with the child. Citizenship is often, as was the case in the US and Britain, carried by the father, as Ann became a British subject by marrying Barack, if she did. Minor specified “citizen parents.” If you don't know the parents, particularly the father, you can't conform to Minor's definition, a definition which was last cited at least as late as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg, and certainly in 1916, by Breckenridge Long who pointed out Charles Evans Hughes' British parents in the Chicago Legal News. (thanks Sharon Rondeau).
Again, Barack never said he was a natural born citizen, and he told us again and again who his father was. There is no point, other than to tire out readers looking to understand, in fretting over Barack’s parent's citizenship status, bucause Barack told us he was born “A subject of the British Commonwealth.” If he lied, and doesn't know who his father is, he is a bastard, and cannot conform to Minor v. Happersett. If he knew who his father was, but lied, again and again, he may have been eligible, but will certainly not be re-electable, both for being a congenital liar, and perhaps because the father whose identity he presumably hid was hidden for a reason. If he told the truth, as we must assume, he doesn't conform anyway, and, in fact, told us he was naturalized, knowing that the fix was in, and that no legislator would defend the Constitution because it would bring down McCain, and end his or her career in government.
Since this thread is about the Order to Appear issued to Obama, I'll agree with those who see no way he will appear. His legal staff and the justice department have blocked discovery from the beginning, and they have - my favorite quote from former SEIU President, and regular at the White House, Andy Stern - “Use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn't work, the persuasion of power.” If votes get counted, which is a big question, Obama can be removed, but he is effectively a dictator. He will do whatever he wants to do. The Army didn't protect the Constitution and neither have the courts or legislature. That is why the House is presumably the most powerful force in the republic, to the extent that representatives reflect the wishes of those who voted them into office.
The implication, to this non-attorney, is that a bastard child cannot be a natural born citizen. In many societies and their religions, Judaism being just one of them, membership is carried by the mother, because she can usually be associated with the child. Citizenship is often, as was the case in the US and Britain, carried by the father, as Ann became a British subject by marrying Barack, if she did. Minor specified “citizen parents.” If you don't know the parents, particularly the father, you can't conform to Minor's definition, a definition which was last cited at least as late as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg, and certainly in 1916, by Breckenridge Long who pointed out Charles Evans Hughes' British parents in the Chicago Legal News. (thanks Sharon Rondeau).
Again, Barack never said he was a natural born citizen, and he told us again and again who his father was. There is no point, other than to tire out readers looking to understand, in fretting over Barack’s parent's citizenship status, bucause Barack told us he was born “A subject of the British Commonwealth.” If he lied, and doesn't know who his father is, he is a bastard, and cannot conform to Minor v. Happersett. If he knew who his father was, but lied, again and again, he may have been eligible, but will certainly not be re-electable, both for being a congenital liar, and perhaps because the father whose identity he presumably hid was hidden for a reason. If he told the truth, as we must assume, he doesn't conform anyway, and, in fact, told us he was naturalized, knowing that the fix was in, and that no legislator would defend the Constitution because it would bring down McCain, and end his or her career in government.
Since this thread is about the Order to Appear issued to Obama, I'll agree with those who see no way he will appear. His legal staff and the justice department have blocked discovery from the beginning, and they have - my favorite quote from former SEIU President, and regular at the White House, Andy Stern - “Use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn't work, the persuasion of power.” If votes get counted, which is a big question, Obama can be removed, but he is effectively a dictator. He will do whatever he wants to do. The Army didn't protect the Constitution and neither have the courts or legislature. That is why the House is presumably the most powerful force in the republic, to the extent that representatives reflect the wishes of those who voted them into office.
She may have been single only as in any divorced mother is considered a single mother.
Being born to a single mother also removes the obstacle of being born on foreign soil because the “only” legal parent is US Citizen.
However, as a person who got divorced from a common law marriage, and ex tried to have divorce “nullified” to remove the five years back child support he owed and thought (after signing the papers the years earlier and was granted by judge) he would just wave the “BUT WE WERE NEVER MARRRRIIIIEEEDDD” thing around.
The judge told him, “Son, you were common law married by legal definition. You lived together for five years before the common law statute was removed. BUT even if you weren’t common law married, this divorce just made you married. This divorce paper CREATED a marriage.”
Therefore, I contend that Obama’s parents divorce papers will screw up the “born to a single mother so NBC doesn’t matter” argument they are working toward.
And furthermore, how stupid is it to do this crap when he has an entire biography stating otherwise. A biography that for the Obots (when confronted with “we don’t know anything about this guy!”) use as ‘proof’ of his life.
I agree. Even if some legal technicality (sham marriage et al) were to render any British/dual citizenship issues moot, a Natural Born Citizen is one born on US soil to a matched set of American citizen parents, naturally. That type of citizen cannot possibly be anything but Natural Born. Minor vs Happersett stated such simply and eloquently. Obama's father, if he's telling the truth about his parentage, was a straight-up foreigner. In that case, he cannot possibly qualify as NBC.
Hope everyone's seatbelts are fastened, because if this development becomes worthy of enough public attention that it achieves what electronic engineers refer to as "breakdown, or avalanche voltage" the transistor that is the media will have no option but to report it loudly, endlessly, and ruthlessly except for that annoying part about their virtually universal complicity.
It’s a good tagline. Works on a a number of levels. ;)
That paternity has not yet been suitably, verifiably demonstrated. The question therefore still stands. . .
Uh... and how is that possible?
"She's really the cleaning lady.... "
443 comments in, and if there weren't already so many great, informative posts, I'd nominate that zinger for threadwinner. Well played.
That doesn't sound good. ;)
Some soldier will probably get killd in some goofball mission that day.
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.