Posted on 06/09/2011 1:51:48 PM PDT by rxsid
Here is some more information and links
Hmm…An AP story from 2004 entitled Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate has been discovered on archive.org by many sites (and twitter where I got this). Does this mean now that the AP is nothing but a bunch of birthers?
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. ...
See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):
I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.
I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.
I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he’d run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, hes still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obamas past hidden from the American people.
This missing page page 11 very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.
The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable “8″ on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 almost as if it were an undocumented Exhibit B.
Heres a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:
Jan 20 (Mon) divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
Jan 23 (Thur) divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers
In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the Republic of Kenya came into existence as a republic have been un-bunked. Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate theyve been un-bunked as well.
Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and its chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if its real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form Certification of Live Birth that has appeared on Obamas Fight the Smears or FactCheck.org websites.
No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obamas Certification of Live Birth that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obamas true, 1961, original long-form(s) Certificate of Live Birth and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obamas online COLBs.
The Eighth Witness, Lucas Daniel Smith,
Case CLOSED!!!
Regarding the Kenyan Obama and Stanley Ann, there is no evidence that they were ever a “them” as in couple.
David Reminck’s book, “The Bridge, The Life and Rise of Barack Obama”.
You mentioned this book before and posted a link to some pages of it. I want to know his sources. I couldn’t find them. Got any ideas? Do you have the book?
Something else I wondered about. BO lived with his grandparents from 1971 until 1979(?). Did the grandparents have passports? Did they ever travel to see SA in Jakarta during all those years and visit with their grand-daughter? If so, did they have little 10, 11, 12 yr old Barack on their passports? We have been told gramps was a successful furniture salesman and grannie was a bank vice president. If money is no issue, why wouldn’t they take little Barack to visit his mom and half-sister? Where are those passports?
No, I don’t have the book. Looked it up on Google books and found the pertinent parts. Sigh. Looks like I’m going to have to pick up the book at the library and actually read it. I’m curious about his sources, too. Although, in those paragraphs he alludes to Maxine Box and Neil Abercrombie. I was actually looking up something on Ruth Nidesand, but accidently typed “ann nidesand” at the time I ran across it. Did I give you the link before? If not: http://books.google.com/books?id=F6HAasv2v-4C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22ann+nidesand%22&source=bl&ots=lyjZAKkxxj&sig=7eTSPU38BetHqNUm1ReYju1LjhA&hl=en&ei=7uzeTdqkDcmBgAeO7pn0Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=50&ved=0CPICEOgBMDE#v=onepage&q&f=false
Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it, but the fact remains that Hillary bowed out in early June.
Also, people don't seem to have a problem talking about the eligibility of Bobby Jindal, even though he hasn't even hinted at a run for the Presidency.
Just a quick search told me all I need to know about this book. A few snips, and the author is an 0bama supporter. Why even read such tripe? You think an 0bama supporter is going to try to find the facts? sheesh!!! It’s like quoting from Ayers’ book Dreams for facts!
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7870975-the-bridge
This was an engaging look at Obama’s history that helped me fill in a few gaps that were unclear. In particular, the sections on Obama’s community organizing activities in Chicago, and his early family life were interesting and constructed with the deft sensibility of a journalist. Remnick certainly is an Obama supporter, but does an excellent job focusing on the symbolism of the “Yes we can” movement in relation to the ci...more
This was an excellent biography that revealed many different facets of the man who is our president. David Remnick’s research is comprehensive. He did not shy away from reporting what some of Obama’s detractors have to say, but clearly Obama has made more friends than enemies among the people he has met directly and/or befriended.
What I enjoyed most about this book was perspective. I’ve read Obama’s two books and I mostly enjoyed them.
I think if you are interested in the political process; if you long to understand our current president; if you wish to understand the Obama policies; if you want to know how it was possible to win the presidency when most people had never heard of him, then you should read David Remnick’s book about the man. David clearly lays out how Pres. Obama came to the notice of the American public: through strength of intellect, persistence, calmness under attack, determination to offer a new form of le...more
Overall superbly written, explains Obama’s intellectual development in depth, states the importance of race in his election and paradoxically the absence of race in most of his campaigning, which was mainly a decision made by his campaign managers. In a way this book fills in this gap and introduces race relations into the publics’ understanding of Obama.
Ideal for Obama fans, history buffs (especially the history of civil rights) and political junkies, The Bridge tells the story about how Barack Obama became the link from the past to the future.
David Remnick, the editor The New Yorker - HA HA HA HA!
I think the research on FR is more complete. But thanks!
Lol, everyone in entitled to their own methods of research. Me? I don't believe is being so myopic that you can't see the forest for the trees. In every lie that has been told about his birth and upbringing, there is a nugget of truth. When I look for a four leaf clover, I'll sit and look through ALL the clover. If one thread of blather from an Obama devotee leads to a larger truth, I'm willing to sift through the blather.
Let's suppose for a moment, the story of receiving food stamps in 1962/63 were true. There would have to be records. IF I were a journalist or a private investigator and able to research records in Hawaii or Washington, I would take the "story" of food stamps and follow that trail. We are all armchair quarterbacks on this thread. Who are you (or I) to question someone else's methods? You have your method; I have mine. Diogenes has his. Butterzillion has hers. LJ, is it really productive to have your firing squad stand in a 360 degree circle and fire? Critical thought is one thing; berating your own team is another.
I’m questioning the author’s motive. Since he’s an obama fan, he’s not going to be looking for any truth that makes his idol look bad. So everything in there will be tainted, skewed, made up, partial, etc.
The problem is that people on FR and elsewhere have been looking for actual, real records for years and they are slim pickings indeed. They keep searching, though. The records have been locked, hidden, scrubbed, lied about etc by various gov entities so any source that is not backed up by either records or something slightly trustworthy, is IMO worthless.
You want to read it, fine, or quote from it as though it meant something, fine. I just wanted to make sure anyone reading the thread knew where the author is coming from and what kind of book it is: a puff piece by an 0bama supporter.
That’s not to say there may not be small bits of truth here and there. But when truth is mixed with and covered with deception, lies, inventions, and holes, it is very, very difficult to find the real stuff.
What Leo is suggesting has already been done by both Dr Conspiracy and by Jeff Otherson - who have asked for the index cards showing passports issued to Stanley Ann Dunham or any of her married names. It’s been at least a year and a half; the Passport Office does not honor FOIA requests. I would think Leo, of all people, would have learned that by now.
Some of the documents that have showed up are very, very fishy. For instance, the age of Obama Sr is different on these records than on the other records we’ve seen for him. And Obama Sr does not claim BHO II as his son on these documents.
At the same time, every government agency that claims to have records on Obama has either covered up Obama’s lies or else outright forged documents for him - now including INS, which denied Pam Barnett access to Obama’s immigration file, which would not be necessary if Obama was a US citizen as claimed in this document (unless Obama relinquished US citizenship at some point in a legally-binding way). This makes clear that they know there is some screwy business and they are making sure to do CYA for Obama.
The only way we are ever going to get “closure” on the issue of Obama’s birth is by opening up the embedded transaction logs for all his alleged birth and citizenship records so we can see what genuine records, if any, actually exist for this guy, and what has been manipulated and forged, by whom, when, and why.
And the only way we’re going to get closure on the NBC issue is by a court ruling.
IOW, until we get a functioning law enforcement and judicial system, we just need to get used to being screwed, because that’s all that’s happening right now and all that ever will happen unless we rise up and INSIST LEGALLY that we the people have “standing” to hold our government accountable to the rule of law.
If America doesn’t care to rise up and do that, stick a fork in us; we’re dead.
The GAO Report does NOT document the destruction of passport application records. Sigh. I’ve done this research; Leo apparently hasn’t. There is no record of that destruction ever happening. None of the required paperwork for such a destruction exists.
And IIRC the report itself concludes that since the Passport Office wouldn’t agree to their recommendations regarding retention periods, the best they could hope for would be for 10-year passports rather than 5-year passports, which would greatly reduce the paperwork. And THAT change actually did happen shortly thereafter.
I need to run, but there is much, much more on the passport situation posted at my blog at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com . If you scroll down to the different colors of texts, there’s one section that is about “The Passport Mess”. There’s tons of information there.
Leo has been busy doing other stuff; it’s impossible to be up on everything, but this is something that I have researched extensively, and that alleged destruction of passport application records is contradicted by a multitude of legal sources - not the least of which is the fact that records which were supposedly destroyed during that time period were actually disclosed to another requester.
The Passport Office appears to have forged a “cable” and submitted it in a court of law.
And the judge in Strunk’s case ruled that it was a “reasonable search” for the Passport Office to search records from 1978 and later when looking for records for 1965 and earlier.
The Passport Office is badly, badly compromised, and I don’t appreciate Donofrio casting aspersions on the motives of people like myself who know what we’re talking about on this issue because we’ve researched it extensively and found nothing but stench, obfuscation, and contradictions.
I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it: the only way we will ever know what really happened with Obama is by looking at the embedded computer transaction logs to see what records, if any, are genuine and which have been either manipulated or outright manufactured. IIRC, some of Donofrio’s own researchers were involved in trying to figure out how we could access those embedded transaction logs. I wonder what they found out.
See this is a legal issue. I don't know whether you are a lawyer or not. I see this "Vattel" argument papered all over the Natural Born threads and I know that most of the people who are in love with it are not lawyers and have no idea how to make a judgment how it will come out and I have given up trying to explain to people how the real world decision making will work.
But my bottom line which is somewhere between 75% and 90% probability of success is that if this ever got to a decision in a courtroom, the judicial answer is almost certain to be that if he was born in the territory of the several states, he wins; if he was born outside the territory of the several states, he loses.
All this stuff about Vattel is just wonderful stuff and might go in a brief because you are correct on the legislative history of the Constitutional provision; but the Supreme Court of the United States is going to reject it as a basis for the decision.
Your side of the argument about the 14th Amendment is also very interesting. But again, the bottom line is pretty clear--people born in the US under US jurisdiction are citizens and there isn't any indication that their citizenship is restricted. The Constitution of the United States has simply been changed since it was adopted by the proper Amendment process--the rights of persons born in the US to citizenship have been modified. Nothing about any of your arguments implies that the modification would not extend to Natural Born Citizenship.
For example, do you think that the former slave, born in the US to two slave parents, non-citizens wherever they were born, which former slave got his citizenship under the 14th Amendment at the time of adoption of the amendment would not be a Natural Born Citizen? Clearly the Court would hold him eligible.
Nor, under circumstances where a person was born in the geographical territory of the several states, is there any doubt about the ability of the US to exercise jurisdiction. The arguments to the contrary are just wishful thinking.
I will admit that one reason I have been comfortable with this answer is that I was initially confident that he was in fact born outside the US. I am still fairly confident that is the case but I am less certain that can be proven as an affirmative proposition. So to prevail on that argument, you need to see the legal issue postured where Obama has the burden of proof on the question of where he was born. The state statutes that are pending, for the most part, should accomplish that.
Your emotional outburst about the Constitutional Bar is just that--and it doesn't profit you or me or any of the people here to act on a narrow legal issue based on our dislike of Obama or his policies. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal effort, maybe millions, has been wasted in legal proceedings that never had any chance of success because they were not properly prepared by lawyers who knew how to prepare them. All of that effort has had exactly the result I forecast in 2008.
As to your position on Obamacare, that is just a separate question with different considerations. You are correct, most of the establishment Constitutional bar pays lip service to the proposition that Obamacare is constitutional. But my own bet is that the Supreme Court will throw the entire bill out.
The tax bar is unanimous that the tax provision is unconstitutional because it is not a tax on income. There is no savings clause so that by itself might be enough to throw the entire bill out.
But the mandate pertains to a contract right (insurance) which cannot lawfully be sold in interstate commerce so it is very difficult to see the Interstate Commerce clause as a Constitutional source of the power to regulate.
And if both the tax provision and the mandate which are the core of the legislation are held unconstitutional, it seems likely to me that the bill will fall.
The Supreme Court politics of the issue were resolved at the State of the Union last year when he attempted to lecture the Court from the podium on the Citizen's United case. He isn't going to get a break from this Court.
I never, for one second, thought he was born in Kenya. There is no way a 17-year-old pregnant girl is going to go that far to deliver, and why would she? There is no evidence they were even still together at that time, plus he had a wife and kids in Africa, not something a teen in 1961 would want to be near.
However, since she was not seen in HI for the later part of pregnancy and since when he was newborn she appeared ONLY in Seattle, probably she went where all the Seattle knocked up high school girls went, where maybe some girls she had known went, with their “trouble,” to Canada, to one of Vancouver’s two big homes for unwed mothers. One was Catholic and the other was run by the Salvation Army, so I’d bet on the latter.
That would explain the need to fake the BCs and SSs.
Yes, I know. Which makes it all the less believable that she would have gone to Kenya with him. Even less so by herself.
I wondered about this as well. Perhaps Stanley and Madelyn's passport information could provide clues we don't already have. FOIA anyone?
That's because of Obama stirring the issue up. He might have glided through undetected otherwise.
The legal issue is not a question of the validity of the original intent of the Founders nor is the problem that the "political winds" have shifted. The "original intent" of the founders was not and never has been controlling. What controls is the words of the document. The problem is that the Constitution has been amended. We now have different words on the issue at hand.
It did not have a provision regarding acquisition of citizenship at the time it was adopted--now it does. That provision is the 14th Amendment and there is nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment that restricts the quality of the citizenship confered on persons born in the geographical territory of the several states. Thus from a legal standpoint, the quality of the citizenship conferred is likely going to be the maximum possible. Simple as that.
Every jot and tittle of the Constitution is always up for graps in a judicial proceeding--arguments occur all the time about the meaning and application of the words.
And there is some merit to your complaint about deterioration of the foundation of the rule of law--when FDR was able to intimidate the Court into reversing the Constitutional limitation on the power of Congress at the "switch in time", we did in fact looses Constitutional protections.
Our goal should be the election of representatives to the legislative process that will return the Constitutional limitations as originalll provided for.
But to preserve the maximum amount of protection we still have, we need to be practical and make effective use of the legal process we do have. To date, that hasn't happened in the argument over Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President.
Check this thread out if you have not.
There is actually little trustworthy evidence - none, really - that Stanley Ann is the the guy in the White House’s mother. So if a woman went to Kenya to have the son of the Kenyan Obama, it would not have been SA.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=448#448
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.