Check out # 134.
Thanks, David.
Posted on 06/09/2011 1:51:48 PM PDT by rxsid
That would explain the need to fake the BCs and SSs.
This is very similar to my currently favored theory. Stanley Ann had an Aunt Eleanor, who APPARENTLY (I say apparently because it has been called into dispute) Lived in Blaine Washington, which is just across the border from White Rock Canada. Blaine had no Maternity Hospital, while White Rock did.
If I recall, commenter "Beckwith" said he received a letter from a Niece of Aunt Eleanor claiming she never lived in Blaine. I would certainly like to find out if this is true or not. Radaris lists Aunt Eleanor as having lived at two addresses in Blaine.
Anyways, that a young pregnant girl might get shipped off to live with an Aunt in 1961 seems completely reasonable to me. The fact that Stanley Ann Showed up in Seattle also indicates that she was somewhere nearby all along.
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.
As one wit remarked about the challenge to Prop 8 in California:
"Why don't we save a lot of time and just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks? "
Yeah, the courts are screwed up because of political influence. They are virtually predictable. On any given issue, you can usually figure out how All the Judges will vote. The Democrat appointed ones will always vote wrong, and the Republican appointed ones will USUALLY vote right. (But not always.)
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.
I have not. Thanks for the info.
Thank you for your response. I am not at all optimistic about our Constitutional Republic right now, at least in the short term.
Check out # 134.
Thanks, David.
Hmmm. Why wouldn’t SA know her parent’s address in 1968? Does she not write to them? Who would write her emergency contact as c/o a parent’s employer (the WRONG parent)? Is the document a fake? Very odd.
little jeremiah, you wrote:
“...So if a woman went to Kenya to have the son of the Kenyan Obama, it would not have been SA.”
DiogenesLamp, note the following related comment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2731448/posts?page=668#668
Everything about this family is odd. There is so much that is odd, it's hard to tell what is significantly odd vs what is just typically odd. :)
put simply, INS(Homeland Security) is admitting there is an immigration file for BO?
Donofrio’s gone off the deep end now, anyway. He’s not in any way a conservative, if that means anything. He’s said recently that he’s finished with the NBC issue.
David,
So?....You say that these lawyers did know how to prepare these proceedings properly, but then did not do so.
Question: Did these lawyer **deliberately** improperly prepare their cases?
Question: Why would they go to so much expense and time to improperly prepare cases when they did, indeed, know how to prepare them correctly?
Comment: Personally, I am heartsick.
Obama’s eligibility is about far, far more than Obama. It is like pulling a bandage off a wound and seeing the hopeless, festering, and malodorous gangrene underneath. Fundamentally, every legislator, secretary of state, all state attorney generals, the entire electoral college, the Supreme Court and lower level judges, our highest military, all law enforcement agencies, and the conservative media are **CHOOSING** to overlook the oozing petulance of identity theft, impersonation of a Commander in Chief, election fraud, and fraudulently taking millions of dollars in campaign donations.
All of the above people, whose job it is to be our nation's watchdogs, are willing to let a very likely usurper have access to all of our nation's most sensitive secretes, and who can, with a nod of his head, bring down the world's economy, starve billions, and send forth the world's most destructive military power since the dawn of creation.
Unbelievable! There isn't much hope for this nation. If it isn't Obama that brings this nation to its knees it will soon be something else. The moral core of this nation is rotten. No one is willing to stare down evil. Is there even *ONE* real man in this nation?
I pray that God will have mercy on us.
Yes. They’re admitting there is an immigration file for Barack Hussein Obama II.
FYI .. comment and Donofrio’s response, plus flashback
~~~~~~~~~
NeilBJ Says:
June 9, 2011 at 11:22 PM
What then are we to make of the recent birth certificate fiasco?
I remember making a comment on a blog somewhere that if all this is a cruel joke, it’s not funny. It apparently is a cruel joke.
If Obama really did go through with all these elaborate theatrics merely to keep the focus on his place of birth, it does not say much for his character.
Did he deliberately have the birth document digitally created with all the anomalies just for his own amusement?
None of this makes sense to me. What am I missing?
(Donofrio( ed. you are missing the fact that up until October 27, 2008, nobody had raised his true eligibility issue… and the faux BC issue continues to cloud the real issue. It’s a classic bait and switch…smokescreen.
You and millions are missing the same thing. The BC – which he controls and always will control – is a red herring. He does not control the fact that he was a dual national at birth. But as long as people focus on the BC, he is happy to have them so focused. – Leo
Donofrio flashback:
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
December 6, 2008
###
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.
President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont.
But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
*snip*
Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history.
I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.
About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:
*snip*
I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.
Chester Arthur had something to hide.
He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland.
By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.
Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.
He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.
Well, if that is true...then why isn’t there are REAL B/C...for him. Obviously, he wasn’t...otherwise, he’d have shown the world his authentic HI B/C years ago. He was born in Kenya...and his authentic HI B/C says it at the bottom.
Do you think any of them are still alive?
No.
That's the kind of hypothetical question you would get from the Supreme Court. Because there isn't any doubt that the answer is no. And in fact, that might not have been the answer in the 1860's; but the Liberal judicial and legal system would like to believe that the clear answer is yes so that better be what you come up with if you are standing there and the Court gives you that.
Do you mean in the Biblical sense?
Using Jindal as a keyword, I see there are several threads discussing Bobby Jindal prior to the 2008 election with many FReepers encouraged about his name on the ticket either as presidential nominee or running mate in 2012. I can't find any posts arguing that Jindal is ineligible prior to January 2009.
Granted, I haven't read all of them. There were a lot of threads with Jindal as a keyword in 2008.
David,
So?....You say that these lawyers did know how to prepare these proceedings properly, but then did not do so.
Well that isn't what I said. But I can see why you read it that way.
For the most part, we have had lawyers who were motivated by the kind of emotional considerations reflected in the comments here and not by thoughtful professional consideration of the merits of the individual cases.
And I am a little jaded obviously but in my experience, lawyers who do stuff like this invariably screw it up because they didn't know what they were doing.
I quit looking at the cases after Lakin; but having looked at a number of them to that point, I can only point to one District Court case where the judge clearly had it wrong--and there was a clear right of appeal there and counsel didn't pursue it.
If Lakin had done it properly, he had a responsible legal case against the government and the military to preclude them from enforcing his orders and punishing him for the objection. It was never really clear to me whether some lawyer had told him this was the way to do it or whether he just stepped up to the plate on his own. But he did have an argument which he had standing to assert which could have been on its way up the appellate court chain.
The problem with that from the perspective of the lawyer who has been there is that victory in Lakin's case gets you to a trial on the merits--where was Obama born. And you don't sign up to do the work to get there until you have the evidence on the merits. Which costs real money to develop.
******
I'm confused about the years listed: 1965 on the top of application, and it looks like Obama's mother signed it in 1968.
Could you please help me with the two different years---1965 and 1968--- on the application? Thanks.
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.