Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Recent WND Inquiries Appear To Have Established Obama’s Birth In Hawaii
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/09/2011 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 06/09/2011 1:51:48 PM PDT by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580581-591 next last
To: Fred Nerks

At 1:35 “Growing up with Obama, with Barack”
At 1:52 “Like I said, when they grew up in AFRICA.”
At 4:00 “We talked about…especially the times with his brother, boys on the block years ago.”


541 posted on 06/17/2011 8:24:08 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
At 1:35 “Growing up with Obama, with Barack”

At 1:52 “Like I said, when they grew up in AFRICA.”

Interesting, isn't it? There's no way he could have grown up with zero 'in Africa' - if he was born in 1958, and zero in 1961, Malik would have been three years old when zero was born. Zero first shows up in Hawaii at around three years of age when Malik would have been six. So when would they have had time to 'grow up together'? Malik may have grown up together with 'Obama, with Barack' but that wasn't zero. Doesn't that suggest that the two little boys, zero and the Dark Boy were melded to create THE ONE?

At 4:00 “We talked about…especially the times with his brother, boys on the block years ago.”

Depends where 'on the block' might have been and 'years ago' depends on when...the interview lasted for 38 minutes...and we get to hear a few seconds?

542 posted on 06/17/2011 2:25:17 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: john mirse

John mirse, I guess it was another thread on which we discussed Zero’s potential parentage and you mentioned that sometimes totally unrelated people have very similar appearance. This is true. But in the case of MX and Zero, there are not only very similar features, but mannerisms and speech, plus other connections - Islam, Africa, many people connected to both MX and people in Zero’s association immediate or secondary. Also ideology, and there is a strange Indonesia connection - MX went to Indo and met with Sukarno, there are of course details and info on FR which I can’t provide, all I have are my memory banks which are not always perfectly solvent!

Also, MX was in Africa/the Middle East during the general time frame Zero would have been conceived. Once we leave off trying to jam Stanley Ann into the picture, it’s a lot easier.

And consider this - Dreams is essentially fiction, this is something everyone can agree upon. Just enough truth to make it seem real. It was written for a specific purpose - to give a “life” - a backstory - to the Zero who has Zero history as far as real documentation.

Noteworthy in Dreams (haven’t read it, just from what others have said), Frank Marshall Davis is given very short shrift in the book, although Zero spent a great deal of time with him. Interesting.

Also interesting is that there is not One Single Solitary photo of Stanley Ann pregnant, with the Kenyan Obama except for that Christmas visit when Zero was 10 years old, no photos of Stanley and Zero before the age of at least three. NOT ONE. Nor any photos of the Dunhams with Stanley in HI during that time frame, nor of the Dunhams with an infant Zero.

Also no mention of Stanley Ann in Seattle with baby or toddler Zero. That was only put together on the fly after one “Anna Obama” was found to have lived in Seattle with a baby...

Add to that mix the incredible jumble of weirdness in the Kenyan Obama’s immigration papers - woo-ee!

To me it is very obvious that the parentage of Zero in Dreams is pure fiction.


543 posted on 06/17/2011 3:59:58 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: john mirse; All

Anyone know if the whole interview is online or just a few minutes?


544 posted on 06/17/2011 4:09:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

What happened to David and when?


545 posted on 06/18/2011 6:37:09 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: GregNH; little jeremiah; Brown Deer; SatinDoll
COMMENT #486 - SEE HERE FOR IMAGES

zero on the left - image from Mark Ndesandjo webpage

Mark Ndesandjo webpage - zero identified as 'David' LINK

Now there's a surprise, the image on Mark's website has been altered:


546 posted on 06/18/2011 2:50:18 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
very odd. I blew up the other photo so to get same size. Exact same bodies in the same pose, except for two new heads and the variation in the two right hands. Of course, the photo was also lightened. Another bad photoshop.


547 posted on 06/18/2011 5:26:44 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Amazing. So who are these photoshopped boys supposed to be now?


548 posted on 06/18/2011 5:33:37 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Oh, supposed to be Mark and “David”.

What a bunch of disgusting criminals.


549 posted on 06/18/2011 5:34:29 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“David”. Wonder if there ever was a “David” other than a fictional device.


550 posted on 06/18/2011 5:43:23 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

lighting changed
the dark boy’s shirt-stripes are different
there’s more space between them both
hand of dark boy is different
more of hand of light boy showing on dark boy’s shoulder
dark boy’s head appears to too large for his body - no neck?

but most significant...the face of the lighter, younger boy appears to have been changed from the nose down.

He now has thick lips and a totally different chin.

Proves they are brothers, doesn’t it...sarc.


551 posted on 06/18/2011 5:45:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: thouworm; little jeremiah

they should have done more work on the ears....

552 posted on 06/18/2011 6:05:46 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

What are they trying to prove? I also thought the right ear of “Mark” should be visible, giving the lighting.


553 posted on 06/18/2011 6:12:51 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

they are trying to prove that the two little boys are David and Mark...BOTH SONS OF RUTH AND THE KENYAN.


554 posted on 06/18/2011 6:16:30 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

But all they have accomplished by these new photoshops is to draw even more suspicion to themselves.


555 posted on 06/18/2011 6:23:39 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
It seems that the foundation for the replaced image was a photograph taken within seconds of the first, the body postures are very slightly different...like the photographer took a number of snaps within seconds.

I can't fathom why the stipes on the dark boy's shirt have been so obviously tampered with...but the darker boy's head appears too large for his body, and the lighter boy's head is more narrow and longer...

It's the changes to the bottom part of the lighter boy's face that stand out the most, the thicker lips, the different chin...obviously to make them more resemble each other, and that's why the lighting has been changed, the darker boy's colouring is more like zero...

The kenyan, the Dark Boy, Ruth holding Mark. Mark was supposedly born in 1964. The dark boy is three or four years of age. Who was his mother?

556 posted on 06/18/2011 6:39:15 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

The new improved photoshopped version shows a kid with a broken neck. What, was it a rush job? What idiots. They really showed their hand doing this. Are they clowns?


557 posted on 06/18/2011 6:44:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin; bgill

Here is a Senate Resolution Co-sponsored by none other than Barry himself.

The issue of two parent requirement is spelled out here.

There is no force of law in this resolution.

 

The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against the white guy, John McCain, long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.

In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure.  But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American.  One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.

I've leveraged some work on this from

Obama’s ineligibility: Were Americans set up by the press and then scammed by the Congress?

On February 28, 2008, about the time Barack Obama began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary, the New York Times published an article questioning McCain’s eligibility to be President according to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

Needless to say, the Times story was immediately followed by numerous other news items questioning McCain’s eligibility.

After publication of the New York Times article in February, at least three lawsuits were filed challenging McCain’s eligibility e.g. California and New Hampshire.

Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (Washington Post)

Obama said:

“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.”

SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:

As reported by the New York Times on April 18, 2008:

“Many who have studied the issue say it can only be definitively resolved by a Constitutional amendment.”

“Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months,” said Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. “We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.”

So, in April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility. That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite.

Senate Resolution 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

 The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

 It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

 Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on  being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States. 

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?


558 posted on 06/18/2011 7:12:13 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin; LucyT; Red Steel

You seem to have no problem challenging my friends on this.

Feel free to take me on.

I have argued Barry’s issues for some time now.

Not that it matters.

He is pretty much a lame duck and a one termer.


559 posted on 06/18/2011 7:17:41 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Vendome; Gena Bukin
SR 511 is proof of all the cover up. The committee consisted of Leahy, McCaskill, Webb, Coburn, CLINTON, and OBAMA. Agreeing to and signing his name to the resolution locked the usurper into the definition of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS. There is no do-over. There is no mulligan. There is no wiggle room for him.

IMO, the most important part of SR 511 was the discussion of the definition of "natural born citizen" between Leahy and Chertoff:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record...

You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

There is it. There's the definition Obama signed his name to - TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

Those who try to argue the US Constitution doesn't define the term might as well ask why the Constitution doesn't also give us the meaning of "is". Of course, the Constitution doesn't give definitions because it is not a dictionary. For hundreds of years there have been countless documents which do give us the meaning. Obama knows the definition. Pelosi and the DNC know the definition. The US Congress knows the definition. Thomas admitted SCOTUS knows the definition but are "evading" the issue. The question every US citizen should be asking is why our government is lying.

560 posted on 06/19/2011 7:09:22 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580581-591 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson