Posted on 12/30/2008 2:43:30 PM PST by faucetman
Not exactly. The final decree says "Defendant shall not be required to provide for the support, maintenance and education of the minor child of the parties, until further order of the court."
Not exactly. If his father wanted to argue for custody in court proceedings, it would be helpful for him to prove the boy was born in his homeland, rather than in the U. S.
But then, I’m not a blood-sucking attorney, so what do I know?
(No offense to FR attorneys who are non-blood-sucking.)
What is so difficult to understand about this matter? Obama Sr. was a British subject from Kenya and therefore Obama Jr. can never be a ‘natural born US citizen’ since the Constitution requires BOTH PARENTS TO BE U.S. CITIZENS.
The special term “Natural Born Citizen” is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:
“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil TO PARENTS WHO ARE U.S. CITIZENS is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president, whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization “process or procedure” is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for those two positions. In between these extremes lie gray areas, some controversy, and various settled precedents.
Nothing curious about it. For a divorce involving a minor child to be closed in less than eight years would be curious. If there are any expected payments, or any issue that could be taken back to court, the file remains open.
The 1988 date sounds about right for Lolo Soetoro's estate to be settled.
Why would Hawaii be a fraud. Obama could have forget the BC he provide (on the internet) to show the Hawaiian birth. Have you seen this?
Obama's Born Conspiracy: Obama's bogus birth certificate exposed! By Ron Polarik, PhD
This could be a ploy. If this evidence is tainted, tracing it to it’s source is important.
If it is tainted , it does not mean the shoe case is bad.
This could be a ploy. If this evidence is tainted, tracing it to it’s source is important.
If it is tainted , it does not mean the shoe case is bad.
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if anything but excuses crop up from this Ed Hale character. I still recall that weird, breathless claim from around Thanksgiving, that Leo Donofrio was in hiding due to death threats from Islamic terrorists, and Hale claimed the info came from Sue Myrick here in NC. It was all BS.
There are hangers-on trying to make a buck on every single “hot” issue on the net, and we have several right here on FR, making bizarre claims to generate hits to their little blogs or whatever. That doesn’t change the reality of the problem we have, of an apparently ineligible Presidential election winner. But, it sure does provide a distraction, and a means of ridicule for those who are inclined to ridiculing.
I’m still trying to figure out why the place of birth of the child would be on the divorce papers???
That search engine only indexes files back to 1987, so the 1964 divorce wouldn't be included.
Point taken.
Gee, when I posted this same sentiment, I was called a “troll”. Are you a troll too then?
I’ve also included the — Admin Moderator — in addition to the previous FReeper I included, since you’ve put him in there. I put a line — at the very bottom — for the Admin Moderator — so he knows what is going on, on my part.
See the very bottom...
You said — “You are a fraud, a deceiver. I did not post to you.”
Ah..., but you’ll note that I was also posting to another FReeper who was involved in that discussion, along with you. His name, in my previous post, was “mylife”
AND..., by a peculiar set of circumstances, it appears that he didn’t post to you, either — and yet — you posted to him, thus “opening the discussion”. So, I was wondering if this was simply some kind of “fluke” on your part and that normally you did not post to others that did not post to you.
However, I actually find, on your own lists of posts, that you do — indeed — post to others who do not post to you. Very peculiar, given your sentiments just voiced...
—
A further “peculiarity” in your posts (to me...) is that you seem to be unable to simply address the issues involved, preferring instead, to accuse the poster who does not agree on the issues as some kind of “you-name-it” kind of poster... LOL...
All in all, it seems very peculiar that on a discussion board, where one is there to discuss things, and where people do post to comments that others have said — that you seem to think that someone shouldn’t post to you, if you haven’t posted to them — while at the same time — you go and do the same thing, yourself.
And then, furthermore, in keeping with the idea that this is a board where different ideas are discussed and legitimately so — that you stop discussing the issues and resort to attacking people who have ideas (in the discussion) that you don’t like.
It would appear that you have limits in your abilities to discuss issues and have only learned, in your own life, how to attack people, instead of discussing the merits and deficiencies of their ideas. It’s too bad that you haven’t learned any other ways...
—
And then — “You were caught in your deceit when you tried to use the story of the Good Samaritan as if ‘you knew your Bible’, yet you weren’t even familiar enough with the story to know the Good Samaritan’s role in the story. You’re a deceiver.”
So you say, but I don’t. But, then again, that doesn’t seem to stop you from attacking people. I think a good course in learning how to deal with issues, instead of attacking people personally, would be good for yourself.
—
And then, finally — “Don’t post to me. You will not get anything more than more exposure of your deceptions. Ply your trade to someone else.”
And thus, like I said — you seem to only *know* personal attacks (which I don’t do, but I do point out that you’re doing them...) — and since you’ve given up on defending the “issues”, and so...
— I put this here for the — Admin Moderator — to also make sure that I don’t receive the continuing personal attacks that I’ve been receiving from you over a period of time (and absent me doing anything like that to you) and therefore — *as you wish* — don’t post to me in that same way (of which that seems to be your choice)...
You said — “Gee, when I posted this same sentiment, I was called a “troll”. Are you a troll too then?”
LOL..., there are certain FReepers who seem to want to resort to “name-calling” instead of addressing the issues involved. I’ve addressed the issues and I think that what I’ve said is connected to the “reality” of the situation — and also — I’ve offered a *solution* to the Obama problem.
But, that has simply gotten me called “names”, too — because it seems that certain posters don’t want anything else discussed, even if it makes sense and is “rational”... :-)
Believe that is an old show, and the Friday was to be 12/27. But I am checking with one who knows.
Wow you sound a lot like my first ex-wife!
“Shudder”
You said — “Wow you sound a lot like my first ex-wife!”
Heaven forbid I be as bad as that... LOL...
You said — “Believe that is an old show, and the Friday was to be 12/27. But I am checking with one who knows.”
Ummmm.., this isn’t API (African Press International) and Chief Editor Korir - redux — is it? It was always tomorrow or in a few days — forever... LOL..
BTTT
I was saying — “First of all, you’ve got an assumption that Obama is committing fraud”
To which you said — “He is a politician. Seems reasonable enough to me.”
—
And that leads me to an inevitable conclusion that all the conservative politicans that we urge people to vote for (and not the Democrat ones) — are also “committing fraud”.
[ *** I can hear it now on Democrat boards — “Even the FReepers admit their politicians are committing fraud!” *** ]
Now, what comes to mind, in the first place — then — is that Bush and Cheney are frauds (by definition), and that applies to McCain, too. Now, I have heard a lot of people here who would *definitely* agreed with that assessment of Bush, Cheney and McCain — committing fraud.
But, then we go on to Sarah Palin, and thus, she would be committing fraud, too, by definition.
You know..., this list could get quite large... LOL...
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.