Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is at the center of the latest "birther" conspiracy. But he's not the first to face this line of questioning.
A handful of politicians have been targeted in the last few years with the same accusation -- that they are not fit for the Presidency because they do not meet the constitutionally-mandated eligibility requirement of being a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.
Confusion around who qualifies as a "natural born" citizen has contributed to the debate, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. Some incorrectly presume it only includes people born within the boundaries of the United States. In fact, by U.S. citizenship law you can be American "at birth" or a "natural born citizen" under a few circumstances that don't involve being born on the mainland. For example, if you're born on a U.S. military base abroad, like in Panama, that counts. You are still categorized as being American "at birth" if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens and fit a list of long and complicated requirements that arebroken down here.
Check out our list of politicians who have battled "birther" claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
It seems however, that he did land in Hawaii on his own, and we don't know under what name, do we? She had the name BHO2 (Soebarkah) removed from her own passport in August 1968, that much we do know. I would like to know how the authorities at the airport could be expected to know who he was and who he might be related to, if he had a passport only with the names on it that were removed in August 1968 from her passport, and he didn't have a return ticket. Could they have handed him over to a couple of people who claimed to be his relatives? Might the problem have been that at the time of his arrival, the Dunhams had nothing to prove they were related to him?
This guy is a pro in rabbit hole diversions and he’s missing some vowels in his name. : )
Or maybe one of the dunhams went and got him and brought him back, and before they left, had him put on their passport so he could come back with them.
Just because 0 says he came back to Hawaii alone doesn’t make it true.
The lineout on SADO’s passport looks like BHOII was added and Soebarkah was deleted (instructions infer that additions are NOT to be put in parentheses and deletions ARE to be put in parentheses ) and THEN the whole thing was lined out.
Thanks for correcting me on that. I uderstood he was there but was wrong.
“Wouldn’t it be odd if one week of records from that period just happens to also be missing? “
Excellent question. The answer IS:
IT WILL BE MISSING!
Brown deer, many thanks for that info!
Butterdezillion, ping to this post!
“State dept 7 FAM 1200, 7 FAM 1290.
7 FAM 1200 is about minors and loss of nationality; see section 1292 (i) (2).”
You’re quoting a policy statement from the State Department updated in 2012. The FAM is updated and changed with each administration. The FAM in 1968 is vastly different from the FAM in 2012.
For that matter, the Federal Foster Care program did not accept U.S. Citizen minors in the program in 1971 to 1979. Currently, the Federal Foster Care program does accept U.S. Citizen minors into the program.
In 1971, there were only two contractors with HHS to administer the Federal Foster Care program. The two contractors were Catholic Social Services of Connecticut and Lutheran Social Services. Lutheran Social Services primarily focused on Ports of Entry along the East Coast in 1971. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut administered the program throughout the U.S. Consequently, Catholic Social Services of Connecticut was the only provider of the Federal Foster Care program to take custody of an unaccompanied minor with foreign nationality at a Port of Entry in Hawaii.
Obama’s only connection to Connecticut is his SSN filed on his behalf by his case manager at Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. Only foreign nationals could enter the Federal Foster Care program in the 70’s.
“The FAM in 1968 is vastly different from the FAM in 2012.”
Since you have access to USCIS archives (as mentioned on your FR infopage) could you provide the 1968 version of the 7 FAM 1200, 7 FAM 1290?
“How does the Posse proof of the forgery of a 1961 LFBC image have anything to do with SvenMagnissen’s claims of Barry’s adoption or naturalization?”
You’re the one asserting Sheriff Arpaio and Media Personality Mike Zullo will shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation if I perform certain acts you demand.
I am the one who openly questions the veracity of the investigation because Sheriff Arpaio will not shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation after Sheriff Arapio announced the BC posted on the WH website was a forgery.
I posted open ended questions; such as, “Who forges a BC?” And then I answered the question to moved the discussion along with, “An immigrant.” And then I questioned Sheriff Arapio’s true intent because he would not move the investigation to Obama’s immigration files after determining the BC was a forgery.
Now, you claim I’ve done something wrong because Sheriff Arapio refuses to investigate Obama’s immigration files with Maricopa County resident, DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano, within his jurisdiction. Ironically, until Obama cancelled his access, Sheriff Arpaio had permission to view immigration files with DHS for criminal suspects.
“SvenMagnussen has zero comprehension of FRCP (federal civil procedure). An answer to a lawsuit can be a general denial of all claims. The answer does not have to refute each claim of evidence by the plaintiff or any claim of evidence, contrary to SvenMagnussen’s repeated assertions.”
You’re twisting facts to suit your agenda. I’ve always said any allegation not denied by the defendant is an allegation that will be found to have merit. Consequently, the defendant should deny all claims or be prepared to defend themselves in a hearing on damages.
You desperately want to maintain the false narrative certified, provable, authenticated evidence must be presented before a complaint will be successfull. The fact is a complaint contains allegations and the Court is required to proceed as if the allegations are true until successfully defended. Proof or evidence or witness disclosures are not considered by the Court until the defendant exercises their right to request a dismissal for procedural errors and answers the complaint if the dismissal is overruled.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuiance of a secondary source witness for impeachment and a primary source witness. In the interest of case management, the Court is not interested in secondary source witness statements until a primary source is deposed under oath. The secondary source is only important if the primary source needs to be impeached.
In the case of Obama’s immigration files, the Court could care less if I saw I’ve seen Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization before a primary source testifies. If the custodian of all U.S. immigration records, DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano, denies Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization exists, then and only then will the Court be noticed a secondary source witness will be called to impeach the primary source witness testimony. Until Big Sis speaks on the matter, the Court could care less what I saw or didn’t see. If she lies, I’ll fly in at my own expense to correct the record while under oath.
FRCP Rule 26. Read it.
Sven: “You’re the one asserting Sheriff Arpaio and Media Personality Mike Zullo will shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation if I perform certain acts you demand.”
I never wrote that. You are confusing me with someone else (or are delusional). I never demanded that you “perform certain acts” either. I’m not into that kind of thing with strangers!
Sven: “I am the one who openly questions the veracity of the investigation because Sheriff Arpaio will not shift or add Obama’s immigration files to their investigation after Sheriff Arapio announced the BC posted on the WH website was a forgery.”
Now I am really suspecting that you are delusional on top of being narcissistic! You actually think Arpaio and Zullo could care about your hearsay nonsense?
Arpaio always channels his inner Sgt. Friday, unlike you. He sticks to the facts in evidence and won’t make declarative statements that haven’t been proved, unlike you. He won’t even accuse Barry of forging his BC or ordering it to be forged because he can’t prove that...yet. Arpaio and Zullo can only prove that the LFBC pdf was forged.
You have zero basis for attacking and insulting them and you only offer inadmissible hearsay claims which don’t even rise to the level of evidence.
obumpa
“It seems however, that he did land in Hawaii on his own, and we don’t know under what name, do we?”
Link please.
I have seen nothing other than an account, IIRC, in Ayers’ “Dreams” where a claim is made that little Barry ever travelled alone, certainly no documentary evidence.
Feel free to post any sources for the claim that Barry landed in HI alone.
“You’re twisting facts to suit your agenda. I’ve always said any allegation not denied by the defendant is an allegation that will be found to have merit. Consequently, the defendant should deny all claims or be prepared to defend themselves in a hearing on damages.”
There is NO requirement that a defendant specifically deny plaintiff’s claims. A general denial will do. There is a boilerplate form that attorneys use every day to accomplish this. I used the form myself when I acted pro se.
Any competent attorney or pro se will never be nailed by failing to answer a lawsuit with at least a general denial which will eliminate the possibility that the court will issue a default judgment based on the plaintiff’s claims.
“You’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuiance of a secondary source witness for impeachment and a primary source witness. In the interest of case management, the Court is not interested in secondary source witness statements until a primary source is deposed under oath. The secondary source is only important if the primary source needs to be impeached.”
No, the court is not interested in hearsay witnesses such as yourself whose offer of “testimony” would be inadmissible hearsay, of course, but your knowledge of the law is so rudimentary you don’t understand this. You are no good to the court as either a primary OR as a secondary witness, based on what you have claimed so far.
Tim Adams and his affidavit were also useless. He had no personal knowledge that Barry’s BC was missing by examining any files directly. He only signed a statement that others had TOLD him that the BC was missing. That is inadmissible hearsay straight up.
No court will fail to quash a plaintiff’s subpoena on a motion from a defendant if the subpoena is a FISHING EXPEDITION such as you have fantasized.
And you can feel free to post anything you like that shows he was accompanied by anyone.
Why do you refuse to answer me? For the eighth time, I have asked you this:
Will you sign a affidavit stating the detailed facts of your personal knowledge of knowing Obama naturalized in 1983 and turn that over to Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo?
I, Lt. Zullo and the other 7 Maricopa County Sheriff Department Cold Case Posse investigators deserve a answer. Will you give a simple yes or no to the above question Sven. Your credibility is at hand here.
“Will you give a simple yes or no to the above question Sven.”
I meant to add a question mark to that. Sorry!
In early 1971, Ann told Barry that he would be returning to Hawaii. He would live with his grandparents in Honolulu and attend Punahou School, a respected prep school within walking distance of the Dunhams’ apartment. “She said that she and Maya would be joining me in Hawaii very soon — a year, tops — and that she’d try to make it there for Christmas,” he wrote in “Dreams From My Father.” Ann’s uncle Charles Payne told me he suspected that her mother, Madelyn, played a part in the decision. “Madelyn always had a great concern about Barack getting a good education,” he said. “I think that was her defense against his racial mixture — that education was the solution to whatever problems that would bring.”
As Obama later described his send-off, an Indonesian co-pilot who was a friend of Ann’s escorted him to the plane “as she and Lolo and my new sister, Maya, stood by at the gate.”
Ann uprooted Barry, at age 6, and transplanted him to Jakarta. Now she was uprooting him again, at barely 10, and sending him back, alone. She would follow him to Hawaii only to leave him again, less than three years later.
OBAMA'S YOUNG MOTHER ABROAD. Janny Scott, New York Times.Published: April 20, 2011
“No, the court is not interested in hearsay witnesses such as yourself whose offer of “testimony” would be inadmissible hearsay, of course, but your knowledge of the law is so rudimentary you don’t understand this. You are no good to the court as either a primary OR as a secondary witness, based on what you have claimed so far.”
Eyewitness testimony of direct examination of a recorded document (secondary source) is not hearsay. It’s referred to as secondary source because the eyewitness does not possess or control the document. Anyone who has visited or worked in a U.S. Federal facility that houses documents protected by the Privacy Act know its impossible to make copies, photograph or record a document without specific authorization.
Obama’s foreign nationality status can corroborated by copies of the CLN from the State Department, Treasury Department, and the F.B.I. Additional evidence to corroborate Obama’s foreign nationality status can be obtained by examining his original Form SS-5, application for SSN, and his NUMIDENT file. Not to mention his complete tax returns for fiscal years 1979 to 1982 and his Occidential College applications and transcripts. And finally, his complete immigration file with his CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION issued to him in 1983.
Securing these documents is not a fishing expedition to get something on Obama. It’s a concentrated effort to corroborate the specific allegation that Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because he was a foreign national in 1971 through 1983 where he regained his U.S. citizenship status with the issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization in 1983.
Postscript: And the records from Office of Refugee Resettlement at HHS and Catholic Social Services of Connecticut which further corroborate Obama’s foreign nationality status.
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.