Stanley Ann's passport records out

A place to ask questions to get the right answers ^ | July 31, 2010 | Apuzzo

[Las Vegas Ron]

Get lost troll.

[noinfringers]

I believe your thinking is correct. I have long ago believed Obama’s mother went to Kenya to have a legal father for her baby because the father already was married(known) to a woman in Kenya and Hawaii would not recognize or sanction a bigamous marriage. I suspect mother did not take to African family authority and wanted out pronto. This scenario does raise the question of why did mom go get a divorce in Hawaii. Months ago I took off the web a story/document that said Obama’s mother was denied air travel by the Kenyan government a couple of days after the baby was born because the baby was to near birth for an air flight. All info coming together says BHO was born in Kenya. Our Nation is rife with traitors and scoundrals usurping our Constitution.

[RachelFaith]

NOT TRUE!

I already posted this before.

If the bills passed by congress are NOT SIGNED, they become law automatically in 10 days. The courts would rule that, if Obama was NOT president, then the laws could not and did not need to be signed. They would be stretching it to get there, but know this, that stretch is far shorter than “DO OVER” magic.

Know this.

[little jeremiah]

The toadies are really on this thread, something about this topic bothers them.

[RachelFaith]

A certain number of people will mock God and spend hours insulting people on a message board believing that if they are good MOST of the time they can avoid hell. They are dead wrong.

[rolling_stone]

you are correct..but the people had no President to maintain the three branches and possibly veto a bill...

[Las Vegas Ron]

The toadies are really on this thread, something about this topic bothers them.

Indeed, the arrogance is appalling too.

[RachelFaith]

Brilliant. There are any number of means to avoid the magic “do over” button these birthers seem to cling to as their hope. I just want to wake them up from their day dreams so we can get back to actually attempting to prevent the end or if nothing else, slow it down enough to plan for it wisely.

[little jeremiah]

I’m not mocking God.

I’m just pointing out that people who think everything has to go to hell so they can get raptured are wanting everything to go to hell, so they post utter nonsense, just as you are doing.

Utter, ridiculous nonsense. Just like another member here, whose posting style, tone and idiocy almost exactly match yours.....

hmm. Only thing missing are the LOLs and blue font, but the blue font was a recent change.

[noinfringers]

I believe your thinking is correct. I have long ago believed Obama’s mother went to Kenya to have a legal father for her baby because the father already was married(known) to a woman in Kenya and Hawaii would not recognize or sanction a bigamous marriage. I suspect mother did not take to African family authority and wanted out pronto. This scenario does raise the question of why did mom go get a divorce in Hawaii. Months ago I took off the web a story/document that said Obama’s mother was denied air travel by the Kenyan government a couple of days after the baby was born because the baby was to near birth for an air flight. All info coming together says BHO was born in Kenya. Our Nation is rife with traitors and scoundrals usurping our Constitution.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Thanks, good post.

[Las Vegas Ron]

A certain number of people will mock God "birthers" and spend hours insulting people on a message board believing that if they are good dilligent MOST of the time they can avoid hell save their messiah, obamster. They are dead wrong.

Fixed it fer ya sweet pea! Night baby doll!

[little jeremiah]

That was inspired.

[STARWISE]

Obama law tab up to $1.7 million
‘Grass-roots army’ contributions used to crush eligibility lawsuits?
Posted: October 27, 2009

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202

~ ~ ~

Obama waives ethics rules for eligibility lawyer
White House: Restrictions on top attorney ‘not in public interest’
Posted: May 10, 2010

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152177

~ ~ ~

Items are archived in order of discovery.
Obama Campaign Disbursements To Perkins-Coie

The following is information was compiled from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements from the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, which is or did represent Obama in various eligibility suits. The FEC links follow the entries.

2nd Quarter, 2010, FEC report for Obama for America
Perkins Coie: $248483.94

http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/501/10930598501/10930598501.pdf#navpanes=0

1st Quarter, 2010

Perkins Coie: $261,206.69

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2010/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

October 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie: $314,018.06
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

July 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie: $270,754.18
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

April 2009 quarterly
Perkins Coie: $688,316.42
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.htm

l

Year-End 2008
Perkins Coie: $173,052.52
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/YE/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

Amended post-general election:
Perkins Coie: $205,323.00
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/30G/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

That adds up to: $2,161,155.11

Perkins Coie does not appear in the pre-general election filing or a few others checked randomly. You are free to pursue any further information that is of interest. But one would assume that the official FEC website to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity would be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure expended to defend the eligibility suits.

This information is about the legal fees only of that one law firm, not the DOJ attorneys, court time, or other related costs.

(((Starwise note: and including fees to at least a couple other law firms))).

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/PerkinsCoie.htm

~ ~ ~

Edinva’s review of the current FEC report apparently also reveals an additional $4550 to Perkins Coie for “rental/occupancy” .. a rather unusual description for legal services, unless -0 is paying for space in their office.

[STE=Q]

There are a lot of folks on birther threads who post their fantasies about how all the legislation will be undone because, as the theory goes, since Obama wasn't really President, then none of the legislation that he signed ever became law...nightmare over!

Why couldn't you have written:

'There are a lot of folks on birther threads who post their VIEW about how all the legislation will be undone because, as the theory goes, since Obama wasn't really President, then none of the legislation that he signed ever became law.'

Why use the derogatory word -- "fantasy" -- ending with the straw-man -- "nightmare over?"

How does such a supercilious attitude contribute to the discussion?

They can never explain the process by which it all occurs...just that it will, because it all makes so much sense.

Actually, I think it would be handled in a much more practical way... out of necessity more than anything else ... but that's just MY opinion.

But it's all hypothetical, isn't it?

No one can know -- for sure -- what the future holds or how such a constitutional crises would be handled.

There's certainly room for differing opinions -- here and there -- but that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable and condescending.

Anyway, I really DO have to hit the sack.

Have a nice night.

STE=Q

[Candor7]

You have no idea Mr. Dodger.Obama spent 1 million of his surplus campaign funds to defend these suits,including 2 rather expensive junkets to Hawaii. We know because he had to check with the federal election commisson to get them to approve the expenditure as campaign related. We have been ‘love you longtiming’ him for two years.

Now Holder provides the swervice.

We do not have to sue congress, we do not even have to be successful with a suit. The word is out.The American people know he is not qualified, he demonstrates that through his own disloyal actions and policies. There IS a reason his Rassmunsen rating is -20, you know.

Obama can eat all the Wagyu beef he wants, and had better get his fill, not too far into the future all he will have is tough,stringy Kenyan goat stew.

Buahahahahahahahahaha!

[Global2010]

Rainbow font.
Blue Font/Red Font
No font good font.

(font poster can get away with being breaking all the foundational rules as long as it’s not personal)

[Natural Born 54]

Important information - thanks for posting it.

It makes me more than half nuts thinking about the access these traitors have to so many important resources like this and what they could do to them. In fact, I usually try not to think about it.

[Spaulding]

I am sure we have had presidents who were born to unwed parents. But if you mean something different, then it makes sense.

You make a good point. We use the word illegitimate assuming the context is clear. Who knows if Obama's father was legitimately married to Stanley Ann. We must trust Obama's words, and trust that "Dreams from my Father" expressed who he is. There should be no legal loopholes in the meaning of our framers, who clearly intended that our president have parents with allegiance for our nation and Constitution - criteria Obama and his father clearly fail to satisfy. Let me try, without burying you in quotations, to explain the meaning of our framers. Then I'll point you to a thread created by rxsid which has more references than you'll probably have time to read.

When we were a colony the group who chafed at rule by a remote oligarchy, our founders, was a minority. After we declared independence there was great hardship. Some claim Royalists were seventy percent of the public. How then do you chose someone to be your king, temporarily, and to command your armies whose allegiance you can trust?.

The core idea, which appears in quotations of Aristotle and Cicero, is that allegiance can be vouchsafed first by knowing the allegiances of a person's parents, and second by assuming he or she will have allegiance for the soil upon which he was born. The English actually adopted those very rules in 1608, even making the children of "natural born subjects," wherever they were born, natural born subjects. The King wanted people to conscript and tax. The new nation wanted citizens who wanted individual freedom - very different goals, and so a natural born subject is quite different from a natural born citizen. Those ideas together comprise the condition of being a natural born citizen.

That condition has other names. Framer, Dr. David Ramsay, used the term "birthright citizen." Vattel's first edition was written in the diplomatic language, French, and Vattel used the terms "Native" or "indigene". Marshall cited Vattel, as did Chief Justice John Jay. Chief Justice Morrison repeated that definition, as did Chief Justice Charles Evans Huges in 1939 - "born on the soil of citizen parents." .

There is a long history of legal philosophy called loosely the law of nature, and later, law of nations, composed of wisdom dating at least back to Aristotle which gained adherents such as Leibniz, Pufendorf, Grotius, Wolff, and Vattel - mid seventeenth through the nineteenth century..

Swiss philosopher/jurist, Emerich Vattel, who happened to write particularly clearly wrote the book upon which our framers most depended when they needed, with great urgency, to establish a constitution. The English Constitution, as Hamilton observed, was nonexistent, and English common law was hundreds of volumes of often inconsistent, sometimes self referential, though elegantly phrased, assertions which wouldn't damage the barrister's standing in the royal court. Everything was about pleasing the King or Queen. Our framers needed rules to protect free men from the powers implicit in a central government. To learn about the distain our framers had for English Common law, read framer and justice James Wilson's Commentaries, or browse through Hamilton's letters.

The book, Law of Nations, was the text chosen by Thomas Jefferson as the text for the first law school in the U.S. created at the College of William and Mary in 1779. Before that colleges were controlled by the crown. Law schools were not necessary since we were all British subjects. (It may be that they were not permitted - someone may provide those data).

The Law of Nations (which you can find on line or in an elegant edition published by Liberty Fund on Amazon) was the first book checked out of the New York Public Library by George Washington, who arrived at his New York office in 1789 without his library, and was the only book on his desk, according to reporters waiting to interview the new president. It was the most cited judicial reference for the thirty two years between 1779 and 1821. Chief Justice John Marshall, who attended William and Mary in 1880, cited Vattel when he clarified the importance and types of citizenship for a case called The Venus in 1814. The only citation I'll suggest, because it lead me to trust the truth of this remarkable farce, is The Venus, 12 U.S. 253. at paragraph 289. If you want to learn more, rsxid has provide a rich thread with hundreds of references right here on Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts

So the legitimacy in this case is Constitutional legitimacy. The words about what it means are available, and were repeated in house and senate hearings often between 1998 and 2008. The eligibility criteria were to help assure the allegiance of our chief executive. Many think we should amend the provision to include children of military, and I agree.

Orrin Hatch, initiated an attempt in 2003 to allow Schwarzenegger to run, born neither on our soil or of citizen parents; his amendment had very little support. The Constitution is our law unless we change it. Obama has ignored it, and, so far, been challenged by few representatives. One who did, Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia, was promptly responded to with ethics charges. He resigned to run for Governor. During mob rule, that was clearly the wise thing to do, and probably why there aren't other voices.

[wideminded]

de facto officer doctrine will not apply to Obama, he was challenged on eligibility before he became President and those challenges continue.

Let's suppose that a court rules that Obama is ineligible for office, and that this then goes to the Supreme Court, which agrees with the decision. Is the Supreme Court then going to strike down every law and executive order signed by Obama because Joe Blow questioned his right to hold office in 2008? No, they are going to say that Joe Blow is out of luck because he couldn't convince enough people before the election. This is exactly where the de facto officer doctrine will apply:

"The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office."

The only exception will be if Joe Blow was involved in a court case regarding a decision made by Obama, the case was filed around the time of the decision, and Joe Blow challenged Obama's legitimacy during the case. If the case went against Joe Blow, he might later have grounds for appeal. But the court is not going to open the floodgates and let thousands of these suits cancel out laws that apply to everyone, when there is a legislative remedy.