Posted on 07/31/2010 6:25:47 PM PDT by jdirt
They don't have her records before 1965 !!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Permit me to go with the "Utopian" wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, as follows:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but THE PEOPLE themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to INFORM their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson
(emphasis mine)
AND
"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be ENABLED to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." -- Thomas Jefferson
(emphasis mine)
Now I REALLY do have to go to bed!
STE=Q
I think you have nailed it. It is my theory that Stanley Ann and Barack Obama Sr. went to Kenya to get Grandfather Obama’s blessing on the marriage. When that did not work, I believe Barack Obama Sr.’s father financed Stanley Ann’s airplane flight back to Seattle to get her as far away from his son as possible.
People are very frustrated they need to rant and vent...better than shooting.
Same thing as happened to Nixon. His base of support would evaporate and he would then be forced to leave before he could be thrown out.
ML/NJ
For someone so brilliant as yourself with your HISTORY degree and such, I'm surprised your English language skills seem so questionable. The Constitution states:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United StatesIt's right here. You can read it yourself. Pay attention to the words EVERY and BEFORE. If there is no President, no presentation can occur.
ML/NJ
Well about a year ago Honduras was faced with a similar situation , a dictator take-over, and the military removed him effectively by court order!
If our military brass has the opinion like their former colleague, Mrs. Rogers, then we will be stuck with a dictator and our republic and capitalistic system fundamentally changed to Marxism down the RAT hole!!
We are probably half way there already!!!
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner - just had a chance to get back online.
I didn’t notice the different font in his letter but will go take a look at it.
I seem to remember there was another issue with a typewriter font; discovered by Freepers, that ended a “respected” journalists career. Deja Vu?!?! :-)
“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).”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/18/george-washington-library-new-york
Not really that similar...
Zelaya was trying to rewrite their constitution so that he could stay in power after his term was over. Legislators of his own party were opposed to his efforts.
Pelosi, Reid and the large majorities in both houses support, and more often than not, are originators of, the legislation that is turning the country further towards socialism.
Proposing a banana republic style military coup is equivalent to embracing Castro and Chavez over the wisdom of our own brilliant founding fathers...no thanks.
And as far as your creepy obsession with the personal life of Mr. Rogers...seek professional counseling...you need help.
That's big news, just as big as the State Department's admission that it has destroyed all of the mother's early passport records.
Is a copy of that FOIA response available on the Internet?
I agree. It makes no sense that the mother's early passport application records have been destroyed with no archival.
Whack an Obot today!
You will be glad you did.
You seem well-versed on these laws, so can you take a stab at this one, if it hasn’t been answered already?
What is Sec. 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act?
This is what was referred to on page 46 in Lolo’s files. About the citizenship of the “person in question” who was Lolo’s wife’s child by a previous marriage. Unnamed child, notice. This is the conveniently placed memo that says he was born in Honolulu on 8/4/61 and so is a “united states citizen.” One would think he’d include the birth certificate to prove the contention. So was it disappeared? What’s the word that was crossed out on that memo?
Do you know, though, what that section of the “Act” is?
101(b)(1)(B) a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred;
http://www.visaportal.com/page.asp?page_id=139
That struck me as a bit "surprising" as well. I lived on Oahu for a little over a year in the late 1960s and at that time, there was nothing on that island of any interest to anyone beyond the small native population that lived there. Basically it was NOT a place that people would travel to from Oahu for any kind of wedding or any other celebrations. That is a very odd piece of information IMO.
You certainly must be slumbering, because we have already entered into a banana republic stage, which I rather will call a Marxist Republic, the USSA!!!
And as far as your creepy obsession with the personal life of Mr. Rogers...seek professional counseling...you need help.
That's your opinion and I'm free to have mine, however, I don't see any different between him and Bradley. BTW do you do that sort of counseling or are you just still a Con-Man???
See also post # 316!!!
Thanks. What’s odd is that the person requested them to find out whether SAD’s son is the “applicant’s child” under that section. Not stepchild. Child. The part about “whether or not born out of wedlock” is interesting.
I assume they asked about “child” because Lolo stated that the child will come to Indonesia with her and if it’s his biological child, maybe they can get the hardship exception based upon that.
So was this bureaucrat asking whether the child was Lolo’s biological child, although born while she was married to someone else? Under what other condition would he NOT be Lolo’s stepchild? They already knew SAD and Lolo were married, so any child she had would be his stepchild, unless the child was REALLY Lolo’s child.
So on a technicality, perhaps, his biological son is classified as his stepson, because the child was born while the wife was married to someone else?
Could this be what was so embarrassing that it had to be sanitized from Obama’s passport files and redacted from Lolo’s files, because it would violate Obama’s privacy and serve no public purpose, in their opinion?
That perhaps he was born in Hawaii but not to the father he claims?
However, for natural born citizenship, it matters not whether his true father was Lolo or BHO Sr., because neither was a US citizen. So I think the truth does serve the public’s interest.
They have to be talking about Obama’s privacy interests because Lolo and SAD are deceased. They have no privacy to protect anymore.
Here’s the other section of the law they reference:
http://www.visalaw.com/IMG/212e.pdf
Do you mean this? “Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.”
So maybe he was asking whether, given Indonesian law, the child, once a stepchild, had already become the “child” of Lolo Soetoro? Good catch!
Remember that crossed out word in the memo? What did it say?
“He xxxxxxxxx is considered the applicants stepchild, within the meaning of [that section] by virtue of the marriage of the applicant” to SAD.
MIGHT the crossed out word have been something like “currently” or “presently,” meaning that at that point in time, the adoption of his stepson had not yet been completed, so he was still a stepson, not yet the “child” of the applicant?
What other word or words could fit within the context of that sentence and make sense to you? Can anybody figure out how to remove those x’s and see what’s underneath them? It does appear that two letters underneath the x’s go above the rest, so they were d, t,l, h, etc.
Does “Soebarkah” on SAD’s passport refer to his new surname?
Thank you so much! That an impressive bit of reasearch.
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.