Posted on 07/31/2010 6:25:47 PM PDT by jdirt
They don't have her records before 1965 !!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
I know everything about Orly Taitz and her parties to her lawsuits. I know everything about who runs her 501c4, c3, PAC, etc. I know who printed her direct mail. I know who did her polling. I know who built her websites. I know who filed her disclosure reports. I know how much the records SAY these things cost in expenditures and I know who is making their living off of these scams. If you did 1/1000th of the research on this people as you have done on Obama, you would be sicked by what you'd find.
I don't know as MUCH about the other groups, but one can tell by their reports or in some cases the LACK of said reports, they are just as sleazy if not worse.
And yes it IS appropriate for you to know! Not only appropriate, but incumbent! It is your duty!!
I have posted this answer 100 times!
Read it this time.
There are only three possible answers and they ALL have the same result.
Number 1: He is hiding exactly what you feel he is hiding.
Number 2: He isn't hiding what you think he is hiding, but is hiding something else, more personally damning, but not the smoking gun you seek.
Number 3: He isn't really hiding anything, but at least all the hard right which could be busy actually stopping him and informing the public about the real aims of his policies is distracted with chasing this Snipe.
Those are it. Only 3 possible. But here is the gem.
It could be all three! Yep. Might be all three.
SO WHAT?
If it is #3 IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, WE ARE DEAD. Game over. We lose and we lose it all.
Get it?
That’s good but you still need to post specifics so people like me can evaluate them. The other bit of info I’d like is the supply side if you have anything on that (who supplies money). I have no doubt a bunch of people make money doing the publicizing, and I’m sure some of them are not our friends. But the more specifics I can read, the better.
I see.
So, in response to the many sentiments sincerely expressed in my post, you’ve isolated a phrase and are quibbling with my use of ‘unseen’ rather than ‘not seen’
.. even though they can be and are at times used interchangeably ?
“Faith as the Evidence of things Unseen”
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/4737/Faith-as-Evidence-things-Unseen.htm
... LOL.
Sadly for reasons which relate to my knowledge I am unable to disclose direct information. But google is your friend, and if you have lexus nexus, the better friend it is.
I will say this, the LEFT and SOROS is not funding these criminals. Do not continue to chase ghosts. YOU are funding them. Your posts here and calls to your congressmen, you busy activities keep the general masses motivated and hopeful. They do not have even 1/10th of the information you have. They follow your lead. And my submission to you is YOU are misleading them from the tasks at hand by continuing down this path.
Here, I go, Hitler analogies on the net... LOL
Hitler invaded Russia, got bogged down and didn’t have the good sense to pull back and try again.
Hitler did NOT wipe out the British at Dunkirk.
Two classic examples in history. I am sure we all know 1000 more.
My point is the same as SUN TSU. War is politics by other means.
We are AT WAR and in case you haven’t been keeping up with current events, getting our asses kicked!
We have a chance, abet very slim, of actually electing more KINGS, BACHMANNS, PAULS etc to Congress. But if we fail, and the RINOs keep control, it will be all for nothing and the ignorant populace center will just give up and the tea party will be a flash in the pan.
And instead of DOING those things, we send money, spend time, and fight over this WORTHLESS GROUND!
This is a battle which does NOT have anything but a pyrrhic victory at its best.
So what? What if everything you ever feared is right and he is THE Manchurian Candidate and NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
Then what?
What if Elena Kagan writes the 5-4 majority opinion that some international law means “It doesn’t matter”.
Then WHAT?
You going to take up arms?
You think the Public will join you?
I think they will YAWN.
They always HAVE yawned.
YOU are not ignorant, but you are stupid if you fail to know this very lesson of history.
Fight battles that you not only KNOW you can win, but that have RESULTS that will matter.
This one does not, and fails both counts.
Oh, you may be right. You may have spend all your time and energy because you KNEW Hitler was inventing a Jet and it would make him rule the skys... but if you missed the A Bomb and spent your time on Jets and not the Manhattan Project, we’d all be speaking German now.
Be smart. Be Smarter!
NO NO NO NO NO!!
READ!!!
For the love of God read!
I most surely did NOT parse words. I am most surely NOT playing word games.
I don't care WHICH word you use for it. Unseen, Unknown, Not Seen, Secret Squirrel, In-bloody-visible! They all MEAN the same thing ! DUH!
The reason you are stuck there, thinking I am playing word games is YOU DON'T KNOW THE MEANING of the verse.
Your meaning IS all those. You see that word, those words, and you mistakenly think it means "YOU CANNOT KNOW, BECAUSE".
THAT is my point. THAT is where you are wrong. THAT is the error.
The verse uses those words in CONTRAST to EVIDENCE and in CONTRAST to SUBSTANCE.
To make it clear, totally clear, that even those things YOU cannot see or think you cannot know ARE knowable. ARE REAL.
You hold the position that the future is something yet undone and therefore unknowable.
That is contrary to the word of God and the mind of Science.
THAT is my point. I do not play word games or internet BS jerking chains. This is deadly serious! The whole of the world in light or darkness will follow the salvation or damnation of America.
That letter is, indeed, printed in a proportional font, and an odd one at that. I don’t think that any standard typewriter in use at that time would have had that font.
My question is, if that letter is indeed faked, WHY? None of the info in it seems to be relevant to the child. Perhaps to establish the whereabouts of Ann on that date? Is there some significance to that?
Makes no sense. Unless we’re missing something — which is likely — seems like a lot of trouble for no good reason.
I also read your entire commentary. And while it is nice and focuses on the meaning of faith for a believer, like most commentaries it leaves much else out and adds into it things it should not.
I do not put stock in commentaries, but the Word of God alone. Every verse is supported by every other verse. It does not need a commentary.
Here is the supporting verse for the EVIDENCE and SUBSTANCE and the duty to know the supposedly unknowable.
Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.
He expects you to know and to have the faith that you CAN know.
seems like a lot of trouble for no good reason.
They have now had YEARS and unlimited power and resources to bring to bear on these issues and documents. So, what if they only thing they have to gain, is to take the most motivated, dedicated, highest educated, most intelligent, most informed, hardest right wing conservatives and DISTRACT THEM.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!
Have you seriously considered that you are chasing a construct for the purpose of being in THAT chase and not able to FIGHT the battles which matter?
Conspiracies are fun. Everyone enjoys the thrill of a mystery.
So are you being played emotionally? Sucker punched the whole while? To wake up one day in a nation of Subjects and not Citizens?
Why would I give squat about some guy named Strunk?
From your quote, it looks like he LOST in court trying to get more information in an attempt to find out if Obama had an Indonesian passport.
Currently, there is no evidence that Obama has ever needed or used an Indonesian passport. Had he returned to the USA using one, it would have sent up red flags. He has not traveled anywhere that would require anything other than a US passport...so what you have left is an accusation, unsupported by facts or reason.
Nor would any of this affect US citizenship - including natural born citizenship - for Obama. That is based on where he was born. Period. You will notice the 14th Amendment makes no qualification based on parentage, and the courts have consistently held that you do not lose US citizenship.
See http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html :
“Appellant, who was born in Germany, came to this country with her parents as a child and acquired derivative American citizenship. She lived abroad since graduation from college, became married to a German national, and, except for two visits back to this country, has lived in Germany for the past eight years. The State Department denied her a passport, certifying that she had lost her American citizenship under § 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that a naturalized citizen, with exceptions not material here, loses citizenship by continuous residence for three years in the country of origin....
...A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons.
Reversed.”
So no, Obama would not lose US citizenship by living in Indonesia, nor could his parents renounce US citizenship for him.
Also, notice this comment in their decision, well before Obama:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
Hmmm...the only difference between the native born and the naturalized is that only the natural born can become President. That sentence only makes sense if they equate native born with natural born, correct?
So IF Obama was born in the US, THEN he is a US citizen and natural born, IAW the reasoning used by the Supreme Court starting long before Obama was born. Thus worry about an Indonesian passport is a waste.
However, I do thank you for bring up a fact based objection.
No, I’m a pragmatist
Would you please go find something constructive to do rather than hogging this thread and using up FR bandwidth?
It’s annoying to have to scroll through all your dribble in order to read legitimate discussion.
Mods, can we have an IGNORE button, please?
You and me both!
= )
There IS an ignore button. But you have to use Greasmonkey Scripts and firefox.
I have it, works great.
As for ignoring truth, well, that IS your problem now isn’t it.
I’m not ignoring truth, I’m ignoring you. Will you please tell your greasy monkey to ignore me from now on?
My post was to Fred, not to you. Go away.
Like I said: piece of work
God bless us all.
Yes, I had noted that in the scribd viewer (the page is numbered 000003 at the bottom). The capital "L" in the last sentence of the second paragraph looks particularly odd.
It appears that they redacted from the files the attachments that S. Ann Soetoro referred to in the letter. These were wage statements and tax returns. Lolo stood accused by Mr. O’Shea of filing as a non-resident in order to get tax benefits. I gather they would not re-admit him to the U.S. if he didn’t pay all his taxes. The letter was in response to that allegation and S. Ann (or somebody) wrote this letter to say that Lolo filed as a resident. However, that was on May 1, 74. But on May 11, 74, 10 days later, Mr. O’Shea wrote to Lolo, in Indonesia, reiterating the accusation.
So either S. Ann’s letter got lost in the mail (going from one address in Honolulu to another in Honolulu) for more than a week, or else Mr. O’Shea didn’t accept S. Ann’s contention about how Lolo filed, or else he didn’t get the letter because it was never sent, being created on a computer decades later, in order to obfuscate.
The more important question is what was on those redacted tax returns? Was Soebarkah mentioned, perhaps? What kind of benefits would Lolo get based upon filing as a resident versus a non-resident? Did Soetoro claim Soebarkah as his dependent, non-resident alien child? Enquiring minds want to know.
Ref book borrowed by George Washington:
The book was overdue as of Nov. 2, 1789.
The first translation of Vattel to use ‘natural born citizen’ was published in 1797, 8 years later. So whatever else George read in it, he didn’t find “natural born citizen”. He found “The natives, or indigenes...”.
If the Constitution had been following Vattel, it would require a President to be a “native, or indigenous citizen”.
Also, note the “or indigenes”...defined as “originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to ): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.”
For an example, pulled almost at random, “Indigenous Australians are the original inhabitants of the Australian continent and nearby islands and the descendants of these peoples.[2] Indigenous Australians are distinguished as either Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, who currently together make up about 2.7% of Australia’s population.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
A person can go back a number of generations and not be ‘indigenous’.
There are so many people close to Obama’s inner circle who work at Google.
~~~~
And here ... ;)
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.