Posted on 01/09/2011 9:37:25 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
-New Analysis of Democrat Party's Official 2008 Certification of Nomination documents for Obama reveals post-dated alterations not only in the legal content but also possible falsification of the stated time each were submitted to Chief Elections Officer.-
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
I have no idea how old you are, Mike, but it is virtually impossible to convey to anyone under 50 what a total disgrace an unmarried teen pregnancy was in 1961, and for many years thereafter. It was the end of the girl’s (and her family’s) life in acceptable social circles. Period.
In those days there were homes to which young, single, pregnant girls were sent from the time their pregnancies showed until the births. The homes arranged adoptions. The families made excuses about why Suzy-Q was out of town for a protracted period of time. Everyone then suspected that Suzy was at one of those homes, but the social compact was that nothing was said. Suzy returned home and outwardly went on with her life as if nothing happened. She was spared the stigma.
In the case of Stanley Ann, she obviously chose to keep the child, regardless of where he was born. It could be because the father married her in what was known as a “shotgun wedding,” or it could be because of her rebellious, counter-cultural attitudes.
Granny was a bank manager, a position that required an upstanding reputation in the community. Her daughter was only 18. She would do and/or say whatever it took to protect both her and her daughter’s reputation.
They could have listed BHO, Sr. without his knowledge on the birth certificate information, they could have allowed (forced) a marriage to take place with the understanding that once the child was legitimized, they would divorce. Leave aside that BHO, Sr. had a wife back in Africa - that information would not have been provided in seeking a US marriage license.
BHO, Sr., himself, was irrelevant to the Dunhams’ goal of protecting themselves, their daughter and, ultimately, their grandson from the shame that attended an illegitimate birth during the mid 20th century. This could explain why BHO, Sr., when visited years later by UHI pals in Africa, never inquired as to the welfare of either Stanley Ann or BHO,Jr. It’s all very, very peculiar.
It’s all very, very peculiar.
Yes, and what kind of impact does it portend for a child to grow up virtually without a real father, maybe even to be disowned by him.
Doesn’t it say something that Republican Presidents are coming from intact nuclear families and the last 2 Democratic Presidents were raised without fathers? I guess there are really 2 Americas.
You are most welcome
Thanks, lj. Coming from you, that really means something. :)
I wonder if you or any of the regulars on the eligibility threads ever read what the Hillbuzzers are saying on the issue? I realize they’re Dems and all that, but they do detest Obama with the fire of a thousand supernovas. I am trying to work my way through all 150 comments on their most recent eligibility thread. The OP omits the part about NBC, but plenty of posters bring it up. They are admittedly not strong on the ‘born in Africa’ theory, but some of their other comments are quite intriguing:
Fwiw
You are too kind.
I just read them when someone quotes or posts a link. Others read more often.
I already don’t do a lot of stuff I should do beacuse of FR...
Well this is the first time I’ve ever read a Hillbuzz discussion of the BC. I found it interesting because the OP, like me, is fixated on why Lakin’s judge called Obama’s BC “embarrassing”. That raises so many questions. How does she know it’s ‘embarrassing’? Did she see it? Did she take someone’s word for it? Did the someone tell her the truth or lie? Most importantly, what does ‘embarrassing’ mean? Presumably she doesn’t think the BC says Obama was born in Africa; that was be a sight more than ‘embarrassing’.
So anyway, the judge must think, as the Hillbuzzer speculates, (1) Obama is listed as Caucasian [the HB guy said, ‘Caucasian-Arab’, which frankly I just don’t see]; (2) the original BC is in fact sealed, as it should be, and the only one available lists “Barry Soetero” - which as the HB guy meticulously details from a legal and factual POV, it would do immediately upon Obama’s adoption, or (3) it lists a different father or no father at all.
As I said, far more questions than answers. The most important of which, in this context [though not in the larger context, of course] being, why DID the judge select that particular word, ‘embarrassing’? And why did she use it as a pretext to keep the BC hidden???
Opentalk, this is the one document which could cause Obama some discomfort. There was, before 2008, a requirement for this attestation to natural born citizenship in Hawaii, but a substitute document was delivered, leaving out the phrase in 2008. No other state required natural born citizenship in order for a candidate to appear on the ballot, which is what this form is for.
I can only guess that because this document is the responsibility of Nancy Pelosi, since the Democratic Party Corporation (yes, its a private corporation) is responsible for the document, Barack can claim he never saw it. It was notarized in Virginia in November of 07, but received two weeks later. It contradicts Barack’s own web site on which he stated that he was born a dual citizen, and in particular, was born a British Subject. Neither a dual citizen nor a British subject are born of parents with sole allegiance to the U.S. and its Constitution. Barack said, on his own web site, “I am a native born citizen of the U.S.” Were he a natural born citizen, the requirement for the presidency, he would have said as much. To say it, given his non-citizen father, might have stimulated legal action. But he cleverly told the truth, making any challenge that he lied about his citizenship likely to fail. He is depending upon the control of Federal Judges - political appointees - to quash eligibility questions.
Barack's minions have conducted a very sophisticated disinformation mission which made the measure of the ignorance of most citizens about natural born citizens. Missing birth certificates are easy to understand. Who had read Law of Nations, or the supreme court cases in which the common-law definition is repeated?I was one of the ignorant citizens, but Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz (yes, she was quite clear about the need for citizen parents in a Dec 2008 press conference in which Berg revealed his complicity in the campaign by avoiding jus sanguinis - parental allegiance - entirely) led me to read original sources. Our founders were clear and unambiguous. The originator of the 14th Amendment was unambiguous. Four Chief Justices of the Supreme Court were unambiguous. Every one of our legislators is caught in the trap of his own complicity. They will claim they were preventing riots. The choice was not theirs to make. They are complicit in the destruction of our republic.
Your observation about Kagan and Herilhy was new to me, and certainly interesting. Sarah Herlihy reported directly to Christopher Landau - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Landau was the legal council to the McCain Justice Advisory Committee. Where there's smoke... McCain played a major role in the cover-up. Landau was defending McCain against whom there were two lawsuits by Democrats contesting his ineligibility. The excellent analysis by Law Professor Gabriel Chin of U. Of Arizona leaves no wiggle room. The bill proposed by Clair McCaskill in Feb 2008, SB 2678, did not get Senate Support - a bill to make foreign born children of military citizens eligible for the presidency. McCain, from his own birth certificate, was born in Colon, not sovereign territory, but even Coco Bolo Naval Base was not sovereign territory in 1936. That was addressed by Congress in 1937, but the law is not retroactive.
So McCain was only too well aware of questions about his ineligibility. Once Obama became the Dem candidate the questions about McCain's eligibility suddenly stopped. "If you don't ask we won't either," was the effect of the quid pro quo. That is why Obama is in office. Perhaps he was stronger than Hillary. That isn't clear. But the Constitution is perfectly clear, and Kagan, who covered for Obama’s Harvard adviser and Constitutional Law Professor, Larry Tribe, when he was caught plaigerizing, is a not unexpected beneficiary of the web of silence.
Without Kagan and Sotomayor refusing to recuse themselves, given Robert's smarmy pandering to the left (wonder what else they have on Roberts?), the Court would have done their duty to resolve the current Constitutional crisis. To progressives, as Larry Klein stated a few days ago, the Constitution is "over one hundred years old!", and (paraphrasing) "most people don't understand it anyway." They don't respect the Constitution. Why should they preserve and protect it. Our legal foundation is what "The Ruling Class" thinks it should be, and as Sarah Herlihy pointed out in her 2005 essay, Article II Section 1 clause 5 is a "stupid provision." She also quoted sources describing the eligibility clause as "racist" and "based upon fear of foreigners." The Ruling Class remains a minority, since twenty six attempts to amend Article II have failed. The Obama team figured out how to trump that, and how to circumvent congress, and how to silence the courts. We must fix it or be destroyed by arrogant elites whose careers don't involve manufacturing or designing. Their careers are based upon running our lives.
Similar analysis:
Was the Republican Party aware of John McCain’s potential eligibility issue? Of course it was. The issue was written about by major news organizations – The New York Times, The Washington Post. They wrote about it in 1998. They again wrote about it in 2008. In February of 2008 the Panama issue was written about by these and other major news outlets. And unlike the mocking and sarcastic tone used when writing about Obama’s eligibility issues, these articles are written in serious journalistic fashion and raise the possibility of a constitutional crisis should McCain be elected.
...
But they knew that McCain was likely just a sacrificial lamb. And they knew that after 2008, no one would care about the details of a little-known constitutional clause about a special type of citizenship.
Or would they? If Hillary Rodham Clinton had won the nomination for the Democrat Party, then everything would have fallen into place as projected by the Republicans, and the damage from the fraud committed by Republicans in the 2008 election would likely have been forgotten.
(contininues...)
“Unless and until someone with the real goods lets it out, it won?t come out”
Exactly right. And the one person with the real goods happened to pass away on election eve. Before the nomination and campaign, I wonder when was the last time he went to grandma’s house. Were they estranged I wonder?
I’ve always thought he resembled X. I could picture him with the NOI, bowtie and all.
“And the one person with the real goods happened to pass away on election eve.”
_________________________
My humble opinion is that her place had to be sanitized. He could only control his calendar so much once elected. It had to be done by him and right then. So she died, and was cremated, and scattered.
Of course I know no more than Mr. Sweeney,and give him much credit since the scenario that Republicans were planning strategically by running the ineligible McCain had not occurred to me. Following Sweeney's analysis, could it be the Repub. assumption was that, as Obama’s actions conform to the background hidden by the press, but exposed by Howard Kurz and Trevor Louden, Obama too would be unelectable in 2012. What if Obama too was intended to be sacrificial? Dems knew he would be hated by or before 2012. Accepting that Obama would do the dirty work of pushing every unpopular issue down the throats of the public, Hillary could play a moderate, accepting the removal of some of the socialism imposed by Obama, and be around to supply pork until 2020?
We agree that Republicans were complicit, including McCain. That may be why Sarah Palin has kept her distance from the party, and them from her. Should Republican complicity be magically exposed before the 2012 elections - probably by a Democrat - the popularity of Republicans like Boehner, and even the sometimes good guys like DeMint, will disappear. They all lied to the public. The numbers suggest that the Tea Party supporters are almost twice as numerous as moderate (Rino) Republicans. Democrats are masters at dividing the house, and there may be mileage in the late term exposure of Republicans who all signed Senate Res 511 in which Pat Leahy agreed with Chertoff that a natural born citizen is born of two citizen parents. Democrats can claim, as they do now, that the Constitution is dated - the framers couldn't anticipate the globalism of the future; but Republicans will not get the votes of conservatives who believe it is the foundation of our freedoms. They/we won't support representatives who chose to play ignorant to its meaning, even when it was explained to them by Patrick Leahy and Clair McCaskill.
Drudge had a featured pic of Obama, right before the Tucson tragedy, in which Obama didn’t resemble Malcolm X; he was a dead ringer (even sans bow tie). Honestly, my first thought when I clicked on Drudge was, ‘Why is he featuring Malcolm X this prominently? What’s up?
‘It was eerie.
I read your posts and thought you laid out the case with eloquence, power and decisiveness. I care profoundly whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified or not, and I agree that the pols and judges have failed us miserably. However, I think it’s understandable that we are wondering who Obama’s father is. LTC Lakin’s judge reignited that question by stating, in so many words, that the revelation of Obama’s BC would be ‘embarrassing’ to him.
What a weird, inane thing for a judge to say. On what did she base this bizarre statement? No one knows. Can you really blame us for wondering if it could be connected to Obama’s father, and to the cultish narrative O has built up around it? What if even that is a lie? Of course we’d like to know, and since almost all the relevant records are sealed off and out off limits, we speculate.
I do think it’s telling that the judge never intimated there were no eligibility issues. She merely claimed hers was the wrong venue in which to resolve them. If you believe her excuse, then it would be like taking a broken arm to the pharmacy, and being told that is not the place to have the bone set. In no way is the pharmacist denying the medical emergency, just advising the patient to head for the hospital.
[I think Lakin’s judge should have pursued the issue, incidentally. If she knew enough about the BC to pronounce it ‘embarrassing’, then she was supposedly privvy to the document, and should have resolved the matter as opposed to stirring the pot with her silly ‘embarrassment’ comment.]
I read your posts and thought you laid out the case with eloquence, power and decisiveness. I care profoundly whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified or not, and I agree that the pols and judges have failed us miserably. However, I think it’s understandable that we are wondering who Obama’s father is. LTC Lakin’s judge reignited that question by stating, in so many words, that the revelation of Obama’s BC would be ‘embarrassing’ to him.
What a weird, inane thing for a judge to say. On what did she base this bizarre statement? No one knows. Can you really blame us for wondering if it could be connected to Obama’s father, and to the cultish narrative O has built up around it? What if even that is a lie? Of course we’d like to know, and since almost all the relevant records are sealed off and out off limits, we speculate.
I do think it’s telling that the judge never intimated there were no eligibility issues. She merely claimed hers was the wrong venue in which to resolve them. If you believe her excuse, then it would be like taking a broken arm to the pharmacy, and being told that is not the place to have the bone set. In no way is the pharmacist denying the medical emergency, just advising the patient to head for the hospital.
[I think Lakin’s judge should have pursued the issue, incidentally. If she knew enough about the BC to pronounce it ‘embarrassing’, then she was supposedly privvy to the document, and should have resolved the matter as opposed to stirring the pot with her silly ‘embarrassment’ comment.]
She said: “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”
Her statement had absolutely NOTHING to do with embarrassing Obama. She is talking about various branches of the government stepping on each other’s toes and overstepping their jurisdictions in issuing rulings on questions that are solely political.
Judge Lind was using the word “embarrasment” in a LEGAL context. The following definition is best applied:
“embarrassment” - extreme excess; “an embarrassment of riches”
overplus, plethora, superfluity
excessiveness, inordinateness, excess - immoderation as a consequence of going beyond sufficient or permitted limits
redundance, redundancy - the attribute of being superfluous and unneeded; “the use of industrial robots created redundancy among workers”
Fantasywriter to jamese777
You are the one who said to be wary of the BC issue because it was started by Dems. You said it could be an Obama ‘deflection’. You failed to mention that the two Dems who started it were virulently anti-Obama. Sorry, jamese; I don’t even read your posts any more. You are either too uninformed or too disinguous to interest me.
Fantasywriter to jamese777
You are the one who said to be wary of the BC issue because it was started by Dems. You said it could be an Obama ‘deflection’. You failed to mention that the two Dems who started it were virulently anti-Obama. Sorry, jamese; I don’t even read your posts any more. You are either too uninformed or too disinguous to interest me.
What I would like is an honest public debate on Obama’s eligibility. I believe that a grand jury investigation with subpoena power and sworn expert testimony is the best way to achieve that. I also believe that a state or federal (congressional) legislative committee could do the job.
When one side or the other distorts reality, it ends up hurting their argument and moves us all farther away from finally resolving this issue through an honest, open debate. Distorting or misinterpreting what Judge Lind actually said is such an occurrence.
“...an embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements...” is a long way from “President Obama would be embarrassed.”
When the “Obama is ineligible” side gets it wrong, it allows the “Obama is eligible” side to minimize and ridicule the entire issue.
I could care less if you read my posts. I don’t post to or for any one person.
See post 136.
Sure you do Obot. All you do is cut and paste BS ad nauseam.
Sure you do Obot. All you do is cut and paste BS ad nauseam.
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.