Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
It’s probably that disbarred IDIOT “blade bryan” retreading again.
Every Fogbutt troll starts their posts with “we conservatives” and “our conservative values.”
You remind me of someone. Hmmm...I don’t suppose you had a previous account here, did you? Remember lying is not a conservative value.
Of course I noticed that you stated:
“I understand the values I embrace daily”
What values are they exactly. You didn’t qualify what values you actually embrace daily.
I suspect the legal requirements regarding publication of notice of hearing regarding adoption varies among the states. Our family had an experience similar to yours. Because of the state’s privacy mandate re: minor children, absolutely nothing was allowed to be public. Only the biological father was deemed to have a right to knowledge and notification. That notification was done by certified letter from the Court - a 30-days notice of hearing. He was required to appear in person, to testify to the judge’s satisfaction that he believed the adoption was in the childrens’ best interest.
When the adoption was accomplished, three new birth certificates were generated by Court Order: one to be filed in the hearing file, and one to each of the local vital statistics records offices of the birth locations - the equivalent of the Hawaii Dept. of Health. As I recall, those local records offices were instructed by court order to destroy the ORIGINAL birth certificates, because legally, the new certificates literally became the ‘originals’. All of that to protect the privacy of the minor children. In the eyes of the law, the actual biological father did not, and never had existed in relation to the children. The adoptive father was not considered ‘adoptive’; he was considered THE actual biological father. This took place in New York State, in 1964.
Something that may be key in this scenario as a possibility regarding Barry/BHO,Sr/Stanley Ann in Nov-Dec 1971 Hawaii.
In that New York state procedure, the natural mother ‘procedurally’, became the adoptive parent of her own biological children, and had to consent to that fact. Strange. I don’t know why - PERHAPS going back to a wife being ‘chattel’ laws/mentality?
So - if Barry had been adopted by Soetoro in Indonesia [and all available evidence indicates he was] it’s possible that procedure would/might/could have been nullified before he was shipped back to Hawaii in 1971. It’s also possible an Indonesian adoption might not have been recognized by Hawaii; it’s also possible Hawaii never even knew of it] With New York State procedures as a possible guide to the scenario - my speculation would be that for whatever multitude of reasons, Stanley Ann decided to give him up - to send him to Hawaii for her parents to raise. That Gramps and Toot would have to become, at the least, his legal guardians [because they would need to be making decisions on his behalf - think, permission for any medical treatment, school attendance, field trips, etc]. Perhaps they actually adopted him, though the continued use of the name “Obama” would indicate not. Whatever, it’s clear that in Nov-Dec 1971, BHO Sr was a turd in the family’s punch bowl.
Even if it was just assigning legal guardianship to the grandparents, both of the parents would have to appear IN PERSON for the required hearing. NOTHING in the legal world is accomplished without a hearing. Considering BHO Sr’s touch-and-go financial situation, it’s logical to figure the grandparents paid for his trip and all it entailed - apt. rent, living expenses for the 2 months, etc.
I’ve no idea whether notices of hearings regarding guardianship appointments in over minor children were required by the state of Hawaii to be published. If it was required, there would be microfiche records at those local newspapers’ offices.
Have you ever thought about what a flow chart of all this info/unknowns/possible scenarios on Barry’s life would look like? If mounted, it would spread over acres of wall space - and would take teams of researchers to filter through and piece together. It amazes me how many of you dedicated FReepers seem able to keep it all right there at the junction of their brains and their fingertips on the keyboard. Me? I’ve got stacks of papers everywhere - and I mean EVERYWHERE - with color-coded little post-its helping me keep track of what’s what, and where. Do get intrigued by a fascinating mystery!
Thank goodness he/she has arrived.
Just in time to discuss an eligibility thread! YAAH!
You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of anything, Least of all the topic being discussed.
Again, explain to me why Slaves and Indians were not citizens if the rule is simply being "born here." WHY DID THEY NOT FIT THE CRITERIA OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
“This is a common misunderstanding of the facts. “
I think you’ve succinctly described your own problem. You misunderstand that the decision by the Indiana Court in Ankeny and Malihi’s decision agree with the Constitution, the 14th amendment, and the majority in Wong Kim Ark. Outside materials don’t matter. The way the law is now, Obama is eligible. If you think the law is wrong, work in your state legislature and with your federal reps to amend the Constitution to define natural born citizen the way you’d like it to be.
Of course that could take years. If what you really want is to see Obama out of office, work to get someone else elected.
tablelamp: “The answer isn’t in the courts. It’s time to change strategy or have Obama for another 4 years.”
At some point in history, it’s necessary to stand up for what is right and just - regardless of what “outcome” you are portending. Even if the challenge to Obama’s elgibility should continue well past his (god forbid) second term, it must none-the-less be pursued. At times, we must seek justice for the sake of justice alone...
Because slaves were property and not legally persons and Indians were born of independent nations and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the US government.
The simpler answer is that the founding fathers did not want slaves and Indians to be citizens.
So being "Property" and being "discussed in WKA" explains why they meet the requirements of having been "born here" but were not citizens?
I'm sorry, but that is just fluff and nonsense. "If they were "natural born" before the 14th amendment, then they were "natural born" after the 14th amendment. The Condition of being "natural born" cannot be changed by statute.
The only reasonable explanation is that neither Indians nor Slaves were considered "natural born citizens" prior to the 14th Amendment,(or after. Note use of the term "citizen" in the 14th amendment?) and Indians weren't considered "citizens" until after the Indian citizenship act of 1924.
That was the exact case I was thinking about.
Many people are surprised to learn that the Washington courts are among the most corrupt in the country.
You must have missed my question.
I’m curious have you had a previous account here?
Oh, I do not believe such. I have argued with dozens of known conservatives. They have convinced me that Liberals do not have a corner on the stupid market. Sure, they can wax brilliantly on other issues, but on this particular issue, the claws come out and they simply spew the common misunderstanding. With Vehemence.
and based on what vidence did he say Obama was born in the USA?
One of the pieces of evidence submittd was a clearly forged birth certificate
why would a US PRESIDENT give the public a forged document?
I am sorry but I feel no need to defend my beliefs to you. If you want to discuss the actual topic of discussion then fine. I refuse to respond to personal attacks - one of my values is “if you have nothing good to say than say nothing.”.
If the law is defined by Declarations of Judges, then your are correct. If the law is defined by the Intent of those who Wrote it, then you are WRONG.
Are we a nation that governs by the rule of Law or do we govern by the rule of Man?
Because the future is pretty clear on this matter.
Asking you if you’ve had a previous account here is forcing you to defend your beliefs and attacking you values? LOL
Since a simple yes or no would have sufficed I’ll take that as a yes.
One day 20 years from now, a shocking book will make tons of money exposing this shocking fraud. Americans will be stunned. “I had no idea!” they all will say.
Heavy sigh.
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.