Posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:28 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Attorney Orly Taitz vowed to shove everything she had concerning Barack Obama’s evidentiary problem at last week’s eligibility challenge in front of Indiana’s election board. Taitz, whose airline ticket to the hearing was purchased by a concerned citizen presented evidence of a “stolen social security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate!”
She told WND reporter Bob Unruh that Indiana just removed their Secretary of State Charlie White for his discrepancies with voter registration irregularities over “minor” problems. Taitz said our sitting president’s eligibility problems are major in comparison.
But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.
Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery!
The law says: ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.
One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements!
Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
But...but...how else would she attract hits to her site in the absence of anything new to say?
Just how many ballot challenges have been made in the past? Isn't this, except in one instance that I know of, the first time that this has been done?
Not buying your supposition.
In 30 years these guys will be telling their grandkids that Obama was never actually president... I wish FR would take Mark Levin’s stance on these birthers and just hang up. Of course, Mark Levin is a RINO sellout who doesn’t understand the constition according to birthers.
1. And those election boards should routinely check a candidate's Social Security number to make sure it is not a fake or a stolen number.
2. What do the election boards, like the one in Indiana, do when it comes to a presidential applicant's Social Security number: Do they simply take the candidate's word that the number belongs to the candidate without any proof whatsoever?
3. For instance, what happens if the candidate is someone who no one has ever heard of? How do election officials in Georgia or any state know that the applicant has a valid Social Security number unless they check the number somehow, like using e-verify?
4. If election boards do not verify a presidential candidate's Social Security number somehow, like using e-verify, then the election board is not performing its moral duty to use every possible resource to prove that a presidential candidate's application is valid and that the candidate is who he claims to be in order protect we voters from fraudulent presidential applications.
5. Really, we are not talking about checking the Social Security number of hundreds or thousands of presidential candidates.
6. I would think that 10 candidates would be a lot, so how long would it take an election board to check the Social Security numbers of 10 presidential candidates using e-verify? Maybe an hour at most?
7. This is what is sad about this whole Obama eligibility mess: I bet that soon after the Nov. 2012 election, states will be jumping all over each other to pass presidential candidate eligibility laws for the next election in 2016, because Obama won 't be eligible to run in 2016, and so election boards will feel comfortable in passing eligibility laws when they can't be accused of passing such laws simply to attack Obama.
8. For instance, I see some eligibility requirements that will probably be listed in new eligibility laws:
a. A candidate must provide a copy of his long form birth certificate.
b. A candidate's Social Security number must be verified by using a system like e-verify.
c. A candidate must provide a copy of his Social Security original application, a copy of which any person can obtain from Social Security for a small fee. Check Social Security's own website for details.
9. If a candidate does not meet the requirements above, his name will not be allowed on the 2016 presidential ballot.
10. If e-verify is good enough for a small business to check out the Social Security number of a job applicant, then surely it should be good enough to check out the Social Security number of a presidential candidate who applies to run for President of the United States, shouldn't it?
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe one can shed more light. However, as you pointed out, Hawaii became a state before 0bama was born, so that wouldn't affect anything. In any case, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory. I was a little young to recall everything about the campaign, but I don't remember that being an issue.
So, long story short, Obama’s still a bastard.
Taitz does not have a point.
The Territory of Hawaii, prior to Statehood, was an incorporated territory of the United States. This means that unlike the Philippines, an unincorporated possession, the Territory of Hawaii was a fully integrated part of the national territory of the United States, it's people held citizenship by virtue of the Constitution, not by Act of Congress.
The Insular Cases* in the early 20th Century created a distinction between incorporated territories (The Indian Territory, Oklahoma Territory, Arizona Territory, New Mexico Territory, District of Alaska, and the Territory of Hawaii), and unincorporated possessions, owned by, but not part of the United States (The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa). the former were integral parts of the American nation, the latter just owned by the US.
*Note: I consider the Insular Cases to have been wrongly decided and repugnant to the Constitution. They allowed the Congress to create a situation in people were compelled to become part of the US by treaty, but denied the rights and benefits of citizenship. All territory belonging to the US should be fully incorporated into the United States national territory, without exception.
False article, or misleading. This only applies if baby barack were born outside the us. No one has been able to prove it.
Though his using fake documents and stolen SS numbers is circumstantial.
Exactly. Will anyone have the nougats to ask Obama in the fall why he uses a stolen SS number? It goes like this :
“when you registered for the draft at 18, as well as [ name recent time he last used it] you used the SS # [whatever it is]. This number was previously used by [the dead guy’s name]. Can you explain this, please?”
WHO IS GOING TO DO IT?
Ok, I'll be more direct. According to the State Department docs that were posted online, Obama's father had a wife in Africa when he "married" Stanley Dunham.
Is that more better for you??
“when you registered for the draft at 18, as well as [ name recent time he last used it] you used the SS # [whatever it is]. This number was previously used by [the dead guy’s name]. Can you explain this, please?”
WHO IS GOING TO DO IT?
*******
Have you had a chance to look at a copy of Obama's Selective Service form on the internet?
I know a person's handwriting changes over the years, but Obama's signature on the form looks nothing like his present signature. Not even close, in my opinion.
That is, it looks like someone else signed the form.
That depends. Do you want your answers to from from actual practicing litigators or from "google lawyers" who only post on birther sites?
It may not change who his father was, but it adds to the confusion over his citizenship. In the early 60s, the US was much less tolerant of bigamy and, given this additional circumstance, raises additional questions.
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.