None of those look like High School photographs. They look like Grade School, or perhaps Middle School Photographs.
Posted on 11/10/2013 10:56:34 AM PST by elhombrelibre
You have to see the link. I don't know what to say. Watch the film. It's a childhood acquaintance talking about Barry and how he was as a lad.
You may be right. My substantial problem with him is his policies, his programs, his philosophy, and his worldview. The rest, if any, of what she says, is beside the point unless she can prove it. Still, the suggestion that he may have had sex with men would not surprise me at all.
Good work!
None of those look like High School photographs. They look like Grade School, or perhaps Middle School Photographs.
IOW, all the foreign-student stuff is bunk. He got all the affirmative action he needed with no need to masquerade as an Indonesian, all the way up to 2008 and 2012.
IIRC this was his senior yearbook.
"Never" is a pretty bold statement. All it takes is one example to disprove your theory. I find it strange that this woman would be saying such a thing if it were a bald faced lie.
Strange, but not impossible. There are plenty of kooks who will say untrue things.
IOW, all the foreign-student stuff is bunk. He got all the affirmative action he needed with no need to masquerade as an Indonesian, all the way up to 2008 and 2012.
I'm thinking he was masquerading as a Kenyan, not so much as an Indonesian. We have seen evidence that he led people to believe he was Kenyan.
I don't know if the Foreign Student theory is bunk or not. It certainly seems plausible given the potential benefits it could have provided him coupled with his penchant for lying, and I have seen no evidence proving that it is wrong. You may be correct that his pathway through Schools were the result of plain ole Affirmative action, but it has yet to be established one way or the other as far as I am aware.
I've seen other pictures of him in High School which are labeled as "Barry Obama."
It is unquestionable that he went by that name, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that he went by the other as well. It makes it unlikely, but not impossible.
It does tend to seriously call into question her story though.
The Columbia College student directory entries were printed in the New York Times.
I suspect Occidental College has archived copies of the student directories. So far no one has published a photo from them that shows either way what name he used.
Is there any documentation (other than the Indonesian school record) that shows him using the name Barry Soetoro?
Not that I have found. In fact, all I find is more confirmation that he seems to have been called Barry Obama pretty consistently when he was in Hawaii, starting with Kindergarten.
I vaguely recall reading years ago that some classmate or other had referred to him as Soetoro, but it may very well have been this same woman.
I'm thinking that currently the evidence appears against this woman's claims. If she got his name wrong, how likely is it that any of the rest of her claims are correct?
I'm smelling an odor of Kookery.
If it is a Hawaii “classmate” of Obama that you think you recall referring to him as Obama it can’t have been this woman as she did not attend Punahou school and is in any case of a completely different age group from him.
Some bloggers appear to have unilaterally decided to describe her as a “classmate” but she herself has not made any claim to have been a classmate or even made any claim to have attended Punahou school. On the contrary she has made it clear that she is considerably younger than Obama and that she was never a pupil at Punahou school.
Her claim to knowing him appears to be based on activities which took place in Hawaii outwith periods of school attendance.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, February 1814:
Perpetual allegiance, said he, is alleged to be founded on natural law, the positive law of nations, or the municipal law of each state. We wil examine each; and the first the law of nature. In this view we are able to discover but two principles or pretences on which the duty of perpetual allegiance is affirmed, or the right of expatriation denied. --These are, the necessities of the state and the gratitude of the subject. These are the only grounds stated by Vattel, to whom alone I shall refer as my authority for positions of natural and national law, because I can refer to no better authority, the more especially as on the points for which I shall use him, I believe he agrees with all other writers.
"The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth."
Bear in mind, this is the same Langdon Cheeves who Along with Justice William Johnson produced the proof that James McClure was a "Citizen."
Sorry I never responded before I guess I missed it.
I don’t think it changes what I’ve said in the past, there was not unanimity of thought on citizenship and its origins. There are those who followed Vattel and those who followed the Common Law.
St George Tucker versus Oliver Ellsworth (who was at the Constitutional Convention)
James Madison (who was at the Constitutional Convention) versus James Jackson
William Rawle versus Judge Roberts
In a lot of ways, the debate over citizenship parallels the debate over expatriation.
While I’m thinking about it, I have a question for you on a different subject.
In your opinion, is a stepchild still called a stepchild after the stepfather adopts the child?
Rolling on a screen in the background of this video is “Rush Limbo” and “boycot O’Reilly and Rush.” Wonder what that’s about?
But it has always been my argument that the Delegates and the Legislators who wrote and ratified Article II, followed the Vattel meaning, and that only those people who were much subsequent and out of the constitutional loop who claim the British Law standard.
I have found precious little support for the British Law interpretation among actual Delegates. Al the advocates of that theory seem to have come from much later.
St George Tucker versus Oliver Ellsworth (who was at the Constitutional Convention)
St George Tucker has been interpreted by some as following British Common law, but his commentary on Blackstone does not support this argument.
To the best of my knowledge, Oliver Ellsworth said the English Common law continued in the US as it was before, but beyond that, I am aware of no specific commentary of his regarding the Natural Born Citizen issue.
In General, It is correct that English Common law continued in the United States, but it is obvious that specific components of it did not. (Primogeniture, Corruption of Blood, Debtor's Prison, etc. )
Pennsylvania, as you know, ordered it's Supreme Court to come up with a list of which English Laws were still in effect, and which were not. (Which they did.)
James Madison (who was at the Constitutional Convention) versus James Jackson
Madison can be argued to be on both sides of the issue, given his activities (or lack thereof) regarding William Smith. As Madison was acting in a specific authoritative capacity in regards to William Smith, I would say his position on that issue was the more authoritative.
William Rawle versus Judge Roberts
William Rawle wasn't present at the Convention, and neither was Judge Roberts, but the guy who TRAINED Judge Roberts (William Lewis) was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature that ratified the Constitution. He also Preceded William Rawle as US Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania.
In a lot of ways, the debate over citizenship parallels the debate over expatriation.
Yes it does. The early opinion on expatriation was divided with some arguing that an individual cannot expatriate themselves, while others argued that they not only could, but it was a fundamental right to do so.
I have long made the point that there might not have been agreement as to the actual meaning of "natural born citizen" when they wrote it into article II, with everyone thinking that everyone else was of the same opinion as themselves.
This is one of my alternative theories, but not my primary one. My primary theory is that Vattel was too widely known at this point in history for any one of the delegates to have been confused about this issue. I have further discovered that other writers mentioned in the notes of the convention, also advocate the citizenship through the father argument.
No. Not appropriately anyway.
Referring to an adopted child as a "step child" would constantly remind the child in a painful way that he really isn't considered as a "real" son or daughter, but is rather an "artificial" son or daughter.
If someone wants to perpetuate a distinction, they should not adopt the child in the first place.
Now if others do it, it cannot be helped, but under no circumstances should the father or mother do it. (and they should advise others to desist.)
“St George Tucker has been interpreted by some as following British Common law, but his commentary on Blackstone does not support this argument.”
In fact he wrote an entire appendix about how the US didn’t adopt the Common Law.
Ellsworth said the opposite.
“it is obvious that specific components of it did not. (Primogeniture, Corruption of Blood, Debtor’s Prison, etc. )’
Yeah, including Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws. And when the Founders varied from the English Law precedent they expressly said they were varying from the English Law precedent.
“Pennsylvania, as you know, ordered it’s Supreme Court to come up with a list of which English Laws were still in effect, and which were not. (Which they did.)’
And Zephaniah Swift said in 1795 children born in Connecticut of alien parents were considered natural born subjects.
“My primary theory is that Vattel was too widely known at this point in history for any one of the delegates to have been confused about this issue.”
And Blackstone was also very well known.
During the debates on the 1790 naturalization law, Congressman Jackson after quoting from Blackstone’s “Commentaries” on English naturalization laws, said, “So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely, necessary to be pursed in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners.”
So the Founders used English Law as a guide to how aliens became citizens. It’s not that much of a stretch to say they also used it to determine how citizenship was acquired at birth.
I recall no such explicit notice from the founders. In fact, I recall Madison pointing out that "not much notice" is taken of the Common Law of England, and that had they consistently made a distinction, they would have written a digest of laws rather than a constitution.
And Zephaniah Swift said in 1795 children born in Connecticut of alien parents were considered natural born subjects.
I Went and looked up Zephaniah Swift's commentary regarding this. He appears to make a distinction between people born in Connecticut and people born in other states, leading me to believe he is referring to Connecticut law specifically, and not Federal law. That may very well be the case. Some states adopted the common law rule for citizenship, and others did not.
As a matter of fact, that quote comes from a book entitled "A system of the laws of the State of Connecticut: in six books." State specific, as opposed to Federal. Even so, further reading indicates that it is doubtful he would consider the child of Aliens to be a "natural born subject" of Connecticut if the parents left shortly after the child was born. It would be nonsensical for a child to have an attachment of allegiance to a nation that they didn't grow up in.
And Blackstone was also very well known.
Yes he was, but Mostly regarding Civil and Criminal law, not so much regarding International law, at which Vattel was regarded as the master. Even Blackstone's interpretation was not so expansive as what people want to interpret it to be.
So the Founders used English Law as a guide to how aliens became citizens. It’s not that much of a stretch to say they also used it to determine how citizenship was acquired at birth.
How many other examples did they have to chose from? Of course they adopted a lot of English Law and methodology, but not in the cases where it conflicted with an underlying American Principal, as did the Common law principle of perpetual allegiance. "Nemo potest exuere Patriam."
"No man can put off allegiance to his father's land."
An interesting find, “The Presbyterians Armoury”
Rutherford was specifically mentioned in the notes of the convention within the context of writers on the law of nations.
I decided to see if he had anything to say about the natural inheritance of Civic obligation from the father.
As it turns out, Rutherford too counted citizenship as descending through the father.
If you want the reference in the notes on the convention, I can find it, just let me know.
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.