Posted on 12/08/2008 8:07:06 PM PST by Gator_that_eats_Dems
I had read the article you posted, recently and have been thinking about the other areas where one’s records would be kept. Still thinking on this one.
There is a ton of information about Obama and vast amount of paperwork that exposes this guy. Just need someone who is honest enough to be dihonest and bring that information to light, for the good of the country.
Still we should try to expose this fraud or push a mistake on his part.
I might add that a name change is always a matter of public record. It involves a civil suit and has to be public record, with prior names being recorded also.
Amendment to previous post: A name change done on one’s own after the age of majority is a matter of public record.
“We must move on...for the good of the country”...........
Being adopted in Indonesia does disqualify him.
sort of off topic....
Michelle also said Barry's Mother was "very, very single" when Barry was born.
There are just too many unanswered questions for him to be legit/qualified.
That is right and would be printed in newspapers.
Microfiche anyone?
Good Call!
SCOTUS set Leo Donofrio’s case aside to hear the better presented CortW. case from CT. Look for the conference to send the case back to CT with stipulations. That way the SCOTUS avoids being framed as cancelling the election of the affirmative action candidate yet the vault copy can be accessed by CT court order. That is not the extent of the man’s probable divided loayalties behavior, but that is probably as far as courts will go in forcing this lying SOB to reveal his hidden history.
I like your ‘magic question’. In fact, I like it so much that I’m going to write a few ‘letters to the editor’ letters to local papers and pose the question re Obama. Maybe one or two will publish it!
The question (more suitably expanded on) has already been submitted to the Supreme Court and will be initially considered on Friday.
“That is not the extent of the man’s probable divided loayalties behavior, but that is probably as far as courts will go in forcing this lying SOB to reveal his hidden history.”
Hopefully his connections with the corrupt Chicago political machine (the Governor going down on Federal charges) may make the courts more sympathetic to those suspecting a coverup by Mr. Obama???????
Will have zero influence upon SCOTUS work.
This seems like a good question to ask. It distills down the actual issue into manageable bits.
The fist bit, "Born in Hawaii". If this is conceded, then it seems impossible to suggest that BO could not meet the qualifications to be president.
Note that children born in the US to tourists -- or even to illegal aliens -- are US citizens by birth. Some politicians have proposed changing the law to deny citizenship to US-born children unless at least one parent is a US citizen or permanent resident alien ("green card" holder). However, since such children are guaranteed citizenship by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (see the Supreme Court's rulings in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Afroyim v. Rusk), it is unlikely that this part of the INA could be successfully changed without another amendment to the Constitution. Even attempts to deny citizenship to such children by redefining them as not being subject to US jurisdiction (as proposed, for instance, by various bills in the current Congress) would probably have a rough time in the courts on account of the Wong Kim Ark precedent.source
Note, that section describes a case that is even more extreme than the Obama case (assuming his birth occurred in Hawaii); that is, the above is a case of the "anchor baby", a baby born in the US by two parents who aren't US citizens. Even in that case, given the precedents cited, it is highly unlikely that "anchor babies" wouldn't be considered citizens.
Of course here, we're not considering the possibility that there could be a distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen". However the only relevant distinction would be to say, "Sure someone could be a citizen, but not naturally born unless both parents are citizens".
While novel, this argument seems to beg the question, to put in terms of logical fallacies. That is to say, there is no apparent distinction in the law as written today (at least not that I can find) between a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen", at least if it's conceded that the person in question was born on US soil, or born to two US citizens.
The former is part of the concession of this post (the latter no one claims for Obama). So, since there is no apparent distinction in the law (again, not that I can find) between "natural born citizen" and "citizen", then the argument seems to, again, beg the question.
Up to this point, we have only considered the implications of the conceit, "born in Hawaii". If one also concedes that one was born of one US citizen and one foreign national, and then ask, does that person have dual citizenship (US and the other) then all we need to do is look on FR for that answer: Even fightthesmears.com concedes that BO had dual citizenship at the time of his birth. source
What is important to notice here, as I pointed out on another thread, is that "Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.", apparently his dual citizenship status was lost, over 20 years prior to him running for president.
So, to me at least, the question now becomes, "If someone was EVER a dual citizen, but since has become a singular citizen of the US, can he/she still run for president?" or, does the term "natural born citizen" of the relevant Constitutional passage preclude this possibility?
I'm no legal scholar, but it seems to me that the issue about one's citizenship status should be considered at the time one runs for president, and not at some former time in the past, especially given the fact (in this particular case) Obama had no say in whether or not he was also a citizen of Kenya (he was born that way, he didn't actively choose to be a Kenyan citizen and then renounce it later). To me, that's a significant difference.
And if he did legally change his name, it would likely have been in Chicago, so that is where to look for old records of a name change.
Illinois name change law includes publication. Who lives up there who can research old newspapers around Chicago?
http://www.namechangelaw.com/states/ill/illinois.htm
Not an easy task, I admire your "dad".
IIRC Indonesia’s adoption is nothing like ours. They sort of own their children. A child in not allowed to live in the house unless he is “yours”. BO step father simply stated the child is mine and bingo he’s adopted.
WIsh I could find the thread that listed all the laws in Indonesia at the time BO lived there. Cal, did you happen to save it?
You know I have been thinking about it. He went to college in California and Conn.. Afterward, taking permanent residency in Ill.. Is there not investigator on par with the ones that investigated Joe the Plumber? Seems to me that someone could easily pull these records, right?
I mean we learned more about some guy I couldn’t care less about, in two days, than most of the public learned about a hande puppet. Don’t get me wrong I love Joe and give him kudos for asking Obama a question we all agree with especialy right there, in that venue.
He sure has a lot of acquaintences That are under investigation, have been arrested or gone to jail.
Maybe these Obama’s canaries and one these guys or gals will go states evidence and turn into a stool pigeon.
Hawaii, California, Connecticut, Illinois and something in Massachusets. Ports of entry when he traveled.
Good point and I talked with my Dad last night.
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.