Posted on 12/26/2009 6:59:53 AM PST by westcoastwillieg
Any proof has been hidden and sealed by 0bomba. But of course you know this.
A barrel of money on what? There’s no documentation in those FEC reports to substantiate the claim that ANY amount of money was spent on the eligibility lawsuits. So what you ask? There’s what.
• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:
49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf
HI has released proof of the marriage vital record, but Stanley Ann's uncontested divorce filing does not retroactively legitimate her marriage to Obama if it was indeed bigamous under the following act:
• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:
49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf
If the HI marriage was bigamous (Kenya was under UK colonial law not sharia, even for muslims) then the BNA of 1948 explicitly does not govern the child of that illegitimate marriage:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
Thank you for this post.
I doubt it and yet THIS issue it seems acceptable.
That reminds me of this little incident:
TV footage clears a man charged with murder.
bookmark
Is that directed to me? If it is, you'll notice I made no editorial comment on her writing in post 25.
Thanks for the ping!
Yes, he's hidden many things. But the problem with that approach is that itsounds like conspiracy theorizing - "no proof of my accusations? Well, that just shows how deep the conspiracy is!"
I'm not saying these things can't be true, I'm saying that HighlyOpinionated's assertions came from somewhere, and I haven't seen any evidence for any of them, aside from "Barry Soetero" on an elementary school application in Indonesia. There has to be some evidence for the accusations, or one could make up anything about anyone. What is needed:
There you go again!
bump for later read
You might want to go to the original article written by Ms. Freeze and check out her profile before accusing here of being a "Obama Lover"!
Sometimes even facts get ignored here on FR!
"Dear President Obama, YOU ROCK for telling Kanye who he really is. Thanks! Love, Jamie"--twittered from this twit
I can smell the patchuli and THC from here.
Just as Megan McQueeg is a true conservative, this fat cow has no mandingo love for Obama. /freeper mental defective league.
As I see it, ‘Education’ today, for most students, is merely selective programming.
Critical thinking and analysis is not being stressed. Submission to the prevailing mantra is what is being applauded and rewarded with academic accolades.
Nothing can be substantiated or disproved due to 0bomba’s thuggery. That’s what the lawsuits are about.
If he hadn’t sealed, scrubbed, hidden, locked up, erased, etc all his personal records from his entire freaking life none of these threads would exist.
Of course, he probably woudln’t be president, either. We could be bitching about McCain.
BTW, I am totally sick of the word “conspiracy”. Or “conspiracy theory”. I give a **** what leftists or the media thinks of conservatives. They will hate, villify, lie about and harass conservatives until they die. So what?
It is no “theory” that 0bomba is hiding every fact about his life and his so-called autobiographies (two? Before the age of 50??) are lying propaganda, not even written by him. That’s no theory.
I have tried to pursue just a few legal provisions in the British law and began to realize the advantage of a somewhat fixed constitutional foundation: there is is usually just one correct determination. British common law often has more than one. Then, when there is a challenge, the only recourse is back to the House of Commons or, in the past, directly to the crown.
Another inconsistency in the Marriage Act of 1902 is that polygamy is “absolutely in accordance with Mohammedan law.” The British are proceeding to rectify that inconsistency by recognizing independent Sharia courts in England. The British are now making independent welfare payments to the several wives of a number of Muslim immigrants.
British common law can be very accommodating. Barristers can usually find a law to suit their client's case, leaving interpretation to the judges. Then success is predicated upon being of the correct class.
Whether the presumed Hawaiian marriage happened remains irrelevant. What matters by our Constitution is who the parents were. Obama has told us, many times, Obama Sr. is his father. These days a DNA test might be used if that claim is contested, But who would contest it? By the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barry was born a subject of the British Empire. Barry confirmed that on his own web site. He never claimed he was a natural born citizen, but said he was a “Native-born.” He knew exactly what he was saying to avoid prison, on that charge at least.
The law firm which defended McCain in his trial, settled out of court, challenging McCain's failure to satisfy Article II, also had a senior partner on Obama’s compaign board - Kendall and Ellis. They are experts on Article II. They paid a had a young associate to write a journal article attacking the natural born citizenship requirement: Sarah Herilhy,Chicaco-Kent Law Review, 2005. That suggests that the groundwork for the British subject was being laid as early as 2005. Herlihy talks lots about globalism and never once mentions Marshall, Jay, Waite, Hamilton. Time will tell whether this ploy will succeed completely, but if it does, we will be unlikely to read it in the completely state controlled media.
And she and a few others here are “After-Birthers”!!!
Link scrubbed!!!
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.