Posted on 08/03/2010 3:23:40 PM PDT by bushpilot1
in one word, NO. I have not heard of ANY confirmation the two were ever married...to each other.
this report indicates both names are on a marriage index, but note:
No dates or the spousal names are included.
Dunham and Obama might very well exist in the index, but there’s nothing to verify TO WHOM they were married, or WHEN.
Wooopsss, sorry - that’s Dunham-Soetoro marriage license. Dunham-Obama has never been released as far as I can tell.
Sorry about that....
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511
I decline to reduce myself to responding to your insults by insulting you back. I regard your insults as an admission of defeat by you. Due to your bad manners I also have no further interest in anything you have to say.
Everything you would ever want to know about the Governments policies on Passport Records and retention. It’s long but well worth a read. Bottom right hand corner of page begins Passport information
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=1660&dbname=2008_register
He corrected your misconception and that insults you??? Get over it.
I regard your insults as an admission of defeat by you.
He just handed your "s" back to you on a silver platter and you consider that a defeat??? What kind of fantasy land do you live in???
Due to your bad manners I also have no further interest in anything you have to say.
That's right -- go back to your cave and bone up on your grammar, your plurals, and your "s"s.
For goodness sakes, if there is a dialog, no one should feel insulted. Perhaps Cheburashka really doesn't see that his response is misleading? Perhaps he does, and is employing the tactics of the Ruling Class? Since it isn't clear, and since what is important is that other readers are not confused, here is some clarification.
Cheburashka says: "I see nothing requiring two citizen parents in S. Res. 511."
Since S. Res. 511 requires nothing and does nothing but state opinion, that is no surprise, though it sounds as if the accusation of the intent to deceive has been refuted. That technique is sometimes referred to as 'erecting a straw dog.' A resolution saying we feel John McCain should be considered a natural born citizen is disingenuous posturing for a now clear political purpose. If Cheburashka doesn't intend to refute the attempt to mislead which is S. Res. 511, his statement has that effect. Only an amendment can modify the Constitution. There have been many, 25 in all, failed attempts to modify Article II. Neither McCaskill's SB 2678 or Senate Res. 511 attempted to address McCain's grevience because they were not filed as amendments. No lawyer in the legislature, and most of them are, doesn't know that only amendments modify the Constitution.
If Cheburashka's confusion was about the question raised by many trolls, not that Cheburashaka is a troll, of whether the common law definition included the child of one alien and one citizen, that question has been addressed a number of times by knowledgeable FR researchers, and the understanding was also clear in Chertoff's statement and Leahy's agreement: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy. Chertoff, a former federal judge, meant what he said. So did Leahy. Press releases are triple checked by legal staff. There is no mistake. "Parents" was meant to be plural.
This is the most massive case of fraud ever perpetrated on citizens by our government. Sadly, it is so audacious that most can't believe it could be true. Read the constitution and a few cases, no more than twenty pages, and you will understand the truth of the common law definition: most terms in the Constitution depend upon our common law, not English common law. Our Constitution was written in our common language with the intention that it be understandable to any literate person. If it were written as a legal dictionary, it would be subjected to constant revision to track changes in language usage, enabling changes in the meaning of the framers, intentional of accidental. Madison explained that the Constitution only has meaning when interpreted in the language of the framers. The definition of natural born citizen, however, has not changed, as evidenced by questioning in a 2001 case in which Judge Ginsberg had the definition explained, or in Perkins v. Elg in 1939, where Minor v. Happersett was cited, which contains the original John Jay/Vattel definition. Our justices, Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes, justices James Wilson, Joseph Story and James Kent all explain and cite the definition. They all refer to "citizen parents". 14th Amendment John Bingham's of "parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen" is a bit more eloquent. They all mean the same thing, and all clearly show that Obama is not constitutionally our president. Too many apparently feel they have too much to lose by challanging the state-run media and the corrupt judicial system. Too many are already working for the state. Eventually, we may have to begin again to fight for individual freedoms.
What more can one say but BRAVO!
Note to the grammatically-challenged in trolldom:
The phrase "American parents" is plural
The phrase "natural-born American citizen" is singular and thus the "you" is singular
Conclusion: It takes two "American parents" [plural] to produce one "natural born American citizen" [singular]
That was my exact thought when I first read the file. This is the only document with typewriter keys not working properly. I would like to see some other documents by W.L. Mix and see if they are the same.
Fact: Obama has not released the original best evidence that would prove or disprove his natural born status.
Fact: A **real**, natural born, American citizen would be **HONORED** to promptly prove with the best evidence that he was natural born and eligible to be president and Commander in Chief.
Fact: A fraud and usurper would act like Obama.
“This is the only document with typewriter keys not working properly.”
If this were a forgery, why would they draw attention to it by having missing letters etc. when none of the other submitted documents contain such errors?
To answer an earlier question many posts ago, this memorandum IS the answer to the query about Obama’s residency and birth status. W.L. Mix was tasked with filling in the blanks, but as has been noted earlier, there is no indication he did so by obtaining copy of BC or even checking with Hawaii about this. He COULD have accepted Stanley Anne’s say-so, but if you read the whole file, the
bureaucratic mentality was that every detail had to be nailed down. This suggests, but doesn’t prove, that Mix would NOT have merely relied on say-so, but instead required documentation (although one would think that if he’d actually gotten written documentation, it would have been attached to his memo to file (e.g., “See attached”).
To answer another earlier question, yes there is an early letter saying there was no documented evidence of Anne’s first marriage, but there is a subsequent letter in which both proof of marriage and divorce had been obtained, suggesting (but again not proving) that separate evidence was obtained for each event.
One thing I noticed was Stanley Anne’s propensity to either be over-optimistic or perhaps lie as needed to get whatever bureaucratic decision she wanted. The earliest request for a waiver states she will complete her degree in Anthro by Feb. 1967. Then there is a subsequent document stating she said she’d be done by June 1967. Then there is a final document stating that “due to a last minute discovery” (or similar words) that she was shy some credits, she wouldn’t be done until August 1967. This proves nothing, but is consistent with a picture painted by some that Anne would have fabricated a Honolulu birth for her son to give him all the advantages of U.S. citizenship.
I clarify your statement to say that we have all seen a number of documents that point to various alleged, but yet legally unproven, birth locations.
But again, birth location is of little consequence, despite the considerable disinformation and obfuscation.
He does not qualify under known definitions of A2S1P5.
Yep. Ranks right up there with all of the other “anecdotal” evidence.
Question:
Also just noticed that “applicants’” as used here (plural possessive) incorrect?
Should this be “applicant’s”?
” also the possibility that he surrendered his US citizenship for Indonesian citizenship later on.”
This , if true, would fit with his possibly using that to gain entrance/money/etc into colleges....
To me he’s an opportunist.
It wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he won’t release anything because the truth of his surrendering his US
citizenship for his perceived personal gain would be too revealing....
That may be what he’s really hiding............
The opportunity to make that case came during the 2008 elections. His protagonists, Hillary Clinton and John McCain did not choose to do so. So, it remains an academic discussion at this stage. Perhaps someone will choose to challenge him on this point in 2012. The issue certainly isn't settled.
This record is a reminder of how things were done in the era before copy machines, personal computers, .pdf files, etc. Photocopies were just that, photographs of documents printed on cheap paper. Thermofax machines provided another method of copying documents. My own birth certificate that I needed for the passport that I obtained in the same timeframe was a contact print from a negative. File copies of documents were carbons, without letterhead or signatures. In lieu of document copies, officials were tasked with going to the repository, examining the document, and providing a report verifying certain data.
This file looks like all of that was going on. We don’t know what was redacted, but personal information on a living person is a good possibility.
The willingness of this family to manipulate the system and to deceive whenever advantage was to be gained is apparent. Its not hard to figure out where BHO’s values came from.
Agree.
Like the Puzo artcile stated. He’s a chameleon.
He has changed ethnicity and citizenship as it suited him in terms of immediate needs and goals.
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.