Posted on 05/06/2011 7:06:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The good news: It’s a heavy blow to the Trump boomlet. The bad news: … none that I can think of, really.
Actually, the bad news is that I lose a vein of easy content to blog. Help me, viral videos, you’re my only hope.
More crosstabs from WaPo. The “Honolulu/Hawaii” column is the big one, obviously:
This poll was conducted before Obama’s announcement of the Bin Laden killing, in case you’re inclined to attribute the huge bounce to goodwill rather than evidence. Needless to say, the key lines are the ones for Republicans and Conservative Republicans; in both groups, the number of Birthers was cut by more than half after the birth certificate revelation. (In fact, it was likely deeper than that. Birtherism had been spiking in the last few weeks since Trump mainstreamed the issue, so it was probably higher than the April 2010 numbers shown here.) I argued a few weeks ago that, contrary to big media’s received wisdom, Birthers aren’t a homogeneous group but rather a mix of hardcore and softcore believers, the latter of which were simply misinformed because they weren’t following the issue closely. These numbers bear that out. Which, for Chris Matthews, means … what? Republicans are racist, but maybe not quite as racist as he thought? What happens to the narrative?
Some people were hassling me in Headlines over this poll because I suggested yesterday in the post about the Bin Laden photos that evidence doesn’t convince skeptics anymore. Fair enough; at the very least, I should have qualified that by specifying that I meant skeptics with an agenda. But give the Birther issue time. I’ll be mighty keen to see if the numbers still look like this in six months — which, theoretically, they should — or if they start to creep back up as discontent with Obama’s policies rises and/or hardcore Birthers regroup and start challenging the long-form birth certificate. Trump had better hope so. Somehow, I don’t see the “trade war with China” platform carrying him to the nomination.
1. You miss the point. Marshall cited Vattel’s definition of natural citizenship. It’s the same one used in Minor v. Happersett (which was offered to define what the term NBC means in Art II Sec I). That same definition was cited and AFFIRMED in Wong Kim Ark.
2. Article I gives congress the power to naturalize. The natural citizens upon the adoption of the Constitution were defined in the preamble ... We the people of the United States ... who established this Constitution for “ourselves and our posterity.” IOW, for citizens and for the children of citizens.
3. Justice Waite rejected the 14th amendment as defining the citizenship of a natural born citizen. Justice Gray affirmed this. The definition was as they explained it, outside of the Constitution, relying on Vattel’s definition: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.
4. Wong Kim Ark did not meet the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC. Justice Gray relied on English common law and what he called “citizenship by birth” (not NBC) and permanent domicil to judge that Ark fit the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Obama fails on both NBC and the permanent domicil requirement. At best he is a statutory, naturalized citizen, but only if he has LEGAL proof he was born in the United States or unless his mother was not legally married to his father. He is NOT an NBC. Case closed.
Every child born on our soil who fails this definition is a “born citizen of the US,” a “native-born citizen of the US,” but not a “natural-born Citizen of the US.” Vattel, the source of the definition above from Marshall's decisions in The Venus, 12 US 253, used the "natives." But he defined what he meant - born on the soil of citizen parents. The term "native" is sometimes intentionally conflated with "native-born." Chief Justice Morrison Waite equates "Natives" with "natural born citzens" in Minor v. Happersett, leaving no doubt.
We’re on to the obambi wordpress site with images purporting to be Stanley Ann at FMD’s pad. Why are you being so coy here with people? Do you have the original negatives or contact sheets for inspection? And even if so, how are those images any proof of paternity?! If you aren’t going to be straightforward here, kindly peddle your **cynical** carp elsewhere.
I could be way off base but I think this is why BamBamKennedy will not release his historical records from his birth to date... But if one looks at what is going on in the Education department, it sure is strange what they claim is their federal authority. I am NOT sure ‘precedence’, I mean the ‘law’ is on their side yet. But that is what liberals mean when they say the Constitution is a living breathing document. They set precedence via the judiciary.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2716355/posts
MIAMI — The U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to districts around the country Friday, reminding them that all students - legal or not - are entitled to a public education.
The letter comes amid reports that schools may be checking the immigration status of students trying to enroll, and reminds districts they are federally prohibited from barring elementary or secondary students on the basis of citizenship status.
“Moreover, districts may not request information with the purpose or result of denying access to public schools on the basis of race, color or national origin,” said the letter, which was signed by officials from the department’s Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Justice.
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2716460/posts
Of course Rona_Badger, we still have many trolls. It is encouraging that more readers are becoming aware of the subterfuge, and more are realizing that the truth is much less complex than the misdirection. (You might also feel free to correct my sloppy typing.) Thank you!
The usual first indication of a troll at work is the ad-homonym insult. But, troll or not, let's look at troll technique:
“1. The Venus did not address the issue of NBC for Article 2 so it can't be used for precedent.” There was no need to address natural born citizenship, the definition of a natural born Citizen has never been challenged in court (though some lower courts have misstated the definition). The Venus was about citizenship, and provided an opportunity for our greatest Chief Justice to clarify the common-law definition, subsequently used in a dozen or more cases. Most Constitutional definitions come from our common law. “He is not speaking for the court.” No one claimed Marshall was speaking "for the court," but for whom to chief justices speak? Marshall, incidentally, introduced the practice of a decision of the court to give more weight to supreme court decisions.
“2. Article 2 does not define and NBC...” Like most terms used in the Constitution, natural born Citizen was well understood by our framers, and its source, Vattel, is by far the most cited legal doctrine in American jurisprudence for the first three decades of our republic (Grotian Society Papers 1972, Ruddy) Also, a typical troll technique, referring to Article 1 Section 8, Congress’ power to establish a uniform naturalization code, the operative term is, “naturalization.” A president must be a “natural” citizen, not a naturalized citizen. Otherwise “Anchor Babies” are eligible to the presidency, or the American-born child of stalwart royalists, certainly not the intent of our founders and framers who had just given lots of blood and lives to remove the influence of the Crown from the new republic.
Lou Budvis continues with a discussion of the 14th Amendment which nowhere mentions natural born Citizenship. In fact its author, John Bingham, tells us that a natural born citizen must be born “of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
Finally, the usual ploy is to refer to the remarkably obtuse decision in Wong Kim Ark, knowing that few can penetrate its mistakes and excursion into English Common Law. The first citation in Wong Kim Ark is to Justice Waite's definition in Minor v. Happersett, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” Also, Wong Kim Ark was deemed not a natural born Citizen, but a citizen, or a “native-born citizen”, just like Barack Obama. Some wonder if Horace Gray, the justice who wrote the Wong Kim decision, and who was appointed by the only other ineligible president Chester Arthur, might have written a confusing and misleading opinion intentionally. Confusing and misleading it is, but Gray cites Minor v. Happersett, and does not make Wong Kim a natural born Citizen. Neither is Barack Obama.
As Lou Budvis said, “Case closed.” This is not one of the more clever efforts by a troll. Some have found really obscure cases which require reading to debunk. It is easy to spot the truth. Citizens are either natural born, or naturalized. The only definitions repeated and cited for a natural born citizen conform with Justice Marshall's “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Nowhere does congress define natural born Citizenship. Congress makes laws. Only one class of citizen is made by nature, by natural law, and that is a born citizen, born to parents who are citizens, natural or naturalized, and born on our sovereign soil. Other citizens are defined by law, and thus naturalized, like Bobby Jindal, Barack Obama, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madeline Albright, Zbignew Brezinski. Naturalized citizens cannot be president. The 14th Amendment naturalized non-citizen slaves. Title 8 used the 14th Amendment to create all sorts citizens, some native-born and some not. Anchor babies are native-born citizens. Our Constitution did not accidentally enable anchor babies to be president, while denying Kissinger, Albright, Schwarzenegger, Mark Steyn, or Cary Grant from becoming president. It is about inherited allegiance, no guarantee, but a sensible requirement, as shown by Barack Jr's inherited dreams from his father, the British/Kenyan/Marxist-anti-capitalist.
For those who are not familiar with them, I wanted to keep out emotional reaction until the factual points could be made. I am arguing this same issue on another (non-conservative) website and the technique has yielded some success.
By removing the unseemly portions of the pictures, basic facts and details can be agreed upon without emotional involvement and before anyone can set their mind against them. This would not have been possible had the pictures merely been presented.
Do you have the original negatives or contact sheets for inspection?
I wish. We could then probably read one of the name tags on one of the presents.
And even if so, how are those images any proof of paternity?!
I was getting to that. I was expecting that astute people would be able to figure that out for themselves. The basic idea was this.
1. Establish the date. (December 1960)
2. Point out that this was very near the time Stanley Ann became Pregnant.
3. Argue that she was likely having sex with only one lover, and that She was posing for that lover in the Photographs.
4. Argue that the location was most likely the Lover's home, and that the lover would therefore not be a Muslim. (Muslims don't celebrate Christmas)
5. Argue that if the lover is not a Muslim, than he is not Barack Sr.
6. Argue that If the lover is not Barack Sr, he is most likely an American.
Ergo, Barack is born to two citizen parents.
7.If it comes up,Establish the Identity of the woman.
If you aren’t going to be straightforward here, kindly peddle your **cynical** carp elsewhere.
A word to the wise is sufficient. Other people need it spelled out.
Barak Sr never parented Barry outside of maybe 10 days in 1970. Barak Sr never lived in the same state as his alleged wife or son Barry.
"Pops" "Frank" parented Barry all throughout the 1970s in Hawaii.
As to your points on paternity and the claim that Muslims don't celebrate Christmas:
Next:
Let's pick it up from there if you want to continue.
I have only recently came to the conclusion that an American is Barack's father. I had known about the pictures for a couple of years, but I had never considered that they might be connected to his conception. After listening to some of my so called conservative allies ridicule "birthers" (such as myself) and proclaim the issue "Over" , I decided to rethink the available evidence. I decided to try and date the pictures to see if it would give me a clue, and after an internet search, I recognized that album "Cuban Fire" by Stan Kenton. The first website I went to said it was released in 1960, (Later shown to be wrong) and therefore I concluded the pictures must have been taken in December 1960, Shortly after Barack's conception.
All the random bits of data "clicked" in my mind, and I realized this was the answer. I then set out to try and explain it to others. Nothing seemed to work. The First response I always got was "Naked Pictures! What kind of sicko are you? "
I decided the only way to get past the initial visceral reaction was to get people to admit obvious details about the pictures before they understood that they were doing an objective analysis. Then, when I later showed them the whole thing, they couldn't deny what they had already admitted. This worked on another website (for some) so I thought I would try it here.
If I look as though I came "out of the blue" that's because I did. I've lurked around here off and on for a year or so, but I only recently joined because I perceived that my interest in this subject was shared by others on this website more so than elsewhere. And as I mentioned above, I only recently came to the "American father" conclusion. (A little over a week ago.)
As to your points on paternity and the claim that Muslims don't celebrate Christmas: Have you firmly established that this is a room in FMD's house?
I have not, but I have traded emails with someone that implies that he has evidence of this. (I'll send a PM)
If so, how did you acquire that proof?
I don't have any proof that it is. I merely point out that it is not likely to be Barack Obama Sr's room. It is the room of an unnamed American.
Can you show us photos of that same room and furniture at another date when he resided there?
No, but I am told that there are other photographs taken by Frank Davis of Nudes. It was apparently one of his hobbies. When I asked about the whereabouts of other photos, I received no response. (Not unusual from I'll send a PM) The "Vintage Pron" website appears to have been rolled over and no longer contains this content.
Who else have we ever seen in that room? What is the address of that house? Can we validate the dates he lived there? Did he live there by himself? Could someone else who lived there have been celebrating Christmas?
The Answers to the above is possibly. I am pretty sure I have seen the Address of Frank Davis listed. I don't live in Hawaii, so I don't know if it's still there or not. Someone *IN* Hawaii could probably find out if that room still exists.
Perhaps Google street view? I'll look into that.
Next: Why do you personally believe the person is SAD?
Apart from the obvious resemblance, the woman in the picture has a crooked upper left tooth in the exact same spot as Stanley Ann. (Enlarge the images and look at her upper left front teeth.) Then Compare them to this picture. 
It's too great a stretch of credulity to argue two women would look alike AND have a crooked tooth in the same spot.
Whose word are you taking that the images have not been manipulated?
I've looked at them under enlargement. There is no indication of manipulation, and what would be the motive?
If you haven't seen the originals, where do you think they came from?
They came from Frank Marshall Davis's collection of Nude Photographs that he traded with other collectors in the early to mid eighties. As I mentioned, According to researcher (I'll send you a PM), Davis had a hobby of photographing nudes.
Let's pick it up from there if you want to continue.
I answered your questions to the best of my knowledge. I may find some more answers as time goes by, and you've given me an idea for one or possibly two new leads.
Good enough?
Tungstene, high-technology image interpretation software which combs through the information contained in digital images to detect potential tampering.
I’ve looked it up. Frank Davis’s home (In 1958) was at 2994 Kalihi street, Honolulu Hawaii.
Look at it with Google street view. (If you are not sure which house is which, look at the garbage cans. They are clearly labeled with the house address.) The room in the front (rightward side) of the house appears to be the most likely location. Had I lived there, I would have put the Christmas tree in that room so that it could be seen from the street through that large front window.
Notice also that the side window replicates that peculiar spacing (of the glass supports) shown in the picture of Ann Dunham. (You have to enlarge it to see it. It *IS* distinguishable, but not terribly clear.)
To give you peace of mind as to the veracity of that address, look through this link and you will see it.
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Frank_Marshall_Davis_2.pdf
Nonetheless, Barack Hussein Obama I and his purported and apparently polygamous wife, Stanley Ann Dunahm Obama always represented themselves to the State of Hawaii, the universities, and the U.S. Immigration as husband, wife, and son. To whatever extent of which they lied and/or misrepresented their relationships for their own self-serving purposes and to retain a student visa or other visa for Obama to remain in the United States, the fact remains that he was the responsible father until such time as the stepfather, Lolo Soetoro did or may have assumed the legal parental responsibility for the child.
This is nothing new under the son. If you study history, you can see examples where mortal enemies exchanged sons as hostages, and the enemy served as a guardian and/or stepfather to the boy he held as a hostage. While the boy lived within the protection of the lord holding him hostage, the boy owed a temporary allegiance and obedience to the enemy lord during his residence. The boy's permanent allegiance to his father and lord, however, remained; and the boy was still an enemy alien in his enemy lord's household. The boy's biological father had parental responsibility and the boy's allegiance, but the enemy lord was delegated that father's parental responsibility so long as the boy remained an alien hostage in his household.
Barack Hussein Obama I... always represented themselves to the State of Hawaii, the universities, and the U.S. Immigration as husband, wife, and son.
This is untrue. Barak Sr pointedly did not represent to the feds that Barry I as his son for several years.
Barack Hussein Obama I... always represented themselves to the State of Hawaii, the universities, and the U.S. Immigration as husband, wife, and son.
This is untrue. Barak Sr pointedly did not represent to the feds that Barry I as his son for several years.
Barack Hussein Obama I asked the Immigration and Naturalization Service to extend his student visa to stay in the United States because he and his purported new wife, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, had a newborn son. The INS, the University of Hawaii, and Harvard University corresponded about their suspicions that this was a sham arrangement with Stanley Ann just so he could stay in the United States. When Harvard and the INS finally concluded they had enough of his committing adultery with underage girls at the school, he was denied the renewal of his student visa, and he was ordered to leave e the United States. He then overstayed his visa as an illegal alien. After his purported marriage to Stanley Ann and his son were no longer effective in providing him with a vias to stay in the United States, he completed his abandonment of Stanley Ann and his son with his no contest of the divorce case filed in Hawaii.
Stanley Ann then proceeded to enter into another apparent sham marriage with another alien, Lolo Soetoro, who tried to use her and the stepson as an excuse to overstay his visa in the United States.
So, your claim that Barack Hussein Obama I did not claim his marriage and son as an excuse for keeping his visa has no validity whatsoever. We can all see the news reports talking about Obama Sr.'s troubles with the Immigration and Naturalization Service in which he claimed his wife and son as an excuse to stay in the U.S.
This is correct, but:
once != always Hope this helps.
I never made any such claim. This is a lie. What is your problem? Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
I never made any such claim. This is a lie. What is your problem? Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
I wrote that Barack Hussein Obama I claimed his wife and son as an excuse to renew his student visa to remain in the United States past its expiration:
Oh my: Release of Obama birth certificate cuts number of Birthers in half Thursday, May 12, 2011 9:21:56 PM · 335 of 339 WhiskeyX to Plummz
[....]
Nonetheless, Barack Hussein Obama I and his purported and apparently polygamous wife, Stanley Ann Dunahm Obama always represented themselves to the State of Hawaii, the universities, and the U.S. Immigration as husband, wife, and son. To whatever extent of which they lied and/or misrepresented their relationships for their own self-serving purposes and to retain a student visa or other visa for Obama to remain in the United States, the fact remains that he was the responsible father until such time as the stepfather, Lolo Soetoro did or may have assumed the legal parental responsibility for the child.
You then proceeded to deny it:
Oh my: Release of Obama birth certificate cuts number of Birthers in half Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:48:02 PM · 336 of 339 Plummz to WhiskeyX
Thanks for confirming my point that you were incorrect in saying Barak Sr was the primary male parent for Barry when by every indication his primary male parent was indeed his (Un)American Communist biological father FMD.
Barack Hussein Obama I... always represented themselves to the State of Hawaii, the universities, and the U.S. Immigration as husband, wife, and son.
This is untrue. Barak Sr pointedly did not represent to the feds that Barry I as his son for several years.
Given the "did not represent to the feds that Barry I as his son is about as clear of a denial on your part of what I said about BHO-I claiming the wife and son to the "Feds" as anyone could ever hope to see, I must necessarily take your allegation of a lie as more than a little ironic given these circumstances.
The fact remaiins that Barack Hussein Obama I was the legal father and responsible party from the viewpoint of the State of Hawaii and the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the U.S. Government. The U.S. INS even went so far as to question the U.S. citizenship of the child, Barack Hussein Obama II due to the citizenship of the recorded father, Barack Hussein Obama I, and questions about the place of birth of the child.
Since the paternity reported to the Hawaiian divorce court was never challenged or questioned then or since, the legal father responsible for determining the citizenship and natural born allegiance of the child cannot have changed without a court proceeding to order it so.
Consequently, all of the speculation about Barack Hussein Obama II having a biological father other than Barack Hussein Obama I is irrelevant and moot with respect to inheritance of his natural born allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain as a consequence of his legal father's and probable biological father's foreign citizenship...denials notwithstanding
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.