Posted on 06/06/2011 6:28:18 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The recently released immigration file for Barack Obama Sr. indicates the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service had doubts he and Obama's mother were married.
While Ann Dunham may have sought Obama Sr. as her husband and the father of her child, the record suggests the two never lived together as a married couple.
As WND reported, there's no record of Ann Dunham's whereabouts during the last six months of her pregnancy.
Moreover, within weeks of the baby's birth, Dunham left Honolulu with her infant son and traveled to Seattle, where she enrolled in night courses at the University of Washington. She did not return to Honolulu until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in September 1962 to attend graduate courses at Harvard.
The INS file shows that Barack Obama Sr. was not faithful to Dunham, even when the two were in Hawaii at the same time.
Instead, the documentation supports the conclusion that Obama Sr. and Dunham took part in a sham marriage that the Kenyan student thought might help him extend his visa and remain in the United States to continue his education.
Economic necessity and his desire to complete his studies as soon as possible forced Obama Sr. to remain in Honolulu during the summer months, both to take summer classes and to work part-time.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Your made up claims are tiresome.
I have made no “made-up claims.” Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com .
Exactly what difference do you think it will make if we put somebody else in the White House, who has no problem with the total lawlessness of the past 3 years that allowed a usurper to take over the country while citizens concerned about the rule of law were maligned and libeled because of their concern for the law? Would you expect that person to go to DC and do anything to actually protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, as their oath states?
Right now the media is in the process of trying to get the R’s to nominate a guy who ALSO won’t show us his birth certificate - most likely because his dad may not have been a US citizen at the time of his birth either. We have learned NOTHING. Nothing. From this debacle. We are still spitting on the Constitution with every political step that is taken in this country.
I’m disgusted with the whole thing. America no longer exists. We have no separation of powers, checks and balances, rule of law, or Constitution. The whole dang system is lawless, lies and obfuscates at every turn, and gags and libels people like myself who care about the rule of law.
There is not one media source that has shown anything but contempt for the foundations of this country or for the people who defend those foundations.
Those who dare mention in legal procedures that judges have perpetrated fraud in their own courtroom are fined for having the audacity to expect the rule of law to be upheld. There is not one honest judge in this whole stinking country; it stinks worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, because the people screwing us all are the people in the positions of power and they commit crimes against anybody who stands up to them, while the media and our politicians look on and mock the ones who haven’t learned to sell their soul and “cooperate and graduate”.
We have a much bigger job than just getting BHO out of the White House he illegally occupies. We have a whole stinkin’ system that allowed him to be there is spite of blatant crimes committed to get and keep him there. Our government has become the enemy of the United States of America.
“Diminish the rule of law” - you mean, like calling people crazy because they object to having somebody in the White House who has committed forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, bribery, etc to get and stay there - and that every government agency which claims to have records for that criminal has actually either created forgeries of their own or else covered up the usurper’s forgeries?
Is that what you mean by “diminish the rule of law”?
If so, then I agree. If not, then all your bloviating about the rule of law is just bloviating and you don’t give a rip about the rule of law.
Which were the lawless ones - the revolutionary colonists, or the King who committed all the “abuses” listed in the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration of Independence says that the people have a DUTY to throw off a government when it becomes DESTRUCTIVE of the ends of securing the God-given rights. Think long and hard about what that means in this present situation.
But...If the system is corrupt what we **will** have is tyranny.
I am very very sad for our nation. That Obama is sitting in the White House is much bigger than his mere ineligibility. He is a symbol of the total rot that has infected our courts, law enforcement, every legislator on every level, our highest military officers, the media, and ( the most sad) the so-called “conservative” media.
I pray ever day that God may save this nation.
Well-said. If this was just about Obama I’d say the problem would be solved once he was out of there. But what so many of us have found as we have dealt with government agencies, courts, politicians, and the media is that the whole thing is rotten to the core. There is no way anything this absolutely corrupt will “self-correct”.
Right now the courts that are supposed to be upholding the Constitution have actually said that it is nobody’s business if the government itself is committing crimes against the populace. Nobody has standing to defend the principles or the rule of law. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is effectively eliminated because the government never has to actually GIVE redress for grievances. They can plug their ears and say, “La la la. I don’t hear anything. Nobody who has the right to question me is saying anything...”
When the government is able to pick and choose who they will give a fair hearing to - and they decide that is nobody - the system will NEVER “self-correct”. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. When will we ever really understand that? As long as the judges make sure that nobody is ever allowed to get a redress of the grievances done by the government, it doesn’t matter who we have in positions of power. The system gives them absolute power and that means they will be absolutely corrupt in no time flat.
Congress has been allowed to “self-police”. How’s that working out? But the judges have made it so that the ONLY people who can ever effect a lawful response to lawless thugs in the government.... are the very lawless thugs in government. The whole thing is an ENCLOSED SYSTEM. Like the Dead Sea, that allows water in but never out. And this enclosed system smells just like the Dead Sea too. Did you know that the Dead Sea is so dirty that the ecosystem is actually inverted? The whole thing is upside down.
Just like here. And until the government stops being “self-policing” and actually is accountable to somebody besides its own power-mongers, this whole nation is the equivalent of the Dead Sea.
It is accepted that the Constitution (among other things) enumerates certain rights to the people.
It is also accepted that there is legal and enforceable US law specifying punishment for the attempt, violation, or conspiracy to violate the civil rights of any person.
While the Constitution may be amended by proper procedure, any attempt to remove an enumerated right of the people from Constitutional protection would be unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights law.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, as ratified states: ".... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It is implicit that individual persons have the right to life, liberty and property. Infringement (without individual due process) of any of these rights is unconstitutional and a violation of law. The electorate (mob rule), electors, or representatives are also constrained, they may not vote to violate OR REMOVE a right (an election or vote, outside a jury, is not due process).
Now comes the fun part: A philosophy, agenda, or policy promoted by agreement and action by two or more persons to remove a civil right from Constitutional protection is a conspiracy to violate civil rights, and a Federal felony. Additionally, it is unconstitutional to REMOVE a right from Constitutional protection, once the Constitution and that right have been ratified.
Communists, by their own admission, propose the elimination of all private property rights (as well as life and liberty) by force of law, and have openly formed groups and acted to achieve that end. These very acts are a conspiracy to commit an unconstitutional violation of individual civil rights, and are a Federal felony, and addressable by due process.
The act of forming a group to remove a Constitutionally protected right by soliciting public pressure, is sedition rather than free speech, because the public may not Constitutionally vote their own rights away, let alone the rights of others. Mob rule, the instrument of "change" so loved by the communists is not Constitutional, and never can be, now that the Constitution is ratified and the law of the land.
Finally, the sweet part: Being that group advocation of communism is a violation of the individual right to private property (among others), communists are civil rights criminal conspirators simply by being communists, and with due process can be imprisoned for that crime, so Yep, let's round 'em up, give 'em due process, and a cell.
What could there possibly be on a long-form BC from the real 1961 that is "displeasing?"
In 1961, Hawaii did not register out of state births. So we know the birthplace on the authentic, original form must have been Hawaii. What else on there could possibly be relevant to Obama's elgibility?
His father was in wedlock. He had a wife in Kenya.
Childish question to avoid addressing the point. Grow up!
Hi FARS, been gone - just checking in. Had some eye surgery.
Obama is;
“Oh, what a tangled web they weave, when first they practice to deceive”.
I should portray him as a spider in the center of a web....
How then do you explain the entry of her and Obama Sr. in the Hawaii marriage registration index? Plus the divorce papers say the marriage was conducted on Maui. How does that fit with your theory?
Given that she showed up in Seattle, where she knew people, with her half-black baby, within a month of his birth, it's obvious she didn't give a fig about being "in the line of fire."
He got his Communism with mothers milk....
I destroy your argument, and you call me names. Typical birther behavior.
False. Seattle was far away from the provenance question, i.e., “Who’s the Daddy?” Hope this helps.
How so? Friends who she hung out with in Seattle in 1961 say she was very open about the identity of the father.
That's the irony of all this. The INS documents related to Obama Sr. that WorldNutDaily has recently unearthed provide more evidence that Obama Sr. was a bigamist, which would make Obama Jr. a natural born US citizen even if the birthers are right about a Kenyan birth and if the "dualers" are right about their theory of natural born citizenship.
I just read it. You obviously did not, because there's nothing in there about any deportation. In point of fact, the INS extended Obama Sr.'s visa after he had admitted being separated from his American wife, which is pretty strong evidence against the hypothesis that he contracted the marriage for immigration purposes.
There was a note in there by someone from the University of Hawaii alleging th Obama Sr. was a bigamist, but the INS dismissed it because, strangely, bigamy was not a deportable offense under immigration law, unless he were convicted in criminal court. I find that very odd, but it is what it is; immigration law often doesn't make much sense.
He was here on a student visa, so his marital status and the question of whether he was married to an American was irrelevant to his ability to remain in the US. Hence we have even more evidence strongly against the notion that the marriage was a sham.
Rather, the evidence confirms what we knew before, that Obama Sr. was a deadbeat husband, and possibly a bigmasit, who abandoned his American family as soon as he had the chance.
This is all very ironic, because if Obama Sr. really were a bigmaist, and his marriage to Stanely Ann were null and void, then Obama Jr. would be a natural born citizen even if birther theories about his birthplace were true, and even if "dualer" theoires about the requirements for natural born citizenship were true.
I once worked with a man that shared Gondring’s constitutional view and we fought about it on a regular basis.
Gondring, like he, cannot seem to wrap his head around the fact that if we simply say ‘OK lets just hand the whole thing over to the communist types “peacefully” and “because the people chose this” that the constitution and all it stands for is meaningless to begin with.
Some things have to be fought for. Things that you believe in. Things like NP mentioned ... ‘rights’ because communism and other tyrannical forms of governance do not allow for the ‘person’ or the ‘self’, only the greater glory of the dictator de’jour.
We are not talking about Anthony or Rosa Parks or MLK or any of a thousand Americans who defied the status quo to bring about improvement to the system and get the rights the Con/Bill of Rights already enshrined. We are talking about a group of people wanting to eliminate those documents altogether and most importantly, the things they mean to a free people.
Gondring, all I can say is that if/when the shooting starts, I have no doubt your gun will be defending the other team. Mine will not. I believe in America the way the founding fathers designed it, not the way some liberal apologist redefines it.
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.