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 ...
So then why are you so obsessed with whether he is a bastard if you realize it isn't a winning campaign issue?
It says 14th Amendment citizenship BY NATURALIZATION can be taken away. It does not say 14th Amendment citizenship BY BIRTH can taken away.
In case you did not know, the 14th amendment specifies two ways of obtaining citizenship: by birth and by naturalization.
Amazing how you just willfully ignore evidnece that demolishes your argument.
Me: That is simply not true.
You: And you know this how?
By visiting the Hawaii vital records website and examining the circumstances in which a Birth Certificate can be amended. Divorce is not one of them. Check it out for yourself:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
Would the voters care? Absolutely. If the public discovered he was an illegitimate bastard, the campaign adds would write themselves
LOL. Good luck with that.
Gladly. Here you go:
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly "late" or "altered".
From here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm
What makes you think the document can't be found? There is an entry in the Hawaii marriage index, which is publicly available, for an Obama-Dunham marriage in February of 1961. That proves the document exists in the archives. The only reason the document hasn't been released is because of Hawaii's privacy laws, which only allow access to vital records to family members and others with a tangible interest in said documents.
That said, though the evidence very strongly indicates they were married, I can't say I care much one way or the other. I'm curious, why do you care so much?
If the state will release the divorce document, why do they say they can't find a Marriage document?
Please show me where the state says they can't find a marriage document.
There's a huge difference between August 25th and August 18th. If SAD started classes at UW on August 18th, then she would have had to arrive in Seattle a week earlier at the latest. It takes time to find an appartment, register for classes, buy books, and the like. Hence if the August 18th date were right, she would have had to arrive Seattle no later than August 11, which is only a week after the birth. While totally not out of the question, it's not all that likely that a woman would take such a long flight just 7 days after even a smooth birth.
On the other hand, an August 25th arrival date is much more plausible, indicating she travelled 3 weeks after the birth. That's not so unusual for a young mother who had an birth without any complications. The difference between 1 and 3 weeks of recovery time is huge.
LOL. So in a birther's mind, asking someone to provide evidence of their claims someone constitutes "baiting" and a "game."
Let me clue you into something. You birthers have a tendancy of not checking facts. You read some factual claim on a blog that happens to support the birther case, and you just uncritically accept it without seeing any supporting evidence.
Then you repeat these claims as if they were established facts, even though most of the time they turn out to be false.
Here are but a few examples: the supposed travel ban in Pakistan, the claim that grandma Dunham could have placed the birth announcements, the claim that foreign-born children could legally get Hawaiian birth certificates in 1961, the claim that Obama has spent millions of dollars defending birther suits, and the claim that Hawaii state agencies don't accept the short-form COLB as proof of birth in Hawaii. And that's just a taste. I could go on and on all day.
That's why I am so insistant in asking for evidence: nine times out of ten, whenever I investigated a birther claim, it turned out to be false. The other one time, the claim wasn't totally false, but it was distorted or irrelevant to Obama's eligibility.
The truth doesn't need support. It is fakery and deceit which need support. I think they use the term "Alibi" in your business.
Were you not so ignorant of history, you would know that ONLY the Father's nationality counted. Women automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands, thus the nationality of the child was COMPLETELY dependent upon the Father's Nationality. But Just for Kicks and Grins, I'll let David Ramsey explain it to you once again.
“[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….”
“citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….”
“as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776…
David Ramsey was a DELEGATE to the Convention, AND a Contemporary historian. Here is a link to his complete Treaty regarding the Requirements of being a Citizen. I would say read it, you might learn something, but you are the Defense lawyer, and you will only read it to see if you can find a weakness. Here is the link anyway.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789
Oh, notice the date it was written? Gee, I wonder what happened in 1789? Do you suppose he forgot what he had just signed when he wrote his Treatise?
Oh, and then there is this. The Naturalization Act of 1790 created by the FIRST congress who were mostly the same delegates that WROTE the constitution. If ANYONE knew what they intended when writing Article II, it would be the delegates that wrote and approved it.
March 26, 1790. Quote: " And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: "
Geeze, it sounds like their intent was to hinge the child's citizenship entirely on the Father. Now what was that you were saying again? Not only do they say it in their writings, but it is in the writings of virtually ALL of the Founders with one unanimous voice! I don't think your theory can possibly be more rebuked than that!
I will be amazed if you can figure out a way to be more wrong on anything than you are on this.
Why would you think I was obsessed with it. I just enjoy pointing it out. It irks his supporters. Don't you feel irked when I do it?
Oh, by the way, Roosevelt was also a bastard, in the figurative sense. Did you know he interred Japanese descended Americans against the advice of J.Edgar Hoover, that Law enforcement officer that Liberals love to hate? Roosevelt was motivated by Racism in this instance.
Yeah, the Democrat party has been motivated by Racism since it was founded by Andrew Jackson. His crowning glory as President was to Defy the Supreme court by stealing the Indian lands from the Five Civilized tribes. He used the army to force these innocent and peaceful people off their land and move them to desolate Oklahoma so that White people could move into their lands and start Slave Plantations. Here, read about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
Yeah, Andrew Jackson FOUNDED the modern DNC. It's even on their website, but they try to hide the fact. They want to claim Jefferson, but Jefferson was a member of the "Democratic-Republicans", which is not at all the same thing as the Democrats. No, that Party was founded by Racist Andrew Jackson, who left a legacy of slavery and second class citizenship that we are still living with today.
The Democrat party is an evil racist party. Jim Crow, Lynchings, Slavery, Abortion, (Murder of Children.) Homosexuality, Oppression. You did know Margaret Sanger and Roger Baldwin were lovers didn't ya? She was a supporter of the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. She promoted abortion to kill off "Human weeds" which was a euphemism she used for black people.
I think I should regale you with all the evil things the democrats have done since they came into existence. Believe you me, I can show you how that every Major mistake ever made by the United States was the result of letting a Democrat get into the office of Presidency. The legacy of the Democrat party is the shedding of innocent blood. It is the party of blood. In both the Racist sense, and the killing sense.
In case you did not know, the 14th amendment specifies two ways of obtaining citizenship: by birth and by naturalization.
Amazing how you just willfully ignore evidnece that demolishes your argument.
You haven't destroyed my argument. I plaid a bait and switch and you fell for it. I am quite pleased with myself. :)
Nothing I said was incorrect, you just read more into it than I said. This was exactly what I expected you to do. I find it amusing that you attempt to school me on History. Back when I was in College, I was constantly calling my American History teacher out (In front of the class) for making mistakes. We ended up being friends, but I sure gave him grief. I just wasn't going to put up with any attempts at revisionist history. Anyway, the 14th amendment did not repeal Article II. The Supreme Court Emphasized in Roger v. Bellei that the 14th Amendments purpose was to guarantee citizenship for former slaves, not to make it easier for the children of Foreigners to subvert our government.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
I'll save myself the trouble. A Judge can Amend a birth certificate for whatever reason he sees fit. A pleading from the Mother in an uncontested divorce is as good a reason as any. Especially when the girl's mother works for the First Circuit court in Hawaii. :)
Pull the other one.
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly "late" or "altered".
From here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm
Yeah, I followed the link and read it. They are referring to alterations by an APPLICANT. These rules do not apply to Judges. Even so, They had up to a year to Amend Barry's certificate from the time he was born. She DID go back to Hawaii before August of 62, if I recall. I'm Fairly certain Hawaii uses the same rules for Adoptions (or revocation of Adoption) that the other states use. They never put anything on the document which would alert the child to the fact of an Adoption, or court ordered alteration.
Just for kicks and grins, I looked up a bit of Hawaiian Adoption law. Seems that the issue a NEW RECORD upon a decree by a judge, which is an Abstract of parts of the original plus the changes ordered by the Judge. From what i'm reading, it looks like they maintain the secrecy of the records and changes made to them. You can start here.
http://adoption.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=adoption&cdn=parenting&tm=7&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
Here's the part about changing the name:
http://adoption.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=adoption&cdn=parenting&tm=7&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
And here's the part about the new record:
"The department shall cause to be made a new record of the birth in the name of the individual, as fixed or changed by the decree, with the names of the adoptive parents and, upon request of both adoptive parents, or the sole adoptive parent if there is only one, that the name or names of either or both of the natural parents appear on the certificate, with the name of a natural parent who consents to be named on the certificate. "
And here's the part about the Secrecy.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0015.htm
§578-15 Secrecy of proceedings and records. (a) The records in adoption proceedings, after the petition is filed and prior to the entry of the decree, shall be open to inspection only by the parties or their attorneys, the director of human services or the director's agent, or by any proper person on a showing of good cause therefor, upon order of the court.
Yeah, I think the above information pretty much knocks your theory in the head. As Franklin said, "It is a terrible thing to see a beautiful theory beaten to death by a gang of ruthless facts. " :)
Ah, so THAT explains why they've released the Divorce Records. Whoever asked for them had a TANGIBLE interest! Actually, no. It was just some bloggers that went up and asked for them. They released all but one document in the 1964 divorce decree. They acknowledged that there is a document they won't release. I wonder what THAT could be? Both parties are dead. Seems like it wouldn't matter unless it perhaps effected someone who is living. :)
I would argue that if they will release dead people's divorce records, they would have no qualms about releasing their marriage records if they had them.
Tthat said, though the evidence very strongly indicates they were married, I can't say I care much one way or the other. I'm curious, why do you care so much?
You mistake interest for caring. In trying to figure out what the actual truth is regarding Obama, any piece of information is valuable. They gave us Most of the Divorce Records, but won't give us Marriage records. Hmmm....
Please show me where the state says they can't find a marriage document.
No, the shoe is on YOUR foot. Explain why they released divorce documents but either cannot or will not release a marriage document.
On the other hand, an August 25th arrival date is much more plausible, indicating she travelled 3 weeks after the birth. That's not so unusual for a young mother who had an birth without any complications. The difference between 1 and 3 weeks of recovery time is huge.
The important part is that you concede Stanley Ann was in Seattle in August. Again, leaving Hawaii right after you had a baby (and need the most help) is completely stupid. Being Sent away before you had the Baby is not. IF she was to go anywhere, why not Harvard, where shortly thereafter her HUSBAND went?
Either the girl was a flaky nutcase, or we aren't getting the real story. (or both.)
We have PROOF (that is independent of a Hawaiin bureaucracy) that she was in Seattle in August/September. The only proof we have that she was in Hawaii on August 4th is that possibly court ordered document which they will not certify as original.
I don't regard you as a legitimate debater. I regard you as either a voluntary or paid agent of the Obama defense team. No sane person would devote this much time trying to run interference unless they were a rabid partisan or a paid hack. I therefore feel no real obligation to dance when you call a tune. I will provide whatever information I feel like when I think it's needed or when I feel like amusing myself.
Let me clue you into something. You birthers have a tendancy of not checking facts.
Prejudice much?
You read some factual claim on a blog that happens to support the birther case, and you just uncritically accept it without seeing any supporting evidence.
That may be your methodology, but sophistry isn't my game. I make every effort to find out the truth and repeat what I have learned to be true. If on the occasion new information comes out (such as the August 19th Mistake) I acknowledge it and incorporate it into my understanding of the topic.
Here are but a few examples: the supposed travel ban in Pakistan,
There is some possible basis in that. Pakistan was a very troubled country in 1981. I have read too much crap regarding it though to easily separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not an issue I've ever argued about.
the claim that grandma Dunham could have placed the birth announcements,
Grandma Dunham COULD have done so, but it is far more likely that they were taken from the list issued by the Department of Health. Strangely though, the Nordyke twins Newspaper notice was listed several days later than the Obama notice, while his birth certificate number is several numbers later than theirs. Peculiar peculiar.
the claim that foreign-born children could legally get Hawaiian birth certificates in 1961,
That one is absolutely true. I just saw it reading through Hawaiian Adoption laws. I already gave you the link for those.
the claim that Obama has spent millions of dollars defending birther suits,
We know he's spent close to two million dollars (last I checked) at Perkins/Cole law firm, and they are handling this issue for him among others, but without access to their billing records we can't say for sure how much is for this and how much is for that. Still, it's an argument that has a basis in fact.
and the claim that Hawaii state agencies don't accept the short-form COLB as proof of birth in Hawaii.
They didn't. That change was only made relatively recently, and a lot of people suspect it was only changed to help Obama claim his is legit.
And that's just a taste. I could go on and on all day.
I know, I've been responding to the sh*t storm you keep producing. Seems like the current score is like 40-1 in my favor. You got that bit on the University form.
That's why I am so insistant in asking for evidence: nine times out of ten, whenever I investigated a birther claim, it turned out to be false. The other one time, the claim wasn't totally false, but it was distorted or irrelevant to Obama's eligibility.
And the Tenth time you proclaim it false anyway! Like I said, you are not a debating opponent, you are a defense attorney. You are trying to get your client off. When the truth supports you, you use it. When it doesn't, you ignore it. It is my job to acquaint the jury with all the bits and pieces that show your client guilty, but you of course will not acknowledge them.
I actually have a much bigger arsenal of facts than you have even tested yet. I look forward to the opportunity to beat you over the head with them. :)
Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
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.