Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
This is just paving the way for a similar resolution for BHO. And As far as I can tell it was purely unnecessary as JSMjr was military.
LETTING????
LETTING an adult go with her husband on a honeymoon?
LETTING???
Short of kidnapping, her, how could they stop her????
Or are you suggesting that his father somehow impregnated his mother years before he ever left Kenya, while the two of them were on different continents?Legally, it can be done...
ROFL
I'm certainly the last guy to hammer anybody about citations but how do you know that? I have heard that in a number of other places and have assumed until yesterday that was so until I heard of the existence of a medical facility on the Pacific side.
It means one day, as in one day in August.
Susan Blake gave an interview which says he's a few weeks old and Stanley didn't know how to change his diapers.
But that interview which is on youtube is spliced. They don't show the whole interview. She doesn't refer to where Stanley was coming from, or where Stanley was going to in the video.
They are 2 seperate Susan Blake interviews, discussing the same Aug, 1961 encounter with Stanley and BHO. One interview is from seattle.bizjournals.com. And the other interview is from chicagotribune.com which includes quotes and a video. It's the seattle.bizjournals.com interview which talks about Stanley travels a couple of weeks after BHO's birth on Aug 4, 1961.
As to the rest, I'm not adding to your own going out further on that limb of diminishing possibility.
An officer's tour of duty might require them as well as their spouse to be out of the country when their child is born, so they make that kind of allowance (regardless of the location of the birth).
What was the marriage age in 1961 in Hawaii?
thanks:)
She wasn't going to Boston a day after Obama was born.
I think she just means "soon after"/"one day" after he was born, not the very next day.
I agree. I gave her until the fifth. And it was probably later than that. In one of the articles Susan says Ann was learning to change diapers. If it was a trip after the 8th, she wouldn't have been learning to change diapers.
I have assumed that if Ann did a filing in Honolulu on the 8th of an ex post facto birth statistics document, she did it pretty soon after she got there. So, she gets in on the seventh and files on the eighth. She could have seen her friend Susan as late as the sixth and still fit this time line flying back from Kenya through Vancouver.
Where did you get this info? That's first I have seen it (though admittedly I've not followed this all that closely.)
That's what the fake Birth Certificates say. I have assumed there is some smoke behind the information on the fake certificates--on August 8, 1961, someone filed something with birth data on it.
That might support the argument that what is filed is birth data but it is embarrassing. I don't think much of that view but it is a possible.
I think the reason they don't want you to see it is because it has information on it that is inconsistent with the legend of birth in Hawaii.
Still a feature if he was born pre-statehood but in Kenya or Canada, or anyplace outside of the US. Again, to me, a pre-statehood birth is a very low probably of a possibility.
just catching up down-under...you mean this? from #1712 "In 1972, When Anna divorced from Lolo, she took Barack to live with her parents, Barack's grandparents, in Honolulu. Anna and Obama's half-sister Maya returned to Indonesia."
I think the year 1972 refers to when obama's mother and her Indonesian husband SEPERATED. I believe the divorce was in 1980 as previously stated - source quoted was wiki.
An officer's tour of duty might require them as well as their spouse to be out of the country when their child is born, so they make that kind of allowance (regardless of the location of the birth).
How about when my wife was pregnant and I was (private lawyer, private practice, representing a military FMS contractor) out of the country negotiating supply contract with ROK Navy? I didn't take her with me but I might have; and the kid might have been born while we were there?
Isn't what you are really saying that it is unfair to deprive the son of a military officer of a Constitutional privilege because his wife accompanied him on an out of Country assignment? The Supreme Court's historical answer to that kind of question is to say, "well if you think that is unfair and it is a problem, you always have the Amendment process to fix it for the next guy".
The UCMJ can fix the problem as far as making the son a citizen. But what it can't do is amend the Constitution to fix the Constitutional issue. Substantively, McCain is stuck. Fair? No. But stuck anyway. Get Congress going on a Constitutional Amendment--you have six months to get 38 states to ratify--piece of cake.
According to http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1961.htm:
The switch by the worlds airlines to jets would mean a major overhaul of Vancouver International Airport. A figure of $100 million was cited. The city voted to sell the city's share of the airport to the federal government for $2.5 million.The Canadian government expansion of the airport for the jet age began in 1962. It is 232 km from Vancouver to Mercer Island according to Google Maps.
Yes.. I was just stating fact... I don't think that fact matters.
She wasn't really an adult in 1960/61
Have you come upon anything in the research that suggests that Barry’s grandparents applied for guardianship or even adoption of their grandson? I know that if I had a child who abandoned one of her own children to my care, I would want some legal arrangement. Especially where the mother was so far away, and didn’t she do field work or something like that?
No. But you and I are the only two people I know of who have considered how that would work and come to that answer.
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.