Posted on 11/09/2010 6:15:44 PM PST by rxsid
"'62 letter from father ignores Obama, mom
'My wife is in Nairobi and I would really appreciate any help you may give her'
A letter Barack Obama Sr. wrote in 1962 raises new questions about the veracity of the official Obama nativity story related by Barack Obama Jr. in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father."
A letter Barack Obama Sr. wrote in May 1962 from Hawaii to his political benefactor in Kenya, Tom Mboya, discusses his wife, but without mentioning Ann Dunham, his Hawaiian bride and the mother of the president.
Toward the end of the 1962 letter, Obama wrote, "You know my wife is in Nairobi there and I would really appreciate any help you may give her."
Clearly Obama Sr. is referring to his first wife, Kezia Aoko, whom he had married in 1954 at age 18 while she was pregnant with their first child. Obama left Kenya in 1959 to study in Hawaii.
He instructs Mboya that his wife Kezia was then staying with her brother, Wilson Odiawo, in Nairobi.
...
The heading of the letter to Mboya lists 1482 Alencastre Street in Honolulu as the address for Barack Obama Sr. at the time the letter was written, May 29, 1962.
This is a previously unknown address for Barack Obama Sr. At this time, however, Dunham was living with her son in the Capitol Hill area of Seattle at 516 13th Ave. East, Apt. 2.
"
From: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=226349
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Why would a hard copy of a newspaper be more conclusive?? Newsprint can be faked too. You’ve give no rational reason for discounting microfiche.
Obama more than likely has serious abandonment issues similar to what orphans experience. I notice he makes a big deal of telling fathers to be responsible, especially around father’s day. His mother didn’t do him much better than her father because she dumped him with his grandparents.
You’re presenting a logical fallacy. These cases have been conveniently ignored on the basis of standing, not disapproval of Vattel. You’re using this argument because your previous claim about Vattel was thoroughly debunked.
From the internet site “lectric law library:”
STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).”
A ruling on the merits (that the suit lacks merit to proceed) is not “ignoring” the lawsuit, it is issuing a definitive decision on it.
The Supreme Court of the United States has now had different nine opportunities to review plaintiff’s petitions for Writs of Certiorari or Applications for Stays in appeals challenging Barack Hussein Obama II’s eligibility to be President of the United States as a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section I.
Those nine opportunities were: “Berg v Obama”, “Beverly v FEC”, “Craig v US”, “Donofrio v Wells”, “Herbert v US”, “Obama, Roberts, Lightfoot v Bowen”, “Rhodes v MacDonald”, “Schneller v Cortes”, and “Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.”
Standing is not an issue at the Supreme Court Of The United States. The high court takes on any appeal that the Justices (four of them need to agree) deem important enough to warrant a full hearing before the Court.
Vatell’s Law of Nations also could be introduced as evidence in a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for having committed election fraud.
There are also no issues of standing to be considered in a criminal proceeding.
Zero has no BC in HI...per former election official of HI...
This is pure nonsense.
"Court takes the back road: Denies Newdow case on standing."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheist plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked proper "standing" to legal challenge the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Standing is not an issue at the Supreme Court Of The United States.
This is pure nonsense.
“Court takes the back road: Denies Newdow case on standing.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheist plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked proper “standing” to legal challenge the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
link to story
I see that reading for comprehension is not one of your strong suits.
The Supreme Court can and does take on any appeal that four of the nine justices (”the rule of four”) feel addresses the most serious constitutional issues.
This custom was first adopted in 1891, and made public in 1924. The Rule of Four does not appear anywhere in the official rules of protocol for the Supreme Court, but it is taken to be official because it has been practiced for so long. For members of the public, the Rule of Four is an assurance that their cases have a chance to be heard before the Supreme Court, regardless as to who is dominating it at any particular time.
The process of getting a case heard before the Supreme Court is quite complex. The justices review over 7,000 applications each year, and only agree to hear a handful of these cases. As a general rule, the applications take the form of a request for a writ of certiorari, a court order which requests lower courts to send documents and materials relating to the case to the Supreme Court.
Before granting a writ of certiorari, the justices must vote to decide whether or not the case has merit. In many instances, five of the Supreme Court justices dominate the court on particular issues, so the Rule of Four ensures that the four judges who often vote in the minority still get a say in what happens at the Supreme Court, preventing an imbalance of power which could be created by the majority of justices.”
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-rule-of-four.htm
Zero has no BC in HI...per former election official of HI...
Oh really? ; )
I don't recall if this source ever got debunked, but this might be of interest:
"OK, so now that we have all of that out of the way I will put up the PDFs containing images of the copies for Aug. 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, and the Aug. 14, 1961 Star Bulletin that I have from the Library of Congress, both of the Hawaii Libraries. You can do the math yourself. These are kind of huge, so just adjust the size. Some are copied in sections so that the top of the page including date, page number, ect. are included.
...
[Note: all of the links below are PDF's.]Library of Congress, DC, Honolulu Advertiser0001
Library Of Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001
Library Of Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0003
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Advertiser0001
State Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001
State Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002
Honolulu State Library, Honolulu Advertiser -1 of 20001
Honolulu State Library, Honolulu Advertiser-2 of 20001OBSERVATION: The PDFs for the Library of Congress-Honolulu Advertiser shows no “periods” after the A M Hatchie announcement (two below obama’s). At 400% blown-up there are no “periods”. In the copy from the HI University Library they are crystal clear at the size the PDF opens in. In the HI State Library Honolulu Advertiser, the periods appears to be there as well, though harder to make out. Since that is the most “degraded” of the microfilms, if those are visible there, they should be on the Library of Congress copy also. AND: in the first ever posting of the obama announcement-the last name is spelled Hatchle, NOW in every copy I’ve seen it appears as Hatchie. So, again-clear differences between the copies at different locations. All aspects of the text should be the same in all papers/microfilms.
Here’s where I throw a monkey wrench into the wheels turning in your mind. I will post PDFs of these next images. See how quickly you pick up what you are looking at. This is page 23 from the Star Bulletin on Aug. 14, 1961. Tip: obama’s birth announcement appears on page 24, Aug. 14, 1961 in the Star Bulletin.
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin 230001
Library Of Congress, DC Honolulu Star Bulletin-23-10001
Library OF Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin, 23-20001
YEP, you got it in one. The film shows that page 23 was imaged twice. What is most notable about this is that the same exact page was not imaged twice, but page 23 was laid out twice as you can clearly tell from the images in the copies. It is this way on the Library of Congress copy and the University Library in HI, I do not know if the film in the other HI library has the same occurrence because my friend did flub that copy….not sure he was looking at the instruction page that day. Sigh. Now, remember that this is the page that appears immediately before the page obama’s birth announcement is published on.
Remember back when I highlighted this statement in the article from WND: A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.” ???
OK Kittens, now I will explain why I highlighted that snippet.
It has been advanced that both papers printed identical lists as the general rule. As I mentioned before, this was pointed out to add more “weight” to the (ahem) proof these newspaper birth announcements lend to obama’s birth story. As it turns out it was done more or less sporadically. You see, when I decide to research something I don’t do a half- assed job of it. So I pulled a sample size of ten days from each paper. I began the splendidly tedious process of comparing the incidence of the same birth announcements being listed in both papers. Mainly with an eye towards how often they matched in exact order.The only time this occurred in that particular way within the ten days that I researched, was on the dates that had obama’s birth announcements.
And I even took the extra steps of comparing editions to a three day range (edition before, same date, edition after) of the sister publication. So, I tried to cover all the bases in a fair comparison.
OK. The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in order, was in the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared. This was indeed the only time that these announcements were printed this way, as the closest the papers came to doing this again never had all the same names listed in the exact same order. I figured the ten day sample would give conclusive data as to if this was uncommon.
7/7/10 I added a new post with the images of the copies that were used in this comparison process, there is also a “Page” in the column on the right with these same PDFs which will open to a much larger, easier to read size:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/the-wheat-and-the-chaff/
And I must mention, I didn’t forget the Nordyke twins birth announcement. Remember that it was given to this blog by a Citizen Investigator, and this is the first blog that published that image for public view. http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/01/07 While I was looking at my newest Library of Congress copy of the Aug. 16 1961 (the date the Nordyke twins announcement appears) I happened to notice that off to the side a few columns over was what looks to be a fingerprint. It’s in scale with the newspaper, not the viewer. It’s NOT in the copies from each location. The theory is that these came from a master reel-all of the microfilms. When a “fingerprint” is in one, it should be in all. Yes?
Aug. 16 19610001
Ponder this over: No one can access the Certification Of Live Birth (COLB) presented as proof of obama’s birth in HI. But they cannot restrict the public’s access to these microfilms.
It is truly remarkable how these are morphing since first being discovered, allegedly, at the State Library in Honolulu HI, is it not?"
There is a LOT more (with images) at the site:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/
Well...the links regarding the newspapers, by name, are to PDF's.
No one had the ability to look at his BC...it was under lock and key.
Duh. That's why I posted the link. You said standing is not an issue and this was a decision based purely on the issue of standing. What you don't want to acknowledge is if they would reject a decision on the basis of standing, then they would be just as likely to UPHOLD a decision on the basis of standing and not the other merits of the case. IOW, your comment was wrong and I proved it was wrong. Have the cajones to admit you were wrong.
I mentioned earlier about the possibility that the microfiche (or microfilm) had been doctored, but Beckwith said, "I never suggested that the microfilm/microfiche was doctored." Evidently he and mojitojoe just don't like that format as a source of evidence.
(there is 0 family resemblance between Obama jr. and Obama Sr.)
But take a look at Malcom X and pictures of Obama- they could be twins
No one had the ability to look at his BC...it was under lock and key.
I agree with everything you said but too many Americans don’t care or are ignorant as too what is going on in their own country.
and? Your point is? Do you seriously think those would pass the smell test? I’ll bet some actual papers, from that date and in the hands of credible attorneys, from credible sources in HI would pass the test.
WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)
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.