Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Got Served
American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 681-693 next last
To: David
From what I have seen, not all of which is yet in the public record, I have concluded that Barack H. Obama was not his father; and it appears very unlikely that Stanley Dunham was his mother.

If this is so, then why does Zero looks so much like Stanley Armour? Pics of Zero's wide grin (and that long chin) favors that wide-grin photo of Stanley Armour on the beach too much to ignore (IMO). Seems like he'd have to be the child of either Stanley Ann or Stanley Armour.

not all of which is yet in the public record

Considering the Malihi ruling, isn't it about time to make it public record?

Do you have any idea as to a timeline when this information will be made public?
621 posted on 02/03/2012 4:57:19 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Too many comments to go through now, but I don’t recall insinuating anything, I was simply looking for the source of a comment, and asked the freeper several times to provide it. I also explained why. Unsourced comments have several times in the past spread like wildfire, and once out there, can’t be pulled back.

In the light of today’s news, just how well is that unsourced comment standing up now?


622 posted on 02/03/2012 5:07:46 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Put up or shut up.

I'm not the one making claims about the law. You are. In my opinion, there are just two types of citizen--natural born and naturalized (i.e. made natural). Therefore, if you want an example of a Natural Born Citizen losing his citizenship, that would be Bellei, under the terms of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

623 posted on 02/03/2012 5:11:42 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; bushpilot1

It looks to me like he was deliberately fed misinformation:

Friday, 3 February 2012 8:12:38 AM · 383 of 622
Obama Exposer to edge919
I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of Obama’s long form birth certificate abstract. This should get real interesting.


And no, I am not going to ping him, I did that several times already and there was no reply. If, as I suspect, someone misinformed him, he certainly knows about it by now.


624 posted on 02/03/2012 5:15:06 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
And where would that stipulation be found in the law? Where do you read that a Natural Born Citizen cannot lose his citizenship because of residency requirements?

You find that in the same place where Congress is given the power to criminalize the possession of rocks, in the same place where Congress is given the power to define who shall or shall not be a natural citizen (as opposed to a naturalized one,) in the same place where those in the US when the US came into existence were made US citizens by statute or other man-made law—such as a Constitutional provision.

In other words, you don't.

Congress has no power to criminalize the possession of rocks. Because no such power is granted to them in the Constitution.

Congress has no power to define who are citizens naturally, without any need of a naturalization statute, because no such power was granted to Congress in the Constitution. Congress was granted the power to make naturalization rules, but the power to define who are natural citizens was very pointedly not granted.

In fact, that's how the Supreme Court in Minor vs. Happersett was able to rule that Mrs.Minor was citizen without considering any statute, and without considering the 14th Amendment. The fact they could do that that way, by natural law alone, was a key point in the chain of reasoning that justified their principal holding that Mrs. Minor had no right to vote, because women had always been citizens, proving that the privilege of voting was separate and distinct from being a citizen.

Nor will you find anywhere in the Constitution, nor anywhere in any Congressional statute ever passed, that makes or made anyone a US citizen who was here when the United States came into existence. But the country nevertheless had millions of citizens at the instant it came into existence, in spite of there being no man-made law that made them so.

And except for those who became citizens by naturalization, there was no law that made most people born in the US citizens until the 14th Amendment was passed. But they were citizens nonetheless—as the Supreme Court ruled in Minor vs. Happersett.

625 posted on 02/03/2012 5:16:17 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
In fact, that's how the Supreme Court in Minor vs. Happersett was able to rule that Mrs.Minor was citizen without considering any statute, and without considering the 14th Amendment. The fact they could do that that way, by natural law alone, was a key point in the chain of reasoning that justified their principal holding that Mrs. Minor had no right to vote, because women had always been citizens, proving that the privilege of voting was separate and distinct from being a citizen.

Thank you. Very powerful idea here.

The "bootstrap" does not exist.

626 posted on 02/03/2012 5:19:51 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; bushpilot1
Mostly Gator Navy and sub chaser with 3 West-Pac deployments. Shellback and Order of the Golden Dragon, not that it means much to many. Not very glamorous, but it gave me a real insight into troop deployment.
I do like that pic.

The tank picture was in response to Patton's statement that he had read Rommel's book on desert warfare.

627 posted on 02/03/2012 5:28:55 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
This is NOT the hill that conservatives should choose die upon!

The Constitution?

Many here, including myself, have sworn a formal oath to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I think I'll keep defending that hill. Let those enemies die on it.

628 posted on 02/03/2012 5:31:59 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; DiogenesLamp

Question “Its been noticed you commented the Judge rejected the pdf.

Can you update us please regarding the pdf rejection?”

Answer: I don’t know where that came from, unless they simply took it from my remarks and applied some literary license.

Nevertheless, it is complete understandable why someone would say that.

Judge Malihi at that point, after candidate Obama and his attorney failed to show up at his hearing, probably wouldn’t have accepted candidate Obama’s original birth certificate if it was handed to him by the out stretched hand of Obama, himself, prostrated before Malihi, kissing his feet in abject supplication.”

Ok Let it rest.


629 posted on 02/03/2012 5:34:55 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; bushpilot1
Well, technically it was a line in a movie, though Patton did have time to observe German tank tactics prior to WWII.
Hollywood added the line for effect.

Rommel's book was @Infantry Attack

630 posted on 02/03/2012 5:40:33 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
In the light of today’s news, just how well is that unsourced comment standing up now?

It turns out to be crap. You were right.

631 posted on 02/03/2012 5:42:54 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Looks like we confused a few with our quotes from movies game. ... Now by dammit, that’s enough!


632 posted on 02/03/2012 5:45:04 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

The Constitution?

Many here, including myself, have sworn a formal oath to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I think I’ll keep defending that hill. Let those enemies die on it.

__________________________

BRAVO!


633 posted on 02/03/2012 5:47:56 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
I'm not the one making claims about the law. You are. In my opinion, there are just two types of citizen--natural born and naturalized (i.e. made natural). Therefore, if you want an example of a Natural Born Citizen losing his citizenship, that would be Bellei, under the terms of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

Apparently you didn't understand my point. The Reason Bellei (a born citizen) lost his citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements was because he was not a "natural born citizen". That there are no laws depriving "natural born citizens" from their citizenship for failure to meet the requirements of their citizenship is because the only requirement for THAT type of citizenship is to be born as a "natural" citizen.

There are no further requirements than that.

A "born citizen" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." Rogers v Bellei demonstrates this.

634 posted on 02/03/2012 5:48:38 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
It looks to me like he was deliberately fed misinformation:

It would seem so, but to what purpose? Perhaps it was just someone seeing evidence of something they wanted to see, and reporting it as though it were a fact.

635 posted on 02/03/2012 5:54:36 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
A "born citizen" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." Rogers v Bellei demonstrates this.

I'm stealing that.

636 posted on 02/03/2012 5:57:27 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Shellback and Order of the Golden Dragon, not that it means much to many.

Shellback I know. Equator, Neptune etc. but Golden Dragon, I've not heard of.. until I looked it up just now. Amazingly I guessed correctly. :) Another line crossing.

Interestingly, our Maritime forces and those of the Brits are not the only nations' militaries to conduct such ceremonies. The Poles do it too.

I think at least a couple of those are real women.. of course with sailors, one never be certain. :)

637 posted on 02/03/2012 6:01:41 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Now by dammit, that’s enough!
Agree I do. Serious it is time to be.
638 posted on 02/03/2012 6:07:57 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Looks like we confused a few with our quotes from movies game. ... Now by dammit, that’s enough!

I wasn't confused, I was just joining in the fun. :)

Which movie is that from?

Our niece and a great niece, who are only about year apart in age, are always posting lyrics to songs, that sound like something going on their lives. Now that's maddening, but I've learned to check. I still love 'em both though.

639 posted on 02/03/2012 6:09:20 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I think at least a couple of those are real women.. of course with sailors, one never be certain. :)
Hey now! {;^)
Luckily I was a bit too masculine to fill the role.

With DADT done away with it doesn't matter any more. There will be uniform challenges and the whole nine yards before too long.
There really will be "cabin boys".

640 posted on 02/03/2012 6:16:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 681-693 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson