Yet another "Anonymous Obot" has appeared on these pages to try to disrupt our discussions in response to a recent blog post:
Just curious, why would someone hire a PI, pay $1,000.00 (maybe more) to obtain a document that is a public record and has been there since 1964? Fee for this probably what? $20.00. Also, the news report stated that they were able to find the Dunham/Obama divorce decree but the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree could not be found (scrubbed), yet, it was posted here on line what? about a couple of weeks ago? Can't believe whoever got the first one, could not have gotten the 2nd one at the same time. And, in the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree, the place of birth for the children is not listed? Why would the Indonesian school registration list Honolulu as where Obama was born yet divorce decree list Kenya? Doesn't make any sense. I seriously doubt if Stanley Ann Dunham was trying to "conspire to hide" anything when Obama was a child.
This character purports to be astounded that one thousand dollars was spent on some public record that has been available since 1964 for twenty dollars. Actually, one thousand dollars is nothing. At this point, the legal fees spent by Obama to hide his past are probably up in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the value of the volunteer labor and pro-bono legal work by those questioning Obama amounts to probably even more. There have been at least 4 major full page newspaper advertisements that have cost many tens of thousands of dollars. There have been tens of thousands of dollars of FEDEX charges and thousands upon thousands of certified mail expenses and regular postal expenses. A lot of money has been spent. Because Obama has steadily refused, for many months now, to produce a 10 dollar document.
In addition, one thousand dollars to get a hold of a potentially important document in a far-off place like Hawaii is not exorbitant.
There have been assorted reports that not all of these supposedly easily obtainable public documents are so easy to find. Were they "scrubbed"? Or are these just examples of an incompetent bureaucracy?
This Obot seems to think that there are no mistakes on official documents and that we can trust all documents that purport to be official records. This Obot seems to believe that it is impossible for anyone to perpetrate fraud when filling out official paperwork, including a handwritten document from a Third World country over 3 decades old, in a foreign language. Of course, the Obot would discount the recorded interview with the Kenyan paternal grandmother as being un-realible, since that is from the Third World. And the Obot would discount the statements of the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States since this Ambassador comes from the Third World. And yet this Obot wants us to believe that the school registration from Indonesia is completely reliable (only the Honolulu birth location, not the Muslim religion or the Indonesian citizenship, of course)? A bit of a double standard. And again, an anonymous Obot cherry picking the evidence to find only material that supports the new "Messiah".
Why might Obama's mother or his adopted father have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? Why would an Indonesian official have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? There are lots of potential reasons:
(1) It could have been a mistake or the result of a misunderstanding. After all, Obama had been living in Honolulu, or might have been, before going to Indonesia. This is not particularly clear. The school official or Leo Soetoro might have just assumed it was true. After all this was not a super important document; just a school registration.
(2) Stanley Ann Dunham registered the foreign births of her other two children in Hawaii, possibly to give them access to the rights and privileges of American citizenship or a connection with the US if they wanted it later. Why not Obama as well?
After all, Dunham expressed disdain for the US, as did her parents, but still maintained a connection with the US when it was to her advantage, such as working for US foundations. This is not uncommon among those who style themselves as "radicals and revolutionaries". They work to attack the system, while still taking advantage of what the system has to offer. Anyone familiar with William Ayers?
(3) Perhaps Dunham was "hedging her bets" a bit. After all, did she want to burn her bridges with the US, where she had been raised and her parents lived ? She had no problem with abandoning Obama at a young vulnerable age and leaving him with his grandparents to raise. This was clearly far easier to do if Obama had some connection with the US. Maybe she had thought about this in the back of her mind for a while as a possibility.
(4) Perhaps Dunham did not want to go into a big long drawn-out discussion with a school official about being married to a Kenyan student when she was underage and giving birth in a foreign land and being upset with Islamic practices in that foreign land. Particularly if that school official was Muslim, like most school officials in Indonesia probably were and probably are.
(5) Parents want to give their children every advantage. And they will often go to great extents to give them any potential advantage, including moving to foreign countries or even telling a white lie or two. Some parents will work two or three jobs to give their children advantages they did not have, like access to a college education.
Some parents will turn into essentially chauffers, shuttling their children around to soccer practice, ballet, music lessons, club meetings, etc, completely abandoning any private lives they had for their children.
And US citizenship or a connection with the US is perceived to be an advantage. How else does one explain "birth tourism" even, from advanced places like Korea? Is it so hard to believe that Stanley Ann Dunham, who seemed to have a sort of disdain for US rules but still expected to be able to exploit it, would try to retain any potential advantages a connection with the US might offer for her son? After all, Dunham did it for her other two foreign-born children.
(6) Perhaps Dunham had to present some sort of birth documents to the school in Indonesia. And explain why this purportedly Indonesian citizen (who would not be allowed to attend school unless he was an Indonesian citizen, under Indonesian law at that time; recall that he did not begin school until the age of 7 and a half, which is a bit old for a purportedly brilliant student) did not look particularly Indonesian.
Is it so hard to believe that Dunham might have presented a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that showed that Obama was born in Honolulu, which she might have obtained easily to retain some sort of advantage for her son? She did this for her other two foreign-born children, after all. And is it that hard to believe that this document might show an incorrect birthplace for young Obama, since the attestation of only one relative was required at the time to obtain a Hawaiian COLB? Or that there was some fancy paperwork done at the Hawaiian Health Department associated with Obama's foreign birth to give him a COLB that had a Honolulu birth location? Which shows up on the long form vault copy, but not on the short form COLB?
Hawaiian law allows these birth records to be changed retroactively in a number of circumstances. And the Hawaiian law on birth records was particularly lax, clearly.
So is it too hard to imagine that Dunham might have taken advantage of this? Particularly to give an advantage to her child, when she did it for two later foreign-born children as well? Why is that so hard to believe?
(7) There are advantages to having multiple passports and associations with different jurisdictions. For example, Obama might have exploited his Indonesian connection to travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. Might Dunham have wanted to develop and retain these connections with different countries for any potential advantages they offered, for herself and her children?
Of course, this is all just speculation. But I think someone who cannot imagine why Obama's school registration in Indonesia should list his birth location as "Honolulu" if Obama was not born in Honolulu is not using their imagination. And is also willfully ignoring Obama's refusal to verify his Hawaiian birth with a long form birth certificate containing corroborating evidence.
I will point out that if we can trust all official records, then why are there 15-30 million illegal aliens in the US with forged papers? Can we trust the documents they present as their "official records"? What about the 911 hijackers that used forged documents? Could we trust the documents they presented as their "official records"?
In this sort of situation, we need corroborating evidence. Just like that Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan quoted, "trust, but verify". Obama has given us reason enough to want to verify. So we are asking to be allowed to verify. That is all. Why should that upset you so much, little Obot?
Do you think if you tried this trick on the next policeman that pulls you over and asks for your license and registration that it would work? What if the policeman saw you shoving something under the seat as he approached? Do you think that would raise suspicions? You know, in many jurisdictions, if the police see you acting suspiciously, they are allowed to search your car; to investigate further.
Obama is acting suspiciously so we would like to investigate further. Do you have a problem with that? And if you do, why is that?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
20 Million Letters to the Supreme Court
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=631
CALL TO ACTION - A 20 million letter campaign - DO IT NOW!!!!!!
This is our final chance to right this wrong. If you agree, please forward to all those who care. Thank you.
Posted on December 31st, 2008 by David Crockett
Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.
Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. My letter, as drafted by WND follows. I encourage you to cut, paste, and mail ASAP. For the cost of one stamp, your voice will be heard by Justice Roberts who will sit in conference on January 9th to discuss whether the SCOTUS will hear Philip Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences (January 9th and 16th, 2009)… http://www.obamacrimes.com/).
The address is:
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
RE: PLEASE DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION
Dear Associate Justice Thomas:
If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States .
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
Sincerely,
Antoinette M. Wisbaum
7040 N. Third Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Best Regards,
Netty
CALL TO ACTION - A 20 million letter campaign - DO IT NOW!!!!!!
This is our final chance to right this wrong. If you agree, please forward to all those who care. Thank you.
Posted on December 31st, 2008 by David Crockett
Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.
Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. My letter, as drafted by WND follows. I encourage you to cut, paste, and mail ASAP. For the cost of one stamp, your voice will be heard by Justice Roberts who will sit in conference on January 9th to discuss whether the SCOTUS will hear Philip Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences (January 9th and 16th, 2009)… http://www.obamacrimes.com/).
The address is:
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
RE: PLEASE DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION
Dear Associate Justice Thomas:
If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States .
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
Sincerely,
Antoinette M. Wisbaum
7040 N. Third Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Best Regards,
Netty
Native Born vs. Natural Born, by a Reader, Robert Stevens
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on television. This is just my view of one aspect of this controversy. Robert Stevens
I have noticed in these discussions and debates on the Obama eligibility controversy, that there is a huge amount of confusion about the different terms and their definitions; that is, "natural born US citizen" is not the same as a "US citizen" which is not the same as a "naturalized US citizen" which is not the same as a "US citizen immediately at birth" which is not the same as a "US national" which is not the same as a "native born US citizen" which is not the same as a "US person", etc. People get these terms all confused, and then get into huge arguments because they are confused and have not obtained the correct definitions beforehand.
Many claim that the SCOTUS case U.S. V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) demonstrates that Obama is a "natural born citizen". The argument is that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to non-US parents, SCOTUS declared him to be a "native born citizen". However, SCOTUS did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural born citizen".
The entire point boils down to the question, is a "native born citizen" a "natural born citizen" or not? Many just want to sweep any potential distinction away and under the rug. However, this might not be appropriate.
I have noticed in these discussions and debates on the Obama eligibility controversy, that there is a huge amount of confusion about the different terms and their definitions; that is, "natural born US citizen" is not the same as a "US citizen" which is not the same as a "naturalized US citizen" which is not the same as a "US citizen immediately at birth" which is not the same as a "US national" which is not the same as a "native born US citizen" which is not the same as a "US person", etc. People get these terms all confused, and then get into huge arguments because they are confused and have not obtained the correct definitions beforehand.
Many claim that the SCOTUS case U.S. V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) demonstrates that Obama is a "natural born citizen". The argument is that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to non-US parents, SCOTUS declared him to be a "native born citizen". However, SCOTUS did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural born citizen".
The entire point boils down to the question, is a "native born citizen" a "natural born citizen" or not? Many just want to sweep any potential distinction away and under the rug. However, this might not be appropriate.
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:
(S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and
Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Counsel of Record
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:
(S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and
Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Counsel of Record
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
An Obot Response to the Soetoro School Records
When I posted the Indonesian school records showing that a Barry Soetoro had registered for school in Indonesia as a Muslim, and was listed as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu in a previous blog post, another anonymous Obot responded:
"Robert, One more thing. On the first two docs you provided to support the Soetoro thing, you might want to notice that on both docs, the Place of Birth stated is Honolulu. Seems to me this
contradicts the whole "wasn't born in Hawaii theory", wouldn't it? Also, how old was Obama when this doc was filled out? Did Obama fill it out? Who filled out this doc?
One of my parents is a Baptist and the other is a Catholic. Depending on which parent/guardian filled out one of my docs as a child would determine my Religion. If my Mom filled it out, it would state Baptist. If my Dad filled it out, it would state Catholic. I had no choice in the matter as a minor child."
This Obot seems to want to bring up the religious aspect, doesn’t he? It is true that these forms seem to suggest that Obama was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Again, this is a typical Obot effort to distract from the issue at hand. No one has claimed that it is illegal to have a Muslim president of the US, have they?
Also, this form was filled out by a minor child's parents, probably, or maybe by a school official. And yes the birthplace on this form is listed as "Honolulu". So the Obot wants to DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is an Indonesian Citizen and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is a Muslim, and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama's name was Barry Soetoro, but BELIEVE this form when it says Obama was born in Honolulu.
Notice how the Obot likes to cherry-pick the information? According to the Obot, the only valid information is information that makes the "Messiah" look good.
We have no idea how valid this form is. Maybe Obama did not go by the name Barry Soetoro as a child, although this has been confirmed by people that knew him in Indonesia, so that seems unlikely. Maybe Obama was born in Honolulu, but then if he was and his original long form certificate shows it, why has Obama fought efforts to get him to release that information?
You see, dear Anonymous O-bots, when it comes to trying to decide what information in this entire affair we can trust and what we cannot, one has to consider all the evidence as a whole, and look to see what evidence is corroborated and what is contradicted by other evidence and by common sense.
Playing the game the Obot way, the only allowable evidence is evidence that supports the Messiah. Period. All other evidence must be discarded.
"Robert, One more thing. On the first two docs you provided to support the Soetoro thing, you might want to notice that on both docs, the Place of Birth stated is Honolulu. Seems to me this
contradicts the whole "wasn't born in Hawaii theory", wouldn't it? Also, how old was Obama when this doc was filled out? Did Obama fill it out? Who filled out this doc?
One of my parents is a Baptist and the other is a Catholic. Depending on which parent/guardian filled out one of my docs as a child would determine my Religion. If my Mom filled it out, it would state Baptist. If my Dad filled it out, it would state Catholic. I had no choice in the matter as a minor child."
This Obot seems to want to bring up the religious aspect, doesn’t he? It is true that these forms seem to suggest that Obama was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Again, this is a typical Obot effort to distract from the issue at hand. No one has claimed that it is illegal to have a Muslim president of the US, have they?
Also, this form was filled out by a minor child's parents, probably, or maybe by a school official. And yes the birthplace on this form is listed as "Honolulu". So the Obot wants to DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is an Indonesian Citizen and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is a Muslim, and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama's name was Barry Soetoro, but BELIEVE this form when it says Obama was born in Honolulu.
Notice how the Obot likes to cherry-pick the information? According to the Obot, the only valid information is information that makes the "Messiah" look good.
We have no idea how valid this form is. Maybe Obama did not go by the name Barry Soetoro as a child, although this has been confirmed by people that knew him in Indonesia, so that seems unlikely. Maybe Obama was born in Honolulu, but then if he was and his original long form certificate shows it, why has Obama fought efforts to get him to release that information?
You see, dear Anonymous O-bots, when it comes to trying to decide what information in this entire affair we can trust and what we cannot, one has to consider all the evidence as a whole, and look to see what evidence is corroborated and what is contradicted by other evidence and by common sense.
Playing the game the Obot way, the only allowable evidence is evidence that supports the Messiah. Period. All other evidence must be discarded.
An Obot Racist
Here is a new comment from another anonymous Obot on this blog:
It is entertaining watching you racist idiots piss and moan about nonsense.
Actually, someone who is frantic to have different laws applied to Barack Obama because he has brown skin is the racist. Do you have a problem with applying the laws of the US equally to all people, regardless of race or sex or religious affiliation?
It is entertaining watching you racist idiots piss and moan about nonsense.
Actually, someone who is frantic to have different laws applied to Barack Obama because he has brown skin is the racist. Do you have a problem with applying the laws of the US equally to all people, regardless of race or sex or religious affiliation?
The Courier Times - New Castle, IN | New Castle Man Sues Over Barack Obama's Eligibility
Saturday, December 27, 2008
With less than a month before Barack Obama's inauguration, a New Castle man says he's not so sure the president-elect is eligible for the position.
Steve Ankeny of New Castle and Bill Kruse of Roselawn have filed a lawsuit challenging Obama's status as a natural-born citizen of the United States. It also states that Obama wasn't eligible to be a presidential candidate be-cause he was a sitting U.S. senator. The suit was filed in Marion Superior Court and names Gov. Mitch Daniels as well as the Democratic and Republican national committees as defendants.
Ankeny, a self-employed legal researcher, said he isn't taking a political stance with the lawsuit. All he's asking is that proper evidence be provided to certify that Obama, or any candidate, is eligible according to the Constitution, he said.
'It's not that we want to overturn the election of Barack Obama,' he said. 'It's that we want the laws, starting with the Constitution, to be upheld.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)