tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post6685924610742877377..comments2024-03-28T23:54:49.006-07:00Comments on THE DAILY PEN: PBS DOCUMENTARY PRODUCERS FIND NO EVIDENCE OBAMA ATTENDED COLUMBIAPenbrook Onehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-62121671491842581362018-02-15T04:40:36.964-08:002018-02-15T04:40:36.964-08:00I'm a little late reading this blog, especiall...I'm a little late reading this blog, especially some of the posts, but got to say... everything here is so great and so true. As someone who's originally from the area, I get a chuckle out of many things here. <a href="https://www.confidentialdetectiveagency.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>Detective Agency in Delhi</strong></a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580708761272734297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-21082205545939391702015-01-19T18:19:26.455-08:002015-01-19T18:19:26.455-08:00This was an excellent debate, but no amount of arg...This was an excellent debate, but no amount of arguement will change the fact that Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and no amount of wishing by those who love this POS will change that, ergo under the regulations and qualifications of the Constitution which he cannot pass, Obama jr, can NOT hold the office of the Presidency of the United States. His father was not born here on our soil, so that single fact blows his lawful ability to even run for office. Why the FEC failed to vet him before allowing him to even register for the office he's holding is a crime of massive proportions. He should have been stopped right then and there, but something went seriously wrong in this, and he is not lawfully in office right now, and any of his executive actions are Null and Void, I will not even recognize any of his penmanship in the unlawful signing any bill, or executive directives, memoranda's as being lawful, and anyone can due the same. He has no standing to be in office anyway, so his terms in office is negated in it's entirety. His 8 years in office can be instantly negated by the next office holder, and it sure as hell won't be a democrap after this disaster of a waste of time and money by this fraudster. It's long past time to nullify him as the President by impeaching him, save for one small detail, since he cannot lawfully hold the office, and he is essentually an imposter, how does one impeach a fraud under the Constitution? Good question isn't it?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14070817852144568479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-90555662133851985952012-12-14T02:49:10.423-08:002012-12-14T02:49:10.423-08:00Nice and informative Blog regarding <a href=&qu...Nice and informative Blog regarding <a href="http://www.chemical-engineering-assignment.com> chemical-engineering tutor online</a> this is really helpful for people who interested in Online Education. Thanks and Keep Continue to share useful information with us.assignments webhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17610185021950231732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-81529847067793430032012-10-28T03:36:01.506-07:002012-10-28T03:36:01.506-07:00Continuing:
"Under the longstanding English ...Continuing:<br /><br />"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]<br /><br />“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).<br /><br />Here are sources to turn to for further research:<br /><br />ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution<br /><br />http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html<br /><br />http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html<br /><br />http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc<br /><br />http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/<br /><br />http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346<br /><br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-66046428670636196292012-10-28T03:32:56.006-07:002012-10-28T03:32:56.006-07:00Continuing:
You claim that the above is "dic...Continuing:<br /><br />You claim that the above is "dicta." But YOU do not know what you are talking about. <br /><br />When seven state courts and one federal court cite the words of a US Supreme Court ruling as the law on Obama and one more does the same on McCain (total nine courts, and NONE for the two-parent theory), obviously it is the law and not dicta. Here are some of those rulings:<br /><br />"Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,<br /><br /> Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."<br /><br /> Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."<br /><br /> Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."<br /><br /> Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]<br /><br /> Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"<br /><br /> Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."<br /><br />BTW, the US Supreme Court on October 1, turned down two birther appeals of the last of the cases mentioned above, Farrar, which said " that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." What does the rejection of the appeals mean? It means that the birther side could not even get four justices on the US Supreme Court to call the case, and it means that the ruling in the lower court STANDS. It is the law.<br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-84329289719158156402012-10-28T03:30:19.631-07:002012-10-28T03:30:19.631-07:00Re: "They never declare him a natural born ci...Re: "They never declare him a natural born citizen so you are wrong."<br /><br />Since the issue was whether or not Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and not whether he was a Natural Born Citizen, they did not have to declare that Wong Kim Ark (who was not running for president, you know) a Natural Born Citizen. They did have to, and in fact did, declare that he was a US citizen, which was the purpose of the case.<br /><br />HOWEVER, there is this little interesting word in English called ALSO. Have you heard it before.<br /><br />In addition to declaring that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen, the Wong Kim Ark case ALSO defined Natural Born Citizen status. The above quotation shows that the US Supreme Court's overwhelming majority (six to two, one not voting) decided that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel or any natural law philosophy) and that it refers to the place of birth, and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.<br /><br />Here again are the actual words:<br /><br />"<br />"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.<br /><br />III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."<br /><br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-1580227905203874722012-10-27T15:49:35.482-07:002012-10-27T15:49:35.482-07:00You read into Wong what is not there.
"...th...You read into Wong what is not there.<br /><br />"...the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a CITIZEN of the United States."<br /><br />They never declare him a natural born citizen so you are wrong. You then cite dicta about natural born subjects to back your claim. Why is dicta in Wong fine but dicta in Minor useless? It's not even dicta about natural born citizens. Your belief that "born a citizen" equals "natural born citizen" is also wrong. Your arguments are not only completely wrong they are pathetic to the extreme.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072695992597706526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-80351839702738444852012-10-27T02:13:13.278-07:002012-10-27T02:13:13.278-07:00Re: "Just to save you time, there is nothing ...Re: "Just to save you time, there is nothing you can cite, no record, no website, no historical document, no opinion…nothing whatsoever… that will even be considered by me or this staff as an alternative definition of the term “natural born citizen”. The mountain of precedence we have acquired in the last five years is simply and definitively unassailable in this."<br /><br />The Wong Kim Ark case (and by the way it was AFTER Minor v. Happersett and hence would overturn it) ruled six to two (one justice not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.<br /><br />Here is what it said:<br /><br />"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.<br /><br />III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."<br /><br />That is why the seven state courts and one federal court have all ruled that Obama is a NBC, and not one single court has ruled that he isn't. Nor for that matter has one single court ruled that two citizen parents are required to be a NBC---not even Minor v. Happersett. (And, remember, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, so if Minor had actually been a ruling and not dicta, the Wong Kim Ark case overturned it.)<br /><br /><br /><br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-82814295296063027192012-10-27T02:06:58.660-07:002012-10-27T02:06:58.660-07:00Re: "Fifth, start with Romney’s social securi...Re: "Fifth, start with Romney’s social security number (hint: it was issued in Michigan, WHERE WAS BORN, not Connecticut. LOL)."<br /><br />Please stop making things up. You do not have Mitt Romney's Social Security number and hence you do not know that it was issued in Michigan. Obama's Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.<br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-31890666003822306482012-10-27T02:03:40.694-07:002012-10-27T02:03:40.694-07:00Re: "Moreover, I have persistently stated tha...Re: "Moreover, I have persistently stated that it was illegal for George Romney to run for president in 1968. He was not a natural born citizen. You can read them on this site. "<br /><br />Broadly you are right. I agree that George Romney was probably not an NBC. Narrowly you are wrong. Anyone can run for president: six year olds, foreigners, naturalized citizens. But none of those categories can BE president.<br /><br />Reread the section again. It never says that anyone cannot run for president. It just says that only Natural Born Citizens can BE president.<br /><br />And the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of the citizen. <br /><br />“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]<br /><br />There have now been SEVEN state courts—Indiana, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona and Florida, and most recently Maryland and the State of Washington—and one federal court (the Tinsdale case) which have ruled SPECIFICALLY that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case.<br /><br />In addition to these cases, there are others that have stated that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):<br /><br />“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”<br /><br />Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):<br /><br />“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”<br /><br />Other authorities:<br /><br />The American Constitution, Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968:“Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen.“<br /><br />The American Review, Johns Hopkins University, European Center of American Studies – 1960:“The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications…”<br /><br />Still more:<br /><br />“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.... Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)<br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-74428416540866785842012-10-27T01:54:16.221-07:002012-10-27T01:54:16.221-07:00Re: "Just because you believe Romney is a lia...Re: "Just because you believe Romney is a liar does not excuse Obama’s proven lies and fraudulent identity. Mitt Romney is not pretending to be president, Obama is. "<br /><br />The issue discussed was whether or not Obama attended Columbia College for all of the two years that were involved in getting the degree from Columbia College that Columbia University has stated repeatedly that he got. The answer that I gave was that there was precisely as much information indicating that Mitt Romney had not been in France for the whole two years that he claimed to be there on missionary work as there was evidence that Obama did not attend Columbia College for the two years involved in getting the degree that Columbia University said that he got---in both cases there is no evidence at all.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-9576314710472012182012-10-26T14:19:22.527-07:002012-10-26T14:19:22.527-07:00Finally, a natural born citizen is preeminently de...Finally, a natural born citizen is preeminently defined, centuries ago, as one born under the laws of nature, which, in this case, define one’s natal U.S. citizenship by geographic birthplace under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to parentage of two persons, having naturally conceived a child in the natural relationship between a man and woman, both bearing U.S. citizenship at the time of the birth of their child. <br /><br />Under your false definition, the founders would have written, “a Common Law-Born Citizen” or used some other language to describe the eligibility mandate. They did not. In fact, they made discernment between a natural born citizen and legalized citizen in the same clause. Why? Because they are different. <br /><br />Your ignorance is destroyed when confronted by the fact the framers of the Constitution understood through their generational experiences under the tyranny of a monarchy, they had to prevent anyone with plural loyalties from assuming the highest office. Allowing such an individual put the nation’s sovereignty at risk. Kings and Queens had been intermarrying and cross-breeding for generations in pre-Modern Europe and look what happened. Wars, famine, governmental collapse, betrayal, despotism, public executions, tyranny, disease, failed diplomacy, slavery and on and on and on. <br /><br />Therefore, in the wisdom of the founders, having been “evacuated” from tyranny defined Natural born citizenship as a type of citizenship which most closely met with the laws of nature through birth. Those laws govern over two primary aspects of one’s birth. 1. Location of birth and 2. Parentage. By attempting to secure a requirement for president under these metrics, the founders sought the best possible way to secure presidential sovereignty.<br /> <br />However, I think the founders fell short! I believe a natural born citizen should be defined by birthplace, citizenship of parents, citizenship of GRANDPARENTS and conception in marriage. FOUR conditions, not two.<br /> <br />Now, you can see how weak and minimalistic your definition is for the qualifications of someone to be president. You don’t set a very high standard for your president, do you? And, look what you’ve gotten. Barack Obama. That’s the best you could get?<br /> <br />There was no such thing as a natural-born citizen of the U.S eligible to be president at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Before 1787, there were no natural born citizens of the U.S. which were 35 years old and had lived in the U.S. for 14 years. However, They couldn’t wait 35 years for a presidential candidate to come of age, so they included “citizens” at the time of the ratification.<br /> <br />“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution….”<br /><br />John Tyler was the first Natural Born president of the U.S, born in 1790 to two citizen parents. The previous nine presidents were born before the ratification of the Constitution as legalized citizens (the same kind you believe should be called natural born because of their geographic birth in the U.S.) upon the establishment of the new nation. <br /><br />Just to save you time, there is nothing you can cite, no record, no website, no historical document, no opinion…nothing whatsoever… that will even be considered by me or this staff as an alternative definition of the term “natural born citizen”. The mountain of precedence we have acquired in the last five years is simply and definitively unassailable in this.<br /> <br />The framers of our Constitution wrote “Natural Born Citizen” because the requirement is defined by their innate understanding of the natural laws of God, not the common laws of Man. <br /><br />You are in error…epically and foolishly. <br />Penbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-18223959851718111642012-10-26T14:15:25.161-07:002012-10-26T14:15:25.161-07:00Fifth, start with Romney’s social security number ...Fifth, start with Romney’s social security number (hint: it was issued in Michigan, WHERE WAS BORN, not Connecticut. LOL). Then, take a look at Romney's Selective Service registration which he was not legally required to complete, but did anyway. It is legitimate with no anomalies like a two digit year received stamp or a signature date BEFORE it was stamped. LOL. <br /><br />Then, check the missionary service records in the CLDS archive in Salt Lake City. In them, you will find that he was accompanied by four other LDS youths of equal age assigned with specific tasks serving the LDS church which were recorded by the bishop in France and elsewhere. Nothing hidden there. He didn’t secretly attend a muslim school and renounce his citizenship afterbeing secretly adopted by his mother’s “other husband”. <br /><br />Most importantly, take a close look at the image of Romney’s birth certificate. http://riehlworldview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/romney-cert.jpg<br /><br />You will find no layers, no smiley face in the Registrar stamp, no security paper pattern smattered with white spaces, no misspelled words in the official seal. You will, on the other hand, find a clearly presented seal of the state of Michigan and the names of the Director of the Michigan Dept. of health. You will also find the AFS file directory number and the word “VOID” in a watermark clearly shown in the margins of the image indicating that Romney is in no way attempting to use the image as a legally certified record with legal weight to make him eligible. By allowing the word “VOID” to appear in the margins, unlike Obama’s, it is apparent that Romney has no reservations about the veracity of the record.<br /> <br />Sixth, the Repubican Party Chairman of the State of Michigan requested to see the original record of Romney’s birth held at the State Health Department prior to signing the Official Certification of Nomination in July. His request was granted and he signed the certification which explicitly contains language stating that Romney is qualified under the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President. In 2008, the Democrat Party of Hawaii Chairman, Brian Schatz, failed to do the same for Obama.<br /> <br />Penbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-12146715704149114482012-10-26T14:13:58.599-07:002012-10-26T14:13:58.599-07:00Re: "YOU fail to appreciate the plausibility ...Re: "YOU fail to appreciate the plausibility that Mitt Romney was not in France for more than a year during the time when he was supposed to be there on missionary work because he was abroad secretly engaged in activities (they are secret by the fact that he has refused to provide information or records about what he was doing at that time!" <br />In your concession that I have effectively demonstrated that Obama is a fraudulent president, you are feebly attempting to obfuscate the “dagger” I have thrust into your mind by dissonantly denying Obama’s lies are preeminent because you believe Romney is a liar too. <br />First, stop acting like a child. Bad behavior does not excuse more bad behavior. Grow up. Just because you believe Romney is a liar does not excuse Obama’s proven lies and fraudulent identity. Mitt Romney is not pretending to be president, Obama is. <br />Second, all politicians are, by foul nature, liars in my view, so Mitt Romney is not exempt. I have said this on many occasions before but you seem to lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the meaning of my simple words. Please read this carefully…Romney is not exempt from my scrutiny and criticism when sovereignty Is at stake. Proof: I wrote two articles many months ago warning Romney to come clean about his father’s citizenship status at his birth and to avoid Marco Rubio and Bobby Gindal as running mates because they were not eligible under the Constitution. Obviously, he agreed in picking Paul Ryan. Moreover, I have persistently stated that it was illegal for George Romney to run for president in 1968. He was not a natural born citizen. You can read them on this site. <br />However, your quip is moot. Romney is not currently pretending to be president, and he has nothing to do with Obama’s fraudulent presidency. Obama’s illegitimacy has been irrevocably embedded into the historic record and there is simply nothing you or any of your Obotic horde can do about it. <br />Third, counterfeiting records about missionary work or Tax Returns has no bearing on Romney’s Constitutional eligibility. Romney is still a Natural born citizen whether he files tax returns or lied about his missionary work. Obama is not. <br />Fourth, when you successfully provide evidence after a 10-month law enforcement investigation that Mitt Romney has forged information about his missionary work in France or his Tax Returns, then, somehow morph that into suspicions that he is not eligible to hold the office of president, I will engage that debate as your advocate. I am actually entertained by the prospect of seeing how you might do that. Let the BS begin. LOL. Until then, your response is actually quite pathetic. You can’t depose my questions effectively so you run away to the “Romney is a fraud too” room? Really? <br />Penbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-79080704355095700102012-10-24T11:19:20.928-07:002012-10-24T11:19:20.928-07:00Re "proof of legitimacy."
Obama has con...Re "proof of legitimacy."<br /><br />Obama has considerably more proof of being legitimate than Mitt Romney. The evidence that Obama's parents were married is that they were divorced. BTW, did you know that Alexander Hamilton actually was illegitimate?smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-1368921435746867092012-10-24T11:15:48.631-07:002012-10-24T11:15:48.631-07:00Re: "you fail to appreciate the plausibility ...Re: "you fail to appreciate the plausibility that Obama was not at Columbia for more than a year because he was abroad secretly engaged in activities (they are secret by the fact that he has refused to provide information or records about what he was doing at that time!) "<br /><br />YOU fail to appreciate the plausibility that Mitt Romney was not in France for more than a year during the time when he was supposed to be there on missionary work because he was abroad secretly engaged in activities (they are secret by the fact that he has refused to provide information or records about what he was doing at that time!) <br /><br />Re: "Evidence that Obama graduate from Columbia in no way provides insight into his eligibility to hold the office of president as a natural born citizen..."<br /><br />Nor does evidence that Mitt Romney graduated from Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Both of them are Natural Born US Citizens because of their place of birth. Obama was born in Hawaii. Romney was born in Michigan.<br /><br />The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.<br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-48723462467611000062012-10-24T09:54:57.978-07:002012-10-24T09:54:57.978-07:00Once again, you have failed abysmally to comprehen...Once again, you have failed abysmally to comprehend the end game of this epic lie or directly address my point. All you do is make excuses for Obama's lack of specificity and obscurity. You do not provide clarity to his identity. Moreover, worse, you fail to appreciate the plausibility that Obama was not at Columbia for more than a year because he was abroad secretly engaged in activities (they are secret by the fact that he has refused to provide information or records about what he was doing at that time!) which cause many to be rightly suspicious about his legal qualifications to hold the office, and which rightly give any real American cause to doubt his credibility. Proof that he attended college as a foreign student or traveled abroad using a foreign passport would utterly destroy his claims to natural born eligibility. He knows this. So do you. <br /><br />You are content to dismiss the evidentiary void, but I am not willing to do so. The "lack of evidence" about Obama's identity causes a violent repudiation of his claims to legitimacy because there is nothing to back his claim. This is not a janitor we are talking about. This is potentially a very dangerous situation. Whereas you say the burden of proof of illegitimacy lies upon those who oppose Obama, we say the burden of proof of legitimacy lies upon Obama! The problem with your perspective is that we are not pretending to be president of the U.S., he is! We have nothing to hide...he does! <br /><br />If he were indeed rustling pachyderms with the circus, he would not have a reason to hide such a thing unless he so valued a PETA endorsement. So your imaginary scenerio is based on stupidity. In fact, such a "colorful" endeavor would probably increase his likability with his base leading him to brag about it and provide records of his skills with animals. <br /><br />Evidence that Obama graduate from Columbia in no way provides insight into his eligibility to hold the office of president as a natural born citizen without a full account of his activities and continuity of attendance. Again, I repeat. The only reason Obama doesnt want to disclose the truth is because he has something to hide. <br /><br />The incessant lies, obsfucation and misleading narratives all add up to the conclusion that Obama is not who the media, his apologists and his supporters have led the world to believe he is. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, he is, by default...the most prolific fraud in world history.<br /> Penbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-85449919829537949952012-10-24T07:53:34.347-07:002012-10-24T07:53:34.347-07:00Obama said that he was a terrible student, but he ...Obama said that he was a terrible student, but he was talking about himself and measuring against his own expectations. The fact is that Harvard Law School says that he graduated from Harvard Law School MAGNA CUM LAUDE, which means that he must have been in the top ten percent of his class. <br /><br />Thus he was capable of doing good work, if he applied himself. It is unlikely that Columbia allowed him to transfer with less than a C+ average. In any case, that decision was up to them, and they had the right to make it. <br /><br />You have alleged that Obama did not attend Columbia between two specified dates because there is not evidence that he was there during that time. Well, so what. The fact is that he graduated from Columbia, and that is what counts. It is normal to be on the campus and attend classes, and when you do not, you are penalized. Yet we know that Obama graduated and got grades high enough to be admitted to Harvard Law School.<br /><br />Re: " Where was Obama from January 1982 until March of 1983? There is no evidence he was at Columbia during this time. "<br /><br />The evidence is that he graduated from Columbia. However, if he was spending the year as an elephant rider with Barnum and Bailey Circus, it does not matter. He graduated from Columbia College and got into Harvard Law School.<br /><br />Mitt Romney claims to have spent two years as a Mormon missionary in France. But there is little evidence of it, and there are certainly gaps that cannot be accounted for. What was he doing during those gaps?<br /><br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-90923897025694116172012-10-23T14:33:39.892-07:002012-10-23T14:33:39.892-07:00Re: "Barack Obama applied for and was granted...Re: "Barack Obama applied for and was granted admission to Columbia College as a transfer student in 1981. He enrolled for the fall term of that year as a political science major. With the conclusion of the spring semester of 1983, Obama completed the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and graduated with his class."<br /><br />Whereas he was allegedly granted admission and enrolled in late August, 1981 completing the term in December, 1981, there is no evidence he attended Columbia from January 1982 until March 1983, 14 months before graduating presumably in June, 1983. Moreover, there is no information about how he was admitted to Columbia on merit having been a terrible student at a glorified community college in So Cal. To think that Obama just mozied on up to the CU admin building and applied for admission without any academic credentials is the utter depth of stupidity and ignorance. Failing to ask the basic questions of how this individual was able to become a student at one of America's prestigious institutions without any advocacy is journalistic malpractice worthy of punishment. <br /> <br />First, was as he able to transfer AP credits from Punahou Academy to Occidental (Punahou is the highest rated college placement prep school in Hawaii out of 280 secondary institutions. It maintains 40 separate Honors/Advanced Placement programs in English, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies, Psychology, Art and Music granting prerequisite college credit to students. 75% of students at Punahou graduate with a 3.2 GPA or better with a median GPA of 3.556 (www.punahou.edu). Many of its students enter college as SOPHOMORES (36-45 S/Q Credits)<br /> <br />He received his B.A. from Columbia, but how many credits did he actually complete there? How many credits did he transfer with from Occidental? Did he engage in any workstudy or credit abroad? What were his class schedules, if any, from January 1982 until March of 1983? Was he able to take seminar classes or schedule-by-arrangement (I know this is available. I was able to acquire 24 hours of upper-division credit toward a BA in 1985-86 on an Exchange program in the U.K.)?<br /> <br />Therefore, the questions still have not been answered. Where was Obama from January 1982 until March of 1983? There is no evidence he was at Columbia during this time. <br />Penbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-50126193689901990072012-10-23T14:16:37.393-07:002012-10-23T14:16:37.393-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Penbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-57904419862123990802012-10-22T12:51:43.545-07:002012-10-22T12:51:43.545-07:00When Columbia University says that Obama attended ...When Columbia University says that Obama attended Columbia College and graduated, you can bet that Obama attended Columbia College and graduated. And Columbia University said so twice.<br /><br />Brian Connolly, Columbia Spokesman<br /><br /> A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate. <br /><br />Robert Hornsby, Columbia Spokesman<br /><br /> School spokesman Robert Hornsby told WND that federal law limits the release of information about a student, but he could confirm that "Barack Obama applied for and was granted admission to Columbia College as a transfer student in 1981. He enrolled for the fall term of that year as a political science major. With the conclusion of the spring semester of 1983, Obama completed the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and graduated with his class."<br /><br />Moreover, Obama got into Harvard Law School, which would have been impossible if he did not graduate from college---which is apparently what you are claiming (if not, say what college he did graduate from). smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-80262631674172655232012-10-22T08:45:38.950-07:002012-10-22T08:45:38.950-07:00When Columbia University says that Obama attended ...When Columbia University says that Obama attended Columbia College and graduated, Obama attended Columbia College and graduated. That is what Columbia's spokesman said on two separate occasions. <br /><br />Brian Connolly, Columbia Spokesman<br /><br /> A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate. <br /><br />Robert Hornsby, Columbia Spokesman<br /><br /> School spokesman Robert Hornsby told WND that federal law limits the release of information about a student, but he could confirm that "Barack Obama applied for and was granted admission to Columbia College as a transfer student in 1981. He enrolled for the fall term of that year as a political science major. With the conclusion of the spring semester of 1983, Obama completed the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and graduated with his class."<br /><br /><br />And, since you apparently think that Obama did not graduate from any college, that means that Harvard Law School would have allowed him in without having graduated from college, which is supremely nutty.<br /><br /><br /><br />smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-13937545413646989212012-10-20T21:36:27.889-07:002012-10-20T21:36:27.889-07:00I reiterate the long standing reality once again. ...I reiterate the long standing reality once again. There is no evidence, circumstantial or material, which conclusively shows that Barack Obama attended Columbia University between June 1981 and Spring 1983. For more than a year, there is no testimony, no record, no recollection of his presence during this time. Moreover, there is no documentation which shows he ever attended classes, period. There is only hearsay from sources which can provide no definitive continuity of Obama's activities and presence beginning in Fall 1981 through the summer 1983. This void of information is yet another inconsistency in the perishing dilemma of Obama's true identity. <br /><br />"THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO DISCLOSE THE TRUTH ARE PEOPLE WITH SOMETHING TO HIDE." Barack ObamaPenbrook Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10526440225887842097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-62837883588353650642012-10-20T13:58:01.260-07:002012-10-20T13:58:01.260-07:00and Finally
Michael L. Baron, Professor of Politi...and Finally<br /><br />Michael L. Baron, Professor of Political Science<br /><br /> “One person who did remember Mr. Obama was Michael L. Baron, who taught a senior seminar on international politics and American policy. Mr. Baron, now president of an electronics company in Florida, said he was Mr. Obama’s adviser on the senior thesis for that course. Mr. Baron, who later wrote Mr. Obama a recommendation for Harvard Law School, gave him an A in the course.” Yes, Fogbow you nailed it again, another reference to Obama attending classes in Spring 1983. More from Mr. Baron “In 1983, as a senior at Columbia in New York, Barack Obama enrolled in an intense, eight-student honors seminar called American Foreign Policy. His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. But Baron says he never had any inkling that the gangly senior would scale such heights.” Wait. “year-long class” huh! It was a single semester seminar beginning in Spring 1983 and was attended by only 8 honor students, yet Mr. Obama as we already know did not graduate with honors, so was this a class he was allowed to attend because he was short 4 credits required to graduate having missed a whole year of classes in 1982. Hmmm. Mr Baron was also the advisor on Obama’s senior year thesis and the article in the Sundial magazine already referenced.<br /><br />That’s it, all that above is the so called debunking put forward by Fogbow in his claim that Barack Obama attended Columbia University from Fall 1981 to Spring 1983. Anybody reading this will come to the same conclusion as I did. Barry Obama attended classes at Columbia University during the Fall semester of 1981 and he attended classes during the Spring semester of 1983. There is no evidence that Mr. Obama attended classes at Columbia University during the Spring 1982 semester or the Fall 1982 semester. It seems that despite this gap, Mr Obama was still able to graduate Columbia College with the credits he had accumulated after his return there for the Spring 1983 semester. <br /><br />Hey smrstrauss, methinks you have some explaining to do.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395176969415770061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623181557777206690.post-34542871488586395392012-10-20T13:54:40.847-07:002012-10-20T13:54:40.847-07:00Part three
Cathie M. Currie, Graduate Student
...Part three<br /><br />Cathie M. Currie, Graduate Student <br /> "I knew [Obama] while he was [at Columbia]. He was remarkable then, but not in the way that most people think of as "remarkable." He was not trying to be noticed — he was studious and thoughtful. I said of him: "Whatever Barack decides to do for a career, he will be the best at it." When he left our group he was often on his way to a library." Hey we could be getting somewhere here, this lady really knows Mr Obama, he was a part of their group, she believed he was remarkable, wait, but not in the way most people think of as “remarkable”. Hmmm the definition of remarkable that most people think of would be “worthy of being or likely to be noticed especially as being uncommon or extraordinary”, but Mr Obama “was not trying to be noticed” and being “studious and thoughtful” is quite common in a student, hardly uncommon or extraordinary. Maybe the definition of “remarkable” that Ms. Currie was looking for was given by Mr. Ackerman. “almost chameleon-like, spy-like, slipped in and out. He tried to keep to himself.” What group was it that they were both part of? She goes on to say "We played soccer on the lawn in front of Butler — I was usually the only woman playing and he treated me as equally as the others: if I was open, he sent the ball into the space in front of me, if I wasn’t open — he never made the silly passes that some men did to try to act like they were being egalitarian. The "into the space" passing was consistent — he was a superior strategist — and many of us had been college or semi-pro players. We always wanted him on our team." Ah! A sports group…This is just a load of crap, I am English and have been playing soccer since I was first out of diapers and what she is describing is just a kick about, it is not “playing soccer” and bears no relation to a real game of soccer. And to suggest that this guy who until now has absolutely no connection with a soccer ball, was a “superior strategist” amongst “college or semi-pro players” is ludicrous, especially considering that in 1983, Columbia men's soccer went 18-0 and was ranked first in the nation. I guess Obama’s “superior strategy” was overlooked by the soccer coach. Though now that I think about it since his attendance in 1982 is in doubt, maybe this is just more evidence that he was not around to be picked for the team. Hmmm. The icing on the cake for this women not knowing jack about whether Mr. Obama ever attended a class at Columbia is this quote “I was doing my Ph.D. — I assumed he was a fellow grad student.” Can you just hear the slap on the forehead. Some guy joined her for a kick about on the lawn in front of the library, they chatted afterwards about world stuff, then he left. That’s it! Oh and Ms. Currie received her Ph.D. from Columbia University in cognitive-social psychology. Go figure.<br /><br />FACULTY<br /><br />Lennard Davis, Assistant Professor (Now Professor at University of Illinois at Chicago)<br /> “In the spring of 1983, I was Barack Obama's professor at Columbia University. Barack, or Barry as he was known then, was a senior in my class on "The Novel and Ideology." I understand from reliable sources that he liked the class and was intrigued by what I was teaching.” Congratulations Fogbow you again have found evidence of Mr. Obama attending classes in Spring 1983.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395176969415770061noreply@blogger.com