Skip to comments.Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.
Posted on 01/02/2009 1:16:10 PM PST by patriot08
click here to read article
PS: good night.
They might have made some type of copy and included info from the b.c. in the immigration paperwork.
That would depend on what sort of precedent it sets. If there’s not a sufficient factual basis for the court to take any action, it wouldn’t be of much value.
But he looks very much like his typical white grandfather.
Cheekbones, nose, teeth, ears, even the hairline. He looks like Grandpa. Only his skin tone, slightly "nappy" hair, and maybe fuller lips show that some man with African ancestory, almost anyone would do, was his biological father.
It is leftwing liberals who believe that whatever the Court says is automatically a proper interpretation of the Constitution. They would love for conservatives to just accept whatever the Court rules on as being the new Constitution. Just re-write it from the bench.
Honestly you are sounding more and more like a leftwinger. You want to make it seem like it wont be a big deal if Obama serves even if he is ineligibe just because Arthur did, we should just accept anything that the Supreme dictators in black robes say as Constitutional, etc...
Typical liberal talking points.
It has port of entry for ships, most stopping around 1957 or so.
You said — “You couldnt be more wrong and more ignorant of US history.”
Well, I’m certainly called by a lot of names here..., it seems... LOL...
But, still — it’s very odd that people are not going to accept the highest court in the land’s decision — if they don’t agree with it. It certainly would be what I have heard that “others” should accept — if — the court were to rule in our favor — that is the “others” who disagree *should* abide by it.
However, if “we” are the “others” — then we shouldn’t abide by their decision. That makes for a very confusing type of government. Which *we* should be be listening to as right — if not the Supreme Court and if not the Constitution which has endowed the Supreme Court with this power...
That’s almost like getting into Alice in Wonderland...
Ignor the person who is trying to keep us from finding the answers, by changing the subject...It is a AXELTURFF TECHNIQUE.....
Let’s get to work! We can, if we all work together, find the answer.
Good to hear that... I thought there was a big loophole there...
I guess President Arthur violated that provision two times in two offices...
He looks a LOT like grandpa... first time I’ve seen that picture.
Try to find an obit for her, there was no funeral her ashes were scattered.
The family lived in two homes with lawns the one on Kamehameha Ave., and one on University Ave. Grandma and grandpa moved to the apartment at S.Beretania St. in 1967, 3 years before Maya was even born! Grandma remained in that apartment for more than 40 yrs until her death Nov.2nd
SHe flew...Not enough time between time of birth and registration in HI.
OK I’m going to look under Stanley Ann D. Obama/ Boston ANyone know the best ancetry port of entry sight?
Feel free. Ignore til yer heart’s content.
Well, if everyone is waiting for the Supreme Court to make a determination of the eligibility question on Obama and they do decide and it’s not the way that people here want it — then who is next “up the ladder”...
It beginning to seem that there is no authority in the entire land, no matter where it exists in the Constitution or anywhere that would suffice as an answer — if — it did not agree with your own opinion. It doesn’t seem like it’s a country of laws — but rather a country of opinions... now...
I agree. It’s like chinese water-torture, drip drip drip and finally it wears a hole in your head...I would like to add this - what if she didn’t arrive from Kenya, but came from Canada, from an unmarried mother’s home?
What requirements would she need to fulfill at entry into the US?
it is getting to be that time...
Then ignore it, dillweed, as the unimportant gibberish you believe it is.
Right so you are on a crusade to let everyone know that all be alright if Obama is ineligible and the Constitution gets ignored.
And you are on another crusade in this thread to tell us all that we should accept whatever the Supreme Court says and never disagree and fight to change it.
You are not a liberal?
Actually there is very little info about Orland and Thelma, I spent a great deal of time searching! There are more google hits for me than for either of them and he had a Phd.
Of course not, since, and read slowly, IT WAS NEVER PROVED.
All the things you list would have been a problem, if the issue were proved, and will be IF it comes out that Obama is not eligible. IF it never does, then obviously it won't be a problem with him either. But that's a big if these days. Is there any evidence that once Arther was elected VP, and became President via an assassination, there was any serious effort to uncover the truth. Also consider that there was not nearly the paper trail in those days as there is today. Plus no electronic records, no internet, etc.
I think she phoned her mother’s friend in Seattle and asked her to come get her.
Okay, I can buy that. There is still room for change, working within the system that we have in order to make that change, while accepting (in the way of a court order) what is not agreed upon — for now... [I think... :-) ]
Of course, there is always one particular option for possibly some individuals (which is sort of extreme, but possible) and for deeply held convictions (and you have to be careful here) there is civil disobedience (but that should be rare, and one has to accept the penalties involved in engaging in that, too...)
You seem like you are in a muddle. This is also a typical state that liberals enter when discussing law and the Constitution. They make it seem like both sids are equally subjective on the issue even though it is themselves who want to not be objective in regards to the facts. Conservatives on this issue want the rule of law to be upheld, yet you are arguing based upon the past case of Arthur that it dosent really matter.
If the S Ct hears the case, discusses the case, votes on the case, and finds that he was born in Hawaii, based on Obama providing a birth certificate, determines that a son of a Kenyan can still be a natural born US citizen, determines that someone who was an Indonesian citizen can be a natural born US Citizen, that would be fine with me and fine with most here.
If the S Ct refuses to hear the case, most here would suppose that the reason they refused to hear the case was because of legal technicalities. Perhaps the specific argument wasn’t to the court’s liking. Most here would keep trying, or support those who are continuing to try.
To many (not many here, but many) Bush is not a legitimate President, and to many here, unless the S Ct. gives the Obama Presidency an explicit stamp of approval, the Obama Presidency would not be seen as a legitimate one.
Most do not think that the S Ct will explicitly rule here and most here do not think of Obama as a legitimate President.
Thank you. Most annoying poster ever. Long posts babbling on to distract others from trying to find the truth
Well, yes and no. They did the best they could, but most airplanes then did not have the range to fly a true great circle (polar) route from London to Calgary, Vancouver or Seattle. Thus they would have an intermediate stop in Gander Newfoundland to refuel, take on more food and drink, and empty the wastewater holding tanks.
Wow, wish I could find such good renters!
Well, I know it wasn’t proved — but it was suspected and it was an allegation. And likewise for Obama, it’s not proved, but it is suspected and it is an allegation (at least in terms of a court not “proving” it, at this point in time)...
So, if Obama goes all through his term and nothing is proven and the courts do not decide against him — then it’s comparable to the situation that President Arthur was in...
That’s always been the biggest problem I see here with Obama, in that it’s not proven.., and it appears that he’s still going to be President.
Obama Sr was still attending UH at Manoa in 1961. He graduated from there June 22,1962 and went on a month and a half tour of the U.S. before arriving in MA prior to attending Harvard!
It's called "consent of the governed."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
You said — “Then ignore it, dillweed, as the unimportant gibberish you believe it is.”
It’s like coming on the scene of a car wreck. It’s hard to ignore and you just wonder how it all happened....
There are many differeces:
It is uncontested that Obama was born with duel citizenship, this was not the cae with Arthur.
There are also the allegation of Indonesian citizenship with Obama and Arthur did not have these types of additional accusations in regards to eligibiliy.
Well, that sounds good enough...
So did your buddies Mitch and Nan. Nothing but butt smoke from those liars.
It wouldn’t be the first ruling from the Supreme Court to which folks around here reject. Can you say “abortion”?
Please note you have gone off on a tangent believing Obama Sr was at Harvard when he was NOT! Obama Sr attended UH at Manoa until his graduation June 22,1962. He then embarked on a tour of the U.S. for a month and half before heading to Harvard!
There are differences in the details about how one comes to determine how one is not eligible — but the core issue of being eligible or not eligible — is the same.
For example, if one goes to the Supreme Court with these particular “differences” and then they simply decide to not hear the case — you’ve then got the same situation — in which one still “suspects” that a person is not eligible, but you don’t have the proof (in that there was no decision verifying that kind of determination of non-eligibility).
The core issue remains the same — even if the details can vary...
Just one little thing, for a certified copy of the Original Birth Certificate, that the state of Hawaii says they have, to be provided directly to one, just one, of the Courts which have active cases seeking it's production. That would either make the issue go away, or blow it wide open.
BHO has not seen fit to request such a BC be provided. Why has he not done so? And instead sent lawyers to argue against "standing" and any requirement to provide the BC. However much they might have cost him it would be much much more than it would cost ($12 if done over the 'net) to have one provided to such a court directly from the State of Hawaii's Department of Health Statistics.
We can follow that branch of the tree later, But now we’re looking for the lists at the port of Entry for Baltimore Maryland....Stanley Ann D. Obama Have I spelled her name correctly?
Fred do you know how to get to the government location that list the folks that enter through each port....I’ve found one that list those before 1950s.
She would have been waved through given how lax crossing from Canada into the U.S. was at the time. They may have asked the driver for their driver’s license but they ignored passengers. I actually experienced this crossing into the U.S. from B.C. in the 60’s.
You said — “It wouldnt be the first ruling from the Supreme Court to which folks around here reject. Can you say abortion?”
I agree with you there. But, people *do accept it” in that it’s applied as the law. That doesn’t mean that they think it’s right — but they’ve accepted the decision. And they’re still working on changing it, while accepting the decision. That’s working *within* the system to make changes.
So, when you say “reject” it — the question is are you going to reject it by blowing up abortion clinics with bombs? Or are you going to reject it by shooting abortion doctors dead? If so, that’s not the kind of rejection that I would be talking about.
I would reject it — in that it’s not right, but it’s still the law and it needs to be changed. Then I would work on whatever can be done to change it, while recognizing the *reality* of the situation at the present time...
These are not simple differencs in details but major differences in the amount of accusations, and even as to what is contested and what is not.
As I said you seem to want to paint the results of the Arthur case as being something that we should all learn a lesson from but then you want to only concentrate on the two cases from the perspective that you choose to. You ignore the vast differences.
It seems as if you are trying to minimize the seriousness of this issue with your selective perspective on this.
Correct, but this is nothing new. Phil Berg made that point several months ago.
Well, I’m not talking about a Second American Revolution. I’m sorry, that’s not the solution for me. I’m still with the First American Revolution and still working within that system without overthrowing the current government (as in a “revolution” — but as in changing government within the processes we have in that very same government).
That’s definitely out of bounds for what we’re talking about here — if the Supreme Court doesn’t decide according to one’s opinion here, on this particular issue...
Get real. Now your playing word games?
You are off on your tangent which will prove to be fruitless, you are ignoring the fact that Obama Sr WAS NOT in MA in 1961!!!!!! If you wish to try looking at a port of entry you would be better spent looking at Bellingham in WA.
I’m an Aussie, wouldn’t know where to look for that info, but I will send a FReepmail to someone who may be able to point you in the right direction.
I think I can help you here.
I think what most here believe is that the Supreme Court is capable of making an error.
Most here believe very strongly in the Constitution and at the same time think that the Supreme Court sometime makes mistakes.
There is no logical conundrum for you to have trouble understanding, and it’s not even very interesting.
I hope that clears that up for you.
It’s not minimizing it — with President Arthur not being qualified to be in office. That’s just as serious as the allegations with Obama. They’re both just as serious. That’s why the comparisons are valid — one very serious matter (of President Arthur) to another very serious matter (of Obama)...
No, the CoLB shows date of birth as Aug. 4, but the date filed by the registrar as August 8.
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.