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
The quest continues.
The Framers relied on “The Law of Nations” in selecting the term “natural born.” It is not a statutory matter, “natural” means something that is self-evident. The meaning of “natural born” was so obvious to the framers that they saw no need to define it in the Constitution. They were EDUCATED people, you see.
If you feel the need for a more specific understanding of the term, the 1866 deliberations in Congress regarding the 14th Amendment would be a good place to start.
So you all keep saying. Given that then I have you doubt that you can come up with some quotes from Madison or Franklin or one of the leaders of the Constitutional convention showing their definition of natural born. Or perhaps some writings from them showing they supported the concept of three classes of citizenship. Or something indicating that they disagreed with all English legal precedent that said that children born in Britain were citizens from birth regarless of parental citizenship? Surely you can do that, can't you?
The meaning of natural born was so obvious to the framers that they saw no need to define it in the Constitution. They were EDUCATED people, you see.
Or perhaps they were not as...imaginative in their definition of the term as you and your friends are.
If you feel the need for a more specific understanding of the term, the 1866 deliberations in Congress regarding the 14th Amendment would be a good place to start.
Actually a better place to start would be the writings of the founders or perhaps some Supreme Court decisions that define natural born citizen in the same odd manner as you do. How about it?
From an earlier post (my words) trying to capture 'the essence of the moment' for Ed Hale.
I know that Ed is a goofball (for lack of a better term) and to some here, he comes across as a backwoods hick, but I think his intentions are noble. He's an amateur that sees a flicker of history in the making, and somehow, he of all people, ended up behind the wheel. He's dropped er' into second gear and stomped on the pedal. Ya' might say that- 'Ed's cookin' with gas.' Being a passenger is quite a different matter. ;o)
I realize Ed should be placed on probation for some of the things he's done, like; posting that- Obama had aids, only to be dressed down shortly thereafter by his audience, and having to pull the salacious material just a mere 3 hours after posting the same.
Tomorrow night should provide the “verdict” about Ed for a lot of us.
I understand how people feel about Ed. Personally, if he boasted that his ‘miners’ could get the evidence in hand, as quickly as Monday, I’d say that was a foolish thing to say. I won’t be holding my breath. On the other hand, I can see something like a FOIA request taking up to, the legal limit (sometimes) to get a party to cooperate. Just depends on the circumstances. If there’s no evidence offered up Monday, it could mean it’s not out there, or not coming at all... and then again, it could mean that it’s taking more time than Ed imagined. Lets face it: Ed’s on a pretty short leash with just about everyone that’s given him the benefit of the doubt.
If Berg, as some have said, has the divorce decree, then perhaps he also has the same evidence as what Ed Hale claims to be obtaining at the POE city/state. At the least, (hopefully) it will be used to it’s full advantage by Berg. Eventually, it should see the light of day. Whether it’s Berg or Hale that goes public with it, matters not to me.
Ed said on the chat board at Plains Radio that a top ‘Obama Official’ called him and he (Ed) will have him on as guest.
I think he said Wednesday.
Try to get more info- stay tuned.
Exactly. A very short leash indeed. He’s talking about tomorrow like it’s a done deal—we’ll see. I’ve got him pegged as a pathological attention-seeker. I sincerely hope he proves me wrong.
99.9% of us have known that this is/was a hoax all along. Hopefully you will figure that out by tomorrow night.
If it were 99.9%, RJ, this thread wouldn’t have had hundreds of comments leading up to Ed’s big “announcement” on Friday night. I try to give people every opportunity to prove themselves and also try to avoid cynicism whenever possible. Obama DOES bring out the cynic in me, however, and that’s why I hold out hope that we can find documentary proof of his ineligibility somehow. The natural born angle works for me but there are many other people who need to have proof of ineligibility that’s even more obvious than B.O.’s admission of British citizenship at birth.
No there was no zip code listed at that time. If you google or metacrawler the zip code for that area now then it states it is the most expensive zip code in all of HI.
I trust you noticed how poorly written and full of speculation and innuendo that housing article is? They ran with the address listed in the birth announcement without too much investigation. However they made a BIG mistake when they said that Madelyn and Stanley lived in apt 110 1427 Alexander St in 1963. We have a Freeper who has said that when he attended UH at Manoa in 1960-61 he knew Madelyn and Stanley and they were living at 2277 Kamehameha Ave. In Jr’s own words about his father’s visit in 1971 he wrote:” that they took short walking tours past the private landmarks of a family...where he was shown my grandparents’ first house in Hawaii, before the one on University Ave., a house I had never known.” (p.39) When the paper mentions the apt on Alexander St. it dates the time when Ann and Jr returned to HI from WA state. Ann and Jr lived in that apartment in early 1963 which her parents had rented for her until she moved in with her parents at the house on Kamehameha Ave when she registered at UH at Manoa for spring 1963 classes. Jr didn’t remember the house on Kamehameha Ave because he was too young.
The house from the birth announcement address was built in 1949 and the small cottage in the back yard was built in 1958.
The address in the birth announcement is 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy.(I wish these names were easier to spell!)
Air travel was still very expensive back in ‘61, maybe
Stanley Ann came by boat?
The time frame of the construction of the cottage could support the theory that the Obamas actually did live (in the cottage) at the birth announcement address. Just saying...
Your post #1312 noted and thank you for your reply. I would inform for others, the housing article that I indicated was on "Barack Obamba's Boyhood Homes" via Google.
I would suppose that the journalist is compelled to deliver what is more like a chamber of commerce introduction for tourists. Few journalists in Honolulu would dare to disturb the "dream". I would say that it does give some idea of the residences- if lived in.
Since we are on the subject of radio, I heard on Bill Cunningham's show tonight that on "the third hour" which just after 12 midnight EST, he will have on Phillip J Berg, the lawyer talking about his writ of certiorari concerning the President-elect's eligibility. Bill is on 325 affiliates and WLW also Premier Radio.
Bill emphatically said "it ain't gonna happen" with regard to the success of Berg's lawsuit. Still, he is putting the man on- that counts for a lot in my book. I will be listening all ears in just about 25 minutes from now.
Correction and no disrespect. I should have printed “Barack Obama’s Boyhood Homes” via GOOGLE.
If the Berg interview on radio is interesting, could you post something about it - on this thread or another, and ping me?
Sorry to bother you - but others would probably want to know about it as well.
Got links? ... Would like to listen to that interview fer shur.
Meant to put your name in the “To” position ...
I’m very lazy - haven’t figured out how to listen properly and have to be popping on and off computer - if you or anyone wants to post any highlights I’d appreciate it but understand if you don’t want to!
Thanks! I’ll see if I can hear it.
Only one problem with the Obamas living in that cottage, Obama Sr was already living in “a small, single story home at 625 11th Ave.” Before that he had lived at the Atherton Y.M.C.A. The Y.M.C.A. was across from UH at Manoa while the home I mentioned above was less than 1/2 mile from the University. The home in the birth announcement was more than 7 miles from the University.
In Hawaii when I lived there, and even today, seven miles is a long distance. I know, a really different perspective. But to go to the university from that location would be quite a distance, unless they had a car, and it just doesn’t make sense unless they did have a car. The only thing I can think of (and I’m not a researcher, just trying to tag along) would be if they stayed there for a few weeks or something, not really “living” there.
But the fact that the contemporaneous neighbor says she never saw them living next door is pretty good evidence.
As you will see I need to go to Freeper boot camp on posting procedures. Phillip Berg came on at about 1209am Est and was on for about 11 minutes. I will put the gist of what transpired on another thread and will include you.
1. How do you know this? Simply stating it doesn't make it so.
2. If it was so obvious, why did congress feel the need to define in in 1790?
I should know better than to answer things on the basis of memory but, as I recall, the 1790 law was an effort to distinguish between the English, common law understanding and what natural born should mean in a republic, as distinguished from a monarchy. The debate in Congress leading up to the 14th Amendment clearly showed that the prevailing understanding among the reps. was that a non-citizen father precluded the child from being a natural-born U.S. citizen.
“Law of Nations” was the accepted authority on such matters in 1787. The founders made use of it, as they did Blackstone.
If the Berg interview on radio is interesting, could you post something about it.....
Only to pleased to deliver any information that will assure Freepers, that the issue is not going to go away easily.
Phillip J Berg was welcomed in friendly fashion by Bill Cunningham around nine minutes after midnight Est. Bill cleared himself of any belief that Mr Berg could affect the anointing of the President-elect. Then he let Mr Berg have at it.
I have roughly the definition for a writ of certiorari first. Though only a rough outline it is, of course an appeal of a rejection by a court. Another court can insist on all documentation being forwarded and another consideration being made. Justice Soutar rejected one application. Justice Kennedy again rejected another application. It is to go to Justice Scalia ( or has and I am remiss on this).
Mr Berg flatly stated Barack Obama II was born in Kenya (then British East Africa). He quoted the grandmother and also publications in Kenya recently that declared the triumph of their native son,being President-elect. He mentioned other information as to the actual hospital birth records in Honolulu. He said that the statements by authorities in charge of records are deliberately vague.
The subject of absolute blackmail was brought up and I might add, is of course speculation. Mr Berg said that the old guard of the Democrat Party could have put the pressure on Barack. Mr Berg mentioned "Change". He chuckled at the word and how much change the new appointees(Clinton old guards) represented. He named their failings and there they were ready to go again in office,some change!
I hope I have been fair and accurate here. Bill Cunningham did say kindly that he thought Mr Berg had no chance at all. Bill did raise the question that plagues most Freepers (me to). Please President- elect, if you can clear your birth and eligibility do so. Then we can all move on and give you support where you deserve it.
I was also alerted today about a Freeper whose parents were non-citizens and was told by the INS that she could never be president!
Here is a source for you which talks about the founders and the Vattel book: http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html
The fifth paragraph is a concise summary of Vattel’s influence on the 1787 convention.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.” Vattel, Citizens and Nations,” par. 212
It was further defined (significantly) in 1795. I’ll have to search out the historical moment, but from memory it’s something like- off shore births were given citizen status, as opposed to the natural born citizen status. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Here it is...
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
Here’s the source link:
Right...citizens, not natural born. If we readily understand these concepts, why can’t some other folks around here? I don’t think it’s really all that complicated.
Obama Sr remained in the “small, single story home at 625 11th Ave.” until he left HI June 22,1962 after graduation. Also remember that Ann was back in WA state before the end of August 1961 and remained there until early 1963. When “The Honolulu Advertiser” published the houses story they printed that the home was the first home for the Dunhams when they moved to HI and even that was wrong! The next door neighbor has stated that neither the Obamas nor the Dunhams ever lived there, we have a Freeper who lived down the street from the Dunhams in 1960-61 when they lived at the home at 2277 Kamehameha Ave., we have Jr’s own words testifying that his grandparents’ first home in HI was on Kamehameha Ave., and the paper had previously identified the home on Kamehameha Ave as the first home they lived in on the island. When they started the housing story they simply “ran” with the address on the birth announcement and TOLD the present owner her address was Jr’s first home after his birth. Her response to them was “I didn’t know.” The paper failed to properly investigate and went with an assumption which is illustrated in how the story reads, full of speculation and innuendo!
We also have Jr’s own words about the short walking tours “...past the private landmarks of a family...” they took while his father was visiting in 1971. Obama Sr was recuperating from a car accident in which he had injured his leg. As a result he was using a cane. It would have been impossible to walk a 14 mile return trip taking this fact into consideration! However, a short trip from the apartment building at S.Beretania St was certainly possible.
"However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795."
Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginias birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen:
We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to fathers who are themselves citizens of the United States.
The natural born Clauses origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Did Toots, want to lend an air of prestige to her daughter's birth announcement by supplying said address to the newspaper?
Was the address supplied by Toots and if so, was it a ruse?
Was the address taken from the certificate of live birth registration, and a mix-up occurred by Hawaiian officials when they supplied the address to the press?
Did a beat reporter get the address mixed up at the source; either at the bureau of vital statistics or the hospital?
Did the hospital provide an address through a mix up with another birth?
Final two part question, what's the answer and what's the motive?
What conditions would most foster the least amount of foreign influence on a nation’s people?
Be born to two of it’s citizen’s on that nation’s soil.
The framers didn’t waste a lot of words on the US Constitution, so the words had to count AND be simple to understand.
I get it, you get it, others get it. There are some though, that DO NOT GET IT!
What I don’t understand, is WHY they don’t get it. The last few comments on this thread are crystal clear about what a natural born citizen is and is not.
I guess in the end, where the Obamas lived with Jr. after his birth, is more or less inconsequential, relative to the larger issue (pertaining to) where he was born... I suppose, the possibility of subterfuge regarding the birth announcement address (the cottage) should come as no surprise. Perhaps the cottage (address) is the quintessential wild goose chase?
Care to venture a guess as to why it was used?
Boredom. Arguing = Entertainment.
People enjoy arguing on the net, what with the limited consequences if they are proved wrong.
To appear scholarly.
Does not fit their agenda.
Attention through turmoil.
Now, your turn.
This is my supposition as to why the Kalianiole Hwy address was used, IF indeed Grandma posted the announcement to the paper.
Because she wanted to legitimize Jrs’ birth - now we know they were married, due to seeing the divorce decree, but there’s a good possibility by that time there was not a real marriage in any sense of the term, and they probably were not living together. To post an annoucenment with an address makes the marriage seem more normal and real.
Of course, if the announcement is fraudulent that’s something else; I can’t remember if the originals were found - if anyone knows let me know.
I think those reasons about cover it. There is no benign reason. Someone truly interested would study up and realize that most likely there is SOMETHING wrong, and they would also realize and admit that a “natural born” citizen is not equal in every way to a “citizen”.
Legitimizing their marriage, is as good a reason as any, that I’ve heard of, for the unlikely submission of 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy, as the newlyweds first nest...
I grasp what you are conveying in your post... let me rephrase what you are saying: a ‘citizen’ is not equal in every way to a ‘natural born citizen.’ Makes perfect sense to me, BECAUSE, the framers intended for a ‘n.b.c.’ to be something more than a ‘citizen,’ SPECIFICALLY, regarding the - office - of - President. No mystery. Common sense.
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.