Posted on 01/03/2009 7:01:24 AM PST by dascallie
Last night Ed Hale presented the (heretofore, unseen) divorce decree on Plains Radio between Obama's mother and Obama Sr ( her FIRST marriage).
The key bonus in this was the revelation of the specific version of her name in the decree, Stanley Ann D. Obama.
Using this precise name variation ( the abbreviated, initial "D" --instead of 'Dunham', was the cipher that broke open the search), they are claiming to have now located a POE (Port of Entry ) document that Obama's mother provided when she returned to the US with her son--soon after Obama's birth, (allegedly in Kenya).
The POE allegedly includes Obama's birth information/certificate ( British Kenya) as required for entry. Stay tuned for events...see other comments below. -------------------------------------------------- DesertVet Newbie
Posts: 11 Re: Obama-Dunham 1964 DIVORCE DECREE Forthcoming « Reply #53 on: January 02, 2009, 09:39:16 PM » ***********Stanley Ann D. Obama*************
No secret I've been highly skeptical on this whole ordeal. I'm now beginning to think this could very well lead the way to the smoking gun. Until this document she has only been known as "Dunham", no where in public records has Obama's Mothers name read as it does on this divorce decree. I believe the "D" being abreviated has allowed them to locate her records. This has led them to a "port of entry" birth certificate for Barack Obama. She submitted this POE certificate when she came back to the US, and the fact that there is a POE Certificate...proves that he was indeed born out of the country.
This would mean that Obama has never been through Immigration & Naturalization Services in his life, he became a citizen of Indonesia, and never applied for a U.S. passport. If this is the case, then he's not even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.
I'm not 100% certain on my assertion of above take on this document issue, but I think it is HIGHLY plausible. I'm still not ready to dance in the streets by any means yet (Yeah, I'm a tough sell). But I am quite intriguied at the moment. Couldn't say that earlier today.
Are you banned from listening or from calling in?
“But, if Obama were the child of two foreign nationals, the mother of whom managed to enter the US illegally and have her child in a US hospital at taxpayer expense, well, that baby would be a “natural born citizen” and eligible for all rights due a natural born American citizen, including the right to run for president.”
This is simply not true because the definition of “natural born citizen” includes both parents being American citizens (naturised or otherwise). This is one criteria which Obama patently, and even admittedly, fails to meet.
Well n00bie, Obama posted as his proof of eligibility a document that is not only insufficient to prove if he is a natiural born American citizen, the document is most likely a forgery. Obama used that document to collect hundreds of millions in campaign funds, so if he used a forged document and/or knew he was not eligible to be president, if just one case goes to the discovery phase in a court of law, Obama will be exposed to criminal prosecution by his document being found a forgery. Is that exposure worht a million dollars to try and avoid? Barack Obama’s handlers think so. The DNC who put this lying fraud into the ring think so. And apparently too many freepers don’t want the truth to come out.
This has been kicked around quite a bit, and some believe that the qualifications for a natural born citizen are defined and accepted as you state. But I think it is another of those general terms in the constitution that is not defined, and has not been defined by any SCOTUS ruling. Here is a discussion of citizenship, and it does not reference any such specific and accepted definition of natural born citizen, but several areas where citizenship has has been specifically addressed:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" * Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one yea
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
If there are court rulings where the term has been specifically defined, someone should post it.
The “natural born” Clause’s 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.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s 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 father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.“
“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
From the Federalist Papers website:
The Supreme Court operates under the precedent of Marbury v. Madison, in which it asserted (without subsequent refutation by the legislative or executive branches) that it is the role of the Supreme Court to declare what the language of the Constitution means.
There are exactly zero decisions by the Supreme Court in the history of this country that are on point. No definition of the term “natural born citizen” has ever been provided. The founders of the country, and the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, were more or less all well-versed in the major (read influential) philosophical and political texts of the day. These included de Vattel’s 1758 masterpiece “Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns Congress or the Executive.
According to de Vattel, “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” This provides a positive definition of the exact term “natural born citizen” that leaves no wiggle room, rendering it perfect for use in a founding document like the U.S. Constitution.
No wonder there is no discussion of what the term means. Each and every one of the founders was well aware of de Vattel’s apparently authoritative definition, such that no such discussion was needed. In the same passage, de Vattel also flatly states that if a person is born in a given country of a father who is a foreigner, “it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” This provides a precise example of a person who does not qualify as a natural born citizen that, in the case of Barack Obama, is not only directly on point, but unfortunately for him, damning.
And apparently too many freepers don’t want the truth to come out.
***I simply cannot wrap my head around this.
for your various CertifiGate ping lists
MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
Best joke I’ve read today....Guy was in class...One of the students went on and on about BO and she didn’t see what the problem was, people should have an open mind about the BC...etc etc...
FInally she said, “People who were born with a “C” section are just as capable as those born with a “natural birth”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
The Law of Nations
This bigfoot stuff was discussed on Monday night’s show? I turned it on at about 7:15 eastern time and I missed that. I’m amazed that he admitted such a thing on his show. After all the delays and excuses with the alleged Obama documents he admits to being Bugs and still has the cojones to solicit money for his attorney, Steve Pidgeon? And listeners sent several thousand???? It truly boggles the mind. Barnum had nothing on this guy. And the American public of the 19th century was no more gullible than we are, it seems.
Like day is most likely followed by night? There are few certainties for Obama, but this is one. Don't be afraid to use the "F" word.
Wouldn’t there be some repercussions to Pelosi since she signed documents affirming Obama is eligible?
There is no way an honest man, a man who respects oaths, a man who respects the wisdom of prior generations, a man who cares at all for the future generations could administer the oath of office to a man whose claim to that office when his disputed qualifications remain uninspected, for that would be a dereliction of duty in pursuit of the status quo -- to have us all to hell on auto pilot.
Clintons? As in Hillary who volunteered her legal services for the ACORN start up in Little Rock? And Obama who headed up the Project Vote division of ACORN that got the Clintons into the White House?
Clintons and Obama who are both Rezko supporters?
You seem to think the Obamas and Clintons work against each other.
Concerning the missing pages from the divorce decree, Bergs assistant said this on the obamacrimes blog:
JBH
written by bergs a*sistant, January 03, 2009
Yes, the U.S. Supreme can ask for anything they wish. They can Order anything they wish. Folks, I want you all to remember something. Back in August when Phil used to appear on Ed Hale’s show, Ed Hale stated he had a connection who sent 3 original Kenyan birth certificates via DHL and he had the tracking number. He stated Phil received it from his connection. This was all a Lie. I even posted on Ed’s website that Ed’s statements were dishonest, he removed my post and blocked my IP address. Phil called Ed and demanded he refrain from his false statements to the public. Ed then went on his radio claiming Phil had dismissed his case because he had been threatened, again all a lie. We all hope things are true, but don’t get your hopes to high. We have had the Obama divorce decree for several months, there is NOTHING there. the D in Stanley’s name is for Dunham, and she went back to Dunham after the divorce. There are no missing pages. The numbers on the bottom are old numbers, all paperwork was filed together. The birth certificate and marriage certificate were never public records in Hawaii, those would be removed. There are other forms which are filed with cases, even back in the 60’s. There is NOTHING else in the Court file, we have everything which was in the file.
______________________________
What is in the missing pages? This was posted on the obamacrimes blog:
THE PAGES THAT ARE MISSING!!!!!!!!!!!!
written by MommaERadioRebels, January 03, 2009
The 4 pages that are missing are listed below:
A Civil Cover Sheet
Proof of Service
Notice of Motion with Exhibits (Exhibits are not Public Record as they are normally things like a Marriage License and/or Birth Certificate and they are returned to the Plaintiff)
Proposed Order.
Those are the only 4 pages that are missing and they were not in the Court File. we got everything that was in the file.
_________________________________
As far as the point of entry - I have no idea if it will lead to anything but my guess is it won’t. Berg was the first to bring this before the courts. He has the most time and effort vested in this as far as I can tell. A lot of folks have attacked his past in an attempt to deflect the focus onto him instead of the fact that what he says has merit. A typical tactic when fishing for a reason to discredit in hopes that the charge will stick before anyone has a chance to look into what is being said. I still think Berg has some aces up his sleeve.
I think that the dates scheduled for Berg’s case is significant. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but the day after Congress certifies the EC vote means that he is now, despite phony podium signs claiming it, President Elect. Maybe Berg has standing on Jan 9th but didn’t before. The conference on the 16th becomes huge if the 9th goes the way I hope it will and should.
I guess we’ll find out on the 9th because I don’t think the 8th will show a set of balls the size of Berg’s.
______________________________________________
Well, tomorrow was yesterday....what about it?
There are other general terms in the constitution for which one could cite the Federalists Papers and various correspondence between the founders, but those citations did not establish any precise meaning for: establishment of religion, free exercise thereof, unreasonable searches and seizures, and many more.
And when the SCOTUS does rule on one of those general terms, it rules very narrowly and many more disputes can be and are brought on other narrow applications of the general terms to specific situations.
This part of the thread that still goes on started when I said if an anchor baby born in a US border town grew up, lived his or her entire life in the US, became a US Senator and later filed to run for president, that that person would not be denied the opportunity to run. And no one can point out a SCOTUS ruling that would prevent it. And we can be certain it would be the courts that decided it.
The link I provided in #805 clearly states that someone simply born in the US can run for president. The main point here is, like many other specific questions that arise out of the constitution, this one is not defined and settled law. It has rarely ever come up because the background of most candidates for presidents was well known and easily verifiable.
Bump. Still waiting.
You did not read my thread.
They are waiting for larry sinclair to finish his Rabbinical studies so that he can join them at the great unveiling.
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.