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.
Why not just reference several books to be read. I scanned your link, but summarize whatever interpretation you have.
But nothing you post will change the fact that as these situations come up, if they do, they courts will settle the questions, as they do on most everything. Not saying that's how it should be, but that is the way it is.
Now I know, you not only didn’t read my thread, you didn’t even click the link. I referenced books for sources too.
You know nothing. If you want someone to consider whatever opinion you have, don't make some sweeping general statement and then give a link that requires large amounts of reading. Summarize whatever you believe and then provide a link to support it.
Are you capable of summarizing your opinion in a few sentences? Few here will spend significant amounts of time reading just to respond to someone who didn't even bother to put forth the opinions they hold.
Isn’t the Pidgeon case (Broe v Reed) being heard today en banc at the WASC?
Does anyone know what time it is being heard?
Actually, I gave you too much credit. Your #809 does not even provide a general comment. You provide nothing but a link, then expect someone to spend significant time reading to first: determine what your opinion is, I suppose, and then respond to your opinion.
Good luck with that.
>>>>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.<<<<<
Wish I remembered how to bold.
Sorry to bother you, Vel, but could you set this man straight? He’s saying an “anchor baby” born to not only non-US citizens but even illegals could become presdident.
Will, Velveeta can set you straight on this false claim. She herself was born in the US but her parents did not become citizens until she was five years old. The INS information given to her parents said that she could not become president, but that her brother, born after her parents’ naturalization, could.
FR mail
Maybe I'm not the one who needs to be set straight. The INS is not charged with interpreting the US Constitution.
When was this question answered in the US court system? I don't think it's been answered. Some say that anchor babies are not even citizens because of the "subject to the jurisdiction of" phrase, but anchor babies are considered citizens in reality. Not sure if the courts have ruled on the "subject to the jurisdiction of" question, either.
My #805 presents information that says anyone born in the US can run for president, except the children of foreign diplomats. Several questions concerning citizenship don't seem to have been answered in the courts. As I've said before, constitutional phrases such as "establishment of religion," "unreasonable searches and seizures," "free exercise thereof" and many others have been the subject of numerous courts cases and rulings, and will continue to be so. People make the same claims about the original intent of those phrases, and how clear they all are, but still the court interpretations in narrow, specific situations continue.
And the term "natural born citizen" is also subject to interpretation in narrow, specific situations. Someone cite court cases that specifically say that anchor babies cannot run for president. If you can't, then it's still open and they most likely can.
The first hurdle would be getting the SCOTUS to even hear a case, as the Obama situation so well illustrates.
This is a good chart which represents how the laws of the Immigration and Naturalization Acts have changed over time.
http://www.shusterman.com/citz-chart1.html
If you look at the chart - during the period from 1952 to 1986, the governing rules were different than they are today.
Even if O was born in Hawaii, he is NOT eligible for POTUS and neither am I since nobody born between 1952 and 1986 was grandfathered in.
Well, I missed the show - but from what I’m reading, Ed Hale pulled a “Chief Korir”. Personally, I heard his show for the first time last week and hope to never have to listen to him again. His voice made my skin crawl.
However, I still maintain that even if O was born in Hawaii, he is not eligible for POTUS. His father was foreign, not natualized and his mother was too young to convey citizenship.
If you were waiting for me, I’m here now and have replied to wtc911.
Thank you for a reasonable response.
Even if the Chief Justice and all but the deep liberal four, refused to administer the oath, someone would, even if they had come up with a justice of the peace (if DC has them). There is no requirement for the Chief Justice, or really anyone to "administer" the oath. It's *Tradition!*, but it's not required. In fact he could just "Swear" the oath by signing a copy of it. But the oath itself *is* required, before a President-elect becomes a President.
I hope there is a sudden thunderstorm on January 20th, just as Obama say "swear to support and defend."
The Mother of All Zots would be nice.
If even several of the justices refused to administer the oath of office, word would get out, and it would start off his term with a great deal of taint.
I like the MOAZ scenario, though.
It's true of Hillary, but not true of Biden. Biden got his own electoral votes for VP. True, Obama effectively appointed him, but only through the mechanism of the Democrat Party convention. Thus Biden would still be VP, or VP elect depending on the timing. But if the DQ came before Thursday, the House would need to pick McCain, as the only other person to get any Presidential electoral votes. If DQ came after Thursday...
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;
Amendment XX, Section 3
It pretty much *has* to that way. But It would be nice if they would *decide* in this instance, instead of doing all they can to *not* make a ruling in these cases.
The chart only covers people *born outside the US*. If Obama was born in Hawaii, the chart does not apply to him.
Besides the chart deals with *Acquired* U.S. Citizenship at Birth, not necessarily "Natural Born" citizenship.
No court has ruled if those are the same thing or not. Mostly because the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" only applies to eligibility for the Office of President, and there has never been a ruling on the matter. Let's hope there is this time. Although if Obama was not born in Hawaii then their will be nothing to decide, as he would not be a citizen at all, unless later naturalized, let alone a natural born citizen.
Yes, the chart covers people born outside the US, however the Naturalization Act was the same for people born within the US. It was all covered under the same Act passed by Congress:
*******************
The laws regulating acquisition of U.S. citizenship at birth are among the most complex of the immigration laws. Adding to the complexity, Congress has significantly amended these laws on a number of occasions, in 1934, 1940, 1952, 1978, 1986 and 1994.
Throughout much of the history of the acquisition laws, the following 4-step analysis was required in order to determine if one had become a U.S. citizen at birth:
Determine the applicable law
Since changes in the laws governing acquisition of citizenship were seldom retroactive, the applicable law is usually the one passed immediately prior to the child’s date of birth. For example, if the child was born in 1949, the 1940 law would apply.
Determine whether one or both of the child’s parents were citizens of the U.S. at the time of birth
If both of the child’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, chances are good that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
*****However, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen, the analysis must be completed in its entirety.*****
*****If the child had only one citizen parent, determine whether the parent had sufficient residence or physical presence in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth to convey U.S. citizenship on the child******
(((Ann Dunham was not old enough to convey citizenship))))
Prior to the 1934 Act, only citizen fathers who had resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth could convey citizenship. The 1934 Act provided that a citizen father or mother could convey citizenship to a child born abroad if he or she had resided in the U.S. prior to the birth of the child. Since the 1940 Act, things have become more complicated. The citizen parent is required to reside, or be physically present, in the U.S. for a certain number of years, some of which must occur after the parent reaches a specified age. Significantly for Filipinos, the 1940 Act, for the first time, provided that the residence of the parent(s) could be in the U.S. “or its outlying possessions”. This was important since the Philippines was an outlying possession of the United States from 1899 until its independence on July 4, 1946.
Determine whether the child lost his U.S. citizenship through failure to meet the retention requirements of the law
The 1940 Act added a retention requirement to the law of acquisition. This meant that a child born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth was required to reside, or be physically present, in the United States for a certain number of years before attaining a specified age. Otherwise, the child would lose his U.S. citizenship. The retention requirement only applied where the child had only one citizen parent. The 1978 Act eliminated the retention requirement. However, the Act did not restore the citizenship rights of persons who had already lost their citizenship by a failure to meet the retention requirement. Court challenges to the retention requirement, both on constitutional and other grounds, have proven unsuccessful. However, administrative decisions have granted exceptions where the child failed to meet the retention requirement due to his ignorance of his claim to citizenship until well into adulthood. (The retention requirement was eliminated prospectively by the 1978 law, and retroactively by the 1994 law.)
http://shusterman.com/acquisit.html
Frustrating as it might be, with the SCOTUS, declining to hear a case is about the same as deciding a case, a least in the short run.
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.