Divorce Papers Found-Obama Sr./ Ann Dunham says Obama Jr. born in Kenya, page 5

In many ways I hope that this divorce decree never does get revealed to the public.

While I did not vote for nor support Obama, with all the controversy already being raised, like the Norman Hsu fraud and the Blagojevich mess, if real evidence came to light that Obama IS a fraud, not being eligible to be president, well the Democratic Party will look worse than the Republican Party even with all the damage Bush has done to it.

How many years do you think it would take for the Democratic Party to ever be trusted again should indisputable evidence come forth?

Of course, a lack of trust for both the Democratic and Republican Parties may be a blessing. It would open the door for third party candidates to be taken seriously.


Edit to correct minor typo

[edit on 1/1/09 by redhatty]

Originally posted by skoalman88

- The Certification is not the same as a birth certificate. If it was, they HI governor wouldn't have said she saw the birth certificate but it's locked up and can't be released.

Both are legal proof of birth whether you like it or not. Both are legal forms of proof where you were born whether you like it or not.

- I guess you just don't understand this issue. To be president one of the requirements is t be a natural born citizen. Producing a birth certificate would prove Obama is a natural born citizen. Rather than producing that birth certificate, he has payed a lot of money to prevent access to the birth certificate, and he refuses to permit the release of the birth certificate. Now, unless one is completely incapable of rational thought, one should quickly realize something fishy is going on here. For one not to question why Obama would go through all of this trouble when he could just produce the thing and it would be over is evidence of their ignorance.

I dont understand the issue? Thats cute. Let me put it this way, even if Obama wasnt born in the us he is still eligible to be president of the US. Why? Because of the very same law that made McCain eligible

Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

click here for more details on why both are eligible

- This is a really lame attempt at spinning what I said. However, if you researched what STANDING means, you would see that lack of it doesn't mean there is no case, it just means the wrong party brought the complaint.

I know what standing means, dont accuse me of not knowing. The cases were dismissed as you said because the people had no legal standing. in this case the reason they had no standing to sue is becuase they had no real evidence. No evidence no legal standing and your case gets thrown out. heresay is not admissable in a court of law. Thus they had no legal standing.....

- I never said what I believe, I stated facts the facts: something you should consider doing. There is nothing remotely political in what I said. As any reasonable person knows, those on the left and right are influenced by the MSM (O'Reilly vs. CNN or MSNBC). It must amaze you that someone can step outside the left/right paradigm and view an issue independently.

For the record I am a registered independet, but that is a nice attempt with your politics there. Unfortunatley I am not "right or left" That said, It is not fact that all people who disagree with you are "Sheep" or that all people who voted for obama only did so because the MSM told them too. It is not fact that all people who voted for Obama have the exact same political belief. You have the nerve to imply im a liar right after you claim that all that is fact? geesh, It is not fact that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong just because they disagree with you. get over your self buddy. You arent god.

- So far, the only evidence you have provided is a certification of live birth, which is insufficient, and lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing. None of this is as substantial as say a birth certificate would be. Nor is it as damning as the fact that he has spent money to ensure the birth certificate is not released. And I never agreed my claim was baseless, you tried to spin what I said.

That is not the only evidence I have provided

click here for more details on why both are eligible

that said, where is your evidence? You havent provided any... all I have seen as far as evidence that he wasnt born here is here say....which is not admissable in a court of law hence the no legal standing.... Got any real evidnence to back up your claim? Ive provided plenty. when are you? Ive done my job, now its your turn.

- Again, the Certification is not sufficient not acceptable. McCain produced a birth certificate, Obama should do the same. We do not need the SCOTUS to hold our hands and walk us through this, Obama should be a big boy and do it on his own.

Your right, we dont need them. the proof is already out there. Just do your research. As been said, the only reason we might end up needing their help is because a small group of people refuse to acknowledge the proof.

The proof is there. We dont have to go to the supreme court, its up to you. Accept the truth or encourage the wasting of tax payer money to prove something that has already been prooved and that really wouldnt matter anyway considering that law....

[edit on 1-1-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

---

This has certainly taken a turn toward the absurd. Factcheck is in bed with Obama (see my post on page 4). Not having standing is not the same as lacking evidence. I could have all the evidence I want that a bank was robbed but I can't sue the robbers, the bank would have to. Nothing in this issue is hearsay except that a certification of live birth is the same as a birth certificate. People who mindlessly believe what they are told are sheep regardless of who they vote for. I never said those who voted for him have the same political belief you created that. No more evidence than the fact that he refuses to produce a birth certificate is necessary. However, the fact that he spent money to prevent the release of it, had ALL of his school records sealed, and has his people accuse those demanding a birth certificate of smearing him is ample evidence. What truth am I supposed to accept? That a guy did what I just described or that the uninformed are placing the wrong value on a document.

I agree the law is the law which is why Obama should produce a birth certificate.

Some research about Factcheck.org you should have conducted



[edit on 1-1-2009 by skoalman88]

Originally posted by skoalman88
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

---

This has certainly taken a turn toward the absurd. Factcheck is in bed with Obama (see my post on page 4). Not having standing is not the same as lacking evidence. I could have all the evidence I want that a bank was robbed but I can't sue the robbers, the bank would have to. Nothing in this issue is hearsay except that a certification of live birth is the same as a birth certificate. People who mindlessly believe what they are told are sheep regardless of who they vote for. I never said those who voted for him have the same political belief you created that. No more evidence than the fact that he refuses to produce a birth certificate is necessary. However, the fact that he spent money to prevent the release of it, had ALL of his school records sealed, and has his people accuse those demanding a birth certificate of smearing him is ample evidence. What truth am I supposed to accept? That a guy did what I just described or that the uninformed are placing the wrong value on a document.

Some research about Factcheck.org you should have conducted

You need to stop accusing me of not doing research, that is so rude. I know of all the things said about fact check. Dont accuse people of things when you have no grounds to accuse them on.

Like I told some one else. the law is the law regardless of what website quotes it. Period the end. THE LAW IS THE LAW AND THE LAW THAT MAKES MCCAIN ELIGIBLE TO SERVE IS THE SAME LAW THAT MAKES OBAMA ELIGIBLE NO MATTER IF HE WAS BORN HERE OR NOT.

PERIOD.

it makes no difference if factchecker quoted the law . THE LAW IS THE LAW. whether you like it or not.

I have provided proof that he can serve. Yoou have provided heresay that he cant. Here say is not admissable in court. Fortunaley for me, the law is....If you want to provide some evidence other than here say please go ahead. it will only help your case.

I recognise your attempt at trying to hurt my case by attempting to discredit me, but unfortunatley the law is the law.

besides, providing some real evidence to support your case would hurt mine far worse than attempting to discredit the website that quoted the law.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
sigh...

Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:

Article II: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Sigh....

from your source which you didn't quite quote completely

Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:

Article II: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country's borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:

Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to "citizen."

But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

except they read more into what the state dept says than what is actually at the link if you follow it

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.

Source

I think we can all agree that this is the section that would have applied to McCain

Why did Congress change the wording only 5 years later? was that to ensure that there IS a difference between a Statutory Natural Citizen and a Natural-Born Citizen? Hmmmm????

Maybe that is why the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 clearly says at the top of page 9

the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Hence the need for a non-binding Senate resolution just to declare McCain eligible to run.

Now that that is covered, let's wait till friday to see if the Divorce papers actually manifest and go from there, shall we?

reply to post by eaganthorn

---

what does this rhetoric have to do with the op?this is about where the man was hatched. nothing else.
you know, the evidence in this case keeps mounting,not going away
AS AN AMERICAN ,YOU SHOULD DEMAND PROOF.
you know it's funny. you want to throw it all away. and then people that feel the way i do,about defending the constitution, might wind up in a camp or dead.
i don't know how old you are,but in my almost 60 years,my rights have dissolved to a point ,probably.beyond repair.
this would be the wost time in history to srrew it up.

ever think that barak wont pass the test,and they gave him biden ,as vp,because they knew barry would be elected. biden ,who they know couldn't get the potus if he was endorsed by the lord,rides his coattails into the presidency
wouldn't it be great if they just used the pretty boy?
maybe we can't see the trees for the forest ?

reply to post by neformore

---

Yes, that is the law as it stands TODAY. But the law that was in effect in 1961, when Obama was born, is the one that dictates the situation. Unless you find a specific notation that a law has retroactive properties.

For example:

SEC. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

source

The effective law is found under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the act in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(7) "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."

source

This proviso in this act does not apply to Barack Obama, because his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, was not yet 19 years of age at the time of his birth.

Edit to add pertinent law and source

[edit on 1/1/09 by redhatty]

[edit on 1/1/09 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore
You mean like these?

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Born in '61, so (c) applies, does it not, as Hawaii became a state in '59.

except that, Obama was not born out of wedlock, so this provision would not be applicable

Sections 1408 and 1409 of the US Code apply in this case.

§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth

does not apply. Stanley Ann Dunham was a citizen, not just a national

§ 1409. Children born out of wedlock

again, does not apply. Stanley Ann Dunham was married to Barack Hussein Obama Sr

Sorry

Originally posted by neformore
Where did they get married btw?

No prob, I'm only human too & I make mistakes also

According to *cough* wikipedia they were married on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaiʻi

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
  Posted 10 days ago with 41 member flags

Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge
  Posted 2 days ago with 28 member flags

European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The \'Masquerade\' Behind ACTA
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbl
  Posted 7 days ago with 25 member flags

Romney Reports Income From Funds at Goldman Sachs
  Posted 17 days ago with 23 member flags

Again, Eric Holder Caught Lying Under Oath Regarding F&F!!! He knew about Agent Terry\'s Murder
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags

Catholic Church Strikes back at Obama Administration
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags

Obama Tells Woman: "Interesting" Unemployed Husband Can\'t Find Job
  Posted 10 days ago with 20 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: