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

“Natural born” means born in the United States.

No, it means that the person was born as a U.S. citizen, and hence did not have to make any active efforts to naturalize him/herself.

If it had been otherwise, the U.S. Constitution would have said, "born in the territories of the States."

[edit on 1/1/2009 by sad_eyed_lady]

**parody. this is an anecdotal metaphor to real events. any real correlation is mere coincidence.**

THIS IS WONDERFUL! WONDERFUL!

Obama is our president, whether you like it or if he was legally eligible or not. Next, we'll be discussing how Israel is pushing back the launch perimeter of rockets into Israel in order to minimize the impact of retaliation for when they attack Iran before the before mentioned Kenyan takes office.

Then, Pres Obama will justify supporting Israel in an all out assault against the Arab nations who rally with Palestine and Iran. After all, they attacked our troops in Iraq after Israel hit Iran.

For my part I think radical islam is a cancer that must be cut out, but I'm just an observer.

(This will not happen. I was not here.)

************************
All that I know is that I know nothing. -Socrates

Hawaiian birth cert is the clincher. As long as the courts accept the validity of that, all other papers, court proceedings, witnesses, etc. will not change anything.

This is a non-issue.

The divorce papers are up and no where does it state "a child born in Kenya".

What a waste of my time. Stop getting my hopes up only to provide a worthless document.

www.plainsradio.com...

Originally posted by redhatty

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

Why are you so much more ready to accept the existence of a legal marriage certificate, which you have never seen, than a birth certificate, which you have seen?

Personally, I doubt Obama's parents ever legally married. His mother was ahead of her times, a wilful girl who I could imagine refusing to go through the legal formalities.

Of course this would make the claims of revealing divorce papers a very silly scam.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Think the U.S. has bigger issues to worry about than this 'natural born' debate, like the mess Bush has left behind.

wow.. then you seriously need to really understand what going on here ! sorry you even made the comment ..

Originally posted by Kailassa
Why are you so much more ready to accept the existence of a legal marriage certificate, which you have never seen, than a birth certificate, which you have seen?

Hmm, a divorce decree is the alleged piece of information that is to be presented, although, like the stuff that API alleged would be produced, I doubt it will.

Personally, I doubt Obama's parents ever legally married. His mother was ahead of her times, a wilful girl who I could imagine refusing to go through the legal formalities.

You may be right, although if the dates are correct, Dunham was married just about the time she would have stated to show her pregnancy. 1961 was not a good time to be an unmarried pregnant girl in college. Regardless of how forward thinking Dunham was, society wasn't. My own birth mother (about the same time) was forced to withdraw from (college) classes until after I was born. She was unwed.

Anecdotal, I realize, but an example of the times.

Of course this would make the claims of revealing divorce papers a very silly scam.

And it probably is. But on the slim chance it isn't, there would be a docket # and a judge's signature that could be validated. In fact, what I don't understand is why they didn't already announce the docket # - anyone could order a copy of the divorce decree with that - it's public record after this many years.

Did they post it up yet? The OP said they were supposed to have the copy by 12/31/08 by 6pm.

Where the hell is this thing? Don't tell me you guys posted up another unreliable source making wild claims that will not end up providing anything real.

How many times can you guys get away with this?

*Edit:

I see it has been pushed back to 1/02. You guys better hope they produce something.

[edit on 1/2/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Irish M1ck


If anything does come of it I hope all the arm chair detectives that analyzed his birth certificate step up and do the same for this document.

But you and me both know that won't happen.

reply to post by davion


No doubt.

Funny, the parents went so far as to put a "fake" announcement in the newspaper but weren't smart enough to lie about his birth place on their divorce papers...

I hope all of these people are holding their breath.

[edit on 1/2/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by mbkennel


Wrong. Affirmative statements BY DUNHAM - securing the divorce - in a filing to a court (under penalty of perjury and criminal false statement) have more substance than anything reported in a birth certificate. Particularly so, when it is possible his named father made the statements to the Hawaiin authorities and/or a clerk may have incorrectly recorded the claims. Moreover, the statements in the divorce filing, if they conflict with the birth certificate, would be substantive evidence of fraud in securing a false birth certificate.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by davion

 

No doubt.

Funny, the parents went so far as to put a "fake" announcement in the newspaper but weren't smart enough to lie about his birth place on their divorce papers...

I hope all of these people are holding their breath.

[edit on 1/2/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Funny, the parents went so far as to put a "fake" announcement in the newspaper but weren't smart enough to lie about his birth place on their divorce papers...

Not funny at all, in fact it lends creedence to the argument that they were just letting their "old neighbors" know of the birth while living in kenya which is something many parents did back then. I know mine did the same thing when I was born they took out an ad in the newspapers of their old digs. I really don't know why you upset yourself so with all this stuff mick. At worst case scenario, we will unseat the proposed King to the throne and replace him with someone who is qualified to be sitting in it.

At best,, case,, or bestin your case, nothing happens, so either way you have no real reason to be so bitter.

reply to post by ChocoTaco369


It's a matter of national security, too. See John Jay... investigatingobama.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Irish M1ck


One problem - the parents didn't put the notice in the paper. Read the FULL page for context at
http://__._/leak/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser.pdf

See that "health bureau statistics" title at the top -- just a junior reporter writing up records.

Obama's birth certificate is the least of my worries coming from a Chicago politician. If Schwarzenegger can be in charge of an economy the size of California's than Obama can certainly give his elected position a shot. With his history of changing opinions, non-votes and throwing the people who got him where he is under the buss, the next 4-8 years will be very entertaining on ATS.

Kill this matter please!!! This is clearly another manufactured story designed to derail the conspiracy types and shift their train of thought off the path to truth.
Folks....as Americans most of us learned by the third grade that in order to become the President of the United States you must have been born in a territory of the USA. It's clear to me that Mr. Obama was hand-picked and fast-tracked to the Oval Office by some very powerful people who wouldn't have missed that detail.
If you feel like there is something fishy in the Executive Branch, you may be right. If you think that Obama is a Kenyan, your chasing your tail in a crowd of Sheeple.

You are all a bunch of old ladies. Get a life.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
When will this issue finally die?????

I mean, do you really think that the DNC would have backed Obama's bid for the presidency if his ability to serve was even slightly in jeopardy?

I know that the RNC was stupid enough to allow a simpleton like Palin to run for Vice President, but come on, if there was even a chance that this issue had any merit the DNC would have just ran Hilary.

Face it guys, Obama will be the next President of the United States, get over it.

I have no doubt that the DNC is dumb enough to have backed Obama. It's the DNC after all.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Erm no ... I have a Scottish goon leading my country I would much rather have a mixed race President than a Scottish goon.