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
Ed Hale of Plains Radio has secured a copy of the Dunham/Obama divorce decree as promised. He has registered this at the courthouse and has turned the document over to lawyers who are reported to be happy and enthused over the contents.
This is the first page. This is all that can be divulged at this time as those who have seen the decree are sworn to silence. You may hear information about it tonight on Ed's plainsradio show.
Will people accept the Supreme Court as the final word on it?
I do wonder about those things...
You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story
Look at one of the comments posted by the very guy that made the Dark Socrates video:
“By the way, I do not appreciate you guys giving
LordShadrach “Thumbs Down” on his comment. He is just stating what he believes, and as you can see, he clearly rejects this 2012 nonsense. Please judge him on his comments, and not on the fact that he takes a position that differs from yours.”
This guy needs the Dark Soratic method applied to his Hypocrisy.
You said — “You seem to intentionally concentrate on what suits you in comparing the Arthur case to the Obama case. There are a vast amount of differences involving these two cases.”
I just look at it in the basic terms of the Constitutional requirements for being President and allegations (for both of them) that they are not qualified — and then — it not being proven (at least not at that time...).
That’s a basic picture for me...
What is the closest point of Entry to Harvard?
Here are some other places to look:
www.loc.gov/rr/genealogy/bib_guid/immigrant/general.html - 21k
www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=116 - 34k
Well, interesting that you won’t accept a final Supreme Court decision on the matter. I will and I don’t even know what they’re gong to say about it.
But, you seem to say that you’ll only accept the Supreme Court if they do what you say... Now, that’s an odd view of the Supreme Court, I would think...
Well dont keep yourself up at nigh wondering such things.
Why should anyone have to answer such ‘what if’ questions about how they will view an issue so far off into the future? Esecially considering how many angles there are to this issue in regardsto Obama. The Arthur case was not as complex even. We have the question of Kenyan birth, duel citizenship at birth, the adoptionand Indonesian citizenship, the communist family ties, etc....
I don’t know the exact date the info was submitted but I went to the site in late July/08.
That whole thing is plain weird, I think, and twisted, too...
Oh gosh - gotta go to bed!
You said — “You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story”
I’m finding it very odd that people have decided that they won’t accept a Supreme Court ruling if it does not go the way they have decided it should go. That doesn’t sound like following our “system” at all...
It is so basic that it is meaningless then to learn much from it. You leave out vast differences when trying to make the point that me may learn something from it?
Are you saying that the current govs of Mich or Cal could be vice president?
You are incorrect. Ann came back to HI from WA state, not Indonesia!
Probably, if so it would have stopped in Gander, Newfoundland Canada, many US military flights moving troops to and from the sandbox/rockpile stop there to refuel even today. But if the destination was Hawaii, they would not go through a US east Coast city because they are too far south of the shortest (great circle) path from Scotland/England, even Gander is somewhat south of the path.
I looked at a great circle course calculator, and while Kenya to Britain, to Newfoundland to Vancouver to Hawaii is longer than Kenya to Hawaii, the direct path goes over China (not friendly in'61) and probably had fewer routes available. The route via London would have had more flights, and probably some stops along the way, either in North Africa or Italy. Flying from England to Hawaii via Gander Newfoundland and Vancouver/Seattle would be longer than direct from Great Britain to Vancouver/Seattle and then to Hawaii, but may have been too far for most or all commercial aircraft in '61. Thus the most probable path from Kenya to Hawaii would be through London, Gander, Vancouver or Seattle, and then on to Hawaii, with another possible refueling stop somewhere near Italy.
The fact that the world (almost) round can be confusing when thinking of flat maps.
If we’re past the point of allegations — how come I don’t see any court orders... :-)
You see..., for me to be past the point of allegations is for a court order to come down and say it in the authority of the court. Absent that, it’s still in the realm of allegations.
And if the Supreme Court decides that Obama is eligible — I have already “wondered” (in previous posts) if that will finally settle it for people here. And I find the very odd idea that people will only accept a Supreme Court ruling if it goes the way they think it should go — according to their own opinion, here and now.
Now, that doesn’t sound like we’re following our own “system” (by the Constitution that gives us that Supreme Court) if we don’t accept what they decide... It’s very strange for people who claim to be Constitutional, to abandon the ruling of the Supreme Court if it’s not according to their opinion... LOL..
WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE COURT SAYS. You are ignoring what I posted earlier or you’re still trying to come up with an answer. If the court or the congress do not ensure that the president meets the qualifications, we will ensure it is not the end of it. You can be as flabbergasted as you like.
I belong to Ancestry.com and found Stanley Ann’s death recorded on the Social Security Death Index 7 NOV 1995, Honolulu.
Now this is very interesting. I always thought that if we followed through our Constitutional system that we accepted the outcome of our Constitutional process as the way of our government and the peaceful process that we have in governing ourselves, accordingly.
But, now I find that people are saying that they will not accept the Constitutional processes — and not even a Supreme Court ruling — if it does not go the way that their opinion says it should.
That makes me wonder if some are really Constitutional at all...
I meant that we are past allegations in the sense that the argument being made is bsed upon something that is not contested (Obama having duel citizenship at birth).
And why do you think that people have to agree with every Court decision. We have had Supreme Courtdecisions that have even contradicted (or overtuned) other decisions. So how do you agree with both?
Thanks for the PING. Happy New Year, btw.
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.