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.
You said — “Then ignore it, dillweed, as the unimportant gibberish you believe it is.”
It’s like coming on the scene of a car wreck. It’s hard to ignore and you just wonder how it all happened....
There are many differeces:
It is uncontested that Obama was born with duel citizenship, this was not the cae with Arthur.
There are also the allegation of Indonesian citizenship with Obama and Arthur did not have these types of additional accusations in regards to eligibiliy.
Well, that sounds good enough...
So did your buddies Mitch and Nan. Nothing but butt smoke from those liars.
It wouldn’t be the first ruling from the Supreme Court to which folks around here reject. Can you say “abortion”?
Please note you have gone off on a tangent believing Obama Sr was at Harvard when he was NOT! Obama Sr attended UH at Manoa until his graduation June 22,1962. He then embarked on a tour of the U.S. for a month and half before heading to Harvard!
There are differences in the details about how one comes to determine how one is not eligible — but the core issue of being eligible or not eligible — is the same.
For example, if one goes to the Supreme Court with these particular “differences” and then they simply decide to not hear the case — you’ve then got the same situation — in which one still “suspects” that a person is not eligible, but you don’t have the proof (in that there was no decision verifying that kind of determination of non-eligibility).
The core issue remains the same — even if the details can vary...
Just one little thing, for a certified copy of the Original Birth Certificate, that the state of Hawaii says they have, to be provided directly to one, just one, of the Courts which have active cases seeking it's production. That would either make the issue go away, or blow it wide open.
BHO has not seen fit to request such a BC be provided. Why has he not done so? And instead sent lawyers to argue against "standing" and any requirement to provide the BC. However much they might have cost him it would be much much more than it would cost ($12 if done over the 'net) to have one provided to such a court directly from the State of Hawaii's Department of Health Statistics.
We can follow that branch of the tree later, But now we’re looking for the lists at the port of Entry for Baltimore Maryland....Stanley Ann D. Obama Have I spelled her name correctly?
Fred do you know how to get to the government location that list the folks that enter through each port....I’ve found one that list those before 1950s.
She would have been waved through given how lax crossing from Canada into the U.S. was at the time. They may have asked the driver for their driver’s license but they ignored passengers. I actually experienced this crossing into the U.S. from B.C. in the 60’s.
You said — “It wouldnt be the first ruling from the Supreme Court to which folks around here reject. Can you say abortion?”
I agree with you there. But, people *do accept it” in that it’s applied as the law. That doesn’t mean that they think it’s right — but they’ve accepted the decision. And they’re still working on changing it, while accepting the decision. That’s working *within* the system to make changes.
So, when you say “reject” it — the question is are you going to reject it by blowing up abortion clinics with bombs? Or are you going to reject it by shooting abortion doctors dead? If so, that’s not the kind of rejection that I would be talking about.
I would reject it — in that it’s not right, but it’s still the law and it needs to be changed. Then I would work on whatever can be done to change it, while recognizing the *reality* of the situation at the present time...
These are not simple differencs in details but major differences in the amount of accusations, and even as to what is contested and what is not.
As I said you seem to want to paint the results of the Arthur case as being something that we should all learn a lesson from but then you want to only concentrate on the two cases from the perspective that you choose to. You ignore the vast differences.
It seems as if you are trying to minimize the seriousness of this issue with your selective perspective on this.
Correct, but this is nothing new. Phil Berg made that point several months ago.
Well, I’m not talking about a Second American Revolution. I’m sorry, that’s not the solution for me. I’m still with the First American Revolution and still working within that system without overthrowing the current government (as in a “revolution” — but as in changing government within the processes we have in that very same government).
That’s definitely out of bounds for what we’re talking about here — if the Supreme Court doesn’t decide according to one’s opinion here, on this particular issue...
Get real. Now your playing word games?
You are off on your tangent which will prove to be fruitless, you are ignoring the fact that Obama Sr WAS NOT in MA in 1961!!!!!! If you wish to try looking at a port of entry you would be better spent looking at Bellingham in WA.
I’m an Aussie, wouldn’t know where to look for that info, but I will send a FReepmail to someone who may be able to point you in the right direction.
I think I can help you here.
I think what most here believe is that the Supreme Court is capable of making an error.
Most here believe very strongly in the Constitution and at the same time think that the Supreme Court sometime makes mistakes.
There is no logical conundrum for you to have trouble understanding, and it’s not even very interesting.
I hope that clears that up for you.
It’s not minimizing it — with President Arthur not being qualified to be in office. That’s just as serious as the allegations with Obama. They’re both just as serious. That’s why the comparisons are valid — one very serious matter (of President Arthur) to another very serious matter (of Obama)...
No, the CoLB shows date of birth as Aug. 4, but the date filed by the registrar as August 8.
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.