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.
Since there is no precedent on this question, because every viable presidential candidate in history has been honest enough to either present proof of natural born citizenship or has been so famous as to his birthplace that none need be produced.
This is the first time in our history that this has become an issue. There is no mechanism in place to flesh this out. All the presidential candidates have been honest enough to bow out if they are not eligible. Not this one. He wants this at all costs. The USSC will not touch this, because they are terrified of touching off a nationwide riot, even if the Constitution is usurped. The only avenue I can see is the various Secretaries of State to qualify or disqualify this monster from becoming president and unleashing his Marxism on us, basically unchecked.
That sounds like some Nazi style tactics.
The Star Bulletin copied the list from the Advertiser.
I was there as recently as 1985 and we got waved through too. They just checked out license plates.
I have some prime ocean front property in Elko Nevada available. Are you interested?
Obama is the only President in history where none of his parents were able to pass on their US citizenship to their son.
Well dog my cats, sure enough there it is.
I should have known the FF would have anticipated such an event. No wonder Chester Arthur did not get nominated for a run at a second term. As a VP he probably did not get much scrutiny But a direct run at the top slot? The Party was apparently not going to risk the rumors being true.
It is the tactice taught by Axelrod. FReeper found it by looking up Axelturf (SP varies)
“That sounds like some Nazi style tactics”
And what does it say about an agenda, I ask the Obama crowd, when it can only be advanced through deception?
b. Someone in the bot-camp is going to rush and bury it and the source with grandma’s ashes."
Or....c. Someone in the leftist-leaning media is going to rush to help someone in the bot-camp to bury it AND the source with grandma's ashes.
I don’t know if anyone posted this yet, but it seems Berg had this divorce document months ago...
01/02/2009: PRESS RELEASE - Philip J. Berg, Esquire Obtained the Obama 1964 Divorce File
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/02/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, [is in the U.S. Supreme Court with two (2) Conferences scheduled on 1/09/09 & 1/16/09] announced he had obtained the divorce file of Stanley Ann D. Obama vs. Barack H. Obama which was filed in the First District Court of Hawaii on January 20, 1964. The Obama divorce was finalized on March 5, 1964. Mr. Berg’s office obtained these records several months ago.
The Obama divorce records state there was one [1] child born to the parties on August 4, 1961, a son, by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II. There is absolutely no mention of where the child was born.
http://www.obamacrimes.com under press releases
WHY are there missing pages? I thought this whole episode was centered around exposing the fraud by revealing the entire document.
Can anyone answer that question?
or
D. Ed already has located the information and is again waiting a delivery service for Monday.
Couldn’t listen last night, but from what I’ve read he said it took them 4 hours to locate and the SADO name was the key...also gave the hint of Baltimore.
Hope he sells it to the Globe, so all the Bots can read it in a language they understand.
Indeed it was. I grew up in Michigan, and we vacationed in Canada every summer back in the 1960's and early 1970's. The border crossing was very informal. The agent leaned his head into the car and asked Dad who we all were and where we were going. He might have asked Dad for ID, but certainly not the rest of us. My brother and I didn't carry any ID when we were youngsters; there was no need. The Canadian border agent was always very friendly and wished us a nice vacation. On the return home to the US, the Canadian agent always asked how many fish Dad had caught, and sometimes asked to see the cooler. They were more concerned with whether the lakes were being over-fished than they were with the identity of passengers in the car. Sometimes the US agents inquired about fireworks. My brother usually bought Canadian fireworks to take home to Michigan, where the laws were more strict. My parents are naturalized citizens who speak with heavy accents. Even during the cold war years, they crossed with no problem and little scrutiny.
Let’s put it this way. The USSC is made up of human beings that are therefore fallible. I didn’t agree with their decision re: property ownership that can be taken away for the “common good” of the community (ergo to build condos, etc.). So no...I would not accept it if they just swept this under a rug and pretended that it’s not there....for the “good of the country” or otherwise. Some of us still recognize justice, or rather injustice, when we see it.
No need to be rude. I was simply stating what I heard.
Do you have a problem with that?
You make points worthy of contemplation. But I would say your portrayal of Obama is highly inaccurate—it suggests you have not fully perceived external reality.
Obama has done more than simply claim eligibility for the presidency in the traditional manner. He has withheld—more precisely, he has blocked—vast amounts of personal information from the American people. It is unprecedented.
Your assertion, in brief terms, is that we should just live with the scheme that Obama has perpetrated, even if we believe it’s fraudulent.
Can you not understand that this approach goes against the most important principles defining American conservatism?
If you can understand it, I would ask you to provide a reason why we should make such a drastic change.
As I mentioned in my post #1179, I was following along on the Plains Radio Chat room as they were discussing receiving the records and posting them - as it was happening. Ed Hale’s wife, Caren, was explaining that four pages would not be posted because of sensitive information that minors should not see.
I work in a courthouse clerks office, particularly with older records. I do a good deal of genealogy work. I am not a genealogist, but I’ve learned a lot. I have seen my share of divorce testimony and, as anybody knows, that testimony can be brutal. There is testimony about physical and verbal abuse, vulgar language, etc. I’ve seen stuff that would turn your stomach. Perhaps they felt the information therein was very sensitive in that way. But that information also gives places where stuff happened. The information in the testimony section has helped many a family historian make connections and fill in the gaps. It shouldn’t be a surprise that you can find a lot of information there. I wouldn’t be surprised if they found something pretty significant.
Still, I will reserve judgement. And Plains Radio always repeats their programs. I’m hoping to hear it myself if it’s posted today since I couldn’t be home to listen last night.
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.