Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.
Plains Radio ^ | 1/2/09 | Patriot08

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.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anyminute; bho2008; birthcertificate; birthplace; certifigate; divorce; dunham; obama; obamafamily; obamatruthfile; realsoonnow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 901-950951-1,0001,001-1,050 ... 1,901-1,945 next last
To: Star Traveler

Sorry, I misread your post. Mea Culpa.


951 posted on 01/02/2009 8:22:37 PM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Two Thirds Vote Aye

“Could it be that Barry Hussein Soetoro was receiving foreign aid as a foreign student with Indonesian citizenship?”

That’s EXACTLY what I’ve been wondering for awhile now! Because that’s what his daddy was using to pay for his education. How much you bet that’s the case and that’s why Obama refuses to disclose his college records.

Someone is covering for him too.


952 posted on 01/02/2009 8:22:57 PM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Let’s look at all the differences between the Arthur case and the Obama case -

Both had rumors and accusations made against them but it seems that is where the similiarities end.

Obama is admittingly born of a foreign father and admits to having duel citizenship at birth thus creating a controversy on the definition of a natural born citizen. Arthur did not have this issue to deal with.

Obama also has an accusation against him that he was adopted and made an Indonesian citizen with some documentary evidence already and very possibly more documentary evidence to follow involving his Indonesian passport. Arthur also did not have any similiar issue to deal with.

Obama was elected and Arthur was not.

The media today is more vast and the people through the internet have much more resources available to them than during Arthur’s day. - And ye that does matter as to how you were trying to make it seem that the Arthur case may teach us something as to how it may effect us. In this case there is more potential for investigation and coverage than there was in the case of Arthur. So there can obviously be much different outcomes involved as well.


953 posted on 01/02/2009 8:23:35 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: Bronwynn
Someone is covering for him too.

Looks to me like a lot of someones are covering for him. Including half the entire United States, and a fair number of Freepers!

954 posted on 01/02/2009 8:25:43 PM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

There is a general record somewhere that list poeple who entered through various ports....We found our ancestors who came in at Galveston when it was not a part of the US....Greenbacks...Illegally made their way up the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers till they got to the Falls at Louisville.


955 posted on 01/02/2009 8:26:03 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

So, whaddyathink? Any there there in the divorce papers or confidence that more concrete info exists that caps dear leader off at the knees ?


956 posted on 01/02/2009 8:26:24 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Gum? Something worse than gum! (I just skip over it’s comments.)


957 posted on 01/02/2009 8:26:56 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I was wondering if the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office.

1) No one has proven that we ever had a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office.
2) If we want to entertain a hypothetical that Chester A. Arthur was a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office, we could, just for grins.
3) Constitutional provisions for President of the United States are affected by Constitutional Amendments, which require 2/3 of the states to approve.
4) Having Chester A. Arthur serve as president is not the same as passing a Constitutional Amendment.
5) So, no, the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were not affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office.

958 posted on 01/02/2009 8:28:29 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Well, Berg asserts the very same thing that I’m saying — in his court case, by telling the court that there are no laws that can require Obama to prove any more than he has already done through the system as he’s gone through it.

Therefore Berg is asking the court (in his case) to intervene because of what he suspect is true about Obama.

That’s getting right down to the basics of what he’s saying..

Now, the question the courts will have to decide is if — in one case here and now, they should ask more of this one candidate than has been asked of the others (in the past) — and furthermore — if it is even *legally required* to ask any more than they have already asked of him.

So, yes... the courts will have to determine that... and we’ll see for sure on that issue...

We can play the guessing games all day long about what the court will do — but I’m not really worried about what the court will do, because I’m sure that they will apply the law equally across the board as it would be for any candidate. And I’m sure that the courts will only take information that is proven. So, if it’s not proven — then it will be like the unproven qualifications for President Chester Arthur (when he wasn’t qualified to be President, but still was President). And if it is proven then it will be taken care of and that will be fine.

But, the courts better hurry up, because January 20th is coming up pretty quick. After that, it will have to be Congress who gets in the act in order to remove a President...


959 posted on 01/02/2009 8:28:42 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 947 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
So, the Constitutional provisions don’t apply if you get to be President by another methodology? Is that it?

No, it has to do with whether the people are paying attention or not. People pay more attention to the president than the vice-president. We're trying to focus on the president before it's too late.

Let's play this thought experiment a little further.

What if McCain won and then died in office? What would people say about how well Palin was scrutinized? The MSM focused on her children, her children's children, her husband, her clothes, her accent...

Did they ask about her birth location? Why not? Was it because they didn't doubt it, or because they knew with certainty, or because they didn't care because they felt Obama was a shoo-in, or something else? Should they have done something different regarding Palin, and Biden, than was done this time around? What should we do in 2012 to prevent these questions from arising in the future?

As Thomas Paine would say, what do we owe to Posterity?

-PJ

960 posted on 01/02/2009 8:29:20 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 944 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Oh, and we’ve had another guy who was supposedly born in Canada, but it was *questionable* (just like in this Obama qualifications issue; i.e., “it couldn’t be proven absolutely”) and we’re still just as good with our Constitution now as we were before. He didn’t cause any harm (from *that issue* alone). Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President — was said to have been born in Canada

I thought he was born in the US, but of a non-citizen father, who wasn't naturalized until well after Chester was born. The allegations of foreign birth never played out. Thus there was no cause for challenging him as not natural, except on the basis of having a non-citizen father. Now of course some have said that would make him not natural born, but there's at least some disagreement on that score and it was not pursued after he became Vice President nor after he succeeded to the President when President James Garfield was assassinated.

But, my "what if" scenario assumed that your "must prove eligibility laws, which I of course support, resulted in revelation that Obama was indeed not eligible. Different situation, different effect.

961 posted on 01/02/2009 8:30:09 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Thanks for the rest of your answers...

And with this — “No one has proven that we ever had a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office.”

That seems to be our current problem then, doesn’t it...


962 posted on 01/02/2009 8:30:23 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 958 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

“Sorry. Those who have seen it promised Ed not to divulge any information”

Well, sorry, then, because we have been told by more than one con artist that something existed and it never materialized. Why wait? If there is something out there then show ot; otherwise, just shut the Hell up and stop being an attention whore.


963 posted on 01/02/2009 8:30:42 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Amityschild
Be prepared for the nay sayers that are soon to follow.

What are they supposed to be saying nay? So far, this is all drum roll and no show.

964 posted on 01/02/2009 8:32:37 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You should really catch up to the more current posts in the 900’s or so, LOL!


965 posted on 01/02/2009 8:33:16 PM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee

“And yet....here YOU are....

wasting your time.

Ironic....to say the least.”

That’s not fair to say to him at all. I watched Ed spit on people who support him and advertised for him for months now. He didn’t give them the time of day this afternoon.

Ed hasn’t come up with one thing that will keep that bum out of office. NOT ONE. All he’s done is string people along with his BS tactics and it’s pissin people off. Rightly so. If he gave a damn about this country as much as he claims to, he wouldn’t be playing games with the American public so he could get people listening to his station tonight. He’s in it for the money.

Ed is the reason why the media doesn’t take this matter seriously and that’s the truth.

I’ve been listening to his BS since Korir, then Leo is in hiding, the big Islamo scare that was out to kill Leo. The suspicious call from Washington that Bush is going to call the troops because the SCOTUS is going to keep Obum out of the office, yadda yadda. ALL BS! You’d have to be glutton for punishment or awfully gullible to keep stock in that station.


966 posted on 01/02/2009 8:33:35 PM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: nominal

I believe the name was David A. Larson listed as the submitter of info on the Dunham family when I checked it last year.


967 posted on 01/02/2009 8:33:47 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

You said:
But, the courts better hurry up, because January 20th is coming up pretty quick. After that, it will have to be Congress who gets in the act in order to remove a President...

____________

No matter when the Court were to rule that Obama is ineligible you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress will get invovled, IMO.


968 posted on 01/02/2009 8:33:52 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

That was rude and crude.
I’m just the messenger. No call for that.


969 posted on 01/02/2009 8:34:41 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You’d think it would have to be the port of Honolulu that Ed is referring to.

If Ann came back to Hawaii to file for the divorce, which is clearly the case, then she’d be going to the Honolulu port from Indonesia.

Not-to-mention, Ed’s PI was in Hawaii to get the Divorce Decree and then fumbled upon this discovery.

He better hope he gets to it quickly, otherwise Obama will get to it first, if he hasn’t already.

Let’s hope Ed is smart enough to secure things before anyone else can get to it first.


970 posted on 01/02/2009 8:35:32 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe; LucyT; Fred Nerks

Reg.Post #905

The link to the neighbor of the supposed “birth announcement” house can be found at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83851

The neighbor has lived next door since pre-1961.


971 posted on 01/02/2009 8:36:10 PM PST by Iowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

thank you


972 posted on 01/02/2009 8:36:13 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 967 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
what’s the point of this but to have the reason of divorce as “mental anguish.”

"Mental anguish" or "emotional cruelty" were common grounds in the days before "no-fault" divorce. They didn't take much to prove if uncontested, didn't carry any criminal penalty, and would be accepted in jurisdictions where "irreconcilable differences" wasn't enough of a reason.

973 posted on 01/02/2009 8:37:14 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I was wondering if the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office. Did that change the Constitution?

That would depend on how far into the future the People found out that they were allegedly duped.

I'm still researching Arthur, but if decades passed, the people might not be as incensed over it as they might if the president were still in office when the truth were revealed.

I'm assuming that that we didn't have www.chesterarthur1885.com during his presidency (but I could be wrong).

-PJ

974 posted on 01/02/2009 8:37:19 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Even if Orland and Thelma Lefforge had rented the home out it is in an exremely expensive area, the most expensive zip code in all of Hawaii. It was too expensive for a bank employee and her furniture salesman husband to rent and even more so for two starving University students to rent. Obama Sr at that time was living in a small, single story home located at 625 11th Ave., while the Dunhams were living at 2277 Kamehameha Ave.
I believe grandma, as mortgage administrator at the “white bank of Hawaii”, knew it was a safe address which she could use to register the birth with the Dept of Vital Stats which in turn generated the birth announcement. I haven’t been able to confirm the date when Orland Lefforge returned to teach at UH at Manoa as the University hasn’t responded to my request for that info.
The back yard neighbor to that address has lived there since before 1961 and stated the Obamas never lived there!


975 posted on 01/02/2009 8:39:53 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
I noticed the name who had submitted the info and googled his name. It turned out to be an architect in Chicago so I asked my Mormon neighbor who could submit info for their website and she told me anyone could.

Was it possible to determine the date of that submission?

976 posted on 01/02/2009 8:41:04 PM PST by TigersEye (I threw my shoe at Mohammed and hit Allah in the butt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 871 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

If the courts do not require him to produce his documents, we will make sure that the issue does not die and that history will hang a cloud over his presidency. There is more than one way to “make” someone do something.


977 posted on 01/02/2009 8:41:13 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

On the part where Obama has stated things which you say deal with the definition of natural born, I can see where a judicial pronouncement on what that means in very specific detail can be helpful. It would appear — since these details were admitted — that our “system” did not think it mattered. It will be interesting to see if the courts think it matters. We’ll see how they take up this particular part of it. But, it’s clear that our system has allowed it. The question then comes down to whether a court will even address it and if they do, will they come to a different conclusion than our system has, thus far? That’s a big question...

As far as any accusations that will actually make a difference, in this particular instance, it all comes down to whether any evidence that will be accepted by a court can and will be produced. That remains to be seen. By the time frame we have for Obama taking office, it’s getting quite close and it doesn’t look very good. After that, it will be in the hands of Congress to take any action to remove the President.

And in the issue of being elected or not — as far as I understand, it’s merely “being President” that is at issue — that is can you *even* occupy the office if you’re not qualified. That’s what I’ve heard from others, so it apparently doesn’t matter whether you’re elected, or like Johnson, had to take office under unfortunate circumstances...

Now, all these details that you say *differ* from President Arthur and Obama — will actually disappear (and not be “different”) if Obama does serve as President and no court decides on the issue before taking office and the Congress doesn’t remove him and he goes through his term in office. He’ll be just like President Arthur — if that future works out that way.

The way you’re talking about — that it’s different — is only if one of these things “works” and he’s either prevented from being in office or removed from office. Absent that and absent anything that works — he’s just like President Arthur. So, time will tell...


978 posted on 01/02/2009 8:41:52 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 953 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

The media today is more vast and the people through the internet have much more resources available to them than during Arthur’s day. - And ye that does matter as to how you were trying to make it seem that the Arthur case may teach us something as to how it may effect us. In this case there is more potential for investigation and coverage than there was in the case of Arthur. So there can obviously be much different outcomes involved as well.

_________________

I am having a keyboard problem and decided to correct and repost this.


979 posted on 01/02/2009 8:42:21 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 953 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
If she had NOT registered the child’s birth with nearest US Embassy would the Port of Entry register the birth?

It's not clear to me that she *could* have registered the birth with a US Embassy or Consulate, because she was not eligible to pass citizenship to a child born outside the country. So why would the embassy register the birth of a foreign national?

Now I don't know if she would have needed to show a copy of the foreign, that is Kenyan/British, BC to prove that he was indeed her child and not some baby she was smuggling in. This might have been made even more likely by the fact that he was a black baby and she was white. If she did have to show a foregin BC, what the folks at the Port of Entry might have would be a copy of the original Kenyan/British BC? That's way I read the thing about the BC, that it was not a US BC, but rather a Kenyan/British Colonial one. I missed the part about it being at the port of entry. Which could be Seattle after a hop from Kenya to London maybe to Labrador and on to Seattle. (Wouldn't that have been fun with a brand new baby?) Then it would have been on to Hawaii from there. Other POEs are obviously also possible.

980 posted on 01/02/2009 8:43:40 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
The last statement is the most telling.

My son goes to UCLA. People in Brentwood and Westwood, etc. rent part of their houses to students or in some cases they rent out mother-in-law cottages.

It is difficult to track the facts and suppositions on this issue. We need another alamo-girl.

981 posted on 01/02/2009 8:44:09 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 975 | View Replies]

To: All

Now that Ed has announced to the world where to look, two things are going to happen:

a. Someone in the media is going to rush to get the scoop faster than slow Ed; or

b. Someone in the bot-camp is going to rush and bury it and the source with grandma’s ashes.


982 posted on 01/02/2009 8:44:22 PM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
No Scott, Jones, or Lefforge listed as neighboros to Daddy Dunham
http://www.worldvitalrecords.com/SingleIndexListView.aspx?qt=l&ix=ssdiall&zdate=1992+OR+1993+OR+1991&zrzip=96826&fh=350

Young still no matches to Thelma

Jack Young 1910 1993 Honolulu Hawaii More Details
Jack Young 1931 1992 Honolulu Hawaii More Details
Mabel Young 1906 1992 Honolulu Hawaii More Details
Chia-yee T Yung 1917 1993 Honolulu Hawaii More Details
Leroy Ziemer 1919 1993 Honolulu Hawaii More Details

983 posted on 01/02/2009 8:44:36 PM PST by DAVEY CROCKETT (mama, baby , obama drama to be continued...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

That house today is worth $700,000.00.
The house next door is worth one and a half million dollars.
Back in 61 had the house had to be at least $100,000.00
now do you think two newlyweds going to college could afford to rent this house. Gas was about 25 to 29 cents too.


984 posted on 01/02/2009 8:45:07 PM PST by jarofants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

It seems as if the whole point you are trying to make is that this issue may notbe seen through to the point of getting justice.

Is that it?

I do not think that anyone here thinks that there is any guarantee that we will get justice here.

My point is that thecase of Arthu really does very little to teach us anything in regards to how this all will go.


985 posted on 01/02/2009 8:46:02 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

You said — “If the courts do not require him to produce his documents, we will make sure that the issue does not die and that history will hang a cloud over his presidency. There is more than one way to “make” someone do something.”

Why would the courts be wrong about it. I thought that the Supreme Court gave the final word on the matter. I’m more than willing to let the Supreme Court determine what the situation is for Obama. That’s their job. And if they decide one way — that’s fine and if they decide the other way — that’s fine too — because that’s what we all invest the Supreme Court as their job. They are the last word, even if (at times) it’s “no word” at all... :-)

So, are you saying you wouldn’t accept the Supreme Court’s actions if you don’t believe they should decide the way that they do?

I’m willing to accept the answer from them — so I don’t know why you wouldn’t be willing to.


986 posted on 01/02/2009 8:46:34 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 977 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Ann attended UW from August 1961 through spring 1962 but she didn’t return to HI until early 1963.(she earned a total of 20 credits from UW) When she returned to HI in 1963 she lived in #110 1427 Alexander St., an apartment her parents had rented for her. When she registered for classes for spring 1963 at UH she moved in with her parents at 2277 Kamehameha Ave.
None of Obama Sr’s friends ever mentioned Ann and she wasn’t present in pictures taken of Sr when he attended parties. It wasn’t until 2008 when Neil Abercrombie began to mention Ann being with Obama Sr. In 2007 he mentioned he was a friend of Obama Sr only!


987 posted on 01/02/2009 8:46:45 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

“I don’t think they had photocopiers back then, did they?”
**************

They probably used a mimeograph machine.

http://www.irememberjfk.com/mt/2007/04/mimeograph_machines.php


988 posted on 01/02/2009 8:48:40 PM PST by Canedawg (Why couldn't he have just tried out for the Olympics like all the other Kenyans?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

You said — “No matter when the Court were to rule that Obama is ineligible you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress will get invovled, IMO.”

Well, I’ve got a real big question about whether the Supreme Court will get involved in the matter once it is past January 20th. I hear people say that they will, but I kinda doubt that they will, since I figure that Congress is able to appoint a Special Prosecutor and they have the ability to impeach and convict (if so required) — and so the Supreme Court may say that Congress must follow through with any determination or investigation after January 20th.

That is my take on the matter. But, it’s not too far away from January 20th, so it won’t be too long of a wait to see...


989 posted on 01/02/2009 8:50:25 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
>>>I was wondering if the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office. Did that change the Constitution?

That would depend on how far into the future the People found out that they were allegedly duped.

Short answer: It wouldn't change the Constitution at all.

Longer answer: If it had been known when Arthur was in office, there would have been legislation and contemporaneous commentaries, which wouldn't have changed the Constitution, but would have shed some light on in how it was interpreted at the time. There would also have been litigation, which would have set some sort of precedent.

If one unqualified president slipped through undetected, it doesn't change the law, any more than one killer who isn't caught invalidates the murder statute.

990 posted on 01/02/2009 8:50:38 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

Geeze, what a total waste of time. Still nothing concrete about where BHO was born.


991 posted on 01/02/2009 8:51:49 PM PST by Dustbunny (Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The Gipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"It appears that the system did not think it mattered."

Alternate interpretation: after a century of no fraud, the "system" fell asleep and no one bothered to ask the question, opening the "system" up to fraud. When the fraud was committed, the "system" went into denial because no one thought such a fraud could be committed.

Some people even looked at the "system" and said "no one has proven he's not qualified," when "he" controls the proof and refuses to produce it.

Refusal to produce proof of qualification is in and of itself sufficient enough reason to prevent him from taking office and we'll see if 5 judges have the courage to say so.

992 posted on 01/02/2009 8:53:04 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: Mad-Margaret

She was asked a direct question about her mother’s date of death and evaded giving a direct answer. She didn’t say yes she said she wishes all the females of the family could sit and stare at the moon. Maya is the one who gave details of her mother’s death and yet the article was pulled. Why? Maya also said that her grandma wore 4 inch heels and she would even wear those heels to go inspect grandpa’s lawn mowing. They lived in an apartment so what lawn mowing?


993 posted on 01/02/2009 8:53:17 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 935 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
If it had been known when Arthur was in office, there would have been legislation and contemporaneous commentaries, which wouldn't have changed the Constitution, but would have shed some light on in how it was interpreted at the time. There would also have been litigation, which would have set some sort of precedent.

A precedent that would have been in place for today's Supreme Court to refer to.

So, do we owe it to future presidents, courts, and voters to set that precendent once and for all, so it doesn't happen a second (or possibly third) time?

-PJ

994 posted on 01/02/2009 8:55:05 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
The birth certificates of any children mentioned in a divorce action aren’t attached to the filing but their full name, date of birth and place of birth are all mentioned!

His sister's place of birth was not mentioned in the divorce decree from Lolo Soetoro, and from what we've seen today, his place of birth is not mentioned in the divorce from BHO Sr decree, either, although it could be in the missing pages I suppose.

995 posted on 01/02/2009 8:55:08 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Well it will see be long to wait and see what will happen afterwards. A major difference in Obama’s case is the amount of resources that are starting to be used to turn up details of his past. If a major breakthrough is made even a year after he is in office that proves he was born in Kenya or was an Indonesian citizen (and traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport) tere is going to be an outcry for the Court and the Congress to address this issue.


996 posted on 01/02/2009 8:55:19 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 989 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

It was never proven at the time that he did not qualify, but apparently he didn’t qualify (at least, after the fact some say that and say it’s proven). So, it’s possible that Obama may never be proven to not qualify — and maybe “after the fact” (after he’s left office, it may be proven..., who knows...).

The thing that is at issue is that the allegations are not proven (first item) and then (second item) a person takes the office of President (under those continuing allegations of not being qualified [but not proven]).

It sort of sounds like what may be happening with Obama is what happened with President Arthur.

The allegations (for President Arthur) are that he was born in Canada (and now someone else says that there were questions of being born elsewhere, other than Canada, outside of the U.S.). So, there were multiple allegations, apparently.


997 posted on 01/02/2009 8:56:33 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 961 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
"I don’t think they had photocopiers back then, did they?"

Yes and they were real photographic images using mercury. If you creased the copy, it would show a silver line in the crease. The Xerox came in 1962 IIRC, and Kodak and IBM shortly thereafter. By 1965 they were commonplace.

998 posted on 01/02/2009 8:57:09 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks allot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I will not accept the court's decision if it doesn't answer the question at hand. If he refuses he should not be administered the oath of office.

If the court or the congress do not review his qualifications, then thousands of us will pursue the matter as best we can.

999 posted on 01/02/2009 8:57:12 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 986 | View Replies]

To: All

Just a suggestion, but if anyone wants to not rely on Ed Hale and his crazy promises, let’s start digging up information on

“PORT OF ENTRY BIRTH CERTIFICATE” before Google is clogged with blogs using it and posting that phrase everywhere.

There’s already enough info on the web showing that there are many service agencies in states that will register the birth of a foreign child if you’re an American and I’m starting there now.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=point+of+entry+birth+certificate&aq=f&oq=


1,000 posted on 01/02/2009 8:58:07 PM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 901-950951-1,0001,001-1,050 ... 1,901-1,945 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson