Posted on 01/03/2009 7:01:24 AM PST by dascallie
Last night Ed Hale presented the (heretofore, unseen) divorce decree on Plains Radio between Obama's mother and Obama Sr ( her FIRST marriage).
The key bonus in this was the revelation of the specific version of her name in the decree, Stanley Ann D. Obama.
Using this precise name variation ( the abbreviated, initial "D" --instead of 'Dunham', was the cipher that broke open the search), they are claiming to have now located a POE (Port of Entry ) document that Obama's mother provided when she returned to the US with her son--soon after Obama's birth, (allegedly in Kenya).
The POE allegedly includes Obama's birth information/certificate ( British Kenya) as required for entry. Stay tuned for events...see other comments below. -------------------------------------------------- DesertVet Newbie
Posts: 11 Re: Obama-Dunham 1964 DIVORCE DECREE Forthcoming « Reply #53 on: January 02, 2009, 09:39:16 PM » ***********Stanley Ann D. Obama*************
No secret I've been highly skeptical on this whole ordeal. I'm now beginning to think this could very well lead the way to the smoking gun. Until this document she has only been known as "Dunham", no where in public records has Obama's Mothers name read as it does on this divorce decree. I believe the "D" being abreviated has allowed them to locate her records. This has led them to a "port of entry" birth certificate for Barack Obama. She submitted this POE certificate when she came back to the US, and the fact that there is a POE Certificate...proves that he was indeed born out of the country.
This would mean that Obama has never been through Immigration & Naturalization Services in his life, he became a citizen of Indonesia, and never applied for a U.S. passport. If this is the case, then he's not even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.
I'm not 100% certain on my assertion of above take on this document issue, but I think it is HIGHLY plausible. I'm still not ready to dance in the streets by any means yet (Yeah, I'm a tough sell). But I am quite intriguied at the moment. Couldn't say that earlier today.
Ping a ling a ling, Barry can’t be caliph or king.
He was born in British Kenya, hope we soon can say “see ya.”
Finish the statute. It says right after that, if a President cannot be qualified, then the House will choose the President.
The House is under no obligation, whatsoever, to make Biden President after Obama is disqualified.
Doncha know, James Buchanan, the Democrat, invented the Internet.
/sarc
Sure. And kept it a secret until the ‘90s , when Algore found Buchanan’s papers in the attic of an old house; then Gore tried to claim it as his own!
Actually that comes from the 12th amendment, and the "base" Constitution, whereas my original quote was from the 20th amendment. So it actually comes before, not after the original quote.
But the 12th amendment says that the House is restricted to choosing from the top three vote getters.
First from the 12th amendment:
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
Then from the 20th amendment.
Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Remember that if an earlier amendment conflicts with a later one, the later amendment overrides the earlier one, and the base Constitution as well.
It's very clear that if the President-elect dies before January 20, then the Vice President-elect becomes President, who then would pick a VP subject to approval by Congress.
Correct so far?
However, in Section 3, it says that if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.
If this statement is taken literally, then the use of the phrase "a President" as opposed to "the President" takes on a diferent meaning. If "THE" President-elect has failed to qualify, then there must be action taken to find someone who would qualify to be "A" President.
In other words, despite of who you or I would like to see as President, there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates who Congress must pick to replace the disqualified President-elect.
For example, let's suppose that, as a result of the Jan 16 SCOTUS conference, at least four Justices agree to hold an emergency session to hear Berg's injunction, prior to Jan 20, but here's where it gets into the gray area. and they are given several possible actions on which to vote. vote to require Obama to prove that he is Constitutionally qualified to be the President.
And, you know what? SCOTUS could very well require that he produce more evidence than just his vault birth certificate.
We have no conclusive proof that his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. We have no conclusive proof of who was his biological father. We have a huge list of historical documents that are missing. Who really is Barack Obama? Who is even qualified to vouch for him?
Unless Obama provides the evidence that SCOTUS requests by the date requested (his vault birth certificate, for starters), he will be considered as "failed to qualify," and the Vice President-Elect would be first sworn in as Vice-President, and then, sworn in as acting President until someone is chosen to be President.
There is nothing in Section 3 that defines what would be the procedure if the President-elect was disqualified prior to January 20.
SCOTUS has the power to invalidate the entire election, if it was convinced that the DNC knew about Obama's citizenship problems and tried to hide it.
I don't think any "swearing in" is required for an Acting President, the Vice President would just assume the duties of President.
In other words, despite of who you or I would like to see as President, there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates who Congress must pick to replace the disqualified President-elect.
This is not quite true. Section 4 of the XXth amendment states:
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
That implies that the list of "persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President", is limited. So where is that limit to be found?
It's in the XIIth amendment:
from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
The XIIth also specifies *how* the House is to proceed.
in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
I'm afraid that, according to the 20th and 25th Amendments, and the Succession Act of 1947, in the event that the President-elect resigns or is removed from office, the vice-President-elect would become the President-elect and then be Inaugurated, assuming, of course, that the vice-President-elect does not resign or is not also removed.
However, one of the questions that SCOTUS ought to answer is whether this entire election was legitimate. I think that, if Obama is disqualified on the basis of what his vault birth certificate says, then that's when the entire Democratic Party takes a torpedo amidships.
Discussed this the other evening...."until a President shall have qualified" may be the next election ...four years.
IMO the transition to someone other than 0 would actually be smoothest after he is sworn in.....No questions Biden become President....Liberal sob during BOs mia culpa.
Can’t find a thread about this, but I’ve been listening to Plain’s radio, off and on. Last night there was some excitement. Apparently, Steve Pidgeon has a copy of an INS document that has Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama coming into the country 6 days AFTER Barry was born. They didn’t say if it says anything about a baby, or where she was coming from.
I can’t find a thread on this. Have either of you heard this?
It’s hard to know what to believe anymore. I won’t get excited until it is established as authentic though.
Jim, Please show the evidence you state as fact. From what I have read Pakistan was under martial law and travel there was difficult for non citizens. If you have other information then please let us know.
Shouldn't this be simple with a FOIA? But it is not. I have not heard this myself but it makes sense. Those in charge assumed Obama have been vetted then why not? Obama had used false documentation for so many years no one questioned him.
So we need to ask the right people how passports are done for elected officials.
Like it matters, right? Everyone is so in the tank for Obama he could find anything that would take down most politicians and the socialists would say it is a blip in the scheme of things. Makes me......nevermind!
The articles I have read in NYT are from Obama, his team or his books. If we were to rely on those interviews then we just need to believe Obama is what he says he is. Those are his words or the words he wants us to believe. Sorry, none of his words add up and that is why we are searching.
NYT needs a bailout from Obama ASAP. They delivered his election and they will print what he says.
I still am curious. Thank you! I would love for Obama to answer it all and come clean so many of us could sleep better at night. When money backs you I guess truth is not important.
He could not have obtained a U.S. Passport without documentation showing that he was a U.S. Citizen.
And more importantly, when he entered the U.S. Senate in 2005, the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) and the Senate President Dick Cheney would not have seated him without proper credentials which would include proof that he was a U.S. citizen.
When in 2005 did Barry 0 present his citizenship papers to Dick Cheney and Bill Frist? Please specify the date, the papers presented by Barry, and cite the source for your facts. Thanks in advance.
Miranda, why is it the you and the other people that claim that it was against the law for Americans to travel to Pakistan in 1981 can never cite the name of the law that prevented such travel?
And after you answer that question, why is it that the Reagan Administration sold F-16's to Pakistan in 1981?
Do you really believe that Reagan would sell F-16's to a country where Americans could not travel?
In 2005 Bill Frist was the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate and Cheney was the President of the Senate.
If Frist and Cheney were doing their jobs, they reviewed the credentials of all the Senators elected in 2004.
I think the important idea here is that it was against *Pakistani* “law” (and in particular, against the wishes of Pakistani authorities) for regular Americans to travel to Pakistan at the time, not that it was necessarily against US State Dept rules for Aericans to do so. Hope this helps.
No, sorry, I said evidence. You have continually posted for facts. NYT communist family articles is not evidence. You take a article out of NYT as factual but you refuse to accept that any information you have read is true about Obama? You believe everything you read in main stream media do you?
There must not have been a ban you say? So you are spreading more assumption like earlier when you said Obama's mothers birth place is not in question? But you can't prove where she was born, can you? You can't prove that travel to Pakistan was illegal either? For that matter travel to Cuba is banned but still Americans go all the time, right? All the same to you?
So in your mind if Obama traveled there it was legitimate? So where is his 30 day VISA? Wouldn't it be easy to just place it for all to see so they don't wonder about dual citizenship? By the way Obama has admitted dual citizenship on his website. Where are the other travellers others mentioned who went there at the time? Why is it only someone saying, my brother went there and had a great time partying..no name...or my cousin.
You have just posted more propaganda that you came to this website to disapprove of. Nothing else.
I would suggest that if you want to show evidence you write that letter and post it her for everyone to read when they say, yes, travel was possible without a passport during that time. Until then, let the arguments against that theory continue.
What is your source for the statement that it was against Pakistani law for U.S. citizens to enter?
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.