Posted on 12/30/2008 2:43:30 PM PST by faucetman
Ed Hale of Plains Radio Network will be releasing in his radio show chat room at http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html tomorrow night around 6 pm central time, a certified copy of the divorce papers of Barrack Husein Obama Senior & Stanley Ann Dunham. The document is believed to show Barrack Obama Junior's place of birth. I have heard that it will show that place to be in Kenya. The document obtained from a private investigator in Hawaii will be available for viewing on the Plains Radio Network website.
Wow. Well put. That's pretty much the story, minus the manipulation of some very powerful friends/relatives to get him into places he never qualified for, and cover for him.
Skeery isnt it? ;)
This entire story reminds me of the film “Brazil”
Why do you keep saying that. All Hawaiian officials have ever said is that he has a BC on file per Hawaiian rules and regulations. Hawaiian rules and requlations allow someone born in Kenya to have a Hawaiian Certification of live birth to be registered in Hawaii. That COLB long form would show where he was born. That's why all the lawsuits requesting a certified vault copy of his Hawaiian BC. Barry has so far refused to to provide this copy so the Kenyan birth issue is still alive. Why do you suppose he has failed to provide this document?
Precisely.....
I must wonder why he persists in refusing to show the long form that is in Hawaii. It makes no sense. So many mysteries surround this man, nothing would shock me. He is very cold and calculating, that is for sure.
Maybe he doesnt post it to the public for the same reason you dont post yours to the public?
Privacy.
State officials have not declared his status bogus
Again you persist in implying that Gov Lingle and the state of HI are complicit in a cover up
Not at all. Per Hawaiian laws and regulations they can not release information about his BC.
Thats what I am trying to say. So how is Obama covering this up?
So the story here is We could have Obamas hide if he would just give us the knife
Yea, would have been nice. But IF such a document exists, it may have just been discovered. You can't use what you haven't found.
BTW, I'm listening now. The FedEx package with a copy of the document, is said to be on it's way to the host. They are saying that the divorce was filed for by BHO Sr, not Stanley Ann, but that is does show that the couple had one minor child under 18 born in Mombasa Kenya.
The host is weasling a bit saying that he can't guarantee what's in the document, because he hasn't seen it, and is relying on information from the PI. The email from the PI supposedly says that he could not find any marriage records *in Hawaii*.
Probably a bunch of whoey, but as I said before, at at least we don't have long to wait. (I'd have insisted the PI courier the thing) I'll not be holding my breath, but will check on it tomorrow.
And then lighting will strike him down?
Well we can hope.
It did not exist as a country, but it did as a place. All the document would have to say would be something like "Mombasa, British Crown Colony of Kenya".
I guess we’ll see.
What you said - its news to me too. Sometimes its the little things that crop up to expose the big lie ... ;-)
Just where *in the Constitution* is that laid out? The only thing that comes close is the Fifth Amendment which says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Which, in a vacuum might almost imply that the accused must defend himself, rather than the prosecution prove he's guilty.
While neither innocent nor guilty appear anywhere in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and later amendments. Now that doesn't mean that "innocent until proved guilty in a court of law" is not a base principal the US system of Justice. But it's a part not codified in the Constitution. EXCEPT in the ninth amendment, which protects non enumerated rights, rights recognized in the Common law, not enumerated in the Constitution.
You really should read the thing before pontificating on what it provides.
It does provide that no person not a natural born citizen of the United States is eligible to the office of President.
This thing that is allegedly to be released tomorrow, would provide evidence, perhaps not conclusive, but evidence, of that lack of eligibility. Evidence that should be sufficient for a court to require that proof of eligibility is required
No matter if he take the oath of office or not, by definition he cannot be President if he is not eligible for that office. It's an exclusive OR situation. Either he is eligible or he is not.
Now who would be President if Obama were declared ineligible? Well at least at first VP Biden would be. Now someone might challenge his election as being invalid as based on fraud, but that would be a separate case, and the Constitution is clear on that at least:
Amendment XXV
Section. 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
That is one of the latter amendments, and only Gerald Ford became President under it, all Previous VPs who became President on the death or resignation of the President did so under the somewhat unclear Article II provision below:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,
Notice that it really didn't say that the VP shall become President, but rather that the Powers and Duties of the office of President, go to (devolve upon) the VP. Practically speaking, the same thing, but not quite. The XXVth amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, with the main purpose being to provide for a replacement VP, but they took the opportunity to clear up that little ambiguity.
That's true, but the law also provides that a copy will be provided to "a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;"
So under a court order, the clerk of that court could be such a person.
As I understand it the State of Hawaii has been provided the documents and is satisfied
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.