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.
You were saying — “Definitely. Although it need not be at the State level, it could be. It could also be a Constitutional amendment, or even just an ordinary law, under the necessary and proper clause as applied to the “natural born citizen” requirement.”
Well, I do understand that it’s definitely possible to get a Constitutional Amendment for specifying a clear and open process for verifying a candidates Constitutional qualifications. But, I personally think that would stretch it out too long into the future and be very difficult to get through the Congress (for proposing the Amendment in the first place).
My estimation of this kind of process (i.e., getting the law on the books) is that it’s much easier on a state level because certain states are overwhelmingly Republican and they would be more inclined to support the Constitution this way (at least in their own state). If we were to get just a few states, that would be sufficient to make it so that a candidate would not want to forgo being on the ballot of a number of states — just for the sake of keeping his information away from the people.
—
But, I notice that the FReeper “mylife”, also responded by saying — “If we cant hang this guy on his communist and anti constitutional ties, what are the odds we will get him on a “technicality’?”
Ummm..., I think it’s a lot easier to “hang a person” on the technical aspects of the law, as it is written — than it is to “hang a guy” on political issues. Political viewpoints (even if we don’t agree with them) *are allowed* — but, in *all cases* — breaking the law (when it’s clear and specified plainly) is not what the overwhelming majority of the population will go along with.
You see..., you make it written into the “letter of the law” that a candidate cannot be put on the ballot, in the first place, unless they have complied with very specific things that the law very clearly states. And then you make it so that anyone in the state can sue to prevent a candidate from being on the ballot, and they are able to take it *directly* to the Supreme Court of that state (in the first instance, without going through lower courts) in order to prevent that, if the Court determines that those *specifics* in the law were not followed. They can issue an injunction. And also, they will be able to issue an injunction (by law, again, as specified in the statute to be proposed) against any Electoral College vote being cast for that particular candidate. Such an injunction will allow a state to cancel an Electoral College vote from being submitted, if it has that candidate’s name.
That’s how I would see such a statute working...
I agree with you. I wonder if anyone has done research to confirm that the requirement for the parent to be in the US for five years after the age of 14 even applies to natural US citizens. It seems that it would be applicable only to naturalized US citizens. I find it hard to believe that the requirement would apply to a natural born US citizen. And there is no doubt that Obama’s mother is a natural born US citizen.
Then why did the PI have to “go to Hawaii”?
I thought anyone born in the US, regardless of the citizenshhip of the parents, was a natural born US citizen?
They read the case number once, not Ed but the other guy, and Ed told him not to read it again. Whatever that might be worth. I don't know that their are archives of the show, but there might be. It was at least an hour into the show, maybe more. Unfortunatly I had nothing to write with, and numbers go in, but the don't come out, unless they *mean* something, rather than just an ID Number, and I use them frequently, such as Pi or Avogadro's number (6.02+ x 10^23)
I see that there are archives, but I can't access audio files from here.
http://www.plainsradio.com/show.html. The show was Ed and Caren, but it was a fill in for Scott Oakland. E&C shows no archive for Tuesday, but the SO show does.
OK, I’ve read the entire thread, it’s now late Wednesday morning, and there’s nothing about the divorce papers, place of birth or anything here. I went to link for Plains Radio, and there’s nothing on the site. There is a place to donate “$1000 in the next 24 hours to purchase documents that Steve needs”, but when you go the link it says it’s to pay their phone bill. I thought the package was on it’s way, etc. What’s the deal?
So, let’s take a look, to see if you were deceiving readers with your faux Bible lesson!
[Star Traveler: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2154244/posts?q=1&;page=305] You said — “He didn’t say anything about being nice to His enemies.” I think he did, in regards to the question of “Who is my neighbor” and who helped the injured Samaritan along the road (Samaritans were the enemies of Israel...).... I think Jesus made the point very well…
Was this merely a typo? Well, you repeated the error, so we can’t call the initial error a typo; you just aren’t what you pretend to be. But, in typical liars bluff not knowing when to keep quiet in your initial deceit, you tried to dismiss my calling you out:
To: Star Traveler
When you actually learn whom the Samaritans were and their relationship to the ‘in tribe’ of Jerusalem, perhaps you’ll have matured sufficiently to not make large religious claims based on flawed references.
326 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:55:48 PM by MHGinTN
To: MHGinTN
Suffice it to say, if you studied the Bible and knew your facts …
It appears you have no knowledge of the Bible or knowledge of Jesus, and that’s a major problem in even understanding what Jesus said…
341 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:11:52 PM by Star Traveler
To: MHGinTN
… And Jesus made that an express example of the question of “Who is my neighbor” in giving the example of helping the Samaritan who was passed by on the road, by everyone else. …
You obviously are like the Pharisees and the Sadducees who were always against Jesus and what He said, time and time again. I see we have them here on this forum, too — in spite of what the Bible tells Christians to do…
357 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:32:15 PM by Star Traveler
To: Star Traveler From your #305 post, you did't even know that the Good Smaritan was the one who stopped to help the injured traveler! You're a fraud, a typical poseur trying to quote the Bible to manipulate readers. Here is your exact sentence from #305:
Star Traveler: I think he did, in regards to the question of “Who is my neighbor” and who helped the injured Samaritan along the road (Samaritans were the enemies of Israel...)
361 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:41:15 PM by MHGinTN
To: MHGinTN
You said — “You’re a fraud, a typical poseur trying to quote the Bible to manipulate readers.”
It’s the exact same thing I’ve been posting, from the Bible, since the beginning on Free Republic. You’ll find no difference from Clinton, to Bush to Obama... You just don’t like the content of what is being posted, and that’s your problem. But, I won’t be changing my posting.
—
The Samaritan was the person who helped. I’ll quote the section for you... Luke 10:25-37
…
369 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:54:35 PM by Star Traveler
Yes, I’d say you’re a fraud. You’ve tried to scam readers by quoting Bible verses you don’t even have enough familiarity with to know the role of the story participants, and you tried to twist your lie into stating something opposite of what you stated.
You were saying — “Just where *in the Constitution* is that laid out? The only thing that comes close is the Fifth Amendment which says:”
Due process and being convicted by a jury of your peers and being presumed innocent until proven (and judged) guilty is all part of our Constitutional system. I’m sorry if you didn’t know that...
—
And then you said — “You really should read the thing before pontificating on what it provides.”
We all know, without going to law school and learning terminology exactly what innocent until proven guilty means, what due process means and what tried (and judged) by a jury of your peers means. And we all know, very well, too that people are not required to give information about themselves or make statements that are requested of them and are allowed to be silent, requiring the state to find and provide “proof” in order to convict...
You might want to see this particular law professor and a police investigator talking about this in a law seminar. It’s enlightening for those who may not know...
Talking to the Police by Professor James Duane
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en
Everyone should view this... (really!)...
—
Then you were saying — “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.”
This is sounding more and more like API (African Press International) and Chief Editor Korir, and the supposed Michelle Obama tape.... LOL... It was always tomorrow something is going to happen, next week we’ll be meeting with lawyers, in a few more days we’ll release the tapes, and so on...
—
And to continue on to those other issues, it’s very interesting that the President of the United States (the present one) and the Vice President have nothing to do with this issue. If they were to be *defending the Constitution* (and they sure do have their own lawyers who know what is allowed and not and what they can do), it would be very clear and easy for them to defend the Constitution in the way that many FReepers here are saying.
The “proof” of whether this is a viable issue is simply that the GOP and their candidate, plus the current sitting President and the Vice President, along with the Justice Department and the FBI — none of them — have ever taken a single move to eliminate a fraudulent candidate.
That pretty much tells me that they know that there is (either) no way to do anything about a “possible” problem — or else — they know that there is no problem (i.e., per the Constitution).
BUT, I’m sure that there are some FReepers who are convinced that the present President and the Vice President are in collusion with Obama to usher him in as President and they don’t want to do anything about it. And these same FReepers will throw in McCain and Palin, too, in that category... LOL..
Ummm..., you’re starting to foam at the mouth... LOL...
Remember, you’ve already stated that you don’t want to talk to me and discuss things anymore...
So, which is it going to be???
—
I’ll leave this one up to the Admin Moderator to determine as to whether I should continue talking to someone who is apparently starting to get unstable... here...
Please, let me know whether to continue, as I don’t really want to send someone “over the edge” as might be happening... :-)
I've looked up the law itself, it just says "Citizen" not "Natrual born citizen". Of course the law only applies to citizenship acquired at birth, which may or may not be the same as Natural born citizenship. I tend to think it's not. Congress only was given power to establish uniform rules for naturalization, not to define natural born. Now as it happens, by my reading, their rules make a natural born citizen a citizen at birth as well, so no harm done there, but they cannot make a non-natural born citizen into one, only into a citizen. The law says:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
... a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; ....
No other part of section 1401 makes any distinction between natural born and naturalized citizen parent(s). The law has changed since BHO was born, at that time the citizen parent needed to have resided in the US for 10 years, 5 of then after their 14th birthday.
BHO's mother was only 18, when he was (supposedly) born. So, if he was born outside the US and never naturalized, then BHO is not only not a natural born citizen, he's not a citizen at all. If he was naturalized, then he is a citizen, but could not be a natural born one.
You missed a lot. The information was only provided in audio format. They said they will scan the papers in as soon as they get them and post a link to them on the website, somewhere. But never fear, they also already have a volunteer who will post them to a thread, maybe even this one, right here at FR. That should be sometime after 6 PM, possibly as late as just after 9PM. Unless Lucy once against pulls the football away at the last minute.
Never said it wasn't, just that it's not in the Constitution itself. Unless you can point it out to me. Never mind, I know it's not there, Cntrl F is my friend.
And we all know, very well, too that people are not required to give information about themselves or make statements that are requested of them and are allowed to be silent, requiring the state to find and provide “proof” in order to convict...
In criminal trials, yes, that's in the fifth amendment. But you can be forced to give up evidence against yourself, even in a criminal matter. Per the fourth amendment, it takes a Warrant issued by a judge, but it can be done. That's what it would take in this case, an act of a court of competent jurisdiction, even though this is not (yet) a criminal matter.
You see, I am sworn by oath to support and defend the Constitution so I've read it very closely, and check it frequently rather than relying on my increasingly faulty memory.
Guilty until proved innocent is not in the Constitution, it's part of the Common Law. That's all I'm saying.
And BTW, I've never been to law school either. But my daughter and her husband have.
“They said they will scan the papers in as soon as they get them”
But this is what doesn’t make sense about this whole story. I understand the PI needs to send certified copies so that people don’t think he just fabricated them out of whole cloth, but why not scan/fax/send an electronic version to Ed Hale in advance of sending them by 2nd Day delivery?
After all, at the end of the day, even if these were authentic documents, it’s clear that whoever is discussing the case is going to have to rely on scanned documents posted by Ed Hale in any case. The way this is being handled has all the makings of the Michelle tape fiasco.
You said — “Never said it wasn’t, just that it’s not in the Constitution itself. Unless you can point it out to me. Never mind, I know it’s not there, Cntrl F is my friend.”
Well, that’s part of what makes a lot of this stuff so crazy at times. People do know certain rights that they have. We’ve all been taught and told and have discussed them before. But, it’s only the lawyers and the judges who are going to get down to the actual citations and court precedents and all the various in and outs of it all.
The bottom line is what most people should know and they don’t have to be a lawyer to know it or even get citations to know this stuff. Do I know that I don’t have to talk to the police in answering whatever questions they want to ask. If I don’t, I should... LOL...
What’s the citation for it? Who cares... I’m not going to talk anyway... :-)
Do I know that I’m presumed innocent until proven guilty. If not, I should. Am I going to want a citation before I act accordingly? Nope... Am I going to presume someone guilty before having been judged that? Nope. (But, apparently some people do...). I may have a suspicion that someone is lying about the fact of being guilty, but I’ll also understand that unless it’s proven, nothing is going to come of it and the person is *still* innocent, in the meantime, even if I am suspicious.
And on and on it goes...., with more stuff like this...
—
You then said — “In criminal trials, yes, that’s in the fifth amendment. But you can be forced to give up evidence against yourself, even in a criminal matter. Per the fourth amendment, it takes a Warrant issued by a judge, but it can be done. That’s what it would take in this case, an act of a court of competent jurisdiction, even though this is not (yet) a criminal matter.”
Well, it doesn’t even have to be a criminal trial. You don’t even have to be arrested. You don’t even have to be “suspected” of a crime — and — you have that right to be silent. Now, perhaps a court can compel certain things, if one is facing criminal proceedings (possibly), but that doesn’t mean that *you* personally have to be testifying against yourself or say anything. If a court wants to hunt around for something specific, I guess they can do that sort of thing, but they can’t “fish it out of your own mouth” [i.e., in “your words” although they may be able to fish something else out of your mouth..., like saliva... LOL...] unless you decided to give up that right, on your own.
Now, ask me for citations... I’ll say get them yourself, because I’m going to do those things, according to what I know, and according to some lawyer that I have who will be looking for those rights... :-)
AND — likewise, I know that the President of the United States is not going to be compelled to give testimony against himself. If someone can “find” evidence, then maybe some information will get out — but those same privacy rights that any other citizen has, so does the President (and in some instances a lot more than ordinary citizens). Of course, Obama isn’t President yet, but he soon will be and then it’s another ball game.
So, if someone doesn’t do something in just a few days (a mere few weeks), then — like I said — it’s another ball game and it becomes tremendously more difficult to do anything about removing Obama from office (after being installed as President).
We’ve all seen how our laws work, we’ve seen enough criminal trials, we’ve seen enough with politicians (”think” — Bill Clinton and the Impeachment and Trial... :-)...). It’s obvious how things are going to work. Things are going to work in the present and in the future, just like they have in the past.
That’s why I say that one must put into place these state laws that mandate, very specifically, certain actions on qualifications for President, or else the candidate cannot be put on the ballot and the Electoral College votes (for that state) will not be submitted with that candidate’s name.
The most common sense approach, instead of pulling a “rabbit out of a hat” in some arcane and mysterious language that no one knows a thing about (especially not the Supreme Court, either, apparently...) — is to use ordinary common sense and ‘beef up the law” regarding what the problem is.
That’s an ordinary legislative solution — which, by the way — is not “conspiracy minded” or “far out” or “extreme” in any way. We do “legislative solutions” all the time with our legislators. This is *ordinary* in the most basic way.
The stuff that I’ve seen about how to get Obama out of office is so convoluted, one might think a poster could be a good science fiction writer...
I say, *do the ordinary thing* to get Obama out of office...
Apparently his listeners are as credulous as their host. Ed Hale has also claimed to have certified copies of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate and the Michelle tapes. He has lied or exaggerated about the Larry Sinclair story, Islamicfascist death threats on Donofrio which turned out to be total B.S., etc...
I think it is a wacko who gets its jollies disrupting these threads (and others, I remember from a couple of years ago), one tactic is faux religiousness.
Even I know the correct facts of the story of the good Samaritan!
Did they release it yet?
And waiting....and waiting....and waiting.
The document says the parties have 2 children. If they were not both legally the children of the husband and wife it would have said the parties have one child, and the wife has a child by a former marriage.
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.