Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.

Plains Radio ^ | 1/2/09 | Patriot08

[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.

[thecodont]

...if Obama was born on foreign soil - HE IS NOT EVEN A CITIZEN let alone natural born.

Correct, but this is nothing new. Phil Berg made that point several months ago.

Even the Kenyan Parliament (Nov. 5th, 2008) was joking about Obama's victory "homecoming."

(This is supposed to be from the Kenyan Government's Web site.)

http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/5.11.08A.pdf

p. 3266 - PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - November 5, 2008

The Assistant Minister for Water and Irrigation (Mr. Kiunjuri): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as you can see, people are really celebrating. However, I am wondering whether the Americans have not reported to work and yet it is their victory. I am also hoping that there will be no homecoming for Obama. If there is one, the Leader of Government Business should alert us in good time so that we can set up a committee to organize for his homecoming. (Laughter)

pp. 3275-3278 - more on the Obama presidential victory, discussion

[MHGinTN]

G’nite Gracey.

[TheBigIf]

On the issues that I have discussed with you tonight you seem to be someone who is liberal. I do not know why you had to make a clarification in regards to whether someone is possibly an abortion clinic bomber just because they had said that they may reject or not accept a Supreme Court decision. Nor why you insist on making the case that the Arthur case and the Obama case are identical.

The impression I start to get from you after a while is that you are a liberal. It starts to come through after awhile.

Well at least you are polite Star Traveler. I am heading to sleep though so have a good night.

Good night all!

[Star Traveler]

You said — “You seem like you are in a muddle. This is also a typical state that liberals enter when discussing law and the Constitution. They make it seem like both sids are equally subjective on the issue even though it is themselves who want to not be objective in regards to the facts. Conservatives on this issue want the rule of law to be upheld, yet you are arguing based upon the past case of Arthur that it dosent really matter.”

It’s no muddle to me to abide by whatever Supreme Court decision comes out, no matter whether I agree with it or not. And it’s certainly not a muddle to me to understand the *reality* of a situation (as we have right now) which is similar to the “reality” that people had to face before in our country (as they did with President Arthur).

So, it’s a very clear issue to follow the Supreme Court decision and to also recognize *reality* as it happens and don’t confuse wishes and desires with reality... Then you’ll be fine.

And if there are changes to be made, you work within the system to make the changes. That all seem very clear to me and not too hard to follow, actually...

[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 ?

There is certainly nothing in the papers themselves. And not much confidence that they'll find something based on them. But you never know when unraveling the ball of yarn, if there is something in the middle or not, until you find it, or run out of yarn.

[truthfreedom]

I’m not sure whether or not people are talking about armed revolt here. You seem to be arguing against armed revolt. I must have missed the posts where people were planning armed revolt if the S Ct let Obama be President.

I have no idea what people would do if the SCt does nothing.
It seems like you think armed revolt is a real possibility.

[TheBigIf]

You had made the comment that you thought we were a nation of opinions simply because someone had said that they may not accept a Supreme Court decision.

It is typical of liberals to act as if conservatives and liberals are equally just spouting there own opinions or agendas in regards to the Constitution, when in fact conservatives are trying to follow the Constitution to the letter.

Your muddled perspective in that post is very familiar to me in many argumets I have had with liberals.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Right so you are on a crusade to let everyone know that all be alright if Obama is ineligible and the Constitution gets ignored.”

No..., I said it was a serious issue with President Arthur to violate the Constitution and he did it twice, not just once. That’s doubly serious. It’s like having two counts of a crime instead of one count. Obama so far, has only been accused of one count of violating the Constitutional requirement for office, because he’s only going into one office (not two offices, one after the other). So, they are serious issues.

But, the problem is the same as it was before with President Arthur, No one could come up with any proof. Now, if someone does have some proof — then I guess a court will rule in their favor. But, if they don’t then it will be the same thing as President Arthur, both being serious problems...

—

And then you were saying — “And you are on another crusade in this thread to tell us all that we should accept whatever the Supreme Court says and never disagree and fight to change it.”

Nope, that’s not quite the accurate story there. I guess some people just don’t read close enough. What I said (and you can verify this by following through on that conversation) is that you accept what the Supreme Court says, regardless of whether you think it’s right or not. And if you don’t agree with it, then you can work within the system to make any changes that you think are needed.

The Dred Scott decision was wrong and it was finally corrected. The Roe v. Wade decision was wrong and that hasn’t been corrected yet. It’s still being worked on.

So, that’s how you do your changes — you abide by the court’s decision and you make the changes in the same ways that people are doing so and have done so with Dred Scot and Roe v. Wade. (plus other decisions, too).

—

You asked — “You are not a liberal?”

That’s not what my Liberal/Conservative test says... you can see it on my Home Page... LOL...

[El Gato]

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... :-)

But if it's "no word" it's not the last word, because it means they said anything, they just decided not to decide. But they mostly haven't even done that yet, other than denying requests for pre argument injunctions and such. They have not ruled on the merits of the case, and haven't even said they weren't going to take the case in several instances.

The fat lady may be warming up her pipes, but she hasn't sung yet. She may never sing, she may sing after January 20th, which could be a mess as the audience starts hurling rotten fruit at the others on stage, or she my sing Obama's song, before or after January 20th.

[TheBigIf]

You also made a big point about no damage was done by Arthur serving and that no laws were made ineligible and so on. So how serious can you really be claiming that it was?
It much more seems to me that you are trying to downplay the seriousness of this by insisting on thse points in regards to Arthur.

And it seems that you intentionally made an issue out of what people said here in regards to how they would or would not accept a Supreme Court decision and even brought up references that a liberal would bring up.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “You had made the comment that you thought we were a nation of opinions simply because someone had said that they may not accept a Supreme Court decision.”

If it turns out that people ignore Supreme Court decisions and don’t abide by them, because it does not accord to their personal opinions, then yes, it’s a country of opinions and not one of laws.

But, if one abides by the Supreme Court decisions and thinks it should be changed, and then works within the system and the laws that we have — and gets those changes accomplished — then that would be a country of laws (and not “opinions”)

That’s the difference...

—

Then you were saying — “It is typical of liberals to act as if conservatives and liberals are equally just spouting there own opinions or agendas in regards to the Constitution, when in fact conservatives are trying to follow the Constitution to the letter.”

If one will *not* abide by the Supreme Court decisions, regardless of whether they agree with them (and while they may work to make changes) then — yes..., it’s just “opinions”.

For example, one can have agreed with the Constitution over the years and yet, still have voted on inserting Amendments into the Constitution. You can see something wrong in the Constitution and see that something has to be changed or improved and do it. We’ve done it many times, already. We will still continue doing that. But, it’s done within the law.

So, if the Supreme Court does not agree with those here — then changes can be made to the Constitution which can correct the problem. It’s that simple and it’s not a complicated idea or matter. But, it’s all done within the law...

—

And lastly, you said — “Your muddled perspective in that post is very familiar to me in many argumets I have had with liberals.”

It’s really a clear matter to me. You follow the Supreme Court decisions, no matter whether they are your opinion or not. If you think things need to be changed, then you work within the laws and you get the changes done. That’s not very muddled to me..., perhaps it is to you.. I don’t know...

—

And talking about liberals — you can see my liberal/conservative test on my Home Page... :-)

[Star Traveler]

You asked about an armed revolt... well... when someone quoted the Declaration of Independence, that was the First American Revolution, an armed revolt.

So, their reference to that, in addressing these present issues seemed to me to be a “Second American Revolution” — and such an armed revolt I would not support, no matter what the Supreme Court decision was...

[El Gato]

I think our first port should be the closest one to Harvard where hHE was attending school.

I don't think BHO Sr was at Harvard yet in August of '61. He was still at U of Hawaii, and still an undergrad.

But closest POE to Boston would not be Baltimore. Likely it would be Boston's Logan Airport or failing that New York City.

[Star Traveler]

Well, I’ll call it quits for the night, too... and get back in the morning...

[STARWISE]

What would the Founding Fathers do?

[TheBigIf]

“And it seems that you intentionally made an issue out of what people said here in regards to how they would or would not accept a Supreme Court decision and even brought up references that a liberal would bring up.”

Star Traveler you are still making an issue of this. It really wasnt an issue until you made it one. You saw an oppurtunity to make the clarification of what others here meat by “accept” or “reject” on the Court as an issue.

I wasnt even apart of the original exchange. I am just giving my impression of how you responded to it.

[Lmo56]

I do not see the word “Vice-President” anywhere in the text. The constitution specifies the succession. Yet there is no natural born requirement for vice-President but a clear statement that the Vice-President replaces the President in case he is removed or dies.

***

Au contraire, mon frere ...

Might be worth your while to read the 12th Amendment ...

” ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

[TheBigIf]

Good deal. Be Good.

I am doing the same.

Have a good night all!

[Political Junkie Too]

You asked about an armed revolt... well... when someone quoted the Declaration of Independence, that was the First American Revolution, an armed revolt. So, their reference to that, in addressing these present issues seemed to me to be a “Second American Revolution” — and such an armed revolt I would not support, no matter what the Supreme Court decision was...

Let's be precise here...

You asked about "no authority in the entire land" and I posted the quote from the Declaration that said that the authority comes from the consent of the governed.

I did not say how that consent was enforced, although the initial founding was via revolution.

There are many ways for consent of the governed to be expressed short of revolution. Now, if I were to have quoted Jefferson's thoughts on how a revolution every twenty years or so was a good thing, that would be different.

-PJ

[El Gato]

And if the Supreme Court decides that Obama is eligible — I have already “wondered” (in previous posts) if that will finally settle it for people here.

It will for most, IF the court actually looks at the merits of the case, and not just "standing" of those bringing the case. In particular if they, or a lower court, orders a certified copy to be provided by the State of HI to the court or it's clerk, and on that basis decides Obama is eligible. If they decide there is not enough evidence to warrant ordering the BC, that's another issue, if the duck, bob and weave to avoid making a decision on the issue itself, then no, it will not satisfy folks. And legally it will not settle anything. Only an actual ruling will do that. Even a ruling that there is not sufficient cause to order up a BC would not be the final word, because additional evidence could be found at any time, and that could be sufficient to order production of the Bc.

But after all, what's so hard about producing a BC? Most of us have done it multiple times. When we got our driver's license, when we entered the military (although one need not be citizen, one needs either a US BC or a proof of legal residence). Then again to get a job, maybe several times for that too. And so on.

Most major party nominees have well documented histories. They release their college transcripts, their medical records, and even their tax statements. The One has done none of that? Why? Why did the media not clamor for them to be produced as they did for Bush (I & II), McCain, and even Al Gore and Ketchup Kerry. (although they weren't very diligent in asking for his military records).