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.
Well, in talking about the possibility that Obama may be proven ineligible, one is left in *two camps* at the same time — while you still hold out hope that it can be proven.
Now..., I would imagine that those during President Arthur’s time were *still trying to prove* their case, too. It’s just that they never did.
SO..., *during the time* that they were *still trying* — was President Arthur *really the President*. Now, that question is applicable here, too — because you don’t really know if you’ll ever come up with the proof — so you’ve got an “interim time” while you’re still trying to find it — but — Obama is still President. The question is — Is Obama *really* the President — while you’re still “looking” for the proof? And then, what if you never find it — is he *still President*?
There’s what I mean by living in two camps at the same time — Obama is President — while — you’re trying to find that Obama is not President — both at the same time... except only *one* is relevant at a time...
—
Continuing — it doesn’t matter how it is reported — what matters is *if you can prove it* — that’s the main thing. And that’s still questionable...
Anyway..., I still do think that President Arthur’s situation is “instructional”...
When did barry announce he was going to run for president? I think hil and bill had more than five months to destroy barry and couldn’t come up with the evidence.
***It is a classic fallacy, dolt. An argument from silence. You don’t know if they could or couldn’t do it, so you cannot argue from that lack of knowledge, the silence of the evidence. Take a critical thinking class.
Is that the point you were making?
I thought we were talking about scrutiny of the candidate. Are we now talking about "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?"
Also, and you have to help me here because it's all becoming a blur... you weren't one of those who were arguing that the people voted for Obama so that is enough to credential him, right? Because if you were, then the Arthur argument fails that test, because they voted for Garfield and Arthur probably skated under the radar (so to speak for the time period). It's not like the people were voting for Arthur...
-PJ
So, the Constitutional provisions don’t apply if you get to be President by another methodology? Is that it?
And, it seems that we’ve found another “loophole” in the Constitution, then, if the Vice President does not have to be qualified under the Constitution to be President. Now.., that’s a real big loophole. It looks like there are more problems to fix with the Constitution... LOL...
They may have made a copy but it would be placed into an immigration file. The Port of Entry would never have kept an original birth certificate!
The point of Entry would be Bellingham WA but any copy of a birth certificate would not remain at a POE it would be placed in an immigration file. A FOIA request would have to made with the Immigration Dept and good luck with that. They can’t even handle the files they have now!
There are qualifications for being president. It is not the responsibility of the voters to prove that a candidate is unqualifeid. It is the responsibility of the candidate to prove they are. And voting for someone does not qualify them.
The fact that no one has required OB to do so, puts this into the courts. We will raise the issue until the evidence is made public. We will ensure that the issue follows OB throughout history, unless HE PROVES HE IS QUALIFIED.
You of course are free to keep stating that we haven't proven anything. That remains an open question anyway. We will see what the force of free dialogue and the energy of thousands of people might produce. Put your money on your favorite.
Using the number of court filings as “proof” proves nothing but that there are a lot of lawyers out there.
***It’s not “proof” it’s evidence. Straw argument. Another classic fallacy. Take that critical thinking class, troll.
As to an AOL poll: polls are crap and online polls are even worse. The fact that you use it to support your beliefs says that you have no proof, just ODS.
***It means that there’s 60 thousand people who think the same way. Typical conspiracy theories have trouble getting more than 5 thousand.
I said it before, but in case you missed it: I hope I am wrong, BUT this whole thing just looks to much like the 9-11 idiots, Bush is evil crowd and the Bigfoot came off a space ship freaks to believe it.
***And like I said before, when we see 5 concurrent court cases before the SCOTUS (et al info) then those other issues will become legitimate like this one.
Let me ask you a question: If this guy has proof that obama isn’t a citizen, why doesn’t he just wait till he has all the evidence and then release it?
***Because he’s an idiot whose job it is to generate traffic to his radio program. Now answer my questions.
Call me a troll because I disagree with you,
***Lotsa people disagree with me, but not so many are doing what you do: use classic fallacies, dredge up old discredited stories, have new signon dates, and are generally attitude driven rather than fact driven — you are a CoLB Troll.
but you folks are sure acting like the dummies and the kos kids attacking anyone that dares disagree with you
***Not those who disagree, see above. We attack trolls like you. Try this, troll: sign up again at FR, use the same exact questions but remove the snide tone and see if your questions get answered. Of course, trolls can’t resist when they see progress using this approach and end up down the same path as before but it proves instructive about the difference between those who disagree and those who are flat-out trolls, like you.
No..., what I’m asking here (and it can be for anyone) is a simple question to find out the *effect* of one thing that people here have said will have a major effect.
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? Did people decide to ignore that provision afterwards, or did it actually change the meaning legally in some way that I don’t know about.
That would simply solve one riddle for me, as to whether it would have an effect of changing it now... So, it’s a very limited question and it doesn’t have broad implications on everything else about Obama...
Same here.
Sorry, I misread your post. Mea Culpa.
“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.
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.
Looks to me like a lot of someones are covering for him. Including half the entire United States, and a fair number of Freepers!
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.
So, whaddyathink? Any there there in the divorce papers or confidence that more concrete info exists that caps dear leader off at the knees ?
Gum? Something worse than gum! (I just skip over it’s comments.)
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.
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...
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
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.