Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

what started this birth certificate debacle?
sarah p

Posted on 01/30/2009 12:56:39 PM PST by sarah p

i have a question. (actually, i have lots of questions!)

what or who was it that first questioned obama's place of birth?

i am trying to figure out the original source of this info. it seems to me that the key accusation of his kenyan birth came from some who either knew or speculated that his mother traveled to kenya in the summer of 1961. it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis, but is there any evidence or reference that someone can site as to the first person that claimed this?

i think that philip berg was the first to claim that obama's mother traveled to kenya. does anyone recall if he actually was the first and, if so, what he based this claim on?

before you all start calling me an obot, here me out.

I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS, regardless of where he was born because his father was never a US citizen.

it is possible that the kenyan birth theory could have been started to divert our attention from the obvious and well documented fact that obama is not a nbc because his father was a foreign national.

this birth certificate issue has been twisted by the media and others, resulting in anyone who questioned his eligibility to be labeled as "wacko conspiracy theorists, racists, etc. this has resulted in the loss of credibility of this issue in the public eye and hinders otherwise intelligent citizens from looking further into the details of this case.

it is a safe assumption that a harvard trained constitutional lawyer, such as obama, would know the definition of nbc and how he is not one.

of course, i still think it's possible that he was born in kenya. i just think it is easy to get lost in all of the evidence and theories. it would be a good idea for us to step back, look at the big picture and try to determine how this whole mess began.

good bless america! thanks to all who still want to protect our constitution.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcerificate; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; historicevent; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last
To: sarah p

remmbur its bettur two luk gud then two bea gode.


101 posted on 01/30/2009 4:14:57 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: sarah p

ibtz


102 posted on 01/30/2009 4:30:43 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion ("I, El Rushbo -- and I say this happily -- have hijacked Obama's honeymoon.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Here, I will use capital letters so that you can all understand me and see that I am serious.

“indylindy”, I am trying to understand your hostility towards me.

To ask where this issue originated is a relevant question and not just some kind of vanity post. I have been following this since August 2008 and I have done a lot of research on this. Sure, I am a new poster, but that does not mean that I don’t know what I am talking about.

There is a lot of strong, circumstantial evidence that supports the hypothesis that Obama is not a nbc. However, we have much less solid evidence to support this. That does not mean that the hypothesis is wrong, it just means we need more data to be taken seriously. If he is truly ineligible, Obama has had a significant headstart at hiding the evidence. He also has the advantage of knowing what incriminating evidence exists. Those of us that seek the truth are looking for needles in a very large and well protected haystack.

One obvious solution is to obtain the vault bc through legal means. In the mean time, those of us that seek that truth need to band together and find the evidence that we need.

Trying to find a solid reference as to who starting asking about Obama’s natural born status and what they based this on is an important part of finding the truth.


103 posted on 01/30/2009 4:31:53 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: luvadavi

Thanks for the luv luvadavi!


104 posted on 01/30/2009 4:31:54 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Are you claiming that it is not written in the Constitution that the POTUS has to be a natural born citizen? It clearly states “natural born citizen”, not just any citizen.

Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen. This was clearly done on purpose. Obama knows this, which is probably one of the reasons that he has only responded to the birthplace issue and referred to his colb.

He has never replied to the question of his natural born status that is related to the citizenship of his father.


105 posted on 01/30/2009 4:31:56 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

“It is also helpful to know that there is a direct, significant inverse relationship between the use of the terms, “wingnut,” and “tin-foil conspiracy,” and the IQ of the individual using them, and the steength of the relationship is a function of how many times an individual uses these terms.”

That is a very good point. I like the way that you think!

It is also ironic that the individuals using those terms are actually the one’s that are buying into the conspiracy.


106 posted on 01/30/2009 4:31:57 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
i'm not sure who was the first one to start the "rumor," but it was Jim Geraghty's June 9 article that formally raised the question of Obama's place of birth.

I have the links at my post 69.

-PJ

107 posted on 01/30/2009 4:34:16 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sarah p
Are you claiming that it is not written in the Constitution that the POTUS has to be a natural born citizen? It clearly states “natural born citizen”, not just any citizen.

Please cite where in the Constitution (or in established U.S. Law) is "Natural Born Citizen" defined as being born of two U.S. citizens?

Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen.

Again, please cite where this is written in the Constitution. Blog entries don't count.

I won't be holding my breath.

108 posted on 01/30/2009 4:37:13 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: sarah p
Follow the links in post 69. It didn't start with questioning Obama's natural born status. It began with reporters looking at his bona fides, his past as captured in public documents. When they ran into a stonewall regarding his birth certificate, that's when other questions began to arise.

-PJ

109 posted on 01/30/2009 4:37:45 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: sarah p

I don’t need your capital letters, dear.

You are arrogant as you think you are a first in this. Your questions could have been answered by checking the history from the beginning right here on FR by people who have worked at this for a long time.

We don’t need a vanity by someone who joined here in the last month.


110 posted on 01/30/2009 4:40:15 PM PST by dforest (life is now good again....he has been inaugurated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I like the initial report better. Short, simple ~ “I was there when......” Or did she perhaps say “Oh, yes, I knew him when Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga ruled Congo”?


111 posted on 01/30/2009 4:50:42 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sarah p

President-Elect Barry Davis Jr likely started questioning the circumstances of his birth and conception in his teens.

Hope this helps.


112 posted on 01/30/2009 4:55:59 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

The loophole does not exonerate the individual from producing documents when challenged to do so.

Simply affirming legal status is not sufficient because there are criminal provisions under law for making false statements. The Constitutional laws anticipated the potential for fraud or it would not have provided penalty.

Under a legal challenge the question of law should be settled by simply producing proper documentation to prove qualification.

If the loophole is just the question of what is considered a proper document, or who the documentation should be presented to I find no comfort in a complete avoidance of the question. The Constitution clearly states natural born citizen. The PotUS is held to the highest civic standards.
If Obama is proud to be an American citizen by birth, he shouldn’t be ashamed to produce whatever documentation necessary to satisfy the people or their appointed agents.


113 posted on 01/30/2009 5:03:52 PM PST by o_zarkman44 (Since when is paying more, but getting less, considered Patriotic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: sarah p

Your welcome. And ‘Welcome to the fight—this time I know our side will win.” (Paul Henreid, ‘Casablanca’)


114 posted on 01/30/2009 6:06:46 PM PST by luvadavi (Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
The federal courts are notoriously chicken when it comes to major political questions.

In this case, federal courts are being extorted into making these rulings in favor of Obama by threatening rioting and bloodshed if the "First Black President" is removed from office.

115 posted on 01/30/2009 7:12:25 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: sarah p
It is also ironic that the individuals using those terms are actually the one’s that are buying into the conspiracy.

Yes, they are actually fueling the conspiracy. They are basically not smart enough to know that they are part of it or what constitutes a conspiracy. Basically, they call anything that finds fault with Obama, like breaking the law and deliberately hiding his past, is a conspiracy.

All of these ludicrous excuses and outright lies that Obama supporters and allegedly "nonpartisan" groups like Politifact make for Obama's behavior -- the benign "explanations" about Rev. Wright and Trinity Church are enough to turn your stomach -- are part of one, really big conspiracy: Making Obama into "the Messiah" -- the President who can do no wrong.

116 posted on 01/30/2009 7:24:01 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Thanks for the links. I knew that Politifact was involved, too.


117 posted on 01/30/2009 7:25:18 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sarah p
Photobucket
118 posted on 01/30/2009 7:28:36 PM PST by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL (****************************Stop Continental Drift**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“Please cite where in the Constitution (or in established U.S. Law) is “Natural Born Citizen” defined as being born of two U.S. citizens?”

Why don’t you post were it says in the Constitution (or any other US law) that every single word must be defined by law for something to be interpretable. For example, are the words “the” and “born” defined by law? By your definition, no one has to obey a law if all of the words are not specifically defined.

Obviously, there are words that have commonly understood definitions. At the time that the Constitution was written, the definition for natural born citizen was understood.

The framers also modeled the Constitution after Emmerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, in which it is clearly defined. In Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Now I will address your next question.

Me: “Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen.”

you: “Again, please cite where this is written in the Constitution. Blog entries don’t count.

I won’t be holding my breath.”

In order for me to do this, I would have to post the entire Constitution, highlighting every instance of the word “citizen” and the single time “natural born” appears. Obviously, I am not going to do this, so I will cite the Constitution itself and let those who are truly interested to check it out on their own.


119 posted on 01/30/2009 8:08:13 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I am sorry, but it seems to me that you are the arrogant one.

I never claimed to be the first to address these questions. Further, I see nothing wrong with engaging in conversations about these issues with anyone who is interested. If you are not interested, than you do not have to participate.

Finally, I am not your dear. The people who call me that treat me with respect.


120 posted on 01/30/2009 8:08:13 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You wrote: “Please cite where in the Constitution (or in established U.S. Law) is “Natural Born Citizen” defined as being born of two U.S. citizens?”

my reply: Why don’t you cite were it says in the Constitution (or any other US law) that every single word must be defined for a law to be enforced. For example, are the words “the” and “where” defined by law? By your definition, a law is not valid unless every words is specifically defined.

Obviously, there are words that have commonly understood meanings. At the time that the Constitution was written, the definition for natural born citizen was understood.

Also, the framers modeled the Constitution after Emmerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, in which it is clearly defined. In Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”


Now I will address your next question.

Me: “Also, this is the only place in the Constitution that makes a differentiation between a citizen and a natural born citizen.”

you: “Again, please cite where this is written in the Constitution. Blog entries don’t count.

I won’t be holding my breath.”

my reply: In order for me to do this, I would have to post the entire Constitution, highlighting every instance of the word “citizen” and the single time “natural born” appears. Obviously, I am not going to do this, so I will cite the Constitution itself and let those who are truly interested to check it out on their own.


121 posted on 01/30/2009 8:09:13 PM PST by sarah p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

In before the zot?

And I thought IBTZ was the sound of a troll getting zapped, like a bug zapper.


122 posted on 01/31/2009 12:27:21 AM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Sarah Obama: [Replies to him in Swahili]

Sarah Obama doesn't speak Swahili. Or English. She speaks Luo. If was bogus 'evidemce' like that which got Berg laughed out of court.

123 posted on 01/31/2009 4:12:33 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
Think you got it backwards, Non.

Not really. If you believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii then shouldn't you have some evidence to back that up?

124 posted on 01/31/2009 4:14:07 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; FreeAtlanta
If you believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii then shouldn't you have some evidence to back that up?

FreeAtlanta and I are the lawful American citizens, demanding a simple piece of documentation from a possible felon, who claims the right to rule us.

As we saw during the impeachment wars of Bill Clinton, an unprosecuted felon can quite comfortably occupy the most powerful office in the world, the U.S. presidency, and the cowardly lions of the federal court system will do nothing about it.

Your arguments against the birthers (of which I am not one) would be more credible if you'd give a mere nodding acknowledgement to the fact that The Big Wagyu ain't coughed up dick in the way of documentation.

That WAS a cute story that the Obaminions ran the other day about the school teacher who remembered every utterance of The Messiah when He was just a Fledging Godlette - don't you agree? ;-)

125 posted on 01/31/2009 7:06:57 AM PST by an amused spectator (Citizen Kenyan: Commander in The Effort Against Culturally-Influenced Misbehavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: sarah p
I don't believe that BO is ineligible. I hope he isn't but I don't believe it.
WHY?
Slick would have been on it like stink on SHEITE.
126 posted on 01/31/2009 7:15:50 AM PST by DeaconRed (B.O. STINKS- HIS CHANGE STINKS-EVERYTHING IS BROKEN-HELP! ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If was bogus 'evidemce' like that which got Berg laughed out of court.

It was the fact that the courts are laughable when it comes to holding the ruling classes accountable ("our Norman betters", so aptly put in The Adventures of Robin Hood) that got the Berg cases shuffled out the back door.

Now, the federal courts are REAL tough when it comes to mouthy Saxon dogs like us Freepers.

So, have your Norman masters told you when they're coming for us, Non-Sequitur? Is it going to be this year? Next year?

They can't have us running around, exercising our Right to Free Speech, like we did during the Clinton years. :-)

127 posted on 01/31/2009 7:19:50 AM PST by an amused spectator (Citizen Kenyan: Commander in The Effort Against Culturally-Influenced Misbehavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sarah p
if he doesn’t have to follow the rules, than why should any of us?

Because we respect each other. We try to communicate with each other effectively and clearly.

I don't lower myself because of other's poor behavior. I would hate to see such an attitude become common on Free Republic.

128 posted on 01/31/2009 7:54:43 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Anyone seen a transcript of what she actually said? Got a link?

As I understand it, Sarah Obama said words to the effect that he was a "son of the village" (in English translation) in a BBC story. And that's been taken by many to mean "native of the village." But that's a leap.

There is also a rather strange interview with an "Anabaptist Bishop" who claims she was trying to say Obama was born in Kenya and the family were trying to shut her up. It's anybody's guess what's going on there.

After that interview in the same clip, you can see part of the original interview, presumably with the BBC. The people who put the clip together are trying to say, based on Latin roots, that Sarah Obama was saying that her husband's grandson was a native of the village. But really, how likely is it that an East African language would have Latin or Indo-European roots?

It's not clear that Sarah Obama ever actually said Barack Obama was born in Kenya. If she did, she's also made other questionable statements about family history.

Was her husband tortured by the English? Did he fight off animals with his stick? Did Stanley Dunham try to get Barack Sr. dismissed from the university? Did Barack Sr. tearfully appeal to the Kenyan family to save his marriage? Some of these things may be true -- it's more likely that Kenyans would fight lions armed only with a stick than Americans would -- but all of them?

I get the impression that stories tend to grow in an oral environment. Without established records, people embellish them, work themselves into the events, and give them the details they think those stories deserve.

And I've yet to see any evidence for making the leap to concluding that Obama was born in Mombasa, a coastal city quite far from the family's own village.

129 posted on 01/31/2009 12:40:31 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
FreeAtlanta and I are the lawful American citizens, demanding a simple piece of documentation from a possible felon, who claims the right to rule us.

And why should he agree to your demands? You say he is a possible felon. Shouldn't you provide proof to back that accusation up?

Your arguments against the birthers (of which I am not one) would be more credible if you'd give a mere nodding acknowledgement to the fact that The Big Wagyu ain't coughed up dick in the way of documentation.

And your claim not to be a birther would have more credibility if you could cough up documentation showing Obama wasn't born in Hawaii yourself.

That WAS a cute story that the Obaminions ran the other day about the school teacher who remembered every utterance of The Messiah when He was just a Fledging Godlette - don't you agree?

Didn't see it.

130 posted on 02/01/2009 6:47:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Sarah Obama doesn't speak Swahili. Or English. She speaks Luo. If was bogus 'evidemce' like that which got Berg laughed out of court.

Yup. That and selective quoting. The website I linked to has a link to the tape of the full conversation. After I listened to it, I could not believe how dishonest the transcript is. The obamaconspiracy website puts it best:

"When one listens to the complete recording it becomes unavoidably clear that Obama’s step grandmother says that her grandson was born in Hawaii, in America."

The when she talks about being present at Obama's birth, it's pretty clear from the context she's talking about Obama Sr, not Jr.

And yet, with all this evidence, Freepers are still repeating the lies of Berg. Very sad.

131 posted on 02/01/2009 6:47:27 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There you go again!

If Obama is not a native-born citizen, he's committed any number of felonies. If you hadn't noticed, our government at all levels has been generating new "felony" laws at an astronomical rate. If you need a concrete example to wrap your mind around, look no further than "Scooter" Libby.

And your claim not to be a birther would have more credibility if you could cough up documentation showing Obama wasn't born in Hawaii yourself.

I could if your master would produce some actual birth documentation... ;-)

Nice try.

132 posted on 02/01/2009 6:54:16 AM PST by an amused spectator (Citizen Kenyan: Commander in The Effort Against Culturally-Influenced Misbehavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
If Obama is not a native-born citizen, he's committed any number of felonies.

If he's not a native born citizen then there should be evidence of that.

I could if your master would produce some actual birth documentation... ;-)

So in other words you have nothing. And you wonder why your cases get laughed out of court.

133 posted on 02/01/2009 8:14:11 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And you wonder why your cases get laughed out of court.

The cases aren't "laughed out of court".

The judicial branch of the federal government fears to exercise its power, as it feared to exercise its power in the Bill Clinton perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering felonies.

Or are you denying that Clinton committed felonies, too?

You have to remember that the Taney court's fear of dealing with the slavery issue was a major cause of the bloodshed of the Civil War. Justice delayed is justice denied. Are we to see a repeat from the mounting insolence of the ruling Democrats? Tax evasion, refusal to answer valid claims of the peasants, spending tax dollars (wrung from those same peasants) profligately while lying about the eventual disposition of the stolen funds, etc., etc., etc.

I was going to post to you the other day that arguing with you reminds me of arguing with another (former) Freeper - sinkspur.

Ol' sinkie - he ALWAYS had the ready comeback in defense of government tyranny and skulduggery. You're apparently an excellent Padawan learner... ;-)

134 posted on 02/01/2009 9:33:14 AM PST by an amused spectator (Citizen Kenyan: Commander in The Effort Against Culturally-Influenced Misbehavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
The cases aren't "laughed out of court".

That's been a pretty accurate description of their record to date.

The judicial branch of the federal government fears to exercise its power, as it feared to exercise its power in the Bill Clinton perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering felonies.

Just because they laugh your cases out of court doesn't mean they fear to exercise their power. If they did that then we wouldn't have half the problem decisions we've had to date.

You have to remember that the Taney court's fear of dealing with the slavery issue was a major cause of the bloodshed of the Civil War.

I have heard the Dred Scott decision described in many ways, but 'fear of dealing with slavery' isn't one of them. The Scott v. Sanford decision opened up slavery to territories where federal law had forbidden it, denied blacks citizenship or any rights, and followed Taney's conviction that slavery was right and proper throughout the country. Taney wasn't interested in limiting slavery, he certainly didn't act out of fear

Ol' sinkie - he ALWAYS had the ready comeback in defense of government tyranny and skulduggery.

Skullduggery? You can put the whole skulduggery issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. But you can't.

135 posted on 02/01/2009 10:37:54 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You can put the whole issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen. But you can’t.

(fixed it for you.)


136 posted on 02/01/2009 11:06:53 AM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You have repeatedly stated this backwards. The responsibility is on the applicant to prove he is qualifed. In this case, it is more evident when the applicant controls the access to the source document to prove that he is or isn’t qualified. How would I priove he is not qualified when he is restricting my access to the evidence?


137 posted on 02/01/2009 11:10:56 AM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
You have repeatedly stated this backwards. The responsibility is on the applicant to prove he is qualifed. In this case, it is more evident when the applicant controls the access to the source document to prove that he is or isn’t qualified. How would I priove he is not qualified when he is restricting my access to the evidence?

Bullshit. No other presidential candidate has been forced to provide proof that he or she was born in the U.S. Obama has done nothing different. So if you don't think he was born in Hawaii like he says then trot out some evidence showing he's lying. Provide something casting doubt on what he says. THEN you can go to court and make a case and force him to respond. Until then, you've got nothing.

138 posted on 02/01/2009 11:20:06 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: nominal
You can put the whole issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen. But you can’t.

He said he was. What have you got showing he's lying?

139 posted on 02/01/2009 11:20:48 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
BS this. I CAN'T PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE IS HIDING IT.

I think the historical argument is a good one. Let's don't ever do anything we haven't done before, so that when new situations arise, we can paralize ourselves and let things go on unchallenged.

140 posted on 02/01/2009 11:24:25 AM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: sarah p

Oh goody, another new sign-up with a Birther vanity trying to stir the pot.


141 posted on 02/01/2009 11:26:02 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
BS this. I CAN'T PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE IS HIDING IT.

Yeah right.

Let's don't ever do anything we haven't done before, so that when new situations arise, we can paralize ourselves and let things go on unchallenged.

How about when new situations arise, we pass the necessary laws to deal with it?

142 posted on 02/01/2009 11:30:16 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No other presidential candidate has been forced to provide proof that he or she was born in the U.S.

If we look at the history of all the other presidents, would we find their past an open book, their family lineage a common knowledge of the people? We can except Chester Arthur, as he ascended via assassination, or we can look at what we did know about his family lineage, and the travels of his parents and the timing of his birth, just as we are with Obama.

Obama has done nothing different.

Obama has done everything different. He has not only blocked access to his birth certificate, he has blocked access to his family for testimonials, he has not offered any family friends for testimonials, he has blocked access to his school records, he has blocked access to his school papers, he has blocked access to his foundation-work papers, he has blocked access to his legislative papers.

Looking back at all the other presidents, what records (other than birth) have they made available? What associations did they offer as testimonials to their qualifications?

-PJ

143 posted on 02/01/2009 11:42:35 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: nominal; nufsed
LOL! Ol' Non-Sinkspur-quitter is a One-Note Barry, ain't he?

He keeps wanting everyone to prove that Barry "The Big Wagyu" Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, when Barry won't give us the tools to do the job, like, his actual birth certificate.

Therefore, we'll just make a valid deductive argument (a modus tollens) to counter the "prove a negative" argument of Non-Sinkquittur:

  1. If Obama's original birth certificate showed he was born in Hawaii, then the evidence would be in the public record.
  2. There is no evidence of an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii in the public record.
  3. Therefore, he wasn't born in Hawaii.

144 posted on 02/01/2009 12:12:18 PM PST by an amused spectator (Citizen Kenyan: Commander in The Effort Against Culturally-Influenced Misbehavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
Non-Sinkquittur wants to give The Fraudulent One a pass, and for everyone to move on.

Nothing to see here. Can't prove that Barry isn't, etc., etc.

Now, where have I ever heard of a group just wanting to Move On, when it came to Presidential feloniousness*?

;-) * Well, DEMOCRAT Presidential feloniousness, to be strictly accurate. George W. Bush was committing all sorts of felonies, just by being alive, according to this unnamed group...

145 posted on 02/01/2009 12:17:28 PM PST by an amused spectator (Citizen Kenyan: Commander in The Effort Against Culturally-Influenced Misbehavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I see your alarm is working. You got here really fast. You love the bc threads, it just makes your day complete doesn’t it?


146 posted on 02/01/2009 12:37:11 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Uh, yeah that's right. Do you deny that the applicant is refusing to produce his original BC and his school and passport records? Stevie Wonder can see that.

We have a law in the constitution. Every other candidate except a seceding VP was known to the general public. Everyone knew where there birth place was. In fact people at that local celebrated when the local buy ran. That didn't happen this time. No one took responsibility. Not the party, the secretaries of state, the electoral college, the congress or the courts. So some members of the citizenry are doing it.

Don't need a law. Just need someone to uphold the constitution.

But that's okay, you stay on the sideline. Those of us who care about the law will do the heavy lifting.

147 posted on 02/01/2009 12:41:16 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

s usual, Non-Sequitur trots in with the Anti-Birther Fog Machine and lays down a thick cloud over the issue.

LMAO trots in, He flies in, breaking the sound barrier on the way


148 posted on 02/01/2009 12:49:03 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sarah p

My guess: This was posted to detract from the attention we are giving to the fraudulent stimulus package. To direct more attention to the bc issue and not what is important RIGHT NOW. The bc issue will expose him, but the most important thing now is to keep calling DC and keep fighting this insane package.


149 posted on 02/01/2009 12:52:42 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

A little ‘if’, absent any evidence that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

and absent any REAL evidence that he was.


150 posted on 02/01/2009 12:55:09 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson