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

Skip to comments.

FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENTíS ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The Post & Email ^ | Jan. 5, 2010 | P. Patriot

Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen

(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: barackhusseinobama; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; deal; dontstepintroll; drew68troll; eligibility; fraud; liar; nathandeal; nonsequitertroll; obama; puppet; putativepresident; trollsonfr; usurper; whoisyourdaddy; whoseyourdaddy; whosyourdaddy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-696 next last
To: Josephat
Repeating the same falsehood over and over again will not make it true.

"Seems to work pretty well for your side"

_________________________________________________________

LOL!!!

STE=Q

251 posted on 01/06/2010 1:08:30 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Yes, as I noted, a few sources did say that, apparently erroneously. Kapi’olani appears to have been accepted as the place of birth in Hawaii. But in any event, both delivered babies in 1961.

The press once reported that Queens hospital was the birth place for Obama until people working on Obama's behalf changed that to Kapiʻolani. So what hospital was Obama born in? Are they lying now or were the lying before? Or are both hospital stories lies? ...LoL.

252 posted on 01/06/2010 1:08:49 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The fact you do not apply this logic to bo is pretty funny.


253 posted on 01/06/2010 1:09:29 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; tired_old_conservative
Do a search, yourself.

I have, and I can say with confidence that there is no evidence, as in nada, zero, zilch, that Obama ever admitted to not being a natural born citizen during his debate with Keyes in 2004.

I’m not going to do your homework for you.

LucyT, your problem is that you never do your own homework, let alone homework for others.

Let me give you a little tip, LucyT. Next time someone makes a strong claim about something controversial, don't believe it until you've seen evidence to support it. This is especially true if you read the claim on a blog. That will spare you the emabrassment of situations like this one.

254 posted on 01/06/2010 1:10:30 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
A duel citizen has split his allegiances to another country or king is not a natural born citizen...

So you say. Now if only the Constitution or the law or some Supreme Court decision said that.

...and any future court who honestly understands the Constitutional clause of NBC will not substantiate or uphold the liberal viewpoint by conflating the intent and meaning where Obama is a natural born citizen.

Make sure that they know that.

255 posted on 01/06/2010 1:11:01 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Oberon; Boonie
"Personally, I suspect that even if we could prove that the President was not Constitutionally eligible, it would be a moot point. I remain agnostic on the matter of O’s eligibility... I really do not know if he’s a natural-born citizen or not... but I also believe that the right has already lost on this issue. It’ll be like that Dem senator said about Clinton, to the effect of “I don’t care if you have videotape of him murdering somone, we’re not going to convict him.”"

Barry doesn't necessarily need to be convicted by the Senate. Nixon resigned after the House passage of allegations (impeached). And, it was 2+ years before SCOTUS ordered the release of the Watergate tapes which then caused a "lack of confidence" within the Senate. Nixon, of course, resigned before he was "convicted."

If enough of the country is aware Barry is a usurper, there's little doubt he'd retain the confidence of anyone in Congress except the far left (Pelosi, Reed, Waxman, etc). I can't imagine the joint chiefs of staff would continue to honor any "order" coming from a usurper. Barry can be "forced" to resign.

256 posted on 01/06/2010 1:12:15 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Ding ding ding! We finally agree. BO does not qualify!!


257 posted on 01/06/2010 1:12:28 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
You are quite naive. There is no mention of a birth certificate, only verification.

Why did they not expressly state that there was a birth certificate on record?

Or, could they not say there was one?

If they are referring to a COLB, it is not proof of his birth in HI.

Please give me a logical reason Obama would hide his BC if he was born in the US? Then, give me a logical reason he would hide the documents of his history if he had nothing to hide?

258 posted on 01/06/2010 1:13:31 PM PST by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance: Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Now if only the Constitution or the law or some Supreme Court decision said that.”

You actually believe it doesn’t???

Bottem’s up!!!


259 posted on 01/06/2010 1:15:04 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Obama’s campaign sent in $10 or whatever, got a standard issue COLB from Hawaii, and thought, like any normal person, that this would settle the issue. They didn't realize they were dealing with a bunch of lunatics impervious to reality.

And the Homelands documentation is a special case related to determining Hawaiian ancestry for special benefits. But if you look at their current website, you will see the following:

"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

It's really not mysterious at all.

260 posted on 01/06/2010 1:15:43 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The press once reported that Queens hospital was the birth place for Obama

Wrong. One sloppy reporter working for UPI, using only Wikipedia to check his facts, mistakenly wrote in a single article that it was Queens. This was the only news outlet to make this mistake. Every other mainstream news source has consistently reported that it was Kapiolani.

And no, a student newsletter put out by some high school in Honolulu doesn't count as a mainstream news source.

until people working on Obama's behalf changed that to Kapiʻolani.

Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained that he was born in Kapiolani, the mistakes of sloppy reporters notwithstanding.

261 posted on 01/06/2010 1:15:43 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: jackv
The fact you do not apply this logic to bo is pretty funny.

Not as funny as what passes for Birther logic. Trust me on that one.

262 posted on 01/06/2010 1:15:53 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The left, your friends, made her sons birth an issue so it opened to door for conservatives to see your hero’s BC.


263 posted on 01/06/2010 1:18:37 PM PST by stockpirate (Dec. 24, 2009, the day liberty in America died to applause in the US Senate. Republicans helped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

“He said he was born at Queen’s.
No he did not. “

So, where do you want Him to have been born?


264 posted on 01/06/2010 1:18:44 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The left, your friends, made her sons birth an issue so it opened the door for conservatives to see your hero’s BC.


265 posted on 01/06/2010 1:18:50 PM PST by stockpirate (Dec. 24, 2009, the day liberty in America died to applause in the US Senate. Republicans helped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; stockpirate

Now, I’m for Sarah and I think she’s great and I’m hoping to vote for her one of these days (if she runs for something that I can vote for) — but she’s a cool cookie and I don’t think she’s buying into all this birther stuff...

What I’m saying may be a little bit of a “technicality” here, but if I remember correctly (but someone will have to verify...) — I think Sarah Palin said that Americans have a right to “ask” to see it...

Note those words, and if I’m correct, then she’s provided herself enough wiggle-room there... :-)


266 posted on 01/06/2010 1:19:35 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: jackv
You actually believe it doesn’t???

Then quote where it does. By all means point to the Article that defines natural born citizen or the clause that mentions dual citizenship.

267 posted on 01/06/2010 1:19:58 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
There is no mention of a birth certificate, only verification.Why did they not expressly state that there was a birth certificate on record?

She did, in an earlier statement.

If they are referring to a COLB, it is not proof of his birth in HI.

Yes it is.

Please give me a logical reason Obama would hide his BC if he was born in the US?

To encourage his opposition to waste its time spinning crazy conspiracy theories, thereby keeping them distracted from the real issues.

268 posted on 01/06/2010 1:20:10 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: jackv
“Ding ding ding! We finally agree. BO does not qualify!!”

Uh, no. Obama was born in this country and also had a citizen parent. He is a NBC.

The phrase “and no parent citizens” in my previous response implicitly acknowledges the special case where a person is born outside of a country to citizen parents of that country.

269 posted on 01/06/2010 1:21:39 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
So, where do you want Him to have been born?

He and every member of his family who has spoken on the subject has consistently maintained he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, the errors of one sloppy UPI reporter notwithstanding.

270 posted on 01/06/2010 1:22:20 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Lower55

You’re the one who stated the hospital he was supposedly born in didn’t deliver babies in 1961. Both candidate hospitals did.


271 posted on 01/06/2010 1:23:31 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I’ve already done enough which is all I’m going to do. You can live in your dreamworld for all I care.

THE DARKNESS HATES THE LIGHT


272 posted on 01/06/2010 1:24:06 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained that he was born in Kapiolani

So how about his own website Otganizing for America? http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueHospitals.htm

273 posted on 01/06/2010 1:24:42 PM PST by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: jackv
“THE DARKNESS HATES THE LIGHT”

No, actually, people with uninformed opinions invariably sling slogans when forced to defend them.

No one on a site like this voted for Obama or generally approves of his policies. But conservatism isn't about concocting a fantasy world to avoid dealing with the real world implications of losing one election.

274 posted on 01/06/2010 1:27:15 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So you say. Now if only the Constitution or the law or some Supreme Court decision said that.

The Natural Born Citizen clause is about having a single allegiance to the United States. It's all about allegiances or lack-of to other countries. No amount of obfuscation is going to change it. When the courts ever get serious about the true intent and meaning -- the conclusion is obvious.

Make sure that they know that.

It's certainly not what you want the Natural Born Citizen clause to be. Lets go back to 1787, where the founding fathers of US Constitution are deliberating over the NBC clause:

Yes, it is our intent to have persons who have allegiance or are still subjects to the King of England can become future presidents to the United States. Yes that's our intent! Oh yeah, really non-Sequitur that's your definition of a natural born citizen. What you want an NBC to be is completely laughable and idiotic.

275 posted on 01/06/2010 1:28:51 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
The left, your friends, made her sons birth an issue so it opened the door for conservatives to see your hero’s BC.

Your rationality seems to be slipping by the moment.

276 posted on 01/06/2010 1:29:21 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

“Both candidate hospitals did.”

Are you sure? I mean really sure? Like you were there sure?


277 posted on 01/06/2010 1:29:24 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
So how about his own website Otganizing for America?

That was just some guest blogger, who probably read the same mistaken Wikipedia entry as the UPI reporter and repeated the same error.

278 posted on 01/06/2010 1:29:54 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
Another possible answer is that BHO really is an NBC as the term is understood by the US Congress, Supreme Court, lower courts and prevailing legal thought.

We are, of course, free to disagree with that understanding.

It may even be wrong.

Regardless, it is what it is.

I personally think that if the founders had elaborated on this issue, they probably would have explicitly stated that an NBC would need two citizen parents.

But they didn't. And my opinion doesn't drive the issue.

So unfortunately, it is what it is.

This begs the question, can this really go anywhere? If not, is it beneficial to press it?

279 posted on 01/06/2010 1:30:33 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: jackv
I’ve already done enough which is all I’m going to do. You can live in your dreamworld for all I care.

I would think that your dreamworld is getting kind of crowded by now.

280 posted on 01/06/2010 1:30:41 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The Natural Born Citizen clause is about having a single allegiance to the United States. It's all about allegiances or lack-of to other countries. No amount of obfuscation is going to change it. When the courts ever get serious about the true intent and meaning -- the conclusion is obvious.

Or not.

It's certainly not what you want the Natural Born Citizen clause to be. Lets go back to 1787, where the founding fathers of US Constitution are deliberating over the NBC clause:

Very well. How about some quotes from them on the subject?

281 posted on 01/06/2010 1:33:39 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
“Both candidate hospitals did.”

Are you sure? I mean really sure? Like you were there sure?

They're two major, historic hospitals. Even World Net Daily, no Obama friend, states that the majority of the baby deliveries on the island in 1961 were performed at those two hospitals. I gave you the quote. At this point, you're just being silly.

282 posted on 01/06/2010 1:35:17 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Ah yes. Talk about fantasy!!

Well, it would be very easy to end the questions, now wouldn’t it? bo spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the truth from coming out only perpetuates this story.

Don’t talk to me about “fantasy”.


283 posted on 01/06/2010 1:35:48 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“I would think that your dreamworld is getting kind of crowded by now.”

Actually I spoke of your dreamworld. I live in the real world thank goodness.


284 posted on 01/06/2010 1:38:32 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

“Are you sure? I mean really sure? “

yawn

Goodnight, gracie.


285 posted on 01/06/2010 1:40:08 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
No its no mystery, Hawaii Homelands changed their requirement in June 2009 and long form certificates were still easily available them. They still are to the named individual through UIPA, you are entitled to a copy of any of your records held by the state that is not excepted and BC’s are not excepted to the named individual. They may not be readily available through website order but you they can request them under UIPA. So why did Hawaii make the change in June 2009? Logic says its a cover-up and no other reason makes sense. Why won't DOH explain the difference between date Accepted and Date Filed? What are they hiding? Shouldn't that be clearly public information? You maybe fooled and can try and fool others, but count me out. You are a shill.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105365

286 posted on 01/06/2010 1:41:06 PM PST by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Wrong. One sloppy reporter working for UPI, using only Wikipedia to check his facts, mistakenly wrote in a single article that it was Queens. This was the only news outlet to make this mistake. Every other mainstream news source has consistently reported that it was Kapiolani.

And no, a student newsletter put out by some high school in Honolulu doesn't count as a mainstream news source.

How do you know it was sloppy writing? You have evidence to the contrary that the source was not the Obamas? It was written in many publications that Obama was born at Queens. It wasn't until World Net Daily pointed out the discrepancy that Obama was born in two different hospitals that the press started to change the facts.

Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained that he was born in Kapiolani, the mistakes of sloppy reporters notwithstanding.

They were content and happy that Obama was reported to be born at Queens.

287 posted on 01/06/2010 1:42:54 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: jackv
First of all, how would his birth certificate end any questions for you? He has already stipulated his father was a non-citizen, and you claim that is definitive.

Second, he did end the question of where he was born for rational people. He produced a legal document the state of Hawaii stands behind that substantiates his birth in Hawaii.

Birthers don't care. They live in a world where Presidential candidates proffer up forgeries of documents a state could easily disavow, where any evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii is subjected to the most outlandish conspiracy theories, while it's obvious he was born in Kenya, absent any evidence his mother even went there, and where major hospitals simply don't deliver babies. Basically, they believe whatever they must to keep the delusion going that Obama wasn't really elected President.

288 posted on 01/06/2010 1:43:20 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

uh-huh...so you’ve said.


289 posted on 01/06/2010 1:46:05 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: jackv

Actually, you’re taking a shot at Lower 55. I forgot to put quotes around his second sentence, which is pretty obvious if you read the exchange.


290 posted on 01/06/2010 1:46:35 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

uh-huh.


291 posted on 01/06/2010 1:48:00 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Very well. How about some quotes from them on the subject?

I don't need one. The history of the independence of the United States from world powers fits hand in glove supporting my opinion.

292 posted on 01/06/2010 1:48:58 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I don't need one.

Birthers never think that they do.

293 posted on 01/06/2010 1:50:24 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Your position is absurd though.


294 posted on 01/06/2010 1:53:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Un, it's called the march of progress in a capitalistic society. or something like that. I think Reagan used to talk about such things.

“Long forms

Sample of a long form birth certificateLong forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth. The long form usually includes parents’ information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems. The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for “hard copy” long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly. It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.

Short forms

Sample of a short form birth certificate (certification of birth)Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration”. The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels.”

But, yeah, despite the fact that Hawaii went paperless in 2001, they specifically changed everything they do in June of 2009 to protect their nefarious state-wide conspiracy over Obama’s birth. That's so much more logical and straight forward than simply accepting Obama was born in Hawaii like the state says.

295 posted on 01/06/2010 1:56:53 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
“Your position is absurd though.”

Well, I'm convinced. What could possible be more compelling than dogmatic insistence?

296 posted on 01/06/2010 1:59:04 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Well, I'm convinced. What could possible be more compelling than dogmatic insistence?

I'm sure you are convinced but won't admit it. So how's your Democrat party doing these days? It doesn't look so good as Dorgan, Dodd, and Ritter won't be running for reelection. They're running scared...afraid they'll get beat 2010. ;-0

297 posted on 01/06/2010 2:06:58 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; All
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

Anyone?

298 posted on 01/06/2010 2:09:17 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
It's not my Democratic Party. But since you asked, I think the Republicans have a good chance for a pickup in North Dakota. Unfortunately, I also think Dodd has acknowledged his negatives and is simply paving the way for a Democrat more likely to win.
299 posted on 01/06/2010 2:11:03 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
How do you know it was sloppy writing?

Because UPI admitted it.

You have evidence to the contrary that the source was not the Obamas?

Yes. There was nothing in the original story to indicate Obama was the source, and futher, UPI says the writer made the error:

"This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/04/Sen-Barack-Obama-Democrat-of-Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/

If the source had been Obama, then there would be something to indicate it in the original article, and it would be Obama's error, not the writer's.

It was written in many publications that Obama was born at Queens

Many? I know of only two: UPI and a high school student newsletter. Which other ones?

They were content and happy that Obama was reported to be born at Queens

And what makes you think they were even aware of the erroneous reports?

I seriously doubt Obama or any member of his family regularly reads either UPI or the rainbow newsletter.

300 posted on 01/06/2010 2:16:11 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-696 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