Posted on 12/11/2009 1:04:21 AM PST by Electric Graffiti
STAR BULLETIN EDITION OF AUG. 14TH, ON FILE AT BERKLEY IDENTICAL TO PUBLISHED IMAGES by John Charlton
The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
No one is condoning Obama. That's simply a blatant attempt to change the subject to avoid unpleasant (for you) facts about the law. We respect the rule of law bequeathed to us by our Constitution. We are defending simple sanity, not Obama. What you don't get is that, in the incredible event that a court did rule it wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate, we would accept that. We respect the rule of law and our court system. Birthers don't unless they get the ruling they want. Which they won't with the nonsensical cases brought to date.
Do you get paid by the post or hourly? I was thinking you get a power nap in if hourly and you could be more rrfreshed and think clearer.
Thanks for the tip, but no one with anything on the ball is going to take advice from you on how to think clearly. The fallacy with that has been demonstrated far more definitively than any issues with Obama’s birth certificate.
That hurt really bad. I may never recover.
Take your insults and your pseudo legal wisdom and try to have a nice day.
And don’t forget to say Hi to Axelrod or Soros whoever pays you to post their spin.
and get some rest. Maybe some gingko.
The problem is that you simply are tooooo OLD and toooo TIRED. Even as you claims your worked on his campaign, which I doubt, the real President of our era, would have asked your usurper to produce proof of his eligibility on par with Governor Sarah Palin. Your W.H./Aporn talking points is what is NUTTY, and we don't agree with your stalkings at all!!!
That's actually the point.
Regan confronted the actual issues with intellectual honesty and a realistic view.
He didn't rant about conspiracies.
He didn't keep repeating things that were demonstrably incorrect as though repetition made it true.
He didn't insult or call people names when they did not agree with him.
He didn't accuse judges of treason when they ruled against him in accordance with the law.
He didn't make up baseless stories or engage in wishful speculation about how things just maybe might have been when not a shred of proof existed.
He believe illogical arguments from Internet cranks.
He didn't accuse people of association with his adversaries when they reached different conclusions. As in: “to your pal's huge chagrin...”
He certainly didn't accuse people of being paid lackeys of his opposition when they presented contrary views.
In short, he wasn't PC, but neither was he irrational or blinded by anger.
So, yeah. Reagan is a good example of behavior that needs to be emulated.
“He believe illogical arguments from Internet cranks.”
OK... Too contemporary.
No Internet back then... Though I’m sure there were ARPAnet cranks...
Well, I’m glad I chose the screen name I did, since you obviously don’t have the wits to come up with anything on your own.
Reagan would have thought you were a fool. He’d have been nice about it, though.
I guess I don't expect an answer, but I am curious. Is this “anyone who disagrees with Birthers is paid” stuff just a generic defense mechanism that pops out, or do you honestly believe that? It's sad if you do, but I'd have never believed people were capable of half the stuff on these threads if I hadn't read them with my own eyes.
The Birther crowd is about as unReaganesque a group as you'll ever see. Reagan had a fundamentally positive view of the world and eagerly sought out opportunities to engage with people, even those who held views with which he didn't agree. He wasn't a paranoid conspiracy freak lashing out at anyone who failed to support his delusions.
TOC:
Yes you did. You might want to tone down the bombastic ad hominem broadsides against “birthers” as you have now undermined your own credibility.
You said:
“A court in Indiana has upheld existing Supreme Court precedent that you don't have to have two citizen parents to be an NBC.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2405214/posts?page=294#294
As for credibility among birthers, why would anyone care about that? It's a given that you lose all credibility with them the instant you show the minimal objectivity to acknowledge inconvenient facts they deny.
“Quite the opposite...”
What was that a picture of??
” Birtherism is the kind of self-destructive stuff”
So, was Obama a dual citizen at birth or not?
Answer that question, please. Don’t embelish, please. I would like for you to answer that question, please.
I bet you won’t answer it.
> Show us the proof she was American.
Was she a Kenyan, too?
You've bought into some kind of fantasy where ordinary middle class people in 1961 or 1922 were as affluent and mobile as people are today.
The average income in Peru Kansas isn't high now and probably wasn't in 1922, and the Paynes don't appear to have been very wealthy.
They would have gone off to Europe or the Caribbean with Mrs. Payne pregnant to have a baby in some foreign country where conditions were probably worse than at home?
Very very good pic hahahahah
Answer that question, please. Don’t embelish, please. I would like for you to answer that question, please.
I bet you won’t answer it.”
Yes, he was.
So what? There's nothing in the Constitution that says that precludes one from being a natural born citizen. There is an obvious historical legal basis, noted in the Supreme Court's Ark decision and the recent Indiana decision, for still considering him a natural born citizen. It's so noncontroversial outside of birther circles that no one, including Dick Cheny, had any problem facilitating the inauguration of Obama knowing his birth story full well.
And why would I be afraid to truthfully answer a question? It's not like I'm a birther or anything.
“So what? There’s nothing in the Constitution “
So when the Founding Fathers grandfathered themselves eligible because some were born here, but not natural born citizens, they must have been birthers?
They knew what they were doing. I know what they were doing. You don’t. I get it. You are smarter than the founding fathers. LOL
“What was that a picture of??”
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swearing BHO in as President.
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that (being a dual citizen at birth) precludes one from being a natural born citizen.”
A natural born citizen must have two Citizen parents. There is a difference between a citizen, a native born citizen and a natural born citizen.
Citizen....citizen by any and all means
Native born citizen....born in United States(obama is this,Supposedly)
Natural born citizen....Born in USA to TWO US citizen parents (this classification was ONLY for presidential qualifications, and has nothing at all to do with ANY citizenship cases ever heard in any venue)*so far
All the cases that people cite thinking they might define NBC meaning, do not, cannot, and will not do so.
It is what it is, whether some sheep choose to deny it or patriots choose to accept it.
The truth usually comes out, and I would rather be wrong by inquiring, than wrong by defending a lie.
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.