Free Republic

The problem with Mr. Adams’ statement is that he has seen as many Obama Birth Certificates as I have: zero. He claims to have knowledge that other people in a position to know have said that none exists. I don’t see how that evidence ever gets into any court. So, how does this advance the ball?

Your point is well-made and I'm looking forward to seeing more statements by Mr. Adams (if they are forthcoming).

-Phil

Doesn’t Mr Adams understand how explosive his testimony is?

The long-form doesn’t exist.

What does that mean exactly?

And does he not understand that he doesn’t get to decide Obama’s eligibility?

And does he really believe we’re all a bunch of racists?

Why even go there? If he thinks it unimportant.

Excellent questions, all. Perhaps only a profiler who could ever meet Mr. Adams would be able to tell if it's purely naivete or intentional ignorance.

-Phil

No... reporting by definition is the unbiased relaying of the facts. You have disqualified yourself several times just in this string alone by admitting that you are bias.

That's right, I forgot: once any journalist leaves college, they are all 100% statistically unbiased.

Mmmmkay.

It is an interesting paradox that you've created here. You, who just admitted that you aren't perfect, are looking to point out imperfections in others. And you've been doing this since 2008? Years of hypocrisy is not impressive or becoming Phil

My postings are "not impressive or becoming," to whom, you? As I've already said, I'm not out here to make everybody happy. I'm here to post what I think is worth posting based on what I know at the time. Once again, this is otherwise known as "reporting."

This particular exchange has been fun, but I'll give you the last word (I figure you'll probably take it, whether given or not).

-Phil

You like anyone else may have some truth on your blog but is it the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Which seems to be your standard?

And should we examine everything you write to knock down perceptions that might not necessarily be completely true in your blogging?

Just from what you’ve posted today we would find your blog woefully beneath your own standards for truth.

Regards
Al

I'm sorry, but I don't think I claimed to know all truth, nor did I claim (as I've already stated) to be unbiased and, by extension, 100% statistically objective.

My only standard is to post on issues I think are important based on what I know about the facts. This used to be called "reporting."

And, as I've said before, go right ahead and sift through my postings on my site. It's on public display for anyone to see. In fact, I even have it indexed on most major search sites as well as historical indexes for easy perusal.

-Phil

Huh?!?

Phil you don't get it. It's not about making anyone happy. It's about factually relaying information which WND did. By your own admission you strain at gnats only to swallow camels. In other words while you're attempting to, "knock down perceptions that might not necessarily be completely true." What you actually did was allow your own bias to construct the false premises that you claim to fight against. Ergo creating a loop ad infinitum of your own mistrust and misinformation.

Ah, well -- I guess I just don't "get it."

That's OK. My site's been following the eligibility issue since late 2008, so I have a veritable portfolio of evidence for the casual observer to either confirm or deny what you claim about me.

-Phil

Phil,
Read your post. However your information doesn’t add or subtract from WND report. WND reported that Mr. Tim Adams believes personally that Soetoro is eligible to be president.

You’ve only given credibility to Mr. Adams assertions that he was told and discovered for himself that Soetoro was not born in Hawaii and, and there is no birth certificate at all.

WND did not characterize Mr. Adams as a birther. Your assertion that they did is false.

At this point you’ve managed to uncover your own biases by what you called the full disclosure.

At this point verify before trust is my motto for your information.

Then I suppose it's a good thing that I don't create postings to make everyone happy, now, isn't it?

Setting the snarky-ism aside for a moment, the bottom line is that I have only ever claimed that WND insinuated (and fully italicized this for emphasis in my posting just prior to my sharing email information from Mr. Adams) that, somehow, whatever Mr. Adams ran across, this should lead any reasonable person to assume that this contracted elections officer (a position of which I don't know is actually true to begin with) is confirming that Mr. Obama is, by extension of not having a birth certificate (original WND report), ineligible for the presidency. That is, in my view, WND's (here's that word again) insinuation, and definitely not Mr. Adams'.

I never claimed to be unbiased either; I only claim to stir the proverbial pudding and to knock down perceptions that might not necessarily be completely true.

-Phil

Sorry but the email reply doesnt say thanks tim adams. This would totally contradict what the said the other day.

That's because (and, quite frankly, I thought this was obvious on the face of it) I didn't include email headers. In other words, it's not like the guy is actually saying, "No, really, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Obama is foreign-born," else that would require a whole different level of analysis.

The point is that both accounts to converge enough to where WND could make insinuations about a given subject matter, and I'm simply calling on WND to be better at their reporting next time.

-Phil

Please refrain from posting your blog material in Breaking, Frontpage - or even news. Please post in our Blogs forum. Thanks,

While I thought this was news (considering that WND had already covered this story and it's about WND and a particular subject; in other words, I'm merely conveying something folks don't already know), I'll certainly endeavor to stir the proverbial pudding over at the Blogs forum in the future.

-Phil

OK, this just smells worse than a dead rat hidden behind a wall that you can not access.

Take a look at the following pdf: http://therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2009%20Coffman%20and%20William%20scans%20-%20side%20by%20side.pdf

Phil at TRSOL had posted this last June. Obama’s so called SS record was accessed/altered in June of 1991. Why? Was it at that time he quietly changed his citizenship status? Conveniently & immediately after he was no longer in need of foreign aid as a foreign student? Mark Levin had John Lott on last week and he reported that it was common knowledge that Obama was hired as a part-time lecturer because he was going into politics/would be running for office. If his citizenship status changed in 1991, then Obama was not even eligible to be an IL state senator in 1995.

The there is this...the DLN# for 1980 is not the same number showing in the box for 1991. So where is the record for DLN# 99106184920.

Here is the breakdown of the other inconsistencies:

Comparing Coffman’s and [William]’s print outs.

1. The Last Action Dates are different. Why would they be? 2. Registration Date is missing from Coffman’s print out. 3. Permanent address is missing from [William]’s 4. The DLN’s are different and should be the same and reflect the DLN stamp number at the upper right hand corner of the form.

The there is this...the DLN# for 1980 is not the same number showing in the box for 1991. So where is the record for DLN# 99106184920.

Someone had asked me for the record 99106184920. I don't have any other records except what I've posted at my blog and, of late, my news site.

-Phil

*** Will someone please tell me how you can be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ when your father is not an American? ***

1) If you are born in the USA (14th Amendment)
2) if your Mother is a US citizen
and
see; Title 8 of the US Code. (Federal Laws)

Now, state the law that applies the above to presidential eligibility.

(Hint: I don't think you'll be able to find it)

-Phil

As I mention further down in the posting, this is not the first time that the Arizona State legislature has considered eligibility bills.

Also, this is about law enforcement, which I appreciate.

I think the Dems have this covered already.

How can you litigate something that does not exist? The Senate has not voted on a written bill as yet, just what COULD be written.

Since there is not really a bill yet, how can it be litigated?

Reading the entire posting will show you that this has, so far, only been in the discussion stages. All that the letter from the AGs says is that they want the provision removed, that if it's not removed, they will likely litigate, and that this issue isn't the only constitutional issue they see with the bill.

Keep in mind that if Mr. King is characterizing Sen. Nelson's attempt to assuage the AGs as "calling off the dogs," then Sen. Nelson knows that the AGs have standing on this issue to take it to Court, should the bill pass in its current form.

Here's the issue: if the bill changes at this point, all bets are off in both Houses, and the Democrat leadership knows this.

Yet, State-level officials have put on paper (with which we can subsequently hold them to account) that they're not backing down either.

-Phil

You know this will fail because the Senate took a vote declaring the bill was Constitutional! /s

Didn't Harry Reid insert the clause whereby no-future-Senate-no-way-no-how can evah, evah, evah repeal any sort of national health services agency (or whatever the terminology was)?

I guess if I were in Harry's polling situation, I'd go for broke, too...

-Phil

Where’s MA’s Martha Jokely on this?

I think your rendition of her last name tells it all.

-Phil

More at the posting...

In the future, please place your blog material in our bloggers forum. Thanks,

There is such a place? Cool!

:-)

No problem.

Thanks,

-Phil