Posted on 04/03/2011 11:35:43 AM PDT by chatter4
Great video. During a phone interview with Donald Trump, about Obama's birth certificate, Savannah Guthrie, questions if Obama's birth certificate is even worth talking about, and then suggested that Trump could/should downplay the issue. She actually said, "You could brace this issue...", but, Trump interrupts saying, "I am embracing the issue...". Later Trump stated, "it's not that much of a conspriacy, it's very simple", but, Chuck Todd, the Chief White House Correspondent for NBC News, exclaimed, "It's An Incredible Conspriacy".
Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain
Elmer Davis : This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Old Glory (a song for Michael)
And one pointing out how duped We The Sheeple were in electing the Obammunist:
Hope you like 'em.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
What will be remembered is the question of the BC and Obama’s arrogance. Nothing good that’s for sure.
Trump has convinced me (OK, I was already leaning strongly in that direction, but still...) that there is definitely something extremely bad in that birth certificate that Obama is concealing.
Why? Because as I have said in numerous other posts, the man is NOT a fool. He would not, in my not so humble opinion, go anywhere near this issue if he did not already possess convincing credible information that proves to his satisfaction there is something worth betting on.
And he IS betting. He is gambling his historical reputation on being right. He will either be the “hero who single-handedly exposed Obama as a fraud” or the “buffoon who became a national (if not worldwide) laughingstock”.
That has to matter immensely to a man with an ego his size.
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
—Thomas Jefferson
OBOTS ARE ANTI-AMERICA ! ... there, I said it...
What threats to media heads? I certainly believe it, but haven’t seen any proof. How about judges?
Why is the USSC so afraid of him?
Here are some links about the threats to the media heads:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373
http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour1Aug0709.mp3
http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour2Aug0709.mp3
http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour3Aug0709.mp3
Basically, Doug Hagmann was given a signed statement by an on-air personality who said that sometime in Oct of 2008 and sometime after the election (Hagmann hasn’t revealed the exact dates) the head of the media company he works for had a meeting where everyone was told that Obama’s people had threatened to annihilate the company through FCC and anti-monopoly measures after the election if the company allowed anybody to report on the eligibility issue. The media head implied that anybody who spoke of the eligibility issue or allowed anybody on their shows to do so would definitely lose their career and would jeopardize their lives and families as well.
Hagmann investigated, interviewing others who had been at these meetings, which involved Fox and 3 other cable news outlets, as well as radio natworks. He has the handwritten notes from somebody who was at one of those meetings, corroborating details about the schedules, etc, and he has done interviews of anchors and such who confirmed that it happened and were fearful of their lives. Hagmann’s investigation traced those threats back directly to Soros, Axelrod, and Rahm Emanuel.
Recently Hannity supported the eligibility issue publicly, presumably with permission from Fox. I believe that was a result of Darryl Issa’s actions showing he will not let the FCC blow off his investigation of their stoogery for the White House - letting the White House write the illegal “net neutrality” rules. The FCC was to be one of the mafia-type actors against Fox, according to the threats. When those threats were made, Henry Waxman was the head of the House Ethics Committee, but now Issa is, and he is not amused by the crap he has unearthed. That firmness on Issa’s part may have given Fox confidence to defy the threats.
Within days of Hannity publicly supporting the eligibility issue, though, Media Matters said in an interview to Ben Smith at Politico that they were engaging in “guerilla warfare” against Fox - including trying to get “regulators” in both the US and the UK to turn against Fox’s parent company and hit against the company’s financial interests. IOW, Soros’ Media Matters came out publicly saying they were going to do exactly what Hagmann says they threatened the companies to do if they reported on the eligibility issue - only this time concentrating on the UK, which is outside the reach of Darryl Issa’s investigation.
So the threats that Hagmann says he has specific evidence of, which happened once before the election and at least once after the election, have now been replicated in full view through a Media Matters interview with Ben Smith at Politico. It wasn’t publicly stated that it was in response to Fox treating the eligibility issue as credible, but the tactics which have been used on Beck and were included in plans dated in 2010 were made public 2 days after Hannity came out and supported the eligibility issue publicly.
So that’s the media issue.
The judge issue I could talk (what’s left of. lol) your ear off about, because there are anomalies associated with almost every eligibility judge. But the one that is actually documented the best is Judge Surick, the first judge to rule that a plaintiff (Phil Berg) lacked legal standing. That case was reaching a critical point in mid-October before the election and Surick was treating it with respect. Then all of a sudden he issued his “decision” that Berg lacked standing. It turns out that the decision Surick forwarded to Berg still had the date/time stamp showing that Surick had received that “decision” from somebody else earlier in the day before he forwarded it on to Berg as if it was his own. IOW, Surick let somebody else decide that case for him. A judge would not do that unless there was some kind of threat involved.
The documentation for that is the actual decision that was forwarded to Berg. Every page of that decision has the date/time stamp from the original fax that Surick received which he then forwarded to Berg. See http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/ .
The Obama people don’t seem to understand how the automatic date/time stamps can reveal their lawlessness. What proved that the Selective Service Registration for Obama that was released in a FOIA request was actually forged by someone at the Selective Service Administration office was an automatic date stamp that showed a year of ‘08 rather than ‘80 that they tried to pass it off as.
And incidentally, the computer records at government offices are supposed to have built-in, embedded records that show exactly what was done to any given record, when, and by whom. So there are supposed to be electronic “date stamps” all over the place, and after we discussed on FR how state eligibility bills should require the embedded electronic logs to be disclosed also, HI Gov Abercrombie suddenly wasn’t so interested in presenting any long-form for Obama publicly, and actually stumblingly admitted to a Star Advertiser columnist in a published interview that they don’t HAVE a long-form for Obama in Hawaii.
Oh, I forgot to answer the question, “Why is the USSC so afraid of him?”
This is speculation, but it is based on a LOT of evidence that all seems supportive of this theory.
I believe that the Sept 2008 run on the bank was orchestrated by Soros and his communist-Islamic allies, to counter the effect of McCain choosing Sarah Palin as his VP, which put the polls back to neck-and-neck.
About a week after the run, when Congress was resisting TARP and Bush was minding his own business, Bush suddenly reversed himself and gave a speech to the country saying the end of the western world as we know it was imminent if we didn’t pass TARP. TARP wasn’t passed until several months later and the economy didn’t fall apart. And economists admitted that TARP was a drop in the bucket that wouldn’t actually do anything to counter toxic assets, but that it was just a token measure. But all of a sudden on that one day Bush was “convinced” that without TARP the apocalypse would be upon us.
THAT SAME DAY John McCain got a morning phone call from Obama, and by the afternoon McCain had decided to suspend his campaign and wanted to cancel the debates which alone could have allowed him to surpass Obama in the polls. IOW, McCain decided on that day to give up trying to win. The same day that Bush started speaking in apocalyptic terms.
I believe what Soros used on all these people - Bush, McCain, the media heads, Judge Surick, and the USSC (as well as others such as Dick Cheney) - was the threat that if anybody resisted Obama’s illegal usurpation of the Presidency, Soros and his communist-Islamist allies would do another run that would make the Sept 2008 run pale by comparison and would destroy world capitalism forever.
Right around that time I remember seeing on Drudge the headlines of all the Soros allies saying that SINCE CAPITALISM HAD FAILED..... Castro and Chavez were saying that SINCE CAPITALISM HAD FAILED, the world should try communism. Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda were saying that SINCE CAPITALISM HAD FAILED, the world should try Islamic finance (and indeed, the week after the run, Bernanke and Paulson were pushing seminars on Islamic finance; the banks which benefitted from TARP were mostly foreign banks who contributed heavily to the DNC and ACORN and who are Sharia-compliant).
The International Monetary Fund around then had meetings to try to decide whether CAPITALISM HAD FAILED, and whether they should try to go to a world currency as a result of that failure, etc.
That whole time had an apocalyptic feel to it because of what the Soros allies were saying - and which Bush was suddenly also saying every chance he got. Somebody lit a fire underneath him that one day. I believe it was Soros, and I believe the threat he made seemed very credible to Bush and all these other critical players.
Sorry this is so long. The important thing to realize is that if my suspicion is correct, that threat is still there. Which would explain why the blue-dog dems have been willing to fall on their swords to cram unpopular legislation down our throats, and why Republicans still allowed Obama’s dems to conduct a scorched-earth campaign during the “lame duck” session, when they could have just waited it out and then done what they wanted in January 2011. It could also explain why we can’t get the R’s to listen to what we told them in the biggest landslide in American history in November of 2010.
What is amazing is how all of them were able to pronounce “conspriacy”.
I wouldn’t know how to.
What is amazing is how all of them were able to pronounce “conspriacy”.
I wouldn’t know how to.
For you, it would be a small conspiracy.
I was referring to Glenn Beck being the fool, not Donald Trump.
Why would he say he backs Obama over Donald Trump?
Perhaps he or one of his loved ones has been threatened, but in view of what is at stake, How can he bow to the Evil now occupying the White House? Should he not stand firm on what he has been saying and doing up to now? Beck must have known where he was putting himself back when he began his political tirade.
To turn on a possible presidential candidate with courage enough to challenge our current president,and who surely must have ample evidence to support his accusations, at a time never before more critical in our history!
Simple question:
Who spends over 2 million dollars to hide a $10.00 birth certificate?
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.