Because if she gave birth in America, she couldn’t kill that kid and substitute the one born to a jackal in Kenya! Plus, the nurses would surely notice the “666” on his head! Connect the dot, people! Connect the dot!
Hah, that is funny, he told us before that he is not a birther, so why did he reply to that?
I’m sure other posters are probably getting as tired of our back and forth as we are, but the point is that I was being accused of being a closet birther based on the assumption that I had to be getting all my crackpot ideas from reading or listening to birther screeds. The ABC News cite (yes, “cite” not site) shows that I was being truthful when I said I’d picked up my notions of birther arguments from mainstream news sources (and, although I didn’t mention it, from this board itself). The fact that the ABC News article says what it does shows both that the points I raised last night had reasonable merit, and that I was being truthful about where I got my information.
“Who’s this ‘we,’ Kemosabe?”
-Mad Magazine.
Oh c’mon GIGO. You are to make me laugh.
Elucidator wrote:
First, I will no longer provide citations for you since no matter where they’re from, your only reply will be to disparage them unread. Google is your friend. Learn to use it. That was US Citizenship law from 1952 to 1986. Try Visalaw.
Note that this applies to foreign born persons, but we don’t know where Obama was born, so we don’t know whether it applies to him. This is precisely why it needs to be brought in front of the Supreme Court. Nothing is certain when it comes to Obama.
Now, WND did an investigation about Obama’s mama’s travels around the time of Obama’s birth, and WHOA, LOOK AT THIS! All her passport records were DESTROYED. Supposedly. :rolleyes:
[COLOR=#000000]
They deeper we dig, the more evidence we see being destroyed, misplaced, lost, etc.
So if she traveled out of the country and gave birth to Obama in Kenya, or wherever, then she needed to find a way to give him citizenship. THEORY: So she travels back to Hawaii, swears out an affidavit that Obama was born in Hawaii, receives a COLB (which is worthless), the COLB generates an automatic announcement in the newspapers, and viola! Cover story!
Small problem…she never could have dreamed that her son would one day run for president, and therefore open up a can of worms that until that time had no reason to be opened.
[/COLOR]
And once again, look around and you will see that me and many others do ridicule the mainstream media many times for getting things wrong or by forgetting to clarify that one side in a controversy needs a tinfoil hat. (This is worse when the mainstream media reports science news).
And this is one of those times.
Rest and lots of liquids.
I rested all day. It’s pretty boring, really.
Well, it does state as fact in the ABC News article that Abercrombie’s “investigation” into Obama’s long form document has revealed that the document exists, but that isn’t clear whether the document itself has been found in the archives or merely a record of some sort pointing to it.
So although I don’t doubt Obama’s qualifications to be president, I do have to admit that all this raises questions. Why was an investigation needed? Why couldn’t someone just go to where Obama’s birth record is filed and get it? Why the need for a document pointing to a document? Why isn’t it clear whether the document itself was found or just some other document showing its location? And finally, why isn’t someone able to determine what the found document is?
There may be perfectly logical answers to all this, but you have to admit it seems awfully odd, especially the part about how someone (Hawaiian authorities or state workers I imagine) found something but they don’t know what it is, and that the governor, eager to get his hands on that record and announce its legitimacy to the nation, apparently doesn’t have enough suck to say “Dammit, I want that document and I want it now! So go find it!” All these facts put together add up to a very unlikely scenario, even to me, a non-birther. Wouldn’t you agree?
But for purposes of this discussion that doesn’t matter. The question here isn’t whether the media are getting their facts straight, it’s a question of whether or not I’m getting my information from mainstream sources. The ABC article clearly lends credence to the points I was raising last night and legitimizes my assertions as to how I came to know of them.
And though it’s beside the point, I haven’t yet seen anything in the way of a cite to show that the facts as reported in that article are erroneous.
Don’t be a jerk. You’re not worth anyone’s time, and frankly, I’m disappointed in folks here that should know better. You’re ignored, and I look forward to the day sometime this week when you’re banned.
What’s the over/under on that? I’m going with before Wednesday.
The problem is that liberals don’t want to believe their beloved minority president could possibly be a criminal, a fraud, a usurper. They love their diversity worship and the idea of having a black president more than they love their country. That’s why he got a pass. Because he’s black. End of story. Just compare how they treated Obama vs. how they treated McCain. McCain had to go through a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION, while all questions about Obama were given a total pass by the liberal news media.
Only a completely ignorant fool could possibly fail to see that there are lots of strange, bizarre, disturbing things going on concerning Obama’s past. The fact that he’s hidden so much of his past, the fact that he lied about transparency (and so many other things), the fact that important documentation that could shed light on his past are suddenly disappearing…this is a serious issue.
Only a slacker citizen would not want this investigated.
Wait, what?
McCain had to be investigated by congress in order to run for president?
Cite please.
For political grandstanding, really. The governor was tired of the dumb-ass birthers and he decided to press for the investigation and release of the documents, unfortunately he could not change the law so the only thing he could do is to prove it to himself.
As most reasonable people would had told him, it was just going to generate the hoaxes and misleading information that birthers produce the nanosecond a confusing bit comes to light.
Travis, who clearly was out of the country investigating Obama’s possible foreign origins during the presidential election, wrote:
Maybe you should read some news from 2008. McCain suffered through a Congressional investigation as to whether he was eligible due to being born in the Panama Canal. Try keeping up with (relatively) recent events,huh?
Hmm…I’ve tried finding evidence of such an investigation. All I could find was something about a resolution proclaiming him eligible to be President. But then I was looking through liberal rags such as FoxNews.
McCain served in the US Navy as a Commissioned Officer. One must be a US citizen to be such. And prior to receiving a commission, one’s background is checked for such things as crimes, foreign associations, and, of course, citizenship. As the man has never been naturalized, he’s been a citizen from birth, a natural-born citizen.
CoT: Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt about it. All you’re doing is making yourself look more idiotic with every post you make. If you’re truly lucky, the mods will ban you soon so you won’t peg that meter.
Ok, then we are indeed entering willful ignorance terrain, once again: they are reporting on the controversy, they are not reporting on who has the truth, just on what the sides are saying, still, it does not really offer much support for what you are pushing.
The same article ends with:
It is true that 14 percent have a birther opinion, but it is also true that a majority has the opinion that Obama was born in America, and this is based on the facts.
From Gico’s article cited:
So much disinformation, I’m starting to think Obama’s mama was a Soviet spy and Obama a secret Soviet operative. Let’s look at the LIES and DISINFORMATION contained in that article.
First, a CERTIFICATE of live birth has NEVER been released, least of all by the Obama administration. People need to learn to differentiate between a worthless, short form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth (short form certification of birth) and a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (long form “birth certificate”).
Second, Factcheck.org has no way to “confirm” the information on the CERTIFICATION of birth without access to the original, long form CERTIFICATE of live birth.
Third, in the age of computers, a CERTIFICATION of live birth is too easily forged to be a reliable proof of anything.
Fourth, the newspaper announcements are meaningless because they were auto-generated by the Dept. of Health when the worthless CERTIFICATION of birth was filed. They prove nothing.
Finally, Factcheck.org is run by the Annenberg Foundation, of which Obama and his mentor, terrorist Bill Ayers, are members and/or directors. As such, and considering that Obama chose Factcheck to “verify” his birth records, anything they say is extremely suspect at the very least.
You keep saying that the Certificate of Live Birth is useless. But it is apparently acceptable to every governmental organization in the US. To whom, besides, psychotic morons, is it worthless?