|
Posted on 01/09/2010 9:32:07 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Reverand Manning stated that the secret service came to his house after he had come out about Obama.
Nor will it be.
They say he is. It's the opposition who says he isn't.
Why?
There is absolutely no public evidence to support this statement. I know, because I have tried to verify it myself. Just because the Crimson says it, it doesn't mean it's true. I used to write for them. <> There is no public information that supports this contention. They are probably just quoting his own campaign blurb. Believe me, his classmates, at least those who are honest, admit that he was a mediocre student at best.
His father, by the way, who was supposed to have a brilliant mind, show no sign of completing even a master's degree while at Harvard. He was probably too busy giving political speeches to bother to study. He found his next American wife while at Harvard, so maybe the womanizing took its toll.
Thank you for the comment. Attorney Debbie Schlussel is the source for the suspicions about the USPO stamp-cancellation. Other commenters have also observed the round stampers were still in usage into the decade of the 1980s. Some USPO/USPS workers have commented their stampers were gone by 1980, while others have said they still had theirs. There has been a lot of controversy over the details of the design of the stamper as well, such as the number of numerals, user’s identification code, and more. When you examine the postmark, do you find such details to be consistent with your experience?
Thanks
I can understand the confusion. With the advent of computers in the larger offices, nothing was consistant. Although being retired for many years, I believe almost all of the offices have computers now. I have seen the discussions concerning the round daters, but haven’t really studied the points made. There is so much mystery concerning our pres__ent that I can’t keep up with all of it, try as I might. I do remember vaguely entering a discussion several months ago concerning the daters, but can’t recall if I was confirming stated comments or disagreeing with them.
Hey Glenn are you ready to “speak the truth with power?”
Words mean nothing — legal proof, supported by scientific evidence, is the only way to get to the truth.
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.
Words will have to do. Obama seems unwilling to provide anything else.
It should be noted how the FightTheSmears website deceives readers by instructing them to see the birth certificate for themselves while supplying an image of the Certification of Live Birth, an abridged transcript, instead of the real Certificate of Live Birth having all of the details being hidden. Worse, the Certification of Live Birth has allegedly been demonstrated to be a digitally altered image on the wrong form stock.
Practicing further deception by omission, the website does not disclose to the readers the existence of U.S. law and international law which denied Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama the legal capacity (jus sanguinnis) to confer her own U.S. citizenship to her child due to insufficient age no matter where the child was born. The website implies she could do so, when in actual fact her child could only receive the benefit of U.S. citizenship if the child were born in the jurisdiction of the United States and its territories (jus soli).
The website adds yet another deception by ommission when it does not disclose the law which permitted qualified Hawaiian residents and/or their family members to register a birth event occurring in another state, territory or foreign nation without corroboration or validation of the information included in the registration of the birth. In other words, the Hawaii Department of Health could and did in other instances file fraudulent Certificates of Birth supported only by the filer’s false statements on behalf of illegal aliens.
The problem of false birth certificates for illegal aliens is a continuing problem discussed in U.S. Government reports, yet the website by omission hides the evidence needed for the public to independently corroborate the validity of the Certificate of Live Birth, if any does exist. Until then, the public has no way of knowing whether or not a Certificate of Live Birth, if one does exist, is or is not a fraudulent filing for an illegal alien.
If a fraudulent Certificate of Live Birth was submitted by the child’s family and routinely filed by the Hawaii Department of Health without corroboration of the child’s actual citizenship status, the newspapers’ birth announcements would have included any fraudulent information the child’s family included in the false birth registration and forwarded to the newspapers by the Department of Health.
The fraud continues today in certain states where the local political authorities have passed laws and given verbal instructions for county authorities to not report certain illicit activities of illegal alies and not look too closely at delayed birth registrations by people claiming to have been born in a hospital that is now closed and no longer has any hospital records to corroborate the birth. As one Federal report commented, prosecutors in most jurisdictions refuse to even consider the prosecution of such false birth registrations by illegal aliens except in the rare circumstance another major felony is involved.
The question is, why not?
Well of course, as a past contributer you would know more about the Crimson's standards than I. I'm sorry to here thy are so low.
Believe me, his classmates, at least those who are honest, admit that he was a mediocre student at best.
Perhaps one of those classmates has preserved a graduation program, or maybe they don't have those at Harvard.
Bottom line, Obama does not have a Constitutional obligation to produce his academic records, test scores, long form birth certificate, or various and sundry documentation that is being asked for.
Then why did you send out at least 10 posts defending how brilliant Obama is, since you now admit that you can't prove the point and I document that the opposite is most likely to be true???
A noise making Freepress cricket!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2426001/posts?page=210#210
I count five posts from me on the subject of Obama as a member of the top 10% of his class.
Further, you have not documented (unless you are claiming yourself as an authoritative source) anything.
Seems hyperbole is your forte.
Along with death, taxes and real estate, another universal truth reigns supreme ... If it brays like a Obama Eligibility Troll:
Don't render aid & assistance to a person who obviously seems confused as to whom he owes his loyalties,
|
|
Actually I think bush had good grades...
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.