Posted on 09/24/2010 11:31:46 AM PDT by patlin
You know I’ve wondered the same thing myself. Something strange is going on for sure.
I answered this for someone else last night. See #224.
I gave six possible explanations. I think they are all much more plausible than the one you have put forward.
It’s a similar argument with the Indonesian school record ... the place of birth is indisputable and undeniable, but the declaration of Indonesian Nationality on the same page is a mistake and cannot be taken literally.
Why is that?
I think there are two possible explanations for that:
1. He really had become an Indonesian citizen. (In other words I agree with you that this is possible. I just don't think that the passport records offer any proof of this.)
2. Obama's parents were trying to scam the school, or at least trying to get him into an Indonesian public school without obeying the letter of the law.
You'll need some serious meds upon your defeat in November and then 2012.
And yes, commie pos like you wind me up, can't wait to beat your ass....in fact, ooops, can't post that here.
3. The school decided to just assume he was an Indonesian citizen because his stepfather was.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread like this on FR since I registered in 2002.
I can’t understand why the mods are allowing this steaming pile of puke to post comments.
No they weren't. The questions about Obama's eligibility started here in June 2008. There were a small handful of posts at FR before that claiming that he was secretly born in Kenya, but those only date back to March 2008 at the earliest, and they were generally met with responses by other Freepers saying that was silly.
I think you're confusing the eligibility questions with the 'Obama is/was a Muslim' claims and questions. THOSE rumors began circulating in January 2007. In particular, the 'Obama went to school at a madrassa in Indonesia' rumor first garnered attention in mid-January 2007, after it ran in "Insight on the News." Hence other people in January 2007, like expatguy, writing about Obama's childhood in Indoensia.
You’re wrong, of course, but did you even bother to read the link I posted.
If I had the mind to AND I DON’T, I could easily disprove you.
I don’t because you are beneath my efforts.
Me either LJ, maybe they enjoy watching us beat up steaming piles of puke....masochists they are!
I’m sure that carries all the weight of an interoffice fax.
One: and try to remember this Hawaii will issue a birth certificate to anyone no matter where they were born if they say they were born in Hawaii.
Two: NO Hawaiian official has claimed that they created his COLB
Three: without releasing Obama’s vital records Fukino’s statement does not meet the burden of proof required by a court of law.
Four: That statement directly contradicts her previous statement that said that she could not comment on what was in Obama’s vital records because of Hawaiian law.
There have been some wild threads on FR lately but this one takes the cake.
Watching that POS is like watching the worst brat you’ve ever seen in your life have a screaming tantrum in a public place, puking on himself and wetting his pants and banging his head on the floor. It’s incredible.
Sorry, but I'm right. I can even give you the first FR thread devoted to Obama's birth certificate and eligibility: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028920/posts . It's from June 10, 2008.
but did you even bother to read the link I posted.
This link, right? I sure did. Did you?
Because it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Obama's eligibility. Or his place of birth. Or his natural-born citizenship. Or his U.S. citizenship in general. If you see anything about Obama's eligibility in that post, please point it out.
(And just in case you try to appeal to "Mark" in the comments section, do note that there's no date on that comment, and that that comment still didn't exist as of December 2007, according to archive.org.)
What expatguy *does* write about (and note, most of the blog post is just a translation of an Indonesian article; only the first five paragraphs are original commentary by expatguy) is Obama's time in Indonesia. Which, as I already stated, was PRECISELY what the big "Obama's a Muslim" rumors centered around. Heck, even the dates sync up: the madrassa story appeared in "Insight on the News" on January 17, and expatguy made this post on January 20.
If I had the mind to AND I DON’T, I could easily disprove you.
I don’t because you are beneath my efforts.
No, you don't because you got caught making stuff up. And now rather than confess or actually back up your factual claims, you just toss out some bluster and make up excuses so you don't have to admit that you have no evidence.
This is where I use your own tactics of ignoring what people post to you against you.
I can find earlier threads that questioned Obama’s eligibility but I am not going to because of the way you and the rest of the Obots ignore other people on this board when they prove you wrong.
I see it like this, you ignore when you are proven wrong so I am ignoring your demands to prove you wrong.
And I encourage anyone that reads this thread to ignore your demands as well.
"That Hawaii was the recipient of an exceedingly large number of Vietnamese immigrants?"
You've provided some limited figures about Hawaii's immigrant population in 1960. But nothing specific to Vietnam (which you cited as the source of the influx) and nothing to indicate that Hawaii's immigrant influx was particularly large compared to other immigrant-friendly states at the time, such as California or New York (as indicated by the data at the FAIR website). And I can't say I've ever heard of any supposed widespread birth certificate fraud committed by those states in the 1960s.
"That Hawaii's resources were taxed by the influx of immigration during the period?"
You've provided nothing to support this assertion of yours.
"That Hawaii was granting Certificates of Live Birth to "thousands" of babies based on nothing more than a witness signature?"
You've provided absolutely nothing to support this assertion of yours, and seem to be actively avoiding the subject.
"That Hawaii was giving out fraudulent birth certificates to lots and lots of foreign-born babies?"
And you've provided absolutely nothing to support this assertion of yours, and again seem to be actively avoiding responding to it.
On the other hand, you've inexplicably provided a lot of data about immigration to Hawaii during the 1990s, and the impact of recent immigration on Hawaii. In other words, data that is irrelevant by being 40-50 years too late.
Its up to you to disprove the theory.
Hogwash. You made up 'facts,' you got caught making up facts, and so you just want to shift the burden. Even if it *was* up to me, how would I possibly show that Hawaii *didn't* do something? That's proving a negative. If Hawaii actually *did* do that, you'd have a source for it. If thousands of foreign-born kids *did* get bogus Hawaiian birth certificates, you'd just point to the legitimate source where you learned that factoid.
But you don't, because you're just trading in made-up 'facts.' You make up stuff that sounds vaguely plausible, present it as factual, and then hope nobody questions it. And like usmcobra, when you get caught doing it, you just pass the buck and pretend like you have no responsibility to defend your own claims. Because if you don't make excuses, you'll have to admit that you have no real sources for half the stuff you're claiming.
troll....
next time you use my name in a post ping me or I will ask that your posts with any references of me that don’t ping me be deleted.
Lolo had a decent job at the time, so he arrives back in Djakarta with a foreign wife and a stepson . . . probably didn't take too many $$ to get the school enrollment "fixed".
No you can't. What's sad, though, is that some posters will probably believe you. What's sadder is that you might actually believe yourself at this point.
but I am not going to because of the way you and the rest of the Obots ignore other people on this board when they prove you wrong.
Care to provide examples?
I see it like this, you ignore when you are proven wrong so I am ignoring your demands to prove you wrong.
So rather than prove me wrong, you're going to make up another reason why you're not going to defend your own simple factual claims.
usmcobra: 'Freepers and others started questioning Obama's eligibility in January 2007'
LorenC: 'No they didn't. Do you have a source for that claim?'
usmcobra: 'Ummm...I don't need no stinkin sources!'
Face it: your January 2007 claim is wrong. It simply is. Your reliance on expatguy's post fell flat. Maybe you just misread it at first. Other Obama rumors were circulating then, but not eligibility ones.
I'm not even really challenging anyone to prove me wrong. Because I've done enough searching myself to know that the discussions simply weren't there that early. It'd be nice if you could admit to yourself that you're wrong, especially since you know better than anyone that you don't actually have a source for your claims.
For what it's worth, here's the best way I know how to quickly illustrate that there were no questions about Obama's eligibility before June 2008. Remember "The Obama Nation"? Corsi finished writing it in early June 2008, and published it in July. It included nearly every claim about Obama you can imagine, and Corsi himself has been a pretty vocal Birther the last couple of years. But do you know how much space Corsi devotes in the book to Obama's eligibility? ZERO. Absolutely none. Not even a sentence. He doesn't question Obama's birthplace or eligibility one jot. And he didn't talk about it because when he finished writing the book, there hadn't been discussion about Obama's eligibility floating around beforehand. Certainly not since January 2007.
Oh, and WorldNetDaily's very first article about Obama's birthplace and/or eligibility? June 10, 2008. The same date as FreeRepublic's first thread on the subject.
probably didn't take too many $$ to get the school enrollment "fixed".
Yeah, all it took was an adoption.
He had a Muslim father and a Muslim step-father. He has a Muslim name denoting a Muslim identity ( Hussein ).
My apologies. I didn’t think to because I was between writing two other replies to you in this thread. I’ll avoid doing so again.
I’m sure that carries all the weight of an interoffice fax.
One: and try to remember this Hawaii will issue a birth certificate to anyone no matter where they were born if they say they were born in Hawaii.
Two: NO Hawaiian official has claimed that they created his COLB
Three: without releasing Obama’s vital records Fukino’s statement does not meet the burden of proof required by a court of law.
Four: That statement directly contradicts her previous statement that said that she could not comment on what was in Obama’s vital records because of Hawaiian law.
The burden of proof isn’t on Obama since he’s already been in office for over a year and a half and 73 lawsuits and appeals challenging his eligibility have been dismissed including eight appeals denied at the Supreme Court of the United States.
The burden of proof rests with Obama’s eligibility opponents. When US Department of Justice attorneys submit legal briefs in Obama eligibility lawsuits, judges and justices get to see those Fukino letters and decide for themselves whether they meet the burden of proof as legitimate evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
I guess I have to remind you yet again that Dr. Fukino testified under oath before the Hawai’i Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations and she said that
Obama had posted a “copy of his birth certificate” on his former campaign website and that posted copy should have stopped further inquiries for his birth certificate. That sounds awfully like an official confirmation of the COLB to me.
When Dr. Fukino issued her written statements she did not reveal any details of information on the actual birth certificate. She first confirmed that the birth records were there and then she confirmed that the records showed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Since Obama has not chosen to file suit against Dr. Fukino for violating the privacy of his records, there is no legal issue. I’m sure that the office of the Attorney General of Hawaii advised Dr. Fukino on the limits of what she could say and couldn’t say.
If a Grand Jury is ever convened or a congressional committee should meet on this issue, I’m sure that Dr. Fukino will testify under oath. If Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin had been granted discovery on the issues of Obama’s records, it was Lakin’s attorneys’ intent to depose Dr. Fukino.
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.