Posted on 09/24/2010 11:31:46 AM PDT by patlin
proof positive that Obama was ”NOT” a US citizen prior to & in 1968...Sept. 24, 2010
Dear Sen. Thune,
As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the sub-committee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action...
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
That’s swell and all, but I already said that rumors about Obama’s religion were circulating in January 2007. Heck, here’s a January 22, 2007 article about the madrassa rumor in particular - http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-22/politics/obama.madrassa_1_islamic-school-madrassa-muslim-school?_s=PM:POLITICS
usmcobra’s claim was that rumors about Obama’s ELIGIBILITY were circulating in January 2007. And there’s nothing to substantiate that.
to prove you wrong I have to search every post I have ever made to find when and where I have ever said anything that I claim to have said.....
Meanwhile you get to claim that I have lied in the interim.
it isn't up to me to prove you wrong it is up to you to prove I am lying that means you have to search through all of my posts until you find every post I have made on this subject and accurately post them here with the time and date when I made them including a link to the original thread, anything else by you is pure blather and bovine excrement. I don't have to prove me wrong you do.
How do I intend to prove he is ineligible?
Well I won’t do it by standing back and saying nothing can be done, or that he was elected get over it.
Nixon resigned because the pressure got too great for him to hold the office, the way to force Obama to prove or disprove his eligibility is to keep the pressure on.
If you are unwilling to do that but agree that he should prove or disprove his birth stand aside and let those that are willing to bring the pressure to bear to do so.
Run in those troll circles...run round and round and round and round...It never stops. We have what we need and a court has to decide this issue based on the facts and documents. The trolls are only pretending to have an equal case by running a three ring circus of knots on these threads...
It reminds me of the great liberal minds who claimed BJ’s impeachment was “only about sex” when it was about sexual aggression/abuse of employees and perjury. No matter what the truth was, the liars’ circus kept goin’ round and round right up to and including “scottish law.”
I guess now I am supposed to be the big man and let it slide this time around.
You’re an liberal Obot troll on a board of conservatives trying to put forward the case that the biggest election fraud in our nation’s history (in more ways than one) did not take place.
Actually Bill Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t about sex, fellatio was successfully defined by liberals as no longer being a sex act or performance.
I never did learn what they defined it as but I do remember it is no longer sex, perhaps a very sloppy handshake between two liberal trolls.
How do I intend to prove he is ineligible?
Well I won’t do it by standing back and saying nothing can be done, or that he was elected get over it.
Nixon resigned because the pressure got too great for him to hold the office, the way to force Obama to prove or disprove his eligibility is to keep the pressure on.
If you are unwilling to do that but agree that he should prove or disprove his birth stand aside and let those that are willing to bring the pressure to bear to do so.
It was the Watergate Grand Jury that brought down Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator.
It was the Iran-Contra Grand Jury that produced 11 convictions but two were overturned on appeal.
It was the Whitewater Grand Jury that produced 14 convictions and produced the evidence to impeach Bill Clinton.
It was the CIA-leaks/Plame Affair Grand Jury that indicted Scooter Libby who was later convicted.
None of the above happened using the civil lawsuit route.
Watergate ring a bell?
Without such a pivotal moment, the best we can hope for is that rising numbers of, and I hate to use the term, “birthers”, falling job approval numbers, and tea party victories in Congress may be enough to force some one to investigate the unprecedented president on the issue of his eligibility.
The federalization of Grand Juries has neutered all those created by citizens to investigate this matter.
I don't like to count my chickens but I think I'll be quite satisfied with the election results, although Sharon, Christine and a few others have a tough fight ahead.
And threats of physical violence? Why I believe you've become unhinged, Ronald McDonald. A commie pos? Because I have the good sense not to get sucked into some Democrat conspiracy theory, I'm a commie pos. I'm smirking at your gullibility! Those who know me, in real life, would laugh at your description of me as a commie.
Later Ronald McDonald clown boy!
It probably should be a huge news story....
but it obviously is not....or it would be a huge news story (somewhere...fox...rush...hannity...anywhere).
might be the most effective counterpoint to certifigate around. But there are too many unanswered questions about this strangely ‘vetted’ candidate:
Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama eligibility status
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207197
Doc missing statement candidate ‘qualified’ under U.S. Constitution
Meat-and-Potatoes Certifigate Summary [Please feel free to add points]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2114092/posts?page=186#186
What I uncovered I found disturbing, but this was mostly related to to Obama's Muslim faith and I centered my research on this.
When I first reported that Obama is a Muslim - I got attacked quite severely from every possible angle. The MSM and CNN came out in full force and simply denied what I had said or dismissed it out of hand.
Obama was upset enough that they "sent" CNN over to debunk the so-called rumors and started a website called "fight the smears" which is still up.
Even when the documents were released vindicating my work nothing changed - not one of the conservative talk show people touched it - basically I was on my own. It took months before people in the States even realized that his name was Barry Soetoro.
After Corsi's book came out and Time magazine - I decided that the future release of documents and information will be through my own book of which I am working on now.
There is more FRiends, but what use it is? You see the truth has become subjective to the MSM - and quite frankly I am not going to release what I have just to enrich someone who will copy my research and write a New York Times bestseller without giving me so much as a cent. If I sound bitter about all this I am and for several reasons.
Obama's election was the biggest scam in the history of our country - very few facts were known about him and even now very few people know the truth about him and his background.
What is your purpose for being here discuss Obama eligibility anyway?
Are you an agent for social justice ensuring that an unprecedented president isn’t challenged on constitutional grounds in a court of law?
72 separate cases have been shunted out of the legal system by what most logical people would describe as legalistic chicanery to prevent anyone from reaching the threshold of discovery and yet we are told that a document that has only appear of the internet meets the legal standards of proof for Obama’s eligibility, a document that did not even exist when he was deciding if he should run for the office and one that has never been viewed in a court of law as legal evidence.
Isn’t the man that lost his job because of Obama’s systematic destruction of our economy entitled to know that the man he elected is constitutionally eligible ton hold the office?
Isn’t the family that will lose their business due to the oppressive regulations Obama’s administration of this country has shackled them with entitled to see for themselves what is on his original birth certificate that Obama must hide from the legal system?
Isn’t the senior citizen that has seen her Medicare benefits stripped away to fund a government health care system that she might never live to see come online entitled to the same sort of legal justice that requires Obama to prove he is eligible as John McCain did in a court of law when he showed his original Panamanian Birth Certificate to the court and to the world?
Aren’t our soldiers that are being sent by him into a war zone under the most restrictive rules of engagement ever hoisted upon the backs of our military entitled to know that the president that is sending them to be slaughtered like sheep is eligible to make that decision with their lives?
Social justice does not apply to one man, it applies to every citizen of this country equally, especially if the actions of a man that should not hold the office of the presidency is destroying this country.
I can think of nothing on his original birth certificate other than that he was not born in this country that would embarrass him to the point where he would not be able to carry out the duties of president and yet that is the excuse most commonly used to stifle any logical debate on the issue. We cannot see it because it would embarrass him!
Even if his original birth certificate said he was a hermaphrodite, that would not be cause enough to embarrass him to the point where he could not show his original birth certificate to the American public after the pummeling this country has gone through after less that two years of his blatantly Un-American execution of the office.
But if I am wrong tell me then what would be so embarrassing about his original birth certificate that he could not present it to the American public that trusted him enough to put him in the office he now holds?
If you can name one thing on his original birth certificate that would be so embarrassing that he could no longer serve in the office other than he was not born in this country and is not eligible, I will take a zot and NEVER POST IN THIS FORUM AGAIN.
You mean the phantom sources you can't find and won't share?
to prove you wrong I have to search every post I have ever made to find when and where I have ever said anything that I claim to have said
Um...no. No, that's not right at all. You've claimed that people started talking about Obama's eligibility in January 2007. Maybe that includes you, maybe not. But to prove you didn't make that up, that in no way means you have to search every post you've ever made; that's silly.
No, it just means that you have to take whatever source you're thinking of from January 2007 (or even from anytime in 2007), and share it. If you're so certain that it was being discussed in January 2007, then surely you must remember where or who was doing the discussing.
The only reason such a feat would be difficult would be is if you're actually relying on nothing more than your own memory of things you read online 2+ years ago.
And to illustrate how faulty memory can sometimes be, I'll demonstrate: when I checked my notes, I realized that the FR thread I linked to yesterday was, in fact, the third eligibility thread at FR. Two others beat it by just a few hours. All three were directly or indirectly spawned by Jim Geraghty's NRO column of June 9.
it isn't up to me to prove you wrong it is up to you to prove I am lying that means you have to search through all of my posts until you find every post I have made on this subject and accurately post them here with the time and date when I made them including a link to the original thread, anything else by you is pure blather and bovine excrement.
Yeesh. Capital letters and punctuation exist for a reason, y'know.
In any case, here y'go:
usmcobra's first post in an eligibility thread - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2028597/posts?page=149#149 . It's from June 10, 2008.
It was the same time you were still spreading the bogus made-up rumor that Obama Sr. was 88% Arab.
And just for kicks, every FR post you made in January 2007: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:usmcobra/index?more=45184585 . No talk of Obama at all.
“What is your purpose for being here discuss Obama eligibility anyway?”
Because Birtherism is a blight on and an embarassment to American conservatism. Birtherism is to the Right what 9/11 Trutherism is to the Left: an irrational, logical fallacy-ridden, politically-motivated, universally-derided conspiracy theory. When reporters want shorthand for conspiracy-minded nutty conservatives, they cite Birthers. When liberals want to smear Republican candidates as unhinged, they accuse them of being Birthers. Birtherism is to Constitutional Law what Holocaust denial is to 20th century history, what creationism is to science, and what homeopathy is to medicine; denialist claptrap wrapped with a layer of perceived inconsistencies, imagined conspiracies, and outright lies.
Birtherism is an endless fount of fallacy, illogic, and unattainable standards of proof. After a blogger first fabricated the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, conspiracy theorists demanded to see a birth certificate. When Obama’s campaign published the COLB online for anyone to see, conspiracy theorists moved the goalpost further, fell back on the testimony of fake, lying “experts” and accused it of being forged, and asked that it be personally inspected. When FactCheck sent a couple of staff members to handle and photograph the document, conspiracy theorists moved the goalpost further and accused FactCheck of being in on the conspiracy, and asked for external evidence of a Hawaiian birth. When contemporary birth announcements were found in the Honolulu newspapers, conspiracy theorists moved the goalpost further and accused the Obama family of having been engaged in conspiratorial efforts to cover up a Kenyan birth for the last 50 years, and asked for the state of Hawaii to confirm his birth. When officials from the state of Hawaii publicly went on record as saying that his vital records confirm his birth in Hawaii, conspiracy theorists moved the goalpost further and claimed that the Hawaiian officials were not credible. It’s a neverending game of creating new standards of proof, new conspiratorial relationships, and new reasons for denying a truth that you refuse to accept. These are the tools of denialists, and conservatism does not need to be riddled with or associated with denialists.
Many people “waste their time” debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Many people “waste their time” debating creationists. Many people “waste their time” responding to the allegations of various pseudoscientists and pseudohistorians, for any number of reasons. In my own past, I’ve “wasted my time” on Confederate apologists ( http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/04/24/collinsed_0424.html ) and huckster salesmen ( http://www.lorencollins.net/trudeau/ ). Whether I or anyone else spends our time arguing against these things doesn’t change the fact that these things are nonsense; but nonsense is often contagious, and sometimes there’s the urge to step up and fight back against people being fed lies, logical fallacies, and bad law.
Birthers, on the other hand, enjoy endlessly promoting a conspiracy theory so absurd that pundits like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter think it’s ridiculous, leaving only guys like Alex Jones and Kevin Trudeau as supporters. A conspiracy theory so fringe that its proponents leap to claim every pundit who makes a joke as a supporter, and pretend that every no-name foreign journalist who makes a factual error is actually speaking the secret truth. A conspiracy theory so utterly *silly* that it’s not even treated by most skeptics as worthy of detailed rebuttal; while the 9/11 Truther analogy is convenient, Birtherism has almost as much in common with David Icke’s ‘The world is secretly ruled by reptilians’ nonsense, in that it’s just shrugged off as not even worth the effort to tackle. The public, press, and politicians don’t ignore Birtherism’s claims because they’re afraid of them; they ignore them because Birtherism’s claims are just really, really STUPID. Birthers advance a sweeping conspiracy starting in 1961, encompassing hundreds if not thousands of actors on both sides of the political spectrum and around the world, and involving everything from secret international trips to fraudulent registrations to elaborate forgeries to media coverups to scrubbed videos to novel legal theories.
And of course, everything from the lack of supporting evidence to the lack of legal support from legitimate legal scholars is all chalked up to being part of the conspiracy too. All rather than to simply accept that, like it or not, Barack Obama is the legal President of the United States.
The longer that such a conspiracy theory, such a stupid, stupid conspiracy theory, remains associated with conservatism, the harder it will be to rehabilitate conservatism in the eyes of the American voter. Worse yet, Birther rhetoric of hanging (and worse yet, hanging from a tree) is disturbing in its violent imagery. Conservatism is about finding answers through caution, logic, and reasoned analysis, rather than in rashness, emotion, and logical fallacies. Birtherism fully subscribes to the latter and is entirely bereft of the former. Birtherism’s approach to evidence is unscientific in the extreme; evidence that disagrees with your predetermined conclusion is deemed fraudulent or perpetually insufficient or is simply ignored, and the lack of evidence supporting your conclusion is always chalked up to the conspiracy.
William F. Buckley, the spirit of 20th century intellectual conservatism, would be aghast at the existence of Birtherism. His approach to the Birchers is the same approach today’s Republican Party should take with the Birthers. And I discuss Obama’s eligibility because I’d much rather stand with Buckley and embrace his legacy than silently tolerate the toxic effect of folks like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg.
Know that your work is appreciated and dare I say it revered as the lead inquiry into this man’s buried past.
Proof that Obama is a Muslim should have been enough to prevent him from entering the race at a time when we were at war with the same type of Islamic extremism he was indoctrinated by, but sadly the progressive goal of social justice and racial precedence trumped any investigation into the background of this man.
Like Colonel Eugene Holmes, you did your best to warn this country about the man they would elect prior to the election even documenting the search of Indonesia for his records by a Member of congress as part of a plan to purge from the public view anything that might prevent him from being elected.
I at least recognize it as the first inquiry into his eligibility for the office even if it doesn’t rise to the level of our constitutional standards, it does examine the very character of the man that wanted to be our president in the sort of critical light all candidates for the office should be scrutinized under.
Thank you for your response and your valuable time.
There is no doubt in my mind the man intellectually is a foreigner. He doesn't understand America. That being said, I can't say he wasn't born in America. For whatever reason, people leave America and are forced to bring their children with them.
Should he release a proper birth certificate? Yes. Should the birth certificates of future candidates for political office be required? Most definitely.
Speak for yourself, The sort of critical light that no one dares shine on Obama lest they be damned as racist bigoted kooks, is wholly justified by his attempts to hide from the public the very details of his life and even his birth.
His opponent in this race made no attempt to hide the fact that he, John McCain was born overseas and did produce and allow his original birth certificate to under go that sort of scrutiny that Obama has steadfastly avoided to the cost of millions of dollars in private and public spending via his own campaign funds and the services of our justice department, when all he has to do is produce his original certified birth certificate in any one of 72 suits brought to confirm his eligibility for the office he now holds.
The Office of the presidency holds the man that occupies it to a standard higher than any other listed in our constitution and no real conservative would ever ignore those standards for the sake of political expediency.
If you are the sort that does, please turn in your badge at the door and find yourself somewhere else where political whores that are willing to sell their souls to the devil himself for the political sweat of his rear, congregate, there you will find plenty of like minded "conservatives ready to glad hand you like a nurse in a VD ward for your effort to prevent Obama from being held to the standards this nation set forth in its founding documents.
Can I ask you a simple question?
Why is it that you don’t use HTML code on some of your links to what I have said and yet seem perfectly willing to use it on others?
Am I to assume that you are incompetent or should I believe you did it deliberately to make it harder for someone else to do their own research?
I suspect it is the later.
So called “Citizen” grand juries are nothing more than a farce.
There are literally thousands of grand juries all across America meeting today with their jurors being selected by the exact same process as jurors for any trial.
I am talking about legally constituted grand juries under the laws of many states and the federal government.
I’m talking about REAL Grand Juries like the federal grand jury in Illinois that recently indicted Obama’s friend Rod Blagojevich and provided the evidence for his impeachment and conviction.
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.