Posted on 01/22/2014 12:48:02 PM PST by iontheball
Video
Talk to the WH about it, it’s their link.
Also, stop using IE.
Now to Ann Soetoro. She was linked to Subud by her biographer (and New York Times reporter) Janny Scott (Harvard ‘77) in the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” reviewed by the New York Times here.
From:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/01/blockbuster-csu-criminology-professor.html?m=1
Forgot to add you all to the above ping
I’m admittedly late to last night’s party (and I’ll crawl under the bed after posting just to avoid the brickbats) but:
Get a grip, FRiends!
Asking for provenance or legal admissability on an internet message board is nuts. Our highest and best purpose is not in a court of law, but rather in digging up and exposing bits and pieces that nobody else is looking for, putting them together into working hypotheses, and, in our dreams, eventually letting the lawyers and historians unveil the finished puzzle.
We are (somewhat) anonymous. We don’t know each other. For newcomer Ray to impugn Fred’s contributions of nearly a decade is shameful. Stick around a while and prove yourself before getting uppity with those who may be a bit frayed from years of hard work and research. Hoosiermama, you’re a great FReeper, been around even longer than me, but you gotta be kidding in demanding Fred post only court worthy documentation. I know from your posts over the years that you’re smarter than that.
Let’s remember who we are, that we are all worn out, burnt out, discouraged, and cranky. We better be nice to one another, because considering the mess this world is in we’re going to need all the FRiends we can get.
Why are you so hypersensitive about certain people? Others can be brutally and unfairly attacked and you say not a peep. Let anybody cast even the hint of a legitimate criticism at one of your favorites and out you come w a snarl. It gets old.
First off - read my posts. I never impugned Fred’s work, in fact I specifically stated that I was not impugning anyone’s work.
AMEN!
As someone who spends a lot of time on internet threads I can tell you that I have found that the mood of the person reading a comment will often not match the mood of the person who typed the comment causing an instant misunderstanding of the typed word.
That’s absurd. I asked three people to play nice, and I’m snarling? Yes, I’ve always liked hoosiermama, but to call her my “favorite” is elevating her in a way that I did not intend.
I rarely post these days, but did see last night’s unproductive comments this morning and chimed in. As a oldie, I reserve that right, but I didn’t mean to offend.
Odd that you would call me names because I asked for focus and politeness.
Many thanks for the ping, hoosiermama.
To all:
There’s a criminal element in the whitehouse and there are events going on (and that have gone on) that are VERY suspicious; one of which is the topic of this thread.
Also follow the money. Where it came from and where its going is important. Whether from a family trust or a payoff to the MB.
“Who’s the perps”, not “who’s the pops”.
A: I didn’t call you any names. I’ve been called a lot of names, and by the very people you’re so quick to defend. So I know what name-calling is. I didn’t do it. [Oh, and when I was getting called all kinds of names, you were MIA. That’s what gets me: the hypocrisy. People, not just me but others also, can be savaged on these threads, and you say squat. But let one of your favorites get even the hint of a negative comment, and here you come. It’s off-putting at best.]
B: Kindly quote the part of Ray’s post that was “shameful”. ‘Shameful’ is a very strong and negative word. It’s meant to put a person down. It’s ugly. I read Ray’s posts. I didn’t see anything “shameful”. So kindly quote the exact thing he said that elicited this harsh condemnation from you. Thank you.
Only one throw brinks and posting roosters was Fred. I praised her work but tried to explain what we specifically are looking for in order to pass on to the people of authority who requested our assistance. She doesn’t want to help US LEO fighting against 0. Read her response yourself
What, you ask,is “shameful.” Being snippy to other FReepers is shameful.
I find your characterization of me as “MIA” odd, like you consider FR discussions some kind of battle. I’m not interested in fighting amongst ourselves. That is both counterproductive and shameful.
I pretty much left FR for a time in fall, 2012, and the following months due to the illness and death of my spouse. When I subsequently returned, I deduced that there had been some ugly catfight that resulted in those who had previously worked together to expose 0 turning against each other and splitting in to camps.
I want no part of that garbage. From your comments, I assume the cliques still exist. That, too, is shameful. I not only don’t know who is on which side, I have no interest or intent to be a part of it.
I do admire and respect all of you who have contributed to the research over the last seven years. Would that the civil war would cease and we could get back to what’s important.
So, to reiterate, I’m not MIA. I don’t even know who you are or where you stand, and I don’t feel the need to defend anyone but myself. As someone with an intense interest in the content of these threads, I am saddened by the conflict and want nothing to do with it.
Call me a POW instead.
You were certainly there when I was attacked. I asked you why much milder things said to your favorites offended you—to the extent that you posted about it—while savage, brutal things said to me and others elicited nothing. Never got a response.
I notice you didn’t post what “names” I called you [I didn’t call you any] and you certainly didn’t quote anything by another poster that cd be characterizes as “shameful”. You changed the subject.
Sorry to hear of your bereavement. I’ve gone through the loss of a spouse. It was rough. I hope things are better now.
characterizes = characterized
Let’s get back on track.
To clarify:
O’s birth docs are PROVEN forgeries and Fuddy was involved in it in some capacity, enough so, that she was named in the Vogt law suit.
Theories as to WHETHER the parents were Mal & Val or SADO & FMD or SADO and O Sr are not the issue; WHAT was done to create the forgery in the first place and cover the forgery up most certainly is.
The kid could be an orphan for all we know, and the result would be the same.
Somebody committed a crime in making that doc; stole one kid’s
b.c. and switched around with 3 other kids’ docs to try and conceal the deed.
The central figure in the state office dealing with those docs and certified them is DEAD.
That is a very good summation.
Another point,
the forgery was NOT proven by showing that SADO and O Sr were NOT the parents.
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.