Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Winston

Thanks for being a drama queen, Jeff. Oversized and multicolored text don’t compensate for the inadequacy of your Fogger claims. Ladysforest’s alleged manual is dated AFTER Obama was born. Let that sink in. It’s irrelevant. Let that sink in. And ONE MORE TIME, that document does NOT jibe with the 1961 Natality Report. Let that sink in.


207 posted on 06/22/2013 9:17:42 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
...Ladysforest’s alleged manual is dated AFTER Obama was born.

LOL! Did I say there is probably a simple explanation?

But getting back to friendships, other than a report by some woman named (I think) Weatherly Williams, who maintained she was with Frank when Stanley Armour brought zero for a visit, and Frank said 'is this him?' there's nothing that places the two of them together...unless of course you believe he came to dinner and held Stanley Ann's hand under the table...

In fact, throughout this entire saga, I've kept my eyes and ears open for any sign they knew each other...and the only thing I ever found was that photograph of the kenyan wearing a mass of lei - in which group Stanley Armour appears to be standing...

Only problem with that photo is, it's a ridiculous fake.

212 posted on 06/22/2013 9:45:23 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: edge919
Thanks for being a drama queen, Jeff. Oversized and multicolored text don’t compensate for the inadequacy of your Fogger claims. Ladysforest’s alleged manual is dated AFTER Obama was born.

It doesn't matter.

1) THAT IS THE MANUAL THAT APPLIED FOR BIRTHS IN 1961. IT SAYS SO QUITE DIRECTLY.

LET THAT SINK IN.

2) THEY DIDN'T HAVE WHAT THEY CLEARLY CLAIMED TO HAVE, AND MADE A HUGE DEAL OVER

WHAT THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE, WHEN IT TURNED UP, COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTED THEM.

THERE IS NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE THE 1961 VITAL STATISTICS INSTRUCTION MANUAL WITHOUT HAVING IT WITHOUT DOING SO DELIBERATELY.

THEREFORE, THEY ARE FRAUDS.

LET THAT SINK IN.

And ONE MORE TIME, that document does NOT jibe with the 1961 Natality Report. Let that sink in.

I have no idea what you're talking about there. If you think it "doesn't jibe" with the 1961 Natality Report, produce said report and let's take a look at it.

I can tell you this: Like everything else birthers have EVER said, I've no doubt your claim is going to turn out to be BULLSH*T.

But I'm willing to take a look at it anyway. If I'm wrong about that, I will certainly admit it.

In fact, I've been willing to admit I was wrong all along, if anyone could produce any real birther evidence. As I've said before, I've never seen ANYTHING but BS.

215 posted on 06/22/2013 10:00:25 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson