Posted on 01/04/2009 10:13:10 AM PST by sportsone234
[...] For those on the chase, I’m recommending you look at a pro Obama site called What’s Your Evidence? This is the first site I’ve found that analyzes the Berg complaint, as well as, the collateral issues surrounding this epic journey into whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II is eligible to hold the office of POTUS under our Constitution from an opposing view of those of us who believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen or eligible to hold the office of POTUS.
[...]Clearly, someone has taken a great deal of time to “debunk” the Berg claim. Make no mistake, the site is pro-Obama
[...]Agree or disagree with the legal conclusion here, it is an interesting compendium of the issues that many may find useful on their quest for the truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillarynme.wordpress.com ...
The Greater Evil, you ought to read it. Click on this link to go there directly.
The owner of the site, and the one who is anonymously spouting off false accusations and conclusions is Theresa LaLoggia, a lawyer with no regard for legal ethics. with limited understanding the legal issues and the relevant laws, and has been constantly trying to obtain confidential information from Berg's assistant.
one of her "experts" she used to challenge my research is someone who has been booted from this site and others multiple times, booted from other sites multiple times, or has quit when complaints about his personal attacks went unabated. Unless you consider foul language as a field of study, he has no credentials related to image graphics.
You mean other than the fact that you and the other truthers have produced no valid or compelling evidence to show that Obambi is not a natural-born citizen?
Pseudo-experts who claim Photoshop deceptions, interviewers who selectively edited the interview with the grandmother, and so on and so on. Half-truths, conjecture, and innuendo simply are not very compelling here, and more than “there should have been more wreckage at the Pentagon” or “burning airplane fuel can’t get hot enough to melt building steel” that the 9/11 nuts peddle.
You don’t like him. I don’t like him. No one at Fr likes him. But he’s gong to be sworn in this month, end of story.
Effort put into sizing tinfoil hats is less effort put into making this clown a one-termer.
Go back to DU
That is utterly wrong -- and the burden of proof is upon him and the governing authorities which must certify him. Learn -- and don't act like a GOP Senator. Obama has told us who his father is. That fact is all the proof necessary, along with that father's Kenyan, U.K. citizenship.
Come up with some new ones, truther.
Its your conspiracy. The burden of proof is upon you, I’m afraid. So far, you aren’t bearing up that burden very adequately.
There is no secret here. Get some perception.
1. Barack Obama is blatantly not a natural born Citizen, cince as he states, he gained U.K. citizenship at birth by his father.
2. Barack Obama has not provided the kind of birth certificate that people need to get a drivers' license in some states (the actual, legally evidentiary one).
Get educated or keep mouth shut. Obama's "election" is the product of a broken electionary system and you are apparently defending the fault lines.
Thank you for your response. I respect your opinion and dogged determination to seek the truth. You are, as it happens, one of the few who have given serious consideration to the Obama/Malcolm X possibility . . . my choice of the various scenarios we have to choose from.
At least with Malcolm, BHO is a natural born citizen, although that would not obviate all the collateral issues attached, if that is the truth. As I’ve said before, about the only thing I will believe now, is a DNA test that proves who Obama’s father is.
Neither one of those is actually true, unfortunately. I’m pretty much done with you though, as there’s really little else to figure out other than if you’re deliberately lying, or simply misconstruing simple events like the other truthers are.
Quite frankly, the difference doesn’t much interest me.
Then those two bureaucrats from the Hawaiian Dept. of Health are inviolative of this statue? They came out and made a statement to the effect that they had seen the document and that there is one there. Under this statute, they are violating the law by going to look at the document and by admitting that it exist?
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.