Posted on 11/24/2009 9:55:42 AM PST by STARWISE
That is a factual statement immaterial to WHO said it, or what their intent was.
Someone can tell a lie without being a liar. They just have to believe the lie.
Do you believe the lie?
When you mention,
"More likely a civil war and riots..."
...my own reaction is that that can't possibly transpire when so many politically active Americans hope fervently for some real change in 2010, leading to a total solution in 2012, with a huge landside for an American born American citizen American civilian American president.
:)
In any event, there's NO way that Certifigate will ever go ANYWHERE.
consult a dictionary for definition of “lie” and the common use of the word.
BTW, would you like to post your source for the travel advisory? Although it is probably correct, we here at FR generally post our sources for alleged facts.
Your stating that it was an advisory rather than a ban is no more to be credited as fact than the author’s statement that it was a ban.
It just ocurred to me - if you’re not an American, it would be OK to bow in front of any knucklehead foreign mucky-muck you wanted to.
> A lie as in an untruth, deliberate or not.
I respectfully disagree. Most dictionaries indicate an intention to deceive accompanying the untruth to make it a lie. So the untruth must be deliberate in order for it to be a lie.
Sure, you can argue the toss the other way, but I believe that doing so is drawing a long bow and is unconvincing.
Lies are deliberate untruths given with the purpose to deceive. They are not inadvertent untruths uttered as mistakes.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m hoping that you are right and we turn DC inside out in 2010 & 2012. I certainly do not want civil unrest. I just do not have as much faith in the process and the American people in general as some others.
He shows no signs of being a US citizen, even a naturalized one.
“To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.”
And yes, it is a lie. Perhaps you should do a little research yourself, but here is what I found....
Here is Pakistan's current “travel warning” from the State Department.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html
Here is a source...
http://www.voterfactcheck.com/facts/ob/10/pakistan_visa_1981.shtml#Ref3
That says...
Per a U.S. State Department travel advisory to Pakistan dated August 17, 1981:
Before traveling to Pakistan, American citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time period, tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. [3]
There citation [3] is....
[3] U.S. State Department. Travel Advisory: Travel to Pakistan. The Electronic Research Collection (an official U.S. State Department depository library at the University of Illinois at Chicago). August 17, 1981 (.pdf file)
It is my belief that he meets the constitutional requirements to the commander-in-chief. But I am not willing get into a long-winded discussion. (I tend to ignore the so-called ‘birther’ threads.)
0bama's "core constituency" is far from the mainstrean of American society. If they choose not to be governed by the rule of law, then so be it. That's why we defend the 2nd Amendment.
The current numbers are bound to multiply many dozens of times by the time 2012 finally arrives.
I predict that the only way they'd re-elect the Kenyan is if they are frighteningly SCARED of his opposing candidate.
Elsewise, whoever runs against him should be able to win - unless if some weird shennanigans have another John McCain Replica in the shadows waiting to appear.
BHO did not win by any huge margin, much less a landslide.
I just finished a University paper on the subject. I think I have clearly answered the question. No he isn’t and never was a NBC.
I will publish a shorter version of that paper soon.
Lie:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
http://media.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
~~~~~~~
I wasn’t the one alleging the “fact” of a travel advisory. I merely was stating that I thought you were correct. Now you have provided a SOURCE, which substantiates the assertion of an advisory and appears to prove us correct. Thank you
You think a 20-year old kid with no money could fly to Pakistan at that time? Moreover the article also says: “Unfortunately for Obama, in the present circumstance, Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables… Christians, Jews, and Americans… were prohibited from entering the country.”
So he not only would have had to deal with the State Department no-travel list, he would have had to deal with Pakistan’s military dictators, who were not welcoming Jews or Americans.
Sure, maybe it would be possible. Occasional Americans also managed to travel to Cuba from time to time even while it was on the no-travel list. But it’s extremely unlikely. And these were not nameless college kids. These were effectively Communist agents.
Thank you .. I had not seen that.
However, voterfactcheck.com is very similar
in concept and content to factcheck.org .. I
would not say it’s a reliable source, and its
ownership/affiliation is hidden.
~~~~~
Prime example:
Is Obama a natural-born U.S. citizen, and thus eligible to be president?
http://voterfactcheck.com/facts/ob/10/343522.shtml
Is Obama a natural-born U.S. citizen, and thus eligible to be president?
###
Yes. Hawaii became a state in 1959; Obama was born in Honolulu two years later.
The qualifications to be President of the United States as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution are:
* Must be natural-born citizen of the United States
* Must be at least 35 years old
* Must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years [1]
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [2]
Hawaii became a U.S. state on August 21, 1959. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii two years later, on August 4, 1961. Obama is therefore a natural-born U.S. citizen and eligible to be president. [3,4]
Some Obama critics have expressed skepticism about the authenticity of his birth certificate. For example “Swift Boat” author Jerome Corsi, who recently released a book attacking Obama, has claimed that the short-form birth certificate image Obama’s campaign provided on the internet for inspection is “fake,” and the “original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.” [5]
Obama’s original birth certificate, however, has been officially verified by the State of Hawaii. Hawaii’s Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, who was appointed by Republican Governor Linda Lingle and is herself a financial contributor to the Republican Party, has personally verified the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate: [6-8]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too many of us who have been researching this
subject for nearly 2 years have seen that same
old factcheck song and dance before.
I’ve yet to see an official and pertinent State
Dept. document on this subject. By all means, do
post that. Even if they just dissuaded travel by
Americans there, it would give reasonable folks
pause and curiosity.
If he is not a NBC, then we have a much larger problem than a usurper in the White House.
This amount to the largest fraud to ever be perpetrated against Americans.
Secondly, To allow this to advance in the manner in which it has, it would be a huge cover up / conspiracy by untold numbers of people.
If indeed true that Barry is NOT a NBC, BO holding the office of president is the least of our worries.
Instead, this would constitute a direct attack on the constitution itself, thus fueling possible armed civil confrontation if those responsible are not held accountable.
Just my lil ol opinion.
The logistics of how or why 0bama got to Pakistan are immaterial to the FACT that to repeat that there was a “travel ban” on Pakistan in 1981 is to repeat a falsehood.
It isn't true.
It never was true.
That ‘natural birthers’ cannot get this straight, but repeat it until everyone assumes it is true; is a damning indictment of the veracity and seriousness of their movement.
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.