Posted on 02/17/2010 10:00:07 AM PST by opentalk
My circle of friends and professional colleagues includes many noteworthy persons; lawyers, scientists, doctors, business owners, etc. Many of them are my Mensa buddies. None of them are crazy and none of them are stupid. Some of them are smart enough to avoid politics altogether.
Those who do keep up with political issues agree that there is something really fishy about Obama’s history. So when we see the irrational “head in the sand” avoidance of the obvious lack of full disclosure we wonder what motivates people to NOT want to know the truth. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note to Erickson, Breitbart, O'Reilly and Beck: At a minimum, Obama has not been fully candid with the American people about his birth certificate. Giving him a pass for that is wrong. The bad news is that you blinked. The good news is that Abraham Lincoln was right:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
--Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member. Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research.
also from link,comments.
"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
Which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
Two mensa members in this house want to see the original documents.....O’Really Beck etc staff have not looked into the debth of the problem...just listened to one side.
OTOH Beck did get it partially right yesterday that Berg a democrat and Hillary were the first people who publicly brought up the issues....
They were not the first, however, to question it. Certain people, who for years have spent time in Africa and had first hand knowledge and experience with the Obama family were the first.
Article is a push back to the Loon label Oreilly and others are painting anyone who wants the president vetted
Those that want to see this story buried, are making a judgment based on politics, not the law. As far as I am concerned, being born as the child of a Kenyan citizen, makes Barry dual citizen of America, and Kenya. He is therefore ineligible to be elected President. People just don’t care, they look at what they believe to be possible, and say “He cannot be removed, this issue works in favor of the President, or you are crazy”.
Avoiding something that influences their daily lives, then they are not very smart at all.
Gutless? Yep. Wise? Indubitably..
No. Actually there are plenty of conservative who simply don’t subscribe to the belief that having a Kenyan father precludes being a NBC.
Note when the one was born KENYA was not independent...it was still a British Colony which made Barak Sr. a British passport holder...
Then they would know that it is, "None of them is crazy and none of them is stupid."
Not holding my breath on this one.....realism forces one to say “It aint a gonna happen...”
Avoiding something that influences their daily lives, then they are not very smart at all.
Unfortunately very true in contemporary Left-ridden America.
I think Trotsky (Jewish Communist): "- you may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you -"
Why are the leadership of the teaparty not working on behalf of their followers?
Keep calling them out!
I learned that both are proper in this case. When none refers to a plural noun, "is" or "are" can be used (none of the cookies is/are chocolate). If none refers to a singular noun (garbage, for example), then "is" must be used.
When the state of Hawaii verified Obama’s birth documents, the mainstream media lost all interest, The fact that the verification statement was written and approved by Mark Bennett, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii and was backed up by Linda Lingle, the Republican Governor of Hawaii didn’t help any,
When the Hawaii 50th Anniversary statehood resolution declared Hawaii to be the birthplace of Barack Obama and it passed the House 393-0, it also deflated the interest of the media in the issue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Anyone who begins a statement by naming off friends and explaining their self-perceived level of smarts is not arguing from a strong position, IMHO. Furthermore, IQ points do not directly translate into common sense and do not prove your position. If you want to bring me to your side of the argument, present some credible evidence and let it stand on its own strength.
I think it is meant as a reply to Oreilly ,calling people who question Obama’s background, a loon.
This is obviously untrue. Doubt regarding what Obama's original HI vital records show is huge and is extending to independents. No sane person doubts that jets hijacked by Al Qaeda brought down the Trade Towers or that a jet crashed into the Pentagon.
Truthers, on the objective facts, are almost exclusively Bush-hating, America-hating left-wingers.
Birthers, on the objective facts, demand transparency from Obama who has failed to release his original HI vital records leading to entirely justifiable suspicion that he is hiding potential ineligibility.
O'Reilly, also yesterday, piled on the birthers again trying to get Palin to denounce right-wing extremist tea party elements whose claims had been debunked.
Palin appeared to dodge explicitly including birthers, but with O'Reilly's prompting did denounce extremist militia elements ("guys in the hills with bazookas" I think O'Reilly said) as potentially undermining the tea party movement.
By having both Beck and O'Reilly piling on the birthers once again on the same day smacks of desperation.
Murdock and Fox may not want to destabilize the US Gov't and financial markets with a challenge to Obama's eligibility in the court of public opinion when Democrats still control the House and when we are on the verge of war with Iran and a sovereign debt melt-down.
Murdock/Fox/Ailes may prefer that Obama be brought down later at a moment of their choosing after the American people have concluded that his tax/spend/borrow policies have been shown to be wrong and the GOP House committees have subpoena power to investigate Obama and impeach him.
The lack of transparency in his background is part of a pattern of how he governs, (climate gate, backroom deals, stonewalling of DOJ,,stimulus lies...)
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.