Posted on 12/17/2011 9:58:17 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Gutfeld: So, um, do you feel that you have settled that question about the origins of, ah, ah, President Obama's birth certificate?
Trump: Well, yeah, look, look, very simple, and you know I was on Barbara Walters yesterday she asked the question. Unfortunately, she cut the hell out of my answer and left like the last three words and people don't know what it, what it meant. Although I was honored to be on, but, you know, she cut that in, but she asked the same thing. Look, his mother, to the best of everybodies knowledge, was never in that hospital. OK. The document may have been tampered with according to many, many people. OK. You've got grandmothers and you have people in his family who say he wasn't born in this country. OK. Forgetting all of that, do I think he was born here? I have no Idea. I personally cannot say one way or the other. You know that the mother, there are no records. There are no records that the mother was ever in the hospital. With all of that being said, folks, I'd rather focus on the economy and jobs and how to get the country back. But, ah, If you ask me was he born (here?) I really can't tell you.
Again, why do you trust Mark? I see no reason at all to trust him where there is no evidence other than what he presents that David was a real person, and the details quoted above are all inconsistent in the extreme.
There is not one other scrap of evidence other than Mark’s assertions. Belief in David’s existence is an idee fixee or whatever it’s called.
Is the “family reasons” that Sr came to HI for when he was ten a legal maneuver to give his citizenship through adoption by his grandparents?
My sis adopted one of her grandchildren so that they not only could raise him but legally get him the medical and education needs met.
It might also be the reason that bHo (and the general public) cannot get his/their hands on his legal birth certificate or the original document.
Born out of the country,adopted by second husband then again adopted by grandparents with biological parents approval.
Nah, it's a family trait. Marxist liberals prove their point when it comes to Darwinism.
Vein, my foot!
Since you keep moving the goalposts, let me say that my assertion now is that you are an ignorant @$$hole unable to respond to direct questions. The reason I posted the opinion I did was because you said Rawle was irrelevant to our law. You might wish "Founding-era legal commentators" were irrelevant, but the Justices that I prefer (and one of whom I know, personally) think otherwise. It would appear that YOU are the fool, "Sonny."
ML/NJ
My mistake. My ME/CFS is bad today. I went back and I can see that Fred Nerks is claiming that the younger, lighter boy, David (as identified by Mark) is actually Barry.
The timeline still doesn't work for Barry to be in the family picture taken apparently in Kenya. The David/Barry child in question is about 2 years old (FN says one). If it is Barry, the picture would be from 1963 when Barry was two, but Sr. didn't even meet Ruth in Cambridge and take her to Kenya until mid-1964!
The picture fits perfectly with the timeline given by Mark which is that it is of him (b. 1965) and David (b. 1968) taken when they must have been about age 5 (Mark) and 3 (David) making it a 1970 picture, give or take a bit.
“No one is saying the dark child is the guy in the White House. Is that what you meant?”
Ummm...see #170 where David says:
“The darker little boy in both pictures is Barack H. Obama II—just pull up a current picture of BHOII and look at him.”
Now my brain really hurts! Time for my next neuro-power-nap.
Ummm...see #170 where David says:
“The darker little boy in both pictures is Barack H. Obama II—just pull up a current picture of BHOII and look at him.
For after your neuro-power nap:
The chlid born as BHOII is not the man in the White House. David doesn’t mean the person presently known as BHOII.
Ummm...see #170 where David says: “The darker little boy in both pictures is Barack H. Obama II—just pull up a current picture of BHOII and look at him.”
Now my brain really hurts! Time for my next neuro-power-nap.
Assumes there are still active neuros there?
No. I didn't say the guy in the white house is Barack H. Obama II--he just uses that name. I doubt that he was even sworn in using that name.
That's because he isn't there. See images #181.
You can see Stanley's arm around Obama. You can see Obama's left arm, the one next to Stanley, holding a briefcase. What you can't see is Obama's right arm, or the girl's left arm. It appears that their arms are around each other. Though this could be innocent, it could also show Obama with his girlfriend. How then, can we explain Stanley's smiling visage?
“you are an ignorant @$$hole..”
Clearly from your continued vitrol you have lost the discussion and have only name calling left you as cover for your inflated sense of self worth.
Oh, by the way,...... Merry Christmas.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_against_barack_obama_sr.html
American Thinker Link
What can I say. I wish you a Merry Christmas too. I just wish you would understand that these are dialogs we have here and that you should answer the questions put to you even when you find that the answers might indicate that your rock solid foundation isn't quite as solid as you originally thought it might be.
ML/NJ
1. The year of the photo (1970)
2. The location of the photo (Kenya)
3. The identity of the older, standing “dark” boy (Mark)
4. The age of the older standing “dark” boy (five years)
5. The identity of the boy being held by the woman (David)
6. The age of the boy being held by the woman (two years)
My guesses fit Mark's account. Can your version of the age and identities of the boys be reconcilled to a time and place?
IMO, Ruth looks significantly younger in the picture of her holding a less than one-year-old child, as she would if the child were Mark and the picture was taken in late 1965-early 1966 as opposed to 1970 when Mark was five (the boy I identify as Mark comes up to his mother's waist in the picture). If the boy being held is Mark, as some claim, Mark would have been two and the picture would have been taken in 1967 when the "real" Barry was age six in Indonesia!
I see no need to play your guessing-game, but do have a question I would like to ask you, you wrote in part:
4. The age of the older standing “dark” boy (five years)
6. The age of the boy being held by the woman (two years)
regardless of their ages, whether five and two or four and one, you agree there appears to be at least THREE YEARS DIFFERENCE IN THEIR AGES?
DO YOU?
yes, you did that, between items four and six, you clearly stated the age difference necessary between the 'two little boys' IS THREE YEARS.
So I will allow the image speak for itself.
I’d say one and a half (at the outside) to slightly less than one year age difference.
Definitely NOT three years.
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.