Posted on 01/13/2009 7:34:09 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
Well, thanks, but I didn’t think it was that big of a stretch to come up with that... LOL...
> Well, thanks, but I didn’t think it was that big of a stretch to come up with that... LOL...
If it were as easy as all that, I woulda thunkit! Me and all the others who are curious to know where in Kenya Obama was born... (grin!)
Bush knows — you are 100% right about that. If he isn’t worried then it means only one of two things: he is either completely satisfied, or he is so completely p!ssed off at the way he’s been treated that he doesn’t care.
I’m an optimist: I suspect the first of the two.
You were saying — “Bush knows — you are 100% right about that. If he isn’t worried then it means only one of two things: he is either completely satisfied, or he is so completely p!ssed off at the way he’s been treated that he doesn’t care.”
You know..., there was something that came to mind that I thought I would put in here. In regards to “information” and “evidence”. It’s a lot easier to “get information” so that you know the truth of a matter, than it is to get evidence that one can prove with documents in courts. One particular reason (for example) is that the government has access to a lot of “information” that it cannot disclose, because of how it was obtained and who is involved in getting it and how it exposes their methodology and even “ability” (of getting the information). But, once the “information” is known, then the government can decide to go the “legal route” and prosecute an individual through legal channels.
Now, with this “thinking” in mind, I believe it’s easy for a lot of people to “get the information” about Obama’s qualifications by many different surreptitious means, but in doing so (in that manner), they can’t use it in a court of law or as documents (because it’s not “provable” as it would be illegally obtained).
The government has access to it all (most of it, anyway...) and can access any database or record, anywhere — and especially the President, himself (through his office, and *especially so* on the grounds of possible terrorist threat, if nothing else).
Now, the fact that Obama’s passport info was accessed (and you know that there are backups upon backups... :-) ... ) — there would be no doubt that the Secretary of State and the President (to whom she reports) and other officials concerned with the security of that info, plus the many who had to do the reports for other officials, all had access to this info, in the course of doing their investigation. None of them has made an issue of Obama being illegally qualified under the Constitutional requirements. If he were, they would all be *duty bound* to have an investigation started and have him prosecuted and removed as a candidate, right away. They didn’t, Secretary of State Rice didn’t, the President of the United States didn’t — and I don’t think that everyone is engaging in a massive coverup on behalf of Obama, in the Republican Administration of George Bush.
Now..., having said all that, it would be easy for Bush to instruct the Attorney General at the Justice Department to launch a secret investigation (i.e., “going the legal route”) by means of a secret indictment, against Obama, for lying about his qualifications to be President under the requirements of the United States Constitution, and to arrest Obama (as a candidate) when that investigation is completed and the indictment is made known. That can *easily* be done, if there is a problem with Obama’s qualifications under the Constitution.
That would be the duty of the President of the United States, as it would be a threat to the United States, if he were to allow this fraud to go on. I have no doubt that President Bush would do his duty.
Now, while many here have disagreed with President Bush on many different policy matters (and so have I), it doesn’t mean that President Bush is conspiring to coverup an illegal attempt by Obama to become President when the Constitutional requirement for office is not adhered to.
This is why I see that several of the posters who are *absolutely sure* (without any legal, court evidence, mind you...) that Obama is not qualified are “really” making this out to be a conspiracy of epic proportions (by the thinking in their own heads), involving the entire Republican Administration, all the Republican Senators and Representatives, and all the conservative media and *most* of the conservatives, themselves — in order to cover for Obama. Such a conspiracy of such grand proportions is simply ... well... you get the idea...
So, looking at it all in a common sense and everyday manner, it just doesn’t “work” for it to be this kind of grand conspiracy...
—
Bush may be unhappy with the way he’s been portrayed by much of the media and even by his own people that voted for him, but I don’t believe that this is going to create a “Benedict Arnold” out of President George Bush. It would seem that several here on Free Republic apparently do think so, that President Bush is indeed Benedict Arnold of this century and is covering up for Obama...
In that frame of mind and thinking, they are like Berg, who in addition to filing on the case about Obama’s qualifications — also has another case about 9/11 and how Bush was complicit in that attack. It’s no wonder Berg is taking on this item, as Berg already thinks that Bush is covering up for his involvement in the 9/11 attack, so why wouldn’t Berg think that Bush is covering up for Obama, now...?
Did anyone notice that Obama was “invited” to visit the Supreme
Court yesterday? The tv said by justice Roberts.
Very powerful video.
You said — “Did anyone notice that Obama was “invited” to visit the Supreme Court yesterday? The tv said by justice Roberts.”
Yes, and since the Supreme Court justices certainly are prohibited from talking about any “cases” with the parties who have been invited (that would disqualify them from hearing these cases, doncha know...) — the “discussion topic” is the raise that the Supreme Court has been asking for — from Congress — for a long while now. I would imagine that they’re going to “make their case” for a *raise* that they’ve been saying they deserve....
And who better to “make the case” with, then the incoming President?
[... and that is not a topic that is “off limits” for the justices to talk about... :-) ...]
You said — “Why wouldn’t Obama simply settle this by producing a a birth certificate for $12.50?”
I would say that he wants to “thumb his nose” at a certain segment of the right side of the political spectrum and let them “spin their wheels” for a long time, sidelining them from anything meaningful in regular political circles — and marginalizing them...
That sounds like his political plan — especially in light of Chief Editor Korir, over at API (African Press International) who said he had the tape from Obama’s wife, saying that Obama was not born in the U.S. — and then later (after a lot of people were clamoring to get it released), Korir basically told everyone it was a hoax and that he did it to *punish stupid people* for believing such an outlandish story. It’s called the Dark Socratic methodology and ole Chief Editor Korir carried that right along.
And, by the way, Berg was even Chief Editor Korir’s lawyer in the U.S. for a while, until he realized that he had been *hoaxed* too. And Ed Hale (of that Internet radio program) was also sucked into that hoax...
So, hucksters are able to pull in a lot of people (and even people here on Free Republic) with the kinds of “conspiracy minded thinking” that is going on...
There is no reasonable doubt, indeed not a scintilla of doubt that Barfsack was born in Kenya — the evidence upholding this fact is overwheming and he has not provided a whiff of evidence to refute it (save an Hawaiian “certificate” proven to have been doctored and the ludicrously conflicting statements of relatives). No, when he takes the oath to uphold the Constitution, he will be a liar and perjuror because he knows full well the circumstances of his birth. Therefore I will never recognize him as my president. I will be a political sede vacantist.
Could you please point us to that evidence?
Since it is so clear that Obama was born in Kenya, I am sure that the Four Strict Constructionist members of the SCOTUS, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, will upon their first opportunity rule that Obama is not qualified to be POTUS./sarcasm
He has several attorneys working on this. This is an expensive way to “thumb his nose”.
I’ve just have one thing to say about your sardonic statement. Barack Obama’s birthplace in Kenya is now a national shrine! (Seems to me some or all of the four voted for cert.)
You said — He has several attorneys working on this. This is an expensive way to “thumb his nose”.
—
Yep, you’re right on both counts. I’m sure it doesn’t come out of his pocket, though, so it’s no skin off his nose.
And, what a better way to “fire up” his followers, but to say — “And look at those crazies over there and what they’re doing...” (just “saying” that’s the kind of idea that they have... mind you...)...
If all four voted for cert, the case would be headed to the full court.
See 51. Add to this the fact that his paternal grandmother says emphatically that he was born in Nairobi. Do you choose to believe the white grandmother whom names a hospital that has no record of his birth? I didn’t think Obama fans were supposed to be prejudiced. There is no hospital then existing in Hawaii that has any record of he or his mother ever having been a patient. Also are you not swayed by the fact that he has spent millions battling these assertions, when all it would take is to shell out the measly price of cerified birth certificate? The fix is in and you know it! George Soros and his thugs rule and there’s not a goddam thing we can do about it. I guess you think that Franken was legally elected as well.
51? What are you talking about? "Add to this the fact that his paternal grandmother says emphatically that he was born in Nairobi."
Citation. I want to see where she does that.
"Do you choose to believe the white grandmother whom names a hospital that has no record of his birth? I didn’t think Obama fans were supposed to be prejudiced."
It's not a question of what I choose to belive. I made a request for the evidence that make it beyond doubt. And I'm not an Obama fan.
"Also are you not swayed by the fact that he has spent millions battling these assertions, when all it would take is to shell out the measly price of cerified birth certificate?"
Again, I asked for the evidence. Where is the documentation that this happened?
Right in front of your nose, unless you only want to use your keyboard to flaunt your ignorance of the ongoing battle over his Constitutional qualifications, in and out of the courts. Look it up. There has been a ton of material that’s been disseminated therough this Forum. Even when you throw out the API and the Plains Radio bullroar there’s still enough information to at least pique your intellectual curiousity wherever you may tend to want to stand on the issue. Oh yeah — that Kenya has made his birthplace a national shrine — that is a fact? Even a third world country would want to get it right. And why would granny lie? — she’s obviously very proud of Obama and his Kenyan birth even though she’s still going living in abject poverty whilst Michelle’s momma gets the deluxe treatment.
"There is no reasonable doubt, indeed not a scintilla of doubt that Barfsack was born in Kenya — the evidence upholding this fact is overwheming..."
I'm simply asking for that overwhelming evidence.
That other posts and other people have made certain claims isn't evidence. At root, there must be some actual evidence to support those claims. Where is it? I'd like to see it. Asking for it is what anyone should do. It's not a license for you to start bashing me.
A. None, because all of them are too busy sorrowfully turning over in their graves for this reason:
They watched their beloved U.S. Constitution being ignored and abused by the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court, because the 9 justices allowed an ineligible liar and fraud to become President of the United States on this saddest of inauguration days, Jan. 20, 2009.
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.