Posted on 04/21/2011 11:39:53 PM PDT by jdoug666
These liars never learn.
AMEN!!!!
I love how the “Investigations” the left did to confirm Obummers citizenship are never revealed. They never show their work. If no one has found the long form, what exactly did they look into? Screw you NYT.
Consider the source!
“Evidence aside.”
Too funny for words.
Oh pleeezzzz. Show the long form.
Kirk Johnson,the NY Times reporter with no evidence and a story about a president with no BC while Trump is barking up o’s wagon train.We need to call this man ASAP at the NY SLIMES and ask for the LONG FORM BC.Call Kirk in the morning and get his inside scoop of cowplop he shovels.
LoL sure NY Slimes. Obama didn't say he was born in Hawaii. He spoke in the third person stating others have said he was born in Hawaii. Obama said, "Most people feel...he...he... he..." to that sycophant and minion member Gergie Steffufugus.
I think they mean the PDF file posted by snopes...
Yup...that’s a PDF file alright...now lets see the BC!
Just this week, on the news program “Good Morning America” on ABC, George Stephanopoulos produced a copy of the president’s Certification of Live Birth, causing a potential presidential aspirant, Michele Bachmann, the Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, to say that the issue appeared settled.
So the "evidence consists of a piece of paper that Stephanopoulos claims has a seal and whatnot. Since such a document can only come through Obama's permission, Stephanopoulos evidently was either fed the document by Obama or he is fabricating it. But where is a copy on ABC News Good Morning America, or other ABC News, website? Even if it were produced, it is only a copy of a Certification, and not a real birth certificate. Stephanopoulos seems to have no new information, and has produced nothing new for the public to see, but ABC News and the NY Times treat his claim and a guarded conditional statement by Bachmann after being sandbagged by Stephanopoulos on live national TV as one of several "investigations" which "conclude" Obama was born in Hawaii, despite the possibility he was born elsewhere and Hawaii issued the certification by proxy on the basis of a relative's statement around the date of birth, etc. The NY Times sentence above contains an embedded link to a youtube video which does not even seem to be the official ABC News video (it is posted by youtube user "designermite" who seems to have no explicit affiliation to either ABC News or the NY Times). The combined logical stretch from conjecture to conditional to conclusion by ABC News, "designermite," and the NY Times seems very desperate. They all evidently must have been stonewalled by Obama as no one quite comes out and says Obama produced anything new.
It is amazing to see how much in Obama's corner the MSM is these days.
Here is the youtube link:
And they ought to! This isn't the first time this issue has come up. It's long overdue for being settled by law. No more juvenile games.
Democrats played the "NBC" card against Republican Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 when he ran against Wilson. Hughes' father was a British citizen. Sound familiar?
Here's the historical piece from "Chicago Legal News" laying the Democrats' argument: IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION?
The coverup continues, and it's been too long to rule now that his fraudulent Ascendancy to the Throne means ALL his Appointments, signings, etc., are null and void.
The damage is DONE.
The birther issue would be totally worthless in a general election. I assume the idea is to get rid of Obunga prior to 2012.
I think the requirement should have been there from day one. Put those bills through and nary a word need be said about his birth again until he has to prove himself to get on the ballot.
“But down the hall, an assistant Democratic floor leader in the House, Al McAffrey, said the bill was the embarrassment. “
“Asked in an interview whether he was concerned about embarrassing the leader of his own party,”
“Opponents of the birther bills say they are unnecessary and are designed to score political points more than safeguard democracy, certainly in Mr. Obama’s case. “
How can anyone be against this sort of a bill? Why would anyone be embarrassed by one? Is there a logical reason for a candidate to not prove their legitimacy?
I actually agreed with brewer - the proposed law was too vague with too many loopholes - circumcision certificates? baptism certificates? please. Back to rewrite and then give it to her again and she will sign.
Read the comments and a good 60% cry racism. I won’t point out an obvious fact to them because theres no way i am going to post on the NYT website.
Go back to the first election. Any documents that were taken from one place to another went by horseback. Move ahead. In 1869 they drove the golden spike into the ground joining both coasts by rail. Still a several day cross country trip. People didn’t sit in front of their televisions or computers and have information fed to them.
The fact is the obligation to prove oneself eligible for office should have always been a requirement but wasn’t always feasible. Heck,i didn’t even touch on record keeping 150 years ago.
To the left,like it or not,Obama’s own actions with all his records has stirred up and kept alive this controversy. To cry racism over this issue only shows your own fears over the issue,only serves to point out your own nagging doubts.
The notion that a candidate has to prove his or her self is so simply logical that anyone opposing it must be very fearful of the results.
Getting it right should be simple and easy. Sadly we’re talking about a room full of elected officials.
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.