Posted on 07/18/2015 12:53:28 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
...and inverted the '08 portion to read '80, then stamped the bottom of a fake selective service form as if he really filled it out. Sheriff Joe's Posse proved that all forms had the entire year in the stamp....but not odumbo's.
When, pray tell, will ANY of the media do their job and search out obamas's fake documents and confront him with it????
Yes, when in doubt, change the subject.
How would anyone go about proving that scenario?
There you go again. Nobody said two weeks was the "cut off." That's you inserting bullsh*t.
What was said is that other freepers posted proof that No Airlines of that period would permit a two week old infant to fly because pressurization changes could burst their eardrums.
Get it right.
And Toots sending S.A. off Canada to hide the pregnancy -- only to then as quickly fill out the paperwork which blows the desired secrecy -- makes little sense.
Mr. Dense-head. There is no embarrassment in filling out paperwork. What would have been Embarrassing to White Kansan Parents in 1961 would be having their White Daughter show up around their friends with an obviously black baby.
At that period in History, I suspect there were more than a few fathers who would have killed their daughters in the same circumstances. Worst Race Riots in the United States were in Tulsa, just a short distance away from where Madelyn was born and just a little further away from where Stanley Armour was born.
This is you. Dodge the major point deliberately, and focus on the nothing, inconsequential trivial point, and hope nobody notices what you are doing.
You also have no comprehension of "zeitgeist." You are a babe in the Historical woods.
That’s enough bullsh*t for now. Might resume inspecting the bullsh*t later, or even later still.
You’re rattling him now. He’s claiming Granny Dunham placed the birth notice, not the HI dept of health:
“She just had a birth announcement listed in the Hawaii papers.”
I can’t post much at the moment, but plan to jump back in as soon as time permits.
Obama did manage to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School while also becoming President of Volume of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious position for a Harvard Law student:
http://smartharvardadmissions.com/profiles-notable-harvard-alumni/
DumbDumb couldn't figure out how to rattle a baby toy.
If DOH supplied the info., that makes the hospital as the source more certain. If Granny supplied the info. then it belies the speculation S.A. was shipped to Canada to hide the fact of the pregnancy.
It's another in a long line of "heads I win, tails he's still an idiot" propositions I've pelted him with these past years.
If that is the appropriate comparison, then I'm sure you'll provide us the historical example where the presidential candidates provided to each state a copy of their baptismal or other Church records, or even an instance in which it was suggested that was a Constitutional requirement.
I predict a fail on your part again, and another round of my mocking you.
Lol. You stepped in it, but even with your words posted in black and white you cannot acknowledge what you said. [I would cut and paste it, but I already did that once. A second time would just give you a chance to lie about it twice.]
I know of no more dishonest person on this site. Even among obots you stand out...and not in a good way. What a waste.
And that birth certificate -- the one showing BHO as father and S.A. as mother with a birth at Kapiolani on August 4, 1961 -- was a replacement for one saying . . . what? Onaka verified that the information on the WH LFBC copy "matched" the information on the "original record on file." The WH LFBC gives signature and registrar dates of Aug 7 and Aug 8, 1961. You're lacking a theory as to how or why there would be a replacement as of that date. Speculation that Lolo adopted him would mean only that the "original" with BHO as father was replaced at a later date. But that still leaves the "original" with BHO as father, SA as mother and a birth at Kapiolani on 8/4/61.
Is that a "No"
Is what a 'no?' My parents were citizens at my birth; their parents were each citizens at their births. My critique of your "out in the looney fringe, "2-citizen parent" theory is purely historical and legal.
there seems to be no objective explanation for your determination to remain misinformed on the topic.
And on what point am I misinformed? I'm calling your bluff again. You can't name a point I haven't already demolished.
Citizenship being a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law? I've killed you on that one.
Gray being wrong about the legislative history of the 14th Amendment? I've killed you on that one, too.
Your supposed "authorities" not saying what you claim? Ditto.
The "grandfather clause" being for Hamilton and other foreign born, not the native born like Washington, etc.,? I've given multiple historical and legal commentaries all to that effect. On your contrary view you offer squat, just your usual "it's is axiomatic." The only thing axiomatic is you're consistently in error.
That you lack any coherent explanation for how Bingham was supposedly (in your view) at odds with his "learned friend" Wilson, yet neither they nor anyone gave the slightest indication of disagreement? Call me an historical babe in the woods if you wish. You're good at calling names; you're inept at giving explanations to the problems I point out in your positions.
And this is just a sampling of the errors I've found in your "6 years of historical research." You're a poseur. An idiot. It's too easy to expose your fakery.
Nonsequitturs all.
My point remains that no one at the airlines would know the infant BHO was two weeks old unless Stanley Ann stated that affirmatively. She wanted to head to Seattle; it appears she managed to get through that obstacle.
At that period in History, I suspect there were more than a few fathers who would have killed their daughters in the same circumstances.
No doubt true. Though the Dunhams by all accounts maintained a good relationship with both their daughter and their grandson. Perhaps time on the west coast and Hawaii eased their heartland attitudes a bit.
This is you. Dodge the major point deliberately,
Which point is the "major point?" Again, Mr "I will only respond to selected portions of what you write" DumbDumb, you are too funny.
Given that DL and you toss out heaps of BS, "stepping in it" is rather difficult to avoid.
But soon enough I wade through the muck and get to clarify of truth.
‘Clarify the truth’
OMC!! I am laughing to hard to type. You, who spend all day every day defending a pathological liar, now claim to have anything to do with truth?!?
Until you begin to comprehend, and then actually admit, the degree to which Obama lies, you will never get within a light year of the truth.
Do tell, where have I defended anything Obama has said? Other than I asserted his telling the major newspapers in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii is accurate, as that statement is corroborated by a host of other evidence to the same effect? Go on; find an example. You will fail.
And how on earth do the historical and legal points from the 18th and 19th centuries I've been flogging DL with have anything to do with Obama? He wasn't born then!
But, being the daft person you are, you can't see how Obama has nothing to do with any of that.
Oh, so you admit Obama is a pathological liar?
See if you can digest that before trying to change the topic away from the eligibility questions I'm discussing.
Lol! You’re not defending Obama but...
You could never bring yourself to admit he is a pathological liar.
That’s so typical. Dishonest people are the last to know they are dishonest. Lies are blinding, and the person most affected is the liar himself.
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.)
I agree it can be a challenge to get the intellectually dishonest person to confront that. Avoidance of on-topic questions, changes of topic, strawman mischaracterizations, ad hominem -- all are telltale signs.
Because it’s against the rules, on a conservative site, to mention Obama’s lies. Only liberals get to discuss Obama’s lies, right?
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.