"Not quite. If the dog already knew he wasn't born there then that would not be something unfamiliar to bark at. (To use a preposition to end a sentence with)"You apologize for an error in grammar by repeating the exact error? :-)
Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by MindBender26
Obama Born In The U.S. ? New Facts Say; “Probably Not!”
Let me be the first to admit that I have been a constant debunker of the “Obama Born Overseas” stories. How could it be possible? How could the DNC, Hillary, Edwards, the RNC, McCain, Romney, AP, BBC, ABC, FNC, etc, (and every 100th listing in the DC phone book) not have checked this out to its last level of possibility?
Well, it appears that they didn’t! Everyone assumed “the other guy did it.”
Forget for the moment all the clues left by the high-priced Obama and DNC legal teams. They are huge.
Obama and the DNC always argue “standing.” They could eliminate every legal challenge in 5 minutes by simply producing a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate. Throw in the testimony of the Hawaii Registrar of Documents, a few retired FBI chief document examiners, and the doctor who delivered him for good measure.
If they did that in two or three courts of record, in light of the obvious media coverage it would receive, every other court nationwide would accept the precedence and the cases would all be over.
But they don’t. They keep telling the courts, “please don’t hear this case.” No proof of any kind. Just the legalese argument that the plaintiffs have no standing before that court.
That’s so overreaching, it’s like buying a refinery to get a 3000 mile oil change! And one day, some court is going to say…. “Show me the money, er,. ah, I mean, Show me the documents!”
But there is a second, and perhaps new point!
Where is that doctor who delivered him, or the midwife?
Stop and think. The delivery of a half Negro – half Caucasian baby was rare anyhere in 1961. Oriental babies were common in Hawaii of course, but a half Negro-half Caucasian baby with the funny name of Barrack Obama, in Hawaii? In 1961?
Even of you were a Republican, if you delivered a future President of the United States, wouldn’t you call some newspaper somewhere with your story. Or if you were the assistant obstetrician, or the anesthesiologist, or the scrub nurse?
What about the circulating nurse, or the pediatrician, one of a dozen nurses on the 24 hour-a-day shifts in the nursery, one of many nurses on the ward where Mrs. Obama would have stayed for three days, a records registrar, a technician of any kind, hell, even the janitor!
What about the clerks, ambulance drivers….. somebody ?!?!?!
Anybody ?!?!?!
Wouldn’t someone have been yelling their “credit” for this from the rooftops???? The date when he was born is (supposedly) known. Certainly all these (supposed) people would know where they were working then!
Where is somebody, anybody, who was there or even remembers the birth?
Sherlock Holmes once solved a case by noticing the dog that DID NOT bark.
Is this the same situation?
You just proved my point.
An anonymous guy on the internet does not qualify as "someone."
and no one had a reason to.
There is no more reason to question McCain's than Obama's.
Sorry you are wrong but you knew that. You have no point. Get lost.
But that meaning is provided by finding whatever historical text you can track down that gives the one you want.
"In any case, you haven't even come close to making a convincing argument."
To you, no. To an objective person, yes.
"It's the meaning and intent behind the words that provide laws for what they are."
But that meaning is NOT provided by finding whatever historical text you can track down that gives the one you want.
"In any case, you haven't even come close to making a convincing argument."
To you, no. To an objective person, yes.
The New York and Los Angeles Times sure didn't look like they saw it that way, and neither did some ASU professor.
If McCain had won the presidency, I have no doubt that lawsuits would have been flying to the courts to challenge McCain. And I'll bet McCain would have adjudicated the NBC issue in a court of law.
>>>>It is as if the trolls reflexively outsource virtually all of their rational thinking and virtually all of their investigative potential to third parties... the rationale (when you back them into a corner) being that if there is some fact or thought that the MSM has not yet reported, someone in the MSM would have already dug it up for them, so they have no incentive to think about anything or look for information, nor do they seem capable of relating to anyone else who would opt to do so. However, if that is true, why are they on FR to begin with— unless someone is paying them to regurgitate MSM disinformation? <<<
Really excellent point.
LOL! They can't do the first two therefore they jump straight to agitating.
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
"Not quite. If the dog already knew he wasn't born there then that would not be something unfamiliar to bark at. (To use a preposition to end a sentence with)"Ditto to you.
To you, no. To an objective person, yes.
LoL. Many here do not think you're objective.
I think someone on a student, or tourist visa is a legal non-resident alien.
Non-resident alien is the word used by various tax related sites, including many at colleges, who obviously have lots of foreign students. The INS and Customs seem to use the term "non-immigrant". Neither uses the term "resident" with respect to tourists or those on student visas.
Do the searchs for yourself.
Vinny: My clients were caught completely by surprise. They thought they were getting arrested for shoplifting a can of tuna.
Judge Haller: What are you telling me? That they plead not guilty?
Vinny: No. I'm just trying to explain.
Judge Haller: I don't want to hear explanations. The state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this?
Vinny: Yes, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. You see, my clients...
Judge Haller: Uh, Mr. Gambini?
[Motions for him to approach the bench]
Judge Haller: All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. There are only two ways to answer it: guilty or not guilty.
Vinny: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything.
Judge Haller: Once again, the communication process broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.
Yeah. The same people who respond to rational argument by sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "troll". I have a higher standard.
How do you know the doctor is dead if you don't know who he was? That information would be on the Certificate of Live Birth (for a Hawaiian birth in a hospital) , or other original birth record, but is not on the Certification of Live Birth.
You are judging the sitution as if it had taken place in some inner city charity hospital. Then as now, women who are not dirt poor, and some that are, see the doctor *before* the birth and generally at least once after the birth. Plus, many if not most babies were delivered by GPs not OB-Gyns, and except in those charity hospitals, not by residents or interns who never see the patients before or after the actual birth. Those GPs would also function as pediatricians for the newborn for as long as their was proximity.
1961 was not in the 21st Century, or even the last quarter of the 20th. Honolulu was not Detroit or Chicago either.
There's plenty more reason to question Obama's NBC status than McCain's. First McCain is not president. Second Obama is hiding his origin. Obama who lies all the time and you believe a dishonest man? That's not logical or credible.
Another talking point ad nauseum, regarding Polarik:
“He’s just a nobody on the internet so there is no credence in his analysis of the authenticity of the web posted COLB”.
And then, when asked could they describe why his analysis is “nonsense”, at least two have said that they have neither the time nor the interest in slogging through 160 pp of “nonsense”.
If Polarik’s detailed analysis is useless because he’s just a guy on the internet and Polarik is not his real name, then what the freaking he!! are their repetitive comments worth?!?! Why mess around with the internet at all, using screen names? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
BTW, Red, you’re points are dynamite.
(Courtesy ping to Polarik since I mentioned your name.)
And the methods of interpretation include the legislative history. It's not the primary source, that would be the words, but it may be second, should the words not be clear or sufficient to illuminate a particular situation. Another reference would of course be the common law, whose terms are often used without definition in the Constitution.
Now, I would have to be really, really, STUPID to reference a nonexistent Department in my report, don't you think Cyropaedia?
I don't ask anyone to accept what I say on faith alone. If I did, then my Final Report would have been five pages long. Do any of these trolls even know how to use a phone? I am beginning to wonder because if they doubt what I said about the COLBs, all that they would have to do is (a) pick up the phone, (b) dial the number for Dr. Onaka in the
1. Does Hawaii apply the Seals to their COLBs by machine or manually?
2. Why do some COLBS have your signature below the date stamp and Seal while others have it off to the right side?
3. Did Hawaii use two different Seal designs on COLBs printed in 2007?
I know what I was told by Onaka, and as a test, I will submit these answers to a neutral third party. When the troll gets his answers, assuming he's got the stones to get them himself, he should send them to the same third party.
Then, that party should post them to the forum and let the FReepers decide whose right and whose blowing smoke out of their butt.
I've never asked anyone to accept my claims on faith alone. However, trolls do their best to force their views on others, and to accept what they claim is true. They can deny it until they are blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that trolls have nothing to offer but empty claims -- whereas mine are far from empty. The Truth is on my side. Deal with it.
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.