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?
Her point is that only an original can be used to determine whether a document is a forgery:
"In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness"
Nowhere does she come to Polarik's conclusion that the image posted on the internet is a forgery. She simpliy says it is impossible to tell.
Oh, and she complains about the fact that the certificate number was redacted, but that's a moot point since it was revealed in the factcheck photos.
No. This is what I said:
"Some guy on the internet says it is forged. That analysis is amateurish nonsense which has not been validated by any real expert."
I also said that "Dr. Polarik" is an alias. This is a well known fact.
You have it exactly right.
What I meant was with names still on them.
You then assert that they are not stored with names on them.
Once they have been stripped of identifying information and sold, they are of no value to the hospital.
How do you know? How do you know that the reselling and reshuffling of say OB-GYN data or cancer data from the same old set is not salable? Finding out is very basic stuff, is it not?
If records are not required to be kept that does not imply that they are not still being kept. The old records are microfiche or digital these days, not in large dusty boxes.
Please see my reply #484.
The birthers do not have a lock on being conservative. They are a small minority. What I write on these threads is in support of the truth. Whether liberals would like what I write or not is immaterial. It is still the truth.
BTW, I bet that to the extent Obama cares or takes notice of any of this nonsense, he probably enjoys the idea that his detractors are wasting their time on this dead end.
If you did your homework, you would have read at least two articles which stated that the Kenyan government said that no Obama relatives were allowed to speak to journalists or others without getting government permission. It was before inaguration.
Maybe even three articles. I read each and every thread I can find about this topic. It takes time and effort to find things out.
If you want to know stuff, you have to do the same. Plaques about his birth place are not the same thing as relatives being forbidden to talk to any foreigners unless getting permission from the government, which is what happened.
LOL! You don’t have time to go through 160 pp of “nonsense”? How do you know it is nonsense, then? If it is indeed nonsense, please explain how.
I am no expert, I just try to learn as I go. I am perfectly willing to read a reasonable rebuttal of the 160 pp, but have not found one yet. The one rebuttal was rebutted.
What 'idea' have you expressed that has not been roundly attacked today?
You said — “Anyone who can crack this legal knot, and have a case with the Hawaiian evidence brought in Federal Court would be a hero. Right now it is the Golden Fleece of the conservative legal world.”
Now..., ain’t that the truth...
But, it seems very clear to me that this is not going to happen — clear by the track record and all the people who could have been involved in doing something about it, but did nothing about it. That pretty well tells me that nothing is going to be done on this issue.
The only thing that will work is to get state laws passed requiring specific documentation for vetting a Presidential candidate, like Oklahoma and Arizona are trying to do now.
Privacy laws are no problem; the reader that they use to distribute the data automatically blanks, or blacks the name field.
You said — “Consequently, Obama is probably a U.S. citizen by statutory law. He is probably considered a Natural Born Citizen, but there’s a chance the Supreme Court will find that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, Obama will spend whatever he has to make sure his case is not ruled on.”
Now, that makes sense.
On the other hand, if such a case was to be ruled on, by the Supreme Court, it is not certain if they would rule against Obama, anyway. That’s far from certain. But, you’re right, it’s better to *not* have it ruled on, rather than leave it up to a possible decision going against you (but still, that doesn’t mean that it would *definitely* go against Obama...).
Your reading comprehension is extremely low.
It means exactly opposite of what you are saying.
What a troll fest this has turned into. I think I’ll check out and go do something useful, like cover my plants again (another cold night in Fla.).
You know, with political problems mounting up for Barry every day—tax cheats being nominated, being soft on terrorists, pushing the porkulus bill, etc, etc.—this is one thorn in his side that he could remove so easily. But he won’t, because he can’t.
You said — “At this point few remain that are not aware that he was not born here.”
I don’t see anything that shows this to be the case... I think it’s more like there are few in the circles of the Obama Derangement Syndrome that are not aware that he was not born here.
If it were that clear, this would have been ruled on in a court of law a very long time ago. It’s not clear and it’s not apparent and the fact that no one can produce anything in a court of law to be ruled on, against Obama, shows the total inability to prove this “not born here” syndrome...
That’s why they have things like this go through a court of law, to show these things (as is being shown now...).
Beside the point. I'm talking about those posts that respond to issues by calling me "liberal", "troll", etc.
Um, I did do research and found multiple articles about Obama’s grandmother holding court in front of her house in Kenya on January 18, and about other family members’ preparations to attend the inauguration. Holding what is basically a press conference to talk about your grandson becoming president of the US isn’t what I would interpret as being shut down by the government.
That analysis is amateurish nonsense...
does not mean he is being called a fraud?
Look at 3. and 4.
Definition: fraud (source, dictionary.com)
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
I know he has an alias which was my other point (internet anonymity) that you ignored.
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.
