Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by MindBender26
Oops...didn’t see your reply.
Thank you.
NOW I’m done on this issue (unless I feel like responding again).
“eligible *to* the office” “Chiefly Archaic”???
Hardly archaic. It simply means able to run for, hold or occupy the office.
Obama’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and Obama refuses to release his COLB. That’s enough for me.
Such a short term on FR and your already exposing yourself
as a forum contrarian, as well as a victim of “The Peter Principle”.
That’s going to leave a mark.
Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband.
I read your report when you originally posted it—all of it. I found it very illuminating and, having I read it, it kills me how any of the obfuscators can have any genuine trust in that Factcheck POS. No one has seen a paper document and all the Obots have to know that the usurper’s campaign was the source and not B.O. himself.
I realize what Sandra was saying but I took her affadavit as meaning that the Factcheck digital “Certification” was essentially worthless and cannot serve as proof of anything. Yet we have a group of trolls here on FR who cavalierly point to the Factcheck image as Barry’s “legally acceptable birth certificate,” the “document that Hawaii provides to people born there” and other such rubbish.
As a businessman, I’d have to have my head examined to employ anyone who provided such “documentation” as proof of anything. And as a voter, I refuse to even CONSIDER it as a HINT that Barry was born in Hawaii. He may well have been born there but the Annenberg fakery proves absolutely NADA.
Then why link to it, in the context of Obama's birth certificate?
I had read on numerous forums about the loose laws regarding Hawaiian birth certificates and this is the program under which a Chinese national applied for and received a Hawaiian birth certificate even though he had been born in China. This popped up in one of my searches and from what I understand the criteria for applying for the birth certificate were extremely loose often with the certficate given out on the word of those who knew the applicant.
I've seen those comments also. They're interesting, but anecdotal information from anonymous individuals on the internet really isn't proof of anything.
I assume the "Chinese national" you refer to is that of Sun Yat-sen, to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was issued in 1904 by the then-territory of Hawaii, when Yat-sen was (according to the certificate) 34 years old. It was common knowledge, then and now, that Yat-sen was born in China, so that certificate is more in the order of an honorarium, or tribute to the man known as "The Father of Modern China," who once lived in Hawaii. The certificate also predates the "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" program by seven years, Hawaiian statehood by 55 years, and Obama's birth by 57 years. It's a curious historical anomaly, produced in an era when even US states had no consistent or centralized birth registration system, so it's difficult, if not impossible, to see any relevance.
Amen! Ignore! Thread after thread degenerates into troll fests as they show up, one after the other, spewing talking points, illogic, and naked lies. The constitutionalists get disgusted and leave; the thread ends up with the site pests having foolish conversations among themselves.
I seriously question the motives of anyone who employs every logical fallacy imaginable, lies, distortion, and weasel words galore in order to defend a “leader” who is so obviously incompetent. His approval rating goes down daily as he institutes one stupid policy after another and nominates a parade of deadbeats to cabinet posts, yet the FR obfuscators keep up a ceaseless defense of their Barry-boy.
I handle it the same way. When I do, the troll in question will respond to me directly and I’ll tell him not to post to me again because I’m not interested in anything he has to say. But, of course, they feel the need to comment about that as well because no troll can stop putting his nose where it doesn’t belong.
It really does drive ‘em nuts, though, doesn’t it? (or maybe it’s more like a short putt)
Congratulations, Beckwith!
You have done such an excellent job on the site... Now, no matter what happens or doesn't happen, there will always be a record of the questions, the facts, etc... that "We the People" have raised over this election... And, that is a very good thing! Obama can't sweept this under the rug so easily with an official record... [It's like the HUGE elephant in the middle of the Living Room (no pun intended either! LOL).]
Correct. The British head of state was/is a hereditary ruler who was interested in expanding his realm by including as many new subjects as possible; we, however, have a HoS who is an elected president—an office which must not be filled by a person with any allegiance to any foreign power.
Sure looks like it. They zotted one troll on Thursday for being a belligerent trash-talker. Naybe they’ll do another.
“I just don’t like seeing people get ganged up on and personally attacked.”
Maybe that’s why some of the obfuscators defend the Usurper with such energy.
Just a suggestion: “birther” is a DU/Kos smear term. It’s best to avoid its use among constitutionalists. Same with “wingnut,” “truther,” “Obama derangement syndrome” and similar expletives. :)
“He never misses the opportunity to be affronted.”
An identifying characteristic of a classic liberal!
Here among the adults, a wager is a serious matter, not for some kid's milk money, and we don't show our cards until the real money is on the table.
Are you a man? Are you in or out?
Can we call the usurper’s minions, “Forgery Tools” or more simply “forgererer”?
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.