The Birther Conspiracy Thread (2 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

I think both sides are equally bias. If the best reason to not release a document is beause you think you can make opponents look bad, it is pretty pathetic excuse to break a promise.

 

[matuski]

What makes me come to that conclusion that Obama has no birth cerificate?1. He hasn't released it, despite saying he had it in his book.2. No hosptial claims this is where Obama was born, despite Obama writing a letter to one saying he was. 3. No doctors, or nurses, or even friends, or neighbors recall this event. Just same lady claiming a doctor mentioned it to her in casual coversation.4. The statement by the state official is legally parsed to leave the door open for other type of documentation besides a birth certificate.5. Obama is too thin-skinned not to combat this more directly if he had the proof.6. Under the circumstances I outlined, the actions taken by Obama is exactly what he should be doing to cover it up. It is a well laid planned which is nearly impossible to prove otherwise. I think something is being hidden and it is a brilliant legal strategy to do such. Many assume Obama is doing it for political reason, I think it is legal manuvering. Not sure why that is crazy.

Why did the baby photos come off the list?

 

[gollum]

I think both sides are equally bias. If the best reason to not release a document is beause you think you can make opponents look bad, it is pretty pathetic excuse to break a promise.

There's lots of things Obama has pissed me off on, Even in the transparency issue there are a lotthis is not one of themthis is a complete non issue

 

[gollum]

Obama a ruthless criminal?

now we know why he has been so soft in dealing with the pirate issue.

 

[CBusAlex]

Obama a ruthless criminal?

now we know why he has been so soft in dealing with the pirate issue.

Clearly he's a secret Pastafarian.

 

[The Commish]

I think both sides are equally bias. If the best reason to not release a document is beause you think you can make opponents look bad, it is pretty pathetic excuse to break a promise.

You can't be this obtuse. It's not about making the other group look bad. It's about providing that shiny ball that they fixate on rather than what he's actually doing and these dopes are making it INCREDIBLY easy for him. It's really mind numbing that people don't get that. Politicians spend countless hours trying to figure out how to distract us with some random event that means nothing so we aren't paying attention to what is really going on. They'll point us to some obscure reference in a document to justify their unwillingness to "reach across the isle" when the reality is, they aren't getting some handout they promised a constituent if it's passed as is and their gravy train could be cut off.There's a ton of legit crap out there on this guy yet THIS is what people focus on.

 

[matuski]

I think both sides are equally bias. If the best reason to not release a document is beause you think you can make opponents look bad, it is pretty pathetic excuse to break a promise.

Just to be clear.. Obama isn't making you look bad. That is what is so awesome about this, YOU are making you look bad.

 

[TinHat]

Don't.....My problem with that theory is why did she name him BHO if he was not his father? That appears to be his name from day 1 accorfing to the announcements.

The only announcement I've seen says Mr amd Mrs Barack H Obama...sonhttp://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/Image/dweigel/barack_obama_birth.jpg

 

[jon_mx]

Don't.....My problem with that theory is why did she name him BHO if he was not his father? That appears to be his name from day 1 accorfing to the announcements.

The only announcement I've seen says Mr amd Mrs Barack H Obama...sonhttp://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/Image/dweigel/barack_obama_birth.jpg

You are correct. I misremembered.

 

[Statorama]

Hawaiian Senator chimes in on why Obama won't release birth documentation

Story also has a Barack Obama Heritage Timeline

Obama won’t produce birth certificate because it would reveal TRUE identity of his father

A member of the Hawaii State Senate said today he believes Barack Obama is not releasing his long-form birth certificate because he may want to hide the identity or citizenship of his father.

In an extraordinary outburst, Republican Sam Slom said the 'real issue' behind the reluctance of the President, who says he was born in Hawaii, to release full details from his birth certificate was unlikely to be because he wanted to hide his place of birth.

'My particular point of view... is that [Obama] probably was born [in Hawaii] and that the real issue is not the birth certificate, but what's on the birth certificate,' Slom said in an interview on New York's WABC 770 AM radio station.

'It could have to do with what his name is on the birth certificate, who is actually listed as his father, the citizenship of the father,' Slom said.

In recent months, the birthplace of Obama has become a burning issue, with detractors of the President questioning whether he was in fact born in Kenya - even though Hawaii officials have certified he was born in the U.S. state.

Slom, who said he once lived in the same building as Obama in Hawaii's capital, said: 'My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn't want released.

As well as his birth certificate, the U.S. President has fought to keep his school records, employment records and medical records hidden.

'Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?

'As long as that goes on,' he concluded, 'I think it's a legitimate issue,' Slom said.

Earlier this month Donald Trump publicly questioned the location of Obama's birthplace in an interview with the Today show, claiming there is a ‘big possibility’ President Obama has violated the Constitution.

The real estate tycoon, who is running in the race to be the Republican presidential candidate, said he had sent investigators to Hawaii to uncover 'one of the greatest cons in the history of politics and beyond'.

'I have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding,' Trump said.

In an interview with CNN Trump pointed out that there are no photos of President Obama from when he was younger, only in his teenage years.

He also claims that no one remembers him from school.

He said: 'If you go back to my first grade, my kindergarten, people remember me. Nobody from those early years remembers him.

'If you're going to be president of the United States, it says very profoundly you have to be born in this country.'

Sarah Palin has also jumped on the Trump 'birther' bandwagon, despite claiming earlier in the year that the issue was a distraction from more important issues.

'Obviously there is something that the president doesn't want people to see, that he sees going to great lengths to make sure it isn't shown. And I think that's perplexing for a lot of people,' she said.

A few weeks ago, a 'birther bill' was passed in Arizona by the state Senate.

The bill requires presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before they can be included on Arizona's ballot and receive any votes from the state.

Candidates who don't have a long form of their birth certificate are also given the option to show two alternative documents, including a baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record or a post-partum medical record.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'd find it ironically hilarious if it was discovered that Barack Sr. was not the real father, but, a full-on American citizen was, therefore rendering the original Birther question moot.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

And on we go.

 

[the moops]

'If you're going to be president of the United States, it says very profoundly you have to be born in this country.'

Ummm. No

 

[TobiasFunke]

And on we go.

Thanks to Stat for quoting the crazy today (including the much-beloved but completely false "millions of dollars in legal fees!" argument), thus bumping the thread up so I could read the crazy posted by jon_mx late last week. I'd like to see both of their efforts recognized in a new Pickles birther power poll.

 

[mad sweeney]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

 

[Statorama]

'If you're going to be president of the United States, it says very profoundly you have to be born in this country.'

Ummm. No

Exactly. Quotes like those are one of the many reasons why no one really takes the Trump run seriously.

 

[Statorama]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

If any vetting was done it hasn't been made public or transparent.To simply "assume" that Obama has been vetted is not only silly, but dangerous.edit: My point during this whole exercise is that there are holes in the vetting process. If a significant portion of the public (some polls put it as high as 42%) has questions about the vetting of this President, then we have an information gap between the executive branch of the government and the general public. Let's work on that and make sure that all future Presidents don't have to endure this kind of circus.The more information we have on our leaders, the more confidence we will have in them. Sorry if that means Obama has to release how he paid for college or that his dad really wasn't his birth father.

 

[flufhed]

I'd find it ironically hilarious if it was discovered that Barack Sr. was not the real father, but, a full-on American citizen was, therefore rendering the original Birther question moot.

 

[Sarnoff]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

Are you just willfully ignorant?

There is no government vetting process. There isn't even a question on the election declaration form that asks if a person meets the qualifications for office.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, a person elected to a Constitutional Office does indeed get full clearance solely by virtue of being elected. There is no further background check involved. Period.

I don't get why you don't understand this.

 

[mad sweeney]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

If any vetting was done it hasn't been made public or transparent.To simply "assume" that Obama has been vetted is not only silly, but dangerous.

edit: My point during this whole exercise is that there are holes in the vetting process. If a significant portion of the public (some polls put it as high as 42%) has questions about the vetting of this President, then we have an information gap between the executive branch of the government and the general public. Let's work on that and make sure that all future Presidents don't have to endure this kind of circus.

The more information we have on our leaders, the more confidence we will have in them. Sorry if that means Obama has to release how he paid for college or that his dad really wasn't his birth father.

Yeah, I can't find it either, but I find it 1000 times more likely that there is a God (and that the OG Mormons got it right) than they give anyone the keys to armageddon based on the virtually nothing that the birthers say is required. Especially in the face of the architects 4 hour long security application just to go to Kabul. And I really don't think O minds this circus at all since it makes a big divide in the opposition who now has to deal with appeasing moderate conservatives, birhters, teapartiers and the religious right with their next candidate.As to your last statement, I wonder how many birthers were as interested in this sentiment when W was under fire for his military records and alleged drug use and a variety of other issues that were swept under the rug by the administration. My guess is that the majority were on the other side of the issue back then.

 

[mad sweeney]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

Are you just willfully ignorant?

There is no government vetting process. There isn't even a question on the election declaration form that asks if a person meets the qualifications for office.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, a person elected to a Constitutional Office does indeed get full clearance solely by virtue of being elected. There is no further background check involved. Period.

I don't get why you don't understand this.

I understand what you folks posit, but I don't believe it. Period.

 

[bigbottom]

In an interview with CNN Trump pointed out that there are no photos of President Obama from when he was younger, only in his teenage years.

Obama a ruthless criminal?

 

[Statorama]

As to your last statement, I wonder how many birthers were as interested in this sentiment when W was under fire for his military records and alleged drug use and a variety of other issues that were swept under the rug by the administration. My guess is that the majority were on the other side of the issue back then.

I don't think the old "Bush Deflection" defense is going to get him out of this one.

 

[TobiasFunke]

In an interview with CNN Trump pointed out that there are no photos of President Obama from when he was younger, only in his teenage years.

Obama a ruthless criminal?

The sandy terrain and tropical plants in that picture are obviously photoshopped. Meanwhile, Kenya shares a border and coastline with Somalia. Connect the dots, people. The truth is out there.

 

[Statorama]

Yeah, I can't find it either, but I find it 1000 times more likely that there is a God (and that the OG Mormons got it right) than they give anyone the keys to armageddon based on the virtually nothing that the birthers say is required.

One of the things that needs to be properly publicized is this mysterious "they" that does the supposed vetting of our Presidential candidates.

 

[The Commish]

Dumb question.....what is the "millions of dollars" Obama is spending to "keep that hidden"?

 

[Sarnoff]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

Are you just willfully ignorant?

There is no government vetting process. There isn't even a question on the election declaration form that asks if a person meets the qualifications for office.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, a person elected to a Constitutional Office does indeed get full clearance solely by virtue of being elected. There is no further background check involved. Period.

I don't get why you don't understand this.

I understand what you folks posit, but I don't believe it. Period.

"You folks"? I'm not a birther. But I've posted links to .gov websites that back up everything I've posted.

The Constitution lists the qualifications for office. "Passing an NSA security check" is not on the list. It's absolutely un-Constitutional to deny an elected official his position for a background check.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

There is no federal agency with the authority to pre-qualify anyone to appear on a ballot. It's not done. Please, go ahead and try to find where it's done if you think it's so. There is no federal vetting process. No background check. It doesn't happen.

 

[mad sweeney]

As to your last statement, I wonder how many birthers were as interested in this sentiment when W was under fire for his military records and alleged drug use and a variety of other issues that were swept under the rug by the administration. My guess is that the majority were on the other side of the issue back then.

I don't think the old "Bush Deflection" defense is going to get him out of this one.

I'm not suggesting it as a defense strategy, just an observation of people in general and the colored glasses they wear. I'm sure there are plenty of people who railed against Bush for Iraq but are justifying Libya. Nor do I think there's anything to "get out of". This doesn't hurt him one little bit.

 

[mad sweeney]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

Are you just willfully ignorant?

There is no government vetting process. There isn't even a question on the election declaration form that asks if a person meets the qualifications for office.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, a person elected to a Constitutional Office does indeed get full clearance solely by virtue of being elected. There is no further background check involved. Period.

I don't get why you don't understand this.

I understand what you folks posit, but I don't believe it. Period.

"You folks"? I'm not a birther. But I've posted links to .gov websites that back up everything I've posted.

The Constitution lists the qualifications for office. "Passing an NSA security check" is not on the list. It's absolutely un-Constitutional to deny an elected official his position for a background check.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

There is no federal agency with the authority to pre-qualify anyone to appear on a ballot. It's not done. Please, go ahead and try to find where it's done if you think it's so. There is no federal vetting process. No background check. It doesn't happen.

You folks are the people that are in the position of thinking the Prez isn't vetted at all and post your proofs. I've seen your postings and read them and can't back up my side at all, but I still don't believe it.

 

[Statorama]

As to your last statement, I wonder how many birthers were as interested in this sentiment when W was under fire for his military records and alleged drug use and a variety of other issues that were swept under the rug by the administration. My guess is that the majority were on the other side of the issue back then.

I don't think the old "Bush Deflection" defense is going to get him out of this one.

I'm not suggesting it as a defense strategy, just an observation of people in general and the colored glasses they wear. I'm sure there are plenty of people who railed against Bush for Iraq but are justifying Libya. Nor do I think there's anything to "get out of". This doesn't hurt him one little bit.

In the circle I run in there was more discussion about his alleged involvement in 9/11 than his military records, so I'll have to defer to you on this one. By the time the military records got a full blown discussion with us they had already been outed as forgeries.

 

[TinHat]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

and if the President "failed" a security clearance, what would they do for items that needed to be decided? Defer to the current head of the Bilderbergers or illuminati? Consult Elvis? (he's had quite teh career with the feds since Nixon brought him into the bureau of narcotics and he subsequently went into deep cover in the shadow government)

 

[mad sweeney]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

and if the President "failed" a security clearance, what would they do for items that needed to be decided? Defer to the current head of the Bilderbergers or illumibnati? Consult Elvis? (he's had quite teh career with the feds since Nixon brought him into the bureau of narcitics and he subsequently went into deep cover in the shadow government)

I find all your options far more likely than not checking him out at all and giving him ultimate power over the free world just because he filled out an election declaration form.

 

[Sarnoff]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

Are you just willfully ignorant?

There is no government vetting process. There isn't even a question on the election declaration form that asks if a person meets the qualifications for office.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, a person elected to a Constitutional Office does indeed get full clearance solely by virtue of being elected. There is no further background check involved. Period.

I don't get why you don't understand this.

I understand what you folks posit, but I don't believe it. Period.

"You folks"? I'm not a birther. But I've posted links to .gov websites that back up everything I've posted.

The Constitution lists the qualifications for office. "Passing an NSA security check" is not on the list. It's absolutely un-Constitutional to deny an elected official his position for a background check.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

There is no federal agency with the authority to pre-qualify anyone to appear on a ballot. It's not done. Please, go ahead and try to find where it's done if you think it's so. There is no federal vetting process. No background check. It doesn't happen.

You folks are the people that are in the position of thinking the Prez isn't vetted at all and post your proofs. I've seen your postings and read them and can't back up my side at all, but I still don't believe it.

OK, as long as you admit that you have no facts to back up your assertion that a secret government agency does clandestine research on people, then reveals it to no one, and as long as you admit that the facts that are out there contradict you.

 

[mad sweeney]

I still think it's awesome that people think the Prez isn't vetted. The guy in the other thread that's going to Afghanistan with the Army Core of Engineers had to fill out a security clearances packet that took him 4 hours to fill out, but the guy with his finger on the big red button gets all clearances automatically because he said he was a citizen on his election declaration form.

Are you just willfully ignorant?

There is no government vetting process. There isn't even a question on the election declaration form that asks if a person meets the qualifications for office.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, a person elected to a Constitutional Office does indeed get full clearance solely by virtue of being elected. There is no further background check involved. Period.

I don't get why you don't understand this.

I understand what you folks posit, but I don't believe it. Period.

"You folks"? I'm not a birther. But I've posted links to .gov websites that back up everything I've posted.

The Constitution lists the qualifications for office. "Passing an NSA security check" is not on the list. It's absolutely un-Constitutional to deny an elected official his position for a background check.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

There is no federal agency with the authority to pre-qualify anyone to appear on a ballot. It's not done. Please, go ahead and try to find where it's done if you think it's so. There is no federal vetting process. No background check. It doesn't happen.

You folks are the people that are in the position of thinking the Prez isn't vetted at all and post your proofs. I've seen your postings and read them and can't back up my side at all, but I still don't believe it.

OK, as long as you admit that you have no facts to back up your assertion that a secret government agency does clandestine research on people, then reveals it to no one, and as long as you admit that the facts that are out there contradict you.

I've done that repeatedly on this position in this and/or other threads.

 

[Jewell]

I'm not suggesting it as a defense strategy, just an observation of people in general and the colored glasses they wear. I'm sure there are plenty of people who railed against Bush

I've spent a lot of time in my life railing Bush.

 

[jon_mx]

What makes me come to that conclusion that Obama has no birth cerificate?1. He hasn't released it, despite saying he had it in his book.2. No hosptial claims this is where Obama was born, despite Obama writing a letter to one saying he was. 3. No doctors, or nurses, or even friends, or neighbors recall this event. Just same lady claiming a doctor mentioned it to her in casual coversation.4. The statement by the state official is legally parsed to leave the door open for other type of documentation besides a birth certificate.5. Obama is too thin-skinned not to combat this more directly if he had the proof.6. Under the circumstances I outlined, the actions taken by Obama is exactly what he should be doing to cover it up. It is a well laid planned which is nearly impossible to prove otherwise. I think something is being hidden and it is a brilliant legal strategy to do such. Many assume Obama is doing it for political reason, I think it is legal manuvering. Not sure why that is crazy.

Why did the baby photos come off the list?

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

 

[the moops]

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

 

[matuski]

What makes me come to that conclusion that Obama has no birth cerificate?1. He hasn't released it, despite saying he had it in his book.2. No hosptial claims this is where Obama was born, despite Obama writing a letter to one saying he was. 3. No doctors, or nurses, or even friends, or neighbors recall this event. Just same lady claiming a doctor mentioned it to her in casual coversation.4. The statement by the state official is legally parsed to leave the door open for other type of documentation besides a birth certificate.5. Obama is too thin-skinned not to combat this more directly if he had the proof.6. Under the circumstances I outlined, the actions taken by Obama is exactly what he should be doing to cover it up. It is a well laid planned which is nearly impossible to prove otherwise. I think something is being hidden and it is a brilliant legal strategy to do such. Many assume Obama is doing it for political reason, I think it is legal manuvering. Not sure why that is crazy.

Why did the baby photos come off the list?

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

Have you finished your thesis on hawaii's lax laws yet?

 

[jon_mx]

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

OK, show me one photo of Obama prior to the age of three which shows him in Hawaii. If you show me that, I will accept Obama was born there. Obama was in the state of Washington as a baby, but I have seen zero evidence that Obama was in Hawaii prior to 1963. I am not sure his father ever saw Jr. until he was much older. There should be infant pictures with the happy grandparents.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What makes me come to that conclusion that Obama has no birth cerificate?1. He hasn't released it, despite saying he had it in his book.2. No hosptial claims this is where Obama was born, despite Obama writing a letter to one saying he was. 3. No doctors, or nurses, or even friends, or neighbors recall this event. Just same lady claiming a doctor mentioned it to her in casual coversation.4. The statement by the state official is legally parsed to leave the door open for other type of documentation besides a birth certificate.5. Obama is too thin-skinned not to combat this more directly if he had the proof.6. Under the circumstances I outlined, the actions taken by Obama is exactly what he should be doing to cover it up. It is a well laid planned which is nearly impossible to prove otherwise. I think something is being hidden and it is a brilliant legal strategy to do such. Many assume Obama is doing it for political reason, I think it is legal manuvering. Not sure why that is crazy.

Why did the baby photos come off the list?

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

Indeed. It is quite suspicious that this single mother did not hire a photographer to document the birthing experience in 1961. I mean, even if she didn't have the foresight to do that, surely there was a family member waiting in the lobby with an iPhone or something, right?

 

[TobiasFunke]

What makes me come to that conclusion that Obama has no birth cerificate?1. He hasn't released it, despite saying he had it in his book.2. No hosptial claims this is where Obama was born, despite Obama writing a letter to one saying he was. 3. No doctors, or nurses, or even friends, or neighbors recall this event. Just same lady claiming a doctor mentioned it to her in casual coversation.4. The statement by the state official is legally parsed to leave the door open for other type of documentation besides a birth certificate.5. Obama is too thin-skinned not to combat this more directly if he had the proof.6. Under the circumstances I outlined, the actions taken by Obama is exactly what he should be doing to cover it up. It is a well laid planned which is nearly impossible to prove otherwise. I think something is being hidden and it is a brilliant legal strategy to do such. Many assume Obama is doing it for political reason, I think it is legal manuvering. Not sure why that is crazy.

Why did the baby photos come off the list?

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

Have you finished your thesis on hawaii's lax laws yet?

Pretty sure it doesn't matter- he's not gonna get that degree until he takes Plural vs. Possessive: What's the Difference?

 

[bigbottom]

I, for one, won't be satisfied until I see a photo of the crowning that also contains a copy of the Honolulu Advertiser in the background with the date clearly visible.

 

[urbanhack]

By baby photo's, I meant infant photo's like taken at the hospital. We know Obama eventual made it to Hawaii as a child. The later photo's linked to mean very little to the discussion.

 

[jon_mx]

I, for one, won't be satisfied until I see a photo of the crowning that also contains a copy of the Honolulu Advertiser in the background with the date clearly visible.

I would be happy with a beach, a grandparent, his father. A REAL baby picture, not a toddler. You do know the difference?

 

[Shtaym Syek]

 

[bigbottom]

I, for one, won't be satisfied until I see a photo of the crowning that also contains a copy of the Honolulu Advertiser in the background with the date clearly visible.

I would be happy with a beach, a grandparent, his father. A REAL baby picture, not a toddler. You do know the difference?

We all know Obama eventually made it to Hawaii where his grandparents lived. Baby pictures mean nothing to me. I need mid-birth photographic evidence.

 

[The Commish]

 

[gollum]

I, for one, won't be satisfied until I see a photo of the crowning that also contains a copy of the Honolulu Advertiser in the background with the date clearly visible.

if his mom is not saying the pledge between contractions I'll still believe it was faked

 

[TinHat]

:facepalm:

We need a new smilie ^

 

[TinHat]

I, for one, won't be satisfied until I see a photo of the crowning that also contains a copy of the Honolulu Advertiser in the background with the date clearly visible.

if his mom is not saying the pledge between contractions I'll still believe it was faked

And if he doesn't come out with palm leaves in one hand and a teleprompter in the other, no way that's him