Why not cooperate?
This topic was created in the Politics forum by P-Angel on Friday, November 7, 2008 and has 24 replies.
Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes.
by Tishrei 13, 5769, 10/12/2008
Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?
A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?
One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby?Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."
by Tishrei 13, 5769, 10/12/2008
Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?
A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?
One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby?Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."
I myself, not wanting to believe what I see, did some searching around, and this is what I came up with:
Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
and here it says:
Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center on 4 August 1961.
So which hospital was it, or was he really born in Kenya? And why is this simple matter so confusing and disturbing? Do the search your self and plug in these key words:
Obama born Queen's Medical Center and then Obama born Kapiolani Medical Center in a Google search. You will see he is reported to be born in two diferent hospitals. A miracle! Maybe he IS the Messiah (grin).
What's so hard about knowing something so simple as which hospital or country someone was born in? And if it is simple, then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama just present the court with his original birth certificate to be analysed and proven? The onus of proof is on him, not the American public of which he wants their trust in him to be their leader.
So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister? Someone is.
p.s. Dr. Jerome Corsi will be on my show today (Sunday) where I will be interviewing him about his recent trip to Kenya to promote his new book, The Obama Nation... * Dr. Corsi was not on my show Sunday, his publicist asked to re-schedule.
Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
and here it says:
Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center on 4 August 1961.
So which hospital was it, or was he really born in Kenya? And why is this simple matter so confusing and disturbing? Do the search your self and plug in these key words:
Obama born Queen's Medical Center and then Obama born Kapiolani Medical Center in a Google search. You will see he is reported to be born in two diferent hospitals. A miracle! Maybe he IS the Messiah (grin).
What's so hard about knowing something so simple as which hospital or country someone was born in? And if it is simple, then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama just present the court with his original birth certificate to be analysed and proven? The onus of proof is on him, not the American public of which he wants their trust in him to be their leader.
So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister? Someone is.
p.s. Dr. Jerome Corsi will be on my show today (Sunday) where I will be interviewing him about his recent trip to Kenya to promote his new book, The Obama Nation... * Dr. Corsi was not on my show Sunday, his publicist asked to re-schedule.
As an american Citizen born over seas in Germany it pisses me off if he was not born in our country. I couldn't run for president because i was born IN A MILITARY HOSPITAL ON A MILITARY BASE but i don't qualify to run because it was in Germany. That is the law. It has never been challenged and you can believe they will not challenge it with Obama. So i guess that law doesn't matter.
If Obama was born in Kenya, to a woman 18 years of age ... then he is uneligible to be President of the United States. His mother was indeed 18 years old. Our Constitution states that a child must be born to a parent at least 19 years old, on foreign lands, in order for them to be a US citizen ... which in essence, means he's not a born US citizen, and therefore it's unconstitutional that he be eligible as Chief.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why he was shielded from having to produce this evidence was a part of the master plan.
Under these circumstances .. impeachment is unconstitutional. What would happen is that Biden would serve as "acting" President, while CONGRESS undergoes a private election, a candidate of their choice, with only the exclusive rights of Congress to make this decision. The American public would have absolutely NO SAY in this.
I was wondering why Obama was being protected and not having to prove his citizenship .. and now it kind of makes sense, he NEEDED to get elected, and McCain NEEDED to bow-out to make sure he gets in ... so, now the evidence can be produced that it's unconstitutional ..
... so Congress can put any person in office they choose, and we, American people can't say squat about it ... because it's Contitutional Law that says Congress has a right to do this.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why he was shielded from having to produce this evidence was a part of the master plan.
Under these circumstances .. impeachment is unconstitutional. What would happen is that Biden would serve as "acting" President, while CONGRESS undergoes a private election, a candidate of their choice, with only the exclusive rights of Congress to make this decision. The American public would have absolutely NO SAY in this.
I was wondering why Obama was being protected and not having to prove his citizenship .. and now it kind of makes sense, he NEEDED to get elected, and McCain NEEDED to bow-out to make sure he gets in ... so, now the evidence can be produced that it's unconstitutional ..
... so Congress can put any person in office they choose, and we, American people can't say squat about it ... because it's Contitutional Law that says Congress has a right to do this.
There isn't, MsP .. and that is the whole reason why this Mr. Berg filed a suit.
Instead of Obama just cooperating, he has refused to produce docuements, and when this defiance happened .. flags were raised in people's mind.
Why not cooperate?
When a person does this, it leaves suspicion. If a person has nothing to hide, then why hide?
The whole thing started with someone actually inquiring about McCains eligibility in running actually, because he was born in Panama, which is a US territory, but, still only makes him a Nuetralized Citizen. Neurtalized citizens are eligible to hold office under certain circumstances .. for example, his mother was and American citizen, aged 24 when she gave birth to him ... which qualifies him automatically, no matter which foriegn ground he was born.
According to the 12th & 14th Amendments ... certain guidelines have to be met for eligibility. Ok, so we get that.
But, what this man who filed suit, and I don't get .... is why side-step this claim? When McCain was put under the gun, he stood straight up and provided any and all information he had about himself.
When Obama was questioned, he produced a docuement of birth in Haiwaii, which differed from another certificate, referencing two different hospitals ... and flags started waving very high. So, suit was filed in NYC for him to be forthcoming, and investigations went into trying to find out the truth.
The whole point is, why make people investigate you to find out the truth if there is doubt? Why not just cooperate, and settle once and for all?
Why make it suspicious? The very fact that he refuses to clear this matter up willingly ... is suspect.
Instead of Obama just cooperating, he has refused to produce docuements, and when this defiance happened .. flags were raised in people's mind.
Why not cooperate?
When a person does this, it leaves suspicion. If a person has nothing to hide, then why hide?
The whole thing started with someone actually inquiring about McCains eligibility in running actually, because he was born in Panama, which is a US territory, but, still only makes him a Nuetralized Citizen. Neurtalized citizens are eligible to hold office under certain circumstances .. for example, his mother was and American citizen, aged 24 when she gave birth to him ... which qualifies him automatically, no matter which foriegn ground he was born.
According to the 12th & 14th Amendments ... certain guidelines have to be met for eligibility. Ok, so we get that.
But, what this man who filed suit, and I don't get .... is why side-step this claim? When McCain was put under the gun, he stood straight up and provided any and all information he had about himself.
When Obama was questioned, he produced a docuement of birth in Haiwaii, which differed from another certificate, referencing two different hospitals ... and flags started waving very high. So, suit was filed in NYC for him to be forthcoming, and investigations went into trying to find out the truth.
The whole point is, why make people investigate you to find out the truth if there is doubt? Why not just cooperate, and settle once and for all?
Why make it suspicious? The very fact that he refuses to clear this matter up willingly ... is suspect.
You missed my point.
You just want to not hear me, so I can't make you.
I'm not talking about whether he is a citizen or not, though you would question the "proofs" of this actual citizenship, thinking this was what I'm referencing here .. which means, you missed my point.
I'm not talking about whether he is a citizen or not, though you would question the "proofs" of this actual citizenship, thinking this was what I'm referencing here .. which means, you missed my point.
Right, no facts, all speculation ... even to go so far as to file a law suit over speculation .. and instead of just cooperating and clearing this matter up .. he would file a conjunction with the same courts, so he doesn't HAVE to prove anything.
Why?
Why not just cooperate?
If people have doubt, even if this doubt is unfounded .. wouldn't you want to reassure, to put at ease?
Why wouldn't he want that?
Why?
Why not just cooperate?
If people have doubt, even if this doubt is unfounded .. wouldn't you want to reassure, to put at ease?
Why wouldn't he want that?
MsP .. I'm not taking a position here on whether he is a citizen or not, and frankly, I really don't see a difference. If a person lives their whole lives in the US, to me they should have all rights as the rest of us. I'm not questioning whether he is one or not.
What I'm saying is the same thing as the thread title .. Why not cooperate?
Why not just settle this, and be done with it?
I read another article, that this lawyer is likely going to take this to a higher court ... and why let all this become nonesense if it has no validity? Why not just produce every and any thing that is asked for and be done with it?
Why let it escalate? Why not just put it to rest?
Instead, this will come up in courts again, when if there's no validity to is, then this could all go away by just cooperating?
What I'm saying is the same thing as the thread title .. Why not cooperate?
Why not just settle this, and be done with it?
I read another article, that this lawyer is likely going to take this to a higher court ... and why let all this become nonesense if it has no validity? Why not just produce every and any thing that is asked for and be done with it?
Why let it escalate? Why not just put it to rest?
Instead, this will come up in courts again, when if there's no validity to is, then this could all go away by just cooperating?
"I think you are so convinced of your theory, that you are the one who doesn't want to hear anyone else"
That ^^^^ is what I mean by you missing my point.
I don't have a theory .. I'm only questioning .. why not cooperate.
To me, any person who lives a life-time supporting our country has every right to claim citizenship, whether it's legal, or not.
I'm only questioning .... why not just cooperate, and settle the matter if a person has doubt?
That ^^^^ is what I mean by you missing my point.
I don't have a theory .. I'm only questioning .. why not cooperate.
To me, any person who lives a life-time supporting our country has every right to claim citizenship, whether it's legal, or not.
I'm only questioning .... why not just cooperate, and settle the matter if a person has doubt?
It appears that the plan is to re-appeal in a higher court.
Why allow this to even happen? Why allow any kind of doubt create a shadow? We've spent 8 years enduring a man who shrouded us with doubt.
If a difference is to be made about how we can trust again ... then why let this escalate into a higher court, where more doubt will be instilled as to the integrity of the man?
Wouldn't the positive, and comforting to the people solution be to just provide all information willingly?
Why make this lawyer force you?
Why not do it willingly .... to get people a sense of nothing being hid?
Why perpetuate this doubt in some people by allowing it to go to Supreme Court, when it can be resolved?
Why allow this to even happen? Why allow any kind of doubt create a shadow? We've spent 8 years enduring a man who shrouded us with doubt.
If a difference is to be made about how we can trust again ... then why let this escalate into a higher court, where more doubt will be instilled as to the integrity of the man?
Wouldn't the positive, and comforting to the people solution be to just provide all information willingly?
Why make this lawyer force you?
Why not do it willingly .... to get people a sense of nothing being hid?
Why perpetuate this doubt in some people by allowing it to go to Supreme Court, when it can be resolved?
"P-Angel, he did cooperate. He produced the birth certificate. What more can he do?"
Whatever it takes. Obviously what he's done isn't enough if he's still being put against the wall.
Bring his grandmother here, get notorized documents from the people who claim he was born in Kenya, go to the hospital in Kenya where his people over there say he was born and have this hospital make claim that he was NOT born there.
Whatever it takes, MsP .... point is, he is allowing this to go to higher court, and if this happens then it will breed more doubt.
I'm not talking about facts here, proof, evidence .. which you think I am .. I'm not. I'm talking about FEELINGS.
If you were being sued, and you had a document in which people believed it wasn't proof enough to satisfy them and so they were going to proceed with filing more suits ..... how are you going to respond to that?
Just sit back and let this drama happen, let it escalate .. or are you going to give them what is needed to settle them down?
Isn't it about what kind of atmosphere you are wanting to create?
You want an atmosphere of fear and doubt .. or do you want an atmosphere of trust and assurance?
To say .. what more can I do? Is being defeated.
If when this man is put to a test, and he says ... what more can I do?
Then what's going to happen when a REAL test is put to him? This is just one minor thing, in which he throws up his hands and says .. ok, so sue me. What if it's about bombs?
He makes his claim about diplomacy and when the enemy doesn't listen or believe him .. he just throws up his hands and says sue me?
It's about feelings that I question here. Why wouldn't he want to do everything in his power to put people at rest if they are in doubt or question?
Whatever it takes. Obviously what he's done isn't enough if he's still being put against the wall.
Bring his grandmother here, get notorized documents from the people who claim he was born in Kenya, go to the hospital in Kenya where his people over there say he was born and have this hospital make claim that he was NOT born there.
Whatever it takes, MsP .... point is, he is allowing this to go to higher court, and if this happens then it will breed more doubt.
I'm not talking about facts here, proof, evidence .. which you think I am .. I'm not. I'm talking about FEELINGS.
If you were being sued, and you had a document in which people believed it wasn't proof enough to satisfy them and so they were going to proceed with filing more suits ..... how are you going to respond to that?
Just sit back and let this drama happen, let it escalate .. or are you going to give them what is needed to settle them down?
Isn't it about what kind of atmosphere you are wanting to create?
You want an atmosphere of fear and doubt .. or do you want an atmosphere of trust and assurance?
To say .. what more can I do? Is being defeated.
If when this man is put to a test, and he says ... what more can I do?
Then what's going to happen when a REAL test is put to him? This is just one minor thing, in which he throws up his hands and says .. ok, so sue me. What if it's about bombs?
He makes his claim about diplomacy and when the enemy doesn't listen or believe him .. he just throws up his hands and says sue me?
It's about feelings that I question here. Why wouldn't he want to do everything in his power to put people at rest if they are in doubt or question?
Things foster .... when seeds get planted, they grow.
If this man continues to file suit, then seeds are being planted.
It happens all the time, just look in here. If a person plants a seed, perhaps, at the time it is defied because of reaction ... but, over time, this begins to grow.
What made me even look this up is because I heard about it on a talk radio station while passing through Richmond. The radio said it was on television the night before.
... the seed was planted, how would you have your garden grow?
I was on a poker site several nights before the election, playing texas hold'em and someone (don't know gender) from Australia was talking about it, and said s/he had heard this ...
Whatever it takes, MsP .. to have your garden grow flowers, instead of weeds.
What spreads amongst the masses, even if it's rumor, begins to take a life of it's own.
If this man continues to file suit, then seeds are being planted.
It happens all the time, just look in here. If a person plants a seed, perhaps, at the time it is defied because of reaction ... but, over time, this begins to grow.
What made me even look this up is because I heard about it on a talk radio station while passing through Richmond. The radio said it was on television the night before.
... the seed was planted, how would you have your garden grow?
I was on a poker site several nights before the election, playing texas hold'em and someone (don't know gender) from Australia was talking about it, and said s/he had heard this ...
Whatever it takes, MsP .. to have your garden grow flowers, instead of weeds.
What spreads amongst the masses, even if it's rumor, begins to take a life of it's own.
People file lawsuits all the time, it doesn't mean the defendant is guilty. That is why we have a court system, the plaintiff must PROVE their case. Apparently, Obama provided his birth certificate and it was deemed authentic. Burden of proof goes back to the plaintiff again to provide evidence that it is a forgery.
Politicians, especially those of dark skin and funny names, have to endure character attacks all the time. Some are warranted, some are not, but ALL have to be proven to be taken seriously. Obama has been in the public eye for many years, which means that opponents have been trying to dig up skeletons for a long time.
Why the paranoia?. Was Art Bell not on last night to provide a new conspiracy theory? Perhaps we should petition our government to assemble a crack team of archeologists that will fly to Africa and dig for 47 year old diapers for DNA testing.
BTW, I was surprised to see someone post that a child born on an overseas military base wasn't considered a U.S. citizen. I believe that is false since military bases are considered U.S. soil.
Politicians, especially those of dark skin and funny names, have to endure character attacks all the time. Some are warranted, some are not, but ALL have to be proven to be taken seriously. Obama has been in the public eye for many years, which means that opponents have been trying to dig up skeletons for a long time.
Why the paranoia?. Was Art Bell not on last night to provide a new conspiracy theory? Perhaps we should petition our government to assemble a crack team of archeologists that will fly to Africa and dig for 47 year old diapers for DNA testing.
BTW, I was surprised to see someone post that a child born on an overseas military base wasn't considered a U.S. citizen. I believe that is false since military bases are considered U.S. soil.
[edit] US legislation and legal arguments
The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)[15][16]
The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[17] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship).[2] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of
The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)[15][16]
The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[17] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship).[2] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of
the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[18] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[19]
[edit] US case law
[edit] US case law
What I'm saying is the same thing as the thread title .. Why not cooperate?
hahahaha, if all this were true, I wouldn't do it either
What the hell for? I'm an adult, I do what I want to do. No one can really make you do anything, if theres nothing in it for me, then why prove something?
lol, if I were in his position, it really wouldn't matter to me -- thats just the truth, I don't have to reveal anything
hahahaha, if all this were true, I wouldn't do it either
What the hell for? I'm an adult, I do what I want to do. No one can really make you do anything, if theres nothing in it for me, then why prove something? lol, if I were in his position, it really wouldn't matter to me -- thats just the truth, I don't have to reveal anything
I wonder why people are so hot and bothered about his origin, it just makes me wonder ............. hmmm
I wouldn't do it either What the hell for? I'm an adult, I do what I want to do. No one can really make you do anything, if theres nothing in it for me, then why prove something?
lol, if I were in his position, it really wouldn't matter to me -- thats just the truth, I don't have to reveal anything
----------------------
^^^^^^^
Adults do just what they want to do .. for sure, regardless, this is a proven fact .. look at Bush, for example.
He just did what he wanted to do .. same attitude, Cappy & MsP
If there's nothing in it for you ... why bother even caring. Care about what is important to you, and to hell with anything else.
::: shakes head :::
MsP .. the seed will grow. Berg merely planted it. If you have no awareness that people respond to power of suggestion .. then you are naive.
What the hell for? I'm an adult, I do what I want to do. No one can really make you do anything, if theres nothing in it for me, then why prove something? lol, if I were in his position, it really wouldn't matter to me -- thats just the truth, I don't have to reveal anything
----------------------
^^^^^^^
Adults do just what they want to do .. for sure, regardless, this is a proven fact .. look at Bush, for example.
He just did what he wanted to do .. same attitude, Cappy & MsP
If there's nothing in it for you ... why bother even caring. Care about what is important to you, and to hell with anything else.
::: shakes head :::
MsP .. the seed will grow. Berg merely planted it. If you have no awareness that people respond to power of suggestion .. then you are naive.
Here's a new seed to plant and grow:
P-Angel is a paranoid schizophrenic with too much time one her hands. And she may also not be a United States citizen. And possibly wears granny panties.
The burden of proof is yours P-Angel. Please send me a psychiatrist's mental evaluation, a copy of your birth certificate, and a pair of your drawers (preferably laundered). I will have my team of experts examine each item and then dismiss their opinions if they do not push my agenda.
P-Angel is a paranoid schizophrenic with too much time one her hands. And she may also not be a United States citizen. And possibly wears granny panties.
The burden of proof is yours P-Angel. Please send me a psychiatrist's mental evaluation, a copy of your birth certificate, and a pair of your drawers (preferably laundered). I will have my team of experts examine each item and then dismiss their opinions if they do not push my agenda.
"The seed continues to grow because of people like you who form strong opinions based on speculation and bullsh1t."
It's irrelevant whether I'm one of those people or not.
What is relevant is that they exist, and as you said above in acknowledgement of what I said is ... "the seed continues to grow"
Yes, you are right, MsP ... the seed continues to grow, and if it's based on bullshit, then that makes it even worse, does it not?
""Why the paranoia?. Was Art Bell not on last night to provide a new conspiracy theory? Perhaps we should petition our government to assemble a crack team of archeologists that will fly to Africa and dig for 47 year old diapers for DNA testing. ""
- LOLOL
SoftCookie, you are my hero.
- LOLOL
SoftCookie, you are my hero.
""However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real."
He didn't ever produce a birth certificate. He produced a document of which for some reason I can't remember the name, that basically says Hawaii considers him to be a natural citizen.
What you don't know is that Hawaii allows people born outside of the U.S. to refile their births in Hawaii and the state recognizes them as natural citizens. It does not actually guarantee that the person was born in the state of Hawaii.
That is one of the reasons that this whole situation came up.
Then, this document that he did produce that Hawaii issues to people born outside of the U.S. appears after expert review to have been forged. The serial number when tracked to who was issued directly after and before his document actually comes up with one of his siblings.
I personally don't care if someone was born outside the U.S. and becomes our president as long as they were raised here and are able to demonstrate absolute loyalty to the United States. But, the law is the law. For it to not apply to him but to us is wrong on so many levels.
Just like his questionnaire that asks applicants to disclose weather or not they OR A FAMILY MEMBER owns a firearm and whether or not it is REGISTERED. I am sorry but owning a firearm is a constitutional right and it is none of his business who does whether they work for him or otherwise.
He didn't ever produce a birth certificate. He produced a document of which for some reason I can't remember the name, that basically says Hawaii considers him to be a natural citizen.
What you don't know is that Hawaii allows people born outside of the U.S. to refile their births in Hawaii and the state recognizes them as natural citizens. It does not actually guarantee that the person was born in the state of Hawaii.
That is one of the reasons that this whole situation came up.
Then, this document that he did produce that Hawaii issues to people born outside of the U.S. appears after expert review to have been forged. The serial number when tracked to who was issued directly after and before his document actually comes up with one of his siblings.
I personally don't care if someone was born outside the U.S. and becomes our president as long as they were raised here and are able to demonstrate absolute loyalty to the United States. But, the law is the law. For it to not apply to him but to us is wrong on so many levels.
Just like his questionnaire that asks applicants to disclose weather or not they OR A FAMILY MEMBER owns a firearm and whether or not it is REGISTERED. I am sorry but owning a firearm is a constitutional right and it is none of his business who does whether they work for him or otherwise.
Related Topics
OK. I had this dream last night. I dreamed of my ex- pisces. He was laying under a black blanket trying to hide from
@Bella79
Joined: Apr 07, 2008 · Topics: 49 · Posts: 548
B*tchy today! I have no idea what is wrong with me! I feel like speakin my mind! No holdin me back! I feel so down to ea
@honeygirl
Joined: Apr 19, 2006 · Topics: 31 · Posts: 345
Well? Can it? I'm starting to think someone's been messing with my shit while I was gone.
@DK09
Joined: Sep 30, 2007 · Topics: 56 · Posts: 5629
So you all know the history... and are probably wondering what the hell's happened... I managed to get him to go to
@LeoAqua
Joined: May 12, 2008 · Topics: 23 · Posts: 682
Can you help explain what this means.... Sun=Taurus Moon=Taurus Mercury=Taurus Venus=Pisces Mars=Libra Ascendent
@tauruslove
Joined: Nov 07, 2008 · Topics: 1 · Posts: 1
I feel a really big connection here. Two of the people that matter the most to me in my life are under this sign. What d
@Sagittarius89
Joined: Sep 18, 2008 · Topics: 99 · Posts: 4899
sometime this weel, I remember ^_^. HAPPY BIRTHDAY RAY'S_HEART :D :D :D :D :D
@cappysweetie
Joined: Mar 18, 2006 · Topics: 499 · Posts: 23862
And, do they deserve that reputation?
@LOlibraVE
Joined: Oct 28, 2008 · Topics: 15 · Posts: 141
i know i should go to the politics board but it's just tooo boring! so. obama is president elect and he doesn't ta
@Roxanne
Joined: Aug 27, 2008 · Topics: 30 · Posts: 649
ME: Libra Sun, Scorpio Moon, Gemini ascendant HIM: Cancer Sun, Taurus Moon, Sag ascendant Any input would be appreci
@LOlibraVE
Joined: Oct 28, 2008 · Topics: 15 · Posts: 141