gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 10
The latest AOL poll of more than 30,000 people, 82 percent said it's time for Obama to cough up the original long-form birth certificate.
In fact, in every state in the union including Obama's claimed birthplace of Hawaii and his more recent home state of Illinois most people want to see the birth certificate.
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEEDS TO GET ITS STORY STRAIGHT. THEY HAVE 10 DIFFERENT STORIES COVERING FOR OBAMA, BUT NONE OF THOSE 10 CONFLICTING STORIES EXPLAINS WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS SPENT $1 MILLION HIDING A COMMON DOCUMENT THAT EVERY CITIZEN SHOWS ALL THE TIME.
WHATS THE EXCUSE YOU LIKE BEST, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OBAMA IS AFRAID OF?
SINCE THE BIRTHERS ARE SUCH KOOKS, WHY DOESNT HE PROVE HOW NUTS THEY ARE BY RELEASING HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
On July 17, 2009 CNNs Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced the original birth certificate on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate.
There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obamas original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org.
On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.
So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.
FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the sites reputation?
The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse.
The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution.
And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign.
The truth had to be killed.
And with its lie about how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate, FactCheck.org killed it.)
Clearing the Smoke on Obama?s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
Evidently 82% of the American people still give a
about the American Constitution.
Others are welcome to speak up!!!
Lazy, emain and luau loui, wassup?
You guys seem to be gulible traverlers. :crazy:
In fact, in every state in the union including Obama's claimed birthplace of Hawaii and his more recent home state of Illinois most people want to see the birth certificate.
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEEDS TO GET ITS STORY STRAIGHT. THEY HAVE 10 DIFFERENT STORIES COVERING FOR OBAMA, BUT NONE OF THOSE 10 CONFLICTING STORIES EXPLAINS WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS SPENT $1 MILLION HIDING A COMMON DOCUMENT THAT EVERY CITIZEN SHOWS ALL THE TIME.
WHATS THE EXCUSE YOU LIKE BEST, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OBAMA IS AFRAID OF?
SINCE THE BIRTHERS ARE SUCH KOOKS, WHY DOESNT HE PROVE HOW NUTS THEY ARE BY RELEASING HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
On July 17, 2009 CNNs Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced the original birth certificate on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate.
There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obamas original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org.
On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.
So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.
FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the sites reputation?
The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse.
The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution.
And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign.
The truth had to be killed.
And with its lie about how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate, FactCheck.org killed it.)
Clearing the Smoke on Obama?s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
Evidently 82% of the American people still give a
about the American Constitution.
Others are welcome to speak up!!!
Lazy, emain and luau loui, wassup?
You guys seem to be gulible traverlers. :crazy:
