On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

Fascinating indeed.

If that was true..why didnt the Obamassiah simply tell everyone to ****
off, rather than float a possibly fake birth cert out to the
public..after spending $2 million dollars to prevent it from making it
to court for almost 3 yrs?

And why didnt the Democratic Party of Hawaii certify that he was born in
Hawaii? There has to be SOME proof that one is natural born..a persons
word is simply not good enough. Both parties offer up a declaration that
so and so is Natural Born and eligible for the office of president if
elected.

However..the State of Hawaii refused to do so.

Why?
Despite Doughys claim..a persons word is simply not good enough
according to the courts. Hence the Certification by the candidates
party. Which was not done in 2008.

That was..taxpayers money btw..not out of his own pocket.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs
to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that
he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

Careful Dougy is going to have another hissy fit on you.

If he disagrees you get labeled on his "troll list"

http://groups.google.ca/groups/searc... ller&safe=off

---------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...
You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU


..

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Rich Grise
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Rich Grise
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that
he's a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

In which post? Can you produce a link to it?

Message-ID:

Thanks. See, that didn't take two and a half years, now did it? :-

Cheers!
Rich

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.


I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

I'll just assume that all the other kooks out there agree with Gummer
that the document Obama put out isn't valid. So to them Obama still was
born somewhere else. Okay, I accept that premise. But that means you
people who deny Obama was born in Hawaii have to tell us where he came
from. But your burden is that you have to supply proof that is better
than what you are rejecting from Obama's side.

You have to come up with proof beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly where
and when Obama was born. We want proof that is beyond question. But if
you can't come up with evidence that shows where and when Obama was
really born you have to stop questioning his story about being born in
Hawaii. If you can't come up with better evidence, and unequivocal proof
Obama was born somewhere else then you have to accept what he says as true.

Personally, I don't think you can prove Obama was born anywhere but
Hawaii, at least not according to the level of scrutiny you use on
Obama's evidence. And I don't think you can keep quiet when you can't
prove Obama was born somewhere else. But go ahead and try. We'll be
waiting for your "proof".


[First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists
Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as
his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also
shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was
born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of
concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two
whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth.
How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not
yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the
"British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that
I found that just does not jive.

The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born
in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This
cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called
"KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home",
respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity &
Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?]

On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:43 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:22:17 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs
to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that
he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

So is proof needed or not?

Speak and the world will listen

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On May 2, 2:12*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?

* Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? *Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the *years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.

* *I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can believe that if you want. Best of luck getting the
Constitution amended.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:22:17 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT,
(Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT,
(Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President
needs
to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after
all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof
that
he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed
that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the
full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid
admitting
that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid
admitting
that you were wrong.

So is proof needed or not?

No, not unless the candidate (or elected official) is challenged.


Speak and the world will listen

The world might, but you have your fingers stuck in your ears.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:43 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that
claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

*You* are the one that made that false claim, not me.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:22:17 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs
to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that
he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that

candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full

text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting

that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

So is proof needed or not?

No, it's not -- there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about
proof. You claimed it's required -- prove it, or STFU.

Gunner Asch on Sun, 01 May 2011 11:47:30 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:19:53 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five
Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that.

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any of
his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and 1931.
Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890. Are/were
they not natural born citizens?

Any of them try to become President? If not..the matter remains moot.

And I'd be surprised that there wasn't other "documentation" of
their births. Church records, family bibles, people who remember when
the Millers had their baby boy ... that sort of stuff.

I doubt any of them had a grandmother who never was in
Pennsylvania claiming to have been at the birth, either.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:22:26 -0400, "__ Bøb __"
wrote:


I'll just assume that all the other kooks out there agree with Gummer
that the document Obama put out isn't valid. So to them Obama still was
born somewhere else. Okay, I accept that premise. But that means you
people who deny Obama was born in Hawaii have to tell us where he came
from. But your burden is that you have to supply proof that is better
than what you are rejecting from Obama's side.

You have to come up with proof beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly where
and when Obama was born. We want proof that is beyond question. But if
you can't come up with evidence that shows where and when Obama was
really born you have to stop questioning his story about being born in
Hawaii. If you can't come up with better evidence, and unequivocal proof
Obama was born somewhere else then you have to accept what he says as true.

Personally, I don't think you can prove Obama was born anywhere but
Hawaii, at least not according to the level of scrutiny you use on
Obama's evidence. And I don't think you can keep quiet when you can't
prove Obama was born somewhere else. But go ahead and try. We'll be
waiting for your "proof".


[First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists
Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as
his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also
shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was
born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of
concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two
whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth.
How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not
yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the
"British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that
I found that just does not jive.

The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born
in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This
cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called
"KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home",
respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity &
Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?]


OOOOHHHH!! Very very very good thinking! Bravo! Bravo indeed!!

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.

"__ Bøb __" wrote:

... How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?]

All this hoo-hah is moot - the commie ******* has already been in power
for 2 1/2 years, and is running the country headlong down the toilet of
socialism.

He's already committed enough crimes against the Constitution that the
sonofabitch belongs at the end of a rope.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such such Government..."
^^^^ (emphasis mine)

--- http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html

Thanks,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Edward A. Falk wrote:

So: Anybody claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. should be able to
come up with evidence to the contrary that has *fewer* inconsistencies
than the officially-accepted story.

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.

Thanks,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:22:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:43 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that
claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Is that like no one actually needs a drivers license or ID of any kind
too?

Please advise

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:23:02 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:22:17 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs
to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that
he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that

candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full

text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting

that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

So is proof needed or not?

No, it's not -- there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about
proof. You claimed it's required -- prove it, or STFU.

So how does one show that one is a natural born citizen?

Does that mean that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for President as a
Democrat and the DNC would certify him?

Is that your claim?

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On 5/2/2011 3:29 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

So: Anybody claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. should be able to
come up with evidence to the contrary that has *fewer* inconsistencies
than the officially-accepted story.

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.


Now if only you could get someone to explain Communism to you. Then you
would understand why your statement is completely false.

Hawke

On 5/2/2011 6:06 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In ,
Rich wrote:

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.

My understanding is that he's the most conservative Democrat
ever, about even with Nixon. He only looks liberal compared
to the current crop of Republicans.



Everyone looks liberal compared to them. BTW, I just heard today that
Sara Palin was giving a speech and she gave Bush the credit for killing
Bin Laden. What did I tell ya!?

Hawke

On Mon, 2 May 2011 03:29:54 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:

That's not the point. You claimed that candidates are required to provide
their birth certificates.

Who made this claim, in which post?

Gunner did. That's what started this circus:

[J.D. Slocomb]

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

[Gunner]

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Sideshow Gunner then went into full bluster mode and refuses to admit that
he just made that **** up.

As Iggy pointed out, Doug is right, Gunner is 100% wrong. I'd post the
particulars but he'd just ignore them.

What a farce.

And I'm still waiting for Washington's school records and birth
certificate.

(Gunner wouldn't lie to me; would he?)
Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:35:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.

Shrug


Gunner

Where is my copy of Geo. Washington's birth certificate and school
records that you said had been published?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

"J. D. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:35:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.

Shrug


Gunner

Where is my copy of Geo. Washington's birth certificate and school
records that you said had been published?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

It would not surprise me for the big O to claim that he was in the Armed
Forces should he think it would benefit him in some way. Of course, it
would have been a Black Ops thing, such as attempting to capture/assassinate
Hitler. And though that is not mathematically probable, it is not
disprovable, as Obama's circumstances of birth (date, place, etc) have yet
to be established.

To hear the man speak in the last 24 hours, it seems as though this whole OP
was his idea, planned by him, ordered by him, conceived by him, and if the
truth ever be told, conducted and led by him, and with him firing the fatal
shots. And I'm sure he'll be a qualified helicopter pilot by then.

I anticipate that may come out of his very fertile mind in the future if
enough fertilizer is added ....................

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
www.cabgbypasssurgery.com
Heart Surgery Survival Guide

In article , (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
In article ,
Rich Grise wrote:

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.

My understanding is that he's the most conservative Democrat
ever, about even with Nixon. He only looks liberal compared
to the current crop of Republicans.

Your understanding is pretty severely flawed. John F. Kennedy was a reasonably
conservative Democrat. So is Sam Nunn. Obama is *not* a conservative Democrat.

Republicans are in "currents" too?

-----------

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message ...
My understanding is that he's the most conservative Democrat
ever, about even with Nixon. He only looks liberal compared
to the current crop of Republicans.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:22:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:43 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that
the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're
not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that
claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Stop changing the subject.

You made the specific claim that a birth certificate is required. When
challenged to substantiate that, you can't. All you can do is continually
change the subject, in a feeble attempt to distract attention from the fact
that you made a false claim that you can't back up.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:23:02 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:22:17 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT,
(Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President
needs
to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after
all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof
that
he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed
that

candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the
full

text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid
admitting

that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting

that you were wrong.

So is proof needed or not?

No, it's not -- there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about
proof. You claimed it's required -- prove it, or STFU.

So how does one show that one is a natural born citizen?

Does that mean that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for President as a
Democrat and the DNC would certify him?

Is that your claim?

Stop changing the subject.

You made the specific claim that a birth certificate is required. When
challenged to substantiate that, you can't. All you can do is continually
change the subject, in a feeble attempt to distract attention from the fact
that you made a false claim that you can't back up.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:22:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:43 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So
far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status
as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only
because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine
that
the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if
you're
not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting
Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made
that
claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Stop changing the subject.

You made the specific claim that a birth certificate is required. When
challenged to substantiate that, you can't. All you can do is continually
change the subject, in a feeble attempt to distract attention from the
fact
that you made a false claim that you can't back up.

Sometimes Gunner loses sphincter control, Doug. It just won't stop flowing.
Stay clear.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-05-02, __ B?b __ wrote:

I'll just assume that all the other kooks out there agree with Gummer
that the document Obama put out isn't valid. So to them Obama still was
born somewhere else. Okay, I accept that premise. But that means you
people who deny Obama was born in Hawaii have to tell us where he came
from. But your burden is that you have to supply proof that is better
than what you are rejecting from Obama's side.

You have to come up with proof beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly where
and when Obama was born. We want proof that is beyond question. But if
you can't come up with evidence that shows where and when Obama was
really born you have to stop questioning his story about being born in
Hawaii. If you can't come up with better evidence, and unequivocal proof
Obama was born somewhere else then you have to accept what he says as true.

Personally, I don't think you can prove Obama was born anywhere but
Hawaii, at least not according to the level of scrutiny you use on
Obama's evidence. And I don't think you can keep quiet when you can't
prove Obama was born somewhere else. But go ahead and try. We'll be
waiting for your "proof".


[First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists
Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as
his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also
shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was
born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of
concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two
whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth.
How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not
yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the
"British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that
I found that just does not jive.

The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born
in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This
cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called
"KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home",
respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity &
Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?]


He is reposting birther crap that is posted on a bazillion of other
forums, and tries to pass it as his own.

http://www.google.com/search?q=conce...ist+until+1963

i

On 2011-05-02, Steve B wrote:

"J. D. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:35:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.

Shrug


Gunner

Where is my copy of Geo. Washington's birth certificate and school
records that you said had been published?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

It would not surprise me for the big O to claim that he was in the Armed
Forces should he think it would benefit him in some way. Of course, it
would have been a Black Ops thing, such as attempting to capture/assassinate
Hitler. And though that is not mathematically probable, it is not
disprovable, as Obama's circumstances of birth (date, place, etc) have yet
to be established.

To hear the man speak in the last 24 hours, it seems as though this whole OP
was his idea, planned by him, ordered by him, conceived by him, and if the
truth ever be told, conducted and led by him, and with him firing the fatal
shots. And I'm sure he'll be a qualified helicopter pilot by then.

I anticipate that may come out of his very fertile mind in the future if
enough fertilizer is added ....................

This is his speech. He did not say anything of the sort.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American
people and to the world that the United States has conducted an
operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a
terrorist whos responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent
men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by
the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of
9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting
through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the
ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of
Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic
citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to
the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were
forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who
would never know the feeling of their childs embrace. Nearly 3,000
citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came
together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded
our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of
community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what
God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as
one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring
those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned
that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization
headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United
States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and
around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect
our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our
military and our counterterrorism professionals, weve made great
strides in that effort. Weve disrupted terrorist attacks and
strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the
Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven
and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and
allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including
several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan
border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from
along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the
director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the
top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our
broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence
community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far
from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I
met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more
information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding
within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I
determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and
authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to
justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted
operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team
of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and
capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian
casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took
custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaedas leader and
symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our
friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant
achievement to date in our nations effort to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. Theres no doubt
that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must €“-
and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not €“- and
never will be -€“ at war with Islam. Ive made clear, just as
President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against
Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of
Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many
countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all
who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, Ive repeatedly made clear that we would take action
within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what weve
done. But its important to note that our counterterrorism
cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound
where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against
Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with
their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and
historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is
essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al
Qaeda and its affiliates.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores,
and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly
10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs
of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief,
have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look
into the eyes of a service member whos been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will
never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when
our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our
citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values
that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to
those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaedas terror:
Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and
counterterrorism professionals whove worked tirelessly to achieve
this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know
their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and
the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they
exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of
those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that
has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that
we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to
see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our
shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on
9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet todays achievement
is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination
of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are
once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind
to. That is the story of our history, whether its the pursuit of
prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our
citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our
sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth
or power, but because of who we a one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 11:01:36 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 4/30/2011 10:24 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Finally, there can be no doubt Barak was in fact born with a divided
citizenship. He proudly admits as much.

That means if we were conscripted by draft into the United States
Military during a conflict, when he was 18, he could have avoided the
draft by simply returning to another country of his citizenship. We
know and he admits he was a citizen of Kenya at the age of 18 so he
could have returned with no penalty, to Kenya and not even I would call
him a draft dodger if had under those circumstances.

You are wholly one thing or another but not two distinctly different and
separate things that conflict with each other's existence.

He was born with a divided allegiance and is "Not a Natural Born
Citizen". Might be a citizen but, he ain't a Natural Born Citizen.


And so on and so forth.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

Gunner


I'll just assume that all the other kooks out there agree with Gummer
that the document Obama put out isn't valid. So to them Obama still was
born somewhere else. Okay, I accept that premise. But that means you
people who deny Obama was born in Hawaii have to tell us where he came
from. But your burden is that you have to supply proof that is better
than what you are rejecting from Obama's side.

You have to come up with proof beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly where
and when Obama was born. We want proof that is beyond question. But if
you can't come up with evidence that shows where and when Obama was
really born you have to stop questioning his story about being born in
Hawaii. If you can't come up with better evidence, and unequivocal proof
Obama was born somewhere else then you have to accept what he says as true.

Personally, I don't think you can prove Obama was born anywhere but
Hawaii, at least not according to the level of scrutiny you use on
Obama's evidence. And I don't think you can keep quiet when you can't
prove Obama was born somewhere else. But go ahead and try. We'll be
waiting for your "proof".

Hawke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdyLOUHz-A

On Mon, 02 May 2011 22:16:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.

Still waiting for the question about how to prove Natural Born to be
answered by you.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Tue, 03 May 2011 06:29:14 +0700, J. D. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:35:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.

Shrug


Gunner

Where is my copy of Geo. Washington's birth certificate and school
records that you said had been published?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

President Washingtons birth was recorded in the family bible. Its very
much in there still

Since there were no such things as Birth Certificates in those
days..they did what they could. His school records are in the Library
of Congress.

Gunner


--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

"Ignoramus896" wrote in message
...
On 2011-05-02, __ B?b __ wrote:

I'll just assume that all the other kooks out there agree with Gummer
that the document Obama put out isn't valid. So to them Obama still was
born somewhere else. Okay, I accept that premise. But that means you
people who deny Obama was born in Hawaii have to tell us where he came
from. But your burden is that you have to supply proof that is better
than what you are rejecting from Obama's side.

You have to come up with proof beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly where
and when Obama was born. We want proof that is beyond question. But if
you can't come up with evidence that shows where and when Obama was
really born you have to stop questioning his story about being born in
Hawaii. If you can't come up with better evidence, and unequivocal proof
Obama was born somewhere else then you have to accept what he says as
true.

Personally, I don't think you can prove Obama was born anywhere but
Hawaii, at least not according to the level of scrutiny you use on
Obama's evidence. And I don't think you can keep quiet when you can't
prove Obama was born somewhere else. But go ahead and try. We'll be
waiting for your "proof".


[First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists
Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as
his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also
shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was
born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of
concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two
whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth.
How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not
yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the
"British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that
I found that just does not jive.

The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born
in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This
cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called
"KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home",
respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity &
Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?]


He is reposting birther crap that is posted on a bazillion of other
forums, and tries to pass it as his own.

http://www.google.com/search?q=conce...ist+until+1963

i

Eh, too bad. It looked like Gunner was going to invite him to join his merry
band. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:12:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.


I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


According to the US Constitution we have an Outlaw President. Obama does
not meet the requirement that both parents of a US president are to be
from the United States of America. A Constitutional…
00:06:11
Added on 4/30/11
732 views



Obama co-sponsored 2008 Senate declaration that voids his own
Presidency!

In trying to disqualify John McCain for being born in The Panama Canal
Zone,
Obama clearly hanged himself.

See this video as proof:

"Our Outlaw Presidency"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD06G...el_video_title



--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.


So what?


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On Tue, 3 May 2011 01:06:55 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

In article ,
Rich Grise wrote:

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.

My understanding is that he's the most conservative Democrat
ever, about even with Nixon. He only looks liberal compared
to the current crop of Republicans.

Who?

Not the Marxist Obama....

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:12:14 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
In article ,
Rich Grise wrote:

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.

My understanding is that he's the most conservative Democrat
ever, about even with Nixon. He only looks liberal compared
to the current crop of Republicans.

Your understanding is pretty severely flawed. John F. Kennedy was a reasonably
conservative Democrat. So is Sam Nunn. Obama is *not* a conservative Democrat.

Something we can agree on.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)