marharth Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Actually it was a booklet published by Acton & Dystel in 1991 that said it. Breitbart.com simply found it and reported on it. Seems like a perfectly legit news item to me. Lends support to the FACT that the left wing media never looked into Obama's past at all, and are still covering for him now. We care where he was born because it's the law. The Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?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.Obama refused to provide his birth certificate, yet the Democratically controlled Congress of the time in charge of certifying these things allowed him to be put on the ballot anyway. Without verifying it. We didn't demand a birth certificate from Bush because he provided it willingly. We didn't demand one from McCain because he provided it willingly. The left wing press tried to smear McCain with it anyway because he was born in Panama - except they deliberately left out the small but critical detail that he was born on a US military base, which made him a US citizen. Since it's pretty damned obvious at this point that Obama had nothing to hide, why did he continue to do so for TWO WHOLE YEARS?For political gain to make some people on the right look crazy. It worked pretty well. Also once again, I challenge you to find any other presidents birth certificate online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 In Hawaii. Had the Republicans been able to prove otherwise, I am thinkin' they woulda sprung that one by now. There were rumors of nixing that part of the requirements in any event. (don't recall which party put that one forward.... I think it was the repubbies, as the wanted Arnold to run..... or some such.)Oh great..the Prezinator...now I am looking more benignly at Sky Net. :wallbash: If you are carving notches into your monitor, or any other suitable place, for the number of times you have caused me to have to clean my screen.... Time to carve another one. :Dhttp://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6747/uc7807.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 If it was factually accurate he wouldn't of needed to edit it. Every interview you have ever seem in the mainstream media has been heavily edited. I guess non of it was accurate. Just because YOU don't like Brietbart that doesn't mean he's wrong. He didn't fake documents like say....Dan Rather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 If it was factually accurate he wouldn't of needed to edit it. Every interview you have ever seem in the mainstream media has been heavily edited. I guess non of it was accurate. Just because YOU don't like Brietbart that doesn't mean he's wrong. He didn't fake documents like say....Dan Rather.Not everything in the media heavily edited to purposely hide the truth. Breitbart heavily edited those videos to make them appear to be something they were not. None of what you see in those videos actually happened within that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 If it was factually accurate he wouldn't of needed to edit it. Every interview you have ever seem in the mainstream media has been heavily edited. I guess non of it was accurate. Just because YOU don't like Brietbart that doesn't mean he's wrong. He didn't fake documents like say....Dan Rather.Not everything in the media heavily edited to purposely hide the truth. Breitbart heavily edited those videos to make them appear to be something they were not. None of what you see in those videos actually happened within that context. I've seen the unedited video that was released....by Brietbart. It changed nothing in my opinion. It wasn't "heavily edited" some things were cut out. I have seen interviews from mainstream news that is edited as in a different answer is shown for a different question or where part of the answer is deliberately left out to change the meaning. Some people will not do interviews unless they agree to zero editing for this very reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 And its not like the mainstream media is trustworthy either. The ACORN thing was heavily edited, the other thing had a single part cut out so it would appear to be racist out of context. It doesn't even matter if he was born in the US or not. Politics or so corrupt it wouldn't change a damn thing. The Constitution is getting destroyed in worse ways then this, even if it was true, which it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddah Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I am closing this now, it is way off topic. There is no debate here, it is just a kluge of suppositions based loosely in somewhat dubious media trash. The OP necro posted in another year old dead thread which is now hidden. It ends now, you are not debating his place of birth you are rehashing tripe from the media. Buddah Start another and you will regret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts