Early on Phil Berg was the primary litigator that has done extensive research on Obama’s Birth Certificate issue. The circumstantial evidence he has gathered all points to Obama was not Natural Born.

Basement Angel, not being a stickler, but Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 not Aug 5th as you posted. And just as a point of fact. At the time Obama was born, his mother most likely was in Mobassa, Kenya as Obama’s father wanted him to be a citizen of Kenya. It was customary for X-Patriots to fly into HI and register the birth in HI even though the child was born elsewhere.

It’s all explained here at Berg’s site. h…. w….obamacrimes.com/

I also do not trust the “paper ” archives. There is obviously a lot at stake here. I believe the archives could be manipulated.

Even if BO was in fact born in Hawaii, there is obviously a problem…..either pertaining to his name or alledged father etc. There is something being covered up which ties in to the refusal to release college records, etc.This is what I believe. And as Lou dobbs says, why not just produce the info if there is nothing to hide? Name the doctor and the Hospital.

Did his mother hve prenatal care in hawaii? How can someone go thru the childbearing process and not know the name o the doctor and hospital? There is definitely more than arrogance here.

(bottom line – Gates and O messed with the wrong white guy to play their race card)

gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/28/full-interview-with-sgt-crowleys-boss/
****************************************************

gonzotx and HFT…I think we are seeing Juan in a similar light…he did take understandable emotional pride in the election of the first AA…but he is not cutting him any slack any more…

I may have heard him defend Hill a few more times…if I ever come across the clips I will post…

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW.

HE IS NOT WHO WE THOUGHT HE WAS, OR ACTUALLY HE IS NOT WHO YOU THOUGHT HE WAS.

July 27, 2009 by W. Hampton Harris

A poll published today by Rasmussen Reports shows that President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have hit an all-time low. 40% of those polled said they “strongly disapprove” of the president’s job performance so far, while only 30% said they “strongly approve.” This gives
Poll: Obama Approval Rating at New Low
Date: July 27, 2009
Washington, DC

United States of AmericaObama a net of -10%, which is the worst number he has seen since being sworn into office just over six months ago. The numbers manifest themselves most clearly when looked at in terms of party. 72% of republicans strongly disapprove of the president while only 56% of democrats strongly approve of the job he is doing. These numbers suggest that the opposition to Obama is simply more passionate than his support.

President Obama, who marketed himself as a moderate during his campaign, is being seen increasingly as a liberal by voters. 76% of those polled said they believed Obama was a liberal, while 48% said they see him as “very liberal.” The latter number is up an astounding 20 points from where it was at the time he was elected. Only 49% of those polled said they at least somewhat approve of the job the president is doing.

Obama’s numbers took a significant hit after perhaps the most egregious gaff of his presidency during his news conference Wednesday night. Obama took a primetime slot on television to sell the American people on his plan for health care reform, but ended the event by taking a question on a recent incident in Cambridge in which a black professor is claiming he was arrested because of his race. Obama commented that the officers in the case acted “stupidly.” The comment essentially rewrote the headlines, taking all the attention away from Obama’s explanation of his health care policy. Amidst demands for an apology from Cambridge law enforcement, the president called and reportedly reconciled with the officer in question, but polls still show that the incident was a blow to his popularity.

associatedcontent.com/article/1990588/poll_obama_approval_rating_at_new_low.html

July 28th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
gonzotex, What I am saying is that I agree with TD about the place of birth
********************

But that makes no sense. We have no proof of ANYTHING at this point.

McGuire has long been hailed as proof that nothing is wrong with paying outlandish sums for outrageous overperformance – in his case a 40-fold increase in total return over fifteen years. (”I don’t think we could have anticipated the shares [would reach] this level five years ago,” McGuire has said in rejecting the “perceived problem” of his excessive comp.)
(snip)
McGuire’s trove of in-the-money options from $1.6 billion in December to a still hefty $1 billion today.”

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380799/

The 40% increase in returns and the $1-1.6 billion compensation for the CEO didn’t come from providing health care, it came from collecting premiums and providing as little care as possible. And, oh BTH, who has received the most money from United Health since 2007?….Harry Reid…no one in Congress is interested in providing affordable UHC to the American people.