Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

everlong

Subscribe to everlong's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

I know this topic is one which people are sick of being brought up, including myself. However, I've never heard the information below & find it compelling. My 1st visit back since my suspension, so sorry if it has been posted already, though it was written August 16th, 2016.

4 Simple questions...are there ANY logical answers?

You be the judge……

Here's what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and it is
decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all
the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders?
Should they all be null and void?

For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox.
All of it can be verified from legitimate sources (Wikipedia, the Kapiolani
hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is
very easy for someone to check out.

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes'. So how can the Obama
'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even
used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth
as August 4, 1961 and 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 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". (check it below)

en.wikipedia.org http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya%29

3. 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?

(CHECK IT BELOW)

www.kapiolani.org

Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?

4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud
he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need
some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was
25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's
date of birth approximately 1936 - if my math holds (Honest! I did that
without a calculator!)

Now we need a non-revised history book-one that
hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals-to verify that WW II was
basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year old's fight in Wars?
Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9
years old.

Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the
facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?

Very truly yours,

RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB
Attorney at Law
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Livingston , NJ 07039

#173

Yes, as has been mentioned, things were very different when the 2nd amendment was drafted. And, oh how gun control advocates love using that fact when it benefits their argument, and omit it when it doesn't.

The reason it's a worst sentence ever written is simply the mention of a militia. Well, what were the militia's made up of? Citizens of US states. Why did they think it so important to have militia's? So that the citizenry would not be defenseless against their government should it become tyrannical. As well as to have an armed population should the US be invaded. Not to mention, possibly, the most important reason of a person's right to defend themselves, their property, and others.

But, the fact that the wording is poorly crafted & not suited for today should not override the common sense behind the meaning of the amendment. Also, how does "right to bear arms" not mean any and all arms? It does not say, "the right to bear musket's & cannon's". If, for example, a US president made a 'call to arms' to US citizens to fight an invading force, do you mean to say they would be expected to only bring any gun they have?

Of course not.

Worthy of further note, is the fact that most involved in the drafting process believed all people should be afforded the rights of the Law of Nature, which are 'endowed by the Creator', to use their wording.

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist before-hand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense."
- Frederic Bastiat (The Law) 1850

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable