@SarahPalinUSA: Obama Birth Certificate “Fair Question;” Campaign Lax on Vetting
Through scads of much discussion on my site concerning the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President, I have always maintained the stance that not only do I not know for sure the answer to this question, I have similarly maintained that there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the question.
Further, I’ve recently discussed the fact that there has only been one known organization who has ever allegedly had Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian certification of live birth in hand, but it appears that nobody else throughout the media or, more importantly, properly-credentialed examiners have ever actually inspected the physical document. And while it’s nothing new that the one known organization, FactCheck.org, a third-party organization with a blog, has allegedly had the certification, nobody there appears to have the proper credentials to verify the alleged document’s efficacy.
Of course, this is one aspect of Mr. Obama’s background that appears so shady, with no original documentation publicly available to verify. The other major aspect is his at birth status as a British citizen, back when Kenya was a British colony.
And now we have She Who Would Be President ™ apparently making some very big waves with both the chattering class and the blogosphere specifically stating, as I’ve just laid out (and have been doing so for more than a year), that the eligibility question — or any question that the “electorate” (read: We, The People) chooses to ask of a public official — is a “fair question” (scroll to approximately 6:30 in the following YouTube video of the Rusty Humphries radio show — h/t LibertarianRepublican):
Transcript (via HotAir.com):
RUSTY: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
SARAH: I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.
RUSTY: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?
SARAH: I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.
RUSTY: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?
SARAH: Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.
Before I analyze what she’s said and how she followed up this interview, I’ll continue with additional coverage. See also Ben Smith (Politico), Pamela Geller (AtlasShrugs), and DailyKOS.
Law professor and US senatorial candidate Andy Martin had this to say:
Ben Smith and Jed Lewison of Huffington Post (and Politico.com?) falsely claim that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” That is a bald-faced lie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-
obama_n_379634.htmlFACT: Obama’s ORIGINAL Hawai’i birth certificate has never been seen by FactCheck.Org or anyone else except possibly Dr. Chiyome Fukino of the State of Hawai’i Health Department. What Smith, Lewison and FactCheck.org saw is a laser print-out of information contained in a computer database. Nothing more. Why do these “journalists” keep lying to the public and claiming a print-out is a “copy?” Why? Whose cause are they really serving with their lies?
FACT: Neither Sarah Palin nor I are “birthers.” “Birther” is a term that the bogus media have invented to disparage persons who make legitimate inquiries about Obama’s origins in Hawai’i.
I have conducted on the scene scholarly research about Obama’s roots in Hawai’i. Our new movie could be released as early as next week: “Obama: The Hawai’i Years.”
What I have asked Hawai’i officials to do is produce their original “ribbon” copy of Obama’s 1961 birth certificate. (For those of you not old enough to know what a “ribbon copy” is, ancient devices known as “typewriters” used “ribbons” to make impressions on paper. Cormac McCarthy’s original 1963 typewriter is about to be auctioned as an antique. The original copy of a document, i.e. the one which the typewriter ribbon actually touched, was known as the “ribbon copy.”)
Hawai’i officials have never released Obama’s ribbon copy of his birth certificate, despite many demands, lawsuits, etc. I am continuing my litigation for access. Because I am currently a candidate for U. S. Senator [www.AndyforUSSenator.com], I was unable to actively pursue the litigation in August-November, but we are gearing up to go back to Hawai’i to pry loose the original, 1961 document once funds are available.
FactCheck.org does not claim that the bogus “original” they saw is in fact the 1961 document, or that their “document” is a photocopy of the original typewritten 1961 piece of paper. On its face the document purports to be nothing more than a database printout. Is this print-out a “legal” document? Yes, it is. But it is not a copy of Obama’s original birth record.
What is the significance of the missing document? The laser-printed output contains significantly less birth information than the original typewritten 1961 certificate.
So where do Sarah Palin and I on the one hand, and “birthers” differ? I have never stated that Obama was born anywhere but Hawai’i; nor, to the best of my knowledge has Governor Palin. We just want to review the original 1961 Hawai’i document to see what information Obama has concealed. It is a perfectly reasonable request to examine the original document because, love him or hate him, Obama is a figure in American history and his original birth document is a historical archive.
And from AmericanPower:
Sister Toldjah offers an interpretation, “Why did you have to go there, Sarah?
Sarah Palin is right in that this is a “legitimate issue” to raise – but because the left crucifies her for every statement she makes and how her statements get magnified to the nth degree by the left’s associates in the mainstream media (as is happening now), a better way for her to have put it is that it is a legitimate issue for others to pursue, but that she’s “not interested in doing so and instead desires to remain focused on the things he’s doing as President that are destroying America’s fundamental ideals.” In fact, she said as much in her follow-up statement to her remarks, but of course follow-up statements look like “clean-up” after the fact, and no one but loyal supporters will care. Handling it in this manner would have put her “above the fray” and given the left less to no ammo, while at the same time, she would still be holding true to her correct standard that the issue is “fair game.”
And that’s the thing: The fact is that President Obama’s presidential eligibility remains a major constitutional question, mainly because he’s never been completely open and forthcoming about the official documentation of his birth.
Nice Deb has a little roundup. It’s not just extremist birthers who’re asking questions. See, “Sarah Palin On Rusty Humphries Show: “Birth Certificate Fair Game” …
Chris Wysocki links, “How to dispel the birthers once and for all.”
Before I get to Sarah’s Facebook statement (and the wrong interpretation thereof), let’s focus on what she did say in the interview.
Her first paragraph response shows that Sarah is obviously quite constitutionally federalistic in her approach to governing. She is not telling the “electorate” (again, that’s we, the People) what to believe; instead, she is affirming that the electorate have every right to question their elected officials, and she is smartly not getting between the grassroots and politicians.
In the second paragraph, Sarah takes the opportunity to dispel the myth that somehow the McCain/Palin campaign performed a reasonable job at vetting their opposition. This is a key point to a bulk of commentary on The Right Side of Life essentially saying, “Well, if this issue were really legitimate, why didn’t the McCain/Palin campaign decide to make an issue of it?”
The third paragraph is really the pièce de résistance: the bizarre conspiracy — labeled by some as “Trig Truthers” — that somehow Sarah’s youngest son with Down’s syndrome is really not hers (incidentally, yes, I believe this is a “bizarre” conspiracy, but holding to my own intellectual honesty, if someone really wants to think that way, they can go knock themselves out — I bet Sarah doesn’t care!). But Trig is not the issue here; the issue is the demands to see his birth certificate juxtaposed with the castigations against those of us who question the President’s history. Somehow the Left in America thinks it’s OK to question Sarah Palin’s personal history, but when it comes to Barack Obama, it appears that he’s off limits to such pointed questions.
So, how did Sarah follow up to the interview? With the following Facebook comment (and, boy, you should see the comments left by readers!):
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
Of course, various media outlets — including Atlanta’s AJC — have spun the interpretation of the last sentence to suggest that, somehow, Sarah is backing off of what she said during the Humphries interview. One blog, SarahsAccomplishments, mentions the following:
I hope that people will agree that Sarah Palin did the right thing. She was asked a question and she answered it truthfully! Governor Palin clearly stated that voters have the right to ask candidates for information. Then she mentions that in the 2008 election, the left continuously asked for proof that Trig was indeed her child. Sarah never, not once, asked Obama to show proof that he was an American citizen!
She also never said that she wouldn’t support asking the President to produce his bona fides, nor has she ever said that he already has produced such documentation.
Via WyBlog:
![[Obama birther gag]](http://wyblog.us/images/obama-salahi-birther-gag.jpg)
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy NiceDeb
NewsReal: Palin’s Not A Birther Because Palin Said So Herself (Eventually)
It’s kinda cute how David Swindle is pretending that Sarah Palin isn’t promoting birtherism.
In a Dec. 4 NewsReal post, Swindle bashes “leftist polemicist[s]” for highlighting Palin’s statement that “the public, rightfully, is still making” Barack Obama’s birth certificate an issue and “I think it’s a fair question” to ask Obama to present further evidence of his birth. Yet Swindle insists that Palin is not “part of the cult of crackpot conspiracists who know for certain that President Obama was born in Kenya or, is at the very least, ‘hiding his birth certificate’” becausePalin tried to walk back her statement on her Facebook page.
Based on that statement, Swindle declares: “So, no, Palin is not a birther. She was just caught off guard in an interview and chose her words poorly.”
Swindle refuses to acknowledge the possibility that Palin is trying to have it both ways — pretending she’s not a birther (Swindle fell for that — he has no evidence that she initially “chose her words poorly” on the subject) while also raising questions about Obama’s birth certificate.
If birtherism is, as Swindle says, “poisonous crackpot conspiracism” on a par with 9/11 truthers, then why give Palin a pass by taking Palin’s walk-back as a denial and ignoring the fact that she played into the hands of birther conspiracists like WorldNetDaily by answering the question as she did?
In an update to his post, Swindle complains about an Alaska blogger who noted that Swindle failed to note that Palin’s statement, in the same interview in which she made the statement about Obama’s birth certifciate, that she has released Trig Palin’s birth certificate is apparently not true — as Andrew Sullivan points out, no birth certificate or other evidence has been released by Palin. Still, it gives license for Swindle to complain about “crackpot ‘Trig Birtherism’ conspiracy theories.” Never mind that his boss, David Horowitz, has flip-flopped on embracing conspiracy theories like depicting Obama as a “Manchurian candidate.”
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
MGB says:
December 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“So what have we learned from this?”
That Sarah Palin, her MD and now you are, and there is just no other way to put this, incredibly stupid.
“Doctors, like lawyers, disagree at times.”
No, not in this instance. A competent MD would have advised Sarah Palin and referred her to a competent OBGYN doc. to evaluate both Palin’s and the baby’s medical condition before making any medical decisions. You cannot evaluate a patient over the phone and in this instance, there are two patients. Both can “go bad” on you in a heartbeat. The first advice should have been to cancel the speech.
“Sarah Palin was in contact with her doctor and listened to her doctor, who did not advise her to go immediately to a hospital and did not advise against her flying back to Alaska.”
See statement above. Actually, Palin’s MD in the article stated she did not advise Palin to fly. It is not like this MD was across town conversing with Palin.
“The baby was not yet due. She had already experienced false labor with that pregnancy. She had given birth before, so perhaps she and the doctor believed she was not going to have the baby soon.”
Actually, all the more cause for concern. The baby was a month early and Palin alleges she had leaked amniotic fluid and was having contractions–read the article below. Palin herself said the contractions were different than the previous Braxton Hicks (false labor) contractions she had been experiencing. How the heck would this MD know/believe that Palin wasn’t going to have the baby soon if she had not examined/evaluated her?
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
“Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.”
“Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.”
“She got back safely to Alaska and the baby was born, apparently without any problems related to her Texas trip.”
Not the point.
“Do you listen to your doctor? Do you fault her for listening to her doctor? Hind sight is 20/20.”
Not if my MD gave me that kind of medical advice. Yes, I do fault Palin because she is an educated woman who has had 4 previous pregnancies and is well aware than none are alike. Plus, this was a high risk pregnancy from the start. Palin’s age, dx. of down syndrome. You cannot tell me that Palin was not well aware of the risk she was putting herself and her baby in by not being evaluated by a OBGYN doc in Texas. I am quite sure being the Gov. of Alaska, this could have been easily arranged. She was also putting the people on the plane, in what could have been, a very bad situation.
1. assessment of baby VS–fetal heart monitor
2. assessment of Palin’s VS
3. assessment if leakage was amniotic fluid
4. assessment of contractions
5. Treatment if required
qwertyman:
Sarah herself calls them both “Stupid Conspiracies.”
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188707498434
It’s a self-selecting internet poll that anybody can take as many times as they can.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/09/27/aol-straw-poll-mccain-63-obama-37
http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/in-landslide-john-mccain-is-the-president-of-aol-com
If AOL polls reflected the American populace, McCain would have won a huge landslide last year. AOL polls have absolutely no statistical validity and reflect nothing.
Both of these conspiracy theories are completely unfounded and don’t stand up to the slightest critical scrutiny.
MGB,
Tell ya what, if you can get Sarah Palin to agree to DNA testing on Trig (with medical records) to prove that she is Trig’s biological mother, I will see if I can talk President Obama into producing his birth certificate.(which he has already produced.) Deal?
However, while both sides have the right to question both parties, neither party is required by law to answer the question or comply.
White House orders attack on Washington Times
KERCHNER ADVERTORIAL SPARKS VICIOUS RACE-POLITICS ACTION
SIMULTANEOUS HACKER-ATTACK OF THE POST & EMAIL BY OBAMA SUPPORTER
by John Charlton, editor — © 2009
The Advertorial placed by Commander Kerchner in the Washington Times
The Advertorial placed by Commander Kerchner in the Washington Times: partial view.
(Dec. 3, 200) — As editor of The Post & Email I can now publicly confirm that our website was hacked 3 times yesterday by an Obama supporter, in conjunction with a simultaneous political attack on the Washington Times Newspaper, in Washington, D.C..
The motive for the attack was identical: The advertorial placed by Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., U.S. Navy, Retired in the Washington Times, entitled ” Obama’s Lack of Eligibility.”
The advertorial contained a brief explanation why Barack Hussein Obama was still a British citizen, and why that makes him ineligible for the U.S. Presidency. It featured the classic Asian metaphor of “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”, and used the images of 3 Chimpanzees with signs before each, assigning one to represent Congress, the second to represent the Courts, and the third to represent the Main Stream Media.
The ad read in part: “Obama, the putative U.S. President, was born a British subject Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and is currently a British protected person and/or British citizen to this day. How can a person who is born a British subject be a Natural Born Citizen of the USA?” You can view the advertorial online at Scribd.com.
The Post & Email covered the reaction in the media yesterday, and explained the legal and factual basis for the claims made by the Advertorial, in our article entitled “Mega Media counter attack on natural born citizen issue.”
Yesterday morning, a computer user came to The Post & Email’s site, having read a copy of our article “Mega Media” at Oil For Immigration. Our site was then attacked by a hacker using a server at the Department of Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
It turns out that this same hacker complained in an email elsewhere on the web, regarding the Advertorial. The Post & Email is in possession of his email as it provides proof of a material chain of evidence to the concerted political action in Washington, D.C. the same day.
Simultaneously there was a Coordinated Political Attack on The Washington Times
Our confidential sources in Washington, D.C., have divulged to us that during the attack on our website, a political uproar was in progress in the Capitol., of the like not see in decades. It was directed by the White House through the political activists in the Black Community. These activists urged advertisers at The Washington Times to pull Kerchner’s ad, complaining to the sales department, that the advertorial was “racist.” Leading figures in the Media throughout the Capitol also angrily complained to the paper’s editorial board.
The uproar was so organized as to produce maximum result on the same day that The Washington Times was to announce a major staff reduction: more than 370+ workers to be laid off. The paper also announced that it was undertaking a political lobbying effort in the capitol, by means of a program to distribute free newspapers to politicians in the city.
The concerted political attack on the Washington Times has all the markings of Alinsky style tactics and of race-card politics, the resident expert of which, in the District of Columbia, is undoubtedly Barack Hussein Obama.
The Post & Email therefore concludes that the Obama himself ordered the attack in response to the factual claims of the Kerchner advertorial — which is being published to support of his lawsuit — which claims Obama could not directly refute, because they are undeniably true. The hacker who attacked The Post & Email and Oil For Immigration was undoubtedly merely a minor collaborator in the entire assault.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/03/white-house-orders-attack-on-washington-times/
I apologize for adding that little phrase at the end of my last comment. It was unnecessary.
And here’s a bit of “Holiday Cheer” for the White House that includes a color version of the Washington Times B&W ad of the “three monkeys” that caused the Flying Monkeys to lose their cookies – and the quote near the end of the video by one of the originators of natural law precepts ain’t bad either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY
From ObamaFiles:
“AOL Poll that asks the question: “Do you think it’s fair to question President Obama’s citizenship?”
At 6 AM, on 12/6/09, the results were: 67% “Yes” — 33% “No” — and this is AOL, hardly a conservative website. …
YouPolls.com has taken down their December 4th poll that asks the question, “Is Obama’s birth certificate a valid question.” Obviously, they didn’t like the respondents’ answers — 83% “Yes” — 17% “No.”
YouPolls.com is still running the one asking, “Is Obama a one term President?” — 94? “Yes — 5.7% “No” — expect that one to disappear soon.”
So, as usual, it seems that Sarah Palin is quite in step with the American people.
To paraphrase Beckwith, who’s in the fringe?
So what have we learned from this?
Doctors, like lawyers, disagree at times.
Sarah Palin was in contact with her doctor and listened to her doctor, who did not advise her to go immediately to a hospital and did not advise against her flying back to Alaska.
The baby was not yet due. She had already experienced false labor with that pregnancy. She had given birth before, so perhaps she and the doctor believed she was not going to have the baby soon.
She got back safely to Alaska and the baby was born, apparently without any problems related to her Texas trip.
Do you listen to your doctor? Do you fault her for listening to her doctor? Hind sight is 20/20.
Great points you made MGB. Using S’s words to me (see below):
In normal English usage, the “he” in your sentence referred to the last noun you used, the press secretary.
So, the “which” refers to “prove he’s your kid.”
I am glad you pointed that out because I forgot to.
I have to run.
Noli nothi permittere te terere. (That may not be the exact translation, but I think you get my drift..)
Read what Sarah Palin said, “And a lot of people say, ‘Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!’ Which we have done.”
When she said, “which we have done,” she may have been referring to “prove that he’s your kid,” and NOT to “produce his birth certificate.”
Which phrase is closer to the “which we have done” phrase?
She proved that Trig is her son.
Many contend that nobody has a right to ask for Obama’s birth certificate because he has a right to privacy. Some of those same individuals contend that Sarah Palin opened the door by claiming that she provided Trig’s birth certificate, which, as you can see, she did not claim. The statement could be read two different ways. Only Palin knows what she meant by “which we have done” and the interviewer didn’t ask for clarification.
In any case, by the same standard, didn’t Obama open the door by claiming that he’s eligible to be POTUS under the Constitution? By claiming that he’s released his birth certificate to the public, which he has not done?
Obama ran for an office that has specific qualifications under the Constitution.
Trig Palin is an infant, who is not running for public office.
Do you also think that Obama should produce Malia’s birth certificate and Sasha’s, too? Nobody would ask for them because those girls are not running for public office.
I don’t have access to sound right now Q, but I did see this and don’t recall anyone asking him a direct question; am I correct? What Obama did here was a form of obfuscation. Too bad no reporter has the guts to ask him a few direct questions.
Actually he did. This is the smoking gun that birthers have missed for over a year!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vws9fTtQgz4
A. I made a mistake with the pronoun usage. Forgive me.
B. The comment wasn’t to you anyways.
C. Since you chose to interject, at least follow what was said.
Qman:
If Obama PERSONALLY spoke to the press about the birther movement …
(my emphasis)
leaving…
Sharon 2 says:
December 6, 2009 at 7:49 am
*Obama has a press secretary. He himself was never directly asked about the topic (that I know of.)*
Then write more clearly. In normal English usage, the “he” in your sentence referred to the last noun you used, the press secretary. Anyway, asking the press secretary in the official White House briefing and getting an official answer is equivalent to having asked President Obama. Press Secretary Gibbs speaks for the President when he is behind that podium in the briefing room.
I didn’t listen to the videos because I saw Gibbs in the link name. The pronoun “he” referred to Obama, not the press secretary.
If Obama personally spoke to the press about the birther movement that was anything beyond laughing about them, I would be disappointed.
- Obama has a press secretary. He himself was never directly asked about the topic (that I know of.)
Sharon 2 says:
December 5, 2009 at 11:04 pm
*- Obama has a press secretary. He himself was never directly asked about the topic (that I know of.)*
Sure he’s been asked, at least twice, in official briefings. That makes the answers official answers.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=gibbs+obama+birth+certificate&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=tab-web&tnr=21&vid=0001702850428
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=gibbs+obama+birth+certificate&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=tab-web&tnr=21&vid=0001556232461
bob strauss says:
Bob, I don’t point this out in every comment, but I’m talking about *reality*. That was the real Congress that certified Obama’s election, and the real Chief Justice of the United States that swore him into office. You have a right to your fantasy world, but denying reality is ultimately a losing strategy.
If Palin’s MD actually told her this, then I have some concerns regarding this MD’s advice to Palin also.
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
excerpts
“EARLY ARRIVAL
“Palin was in Texas last week for an energy conference of the Republican Governors Association when she experienced signs of early labor. She wasn’t due for another month.”
“Early Thursday — she thinks it was around 4 a.m. Texas time — she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who is based in the Valley and has delivered lots of babies, including Piper, Palin’s 7-year-old.”
“Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.”
“I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give,” Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.”
“Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, “which is not active labor,” the doctor said.”
“Things were already settling down when she talked to me,” Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.”
“I don’t think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back,” Baldwin-Johnson said.”
“So the Palins flew on Alaska Airlines from Dallas to Anchorage, stopping in Seattle and checking with the doctor along the way.”
“I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor,” Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn’t in labor.”
“Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman’s water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That’s true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.”
“To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak,” Gregg said.”
“Some airlines have policies against pregnant women onboard during the last four weeks of pregnancy, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against flying after 36 weeks.”
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,6128,00.html
excerpts
“The timing of membrane rupture
Rupture of the membranes, the technical term for breaking the water, may happen before or during labor. When it occurs before labor, it often means that labor is imminent. Your practitioner will need to be notified, and you may be advised to go to your hospital or birth center, even if labor hasn’t begun.”
“If you break your water before 36 weeks gestation, medical care and antibiotics may help to extend the pregnancy by days or even weeks. The bottom line: Regardless of your stage of pregnancy, you should always let your practitioner know if you suspect your water has broken.”
“What happens when the water breaks?
Your baby has been surrounded and protected by a sac of water called amniotic fluid from the beginning of your pregnancy. The fluid cushions your baby to keep him safe and protects him from infection.”
If this is a factual account of the circumstances surrounding Palin’s birth of Trig, I question Palin’s priorities. No sane woman would put herself and her already high risk infant in additional harms way.
http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/subpage4.html
Questions Surrounding Sarah Palin’s Birth
This page also raises some questions.
http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/subpage10.html
Mercedes Johnston MySpace Page
Palin’s punishment was receiving an official sanction for her abuse of power within days of the election. That probably hurt her far more than any fine.
How?
If Obama personally spoke to the press about the birther movement that was anything beyond laughing about them, I would be disappointed.
- Obama has a press secretary. He himself was never directly asked about the topic (that I know of.)
- I think that statement of Byrd says what it says, along with what you pointed out.
Goodnight…
Sharon 2 says:
December 5, 2009 at 9:41 pm
*So you think Palin adopted Trig to use as a political prop? *
Yep.
___
The question was to Sue. I know where you stand. Okay, Sue, I’ll assume it’s a yes.
Subject closed for me on the matter.
“Megs McCain responds via Twitter:
Those asking, yes I believe Obama was born in this country and I think concentrating on that belittles the real problems we need to
about 3 hours ago from web
concentrate on concerning him as a President, and his administration. I have real concerns about him as Prez but it doesnt include his birth
about 3 hours ago from web
there are no secrets in politics, if there was a secret to be found, our campaigns war room would have found it. end. of story.
about 3 hours ago from web”
Notice how Megs McCain never mentions the “2 citizenship BS?” That is because she attended and paid attention in civics class.
Sharon 2 says:
December 5, 2009 at 9:41 pm
*So you think Palin adopted Trig to use as a political prop? *
Yep.
“Quit whining about the beating obots are taking from Sarah’s desire to expose the fraud Obama.”
Sarah Palin did not expose anything. Sarah Palin isn’t going to do anything other than talk. She doesn’t believe any of this crap.
No, I don’t have a problem with Troopergate. What was the punishment?
I don’t see a rant. Maybe you do. Maybe you just assume because it is a woman, it is a rant. Okay for a guy though.
“The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Glenn Beck… I mean Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., wrote in a letter to Obama.
Sue says:
December 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm
*Sise, Qwerty, Loren,
Well, I may have to eat my words.*
So you think Palin adopted Trig to use as a political prop? Let’s go with it. The adoption would have occurred prior to her even being tapped as VP and when she was in the midst of her term as governor with re-election not imminent. Why is the “prop” needed? You are going to ignore a very logical explanation by Qman of how the adoption process works?
Wow. Why am I even going there…
bob strauss says:
December 5, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Phil, obots, Leo’s Back! Teamed up with Steve Pidgeon and the defrauded Chrysler Dealers in a quo warranto action questioning Obama’s Constitutional right to defraud them out of their money and give it to the union members. See, CW site, comment highlighted by DYoung@ 3:41pm.
Black Lion, sam, Sue, sise,all of you obots, See what happens when you talk smack about Leo, he will come back and make you look like fools. Hope your “guy” has a “better batch of forgeries”. “To prove he is natural born”.
___________________________________________________________________
Bob, so Leo has teamed up with Pidgeon. Wow…I am sure Obama is petrified…A paranoid guy like Pidgeon teamed with a loser like Donofrio. I guess this is the new A-Team. Real attorneys are sitting back and laughing at these wingnuts. What has Leo or Pidgeon ever won? Nothing. Maybe you are right. Leo will have a new batch of forgeries to try and sucker the American public with. Or maybe he will come up with a new unique theory. Who knows. But if you think that Leo is going to come up with something new, then you will have a long wait. Leo and Steve…What a joke….I am laughing right now thinking about how funny that is…If they actually decide to file anything…
To even bring it up a year later suggests think skin. Do you rant about mean things people said about you over a year ago?
So you have no problem that a state investigatory board found she abused her power, just so long as it doesn’t cross what you consider to be too important an abuse of power.
“Czars” have been a part of presidential administrations for decades. Outside of Glenn Beck land, there’s no constitutional concern with their use.
More grief for Obamatons -
Dba Obama blew it again – the Start talks failed (as anticipated) and Obama’s only bone to brag about when in Stokholm for receiving his “anticipative” Nobel Peace Prize is gone.
Poor Obama, he worked so hard to squeeze a deal to show in Stokholm and now those two whitey demons! Medvedev and Putin stole his dream! Nyet deal, sucker – back to Larry Johnson!
Putin and Medvedeev despise Obama greatly (the way he was received at Kremlin, was a illustration of the old adage that traitors are welcome but are not liked), and they know very well (like the Chinese and others) that Obama is an illegitimate president who can be at any time overturned in the USA, therefore placing in peril any deal done with him, and that NOW, all Obama’s political actions are exclusively dictated by self-preservation, by the necessity of surfing ahead of a annihilating swell that grows, following him –
The Russians so far took advantage of Obama’s hatred for America and for his enthusiasm for placing the USA in defavorable positions in international arena. But after tricking him in the Eastern Europe missiles shield affair, and gave him nothing in exchange in Iran, they became worried about Obama’s airheadedness (or cynicism) – and for this reason now they decided to pass on the Start talks, which the Obamatons tried to conclude at any, any price before the Nobel ceremonies in order to bolster dba Obama’s credentials went in the air -
Funny thing, it turns out that while Obama loses no opportunity to sell America short, Medvedev and Putin are prudent enough to give us a reprieve – and we must give them credit for not accepting Obama’s anti-American propositions, and we also must remember Obama’s willingness to discard anytime America’s legitimate interests when his own survival is at stake -
And Obama’s ratings show that he already fell bellow the critical point, approval-wise –
And in this fall, Obama’s illegitimacy is more and more an important element -
“They tried to call us paid Obama trolls. Actually, we’re a bunch of people with a universal wicked sense of humor and the means to unleash it against the deliberately clueless. we should be paying Obama for the opportunities at mirth that his election has provided.
Contact me offline and I’ll tell you how the libel lawsuit between Berg and Oily Taint came about. Better yet, join up at Politijab and contact me there.”
http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/6703-4049
Maybe if Berg and Taitz saw this, they could iron out their differences.
So, you had one example without any context that she brought up the Trig issue. Her response didn’t sound all that thin skinned. Troopergate? Wow, such a scandal. We’ve got much bigger scandals going on in Congress and the Senate all the time. I am sure Obama will be sure to bring it up should he even run again.
Where are those ridiculous policies Palin pushed? She doesn’t want big government or big taxes. Many people like that agenda.
Abuse of power? Taking over car companies ring a bell? Czars who get appointed without scrutiny?
RE siseduermapierda:
[...] Then again, birthers think Hawaii is a foreign country too, also. [...]
Sise, the problem is that dba Obama and the liberals think that the USA is AN ENEMY COUNTRY – want to check this with Chris “tingle-up-my-leg” Mathews, the Ober-Obamaton himself?
brygenon, he’s not the President he is a Usurper. An actor pretending to be President he doesn’t qualify to be President.Only special people qualify to be President. They are called natural born citizens of the United States of America. There is a distinction.
bob strauss says:
December 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm
*Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have collaborated *
Let us know when they file something. The thing those two have in common is they are both paranoid about the guys in black SUV’s and helicopters.
Have we ever known any of these birther legal types who were able to work together for more than a couple weeks without a cat fight? Think of all the pairings we’ve seen and how long they didn’t last: of Berg and Martin, Berg and Taitz, Berg and Hale, Hale and Taitz, Taitz and Kreep, Kreep and Pidgeon, Hale and Pidgeon, Taitz and Lincoln, Taitz and Lucas, Taitz and Sinclair, Sinclair and Pidgeon, Leo and Tickly. None of these people knows how to cooperate with anyone else.
Sue says:
December 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm
*Sise, Qwerty, Loren,
Well, I may have to eat my words.*
Fascinating stuff, no?
Quit whining about the beating obots are taking from Sarah’s desire to expose the fraud Obama. Just in. Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have collaborated to defend the Chrysler dealer against Obama aka Soetoro in a quo warranto action. See citizen wells site, comment by DYoung at 3:41 in CW’s last post.
Poppet says:
Yet in a FaceBook post titled “Stupid Conspiracies” she insists, “at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”
Poppet, the election was more than a year ago. If you are looking forward to Palin running against Obama in 2012, remember what has changed. She’s a quitter. He’s President.