>
>
> blank wrote:
>
>> The document that was put on Mr. Obama's "Fight the Smears"
>> Web site was not a birth certificate, but a birth
>> certification, which is a computer generated print-off of
>> information taken from a normal birth certificate. Further,
>> critics assert that there is evidence that puts the
>> low-quality scan in question."
>
> How do you explain the birth announcement in the local Hawaii
> paper on the day that Obama was born? Does this vast conspiracy
> have a time machine, or did a physchic tell them that when this
> particular baby grew up he would be president?

It is not a vast or right wing conspiracy. The Supreme Court is
looking into it right now. I AND you will have to wait for their
decision. Their decision, being mostly a liberal court, can only
go bad in a liberal conspiracy direction. I am hopeing that some
of the dishonest liberal segment will choose to seek the truth
concerning this matter. Your presuming to brush this off as simply a
conspiracy does not make for a valid assessment and judgement. You
are lieing to yourself while attempting to dispatch others with
rhetoric.

In article <BL-
dncEpPNkGcqXU4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
me@privacy.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >>
> >> blank wrote:
> >>
> >>> The document that was put on Mr. Obama's "Fight the Smears"
> >>> Web site was not a birth certificate, but a birth
> >>> certification, which is a computer generated print-off of
> >>> information taken from a normal birth certificate. Further,
> >>> critics assert that there is evidence that puts the
> >>> low-quality scan in question."
> >>
> >> How do you explain the birth announcement in the local Hawaii
> >> paper on the day that Obama was born? Does this vast conspiracy
> >> have a time machine, or did a physchic tell them that when this
> >> particular baby grew up he would be president?
> >
> > It is not a vast or right wing conspiracy. The Supreme Court is
> >looking into it right now. I AND you will have to wait for their
> >decision. Their decision, being mostly a liberal court, can only
> >go bad in a liberal conspiracy direction. I am hopeing that some
> >of the dishonest liberal segment will choose to seek the truth
> >concerning this matter. Your presuming to brush this off as simply a
> >conspiracy does not make for a valid assessment and judgement. You
> >are lieing to yourself while attempting to dispatch others with
> >rhetoric.
>
> Evasion noted. I asked a simple question. Why won't you either
> answer or be man enough to admit that you have no answer?
>
> Again I ask, how do you explain the birth announcement in the
> local Hawaii newspaper on the day that Obama was born?

lla sreveileb
natas niessuh amabo pmac 31 htaed fo
redael sa dengissa eb lliw uoy siht rof
tnavres lufhtiaf dna doog ho enod llew
redro dlrow wen hsub wh egroeg