Look Who Watched Over Obama's Birth Certificate Hiding!....

[delta22]

Well now....what d'ya know about this? More Chicagoland politics...What sneaky people we have in Washington. Remember this come November folks.

Unfortunately for America (the unqualified) Ms. Kagan now has a LIFE TIME appointment to the SUPREME COURT. VOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER 2010 and again in NOVEMBER 2012!

BORN IN THE USA?

Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate

'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: August 04, 2010

10:55 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Just when you thought there couldn't be any more players in the ongoing soap opera over the hunt for President Obama's original birthcertificate and his constitutional eligibility for office, there comes yet another name: Elena Kagan.

Yes, the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.

Here's the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year.

In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court.

A simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.

Searching the dockets at the U.S. Supreme Court's website reveals Elena Kagan's name coming up numerous times on cases challenging President Obama's constitutional eligibility for office. (Supreme Court screenshot with name highlighted by WND, Aug. 4, 2010)

Docket No, 09-724, for instance, comes up with this in the search result:

Title: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, et al. Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed. The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. Elena Kagan

Clicking on any of the dockets reveals who the original petitioners were, as well as what proceedings and orders were issued in each case. Here's another docket, with Jamal Kiyemba v. Barack H. Obama.

Elena Kagan's name is noted as solicitor general for cases involving Obama's consdtitutional eligibility. (Supreme Court screenshot with name highlighted by WND, Aug. 4, 2010)

The fact Kagan handled these cases and is now Obama's first choice for the high court is raising some eyebrows.

"She was the solicitor general for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural-born citizenship," notes WND reader Carl Jorgensen of Farmingdale, N.J. "He owes her big time."

"All of the requests were denied of course," Jorgensen continued. "They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughing stock of the world. God help and deliver us."

[ajskj]

Another bunch of BS. Most of those cases were started under Junior Bush.....they have NOTHING to do with Obama's eligibility and just show how very desperate birthers really are. Do some research before you look silly. Even WND took this crap off their website....

An e-mail suggests that Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court because she used her position as solicitor general to fend off all the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. It says that, of course, all the requests were denied so Obama owed her big time. Is this true?

No, it’s not. Not even close.

But it’s an intriguing tale, made even more so by subsequent charges of lying against Snopes.com, which debunked the original e-mails.

Those e-mails began circulating in August after an article published online by WorldNetDaily claimed that a search of the Supreme Court’s website “reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.”

But when Snopes.com looked at the docket items cited by the e-mail, it found that none of them were about whether Obama is legally qualified to be president.

A check of those dockets confirms that. There’s a case about a prisoner civil rights issue, one about a contractor in Iraq and another on a Ugandan in the Guantanamo Bay prison. But not a single one of the dockets is about Obama’s presidential eligibility. In fact, Snopes.com points out, most of the cases were filed against the government before Obama’s presidential candidacy but were rolled over to the current administration, a common practice.

David Emery, who does fact-finding research for the urban legends section of the information website About.com, looked at Snopes.com’s article and called it “exactly right.”

The reason the cases come up under a search for Obama and Kagan on the Supreme Court website is that Obama is listed as the respondent (such lawsuits often list the president as respondent) and Kagan, the solicitor general at the time, was the counsel of record for the federal government. The solicitor general is not a personal lawyer for the president, but merely functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government.

WorldNet-Daily beat a hasty retreat from the article after Snopes.com came out with its findings. That article was removed from WND’s website and replaced with a rewritten article on a different topic that had the following editor’s note, Snopes.com reported:

“Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.”

You’d think the controversy would end there since WND admitted its error.

But it’s not where the story ends.

Within a few weeks, Snopes. com received an e-mail from a reader who apparently “made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names Kagan and Obama was a presidential eligibility case) and accused us of being politically biased liars.”

The e-mail the reader sent also was posted on the Web, Snopes.com said, and winged its way to blogs and to numerous inboxes. That prompted a rash of e-mails to Snopes.com, accusing it of lying and saying that it couldn’t be trusted because it said that no Obama/Kagan dockets existed.

Snopes.com never claimed that the names Kagan and Obama weren’t on any dockets. It merely listed the dockets mentioned in the original chain e-mails and documented that not one of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues.

Snopes.com devoted a page on its website to its response to these accusations. On it, it says that every one of the people who sent an accusatory message was sent a detailed response explaining why they were mistaken.

To date, Snopes.com says, “we haven’t received a single apology.”

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville....s#ixzz1UWrv0EPf

Edited August 9, 2011 by ajskj

[mrmcwhipit]

It will be fun telling AJ we told you so when BO goes down

[ajskj]

It will be fun telling AJ we told you so when BO goes down

It will be even more fun watching you guys meltdown when he doesn't.

It will be HYSTERICAL watching you guys cry if he gets reelected!!!

[mrmcwhipit]

It will be even more fun watching you guys meltdown when he doesn't.

It will be HYSTERICAL watching you guys cry if he gets reelected!!!

So AJ did it occur to you that your a__ is goin down too if he gets reelected? I wouldn't wish for it to much if I were you.

[ajskj]

So AJ did it occur to you that your a__ is goin down too if he gets reelected? I wouldn't wish for it to much if I were you.

Mine ain't going anywhere. Your doomsday predictions are just fluff. It will be really funny watching the moaning and groaning you guys will be doing though...LOL!!

[mrmcwhipit]

Mine ain't going anywhere. Your doomsday predictions are just fluff. It will be really funny watching the moaning and groaning you guys will be doing though...LOL!!

Typical Lib you will change your tune when it starts hitting your wallet then you will be the one moaning the loudest.

[TPSprayduster]

It will be even more fun watching you guys meltdown when he doesn't.

It will be HYSTERICAL watching you guys cry if he gets reelected!!!

Trusty and all the other haters will come up with all kinds of excuses. The Congress will reset in 2012 because HARD CHARGING Tea Party ganked alot of people who play the stock market. One dude i know lost 50K in one day.

[Bubbe]

Well now....what d'ya know about this? More Chicagoland politics...What sneaky people we have in Washington. Remember this come November folks.

Unfortunately for America (the unqualified) Ms. Kagan now has a LIFE TIME appointment to the SUPREME COURT. VOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER 2010 and again in NOVEMBER 2012!

BORN IN THE USA?

Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate

'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: August 04, 2010

10:55 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Just when you thought there couldn't be any more players in the ongoing soap opera over the hunt for President Obama's original birthcertificate and his constitutional eligibility for office, there comes yet another name: Elena Kagan.

Yes, the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.

Here's the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year.

In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court.

A simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.

Searching the dockets at the U.S. Supreme Court's website reveals Elena Kagan's name coming up numerous times on cases challenging President Obama's constitutional eligibility for office. (Supreme Court screenshot with name highlighted by WND, Aug. 4, 2010)

Docket No, 09-724, for instance, comes up with this in the search result:

Title: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, et al. Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed. The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. Elena Kagan

Clicking on any of the dockets reveals who the original petitioners were, as well as what proceedings and orders were issued in each case. Here's another docket, with Jamal Kiyemba v. Barack H. Obama.

Elena Kagan's name is noted as solicitor general for cases involving Obama's consdtitutional eligibility. (Supreme Court screenshot with name highlighted by WND, Aug. 4, 2010)

The fact Kagan handled these cases and is now Obama's first choice for the high court is raising some eyebrows.

"She was the solicitor general for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural-born citizenship," notes WND reader Carl Jorgensen of Farmingdale, N.J. "He owes her big time."

"All of the requests were denied of course," Jorgensen continued. "They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughing stock of the world. God help and deliver us."

YOU have a major fixation on Obama and his skin color, if what you say is true, there are powerful people with billions of dollars who would make this a major issue, as Obama wants to tax them. They don't have a leg to stand on, so that is why the rich and powerful don't do anything about it....they just like to let YOU and other obsessive people keep going with it to keep the low IQ and prejudiced people harping about this to keep your mind off the money they are stealing from the middle class. This makes the middle class less powerful and poor and enhances the wealthy peoples bottom line. Do you get the picture? The top 4 percent rule the world................ run the show where it counts and they let you banter about non-issues to keep the public focused on Hollywood and lame politics. Get yourself an education, read some real history books and get a life! Elena Kagan didn't do anything about these cases, because it is already settled, a dead issue..............do you understand what a frivolous case is?

[JCS1977]

YOU have a major fixation on Obama and his skin color, if what you say is true, there are powerful people with billions of dollars who would make this a major issue, as Obama wants to tax them. They don't have a leg to stand on, so that is why the rich and powerful don't do anything about it....they just like to let YOU and other obsessive people keep going with it to keep the low IQ and prejudiced people harping about this to keep your mind off the money they are stealing from the middle class. This makes the middle class less powerful and poor and enhances the wealthy peoples bottom line. Do you get the picture? The top 4 percent rule the world................ run the show where it counts and they let you banter about non-issues to keep the public focused on Hollywood and lame politics. Get yourself an education, read some real history books and get a life! Elena Kagan didn't do anything about these cases, because it is already settled, a dead issue..............do you understand what a frivolous case is?

Where do you see anything about skin color posted here?

[the next contestant]

Trusty and all the other haters will come up with all kinds of excuses. The Congress will reset in 2012 because HARD CHARGING Tea Party ganked alot of people who play the stock market. One dude i know lost 50K in one day.

It wasn't the Tea Party that caused this. They wern't the ones not coming up with any ideas or plans to fix this. As a matter of fact they were they only ones coming up with ideas and plans at all! Harry Reid said he was working on a plan but nobody ever saw it.

Nope the buck stops where it always has.... At the top! All the whining inthe world can't change that fact. You all wanted to hold GWB accountable for the things he inherited from Clinton so assuming you're not biased you should do the same for Obama right? Right!

Peace.

[ajskj]

Typical Lib you will change your tune when it starts hitting your wallet then you will be the one moaning the loudest.

ROFL!!

Funny how you guys are desperate to change the subject once the original post is shown to be a lie.

Edited August 9, 2011 by ajskj

[carlablum]

YOU have a major fixation on Obama and his skin color, if what you say is true, there are powerful people with billions of dollars who would make this a major issue, as Obama wants to tax them. They don't have a leg to stand on, so that is why the rich and powerful don't do anything about it....they just like to let YOU and other obsessive people keep going with it to keep the low IQ and prejudiced people harping about this to keep your mind off the money they are stealing from the middle class. This makes the middle class less powerful and poor and enhances the wealthy peoples bottom line. Do you get the picture? The top 4 percent rule the world................ run the show where it counts and they let you banter about non-issues to keep the public focused on Hollywood and lame politics. Get yourself an education, read some real history books and get a life! Elena Kagan didn't do anything about these cases, because it is already settled, a dead issue..............do you understand what a frivolous case is?

Do you have a clue how many people WITH SKIN COLOR voted for Obama BECOUSE of his SKIN COLOR? LOL Becouse of those racist people, we now are stuck with the worst President ever. I did not vote for him becouse of his skin color I didn't vote for him becouse I didn't trust him and I didn't feel he was qualified to be our President. AND I STILL DONT TRUST HIM! LOL

Sorry peeps!!!

So sick of the skin color excuse.

[mrmcwhipit]

Libs always playin the race card its like a broken record.

[ajskj]

Do you have a clue how many people WITH SKIN COLOR voted for Obama BECOUSE of his SKIN COLOR? LOL Becouse of those racist people, we now are stuck with the worst President ever. I did not vote for him becouse of his skin color I didn't vote for him becouse I didn't trust him and I didn't feel he was qualified to be our President. AND I STILL DONT TRUST HIM! LOL

So....Carla...what is YOUR thinking in why there are SO MANY people that will believe a blatant lie like this one and others....even LONG AFTER they have been debunked, just to discredit THIS president??

If it was JUST his politics,they would debate his politics instead of resorting to sneaky little lies like this that the average person won't take five minutes to investigate for themselves.

Sorry peeps!!!

So sick of the skin color excuse.

Libs always playin the race card its like a broken record.

It's the only possible explanation anymore.

Edited August 9, 2011 by ajskj

[armondtoth]

Another bunch of BS. Most of those cases were started under Junior Bush.....they have NOTHING to do with Obama's eligibility and just show how very desperate birthers really are. Do some research before you look silly. Even WND took this crap off their website....

An e-mail suggests that Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court because she used her position as solicitor general to fend off all the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. It says that, of course, all the requests were denied so Obama owed her big time. Is this true?

No, it’s not. Not even close.

But it’s an intriguing tale, made even more so by subsequent charges of lying against Snopes.com, which debunked the original e-mails.

Those e-mails began circulating in August after an article published online by WorldNetDaily claimed that a search of the Supreme Court’s website “reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.”

But when Snopes.com looked at the docket items cited by the e-mail, it found that none of them were about whether Obama is legally qualified to be president.

A check of those dockets confirms that. There’s a case about a prisoner civil rights issue, one about a contractor in Iraq and another on a Ugandan in the Guantanamo Bay prison. But not a single one of the dockets is about Obama’s presidential eligibility. In fact, Snopes.com points out, most of the cases were filed against the government before Obama’s presidential candidacy but were rolled over to the current administration, a common practice.

David Emery, who does fact-finding research for the urban legends section of the information website About.com, looked at Snopes.com’s article and called it “exactly right.”

The reason the cases come up under a search for Obama and Kagan on the Supreme Court website is that Obama is listed as the respondent (such lawsuits often list the president as respondent) and Kagan, the solicitor general at the time, was the counsel of record for the federal government. The solicitor general is not a personal lawyer for the president, but merely functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government.

WorldNet-Daily beat a hasty retreat from the article after Snopes.com came out with its findings. That article was removed from WND’s website and replaced with a rewritten article on a different topic that had the following editor’s note, Snopes.com reported:

“Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.”

You’d think the controversy would end there since WND admitted its error.

But it’s not where the story ends.

Within a few weeks, Snopes. com received an e-mail from a reader who apparently “made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names Kagan and Obama was a presidential eligibility case) and accused us of being politically biased liars.”

The e-mail the reader sent also was posted on the Web, Snopes.com said, and winged its way to blogs and to numerous inboxes. That prompted a rash of e-mails to Snopes.com, accusing it of lying and saying that it couldn’t be trusted because it said that no Obama/Kagan dockets existed.

Snopes.com never claimed that the names Kagan and Obama weren’t on any dockets. It merely listed the dockets mentioned in the original chain e-mails and documented that not one of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues.

Snopes.com devoted a page on its website to its response to these accusations. On it, it says that every one of the people who sent an accusatory message was sent a detailed response explaining why they were mistaken.

To date, Snopes.com says, “we haven’t received a single apology.”

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville....s#ixzz1UWrv0EPf

Just curious to see if you actually looked at the dockets or just quoted snoopes. I actually did look at the docket and yes it directly questions Obama's eligibilty. Now me personally think that if someone asks you for your birth certificate it should not take you 3 years to produce it. JMO

[ajskj]

Just curious to see if you actually looked at the dockets or just quoted snoopes. I actually did look at the docket and yes it directly questions Obama's eligibilty. Now me personally think that if someone asks you for your birth certificate it should not take you 3 years to produce it. JMO

No, you didn't because not ONE of those question Obamas eligibility. Most have to do with prisoners rights...and ONE has to do with advertising his political position on a billboard. Most were started against junior BUSH...and changed to Obama when he was elected. Oh and by the way....that wasn't a Snopes article.

So NO, they are NOT to do with his eligibility AT ALL. Even WND pulled the story and admitted that it WAS A LIE.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.

Read more: Kagan case: 'Real Truth About Obama' http://www.wnd.com/?...7#ixzz1UXswhiqL

Oh and by the way...it DIDN'T take three years at all. You just didn't like what you saw.

Edited August 9, 2011 by ajskj

[the next contestant]

It's the only possible explanation anymore.

Nope, it's because he is a bad President. Just like you claim there is no other reason than the color of his skin, there is also no other reason to have voted for him. No one knew anything about him, and still don't.

It is quite simple to see. I think that is why you have been fighting this uphill battle ever since. You have the hardest job of all. To prove what is (so easily) seen by everyone else as to be a lie. We all see the logical thinking of it and we all come up with the same questions as well. Your job has always been to make us think that what we are seeing is not really there. Or what is NOT there you are trying to make us think it is really there.

Kudos to you for keeping your sanity. It is difficult to go against the five senses and win. Cause if it acts like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck even tastes like a duck..... Then you are trying to say that it is a pig. Yeah, there is not much to say but some sort of comical response that is based on your opinion. But good luck with that.

Peace.

[carlablum]

It's the only possible explanation anymore.

Well ajskj,

I do respect your fact findings and your opinion as well but I have watched him enough times to know he is a man who can not be trusted . I am very displeased with the way he operates and the many ways he has degraded our wonderful US of A. I don't like his politics. With that being said, the many stories that come out about his personal life lead me to believe that they COULD be true.

Sorry...... Just my humble opinion

So when this RV hits are we still on for a drink?

Blessings

[armondtoth]

Just curious to see if you actually looked at the dockets or just quoted snoopes. I actually did look at the docket and yes it directly questions Obama's eligibilty. Now me personally think that if someone asks you for your birth certificate it should not take you 3 years to produce it. JMO

I have read the snoopes article and have gone back to the supreme court website and I find nothing in the documents for 09-724 that says anything about abortion, maybe snoopes got one wrong.

[mrmcwhipit]

It's the only possible explanation anymore.

That just shows how dumb you and all the libs are.

[ajskj]

That just shows how dumb you and all the libs are.

And yet, we are ALL smarter than you.

Nope, it's because he is a bad President. If that were true, you would simply debate his politics. Not keep spreading outright lies because it makes you feel batter about a black guy being president. Can't hurt too much if you keep believing he is ineligible....despite all proof to the contrary.Just like you claim there is no other reason than the color of his skin, there is also no other reason to have voted for him. No one knew anything about him, and still don't. Not at all....he was and continues to be...much better than the guy who ran against him. email, no matter HOW blatant of a lie it is.

It is quite simple to see. I think that is why you have been fighting this uphill battle ever since. You have the hardest job of all. To prove what is (so easily) seen by everyone else as to be a lie. We all see the logical thinking of it and we all come up with the same questions as well. Your job has always been to make us think that what we are seeing is not really there. Or what is NOT there you are trying to make us think it is really there.Wrong again...I do research. YOU believe every lie that comes in

Kudos to you for keeping your sanity. It is difficult to go against the five senses and win. You guys would know more about that. You shut your eyes to EVERYTHING that proves your fairy tales are lies. Cause if it acts like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck even tastes like a duck..... Then you are trying to say that it is a pig. Nope. I say it is a duck...you guys say that it is probably a pig.Yeah, there is not much to say but some sort of comical response that is based on your opinion. But good luck with that.

Funny how you come out swinging every time one of your emails is proven false.

Peace.

[Moses]

Another bunch of BS. Most of those cases were started under Junior Bush.....they have NOTHING to do with Obama's eligibility and just show how very desperate birthers really are. Do some research before you look silly. Even WND took this crap off their website....

An e-mail suggests that Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court because she used her position as solicitor general to fend off all the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. It says that, of course, all the requests were denied so Obama owed her big time. Is this true?

No, it’s not. Not even close.

But it’s an intriguing tale, made even more so by subsequent charges of lying against Snopes.com, which debunked the original e-mails.

Those e-mails began circulating in August after an article published online by WorldNetDaily claimed that a search of the Supreme Court’s website “reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.”

But when Snopes.com looked at the docket items cited by the e-mail, it found that none of them were about whether Obama is legally qualified to be president.

A check of those dockets confirms that. There’s a case about a prisoner civil rights issue, one about a contractor in Iraq and another on a Ugandan in the Guantanamo Bay prison. But not a single one of the dockets is about Obama’s presidential eligibility. In fact, Snopes.com points out, most of the cases were filed against the government before Obama’s presidential candidacy but were rolled over to the current administration, a common practice.

David Emery, who does fact-finding research for the urban legends section of the information website About.com, looked at Snopes.com’s article and called it “exactly right.”

The reason the cases come up under a search for Obama and Kagan on the Supreme Court website is that Obama is listed as the respondent (such lawsuits often list the president as respondent) and Kagan, the solicitor general at the time, was the counsel of record for the federal government. The solicitor general is not a personal lawyer for the president, but merely functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government.

WorldNet-Daily beat a hasty retreat from the article after Snopes.com came out with its findings. That article was removed from WND’s website and replaced with a rewritten article on a different topic that had the following editor’s note, Snopes.com reported:

“Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.”

You’d think the controversy would end there since WND admitted its error.

But it’s not where the story ends.

Within a few weeks, Snopes. com received an e-mail from a reader who apparently “made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names Kagan and Obama was a presidential eligibility case) and accused us of being politically biased liars.”

The e-mail the reader sent also was posted on the Web, Snopes.com said, and winged its way to blogs and to numerous inboxes. That prompted a rash of e-mails to Snopes.com, accusing it of lying and saying that it couldn’t be trusted because it said that no Obama/Kagan dockets existed.

Snopes.com never claimed that the names Kagan and Obama weren’t on any dockets. It merely listed the dockets mentioned in the original chain e-mails and documented that not one of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues.

Snopes.com devoted a page on its website to its response to these accusations. On it, it says that every one of the people who sent an accusatory message was sent a detailed response explaining why they were mistaken.

To date, Snopes.com says, “we haven’t received a single apology.”

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville....s#ixzz1UWrv0EPf

I'm having trouble here,....

Are you a Shill pretending to be a Dupe

or a Dupe trying to be a Shill?

Which one are you?

[ajskj]

Well ajskj,

I do respect your fact findings and your opinion as well but I have watched him enough times to know he is a man who can not be trusted . I am very displeased with the way he operates and the many ways he has degraded our wonderful US of A. I don't like his politics. KUDOS to you for that. Debate THAT and not the lies that are spread by email. With that being said, the many stories that come out about his personal life lead me to believe that they COULD be true.And yet, the FACTS....like this mass email LIE....show that they CAN'T be true.

Sorry...... Just my humble opinion

So when this RV hits are we still on for a drink? Yep...and a spa treatment in Vegas!!!

Blessings

[carlablum]

Vegas here we come!!!!!!!!!!

Go RV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!