Items on this page are stored in
order of discovery . . .
The Campaign Against The Birthers
On April 13th, 2010, I received an email from a member
that contained a letter from the Department of Human Services. The
letter, addressed to
Mr. So-and-so, was in response to "your letter of March 1, 2010,
regarding the State of Hawaii's release of all vital records, blah blah
blah -- we don't know nothin' -- we can't tell you nothin' -- have a
nice day."
Yesterday, on April 14th, I received the same letter
-- identical in every way -- from Pankaj Bhanot, Divison
Adminstrator -- complete with blue signature to make it look like a
real, personal letter -- instead of a bulk mailing -- and for that you
need a list.
I have never communicated, in any way with anyone in
Hawaii.
Previously, I received a letter, part of a mass-mailing,
from ex-surfer dude
Fred Hemmings, a Republican state senator from Hawaii's 25th
Senatorial District. The thrust of the missive was that Birthers
should stop wasting time, questioning Obama's bona fides, and focus on
traditional politics and "real issues." I did respond to
this letter, but had never communicated with any person in Hawaii -- in
or out of government.
Some one -- something -- in Hawaii has a
list -- and they're growing their list -- and if there's a list -- it's
probably a shared list -- so there's a campaign managing this list and
producing the mailings -- somebody's spending money to knock down
Birthers and their reasonable questions.
There are a couple or three common threads:
Ridicule "Birthers" -- identify them as belonging to the "deadly
"fringe." This is getting harder and harder to do.
More and more people have questions
about Obama -- who he is, and where he comes from.
Limit the scope -- make it all about the
"birth certificate" -- note: they're not referring to the
one nobody has ever seen -- the REAL birth certificate -- the one Obama
has illegally spent campaign funds to hide -- the one Obama is now using
Justice Department attorneys (civil servants) to hide -- they're
referring to the bogus COLB posted on
some website and "certified"
by two Obama
supporters.
This campaign is telling Americans that they
don't have a right to know who, or what Obama is, nor where he come from
-- nor who sent him -- the people behind this campaign want us to forget
that Barack Hussein Obama II has a thousand loose ends.
And
everybody knows it -- and it's on the Internet.
The Woodward
Report
asks in bold, "Why does World Net Daily insist on the continuance of
their birther stories? There's a whole
thread on Freerepublic.com devoted to question.
The Obama
File has hundreds, and hundreds of facts -- documented -- multi-sourced
and linked -- reliable sources -- that nick away at the Myth of Obama,
whose story evolves as each new disclosure of fact demonstrably proves
what we know about him may not be so.
His pro forma -- his
portfolio -- the customary documentation of every person's life is
empty. Here's "the list"
of missing Obama documentation -- when was the last time you applied to
a college, or applied for a job with no documentation?
What this says, is that Obama and the Obots are
starting to feel the heat. As public opinion swings against Obama,
more and more people question Obama's life story, politics and
eligibility -- it's drip, drip, drip, drip... -- but why are Republicans
and conservatives on board?
It's important to remember that Obama
can end the discussion with the press of a button. It's never,
ever going to go away.
Welcome to "The Emperor's New Clothes"
meets "The Twilight Zone.
Born Again
Christopher Beam tries to explain why questions
about Obama's eligibility won't go away, writing, the "birther" myth is
the political equivalent of a horror-movie villain: Not only does it
refuse to die, but every time someone tries to kill it, it only comes
back stronger.
The latest incarnation: a bill approved 31-22 by
the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday that would require 2012
presidential candidates to offer proof of citizenship in order to
qualify for the ballot. The proposal has little chance of becoming
law. For that to happen, the state Senate would have to pass it
and the governor would have to sign it. But it's still the closest
birtherism has come to being codified.
Democrats have dutifully
condemned the bill. One Phoenix legislator said it's turning
Arizona into "the laughing stock of the nation." White House
spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the measure and others like it on CNN as
"fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories." Steve Benen of the
Washington Monthly wrote, "The fact that fringe lunacy is being taken
seriously at this level suggests a strain of contemporary Republican
thought that's gone stark raving mad." Even some Republicans are
rushing to distance themselves from the bill, particularly senatorial
candidate J. D. Hayworth, whom John McCain has tried to tie to the
fringiest elements of the Tea Party movement.
But shouldn't the
real reaction be, This again? Why, more than a year into Obama's
presidency, are we still talking about whether he is constitutionally
allowed to serve?
The birther movement lingers because it means
different things to different people. For liberals, questioning
Obama's citizenship is tantamount to racism. Anyone who does it
hates black people and is simply trying to disguise his prejudice --
conscious or not -- by implying that Obama is a foreigner.
For
conservatives, though, demanding to see Obama's birth certificate has
become less of a real-world concern -- after all, Obama released his
Hawaii birth certificate during the 2008 campaign -- than a symbolic way
for Republican politicians to show that they, too, are worried about
America. They don't have to actually believe Obama was born in
Kenya to associate with the birthers.
There it is again -- "Obama
released his Hawaii birth certificate during the 2008 campaign" -- that
lie has been repeated a gazillion times -- but it still ain't so.
Obama has never released his Hawaii birth certificate -- during the
2008 campaign or any other time -- except maybe to get a driver's
license and passport -- so why won't he release it now?
The
writer's deep concerns are revealed in the first paragraph, "it only
comes back stronger."
That's why the Obots are currently engaged
in a full court press to knock down the dozens of legitimate questions
about Obama's eligibility.
And again, the writer attempts to
relegate the eligibility issue to a single allegation -- that Obama was
born in Kenya -- I guess he's accusing Michelle Obama of being a liar.
Crazy People And Crazy Internet Rumors
In this video, answering a question about
John Brennan, Gibbels
identifies himself as the author of the "Birth Certificate" conspiracy,
saying, "I'm the guy that said, put the presidents birth certificate on
the Internet."
And, someone should remind Obama, and
Gibbels, that
the "crazy Internet rumors" would cease the day Obama releases his
bona fides -- all the
anointed one needs to do is press a button.
Gibbs also
dissimulates when he identifies the issue as Obama's birthplace.
The issue is Obama's eligibility, not his birthplace -- and his refusal
to provide the usual and customary documentation that all of us
routinely have to provide to city, state, and federal governments for
any number of reasons -- until Obama comes clean with the American
people, this issue will persist -- and grow -- as poll after poll
show that somewhere
between 30% and 50% of Americans have questions about Obama's background
-- that's a lot of crazy people.
It's the "I won" arrogance!
Obama is boldly flipping the bird to America, and sooner or later, it
will bring him down.
Obama Takes Digs At Birthers, GOP
Christine Simmons
reports that Barack Obama shared some words of wisdom on Saturday,
saying there a few things in life harder to find and more important to
keep than love.
"Well, love and a birth certificate," Obama
quipped at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, poking
fun at those who question his place of birth. "I happen to know
that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my
birth." Obama was born in Hawaii, but Birthers question whether he was
born overseas -- among other
things.
Obama also jabbed Jay Leno, the comedian headlining
the dinner. Obama dinged Leno as "the only person whose ratings
fell more than mine." He said he was glad he spoke before the "The
Tonight Show" host, "because we have all seen what happens when somebody
takes the time slot after Leno." Comic Conan O'Brien left NBC
after his stint hosting "The Tonight Show" following Leno didn't work
out.
Although his poll numbers are down, Obama said he hears he's
popular on Twitter and Facebook. "Or as Sarah Palin call it,
socialized media," he said.
Leno picked up on this joke to take a
dig at Obama, saying Obama isn't as aloof as some critics say he is.
"He loves to socialize -- health care, car companies," Leno said, naming
a few industries over which the Obama administration has seized control.
Among the 3,000 guests on hand included Olympic gold medalist
Lindsey Vonn, comedian Chevy Chase, actor Alec Baldwin, comedian Bill
Maher, actress Michelle Pfeiffer, actor Dennis Quaid, former Secretary
of State Colin Powell, GOP Chairman Michael Steele, New York Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, the Jonas
brothers and another teen heartthrob, pop star Justin Bieber.
Hollywood heavyweights Michel Douglas, Steven Spielberg were seen
chatting with Emmanuel.
Obama's quips that the "Birther"
questions are very much on his mind, as this,
this
and this
also demonstrate.
Remember what Ghandi said:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you,
then you win." -- we're late Ghandi stage 2, and early stage 3 -- drip,
drip, drip.
Birthers V Truthers, Again
Jonah Goldberg
says he finds it amazing that the "Birthers" are considered more
dangerous and evil than the "Truthers." The Birthers believe that an
ambitious man who travelled a lot as a kid has concealed the
circumstances of his birth so he could be eligible for the presidency.
Goldberg doesn't think they've made their case, and, frankly, he's not
sure he'd want them to at this point. Aside from the horror of a Biden
presidency, he doesn't yearn for a constitutional crisis. And while he
is sure there are more elaborate and crazier versions of Birtherism, the
basic allegation isn't that crazy, at least in the abstract.
Now,
Trutherism, on the other hand, is a really insidious and evil claim:
that the White House was "in" on 9/11 and that it either passively or
actively aided and abetted the murder of 3,000 Americans and the
attempted murder of tens of thousands more (surely the hijackers hoped
to kill far more people inside the World Trade Towers). Indeed, the
upshot of Trutherism is that "the government" sought to kill countless
congressmen and effectively incapacitate the legislative branch and our
military leadership indefinitely. Depending on which version of
Trutherism you buy into, you'd have to believe dozens or even thousands
of government agents were in on the whole thing, too. Moreover, if this
had been proven true, the only moral, legal, or rational response would
have been not just impeachment and criminal prosecution, but literally
the formal executions of the president, the vice president, and much of
the national-security establishment. They'd all have to hang.
And yet, "Birtherism" is dangerous and paranoid and "Trutherism" is
quirky and no big deal, according to liberals.
Here's the New York Times on the Truthers (if you can't get through
the firewall, here's the
Newsbusters synopsis). The Times called them "a society of skeptics and
scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist
attacks." Skeptics and scientists! No wonder even the Truthers hailed
it as favorable coverage.
And
here is the latest on the Birthers from last Friday's New York
Times. In fairness, the Times doesn't call them racists or dangerous --
I guess they leave that to Frank Rich & Co. -- but it is quite fed up
with them. The piece is all about how the Birthers have become an
outright nuisance to state officials in Hawaii. Here's the opening:
HONOLULU -- The conspiracy theorists who
cling to the false belief that Obama was born outside the United
States outrage many Democrats and embarrass many Republicans.
But to a group of Hawaii state workers who toil away in a long
building across from the Capitol, they represent something else: a
headache and a waste of time.
If only the Times could have been this dismissive of the
Truthers. I guess they never created any bureaucratic-paperwork hassles
for government officials, so they're okay.
Obama's Birther Strategy Has Backfired
William A. Jacobson
says ever since Hillary Clinton supporters started circulating
claims that Obama was not born in the United States, Obama's supporters
and strategists have taken a very aggressive posture. Almost any
attempt to discuss the subject is met with a furious response from Media
Matters, Think Progress, their progeny in the blogosphere, and the
ObamaMedia.
If that was all there was to their strategy, it
would not be so different than strategies a lot of campaigns use to
fight what they believe to be smears. The dilemma is that if you
engage in the debate, you might give credence to the claims, but if you
don't, it's hard to convince people otherwise.
But the strategy
has gone far beyond confrontation. Political opponents, who do not
even question Obama's birthplace, are branded "Birthers" as a political
tactic.
For example, during the Brown-Coakley election in
Massachusetts, Democratic operatives fabricated the charge that Scott
Brown was a "Birther." A similar tactic was used against Sharron
Angle. The entire Tea Party movement has been branded "Birthers"
by leading Democrats.
As a strategy, the hyper-aggressiveness has
been brilliant in the short run. The accusation of being a "Birther"
is right up there with the accusation of being a Racist in the
Democratic Party's tool kit, and is politically toxic.
But in
July 2009, and again in February 2010, Obama was described as misplaying
the "Birther" card because the frequency of the strategic accusations
merely raised the public consciousness and suggested that he was hiding
something. Far from disproving the claims of "Birthers," the Obama
strategy simply drove the issue below the surface.
Thus, it is
not surprising that yet another poll finds that nearly 6 of 10 Americans
are uncertain Obama was even born in the United States. According
to the CNN Poll, only 42% of Americans believe
that Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.
Put differently, 58%
are not certain, or believe otherwise. (The other results were 29%
probably born in U.S., 16% probably born elsewhere, and 11% definitely
born elsewhere, with 2% having no opinion.)
The results,
predictably, were higher among Republicans that Obama was not born
here, and lower among Democrats, but among independents, the numbers
pretty closely tracked the overall numbers, with the exception that only
37% said Obama definitely was born here.
These numbers are
astoundingly bad for Obama, and reflect a strategy which has worked in
the short run but failed miserably in the long run.
The Media And Their Birthers
Joseph Farrah
asks if you have you noticed the way the U.S. news media uniformly
mischaracterizes and disparages all those who suggest Barack Obama's
constitutional eligibility is not settled matter?
Here's a
recent example from the State, a daily in Columbia, S.C.: "The so-called
'birther movement' has questioned the president's citizenship, claiming
Obama's birth certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii is a fake."
The paper uses the derisive term "birther movement," the appellation
of choice by those who ridicule the curious constitutionalists.
The paper suggests the focus of this movement, representing 58 percent
of the American people, according to the latest CNN poll, is
"citizenship," when it is actually "natural born citizenship." The
paper suggests a birth certificate has been produced by the state of
Hawaii when it hasn't been. And the paper suggests the primary
dispute is over whether this unseen document is a fake.
This is
but one of hundreds of examples of this kind of distorted press coverage
by news agencies big and small all making assertions that are untrue and
contemptuous. This pattern raises two questions in my mind:
Why don't any of these news sources -- newspapers, wire services and
television networks -- bother to talk to anyone from this "movement"?
From where do they get their information, their impressions, their
"facts"?
I have practiced the profession of journalism for 35
years. I've never done anything else since becoming an adult.
I have literally done everything you can do in the world of daily
journalism, from reporting to running major market newspapers. It
was always my impression that we were supposed to interview the people
we wrote about. But, in the case of the so-called "birthers," or,
as I like to put it, the "curious constitutionalists," it seems to be
fair game to stereotype their beliefs with broad brush treatment and,
most importantly, never to talk to them -- NEVER!
Nevertheless,
the talking heads on television and the reporters in newsrooms across
America tell us every day what "these people" -- whom they never name --
believe. How is that done? I'm curious.
As someone
in the forefront of this "movement," I have been interviewed hundreds of
times on talk radio about what I believe about eligibility and why, but
I can count on one hand the number of times I have been interviewed on
the subject by so-called "newsmen." And in several of those cases,
mysteriously the interviews never aired or were never published.
My theory on why is that I presented a lucid and, perhaps, even
indisputable case that Obama has never proven his eligibility.
But think about it -- when was the last time you saw a "birther"
interviewed by a significant or insignificant news source outside of
WorldNetDaily and talk radio?
Even Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a
distinguished Army surgeon facing court martial for challenging Obama's
eligibility, is never interviewed by other news sources. The man
is facing years in prison for his convictions, and, even that fact,
doesn't stir these so-called newsmen to curiosity. So where do
these news sources get their ideas about what "birthers" believe?
I can only surmise that they get them from each other. One
mischaracterization leads to another. One factual error leads to
another. One derisive term leads to another.
This is
actually counterfeit journalism -- with each new story on a subject
deriving its assertions of "fact" from another.
Someday soon
this issue is going to be resolved, much to the embarrassment of Obama,
his defenders, his political adversaries who let it slide, and
especially the press, who missed the biggest story of the decade.
How did the press miss that story?
Easy. They made up
their minds that Obama would never lie, cheat or deceive. They
convinced themselves they had actually seen a birth certificate when
they hadn't. They regurgitated what others wrote and said about
the constitutionally curious.
And they never interviewed anyone.
Axelrod blames Fox For Birther Myth
Fox News is partly to blame for spreading the idea that Obama wasn’t
born in the United States, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said
Wednesday.
"I find the whole thing bewildering, but there is
that strain, and it’s always been there in our politics," he said on
CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman.
He added, "These are times
of great change and stress, so you see some of those things come out,
but it is no doubt promoted by our friends at Fox and others, and that’s
part of the politics we have to deal with."
Axelrod is full of old shoes -- what
"Birther myth?" -- Birther question, maybe -- Birther suspicions, maybe
-- but a myth? -- that's nonsense, and Politico reveals its bias by
framing this item so.
The
Obama campaign is 100% responsible for Birthers, and Obama's eligibility
controversy -- 90% of which relates to
issues other than Obama's
birthplace or alleged "birth certificate.".
The
campaign became responsible the moment the Daily Kos posted
Obama's alleged birth document on Thursday, June 12, 2008, at 08:44:37
AM PST. Obama's mouthpiece Robert
Gibbels has
claimed credit for releasing the document.
On Fri
Jun 13, 2008 at 08:05:30 AM PST, AsperGirl wrote on the Kos site, "Sorry
to disabuse you folks, but this birth certificate on dailykos is an
obvious fake." Click here
for the comment that began the controversy.
At
10:54, The Daily Kos stopped posting items to this thread.
On June 24th, 2008, Israeli Insider
blog reported the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama
campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a Photoshopped
fake.
The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department
of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere
in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that
Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required
features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's
purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.
The image became
increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of
the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website --
including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one
with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea,
and another including a purported photo of baby Barack --
one of which has a "photo taken"
time-stampjust two minutes before the article and
accompanying image wasposted on the left-wing Daily
Kos blog.
That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the
image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or
the Obama Campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a
credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states,
and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates
confirms this.
The
Obama Campaign, or FactCheck.org, posted three generations of Obama's
COLB before they finally produced the final one that's now on the
Annenberg FactCheck.org's website.
There were enough alterations in this
one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs
of forgery." They removed the black bar that covered the
certificate number, and invalidated the document as the legend, "Any
alterations invalidates this certificate" clearly warns.
They
added, the seal of the State of Hawaii, the signature stamp and cleaned
up the borders. After it was discovered that birth documents were
mailed, FactCheck.org produced a copy with the appropriate folds.
Nothing
about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, FactCheck.org
posted
a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged
birth certificate used to make the scan image. Compare these
photos to what Kos posted yourself.
Obama
usurped the Oval Office by fraudulent means, including document fraud,
Internet fraud, voter fraud, and campaign funding fraud, to name just a
few.
What's
really important to remember, however, is that Obama's birthplace is
irrelevant to the discussion. His birth certificate is irrelevant
to the discussion (except for finding out what's on, or not on Obama's
REAL birth certificate that he's afraid we'll learn). The bugger
could have been born in the Rotunda of the Capital Building. He's
NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE because he's is a
citizen by statute,
and not a "natural
born" citizen.
Oh, and
Axelrod, Fox News and their on-air personalities have avoided the "Birther"
issue like the plague.
Obama And The Newspaper Boy
Squeeky
says that once upon a time, there was a man named Obama, who owned a
Baloney sandwich restaurant, The House of Baloney. He served the
very best Baloney sandwiches, made from the very finest Baloney,
imported all the way from Hawaii, or Connecticut, and maybe even Kenya.
People came from far and wide to get his Baloney. They would say,
"Ohhh, but this is such Good Baloney!" They were so fanatic,
people even started calling them "O-buts"
Then one day, a little
newspaper boy bought some baloney sandwiches, and when he got home, he
discovered his change was $2.00 short! So he went back to Obama
and he said, "I want my $2.00, please. "Obama said, "Get lost kid, you
bother me!"
Undeterred, the newspaper boy sat outside the House
of Baloney with a sign that said, " I want my $2.00." He sat there
in the rain and the sleet and the snow, for months. At first,
everyone thought the newspaper boy was just crazy. Obama swore he
had given him the proper change. He put a PICTURE of the cash
register tape and deposit slip on the Internet. He even had people
swear it was a true picture.
But, as time went on, people began
to get suspicious of Obama. Why was he letting this poor little
newspaper boy, who might indeed be crazy, just sit out there in the
rain, with his poor little sign, exposed to the elements, and sad.
And what if, just what if, Obama had kept the $2.00 and not deposited it
in the bank. People started not going to the House of Baloney.
The O-buts defended Obama. "It’s his restaurant", they said.
"He doesn’t have to legally give the kid the $2.00 if he doesn’t want
to." That was true enough, but by this time, Obama had already
lost 25% of his sales. Some people said, "Just give the kid his
$2.00 and quit being a jerk!" "No!" said the O-buts. "This
kid is so crazy, that even if you give him the $2.00, he won’t go away!"
So it went on for over two years. People now began to wonder,
"Was there really something wrong with Obama?" Because he had lost
a lot more in business than the $2.00. They reasoned that even if
he didn’t owe it, something fishy was going on, because there really was
no good reason for a sane businessman not to just cough up the two
bucks, and move on.
But still the newspaper boy sits there, with
his ragged, little homemade sign, the "I want my $2.00″ smeared by rain,
and running like two day old mascara, and the cardboard all wrinkly and
fraying at the edges. Inside, Obama sits, twiddling his thumbs,
and hoping business will pick up.
Anderson Cooper Destroys Anderson Cooper
David Edwards has an
exchange on RawStory.com between Anderson Cooper and Rep. Leo
Berman. It has a strong Gullibles slant:
"I don't know anything
about President Obama," Rep. Leo Berman told Cooper Monday.
"There's a certificate of live birth, which is what the state of Hawaii
sends out," Cooper explained. "Why isn't that good enough?"
Berman continues,
"Well, because it's not an original birth certificate. It doesn't show
the parents' place of birth. And, also, we know for certain that
President Obama's father was born in Kenya. Since he was born in Kenya,
in -- that was a British protectorate. President Obama was born in 1961. And with his father being a British citizen, at least, President Obama,
we think, holds dual citizenship."
"Well,
actually, technically that's not correct," Cooper said. "He may have
been born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of his
father being under the British -- a British subject, being from Kenya,
but he automatically lost that in -- at the age of 23," according to the
British Nationality Act of 1948.
Cooper destroys his own
argument, saying, "He may have been born with duel citizenship because of
the technicality of his father being under the British -- a British
subject..."
This is about birth, and Cooper makes that point,
at the moment of birth, Obama was "born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of ..."
Cooper continued, "And the Hawaii
state health director has acknowledged that, back in 2008, she has --
and I quote -- 'personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State
Department of Health has Senator Obama's original birth certificate --
certificate on record, in accordance with state policies and
procedures.'"
Read that statement. It doesn't
say anything beyond Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate.
Obama can end the discussion with a phone call. Why doesn't
he?
Cooper then said, "The governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, was quoted as saying:
'I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go
personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the
Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the
president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.
And that is just a fact,'" he explained.
Here's a
whole page
devoted to Lyin' LInda Lingle.
Gullibles have their point of
view, but it doesn't support close examination.
Everybody Has One
(Opinion That Is)
I have
excerpted some comments from an Austin Hill article,
critical of Birthers.
Hill says "Birthers" is the
derogatory nick name given to those who question whether or not Obama
was born in Hawaii, as he claims he was, and therefore question Obama’s
constitutional eligibility for the presidency.
This is a false, Obot, description
of Birthers
and their issues. There are many problems with Obama's bullsh!t
life story
and his eligibility
to serve as POTUS. Hill's narrow description is false -- no matter
how many times it's repeated by these geniuses that think they know what
they are talking about.
Hill suspects that Governor
Abercrombie’s remarks about Birthers will end up making matters worse,
and not better.
There's no
question about that. Abercrombie screwed up. It is a simple
matter to demonstrate Abercrombie's remarks are lies. Read
this
and especially this. Abercrombie is demonstrably a
damned liar, and lying always
makes matters worse.
Then Hill says, Barack Obama is
not the only president who has had his "eligibility" questioned.
Some credible historians believe to this day that our 21st President
Chester Arthur was actually born in Canada, and not Vermont as he
claimed, and thus never should have been elected (a subject I detailed
in my book "White House: Confidential").
Ewww! Hill wrote a book, and
in it gets history wrong, and provides another false description of an
issue. Chester Arthur was ineligible to serve as POTUS because his
father was a foreigner when he (Chester Arthur) was born-- just like
Obama's.
Chester A. Arthur, born in 1829, in Fairfield in
Franklin County, Vermont, perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to
be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.
Arthur’s father, William Arthur, was an Irish subject of the United
Kingdom of Scottish descent, and became a United States citizen in
August 1843, -- 14 years after his son's birth.
Arthur told many
lies to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for
Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became
President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur
supporter that same year (historical facts
here).
Hill says that when I first heard
rumblings that instead of being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama may have
been born in Kenya, I did some research.
I wonder if Hill saw any of these
dozens of reputable sources, including National Public Radio, that
described Obama as "Kenyan born."
Additionally, the
"Birther" theories have proven to be politically unviable. Barack
Obama ran for the office against three very powerful and well-connected
individuals -- former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton
(make no mistake, both Bill and Hillary were running against Barack),
and Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain. All
three of these people had plenty of personal incentive to "bring down
Obama," and yet apparently none of the three could "prove" that he was
born outside the U.S.
None
of the three individuals mentioned ever even raised the issue. How
come? Maybe there was a deal? The dhimmicrats wanted the
black guy, Hillary would get "State," and "statutory
citizen" McCain would be
declared a
"natural born" citizen by the U. S. Senate.
However, the overriding point is
that it doesn't matter where Obama was born. He could have been
born IN the Oval Office. He's still ineligible to serve as POTUS.
He is a "statutory
citizen," who held
dual citizenship at his birth. He is not a "natural born" citizen,
and no matter how many of these ill-informed "journalists" mislead the
public with their opinions and theories, that remains a fact.
Oh, and let me also note that the "Birther" conspiracies have been
rejected thus far in every court and in every state in which they have
been raised. I know that judicial activism is a real and serious
problem, but there is no reason to believe that, suddenly, all of
America’s sitting judges have decided to cooperate with each other.
This is crap! There have
been 80+ lawsuits questioning Obama's eligibility, and not one court has
ever heard a witness or reviewed any evidence -- not one -- and it's not
that the judges are engaged in a conspiracy. They have careers.
They have families -- and they are terrified to take on Obama.
He's the guy with the power and the inclination to crush them like a
bug.
Besides, we all know the rules -- "we mustn't embarrass
Obama."
And guess what? Some of the most
high-profile personalities in the world of "conservative media"
dismissed the Birther conspiracies long ago. Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and Bill O’Reilly (just to name
a few) have all, in their unique and individual ways, declared the
Birther thing to be a non-issue.
Well, whoop-dee-do! Bill
O'reilly actually lied about personally examining Obama's bogus COLB.
It never happened. Limbaugh has repeatedly mocked Obama's "birth
certificate." The other guys have different issues -- different
focus -- that's allowed.
So, this idiot, Hill, declares
Obama's eligibility a "non-issue" and evidently believes his
pontifications makes it so. I don't think so. That's just
his arrogance leaking out.
Hill says he's "done" with politicians
like this, and I’m "done" talking about Obama’s birth certificate.
And we Birthers are "done" with
smarter-than-thou, faux journalists, whose opinion of their opinion is
more important than doing a little fact-based research.
Chris Matthews Calls Obama Critics
"Crackers"
Jeff Poor
says so much for that new tone of
civility.
On Friday’s "Hardball," MSNBC host Chris Matthews
acknowledged his disappointment in the tack Republicans have taken
toward Barack Obama -- especially in this time following the tragic
shooting in Arizona.
"Yeah, it’s almost like what he does is no
good -- let’s kill it because it’s his," Matthews said.
After
citing a spokesman from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office,
Matthews asked the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein if Republicans would play
nice with Obama, or would they go ad hominem. However, in phrasing
the question, he used what some believe is a derogatory term to describe
his critics. Matthews said.
"Sam, it seems to me it is a big question.
So much of this attack on Obama has been ad hominem -- directed at
the person of the president, whether it’s somebody -- some cracker
out there on the right calling him -- some Birther-type who says
he’s not an American or someone more sophisticated but basically
saying he’s a socialist. Will this be on the merits of
the bill? Will it stay off the personal? Is it your
hunch coming into Wednesday’s vote?"
Stein said this was much ado about nothing. He
explained the bill was largely symbolic and the real debate would come
later.
Here's An Example
Jeff Poor says it’s the story that won’t
die -- possibly because MSNBC doesn’t want it to, since it seems that it
could delegitimize the Republican Party and conservatives: Taking
"fringe notions" and portraying them to be mainstream, including the
issue of Barack Obama’s citizenship.
On Tuesday’s "Hardball,"
host Chris Matthews led off his program and scrutinized the reasons why
Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
won’t condemn Republican members that question the president’s
citizenship. His conclusion? Boehner and Cantor are
collaborators, using the myth for political gain.
"OK, you know what I want to do something right now," Matthews
said. "I’m going accuse those leaders, they’re very smart
gentlemen. Cantor seems like a good guy and of course.
Boehner seems like a good guy. Let me just say this -- I hereby
accuse them of collaboration."
Matthews explained that this
so-called "collaboration" is meant to advance gains with primary voters
and the theory is based on the Republican leaders’ unwillingness to
attack those that hold views questioning Obama’s citizenship in the
Republican caucus.
There's the ObamaMedia focus -- "those that hold views questioning
Obama’s citizenship."
But it's not about his citizenship.
It's about his constitutional eligibility. It's about Obama's
refusal to tell us who he is, where's he's from and who sent him.
Here's Another One
Andrew Sullivan has an article,
"The Birther Population, Ctd," by Greg Sargent that
demonstrates Cashill's "conspiracy theorists."
Greg Sargent notices something interesting in
the PPP poll showing how unhinged GOP primary voters are on the
question of Obama's very legitimacy as president: among
non-Birthers, Sarah Palin has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 41 -
52. Among Birthers, it's a whoppingly favorable 83 - 12, far
higher than anyone else. Here's Greg's interpretation:
It seems fair to speculate that the success
of Palin's approach -- her grievance-mongering, her strident attacks
on Obama, her virtuosity in crafting the most lurid formulations to
paint Obama as an alternately weak and tyrannical figure -- is
rooted in her unique ability to speak directly to the far right wing
base's seething underbelly of anti-Obama hatred.
She is the base's base, and her appeal, in my
view, is all about
identity
politics.
She represents no real coherent set of ideas;
merely what she would call the "real America", i.e. white and rural.
I also think race is at play here. I think many people
under-estimated the willingness of Americans to vote for a black
president before his election, but equally under-estimated the
impact of an actual black president after his Inaugural actually
doing things and exercising authority. I see Palin as a kind
of cultural antibody to the future America Obama represents.
And if the next election focuses on culture and not economics -- or
culture because of economic stagnation -- I would not count her out.
This attack is a little more vicious and
emotional -- but it is on Sullivan's blog,
after all.
Always with the race. Always with the
race.
You know these guys are upset and angry when they play the
race card. Especially when none of this has anything to do with
race, whatsoever. You also know, that if you're catching flak,
you're over the target.
Sargent stands all logic on it's head
arguing that Americans were OK voting for a black guy, but they hate the
idea of a black president.
Americans don't hate the idea of a
black president. It's just THIS black president, and it's because
he's secretive, a socialist, and he's wrecking the country.
That
he has a high melanin count has nothing to do with it.
The Birther Card
Cindy Simpson says Hawaii's new governor, Neil
Abercrombie, stirred the "Birther" pot just before Christmas when he
promised to launch an expedition for Obama's long form birth
certificate. Chris Matthews reported on the Abercrombie quest, and
though calling himself an "enemy of the Birthers," surprised us by
acknowledging that the advertised short form is indeed a different
document than an actual long form certificate and that it should be
released. Matthews' guests on the segment agreed, noting once it
was out they could "make even more fun of the Birthers."
But
less than a month later, when it was Abercrombie's turn to produce the
long form, he turned up empty-handed, and instead offered some ambiguous
lines about something "written down" that "actually exists."
Enter a new player to the game: journalist friend of Abercrombie, Mike
Evans, on the radio a few days later touting "There is no Barack Obama
birth certificate in Hawaii -- absolutely no proof at all that he was
born in Hawaii." Evans backtracked after the story went national,
saying he "misspoke" and had not conversed personally with Abercrombie,
and that this error occurred in only one of the 34 interviews he had
done that morning. Further research, however, found that Evans
repeated his misstatement more than once and "appeared to be reading
from a script and ad-libbing around it as he read."
In the
American Thinker article, "The Birther Trial Balloon," it was speculated
that perhaps this entire performance was a sort of media test run to see
how the public would react to the non-release of the certificate in
advance of Obama's run for 2012 reelection. Writer Andrew Walden,
in the AT article, "Hawaii's Governor Manipulates Birthers," concluded
that the spectacle was indeed a production, choreographed however for a
different result: "to shift political discussion away from the thumping
Obama took in the November midterms" by further ridiculing "Birtherism."
Really, though, the debacle did seem more like an episode of The
Three Stooges, especially with the timing of one little tidbit reported
by CBS News a couple of days later -- that Abercrombie's new Health
Director (responsible for the state's vital records) "abruptly quit."
So, until that position is filled, the buck of maintaining Obama's birth
certificate has stopped at Abercrombie's desk. (We can only
speculate why, if the former Governor Linda Lingle asked the previous
Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, to "go personally view the birth
certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health," couldn't
Abercrombie authorize himself to do likewise.)
At any rate, it
appeared the chips were down for the "Birther enemies," so when it was
back around the table last week for Chris Matthews' turn, he admitted
that Obama has the "new kind" of birth certificate "which is this
digital thing printed out" and apparently no long form. (Leaving
the rest of us to wonder exactly what this newfangled one was the short
version of). And anyway, according to Matthews, people only ask to
see the old-fashioned kind and put Obama under "this kind of assault"
because...
ObamaMedia Are Tongue-Tied On Obama's
Personal History
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid
says that following the lead of David Gregory of NBC News, who wants
Republican House Speaker John Boehner to publicly defend the legitimacy
of the Obama presidency, the Los Angeles Times has now editorialized
that Boehner ought to make it his business to rebut charges that Obama
is a foreign-born Muslim.
With the Los Angeles Times joining the
chorus, it appears that the left-wing media are trying to get the House
Republican leadership to pull Obama out of the quicksand he finds
himself in, as doubts and questions keep mounting about his personal
history. The media strategy seems to be to paint GOP House leaders
as crazies if they don't condemn the "Birthers" questioning Obama's
legitimacy as president.
It is almost as if the media are trying
to prevent the House Republican majority from conducting a serious
investigation into the circumstances of Obama's birth.
The Times
said in an editorial, "In an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press,'
Boehner was willing to concede that he believes Obama is both a
native-born citizen and a Christian. But, the speaker said, that
was because 'I'll take him at his word,' as if Obama's assurances were
the only corroboration of his citizenship and his religion."
There's the meme -- "...native-born
citizen and a Christian" -- there's the political sleight of hand.
The paper went on, "In fact, a 'certificate of live birth'
establishes that he was born in Hawaii. As for his religion,
Obama's involvement with a Chicago church is well documented." The
editorial was titled, "The tongue-tied speaker."
But the Times
demonstrated that it is far beyond "tongue-tied" itself and is
deliberately obscuring the facts.
Any journalist who bothers to
compare Obama's "certification of live birth
(COLB)" with traditional documents of this nature finds that the
Obama version does not provide any of the details that are available on
a long-form or original birth certificate (as
specified
by the the federal government
[example]).
Obama's vague document does not have the name of the hospital where he
was born, the occupation of his father or mother, or the signature of
the attending physician.
Look at the language along the bottom of Obama's COLB:
"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of
the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
"The fact of birth." It's funny how
many miss
this important point. The COLB is intended ONLY to attest that the
person was born -- nothing else. In a sense, it affirms what we
can logically assume simply by looking AT Obama. If he's standing
there he must have been born. The COLB is not useful, as evidence,
outside of the birth itself, and not the circumstances, such as father,
mother, attending physician or nurse, or even the date.
On the matter of religion, Obama's "involvement
with a Chicago church," the one associated with the notorious
anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, does not prove that he was
baptized as a Christian. As we have noted, Obama has made the
claim that he joined that church, but he has not produced a certificate
of baptism and there is no evidence he had a traditional Christian
baptism there, in the sense of undergoing an experience of receiving
water symbolizing the Holy Spirit. In addition, Muslims could join
Wright's Christian church.
"Even more objectionable," the Times
said, was Boehner's refusal to tell the American people what to think
about these matters. This means, the Times said, echoing David
Gregory, that Boehner is failing to expose and challenge the American
public's "ignorance."
Rather than demonstrating ignorance, the
opinion polls finding that
significant numbers of people are confused about Obama's religious
identity, and the fact that some believe he is a Muslim may reflect the
failure of the ObamaMedia to insist that Obama prove who or what he says
he is.
This failure is troubling, especially because we know that
Obama and his campaign deliberately lied about Obama's childhood mentor
in Hawaii, Communist Party member
Frank Marshall Davis.
Obama concealed his real identity in his book Dreams from My Father and
when it was revealed that the mysterious "Frank" was in fact Frank
Marshall Davis, the Obama campaign in 2008 said Davis was just a civil
rights activist.
Boehner is entitled to give Obama the benefit of
the doubt, although his constituents might wonder why he is doing so,
considering the stakes involved in an issue as central as Obama's
constitutional eligibility to be president. But the American
people have the right, in light of the available evidence, to remain
doubtful. They
want to know.
It is not unreasonable to believe that Obama
has something to hide in the matters of his birth and religious
affiliation. It is significant that our major media seem now to be
in a frenzy over the fact that the House Speaker is unwilling to erase
the public's doubts.
Related:Bachmann on Obama's birthplace:
'That isn't for me to state'
Hmmm! NBC demands answer from
Boehner, and ABC demands answer from Bachman. Just another
coincidence.
Expect to see more of this, and then ask yourself
who the "conspirators" really are.
Another Congressman Misstates The Issue
Daniel Strauss
is reporting that Rep. Jeff
Flake (R-AZ) said people who don't believe Obama was born in the U.S.
need to "accept reality."
Responding to a question Thursday on
CNN about a recent poll that found a majority of Republican primary
voters don't believe Obama was born in the U.S., Flake said he
didn't believe the findings.
This is the third Republican who was asked
this question by progressive "journalists" in the last three days.
"Well, I have a hard time believing that poll," Flake said. "I think
that most people understand and accept the reality. The reality is that,
yes, he was born in the United States."
"Barack Obama is a
citizen of the country," Flake said. "We ought to get off this kick. And
there are plenty of differences we have with the president between
Republicans and Democrats than to spend time on something like this."
Flake said the notion that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen
needs to be put to rest.
There's the misdirection --
"the notion
that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen needs to be put to rest." It
isn't about Obama's citizenship. It's about Obama's eligibility. Obama
simply does not meet the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section
I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution. Obama may be a "native born"
citizen. He is at least a "statutory" citizen. But he is not now, nor
has he ever been a "natural born" American citizen. "At birth" he was a citizen of Kenya and a
British
subject. He tells us so.
Obama has never claimed to be a "natural born" citizen. He has
consistently claimed
"native born" status.
From the time
Obama took office, polls have found a significant percentage of
Americans believe he wasn't born in the United States and is ineligible
to be president. Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, has produced his birth
certificate.
That's just not true.
First of all, it's not
Obama's birth certificate. It's a Photoshopped counterfeit with a bogus
seal.
Then, there's the communications Officer for the Hawaiian Department of
Health, Janice Okubo, who said, "I don't know that it's possible for us to
even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [FactCheck.org] represents."
And, in
correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney
General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office
will
not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which
declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a "natural-born American citizen."
And, let's not forget. The governor of Hawaii couldn't find a
"birth certificate" -- even with
the power of a search warrant.
Critics have complained that some congressional Republicans have either
implied or refused to denounce the questions about Obama's citizenship.
Especially on the last several days, since it is clear that there
appears to be some coordination between networks -- at least reporters.
After Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) announced his plans to retire from the
Senate last week, Flake jumped into the race, becoming the first
candidate to officially run for the seat.
The Left is clearly concerned with
the eligibility issue, as evidenced by the shear volume of articles
currently surfacing on the Internet.
Obama’s Citizenship and Faith Provide
Premise for Show Trials
Jeff Jefferson says On the February 8th
installment of "Hardball with Chris Matthews," Matthews introduced a new
media trend. His guests, Phillip Dennis of the Texas Tea Party and
Matt Kibbe from FreedomWorks, were on the show to discuss the strength
of the Tea Party within the new Congress, but the first question
Matthews asks after introducing them is whether or not they believe
Barack Obama is a Muslim. Although Phillip Dennis clearly stated
that he was disinterested in Obama’s religious identity, Matthews spends
the first four minutes of the interview sparring with him in an attempt
to unearth some form of conspiratorial view.
This seems to be a
new strategy running through the leftwing media. For a lack of
reasonable opposition to the necessity for deep budget cuts, the
journolistas have reconstituted two hackneyed issues in an attempt to
discredit Obama’s political opponents. The Left have fused
questions about Obama’s religious affiliation to the birth certificate
issue in an effort to paint conservatives as conspiracy minded
paranoids, but what is more disturbing about this strategy is that, sewn
into the new approach, there is a subtle mix of McCarthy-era loyalty
oath and Orwellian show trial.
Since the "Hardball" installment,
there have been several attempts to force Obama’s political opponents
into making public confessions about his place of birth and religious
affiliation. For instance, in a discussion on "Meet the Press,"
David Gregory put John Boehner up for pillory. After playing
videotape where some of the people interviewed stated that they believe
Obama is a Muslim, David Gregory demands that Boehner denounce them.
Gregory: As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not
think it’s your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?
Boehner: David, it’s not my job to tell the American people
what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American
people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was
born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says
he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.
Gregory:
But isn’t that a little bit fast and loose? I mean, you are the
leader in Congress and you’re not standing up to obvious facts and
saying, "These are facts. If you don’t believe that, it’s
nonsense."
Boehner: I just outlined the facts as I
understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen.
I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word.
But, but…
Gregory: But that kind of ignorance about whether
he’s a Muslim doesn’t concern you?
Boehner: Listen, the American
people have the right to think what they want to think. I can’t --
it’s not my job to tell them.
Gregory: Why isn’t it your
job to stand up and say, "No, the facts are these."
What Gregory
is demanding is that Boehner perform the media’s function. It is
the media’s responsibility to bring facts to the public, yet the
mainstream media, as well as Obama, have been truant in settling these
questions. As author Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated, Obama is a
demonstrated, serial liar on questions of his identity and beliefs --
issues that the mainstream media have been unwilling to pursue.
On Thursday, Sarah Palin was asked the same set of
questions while speaking in front of a group of business leaders at the
Long Island Association, and Michele Bachmann was subjected to a similar
show trial.
We've
seen this coordinated media action before. Instead of doing its
job as a watchdog, the ObamaMedia has become a lapdog.
NPR Censored Obama Birth Story
Kerry Pocket's bombshell report
says Senior
Vice President of National Public Radio (NPR), Ron Schiller, met with
individuals he believed to be potential donors. However,
undercover video was running during this meeting. In the following
clip, Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers
those who deny climate change is happening.
Ms. Liley talks about
a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those
who believe climate change is not happening:
"This funder said to us, ' you know you
would like us to support your environmental coverage, but we really
don't want to give you money if you're going to talk to the people
who think climate change is not happening.'"
She continues to say, "It is a complicated
thing, though. There's a political question and there is a
scientific question and we were talking to him about supporting the
science desk. And so we've gone back to the science editor and
asked how have you planned to cover this thing? Our coverage, if
you look at our coverage, you would say that science coverage has
accepted that climate change is happening and we're covering it.
But in politics, our Washington desk, might actually cover it should it
resurface as a political issue...this debate."
"So it's more
complicated than saying, 'Where was Obama born?' In Hawaii or not?
Is he an American citizen or not?" she asks. Liley then describes
the Birthers as conservatives.
"We're not covering the Birthers.
We are not covering them. There's a whole movement within the
conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as
fact, 'I was born in Hawaii, when it was the United States.' The
group that questions this, some of whom are commentators...I don't know
any who are Democrats, but they are primarily conservative commentators
and people who follow them question if Obama is [a citizen]," she
further explains.
"I think the challenge in our society now is
that we are questioning facts. It's not opinions we are debating.
I mean, what are the facts? Is the world flat? Is that the
next question we're going to debate?" Liley wonders.
Schiller chimes in later saying, "The main point here is that it is not
our responsibility to present the opinion of a non-scientist through our
science desk. All educated scientists accept that climate change
as fact. On the political side, however, where it is not accepted
as fact, and the fact that debate is happening is news and it's really
important news. And our point of view requires that we cover that
debate, if for no other reason than to have Americans understand there
are still people who believe that it is not fact."
Rachel Rose Hartman
says Obama, speaking at a fundraising event Tuesday in Boston, made
light of the "Birther" conspiracy debate about whether he was really
born in Hawaii.
"I think there's nothing -- there's no
weakness in us trying to reach out and seeing if we can find common
ground. Now, there are going to be times where we can't.
I was born in Hawaii, what can I say? I mean, I just... I
can't change those facts."
The comment provoked laughter from the Democratic
audience.
Obama still is one
of the best in applying Alinsky's Rule 5, "Ridicule is man's most potent
weapon." Here, he uses it against Birthers, but it says more about
Obama than it does Birthers.
The "eligibility" issue is on his
mind. Birthers are under his thin skin.
And, if there is a
conspiracy, Birthers aren't the conspirators.
The conspirators
are Obama and Team Obama. They are the people who have conspired
to place a man they know to be ineligible in the Oval Office, and these
same people continue to cover up the massive fraud it took to put him
there and keep him there -- and to keep all of them out of Leavenworth.
Meet The Real "Non-Birthers"
Joseph Farrah says The term "Birther" was
coined by those wanting to end questions, free-and-open inquiries and
rational debates over whether Barack Obama had satisfied constitutional
requirements for eligibility as president.
Since there is no
dictionary definition to this term, it has been used as a term of
derision and dismissal. Often you will see "news stories" defining
"Birthers" as people who hold fast to the notion that Obama was
foreign-born. Actually, most skeptics about Obama's eligibility
simply want to see evidence to support the contention that he is
actually a "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution.
The historic understanding of that concept is simply this: To become
president of the United States one needs to be born in the U.S. to
citizen parents with no divided loyalties. Obama tells us that he
was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan citizen and a mother too young to confer
ordinary citizenship upon him -- a status that would have made him, at
best, a dual citizen at birth and, possibly, a non-U.S. citizen.
Further complicating the problem, there is no proof he was actually born
in Hawaii.
"Birthers" understand that since we have not seen an
actual eyewitness, contemporaneous document known as a long-form birth
certificate there is no basis upon which we can determine Obama's
eligibility, because we don't know for certain who his parents are and
where he was born.
These are not matters of debate; these are
matters of fact. By this definition of "Birther," every American
who supports the Constitution as written should be a "Birther."
Individuals can argue in good faith as to whether or not they are
satisfied with the evidence available about Obama's background.
They can also argue in good faith as to the technical legal definition
of "natural born citizen." But what is not arguable is that
insufficient proof exists to proclaim Obama as eligible to serve.
It's not even a close call.
For the last two years, "Birthers"
have been demeaned, ridiculed and ostracized for taking a principled
stand in the aftermath of an election in which the political system
failed to enforce constitutional provisions of eligibility on an
incoming president.
Today, every poll
shows large percentages of
the public -- in some cases significant majorities -- hold grave doubts
as to Obama's constitutional eligibility. In other words, they
are, in the terminology of their adversaries, "Birthers."
March 10 2011, Michael Sheridan, a Daily News staff writer,
penned another sarcastic item describing how Birthers have made careers
out of questioning Obama's birth and citizenship. He says some
have even written best-selling books, arguing he was born in Kenya or
that he is really a British subject -- and the Daily News is running a
poll with Sheridan's hit piece.
Well, Michael, two things.
First, Obama is the source
of the fact that he was born a Kenyan citizen and a British subject.
I revisited this site, and lo and behold, the poll has been changed:
That's one way to win a poll. Michael Sheridan is a wonderful example of the modern American "journalist."
White House Operative
Heading "Birther" Smear Campaign
This is the third in a series of continuing
articles aimed at exposing the "OBOTs" -- radical supporters of Barack
Obama dedicated to disrupting people who question Obama's eligibility to
be president.
The first article exposed former California lawyer William
L. Bryan, aka "P.J. Foggy." The second article exposed Foggy's sidekick, Kurt Coleman,
aka "Rikker."
Jerome Corsi says a top Democrat, apparently
operating with the full approval and cooperation of Obama, has been
directing a team of up to 100 who are paid to publish disinformation on
a wide variety of websites to discredit "Birthers," according to
anti-Obama researchers.
The radical supporters of Obama, known as Obama
robots, or "OBOTs" for short, have confirmed their White House-appointed
ring leader is Democratic Party operative James A. Johnson, the former
chairman of Fannie Mae.
Initially, the OBOTs attempted to mask their
Internet identities by posting under usernames with avatars that suggest
their personalities. But due largely to the efforts of anti-Obama
researchers, including "Birthers" vilified by the OBOTs, the true
identities of key OBOT operatives have been revealed.
Remarkably, key OBOT operatives,
including possibly Johnson himself, have tended over time to
self-identify. Two OBOT usernames -- "NeonZX" and "JimBot" -- may have
been usernames Johnson himself created to cover his tracks.
If "NeonZX" and "JimBot" are
James A. Johnson, a link will have been established between the Obama
White House at the topmost levels and a highly organized disinformation
campaign, most likely financed by taxpayer funds. The campaign has been
aimed at anyone who challenges Obama's eligibility to be president under
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Ed Hale, the Texas-based creator
of Plains Radio, said that Johnson, posting on various OBOT websites
under the username "JimBot," managed for the White House some 100 paid
operatives around the country. Their primary job was to attack, refute
and publish disinformation on any prominent "Birthers."
In an Internet forum called
"Voice of America Broadcasting Network," Hale posted
this on July 17:
Continue reading
here -- this is interesting . . .
Top Anti-Birther
Confirmed To Be Ex-Fannie Mae Chief
Jerome Corsi says this is the fourth in a series of continuing
articles aimed at exposing the "Obots" -- the radical supporters of
Barack Obama dedicated to disrupting people who question Obama's
eligibility to be president.
The
first article exposed former California lawyer William L. Bryan, aka
"P.J. Foggy." The
second article exposed Foggy's sidekick, Kurt Coleman, aka "Rikker."
The
third article exposed James A. Johnson, former head of Fannie Mae,
as "JimBot," the White House contact and organizer of the "Fogbow" Obots
posting on Bryan's website Fogbow.com.
A radical Obama supporter
who organizes an "Obama-Robot" website has admitted in online posts that
WorldNetDaily correctly identified former chairman of Fannie Mae
chairman James A. Johnson as the group's White House-associated
ring-leader. William L. Bryan, who posts under the username "P.J.
Foggy," is the organizer of Fogbow.com, a self described "Obot," or
"Obama-Robot" website. On his weekly "Reality Check Radio" broadcast
July 21, Bryan began the show by acknowledging the veracity of the
report.
"As far as I know thery got the boss," he said. "There
just isn't much point to denial."
The guy this article focuses on, Ed Hale,
wanted me to do an hour broadcast on his Plains Radio Network. I'm glad
I didn't get involved with him now. Looks like he went to the dark side.
By the way, many of these Obots, and many
that repeatedly troll the "eligibility" and "natural born" threads at
FreeRepublic.com are "paid" operatives. Their anti-birtherism is
their full-time jobs, and they've been at it for some time now.
First (04/21/2010)
Previous
#173 of 173
Next 
Last (10/06/2017) 
![[example]](https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20171006042229/http://www.theobamafile.com/_exhibits/CDCStandardBirthcertificate.jpg){kind=link}