Help us fight the
ObamaMedia

click title for home page
  
Be a subscribing
member

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #1 

Monte Kuligowski says now that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has released

his ten-page report on President Obama's purported birth certificate, we are witnessing the predicted response of the establishment national news media: yawns, sighs, and laughter -- but little reporting.

After the six-month investigation by a team of forensic experts, Joe Arpaio said there is "probable cause" to believe that forgery has been committed. Those are fairly strong words. Probable cause is the legal standard for arrest and forced production of documents.

Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times discusses the potential bombshell Obama scandal and the scandal of media silence in his piece, "Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's Report is a Scandal in Itself." Kuhner argues that the reason for the media blackout is fear -- fear of a constitutional crisis. If Obama attained the high office through deception, then everything has done as president would be subject to annulment.

The blackout by the establishment conservative press is likely also fear-based. The cowards of the conservative media fear the Saul Alinsky tactic of isolation and humiliation. The narrative has already been established: all questions regarding Obama's eligibility have been debunked, and anyone who questions Obama has a personal vendetta based in some sort of pathology. Better to play it safe and appear intelligent.

But history, when far removed from the Obama phenomenon, will not view the cowardly as intelligent or even wise.

The reason is twofold. First, there are too many oddities with Obama. And second, in context of the manifold oddities, the reasonable thing for Obama to do is end all doubt. If he had nothing to hide, wouldn't Obama want to quickly remove doubts and restore confidence?

The only way to end all doubt is complete transparency. Complete transparency means actually releasing personal records, including his birth certificate. Actually releasing his birth certificate means making the original available for forensic authentication. With today's forensic technology, all doubt could be laid to rest quickly. We have the ability to determine whether the original document is written on paper from 1961 and with corresponding seal, typeset, and ink.

No doubt was erased by Obama's "releasing" a belated birth certificate via internet posting -- the internet meets no legal standard of document production. Try showing an image of your birth certificate on your laptop to the processing agent when applying for a passport.

It is necessary to highlight some of the unique Obama oddities. For if the oddities did not exist, the protective response -- No other candidate or president released his birth certificate for authentication, so why should Obama? -- would make perfect sense. But Obama is no ordinary American.

 

Note:  Dwight D. Eisenhower had to present his birth certificate -- and did so!  John McCain also presented his birth certificate.

Many Obama supporters claim that racism is the only explanation for doubting the president. But I've noted before that no one doubted the eligibility of Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, or Herman Cain.

Kenyan media publications never claimed that Al Sharpton was born in Mombasa. But at least a dozen have referred to Obama as "Kenyan-born." That doesn't mean it's true, but it is a little strange nonetheless. The words of Obama's paternal grandmother and Kenyan officials also don't make any Kenyan-born allegations true -- but they are peculiar in light of the Hawaii claim.

Herman Cain's wife never referred to Kenya as Herman's "home country." Maybe Michelle didn't mean to say "home country." But it's a little odd that she did.

During his candidacy, no one doubted that Jesse Jackson was born in a house in South Carolina. Most candidates have living witnesses of their births. Obama had none (except his paternal grandmother).

The Daily Kos did not somehow get the sealed birth certificate of Alan Keyes and post it online during his campaign. Yet, mysteriously, somehow the liberal website posted Obama's "birth certificate" in early 2008.

At least, we were told that it was Obama's birth certificate. We were told for over three years that Hawaii had no other birth certificate. According to the fact-checking sites, the "long form" was a conservative myth which simply did not exist in the Hawaii archives. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assured us that the "birth certificate" was "right there online."

So it was a little strange when a long-form birth certificate appeared out of nowhere on April 27, 2011 -- on the eve of Jerome Corsi's Where's the Birth Certificate? book release and in the midst of Donald Trump's table-pounding campaign over the bizarre secrecy of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Early on, news sources couldn't even agree on which Honolulu hospital Obama was born in -- because of conflicting reports. And to this day, Obama has not released Kapi'olani Medical Center to give a simple yea or nay.

Then there's the curious 2008 passport breach and the missing passport and travel records. Missing from the archives are the 1961 passport records of Obama's mother, Stanley Dunham.

And one of the probing discoveries of Sheriff Joe's team is that also missing are INS records for "airline passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States" in 1961. But the only records missing in August, 1961 is the week "Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961."

Maybe there is an explanation as to why Obama's Selective Service registration was forged. Maybe there is a valid reason why Obama is using a Social Security number that was issued on application from the state of Connecticut. Maybe it's just a glitch that his Social Security number is flagged by E-Verify.

But hey, we should be talking about the real issues, right? Like how Obama is unraveling the Constitution? But wait a minute...

Sheriff Joe's investigation also reiterated what journalists should already have known. Hawaii had some unique birth registration laws in the early 1960s. It's been shown that foreign births have been registered in Hawaii, thereby generating official Hawaii birth records -- most notably, the "certification of live birth." And, for Bill O'Reilly: all registered Honolulu births were picked up by the local newspapers, and scant notices were automatically printed. No crazy conspiracy theory needed.

And why should we trust the Hawaii government? Health Department officials parsed their words for three years a little too carefully regarding what Obama had in the records. When a concrete statement finally came in May of 2011, it conflicted with what Obama "released" shortly thereafter. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said that she saw Obama's long-form birth certificate, and it was "half typed and half handwritten[.]"

To the contrary, the chief elections clerk for the city/county of Honolulu during the 2008 presidential campaign, Tim Adams, swore an affidavit that Obama did not have a long-form birth certificate in Hawaii's records. So whom do we believe? No one -- instead, let the mysterious birth certificate be authenticated once and for all.

It is not unreasonable to "trust, but verify," or even to raise an eyebrow and verify. Mr. Obama apparently has something to hide. I tend to think that Stanley Ann Dunham wouldn't have flown to Kenya so late in her pregnancy -- but personal opinions are irrelevant. I don't care that Anderson Cooper believes that Obama was born in Hawaii. I don't care that a large percentage of Americans believe he was born in Kenya. This constitutional issue should be about not faith, but irrefutable evidence. And, the burden of proof is not on the people -- it is squarely on Obama.

Another basis for the conservative establishment's fear is the idea that maybe Obama is setting the "birthers" up. Maybe Obama wants to draw as many conservatives as possible into the "silly" eligibility issue. And then, at the right time, he will really "release" his original 1961 birth certificate for authentication. Boy, those "birthers" are going to have egg on their face. Those on the record as having questioned Obama will be discredited forever. Obama will win in a landslide.

Balderdash. Even if he does have an original, balderdash.

We do not have to fear a constitutional crisis. As adults, we can handle it. We do not have to fear name-calling. We do not have to fear that Obama has an authentic birth certificate but is playing political games.

We need to reorient our thinking on this issue -- especially on fear number three, that Obama is setting skeptics up for humiliation.

No one should be humiliated but Obama. If he is playing games, what kind of person is he?

If Obama really had an authentic birth certificate all along, why did he allow Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to suffer the pain of imprisonment in Ft. Leavenworth for six months? What kind of human being would allow Lakin to be unnecessarily imprisoned? Only to suddenly "release" the alleged document that Lakin had requested -- at the end of Lakin's prison term.

The profound and cold-hearted treatment of Officer Lakin alone should disqualify Obama from re-election. The fear should be not in the people, but rather in Obama himself.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
DrAl

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #2 

Beckwith, that is concisely written, factual and puts things into historical context. Obama's misdeeds make Nixon and Clinton look like Mother Teresa and Padre Pio.

Pieter Nosworthy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #3 
My two cents posted at AT

Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times illustrates two key concepts;

1. Nixon's presidency was brought down due the Watergate cover up and not the crime itself. Obama is found to be in similar circumstance without any interest by the media to investigate. Obviously it matters who is President.

2. Sheriff Arpaio has put his credibility on the line with the results of his investigation. You would think that the media should follow up out of apparent win-win self interest, either the findings are wrong and he and his backers are discredited or they are true and the greatest fraud in American history has occurred with all the associated ramifications. Both would sell airtime and newspapers, yet there is nothing.

The lack of pursuit speaks volumes that the matter has substance. How is it that a rabid liberal media would not take full advantage of an opportunity to thoroughly discredit someone they believe is an enemy of their agenda?




__________________
“When a political system departs from the rule of law, it deligitimizes itself. A polity that is ruling arbitrarily, that is not following the rule book, forfeits the allegiance of its citizens.” -Daniel Hannan, MEP for South East England
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #4 

Obama looks for his birth certificate along the DMZ

 

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #5 

Is there an imposter in the White House?

John Mariotti says there is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the “birthers” were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this “manufactured candidate,” whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding?

Could the “Hawaii birth certificate” be a forgery? Is there something much worse -- like “sponsorship” by an unnamed special interest? I don’t know. I do know that the man in the White House now is an imposter. The only question is which kind of an imposter: an incompetent “pretender” or a genuine phony, a “Manchurian candidate,” who is a liberal, ½ black and ½ white, and an obvious Muslim sympathizer (despite claims of being a Christian -- in clear conflict with his non-Christian behavior).

Will this campaign expose him as the imposter, and the pretender his behavior has revealed? Will it expose his hidden history and murky background. We know about his failures and mistakes.

For those who don’t, here is another in this series of revealing excerpts from Hope Is Not A Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency.

Excerpt from the chapter: Beware the Pretender:

…”No matter how many times President Obama refers to the “problems he inherited,” he has now been in office three years. Certainly many of the current problems can be traced back to events that happened during the eight years that Bush held the top office, and some can be traced back to even earlier presidencies -- but far from all of them.
 

Many of the problems are newly created (or made worse), and Barack Obama owns them. Candidate Obama stepped up and essentially said, “I want the job, and everything that comes with it” by running for president. After three years in office, the problems now belong to him and his presidency. He caused them, made them worse, or didn’t solve them. Either way, they are his now.
 

…In leadership, you cannot “pretend” to be a leader. You either are -- or you aren’t -- a leader. One or the other will become apparent very quickly.
If you want the leadership job, you must step up and take full ownership of it. A “pretender” or “poser” is like an actor who has learned all the right lines, but has no idea what they mean. Once the script has been followed (or deviated from), the actor is clueless about what to do next. This is the job of the leader. Unfortunately, in this government, the “directors” often seem clueless, having learned in academia where results and wins/losses are theoretical, or in politics where success (at getting elected) is more a matter of rhetoric than results.
 

If you are not ready for a position, or do not believe that you have what it takes to rise to the challenge (or clean up the mess even if you believe it is not your mess), then do not take the job. This was Barack Obama’s fundamental mistake. He grossly underestimated the difficulty of the position he was running for, and overestimated his preparedness to actually do the job. Just because he could “talk a good game” (thanks to a phalanx of speech writers and the omnipresent teleprompters) does not mean he actually knew what to do or how to do it. The presidency of the United States of America is not a place for heavy OJT (On-the Job-Training)….”

After the first three plus years of the presidency, it is painfully clear that Barack Obama was a “pretty face,” and “glib speaker” and a lightweight liberal politician with a community organizer/radical background. The American people should be outraged at this man’s behavior and even his candidacy. Why are they not? Because of the misinformation delivered by sympathetic liberal/mainstream media who loves his nonsensical form of governing.

…”Obama’s perceived preparedness for the presidency is a terrible delusion, from which it is difficult to escape. Mistakes build upon each other and result in even more complex problems. Difficult problems that are mishandled become even more difficult to fix. When you have too little experience, lack substance (other than the words of your latest speech), then leading, managing and problem solving simply don’t happen. And that is what has occurred. When you compound the problem by surrounding your self with like-minded theorists, lacking in real-world experience, things become worse yet. The theoretical solutions to problems often don’t work due to the messiness of the real world -- and the reasons are almost unfathomable to these rookie executive/politicians. …”

What should Americans think about this “imposter?” Will he divulge his true background so we can all see who he is and where he came from -- really? If not, is this just a man who should never have been sworn into the office of President in the first place, and who has crippled Americans miserably during his term?

Will we continue to believe his misstatements (the politically correct term for lies)? Can he simply use the media to “erase and forget the past three years of misery and missteps?” Or will we learn from his imperialistic behavior and terrible results and throw him out in November?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #6 

U.S. military purging "Birthers"

Jack Minor says Dr. Terry Lakin, an officer who was drummed out of the Army for questioning Obama’s eligibility, says that a veteran Marine facing discharge after he posted a comment on Facebook contending the president’s birth certificate is fake shows the need for the military and Congress to resolve the issue.
 
As WorldNetDaily reported, Marine Sgt. Gary Stein is under investigation and facing possible discharge over a Facebook page he created for military members to speak out called Armed Forces Tea Party, in which he, too, questioned Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Lakin said there are many soldiers in the military like Stein who have questions about Obama, but they are often afraid to speak out.
 
"While I was in the Army there were a lot of people in the Pentagon who were concerned about this issue," Lakin said, "but they were concerned about their career and paycheck."
 
Stein is under investigation for online remarks made as an officer, but contends his page makes it plain the page is not affiliated with the U.S. military, saying, "We do not represent, and are in no way affiliated with the military, or the United States Armed Forces."
 
Further, Stein says, "There is no picture of me in uniform anywhere on Facebook; there is no way anyone can say I am presenting myself as a representative of the Marine Corps."
 
Since its inception in 2010, the page has been critical of Obama and his policies. Stein said he had been warned about by superiors to be careful with what he said, but after he posted a comment about Obama's birth certificate possibly being a forgery, the Marine Corps suddenly became more interested in his postings.
 
Stein said he was told by officials that he was being investigated for making a "disloyal comment about the president" through his personal Facebook profile during a discussion on "NATO allowing the trial of U.S. troops for burning the Koran" on a Facebook group.
 
"I was responding to a hypothetical question," Stein explained, "and I said I would not obey any illegal orders."
 
A Marine Corps spokesman, however, gave a different reason for the investigation.
 
According to Maj. Mike Armistead the public affairs officer at MCRD San Diego, on March 8 the Marine Corps began a preliminary inquiry after receiving allegations that Stein had "posted political statements about the president of the United States on his Facebook web page titled ‘Armed Forces Tea Party.’" No mention was made about Stein’s post on a Facebook group.
 
Armistead said after reviewing the findings of the preliminary inquiry, the commander decided to address the allegations through an administrative action and that the base commander has recommended Stein be discharged.
 
While Armistead would not say which comments the Corps had a problem with, on March 4 -- five days before the investigation began -- Stein posted a link to a YouTube video about the investigation by Maricopa County Sheriff County Joe Arpaio with a statement, "Just in case you forgot … I’m sticking to my guns and saying that president, so-called President Obama’s brith [sic] certificate is a fake."
 
"I think there is enough evidence that some federal agency should investigate whether the document is a fake or not," Stein said. "However the real issue is, do we in the military have the right to express our opinion off-duty?"
  
"Joe Arpaio has finally addressed this issue properly, and look at his findings. It is very apparent there is a legitimate question out there about Obama’s eligibility," Lakin added. "I’m still waiting for our generals, admirals, congressional leaders and judges to do the right thing and address this issue properly. Arpaio has finally done this, and look what is happening: The media and officials are attempting to hide what he has found."
 
Lakin was court martialed, served prison time and given a dishonorable discharge after he refused orders to deploy to Afghanistan until concerns he had about Obama’s eligibility were resolved. Prior to his refusal to obey orders, Lakin had attempted for almost two years to get his questions answered through the chain of command but was rebuffed at every turn.
 
He said the issues that caused him to disobey orders are still there and until they are resolved there will continue to be situations like this.
 
"Until the generals and admirals decide to deal with this, there are going to continue to be problems with soldiers such as Stein who have questions about the president’s birth certificate," he said.
 
Stein says he intends to fight the decision to discharge him from the Marine Corps, insisting he has a right to discuss and express his opinion about the president’s policies.
 
The military, however, has discharged other soldiers who also questioned Obama’s eligibility.
 
Last year Air Force Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran was given an honorable discharge following statements he made about the president’s eligibility.
 
Moran told his superiors he would not obey orders until Obama proved his eligibility. Rather than attempt to resolve the issue, the Air Force quickly discharged him.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Pieter Nosworthy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #7 
RE: U.S. military purging "Birthers"

I have sought legal advice and counsel for a challenge to Obama's constitutional right to wield authority as CiC to no avail. No mechanism exists for an internal challenge as illustrated under Art. 138. There is a weak possibility to do such under the auspices of the DOD Inspector General and communications to members of the United States Congress which is protected by law.

It is not surprising in the least that military service members are being discharged if they fail to obey strict regulations regarding certain speech and manners of representation (see AR 600-20). I have some concern that I violated those same regulations at various times in the past. The sword of Damocles hangs over everyone in active federal military service that exceed the permitted rights of a Soldier. I fear its just a matter of time before I am held accountable. Ironic, isn't it?

(IAW AR 27-10)

Chapter 20
Complaints Under Article 138, UCMJ
Section I
General
20–1. Purpose
This chapter establishes procedures for the preparation, submission, and disposition of complaints made pursuant to UCMJ, Art. 138, (see fig 20–1) by a member of the Armed Forces against a commanding officer.

***

b. Commanding officer. An officer in the complainant’s chain of command, up to and including the first officer exercising GCM [general court-martial] jurisdiction over the complainant, authorized to impose nonjudicial punishment (UCMJ, Art. 15) on the complainant (whether or not the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment or to exercise GCM jurisdiction has been limited or withheld by a superior commander).”


__________________
“When a political system departs from the rule of law, it deligitimizes itself. A polity that is ruling arbitrarily, that is not following the rule book, forfeits the allegiance of its citizens.” -Daniel Hannan, MEP for South East England
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckwith

Is there an imposter in the White House?

John Mariotti says there is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the “birthers” were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this “manufactured candidate,” whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding?


The article only lasted a few hours then was removed...

"Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found"


__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #9 

See Scrub-a-dub-dub!

 

In the media malfeasance thread


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
ballpoint

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 65
Reply with quote  #10 
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T_YAGFpnWM8J:www.forbes.com/sites/prospernow/2012/0324/is-there-an-imposter-in-the-white-house-an-excerpt-from-hope-is-not-a-strategy/+&cd=1&hl=en∓ct=clnk&gl=us 

someone found it
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #11 
ballpoint,
thank you,  I copied it for posterity.....
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #12 

Are Birthers really knuckle-draggers?

David Soloway says an astonishing story broke recently concerning Barack Obama's controversial origins. It has been discovered that the publicity bio for Obama's first (and unpublished) book gave his birthplace as Kenya, and that this subsequently prejudicial item remained in place for the next 16 years -- until shortly after Obama declared his campaign for the presidency, when it was abruptly scrubbed. His literary agent claimed a fact-checking error, although as others have pointed out, a 16-year error seems highly unlikely. Moreover, it is no less if not more improbable that an author would neglect vetting his own introductory material. And where or from whom, one might sensibly inquire, did the agent derive her information?

The question then becomes what to make of this extraordinary fact. There appear to be only two logical assumptions to account for so startling a discrepancy: 1) Obama lied about his origins to add a touch of exoticism to his biography and/or to take advantage of his putative status as a foreign student to facilitate his entry into college and university, or 2) Even more damaging, Obama may have been born in Kenya and, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, would then have been, by at least one interpretation of that clause, ineligible for the presidency.
 
Most commentators on the issue have opted for the first explanation. It is, after all, safer, less compromising, somewhat more "decent" -- a speculation that avoids deep waters, the "conspirator" label and vindictive retaliation from Obama's supporters. Even some whose conservative credentials are unimpeachable refuse to consider the Kenyan connection partly because the implication is regarded as perilous to one's reputation, and partly because bringing this issue to the forefront would associate them with a supposedly shady and disreputable group of skeptics known as "Birthers."
 
This attitude is similar to the response of some conservatives (or, at any rate, many of my acquaintance) to the tea-party movement, which they regard as vulgar, lower class, prone to the bizarre and socially problematic. Of course, every movement will have its fringe elements that serve to discredit its central aims, and the tea party is no exception. But to seize upon the antics of an obstreperous fringe in order to disparage an entire movement is distinctly disingenuous. Any form of public activism is liable to the same spirit of rejectionism.

Though widely different in their constituencies and political influence, the TEA Party and the Birthers have been dismissed by some conservatives for similar emotional reasons. Indeed, what goes for the TEA Party goes in far greater degree for the Birthers. The Birthers are condemned by virtually the entire conservative establishment as a gaggle of demented conspiracy-mongers whose brief cannot be taken seriously by reasonable people. And yet, just as the tea party is composed of a solid majority of fundamentally decent citizens concerned about a country going off the rails and should not be identified with their unfortunate marginals, so the Birthers are by no means a tribe of knuckle-draggers loping out of the jungle of primitive and deranged conjectures.
 
To take just a few prominent examples: Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is investigating the possible scandal involving the president's birth certificate, is no knuckle-dragger but a law-abiding and law-enforcing public servant of impeccable qualifications. Joseph Farah and Drew Zahn of WND are honorable and thoughtful writers. Diana West, author of "The Death of the Grown-Up," is both brilliant and modest. Jerome Corsi, whose "Where's the Birth Certificate?" has thoroughly examined the issue, is, for all the obloquy he has endured, a convincing and meticulous writer. All five would be targeted as Birthers and castigated by the more virtuous class of conservatives as unrespectable, at least so far as their foray into the supposedly shadowy realm of presidential authenticity happens to take them.

The problem with many conservatives is that, for all their bona fides, there exists an unwillingness to go the distance, a fear of provoking contempt and aspersion, and a reluctance to associate themselves with movements -- the tea party, the Birthers -- they have persuaded themselves are somehow dissolute, abject, tawdry and boorish. In short, as beneath their dignity. The operation of the internal censor remains strong.

Thus, in the case that has now surfaced addressing Obama's Kenyan bio, most moderate and even committed conservatives, confronted with two explanatory theories -- the president lied to profit from university largesse and/or cultural cachet, or Obama was actually born in Kenya -- will almost unfailingly decide for the former. Yet both alternatives are, on the face of it, equally plausible. The evidence assembled by Drew Zahn in his devastating article "Obama still Kenyan-born in 2007," might, in the estimation of many sober observers, tilt the debate in favor of the latter interpretation. Given the facts that all the president's salient records have been suppressed, that controversy continues to surround the birth certificate released by the White House, and that a certified copy of the original birth certificate remains under seal, Zahn's argument and those of his intellectual colleagues is arguably reinforced.

The problem is that principled people have stopped pursuing uncomfortable or personally dangerous questions out of a fear of consequences, thus allowing their opponents -- those who wish to deep-six the issue -- to set the terms of the debate. No one who merits attention is saying that the president was undoubtedly born in Kenya. This would be going over the top, to put it mildly. What is here being suggested, rather, is that an issue of this magnitude, involving the occupant of the highest office in the land, needs to be resolved for everyone's benefit and should not be marked off as a no-go zone. The dilemma refuses to disappear, irrespective of how we try to ignore or banalize it. It persists as a distraction at best and a destabilizing possibility at worst. As Thomas Lipscomb, founder of Times Books, writes in an article titled "Obama Is a Martian," "No one can say, after the problems caused by the uncertainty over Obama, that this problem isn't worth solving."
 
But whatever way the scandal plays out, what is no less astonishing than the recent revelation of Obama's hypothetically natal ties is the troubling diffidence of many presentable conservative writers and thinkers in considering the second option as at least one viable elucidation of the mystery. And, as I suspect, the reason for this evasion is partly a fear of provoking ridicule, partly a species of caste snobbery that shrinks before public association with the presumably great unwashed, and partly the anxiety of being slandered by a media consortium ever ready to distort or bury unwanted data and to impugn the motives of those they have stigmatized and proscribed.
 
In conclusion, it should be said that the issue is emphatically not what conservatives should believe. As things now stand, no one can claim with certainty that Obama was born in Kenya -- or not, for that matter. The issue is what reasonable questions conservatives should be willing to pursue in their quest to arrive at the truth, even if the truth turns out to be unpalatable or distressing -- or embarrassing.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #13 

Mark Levin on Birthers

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #14 
it is NOT Politically Correct to be a "BIRTHER", or even associated obliquely as one, because it is a dangerous path that has to be followed in the knowledge of being that "Birther".....   by the way, what an INSULT to human intelligence that term is......  being a Birther means that you have used your head and followed the threads of truth or the truth that you think is real to a LOGICAL CONCLUSION, and come to understand that Obama cannot be who he has been telling everyone he is, and he has to be something else to not be what is percieved as his reality....  in other words, he tells us one thing and we KNOW that he is not that, so therefor, he has to be something else,  and the conclusions are starting to make sense to many new converts to this "Birther" movement out in the world........  not politically correct in any way, because we "Birthers" are not believing the pablum that has been spoon fed to us, we are seeking a higher truth, and that truth is starting to materialize in bits and snippets of O's life coming together....  you can lie all you want O, but the truth shall ultimately surface, it always does...

I am now proudly saying "YES" I am a Birther in many ways....  for I seek to know the truth, and will not be turned down in those efforts.
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,124
Reply with quote  #15 
"Birthers" are simply Constitutionalists. Are we a Nation of Law, or a mob driven by fads and media hysteria?
 
The Lib/Progressive/Socialists are desperately afraid of this Constitutional issue because all of their victories could be swept away in one Constitutional court decision. They know they are on the wrong side of the Law and common sense, so they must resort to name-calling and ridicule - the Alinsky Way.
 
The Radicals prefer Revolution to defeat. The Media think they can howl and intimidate the Repubs and Sheeple, or whine until the voters give in to the Libs. Many of the old Lib/Dems are appalled by the failures of the Obamunists and their increasingly Marxist agenda, and are retiring or even deserting to the Repubs.
 
Gonna get real interesting.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #16 

The morphing Obama biography and the skeptics

Cindy Simpson says an odd taboo has been created on noticing that the president of the United States has a biography that can adapt itself to the needs of the moment. Go too far in raising an alarm, and be labeled "birther" and shunned in polite society.

The credit for creating the "birther" label was claimed in 2008 by columnist David Weigel:

I think I originally coined the term "Birthers" to describe the people who think the state of Hawaii and its time travel machine are concealing the truth about Obama's birth on the roof of a mosque in Kenya. It's not just the reference to 9/11 "truthers" that I like. It's the callback to the John Birch Society, id est the "Birchers."

Weigel was also the most notorious "JournoLister." In case you've forgotten about that left-wing media cabal, thisDaily Caller article described the JournoList's coordinated efforts to bury the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 campaign. (Although JournoList was disbanded in 2010, the mainstream media, in remarkable unison, have covered up the recent revelation that Wright was bribed $150,000 to keep quiet.)

The sarcastic "birther" post was written by Weigel long before the Breitbart discovery of the literary agency biography that claimed Obama was born in Kenya. That portion of the biography's claims survived for over 16 years through multiple other updates. Likely, many in the circles of publishing, Chicago politics, and Obama's college and early career days had heard or read about a Kenyan birth somewhere. Which leaves open the possibility that Weigel and his fellow JournoListers tripped over the story, or were slipped a tip, early in the campaign, and chose to utilize Alinksy tactics in case such tidbits oozed through any cracks in the preferred narrative.

The name-calling has been very effective. Even worse, the media uses the birther label (as it often does with "Tea Partier") interchangeably with "racist." Recently, Geraldo Rivera spent a full segment of his radio show to inform listeners that the "obsession" with Obama's birth certificate is, "at its heart, a racial issue."

Since 2008, skeptics of Obama's biography of many stripes endeavored to set the record straight and explain their quest, pursuing records and details of his life, including the long-form birth certificate and investigation into the "probable forgery" of the digital image posted by the White House.

Their adventures and the mystery surrounding Obama's history have created such a complicated plotline that it seems the stuff of bad fiction with an unbelievable conspiracy theme. But then recall JournoList choreography, and details like Professor Ogletree's admission that he hid the Obama/Bell tape during the election. Observe that whenever interesting facts or questions are noted, the media steps in fast, furiously, and perfectly timed to spin them into birther oblivion. And see how quickly conservative pundits and Republican politicians duck and run when the R-word is implied.

Want to see Obama's college transcripts? That's a hint at affirmative action -- racist. Wonder whether he attended as a foreign student? That's birther. Want to know more about Obama's religious beliefs and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright? Racist. Note that experts assert that the posted birth certificate is a probable digital forgery, or wonder if the White House was playing games in presenting such a strange document? Birther. Ask whether Obama wrote his autobiography? That's racist and birther. Vote for the blank box instead of Obama in the Democratic primary? Racist. Note that Obama and his attorneys ignored a court-issued subpoena, an Obama attorney asserted in a courtroom that even Mickey Mouse didn't need to show a birth certificate to run for president, and that the media didn't cover any of it? How birther.

In the same segment that Rivera blasted "birthers" for being "racist," he interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton, who has openly acknowledged the birth certificate anomalies. In between snorts and laughter during Monckton's explanation, Rivera insinuated that Monckton and his forensic experts were "smoking crack." And another of Rivera's guests, NYU professor Charlton McIlwain, implied that any questions of Obama's history and credentials were motivated by racism.

Journalists who pursue "facts and data," even while insisting they aren't wearing birther spectacles, are discovering that the mainstream media still depicts them as bottom-feeding "spawn," "aiding and abetting birtherism."

When the media finally did cover the agency biography story, they asserted that it had been "discredited" and then used it to bash Romney. None dared touch the fact that the agency updated the original 1991 biography several times for changes in Obama's career over the 16 years, yet did not revise the "born in Kenya" part (or downgrade the job descriptions of his parents) until 2007, two months after Obama announced his candidacy.

The biography story is radioactive: it addresses the taboo subject of Obama's birth, his life narrative, and his character and credentials, and it illustrates the mainstream's utter lack of journalistic integrity.

And if the clicks on your mental Geiger-counter are tap-tapping rapidly in agreement after reading that, you've been exposed to non-reversible birtherism radiation.

Skeptics, like business owners reviewing the job application of a prospective employee, are not satisfied with the glossy media photo and indulgent autobiography. They're also looking for the missing link in Obama's evolution from a college radical, Jeremiah Wright church member, and community organizer into a pragmatic moderate.

Obama responded to the questions with taunts -- in speeches, comedy routines, and prayer breakfasts -- and his campaign profited by selling birth-certificate-emblazoned t-shirts and mugs.

Some might argue that a little biography padding is expected, but redrawing family trees with a Cherokee branch or moving the birthplace to a more exotic location seems to work only in certain elite circles.

And the same newspaper that is still hiding the Khalidi tape has now added another new term to the lexicon -- transcripters -- to describe people who want to investigate the "tomb-like silence around [Obama's] college years."

Obama's "blank screen" evolved along with his political career, and when inconvenient facts got in the way, out came the media edits and erasers. If anyone dares notice any missed spots or erasure smudges, he or she is racist, birther, or distracted from the economy. And no one is allowed to wonder if the chalkboard mess has anything to do with the economic mess.

"Four years in office is what I call vetting," columnist Eugene Robinson asserts. Others would call the four years a disaster.

Fretting over the media's ties of Romney to Trump (with his "discredited" birther claims) but not Obama's to Sharpton, Breitbart's John Nolte wrote:

These are the games the media intends to play throughout this campaign. This is all about getting Obama reelected with distractions, guilty-by-association, and nonsense narratives that suck all the oxygen away from any conversations surrounding Obama's failed policies.

The "birther" issue has not been "discredited" -- what has been discredited is the reliability and reputation of the mainstream media. And the oxygen that Nolte worried about getting sucked away has accumulated right next to the explosive truth of the flimsy, morphing, media-supported Obama narrative.

If Watergate taught us that the cover-up is worse than the crime, the current affair would be better-described by a word coined with the "-gate" suffix than by "-er." Involving more than a birth story, it reaches across the entire narrative. And this time, instead of the mainstream media doing the investigation and reporting, they're actually assisting in the construction and the cover-up.

So which is it: Birtherism or Narrative-gate? The answer depends on which "field guide" you follow -- one written by the "Democrat-Media Complex," or one that asks questions to lead to the truth.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #17 

Lord of the Skeptics

Cindy Simpson asks is you saw this extraordinary headline recently?  Prominent foreign statesman claims posted birth certificate of the President of the United States probable digital forgery.
 
Just kidding.  Not about the content of that headline -- it's real.  And surely such an event would be newsworthy.  But the fact is, there was never such an article printed or words uttered by the mainstream media.
 
Lord Christopher Monckton was the guest speaker at a recent meeting of California's Ventura County Tea Party.  He addressed, in great detail, his opinion on the validity of Obama's long-form birth certificate presented by the White House.  Monckton conducted a similar discussion a few days earlier at an Arizona Tea Party rally.
 
Except for a few Tea Party and conservative websites, and the tenacious WND, there was no mainstream coverage of either event.  (Unless you count this Daily Kos piece discussing "racist Birther crapola," "white geriatric tea party loonies," and a "leading climate doofus.")
 
Perhaps JournoLister David Weigel somehow missed hearing about Monckton's speeches, or he would have coined, along with the notorious term "Birther" and his latest "Obama Love Letter Truthers," a clever new title for Monckton, such as "Lord of the Birthers."  But likely, he and the rest of his ilk did catch wind of the events, and rather than report on them, swept Monckton's presentations under the rug of the preferred Obama narrative.  Because it might be too risky, even while holding noses and calling the whole affair "Birther nonsense," for viewers or readers to notice that Monckton's opinion was also supported by a serious investigation by a posse of credible experts led by "America's Toughest Sheriff."
 
In the community of global warming skeptics, Lord Monckton is legendary.  With his background in the newspaper industry and exceptional communications skills, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often targeted as a prominent "heretic" of the man-made climate change movement.
 
A couple of months ago, on Dennis Miller's radio show, Lord Monckton asserted that he was no "Birther," but that "the birth certificate issue was far more important than combatting so-called anthropogenic global warming."
 
After watching the Tea Party presentation, it is difficult to throw out Monckton's reasoned, logical explanations and observations as the ravings of a tin-foil hat-wearer or the rantings of a racist.  But a few days prior, when Monckton attempted to patiently explain his position to Geraldo Rivera on Rivera's radio program, Rivera seemed to find it impossible to respect either his guest's opinion or his guest himself, accusing Lord Monckton (in between interruptions, snorts, and snickers) of "smoking crack."
 
Channeling the same sarcastic creativity as Weigel did, Huffington Post's Bill McKibben dubbed Monckton a "member of a certified crew of planet wreckers" in his scathing article on the stupidity of "climate change deniers."
 
Back in 2008, the Obama campaign used similar tactics against Stanley Kurtz, who asserted (and recently further confirmed) that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, labeling Kurtz's claims a "crackpot smear."
 
Whenever inconvenient facts don't fit the desired narrative, out come the nasty names.  Skeptics are called things like "Birthers, baggers and blowhards," "love letter truthers," racists, extremists, "transcripters," "planet wreckers," flat-earthers, deniers, crack-smokers, and crackpots -- in order to mock, ridicule, and shut them up, Alinsky-style.
 
My last column addressed the taboo surrounding discussion of Obama's morphing biography.  I speculated that Weigel and his fellow JournoListers might have had something to do with orchestrating the media spin and blackout of all things "Birther" beginning back in 2008.  Weigel's response to the column was this tweet: "If someone owns a patent on the word 'thinker,' he should press charges against this site."
 
Weigel penned a similar response to author Jack Cashill's recent inquiries.  Cashill, famous for deconstructing the myth that Obama wrote his own autobiography, challenged David Maraniss, author of the new book, Obama: The Story, for proof of the legitimacy of the Obama love letters that Maraniss disclosed in his Vanity Fair article.  According to Weigel, Maraniss responded: "[Cashill's theory] is preposterous on its face," etc.  Instead of pressing Maraniss for actual answers, Weigel spent his energies creating a new label for those who dared to ask the questions: "Love Letter Truthers."
 
The only major media to cover Kurtz's 2008 revelation of Obama's New Party membership was Politico via Ben Smith (now editing Buzzfeed), who simply "dismissed it out of hand."  Breitbart's John Nolte coined a new word of his own to describe Smith's technique:

This is classic BenSmithing -- in which he takes on a controversial subject that might damage Obama, pretends to play investigative journalist, assumes the role of the writer of a "definitive" piece that finally answers all the questions, and then sends the story to sleep with the fishes. 

But it seems that Lord Monckton's speeches, as well as Sheriff Arpaio's March 1 press conference that revealed his posse's findings, contained way too many facts and data to spin into Birther oblivion or even "BenSmith" -- so both events were simply ignored.  And while the media asserts that "Birthers" are conspiracists -- what the rest of us see is a conspiracy of silence.
 
Mark Levin, usually a loud voice against "Birthers," recently observed that questions on "anything about Obama's background" are characterized as "Birther," but are still valid points.  The GOP and establishment insist that any such questions are a distraction from the winning issue: the economy.  Yet in the war between left and right big-picture thinking, we find ourselves back to those embarrassing little details.  Small words, texts and pictures, and application checkboxes -- little things that provided glimpses into the character of politicians like Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Elizabeth Warren.
 
Things that range from life's details to the alleged "war on women" to the state of the economy at large -- all seem to be distractions from a greater reality: the unsettling fact that we as a nation have become self-censoring, so infatuated with relativism, multiculturalism, and political correctness that we are hesitant to seek real truth and lack courage to endure the consequences.
 
We have no dictator actually censoring our words, and therefore no excuse -- as Roger Kimball noted, "[it's] not what is done to us that keeps us silent. It's what we're doing to ourselves."  Infected further by the pathogenic press, America has become a nation full of juvenile thinkers, covering up a lack of critical thinking with name-calling and emotional attacks.
 
The grown-ups -- individuals such as Roger Kimball, Lord Monckton, Jeffrey Kuhner, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, and Thomas Lifson -- courageously remain skeptical -- not simply of the purported Obama story, but of the mainstream media's ability to conduct fair and balanced reporting and true journalistic investigation, and whether our nation will continue to decline in self-inflicted censorship.
 
So Stanley Kurtz keeps on digging, even though his findings are labeled "crackpot smears."  Lord Monckton likely doesn't mind being named a climate change denier, since he really does deny man-caused global warming.  Jack Cashill wrote that he is "[p]roud to be a 'Love Letter Truther.'"  Breitbart's staff will continue their goal of thoroughly vetting Obama, even when they're taunted as bottom-feeding "spawn," "aiding and abetting Birtherism."  And many of us will keep asking questions, even when we're called "Birther."  Because outside the juvenile sandbox of the name-calling Democrat-Media complex (Breitbart's term), in grown-up conversation, those terms imply healthy skepticism.  And, as Lifson noted, "skepticism is contagious in a time of disillusionment."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #18 

Maraniss bio deepens Obama birth mystery

Jack Cashill says David Maraniss has no use for "birthers."  In a recent interview, he dismissed their beliefs as "preposterous" and wonders why they cling to them, since "every fact and document leads in another direction."
 
Yet the one core belief that has united the birther community -- if there be such a thing -- is that Obama dissembled when he talked at both the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Conventions about his parents' "improbable love" and "abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation."
 
Birthers have known for years that there was no Obama family, that the couple never lived together, that Obama campaigned on a lie, and that the major media covered for him every step of the way.  This, ironically, Maraniss confirms in Barack Obama: The Story, a book that has to be parsed as carefully as the Talmud or Finnegan's Wake to be made sense of.  Despite his slam on birthers, the facts herein will come as more of a shock to the Obama faithful than to those who have questioned the official birth narrative.
 
"In the college life of Barack Obama [Senior] in 1961 and 1962," writes Maraniss, "as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby."  Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.'s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama's mother, Ann Dunham.
 
One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama "very well."  He had also met Ann through a different channel.  "But he had no idea," writes Maraniss, "that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him."
 
Having established the facts, Maraniss turns protective.  He refuses to explore the implications of his own reporting.  The most consequential is that Obama grounded his 2008 campaign -- his very persona, for that matter -- on a family story that was pure fraud.  Lyndon Johnson's masterful biographer, Robert Caro, would never let his subject walk away from such a lie unscathed.
 
The casual reader of the Maraniss book is left with the impression that Ann and Obama had a one-night stand that they both regretted, but that they consented to marriage because that is what people did back in 1961.  The more informed reader wonders whether Barack Obama, Sr. was fronting for the real father, the best candidate being Obama's future mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.  Maraniss opens the door on both possibilities but fails to even peek through.
 
As to the presumed February 1961 wedding, the usually thorough Maraniss offers no detail at all.  His endnotes say only this: "Marriage facts recorded in divorce records."  To be sure, Ann and Obama claimed a wedding.  It suited both their purposes: Obama to extend his visa, and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.
 
As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband Lolo Soetoro in the country.  The INS believed her to be married to Obama.  Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.  Maraniss explains none of this.
 
Like all other mainstream biographers of the Obama family, Maraniss tells us not a single word about Ann's life in the six months between the February wedding and Obama's August 1961 birth.  Given the controversy surrounding Obama's place of birth, Maraniss should have commented on a void of this duration, and he knows it.
 
Later, when discussing Obama's murky New York years, he opines, "Nothing is so tempting for conspiracy theorists as what appears to be a hole in a life."  Maraniss attempts to flesh out the New York years.  He makes no effort to fill this critical hole in Ann's life.
 
On the subject of the birth, the usually voluble Maraniss is as tight-lipped as he is on the wedding.  He reports that Obama was born at 7:24 in the evening of August 4, 1961 at Kapi'olani Hospital.  As reference, he cites "State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth," presumably the unverified document posted online last April.
 
In the way of confirmation, Maraniss offers only one story -- an elaborate one that he takes two pages to tell.  It comes down to this: a woman is having lunch shortly after Obama's birth with an OB/GYN, who tells her, "Stanley had a baby.  Now that's something to write home about."
 
The woman, Barbara Czurles-Nelson, has been telling this story for several years.  Maraniss adds the clarification that the doctor in question was not the one who delivered the baby, as first reported, but someone who had heard the "Stanley" anecdote on the grapevine.
 
One serious flaw in Maraniss's reporting is that he gives too much credence to obviously inflated memories.  A glaring example, one that has been cited often as fact, is of the paper Obama allegedly wrote as a schoolboy in Indonesia in which he said, "Someday I want to be president."
 
Maraniss quotes the entire, seemingly impressive paper, both in English and in the Indonesian language, Bahasa.  He then adds, "The paper no longer exists, though [the teacher's] memory is precise and there is no reason not to trust it."  No, David, there is every reason not to trust it.
 
Czurles-Nelson also remembers her story much too well.  In the gratuitously lengthy account of the "Stanley" anecdote, the reader learns, for instance, that 50 years earlier, Czurles-Nelson and the doctor were sitting "near the lunch buffet."  This is the kind of confirming detail Maraniss likes to provide.
 
All the stranger, then, is his failure to provide a single shred of information regarding the circumstances surrounding Obama's birth.  The reader has no idea who took Ann to the hospital, who delivered her baby, who took her home, or even where "home" was.
 
Maraniss hints at where home was not -- namely, the residence her parents shared with the Pratt family at 6085 Kalanianole Highway, the address listed on the birth certificate.  As Maraniss relates, the Pratt daughter, then an adolescent, "has no memory of the Dunhams' daughter bringing an infant home."  He adds, "[Ann] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole]."
 
Indeed, the young family never lived together, and this Maraniss concedes.  "Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital," he writes, "he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland ... ."  They had decamped for Seattle, where they would live for the next year.
 
Maraniss interviewed not a single person who saw the newborn in Hawaii.  It is likely that Obama Sr. never saw young Barry.  Barry Obama's first sighting was in Seattle.  Maraniss tells us nothing about how Ann and the baby got there.
 
In the blogosphere, these revelations do not comes as news.  In the mainstream media, however, they must stun.  In their respective biographies of Obama and his family, all published 2010 or later, the New Yorker's David Remnick, the Boston Globe's Sally Jacobs, and the New York Times's Janny Scott and Jodi Kantor each consciously skirted the facts to sustain the illusion of a functioning Obama family.  More troubling, conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza did the same in his disingenuous 2010 bestseller, The Roots of Obama's Rage.
 
As recently as Father's Day 2012, Obama was telling America's schoolchildren that his father "left when I was two years old."  The media let him get away with it.  Is it any wonder that birthers don't take their criticisms too seriously?
 
Maraniss debunks this fraudulent birth narrative much too quietly.  Perhaps he feels guilty about contributing to it himself.  He wrote a 10,000-word Obama bio for the Washington Post in August 2008, and he made a total botch out of the birth narrative.  Had he gotten the story straight then, he might have turned the election.

I read these reports with amazement.  Everything in the above has been in The Obama File since 2008 -- 2009 at the latest -- but the take-away from this article is that after five years, the fundamental elements of Obama's life remain unknown -- a truely stunning fact.

 

However, I am delighted that Obama's completely false history is finally finding its way into America's consciousness -- better late than never.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #19 

Obots out-clever themselves


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #20 

Team Obama outsmarts themselves


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #21 

"America doesn't need a birther-in-chief"

Joseph Farrah says in rapid response to Mitt Romney’s joke to a crowd in his home state of Michigan, that "No one ever asked me for my birth certificate," Barack Obama’s campaign put out a 15-second TV spot to declare, "America doesn’t need a birther-in-chief."

I’ve finally found a point of agreement with Obama.
 
America certainly does not need a "birther-in-chief" -- which is one of at least 2,012 reasons to dump Barack Obama from the White House on Election Day.
 
America already has a "birther-in-chief." His name is Barack Obama.
 
Who started the controversy over his identity? He did. For at least 17 years he boasted in his literary biography of being born in Kenya. That claim was quietly withdrawn only in 2007 -- less than a year before he declared his candidacy for the presidency. It was never repudiated or explained. His own wife referred to Kenya as his home country. His autobiography claims he is the offspring of two parents, neither of which could bestow upon him the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizenship." When repeatedly asked for years into his presidency to produce his birth certificate, he released a document every expert who has looked at it agrees is fraudulent -- including the one and only law enforcement investigation to examine the evidence.
 
No one else besides Barack Obama can claim credit for the title "birther-in-chief." He owns it. He prompted the very term. He sustained it needlessly. And then he blames others for his own absolute unwillingness to provide the most rudimentary documentation of his eligibility for office.
 
I’m gratified Mitt Romney told that joke.
 
I’m only sorry he apologized for it later.
 
Because the Constitution is not a laughing matter -- or it shouldn’t be.
 
It’s Obama who has made it such.
 
He has demonstrated over and over again that he has nothing but contempt for the Constitution. And then his own amen-corner feigns righteous indignation that we shouldn’t accept on faith his unsubstantiated claims to constitutional eligibility for office.
 
One of the things I would like you to notice is the crowd reaction Romney got to his little joke.
 
It was enthusiastic. They weren’t just laughing. They were applauding. They were thinking, "It’s about time Romney brought this up." Everyone in America knew exactly what he meant. Why is that? Why is Obama’s birth certificate one of the biggest sources of controversy and humor after nearly four years in office?
 
I’ll tell you why: Because Americans know Obama’s hiding virtually all documentation about his true identity.
 
Only the media elite don’t seem to understand the obvious -- because of their collective failure to honestly investigate what could prove to be a story bigger than Watergate and the Teapot Dome scandal combined. And the news media don’t even appreciate any jokes that reflect on their ineptitude and calculated cover-up of the truth.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mitt Romney get a nice bump in the pre-convention polls as a result of his birth certificate challenge.
 
Fundamental issues like constitutional qualifications are important to Americans -- and they know they’ve been snookered in the case of Barack Obama.

Obama’s true life story is as much a mystery today as it was in 2008. His story doesn’t add up. His arrogant, steadfast unwillingness to release virtually any documentation -- from a legitimate birth certificate to his school records to his travel papers to his health reports and more -- makes it clear to thinking Americans that something’s not right here. All that smoke suggests a fire. Only the darlings of the media elite are too dumb, too guilty of complicity or too self-interested to admit the obvious.
 
Romney should keep poking them all in the eye by telling that "joke."

That "joke" isn't a "joke" when Michelle says Obama's a Kenyan:

During a fundraiser in Tampa in December 2007, wife, Michelle, in this video, discussed how hard it was for her and her husband to pay off student loans from "good schools," Michelle Obama said the following:

"What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country -- the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama -- a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world."

The reference to "Kenyan" starts about 2:05 minutes into the video. Use the slider.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #22 

Rush Limbaugh loves Romney "birth certificate" quip

Mytheos Holt says while most of the media was busy hyperventilating over Mitt Romney’s joke that "nobody’s ever asked to see my birth certificate," Rush Limbaugh was cracking up on today’s show.
  
"Right on, right on, right on!" Limbaugh crowed after playing the clip twice.
 
Why was Limbaugh so excited? Not because of any lingering sentiment for Birthers, but rather because, to use his phrasing, the clip indicated that Romney may be "test-driving" an aggressively anti-Obama message, just in time for the Republican National Convention next week. To hear Limbaugh tell it, that convention is likely to seize that gloves-off message with purposeful vigor.
 
"Then Romney gets up to the microphone, it’s his turn to speak, and he test-drives that line about nobody’s ever had to ask to see his birth certificate," Limbaugh said. "I’m gonna tell you what. You know, I’m gonna make a prediction for you. It’s gonna be fascinating to watch. The Obama bashing at the Republican convention is gonna be delicious. It’s gonna be five-star restaurant type stuff. I mean, you are gonna loooove it. You are going to eat it up, all the Obama bashing. And I‘ll bet you what’s happening now is the networks are trying to figure out how they can avoid airing any of it, but it’s gonna be tough."
 
From a conservative perspective, this is right on, right on, right on, indeed. Listen to Limbaugh‘s triumphant response to Romney’s joke below, courtesy of Mediaite:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #23 

Birthers aren't going anywhere

Adam Berinsky, a (real) Professor of Political Science at MIT, says throughout the year  I have been tracking beliefs about Barack Obama’s citizenship (see here and here). From September 15-17, 2012, YouGov again surveyed 1000 Americans and asked whether “Barack Obama was born in the United States of America.” In the table below, I present these results, alongside the polls that I presented in my earlier posts.

"Barack Obama was born in the United States": Full Sample
 April 2011January 2012July 2012Sept 2012
Before release of birth certificateAfter release of birth certificate   
    
True55%67%59%55%59%
False15%13%17%20%21%
Not sure30%20%24%25%19%

These polls demonstrate the hint of some movement toward the belief that Obama was born in the United States. However the percentage of people who think that Obama was not born in the United States has held steady throughout the year, and perhaps even increased slightly.

As I noted in earlier posts, the incidence of Birtherism is especially pronounced among Republicans. A plurality of Republicans believes that Obama was not born in the United States. Indeed the level of Birtherism among Republicans is the highest it has been this year.

"Barack Obama was born in the United States": Republicans Only
 April 2011January 2012July 2012Sept 2012
Before release of birth certificateAfter release of birth certificate   
    
True30%47%27%31%27%
False25%23%37%33%39%
Not sure45%29%35%36%34%

Yo! Perfesser!  It's about Obama's eligibility -- not his citizenship.  He's not eligible because, at birth, he was a subject of Great Britain and a Kenyan citizen.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #24 
It's about Obama's eligibility -- not his citizenship. He's not eligible because, at birth, he was a subject of Great Britain and a Kenyan citizen.

That is the most important thing anyone has ever said on the subject...  and NOT MANY PEOPLE EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT...  let alone really do....  Obama is INELIGIBLE because he was born to (and accepted on paper as the Father, the Fake BC and the Divorce papers filed by Stanley Ann Dunham from said Kenyan) a Kenyan-British Colonial who was NEVER A CITIZEN OF THE USA by any means - he was here on a STUDENT VISA and that does NOT GRANT CITIZENSHIP.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #25 

NPR's Betsy Liley openly admits Obama birth cover-up

Tim Brown is reporting that Senior Director of Institutional Giving for NPR Betsy Liley said it is still a question of whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. She clearly is heard talking about a coverup, keeping the Birther issue out of the news because it was "political" and even indicating that there was monkey business going on in Hawaii concerning Obama's birth certificate. Listen to the brief audio below -- not the best quality -- and see for yourself.

Birthers are not just on the right. There are clearly Birthers on the left, they just want to cover up the truth.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscribing
member

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved