Posted on 11/14/2012 8:14:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
And that’s obvious and undeniable to any honest person who can read.
Ah yes. The inevitable "But what about X?" And then you answer X (even though it's been covered many times before), and birthers say, "But what about Y?" "But what about Z?" But what about "AZQ?" I've already mentioned that I'm not going to waste my time here going over things that have already been gone over many times before. I'm not playing that sucker's game. There's plenty of info on that and every other birther argument. Go and look it up.
==================================================
1. Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie described Obama's birth registration record as "actually written". Forgery presented at White House web site does not fit that description. It is obvious that the document was manufactured between January and April 2011.
2. Obama supporters have not been able to create a video demonstrating step-by-step instructions one need to take to replicate creation of Obama's birth certificate "pdf" file. They have not been able to refute arguments shown in videos presented by Arpaio's investigation. One of his apologists (Woodman) said he had no time for creating such a video yet spent hours trolling web sites promoting his book.
3. There would be no need to speculate about Obama's birth records if Hawaii DoH followed Hawaii State laws and released information that could be released without Obama's consent. Abercrombie refused to publish the original birth index for August 8, 1961. In December 2010, Abercrombie vowed to resolve the birther issue once and for all; he thought he was doing a favor to Obama. However, he shut his mouth soon after announcing that Obama's birth registration was "actually written".
4. In Hawaii original birth certificates became a state secret in 2009. In order to provide cover for Obama, Hawaii DoH stopped issuing copies of original birth certificates even though another state agency encouraged citizens to use it when applying for their programs. It is sad that trivial documents like birth certificates are hidden from US citizens.
Virginia Sunahara was born on August 4, 1961 and died a day later at Kapiolani Hospital. Her brother asked courts for a copy of her original birth certificate - his request was denied. Could it be that this document was used as a source for Obama's forgery?
Hawaii authorities' behavior makes no sense if the official birthplace story were true. Abercrombie's statements in January 2011 blew lid on the cover up. Quislings, dominating the US media, are not interested in presenting truth about Obama's eligibility for the office.
Which side do you support: Quislings or patriots?
Oh a MUCH more likely outcome.
Oh a MUCH more likely outcome.
Birthers have said all kinds of stuff. But I haven’t found anything yet that really made sense.
And it’s not just me. Like I said earlier, if you can’t even convince people here, that’s a good sign you don’t have a good case and aren’t going to get anywhere.
And that’s not a lack of patriotism. That’s reality.
No, it didn't have any more success than the birthers. It also didn't have more success than the argument that Obama is a member of the lizard race. That doesn't mean we should take either argument more seriously going forward.
I didn’t deny anything. I already explained why the place of birth was necessary ... and you are ignoring the part of the quote that said “agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States ...” Place of birth had to be AGREEABLE to the LAWS. The laws AFTER the revolution required the parents to adhere to the U.S. allegiance under the Treaty of 1783. IOW, POB was NOT the “only” reason given. Go back and read it. Then try being honest and admit you’re wrong.
Gov. Abercrombie described Obama’s birth registration record as “actually written”.
Why are you avoiding commenting on an obvious discrepancy between that description and the forgery presented few months later to US public?
You could not refute a single argument from my previous post - does it make sense to you that Hawaii DoH hides copies of original birth certificates from their citizens?
US government is corrupt - Obama’s case exposes it for those of us who can think for ourselves.
It is my position that a law (in at least one state) requiring the submittal of an original birth certificate for ballot access MIGHT have knocked him out. Prior to Barack Obama, I had always assumed election officials did this as a matter of course. I was surprised to learn that they didn't. In any case, such a law would have done no harm.
You used the word "patriotism". That's ironic. Do you have any idea what the root word for it is?
Why did it take them so long to do this? Had you been there, you could have cleared it up immediately!
There wasn’t anything of any importance that I haven’t seen commented on and explained aleady.
Like I said, bringing up an endless list of birther arguments that people have already discredited is a silly game, and I’m not going to play it.
I don’t know how long it took for the matter to be appealed to the Madison/ Monroe, or what else was on their plate at the time. Except I do know war was brewing with England.
In any event, we have a good idea of when it became a real public issue: October of 1811, because that’s when the letter to the newspaper was written.
And we know when the Madison administration responded: Novemeber of 1811.
Doesn’t sound like a terrible response to me.
Oh, by the way, I think you (or someone on this thread) claimed that McClure was detained by the French in 1807. Like so many other birther things, that’s not true. He was detained in the spring of 1810.
Birthers have claimed Publius must’ve been Madison. Well, anybody in the entire country could’ve used that pseudonym, and Madison’s administration declared McClure a citizen, on the basis of his birth in the United States.
Whoeve Publius was, he didn’t even know what he was talkign about. He couldn’t even keep his dates straight. If you look at the dates he gave, his letter has Armstrong responding to the matter before McClure was even arrested.
Probably what happened is the order to arrest McClure was given in April 1810 and he wasn’t arrested until early 1811. Then Armstrong probably responded to a plea for help in March of 1811 (mistakenly printed as 1810 in the letter).
So in that case, the appeal above Armstrong took place in spring or summer of 1811. It took weeks just to get a message across the ocean. So it looks like it didn’t take the Madison administration very long to respond to the matter at all.
Yeah, that was me. It was a mistake on my part. Mea Culpa. Someone pointed out that I had made a mistake, and I admit that I made a mistake.
I knew the Horizon had ran upon the rocks in the Spring of 1807, and I simply assumed that was when he was arrested. It never occurred to me that he would hang around in vicinity of France for the Next three years to be arrested in 1810. (March, I think.)
So, if it's March of 1810, to November of 1811, isn't that about a year and nine months? Why did it take so long before any action was taken? Like I said, if you'd been there, you could have straightened out Ambassador Armstrong Immediately, or you could have gotten Monroe and Madison to move faster!
Why did it take so long for such a cut and dried case?
"Shall be Restored to Captain McClure" (Bottom of the page.)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=003/llsp003.db&Page=245
Do you really think someone is willing and able to make up such a well written and elaborate letter? Now who's expressing paranoia and talking about conspiracies?
Believe it or not, the letter was discovered and Linked by Dr. Conspiracy, (in comments about 3/4ths of the way down.) and while I trust his motives not at all, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter.
I don't mind people like this, I've argued with many of them, but I would suggest they at least be honest regarding their opinions and motives.
Now i've asked you a tough question, one to which you do not have a credible answer. (Sure, they accidentally wrote down 1811 instead of 1810.) I would advise you to quit living in the world of what you want things to be, and start living in the world that is.
Again, if the answer is so cut and dried as you believe, why did it take a year and nine months, plus the intervention of a Supreme Court Justice, a Congressman from South Carolina and Several Documents, to finally move Monroe to act?
Now i've asked you a tough question, one to which you do not have a credible answer. (Sure, they accidentally wrote down 1811 instead of 1810.) I would advise you to quit living in the world of what you want things to be, and start living in the world that is.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've given you a lot more of my time than you deserve.
Again, if the answer is so cut and dried as you believe, why did it take a year and nine months, plus the intervention of a Supreme Court Justice, a Congressman from South Carolina and Several Documents, to finally move Monroe to act?
If this is the question you want answered, I've already answered it: IT DIDN'T.
Are you so d*** stupid that not only do you not undersand "Publius's" letter, you can't even understand what I've written? Apparently so.
I've already been over this, but I will repeat it. It really does not take a high school degree to understand.
According to the letter, the order to arrest McClure was given in April of 1810. The writer tells us that Armstrong refused to intervene on McClure's behalf in March of 1810. The letter was written in October of 1811, and the Madison administration responded in November of 1811.
Now if you strain really hard, it might occur to you that something does not quite add up here. March comes before April. Not just this year, but every year. Including 1810.
And look, you don't have to take my word for that. You can read it on the internet, just like you read that it takes citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
So. Armstrong denied McClure's request for help, before any order was ever given that McClure should be arrested?
Now you might think that General Armstrong was a gifted fortune teller, and knew that McClure was going to be arrested the next month and eventually ask him for help. I don't.
Or, you might think that General Armstrong had a time machine, and went back in time a few months to deny McClure's request before it could possibly have been given. I don't.
Any reasonable person would conclude that the most likely explanation for this impossible date sequence is one of the year dates is wrong. Perhaps the writer of the letter wrote 1810 when he meant 1811 (or vice-versa) or, probably more likely, the typesetter at the Richmond Enquirer got it wrong.
Since it is not possible that the order to arrest McClure came in April of 1811 and was followed in March of 1812 by Armstrong's refusal, the only reasonable conclusion is that the date of March 1810 HAD to in reality be March of 1811.
Now take that and study it for a couple of hours, and I am sure you will be able to figure it out. If you can't get it, then let me know and I will try and break it down more simply for you. Maybe we can draw some pictures.
So we have that Armstrong's refusal, as far as we an tell, came on March 16, 1811.
It appears that McClure was arrested in April of 1810, and there was a "stir" about the matter in the United States when news of McClure's arrest reached the USA (summer, fall). Apparently people here intervened on McClure's behalf to obtain for him certificates of his birth and baptism, and even threw in a copy of his father's naturalization papers for good measure, and sent them back across the sea (autumn or perhaps spring, depending on when ships could sail). No doubt people thought the matter was resolved.
So it was largely forgotten until a letter came from Mr. Rodman to the United States Gazette, dated July 4, 1811, saying McClure's request for help had been denied.
Why was it dated July 4, 1811? Because (as we just concluded) the denial by Armstrong had taken place in mid March of 1811, just a couple of months before, and nothing Rodman had been able to do in Paris had had any effect.
Rodman's letter would have taken probably at least a month (probably a bit longer) to reach the US and be published by the editor of the US Gazette. Then the Gazette had to be distributed and so forth, which is why we had the letter from "Publius" written in September and first published on October 1st.
In November, Madison's administration acted to free McClure.
So (I am repeating the obvious because you appear to be of limited understanding) it DIDN'T take Madison's administration some mythical year and a half to intervene on McClure's behalf and declare him a citizen. On the contrary, they seem to have acted admirably quickly for the United States federal government.
In fact, when you add it all up, it appears that the Madison administration acted pretty much immediately to clarify that McClure was a US citizen - by virtue of the fact that he was born in the United States.
So you are sticking with this theory, eh? Well the typesetter for the Alexandria Herald must have also got it wrong because he printed the same dates.
Could we consider the possibility that the dates are correct, and that it is your theory regarding them which is in error? No doubt demonstrating you to be incorrect is a waste of your time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.