5 Commandments of Obama's Innocence

I've postured via fact the simple ways the "5 Commandments of Obama's Innocence" are easily dismantled. Each one contains a half-truth, but none encompass the enterprise and objective closure that is required. That is undeniable, irrefutable, objective fact...with no "theories", conspiratory or otherwise, attached to it. Watching the media, and many of you, fight so fiercely to refute that - only lends further credence to it's realtiy. If you're so sure, why bother? These Commandments include:

1). He posted his birth certificate on his website. That proves everything.

2). The state of Hawaii verfied he was born there.

3). Factcheck.org proved it!

4). There was a notice in a Hawaiian newspaper in 1961.

5). Judges meritoriously threw the case out as frivolous.

Simply, in order, the holes within those Commandments beget the responses....

1). Kind of, he did. Absolutely, no it doesn't.

2). No they didn't.

3). This non-governing and unaccountable website has long since debunked itself as both partisan and non-credible.

4). So?

5). No they didn't.

One need not articulate even one conspiracy theory when dismantling the media-approved "5 Holy Commandments of Obama's Innocence". For my part, I used only fact and logic. In "Small Price to Pay for Unity" and "An Exercise in Patience & Logic: The Obama Citizenship Question", simple facts and logic landed most proponents of the outstanding citizenship question pleased...while leaving those mortified many who dispute the fact-based reality that any question exists, enraged.

My goal, however entangled it may get in partisanship from both sides - was only to demonstrate that an outstanding question does exist (specifically in "Patience & Logic"). I don't propose to know the answer. It's suspect that we even have room to subjectively debate this objective matter, when Mr. Obama could so easily quell it with a few pieces of documentation that the rest of us must show several times throughout the course of our lives. However, in trying to decipher how he could leave this matter so incredibly wide-open and exposed - I even suggested, albeit out of desperation to afford him even a trace of credibility, that it's possible he doesn't know there's actually validity to the existing question despite his having posted his Certification of Live Birth - and he possibly thinks it really is just the first of many empty attacks on his character.

None of it takes. Fact, logic....it's all just too much for most people, who accept only what they concoct in their own minds - or struggle to read and retain anything past a headline.

The media is mostly to blame. What most people concoct in their own minds, is a result of what they are fed by way of media suckling. Had the media even scratched the surface of having done their jobs of reporting matters of public interest - long before November 4th, Mr. Obama would have been forced to release his college records and disclose his Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the Certification, which in Hawaii, believe it or not, with tucked away legalities, proves nothing as it relates to births that are "natural born" or even on Hawaiian soil - regardless of what an even authentic Certification says), or...he would have been exposed and long since stepped down, paving the way for an imminent, media-driven Democrat victory that, at a minimum, didn't come complete with prospective fraud and/or Constitutional crises. But they didn't. And while I've postured that it's possible Mr. Obama really doesn't know that within all the debate, there is a very grounded and already accepted set of legalities and facts that leave the proof he's provided entirely moot as it relates to the question at hand...there is no chance the media has overlooked that. There is simply no excuse for the control of information this generation of spoiled and partisan journalists have embraced.

In the wake of the Blago scandal, which the media now happily absolves Mr. Obama from based on his simple statement that he hasn't spoken to Governor Blagojevich, despite very clear and (then) innocent statements-to-the-contrary made by Obama's top advisor, David Axelrod, only a few short weeks ago....I am no longer prepared to play nice or lead by example. I don't know who reads these. I don't care. Writing is one of many ways I carve out individual thought, and in doing so - hone written and oral ability that serves me exponentially well in other areas of my life. A few peers along the way suggested I make what I write more public, and having witnessed the incredible and irresponsible media bias that diseases our discourse....I decided to go ahead and parse out truth where I find it, and opinion where I feel it. Here's a little of both....

Barack Obama is likely the greatest fraud to ever set foot in Washington. He is absolutely the most despicable person to ever be considered for the Presidency, let alone con our nation in to validating that pursuit. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Mike Signator ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14713.html ) sold him any of the number of drugs he's admitted to abusing in his life. Make no mistake about it, if you tested Barack Obama for cocaine today, you'd likely learn he used it yesterday. He smokes. Smokes! "Well a lot of people smoke, Hank. He's just like the rest of us." Yes, he is "just like the rest of us". Only worse, because he's a good enough liar to have convinced many of you otherwise. And I don't want a President who smokes. Or gets head from 19 year old portly girls in the Oval Office. And neither should you. Do you understand how much integrity it takes to hold that Office? I want a Boy (or Girl) Scout in there. Someone better than me; better than "the rest of us". Someone who at a minimum, hasn't surrounded himself with so much scandal that there's so much room for so much doubt. These are matters of soft integrity, though. Hard integrity, as it relates to the Office, would keel over from dehydration if forced to physically endure all the lies he's happily smiled through. What politician, ever, in the history of lying politicians, was able to say..."No I didn't", when "Yes you did" blanketed everything about his past...only to have the media say, "Well he just said, 'No I didn't', what more do you want?" Only one has pulled this off: Barack Obama. And when you ask the media about this....? "We need hard evidence Hank. We can't just go making unfounded accusations." Oh, I'm sorry...I thought you were the same industry who uniformly jumped all over the "Who is Trig's real mom" story, or spent the last part of the campaign harping on claims from unnamed sources about Sarah Palin, and of incredible consequence - her clothes. Which, by the way, were all returned after the election....unlike the sum 400% greater than Palin's wardrobe cost, which Barack Obama pissed away on disposable "sound, stage and lighting" for his speech in Germany, Ohio. "What? There is no Germany, Ohio? Germany, California, maybe? Not there either? Germany...the country Germany?! Noooo. Yes?!!? He spent almost $1,000,000.00 on a single speech in Germany??!! What the f&*%? Wait, I mean....'Wow he's so good for America's image'."

Newsflash: The rest of the world has always hated us. Remember? We're loud, rude and obnoxious. We're not good enough. The press has told us this for most of my 31 year old life. The press is a business. Drama and controversy are their product, and despite failing print media...sales are great with you goose-steppers lining up for more. "We need to fix America's image! Everyone hates us! Oh no! Oh no!" It's lonely at the top folks, and for now anyway....guess what, we're still there. But with people like Barack Obama pandering to the entitled and telling you, "It's not your fault you bought houses you knew you couldn't afford or racked up credit card debt you knew you couldn't pay".....we won't be at the top for long.

The closer I look, the harder right I lean. Personal responsibility has always been a core Republican value, and with Democrats in Congress failing to take even a shred of their own personal responsibility for literally and exclusively destroying our enterprise housing and lending markets and values.... while simultaneously mind you, telling America's entitled that the problems they face in their own lives and homes are not the result of their own miscalculated expectations, budgeting or work ethics....but rather the fault of George W. Bush....that personal responsibility value is increasingly attractive and exponentially meritorious. But it's going to escape most. Because Democrats are lining up to tell people, "It's not your fault. No, no. It's someone else's fault. And we, the Democrats, are going to fix it."

People like Barack Obama who pander to the poor and entitled, with empty promises to fix all of their problems, will likely get the power they pursue. But in an increasingly competitive global environment, they will only foster more of the complacency which best defines America's ultimate and increasing, enterprise failure.

Do not be fooled. The only 'change you can believe in', is change you are responsible for. Anyone who tells you otherwise, in a capitalist society, has just slapped you in the face.

So. Going forward, I'm shifting for now anyway, from all fact and no opinion, or most fact and some opinion...to lots of fact and plenty of opinion. Why not. Having said that, let me be clear: Barack Obama is a scumbag. If he defrauded his way in to power via false eligibiliy, he's a scumbag who should be in jail. If he didn't, he's a scumbag who won't be. I don't care what color half of him is, or how many statements he releases declaring "I am not a scumbag"...he is. The "Words don't matter" speech? Verbatim, from one of Axelrod's other scumbags. Words do matter, but actions matter more...and time and time again, where Barack Obama's more telling and credible actions net him trouble - his more deceitful and dangerous words get him out of it. Additionally, this generation of Democrats...Barack Obama's generation of Democrats...need you to stay poor, so they can stay in power. If you think your government owes you anything, beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you are mistaken. If you don't wake up to that individually, reset and reform your expectations and the role "personal responsibility" plays in your life...you will fail. If we don't wake up to that at the enterprise level?....America will.

Paisan,

Excerps from previous articles, citing two separate but entirely viable ways a birth announcement might make it’s way to a newspaper, without their having to be anything conspiratory in that reality, activity or existence:

“’Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack’s parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There’s a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud.’

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you’re bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

“Additionally, a birth announcement in a newspaper is certainly not indicative of legally binding precedent. It’s entirely likely that if a birth occurred in a foreign country, and his mother returned home and legally registered the foreign birth with the state of Hawaii, the the release to the paper would still exist.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-160646

If you’re looking for more detail on the actual announcement...it was pretty simple: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6805 Kalanlanaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4”. No notation of hospital, or any other corroborating evidence to the place of birth....only that the birth occurred.

Again...it is completely viable that the virgin Mary....errrr....Stanley Ann Dunham, had a foreign birth, legally registered it in Hawaii, and then the STATE (who, you correctly cite as being more likely ‘other party’ than the parents - responsible for birth announcements), released that registration, along with many others, to the local print media.

Why did Stanley Ann go to Kenya to give birth? Speculation, and that’s all it is, and I respect and accept that...but speculation suggests she was there visiting, and was either too pregnant to endure travel or incurred labor sooner than expected, while still in Kenya. The last thing she probably ever thought about though, was that Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Dunham Soetoro Dunham Dunham Obama Soetoro Soetoro Soetoro Soetoro Dunham Soetoro Obama Obama Obama would ever seek the Presidency. And while that’s just speculation, per neatly tucked away Hawaiian legalities, the proof he’s offered to substantiate natural born citizenship simply isn’t complete or viable. And he could easily, easily provide it. Transparency? Unity? Where....? I don’t see it...and seeing so many debate this, you can’t claim to either. That’s not my doing. Or Berg’s, or Keyes’. That’s Barack Obama’s doing.

People treat this like a conspiracy HAD TO exist 47 years ago for this to be a viable question. It didn’t. And truthfully, I’m less concerned about the merit of the Constitution which made sense when it was carved out, but perhaps makes less sense now...but more concerned with a man who may have willfully and knowingly committed such a gross fraud in his unrelenting pursuit for power. I also believe Dr. Polarik’s research is very valid, however I don’t cling to it or cite it...because I am trying to stick only to fact that passed the litmus of public acceptance, long before this issue came up. And per those facts, the question is outstanding. It shouldn’t be. It doesn’t have to be. It is, though.

And I appreciate, providing I won’t post this only to find “You’re just racist, Hank! ‘Scoreboard! Scoreboard!’” posts with your name attached to them...the grounded inquiries you’re posturing. But, from experience, I am still certain...by the time we’re done, you’ll walk away saying, “No way. He’s eligible and proved it already. Of course he was properly vetted. Right...? Yeah. Of course he was. He must’ve been.” People are firm on this. But neither on either side of the debate, actually have room to be. It’s an objective question, with an objective answer, that many debate subjectively. That is the handy-work of a lack of transparency, on this objective matter, by the same person who claimed committment to uniting us.

“each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to enforce this qualification.”

The clear intention behind the “natural born citizen” in the constitution is that there be no divided loyalties for the highest office in the nation. Obama himself has admitted that he is not a natural born citizen, and in fact, is at best (if we take him at his certification word), a native citizen, who had british citizenship at birth.

He does NOT qualify, he never did. He had to have known this, and yet ran for president in spite of the fact that it was illegal for him to do so. This also implies the secretary of state was remiss in their duties.

If you are to try and argue the intention behind the natural born citizen requirement, to somehow now force it to mean the same as native citizen (if in fact he actually is a native citizen, and not an illegal alien (this is almost comical at times)), despite the obvious and overwhelming historical meaning and legal precedent, saying that a dual citizenship is not natural born, you must do so via the courts. You cannot simply decide it so for yourself whenever it suits you, especially not with the office of the president of the United States. Obama knows this as well I’m sure, given his legal background.

So there you have it. Automatic disqualification insofar as I can see. And yet we have to file lawsuits in the supreme court to even get people to recognize these relatively simple matters.

No matter how much you love or hate the guy, or how great you might think he’d be at the job, it does not matter, he cannot be president.

In the interests of avoiding the ensuing chaos that will result from anyone being able to interpret the law in any way they see fit, the wholesale destruction of the constitution (all martial law at once, or slowly bit by bit), and any of the other nasty implications, perhaps it would be wise for Obama, McCain and whomever ever else isn’t qualified, to go on prime time tv, remove themselves from the presidential election, and make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they are solely responsible for the implications of their wholly irresponsible actions.

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.