Posted on 02/28/2010 5:47:10 PM PST by cycle of discernment
Dearest Parsy, of the compulsive pecking and quipping from the sidelines:
Do all of us poor neurologically-afflicted souls a vast favor please, and I sincerely mean this.
Dispense with the fantastically cute albeit meaningless and ultimately for-show Parsificaciousims and lay out some good, solid counter information.
Provide the definitive analysis of the murky genesis of this merchandised phenom, Obama.
Then we can all rest and join hands in our newfound clarity.
Waiting with eagerness to file this checkered upside-down Story of O into an authentic, evidence-based file.
Thanks in advance, Cuddles:-)
yours,
cd
OTOH, if people can’t accept reality on the COLB thing, which is really pretty basic, to wit: “he was born in Hawaii and he’s an NBC” -— then how are those same people going to be able to turn the country around economically, assuming it is even possible, which I doubt.
The economic issues are much more complex, and if a group is unable to pass kindegarten, they probably can’t multiply fractions and find least common denominators.
Which fact will probably be driven home by the other side with much humor and effect during this election and the one in 2012.
parsy, who figures Wall Street loves the birthers
You have hit the nail on the head. In Birther Land, the non-birthers are supposed to disprove the imagined theories of the birthers. Failing to do so, in Birther Land, is taken as confirmation of the imagined theories.
There is probably a Latin term for this. “Ex post facto strawmannus nonsensicus est” or something like that.
In reality based systems, one wishing to disprove the proffered fact, that is that Obama has presented a valid COLB, have the burden of proving, by evidence or competing facts, that the proffered fact is incorrect. Or, at the very least, raising enough doubt that reasonable people don’t turn the other way gagging at the new evidence.
Birthers have been spectacularly unsuccessful in this endeavor. Mere allegations that something “could” have happened don’t cut it. Mere ‘suspicions” don’t cut it, at least in the real world.
All that don’t mean birthers aren’t correct in their conclusions, because they could be. For all I know, Obama WAS born in Kenya. But based on the evidence thus far, I have no valid reason to doubt the COLB. I have no valid reason to doubt the birth announcements.
And all Birthers have been able to do is offer up a feeble “But xyz COULD have happened.”
Now there is another Kenyan BC(is this the 3rd or one of the prior ones?). I doubted the dates, but as was pointed out, those dates could have been used. OK. I accept that. But it still does not establish the reality of the Kenyan BC. It might be real. I wasn’t in Kenya in August 1961 or Hawaii. I was in south Georgia. To believe requires a belief that documents from Kenya, in a general fashion, are as reliable or even more reliable than American documents from Hawaii.
Could be. However, being told that I am a descendant of Nigerian royalty, and one entitled to hold the $47 billion on Nigerian Oil Trust Funds in my checking account, if only I will remit $139.95 to them so they they will have funds to remit the $47 billion, pardon me if I am a tad skeptical about African documents right now.
But, I digress. Often these evidenciary battles take place in court. There, one must have more than suspicions or possible alternate theories of reality. If you think this Kenyan BC is good, then by all means use it to get to court. Assuming this isn’t one that has already been hooted out of court.
In court, one must be able to lay a foundation for the entry of the document. One must show where it came from, and often must be certified. I suspect that should this ever get to court, Obama will tender, thru submission by a registrar from Hawaii, a certified copy of the COLB.
I am curious how this will be authenticated.
Now, I throw the ball back to you birthers. What “facts” do you have that might convince a reasonable person. Can you provide a logical, understandable presentation of your theories. On that big thread, I presented a format wherein you might be able to do so. Let me paste that here, and once again issue my challenge. Put your arguments, facts, and evidence in Engish:
You tell me. It’s your info. Set it out in a step wise method where other people can follow what you are saying and see the evidence for each step, and decide on the relevance.
For example, on the one non-white kid with no birth weight, ...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. How can I, or anybody else, base a decision on this kind of stuff when we have no idea what you are talking about or how it ties into Obama.
It would be like saying “Obama is lying being born in Hawaii, because everybody knows when you have a dog, INSIDE THE CITY, it has to have its shots.”
Now look at that statement. Part of it is true. Dogs inside the city have to have shots. But that is completely disconnected from any kind of relation to Obama and whether he is lying. Do you see? If you said that to some one, they would dismiss you as a quack, because your statement is just meaningless.
Now suppose you put it this way.
1. Obama wrote in Das Kapital, that his grandmother bought him a new puppy when he was first born, a Shitzoo named Bonkers. (evidence)
2. At that time, the Dunhams and Obamas purportedly lived within the city limits of Honolulu at 1313 Wackaheeni Drive. (evidence)
3. A review of all dog tags issued by the City of Honolulu in 1961 and 1962 reveals no tags issued to a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”. (evidence)
4. A review of all AKC papers issued for Hawaii in 1961 and 1962 show no papers issued on a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”or to any one named Dunham or Obama.(evidence)
5. However, a review of all dog tags issued in Mombasa, Kenya for 1961 and 1962 reveals a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” was issued a Non-food Animal tag on August 5, 1961 to a Stanley Ann Dunham registered owner, whose address was 4236 Jihad Drive, Mombasa Kenya.
5. Therefore, based upon the above premises, it is apparent that Obama is a liar, and a commie liar to boot, because no good American would ever lie about his dog.
You see, my statement is set forth in a logical fashion. It is something a non-birther can read and understand.
WARNING TO BIRTHERS!!!! DO NOT TAKE THIS DOG STORY AS TRUE. IT IS MADE UP! OBAMA NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD A SHITZOO NAMED “BONKERS”-—DO NOT ADD THIS ITEM TO THE BIRTHER DATABASE!!!
parsy, who hopes this makes it more clear
Now the above is what I asked then. I still have seen nothing but incoherent ramblings about “African” on a COLB, a Kenyan BC that I have no idea where it came from-—and another thing, while I am on that. If a COLB could be forged, then why couldn’t this one. The alleged forged COLB was at least put on the internet andwe know it came from Obama or his campaign staff. Whence cometh this Kenyan one?
Soooooo.....I can’t disprove your unsupported suspicions. I can only point out that they are unsupported by either reasonable fact or evidence. I have posted on numerous occasions the little blurb by the Amazing Criswell from Plan 9 From Outer Space-—He asks, “can you prove THIS didn’t happen (THIS being Graverobbers from Outer Space, etc.)
parsy, who says Gee Criswell, probably not....but I ain’t locking my door to keep Bela Lugosi out, either.
Question: WHY does everyone assume that ANN OBAMA in Hawaii and ANNA OBAMA in Seattle are the same person as Stanley Ann Dunham, when ‘Dreams’ makes it quite clear that a number of people in the story are COMPOSITES?
. . . . Check out # 39, and read to end of page. <<<
If Cashill is right and Ayers wrote the book for obama, then it would almost be fiction, or the best way to tell a story that the masses would buy.
Will I live enough to learn the truth?
Wrong. There are records of her attending the University of Hawaii starting in the Fall in 1960. There's also a record of her marriage to Obama Sr. on Maui shortly thereafter.
If, as my research shows, Stanley Ann Dunham did not set foot on Hawaiian soil, neither the Kenyan or FMD are contenders for fatherhood.
Your research is crap and shows no such thing.
1b:When that dust settles, all the records from Hawaii will be subpoenaed as discovery and evidence 1c: The Hawaiians will continue to stonewall, redact, and obfuscate for as long a while as legally possible. Hearings, petitions, appeals, different circuits. Of course the Federal bench will meticulously observe every formality and protection for the sovereign state of Hawaii. As the Hawaiians leave and enter office, the process could also drag on for quite a while.
(3) The Congress may, or may not, use the SCOTUS decision as a grounds for Impeachment and Conviction. Except to encourage the GOOD lawyers on this quest, to financially support them, and to keep the issue responsibly alive for our elected representatives (who show almost 0 enthusiasm for the cause), we must have a different focus. Our real job is to accept the reality that there is no quick fix for the Obama Eligibility Problem. Now that he is the sitting President, fraud, criminal, or whatever; the Constitution he wrecked, actually now protects him.
More than likely, Obama could be with us until 2012. If we don't get the eligibility issued handled, there could well be a repeat. But if we don't get the national problems solved, things could actually get a whole lot worse. I guess what I am saying is that IMNSHO, it might be a good idea to consider re-focusing our efforts.
A number of interesting thoughts collected in your number 60.
Litigation against quality lawyers like those representing Obama is a difficult and demanding task. Measuring the skill of your litigators is not an easy task and Obama has the guys who have risen to the top of the heap. The Perkins firm, based in Seattle, is one of the top law firms in the country--Bob Bauer, on leave as a partner in the firm is Obama's lead lawyer and makes all the decisions on this topic.
However wherever you go in these cases, Obama has the top local legal help in addition to the continuing legal help of the lawyers from the top national firms who have been involved in this case for some time. It isn't credible to believe that the million and a half they have reported spending is the real number--my guess, and it is only speculation, is that they have spent at least six or eight million, perhaps more.
The lawyers on our side are simply not at the same level as Obama's lawyers. We don't have a lead lawyer comparable to Bauer; the lawyers we have had haven't had staff support or financial capability to address all the legal issues you need to be prepared to deal with to get a case into the proper court.
I said this in June of 2008 and I will say it again a year and nine months later--there is no chance you get this to a court that will resolve the Constitutional argument unless you are prepared to spend upwards of ten million dollars. I suppose to be fair, a lot of work that would be a productive contribution to a real legal effort has been done and to the extent you could get it, you might get your budget down to the seven or eight million dollar level; it would depend on how difficult it was to get the work product.
And you are correct, there isn't any "quick fix" here--if you had the correct legal help; a decent plaintiff; and the right forum; it will still take a long time to get to the end game. We don't, as best I can tell, have any "good" lawyers on our side of the table. Among other things, if you had a lawyer who was capable of running this case, he wouldn't take the case without a better aggregate of resources than any of the lawyers presently in the game have access to.
I will say, if you prevailed, you wouldn't impeach him--Obama can never be impeached because he does not hold the office. Supreme Court says he isn't president, you call the US Marshal and get the moving trucks.
A second area where your comments are well thought out is in the definition of the objective. The kind of lawsuit we are talking about above is directed to getting him out of the White House and the best you could hope for is to achieve that objective in a couple of years.
Be careful what you wish for.
What happens then? Well Congress has not yet certified the election of an eligible person to hold the office of President in the 2008 election. Congress has certified the election of an eligible person as Vice President and he holds office on an acting basis until an eligible person is certified President.
The Constitution says what Congress must do next is pick from the next two top Electoral College vote getters. Only one other person got votes and he too is not eligible because he was born in a foreign country and his citizenship is also suspect because the statute on which he claims to rely for citizenship was adopted three years after he was born and is not retroactive.
What next?
Lawyers imply from the language that provides the Vice President is acting President until an eligible person is chosen that Congress would have the power to define a procedure by which the eligible person would be identified and selected.
We are in undefined legal territory at that point. Which Congress? If the election is held in 2010 and the Republican's take control of Congress before the issue reaches the Congress, maybe the Republicans control the process.
There has been argument that once Dick Chaney signed the certificate, Congress has acted and it is over--I don't think that is a likely resolution because the Constitutional provision on Natural Born Citizen is couched in terms of eligibility to hold the office and act and if you don't have that, you never get it.
The Dems are aware of the risk and for that reason, it would not surprise anyone if the problem was discovered and addressed in the fall, assuming that a Republican landslide still appears likely.
The Dems might decide the Vice President gets elevated as a permanent replacement--you get Biden; or to look at the Constitutional succession list--decide that since the Constitution treats the Vice President as an interim holder, the correct procedure would be to move to the next choice--you get Pelosi; or, they might decide to look at primary votes for candidates of the party that prevailed in the final election--and select from the top two remaining (I have no idea who was third behind Obama and Mrs. Clinton)--or to choose the top vote getter who is Mrs. Clinton.
I don't think your overall strategic objective of getting a Conservative Constitutional President is enhanced by replacing Obama with any one of the three or four alternatives. In fact, your position might be worse because the replacement will almost by definition be better than Obama and a more attractive candidate in the 2012 election.
At present, Obama has dug himself and his Congressional majorities into a fairly deep hole and he has not yet recognized that he needs to stop digging. Hillary will stop digging immediately.
Note that other bad things can happen to you as a result of a quasi effective legal action--you might get to the Court on one of these alternative citizenship arguments and lose and have the result be res judicata as to the state election officials who would otherwise have a statutory right to examine the credentials of 2012 candidates.
Until the facts and circumstances change, it may be that the best we can make of the fact that Obama is in fact not the President is to make it a continuing issue.
It has been reported that Barry traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport. He also applied for student aid as a foreign student at Occidental College. Both actions occurred beyond his 18th birthday. Both actions are overt acceptance and use of his status as a citizen of Indonesia. Travel to Pakistan by U.S. citizens was prohibited at the time of that visit.
I believe the proper term was "discouraged" -- not "prohibited".
PARSI:
“But based on the evidence thus far, I have no valid reason to doubt the COLB. I have no valid reason to doubt the birth announcements.”
Astonishing admission and problematic for me.
How can you be comfortable with the only evidence of Obama’s birth history being an electronic document that is redacted and shows clear evidence of digital tampering (for those who do their diligence) and if that doesn’t “bug” you—why NO DOCTOR OR HOSPITAL NOTED AS IS THE CUSTOM OF COLBS?
Birth announcements are easily explained by a variety of answers. They in and of themselves, are simply not conclusive.
What is not explained is the absolute and conspicuous dearth of people and ‘character’ anecdotes along the way of the Obama odyssey.
That in itself is almost unimaginably odd for one so suddenly high profile that he is most powerful on the planet.
Should make you—and me—and everybody— SHIVER to grasp that this has occurred.
Definitely, so did Wookie.
Ok. I just have to say it.
I cannot stand gay men that talk about themselves in the third person. Arrrrgghhhh!
Please stop.
“parsy, who says Gee Criswell, probably not....but I ain’t locking my door to keep Bela Lugosi out, either.”
I'll just bet you would love to have them do that for you, TROLL!!!! Who are you working for Mr. Crazy Man? You can try all you want, I can assure you the relevant information and important things found will NEVER be posted here on the open forum of FR. NEVER. READ MY LIPS.... NEVER!!!
I’ll take Biden or Clinton, they are citizens, They don’t hate this country, they don’t hate Caucasians and Biden isn’t a Marxist, Hillary is a little Marxist, but still far better than the Kenyan.
Because this is what is being printed out in today’s world. If you need to enroll in college, no one needs to know what doctor delivered you, how much you weighed, and whether you were illegitimate or not. In the old days, they just photocopied the “long form” and gave you a copy. Nowaday, they just print out these COLBs.
It looks real to me. I have read “polarik” had been discredited. I don’t know. He never convinced me in the first place.
And while you “can” explain away the birth announcements, why in the world would anyone want to try? AND, while one “could” create an alternate reality for the birth announcements, that does not “prove” the alternate theory actually happened.
Frankly, I “could” not be me. I have never gotten a foot print off myself and compared it to my long form. My parents “could” have been gypsies and stole me during one of their medicine shows. And then left the gypsie life style.
“Could have” don’t mean “did”.
parsy, who “could” have been “born in the wagon of a traveling show......”
I don’t hang around any gay men who speak in the third person, so I can’t sympathize with you. I developed a lot of strange habits as a result of certain females who seemed to like to whack me upside the head with cast iron skillets.
I think maybe it was that “secret thing that only women can know” stuff from way back in old Greece. I think they called them Maenads or something like that. I must have fell into a nest of them.
parsy, who says that was the limit of his exposure to Greek culture.......
You’re wrong! One day they will do a movie -—National Treasure III-—wherein all the secret information in the Birther Grotto of True Evidence will be revealed to the world. It will be a very short flick.
parsy, who begs you to keep it hidden! Pretty Please!
LOL...bet that doesn’t last long....
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.
