Skip to comments.Breakthrough on eligibility story
Posted on 05/19/2012 9:29:10 AM PDT by James Thomas
Congratulations to Breitbart.com for reporting a story the site clearly didnt care to publish. It seems that in 1991, Barack Obama was indeed representing himself to his literary agency as born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“I guess being a birther wasnt/isnt politically correct”
You know, that phrase, “politically correct” grew up to describe a situation where words and actions weren’t being judged upon whether they’re right or wrong, but upon what answer gives the most power to particular groups. But it so happens that some PC-cops actually believe what they’re saying. Some think it’s wrong to say the word “retard” regardless of how they can use retards to push their favored political agenda.
It isn’t appropriate to say such people are motivated by political correctness. Likewise, it’s not appropriate to say that most conservatives don’t support birtherism because it’s politically incorrect. They do so because they think it’s impractical, a losing issue, and so on, but also because it’s wrong.
“It’s what you’ve been doing for years...not just today”
So? Is consistency suddenly some sort of crime?
“December 19, 2008” “September 27, 2008”
What am I, anway, on some sort of enemies list? Nobody can call you guys paranoid.
“He lies. Thats all there is to it. There is no Truth in him.”
[fingers in ears] “La, la la, I can’t hear you, la, la, la...”
There are very many real and existing dots to be connected in the scenario about who Obama really is and who have been the active enablers for his becoming POTUSA and why these enablers obviously want the USA to be part of their new world order. On the other hand/side there are many people apart from the active enablers who can’t believe that there are such Obama enablers who would change the USA and affect their ball games, casinos, Hollywood euphoria, and other pleasures gained by the sacrifices of past generations.
1. He was born in Kenya because thats where he said he was born.
2. He was born in Hawaii and spends millions of dollars to avoid having to prove it.
Actually, I think the two possibilities are:
1) He was born in Kenya and is staging an elaborate fraud to pretend he was born in Hawaii.
2) He was born in Hawaii and staged an elaborate fraud throughout his college and early political years to pretend he was born in Kenya to gain reduced tuition and "street cred" - a fraud which he and his henchmen are now working very hard to remove all evidence of.
One way or another, he remains an elaborate fraud. :)
There is a long list here and a tremendous amount of things that raise the question of which appears “more true.”
The inability to produce a valid birth certificate, the unwillingness to release grades or entrance applications, or even explain the passport he had in his youth and his travels abroad, references to 57 states, his muslim faith, his inability to interpret Christian scripture...
He comes from a very dysfunctional family of communist and socialist sympathizers...what part of this sordid tale is the truth and I am astounded at your own naivete. 0bama's father was no small fry farmer from Kenya. Two things would have happened back then, he would have either denied baby 0bama as a bastard child or demanded Stanley Ann marry him and revoke her citizenship. Think that is crazy? Dysfunctional yes, crazy...not so much. What was the one big thing going on in Kenya about the time of 0bama's birth? If you know that, then you might comprehend why an 0bama SR. might "force" the issue of 0bama Jr. being born a Kenyan.
“Only if they were wrong.”
But I said they were DUers, which by definition means they would be wrong, at least most of the time.
This is the nub of the issue, here, so i suggest we pause for a moment. You’ve said only if they were wrong, which means you’d fully support going after them on their threads if you think they’re wrong. Well, that’s all I’m doing here, though you attack me from what I can only describe as a procudural angle.
Somehow, since I’m not a birther, coming on birther threads and arguing against birthers for being birthers is wrong, because it makes me a “troll.” But you’ve just admitted it’d be okay to go after DUmmies, when they’re wrong—as in this instance I think birthers are wrong for overplaying their hand. So what’s the problem?
Go ahead and say I’m wrong and that’s what you’re after me for. But then drop the whole “troll” thing, because it’s neither here nor there. Real trolls are those uninterested in debate of any sort, only in getting a rise out of people. I am not a troll for not being a birther and/or not wanting to speculate on why Obama’s bio info was inaccurate.
What am I, anway, on some sort of enemies list?
Not that I know of. Why is it that you presume you are?
“references to 57 states”
You see, this, right here, is where you guys lose non-birthers. You can’t resist, can you? You must overplay every single time. How many hundreds of gaffes can I list from Biden, Bush II, Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, Boehner, Palin, McCain, Romney, Reid, Daschle, Gephart, etc. about whom we are fairly sure they were born citizens? Politicians talk a lot, and make that kind of mistake every day (not every politician every day, but some politician every day).
You can argue that the “57 states” thing is part of a preponderance of evidence, but no, it isn’t. For that to be true it’d have to be evidence itself, which it isn’t. It doesn’t demonstrate anything whatsoever except Obama “acted stupidly” in saying it.
“procudural” = procedural
As someone who spent over 26 years in the printing industry and most of that in the electronic prepress world, that birth certificate posted by the White Hut is a phony as it gets.
How do I know? Well the PDF file has over 20 layers in it with each layer showing some sort of editing taking place. Had that just been an image of the actual document there would be one layer and one layer only unless it had been re-sized or cropped and then at the very most 3 layers.
One of the layers showed heavy computer generated manipulation to the signature and dates. A genuine image of the signature would show dark pixels in the center of the pen line with lighter gray pixels towards the outer edges. This phony document showed nothing but dark black pixels and no gray pixels. WHY?
If he was born in Hawaii then he lied all through college and committed fraud in obtaining assistance reserved for foreign students.
If he was born in Kenya like Kenya claims or most importantly, his very own Senatorial campaign claims of a Kenyan birthplace, then he should immediately removed from the White Hut in handcuffs.
You and your denier Saul Alinsky types will never be able to explain the over 20 edit layers in that PDF file SUPPLIED by the dark lord's own supporters nor can you possibly explain away his Senatorial campaign claiming his Keynan birthplace.
Anything to disassociate themselves from those wacky ‘birthers’. He lied, which is now fine, he’s still eligible! Paging Mr Richard Nixon! You’re forgiven, sir.
“It is if you’re consistently disingenuous”
But your quoting me didn’t prove that in all instances I was being disingenuous, just that I’ve been consistent. Which, if anything, would indicate, though not prove, I was telling the truth (or what I thought was the truth). It would be an awful lot of work to tell the same lies over four years, except if it was what I actually believe.
“Not that I know of. Why is it that you presume you are?”
Duh, because you had four year old posts at hand, and seemed to pretty quickly identify me as telling the same tale over a period of time. Which wouldn’t mean I was on a list, only that you happened to remember me and/or looked me up in the meantime and rest assured I hadn’t been floating back and forth. Either way, it is a paranoid outlook: to keep track of who argues against you and throw quotes back in their face demonstrating that they are against you as if it proves anything more than what they ought readily to know.
“Paging Mr Richard Nixon! Youre forgiven, sir.”
Nixon lied to cover up a crime, which itself is a crime. I should think everyone could readily tell the difference. Are you saying Obama lying then or now constitutes fraud, somehow? Well, that’d mean we could throw every politician who ever lived in jail. Which would be a good start.
Is lying for your own gain fraud?
If you handed a fake birth certificate to the DMV to get your license 20 years ago...is that fraud?
Seems that you're the paranoid one.
“Once again, it isn’t just ‘this instance’ with you.
Every instance is the wrong instance to you.”
You’re cherry-picking to demonstrate what, exactly? That my having been anti-birther in the past undercuts my anti-birther stand now. Why? Because...um...I’m posing as if this was an isolated incident, whereas all along I’ve been anti-birther. As if, knowing you would be more willing to listen to a fella who came up to you humbly and said, “Excuse me, sir, I love you birthers and hope you nail Obama and everything, but in this particular case on this particular day I have one little pecadillo I’d like to discuss...” would get me further.
Nice try. There was no such pretence. See my original post, in which I say clearly, openly, without “burying the lead”: “You birthers really, really have to stop pretending everythings a smoking gun.” Get that? I said “everything,” not merely “in this instance.” It’s right there in the original post. Check it out.
Not that it’ll matter. For some strange reason according to troll hunter logic the fact that someone has been against you in the past is a shield against them being against you now, consistency is proof of disengenuousness, and disagreeing with someone is proof that you have been compromised or are only pretending to disagree for the purpose of other, sinister ends.