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 ...
Disrupting, after-birther troll.
Yep! Same spots, different year.
“Well thank you for that. You’re all but admitting that you’re little more than a disrupting troll on this issue.”
If what I originally posted constitutes being a troll, then yes, that’s all I set out to do. And I was nice enough to send up a flare indicating my anti-birtherism; you’re welcome.
From my point of view, anti-birthers who enter birther threads in order to denounce birtherism are not trolls. You do not own these threads, contrary to how you act. The articles are for any and everyone to comment upon, including the majority of conservatives who aren’t birthers.
“OMG! You mean there hasn’t been an ongoing effort to hide anything and everything associated with this man for years now?
Who knew! Obviously not you! /sarcasm”
This wasn’t hidden, though, was it? I mean, whoever happened upon it didn’t need to get a court order like for the long form, did they? Did I somehow miss the story on how a secret agent lost his life to deliver the information?
“What then, in your opinion, is the ‘more appropriate way to go about it’?”
Like I said, not to pretend everything’s a smoking gun, as you know birthers tend to do.
“And who claimed that this was a slam dunk?”
That my own verbiage. Okay, maybe they haven’t said “smoking gun” or “slam dunk” in every instance, but they are far too giddy and basically overplay every single hand. I may nto be able to prove it to you, but more than having been cowed by leftists that’s why most people write birthers off as conspiracy nuts.
“A full glass eventually spills over the rim, doesn’t it?”
Yes. But you have to be adding a liquid, not hot air.
Right you are. It has caused me great frustration to see people who consider themselves Conservatives, who say they believe in the Constitution, be critical of a voice in the woods who relentlessly has been trying to expose the truth. I guess being a birther wasn’t/isn’t politically correct. Gag me
“Disrupting, after-birther troll.
Yep! Same spots, different year”
Why shouldn’t you be disrupted? What if a bunch of DUers started posting on FR (as if they don’t already)? Wouldn’t you want the conservative faithful to jump on their threads and tell them they’re wrong?
He lies. That’s all there is to it. There is no Truth in him.
@One must be born in the US of two parents who were US citizens at the time of ones birth in order to do what? Be president? The Constitution doesnt say that. What Constitution have you been reading? December 19, 2008
All I know is anyone born on American soil is an American citizen. September 27, 2008
“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.
The problem with that, as Second Amendment supporters ultimately found out, is that every single "mistake" wound up pointing in the same general direction.
By the way, so that you know your chicanery doesn’t go unnoticed, let us look at the context of my “in this instance” to see whether you’re on to something about me covering up how “every instance is the wrong instance to [me].” I was saying:
“But youve just admitted itd be okay to go after DUmmies, when theyre wrongas in this instance I think birthers are wrong for overplaying their hand.”
Here I’m comparing to specific instances: one in which you think DUmmies are wrong, another in which I think you are wrong, in order to argue that it’s okay for both of us—me and you—to go after others when we think they are wrong. Was the above phrased so as to make you think I’ve only thought you were wrong once? No. It’s not even at issue, as I’ve agreed to it several times and never pretended otherwise.
Most importantly, as shown, I charged birthers with pretending everything’s a smoking gun in the original post. So what are you on about, again? Oh, right, the words “in this instance” appeared at some point, and as such it means I’m a liar for presenting myself as something other than a habitual anti-birther. This is significant because...um...to be a habitual anti-birther is wrong. Because it makes you a troll, somehow.
That’s not the conclusion to be drawn, to anyone who didn’t fail reading comphrehension, from an honest reading of my “in this instance” post.
“to” = two
I’m not familiar with this. Would you expand — sounds interesting.
...that every single "mistake" wound up pointing in the same general direction.
His own petard, as it were.
“I didn’t have anything ‘at hand’. I can quickly look up any number of things that you’ve written.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. You look them up by hand, anyway, you know. The point is, what kind of non-paranoid person bothers looking up past posts to prove a poster’s an anti-birther when they readily admit to it? What kind of non-paranoid person bothers proving anything with four year old posts, aside from a bald statement from that they never said such a thing?
How easy it is to look up is not the point. The entire point of bringing it up makes you look paranoid, is. And that’s why I brought up the enemies list. Because it’s habit among birthers and groups like them to denounce others solely for having denounced them in the past.
“Seems that you’re the paranoid one.”
No, I know you have an unhealthy interest in my past posts along the lines of having me on an enemies list simply by linking to my past posts when nothing about my past is at issue. I never claimed not to be an anti-birther. My original post made it clear as day that I’m an anti-birther. Your digging up past posts for no good reason makes you look paranoid.
You seem to be naught but a scoffer.
“The same kind of excuse was peddled by another celebrated liberal...The problem with that, as Second Amendment supporters ultimately found out, is that every single ‘mistake’ wound up pointing in the same general direction”
I don’t gte how this relates to the conversation. You’re saying I’m making an “excuse”? What is it? If you’re talking about philman_36’s “in this instance” argument, well, that’s a BS line of attack since I redily admit, and did so in my original post on this thread, that I am not a birther, that I don’t hide that fact, and that I think birthers pretend everything is a smoking gun.
Never subsequently did I say that only in this instance do I disagree with birthers. That is a figment of others’, those who would make “trolls” out of everyone who disagrees with them, imaginations. So whatever you think about me and “mistakes” pointing in the same direction is neither here nor there.
Unless this all has to do with something else, in which case I’d prefer you make that clear or post to something besides #77.
I ahte to say it, but I think you guys have lost all perspective. We’re not arguing about anything anymore; it’s just a series of annoyed grunts. Let me sum up what million more posts would amount to: by disagreeing with you I am a troll and therefore do not deserve the time of day.
Pigs and chickens are "raised".
Humans (at least, civilized ones) are "REARED".
“I dug them up for a very good reason.”
I think that reason was to prove that I’ve been a troll, in your eyes, for years. But who ever said I wasn’t? I’ve been arguing against birthers for years, so what? What possible significance does that have for anyone who isn’t a paranoiac and won’t listen to anyone outside of the echo chamber? Back in the real world you can’t win an argument by demonstrating your opponents made the same argument they’re making now in the past. It’s neither here nor there.
“It’s too bad you don’t realize that doing so gives an overall example of your view on this, and other, issues.”
I don’t realize that, and I don’t what other issues you’re talking about nor what positions I take on them. I suppose it means I’m a liberal and enemy of the republic, or something. Do tell.
I see, by the way, you’ve dropped the whole “burying the lead” and me hiding my true deep, down anti-birtherism. I made it clear in my first post, which is why you started after me in the first place, after all. Good, we can move on at last.
“and wont listen to anyone outside of the echo chamber”
Will listen, I meant, to people outside the echo chamber.
Oh for heaven’s sake. This is not a birther issue, it is a frauder issue. Give Barack every benefit of the doubt of being born in the USA under looser modern rules about NBC. Why this incorrect publicity which he never ever corrected? It would also have implied a naturalization event in his life (to be called African-American), an event which of course we never heard anything about. If we don’t see Barack on the pillar here, we see him on the post.
Both words “reared” and “raised” can be used of human children, although “reared” is never used of animals.
“born in Kenya....”
Glad you brought that up.
What I found interesting about the original piece from Breitbart was the editor who claimed it was her error did go in an edit it (I think 2003) and left the “born in Kenya” but added “raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and CHICAGO”.
Clearly, to me, he was gearing up for the Chicago race.
You seem intent on trying to avoid acknowledging that this directly points, in any way, to presidential eligibility.
“It’s too bad you don’t realize that doing so gives an overall example of your view on this, and other, issues.”
This, right here, demonstrates how very paranoid you are (”too bad you don’t realize” it). Nevermind that it was never a secret in the first place that I’m anti-birther. You go digging around for clues as to who’s against you, assuming all sorts of things from particular arguments. Like if I say birthers here, in this instance, are overplaying their hand, it stands to reason that I may be against birthers in general (nevermind I made it readily apparent and never denied it). Which, okay, everyone does it to a point. No sense pretending we’re all objective, disinterested commentators.
But to then proceed to ignore others on the basis of them belonging to larger groups, that’s where you get paranoid. Just as you’re not out to get liberals and conservative anti-birthers, and are only interest in “the truth,” did it ever occur to you the opposition is, too? But no, if I have a history of anti-birther posts it means I’m a “troll” and need not be treated like a real human poster. Moreover, it probably means I’m not even a conservative, and am only on FR to stir up the true believers and delay them from fulfilling their real duties.
Ah, the close-mindedness of the conspiracy nut. Everyone’s out to get you, and the rest of the world are a bunch of trolls, when they haven’t been compromised by fear of a leftist media and bribes from the Obama campaign.
When it comes to Obama’s birth fraud, every thing is a smoking gun Troll.
There is absolutely zero evidence for an obama birth in the US. Everything ever presented as “evidence” has been fully debunked, including the supposed newspaper birth announcement.
You fail again (or is it still?)
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.