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 ...
“Oh for heavens sake. This is not a birther issue, it is a frauder issue”
Tell that to the birthers. My point from the beginning was that this is not the smoking gun some are pretending it to be on NBC status. I’m with you on the frauder part. Not that he or anyone should go to jail, but on it probably being someone’s lie instead of an honest mistake.
“You seem to be naught but a scoffer.”
Again, so what if I am? Some things deserve to be scoffed at, and scoffing at legitimate scoffing is no answer.
A lie that Barack Obama would find it awfully hard to insulate himself from. What author is that ignorant of his own publicity for that long? If his “Kenyan birth” was news to him, it wouldn’t take long for the yack to get back to him: “Oh Barack! I never knew you were born in Kenya! Where in Kenya?” In which case any normal author would go “Oh hell! My publicist screwed up! Let me get on the horn to him/her right away!”
He does everything but think too much.
“When it comes to Obamas birth fraud, every thing is a smoking gun Troll.”
For anyone paying attention, this is exactly what I objected to in my original post. Birthers, or many of them, tend to treat everything like a smoking gun. For those of you who no this is not a good thing, case closed.
“no” = know
And imagine any Republican being caught in fraud of that sort. It would be the kiss of hot smoking political death.
Oh no, another Obama eligibility thread (with 98 posts at the time I open it) and you’re in as the 2nd comment with a “..you birthers...” screed. Why do you insist upon insulting folks by calling them a dismissive name? When anyone starts out something by calling others “birthers” I wonder what is driving them. Instead, present some rational, constructive and fact-based discussion and lay off the name calling—you just might find yourself more respected.
You’re the lousiest cover-up mark cooler that has ever shown up here.
You make no effort to support your own absurdity.
Yell all you want, but it won’t help you outside your thread cocoon. Ever wonder if birthers are in the extreme minority not because everyone who disagrees with them is not a concerned citizen of differing opinion but a “TROLL!”, but maybe because they scream “TROLL” at everyone who disagrees with them?
You are listless, having no rudder in the water, and you steer no course at all while urging others to drift about as aimlessly as you.
Why do you think he endorsed gay marriage? The folks in the bathhouses of Chicago either have pictures or a blue dress type of evidence OR both. They are black-male-ing him.
Obama’s libel suit against Larry Sinclair was just recently thrown out of court as well. And Larry apparently has spoken with Arpaio’s cold case posse. Just sayin...
Maybe he has engaged in such fagly indiscretions. Or maybe he hasn’t. (Strictly speaking that would be bisexuality given that his relationship with the Wookie isn’t in any serious question.) I take it the “gay marriage” thingy is a sign that all rationality has left the Democrats, at least those with the most influence. That it isn’t rumor blackmail, but money blackmail, that is ruling the day.
“Oh, no, your replies show beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re still attempting to ‘bury the lead’ through your diversive ramblings.”
Huh? How, when in my very first post I said not only are non-birther “bullied by common sense [implying birthers lack common sense] and a lack of desperation to remove a president they hate from office on any pretext whatsoever [implying birthers are desperate to remove Obama on any pretext whatsoever],” in addition to saying “You birthers really, really have to stop pretending everythings a smoking gun,” and comparing them to the boy who cried wolf? It’s not enough that other people disagree with you and you think they’re wrong, is it? They must be dissemblers as well. Only you argue properly, and it is your cross to bear.
“You seem intent on trying to avoid acknowledging that this directly points, in any way, to presidential eligibility.”
Why, yes, I do believe that. No, I have not avoided acknowledging that. My very first post on this thread said out loud and in front of God’s creation that this is not a smoking gun, and birthers do themselves a disservice by pretending it is. That lead was not buried. I don’t think this proves Obama is not an NBC, and I’m saying it again. (Countdown to you accusing me once again of hiding it in 5, 4, 3,...)
I enjoy that “directly...in any way,” by the way. Covers you from all angles, doesn’t it? “Why no, I didn’t mean directly directly, I said in any way.”
“You protest too much.”
More from the standard anti-troll textbook, I see. If I deny I’m a troll, I’m a troll because I deny it. If I respond to all the people who respond to me I’m protesting too much, because normal people let things slide. Which, incidentally, lets you win any argument by posting to someone a sufficient number of times.
Ah, but how about all the times you’ve protested against me by responding to what I say? Doesn’t that count, or am I the only half of the discussion under investigation? You’ve responded over 20 times to me, and were in fact the one who started the exchange as my original post was to the thread starter. Who’s protesting?
“And imagine any Republican being caught in fraud of that sort. It would be the kiss of hot smoking political death.”
It wouldn’t be their death, but would certainly be repeated on the nightly news for weeks. look, it’s not as if I don’t think it’s a legitimate story. It’s not as if had this been someone beside Obama it wouldn’t go in the scandal folder to be recalled whenever you want to score a point against them.
We see these double standards every day. Obama admits to doing drugs in his memoir, who cares? Bush hems and haws, and we are free to dog him with it at every campaign spot. Had he admitted it, it wouldn’t suddenly turn into non-news like for Obama. Oh, no, it’d be front page news, lead off the big three networks, and run 24/7 for a while on cable. You better believe Bush’s agent lying in an advertisement for his memoirs, likewise, would be a scandal.
The thing is, I don’t think it’s a smoking gun as regards his NBC status. I don’t think it’s much of anything as regards his NBC status. I don’t think he or anyone else should go to jail for it, and I defnitely don’t think he should be impeached for it. It’s yet another thing to add to the “Obama’s persona is an act” folder.
“I’m plucking your string
I think that makes you a troll. Isn’t that the definition of a troll, that they post in order to get rise out of others? You may say turnabout’s fair play, but for the record I said a bit more than “Birther!” in my posts.
I think about that CEO of what was it, some high flying California web firm, who got deposed because he had listed the wrong school in his resume?
It seems to me you can't recognize when a glass is "topped".
Here ya go...
Trolls and anti-trolls
“You scoff at everything, not just some things”
No, I don’t. I do have a history of scoffing at birthers in particular, but that’s because I think birtherism is wrong. I’ve sat through you scoffing at me an awful lot on this thread, and can assume you spend a lot of time shooting down Obama and his supporters. Am I free based on that to assume you scoff at everything, are undiscriminating, and therefore need not listen to you?
I see a pattern here. Everyone who disagrees with you is a dissembler if not outright liar, merely a scoffer, and worst of all an undiscriminating scoffer. It must get tiring, being the only one with an honest opinion and the only one who argues correctly.
“You are listless, having no rudder in the water, and you steer no course at all while urging others to drift about as aimlessly as you.”
Uh, what? You’ve already admitted I’m constitent. Consistently disengenuous, or something, but consistent nonetheless. Before I was secret anti-birther who buries the lead (all the while explicitly going after birthers, making it plain as day I disagree with them, and never denying but outright admitting the lead I supposedly buried is in fact what I’m getting at). Now I’m not a secret anything, I guess, but a wandering arguer tied to no position, attacking birthers for four years as the result of a game of chance decided by a random number generator, or something.
A sailboat with no wind or rudder is a consistent thing. Consistently adrift.
You can't lie to the crew that there's wind in the sail when they can see for themselves that the sails are slack.
“Who is saying that it is the smoking gun?”
Finally, at long last, we get to what I originally bothered posting about. No more concerning my ineligibility to post based on being a crypto-anti-birther troll.
Well, to begin with, editor-surveyor, who on this very thread said, “When it comes to Obamas birth fraud, every thing is a smoking gun Troll.” But nevermind. I realize you don’t actually think it is the smoking gun, just that birthers tend to act that way. It’s an exaggeration on my part, but not by far. Merely referring to it as a “breaktrhrough,” though I realize is aimed at getting hits, is overdoing it. In a couple of days the new revelation gets added on the pile, to be of no greater significance than stonewalling in the courts, the 57 states thing, Bill Richardson speaking out of turn, etc.
But in the meantime it’s all hosannas and glory of glories, now no one can deny us and we will carry the day! I heard someone say that about some random quote they dredged up from Tom Paine about how English common law doesn’t necessarily apply in America. Seriously, they literally said now no one will be able to ignore us, or somesuch thing.
Ask any outsider to a conspiracy club, and they’ll tell you this is one of the most annoying things about them. Heck, it doesn’t have to about conspiracy nuts; this applies to all insulated groups. They inevitably have a much higher opinion of things that may or may not confirm what they’re looking to be confirmed. What would you say to a Truther who said, upon hearing jet fuel may not burn hot enough on its own to turn steel into liquid, “Aha! That’s it! now no one can deny the Truth.”
It may be to their advantage, in that non-truthers have to explain it away. But it’s no smoking gun, and it no doubt could be explained away. Birthers likewise habitually overplay their hand, in my opinion. That was my point.
“The only one I even see implying such a thing is you.”
You’re not looking closely enough. Birthers veritably exploded when this “breakthrough” hit.
“It seems to me you can’t recognize when a glass is ‘topped’”
What topped it, this “breakthrough”? Ah, then it is the “smoking gun,” and you owe me a correction. If the cup already was overflowing, why would this be worth mentioning? Who cares, case closed, let’s go home. If the case isn’t closed, and the cup hasn’t been topped, why are you posting a picture of it? that sounds like premature declaration of victory, which is exactly what I originally posted to counteract.
... nor can you possibly explain away his Senatorial campaign claiming his Keynan birthplace.
This is the first I have heard of this. Do you have a reference?
Mr. obama has brought this all upon himself by sealing ALL his records pal.
Is there a Ms. Warren past? Homosexuality? Why ALL the disassociation with his past?
There is something there he does not want us to see.
whether that be not eligable or whatever, there is something there he doesn’t want us to see.
“A sailboat with no wind or rudder is a consistent thing. Consistently adrift.”
That’s pure sophistry, and in my opinion beneath your dignity. Either I’ve been consistent or I’m adrift; you can’t have it both ways. If for four years I’ve been consistently anti-birther, your sailboat metaphor is inapt.
“You can’t lie to the crew that there’s wind in the sail when they can see for themselves that the sails are slack.”
Now you’re mixing metaphors. Before I had no rudder and was therefore adrift, now I’m without wind and lack impetus? It could very well be both, but why bring that up now? I might have thought you were building an argument, not just piling things on willy-nilly. What’s next, my hull is breached, the captain has scurvy, and a storm’s a brewin’? You’ve lost course yourself, it seems.
This bugs me so I’m gonna stay on it. If by arguing I have no rudder and am adrift you didn’t mean to apply I was inconsistent, what did it mean? What was the point of bringing it up? What are you getting at?
So how does one break such devastating news when you find Obama previously described himself as Kenyan-born?
You do it by distancing yourself from some imaginary birther narrative and determining for your audience what it really means Obama didnt tell the truth to his literary agent.
Talk about burying the lead!
“I think about that CEO of what was it, some high flying California web firm, who got deposed because he had listed the wrong school in his resume?”
Companies usually have a policy, which they make plain to applicants, that lying on a resume or in interviews can be grounds for termination. There is no such policy for the U.S. saying that if at some point in the past you or your literary agent lied about your past to sell your memoirs, it is grounds for termination.
Link? Did Nixon lie under oath, to a grand jury, or on a college application (which would have been a crime for Nixon or for the one you keep defending)? Or did Nixon lie on television? Is that a crime? Or did Nixon lie when he met Elvis? I would, but I only met Elvis' uncle and Sam Phillips' son.
(Don't bother, I won't engage in an multi-hour back-and-forth with you.)
“Link? Did Nixon lie under oath, to a grand jury, or on a college application (which would have been a crime for Nixon or for the one you keep defending)? Or did Nixon lie on television? Is that a crime? Or did Nixon lie when he met Elvis? I would, but I only met Elvis’ uncle and Sam Phillips’ son.”
Alright, you got me, let’s say obstructing justice, rather than lying persay. He was guilty of obstructing justice, I think you must agree. That’s why he resigned, and that’s why he was pardoned. Not that other presidents haven’t been guilty of the same thing, but he was.
Pigs and chickens are “raised”.
Humans (at least, civilized ones) are “REARED”.
It’s VERY possible that Obama has been “REARED” in multiple continents.
[fingers in ears] La, la la, I cant hear you, la, la, la...
Nurse....Nurse....We need a sedative over here!
Tublecane ,you need to get your head out obamies ass ,so you can see the real world
You are ignoring that it was a ginned up public uproar that got the CEO booted. Not the company now having doubts about his competency.
Tubledude, are you new to the internet? Headline News crawls? Drudge sirens? "Breaking News" sidebar?
Um, every new story is famous for 15 minutes in the 21st century, not just BO BC stories. fyi.
Saw that...Have you read LS’s book. Lot on insight and patterns on how the OBOT’s treat those they are trying to discredit.
It was all over the web and on AP’s site for the longest time. About 3 months ago I did a search for it and only found one AP reference. Sadly that is gone. However, doing a search today shows a bunch of hits for how this scum of the earth got Ryan to drop out of the race using sealed court records about his divorce. I guess a hit piece on Ryan was more important to the AP than their own coverage of his Kenyan birth.
I know for a fact that I saw an interview on one of the alphabet networks during his campaign highlighting his meteoric rise in the dumbocrap party and his Kenyan birth. I doubt that network would make that interview available.
Given how the media is free to just not report things or take them down when it does not serve their communist agenda it is hard to know what it true. I have more faith that we live in the Matrix than I do in our media outlets version of things.
....”It isnt appropriate to say such people are motivated by political correctness. Likewise, its not appropriate to say that most conservatives dont support birtherism because its politically incorrect. They do so because they think its impractical, a losing issue, and so on, but also because its wrong”......when did the truth become “impractical, a losing issue, and so on because it’s wrong”? please pump me some daylight
Ah, thank you! Perfect!
I have bookmarked it and it will be sent to my e-mail distribution list.
Why don't reporters ask Obama why he allowed the short bio to continue to state over 17 years that he was born in Kenya when Obama knew it wasn't true, because, according to Obama and Hawaii officials, Obama was born in Hawaii?
Why are mainstream reporters so scared to confront Obama about this and other controversies in his past?
1. For instance,why don't reporters ask Obama why he ordered first a short form and then a long form birth certificate? Did the dog eat the one he had?
2. Social Security number controversy: Why don't mainstream reporters ask Obama about the controversy surrounding his Connecticut Social Security number?
3. Arizona vs. Hawaii: Why don't reporters confront Obama and ask him why Hawaii officials are playing hardball when it comes to sending verified information about Obama to Arizona Secretary Bennett so that Bennett can put Obama on the presidential ballot?
4. Again, why are mainstream reporters so scared to confront Obama about controversies in his past, like this born-in-Kenya controversy?
5. Mainstream reporters make me sick when I think how they shield Obama from controversies---or ignore Obama controversies completely---about his life over and over again as if he was some kind of god.
6. To be honest, Obama and his thugs insult my intelligence when they try to convince me that Obama DID NOT personally write and approve the details of his life that we read about in the short 1990s bio, even if some of the details, according to Obama spokesmen, are not correct.
Isn’t the definition of a Natural Born Citizen, someone who is born in this country, with parents both citizens at time of birth?
“Isnt the definition of a Natural Born Citizen, someone who is born in this country, with parents both citizens at time of birth?”
Brush asidie the scum of debris, and release the truth today.
Lest we forget what was devised so many gaeneerations ago on these early American the sshores: The Covenant - tahe promise- to live as Christ lived! The binding ageent for a greaat nation, love for one another together with the precious Word of rthe Living God,Christ Jesus.
Without Him athere can be no America!