Birthers Gearing Up for Obama's Re-Election?

[Tiassa]

Another Tinfoil Bawl

Another Tinfoil Bawl

Obama's lawyers have admitted that this long form birth certificate they released IS a forgery.

No, they haven't.

What you're representing is a bunch of right-wing manipulation that depends on people having poor reading comprehension and absolutely no useful will of their own to discover the truth.

What Hill acknowledged is that the PDF circulating on the internet is not in and of itself a true birth certificate. It is, after all, a PDF.

This is not shocking, unsettling, or surprising in any way ... unless, of course, one is a Birther.

But, hey, we understand. Tinfoil conspiracy theorists, Ron Paul supporters, and other such people specifically opposed to intellectual truth and reality interpret such issues in a manner intended to conform to their presupposed reality.

More responsible minds recognize this aspect of the tinfoil outlook, and that's a big part of the reason why mainstream culture thinks such wannabe paladins have no respectable integrity.

Which, in turn, is why so many people regard those who talk your kind of talk as half-witted racists who just can't stand the idea of a black man in the White House.

If you want respect, behave respectably. Otherwise, the only reason people will appear to give a damn what you say is when they tell you to shut the hell up.

It's really simple: If you don't want people to think you're a moron, then don't act like one.

No, really. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's not any conspiracy that makes people not pay attention to these idiotic notions you find so damnably important. For all the faults of the mainstream media, the primary public discourse, and American political culture in general, if this story was everything you want it to be it would be front and center right now. But reporters, news editors, pundits, and even a good number of everyday citizens have some functional understanding of how the law works. Even the Examiner article I'm looking at plays to exploit that point:

Hill at first said, "It has been released nationally," but then admitted that she did not know personally that Obama had given any such document to the Secretary of State, nor did she intend giving such a document to the court today. But she also argued, after Judge Masin asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.

Apuzzo told this Examiner during a recess in the hearing that this was the most stunning thing that any lawyer for Obama had ever admitted, in an Obama eligibility case or in any other case. When the hearing finally adjourned at 12:30 p.m., Apuzzo was confident of prevailing on this point. He observed that Hill, after objecting to everything that Apuzzo tried to introduce into evidence, offered no evidence on her own behalf and even admitted that the infamous PDF document was legally worthless.​

But here's the thing: Hill never needed to offer any affirmative evidence. That's how these things work. When one demands that another prove a negative, the other can reasonably defend himself without ever offering anything affirmative.

And that's where tinfoils such as yourself earn such a bad reputation. Most of you, nine days out of ten, would recognize that point. But, ohmygod! There's a black man in the White House! So, of course, you're going to throw out that logic. Just like other tinfoil sects do when there's a Jew in Hollywood, or a Muslim on an airplane, or a woman with an opinion.

The rest of us are accustomed to this sort of crap from the tinfoil sector. And the only reason we maintain any pretense of civility and reserve in dealing with your piss-poor behavior is that etiquette demands you be spared the kind of treatment your constant nagging deserves.
____________________

Notes:

Hurlbut, Terry. "Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ says Obama need not prove eligibility". Essex County Conservative Examiner. April 11, 2012. Examiner.com. May 21, 2012. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-eligibility-nj-alj-says-obama-need-not-prove-eligibility

 

[joepistole]

AND ??!

You were lying.

How can you in one breath claim sources have no basis in reality and they are just spreading rumors on wishful thinking. . . "heresay" as you put it. Then in the next post you have a link to a video of the actual event?

You know, "De nile" isn't just a river in Egypt.

Because there is nothing inconsistent. Your claims, and the sources you referenced, are simply not true.

Granted, that video was a cherry picked seventeen second soundbite from the court proceedings to establish an epistemological world view that the campaign is not lying to the American public, implying that this CGI birth certificate is authentic. The truth is actually something entirely different if you view the significant portion of the proceedings.

Yeah, so why are you using it? Why did you introduce it as evidence?

What are the significant facts?

1. The Obama defense feels that it does not need to show any proof of citizenship to run for president.

True, because that is what the law says. And the judge concurred. That is why the judge threw the case out of his court.

Are you shitting me? SERIOUSLY? And they want this whole "birther" issue to disappear? That's their defense? Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, but that is really weak, it implies guilt if nothing else.

How do you know they want the birther issue to disappear or is this you making stuff up again? I am sure the Obama campaign doesn't mind his political opponents making themselves look stupid.

2. It does not, and has not entered into as evidence this CGI long form birth certificate in any (as far as I know) court of law. Nor would they dare. For any techie knows, it would not stand up to the light of investigative scrutiny.

3. The Obama defense feels the burden of proof to prove that Obama is a natural born citizen is on the consul.

Again, are you shitting me? The judge shot the defense down on that one. That is why the motion to dismiss was essentially over ruled. The judge has nothing entered into evidence from the defense. NOTHING, bupkiss, nada, nothing, zilch.

If you would have done your research, you would have known the judge ruled in President Obama's favor. According to state election law, Obama was under no obligation to prove anything. The burden of proof falls on the plantiff...the people who cannot support their claims.

Snopes.com is a mouth piece of the establishment. They should stick to urban legends and stay out of interpreting political discourse. Before people use it to further political agendas or to verify their own confirmation bias, they ought to do some research on who founded it, how it gets its funding, and it's political and epistemological point of view. I'm not saying it is a totally useless tool for investigative purposes, but only that one shouldn't let snopes do your thinking and interpreting for you.

Oh the irony, where not you the guy dissing me for questioning your sources? Snoops is recognized for accurate reporting - something lacking in your Tea Party sources.

Here's the short of the reasoning on those pages I linked to. If what the administration released last summer were indeed authentic, why not let the legitimate authorities in question SEE the original copy?

They have, and it is posted on the president's web site. And they did submit it in this case, but the court ruled it was not needed. Because the state law did not require it.

It would end the litigation in now over half a dozen states. As it stands, the above exchange amounts to an admittance of "yes, we forged a document, released it to the MSM to pacify a bigoted, ignorant, and easily fooled populace."

Did they ever think it would have to stand up to technological scrutiny? :shrug:

This issue has been litigated in many jurisdictions and repeatedly tossed out of court. Producing the certified long form copy has not stopped the ditto heads..nothing will stop the ditto heads.

I really don't give a damn. Frankly, I don't think they do either. They (elites both left and right of the dialectic) have shit on the constitution so many times already, again, I ask you, the Obama supporters, DO YOU REALLY CARE IF HE MEETS THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE?

I don't think most of his supporters really do, do you?

Oh no you really don't care, that is why you post this gargbage and attempt to defend it.

 

[The Esotericist]

The Esotericist


Obama is President, get used to it(Romney is already toast and the Rethugs know it).

You should probably seek professional help for that severe, terminal, gullibility thing and examine the motives for it's grip on your behavior and attitudes. While I have had much experience dealing with it in the case of Truthers, this subject is just too silly and irrelivant to be worth any effort on my part. I never had any success in treating Truthers, anyway, they too are immune to facts or logic.

Grumpy

Look in the mirror buddy. The one posting links, posting court testimony, posting documentation? That's me. The one using logic? That's me.

You opine like a parrot, thanks for that, but we can all read what's in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal perfectly well thank you very much.

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”
― Mark Twain

“The most truthful part of a newspaper is the advertisements.”
― Thomas Jefferson

So if I don't follow along with the thinking of the herd. . . I'm what? Bat shit crazy? Must be.

You automatically make some assumption that because I have a distaste for corruption, I like . . . . this other guy, or that other guy. My ego does not identify with any particular candidate or party. I investigate every candidate, party and policy. Give me a name, I'll give you their dirt. That is why my handle/avatar is "The Esotericist" because I do the digging and researching that others either don't have the time for, or have their own confirmation biases that cause them to have blinders on. I find out the esoteric information that either others don't care to find out or might just be too much to be believed. And just because I post it, don't always assume that I myself always believe everything I post. Remember, I, like the scientist, am open minded, to all information and facts. When it comes to politics, we must always look at what candidates/representatives are saying, and what their behavior is. We must never ego identify with one party or politician and stick with them just because we were inspired once, or because we believe in the core principles of this party or that party. People and parties can be corrupted by money, and they can be black mailed just as easily. If you let your ego identify with a party or politician, then you believe that they are YOU, so you become blind or deny what are facts, and what is logical, or what is truth.

Some people might think from the posts I have made this political season that I support Ron Paul. This is not necessarily true. He is just the least evil of the three most prominent candidates. I know more real sinister bad stuff on him than almost anyone. Stuff that hasn't even been brought up anywhere on this forum. Not that it is necessary, he just doesn't have a chance to win anyway, so what's the point, right?

What I am getting at here, is that people don't keep an open mind, they suffer from confirmation bias, and have been raised and educated in state institutions since birth. If someone questions the nature of that reality, it is easier to shout down the person asking the questions than to examine the questions and the evidence than it is to examine your own assumptions and your own reality, isn't it?

But in the end, isn't that the spirit of empirical science and intelligent inquiry?

 

[data2.0]

Wow. This sounds like the same communist CCCP propaganda that Stalin and Mao used to justify the wholesale slaughter of their "enemies."

The lazy, bigoted and ill educated people just need to be "re-educated" or eliminated.

You blather on and on about, "racism" on the right, but it is used by the left just as much. All these things you accuse one side of using, the other side uses as well, to the same extent to achieve its' goals just as much. No side has its' hands clean. What it is, is an attempt by those who control both sides to get them to divert their attention from who is controlling them all, the classic Hegelian Dialectic.

Your assumption is that collective societies can be imposed by a top down hierarchy of force, obfuscation and manipulation of truth. Are there ever truly collective societies if there are hierarchical control paradigms? And yet here they clearly are. . . still. The people have grown wise to false collectivism before, no reason why they wouldn't again if it were to be imposed artificially. It matters not if you claim the fascists are a threat to the Jews, the homosexuals, the blacks, women . . . whoever. The left is always invoking societies fear of the reactionaries to impose their "vision" of some egalitarian top down collectivist utopia. But who's to be in charge? You? "Independent" bankers? The international elites? The IMF, UN, WTO, WHO? I'll tell you who won't be in charge. . . the local communities, the local people. That's right, they're too stupid to know what is in the best interest for themselves, their children, their families and their communities. It's best to make laws from far off ruling capitols to tell them what their money is worth, what their labor and savings are worth, and in the end, what their morality and lives are worth. Isn't it? Well, I guess that's what Mr. Obama is best at. . . .

first off the point of the constitution was to establish a stronger federal government after the first one failed, this is a point most tend to ignore. second the constitution doesn't really have that much in it, and third we can't just have a bunch of local governments on their own, thats why we have levels of it. We elect our officials its just the banks and big business are getting their hands in our government and messing the whole thing up.
Why is everyone attacking Ron Paul, he is a good guy, not really a conspiracy theorist or anything. He is just too muhc of an isolationist and thats bad. Also The Esotericist, what are your political views sometimes you sound like a communist and then you sound like a libertarian. Have you seen Thrive?

 

[The Esotericist]

No, seriously, I really don't care that much.

A lot of what Tiassa says is true, but a lot of what he says is vitriolic and asinine, because he has blinders on and refuses to think logically about this issue. His ego is to wrapped up with and identified with this candidate. He can't see the lying and obfuscations that this POTUS continually presents.

But there is a reason I got involved in this thread in the first place. It was the revelation that at one point in time, way back in his Harvard days, before Mr. Obama was a U.S. citizen, he used this fact to his advantage, the fact that he wasn't a U.S. citizen. This image and revelation struck a chord with me. For so long there has been such a complete media black out, and such a thorough just by the establishment, the CIA scrubbing his background, etc., that it has been nothing but a mystery. I have always felt someone, somewhere must know something, right?

Now, I've heard the excuses for this, but I just don't buy it. Who is the one that feeds the editor and publisher the information for this? You guessed it.

I want to know what the truth is. I think I have a better idea of what it is now, and why Mr. Obama has been so secretive, why nobody can remember him in his days at Columbia, and why his story and past is so shrouded in mystery. . . .

It's interesting reading if you like that sort of stuff. . .

Barack Obama, former CIA agent

Dr. Manning, an African American, has called Obama a "good House Negro" and a "long-legged Mack daddy," and an "emissary of the devil." When Dr. Manning gave an interview on Fox News, he said, "We also have to talk about his character." Dr. Manning has also questioned Obama's eligibility to serve as U.S. President due to the fact that Obama has not complied with numerous requests by to reveal his birth records. In fact, Obama has spent thousands of dollars in an attempt to conceal those records. Dr. Manning, using information from hired investigators declares that Obama never attended Columbia University. He asserts the following:

1) "Columbia University will not divulge whether the "alleged" diploma issued was in the name of Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama. No public record exists regarding the diploma."

2) "Obama alleges he attended Columbia in 1982, 1983. But, the investigators have been UNABLE to turn up a single shred of written documentation for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 that show where Obama appeared on a school roster, register, faculty memo, bulletin board, school awards, dean's list; where Obama's name appeared in a yearbook, club record, fraternity record, extra curricular activity member roster, student newspaper, student radio or TV activity; where Obama appeared in any records as a worker, employee, laborer in or about Columbia University; where Obama enrolled in any sports activity or program."

3) "As a graduating senior in 1983 he does not appear in any Political Science (his major) or Graduating Class yearbook or invitation records."

4) "There is absolutely no documentation of any kind to show Obama attended, lived, worked or played at Columbia University during the investigated 4 years."

5) "Interviewed professors, college employees, students (who were at Columbia during the years in question) have failed to turn up a single person that can remember Obama. This is irrefutable evidence. Think about your own situation if Obama had attended your college? A "now-famous" person went to your school? Many would be able to say, "Of course I remember." At Columbia, not a single person has been able to say he or she remembers Obama." [7]

This doctor's research is fabulous, I recommend viewing and reading the footnotes as well if you really wish to know who this mysterious man, Barrack Obama is. He wasn't even a citizen until he married his wife it appears though.

 

[billvon]

It was the revelation that at one point in time, way back in his Harvard days, before Mr. Obama was a U.S. citizen . . ..

It is nonsense like this that will guarantee Obama wins the next election. People like Manning are Obama's best allies.

 

[The Esotericist]

It is nonsense like this that will guarantee Obama wins the next election. People like Manning are Obama's best allies.

Nonsense? Why do you say it's nonsense? Because you have been conditioned otherwise?

Oh right. . . right. . . the Earth is flat, I forgot.

 

[joepistole]

No, seriously, I really don't care that much.

A lot of what Tiassa says is true, but a lot of what he says is vitriolic and asinine, because he has blinders on and refuses to think logically about this issue. His ego is to wrapped up with and identified with this candidate. He can't see the lying and obfuscations that this POTUS continually presents.

But there is a reason I got involved in this thread in the first place. It was the revelation that at one point in time, way back in his Harvard days, before Mr. Obama was a U.S. citizen, he used this fact to his advantage, the fact that he wasn't a U.S. citizen. This image and revelation struck a chord with me. For so long there has been such a complete media black out, and such a thorough just by the establishment, the CIA scrubbing his background, etc., that it has been nothing but a mystery. I have always felt someone, somewhere must know something, right?

Now, I've heard the excuses for this, but I just don't buy it. Who is the one that feeds the editor and publisher the information for this? You guessed it.

I want to know what the truth is. I think I have a better idea of what it is now, and why Mr. Obama has been so secretive, why nobody can remember him in his days at Columbia, and why his story and past is so shrouded in mystery. . . .

It's interesting reading if you like that sort of stuff. . .

Barack Obama, former CIA agent

This doctor's research is fabulous, I recommend viewing and reading the footnotes as well if you really wish to know who this mysterious man, Barrack Obama is. He wasn't even a citizen until he married his wife it appears though.

For someone who doesn't care that much, you spend a lot of time making these outlandish claims and attempting to defend them. Obama shrouded in mystery, for God sake, the man wrote a book about his life and the man lives a very public life. He is in the news virtually every day.

Two, Obama never said he was born in Kenya or anywhere besides Hawaii. You are just flat out lying. And not suprisingly you have no proof of this claim either. Repeating claims made by people who cannot support their claims with credible evidence is not evidence a reason person would accept as gospel as you have done friend.

No, seriously dude, you are lying.

 

[The Esotericist]

No, seriously dude, you are lying.

About what?

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on Batherding

So if I don't follow along with the thinking of the herd. . . I'm what? Bat shit crazy? Must be.

That might be how your myth describes it, but I would suggest that myth overlooks certain elements.

I. Thinking With the Herd​

One reason your particular form of evangelism inspires such disdain among other people is that it is at once willfully denigrating, and blind to itself.

To wit: Other people are mere stock animals, part of the herd.

Also: In presuming people are part of the herd, you duck considering whether you are possibly running with another herd.

I wouldn't say this is anything you ought to feel especially ashamed of; many people make these mistakes—ufology conspiracy theorists, federal reserve conspiracy theorists, New World Order conspiracy theorists, Jewish-UN-Hollywood-Banking conspiracy theorists, black liberation theology conspiracy theorists, &c.

But neither is it anything you ought to feel especially proud of.

Look at your narrative, though. It isn't scientific, or even merely academic. It's propaganda. For instance:

But there is a reason I got involved in this thread in the first place. It was the revelation that at one point in time, way back in his Harvard days, before Mr. Obama was a U.S. citizen, he used this fact to his advantage, the fact that he wasn't a U.S. citizen. This image and revelation struck a chord with me. For so long there has been such a complete media black out, and such a thorough just by the establishment, the CIA scrubbing his background, etc., that it has been nothing but a mystery. I have always felt someone, somewhere must know something, right?

If we consider the element in question itself, there are at least two outlooks. One notes that the biography in question comes from "a booklet from President Obama's literary agency circa 1991".

Well, that's the thing. It's from the literary agency. Take a look at Carcano's post: "Never mind that authors who have worked with the agency state that the agency asks that authors pen their own biographies."

That Miriam Goderich, then an assistant and now a partner at the agency, has said specifically that it was her own error and, explicitly, that, "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii," does not seem to matter to you, Carcano, or any other Birthers.

There is a difference between something like a book jacket biography, which is often but not always written by the author, and marketing material produced and distributed by a literary agency for its own advertising benefit. This is another element other people might consider, but apparently has no significance to Birthers.

After all, in 1991, Barack Obama was a thirty year-old graduate of Harvard Law School whose tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review netted an opportunity to write a book on race relations. The book, which became a personal memoir, did not see publication for another four years. The odds that Barack Obama penned the literary agency marketing bio—intended to pitch to potential clients and publishers who might be fishing for new authors—are exactly zero. Carcano's argument about authors writing their own biographies overlooks vital questions like who, what, and why.

Who? An unpublished author working on a book that might come to fruition, whose salable merit is that he was the first black editor of HLR.

What? A pamphlet prepared and distributed for the literary agency's marketing department.

Why? To pitch to potential authors and publishers who might want to do business with the firm.

I can imagine circumstances in which an author might write his or her own biography for such material, but not an unpublished author four years out from the release of his book whose salable qualification is being the first black guy to head the Harvard Law Review.

One element Birthers are overlooking is that this is the publishing industry. While it is certainly not as notorious as the recording or movie industries, publishing is just as capitalist, and just as vicious. A fact-checking error by an agency assistant in hastily-prepared marketing material (note the font; it's called "American Typewriter", and has long been a standard monospace inclusion on Apple computers)? That's much easier for people to recognize and accept than some conspiracy theory dating back to before a person was born, intended to put that person into the White House in order to undermine the United States of America. Indeed, this is the sort of thing that happens when money trumps all other considerations.

Another element missing from this wannabe scandal is affirmation that Carcano's suggestion is, in fact, the case. That is, where is the affirmation that Kenyan-born claim came specifically from Obama? There isn't any, and there will not be any. The conspiracy theory demands proof of a negative.

But there are always those in tinfoil circles willing to run with that fallacy. Consider again your own argument:

"It was the revelation that at one point in time, way back in his Harvard days, before Mr. Obama was a U.S. citizen, he used this fact to his advantage, the fact that he wasn't a U.S. citizen."​

You presume the conspiracy theory true, and even depend on that presumption for your justification: "... before Mr. Obama was a U.S. citizen, he used this fact to his advantage". Neither of the assertions in this argument—that Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, or that he used that (presumed) "fact" to his advantage—is demonstrable.

But, you know, everyone else is just a dumb stock animal running with the herd, so, unlike you, they can't see the obvious truth represented by these tinfoil fallacies.

There are many who you might consider part of the herd who are aware of and frustrated by herd mentality in American society. But that doesn't mean they're all blind; and it certainly does not mean you are not part of a herd—or, perhaps, you might try arguing that there is only one such herd, and that all you who reiterate fallacious arguments as if they were somehow factual and functional are completely independent of one another, share no underlying behavioral traits, and have somehow come to see the hidden wisdom defined by fallacies.

The contempt you show other people lends to your undoing. You're not actually trying to communicate anything true, but, instead, retreating into fallacy in order to beat your chest about how superior you are—something akin to people who claim victory in discussions.

II. Bat Shit Crazy​

Certainly you can understand that, in terms of the figurative black and white of sophism and philosophy, there are many shades of gray in between.

If people think you're batshit crazy, perhaps that might have something to do with repeatedly identifying yourself at an extreme end of the bell curve, alongside other people who appear to be batshit crazy.

Self-aggrandizement—

That is why my handle/avatar is "The Esotericist" because I do the digging and researching that others either don't have the time for, or have their own confirmation biases that cause them to have blinders on. I find out the esoteric information that either others don't care to find out or might just be too much to be believed. And just because I post it, don't always assume that I myself always believe everything I post. Remember, I, like the scientist, am open minded, to all information and facts. When it comes to politics, we must always look at what candidates/representatives are saying, and what their behavior is.

—might also contribute to any negative perceptions people might have of your intellectual or psychological faculties.

Like your bit about Ron Paul:

Some people might think from the posts I have made this political season that I support Ron Paul. This is not necessarily true. He is just the least evil of the three most prominent candidates. I know more real sinister bad stuff on him than almost anyone.

To the one, that's mostly about your egotism. To the other, it's also undermined by your introduction of racist anti-Obama conspiracy theories in defense of Ron Paul. It might also seem a bit strange—or desperate, as such—to see you claiming that you "know more real sinister bad stuff on him than almost anyone" in light of your earlier arguments:

"Give me one instance where [Ron Paul] lies or deceives. This politician has more integrity than all the others rolled up and combined."​

Kind of like this one, too:

"If this doesn't convince Tiassa that [Ron Paul] is the genuine article, and that Obama is the evil bitch, nothing will."​

And so on ...

"Dr. Ron Paul is the only one with a moral compass left."​

... and so on ...

"I would rather have [economic collapse] happen under Dr. Paul's watch than under a Statists watch. You see, under Paul's watch, freedom would reign."​

... ad nauseam:

"If Dr. Paul loses the nomination, the nation is sunk."​

In light of all that, it might be possible that, if some folks think you're batshit crazy, part of that outcome might be that you would try an argument like that—

"Some people might think from the posts I have made this political season that I support Ron Paul. This is not necessarily true. He is just the least evil of the three most prominent candidates. I know more real sinister bad stuff on him than almost anyone."​

—and expect people to believe it.

Of course, it could all just be a misunderstanding:

But in the end, isn't that the spirit of empirical science and intelligent inquiry?

Empiricism requires some sort of affirmative evidence.

For instance:

• "But there is a reason I got involved in this thread in the first place ...." — And that has nothing to do with empirical results, as demonstrated by your elevation of fallacy to fact.

• "Some people might think from the posts I have made this political season that I support Ron Paul." — Empirically, the record you have left supports that perception.

• "This is not necessarily true." — Empiricism does not in and of itself laugh. But, empirically, it would seem you're now trying to contradict your own record.​

Empirically, sir, if people think you're batshit crazy, it's not merely because you hold opinions outside the mainstream; rather, it is because you appear determined to bend reality to accommodate your egocentric desires.
____________________

Notes:

Stableford, Dylan. "'Born in Kenya': Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991". OTUS. May 18, 2012. ABCNews.Go.com. May 22, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...sidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566

 

[joepistole]

About what?

Are you able to comprehend text that does not conform to your notions or the "secret knowlege" you think you have or are you just immune to reality?

 

[Tiassa]

Iowa GOP Goes Birther

Iowa GOP Goes Birther

Birthers just got another boost, and this one from the Republican Party of Iowa. Radio Iowa brings the detail:

The chairman of the Iowa Republican Party's platform committee says the group is intentionally questioning President Obama's citizenship with the wording in one section of the document. It calls for presidential candidates to "show proof of being a 'natural born citizen' of the United States."

Don Racheter, chairman of the Iowa GOP's 2012 platform committee, spoke with Radio Iowa by phone this afternoon.

"There are many Republicans who feel that Barack Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' because his father was not an American when he was born and, therefore, feel that according to the Constitution he's not qualified to be president, should not have been allowed to be elected by the Electoral College or even nominated by the Democratic Party in 2008, so this is an election year. It's a shot at him," Racheter said.​

All we need is for Nebraska to check in now, and this can become ... (ahem!) ... the "Counting Crows" election°.

Somewhere in middle America.
Get right to the heart of matters;
It's the heart that matters more.
I think you better turn your ticket in
And get your money back at the door.​

____________________

Notes:

° the "Counting Crows" election — Yes, it's a pun. And a nasty one, at that.

Works Cited:

Henderson, O. Kay. "Iowa GOP platform takes 'a shot' at Obama's citizenship". Radio Iowa. May 21, 2012. RadioIowa.com. May 22, 2012. http://www.radioiowa.com/2012/05/21/iowa-gop-platform-takes-a-shot-at-obamas-citizenship/

 

[Carcano]

Ready for the next bizarre twist in the long, winding and harrowing tale of infamy?

A new book is out about Obama's past...and its not another birther book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=C422SbjYHoU

In this interview, the author claims that Obama's real father was a communist organizer named Frank Marshall Davis, who appears in the footage above.

http://www.obamasrealfather.com/directors-q-and-a/

 

[Tiassa]

The Curse of Yig

Ready for the next bizarre twist in the long, winding and harrowing tale of infamy?

Oh, good heavens. I wonder how much traction this one will get?

Thanks for the update.

 

[Tiassa]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends "Threats Management Unit" to Hawaii

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends "Threats Management Unit" to Hawaii

The infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio's latest anti-Obama stunt is worthy of a proper "ROTFLMAO". Or, as the Honolulu Star-Advertiser explains:

Two men who identified themselves as being from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Phoenix went to the Hawaii Department of Health Monday morning requesting verification of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, said a state spokeswoman.

A Hawaii deputy attorney general gave the men information concerning the legal requirements to obtain such a document; the requirements are posted on the Health Department's website. The two men then left the office, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

The two men showed Maricopa County Sheriff's Office badges and identified themselves as Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewcz, Okubo said. They are "authorized by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, who is conducting an official investigation," a spokesman for the sheriff's office said in an email.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been researching Obama's residency status using a volunteer cold-case "posse," but now has employed a taxpayer-funded deputy, The Arizona Republic reported Monday.

Zullo is a volunteer, the Republic reported, but Okubo said that Mackiewicz presented a business card showing he is with the Threats Management Unit of the sheriff's office.​

The Arizona comedy has achieved astounding magnitude. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has recently been badgering Hawaii officials for more information about the birth of President Barack Obama, and even hinted that he might strike the president's name from the ballot.

Hawaii, for its part, has treated Bennett's request like anyone else's:

One of the more amusing things revealed last week when Arizona's secretary of state came out as birther curious was that Hawaii officials just simply don't believe he's qualified to investigate Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Sure, Ken Bennett says he's the man in charge of deciding whether President Obama is eligible to be on Arizona's ballot in November, but the response from people in Hawaii's government has been: Prove it. In essence, they're giving Bennett a taste of his own medicine, making him jump through a series of hoops to prove he has the legal authority to investigate the matter, much the same way the birthers have made Hawaii prove time and time again that the president is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.

(Martin)​

TPM Muckraker's Nick Martin includes records of correspondence between Secretary Bennett and Hawaii's Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine. And, yes, it is, as David Ferguson of RawStory suggests, "hugely entertaining". Well, you know ... if you're into that kind of entertainment.

And now Arpaio's people turn up in in the Aloha State with their badges. As Ferguson relates:

This morning, Arizona's embattled Sheriff Joe Arpaio confirmed that he sent a deputy from his "threats unit" to Hawaii, along with a volunteer tasked with investigating the matter. They arrived in Hawaii on Monday and flashed badges at Hawaii Department of Health personnel, announcing that they had been sent by the State of Arizona.

When quizzed by reporters as to what specific threats necessitate such measures, Arpaio cited "security issues ... that I can't get into."

The sheriff, who has recently been charged by the Justice Department of waging a systematic campaign of civil rights abuses against Latino citizens, confirmed that the two-man posse traveled to Hawaii and stayed there on taxpayer funds. He said that he hopes that the costs will be covered by donations to the sheriff's department, which are being collected through the birther website, WorldNetDaily.​

This is the sort of thing one could never write as fiction.
____________________

Notes:

Star-Advertiser Staff. "Arizona deputies in Hawaii seeking Obama birth certificate". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. May 21, 2012. StarAdvertiser.com. May 22, 2012. http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/152395115.html

Martin, Nick R. "Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends 'Threats Unit' Investigator To Hawaii To Escalate Birther Probe" TPM Muckraker. May 22, 2012. TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com. May 22, 2012. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/arpaio_threats_unit_birther_hawaii_bennett.php

Ferguson, David. "Hawaii turns tables on Arizona Secretary of State's birther requests". RawStory. May 22, 2012. RawStory.com. May 22, 2012. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/...arizona-secretary-of-states-birther-requests/

See Also:

Hensley, J. J. "Arpaio using deputy to help in Obama birth investigation". The Arizona Republic. May 22, 2012. AZCentral.com. May 22, 2012. http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/21/20120521arpaio-obama-birth-funding.html

 

[The Esotericist]

Are you able to comprehend text that does not conform to your notions or the "secret knowlege" you think you have or are you just immune to reality?

You never answered my question. I was tempted to report you for slander. You said I was lying. I NEVER said I believed in anything. Nor did I ever in anyway say that I necessarily believe Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere else. Frankly, I don't know where he was born.

What I am saying, is he is not to be trusted. If he has had a book published, and his publisher has wrote he was born in Kenya, it is a good bet, HE said he was born there at one time. Who the hell knows where he was born? All this says about him, is that he is an opportunist and a liar. That is my perspective on the situation.

I am not telling lies, I am stating my opinion on the situation. We are entitled to have opinions on things are we not? YOU are calling my opinions lies. That is slander. I ask you again, please quote me where I lied.

 

[The Esotericist]

That might be how your myth describes it, but I would suggest that myth overlooks certain elements.

Perhaps there is some truth in your personal attack. But again, as has once been stated by me, will reiterated once more here for your benefit, and perhaps you will read and realize it pertains to you. Some of these posts may cause a little bit of cognitive dissonance, so it is much easier to attack the writer than to seriously consider the epistemological perspective being presented.

Your posts are being read and you are being understood. I read the sources you post. Many times the point of view you take is a sober, logical and perfectly reasonable position.

Yes, you are correct, people who question President Obama's constitutional citizenship status and his eligibility for the position of POTUS are gearing up to contest his re-election. Probably because they know they don't stand a chance. The opposing party is fractured. If they don't give the nomination to Dr. Paul, the anti-statists probably won't even bother voting, right? They are fed up with the global political bullies, the illusion of control over economic fiscal policy, the illusion of control over foreign policy, etc.

I realize that everything that has been written about him could very well be true. But there has also been much written about him that is simply ignored, as if it is not relevant. So what if he were born in Kenya?

Again, the question is posed to you, would you care? Do you think he should be able to be President even if he is not "constitutionally" eligible?

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND IS INDISPENSABLE
In order to understand Obama and the congeries of foundation-funded racist and terrorist
provocateurs and international gangsters who represent his immediate social circle, some significant
historical background is indispensable. Obama’s mother worked for the Ford Foundation, and
Obama has worked for foundations like the Gamaliel, the Joyce, the Woods, and the Annenberg
Chicago Challenge all his life. But what do foundations do? Emphatically, they do not practice good
works of charity; they deal in cynical social and political manipulation in the service of the ruling
class. So it is necessary to explain the strategic doctrine which has governed the activities of the US
foundation community since the 1960s, especially in the framework of Reagan’s Executive Order
12333, which privatized the US intelligence community into front companies, law firms, and
especially foundations.
The public now knows that Obama attended Jeremiah Wright’s church, where the incendiary
doctrine of black liberation theology, a school atypical of the black church, is proclaimed. But
where do Wright and his sidekicks Otis Moss III and Dwight Hopkins come from? Are they an
authentic and spontaneous expression of the black church, or are they controlled assets deployed in
a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy by foundations and divinity schools that represent the most
parasitical interests in Wall Street? The historical approach is the only way to clarify these issues.
Obama claims to be an apostle of bipartisan cooperation and the transcendence of legislative
wrangling and haggling. His background in this regard is real, but it is not what the public thinks.
Obama is a product of the infamous Illinois bipartisan Combine, a joint venture by the Illinois
Republican and Democratic Parties to savagely loot the people of that state. Obama’s godfathers
include not just corrupt machine pols like Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich, but also the
Levantine gangsters and underworld figures Rezko, Auchi, and Alsammarae, all part of what the
FBI has been probing under the heading of Operation Board Games. Obama’s bosom buddy Rezko
is now a convicted felon, having been found guilty on June 5, 2008 on 16 of 24 counts in Chicago
federal court, including for scheming to get kickbacks out of money-management firms wanting
state business, and a contractor who wanted to build a hospital in northern Illinois. Auchi and
Alsammarae are also convicted felons. Obama’s long history in graft and corruption make him the
most corrupt and dirtiest presidential candidate in many decades.
Americans have now been told that the 1960s Weatherman terrorist bombers and provocateurs
(and foundation operatives) Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have sponsored Obama’s career as a
foundation asset and later as a holder of elective office. But what were the Weathermen? And, were
Ayers and Dohrn honest revolutionaries who chose terrorism, or were they intelligence community
operatives sent in to destroy the student movement and peace movement by taking over Students for
10 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography
a Democratic Society (SDS) in the wake of the New York City teachers’ strike, and then scuttling
SDS from within, in a matter of months? Only historical background can clarify the question of how
Obama’s penchant for associating with known criminals makes him the most radical subversive
ever to get this close to the presidency.
The public is being urged to regard Obama as a politician of phenomenal organizational ability
because of his ability to game the absurd rules of the Democratic Party. But what if Obama had
been a protected asset of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission since about 1981-
1983, and a man whose entire career has been fostered and promoted by the Trilateral-Bilderberger
Wall Street group? What if Obama’s campaign ran on Rockefeller-Soros Trilateral cash, with the
backing of the matchless Trilateral network of media whores and agents of influence? Here again,
adequate historical background is necessary.
The last time that the Trilateral Commission fielded a relatively unknown puppet with the goal
of seizing power through an insurgency based on surprise, the result was the catastrophic presidency
of Jimmy Carter, who turned foreign affairs over to Brzezinski, while placing economic policy in
the hands of Trilateral agent Paul Adolph Volcker, who destroyed what was left of the US industrial
economy. Today Obama is attempting to profile himself as something of an economic populist.
Only an appeal to history can show how today’s Trilateral puppet Obama will go beyond
yesterday’s Trilateral puppet Carter, this time imposing austerity in the name of third world
solidarity, sacrifice in the name of global warming, and perhaps even reparations for racism. As
with Carter, the beneficiaries will be the Rockefeller-Soros Wall Street interests.
Obama promises hope and change, but his campaign bears uncanny similarities to the early days
of Italian fascism in 1919-1922. Only historical background can show the many parallels between
Obama and the young Mussolini.​

BARACK H. OBAMA THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY

 

[joepistole]

You never answered my question. I was tempted to report you for slander. You said I was lying. I NEVER said I believed in anything. Nor did I ever in anyway say that I necessarily believe Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere else. Frankly, I don't know where he was born.

YOU LIED. AND IT IS QUITE CLEAR, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT MYSELF AD NAUSEUM. YOU LIED. Not believing your lies, does not make them any less of a lie.

What I am saying, is he is not to be trusted. If he has had a book published, and his publisher has wrote he was born in Kenya, it is a good bet, HE said he was born there at one time.

There are a lot of "if" statements in there followed by an opinion based on those "if"s, far from the definative statements you made earlier on the matter. Where did Obama say he was born in Kenya or anywhere other than Hawaii? And don't go back to the uncredible sources, sources known to lie, to support your statements.

Who the hell knows where he was born? All this says about him, is that he is an opportunist and a liar. That is my perspective on the situation.

NO, this says you are an oportunistic liar. You lied about Obama's birth. Now you are backing off, and issuing a host of qualifiers. You have yet to show one instance where President Obama lied about his birth. All you can do is repeat the lies and offer unfounded opininons based on a host of suppositions.

I am not telling lies, I am stating my opinion on the situation. We are entitled to have opinions on things are we not? YOU are calling my opinions lies. That is slander. I ask you again, please quote me where I lied.

Sure you are entitled to any opinion you want to have, as crazy as they may be. But you are not entitled to lie at will and not get called out for it.

 

[Grumpy]

The Esotericist

Look in the mirror buddy. The one posting links, posting court testimony, posting documentation? That's me. The one using logic? That's me.

EVERYTHING you have posted is a lie or a distortion. Others have already pointed that out to you. And logic is most certainly scarce in your posts, just lie filled diatribes and Conservative talking points.

As I have already said, Birtherism is a "prettier" substitute for the racism, overt or covert, within the Rethuglican Party. You just can't stand that a black man cleaned your clock and took the Oval Office away from your party. Your rantings just solidify that conclusion. The judge threw the frivilous lawsuit out of court for being baseless. That is a good description of everything you have posted here. Sad, really.

Grumpy

 

[Tiassa]

Bennett Apologizes, Makes Excuses

Arizona Update: Bennett Apologizes, Makes Excuses

TPM's Nick Martin brings us the detail:

After days of ridicule for launching a conspiracy theory-fueled investigation into Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett on Tuesday backed off his threat to keep the president off the ballot in November and apologized to his state.

“If I embarrassed the state, I apologize, but that certainly wasn’t my intent,” Bennett said in an interview with Phoenix radio station KTAR. “He’ll be on the ballot as long as he fills out the same paperwork and does the same things that everybody else has.”

Bennett said he still intends to keep asking Hawaii for verification that Obama’s birth certificate is authentic. But he said he only plans to use Hawaii’s answer as a way to satisfy demands from constituents who remain unconvinced Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States and so therefore eligible to be president.

He also said he talked to Hawaii’s attorney general on Monday night and clarified what he is looking to have verified. He said he “reworded” his request and expects to receive a response from Hawaii officials “in the next 24 to 48 hours.”​

Meanwhile, word emerged earlier today that, as far as Hawaii is concerned, the issue is resolved. Oskar Garcia explains:

The state of Hawaii has verified President Barack Obama's birth records to Arizona's elections chief after a nearly three-month back and forth that Arizona officials said could have ended without the incumbent's name on its November ballot.

Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, told The Associated Press in an email late Tuesday that the matter is resolved after Hawaii gave Arizona the verification it was looking for.

Hawaii - which has vouched for Obama's birth in the state several times as early as October 2008 - didn't bow to the request easily. The Aloha State told Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett he had to prove he needed the records as part of normal business.

Wisch says Hawaii got what it needed, so it gave Bennett's office the verification.

It's not immediately clear whether the information will satisfy Bennett. Bennett spokesman Matthew Roberts said the office received the verification and planned to comment Wednesday.

Roberts did not say whether the information would end the flap with Obama's name on the ballot.​

And shortly after, well, the flap ended. Tim Gaynor reported today for Reuters:

Arizona's secretary of state said on Wednesday he has received information from state officials in Hawaii that verifies Barack Obama's birth records, satisfying criteria to put the president on the November ballot in the state.

Ken Bennett, who in addition to his secretary of state duties serves as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign co-chairman in Arizona, made a request to authorities in Hawaii on March 30 about Obama's birth records on behalf of more than 4,000 constituents, his office said.​

But the fallout isn't finished for Bennett.

Phil Benson of KPHO notes that the minority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives has called on Secretary of State Ken Bennett to resign ... from his post as co-chair of Mitt Romney's campaign organization in the state. Or, if Bennett really wants to stay on Team Romney, he could always quit his day job as Secretary of State.

Democrat Chad Campbell said Wednesday that it's inappropriate for the state's top elections officer to publicly support one candidate when trying to keep another off the ballot.

"Failure to step aside from the political campaign will keep a dark cloud over Arizona's elections this fall," Campbell said in a statement on Wednesday.

Matthew Roberts, a spokesman for Bennett's office, declined to comment.

Campbell also said Bennett should resign as secretary of state if he fails to quit the Romney post.

"Ken Bennett is abusing the power of his office to give a political advantage to his preferred presidential candidate," Campbell said. "He's completely contradicting his initial stance. It's both hypocritical and wrong."​

None of this, however, really cuts to the heart of the matter. As Steve Benen asked last week: "What's the matter with Arizona?"

Indeed. Stephen Lemons of the alternative newspaper Phoenix New Times points out that even Democrats in the state could be swayed by Birtherism:

To some degree, the bigoted idgits of the RMTP are reflective not only of Sand Land's GOP but of this place in general, as a recent Morrison Institute poll showed that a whopping 60 percent of Arizona voters support the concept behind a "birther bill," with 76 percent of GOPers supporting it and 58 percent of Democrats opposing it.

This leaves about 42 percent of Dems (or dem-wits) who need to be drummed out of their own party.​

Lemons notes that the Red Mountain Tea Party actually has some clout in Arizona, such that, "Nearly every GOPer running for office eventually goes before them to prove his or her conservative bona fides .... That's why I almost felt an ounce of sympathy for Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett as I watched him address the Red Mountain Tea Party this past Monday, with [RMTP founder Randy] Hatch moderating."

Still, though, it's a stretch to feel sympathy for a guy like Bennett, who dove into the fray at the whim of a rabid lot of fanatics without a clue what he was doing. As Lemons notes:

Never mind that Obama's "certification of live birth" was made public four years ago or that in 2011, Hawaii's Department of Health issued a waiver to its own rules and produced two certified copies of Obama's so-called "long form" birth certificate, one of which the White House posted to its website for all the world to see.

Loretta Fuddy, current director of Hawaii's Department of Health, granted that waiver and signed a letter to the president stating, "I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies."

Fuddy serves at the pleasure of Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, but the verification of Obama's birth certificate is bipartisan and stretches back to 2008, when Dr. Chiyome Fukino, health-director appointee of then-Republican Governor Linda Lingle, issued a statement saying that she had "personally seen and verified" Obama's birth certificate, which is in her department's possession.

In 2009, Fukino issued another statement, insisting that she had "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."

Fuddy's letter and Fukino's statements all are available via Hawaii government websites, by the way. ....

.... I asked Bennett why he'd even entertain the notion that Obama's birth certificate was not legit. He repeated his refrain that he was only responding to constituent requests, that he thought Hawaii would quickly respond and end the issue for him.

Then, Bennett admitted that he hadn't seen Chiyome Fukino's aforementioned statements until Monday. He also insisted that he was not trying to "prove" his conservative credentials to anyone.

The simple fact that Bennett felt the need to placate goofball requests from his "constituents," when he should've just ignored them or sent them on their way with copies of Fukino's press releases, shows how deeply insane both the state GOP and Sand Land's political discourse is right now.​

Bennett claims to not be a Birther. He claims the issue is important because his constituents think it's important. He went so far as to say, in an email, "If Hawaii can't or won't provide verification of the president's birth certificate, I will not put his name on the ballot."

Just as a matter of due diligence, maybe Bennett should have looked into the history of the issue?

Just maybe?

I mean, sure, Rep. Chad Campbell has a point: If you're on one candidate's campaign, perhaps you should not be threatening to use your public office to keep the other candidate off the ballot.

Even beyond that, though, what about incompetence? I mean, sure, so Bennett's not a Birther. Rather, he's an incompetent boob. We already know that Birthers are paranoid, racist boobs, but come on—is being a half-witted moron that much better an alternative?

Bennett has gaping exposure, now, for the appearance of serious conflict of interest in performing his duties as Secretary of State. And, yes, he has embarrassed the state of Arizona tremendously; though, in truth, his saving grace on that count is probably that Arizona regularly embarrasses itself, so this will be just another point on a long, depressing curve. But are we to pretend that Bennett had no idea this Birther issue was going on until he started getting emails from a bunch of Tea Partiers who simply will not accept that Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen? Did it really never occur to him until he was neck-deep in the muck that there might be a record worth examining?

Okay, fine. Secretary Bennett, welcome to Birthermania. Take a note, learn a lesson.

America, this is your Arizona.
____________________

Notes:

Martin, Nick R. "Bennett Backs Off Birther Threat, Apologizes To Arizona". TPM Muckraker. May 22, 2012. TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com. May 23, 2012. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...t_apologizes_obama_birther_hawaii_arizona.php

Garcia, Oskar. "Hawaii verifies Obama's birth records to Arizona". The Miami Herald. May 23, 2012. MiamiHerald.com. May 23, 2012. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/23/2813076/hawaii-verifies-obamas-birth-records.html

Gaynor, Tim. "Arizona official says satisfied Obama U.S.-born". Reuters. May 23, 2012. Reuters.com. May 23, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/us-usa-arizona-birther-idUSBRE84M13G20120523

Benson, Phil. "Lawmaker calls for Bennett to resign Romney post". KPHO. May 23, 2012. KPHO.com. May 23, 2012. www.kpho.com/story/18610052/campbell-calls-for-bennett-to-resign-romney-post

Benen, Steve. "What's the matter with Arizona?" The Maddow Blog. May 18, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. May 23, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11757268-whats-the-matter-with-arizona

Lemons, Stephen. "Ken Bennett's "Birther" Request Shows the Insanity of Arizona's GOP". Phoenix New Times. May 24, 2012. PhoenixNewTimes.com. May 23, 2012. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012...-request-shows-the-insanity-of-arizona-s-gop/