Obama's eligibility? – Shocking scientific poll! You won't believe how few Americans think president has shown his qualification
POLL: Only 9% Believe Obama Has Documented His Eligibility
Mar 21, 2011 1:12:30 PM
New WND/Wenzel poll shows that 2 out of every 3 like state legislation that requires proof By Bob Unruh Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies.
Donald Trump Takes Birther Questions Mainstream – Again
Mar 24, 2011 2:38:06 PM
Donald Trump's natural habitat is the public spotlight, and he is making the most of it now that his interest in the U.S. Presidency is well-known. It was remarkable, then, that the real estate and media mogul's appearance on The View Wednesday brought to the mainstream an issue that has never – never – gone away:
With headlines like this, is it time to ask hard questions?
ARE THESE DOCUMENTS VALID?
IC EXAMPLE # 1 – IS THIS DOCUMENT VALID?
Carefully examine the above document to determine if it is valid.
IC EXAMPLE # 2 – IS THIS DOCUMENT VALID? – YES OR NO AND REASON WHY
Carefully examine the above document to determine if it is valid.
The second document is my birth certificate. No, wait that isn't true. To be accurate I need to say, "Here is a scanned copy of my alleged "CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD" that has not been vetted by qualified forensic document examiners."
I do not have a passport. If I send a link to the "scanned copy of my alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners" to the State Department, do you think they will send me a passport? No, they will not!
I might protest, "But I put it on the Internet for all to see! I released my birth certificate to the public." "No", they would say "You released a scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners. We need the original document."
I might protest by saying. "It hasn't been altered (except for the little detail of obscuring the official number on the document); it has a doctor's signature, the name of the hospital, my parent's signature and everything!" "Nope," they would say, and if I insisted they might notice the line at the bottom "WARNING: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DUPLICATE THIS COPY" or "ANY ALTERATION OR ERASURE VOIDS THIS CERTIFICATE."
So, unless I am able to provide authentic documentation, I will not be able to go on my fabulous, all expense paid cruise.
Yet there are people who live among us, and even have the right to vote, who think that if I presented my scanned, altered "CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD" during an election in the same manner, it would be enough evidence to prove that I am eligible to become President of the United States.
And my altered, "scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners" is far higher quality than has been offered by AKA Obama.
AKA Obama has spent lots of money to keep the best available evidence secret. Let's just add suppression of evidence to the other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations, and filing fraudulent documents in all 50 states.
No matter what you might think, there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Far, far less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document, and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, and any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by examining scat. Or pictures of scat.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, (CV here ) a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit HERE that states, in part:
"I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org," and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document."
Sandra Ramsey Lines' summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Here is a link to another article of importance on the subject, which has gone viral and is now on numerous sites:
By this time your Congressperson probably knows about it. But just in case, how about sending him/her a copy of the article or a copy of this link?
Obama "I have nothing to hide, but I'm hiding it."
Can Obama supporters see the logic here? Oh, I forgot, Obama supporters don't use logic; not "warm and fuzzy" enough for them.
Whether or not he is legally qualified is rapidly becoming a moot point. Instead, he has proved time and again that he is unqualified as a leader.
Not exactly. You have to support the “correct” political causes first, then all these other inconvenient requirements suddenly vanish into thin air.
Conservatives are congratulating themselves for spreading the ‘birther’ craziness–I’ll give you guys this: it worked. I don’t see how Obama can avoid addressing it in the 2012 campaign.
AN OPEN INVITATION TO DONALD TRUMP RE: AKA OBAMA
“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” –
Barack Hussein Obama – AKA Barry Soetoro – August 21, 2010
Dear Mr. Trump,
I have been researching the Obama eligibility issue since before the 2008 election. I honestly believe that I know as much as anyone about what is true on this issue and what is not.
I really admire you courage and tenacity. However, you need to do some home work. So I invite you to use any of my research that you may find useful.
Look at the latest version of my collected research. It is over 7000 words so grab a snack and a drink.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
To those of you who question Mr. Trump’s motives:
If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.
If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I-75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.
If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama
Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?
The only conspiracy is the media and the obots who suppress the revelation of AKA Obama’s history
Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
A MSWord version of the report is available upon request.
Gestell – Why is it ‘crazy’ for someone to question the eligibility of anyone for any position?
reply to Bettyhere:
Ask yourself this: would you have given this issue a moment’s thought if Obama had not been (a) a liberal (b) a Democrat? Not likely.
Gestell:
What’s so wrong with a double standard?
Oh, Gestell: Stop trying to think you know what I’m thinking, messing with my mind will only confuse you more; yes, if Bush had a cloud over his eligibillity I most absolutely, certainly, positively would want it resolved; and finally, please answer my question–refer to my previous post.
sedonaman,
Absolutely nothing, when one is engaged in ideological combat, but then don’t whine and howl when liberals say nasty things about your favorite conservatives. If Obama is a deceptive, incompetent, traitor then Palin can surely be a cognitively challenged reality show star with delusions of grandeur and Bachmann can be a historically ignorant fanatic.
Bettyhere,
But the point is that you’re not talking about ‘any’ applicant or position. You’re talking about this specific person. And what’s ‘crazy’ is the suspicion that Obama could have managed to slip undetected through the course of his professional and political career while hiding the big secret that he wasn’t native-born. Isn’t it much more likely that birthers will grasp at any straw to bring their chief enemy down? If conservatives thought it would get them any traction, they’d try to persuade the rest of us that Obama is really an android sent by the Galactic Empire to pollute our precious bodily fluids as part of its scheme to take over our planet.
Question: “Why is it ‘crazy’ for someone to question the eligibility of anyone for any position?”
Answer: “Ask yourself this: would you have given this issue a moment’s thought if Obama had not been (a) a liberal (b) a Democrat? Not likely.”
Interesting answer to a fairly clear-cut question. Let’s look at it in the context of contemporary American politics, like Gestell suggested.
There’s been a similar question about opposition to Obama because of his race: ‘would you have given this issue a moment’s thought if Obama had not black?
The answer, of course, is that “I, a conservative, automatically oppose Obama because he’s black, just like I, a conservative, automatically support Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton because they’re white.” Um, no, wait a minute, I oppose all three men. Why is this? Could it be that I oppose their policies,, not their race?
There’s been a similar question about opposition to Hillary because of her sex: ‘would you have given this issue a moment’s thought if Hillary had not been a woman?
The answer, of course, is that “I, a conservative, automatically oppose Hillary because she’s a woman, just like I, a conservative, automatically oppose Sarah Palin because she’s a woman.” Um, no, wait a minute. I support Sarah over Hillary, despite the fact that both individuals have a different set of reproductive organs than I do. Why is this? Could it be that I oppose Hillary’s policies,, not her gender?
The fact is, people who refuse to release “obvious” information usually have an “obvious” reason to do so. Bill Clinton broke with tradition by refusing to release his medical records. I suppose one could simply assume that he valued personal privacy to such a degree that he stood on principle on this matter, much like his administration valued personal privacy to such a degree that they didn’t ask for and read around 900 confidential FBI files that were improperly requested. Um, no wait. They routinely probed into the confidential, personal matters of other people, so I think we can safely conclude that other motivations were at stake for refusing to release Clinton’s medical transcripts.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie — no “conservative” — thought the birth record issue was important enough to request a copy of Obama’s birth certificate from his state’s official records. But soon after this request, he said that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Is Abercrombie a Conservative Republican for raisig this issue, or just politically deaf or naïve in doing so. It’s hard to release a record that cannot be located for some mysterious reason.
Just for the record, this birth certificate controversy is a non-issue for me. However I don’t arbitrarily dismiss the motives of those who question it. My comments have always been about the practicality of settling the issue through the courts, which I believe is minimal. Obama will be re-elected or defeated on the basis of his policies, not any questions about his citizenship.
But I do understand why people raise questions about issues that can be easily settled, but remain deliberately hidden. Obama has no need or reason to tell us his personal preference for Coke over Pepsi; what his highest or lowest golf score is; or what he said to his wife in private last night. But if he decides to run for the highest office in the land with a Constitutional requirement for natural born citizenship, and the only thing he’s authorized to be released is a certificate of live birth instead of the birth certificate itself, it does raise a logical question that shouldn’t be cavalierly dismissed.
Let me try one other way to illustrate this point. Let’s say two people claim to have a high level of education. Now education in itself isn’t the defining factor in “winning” a debate, and in fact as I’ve noted earlier there can actually be an inverse relationship between education and intelligence. But if the claim is made that someone has a Ph.D. from a reputable university in a relevant field to the discussion at hand, it seems to me that the person making the claim should at least provide some supporting evidence of their claim. Otherwise, they appear to be “hiding” something.
I received my Ph.D. in political science (American Politics) from the University of Chicago in December 1981. Feel free to call and check it out.
Gestell has told us repeatedly that he has a Ph.D., but won’t say from what school, or in what precise subject matter.
I think you now understand why raising problematic questions about easily-substantiated claims is an issue for him.
By the way, when I was born, it was announced in the Edmonton Alberta Canada local newspaper, even though my actual birthplace was in the United States. My mother, you see, was born in Canada and still had relatives there, and the birth announcement was as much about her as it was about me.
Should I decide to run some day for the position of Canadian PM, I will use this announcement to brand those suggesting I am not a natural born Canadian citizen as nuts and conspiracy theorists determined to oppose me at all costs because I say “what?” instead of “aay?”
I note that Mr.Jackson, not I, added a third reason why someone might oppose Obama–his race. And the two reasons I did mention can be taken reasonably, in this country, now, as proxies for opposition to Obama based on objection to his policies. As for Obama’s birth certificate, obviously conservative birthers have decided not to accept the Honolulu newspapers’ announcements of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, statements by Hawaii Department of Health officials, or the disposition of birther inquiries by federal judges. [ see: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/03/28/with-headlines-like-this-is-it-time-to-ask-hard-questions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+intellectualconservative+%28Intellectual+Conservative+Politics+and+Philosophy%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher ]
Imagine my surprise when Mr. Jackson then turns his skepticism in my direction. As I have already explained more than once on this site, I use a screen name in order to protect the security and safety of myself and my family. Note that not everyone who posts on IC identifies him- or herself by actual name, and, apart from several prominent posters, there is a conspicuous lack of detailed biographical information. Mr. Jackson suggests that because I do not provide the sort of disclosure he prefers, that I am somehow less trustworthy than others who post here. He doesn’t have this problem with conservatives with whom he agrees, only with liberals he opposes.
…but then don’t whine and howl when liberals say nasty things about your favorite conservatives.
My biggest compliant about my fellow conservatives is that they don’t “whine and howl” enough. My perception is that they try to address factually the “nasty things” said about conservative candidates, and how outrageous and absurd they are, which, predictably, go ignored. The only thing that they accomplish is to waste their time, which is probably the goal of liberals all along, rather than reasoned discourse.
I wish IC had a preview feature. The previous should read:
My biggest compliant about my fellow conservatives is that they don’t “whine and howl” enough. My perception is that they try to address factually the “nasty things” said about conservative candidates, and how outrageous and absurd they are, which, predictably, go ignored. The only thing that they accomplish is to waste their time, which is probably the goal of liberals all along.
Gestell – Actually, I am talking about ‘any’ applicant, but if you want the U.S. President specific, here it is. It isn’t only whether or not he was ‘native-born.’ He has an admitted sketchy background re his admission to universities, his CT SS number, the Harvard Law Review, his travels. I have no idea how anyone could slip thru the vetting process, certainly Palin could not do it–we know every time she sneezed and her shoe size. Much was made of where Bush was every day when he served in the Air Force, was he in or out of an airplane, ad nauseum, round & round about the elections–or selection, if you will, but I don’t want to compare sides–that’s not the point. I don’t know who, if anyone, was involved in hiding things about Obama, I don’t know if it’s possible, but I don’t think such a thing is impossible. I don’t know how Obama got a passport w/out an official birth certificate, but all such questions are easy to answer for you and for me. Even my cat has a passport & health certificate, she came here from Europe. So what’s the big (*&^$ deal! And, now, I really have more important things to do than play tit for tat with you. It’s time for my nap.
“I note that Mr. Jackson, not I, added a third reason why someone might oppose Obama–his race.”
*** It’s Dr. Jackson, actually, but that’s okay. Just to be clear again, I didn’t cite a reason why people “might” legitimately “oppose Obama – his race”. I lampooned the stupidity of people who claim that opposition to Obama is because of his race.
There’s no reason to oppose Obama because he’s half-black, any more than there is to support him because he’s half-white. The race issue is raised by liberals as a way to deflect from the fact that his policies are being questioned, not his genetics. Deliberately withholding one’s actual birth certificate is another “policy” that has nothing to do with race.
“And the two reasons I did mention can be taken reasonably, in this country, now, as proxies for opposition to Obama based on objection to his policies.”
*** When I stated the opposite view, I gave examples to support my reasoning. When Gestell states that these are legitimate “proxies for opposition to Obama based on objection to his policies,” he offers nothing other than that statement.
Once again, anyone can make a charge. A charge with no substantiation or reasoning other than the charge itself is hardly worthy of any further discussion. Its lack of substance speaks for itself.
“As for Obama’s birth certificate, obviously conservative birthers have decided not to accept the Honolulu newspapers’ announcements of Obama’s birth in Hawaii …”
*** Obviously, conservative birthers and liberal Democrat governors of Hawaii … [By the way, I’m gearing up my campaign to run for Canadian PM!]
“ …statements by Hawaii Department of Health officials …”
*** Who can’t actually find the original document …
“ … or the disposition of birther inquiries by federal judges.
*** Like I said, regardless of the presumed merits of this issue, the courts aren’t the vehicle through which this issue will be decided.
Once again, though, note how the original issue framed by Gestell was “ … would you have given this issue a moment’s thought …”, but his answer now is that ‘the Courts have ruled X’. What the courts have, or haven’t, done, is irrelevant to the question about why such a question might be raised. But, when you have nothing to support your original position, you deflect by broadening the issue. The next time your wife accuses you of infidelity when you come home with lipstick on your collar, just say that in a court that’s inadmissible evidence, and viola, the original issue disappears! (Note: If you believe this, you aren’t a redneck; you’re a liberal or Democrat)
“As I have already explained more than once on this site, I use a screen name in order to protect the security and safety of myself and my family.”
*** Note to all you conservative homicidal killers out there. Please don’t threaten to shoot Gestell and his family because they disagree with you. What do you think you are? Wisconsin union members?
“Note that not everyone who posts on IC identifies him- or herself by actual name, and, apart from several prominent posters, there is a conspicuous lack of detailed biographical information. Mr. Jackson suggests that because I do not provide the sort of disclosure he prefers, that I am somehow less trustworthy than others who post here. He doesn’t have this problem with conservatives with whom he agrees, only with liberals he opposes.”
*** Another classic deflection. I never asked you to reveal your name; just to substantiate your credentials since you are the one who told us you have a Ph.D., and implied that it is in political science. I’ve just repeatedly called your bluff on this. It’s possible that you have a Ph.D., but I doubt seriously that it’s in political science. My guess is that you have an MA in political philosophy, at best. You could easily disabuse this notion with a few simple statements that do not require you to give us your home address.
I could be wrong, but experience guided by intelligence tells me that an MA in political philosophy is the limit of your pragmatic and educational background with regard to understanding the issues you routinely write about. It’s only an issue because you raised the issue of your background in your first posts on this website as a way to validate your positions, instead of simply letting your arguments speak for themselves.
I’ve told the world about my degree because I use my full name, and my educational background is on my website. However, I don’t invoke the Ph.D. as the end-all in supporting my position, except for those situations where I write about Ph.D.s and the educational process. If I need to substantiate my reasoning, I’m more than likely to draw on my practical business and hands-on political experience, which I again detail instead of asking people to simply trust me.
Like I’ve said before, education is no substitute for wisdom. But if someone claims special knowledge about a subject because they were in the military, or worked on Capitol hill, etc., it’s a fair question to ask whether they are BSing us.
I’ve repeatedly called your bluff Gestell, and you continue to hide behind the fiction that we’re going to hunt you down if only we can find you. The simple fact is that this is a real fear among the Left — but it’s not about the Right. It’s born from associating with other Leftists who actually do things like this. Look at the death threats against Wisconsin legislators, and the typical HuffPo and daily Koz posts, and compare those to the kind of things conservatives write here. We ask people to defend their positions, not threaten them harm.
I have no expectation that Gestell will ever do anything to actually substantiate who and what he is in terms of his degree — which again is a subject he brought up initially. I just find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that he hides behind the fiction that we’d do him and his family harm if we only knew his secret identity.
Kind of makes you wonder why he takes the repeated risk of voicing his opinions here if he’s so afraid we’re all going to harm him physically. He must be a very brave man to face such an imminent threat.
Birthers–and truthers as well (just to show that I’m being non-partisan here) make a common mistake: they take an absence of evidence for evidence of an absence. Thus, because, as birthers see it, there is no evidence for the existence of Obama’s birth certificate (birthers have already rejected any claims by anybody to have sufficient evidence for Obama’s native birth) they assume all sorts of things–vast conspiracies, fiendishly clever deceptions by mysterious forces, etc–that they take as ‘evidence’ for the document’s absence (non-existence).
The truthers are always on the watch for super-conspiracies within our government and so any evidential peculiarity or its absence with regard to 9/11 is taken as confirmation of their worst fears.
Consider: My wife has never seen Glenn Beck and me together. From this fact, should she conclude that perhaps I really am Glenn Beck? Most people wouldn’t take that step, although something very similar is urged by birthers and truthers.
“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” – Barack Hussein Obama – AKA Barry Soetoro – August 21, 2010
Gestell: Very profound comments about Glenn Beck. Irrelevant to the discussion of why someone would deliberately hide something that is common and obvious. But profound nevertheless in a hackneyed sort of way.
Nevertheless, I salute your bravery for continuing to engage in discussion those who would undoubtedly harm you and your family if we only knew your secret identity.
“… there is a conspicuous lack of detailed biographical information. Mr. Jackson suggests that because I do not provide the sort of disclosure he prefers, that I am somehow less trustworthy than others who post here. He doesn’t have this problem with conservatives with whom he agrees, only with liberals he opposes.”
*** Hmmm. Bill Wavering and Steve Sabin might disagree. I generally agree with both these gentlemen, but at my urging Sabin went public with his identity back in 2007 to substantiate a position he wanted to express with an IC article. Retaining his anonymity would not have allowed him to make his points. Bill used to write under a pseudonym, but in a similar way he went public with his identity. You’ll note now that when Bill writes about military and technical issues, he does with authority.
So, once again the G-man just makes it up. Rather than actually knowing what he is talking about, he just tosses out statements like the good liberal he is. What does it matter if his observations or analysis is actually right or wrong? You can deflect from the real issues your opponent raises by simply throwing out a counter charge, and hoping that the homicidal maniacs at IC who are just waiting to discover your secret identity so they can harm your family will forget that your statements are completely without merit.
While I tend to agree with the idea of “taking an absence of evidence for evidence of an absence” is an error, there is what appears to be a critical difference here. In the case of the “Truthers”, there will always be questions that are impossible to answer about physical observations about events of which we have no control; however, some plausible explanations have been offered, like here http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842; whereas, it is not impossible for øbama to produce a valid birth certificate. Why has he not even made an explanation [much less a probable one] for not producing it?
No matter what theories, opinions or anecdotal evidence you might present, there is no escaping the fact that people who hide their identity and their history are less credible than those who practice the virtue of full disclosure; whether they be forum posters or presidents.
From a real person
Sam Sewell
http://tcnaples.blogspot.com/
Ask yourself this: would you have given this issue a moment’s thought if Obama had not been (a) a liberal (b) a Democrat? Not likely.
Before Obama was even considered a serious contender in the 2008 election, there was actually a “birther” scandal underfoot as it regards one John McCain. McCain, as you are probably aware, was born in the Panama Canal Zone while it was still an American holding, and his eligibility was contested by a small but vocal contingent of the Republican party very early in the primary process. He produced his birth records, confirming his birth to American parents on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone, which still didn’t satisfy most of his detractors because they insisted that his birth in an American military installation overseas did not meet the requirement of “natural-born” since he was not born within the borders of an actual US state. So the “you wouldn’t be saying this if he was…” argument loses some credibility here. I suspect that had McCain actually been elected, the same group would have continued to raise the issue, and liberals would likely have seized upon it for the sake of convenience, if nothing else.
and Bachmann can be a historically ignorant fanatic.
No kidding. She doesn’t even know we have 57 states!
I use a screen name in order to protect the security and safety of myself and my family.
I know this was already addressed, but really? At a conservative blog? On the internet? Been sent a lot of cyber-bombs, have you? Of all the possible excuses you could come up with. Just say you want the privacy or it’s nobody’s damn business – either of which would be perfectly acceptable. Or just tell us you’re afraid you’ll lose your university position if it’s discovered that you frequent conservative websites. Conservative conspiracy theorists would eat that one up with a spoon. You know how simple minded we are.
Why has he [Obama] not even made an explanation [much less a probable one] for not producing it [his birth certificate]?
The answer to that one is easy. See this discussion we’re having here? That’s why. Politically speaking, the “birther” issue is the gift that keeps on giving to Obama. Regardless of his policies or the various reasons that various people might have for disagreeing with them, all criticism of the president can be lain to waste by drawing a parallel between any person or group who disagrees with his policy and the crazy, conspiracy-minded “birthers”. Between that and the race card there is virtually no criticism that the White House cannot deflect from the president. Remember that opposition to his candidacy was attributable to “his funny name”, and the people who opposed his election did so “because he doesn’t look like the faces on the dollar bills”. What’s a president to do? He brings the country back from the brink of imminent complete and utter destruction, and yet despite all of his brilliance, beneficence and magnanimity this group of hateful fanatics clings to these crazy stories in an attempt to discredit him out of pure spite. You don’t believe any of those crazy things do you? You don’t hate the president just because he’s black, right? You don’t believe he was born in Kenya? You don’t oppose health care and Wall Street reform? You’re not one of them, are you? (See how easy that is?)
The most liberal Senator in America gets elected in the most crooked election in the nation’s history and the lamebrains who support him think he is opposed because of his race. These same halfwits think a phony document posted on the Internet proves this same con man is eligible to hold the highest office in the land.
He is opposed because he is a crooked big city con man with a socialist agenda. Alan Keyes is strongly opposed to Obama. Is he a racist? Is Michael Steele a racist? Is this guy a racist? http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/we-were-tricked-in-2008-now-fix.html
Are these women racists? http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-obama-racist.html
And: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-obamas-birth-certificate-issue-wont.html
Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?
Why aren’t the polls on the birth certificate issue 100% in favor of AKA Obama practicing the virtue of full disclosure? It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else. I guess there is a significant portion of the population who are opposed to releasing the birth certificate because they are afraid of what it will reveal. I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth just like AKA Obama.
If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.
If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.
If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama.
In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the “Vital Statistics of the United States
Here is a blank copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth. This is the information being hidden by Obama
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/blank-birth-certificate-form-aka-obama.html
Plus read the article that is included with the blank copy.
Here is what a real Hawaiian Birth Certificate looks like:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-faces-fellow-hawaiian-with-real.html
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.
“Everything that is secret will be brought out into the open. Everything that is hidden will be uncovered. 3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight. What you have whispered to someone behind closed doors will be shouted from the rooftops..” Luke 12:2
Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
With all of that having been said, I’m not sure that a handful of headlines serves as the best standard of evidence for much of anything. A Google search for the exact text string “Bush lied about Iraq” returns 23,000 results, the first page of which includes links to mainstream news websites like Politico, Real Clear Politics and MSNBC. A search for the exact string “Bush caused Katrina” yields 15,400 results, while a search for the exact string “Bush stole election” gets us 95,100 hits. Would it be appropriate to conclude from these headlines that George W. Bush was, in fact, an illegitimate president who lied about Iraq and caused a hurricane?
Additionally, referring to the president as “AKA Obama” or by his adoptive last name only feeds the narrative I outlined in the last paragraph of my previous post and serves to galvanize support for Obama, particularly among his base. If anything it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card for him. Clearly the issue isn’t going anywhere from a legal perspective, and Obama is already 3/4 of the way through his first term. Even if you truly believe that Obama is serving as a constitutionally ineligible illegitimate president, at this point, the place to rectify whatever deficiency of procedure (or, in reality, deficiency of American intelligence) led to his election is the ballot box.
In the interest of continuity, let me point out that I have a post pending moderation (probably due to the number of links it contains).
“Just say you want the privacy or it’s nobody’s damn business – either of which would be perfectly acceptable. Or just tell us you’re afraid you’ll lose your university position if it’s discovered that you frequent conservative websites. Conservative conspiracy theorists would eat that one up with a spoon. You know how simple minded we are.”
Again, no one is asking Gestell to reveal his name, address, social security number, etc. All I’ve said is that a person who lays out a claim of expertise in a specific subject matter should at least back that statement up.
For example, let’s say the subject is child rearing. Madam Gestellannette claims that she has an advanced degree and years of experience in this matter, and goes on to pontificate about her theories of child development. It’s a fair question to ask exactly what that degree is in. Is she Dr. Gestelleannette, Ph.D. in Child Development? Or is she like “Dr. Laura”, who has a Ph.D. in a different subject matter than the one she talks about on her radio show.
The difference between Dr. Laura and Dr. Gestelleannette is that Dr. Laura is very up front about her educational background, where as our hypothetical-based-on-someone-we-all-know-and-love character Dr. Gestelleannette just hints at his/her actual qualifications, but never really answers the specific question about a subject he/she raised in the first place!
In a related way, using the same child-related example, if President Gestell claims a certain status, like being an actual parent of an actual child, it’s a fair question to ask “do you actually have an actual child?” When the answer is ‘I can’t tell you because I fear for the safety of my alleged child’, it raises a tad bit of suspicion. The same is true when an official agency asks for proof-positive of that child’s existence. Producing a wallet photo, or a 3rd grade report card of someone who has a similar last name, is not the same thing as producing an actual birth certificate.
Once again, when the issue is obvious, routine, and inherently non-controversial (every US citizen has an actual birth certificate), it makes no sense to hide this information. That is, unless it contains embarrassing information, or it doesn’t exist.
I’m willing to bet that Obama won’t release his actual birth certificate not because he doesn’t have one, but rather because it contains information (possibly about his actual father, or some additional information about his mother) that he doesn’t want the public to see).
As for Gestell’s unwillingness to even tell us the subject matter of his Ph.D., I’ll leave it to common sense to answer that question. In doing so, I’d ask you all to consider one additional question yourself.
If you were convinced that revealing even a hint of information about the subject matter of your Ph.D. would place you and your family in serious jeopardy at the hands of IC homicidal fanatics, would you continue to risk your family’s safety and well being by continuing to interact with these extra-chromosome serial killers? I mean, wouldn’t you be afraid that you’d post something late at night that revealed a wee bit more than you wanted, thus giving your local Tea Party members monitoring this site enough of a lead to track you down and shoot you? Or, like a normal person who actually fears for his family’s safety, would you put as much distance between yourself and these nuts as possible and never engage them in any conversation at all?
As you can see, I love pointing out the hypocrisy and manufactured hysteria of the Left which routinely smears our side in an attempt to avoid actual, logical, debate and discussion. By the way, did you hear what Senator Schumer said on this subject yesterday …
AristotleTheHun:
Or the Lone Ranger. [Sorry, I couldn’t resist.]
Just an observation: Why is it that in election after election the MSM will scrutinize all conservative candidates ad nauseam, but will find reason after reason to exclude any liberal candidate from the same rectal examination?
As Phillip pointed out Bill Clinton decided to keep his medical records bottled up. Senator John Kerry, who was widely believed to have actually served in Vietnam deliberately decided not to allow the release of his SRB (Service Record Book).
The MSM actually tried to use obviously forged documents to derail the campaign of President Bush. Not only did the MSM report such, but continued to do so until it became obvious to all who could read that the document was forged.
During the primaries in 2008; Hillary deliberately denied access to her college papers. Likewise; for Obama. After the primaries were over and the contest was between McCain & Obama both candidates were accused of not being ‘natural born citizens’ of the US. When the accusation was first issues against Obama, his campaign didn’t do anything other than accuse John McCain of the same thing. When the Pavlovian Press finished digging into McCain’s background (to no avail); we suddenly changed to subject before the same was done with Obama.
I too, have no ax to grind here regarding the election of President Obama other than the fact that the gentleman is out of his league in his present position. The 2012 election is more likely to turn on Obama’s terminal case of cranial rectumitus than anything else. But; what is the progressive penchant for withholding a candidate’s information that would allow the public to digest a candidate’s previous body of work in order to decide if there is sufficient experience and/or a background of information that would allow voters to deduce how such a person might govern? The obvious answer; if progressivism functioned under the by-laws of full disclosure we’d be able to count the progressives in government on the fingers of one hand.
As for the claim that; “… I use a screen name in order to protect the security and safety of myself and my family.” I could well understand such a concern; especially if I were posting to a site where the first reflex of people who disagree with me was to threaten my family.
Indeed this was why I posted comments here at IC under the pseudonym ‘joQQeb’ for almost two years. As an aside; even that pseudonym wasn’t much of a difficulty to unravel joQ being Klingon for ‘wave’ (as in a wave on the water) and Qeb being Klingon for ‘ring’ (as in ring a bell). SO; joQQeb translates to WaveRing (really tricky, huh?) I finally came to the realization that people tend to attach more significance to debate points if you are willing to tie your name directly to the comment. Now I guess I’ll have to come up with a different routine for manufacturing all the passwords I have to have to access all the sites I need to get to during the conduct of my job duties.
The manner in which search engines work inside the internet these days; I for one, don’t know how much anonymity a screen name gives anyone as a dedicated person can probably discern the actual name, address, and place of work of any poster just by back tracing the IP addresses routinely published in the header information of any comment posted to almost any blog site on the net.
Myself; I don’t post any comment anywhere anymore that is not connected to my real name. Even if someone does get my actual address (Googlemaps anyone?) once they find out how much they must go through to actually GET to my house, the amount of effort isn’t worth it just to try and punch me in the nose. And God Forbid anyone should arrive there while I’m not at home. Chances are my lovely wife will gut shoot you and leave you in the driveway for me to clean up when I return home.
Again, no one is asking Gestell to reveal his name, address, social security number, etc. All I’ve said is that a person who lays out a claim of expertise in a specific subject matter should at least back that statement up.
I understand the point you’re making. I was just saying that “buzz off, it’s none of your business” would be a more honest and straightforward answer (albeit a bit hypocritical) than claiming concern for one’s safety and the safety of one’s family, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. That’s just silly and disingenuous.
Why is it that in election after election the MSM will scrutinize all conservative candidates ad nauseam, but will find reason after reason to exclude any liberal candidate from the same rectal examination?
I think throughout the rest of your comment you answered your own question.
My other post is apparently still stuck in the moderation queue, so I’ll just post it here without the links included. Bear in mind this was intended to immediately follow my previous comment:
With all of that having been said, I’m not sure that a handful of headlines serves as the best standard of evidence for much of anything. A Google search for the exact text string “Bush lied about Iraq” returns 23,000 results, the first page of which includes links to mainstream news websites like Politico, Real Clear Politics and MSNBC. A search for the exact string “Bush caused Katrina” yields 15,400 results, while a search for the exact string “Bush stole election” gets us 95,100 hits. Would it be appropriate to conclude from these headlines that George W. Bush was, in fact, an illegitimate president who lied about Iraq and caused a hurricane?
Additionally, referring to the president as “AKA Obama” or by his adoptive last name only feeds the narrative I outlined in the last paragraph of my previous post and serves to galvanize support for Obama, particularly among his base. If anything it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card for him. Clearly the issue isn’t going anywhere from a legal perspective, and Obama is already 3/4 of the way through his first term. Even if you truly believe that Obama is serving as a constitutionally ineligible illegitimate president, at this point, the place to rectify whatever deficiency of procedure (or, in reality, deficiency of American intelligence) led to his election is the ballot box.
Phil:
Nor can there be found anywhere in the constitution that the court would consist of only 9 justices [an odd title in view of some of their decisions of late].
PM:
Not that I think the birther movement is going to succeed, the thought of it does provide some relief that its success would jettison him out of office and nullify everything he signed in one swell foop.
Speaking of the “Rights” we all demand and deserve in this country, there’s one Right that trumps them all.
It’s the “Right” to turn right on red. That’s two “rights” in the same sentence, so it’s got to be Constitutional.
As usual Gestell does not address the question, “Why won’t obama release his birth certificate?”. It is a simple question but he, like all liberals, change the debate when backed into a corner. Gestell knows to his core that obama has something to hide or he has no interpretive ability about him at all. I for one would also like to see “The Donald” press obama on his college records and his passport. Are these things too much to ask of a person running for the highest office in the land?
Obama Eligibility Q&A
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-eligibility-q.html
1. What is a “birther”?
2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?
3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?
4. How is “natural born citizen” defined?
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
6. Does the birthers’ viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential “natural born citizen” requirement?
8. What is the difference between a “Constitutional” and a “statutory” natural born citizen?
9. Wouldn’t the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of “natural born citizen” take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?
10. If Obama is not a “Constitutional natural born citizen”, so what? Why should anyone care?
11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?
12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?
13. In the 14th Amendment, what does “jurisdiction” mean?
14. Doesn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a “natural born citizen”?
15. Doesn’t the Julia Lynch case show that Obama is a “natural born citizen”?
16. Could “natural born citizen” be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?
17. What’s the “beef” with President Obama’s birth certificate?
18. Didn’t the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
19. Doesn’t the mere existence of Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?
20. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
21. Where do we go from here?