Posted on 08/11/2009 8:56:44 AM PDT by pissant
That’s a great article. Especially the closing paragraph. One line sums it up:
“If the President of the United States really has nothing at all to hide in the past he has so sought to conceal, then why has he concealed it at all? “
Strange no one in the neighborhood knew him nor his family in 1961.
The author is mistaken. He IS a birther.
A birther is not (as defined by the MSM) a nut-case who believes Obama was born in Kenya. A birther is anyone with reasonable doubt as to the reliability of Obammie's story.
I'm a birther and I believe Obama was born In Hawaii - but there is much more to the story than that. I just hate how the public is lied to and deceived about Certifigate.
As is always the case the MSM and Bill O., etc make the INVALID assumption that two “announcements” somehow add in additional “proof”....
IN FACT the two newspapers were merely posting the core data that some cub reporter routinely gathered up from all “filings” made for a COLB
Those newspaper reports were automatically created in response to creation of a COLB.
Creation of a COLB in Hawaii in the 1960's could be done without independent witnesses, medical signatures, or the presence of the parents or the baby. People like Obama's grandmother could have applied for a COLB fraudulently to bolster a claim for citizenship.
Jerry hasn't thought this through.
I never miss an opportunity to remind these writers of a few simple facts.
The media loves to scream “Racist right wing republicans” yet always manages to omit mentioning Phil Berg (democrat), Alan Keyes (conservative black man), and Roger Calero (resident alien and socialist presidential candidate). They manage to ignore that John McCain faced the same demands for proof of eligibility and quickly complied.
The reason the media doesn’t ask those questions is because it calls their own honesty into question and leads to questions about Obama and why they gave him a pass others weren’t given.
That and none of his class mates have said a peep.
Fishy at best.
The scorn and rage that the left has rained down on those of us with the temerity to do so is unprecedented --- and it is silly. A simple request should not engender over 1,000 MSM articles frothing at the mouth.
Why is the media so upset at a little "freedom of information," as they should style it?
And why the odd timing? These questions over citizenship were raised well in advance of the election, and yet the MSM kept quiet. Lo and behold, we see the Major Cook case, and the MSM suddenly goes rabid. I have no idea if the two are connected, but it is an interesting coincidence.
For the record:
The newspapers did not “report” the birth of Barack Obama. The newspaper announcements were generated AUTOMATICALLY by the mere fact that a birth had been registered with the state.
The address in the announcements was fraudulent.
Which suggests that there is fraudulent information on the long-form b.c.—at least the address given.
"The newspapers did not “report” the birth of Barack Obama. The newspaper announcements were generated AUTOMATICALLY by the mere fact that a birth had been registered with the state." --
Bingo We have a Winner. Grandma did it. Obozo has been a Fraud all his life.
PING!
If he wants to put Birthers and Truthers on the same level then I won't quibble with him.
Good post....Nobody looks into how the announcements were generated. The mere fact they are in the paper is enough for MSM.
1. For instance, these writers probably assume that every birth listed in the 1961 Hawaii newspaper originated in a Hawaii hospital, like most births in developed western countries occur in hospitals today, 2009.
2. But what if some births in 1961 Hawaii did NOT occur in hospitals or were not supervised by a doctor or midwife, but they were still sent to the newspaper by the Hawaii vital statistics department alongside births that occurred in Hawaii hospitals?
3. That is, what if Hawaii in 1961, in order to help its large legal and illegal Asian immigrants---many of whom could barely speak English if at all and worked mostly in pineapple fields scattered throughout the several Hawaiian islands---allowed parents to mail in a child's birth certificate if a baby was not born in a hospital and was not under the care of a doctor or midwife and no questions asked?
4. Such a birth certificate would be valid under Hawaii law, but it would not contain a doctor's signature and a hospital name.
5. Did Obama's mother take advantage of Hawaii's very lax birth certificate rules in 1961 to claim that Obama was born in Hawaii when, in reality, he was not born in Hawaii?
6. I don't know.
7. But that is one reason why we want to examine Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate: If the doctor signature and the hospital name are missing, then we will know that Obama was not born in a Hawaii hospital, and Obama and Hawaii will have a lot of explaining to do.
8. And then the obvious question arises: If Obama was not born in a Hawaii hospital, then where was he born?
Absolutely. They’re almost identical. I mean figgering the Bush/Cheney cabal along with the Mossad orchestrated the worst attack on US soil so we could justify snatching up the Afghani poppy fields is darn near the same thing as a politician refusing to release his BC.
Damn near identical.
Why does the media, whose job it is to hold the government accountable deride the Birthers and not demand the president simply remove the cloak he has so effectively hidden himself behind? Agree with them or not, the Birthers are just trying to answer the perfectly legitimate questions created by the patent dishonesty about and obscuration of most every aspect of Barack Obama’s life....
...If the President of the United States really has nothing at all to hide in the past he has so sought to conceal, then why has he concealed it at all? Is it simply distrust of his fellow citizens, or dislike? Does he think himself so far above the rabble that he is simply beyond having to expose himself to our judgments? Or is it that Barack Obama simply wants to be left alone to define his own life, to continue writing his own narrative unencumbered by fact or evidence or inquiry, leaving history to believe about him whatever he himself conceives or constructs? Is he a leader whose legacy is his own declaration?
I'm not a birther, although by your definition I may be as well (to wit: 'I'm a birther and I believe Obama was born In Hawaii' - I do too). Really, I'm more of an "academic transcript-er".
I said it here yesterday, it's not just the BC - it's all of the details of this man's history that are being deliberately obscured which is piquing the curiosity of more than just the 'birthers'.
The same media which demanded & got George W. Bush's university transcripts helps this President conceal his own. The same media which aggressively asked for & received John McCain's official documentation of his birth in Panama satisfied itself with a patently suspicious online 'certification' document dispositive of absolutely nothing for his political opponent last fall.
The same 'Trig Palin birthers' in the mainstream media like Andrew Sullivan & Keith Olberman who continue to examine in excruciatingly detail the former Governor of Alaska's gynecological records to determine the curcumstances of her youngest son's birth, could care less about clarifying the conflicting details they've issued surrounding the 44th President of the United State's birth (which Hawaiian hospital is it this week, press?) - if only just for the historical record.
His adoption by his Indonesian stepfather? What a heartwarming story that might be - yet we get nothing but "Meh" from the same people who told us all about Neil Bush's grocery shopping habits on the pretext that might guve us 'insight' into who the 43rd President is. We heard all about GWB's polyps & McCain's moles, but President Obama's routine medical & psychiatric history? Fuhgettaboudit, American students of the Presidency! We're keeping this under wraps for our guy. We've suddenly discovered the right to a President's privacy, so you're just out of luck, schmucks.
The same press which went into painstaking detail reconstructing for the publicGWB's DUI arrest as a young man, is strangely incurious about President Obama's admitted history of regular cocaine use & his flaunting of substance abuse laws in his past.
I'll repeat this again: If Barack Obama's presidency is as historic as the media keeps saying it is, then why are establishment journalists working so hard to help him to conceal basic & presumably innocuous historical facts about this historic President's undeniably historic life history from historians themselves?
And why are journalists sacrificing their own professional credibility to engage in this clear journalistic double standard for all the world to see?
Why would she do so? He would be an American citizen regardless of where he was born. The only conceivable reason would be trying to preserve his eligibility to be president, and frankly anybody in 1960s HI who thought the newborn mulatto kid would ever run for president would have had his rocker missing.
Well they do share the same legal talent.
Shhhh. You might upset the afterBirthers here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.