Posted on 04/11/2014 4:42:10 PM PDT by don-o
President Barack Obama reminisced about the conspiracy theories surrounding his birth certificate during a speech at the National Action Network convention in New York City Friday afternoon. Obama referenced the doubts about his citizenship that led him to release a copy of his birth certificate in 2011, while criticizing voter I.D. laws that require people to present documentation like passports and birth certificates to vote.
"Just to be clear, I know where my birth certificate is," he added.
Obama then began to laugh.
"You remember that? That was crazy," said Obama. "Haven't thought about that in a while."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Was it true that purported letter was from Carl Gallups? No. (And if you look to Post #48 on that thread, you'll see I was acknowledging the possibility the letter wasn't from Gallups).
Was it true that even before that alleged Gallups letter that Gallups/PPSimmons had reported (January 9) that the CCP would release it's "universe shattering" findings in March of 2014? Yes, that is true.
So was it a "lie" for anyone in February to claim that the CCP had promised a March release date? No, that was not a lie.
If calling you a troll is your idea of ad hominem, . .
"Ad hominem" (literally, "against the person") broadly speaking involves any attempt to deflect away from a person's arguments by focusing appeals instead to the person or the person's character. So, yes, any time you haul out the "troll" label, rather than focus on the argument, and any time you haul out the "you're not a true conservative" stuff, rather than addressing my arguments, you're engaging in ad hominem fallacy.
When given the opportunity to demonstrate your conservative bona fides, why did you pass?
Because the validity of an argument should not hinge on who is making it. That's the whole ad hominem fallacy in a nutshell -- that somehow Argument A can be disregarded when made by Person X, but only need be dealt with substantively when made by Person Y.
To me, you're just trying to find a reason to duck out. No matter what I offered (and on F.R., my relatively few posts are just on Birther issues), the easy prediction is you'd just say "Aha! See! Just like I thought" and duck out anyway. So I find your M.O. here disingenuous.
‘The book Obama wrote was a memoir about Obama’s childhood and life influences.’
You’re not an Obot butt you believe Obama wrote Dreams.
I must repeat that, just because it’s so outrageous.
You claim you’re not an Obot, butt you believe Obama wrote Dreams.
Or have you actually ever claimed not to be an Obot? Frankly I’ve never seen one pro-conservative/anti-Obama post from you. Perhaps you’re quite open about the trollery?
Anyway, do this. Find me one proven sample of Obama’s writing that reads ANYTHING like the prose in Dreams. Just one. [Hint: you can’t. The author of Dreams and Obama have 180 degrees different writing styles. (I.e.: one can write and the other can’t.)] Butt knock yourself out trying. Take as long as you need; I’ll be patient.
‘Was it re: the quote you keep posting, or was it re: an Obot lie. Feel free to go back and check. But whether or not you do, get your facts straight and give me a correct answer.’
“Was it true that purported letter was from Carl Gallups? No. (And if you look to Post #48 on that thread, you’ll see I was acknowledging the possibility the letter wasn’t from Gallups).
Was it true that even before that alleged Gallups letter that Gallups/PPSimmons had reported (January 9) that the CCP would release it’s “universe shattering” findings in March of 2014? Yes, that is true.
So was it a “lie” for anyone in February to claim that the CCP had promised a March release date? No, that was not a lie.”
My question was a simple one. You evidently missed it, so I’ll repeat: was the thread I posted on based on an Obot lie? Yes or no.
None of my arguments depend on your being a troll. I point it out merely for context.
No. It merely gives a brief biographical sketch of the author, as written by the agent. It says nothing about any essential piece of the book hinging on African birth. You're reading in things that aren't there.
It is Obama’s story, as would have been told in Journey’s in Black and White, had Obama actually written it.
Except that "born in Kenya" isn't part of Obama's story, and Obama had already made that clear in the 1990 interviews concerning the HLR.
You’re incoherent. The facts of the bio are these:
Born in Kenya.
Raised in Indonesia and HI.
Of mixed race.
Did a few odd jobs.
Committed to social and racial issues.
So you’re point is that his Journeys book will include NONE of that? It’s going to be an entirely different book, contradicting all of the above? He wasn’t born in Kenya? He wasn’t raised in Indonesian & HI? He’s not of mixed race, etc.?
Your argument is crackers. Obotism on wheels.
He drove the content, yes. Though MANY autobiographical books (esp. those of persons who have not published books before) are done in collaboration or with the assistance of another writer(s). It would hardly be shocking if that's the case with Obama's book.
Frankly I’ve never seen one pro-conservative/anti-Obama post from you
Nor have you seen one post from me that is "pro-Obama" as opposed to simply taking the position that 1) the "two citizen parent" theory of NBC is untenable (which has since become something of a de facto position of the F.R. owners), 2) Hawaii really DID verify that Obama was born there, 3) the notion that Loretta Fuddy was the subject of some secret "ninja diver" conspiracy is nutso (the Admins here did a better job than I of pressing that point), and 4) putting on 'gridlines' to the WHLFBC to show that characters to the right side in parts don't appear to align as would be expected on a typewritten document may make a point, but only if one can then explain why the characters along the left side DO align, which wouldn't likely be the case were someone cobbling this together on a computer.
Those have been the major topic areas. I've posted nothing "pro-Obama" per se.
And Obama has written about all of those things, except, of course, the "born in Kenya" part. On that point, even before the literary agent came into the picture, Obama had already told -- and it had already been reported- by major media that Obama was born in Hawaii.
So you’re point is that his Journeys book will include NONE of that?
Yet more Strawman argumentation.
My point was that the "Journeys" book, insofar as it was ever contemplated as something conceptually different from "Dreams," was not going to be about any supposed African birth, since Obama had already spoken on the birth point and told the media outlets he was born in Hawaii.
Simple enough?
‘You’re not an Obot butt you believe Obama wrote Dreams’
“He drove the content, yes. Though MANY autobiographical books (esp. those of persons who have not published books before) are done in collaboration or with the assistance of another writer(s). It would hardly be shocking if that’s the case with Obama’s book.”
Where, pray tell, does Obama ever credit a collaborator? I’ve seen many of his claims to be the exclusive author. I’ve yet to see any hint of a collaborator.
Honestly, if you go any deeper into the tank for Obama you’ll drown.
As for your posting history. It could have come straight off of Fogbow. As a matter of fact, it probably did. Be glad you’ve found a conservative site that allows you to transcribe directly from Obot Central. Not all of them would.
No, it’s not that simple. His agency published the facts of his bio in direct conjunction w the promised first book. You don’t get to redact just the fact you find inconvenient. It was posited as a crucial element of Obama’s life story. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s there, in Black and White.
And the agency has stated on that point it made a mistake. And we don't just have to take the agency's word for it. We can compare the Times, Post and Tribune articles from 1990. We can compare the school application Obama's parents made in 1968 stating he was born in Hawaii. We can compare the INS files on BHO, Sr. which indicate he had a son born in Hawaii. We can look to the birth announcements. We can look to the repeated statements by the State of Hawaii.
The agency made a mistake.
The agency prominently marketed Obama for many years as ‘born in Kenya’. Anybody who honestly believes this was a mere clerical error is beyond clueless.
Anybody who knows anything about blurbing and hooking knows you put the good stuff in the first line. In today’s uber competitive market that is where you make or break your pitch. Screw up the first line, and the target audience is unlikely to read the second; they’ll just move on. Sad but true.
So lets look at Acton & Dystel’s hook:
‘‘Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.’
Well my my, there it is. ‘born in Kenya’, prominently displayed, right up front. Sorry, Hook, it was a, if not THE, selling point. Game, set & match; you lose.
Well, gosh golly, maybe you'll find it in your very own posts which suggest that there must be another writer involved besides Obama since the writing styles appear different.
As for your posting history. It could have come straight off of Fogbow.
And as to certain topics (like the "two citizen parent" theory or the "Fuddy conspiracy" threads) it could have come straight off the posts of any number of long-standing Freepers or even the Board Owners here.
You can glean nothing about my political leanings simply from my anti-Birther stance.
I still claim there are known causes to believe that Obama was conceived in Indonesia which was reason for mama Stanley Ann to keep relationships there later in life, but he was officially born in Kenya which gives reason for later life activities in Kenya. Obama is a unique person but is not a ‘natural born’ USA citizen.
‘Well, gosh golly, maybe you’ll find it in your very own posts which suggest that there must be another writer involved besides Obama since the writing styles appear different.’
Tell me you didn’t honestly misunderstand my question to this extent. I had you figured for better reading comprehension than that.
Moving on. Cite one thing you’ve ever posted that wasn’t posted first on Fogbow. Just one.
And in the alternative reality you wish to inhabit -- the one in which that agency bio is the only thing considered or discussed -- I guess I do lose.
But in the real universe I and most other thinking people inhabit there is this inconvenient (for your argument, that is) thing called "other and more probative evidence." And when that is brought to bear on the question and the larger context of the discussion is entertained, then your argument collapses. But you've been doing your best to play the "if I don't acknowledge it, then it doesn't exist" game. You are quite skilled in that game.
The author bio is what I was originally discussing on this thread. I broached the topic. You Obama-defenders are the ones who keep trying to change it.
I do believe the author bio is dispositive. Acton & Dystel wouldn’t have used it as a prime marketing/selling hook w’out Obama’s knowledge & approval. There are alternate explanations for many of the contradictions in Obama’s shady history. But this bio from his own agents is unique. It represents a point in time when Obama accepted big bucks for writing a born-in-Kenya bio. He wasn’t dabbling in fraud. For once in his life he was dabbling in the truth.
Original, hard copy editions of old newspapers can be read at the Library Of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/lcnewsp.html
Also major university libraries often have retained their original editions of old newspapers, as well as the actual publishers of those papers.
For example: https://www.nytimes.com/content/help/search/archives/archives.html
The danger in digitally altering an article is never knowing who might still have a hard copy of the original article that could expose the fraud.
And it's the only thing you will discuss, apparently.
You . . . are the ones who keep trying to change it.
Not change, so much as discuss the bio in the context of other evidence that exists.
I do believe the author bio is dispositive.
No surprise there. When you've only got one argument to make, you're reduced to doing what you're doing here: keep asserting that one point while diligently trying to ignore the mass of counter-evidence being brought in to crush your argument. You try to make the claim Obama was not born in Hawaii and hold up the agency bio as your "Exhibit A." Then you pretty much have to rest your case.
The anti-Birther case then is presented: which has Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H (the COLB, the LFBC, the 3 verifications done to State SoS's, the statements by two Governors of Hawaii), Exhibits I and J (the birth announcements), Exhibit K (Obama Sr. INS files), Exhibit L (the Indonesian school application), Exhibits M, N, and O (the Times, Post and Tribune articles), plus several other things that I just can't keep track of by memory.
But, oh, of course, Fantasywriter, true to the name, declares the agency bio "dispositive." In your alternative reality, one isolated statement done by someone not previously connected with Obama's life at all trumps all this other evidence (familial, official, and more historical).
Nice try.
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.