Posted on 03/27/2011 4:10:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
Donald Trump’s calls this week for President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate prompted negative reactions from pundits who would like to turn the tables on Trump and say, “You’re fired.”
However, Trump’s comments, made most recently in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, also garnered support from those who wonder why Obama has not supplied documentation of where he was born.
Trump rekindled the longtime controversy Wednesday on ABC’s “The View” when he said Obama was “probably” born in the United States, but he wants the president to prove it with a birth certificate.
As for the critics, Brian Lowry of Variety got personal. “More than anything, Trump looks like a buffoon — an egomaniac hopelessly addicted to the spotlight, floating the prospect of a presidential run to a gullible media to boost interest in himself and ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’" Lowry wrote on the magazine’s website.
“Moreover, he seems in complete denial about the fact that his NBC show crested some time ago. Seriously, 8 million viewers or so is ‘through the roof?’ Only if the ceiling is about three inches above your head.”
David Weigel of Slate magazine took up Trump’s challenge to show him a photo of Obama as a child. “I've seen 14-year-old,” Trump said. “I've seen 13-year-old. I haven't seen early pictures." Weigel’s column includes a photo of Obama as a child that appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 2008.
-snip-
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama's parents in Hawaii who said he remembers when the future president was born, first vowed to produce an original copy of the president's birth certificate this year.
But he abandoned those efforts because it is against state law to release private documents, CNN quoted his spokeswoman as saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Oh, I forgot to mention: That was a wonderfully short post displaying you know nothing of American History, or the History of citizenship issues over the course of nearly 300 years of Colonial and American History.
Bravo.
But now I am just being catty. RAWR.
If Donald Trump’s mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen before his birth, and his father was also a U.S. citizen when Donald was born, Donald meets the requirement to be POTUS.
Which, of course, you already knew. And now any readers innocently ignorant of the truth - who might have been influenced by your slyly deceptive comment - now also know that Trump is eligible.
1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Title 8 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here.
Doesn’t wash with me! This little piece was passed after Obumber was already President. They are trying to change every code to reflect that he is naturally a Natural born citizen. But yet, he is not! He owes allegiance to another country.
They also changed laws in Hawaii stating that what BO shows as his BC online is now sufficient to get a passport or what have you. Before this all blew up in his face this definitely was not the case. This did not qualify as a legal document. Imagine that!
Hawaii could legally release the birth certificate because based on their laws, as I recall, the information is already out there. Using OBots logic, Obama has "released" his Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet for the world to see. So what's the problem? There should be no expectation of privacy for the extra information that a long form birth certificate may contain like the doctor and the hospital from which he was born. That's his typed and written birth certificate - right OBots? LoL.
If AberCrombie really found Obama's long form birth certificate, law or no law he would have found a way to release it to the public. He was a rabid OBot for over 2 years because he was a true believer Obama was born in Hawaii. So we can be pretty assured, Obama does not have a genuine birth certificate from Hawaii.
AberCommie used a shallow and lame excuse for the Lame Media and the silly OBots to spout.
for a long-term FReeper, you sure do expend a lot of bluster and bile endorsing a falsehood that MOST FReepers can tag immediately...
After further analysis, it's a feces-in-faces case. It's blowing The Donald's feces in their faces. Watch out FRiends, we won't survive retaliation from a broadside salvo from 0mama's caboose that will collapse this building followed by a disastrous peenami sweeping us into oblivion.
Who ever thought that what we have been saying from the beginning will do this when said by someone who can go after them?
The simple question: why doesn't 0b0z0 show it? When Communists jumped up and down, the Donald upped the ante and asked: why doesn't anybody remember 0b0z0 from the college days? LOL!
Now the Communists are jumping up and down for days like yoyos! It doesn't help them a bit except maybe it's good training for faggots’ carnivals in San Francisco.
Wait, you’re asking me to provide a link to something that is obvious and common knowledge? That’s absurd. I demand you provide a link proving the sky is blue./rolleyes
Oh, and stick to actual historical documents please. We are WAY past that here. Researchers like rsxid and others actually put their hands on actual documents and post them. They post actual microfiches of articles, historical records from the Floor of the House of Representatives. We work with actual real documents. Not the interpretations of others on those documents.
Constitution.net might be a good resource, but it is NOT an original resource.
Sorry, you need to get down to the nitty gritty with us. We are using ORIGINAL documents to prove our arguments. Not the interpretations of others.
psst! over here! bring the kitties!
Walk the talk son.
There is NO substitute for original source documents. I commend your efforts.
>>What a mess! I still wonder why Hillary gave in to him...she had this issue! <<
She was told to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jCKT4OJ9tuU
Jerome Corsi’s new book - video and tv commercial
If Trump is serious about doing the right thing, he better start being consistent. (A little late for that.)
Just because he might have gotten hold of something tangible against Obama doesn’t make Trump a real conservative:
Businessman and “Apprentice” television star Donald Trump blasted President George Bush today, calling him “probably the worst president in the history of the United States,” and blaming his 2004 victory on the Democrat ticket. Appearing on CNN’s “Situation Room,” Trump was asked by host Wolfe Blitzer his opinion of Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. “I don’t know him,” Trump answered. “People like him. I know people that like him very much, but I really don’t know him.” Trump went on to say that Edward’s experience as John Kerry’s 2004 running mate was a negative in his estimation. (Story continues below) “Well, I think that’s a huge negative, because that was a shame that that race was lost, because look what we have right now,” Trump said. “It’s a disaster. So, you know, I would probably be inclined not to like him on the basis that he lost an election that should have been won. That election should have been won.” Trump noted that the blame fell on Kerry as well. “He’s a friend of mine. But I’m so upset that he blew it,” he said. “I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States. And I just don’t understand how they could have lost that election.” Asked about Hillary Clinton, Trump praised the former first lady, saying he thought she was ready to be commander-in-chief. She’s “very talented, very smart. She’s a friend of mine, so I’m a little bit prejudiced,” he said “She’s a very, very capable person and I think she’ll probably be the nominee. We’ll see, but I think she’ll probably be the nominee.”
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40664
I guess posting that is easier than providing actual proof of your ideas. Here’s a hint, though. Birthers are an embarrassment to most freepers. We know that Birthers are not representative of conservatives, we know that Birtherism was started by Hillary supporters during the primary, and after the primary, it became pretty damn clear that Obama benefited from birthers being in the news. We know that it is pretty strange that when caught in lies (the republic of Kenya fraud birth certificate, for one), it became the fault of the alleged conspirators that Ms. Taitz was too dumb to check her slices, then it was ignored. Face it, Birtherism is bs.
IOWs you can’t support your position with any sources. Typical!
After further analysis, it's a feces-in-faces case. It's blowing The Donald's feces in their faces. Watch out FRiends, we won't survive retaliation from a broadside salvo from 0mama's caboose that will collapse this building followed by a disastrous peenami sweeping us into oblivion.
Who ever thought that what we have been saying from the beginning will do this when said by someone who can go after them?
The simple question: why doesn't 0b0z0 show it? When Communists jumped up and down, the Donald upped the ante and asked: why doesn't anybody remember 0b0z0 from the college days? LOL!
Now the Communists are jumping up and down for days like yoyos! It doesn't help them a bit except maybe it's good training for faggots’ carnivals in San Francisco.
time out for some good reading:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2694732/posts
Is Obama Real?
Front Page Magazine ^ | 3-25-2011 | David Solway - Commentary
Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 5:46:21 PM by smoothsailing
Is Obama Real?
By David Solway
March 25, 2011
A little over a decade before anyone had heard of Barack Obama, cyberpunk author William Gibson already had his number, as it were. The novel was called Idoru (“idol” in Japanese) and told the story of a holographic emanation, an entirely virtual media star projected upon an adoring world. As Rolling Stone put it in a review, “Gibson envisions a future in which the lines between the virtual and the actual are terminally blurred. How ‘real’ are today’s celebrities?”
There’s no doubt that the world’s “greatest” celebrity creation is Barack Obama, an idol who mesmerized the American public and much of the West besides, drawing enormous crowds wherever he went, inspiring millions upon millions of mindless infatuates who regarded him as the answer to all the world’s problems. People gazed upon him and swooned over his pectorals or felt tingles crawling up their legs. Others thought a god had arisen in their midst. He was the savior, the messiah, “The One” who would resolve the world’s most intractable conflicts, who would roll back the seas, who would introduce transparency into American politics, and who would bring harmony and wisdom, hope and change, to a distracted electorate.
Two years have passed and the shine has faded. Every initiative that the American idoru has undertaken has generated only controversy and failure. Add to the record of his blunders and hesitations the fact of his shrouded identity, anemic CV and playboy-like behavior, and we have a veritable enigma on our hands. Does he fly under or over the radar? The then-senator who constantly voted “present” seems as president disturbingly absent, junketing about the planet, shooting endless rounds of golf, practicing his jump shot, warbling at parties, sipping slurpies.
Worse, when it comes to issues of major significance, Obama cannot seem to make up his mind about anything. Taking a reasoned, consistent and principled position seems beyond his means. Rather, he is prone, to quote T.S. Eliot from The Hollow Men, to “behaving as the wind behaves.” Is he in or out of Afghanistan? Is he for the Ground Zero mosque or against? Does he admire or disapprove of his former pastor, America-hating Reverend Wright? Is he prosecuting terrorists in civil court or relying on military tribunals? Are the Articles of the Constitution to be observed or ignored? Is Congress to be circumvented or consulted in carrying out domestic and foreign policies, a question recently highlighted by his mobilizing the EPA to skirt legislative resistance to Cap and Trade or participating in the action against Muammar Gaddafi? For that matter, is he committed to the Libyan adventure or not? Is he pro-Israel, as he has often affirmed, or anti-Israel, as his conduct plainly suggests? Why does he support the so-called “democracy movement” in Egypt but not in Syria or Iran? If health care reform is meant to be universal, why have public sector unions been given exemptions and congressmen spared? Why do statements emerging from the White House often seem downright contradictory? These paradoxes, evasions and ambiguities can be multiplied indefinitely.
It is now obvious that Obama is all gaffe and guff. But the central question that troubles the mind is more profound. Why is it that, despite his larger-than-life media prominence and his appearing wherever we happen to look, he never seems to be there? As he himself wrote in The Audacity of Hope—assuming he is the author of the entire book and not, as Jack Cashill thinks, beholden to speechwriter Jon Favreau—“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Amir Taheri, writing in the New York Post, is distressed by Obama’s fluctuating and elusive nature. Commenting on Obama’s casting himself as a bridge between America and the Muslim world (Al-Arabiya TV, January 27, 2009), Taheri notes: “Obama appeared unsure of his own identity and confused about the role that America should play in global politics.”
In point of fact, Obama seems unsure of pretty well everything of importance, just as many of us have grown unsure about whether there is any substance at all behind the luminous façade thrust before us on screen or page or color supplement. French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, who developed the philosophical theory of the simulacrum in such books as Simulacra and Simulation and Simulations, defines one of its aspects as an image whose function is to mask the absence of a basic reality, to hide a vacancy. “It is no longer even a question of a false representation,” he writes, “but of concealing the truth that the real is no longer real.” In the mediatric age we now live in, we are steadily bombarded by “floating signifiers” that attach to nothing concrete. Baudrillard cites many examples of public and political hallucinations to which we are subject, which he labels “the precession of the simulacra,” but Obama is clearly the culmination of the process. He seems more like a collective hypothesis, an effigy permeable to the light, than a real person.
Studying the phenomenon of a simulated president, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish character from rhetoric, being from seeming, the man from the teleprompter. Indeed, we can take the question further. Is Obama real? Or is he the virtual creation of a group of spectral manipulators, of David Axelrod, George Soros, Bill Ayers and other tenebrous figures, who have combined their talents and resources to seize upon a mediocre legislator with no achievements to his credit and craft a glittering ectoplasm from pliable material in order to serve their political purposes—to produce, in effect, what Gibson calls a “consensual fantasy”? Is he merely, in Gibson’s terms, nothing but, “a personality-construct, a congeries of software agents, the creation of information-designers”? A Loki-like shape-shifter? A kind of synthespian?
It is hard to resist the conclusion that, for all the bewilderment he sows and the undeniable harm he does, Barack Obama does not exist. An idoru sits in the Oval Office and the only transparency he has brought to American politics is that we can see right through him.
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/25/is-obama-real/
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.