Posted on 05/06/2011 7:06:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The good news: It’s a heavy blow to the Trump boomlet. The bad news: … none that I can think of, really.
Actually, the bad news is that I lose a vein of easy content to blog. Help me, viral videos, you’re my only hope.
More crosstabs from WaPo. The “Honolulu/Hawaii” column is the big one, obviously:
This poll was conducted before Obama’s announcement of the Bin Laden killing, in case you’re inclined to attribute the huge bounce to goodwill rather than evidence. Needless to say, the key lines are the ones for Republicans and Conservative Republicans; in both groups, the number of Birthers was cut by more than half after the birth certificate revelation. (In fact, it was likely deeper than that. Birtherism had been spiking in the last few weeks since Trump mainstreamed the issue, so it was probably higher than the April 2010 numbers shown here.) I argued a few weeks ago that, contrary to big media’s received wisdom, Birthers aren’t a homogeneous group but rather a mix of hardcore and softcore believers, the latter of which were simply misinformed because they weren’t following the issue closely. These numbers bear that out. Which, for Chris Matthews, means … what? Republicans are racist, but maybe not quite as racist as he thought? What happens to the narrative?
Some people were hassling me in Headlines over this poll because I suggested yesterday in the post about the Bin Laden photos that evidence doesn’t convince skeptics anymore. Fair enough; at the very least, I should have qualified that by specifying that I meant skeptics with an agenda. But give the Birther issue time. I’ll be mighty keen to see if the numbers still look like this in six months — which, theoretically, they should — or if they start to creep back up as discontent with Obama’s policies rises and/or hardcore Birthers regroup and start challenging the long-form birth certificate. Trump had better hope so. Somehow, I don’t see the “trade war with China” platform carrying him to the nomination.
Yes yes, all very lawyerly. Ordinary people don't couch their words in legal jargon, they want straight answers. A straight answer is that an Amended birth certificate contains FALSE information.
The Father listed on my official BIRTH certificate, is not my BIRTH father. You can say "assignment of parental responsibility", but most people assume it to mean "BIRTH" father. The term "Birth" on the Certificate implies an Adjective Modifier of every term contained therein.
The usual and ordinary Rules of English compel everyone to associate every term on that Legal document with the incident of "Birth", not some legal hearing which may or may not have occurred at some later date, and which the State (the originators of the document) won't even confirm or deny.
And that is the INTENDED purpose of these legal machinations. To conceal the truth.
“Deconstructing Obama”
http://www.cashill.com/
Yeah, I sent Jack Cashill an E-mail with what I THOUGHT was new information. Turns out he had already thought of it and wrote it in his book.
Well it was NEW to ME. I am ordering his book. Anyway, I think you already have a good gist of my argument.
Are you arguing that Barack Obama wouldn't LIE about something like that?
There is, and I consider it compelling. The fallout over lying is irrelevant. I simply go where facts or probabilities lead, and they lead towards Barack's Father being an American Citizen.
I don't need to prove who his father WAS. All I need to prove is who the father WASN'T, And his father WASN'T Barack Obama Sr.
My guess as to who his father WAS, is Frank Marshall Davis, because he is the only piece left standing on the Chess board, after the Highly improbable has been eliminated.
My basic argument is this. Stanley Ann Was pregnant when those photographs were taken. She was posing for her lover. Christmas Decorations show it was scarcely a month after she became pregnant, and that the room did not belong to a MUSLIM man. The High Heeled Shoes are what I call "Stripper" shoes, and are not ordinarily worn by women for any other reason.
A Muslim man would not have owned a pair, neither would he likely have a large Jazz collection. The Room was likely the home of her lover or her parent's home. (Less likely.)
Now it can be argued that Stanley was a skank, and had sex with more than one man in the same month, or as is more probable, she became pregnant by having sex with her dad's best friend, and in order to conceal the fact from her father, she talked Barack Sr. into pretending to be the daddy.
He had his own reasons for going along with this as is shown by the recent release of his immigration application. The immigration officials weren't buying his "marriage" either.
Isn’t it time to get over this?
Yep, his backers, who appear to get paid for each negative reply they post on each article on his magical birth.
I agree, and he’s been like this all along, just more open about it now. And please don’t insult spit.
Yep. And I get a dollar every time I say so.
Why didn’t BamBamKennedy have his own birth certificate in his own possession before now? Why did he have to just now get a copy? He does live in the most secure house in the world, not likely anyone would have access to get their hands on it.
What birth certificate did he use to enter all the different schools? Get a driver’s license, marriage license, passport? IT makes absolutely NO sense that a man of his age would NOT have his own personal copy of his very own birth certificate.
The Father listed on my official BIRTH certificate, is not my BIRTH father. You can say "assignment of parental responsibility", but most people assume it to mean "BIRTH" father. The term "Birth" on the Certificate implies an Adjective Modifier of every term contained therein.
The usual and ordinary Rules of English compel everyone to associate every term on that Legal document with the incident of "Birth", not some legal hearing which may or may not have occurred at some later date, and which the State (the originators of the document) won't even confirm or deny.
And that is the INTENDED purpose of these legal machinations. To conceal the truth.
Everything you just complained about is wrong, because it rests upon the erroneous assumption that the word, "Father", is exclusively defined and used in common language to mean only the biological or genetic father who sired or beget the child. Nothing could be further from the truth, which can be confirmed by looking at the dictionaries, historical publications, and centuries of vital records. The broader definition in common language usage has always included "a person who brings up and cares for another" (Merriam-Webster) and "one related to another in a way suggesting that of father to child" (Merriam-Webster).
You cannot dismiss this as "lawyerly talk" or other dismissive terms, because this comes directly from the dictionaries and customs in common usage, and not from Black's Law Dictionary. It also reflects obvious reality. If anything, your attempts to narrowly define the definition of a father to only a person who is the biological or genetic father or sire of the child is itself being "lawyerly." There simply was no DNA testing for genetic paternity in 1961. Just as the custom had been for centuries, the father was the person responsible for parenting the child or otherwise identified by the mother or other authorities as the person responsible for the child. If it so happened the person identified as the father did not actually sire the child, there was no DNA testing available to conclusively prove otherwise. Consequently, governments, families, and social institutions have always employed the commonsense definition and usage of the word to denote the person responsible for acting as the male parent of the child, without regard for the unknowable genetic relationship.
Since the documents used the common meaning of "Father", which connotates the person responsible for male parenting of a child, they certainly did not lie by not disclosing the person who sired the child. To argue otherwise is to make the ludicrous false claim they were responsible and capable of determining the biological or genetic father.
Yesterday, my informal count came up with **five** stories about Obama’s natural born status from **mainstream** news sources. Imagine that! How could that be? I guess the parrot is not dead.
By the way, I have crow ready in my freezer. When the time is right I will nuke it with my microwave so it will be nice and hot for you to eat.
I think we have enough to begin. Thanks for posting this openly. Let's discuss.
First off, lets start with the obvious. This line of argument is creepy. Bashing people's mothers, even of political opponents, isn't good business. Also, this theory arrives suspiciously hot on the heels of the collapse of Birtherism 2.0. This leads me to believe either one of two things about you and your motives.
(1) You have a meta-creepy interest in researching the sexual activities and interests of Barack Obama's mother, in some kind of ends-justify-the-means desire to dig up information on her to use against our beloved TOTUS. You're not really concerned with the legal implications of the information. You simply think the information can smear Obama, and that's value enough. Your timing in the release was a coincidence. You mean well, but you don't understand how poorly this sort of muck makes us look.
(2) Your side has this information already, not because you're an imaginative internet stalker, but because you're privvy to it. Not wanting to use the information yourself, it was decided to pass it to 'enemies of my enemy', namely, conservative Birthers. Your side fed an unusually trusting Donald Trump information until he ceased to be useful, and now that the Birth Certificate angle is inoperative, you're switching to your next weapon, almost on cue. Bringing it somewhere that you think the 'African mystique' won't sell.
It's entirely possible that you're a lone wolf, just sharing your theory. Given your links, however, you seem to be the pied piper of a greater effort.
So, who out there is close enough to Barack Obama to know all this, yet would desire him to be defeated by people that she thinks are naive, sanctimonious yet sleazy, offended by promiscuity and bi-racial relationships, and will stoop to any level of smear to stop a Democrat? She's have to hate the weapon (us) as much as the target (Barry), because this would damage both sides.
Moreover, who would Mr Trump find plausible? Unless he's new to the internet, he must be talking to someone very respected and established. He even hinted at the level of his sources in speeches. Who started Birtherism? Who released photos of Obama in African garb in the past?
Oh, wait? Did I say she?
Send my regards to HillaryPAC2012, FRiend, but keep your baby-daddy smear-job starter-kit. We're on to you. ;-)
What is wrong post?
You dont want birther money going to homeless shelters?
What do you have against the homeless? Why not help them?
What could possibly hold you back from endorsing this plan?
I am not bothering to read your comments any longer.
As with every case, we need a ruling on the facts and a ruling on the law. We can’t get either thing until we have a “case”. I think the route for resolution of both fact and law is the same: we need to get a “case” that has to be heard.
Whatever efforts we undertake, they need to be geared towards convincing a prosecutor, SOS, or opposing candidate to pursue this issue OR towards getting a state legislative bill or state ballot initiative passed that would grant legal standing for eligibility to be challenged.
I don’t know if anybody in the military would have standing or if there would be a procedure by which they could seek legal resolution of the question.
At this point I think the monkey business with Obama’s records - not just the birth certificate but also his forged draft registration, SSN fraud, and the breaches of his passport file - could be reason for people to say an investigation and/or court case would be warranted. I think the shifting stories about the Bin Laden kill concern people because the credibility of this administration is shot. In that context, when people become informed of the way ALL his records have been manipulated they may realize just how serious a problem we have. Not just theoretically but in real serious life.
Of course, it reveals how wise the Founders were to have the NBC requirement. But most people will “leave well enough alone” until they see exactly how it endangers everything they value. And watching our government squirming around to come up with just the right lie is a very uncomfortable reality for most people. When they see that the same thing has happened in EVERY government office that claims to have records for Obama, they may begin to realize that our foundations are really and truly under assault.
That’s my focus right now because I think it has a chance to resonate with people. If that resonating can result in a court case that’s actually heard on the merits, then we can get to the bottom of both the facts and the law, which is the goal. We need both.
I watched the comments at an NBC sports site, after a Baltimore Orioles player said Obama’s BC should be forensically tested, and I was ready to despair. But then there was a Baltimore CBS affiliate website that had the story and the responses there included thoughtful responses regarding both the facts/BC issue AND the eligibility/NBC issue. That made me feel better, because it leads me to think that people see more than the media wants us to think they see.
Those who have researched on the NBC side of things should keep pushing with everything they’ve got, because that also resonates and can bear fruit (and it’s just right to defend the Constitution). My research has been more on the corruption/coverup/forgery by government officials so that is where I think I can help the most. But we need to get to the same result: a lawsuit that gets heard on its merits, to decide both the facts of the case and interpret and apply the law/Constitution to those facts.
(1) You have a meta-creepy interest in researching the sexual activities and interests of Barack Obama's mother, in some kind of ends-justify-the-means desire to dig up information on her to use against our beloved TOTUS. You're not really concerned with the legal implications of the information. You simply think the information can smear Obama, and that's value enough. Your timing in the release was a coincidence. You mean well, but you don't understand how poorly this sort of muck makes us look.
(2) Your side has this information already, not because you're an imaginative internet stalker, but because you're privvy to it. Not wanting to use the information yourself, it was decided to pass it to 'enemies of my enemy', namely, conservative Birthers. Your side fed an unusually trusting Donald Trump information until he ceased to be useful, and now that the Birth Certificate angle is inoperative, you're switching to your next weapon, almost on cue. Bringing it somewhere that you think the 'African mystique' won't sell.
It's entirely possible that you're a lone wolf, just sharing your theory. Given your links, however, you seem to be the pied piper of a greater effort.
So, who out there is close enough to Barack Obama to know all this, yet would desire him to be defeated by people that she thinks are naive, sanctimonious yet sleazy, offended by promiscuity and bi-racial relationships, and will stoop to any level of smear to stop a Democrat? She's have to hate the weapon (us) as much as the target (Barry), because this would damage both sides.
Moreover, who would Mr Trump find plausible? Unless he's new to the internet, he must be talking to someone very respected and established. He even hinted at the level of his sources in speeches. Who started Birtherism? Who released photos of Obama in African garb in the past? Oh, wait? Did I say she?
Send my regards to HillaryPAC2012, FRiend, but keep your baby-daddy smear-job starter-kit. We're on to you. ;-))
My goodness! What Amazing powers of deductive reasoning you have! If only they could be put to good use in Analyzing this issue! On the other hand, perhaps not. Since they are wrong in every particular, I think they would serve to generate more noise than motion.
Think and say whatever suits you, I am unconcerned with your opinion. You should try this perspective as well. You might be amazed at what can be accomplished when you are unconcerned about the political (or social) ramifications of something.
I did notice you didn't put a hole in the theory. Perhaps you should attack the Meat of the argument? Point out a hole and I'll re-evaluate. Complain about how unseemly it is and i'll consider it irrelevant. *I* didn't make it unseemly. The Actors did. I am merely pointing out the script.
There is a place where a reporter who was at the off-camera “gaggle” before Obama’s announcement regarding his (forged) long-form claimed that Obama printed out for the press a copy (from the snopes website. lol) of the COLB (printed in 2007) with which he got his driver’s license, etc. It was in the context of her describing how Obama explained to the press why he was releasing this now, so it could have been what he told the press. Of course, because it was off-camera and nobody who was there gave quotes, we don’t know.
If that is what he said, though, then he’s claiming that he used a COLB to get a driver’s license since June 6, 2007 when that COLB was supposedly printed. I’m in my 40’s and don’t even know where my own BC is right now; I haven’t had to use it for anything since I initially established my identity through my driver’s license, voter ID, etc. Is it normal in Illinois for a 46-year-old man to have to bring a COLB to renew a driver’s license, or is he claiming he never had a driver’s license until he was 46?
That is no surprise. It explains how you could reach an adult age without understanding a father is not necessarily a biological or genetic father. Nonetheless, your attitude does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II was a natural born British citizen as a consequence of his mother and the governments formally stating that the British Kenyan father was Barack Hussein Obama I. Accordingly, Barack Hussein Obama II owed allegiance at birth to Queen Elizabeth II, the foreign sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Any person natural born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign is not eligible to the Office of the President of the United States of America.
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.