scott e.'s thread on Obama's Birth Certificate

this is a hot potato so i hope not to offend anyone with this theory. my premise is that antibirthers use the epithet Birfer and have for some time, without considering it's consequence.


any rational discussion about race is appropriate. there are other items current that belong in this catagory, which i will post accordingly.

since i have been accused of being racist for pointing this out, i begin my argument with this.

[video=youtube;UsWekW_vT5s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsWekW_vT5s&context=C36575ecADOEgsToPDskJ5 i7pC_pD78JEO0BxbR21w&gl=NG&hl=en-GB[/video]

as a student of etymology i am constantly interested in semantics and regional or any variable affectation.

 

There are no consequences. Your "theory" is nothing more than a puerile smear.

 

I use the term Birther to describe people who believe in looney conspiracy theories and just about any personal smear about President Barack Obama(or his parents or grandparents), who often tend to be racists.

 

no j. birfer, not birther. there is a distinct difference.

the antibirthers could/should acknowledge whom it may offend. we'll see if they keep using it. some don't use it because they are in the know.

 

No. There's really not.

 

Lets consider how pathetic this thread actually is.

Yesterday, Birthistan (or should I say Birfistan?) was dealt three separate judicial set backs. The US Supreme Court rejected Orly's petition for a stay and Sibley's petition for certiorari, and the Mississippi court denied an Orly motion with a harsh scolding of her incompetence, as well as telegraphing through its language that she is about to be sanctioned. You would imagine that these are the things birfers like Scott would want to be talking about.

No... instead he wants to launch off on a tendentious and transparent smear against anti-birthers (who more than 200 court decisions have declared to be on the right side of the law and history) by suggesting that "birfer" is racist.

So Scott, are you a black man? I ask because we use the phrase "birfer" to mock you, and Orly, and Arpaio, and Zullo, and Sibley, and Strunck, and Klayman, and Irey, and Vogt, and Zebest, and Corsi, and a whole fleet of other non-black people. If you're not black, its kind of hard to complain that we are being racist by mocking you as a "birfer."

As strong a case could be made that we are mocking Cockney English as African-American English. But of course, that would not serve to make you feel better in the face of so much new birfer fail.

 

A black Birther is just about as unusual as a black David Duke fan.

 

see.... now that would be racist

 

I'm not a birther nor am I a birfer. And I am part Black, like Obama, I suppose.

So, in my opinion, those who automatically discount the possibility that Obama has lied and/or concealed information about himself and his personal history in order to gain access to the ultimate seat of power on Earth are foolish. People kill for power. And so, with his known history of lying and manipulation and what with so much of his past being obscured and still unrevealled, can anyone doubt that he would hide the truth, IF HE REALLY ISN'T A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN, in order to gain an unobstructed pathway to the power of the Oval Office?

Being curious about our President's true and complete history isn't a sign of racism. It's our patriotic duty to find and/or demand to know the truth.

Anyone who does any less or criticizes an American who only wants to know what we're entitled to know, which is the truth about Barack Obama's past, is the person who should be criticized and feel ashamed.

We aren't acting on racist motivations as much as on Patriotic motivations.

 

Heah I is, boss man!

Excep'n I don't truck with no Klansmen.

 

the fatal flaw in your argument is that obama is the only president or candidate who has ever proven he was actually eligible to hold the office. the proof he presented was a certified birth certificate verified, twice, by the state of hawaii under both a republican and democtratic administration.

 

Sure. Anyone can say anything on the internet.

 

You suppose? What does that mean? Are you or are you not?

They are also essentially nonexistent. That is an unrefined straw man.

The antibirthers have "automatically discounted" exactly nothing. We have instead demonstrated that birther claims are complete fabrications and objectively contradicted by all existing evidence. Birthism has failed comprehensively at every level of analysis and debate, to include in more than 200 court cases over more than four years. (And before birthers leap in with their standard lie that none of those cases were decided on the merits, that too is a bald faced lie. I'm happy to provide the legal string citation for those desiring to check that particular detail.) This is not an accident. This is not a series of wild coincidences or a comprehensive coverup involving tens of thousands of people in all three branches of government.

Barack Hussen Obama is the most extensively and comprehensively vetted president or presidential candidate in all of American history. He has released more of his personal documentation than any previous president. The American people in general (and birthers in particular) know more about his personal history than they do of any prior president, a fact that I test every time I meet a birther in person.

To continue to believe at this point that it actually is possible "that Obama has lied and/or concealed information about himself and his personal history in order to gain access to the ultimate seat of power on Earth" is worse than merely "foolish." It is pathological. It is evidence of a tragically unhealthy psyche.

Let's pretend for a second that he would. That still would not actually make it possible. The reason complex conspiracy theories must always be greeted with skepticism is that they presume a vast number of people that are competent enough and disciplined enough to pull it off. The history of actual conspiracies is a conclusive demonstration that any large number of people (more than 50) cannot pull it off.

This is generally true of conspiracy theories. It is specifically uber-true in the case of birther theories. They require a web of deceit that began when Obama was an infant, and would have needed to include tens of thousands of people over more than half a century... not a single one of which has ever broken from the pack.

To believe such a thing is flirting with madness.

Birthers are not curious. They have not the slightest interest in what is or is not true. In fact, they have repeatedly proven that they will avoid what is true at all costs if it challenges their fantasies regarding this president. They instead offer an alternative version of history that has no basis in evidence, is invented completely out of whole cloth, is replete with demonstrable willful lies (that never die even after their conclusive refutation), and have a foundation in racism is not speculative. Any time spent with the birthers and their favored websites will expose unrefined racism of the most unabashed and vile sort.

Birthism is not a "sign of racism" at all. Racism is its foundation and the engine that drives its continued existence.

Again, you depend on straw men and so cannot be taken seriously. Birthers are not Americans who only want to know what they are entitled to know. They are people who have rejected what is known for a fabricated alternate that satisfies the worst angels of their natures and permits them to maintain the delusion that a man they hate is not President of the United States.

In those silent moments, late at night in the dark when they allow themselves to say the things they only think to themselves, even birthers do not believe that.

 

Look, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the birf certificate, but I can understand why some people won't or can't. It's just too flaky the way it was finally produced after much to do was made of it. People just sense, and you can include me among them, something ain't right about his story but we can't put our finger on it. And by playing games about revealing the bc the Pres. has successfully distracted our attention with whooop dee do about that and drawn our attention away from some other area which might lead to something really disturbing about B.O.

I don't criticize the birfers because if the WaPo's team of investigative writers, Woodward & Bernstein hadn't been so doggedly determined to find the truth about Watergate, despite criticism and ridicule from all sides, Nixon might have escaped justice and finished his term as planned. So, I say, let the birfers keep plugging away until they are satisfied.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't lied to you yet.

 

Is I is or is I ain't part Black or like Obama? I is part Black. But I AIN'T like Obama!

I know you believe what you've written but what you believe is not necessarily so.

www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

Some people have a lower threshold of belief than others. Some people aren't as easily convinced of a thing as others. Those who loved Obama from the word, Go, didn't need much in the way of proof. Those who suspected he was hiding something then and now are going to require much more hard evidence.

Despite your saying he's been checked out extensively, the truth is there are still many quetions about him that remain unanswered.

If he's been thoroughly vetted you'll be able to put to rest all of the doubts about him and the doubters will have to finally, (*)(*)(*)(*). (shut the fxxk up)

Ball's in your court.

Show us where we are all mistaken.

If you still maintain that's not so, please come up with info on the issues highlighted in bold from the text above.

 

have you seen jack cashill's deconstructing obama ??

[video=youtube;xxPhnhQ7Tr0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxPhnhQ7Tr0[/video]


i think obamas not only knew who bill ayers, i think he wrote "dreams from my father"

and: http://bobsbox.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/has-an-illinois-newspaper-started-an-awakening/

 

there was nothing flaky about it or hesitation to release it. it was released in 2008 days after it was asked for. the COLB released just wasn't good enough for birthers. If someone still doubts the presidents eligibility, they are an idiot and deserve any and all manner of ridicule.

 

Yet eh? Prove it.

 

How much then?

The results of more than 200 court cases say you're wrong.

"The Center for Western Journalism" is a beard for the ongoing WND scam. Joe Farah has made a lot of money off of birthers, and you are sheep he is not done shearing. That you use them as a source does not reflect well on either your critical thinking skills or your ability to avoid phishing e-mails, malware on your computer, or an earnest petition for help from disinherited Nigerians.

And some people are completely unarmed in any battle of wits requiring genuine evidence and the ability to draw conclusions from it. You are at least correct to the extent that you mean birthism is a matter of "belief." Antibirthism is not.

Pretending both those assertions are true... how do you account for the fact that we already have the hard evidence that, under the standards of US law to include the Constitution, constitutes absolute legal proof, and yet birthers demand more? Those who "loved Obama" simply have far more proof than they needed, and those who "suspected he was hiding something" will accept no hard evidence whatsoever. And those who fall into neither category (to include, again, the judges in more than 200 birther cases) have objectively assessed the evidence without prior emotional or partisan commitment and declared the Obama lovers right.

And here we begin to explore the difference between birther demands of President Obama, and the demands placed on any other prior President. It is an objective fact that Obama has been more extensively vetted than any other president or presidential candidate in American history. It is an objective fact that he is the only president who has ever actually proven their eligibility for the job. It is an objective fact that he has released more personal documentation than any previous president. It is an objective fact that the average birther can spout off granular details of his biography, and remain ignorant (or even completely disinterested) about the corresponding details for any other President.

None of this is a reflection on the President. All of it is a reflection on the anomalous irrationality of the birther movement... an irrationality that cannot seriously pretend to have an honorable motive of "patriotism."

Even you understand how blissfully stupid that contention is. We know for a fact it is untrue because he has been thoroughly vetted and the birthers (you among them) still will not shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Birthism long ago stopped being (at least as far as the American public is concerned) a debate about the eligibility of this President, and instead became a debate about whether or not birther bigotry crossed the line between neurosis and psychosis.

This issue is no longer about the president. It is about birthers and what particularly dark well of their decrepit souls accounts for such despicable behavior.

Game's been over for years. And when the game was still going on, we were never playing tennis. We were playing wack-a-mole.

Sure.

1. None of the things on your (often silly) list have ever been voluntarily released by any previous president or presidential candidate. Out of the gate we are struck with the absurd double standard applied by birthers to this president, and this president alone. Demonstrate for us all that you are not a raging hypocrite by presenting us with the equivalent documents for any other prior president or presidential candidate. Or better yet, show us that you ever bothered to even ask.

2. None of his records are sealed. To the extent that they are protected, they are merely protected by the same identical laws that protect yours and mine.

3. "Open government" is about open government, not the abdication of personal privacy. Offering political transparency is not the same thing as offering to stand naked in the snow.

4. Some of the things you ask for are figments of the fevered birther imagination. For example, there is no "Columbia University Thesis" because Columbia was an undergraduate program, not a masters or doctorate program requiring a thesis. This has repeatedly been pointed out to birthers, but alas, a birther lie never dies.

5. Some of the things you suggest are missing or sealed are neither. For example, his State Senate Records are public record maintained not by him by by the Illinois State Archives. They are fully available to anyone who presents a public records request. He has also never claimed his scheduling records are "lost." All records tracking constituent requests and casework were (in standard procedure) passed on to his successor in the State Senate, Kwame Raoul. As to the rest, we again encounter the wildly goofy birther imagination. Nobody keeps the records birther hallucinate were kept. And a review of other Illinois State Senator's practices confirm that.

6. Medical records are protected by HIPAA, and no prior president or presidential candidate has ever released them. Instead, either summaries by personal physicians or redacted subsets of medical records are made available for review by journalists. Here is one of Obama's.

7. Obama has already released his birth records. Twice. No other President has ever done so. In fact, most presidents didn't even have birth records at all.

8. Obama's passport records are not his to release. They are in the possession of the State Department. But he has made public what he personally possesses.

9. President Obama did not attend Punahou for kindergarten, demonstrating again the complete inattention to detail among birthers. Instead, he attended Noelani Elementary School. The first hand accounts of his time there from teachers and fellow students are widely available. See here for examples. As to his kindergarten records (you have to realize how hard it is to not fall down laughing when birthers talk of his kindergarten records, but you apparently just can't help yourselves), the birther claim that they are missing is a complete fabrication. No birther has ever actually checked.

10. His records from Punahou school for grades 5 -12 are not missing either. This is another complete birther fabrication. And the public paper trail he left during his time there is extensive. See here, here, here and here.

And what other records do we have of the President's that have been made public for no other president?

11. We have his draft registration.

12. We have his elementary school registration from Indonesia.

13. We have his mother's passport records.

14. We have the files of the INS concerning his father's status as a foreign student here in the 1960s.

15. We have the divorce records for both of his mother's divorces.

16. We have a dozen years of his Income Tax returns, going back to the 1990s. (Not only do birthers not ask this of any other president or presidential candidate, they actively defended Romney when he refused to release his.)

17. We have his newspaper birth announcements from August 1961.

18. We have two separate formal and official verifications from the Hawaii State Department of Health that yes, he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.

Again... prove that you are not a raging hypocrite and show me the equivalent documentation from any prior president.

Ball's in your court. And this time the metaphor is appropriate.

 

Rewriting history now?

Point us to some examples of this alleged "criticism and ridicule from all sides" experienced by Woodward and Bernstein. Either that or please, stop just making stuff up.

 

4/27 was a joke. obama was the carnaval barker that day. a circus of political coverup, just like benghazi.

 

and birthers remain retarded. they also maintain a perfect record of fail in court.

it continues to suck to be a birther

 

Okay.

Unlike Birthers, I hold Barack Obama to the same standards that I have held every previous President and Presidential candidate.

I don't discount the possibility that Obama or Romney were lying about being eligible, but Obama is the only President I have actually seen evidence of his eligibility. So I have more reason to believe that Obama is eligible than I have had for any previous President.

Now you are going down the rabbit hole. I have not seen Obama 'lying' any more than I have seen any politicians lie- all politicians lie. I have no more- or less- reason to believe Obama than I do any other candidate or President.

Now about his past- again- I hold Obama to the same standard of every previous President. I know more about Obama's past than I do about Bush's. I can tell you the name of every school that Obama attended. This whole meme about Obama's hidden past is again part of the smear campaign against Obama- it is false and it is idiotic.

Really? So tell me all about Bush's true and complete history. Clearly if it is your patriotic duty, you demanded all of Bush's history right? Like the rumors of his cocaine use- you demanded the truth come out about that right? What about his Harvard transcripts- you demanded those too right?

And of course you demanded to see Bush's birth certificate right- because thats what you think a patriot would do?

'What you are entitled to know'- what is that exactly?

Let me say this: Anyone who demands Obama be held to a different and higher standard than any previous President should be criticized and should feel ashamed. But frankly, Birthers have no capablity for shame.

Really?

When did you ask these questions for any white President?

 

Originally Posted by Pregnar Kraps

I'm not a birther nor am I a birfer. And I am part Black, like Obama, I suppose..

SFJ: Okay.







so lucky to have your approval....


come on rahl what did you delete ??

 

this.............

double posted