This thread delivers. Keep 'er going guys.
BTW, Zeb, why don’t you agree with this conspiracy, but you do believe the people who believe the Illuminati are taking over the world via gay marriage? Doesn’t seem to be much difference between these folks from my point of view.
Well tell us why you think he sealed his elementary school records, his college records, his passport records, etc?
Random firing of neurons (no real reason)?
Or a cause that makes sense? What do you suggest?
[quote]valiance. wrote:
All the evidence thus far?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The kicker here is that 2 Hawaii newspapers published birth announcements within weeks of Obama’s birth.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
I get the skepticism of the government and people in power, I really do, but the evidence here is all on one side. This birther stuff is really driven by racism, xenophobia, and maybe just plain hate of BHO. This goes well beyond reasonable skepticism of government or politicians, it’s highly irrational conspiracy theory stuff, and I think the birth announcements nail it even if everything else does not. It’s beyond loony to believe that the Dunhams, in anticipation of a future political career for their grandson, placed these ads in the newspaper to cover up the real location of his birth in Kenya, or on the Moon, or in Atlantis or wherever the hell these people think he was born.
[/quote]
This is all hearsay. Why not simply give a certified copy of the birth certificate to an independent investigator, or even congress?
Factcheck cannot be considered a reliable source. Factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama served as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999. There is a clear bias here.
Some believe this is a forgery (I don’t). It has never been released to anyone else.
Hawaiian statue at the time allows for the registration of foreign born children to residents of the state, in which case they would issue a short-form birth certificate like Obamas instead of the long-form that would detail the hospital in which he was born and the attending physician.
Ann Dunham may have registered Obama’s birth the same way a home birth would have been registered at the time. She simply filled out a form and signed an affidavit. She possibly would have had her mother sign it as well as a witness. This is why he will not release his birth certificate, as the long-form, if even available, would have documented this and there is no one to corroborate his birth. Claiming a home-birth would have opened up this can of worms a long time ago, so he instead claimed to have been born in a hawaiian hospital and showed a short-form certificate that would not dispute this. I find this the most likely explanation for the birth certificate factcheck claims to have seen.
The birth announcements are also hearsay and a moot point anyways. That information came straight from the DOH. So long as the birth was registered in Hawaii, which I’m sure it was albeit fraudulently, the birth announcements would appear in the paper.
It’s interesting how each time I make a post like the one 2 posts above, or the one just above the halfway mark of the page, you could hear a pin drop.
Not even the slightest peep from big posters that had been keen to talk on the topic, once they were asked simple and quite reasonable questions.
You do see that in some situations.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s interesting how each time I make a post like the one 2 posts above, or the one just above the halfway mark of the page, you could hear a pin drop.
Not even the slightest peep from big posters that had been keen to talk on the topic, once they were asked simple and quite reasonable questions.
You do see that in some situations.[/quote]
Come on now, that’s not even fair. It is much easier for you to base an argument on logical reasoning than for them to base one on the simple premise that one cannot possibly be elected president without being a natural born citizen in these United States. Never mind the fact that NOBODY actually bothered to check along the way. Doesn’t everybody hide their kindergarten records these days?
his birth was announced in two separate newspapers for fucks sake. What more do you want? Do you think the conspiracy goes back so far that his parents phoned from Kenya to get his birth announced?
Ah, perhaps we have a taker here to provide a logical reason, besides what I have offered, for his having his childhood school records, his college records, and his passport records sealed?
Random firing of neurons, do you think? (That is to say, no explicable cause.)
Or a possible cause that makes some sense, that you will enlighten us of?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Ah, perhaps we have a taker here to provide a logical reason, besides what I have offered, for his having his childhood school records, his college records, and his passport records sealed?
Random firing of neurons, do you think? (That is to say, no explicable cause.)
Or a possible cause that makes some sense, that you will enlighten us of?[/quote]
Personally, I’m hoping it was to keep you all frothed up.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Come on now, that’s not even fair. It is much easier for you to base an argument on logical reasoning than for them to base one on the simple premise that one cannot possibly be elected president without being a natural born citizen in these United States. Never mind the fact that NOBODY actually bothered to check along the way. [/quote]
Boy, wow, you know, I never thought of it this way… I mean, no one ever checked, damn. It’s not like anyone intelligent and ruthless was ever running against him.
[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
All the evidence thus far?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The kicker here is that 2 Hawaii newspapers published birth announcements within weeks of Obama’s birth.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
I get the skepticism of the government and people in power, I really do, but the evidence here is all on one side. This birther stuff is really driven by racism, xenophobia, and maybe just plain hate of BHO. This goes well beyond reasonable skepticism of government or politicians, it’s highly irrational conspiracy theory stuff, and I think the birth announcements nail it even if everything else does not. It’s beyond loony to believe that the Dunhams, in anticipation of a future political career for their grandson, placed these ads in the newspaper to cover up the real location of his birth in Kenya, or on the Moon, or in Atlantis or wherever the hell these people think he was born.
This is all hearsay. Why not simply give a certified copy of the birth certificate to an independent investigator, or even congress?
Factcheck cannot be considered a reliable source. Factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama served as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999. There is a clear bias here.
Some believe this is a forgery (I don’t). It has never been released to anyone else.
Hawaiian statue at the time allows for the registration of foreign born children to residents of the state, in which case they would issue a short-form birth certificate like Obamas instead of the long-form that would detail the hospital in which he was born and the attending physician.
Ann Dunham may have registered Obama’s birth the same way a home birth would have been registered at the time. She simply filled out a form and signed an affidavit. She possibly would have had her mother sign it as well as a witness. This is why he will not release his birth certificate, as the long-form, if even available, would have documented this and there is no one to corroborate his birth. Claiming a home-birth would have opened up this can of worms a long time ago, so he instead claimed to have been born in a hawaiian hospital and showed a short-form certificate that would not dispute this. I find this the most likely explanation for the birth certificate factcheck claims to have seen.
The birth announcements are also hearsay and a moot point anyways. That information came straight from the DOH. So long as the birth was registered in Hawaii, which I’m sure it was albeit fraudulently, the birth announcements would appear in the paper.
[/quote]
Generally I would write this stuff off as silly nonsense along the same lines as ZEB, but these are interesting points. While all of this is purely circumstantial evidence it does make one wonder why the very documents that could put it all to rest have been sealed.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As for your attempted Bush comparison: Bush hid no private records. His college records, medical records, even driving records were all open for all to see. As for executive records on various things, particularly related to terrorism and national security, it’s completely usual for such records to not be generally available. It’s not at all like getting one’s elementary school records sealed. Invalid comparison. And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this. Bush, as nice as it may be to blame him for everything, just has no relevance whatsoever to the matter of Obama hiding all these things that never before have been hidden by a Presidential candidate and hardly are ever hidden by anybody, for that matter (except those with something to hide.)[/quote]
Come on Bill, you knew what ZEB’s point was.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Generally I would write this stuff off as silly nonsense along the same lines as ZEB, but these are interesting points. While all of this is purely circumstantial evidence it does make one wonder why the very documents that could put it all to rest have been sealed. [/quote]
I fully admit that everything that has been used to suggest Obama is Kenyan-born is circumstantial. The crux of the issue is that no real evidence has been shown by either side and Obama is setting an extremely dangerous precedent. There should currently be 50 secretary of states resigning for failing to do their job and asking for verification of Obama’s birth place before putting his name on the ballot. We now have a serious judicial question as to where the burden of proof lies. Is Obama justified in sealing his records and we the people must present the evidence against him? Or is the burden of proof on him to show that he legally holds his current position. While the constitution doesn’t spell out how candidates must prove their eligibility in regards to the natural born clause, it seems downright nonsensical that the (very simple in this case) burden of proof should not fall on the candidate or president himself.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
As for your attempted Bush comparison: Bush hid no private records. His college records, medical records, even driving records were all open for all to see. As for executive records on various things, particularly related to terrorism and national security, it’s completely usual for such records to not be generally available. It’s not at all like getting one’s elementary school records sealed. Invalid comparison. And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this. Bush, as nice as it may be to blame him for everything, just has no relevance whatsoever to the matter of Obama hiding all these things that never before have been hidden by a Presidential candidate and hardly are ever hidden by anybody, for that matter (except those with something to hide.)
Come on Bill, you knew what ZEB’s point was. [/quote]
Yes, I certainly thought that I did.
If he wants to clarify that actually he does think there may well, unlike Bush records, be something in the sealed school and passport records that Obama felt he needed hidden from the public for his own sake, not for national security’s sake, then he is more than welcome to clarify.
The reasons for various Bush Administration records concerning terrorism and methods used against it being classified are explainable for reasons other than problems that would or could result in removal from office. ZEB compared Obama’s sealing of his various records to that. If I misunderstood his intent, then definitely it would be great if he provided for us a reason that made sense for Obama sealing those records, other than that there are problems there that he did not and does not want the public to know, problems that he wasn’t worried about and saw no need for sealing until running for President.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
tedro wrote:
Come on now, that’s not even fair. It is much easier for you to base an argument on logical reasoning than for them to base one on the simple premise that one cannot possibly be elected president without being a natural born citizen in these United States. Never mind the fact that NOBODY actually bothered to check along the way.
Boy, wow, you know, I never thought of it this way… I mean, no one ever checked, damn. It’s not like anyone intelligent and ruthless was ever running against him. [/quote]
I would seriously argue the intelligent bit, but I’ll save that for another time.
Let’s go back to last summer for a minute and try to remember just exactly went down when Hillary’s campaign staff did look into this issue.
First, they were the first one’s to discover that many of these records were sealed, making these cases moot regardless of how ruthless she was.
Second, can you remember how the media and Obama spun the issue when they found out she was searching for his kindergarten records, which would have required a birth certificate. She was called a loon and Obama claimed she was doing it to spread more rumors about him being Muslim. Now what is more likely, Hillary continuing to try to show that Obama is not natural born, knowing that his records are sealed and she will have a very difficult time finding evidence and then being called a nut by those in the media and playing ‘unfair’ politics with Obama, thus ruining any chance she has for President or a position in the president’s cabinet? Or her shutting her mouth and not fighting a likely losing battle so that she could still possibly win the nomination or at least a spot in Obama’s cabinet?
It is actually kind of amusing how the Obama defenders on this immediately assume that Hillary has either psychic powers and thus is able to know what is in sealed records without having to access them, or assume she has the power to get to see what is in them despite the court-ordered sealing.
Their arguments that “Well Hillary didn’t attack him for not being born in the US, or holding and exercising dual citizenship as an adult, and she would have if it were true, therefore it is not true” depend on such an assumption.
Well of course in my opinion there is actually no thought going on whatever, just reflexive presentation of whatever words that sound persuasive to them with regard to advancing their argument. Certainly no analysis occurs of subpoints such as whether Hillary could have gotten the information or not (answer: no, because the records are sealed.)
Now, I am not psychic either and don’t claim to know what is in those records either.
However, no one yet has managed or even tried to point out where I am wrong in saying that the most logical and likely explanation is because, spreading all the way across kindergarten to college to passport records, there is something or more than one thing in there about himself that Obama did not and does not want the American people to know, and chose to hid from the American people, the press, and any interested parties of any sort promptly upon his deciding to run for President.
Not only is that a reasonable explanation, thus far it’s the ONLY explanation anyone on this thread or any related thread has ever provided. No one has even TRIED coming up with something that makes sense that gives a reason not involving something that in Obama’s opinion needed to be hidden upon his deciding to run for President.
And no one has even tried to come up with an alternate thing that needed to be hidden other than place of birth, or a fact of lack of genuinely conclusive proof of it, and/or dual citizenship not only in childhood but maintained and exercised as an adult, with no presented evidence and perhaps none existing of it ever being renounced even perhaps to this very day.
C’mon! Rather than arguing “Hillary would have destroyed him if it were true, she didn’t, therefore it is not true” try coming up with some no-problem things that make sense for why Obama has had all these records sealed. And why it’s fine that if he thought that the American wouldn’t or might not elect him if they knew these truths about him, it was fine of him to keep the truth from them as they made this extremely important decision. Butch up already!
Give us an alternate that makes some possible sense, or man up enough at least to admit being stumped instead of slinking away or acting like the things were not asked after simple questions were asked personally of you after your posts.
[quote]tedro wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Generally I would write this stuff off as silly nonsense along the same lines as ZEB, but these are interesting points. While all of this is purely circumstantial evidence it does make one wonder why the very documents that could put it all to rest have been sealed.
I fully admit that everything that has been used to suggest Obama is Kenyan-born is circumstantial. The crux of the issue is that no real evidence has been shown by either side and Obama is setting an extremely dangerous precedent. There should currently be 50 secretary of states resigning for failing to do their job and asking for verification of Obama’s birth place before putting his name on the ballot. We now have a serious judicial question as to where the burden of proof lies. Is Obama justified in sealing his records and we the people must present the evidence against him? Or is the burden of proof on him to show that he legally holds his current position. While the constitution doesn’t spell out how candidates must prove their eligibility in regards to the natural born clause, it seems downright nonsensical that the (very simple in this case) burden of proof should not fall on the candidate or president himself.[/quote]
That’s another interesting point. At this point a lot more people then just Obama have a stake in this. If it would turn up now that Obama has very illegally taken office then who knows how many government officials would be found negligent. While I don’t mean there’s some grand conspiracy going far beyond Obama, the point is that at this point it’s easy to see why so many people wouldn’t even want to touch this issue.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
tedro wrote:
Come on now, that’s not even fair. It is much easier for you to base an argument on logical reasoning than for them to base one on the simple premise that one cannot possibly be elected president without being a natural born citizen in these United States. Never mind the fact that NOBODY actually bothered to check along the way.
Boy, wow, you know, I never thought of it this way… I mean, no one ever checked, damn. It’s not like anyone intelligent and ruthless was ever running against him. [/quote]
That’s the truth!!
A must-watch!!
The media would also look even more in the tank for having failed to demand to know, as they would have for practically anyone else and certainly a Republican candidate, why he had sealed so many of his past records and what was he hiding?
It was their job to press for information on the extremely unusual, in fact unprecedented, matter of a Presidential candidate getting court orders to seal so much of his records. The standard and expected thing for a Presidential candidate is to throw everything open, including very private things such as medical records. It is the custom.
And particularly that it was done right after he decided to run for President. Ordinarily, and properly, a candidate should have been grilled over that.
The media was in the tank and did not.
Now, if the matter can just be ridden out and never investigated, by tactics such as sneeringly calling anyone saying the documents should be presented “birthers” and “conspiracy theorists,” then the media’s extreme bias and in-the-tank so-called journalism would, in that matter anyway, not be so exposed.
So of course the media doesn’t want to touch this. They were complicit in the protect-and-promote-Obama campaign coverage, as opposed to the informational journalism they should have been doing.
When a government becomes powerful, it becomes a magnet to all the scum of the earth. That reason is sufficient in and of itself to have LF Capitalism and a government that’s about as boring as working at your nearest post office.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
As for your attempted Bush comparison: Bush hid no private records. His college records, medical records, even driving records were all open for all to see. As for executive records on various things, particularly related to terrorism and national security, it’s completely usual for such records to not be generally available. It’s not at all like getting one’s elementary school records sealed. Invalid comparison. And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this. Bush, as nice as it may be to blame him for everything, just has no relevance whatsoever to the matter of Obama hiding all these things that never before have been hidden by a Presidential candidate and hardly are ever hidden by anybody, for that matter (except those with something to hide.)
Come on Bill, you knew what ZEB’s point was.
Yes, I certainly thought that I did.
If he wants to clarify that actually he does think there may well, unlike Bush records, be something in the sealed school and passport records that Obama felt he needed hidden from the public for his own sake, not for national security’s sake, then he is more than welcome to clarify.
The reasons for various Bush Administration records concerning terrorism and methods used against it being classified are explainable for reasons other than problems that would or could result in removal from office. ZEB compared Obama’s sealing of his various records to that. If I misunderstood his intent, then definitely it would be great if he provided for us a reason that made sense for Obama sealing those records, other than that there are problems there that he did not and does not want the public to know, problems that he wasn’t worried about and saw no need for sealing until running for President.[/quote]
I believe you’re reading too much into ZEB’s post. The point, I think, was merely that all the noise from the Conservative Obama haters sounds just like all the noise 4 and 8 years ago from the liberal Bush haters. He even said that you would respond with things like, “But! this is different, Obama really must be hiding something!”. The self-reflexive point was that the Bush haters sang a similar tune, and that whether or not there really is something here this isn’t the first time a group of people have tried to oust a politician.
