The Anti-Birther Campaign

Custom Search



There's a list!



help fight the media




Items on this page are stored in order of discovery . . .

The Campaign Against The Birthers

On April 13th, 2010, I received an email from a member that contained a letter from the Department of Human Services.  The letter, addressed to Mr. So-and-so, was in response to "your letter of March 1, 2010, regarding the State of Hawaii's release of all vital records, blah blah blah -- we don't know nothin' -- we can't tell you nothin' -- have a nice day."

Yesterday, on April 14th, I received the same letter -- identical in every way --  from Pankaj Bhanot, Divison Adminstrator -- complete with blue signature to make it look like a real, personal letter -- instead of a bulk mailing -- and for that you need a list.


I have never communicated, in any way with anyone in Hawaii.

Previously, I received a letter, part of a mass-mailing, from ex-surfer dude Fred Hemmings, a Republican state senator from Hawaii's 25th Senatorial District.  The thrust of the missive was that Birthers should stop wasting time, questioning Obama's bona fides, and focus on traditional politics and "real issues."  I did respond to this letter, but had never communicated with any person in Hawaii -- in or out of government.

Some one -- something -- in Hawaii has a list -- and they're growing their list -- and if there's a list -- it's probably a shared list -- so there's a campaign managing this list and producing the mailings -- somebody's spending money to knock down Birthers and their reasonable questions.


There are a couple or three common threads:

Ridicule "Birthers" -- identify them as belonging to the "deadly "fringe."  This is getting harder and harder to do.  More and more people have questions about Obama -- who he is, and where he comes from.

Limit the scope -- make it all about the "birth certificate" -- note:  they're not referring  to the one nobody has ever seen -- the REAL birth certificate -- the one Obama has illegally spent campaign funds to hide -- the one Obama is now using Justice Department attorneys (civil servants) to hide -- they're referring to the bogus COLB posted on some website and "certified" by two Obama supporters.

This campaign is telling Americans that they don't have a right to know who, or what Obama is, nor where he come from -- nor who sent him -- the people behind this campaign want us to forget that Barack Hussein Obama II has a thousand loose ends.

And everybody knows it -- and it's on the Internet.

The Woodward Report asks in bold, "Why does World Net Daily insist on the continuance of their birther stories?  There's a whole thread on devoted to question.

The Obama File has hundreds, and hundreds of facts -- documented -- multi-sourced and linked -- reliable sources -- that nick away at the Myth of Obama, whose story evolves as each new disclosure of fact demonstrably proves what we know about him may not be so.

His pro forma -- his portfolio -- the customary documentation of every person's life is empty.  Here's "the list" of missing Obama documentation -- when was the last time you applied to a college, or applied for a job with no documentation?

What this says, is that Obama and the Obots are starting to feel the heat.  As public opinion swings against Obama, more and more people question Obama's life story, politics and eligibility -- it's drip, drip, drip, drip... -- but why are Republicans and conservatives on board?

It's important to remember that Obama can end the discussion with the press of a button.  It's never, ever going to go away.

Welcome to "The Emperor's New Clothes" meets "The Twilight Zone.

Born Again
Christopher Beam tries to explain why questions about Obama's eligibility won't go away, writing, the "birther" myth is the political equivalent of a horror-movie villain: Not only does it refuse to die, but every time someone tries to kill it, it only comes back stronger.

The latest incarnation: a bill approved 31-22 by the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday that would require 2012 presidential candidates to offer proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the ballot.  The proposal has little chance of becoming law.  For that to happen, the state Senate would have to pass it and the governor would have to sign it.  But it's still the closest birtherism has come to being codified.

Democrats have dutifully condemned the bill.  One Phoenix legislator said it's turning Arizona into "the laughing stock of the nation."  White House spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the measure and others like it on CNN as "fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories."  Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly wrote, "The fact that fringe lunacy is being taken seriously at this level suggests a strain of contemporary Republican thought that's gone stark raving mad."  Even some Republicans are rushing to distance themselves from the bill, particularly senatorial candidate J. D. Hayworth, whom John McCain has tried to tie to the fringiest elements of the Tea Party movement.

But shouldn't the real reaction be, This again?  Why, more than a year into Obama's presidency, are we still talking about whether he is constitutionally allowed to serve?

The birther movement lingers because it means different things to different people.  For liberals, questioning Obama's citizenship is tantamount to racism.  Anyone who does it hates black people and is simply trying to disguise his prejudice -- conscious or not -- by implying that Obama is a foreigner.

For conservatives, though, demanding to see Obama's birth certificate has become less of a real-world concern -- after all, Obama released his Hawaii birth certificate during the 2008 campaign -- than a symbolic way for Republican politicians to show that they, too, are worried about America.  They don't have to actually believe Obama was born in Kenya to associate with the birthers.

Continue reading here . . .

There it is again -- "Obama released his Hawaii birth certificate during the 2008 campaign" -- that lie has been repeated a gazillion times -- but it still ain't so.

Obama has never released his Hawaii birth certificate -- during the 2008 campaign or any other time -- except maybe to get a driver's license and passport -- so why won't he release it now?

The writer's deep concerns are revealed in the first paragraph, "it only comes back stronger."

That's why the Obots are currently engaged in a full court press to knock down the dozens of legitimate questions about Obama's eligibility.

And again, the writer attempts to relegate the eligibility issue to a single allegation -- that Obama was born in Kenya -- I guess he's accusing Michelle Obama of being a liar.
Crazy People And Crazy Internet Rumors
In this video, answering a question about John Brennan, Gibbels identifies himself as the author of the "Birth Certificate" conspiracy, saying, "I'm the guy that said, put the presidents birth certificate on the Internet."

And, someone should remind Obama, and Gibbels, that the "crazy Internet rumors" would cease the day Obama releases his bona fides -- all the anointed one needs to do is press a button.

Gibbs also dissimulates when he identifies the issue as Obama's birthplace.  The issue is Obama's eligibility, not his birthplace -- and his refusal to provide the usual and customary documentation that all of us routinely have to provide to city, state, and federal governments for any number of reasons -- until Obama comes clean with the American people, this issue will persist -- and grow -- as poll after poll show that somewhere between 30% and 50% of Americans have questions about Obama's background -- that's a lot of crazy people.

It's the "I won" arrogance!  Obama is boldly flipping the bird to America, and sooner or later, it will bring him down.
Obama Takes Digs At Birthers, GOP
Christine Simmons reports that Barack Obama shared some words of wisdom on Saturday, saying there a few things in life harder to find and more important to keep than love.

"Well, love and a birth certificate," Obama quipped at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, poking fun at those who question his place of birth.  "I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth." Obama was born in Hawaii, but Birthers question whether he was born overseas -- among other things.

Obama also jabbed Jay Leno, the comedian headlining the dinner.  Obama dinged Leno as "the only person whose ratings fell more than mine."  He said he was glad he spoke before the "The Tonight Show" host, "because we have all seen what happens when somebody takes the time slot after Leno."  Comic Conan O'Brien left NBC after his stint hosting "The Tonight Show" following Leno didn't work out.

Although his poll numbers are down, Obama said he hears he's popular on Twitter and Facebook.  "Or as Sarah Palin call it, socialized media," he said.

Leno picked up on this joke to take a dig at Obama, saying Obama isn't as aloof as some critics say he is.  "He loves to socialize -- health care, car companies," Leno said, naming a few industries over which the Obama administration has seized control.

Among the 3,000 guests on hand included Olympic gold medalist Lindsey Vonn, comedian Chevy Chase, actor Alec Baldwin, comedian Bill Maher, actress Michelle Pfeiffer, actor Dennis Quaid, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, GOP Chairman Michael Steele, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, the Jonas brothers and another teen heartthrob, pop star Justin Bieber.  Hollywood heavyweights Michel Douglas, Steven Spielberg were seen chatting with Emmanuel.

Obama's quips that the "Birther" questions are very much on his mind, as this, this and this also demonstrate.

Remember what Ghandi
said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- we're late Ghandi stage 2, and early stage 3 -- drip, drip, drip.
Birthers V Truthers, Again
Jonah Goldberg says he finds it amazing that the "Birthers" are considered more dangerous and evil than the "Truthers."  The Birthers believe that an ambitious man who travelled a lot as a kid has concealed the circumstances of his birth so he could be eligible for the presidency.  Goldberg doesn't think they've made their case, and, frankly, he's not sure he'd want them to at this point.  Aside from the horror of a Biden presidency, he doesn't yearn for a constitutional crisis.  And while he is sure there are more elaborate and crazier versions of Birtherism, the basic allegation isn't that crazy, at least in the abstract.

Now, Trutherism, on the other hand, is a really insidious and evil claim: that the White House was "in" on 9/11 and that it either passively or actively aided and abetted the murder of 3,000 Americans and the attempted murder of tens of thousands more (surely the hijackers hoped to kill far more people inside the World Trade Towers).  Indeed, the upshot of Trutherism is that "the government" sought to kill countless congressmen and effectively incapacitate the legislative branch and our military leadership indefinitely.  Depending on which version of Trutherism you buy into, you'd have to believe dozens or even thousands of government agents were in on the whole thing, too.  Moreover, if this had been proven true, the only moral, legal, or rational response would have been not just impeachment and criminal prosecution, but literally the formal executions of the president, the vice president, and much of the national-security establishment.  They'd all have to hang.

And yet, "Birtherism" is dangerous and paranoid and "Trutherism" is quirky and no big deal, according to liberals.

Here's the New York Times on the Truthers (if you can't get through the firewall, here's the Newsbusters synopsis).  The Times called them "a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks."  Skeptics and scientists!  No wonder even the Truthers hailed it as favorable coverage.

And here is the latest on the Birthers from last Friday's New York Times.  In fairness, the Times doesn't call them racists or dangerous -- I guess they leave that to Frank Rich & Co. -- but it is quite fed up with them.  The piece is all about how the Birthers have become an outright nuisance to state officials in Hawaii.  Here's the opening:

HONOLULU -- The conspiracy theorists who cling to the false belief that Obama was born outside the United States outrage many Democrats and embarrass many Republicans.  But to a group of Hawaii state workers who toil away in a long building across from the Capitol, they represent something else: a headache and a waste of time.

If only the Times could have been this dismissive of the Truthers.  I guess they never created any bureaucratic-paperwork hassles for government officials, so they're okay.
Obama's Birther Strategy Has Backfired
William A. Jacobson says ever since Hillary Clinton supporters started circulating claims that Obama was not born in the United States, Obama's supporters and strategists have taken a very aggressive posture.  Almost any attempt to discuss the subject is met with a furious response from Media Matters, Think Progress, their progeny in the blogosphere, and the ObamaMedia.

If that was all there was to their strategy, it would not be so different than strategies a lot of campaigns use to fight what they believe to be smears.  The dilemma is that if you engage in the debate, you might give credence to the claims, but if you don't, it's hard to convince people otherwise.

But the strategy has gone far beyond confrontation.  Political opponents, who do not even question Obama's birthplace, are branded "Birthers" as a political tactic.

For example, during the Brown-Coakley election in Massachusetts, Democratic operatives fabricated the charge that Scott Brown was a "Birther."  A similar tactic was used against Sharron Angle.  The entire Tea Party movement has been branded "Birthers" by leading Democrats.

As a strategy, the hyper-aggressiveness has been brilliant in the short run.  The accusation of being a "Birther" is right up there with the accusation of being a Racist in the Democratic Party's tool kit, and is politically toxic.

But in July 2009, and again in February 2010, Obama was described as misplaying the "Birther" card because the frequency of the strategic accusations merely raised the public consciousness and suggested that he was hiding something.  Far from disproving the claims of "Birthers," the Obama strategy simply drove the issue below the surface.

Thus, it is not surprising that yet another poll finds that nearly 6 of 10 Americans are uncertain Obama was even born in the United States.  According to the CNN Poll, only 42% of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.

Put differently, 58% are not certain, or believe otherwise.  (The other results were 29% probably born in U.S., 16% probably born elsewhere, and 11% definitely born elsewhere, with 2% having no opinion.)

The results, predictably, were higher among Republicans that Obama was not born here, and lower among Democrats, but among independents, the numbers pretty closely tracked the overall numbers, with the exception that only 37% said Obama definitely was born here.

These numbers are astoundingly bad for Obama, and reflect a strategy which has worked in the short run but failed miserably in the long run.
The Media And Their Birthers
Joseph Farrah asks if you have you noticed the way the U.S. news media uniformly mischaracterizes and disparages all those who suggest Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility is not settled matter?

Here's a recent example from the State, a daily in Columbia, S.C.: "The so-called 'birther movement' has questioned the president's citizenship, claiming Obama's birth certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii is a fake."

The paper uses the derisive term "birther movement," the appellation of choice by those who ridicule the curious constitutionalists.  The paper suggests the focus of this movement, representing 58 percent of the American people, according to the latest CNN poll, is "citizenship," when it is actually "natural born citizenship."  The paper suggests a birth certificate has been produced by the state of Hawaii when it hasn't been.  And the paper suggests the primary dispute is over whether this unseen document is a fake.

This is but one of hundreds of examples of this kind of distorted press coverage by news agencies big and small all making assertions that are untrue and contemptuous.  This pattern raises two questions in my mind:

Why don't any of these news sources -- newspapers, wire services and television networks -- bother to talk to anyone from this "movement"?  From where do they get their information, their impressions, their "facts"?

I have practiced the profession of journalism for 35 years.  I've never done anything else since becoming an adult.  I have literally done everything you can do in the world of daily journalism, from reporting to running major market newspapers.  It was always my impression that we were supposed to interview the people we wrote about.  But, in the case of the so-called "birthers," or, as I like to put it, the "curious constitutionalists," it seems to be fair game to stereotype their beliefs with broad brush treatment and, most importantly, never to talk to them -- NEVER!

Nevertheless, the talking heads on television and the reporters in newsrooms across America tell us every day what "these people" -- whom they never name -- believe.  How is that done?  I'm curious.

As someone in the forefront of this "movement," I have been interviewed hundreds of times on talk radio about what I believe about eligibility and why, but I can count on one hand the number of times I have been interviewed on the subject by so-called "newsmen."  And in several of those cases, mysteriously the interviews never aired or were never published.  My theory on why is that I presented a lucid and, perhaps, even indisputable case that Obama has never proven his eligibility.

But think about it -- when was the last time you saw a "birther" interviewed by a significant or insignificant news source outside of WorldNetDaily and talk radio?

Even Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a distinguished Army surgeon facing court martial for challenging Obama's eligibility, is never interviewed by other news sources.  The man is facing years in prison for his convictions, and, even that fact, doesn't stir these so-called newsmen to curiosity.  So where do these news sources get their ideas about what "birthers" believe?  I can only surmise that they get them from each other.  One mischaracterization leads to another.  One factual error leads to another.  One derisive term leads to another.

This is actually counterfeit journalism -- with each new story on a subject deriving its assertions of "fact" from another.

Someday soon this issue is going to be resolved, much to the embarrassment of Obama, his defenders, his political adversaries who let it slide, and especially the press, who missed the biggest story of the decade.  How did the press miss that story?

Easy.  They made up their minds that Obama would never lie, cheat or deceive.  They convinced themselves they had actually seen a birth certificate when they hadn't.  They regurgitated what others wrote and said about the constitutionally curious.

And they never interviewed anyone.
Axelrod blames Fox For Birther Myth

Fox News is partly to blame for spreading the idea that Obama wasnít born in the United States, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Wednesday.

"I find the whole thing bewildering, but there is that strain, and itís always been there in our politics," he said on CBSís Late Show with David Letterman.

He added, "These are times of great change and stress, so you see some of those things come out, but it is no doubt promoted by our friends at Fox and others, and thatís part of the politics we have to deal with."

Axelrod is full of old shoes -- what "Birther myth?" -- Birther question, maybe -- Birther suspicions, maybe -- but a myth? -- that's nonsense, and Politico reveals its bias by framing this item so.

The Obama campaign is 100% responsible for Birthers, and Obama's eligibility controversy -- 90% of which relates to issues other than Obama's birthplace or alleged "birth certificate.".

The campaign became responsible the moment the Daily Kos posted Obama's alleged birth document on Thursday, June 12, 2008, at 08:44:37 AM PST.  Obama's mouthpiece Robert Gibbels has claimed credit for releasing the document.

On Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:05:30 AM PST, AsperGirl wrote on the Kos site, "Sorry to disabuse you folks, but this birth certificate on dailykos is an obvious fake."  Click here for the comment that began the controversy.

At 10:54, The Daily Kos stopped posting items to this thread.

On June 24th, 2008, Israeli Insider blog reported the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a Photoshopped fake.

The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks.  But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were
posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama Campaign.  Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

The Obama Campaign, or, posted three generations of Obama's COLB before they finally produced the final one that's now on the Annenberg's website.

There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery."  They removed the black bar that covered the certificate number, and invalidated the document as the legend, "Any alterations invalidates this certificate" clearly warns.

They added, the seal of the State of Hawaii, the signature stamp and cleaned up the borders.  After it was discovered that birth documents were mailed, produced a copy with the appropriate folds.

Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.  Compare these photos to what Kos posted yourself.

Obama usurped the Oval Office by fraudulent means, including document fraud, Internet fraud, voter fraud, and campaign funding fraud, to name just a few.

What's really important to remember, however, is that Obama's birthplace is irrelevant to the discussion.  His birth certificate is irrelevant to the discussion (except for finding out what's on, or not on Obama's REAL birth certificate that he's afraid we'll learn).  The bugger could have been born in the Rotunda of the Capital Building.  He's NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE because he's is a citizen by statute, and not a "natural born" citizen.

Oh, and Axelrod, Fox News and their on-air personalities have avoided the "Birther" issue like the plague.
Obama And The Newspaper Boy
Squeeky says that once upon a time, there was a man named Obama, who owned a Baloney sandwich restaurant, The House of Baloney.  He served the very best Baloney sandwiches, made from the very finest Baloney, imported all the way from Hawaii, or Connecticut, and maybe even Kenya.  People came from far and wide to get his Baloney.  They would say, "Ohhh, but this is such Good Baloney!"  They were so fanatic, people even started calling them "O-buts"

Then one day, a little newspaper boy bought some baloney sandwiches, and when he got home, he discovered his change was $2.00 short!  So he went back to Obama and he said, "I want my $2.00, please. "Obama said, "Get lost kid, you bother me!"

Undeterred, the newspaper boy sat outside the House of Baloney with a sign that said, " I want my $2.00."  He sat there in the rain and the sleet and the snow, for months.  At first, everyone thought the newspaper boy was just crazy.  Obama swore he had given him the proper change.  He put a PICTURE of the cash register tape and deposit slip on the Internet.  He even had people swear it was a true picture.

But, as time went on, people began to get suspicious of Obama.  Why was he letting this poor little newspaper boy, who might indeed be crazy, just sit out there in the rain, with his poor little sign, exposed to the elements, and sad.  And what if, just what if, Obama had kept the $2.00 and not deposited it in the bank.  People started not going to the House of Baloney.

The O-buts defended Obama.  "Itís his restaurant", they said.  "He doesnít have to legally give the kid the $2.00 if he doesnít want to."  That was true enough, but by this time, Obama had already lost 25% of his sales.  Some people said, "Just give the kid his $2.00 and quit being a jerk!"  "No!" said the O-buts.  "This kid is so crazy, that even if you give him the $2.00, he wonít go away!"

So it went on for over two years.  People now began to wonder, "Was there really something wrong with Obama?"  Because he had lost a lot more in business than the $2.00.  They reasoned that even if he didnít owe it, something fishy was going on, because there really was no good reason for a sane businessman not to just cough up the two bucks, and move on.

But still the newspaper boy sits there, with his ragged, little homemade sign, the "I want my $2.00″ smeared by rain, and running like two day old mascara, and the cardboard all wrinkly and fraying at the edges.  Inside, Obama sits, twiddling his thumbs, and hoping business will pick up.
Anderson Cooper Destroys Anderson Cooper
David Edwards has an exchange on between Anderson Cooper and Rep.  Leo Berman. It has a strong Gullibles slant:

"I don't know anything about President Obama," Rep. Leo Berman told Cooper Monday.

"There's a certificate of live birth, which is what the state of Hawaii sends out," Cooper explained. "Why isn't that good enough?"

Here's a whole page on why it isn't good enough.

Berman continues, "Well, because it's not an original birth certificate.  It doesn't show the parents' place of birth.  And, also, we know for certain that President Obama's father was born in Kenya. Since he was born in Kenya, in -- that was a British protectorate. President Obama was born in 1961.  And with his father being a British citizen, at least, President Obama, we think, holds dual citizenship."

"Well, actually, technically that's not correct," Cooper said.  "He may have been born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of his father being under the British -- a British subject, being from Kenya, but he automatically lost that in -- at the age of 23," according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

Cooper destroys his own argument, saying, "He may have been born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of his father being under the British -- a British subject..."

This is about birth, and Cooper makes that point, at the moment of birth, Obama was "born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of ..."

Obama is "native born," as he admits on his own website -- and that technicality Cooper dismisses -- that's the law.

Cooper continued, "And the Hawaii state health director has acknowledged that, back in 2008, she has -- and I quote -- 'personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama's original birth certificate -- certificate on record, in accordance with state policies and procedures.'"

Read that statement.  It doesn't say anything beyond Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate.

Obama can end the discussion with a phone call.  Why doesn't he?

Cooper then said, "The governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, was quoted as saying: 'I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact,'" he explained.

Here's a whole page devoted to Lyin' LInda Lingle.

Gullibles have their point of view, but it doesn't support close examination.
Everybody Has One (Opinion That Is)
I have excerpted some comments from an Austin Hill article, critical of Birthers.

Hill says "Birthers" is the derogatory nick name given to those who question whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims he was, and therefore question Obamaís constitutional eligibility for the presidency.

This is a false, Obot, description of Birthers and their issues.  There are many problems with Obama's bullsh!t life story and his eligibility to serve as POTUS.  Hill's narrow description is false -- no matter how many times it's repeated by these geniuses that think they know what they are talking about.

Hill suspects that Governor Abercrombieís remarks about Birthers will end up making matters worse, and not better.

There's no question about that.  Abercrombie screwed up.  It is a simple matter to demonstrate Abercrombie's remarks are lies.  Read this and especially this.  Abercrombie is demonstrably a damned liar, and lying always makes matters worse.

Then Hill says, Barack Obama is not the only president who has had his "eligibility" questioned.  Some credible historians believe to this day that our 21st President Chester Arthur was actually born in Canada, and not Vermont as he claimed, and thus never should have been elected (a subject I detailed in my book "White House: Confidential").

Ewww!  Hill wrote a book, and in it gets history wrong, and provides another false description of an issue.  Chester Arthur was ineligible to serve as POTUS because his father was a foreigner when he (Chester Arthur) was born-- just like Obama's.

Chester A. Arthur, born in 1829, in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont, perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parentsí heritage.  Arthurís father, William Arthur, was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, and became a United States citizen in August 1843, -- 14 years after his son's birth.

Arthur told many lies to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year (historical facts here).

Hill says that when I first heard rumblings that instead of being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama may have been born in Kenya, I did some research.

I wonder if Hill saw any of these dozens of reputable sources, including National Public Radio, that described Obama as "Kenyan born."

Additionally, the "Birther" theories have proven to be politically unviable.  Barack Obama ran for the office against three very powerful and well-connected individuals -- former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton (make no mistake, both Bill and Hillary were running against Barack), and Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain.  All three of these people had plenty of personal incentive to "bring down Obama," and yet apparently none of the three could "prove" that he was born outside the U.S.

None of the three individuals mentioned ever even raised the issue.  How come?  Maybe there was a deal?  The dhimmicrats wanted the black guy, Hillary would get "State," and "statutory citizen" McCain would be declared a "natural born" citizen by the U. S. Senate.

However, the overriding point is that it doesn't matter where Obama was born.  He could have been born IN the Oval Office.  He's still ineligible to serve as POTUS.  He is a "statutory citizen," who held dual citizenship at his birth.  He is not a "natural born" citizen, and no matter how many of these ill-informed "journalists" mislead the public with their opinions and theories, that remains a fact.

Oh, and let me also note that the "Birther" conspiracies have been rejected thus far in every court and in every state in which they have been raised.  I know that judicial activism is a real and serious problem, but there is no reason to believe that, suddenly, all of Americaís sitting judges have decided to cooperate with each other.

This is crap!  There have been 80+ lawsuits questioning Obama's eligibility, and not one court has ever heard a witness or reviewed any evidence -- not one -- and it's not that the judges are engaged in a conspiracy.  They have careers.  They have families -- and they are terrified to take on Obama.  He's the guy with the power and the inclination to crush them like a bug.

Besides, we all know the rules -- "we mustn't embarrass Obama."

And guess what?  Some of the most high-profile personalities in the world of "conservative media" dismissed the Birther conspiracies long ago.  Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and Bill OíReilly (just to name a few) have all, in their unique and individual ways, declared the Birther thing to be a non-issue.

Well, whoop-dee-do!  Bill O'reilly actually lied about personally examining Obama's bogus COLB.  It never happened.  Limbaugh has repeatedly mocked Obama's "birth certificate."  The other guys have different issues -- different focus -- that's allowed.

So, this idiot, Hill, declares Obama's eligibility a "non-issue" and evidently believes his pontifications makes it so.  I don't think so.  That's just his arrogance leaking out. 

Hill says he's "done" with politicians like this, and Iím "done" talking about Obamaís birth certificate.

And we Birthers are "done" with smarter-than-thou, faux journalists, whose opinion of their opinion is more important than doing a little fact-based research.
Chris Matthews Calls Obama Critics "Crackers"
Jeff Poor says so much for that new tone of civility.

On Fridayís "Hardball," MSNBC host Chris Matthews acknowledged his disappointment in the tack Republicans have taken toward Barack Obama -- especially in this time following the tragic shooting in Arizona.

"Yeah, itís almost like what he does is no good -- letís kill it because itís his," Matthews said.

After citing a spokesman from House Majority Leader Eric Cantorís office, Matthews asked the Huffington Postís Sam Stein if Republicans would play nice with Obama, or would they go ad hominem.  However, in phrasing the question, he used what some believe is a derogatory term to describe his critics.  Matthews said.

"Sam, it seems to me it is a big question.  So much of this attack on Obama has been ad hominem -- directed at the person of the president, whether itís somebody -- some cracker out there on the right calling him -- some Birther-type who says heís not an American or someone more sophisticated but basically saying heís a socialist.   Will this be on the merits of the bill?  Will it stay off the personal?  Is it your hunch coming into Wednesdayís vote?"

Stein said this was much ado about nothing.  He explained the bill was largely symbolic and the real debate would come later.
Here's An Example
Jeff Poor says itís the story that wonít die -- possibly because MSNBC doesnít want it to, since it seems that it could delegitimize the Republican Party and conservatives: Taking "fringe notions" and portraying them to be mainstream, including the issue of Barack Obamaís citizenship.

On Tuesdayís "Hardball," host Chris Matthews led off his program and scrutinized the reasons why Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor wonít condemn Republican members that question the presidentís citizenship.  His conclusion?  Boehner and Cantor are collaborators, using the myth for political gain.
"OK, you know what I want to do something right now," Matthews said.  "Iím going accuse those leaders, theyíre very smart gentlemen.  Cantor seems like a good guy and of course.  Boehner seems like a good guy.  Let me just say this -- I hereby accuse them of collaboration."

Matthews explained that this so-called "collaboration" is meant to advance gains with primary voters and the theory is based on the Republican leadersí unwillingness to attack those that hold views questioning Obamaís citizenship in the Republican caucus.
There's the ObamaMedia focus -- "those that hold views questioning Obamaís citizenship."

But it's not about his citizenship.  It's about his constitutional eligibility.  It's about Obama's refusal to tell us who he is, where's he's from and who sent him.
Here's Another One
Andrew Sullivan has an article, "The Birther Population, Ctd," by Greg Sargent that demonstrates Cashill's "conspiracy theorists."

Greg Sargent notices something interesting in the PPP poll showing how unhinged GOP primary voters are on the question of Obama's very legitimacy as president: among non-Birthers, Sarah Palin has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 41 - 52.  Among Birthers, it's a whoppingly favorable 83 - 12, far higher than anyone else.  Here's Greg's interpretation:


It seems fair to speculate that the success of Palin's approach -- her grievance-mongering, her strident attacks on Obama, her virtuosity in crafting the most lurid formulations to paint Obama as an alternately weak and tyrannical figure -- is rooted in her unique ability to speak directly to the far right wing base's seething underbelly of anti-Obama hatred.

She is the base's base, and her appeal, in my view, is all about identity politics.

She represents no real coherent set of ideas; merely what she would call the "real America", i.e. white and rural.  I also think race is at play here.  I think many people under-estimated the willingness of Americans to vote for a black president before his election, but equally under-estimated the impact of an actual black president after his Inaugural actually doing things and exercising authority.  I see Palin as a kind of cultural antibody to the future America Obama represents.  And if the next election focuses on culture and not economics -- or culture because of economic stagnation -- I would not count her out.

This attack is a little more vicious and emotional -- but it is on Sullivan's blog, after all. 
Always with the race.  Always with the race.

You know these guys are upset and angry when they play the race card.  Especially when none of this has anything to do with race, whatsoever.  You also know, that if you're catching flak, you're over the target.

Sargent stands all logic on it's head arguing that Americans were OK voting for a black guy, but they hate the idea of a black president.

Americans don't hate the idea of a black president.  It's just THIS black president, and it's because he's secretive, a socialist, and he's wrecking the country.

That he has a high melanin count has nothing to do with it.
The Birther Card
Cindy Simpson says Hawaii's new governor, Neil Abercrombie, stirred the "Birther" pot just before Christmas when he promised to launch an expedition for Obama's long form birth certificate.  Chris Matthews reported on the Abercrombie quest, and though calling himself an "enemy of the Birthers," surprised us by acknowledging that the advertised short form is indeed a different document than an actual long form certificate and that it should be released.  Matthews' guests on the segment agreed, noting once it was out they could "make even more fun of the Birthers."

But less than a month later, when it was Abercrombie's turn to produce the long form, he turned up empty-handed, and instead offered some ambiguous lines about something "written down" that "actually exists."

Enter a new player to the game: journalist friend of Abercrombie, Mike Evans, on the radio a few days later touting "There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii -- absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii."  Evans backtracked after the story went national, saying he "misspoke" and had not conversed personally with Abercrombie, and that this error occurred in only one of the 34 interviews he had done that morning.  Further research, however, found that Evans repeated his misstatement more than once and "appeared to be reading from a script and ad-libbing around it as he read."

In the American Thinker article, "The Birther Trial Balloon," it was speculated that perhaps this entire performance was a sort of media test run to see how the public would react to the non-release of the certificate in advance of Obama's run for 2012 reelection.  Writer Andrew Walden, in the AT article, "Hawaii's Governor Manipulates Birthers," concluded that the spectacle was indeed a production, choreographed however for a different result: "to shift political discussion away from the thumping Obama took in the November midterms" by further ridiculing "Birtherism."

Really, though, the debacle did seem more like an episode of The Three Stooges, especially with the timing of one little tidbit reported by CBS News a couple of days later -- that Abercrombie's new Health Director (responsible for the state's vital records) "abruptly quit."  So, until that position is filled, the buck of maintaining Obama's birth certificate has stopped at Abercrombie's desk.  (We can only speculate why, if the former Governor Linda Lingle asked the previous Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, to "go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health," couldn't Abercrombie authorize himself to do likewise.)

At any rate, it appeared the chips were down for the "Birther enemies," so when it was back around the table last week for Chris Matthews' turn, he admitted that Obama has the "new kind" of birth certificate "which is this digital thing printed out" and apparently no long form.  (Leaving the rest of us to wonder exactly what this newfangled one was the short version of).  And anyway, according to Matthews, people only ask to see the old-fashioned kind and put Obama under "this kind of assault" because...

Obama has a funny name, and he is black.

Continue reading here . . .
ObamaMedia Are Tongue-Tied On Obama's Personal History
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid says that following the lead of David Gregory of NBC News, who wants Republican House Speaker John Boehner to publicly defend the legitimacy of the Obama presidency, the Los Angeles Times has now editorialized that Boehner ought to make it his business to rebut charges that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.

With the Los Angeles Times joining the chorus, it appears that the left-wing media are trying to get the House Republican leadership to pull Obama out of the quicksand he finds himself in, as doubts and questions keep mounting about his personal history.  The media strategy seems to be to paint GOP House leaders as crazies if they don't condemn the "Birthers" questioning Obama's legitimacy as president.

It is almost as if the media are trying to prevent the House Republican majority from conducting a serious investigation into the circumstances of Obama's birth.

The Times said in an editorial, "In an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' Boehner was willing to concede that he believes Obama is both a native-born citizen and a Christian.  But, the speaker said, that was because 'I'll take him at his word,' as if Obama's assurances were the only corroboration of his citizenship and his religion."

There's the meme -- "...native-born citizen and a Christian" -- there's the political sleight of hand.

It isn't about Obama's citizenship.  It's about Obama's eligibility.

The paper went on, "In fact, a 'certificate of live birth' establishes that he was born in Hawaii.  As for his religion, Obama's involvement with a Chicago church is well documented."  The editorial was titled, "The tongue-tied speaker."

"Born in Hawaii" -- it doesn't matter!  What matters is that, "at birth," Barack H. Obama II was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.

That the document is counterfeit, and contains a forged seal is another issue entirely.

But the Times demonstrated that it is far beyond "tongue-tied" itself and is deliberately obscuring the facts.

Any journalist who bothers to compare Obama's "certification of live birth (COLB)" with traditional documents of this nature finds that the Obama version does not provide any of the details that are available on a long-form or original birth certificate (as specified by the the federal government [example]).  Obama's vague document does not have the name of the hospital where he was born, the occupation of his father or mother, or the signature of the attending physician.

Look at the language along the bottom of Obama's COLB:

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

"The fact of birth."  It's funny how many miss this important point.  The COLB is intended ONLY to attest that the person was born -- nothing else.  In a sense, it affirms what we can logically assume simply by looking AT Obama.  If he's standing there he must have been born.  The COLB is not useful, as evidence, outside of the birth itself, and not the circumstances, such as father, mother, attending physician or nurse, or even the date.

On the matter of religion, Obama's "involvement with a Chicago church," the one associated with the notorious anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, does not prove that he was baptized as a Christian.  As we have noted, Obama has made the claim that he joined that church, but he has not produced a certificate of baptism and there is no evidence he had a traditional Christian baptism there, in the sense of undergoing an experience of receiving water symbolizing the Holy Spirit. In addition, Muslims could join Wright's Christian church.

"Even more objectionable," the Times said, was Boehner's refusal to tell the American people what to think about these matters.  This means, the Times said, echoing David Gregory, that Boehner is failing to expose and challenge the American public's "ignorance."

Rather than demonstrating ignorance, the opinion polls finding that significant numbers of people are confused about Obama's religious identity, and the fact that some believe he is a Muslim may reflect the failure of the ObamaMedia to insist that Obama prove who or what he says he is.

This failure is troubling, especially because we know that Obama and his campaign deliberately lied about Obama's childhood mentor in Hawaii, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.  Obama concealed his real identity in his book Dreams from My Father and when it was revealed that the mysterious "Frank" was in fact Frank Marshall Davis, the Obama campaign in 2008 said Davis was just a civil rights activist.

Boehner is entitled to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, although his constituents might wonder why he is doing so, considering the stakes involved in an issue as central as Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president.  But the American people have the right, in light of the available evidence, to remain doubtful.  They want to know.

It is not unreasonable to believe that Obama has something to hide in the matters of his birth and religious affiliation.  It is significant that our major media seem now to be in a frenzy over the fact that the House Speaker is unwilling to erase the public's doubts.

Related:  Bachmann on Obama's birthplace: 'That isn't for me to state'

Hmmm!  NBC demands answer from Boehner, and ABC demands answer from Bachman.  Just another coincidence.

Expect to see more of this, and then ask yourself who the "conspirators" really are.
Another Congressman Misstates The Issue
Daniel Strauss is reporting that Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said people who don't believe Obama was born in the U.S. need to "accept reality."

Responding to a question Thursday on CNN about a recent poll that found a majority of Republican primary voters don't believe Obama was born in the U.S., Flake said he didn't believe the findings.

This is the third Republican who was asked this question by progressive "journalists" in the last three days.

"Well, I have a hard time believing that poll," Flake said.  "I think that most people understand and accept the reality.  The reality is that, yes, he was born in the United States."

"Barack Obama is a citizen of the country," Flake said.  "We ought to get off this kick.  And there are plenty of differences we have with the president between Republicans and Democrats than to spend time on something like this."

Flake said the notion that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen needs to be put to rest.

There's the misdirection -- "the notion that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen needs to be put to rest."

It isn't about Obama's citizenship.  It's about Obama's eligibility.  Obama simply does not meet the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution.  Obama may be a "native born" citizen.  He is at least a "statutory" citizen.  But he is not now, nor has he ever been a "natural born" American citizen.  "At birth" he was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.  He tells us so.

Obama has never claimed to be a "natural born" citizen.  He has consistently claimed "native born" status.

From the time Obama took office, polls have found a significant percentage of Americans believe he wasn't born in the United States and is ineligible to be president.  Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, has produced his birth certificate.

That's just not true.

First of all, it's not Obama's birth certificate.  It's a Photoshopped counterfeit with a bogus seal.

Then, there's the communications Officer for the Hawaiian Department of Health, Janice Okubo, who said, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [] represents."

And, i
n correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office will not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a "natural-born American citizen."

And, let's not forget.  The governor of Hawaii couldn't find a "birth certificate" -- even with the power of a search warrant.

Critics have complained that some congressional Republicans have either implied or refused to denounce the questions about Obama's citizenship.

Especially on the last several days, since it is clear that there appears to be some coordination between networks -- at least reporters.

After Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) announced his plans to retire from the Senate last week, Flake jumped into the race, becoming the first candidate to officially run for the seat.

The Left is clearly concerned with the eligibility issue, as evidenced by the shear volume of articles currently surfacing on the Internet.
Obamaís Citizenship and Faith Provide Premise for Show Trials
Jeff Jefferson says On the February 8th installment of "Hardball with Chris Matthews," Matthews introduced a new media trend.  His guests, Phillip Dennis of the Texas Tea Party and Matt Kibbe from FreedomWorks, were on the show to discuss the strength of the Tea Party within the new Congress, but the first question Matthews asks after introducing them is whether or not they believe Barack Obama is a Muslim.  Although Phillip Dennis clearly stated that he was disinterested in Obamaís religious identity, Matthews spends the first four minutes of the interview sparring with him in an attempt to unearth some form of conspiratorial view.

This seems to be a new strategy running through the leftwing media.  For a lack of reasonable opposition to the necessity for deep budget cuts, the journolistas have reconstituted two hackneyed issues in an attempt to discredit Obamaís political opponents.  The Left have fused questions about Obamaís religious affiliation to the birth certificate issue in an effort to paint conservatives as conspiracy minded paranoids, but what is more disturbing about this strategy is that, sewn into the new approach, there is a subtle mix of McCarthy-era loyalty oath and Orwellian show trial.

Since the "Hardball" installment, there have been several attempts to force Obamaís political opponents into making public confessions about his place of birth and religious affiliation.  For instance, in a discussion on "Meet the Press," David Gregory put John Boehner up for pillory.  After playing videotape where some of the people interviewed stated that they believe Obama is a Muslim, David Gregory demands that Boehner denounce them.

Gregory:  As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think itís your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?

Boehner:  David, itís not my job to tell the American people what to think.  Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people.  Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there.  Thatís good enough for me.  The president says heís a Christian.  I accept him at his word.

Gregory:  But isnít that a little bit fast and loose?  I mean, you are the leader in Congress and youíre not standing up to obvious facts and saying, "These are facts.  If you donít believe that, itís nonsense."

Boehner:  I just outlined the facts as I understand them.  I believe that the president is a citizen.  I believe the president is a Christian.  Iíll take him at his word.  But, butÖ

Gregory:  But that kind of ignorance about whether heís a Muslim doesnít concern you?

Boehner: Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think.  I canít -- itís not my job to tell them.

Gregory:  Why isnít it your job to stand up and say, "No, the facts are these."

What Gregory is demanding is that Boehner perform the mediaís function.  It is the mediaís responsibility to bring facts to the public, yet the mainstream media, as well as Obama, have been truant in settling these questions.  As author Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated, Obama is a demonstrated, serial liar on questions of his identity and beliefs -- issues that the mainstream media have been unwilling to pursue.
On Thursday, Sarah Palin was asked the same set of questions while speaking in front of a group of business leaders at the Long Island Association, and Michele Bachmann was subjected to a similar show trial.

Continue reading here . . .
We've seen this coordinated media action before.  Instead of doing its job as a watchdog, the ObamaMedia has become a lapdog.
NPR Censored Obama Birth Story
Kerry Pocket's bombshell report says Senior Vice President of National Public Radio (NPR), Ron Schiller, met with individuals he believed to be potential donors.  However, undercover video was running during this meeting.  In the following clip, Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers those who deny climate change is happening.

Ms. Liley talks about a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those who believe climate change is not happening:

"This funder said to us, ' you know you would like us to support your environmental coverage, but we really don't want to give you money if you're going to talk to the people who think climate change is not happening.'"

She continues to say, "It is a complicated thing, though.  There's a political question and there is a scientific question and we were talking to him about supporting the science desk.  And so we've gone back to the science editor and asked how have you planned to cover this thing?  Our coverage, if you look at our coverage, you would say that science coverage has accepted that climate change is happening and we're covering it.  But in politics, our Washington desk, might actually cover it should it resurface as a political issue...this debate."

"So it's more complicated than saying, 'Where was Obama born?'  In Hawaii or not?  Is he an American citizen or not?" she asks.  Liley then describes the Birthers as conservatives.

"We're not covering the Birthers.  We are not covering them.  There's a whole movement within the conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as fact, 'I was born in Hawaii, when it was the United States.'  The group that questions this, some of whom are commentators...I don't know any who are Democrats, but they are primarily conservative commentators and people who follow them question if Obama is [a citizen]," she further explains.

"I think the challenge in our society now is that we are questioning facts.  It's not opinions we are debating.  I mean, what are the facts?  Is the world flat?  Is that the next question we're going to debate?"  Liley wonders.

Schiller chimes in later saying, "The main point here is that it is not our responsibility to present the opinion of a non-scientist through our science desk.  All educated scientists accept that climate change as fact.  On the political side, however, where it is not accepted as fact, and the fact that debate is happening is news and it's really important news.  And our point of view requires that we cover that debate, if for no other reason than to have Americans understand there are still people who believe that it is not fact."
The long version:  NPR Muslim Brotherhood Investigation -- Part I
Obama Jokes About "Birther" Debate
Rachel Rose Hartman says Obama, speaking at a fundraising event Tuesday in Boston, made light of the "Birther" conspiracy debate about whether he was really born in Hawaii.

"I think there's nothing -- there's no weakness in us trying to reach out and seeing if we can find common ground.  Now, there are going to be times where we can't.  I was born in Hawaii, what can I say?  I mean, I just... I can't change those facts."

The comment provoked laughter from the Democratic audience.

Obama still is one of the best in applying Alinsky's Rule 5, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."  Here, he uses it against Birthers, but it says more about Obama than it does Birthers.

The "eligibility" issue is on his mind.  Birthers are under his thin skin.

And, if there is a conspiracy, Birthers aren't the conspirators.

The conspirators are Obama and Team Obama.  They are the people who have conspired to place a man they know to be ineligible in the Oval Office, and these same people continue to cover up the massive fraud it took to put him there and keep him there -- and to keep all of them out of Leavenworth.
Meet The Real "Non-Birthers"
Joseph Farrah says The term "Birther" was coined by those wanting to end questions, free-and-open inquiries and rational debates over whether Barack Obama had satisfied constitutional requirements for eligibility as president.

Since there is no dictionary definition to this term, it has been used as a term of derision and dismissal.  Often you will see "news stories" defining "Birthers" as people who hold fast to the notion that Obama was foreign-born.  Actually, most skeptics about Obama's eligibility simply want to see evidence to support the contention that he is actually a "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution.

The historic understanding of that concept is simply this: To become president of the United States one needs to be born in the U.S. to citizen parents with no divided loyalties.  Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan citizen and a mother too young to confer ordinary citizenship upon him -- a status that would have made him, at best, a dual citizen at birth and, possibly, a non-U.S. citizen.  Further complicating the problem, there is no proof he was actually born in Hawaii.

"Birthers" understand that since we have not seen an actual eyewitness, contemporaneous document known as a long-form birth certificate there is no basis upon which we can determine Obama's eligibility, because we don't know for certain who his parents are and where he was born.

These are not matters of debate; these are matters of fact.  By this definition of "Birther," every American who supports the Constitution as written should be a "Birther."

Individuals can argue in good faith as to whether or not they are satisfied with the evidence available about Obama's background.  They can also argue in good faith as to the technical legal definition of "natural born citizen."  But what is not arguable is that insufficient proof exists to proclaim Obama as eligible to serve.  It's not even a close call.

For the last two years, "Birthers" have been demeaned, ridiculed and ostracized for taking a principled stand in the aftermath of an election in which the political system failed to enforce constitutional provisions of eligibility on an incoming president.

Today, every poll shows large percentages of the public -- in some cases significant majorities -- hold grave doubts as to Obama's constitutional eligibility.  In other words, they are, in the terminology of their adversaries, "Birthers."

Now let's meet the "non-Birthers" . . .
Obama Jokes About Birthers At Fundraiser
March 10 2011, Michael Sheridan, a Daily News staff writer, penned another sarcastic item describing how Birthers have made careers out of questioning Obama's birth and citizenship.  He says some have even written best-selling books, arguing he was born in Kenya or that he is really a British subject -- and the Daily News is running a poll with Sheridan's hit piece.

Well, Michael, two things.

First, Obama is the source of the fact that he was born a Kenyan citizen and a British subject.

Second, you're on the losing side of your own poll:

I revisited this site, and lo and behold, the poll has been changed:

That's one way to win a poll.  Michael Sheridan is a wonderful example of the modern American "journalist."
White House Operative Heading "Birther" Smear Campaign

This is the third in a series of continuing articles aimed at exposing the "OBOTs" -- radical supporters of Barack Obama dedicated to disrupting people who question Obama's eligibility to be president.

first article exposed former California lawyer William L. Bryan, aka "P.J. Foggy." The second article exposed Foggy's sidekick, Kurt Coleman, aka "Rikker."

Jerome Corsi says a top Democrat, apparently operating with the full approval and cooperation of Obama, has been directing a team of up to 100 who are paid to publish disinformation on a wide variety of websites to discredit "Birthers," according to anti-Obama researchers.

The radical supporters of Obama, known as Obama robots, or "OBOTs" for short, have confirmed their White House-appointed ring leader is Democratic Party operative James A. Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae.

Initially, the OBOTs attempted to mask their Internet identities by posting under usernames with avatars that suggest their personalities. But due largely to the efforts of anti-Obama researchers, including "Birthers" vilified by the OBOTs, the true identities of key OBOT operatives have been revealed.

Remarkably, key OBOT operatives, including possibly Johnson himself, have tended over time to self-identify. Two OBOT usernames -- "NeonZX" and "JimBot" -- may have been usernames Johnson himself created to cover his tracks.

If "NeonZX" and "JimBot" are James A. Johnson, a link will have been established between the Obama White House at the topmost levels and a highly organized disinformation campaign, most likely financed by taxpayer funds. The campaign has been aimed at anyone who challenges Obama's eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Ed Hale, the Texas-based creator of Plains Radio, said that Johnson, posting on various OBOT websites under the username "JimBot," managed for the White House some 100 paid operatives around the country. Their primary job was to attack, refute and publish disinformation on any prominent "Birthers."

In an Internet forum called "Voice of America Broadcasting Network," Hale posted this on July 17:

Continue reading here -- this is interesting . . .
Top Anti-Birther Confirmed To Be Ex-Fannie Mae Chief

Jerome Corsi says this is the fourth in a series of continuing articles aimed at exposing the "Obots" -- the radical supporters of Barack Obama dedicated to disrupting people who question Obama's eligibility to be president.

The first article exposed former California lawyer William L. Bryan, aka "P.J. Foggy." The second article exposed Foggy's sidekick, Kurt Coleman, aka "Rikker." The third article exposed James A. Johnson, former head of Fannie Mae, as "JimBot," the White House contact and organizer of the "Fogbow" Obots posting on Bryan's website

A radical Obama supporter who organizes an "Obama-Robot" website has admitted in online posts that WorldNetDaily correctly identified former chairman of Fannie Mae chairman James A. Johnson as the group's White House-associated ring-leader. William L. Bryan, who posts under the username "P.J. Foggy," is the organizer of, a self described "Obot," or "Obama-Robot" website. On his weekly "Reality Check Radio" broadcast July 21, Bryan began the show by acknowledging the veracity of the report.

"As far as I know thery got the boss," he said. "There just isn't much point to denial."

Continue reading here . . .


The guy this article focuses on, Ed Hale, wanted me to do an hour broadcast on his Plains Radio Network. I'm glad I didn't get involved with him now. Looks like he went to the dark side.


By the way, many of these Obots, and many that repeatedly troll the "eligibility" and "natural born" threads at are "paid" operatives.  Their anti-birtherism is their full-time jobs, and they've been at it for some time now.

Comments . . .

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010 - 2011
All right reserved