And So It Is Done

And do it is done. Chief Justice John Roberts has administered the Presidential oath of office to Barack Hussein Obama II. Both were clearly nervous, and they both flubbed it a bit, but it is done.

Barack Hussein Obama II is now the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our armed forces, despite the fact that he never produced his original birth certificate.  To the general public’s knowledge, officials from all three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) allowed Barack Hussein Obama II to become President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our armed forces without ever looking at a Birth Certificate received directly from the State of Hawaii.

As our President, Obama deserves our prayers.  And as our President, he also owes it to “We the People” to be a man of his word.

President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise.

[archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5wFJjivhF]

The most open and transparent in history?

Mr. President, authorize the State of Hawaii to release your original birth certificate.

The inauguration may be done, but the quest for honesty, openness, transparency, and accountability, all in the quest to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, is most certainly not over.

And Mr. President, if you are later found to be other than a natural born citizen, and therefore unqualified to hold the office of President, please leave office as gracefully as President George Walker Bush just did.

Father, I pray in the name of Jesus for you to give wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to President Barack Obama.  Please draw him closer to You, and help him to be a good and faithful servant both to You and to us, “We the People”.  Please touch the hearts of each and every government official, and turn their hearts to You.  Lord, I pray for renewal and revival in our land.  In Jesus’ name, amen.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility, Transparency. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to And So It Is Done

  1. Ryan says:

    That was well said Mr. Pill. I salute you for your good wishes towards the new president, despite your differences.

  2. Jonah says:

    Yeah, that was refreshingly cool-headed.

  3. Frin says:

    Well done Mr Pill,

    Hopefully at the end of his term/s, President Obama will have been a force for good in America, and the rest of the world.

  4. The Intellectual Redneck said…

    detailed instructions on how to get an original vault copy of a Hawaii birth certificate. Of course Obama is President. He would not need to do anything but have someone pick up the phone. This is just to show you anyone can easily do it. Obama supporters spread so much untruth. :(

    ‘When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital
    Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it “For
    DHHL Purposes,” and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of
    Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your
    request form, please fill in “For DHHL Purposes” in the “Reason for
    Requesting a Certified Copy” section. (See example on page 6.)’

    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf

    They even show a sample copy of the vault record for those so blinded by Obama they thought that document was a myth.

    http://bloggingredneck.blogspot.com/

  5. I appreciate the kind words of Ryan, Jonah, and Frin in their comments above, and I am sincere in my prayer for President Obama.

    I am also serious about what I said above:

    The inauguration may be done, but the quest for honesty, openness, transparency, and accountability, all in the quest to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, is most certainly not over.

    New on ConstitutionWatch.org:

    Alert: Constitutional Crisis Looming

    Constitution Watch may have waited until now to speak up, but some of us have been talking about a “Constitutional Crisis” for months.

    If President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, but continues to block the release of his original birth certificate, then his promise is very clearly a lie.

    If President Obama has nothing to hide, and promises to be “the most open and transparent in history”, then his original birth certificate should be released immediately in the interest of being open and transparent.

    President Obama, will you be a man of your word?
    Or, do you have something to hide?

  6. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Serious question – in what manner could he release his BC without accusations of forgery?

  7. Thomas Shawn says:

    He’s not my president.

    He’ll be afforded the same treatment that was afforded Mr. Bush by the left.

  8. Frin,

    Obama should simply authorize the release of certified copies of his original birth certificate, directly from the State of Hawaii, to anyone who wants to see it. The recipient is responsible for paying the applicable fee, but Obama must authorize the release.

    The only document that has been produced so far:
    1) Was a Certification (COLB), not a Certificate. (There are significant differences in the format and amount of detail in the two types of documents.)
    2) Was declared a forgery by document experts.
    3) Was produced at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago
    4) Was only shown to a controlled audience

    I’m looking for Obama to be a man of his word, be open and transparent, and release:
    1) The original certificate (or copies of it)
    2) Certified authentic by Hawaiian officials
    3) Coming from the Hawaiian government and not a political campaign
    4) Shown to anyone who wants to see it.

    If the information on the original Certificate matches the information previously shown on the Certification (COLB), then this should be easy for Obama to do and keep his promise.

    If the information on the original Certificate does NOT match the information previously shown on the Certification (COLB), then Obama will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from being revealed.

    So, will Obama be an honest man, and keep his promise to be “the most open and transparent in history”?

  9. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Firstly, releasing copies of your original BC to anyone and everyone is a pretty insecure thing to do – I wouldn’t want anyone off the street to have a copy of my BC – would you?

    No document expert has declared the COLB a forgery. Ron Polarik is only going off a scanned version on the net, and is also hardly an expert, and Sandra Lines has only said that the image that is posted online can not be relied upon to be genuine. Thats pretty much a statement of the obvious.

    And why would you trust Hawaiian officials anyway – you’ve already stated you think they are part of a big cover up !

  10. Frin,

    Your last comment is full of obfuscation.

    Obama promised to be “the most open and transparent in history”.

    So, will he be an honest man, and keep his promise?

    John McCain released his original birth certificate. Why hasn’t Obama?

    In terms of your obfuscation:
    Ron Polarik found evidence of fraud in both the original online image and the subsequent images posted on factcheck.org of the supposed hard copy certificate.

    Yes, I believe Fukino issued a statement that itself was full of obfuscation, but when you parse it you find that she was very careful to avoid lying. Everything she said was technically true, but allowed the Associated Press to twist it and make it appear she said things she never actually said. She never said Obama was born in Hawaii. She never said the COLB Obama’s campaign produced was authentic. I think she cares about telling the truth, but didn’t want to say anything that could hurt Obama’s campaign. If a document is released by the state of Hawaii and clearly certified as authentic, then I have to accept that. For Fukino to actively lie, versus simply mislead, would be a cover up worse than Watergate.

  11. And, just to be clear, either of the following would mean Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President:

    1) Birth location outside of the United States

    2) A Supreme Court ruling that agrees with Vattel and Bingham

    Vattel (1758):

    natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

    Bingham (1866):

    every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
    (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

  12. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    I’m not all that confident in Ron Polarik’s ability – see here for more analysis of his claims: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

    As for the statement from Fukino, the following exchange took place between The Tribune (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html) and Hawaiian Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo:

    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.””

    To me, that is a clear statement from an Official of the Government of Hawaii. If you don’t believe that statement then you must believe that there is some sort of cover up.

  13. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Whilst I agree that a ruling that agrees with either of those two would mean that Obama is not a NBC – US vs Wong Ark Kim clearly found that British Common Law applies to the definition of natural born citizen. Vattel was quoted in the *dissenting* opinion.

  14. Frin,

    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.””

    1) You are relying on Okubo, not Fukino.

    2) If “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying”, then why didn’t Dr. Fukino say that?

    3) If Obama is a man of his word, he will be “the most open and transparent in history”, and release his birth certificate.

    This isn’t the first time that Obama has promised transparency.

    For over six months we’ve been demanding transparency.

    There is No Excuse for hiding the original birth certificate.

  15. Jax says:

    Oh, for God’s sake. It’s because Dr. Fukino didn’t think crazy people would dissect every sentence for possibly cracks.

    Look, predict the date of the coup (or military revolution) you expect. You’re going to be wrong then, as you have been wrong about everything you have ever predicted ever.

  16. xerocky says:

    Why did he happen to land on the number 57? 57 states? No matter how “tired” he was or whatever his excuse is, it’s just such a basic thing to screw up, all the while there is the 57 muslim states thing.

    I’d bet 1000$ that that’s the nature of the screw up. It would be like saying that there are 40 letters in the alphabet or something. I don’t want a guy who can be that lost simply because he’s “tired”.

    Oh well.

  17. Jonah says:

    What? He said he’d visited 57 states with one left to go, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. It’s pretty clear he meant 47, which is only one word off.

    Besides, there are 60 Islamic countries total in the OIC.

  18. Jonah,

    60 total, but 57 member states and 3 observers.

    There was something else troubling about what Obama said that day, and most people seem to have missed it. Who’s really in charge?

  19. xerocky,

    I agree that getting the number of states wrong is like getting the number of letters in the alphabet wrong.

  20. Jonah says:

    Fair enough, but the analogy is still flawed. It’s more like saying that W is the 33rd letter of the alphabet instead of the 23rd. Still funny (because there aren’t 33 letters), but clearly a slip of the tongue, as it’s just one word off.

  21. The fury with which you people defend Obama’s complete lack of transparency shows me that he indeed has no intention of being anything of the kind. He has lied throughout the campaign and election, and he is lying now. How do I know? His lips are moving.

  22. Ryan says:

    I don’t hear anyone defending a lack of transparency. The majority of are satisfied with his level of transparency. The fact is, there is just a pure hatred for him by the far right wing. You hate his family history, you hate his mother’s lack of believe, you hate his church, you hate his name, you hate his wife, and some of you (Mr Pill) hate what he named his children. You have researched every person who may have been in contact with him, and brought forward those who have made mistakes, or have expressed dissenting opinions. Did you do that with Bush?

    I can handle it if you hate his policies – in fact, I disagree with many myself. But this hatred is really distasteful. Everything he does as president will be up for public debate, so make yourself heard. Protest, send letters, call radio talk shows, do whatever you like. Those are the freedoms we enjoy, and they are not going to change if we don’t let them.

  23. Ryan,

    The one repeating “hate” is you, not I.

    Yet you sound ready to charge me with hate crimes.

    I believe, and try my best to practice, this:

    You have heard that it was said,

    “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”

    But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

    Matthew 5:43-45

  24. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Okubo, Fukino – doesn’t matter. BOTH are representatives of the Government of Hawaii. Goes back to my original comment that it won’t matter what Hawaiian Government officials say, because you have already determined that at least one of them is lying.

  25. Jax says:

    Hmmm… is “never” a good prediction? Let me put it this way… no need to ask me for predictions. Take whatever you predict, then think of the EXACT OPPOSITE thing happening, and that’s my prediction. So far, I’m batting 100%.

  26. Ryan says:

    “The one repeating “hate” is you, not I.”

    Mr. Pill, respectfully, what could you possibly mean by that? When have I ever expressed hate for anyone?

  27. Jonah says:

    Just as discussing racism makes one racist, so too does repetition of the word “hate” make one hateful. Haven’t you been paying attention?

  28. cajunpatriot says:

    What’s more telling than the ’57 states’? When he said “my Muslim faith” to George Stephanopoulos. I don’t care how tired he was. If he had been sleep-deprived for a week, those words could NEVER come out of a “Christian’s” mouth.

    Try it. Ask yourself, except substitute something completely opposite of yours instead of Muslim. For example, a Jew would never say “my Christian faith.” Heck, even within Christianity, a Baptist would never say “my Episcopalian faith.” A Lutheran would never say “my Catholic faith.”

    Just wouldn’t happen. And yet, he got a pass on that, too.

  29. Math says:

    So cajun, I have this one question for you: so what if he’s Muslim?

  30. Frin says:

    Math,

    Its not just that he’s Muslim – its that he’s the worst kind of Muslim that has never been seen worshipping at a mosque, but actually attended a Black Liberation Church ! This of course is where he got his indoctrination into the very well known sociopolitical group of Marxist Muslims – formed due to to the huge overlap in their ideals and philosophy…

  31. Ryan,

    I don’t think that either you or I are “hateful” people, but you accused me of hating what he named his children, when I never said that. I then pointed out that the one repeating “hate” is you (seven times in your comment), not I.

    My point about children’s names is that it reveals the preferences of the parents. And that actually ties into Frin’s last comment. I don’t know anyone at my church who named their children after a Marxist revolutionary and a comprehensive treatise on Islam. But Barack does at the church he attended.

    And you won’t find the word “hate” in that post.

  32. Math,

    I know your question was to cajunpatriot, but I’ll throw in my 2 cents…

    “so what if he’s Muslim?”

    Even though our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and was called a “Christian nation” by Supreme Court Justices all the way from the very first Chief Justice up through the early 20th century, there is no Constitutional requirement for any government official to be a Christian, and in fact there is a Constitutional prohibition against there being any religious test.

    So the point isn’t a question of religion. It’s a question of honesty and integrity.

    “So what if he’s Muslim?”

    Well, if he is a Muslim, then he has lied about his faith. And if he has lied about that, he will lie about anything and everything.

    He promised that he has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history.

    Is that the truth, or is that just another lie?

    Most Christians I know recite the Lord’s Prayer when it is spoken by someone leading a prayer. When Rick Warren said the Lord’s Prayer, you could see some people in the audience saying the words along with him. Barack Obama, however, was not one of them. Just an observation…

    If Barack is sincere about being “the most open and transparent in history”, then he will release his original birth certificate.

    If Barack is sincere about being “the most open and transparent in history”, then he will release his college records.

    If Barack is sincere about being “the most open and transparent in history”, then he will explain why someone listed on whitehouse.gov as part of his administration, his wife Michelle, was disbarred and can no longer practice law in Illinois.

    If Barack is sincere about being “the most open and transparent in history”, then he will explain how Tony Rezko helped him buy his house and prevent anyone else from building on the vacant lot next to it.

    If Barack is sincere about being “the most open and transparent in history”, then he will explain how his relationship with William Ayers started, the nature of their relationship in New York, and Ayers’ involvement in the writing of Obama’s books and speeches.

    Barack said Ayers was “some guy in his neighborhood”. Ayers said they are “family friends”. And people believe Obama will be “the most open and transparent in history”?

    By the way, did anyone else notice William Ayers being quoted in the Wall Street Journal coverage of the Obama inauguration?

  33. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    You do realise that Marxism runs counter to the ideals of any organised religion? After all, Marx did say of religion: “It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.”

    Questioning whether Obama is a Muslim (and to paraphrase Seinfeld, not that there is anything wrong with that), whilst simulataneously accusing him of being a Communist/Marxist is illogical, and looks a lot like mudslinging in the hope something will stick.

  34. Frin says:

    And another thing Mr Pill,

    Thats a nasty little rumor you are perpetuating there regarding Obama’s wife being disbarred. Do a little fact checking at the Supreme Court of Illinois (https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp) and you find that she is *voluntarily inactive*, which means that she doesn’t have to pay her annual registration fees – kinda makes sense for her to do that seeing as she isn’t actually practising law at the moment…

  35. Frin,

    What you say about Marx is true.

    But today’s Marxist-Leninist-Socialist-Communists have something in common with Jihadist Muslims…

    What do they have in common? A common enemy … the United States of America.

    And they have joined forces in at least one way… Russia is an observer nation of the “57 state” OIC.

  36. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    The UN is also an observer of the OIC. Does that mean that the UN is also the enemy of the USA?

  37. Frin,

    https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=629763961

    Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama
    Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
    Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 1993
    Malpractice Insurance: No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.

    Voluntarily inactive? Or court ordered inactive?

    I’m not an attorney, so all I honestly don’t know who initiated this…Michelle, or ordered by the court?

    You’ll note that Barack practiced law much longer and when he went inactive it was not listed as “court ordered”:

    https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=437292755

    Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
    Full Former name(s): None
    Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 2008
    Malpractice Insurance: In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.)

    So, why did Michelle only practice law for four years and her record shows “court ordered inactive status“?

    If the Obamas want to be “the most open and transparent in history”, then let’s hear the whole story.

    By the way, the following is not true:

    Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
    Full Former name(s): None

    Barack did have former names… Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham. He committed perjury when he submitted, under oath, this information to the bar stating that he had no former names.

  38. Frin Says:

    The UN is also an observer of the OIC. Does that mean that the UN is also the enemy of the USA?

    You’re catching on…

    The answer, quite frequently, is yes.

  39. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Former Court Rule 770 defines voluntary court-ordered inactive status (http://www.iardc.org/rule770inactivestatus.html). I would suggest that the reason that President Obama’s listing is different is due to the applicable rule changing in 1999.

    If you want to search for proceedings against her just to confirm she hasn’t been disbarred, then go here: http://www.iardc.org/rd_database/rulesdecisions.html – search for her name, and nothing comes up.

    And the Kingdom of Thailand (another observer at the OIC) – also an enemy of the USA? Are you catching on yet?

  40. Math says:

    Mr Pill. Once again, you see a conspiracy where there clearly is not. Michelle Obama’s inactive status is court ordered simply because such an order was required to change a status to voluntary inactive before November 1st, 1999. And since Barack changed his status in 2008, no court order was necessary.

    http://www.iardc.org/rule770inactivestatus.html

    Unless of course that page is forged too Mr Pill? Given that it’s the same website you cited before to make your allegations, I think I make a pretty strong case.

  41. Math says:

    Mr Pill… I asked why is it important he’s Muslim. You answer me by telling me that good Christians are supposed to mechanically recite the lord’s prayer, like they’ve been brainwashed to do since birth. And then you copy-paste your block about transparency and who knows what else.

    So I repeat my question: would you have a problem with it if he was Muslim? Regardless of what was said during the campaign and all your other non-sense, do you have a problem with that simple premise?

  42. Ryan says:

    Well done Frin.

    Mr. Pill. I think I’ve found the mistake that I believe you are making.

    When you hear Obama say something that sounds positive to the rest of us, you research as much as you possibly can to find something that might be negative about it, even if it is a completely vague shot in the dark.

    However, you obviously recently found something about Michelle Obama that mentioned she had been disbarred, and you stopped. No research.

  43. John says:

    Ryan said:
    “When have I ever expressed hate for anyone?”

    Let me count the times. . .

    For example, consider the above post, in which Ryan puts words in another person’s mouth in such a way as to have all the appearance of being an accusation of malfeasance with apparently no sense of irony, nor, apparently, any sense that an honorable person would not do any such a thing at all, much less try to pass such a mere dishonorable tactic off as though it were some kind of valid argument in support of a reasonable proposition.

    Never mind. This person is immune to fact, immune to reason, immune to common sense, imune to having the truth put right in his face in the form of direct quotes of his own posts. One could argue that ridicule is a form of hatred, and then quote the several instances of ridicule posted under this name, but it would be pointless to make that argument to the person posting under this name, because he/she/it would merely find another rationalization to deflect it.

    Let’s away from this pointless distraction to a more salient matter …

  44. John says:

    It is being reported that all the wold say the phony one flub the oath of office after the chief justice fed him the words in the wrong order.

    Then, to make everything hunky-dory, another “oath” was administered in private.

    Was the chief justice so appalled in his own conscience that he was unable to administer the oath without misspeaking?

    But note: no bible was available when the “oath” was re-administered.

    So there is plenty of room out there for those who need it to say that no oath was ever actually administered or sworn upon a Bible?

    I have no problem with anyone’s refusal to swear an oath in service to the truth which forbids the swearing of oaths. In that case, simply state the reason for the objection, and don’t take the oath. Change the wording and simply say “I affirm, under penalty of perjury” or some such suitable alternative.

    But I have a big, big problem with an “oath” which is any part of an attempt to deceive.

    (The confusion over these “oaths” is no minor thing if a certain relevant point made in Orly Taitz’s recent filing with the USSC has any legal merit, or if any refutation thereof is being thereby anticipated, or if this messy business is in any way some kind of sneaky–as opposed to open and honest–attempt to mollify certain critics of some element of the prescribed procedure.)

    Was all of this some kind of grand charade for the sake of pleasing all the subscribers to dhimmitude and the hordes of those who narrowly look upon them to hold them accountable?

    Just askin’.

    In any case, we’ve all been had.

    Just sayin’.

    (But it is my firm intent to put significance and meaning in every syllable.)

    –John

  45. John says:

    …all the world saw …

  46. Ryan says:

    John, I’ve going to stand back a bit until the steam stops billowing from the pile of crap you just dumped on us.

    First of all, if disagreeing with you and pointing out your lack of reason is hate, then I guess I’m a hater. And so are you. And so was Jesus.

    And I knew the moment there was a slip up on the oath that I would hear about it from one of you guys. THEY WERE NERVOUS. They were doing something kind of important in front of a billion people.

    In order to follow the constitution exactly, they repeated the ceremony, not in private, but in the presence of witnesses from the press, so that the oath would have been spoken word for word. Even when they make sure they are following the constitution you guys freak out.

    You say:

    “So there is plenty of room out there for those who need it to say that no oath was ever actually administered or sworn upon a Bible?”

    Did you miss the inauguration? The oath spoken there, on a Bible, was valid. There was one misplaced word, that did not change the meaning of the oath.

    Is there nothing that will satisfy you?

    I’m waiting for someone to accuse him of crossing his fingers during the oath.

  47. John says:

    someone said:

    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.””

    To me, that is a clear statement from an Official of the Government of Hawaii. If you don’t believe that statement then you must believe that there is some sort of cover up.

    Ummm . . . Yes, that’s precisely the point. I thought that much was understood.

    Yes, this is precisely what all of this does smell like, yes. YES!!!

    In a court of law, were it to be (hypothetically) later revealed that the phony one was not born in Hawaii, then the testimony “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying”, could still never be proven to have been a lie. Why? Because that’s only what Okubo believed Fukino meant. Therefore, in such a scenario, Okubo cannot be shown to have deliberately mislead anyone. Did Okubo say that SHE had seen the document and that SHE knew that this is what IT meant, because this is what it SAID? We all know the answer to this question. Similarly, Dr. Fukino also could not be shown to have lied in any court, since Fukino’s statement mentions no place of birth. Therefore, even if the statement “So-and-so was born in Hawaii” is, as some suspect, a lie, NO ONE OFFICIAL HAS EVER UTTERED OR WRITTEN THIS STATEMENT! No government official has ever made this clear, simple, unequivocal statment, even if that implicit understanding has unquestionably been deliberately made the understanding of the entire country. Indeed, a grand appearance has unquestionably been made to stand before us all: that such a thing as was never said by anyone at all, has supposedly been “said” by someone in authority.

    (Incidentally, we note in passing, that the Potemkin village is a specialty, a standard stock-in-trade, for one very certain, very particular type of operative.)

    This is precisely the point. If the thought-to-be-false statement is ACTUALLY a true statement, then why all of this subterfuge and bait-and-switch in lieu of anything clear and provable in court to be factual or non-factual from an actual authority? Why is there this (greatly) extended game of plausible deniability? The doctrine of (not a lawyer, don’t know the latin name) whachamacallit argues that the plainly visible tap-dancing is evidence of a deliberate intention on the part of several to avoid making any direct factual stamement about the person in question’s place of birth. It is now all too obvious, long since obvious that no one person is willing to take credit for a simple statement of fact. Is this because the statement would be a lie? That is a reasonable question, and all who answer it with an accusation of impropriety render themselves as suspect as the timid others who will not simply put themselves on record with this simple statement of fact. But there is great care being taken here on the part of all concerned that no clear statement of fact be given about this.
    This is highly puzzling to us since there is in all the world no conceivable reason for why anyone would fear making this simple statement were it in fact true.

    This! THIS VERY THING–the great care that is being taken by all who are officially in a position to know to distance themselves SOMEHOW from any clear, simple, factual statement about the place of birth–THIS is what argues so loudly that there is something amiss here!

    Do I believe that the international communist conspiracy is that large? Is that entrenched? Is that embedded in our institutions that it could produce a fraud of the magnitude that this, if it is indeed a fraud, would appear to be?

    Yes. But this isn’t the only possible explanation for the kind of deception that this appears to be, just the first one that comes to mind given all the trails of slime in its neighborhood and where so many of them lead.

    –John

    P.S. I have no way of knowing that anyone named Okubo actually said any such thing as was reported above, or that it was said in response to any particular question. I have learned that the so-called “free” press are all collecively in collusion to hide, not reveal, the truth, and that anyone willing to be honest in the pubic square makes himself a target for slander and abuse — or worse. We have learned only one thing from this whole election season: there is no true news in any of America’s mainstream “free” press. “Trust no one. Put no confidence in a guide. Keep the door of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom, for it is an evil time.”

    This is all that we have recently learned from the “beacons” so touted as essential to a free people by the founders.

  48. John says:

    Math said:

    “So cajun, I have this one question for you: so what if he’s Muslim?”

    I, John, can answer that question (and am willing to).

    If he’s Muslim, then in addition to having lied to us in denying that, he also therefore follows the teachings of a book that explicitly teaches him to murder people like me.

    I have a problem with that. You imply that you don’t. Perhaps you are not among those the book instructs its followers to kill.

    –John

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s