The theory that Obama was not born in America is false.
He was born in Hawaii.
the real story is his refusal to produce his birth cert in the 2008 election,
and the refusal of the pro-Obama media to pursue the issue.
The theory that Obama is a Muslim is also false.
He is a dhimmi, not a Muslim.
He spent years going to a
disgusting anti-American church,
not a disgusting anti-American mosque.
he was regarded as a Muslim once, when he was young.
And this is a fact.
Michelle Obama describes Kenya as Barack Obama's "home country".
The "birthers" are wrong. Obama was born in Hawaii, as he says.
The newspaper birth notices
are proof of that,
as is the
original birth cert.
Having said that, the birthers had a point.
An original birth cert existed, but we were not allowed see it,
only an abstract.
If this was Bush, the media would have screamed for its release.
But because it was Obama, the media ridiculed anyone who wanted to see it,
and called them racists.
Maybe the real story is not what is on the original birth cert
but rather the arrogance of Obama, and the failure of the
Obama-loving media to do their job.
Tony Allwright, August 12, 2009:
"Mr Obama resolutely refuses to release his original birth certificate, which is the one thing that would permanently shut the birthers up. Why will Mr Obama not release it? There has to be a reason."
In Defense of the Birthers, Jeremy D. Boreing, 11 Aug 2009.
Boreing, like me, has no time for the birthers' theories,
but he is disturbed at how they are being treated.
"I am not a Birther. Which is not to say that I think the question of Barack Obama's US citizenship has in anyway been adequately answered, it has scarcely even been addressed other than through sneers and accusations of racism ...
Rather, I just don't believe it in anyway likely that Mr. Obama wasn't born in the country when two Hawaiian newspapers reported at the time that he was.
That said, I find the way that people who do believe that is a possibility are being treated by everyone - from the White House, to the media, to many even in the conservative blogosphere - to be completely unfair.
my question for the Birthers-haters is - When did it become incumbent on citizens asking reasonable questions about their president's life, experiences, and even his eligibility to be president, to simply accept the president at his word? Is it not reasonable to expect an elected official, especially one who has promised unprecedented transparency, to simply reveal the documents relevant to answering the biggest questions about his life? Are we supposed to take all of our government officials at face value now, or just this one?"
At last, after 3 long years,
President Obama finally releases his birth cert, 27 Apr 2011.
And there's nothing interesting on it.
So why not release it in 2008?
Why annoy people for 3 years, and insult them for asking?
It's a mystery.
It comes across as real
Obama is arrogant and patronising:
patronisingly says we should have trusted
third parties who claimed to have seen the birth cert,
and in a free democracy, we should not ask to see the birth cert ourselves.
"I'm speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do."This blog
"if our country doesn't have time for silliness, why did you choose to prolong it all this time?"
"If that was all there was to it, why did Obama wait 3 years to release his birth certificate?
There is a decorated Army Colonel
in jail for refusing to deploy until he saw Obama's birth certificate. That wasn't worth 5 minutes of Obama's time to release it then?"
First you release evidence. Then we believe you.
That's the way it works:
Obama and the left claimed for 3 years that releasing the birth cert would change nothing.
That if people did not believe, they wouldn't believe anyway.
This turned out to be nonsense.
There was an immediate massive drop in "birther" beliefs after he released his birth cert in Apr 2011.
"The number of Americans saying President Obama was born in another country has been sliced in half".
Obama only damaged himself by not releasing this.
So why did he hide it?
It's a real mystery.
Contempt for his opponents is the only reason I can think of.
Daniel Foster above nicely points out that many people claimed the birthers were "racist".
And yet today, they are not racist!
"if that's true, then Obama's decision to release his long-form birth certificate accomplished a feat on par with - nay, greater than - killing Osama bin Laden: it made America dramatically less racist overnight!"
Obama's birth cert.
See full size.
Why not release this in 2008?
Why such arrogance and contempt?
Front cover of the left-wing UK paper,
The Independent, 28 Apr 2011, which agrees with Obama that we should not want to see the birth cert.
The biased, Obama-loving
"Has there ever been a more absurdly surreal moment?"
Well I think it is "absurdly surreal" seeing the media working hard at hiding things from us,
just because they like this politician.
I thought it was the media's job to tell us things we didn't want to know,
rather than hide from us things we do want to know.
Again, the real story is not the birth cert (it is not interesting at all).
The real story is: (1) the arrogance of Obama in not releasing it,
and: (2) the failure of the media to do their job.
The thug dictator
and mass killer of Americans
Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi likes Obama, June 2008:
"Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success".
This vile dictator, in between mocking democracy,
seems to indicate that everyone else in the Middle East who hates democracy
Gaddafi praises President Obama, Sept 2009:
"You are the beginning of a change. ... Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the four years or the next eight years
... We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of the United States of America."
"In this way, all the problems of the Muslim world would be solved",
said the lunatic.
But more seriously,
Robert Spencer says:
"It's noteworthy that a member of the Pakistani government would be able to look at Obama's record as President and conclude that he is not only a Muslim, but should become their leader. It is just another indication of how unmistakable and consistent is Obama's record of appeasement of Iran and pandering to Islamic interests - whether he is among the believers or not."
Survey, Aug 2010, shows an increasing number of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim, or don't know what he is.
They are wrong to think he is a Muslim.
They are right, however, to think he is some kind of dhimmi.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
- US President
Barack Obama, speech to the UN, 25 Sept 2012.
The left sneers at the conspiracy theories
The rumours above do ultimately fail, but they raise interesting issues.
Why did the media not want to see his birth cert?
Why was he listed as Muslim at school?
The leftish, pro-Obama media
that sneers at these stories
(like the Irish Times)
never really addresses these issues.
is an annoying article laughing at Internet "rumours" about Obama.
The real story is not necessarily that the rumours are true,
but rather the bias of the media.
The article quotes the disturbing Obama official
giving out about Internet rumours:
"For example, during the 2008 US election, Sunstein notes, "many Americans believed Barrack Obama was a Muslim, that he was not born in the US, and that he 'pals around with terrorists'.""
The Irish Times joins in the laughing at this, but let's look at these 3 "rumours":
Obama is now Christian,
but he was listed as Muslim as a child (see his school records).
So it is hardly "rumour" to state that he was considered Muslim once.
I'm sure he was born in Hawaii, as he says,
but isn't it odd that
he refuses to release his birth cert?
Isn't that something Irish Times journalists ought to be on about?
They would if it was Bush.
Gag The Internet!, Kyle Smith, July 11, 2009, on Cass Sunstein's disturbing ideas for the Internet.
Summary: The Irish Times is quoting an Obama official
who wants to clamp down on Internet "rumours".
His examples of Internet "rumours" are basically criticism of Obama.
And the Irish Times sees nothing wrong with this.
They would if it was Bush.
Now I (seriously) don't think we should take this as proof or anything,
but this is very funny:
Madonna, Washington DC concert, 24 Sept 2012:
"Y'all better vote for fucking Obama, OK?
For better or for worse, alright, we have a black Muslim in the White House.
Now that's the shit!
That's some amazing shit.
It means there is hope in this country."
Mark Krikorian, 27 Sept 2012, comments on this:
"Obviously, Madonna doesn't really think he's a Muslim (frankly, no one seriously believes he's a Christian, either), but it's clear that many of Obama's supporters want him to be a Muslim, want him to have been born in Kenya.
(This is precisely why his publicist advertised him as a Kenyan immigrant raised in Indonesia.) I guess I already knew this, but it really hit home that the greater his "otherness," the more the post-Americans like him, precisely because they don't like America or Americans."
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.