Tired of ads? Upgrade to paid account and never see ads again!
jj goes bloggish - Pointing and laughing at the "birther movement" [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
just john

[ website | Radio Free Entropy ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Pointing and laughing at the "birther movement" [Jul. 18th, 2009|01:10 pm]
just john
[Tags|, , ]

As you may have heard, there are some out there who are insinuating that President Obama is using a forged birth certificate.

When did this forgery happen? Has to have been at least a year ago, 'cuz birthers were already complaining. That says they believe a conspiracy to forge that thing is at least two years old.

But wouldn't the insertion of a forged certificate into Hawaii's records be a foolish thing for an established politician and his cronies to do? I mean, somebody would have to notice a change from a pre-forgery state of affairs to a post-forgery one. Politicians always have canned biographies available, and a change to the beginning would tend to stick out.

So the forgery and surrounding deception would have to pre-date Obama's entry into electoral politics.

But wouldn't somebody have noticed the deception back then, when his biography would have been retroactively changed to something different from what had been already posted in (for example) his law school? Couldn't somebody look at the record of his first driver's license, to see what proof of citizenship was provided?

So the conspiracy to deceive has to pre-date his first driver's license, which I guess takes us back to the late 1970s. And it has to have been a damned good conspiracy, not to have had the forgery's insertion noticed by Hawaiian authorities back then.

However, the only thing this newly forged birth certificate would buy Obama (as opposed to any other story of his birth put forward by birthers) would not come into play until 2008, when he ran for President. Foreign-born people can be law students, law professors, community activists, US senators .... just not President.

So the birthers are telling us that by 1980, there was this illegal conspiracy in place to elevate Obama to the White House. And this has to have been a DOOZY of a well-oiled conspiracy, pre-dating his enrollment at Columbia.


This is why I point and laugh. I mean, just imagine his Secret Brain Trust in the early 1980s, decreeing to him, "And now, The Plan requires you to move to Chicago, so that a quarter century from now, it will come into fruition! Bwah-hah-ha!"
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: derekfz
2009-07-19 11:04 pm (UTC)
I kind of want you to post this to RSPW. Then we can just sit back and watch the conservaTARDS work themselves into a kookfroth of some variety.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: justjohn
2009-07-20 12:52 am (UTC)
Feel free to relay it. I also posted it to alt.slack (crossposted to alt.usenet.kooks, us.politics and alt.conspiracy,) so if you mean usenet's rspw, a reply including that group would land the text there.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lyssandri
2009-07-20 12:34 am (UTC)
Oh, no, it had to have begun MUCH earlier than that! The birth announcements from the archives of two Hawaiian newspapers have been located, proving that they were published shortly after he was born. (Like within a couple weeks, IIRC.)

Some birthers claim that "just anyone" can get a birth announcement listed, but both newspapers have stated that no, not "just anyone" can place the announcements. They get all of their information from the hospitals where the babies are born. And, besides, why would anyone have wanted to call a false birth announcement into the newspaper? There's really no reason to do so.

I've seen some birthers try to argue against this point by saying that anyone can get a Hawaiian birth certificate, even if they weren't born in Hawaii, so that could have been the source of the info for the announcements. This overlooks the fact that (1) that law wasn't in effect at the time Obama was born (at least not as far as I've been able to tell - I believe it went into effect in 1982,)(2) if someone who wasn't born in Hawaii gets a Hawaiian birth certificate, it lists where they actually were born, and (3) even if they could get around those first two problems, it still has no impact on the newspaper announcements, since that info doesn't come from birth certificates or anything else except the hospital records.

SO, if Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, then someone had to - within a very few days of his birth - somehow get into the *hospital records* and place Obama's birth amongst them so that they could then be sent on to the newspaper. And this was in 1961, right? Like, you know, before you could 'just' hack into a computer and change things with a bit of typing and a couple mouse clicks. And again, why would anyone do that?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: justjohn
2009-07-20 12:58 am (UTC)

It also explains Dallas '63

Y'see, JFK had to be martyred so that LBJ would have the support behind him to enact the Voting Rights Act, so that 40 years later, we as a nation would be used to the idea of non-whites in politics.


But enough of that. How the heck does one switch Thors? I didn't even know there was a choice. New Thor Lite?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lyssandri
2009-07-20 08:15 am (UTC)

Re: It also explains Dallas '63

ROFL!! Ah...I may have to go back to spelling it with the two caps. It's supposed to be Thor's Witch, not Thor Switch, but it gets read wrong, a lot!

And, you're right, they really DID have to get an early start! I wonder if the guys in the black helicopter played matchmaker for his mom and dad, too?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hemlock_martini
2009-07-20 06:48 pm (UTC)
They did? GREAT SCOTT! It all makes sense now!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grundoon
2009-07-22 07:49 am (UTC)
"So the forgery and surrounding deception would have to pre-date Obama's entry into electoral politics."

No it would not.
If for example a person set out to run, commencing 1/1/2007, the deception you refer to would have begun on that date, or at a later point when the document was questioned.



"But wouldn't somebody have noticed the deception back then, when his biography would have been retroactively changed to something different from what had been already posted in (for example) his law school? Couldn't somebody look at the record of his first driver's license, to see what proof of citizenship was provided?"


"So the conspiracy to deceive has to pre-date his first driver's license, which I guess takes us back to the late 1970s. "

No it does not.


"So the birthers are telling us that by 1980, there was this illegal conspiracy in place to elevate Obama to the White House. And this has to have been a DOOZY of a well-oiled conspiracy, pre-dating his enrollment at Columbia."

You actually acknowledge the illegality? Good.
Otherwise, what you don't know about what WE think has already filled several books. It would not be the first time you've told people what they think and what they feel.

But I concede that this sort of like the controlled demolitions part of 9/11. It draws the focus, and is ultimately not that important in the long run.

What is far more important is the total continuity with the Busheviks.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: justjohn
2009-07-22 01:48 pm (UTC)
>>"So the forgery and surrounding deception would have to
>> pre-date Obama's entry into electoral politics."

>> No it would not.

>> If for example a person set out to run, commencing 1/1/2007,
>> the deception you refer to would have begun on that date, or
>> at a later point when the document was questioned.

Wrong.

He's had a biography out there for decades. Any change to the biography -- for instance, to get around the "born in the USA" requirement for President -- would stick out like a sore thumb when it was changed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grundoon
2009-07-23 09:32 am (UTC)
so you've established that hwe as planning to run for President for decades?
But it is not possible for there to have been a plan for 25 years?
Two biographies that detail his drug habits at Columbia but not his teachers or his curriculum?
But it is not possible that anything is being hidden?

Interesting logic.
Too bad nobody gave a damn two years ago when the subject first came up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: justjohn
2009-07-23 03:52 pm (UTC)
Or back in '61 when his local papers in Hawaii published birth announcements.


Or are you trying to claim somebody went and confiscated all copies of those papers sometime since, and replaced them with bogus ones with the birth announcements?

If so, when?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)