Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Obama Birth in Kenya: Evil Media Just Never Gets It Right (You are a kook if: you believe there is EVIDENCE Obama Was Born in Kenya)

The evil media likes to actually pay up this "kookism" because they THINK it helps Obama to try to use "tuilt by association" and discredit the gOP (not to mention conservatives) by maknig a big deal out of the fact that some people refuse to give up on the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawai. Note that there is nothing "racist" about this "allegation", altough I am morally certain that almost all people who buyi into Obama's Kenyan brith really despise Obama (like my now 90 year old mother--an FDR Democrat for most of her life, and who also sort of bought into the iea that George W. Bush was "involved" in the 9/11 attacks--for the same reason that she also despises George w.). 

That is the problem here.  This is an AP headline "featured" on Yahoo "News":

"Arpaio:  Obama birth record is 'definitely fraudulent' "

Note that, at one pont, at least 1/3 of DEMOCRATS purported to believe that President Bush knew abut 9/11 IN ADVANCE.  Note, also, that the Bush "conspiracy theory" was actualyy much WORSE than the "birther" nonsense.  Again, that is because the questin of whether Barack Obama has a "fraudulent"  "birth certificate" is a mere question of FACT, and not really of CHARACTER.  After all, Obama's birth COULD have been "faked" in Hawaii, and Obama not know a thing about it.  There is NO reason to believe this is "racist" (to say that the FACT of Obama's place of birth is that Obama was born in Kenya ratgher than Hawaii.  Obama had a Kenyan father and a ("white") American mother.  That is undisputed. In other words, Obama is the SAME MAN--no matter where he was born.  Ther is no "racism" involved.  There is just this tendency for some of us to believe what we WANT to believe.  However, for yu to believe tghat President Bush either KNEW about 9/11 in advance, or actively was involved in it, means that you are willing to believe that George W. Bush is so EVIL that he would CONSPIRE in the KILLING of 3,000 Americans for political (or other) reasons.  No.  I would NOT belive that of President Obama, and it was never POSSIBLE to believe that magnitude of evil (and conspiracy) o the part of President Bush (about whom I am not QUITE so vehement as my kOOKY mother, but who I DISOWNED in 2006).

What is "evil" about the media here? Again, there are a number of things.  First, many in the media (as on MSNBC) insist on makng this about RACISM, even though the desicable AP was willing to say that it was a "legitimate" "issue" that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and mgiht NOT ahve been a natural born citizen (required byt he Constitution for the President).  Note that it is FALSE (and concusvie evidence of the EViL of the despiccable AP) that this ABSURD, semantic "case" against McCain's birth was more "legitimate" than the FACTUAL questin of where Obama was born.  McCain was born in the Canal Zone.  So the only 'questin" was an attempt by leftist KOOKS to TWIST the "law" to suggest McCain's birth was more of an "issue" than Obama's.  If it had been McCain, or George W Bush, against whom these "questions" had been raised, the evil media would have at least tried to make something out of it.  Yes, they DID try to come up with some way of supporting really partisan Democrats on the Bush (/11 conspiracy.  As this blog noted at the time, the despicable AP (again) ran a SERIOUS article about how the government of VENEZUELA (Hugo Chavez and compnay) "believed" that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.  Nope.  It was eVIL stuff to pay ANY "attention" to the Bush "conspiracy" thoery, except to SUMMARILY dismiss it. This is true of the Obama "birther" thing.  It is more evidence of the EVIL of the media that they are continuing to pay so much attention to this.  And, no, the media is NOT showing "even-handedness" by payig attentin to this, as well as to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. 

This is all about media AGENDA.  The media AGENDA here (MSNBC makes no bones about it) is to try to DISCRFEDIT the GOP and conservatives (again, the EVIL "theory" of "guilt by association") by sayig that all you have to do is look at who suppors Romney (for exaple).  This blog did a previus articcle making exaclty that pnht with regard to the CNN OBSESSION with the idea that Donald Trump supporting Romney is a reason to vote AGAINST Romney. Yep  TERRORISTS have come out in suport of Obama.  Just recently, the sister of Cuban DICTATOR Raul Castro came out for President Obama.  Michale Moore has said  some of the most KOOKY, and EVIL, things ever said by a "major" American political figure.  But the media actually LISTENS to Michael Moore (ecpet when PROTECTAING him by not noting thee actual KOOK things that he says).  No.  It probably does not say good things about you that you are so PARTISAN (or at least willing to beleive kooky things abut a politician you don't like) as to either push the idea that President Bush was involved in 9/11 (Rosie O'Donnell and many other PROMINENT leftists) or that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.  Note, as a further example, that Bill Maher is the most VIRULENT ANTI_CHRISITAN BIGOT in the country, and he gave ONE MILLN dollars to the Obama campaign.  Again, yu simply cannot hold a candidate resonsible for EVERY kooky belief of his individual SUPPORTERS, unless you are our EVIL media pushing an AGENDA (and also happen to be the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four).

"But, Skip, you just said that it is purely a matter of FACT as to where Obama was born, and yu have to admit that it is POSSIBLE that a family would "conspire" to "transfer" the place of birth from, say, Kenya to Hawaii.  You have said yourself that such a thing has been known to happen with babies born in Juarez, Mexico, but where the mother takes the baby to an El Paso hospital claiming a U.S birth (trading upon the wel known problem--in El Paso--of pregnant Mexican women WAtING outside of a U.S hospital to give birth, so as to go into the hospital at the last minute).  But, you, Skip say that we are KOOKS if we believe that Obama was born in Kenya."

Yes, it is true that I regard you as a KOOK (like my mother) if you assert as a fACT, or as someting supported by substantial evidence, that Obama was born in Kenya.  Kenya is not Mexico.  It is a LONG way away.  It is NOT enough to "raise questions" about Obama's "brith certificate".  Yuo MUST produce CONVINCING EVIDENCE.  The HEAVY BURDEN is on YOU.  Obama HAS a "certificate of live birth" from Hawaii, and has even "produced" a "long form" "birth certificate".  I am willing to believe that you can "raise questions" aobut the long form birth certificate.  I don't believe the MEDIA would ever look into that, althoguyh they would if ite were Bush, McCain or Romney involved, if only as a FISHING EXPEDITON to try to discover "questions" about the birth certificate.  But even if there are some questionable aspects of teh "birth certificate", HOW does that indicate that Obama was born in Kenya (inherently unlikely).  Is there any reason Obama COULD NOT have been born in Hawaii?  You are a KOOKK if you think there is.  That is, by far, tghe MOST LIKELY place for Obama to have been born  It is where he ended up, as a baby.  It is where his mother's family lived.  Do you really buy into the OBAMA narrative that Obama is the "messiah"?  Do you really beleive that Obama WENT BACK IN TIME and SET UP his American birth?  As stated, it is barely POSSIBLE that his family did that, even though they had no way of knowing that Obama would some day fun for President.  Again, thught the HEAVY BURDEN is on yu KOOKS (including, again, my own mother) who want to treat "qauestins" as the same as PROOF, because of your PARTISAN (or its equivalent, if you share my view of the GOP) distaste for President Obama.

No. The media should ignore this.  Oh, I don't quarrel with periodic diismissal of tis as a KOOK "theory", with NO real supporting "evidence".  But this HKYPONG of the "birther' thing is all about the media AGENDA, and nothing else.  The mediashuld do their best to IGNORE this, as they shuld have with Bsuh (and mostly did, while showing SYMPATHY for leftists who hated Bush so much they were willing to "believe" ANYTHING about him.  That, by the way, is the most obvius poof that the EVIL MEDIA is getting it wrong when they attributge the "birther" thing to RACISM.  It is really the SAME kind of PARTISAN hatred coming out that led to the Bush "9/11 conspiracy theory".  Except, as stated, it is actually MORE POSSIBLE that Obama's birth record in Hawaii is "fraudulent" than it is that President Bush could possibly be SO EEVIL as to be complicit in the killing of 3,000 Americans.  Oh, the Bush and Obama conspiracy theories SHARE the other problem shared by almost ALL "conspiracy" theories:  IMPOSSIBILITY OF GETTING AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOLE KNOW.  This kind of "secret" is TOO BIG to successfully keep, unless only 2 or three peole were 'in the know" (impossible for 9/11, and only slightly more possible for Obama's birth, onceou get to the alleged "forgery" of a birth certificate and all of the rest of the full-blown "conspiracy theory")

Sorry. It was long ago (2008) part of my 'you are a kook if:" series, and remains part of it.  You ARE a kook if you believe that there is substantial EVIDENCE that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya.  Yes, it also remains part of the "your are a kook if:" sries if you believe in the Bush "conspiracy theory".  You ARE a kook if you believe Bush was either "compicit" in the 9/11 attacks, or KNEW that they were gong to occur in advance.  Sure, Donald Trump is a kook.  Note that you can be a kok on one thing, but still be otherwise a ratinal, successful perso (whch the media will acknowledge only with regard to peole like Bill Maher and Michael Moore, but not with regard to peole they disagree iwth).  Now I am pretty much open to the idea that Donald Trump is an overall kook, but peole have blind spots.  I ave even labeled mYSELF as a kook (as to my positoin on whether women shuold ever have been given the vote).  That does NOT affet the falidity of the "your are a kook if:" series, which is aimed at the KOOKISMS and not at the peole who may believe in them.  That is not to say that it is to your credit that you believe in some koooky tings, but it does NOT totally discredit you aS to everything. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  Can the media "win" on this one?  If they ingore the "birther' allegatins, then SOME will acuse them of bias for that (as there is, by the way, as they would be MUCH more "open" to the idea that this is either "harmless" or has something to it worth "investigating", if the kooky idea is on the LEFT.  Remember the KOOK idea that the Down's Syndrome baby was not "really" that of Sarah Palin, and ow the media immeidatelyl tried to turn the actual facts on Bristol into an ISUE?  No. These are EVIL PEOPLE (our 'journalists") . My open 'invitation" remains as to any "journalist" out there who wants to defend tthe way your profession is now being PRACTICED.

No comments: