This birther nonsense becoming a big problem for the GOP

Ooops sorry!!! Here’s the finished project:

md: What a sad, sad, fragmented little world you must live in!!!

1) The man posted his birth certificate on line, (OR what the state of Hawaii issues for birth certificates); you people go nuts screaming “CONSPIRACY!! FRAUD!!! FIRE!! FIRE!!!”

2) The STATE OF HAWAII VERIFIES the certificate as legal AND that it came from Hawaii; you people go nuts screaming “CONSPIRACY!!! LIES!!! FRAUD!!! FIRE!! FIRE!!!

3) The REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF HAWAII VERIFIES the legitimacy of the certificate that CAME FROM HAWAII and claims its AUTHENTIC; you people go nuts screaming ““CONSPIRACY!!! LIES!!! FRAUD!!! FIRE!! FIRE!!!

I mean if JESUS came down from heaven and said “Here ye, thou art a fool, this man was born in the US he IS a US citizen”; you people would scream “JESUS is a LIAR!!!! CONSPIRACY!!! LIES!!! FRAUD!!! FIRE!! FIRE!!!

So, what’s the point? NOTHING I could say, No FACTS that can be given to you from ANYBODY would change you mind…….so why not just go and look at a shiny object and amuse yourself for a couple of hours………….

• Link
• Report this comment

I recall a parent who took off the door to his daughter’s bedroom because “if she’s not doing something wrong, she shouldn’t have anything to hide.”
I suggest that if Bush didn’t have to prove he wasn’t a moron and Cheney didn’t have to prove he wasn’t a deranged sadist, Obama shouldn’t have to cater to the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is to the room in general, not any one person in particular:

For the umpteenth time:

1. It is not a birth certificate it is a certification of live birth. They are not the same. The COLB does not prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. I have shown this over and over and over again.

2. I am not challenging the COLB’s legality, I am pointing out that it does not prove he is a naturalized citizen.

3. Same answer as 2: I am not challenging its authenticity. I am pointing out that it does not prove he is a naturalized citizen.

The simplest (and I do mean “simplest”) way to get past these facts is just to ignore them and keep screaming the same points – even though they have been answered – as loudly as possible. Lamentably, that is what we are seeing here.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is to no one in particuliar

SEE TOLD YA!! No matter what proof you give them, no matter WHAT the facts say, these people will go nuts screaming ““CONSPIRACY!!! LIES!!! FRAUD!!! FIRE!! FIRE!!!

Hey birthers, look out there a big fat FACT behind you!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken Berwitz: I have not the slightest idea.

But what you are suggesting is that Obama ran for President knowing he was not eligible and hoped that he could keep the birth certificate locked away — i.e., that no one would leak it or that there was no other copy floating around somewhere (e.g., in his passport application). He had to assume or hope that his opponents in the primaries would not dig it up and that his opponent in the general election would not. Whatever you may think of Obama, he his not stupid. Does that sound plausible to you?

• Link
• Report this comment

tmkls – Of course it sounds plausible to me. Why? Because, in order of your points, he did run, and there is no copy floating around (reasonable enough since he is the only one who can ask to have it “floated”).

Let me,again, try the high hard one down the middle of the plate. If there is no problem with his original birth certificate, why has he gone this far for this long to prevent it from being made public?

Let me also say that I don’t claim to know for certain what his citizenship status is. But I do know that the harder he tries to prevent us from seeing anything decisive the less confident I am that he has nothing to hide. I would hope you agree.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken: As to your middle of the plate question — I have no idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have not followed this all too closely — I have a job and family to occupy most of my time. But as I understand it, the question is whether Obama meets the standard of being a “natural born citizen.” The difficulty is the Constitution itself does not define what a nbc is. There is no legislation passed by Congress that clearly defines it. And the Supreme Court has never provided a definitive definition. One needs to tease it out of various regulations, common law and some related but not clearly defintive court decisions. Even if this matter made it to SCOTUS, it would almost certainly rule it a nonjusticable political question to be settled by the other branches (as it often does on war powers issues).

• Link
• Report this comment

tmkls – Maybe this will clear things up. This is verbatim from the Department of State:

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

So the issue of whether Mr. Obama is a citizen rests on whether or not he was born in Hawaii. If he was, there is no issue and he is a naturalized citizen. If he wasn’t, there is no issue, he is not a naturalized citizen.

Now: Where is the birth certificate?

• Link
• Report this comment

md: You’re funny!!! At least you have a sense of humor!!! Let’s see, since Jesus was born in the Middle East AND because he “probably” never set foot in America, (although many have seen him in clouds, bread crumbs, toast, etc.); he could, by definition, be termed an “illegal”. The only problem with that is that Jesus, since he’s the son of god and helped make mankind, yadda, yaddda, yadda, would probably get upset with anyone calling him an “illegal alien” and would probably bring death and destruction to the person who even intimated at it.

So, NO Jesus is not an alien; he is a Citizen Of The World, and that includes America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken:But I have read others claiming that the issue is not where he was born, but whether his father was a citizen. And I thought this issue is not whether he is a “naturalized citizen,” but whether he is a “natural born citizen.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Did Obama have to produce his birth certificate to get a passport, which I assume he has? I did.

• Link
• Report this comment

tmkls – I have no idea where you would have seen that. I don’t think anyone here – even the people whose only contribution is insults and sarcasms – are claiming that Obama’s father was a US citizen.

If Obama’s father were a citizen, it would mean that both parents are citizens and would end the issue right there. The fact that he was not a citizen makes Obama’s citizen status subject to the rules governing one-parent citizens I just put up a few minutes ago. As you can see, for births between 1952 and 1986 (that would include Obama) his mother would not meet the requirement and therefore he wouldn’t be a naturalized citizen.

These aren’t my rules, they’re the country’s rules. And (this is not directed at you tmkls) calling someone who points it out an “ignorant moron” isn’t contributing anything but mindless name-calling.

• Link
• Report this comment

How many of you idiots have two birth certificates?

• Link
• Report this comment

Again, Ken tells lies. He claims the above ^^^ info was taken from the State Department yet, he won’t give the link of the State Department where the info supposedly came from. Why? Does he have something to hide? I mean, how could Ken even REMEMBER VERBATIM the info he just quoted? Why won’t he provide the LINK to where he got this info? Was it REALLY the State Department’s link or was it “We Are Wack Jobs Hatchet People.com:” links?

I can provide the link to the US Constitutuion that states unequivocally everything that I’ve pasted in the blog concerning citizenship. I didn’t make it up out of thin air…..unlike Ken. He knows what he’s saying are lies, but just like Satan himself, he feels if he keeps saying it he’ll turn a lie into the truth.

US Constitution Link: Website: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Ken SHOW US THE LINK

• Link
• Report this comment

Indulging the childishness one last time: I haven’t refused to provide the link, no one asked me to.

The link is http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Now I won’t even answer her third-person. Why waste energy on someone like this.

• Link
• Report this comment

Went to the Oh so Wise one’s link and again he has lied. He only posted HALF of the story folks!! that’s why you gotta READ IT FOR yourself and don’ depend on these whack jobs to TELL YOU what it says!!! This isn’t a 3rd world country!! Everyone in America SHOULD be able to read!!

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

It doesn’t say anything about that “five years rule” it says that she had to have been a citizen AND physically present in the US for at least one year and since his mother was 18 when he was born….well……you do the math!!!

Basically it says IF Obama was born out of the country and his mother was a US citizen, then HE IS A US Citizen. But that’s beside the point because Obama was born in the US!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

md: No, but he travelled overseas many times before he flew on AF-1.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh for god sake. This idiot (sorry, that’s the only word that fits) did not post what it says. Here is what it says, verbatim – pay special attention to the last sentence (Obama was born in 1961).

Here is what it says:
——————————————————-
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
————————————————————-

If you doubt me, read it for yourself at http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

End of story.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken: I am trying hard to understand this. Didn’t Obama have to prove to our government’s satisfaction that he was a citizen to acquire a passport? And since one his parents was not a citizen (his father) when he was born, he had to prove that was born in the U.S.. Thus, he must have proven already to our government’s satisfaction that he was born in Hawaii, no?

• Link
• Report this comment

What is wrong with this logic:

1. To get a passport, one needs to prove citizenship.

2. Since Obama’s father was not a citizen at Obama’s birth, Obama could only be a citizen if he was born in the U.S..

3. Obama was granted a U.S. Passport (long ago).

4. Therefore, he has already proven to our government’s satisfaction that he was born in the U.S. (since that is the only way he could be a citizen).

• Link
• Report this comment

Also, Obama was NOT born overseas. No one can prove that he was!! However, there is DOCUMENTED PROOF that he was born right here in the good ole USofA!! DOZENS of people, including the Republican governor of Hawaii, have seen the OFFICIAL birth certificate and can attest to this.

There are those of you who would look at the real birth certificate and STILL claim that it’s false; so no matter WHAT anyone says you’re gonna cry “FOUL!!” So, have your sick, twisted, little fantasies. Waste your money on legal fees, (hey, as someone who’s studying law, I’d be more than happy to take your money — gotta pay those tuition fees); waste your sanity on a non-issue; cause, and get this, it’s all for NOTHING. Nothing is gonna change!!!

So cry, lament, bang your empty heads against the wall, scream at the wind; it doesn’t matter!! NOTHING is gonna change!!! But hey, I’d be more than happy to represent you once I get my law degree, (even though I’m studying to become a tax attorney); because lawyers’ gotta eat too!!!

Enjoy your madness!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0ET4iIpDpo&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?start=1229785467

WND’s investigator is Jorge Baros, “the in-house senior investigator for Elite Legal Services, LLC, in Royal Palm Beach, Fla.” Interestingly, he appears to be a director of something called the Association of Christian Investigators. Baro also has apparent ties to a group called Godly Men of Integrity, a Georgia-based men’s ministry born out of the Promise Keepers.

It’s clear that Baro lacks a notable piece of integrity, because he buys into false right-wing conspiracy theories about the birth certificate:

“This raised the question in my mind as to whether the ‘Certification of Live Birth,’ which is the only document that has been produced and as previously stated solely handled by the representatives of factcheck.org outside Obama’s campaign, is a certification of a live birth or a late birth,” Baro stated in his affidavit.

“I am left with the conclusion that a simple request from Senator Barack Obama to produce the ‘long form’ (redacted if necessary) would end any speculation or question as to his birthplace,” Baro’s affidavit continued. “His continued denial to do so is suspect, in my professional opinion.”

Baro also pointed out that factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which “is at the center of the ongoing Obama-Bill Ayers controversy – hardly an unbiased source for information in my view.”

Neither Corsi nor Baro make mention of the fact that Walter Annenberg, whose money supported the foundation, was a prominent Republican )as we’ve noted). If Corsi and Baro want a less “unbiased source” for this claim, how about … WorldNetDaily?

A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.

Baro’s an private investigator, and he couldn’t find this? Maybe WND’s paying him to hush it up. That might explain why WND won’t talk about now.

Will WND disclose to its readers how much it’s paying Baro for such paltry results? If Baro is accepting money to further WND’s increasingly dishonest anti-Obama jihad, he can’t be much of a “Christian investigator,” can he?

P.S. If WND is so eager to hire private eyes to gather negative information on those who it perceives as its enemies — Corsi wrote that “Baro sent a team of investigators to Honolulu” — isn’t that unseemly for an alleged news organization? And does that mean that we’re next?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken: But according to the State Dept website first time applicants for a U.S. Passport must “submit evidence of U.S. citizenship.” One has to be a citizen, and there are only two types of citizens — natural born (a citizen at birth) or naturalized (citizenship acquired through legal process after birth).

• Link
• Report this comment

tmkls – Yes, of course he has used his passport to travel (I don’t know how much he used it before becoming President, it may have been a long time). And I acknowledge that his CURRENT passport probably would not yield any decisive information about citizenship status, other than that he is a citizen per se (not how/when/under what circumstances).

I was thinking more of his passport when he was shuttling to Indonesia and then back to the USA.

• Link
• Report this comment

Again, at some point I would hope that, as a matter of simple logic, some of Mr. Obama’s defenders would wonder why every way of checking his citizenship has been made unavailable to us.

• Link
• Report this comment

But only “natural born” citizens are eligible, not “naturalized” citizens — Kissinger is a naturalized citizen but is ineligible to be President. Since there is no record of Obama having gone through a naturalization process to become a citizen, the only way he can be a citizen (which he had to prove to get a Passport) is to be a natural born citizen — i.e., born in the U.S. to at least one U.S. citizen parent.

• Link
• Report this comment

Clark – was there a point of some kind in there? Maybe a fact to dispute anything I said?

Your post is illustrative of what I’ve been shaking my head (and occasionally laughing out loud) about.

An exchange of views needs views from both sides. Your post begins and ends with sarcasm, no facts of any kind.

I hope for your sake that you do better than that in the real world.

• Link
• Report this comment

tmkls – I don’t know for sure how to answer you. The Certification of Live Birth may have been enough to get him the passport. That’s just a guess.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dammit! Guiliana is alas NOT a birther.

Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!

You birthers better start flooding his e-mail account.

Good Luck

• Link
• Report this comment

With one exception the comments that Ken Berwitz has made (and I have read) are accurate. McCain’s parents were not “naturalized” citizens they were in fact US citizens from birth. They were not foreign born; therefore, they did not require the naturalization process to become citizens. Both McCains’s father and grandfather were US Navy admirals.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve found that when someone says “I dispute all your facts” they aren’t saying anything. That usually is just a flip-off comment which substitutes for inability to put up a reasonable argument.

If Clark had any facts to dispute what I’m posting, do you doubt you’d see them? Instead he tosses out the invective (I’ll add “crazy” to the growing list) and that’s supposed to settle the issue.

Me, I prefer facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

DebbieDoRight,

Your reference to citizenships states “Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother”. Ken’s references “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock”. You do recognize the difference? Obama’s parents were married; therefore the “in Wedlock” provision (with the five year clause) applies. If he was born in Hawaii, neither applies. However, he would have been born with dual citizenship – the British (Kenya was a colony) have similar clauses about births abroad, and his father was very definitely of British not US citizenship.

• Link
• Report this comment

tnvret: DebbieDoRight, Your reference to citizenships states “Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother”. Ken’s references “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock”. You do recognize the difference? Obama’s parents were married; therefore the “in Wedlock” provision (with the five year clause) applies.

I picked that reference because his parents could not have been legally married if his father was already married to another woman. Unless of course, they were mormons.

If he was born in Hawaii, neither applies. However, he would have been born with dual citizenship – the British (Kenya was a colony) have similar clauses about births abroad, and his father was very definitely of British not US citizenship.

Yes, he would’ve been born with dual citizenship however at the age of 21 Kenyan law states that he had could not hold dual citizenship. So, at 21 he had the choice to denounce his American Citizenship (which he did not do), to become a Kenyan citizen. Therefore, from 21 to present he is NOT a citizen of Kenya. Kenya was freed from British Rule in 1963.

• Link
• Report this comment

Incidentally, two of my posts (one of which answers every “point” Clark tried to make in his “propeller head” post) are, for some reason that I can’t tell, still waiting to be moderated. I expect both will be visible at some point in the near future.

• Link
• Report this comment

tnvret: The real essence is how “natural born” is legally accepted.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually the reason someone is Democrat thanks to ‘more education’ is that they have been exposed to more liberal tripe than anyone else. Our public system is illegal and rife with bias and taken over by the Goalie 2000 crowd…instilling liberal values about Marxism.

Just look at the mess this creep Obama has made in just 120 days.. whew.

• Link
• Report this comment

The public (education?) system is illegal?

• Link
• Report this comment

What this birther thing is really about is the wack-job THEOCRATIC FASCIST Joseph Farah, his WND underlings and groupies spreading this disinformation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Key Birther Lawyer Was Disbarred … In 2004

http://washingtonindependent.com/51798/key-birther-lawyer-was-disbarred-in-2004

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken,

Buddy. You are the crazy wing of your party.

No-one in your party is really, save the radio wackos, sticking up for your silly opinions. I actually wish they would and you would bring a Senator down with you. So far they have been pretty quiet. Republicans, these days, have to twist themselves in knots to keep the nutty vote. It’s at least 30% of the party.

You, Ken, are a member of that 30% and you are dragging your party down.

Congratulations!

Good Luck

PS I’m am not going to spend my whole night refuting every idiotic point you make. Keep looking at borders, driving yourself crazy over 401k’s and paragraph 4, item 7, of the Hawwiaan(sp) citizenship code. It’s funny to watch a moron get blinded by the trees when their is a forrest burning down right in front of him.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m back at my computer and I just saw the last two comments from Clark (who stayed up until 3AM eastern time, long after I was asleep, to post them).

Since they are loaded with insults and invective, and they make assumptions about me (party affiliation, what I think of the health care issue) that he doesn’t know a thing about, I won’t respond to them.

If he, or anyone else, wants a discussion of facts, I have no problem with that. But insults and assumptions (wrong, by the way: I’ve never registered with either party and vote for both Democrats and Republicans) are useless.

• Link
• Report this comment

I just thought of this one Kenny:

The “birther” movement is stillborn. Get it? Stillborn! Ba-dum-bum chee!

This is a tough crowd!

Good Luck

• Link
• Report this comment

Incidentally, for anyone here who cares, I don’t know about this “birther” thing. I’m someone with an opinion on an issue. I don’t belong to a group or cult or anything associated with this or any other issue.

It is a hallmark of people who don’t have very much intelligent to say, that they try to “classify” people into groups that they can then demonize. It’s a lot easier than trying to discuss facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

tmkls – it would not surprise me if the Certification of Live Birth was enough to generate a passport. That said, however, I don’t know for sure what the answer is.

But it still – and always – begs the question of why he will not make his actual birth certificate available. If it says what he claims it says, why in the world would this be any problem at all? Is there some secret about which hospital he was born in or what the doctor’s name is?

Common sense – not adherence to any group or philosophy, just plain common sense – tells me that if the birth certificate was what he claims, he’d have done so long ago, and the only reason he has not is that it isn’t what he claims.

• Link
• Report this comment

But then that means that the U.S. government accepts a certificate of live birth as sufficient evidence of citizenship. Someone has told me, however, the a CLB is not accepted by the State Dept, only a “certified birth certificate” (though I have not been able to verify this). If a CLB is not accepted, then other sufficient documentation must have been provided.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe I’m being a little unfair to you Ken. Let me see if I understand the jist of your argument.

You’re saying that Obama’s mama gave birth to him in Kenya, then went to Hawaii and pretended that his birth happened there. The problem that you have is not whether his mother was an American, she was, but that he, meaning baby Obama, was not born on American soil. So this is a soil problem. It’s not about the election, it is about soil. Kenyan soil.

Maybe his mother did do that. Who knows? Obama henchman faked his birth certificate, err, I’m sorry, Certificate of Live Birth, and is perpetratin’ a fraud. That Son Of A Bitch!

I’m with you Kenny Boy. I’m marchin’ to Washington, brother!

Good Luck

• Link
• Report this comment

Ken:

1. He has already proven to satisfaction of the US government that he is a citizen, and since there is not a single shred of evidence that he went through a naturalization process, the reasonable presumption is that he (or his mother) has already provided documentation that he is natural born citizen.

2. Releasing the “vault copy” (if that is what one calls it) will end nothing. You may be satisfied, but the internet and you-tube will be filled with charges of FAKE! FORGERY! It will NOT end the controversy.

3. I would not give a small minority of people who do not want me to be president anyway the satisfaction of caving into their demands. If he is legally required to show his full birth certificate, make a court order him to do so.

4. He wants the controversy to continue and consume the GOP because it makes the GOP base look silly to the vast majority of Americans.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It is a hallmark of people who don’t have very much intelligent to say, that they try to “classify” people into groups that they can then demonize.”

True, a conservative would NEVER classify or demonize anyone.

• Link
• Report this comment

Per John Stewert:

“Barack O’Bama is running the old Kenyan birth announcement scam. Here’s how it goes: You want to destroy America from the inside, but you can’t, because you’re a foreigner. So first you gotta find a good ole American willing to reproduce with you. Then you HAVE that child on foreign soil while simultaneously placing the birth announcement in one our “fringe” states local newspapers; your Hawaiis, your Alaskas, your Pennsylvanias. And then…and then…you wait until this baby is a middle-aged man. Now the trap is set! You just sit back and let that child win the election for president of the United States. Now here’s where the scam gets tricky: They can’t just win the popular vote, he’s also got to win the electoral college—that’s what trips up most grifters. But if you pull it off, you and your puppet child can just sit back and destroy the fabric of the country you hate so much. It’s almost too easy.”

Good Luck

• Link
• Report this comment