Thursday, 31 January 2013

Of Birth Certificates...

...And Birth Rights.

Of one birth certificate, actually.

Guess whose.

And of the birth rights of us all.  But first things first.

Whether the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama was or was not born in a hospital in Honolulu, or rather was born in one in Mombassa,* is really ultimately immaterial to, and is a bit of a distraction from, the question about his eligibility for the office of the presidency of the United States.  Once he had declared - and definitively with the Long Form BC document that he officially released (and from the COLBs that were released before that; whose authenticity he never denied, but which have proven to be forgeries) - his paternity, he declared his ineligibility for the office.  But something else about the document that he released, as a true and correct copy of his original birth certificate on file in Hawaii, has made it itself very material to his case.  Because it is patently a fraudulent piece of work; and thus, to his ineligibility for the office because of his paternity is added the crime of trying to pass off a forged document as a copy of the real thing.  

And not just a crime.  But a felony.

That is to say: a federal crime.

And what is even more germane to the situation: a high crime.

And I don't need to investigate every site there is 'out there' trying to dismiss the allegation of the fraudulent nature of the officially-posted copy of his BC.  Specific details of the accusation may be fair game for a reply.  But one legitimate birth certificate couldn't possibly have as many things suspect, or outright erroneous, about it as this one has.  And any honest investigator would admit as much.  Or should. 

Handwritten notes on the border indicating that on the original, those blocks were missing their entries; more than one typewriter font used, indicating that it has been a cut-and-paste job; the presence of kerning, when typewriters didn't have that subtly of printing technique; the registration number showing evident signs of having been altered; the race of the asserted father not being a racial designation but a geographical one - and one that was not used for the purpose at the time anyway; a check mark used in one instance as opposed to a typewriter's X marks; a happy face in a signature - the list of anomalies and outright outrageous fraudulent details goes on and on and on .

It is a travesty.  

The whole thing is a travesty.  


This is a nation, and the fate of that nation, that we're talking about.  Not a schoolboy's prank.

And where have you been about it all, supposed Opposition party?  Supposed 'Republicans'??

Hardly the response of supposed defenders of the Republic..  You take the name in vain.  And disgrace it.

It remains to be seen how these erstwhile defenders of the Republic act on the introduction, pressing now, of major gun legislation.  And so, on to that subject part of this admittedly angry blog.

I have tried the equanimity 'thing' in this matter.  But it is just too outrageous.

This matter, of the pending overthrow of the American Republic, and its submersion (and subversion) into a region of the New World Order of some tyrannically-minded parties - of both the nominal Left AND the Right.  Controlled, as they are, at the top of the pyramid of power on the planet by the same nest of vipers.  But for now, the Left is nominally in power in America.  And it is that crowd in particular that I now address, in an Open Letter mainly to them.     

Dear Tree Huggers & Champions of Equality:

Anyone who advocates gun confiscation without simultaneously standing for the cultivation of a spiritual understanding of life - just advocating the confiscation for its own sake, in  a sort of secular humanistic gesture - is far more of a danger to society than a well-armed citizenry, capable of defending itself against the potential oppression of the state.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Move up into a new, higher state of consciousness, or forget about such (currently constitutionallhy-guaranteed) quaint notions as individual rights.  You will be overwhelmed with, and by, the power of the state to dictate to you down even to the minute details of your life.  

Which, of course, is what a major portion of the Left wants; so that there will only be good little citizens of the state, living in their mental straightjackets.  'Leave people free to pollute the environment?  Oh no - can't have that.  Can't have free people.  Need good little citizens of the state, whose 'experts' know what is best for us.  What?  What about individual rights??  Oh dear me no - can't have that, now can we, if we want results.  There are only group rights anymore, you see.  And the group will dictate to the individual how he or she must behave.  Because otherwise - oh my; what all terrible things individuals might get up to, if given half a chance.  Oh no.  That day is past.  Can't you see the trouble that has caused on the planet?  Wake up, friend.  It's now the day of The New Soviet Man..  

Oops - excuse me.  A little slip in the terminology there.  Apologies.  [To the observing devices; smiling] I didn't mean it!  [Then back to the conversation] Habits do die hard, don't they, ha ha.  It is of course the day of the New Soviet Human

Or Hu-person. 

Or something.

Have to check the latest directive on that one…Can't run foul of the authorities…You never know what might happen to you, doncha know…..'

Yes.  I do.  From history.

I jest.

But barely.  

And so I ask:

Who is John Galt???

And when can we have a little better - a little more detailed - thinking on this matter, than is currently passing for the nation's dialogue on it.  

At least, as I have observed.

And I'm trying to keep a close eye on it all.

Being involved in mankind, as I am.

Or humankind…..




* the latter claim for which there is some evidence.  And Obots: please stop trying to obfuscate the matter by claiming that his paternal 'acting' grandmother denied that she was present at his birth in Mombassa.  I have listened to that tape, all the way through; and it is obvious, or should be, to any objective listener, that a) she declared that she was present (and as I recall, said it more than once, in reply to repeated questions over the telephone); and that b) some of those present during the phone call got to her and told her to deny what she had said, and say instead that he was born in Hawaii - and say it a couple of times, for emphasis.
     They failed similarly to get to a Kenyan official, who subsequently made the same claim, during another phone conversation (with a different party; this time, a couple of guys at a radio station in Detroit, I believe it was), about Obama's birth place.  And then there is also Obama's official bio, back in the '90s, where he gave the info that he was born in Kenya…  
     Would the real Obama please stand up, and own his real nativity story???       

No comments: