Are We Being Scammed By All of Them?

That question has entered my mind a hundred times since Obama produced what is supposed to be his long form birth certificate a few days ago. There are two, and ONLY two, possible answers to this. We either ARE being bamboozled by both Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Progressive, the Left AND the Right over this birth certificate issue, or the people in power on the Right are just so stinking scared of being lumped in with what the MSM and the far left have labeled as "fringe extremists" that they don't dare jump in on this issue.

Trump's recent attacks on Obama regarding the birth certificate did catch the MSM and the far left off guard a bit. He put so much pressure on them about the president's unwillingness to provide ANY documentation regarding his past that the MSM couldn't spin it into the far-right fringe extremism they would have liked to have done. Trump forced the hand of the president and he had to deal with the issue.

But instead of resolving the issue, all Obama accomplished was two things. First, he successfully salved the fears of enough people who, although they were coming to doubt the president's birth place, were not willing to really jump in with both feet to challenge him on the issue. Look at Michelle Backman and Sarah Palin and so many others on the right. When things first started looking like Trump was getting to Obama on this issue, most of those on the right, at least, we willing step up and tell the president to, at least, produce the certificate and get this issue behind us. But not ONE of them were willing to say, "You know, Mr. President, enough is enough. There are way too many questions rising about this issue. Either put up or we WILL demand a full scale investigation."

Instead, they sounded like a bunch of wimps imploring the president to do something to give them an out so they don't have to join ranks with the kooks of the far right.

So the president DOES produce a long form birth certificate. And before the mics at his press conference are even turned off, it seemed like a collective sigh of relief escaped the mouths of not just the far left nuts...but even those people many of conservatives have looked to as leaders in our fight to restore our country.

Not more than an hour or two after the certificate was released, Glenn Beck and his pals on his radio show were lampooning the "birthers" whom they just knew would question the validity of the document. Well, Mr. Beck, haven't you been telling us for years now to QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS and to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH? Yes, I think I remember you saying those things once or twice or a thousand times. How can you possibly think we will ever take you seriously with regards to those principles when you can't even take one second to question the validity of the document before you're ready to declare it legitimate.

I now question YOUR legitimacy. And I am one person I never thought would ever say that about you. I have been one of your biggest proponents. You see, Mr. Beck, I actually took you seriously and I DID question with boldness whether there is anything that can be done to substantiate the validity of that document. I DID do my research. And although, I cannot, unwaveringly state that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii and that there is NO legitimate birth certificate (you remember how hard it is to prove a negative), I CAN, without doubt, say that this document does leave me with far too many unanswered questions. There is no way I can look at the evidence before me and believe that this document is anything but a fake.

1. Despite some attempts from some to explain the multiple layers in the document when opened in Adobe Illustrator, there are sufficient numbers of other "experts" who claim that it is not possible for that to happen. There is more than enough discrepancy in 'expert' analysis to suggest that, there is something questionable about this document. Nothing is explained away or proven from this point alone.

2. However, explain to me how there is no chromatic distortions on this supposed scan of the original document? A chromatic distortion is those blue and red tints you see on opposite sides of the letterings when you zoom in on the image. Unless Hawaii has one of the most sophisticated scanners in existence, those distortions will ALWAYS show up in a scan. Some have suggested this is because it is a black and white image. Well, no it is not. The greenish watermark proves that to be false.

3. How do you explain the crisp watermark surrounding the text portion of the document, while the same watermark is clearly more diffused under the writings?

4. How do you explain the white glow around most of the lettering?

5. How do you explain how some letters in the mom's signature are clearly written from a pen (like a real signature would be) and others are crisp and without distortion, as a digital font would produce?

6. How do you explain the fact that this certificate has a registration number HIGHER than that of the Nordyke twins born a day AFTER Obama in the same hospital? When I first saw this one come up, I was honest enough to think it possible that the Recorder just simply had a pile of birth certificates to stamp and didn't take time to put them in chronological order...a reasonable explanation. Except for one thing. At the same time that the certificate is given a certificate number, it is also date stamped. The Nordyke twins' certificates were stamped three days AFTER Obama's.
7. How do you explain the curiosity that, although Americans were moving in the direction of becoming more respectful of black people, we still called them "negros" on birth certificates back then, not "blacks" as Obama's certificate shows? I have to continue my research on this. I would like to find the birth certificate of another black person born in Hawaii around that same time to clarify whether this is a legitimate question or not. But, that being said, has Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin researched this at all? They have far greater access to research than I do on these matters.

8. Does is not also make you wonder how his certificate shows the hospital name as something other than what it was called in 1961? The hospital had a different name in 1961, it was not named Kapiolani Maternity and Gynocological Hospital, it was called Kaokiolani Children's Hospital. It did not get the Kapiolani name until the mid-1970s when they merged.

9. Additionally, how is possible for his father to be from "Kenya", as the certificate states, when the country was not known as Kenya until 1964 (and even then it was known officially as the Republic of Kenya)? At the time of Obama's birth Kenya was a British Crown Colony and would have used "The Royal Crown Colony of Kenya" or similar wording on all official documents. Documents with the Term "Republic of Kenya" would NOT have been used prior to December 12, 1964

10. Why do the courts continue to refuse to hear any case questioning the legitimacy of Obama's constitutional qualifications for being president? Why is no one with a microphone asking that question for all the world to hear? Is it not the courts' job to determine issues of constitutionality?

11. With all the questions about the certificate still no one with a platform to speak is asking the questions about Obama's time in Indonesia. Was he really adopted? If so, did Lolo Soetoro really make him an Indonesian citizen? If so, didn't Indonesia require a person RESCIND all other citizenships prior to becoming an Indonesian citizen? Wouldn't that mean that Obama's mom would have had to reinstate his AMercian citizenship when he returned to AMerica? Where's that documentation....because if it doesn't exist then it doesn't matter WHERE he was born.

12. What's with the stinking social security numbers? Why is he using a Social Security number NOT assigned to him? Why is NO ONE asking about this...NO ONE is researching it?

13. And let's not forget about the numerous other questions arising about this man: why did he voluntarily give up his law license? Who does such a thing? Why was he NEVER the lone attorney on ANY case in which he worked WHEN he was an attorney? How did he get into Columbia in the first place...with his grades? What did he ever do to earn the position of Editor of the Harvard Law Review?

But my biggest question is this: with all this information...with all these questions going unanswered or challenged by virtually ANYONE with a serious microphone in their hands, whom do we now trust? Nobody, who legitimately wants to challenge what this president is doing to this country, can look at the information above (and so much more not mentioned) without feeling the honest need to get to the bottom of all this. And until such time as someone DOES take this seriously, we can no longer take them seriously. Is this country being systematically destroyed, as Glenn Beck surmised? Is Glenn Beck not contributing to that destruction by cavalierly belittling people who have legitimate questions about this president's qualifications for being president?

If I were a jurist in a trial determining the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, on constitutional grounds, there would be no reasonable doubt in my mind as to the fact that this document he produced is a flat out fake...that he is guilty of perpetrating the crime surrounding this forgery...that he has never once produced sufficient evidence to prove he has a legitimate claim to the presidency of the United States...and that we now face a constitutional crisis of our own as we now have to rescind everything he has done, or anyone ever appointed or hired by him has done.

Two Questions, Same Answer

While driving three hours yesterday to pick my son up from college for Easter break I was listening to various conservative personalities on the radio. One of the more common topics of conversation was, of course, Donald Trump and his plethora of controversial comments concerning Obama's birth certificate, eligibility to be president, authorship of his first book, associations with Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Both callers and hosts were asking the questions why was Trump's willingness to discuss these issues both controversial AND stirring the conservative pot? The answer to both questions is the same.

For decades now, Democrats have, through their conscious effort to take control of the mainstream media, controlled the dialog in this country. They have used their cohorts in the media to isolate and ostracize politically dangerous opponents and topics. Ever since the topic of Obama's birth certificate came to light nearly three years ago by the Clinton campaign, the Obama team has worked diligently with organizations like Media Matters, MSNBC and others to demonized and isolate those who suggest that Obama is not qualified to be president. And, until a few weeks ago, they were very successful in that effort.

Even staunchly conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had shied away from suggesting that Obama might not be qualified to be president. They both, along Centrist, Bill O'Reilly, have called the 'birthers' various disparaging names such as "kook", "whackos" and "extremists".

All that began to change when Trump stepped forward and opened all those cans of worms. He is the first big-name personality to stand up and question Obama's legitimacy as president. And although the Obama-media has tried to paint Trump into a lunatic corner, they have failed to realize that by opening those cans Trump has done one other thing as well. He's pulled the curtain back on the Obama-media. The far left media continues flailing away, telling anyone who will listen to ignore the man behind the curtain, but its too late.

More and more Americans are questioning Obama's legitimate claim to the Oval Office that not even the Obama-media can stop it. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are still checking over their shoulders and trembling at what the media can do, and has done in the past, to people who cross that boundary. Michelle Bachman, for example, comes out one day and suggests Obama should show the birth certificate and then the next day tells the media to stop asking questions about it. Governor Brewer of Arizona has a chance to sign a bill that would require presidential candidates to provide evidence of their natural born status, but vetoes it instead.

After decades of intimidation and ruining careers, the MSM still can instill fear in public figures. What GOP presidential hopefuls fear most, is actually coming to pass. Large numbers of GOP voters are questioning Obama's legitimacy as president and we want THEM to stop shying away from it. Just last week, a poll came out of Iowa suggesting that only 26% of GOP voters believe Obama was born in the United States. That leaves 74% of the voters these GOP Presidential hopefuls are courting questioning whether Obama has a right to even be president. The questions will HAVE to be answered or many GOP voters will feel the candidates are capitulating once again to the far left. But, what most GOP voters fail to realize is that this is a very complex issue.

Just once I would love to hear someone...anyone...express concern over the ramifications and consequences our country would face if, indeed, Obama ends up NOT being qualified to be president. Everything he ever did as president would be questioned and challenged...overturned and repealed. Every appointment made would be invalidated and every act performed by anyone appointed by him invalidated. Every court case heard by a judge, at any level, would have to be reheard. Every case prosecuted by an US Attorney appointed by him or by Holder, would have to be re-tried. Every bill he's signed, repealed...every executive order rescinded. Anyone damaged in any way by a law or order he's signed or by someone he's appointed would have grounds for suit.

The far left, no matter how much evidence is produced to show him ineligible, would not simply roll over. They would fight. We could face deeply rooted race riots. The unions would not accept such a turn over of their newly found powers. They, too, would fight. Our military could be put in the middle of a serious civil war.

Factions would vie for control of the Oval Office. Imagine the arguments: Obama and his closest people would not give up the office without a fight; Biden would think himself to be the legitimate successor, since he is VP; Boehner would claim Biden is out because he is part of the "ticket"; while Pelosi could claim she was the third in line when he first took office illegitimately and would have take over if it had been pursued right away; McCain could argue all of Obama's votes should be his; Hillary could claim she should have been the rightful DNC candidate and would have won.

Our economy could collapse in a heartbeat as the world would immediately consider our country unstable both politically and economically. Our currency could collapse overnight. The ramifications and consequences would be staggering. It definitely forces one to pause and consider whether or not we really even want to pursue this course...except we all know, as our parents tried to teach us, that right is right. When in doubt, do the right thing and face the consequences of your choices.

Liberals and the Abortion Debate

Liberals should really recuse themselves from the abortion debate in this country. They serious have no leg to stand on the debate. On one leg they rely upon the argument that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body. Even if you stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the being living inside of her body is not another human being, there is really nothing to support the conjecture that women, or anyone for that matter, have an inherent right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

In taking such a stance, liberals fail to recognize that we do not have the right to do anything we want with our bodies. We do not have the right to sell our bodies sexually. We do not have the right to put any drug we want into our bodies. For that matter, we don't, technically, have the right to even kill ourselves (though good luck in trying to punish that crime).

And in case the liberals hadn't noticed, even the First Lady advocates restrictions on what we can do to our bodies. She would like to penalize restaurants for serving fatty foods, or restrict what our schools serve our children.

Some other examples of what some on the left would like to do to control what we can and cannot do with our bodies:

--forbidding children from bringing their own school lunches
--forbidding smoking in public or in public buildings
--requiring motorcycle riders wear helmets
--outlawing trans-fats in restaurants

So, with the left wanting to control our freedom to make our choices in THOSE areas, why do they feel they can argue that society has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body in THIS instance?

The other leg that liberals try to stand on in their fight for abortion centers around the argument that what is inside the woman is NOT a human being with inherent rights. Again, this argument is loaded with hypocrisies.

If it is NOT a human being living inside the woman, what is it?

If government has the power to declare one segment of humanity to be "non-human", do they also have the potential power to declare other segments of humanity to be equally non-human? Don't think that's possible? How do you think the Nazis convinced the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s to agree to the extermination of the Jews...by indoctrinating the public to the idea that Jews were less than human. How do you suppose that certain segments of the Islamic world justify the extermination of the Jews or, for that matter, any infidel...by convincing the Islamic population that Jews and infidels are less than human. Is there any difference between that and what the world, in general, has done in convincing a vast majority of us that unborn children are less than human and therefore, without fundamental rights?

What's to stop government from declaring that anyone over 75 is non-human, or people who are out of work for more than a year, or pedophiles, or rapists? China, in their attempts to grapple with population issues have outlawed more than one child to a family. Look up sometime what China does to enforce that law. You'll be shocked at what you discover.

Additionally, how can liberals, on one hand, declare an unborn human to be unfit for fundamental rights while advocating animals have rights, or, as in the case with the pending UN resolution, that acts that endanger Mother Earth are a crime?

As I said when I first began this blog, I feel the key to conservatism is to be sensible. And that part of being sensible is to accept the fact that none of us have all the answers. And that even liberals have important elements to add to the debate over issues. But when anyone, liberal or otherwise, cannot provide even the most basic elements of common sense to their side of the debates, it makes it very difficult to give any credence to what they say.