Main Menu

Discarded by Citizen Wells

I was patroling Google this morning and happened on a run-of-the-mill misinformation article at the Citizen Wells blog. It said: “I have two powerful sources that indicate that Obama was born on Kenya.”

I replied:

Barack Obama is eligible to be president because he was born in one of the United States. Never mind who his parents were.

All of this “born in Kenya” stuff is a combination of unsourced rumors and misrepresentations of the “grandmother” tape (and other sources).

In fact Obama’s grandmother says he was born in Hawaii, his uncle Sayid says he was never in Kenya until he was an adult visiting his fathers grave, Hawaiian newspapers have his birth announcement, and oh yes, he has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

The above is documented at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

If you don’t come in with an open mind, perhaps you’ll leave with one.

But Commissar Wells has my IP address blocked, so when I tried to submit the comment, a one-word response was shown: “discarded”.  They’ve made their choice: print rumors, censor truth.

, , ,

31 Responses to Discarded by Citizen Wells

  1. avatar
    Sally Hill February 14, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    I’m not saying Citizen Wells is correct, but I’m not saying you are either. Myself, I would prefer to wait until ALL the FACTS are out – and to date – NONE of the facts are out because Obama wishes to continue to have them ALL sealed. The similiaries to Chester Arthur’s behavior is very ironic. I don’t care what anyones granny said. While I totally believe he was born in Hawaii, I have doubts as to who is father really was. Divorce papers don’t come with DNA tests attached for paternity. I think Obama believes Obama Sr. was his father and therefore in his mind, he was born with dual loyalities. Natural born or not – that is a dangerous mindset for an American President.

    I guess you could dismiss that issue as having no merit, but Obama’s actions must then be explained away if you take that route. Did he travel to Kenya well after his 21st birthday and campaign for Odinga out of paternal loyalty or because he agreed with Odinga politically?

    Natural born or not –
    1. He has proven he has dual-loyalites (at a minimum)
    OR
    2. He agrees with Odinga politically – i.e. in Sharia Law
    OR
    3. He has no political or personal integrity and will campaign for anyone for any reason, whether he agrees or disagrees with them. (and doing so at the expense of the US taxpayer is egregious in my opinion)

    This is not someone I want for my President. Of course, he is and unlike the last 8 years of Bush bashing, I will NOT bash him. However, I respect the office, not the man.

    The shear fact that we are discussing this issue – that you have a whole blog created to this issue – gives it credence. There are just too many questions out there surrounding this man who now goes by the name Barack Obama.

    He campaigned on the platform of transparancy – now that he won, I’d like to see some of that transparancy.

  2. avatar
    mimi February 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    Media Matters say that the Odinga story is false. The article is too big. Quotes Politico and Polifact. As well as WND.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200810220014

  3. avatar
    richCares February 14, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    “Odinga out of paternal loyalty or because he agreed with Odinga politically”
    no sense trying to convice this idiot, he doesn’t want facts, he is allegic to facts, his preferrence is bull pupu and nothing will change that other than anti-delusion medicatiosn.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    Sally, whoever Barack Obama’s father was, the documentary evidence is (based on our beloved COLB) is Barack Hussein Obama. You can speculate about Frank Marshall or Malcolm (or the reptoids for that matter), but the paperwork isn’t going to say that.

    While Odinga claims to be a cousin of Obama, the Obama family in Kenya are saying no. They are descended from the same tribe, or are they?

    See the article The pride of a people: Barack Obama, the Luo which questions the tribal link.

    This blog is really about conspiracy theories, and not who we like as president.

  5. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    I find amusing the birthers’ argument that a baby born of two parents, one of whom is a non-citizen, has dual loyalties at birth. A baby’s only loyalty is to its mother’s breast. DNA does not determine allegiance.

  6. avatar
    Hitandrun February 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    Dear richCares,

    On the outside chance you may have missed the hypotheitical (admittedly remote) I posed for your consideration on another thread, here it is again:

    In the light of your oath to “support and defend the constitution” of our Republic, were it proven to your satisfaction that Mr Obama was indeed foreign-born, what would you recommend be done? I ask only that you refrain from the mindless yet anxious ridicule we’ve come to expect from all sides on this issue.

    Thanks again for your service,
    Hitandrun

  7. avatar
    Hitandrun February 14, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    Yet Mr Obama admits to that very dual citizenship, whose essential ingredients you scoff at.

    Hitandrun

  8. avatar
    richCares February 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    “were it proven to your satisfaction that Mr Obama was indeed foreign-born”

    The opposite has benn proven, I am from Hawaii, we all know where Obama was born, that includes Republicans (Remember the Gov Linda Lingle is a Republican.)I and majority of Americans that support Obama have no interest in your conspiracy, you don’t seem to get it Obama won and most Americans are happy with that. Your qusetion is ridiculous and is based on false rumours! Now call me when you get a case that can pass muster! Remember, no court will act on the rumors you people have deluded yourself with.

  9. avatar
    Hitandrun February 14, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Thank you, richCares.

    Is your response a typical ‘Obot’ evasion? Please do not feel constrained to ‘reply’ any further.

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Dual citizenship “ain’t no thang.”

    It has no legal significance. One might consider it when voting.

  11. avatar
    richCares February 14, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    no evasion, your hypothical is out of line and not related to reality, typical question for a for a _____________

  12. avatar
    bob acosta February 14, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    Interesting hypothetical, but don’t ask that one in court, the laughter may hurt your eardrums! Where do you people come up with this stuff? Like it has some meaning to anyone! go back to your delusional blog, you will be happier there, convince yourself that these court cases will succeed!

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    While I have not sworn to defend the Constitution, I have pledged allegiance to the Republic quite a few times.

    If it turned out that President Obama was born in Kenya (convincing evidence, not rumors), I would contact my US Representative, and suggest that the House vote articles of Impeachment against Obama. And if my Representative refused to do that, I wouldn’t vote for him next time…uh, come to think of it, I didn’t vote for him last time.

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 14, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    Actually, under the Constitution, I don’t think it would be grounds for impeachment, unless it were also shown to be a result of deliberate fraud on the part of Obama (and not his parents).

    I think its pretty far fetched as far as Obama’s case, given manifest improbability of the purported travel to/from Kenya at the time of his birth, but you could imagine a hypothetical candidate with a home birth on the US/Mexican or US/Canadian border. This is the Chester Arthur situation – he was purportedly born in Vermont, but his political adversaries claimed he was born in Canada, where his parents had also resided at times during his childhood.

    When it comes to issues such as birth or ancestry, the law often has to rests on presumptions and not actual proof. For example, there is a legal presumption of paternity that assumes that all children born during marriage are the natural offspring of their mother’s then-husband, at last absent firm proof to the contrary. We know that presumption can be iffy — but we stick with it because it is more predictable and certain than requiring paternity tests in every case.

    The law affords a similar presumption to the validity of public records such as birth certificates — so if Chester Arthur believed he was born in Vermont – a fact documented in his case by the family bible — I don’t think he could have been later impeached based on testimony or other documentary proof to the contrary.

    Would it be a constitutional crisis if a person who mistakenly believed he was born in the US when in fact born abroad became President? No more so than the multiple cases of Congressmen & Senators who have been sworn in and served despite being below the legal age for qualification as set by the Constitution. Our Constitution is not so fragile that our country would implode in the event of a mistake.

    I think it is far more troubling when Congress passes laws, or the President issues orders, that clearly are in violation of the Constitution — and of course this has happened dozens of times in our history, often resulting in significant loss to the people who were victims of the laws later determined to be unconstitutional.

  15. avatar
    Ian Gould February 14, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    So let’s see -Obama has publicly stated his father was Barack Obama Sr. and released documents listing Obama as his father.

    But he’s hiding his long form birth certificate because it might reveal that his father was … Barack Obama Sr.

    As for Raila Odinga:

    Odinga is an Anglican.

    during the election, his predominantly Christan party made an alliance iwth a majority-Muslim party.

    A document was circulated on the internet claiming Odinga had agreed to support the institution of Sharia.

    Both parties have declared this document ot be a fraud.

    Almost a year after Odinga’s eelction, Sharia has not been declared.

    It’s just more lies and slander.

    The lies are particularly loathsome in this case because Odinga and his follwowers were the target of a campaign of murder and intimidation orchestrated by supporters of former President Kibaki.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    The birther presumption is that Obama, having access to all the documentation they lack, knows full well that he’s not eligible.

    Donofrio’s thesis was that Chester Arthur was fully aware that he was ineligible too (not because he was born in Canada, but because his father was not a citizen).

  17. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 14, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    Yeah, but Donofrio’s thesis was nutty — he was trying to rationalize his way around the obvious fact that there is established precedent for US-born sons of non-citizen parents becoming President. I’d say that his Chester Arthur “discovery” is the point at which he really went off the deep end.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    But not without doing a great deal of damage first.

  19. avatar
    Hitandrun February 15, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    Thank you, Doc, for your civil reply. Hope it spreads to your fellow travellers. Perhaps you could minister to their souls as well.

    Hitandrun

  20. avatar
    David Fowler August 13, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    Give up people, and get with reality. Support our elected president and let’s work together to strengthen our country!

  21. avatar
    Mitchina January 4, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    “Don’t know about 9/11 conspiracy, but do know from DC source that an Administration team is working on perfecting a forgery of the long-form birth certificate. They plan on presenting it in a a month or so. The source is FBI agent who has drinking buddy from University of Illinois now in the Administration. Its second hand, but the source is supposed to be solid.

    They have already prepared the forgery with special paper and ink. The document was printed on a fully functional 1960 Heidelberger printing press located at a print museum in Toronto. Access was arranged by a trustee of the museum who is connected to a large Canadian banking/investment firm with major US interests.”

  22. avatar
    NBC January 4, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    Funny how these myths continue… What a fool…

  23. avatar
    Black Lion January 4, 2010 at 3:10 pm #

    Wasn’t this myth pushed a few months ago? The birthers must be getting desparate….How do these stories get recycled is beyond me…

  24. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    I know Toronto pretty well and have never heard of a printing museum there. A Google search finds the birther stories but nothing at all about any such museum. There is a shoe museum in Toronto (established by the Bata family of the Bata shoe company) as well as the Hockey Hall of Fame.

  25. avatar
    NBC January 4, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    Heidelberg in Movie

    From a museum in CA with an owner in Toronto…

  26. avatar
    NBC January 4, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    Don Black’s printing presses

  27. avatar
    NBC January 4, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    Others claim the press was bought in the UK

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    I featured this silly rumor in April of 2009 in the article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/the-long-form-coming-to-a-theater-near-you/

  29. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    And the movie that had the press in it starred Will Smith, the actor who most resembles Obama. Co-incidence? I should say not.

    By the way, I think the museum says the one in the movie was from their collection, not the company (not a museum) in Toronto.

  30. avatar
    Rickey January 4, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    One blogger claimed (back in April) that the museum is the “National Museum of Science and Technology” in Toronto. I don’t know Toronto that well, but Google turned up no record of a museum with that name. The closest thing I can find is the Ontario Science Center.

    Of course, back in April the birthers were claiming that the forged long form was going to surface “in two months, tops.” Kinda like Orly’s pledge that she would have Obama out of office in 60 days.

  31. avatar
    Scientist January 5, 2010 at 6:23 am #

    The “National Museum of Science and Technology” is actually called the Canada Science and Technology Museum. It is located in Canada’s capital, which is, of course, Ottawa, not Toronto. Typical of the birthers not to know or bother to learn such basic facts.