“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for, ” says Obi Wan Kenobe, using a Jedi mind trick to cloud the mind of the Imperial Storm Troopers in Star Wars Episode IV.
Yesterday Zapem commented over at The Right Side of Life: “Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.”
Anybody who has spent any time here knows that this is a heavily researched web site. I presume Zapem’s comment is one of those Jedi mind tricks attempting to make folks think that facts they are looking for aren’t here. What’s Zapem trying to hide?
Thinking back over the hundreds of hours spent on developing this web site, I acknowledge many contributors, both commenters on this web site, and researchers elsewhere. I was not the one who found the US State Department documents that exploded the travel ban to Pakistan myth. I was not the one that found the New York case, Lynch v. Clarke, that opined that citizen parents were not required to be president. I didn’t find Obama’s birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper and I didn’t find the full version of the grandmother tape. But when I did hear and read these things, I documented them every one before they appeared on this web site.
When no copy of A. P. Hinman’s book “How a British Subject became president of the United States” could be found in the Internet, I was the one who obtained a copy through inter library loan, scanned it, and put it there. I was the one who found the natural born citizenship language in the 1732 Georgia Charter. I found the truth about Sun Yat-Sen’s fraudulent birth certificate (that there were 2 sworn affidavits in addition to his own affidavit). I went through over 200 cases downloaded from Westlaw and published information about relevant natural born citizenship material in my Great Mother of all Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages (itself a major effort in digging out documentation and selecting links to the primary sources). I did the legwork to find the English-language version of Indonesian Law No. 62, misquoted by Phil Berg in Hollister v. Soetoro. I was the first one to publish the results of the case Essek v. Obama. I’ve been down to the library squinting at century-old microfilm copies of The New York Times, and bugging librarians from Kansas to Minnesota.
NObama web sites have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep me from commenting on their blogs. What are they hiding?
While I’m asking, “what’s he hiding”, let’s talk about censorship and banning. I visit various blogs that carry negative content on Obama’s eligibility to be president. What I post there is abbreviated versions of kinds of things I write about in articles here. I point out the incredible implausibility of some of the things I see. I guess it started on Orly’s old blog. They deleted what I said, but then turned around and incorporated it into one of their articles ridiculing it. The ridicule was OK, but they removed the attribution, so no one could link back to the source. They banned me over at FreeRepublic.com. Orly told me to “go away”.
NObama blogs shout about O-Bots, and paid Obama operatives (no one I know has any connection with Obama’s campaign or administration, nor is any one paid). But that’s OK too. It’s their blog. But the more reasonable and well-documented my comment, the more likely it is to be deleted. What are they trying to hide?
While not a scientific survery, I have observed that most nObama web sites censor comments. They don’t seem to feel that rational discussion with people who disagree with them serves their agenda. I am a firm believer that anyone who runs a web site has the right to control its content. There is no right that I have to post a message on someone else’s private web site. Nevertheless, I keep coming back to the question: what are they hiding?