Comments on: Moron of the Day: Stefan Frederick Cook

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:02:21 +0000

Blanche, I think you missed my point about reasonable vs. unreasonable disagreement. Just because some people disagree whether 2 plus 2 really equals 4 does not mean there is anything *reasonable* about disagreeing on that point. If there were a reasonable basis for controversy over Obama’s country of birth, I’d be keen to have that debate on respectful terms. But there is nothing remotely reasonable about implying that someone who was not born in Hawaii can get a COLB falsely claiming that he was. That’s just reasonable disagreement; it’s sheer lunacy. Ditto for Farah’s idiotic question as to why the State of Hawaii requires a birth certificate that proves Hawaiian ancestry to administer a grant that requires Hawaiian ancestry while the American people do not require such documentation for the U.S. Presidency, which does not. That question, asked a year and a half ago, could have been an honest mistake. It can’t be now; it’s been asked and answered too many times already. The reason I edited out my reference to him as a dumbass is because I figured, rightly, that my use of the word “dumbass” would give you an excuse to ignore the substance of my argument, not because Farah isn’t a dumbass. Though I suppose it’s possible he’s not a dumbass after all; maybe he’s fully aware of what he is doing and knows he can make more money by peddling his discredited lies than by owning up to the truth that there is no there there. So I guess I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he’s just a dumbass, and not much worse.

As to you, rather than whining about how sad it is that I don’t respect your groundless, woefully uninformed opinion, how about instead producing a shred of evidence that the opinion in question is not groundless or uninformed after all? The answer, of course, is you can’t; if there were any legitimate arguments to support the Birther position, we’d all have heard them by now.

By: Blanche

Blanche — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:15:55 +0000

I see you edited your original comment after it was sent to me:

Because, dumbass, the U.S. Presidency does not require Hawaiian ancestry. What little the U.S. Constitution does require is included on both birth certificates, making them equally valid for that purpose.

Equally interesting is your comment:

I’m very respectful of other opinions on issues where reasonable minds can differ.

It is sad that one can not have a different view with you and discuss it. If it’s not important and you don’t care, then why have the blog?

–Dumbass

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:12:34 +0000

Blanche, I don’t resort to name calling solely because someone disagrees. I’m very respectful of other opinions on issues where reasonable minds can differ. This is not one of those issues.

When Obama was born anyone who had a Hawaiian address could register a birth that occurred anywhere in the world. This is the reason for all the fuss.

No, willful ignorance, on your part, Joseph Farah’s, etc. is the ONLY reason for all the fuss. Could a Kenyan-born Obama have obtained a birth certificate in Hawaii? Yes. Would that certificate falsely claim he was born in Honolulu? Hell, no.

On Obama’s own site he referred to himself as “native” born not “natural” born. Why?

Because that’s the word he chose to use. The real question is why the frack should anyone care? You can’t be a “native born” U.S. citizen without being a natural born citizen. You’re either born into citizenship or you are not.

As to the “authoritative” ramblings of everyone’s favorite crank Joseph Farah (he’s the head of your Western Journalism Center, but is better known as the lead crank behind WorldNutDaily), let’s just say that merely calling someone’s incoherent ramblings “authoritative” does not make them so. The questions Farah asks have already been answered many times; he simply ignored the answers because addressing them would require him to admit his irrelevance and go home.

There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth – or parentage – in Hawaii.

Wrong. The legal issues to which Farah refers required more than birth or parentage in Hawaii; they also required the applicant to prove a certain percentage of Hawaiian ancestry. The original birth certificate contains information about ancestry that is not included in the short-form COLB.

Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?

Because the U.S. Presidency does not require Hawaiian ancestry. Duh! What little the U.S. Constitution does require is included on both birth certificates, making them equally valid for that purpose.

By: Blanche

Blanche — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:41:04 +0000

The Western Journalism Center released an authoritative explanation of the Obama birth controversy that helps to explain the confusion on Capitol Hill which revolves mostly around Obama’s online Certification of Live Birth (COLB):

“The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is ‘on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.’ And there is the problem. Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth – or parentage – in Hawaii. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?”

From: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5867/pub_detail.asp

Xriq, I find it sad that you must resort to name calling or other negative comments if someone has a different opinion from yours.

When Obama was born anyone who had a Hawaiian address could register a birth that occurred anywhere in the world. This is the reason for all the fuss. He may have actually been born in Hawaii but until he shows the long form as proof, we don’t know for sure. On Obama’s own site he referred to himself as “native” born not “natural” born. Why?

I am not loosing sleep over it. I am loosing sleep over what is happening to our country financially since the Dem’s have been voted into power.

A friend who has a small manufacturing company here in Texas casts pewter game tokens. They were using epoxy paint (made here in the U.S.) to color the recesses. When we had the lead scare from products coming in from China, new regulations went into effect stating that each batch of epoxy paint had to be certified lead free by an independent laboratory (the metal also has to have a certificate). This was too costly so he discontinued the product line. Imports from China still do not require a lead free certificate or testing to be imported.

Kinda weird isn’t it. He’s considering moving much of his manufacturing to China due to all the federal regulations. Manufacturing here in the U.S. produces jobs. So, if manufacturing goes to china what happens to those jobs?

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:47:52 +0000

Chuckster, the only real question is why you birthers continue to beat something that has all the attributes of a dead horse but one, namely, that the dead horse was actually alive once upon a time. If you had bothered to read the COLB before opening your pie hole, you’d know that it specifically states that he was born in the City and County of Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, in the State of Hawaii. Sure, it would be moderately neato to find out which Honolulu hospital he was born in, or even if he was born in a hospital at all, but so what? Nothing of constitutional import rides on that. All of Honolulu, HI was U.S. soil on 8/4/1961.

By: Chuckster

Chuckster — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:44:59 +0000

Xrlq.
The question isn’t; “Is Mr. Obama a citizen of the United States!” The question is; “Is Mr. Obama a NATURAL born citizen of the United States!” Big difference. I suggest you read Article II of the US Constitution. The Natural born qualification is what is being disputed. Mr. Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth from HI does not conclude that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United State.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:36:14 +0000

Obama’s ratings are indeed in the toilet, where they belong, but if you think for a minute that you birthtards are the reason, you’re even thicker than I thought. So far, it looks like Obama has done a fine job of destroying himself, despite your help. You are irrelevant. Please stay that way.

By: Joel Weymouth

Joel Weymouth — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:32:09 +0000

Well the Birther movement is still around, and even growing idiot boy, and Obama’s approval ratings are in the cellar. So much for politics of letting your enemies destroy themselves: idiot boy. And America is so much closer to a Civil War. Do you know why you bayonet someone in the throat – so he can’t scream. Little fact that will come in handy pretty soon.

You must be SOME lawyer hahahahahahaha

By: Thomas Hinton

Thomas Hinton — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:50:35 +0000

For those of you who claim the soldier’s orders were ‘mysteriously’ revoked, you’re overlooking one detail. Major Stefan Cook is a reservist and a volunteer. As such, he has the right to revoke his orders at /his/ discretion. He didn’t even need to hire a lawyer to plead his case, but since he did file a case, that was taken as his will to revoke his orders to deploy, which means they were revoked. Furthermore, as he filed for ‘conscientious objector’ in the case, his ‘secret’ classification was automatically revoked, which resulted in his dismissal as a DoD contractor, as his position required him to have that classification.

People are claiming conspiracy without actually looking at the facts present.

By: nk

nk — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:39:37 +0000

BlancheD,

My reference to the CIA was intended as only one example of strongly entrenched institutions in our country who make sure that we get no Manchurian Candidates. I have no love for the little bastard spawn of a Kenyan bigamist and an underage Kansan hippie. But why don’t we go huntin’ where the ducks are, hmm?
.-= nk´s last blog ..Don’t Ask =-.