Besides hating conspiracy theories, they are freaking hilarious.
Showing posts with label Conspiracy Theories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conspiracy Theories. Show all posts
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Who Wrote The Ron Paul Newsletters? Ron Paul Wrote Them – Clear Proof
I found this rather convincing and authoritative.
FROM: Conservatives Network
***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.
First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here .
The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.
Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?
In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here.
Before we look at internal evidence, here’s a brief sample of his offensive sayings.
From the above picture we see the newsletter clearly implies it’s written in his name. The arrow points to a sentence that is said in the first person. This would indicate it is Ron Paul writing and not someone else.
The above picture has another first person reference. Indicating it’s not another author.
The above includes his signature. Once again indicating he’s doing the writing.
The above footer indicates Ron Paul is the editor of The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
We have newsletter headings with Ron Paul’s name in bold. There are numerous first person references in the newsletters. A footer has Ron Paul listed as editor of The Ron Paul Investment Letter. There is a 1996 interview where Ron Paul defends the newsletters.
If every newsletter has Ron Paul’s name in big bold writing – if there are overwhelming first person references – if the listed editor for The Ron Paul Investment Letter is Ron Paul – if you have him defending the content over and over again in 1990′s interviews – you have to conclude Ron Paul is writing this stuff.
Of course now Ron Paul offers this standard answer. But we’re not stupid.
Link Link
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link LinkLinkLink Link
Link Link Link L
FROM: Conservatives Network
***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.
First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here .
The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.
Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?
In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.From this interview we gather Ron Paul knew about the content, defended the content and wrote the content.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report
Before we look at internal evidence, here’s a brief sample of his offensive sayings.
”"We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,”
“I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”
“we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
Source (As if the Paulbots care. But hey.)
Let’s look at some internal evidence.
From the above picture we see the newsletter clearly implies it’s written in his name. The arrow points to a sentence that is said in the first person. This would indicate it is Ron Paul writing and not someone else.
The above picture has another first person reference. Indicating it’s not another author.
The above includes his signature. Once again indicating he’s doing the writing.
The above footer indicates Ron Paul is the editor of The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
We have newsletter headings with Ron Paul’s name in bold. There are numerous first person references in the newsletters. A footer has Ron Paul listed as editor of The Ron Paul Investment Letter. There is a 1996 interview where Ron Paul defends the newsletters.
If every newsletter has Ron Paul’s name in big bold writing – if there are overwhelming first person references – if the listed editor for The Ron Paul Investment Letter is Ron Paul – if you have him defending the content over and over again in 1990′s interviews – you have to conclude Ron Paul is writing this stuff.
Of course now Ron Paul offers this standard answer. But we’re not stupid.
——
All my evidence comes from these links. Feel free to use it too.Link Link
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link LinkLinkLink Link
Link Link Link L
The Company Ron Paul Keeps
From: The Weekly Standard
The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”
Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”
While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.
In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
If the above were not enough to place Paul beyond the pale for the RJC, what the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”
This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”
Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars.
Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures. A December 15 profile of Paul in the Washington Post, for instance, affectionately described his love of gardening and The Sound of Music and judged that “world events have conspired to make him look increasingly on point”—all without any mention of the newsletter controversy.
Though present at nearly every Republican debate, he has yet to be asked about the newsletters. Had Paul’s persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he still believes them.
In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”
In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.
Likewise, Paul’s insistence that America should be a “friend” of Israel is belied by public statements like one from a November 22 GOP debate: “Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?” This is an echo of Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that if the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein it would be on behalf of Israel, and that “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” would be the ones doing the fighting and dying. The assertion that American soldiers are risking their lives to protect Israel and not the United States is as false today as it was two decades ago.
Last, Paul continues to be the favorite candidate of those who believe that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not hard to understand why. In a December 9 speech to supporters in Iowa, Paul had this to say: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”
Paul’s more mainstream supporters have always explained away his popularity with 9/11 “Truthers” as an unfortunate consequence of his altruistic, if at times naïve, libertarian ethos: The man just loves freedom so much that he’s loath to turn away backers who may think differently from him. To anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply not credible.
The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”
Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”
While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.
In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
If the above were not enough to place Paul beyond the pale for the RJC, what the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”
This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”
Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars.
Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures. A December 15 profile of Paul in the Washington Post, for instance, affectionately described his love of gardening and The Sound of Music and judged that “world events have conspired to make him look increasingly on point”—all without any mention of the newsletter controversy.
Though present at nearly every Republican debate, he has yet to be asked about the newsletters. Had Paul’s persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he still believes them.
In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”
In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.
Likewise, Paul’s insistence that America should be a “friend” of Israel is belied by public statements like one from a November 22 GOP debate: “Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?” This is an echo of Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that if the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein it would be on behalf of Israel, and that “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” would be the ones doing the fighting and dying. The assertion that American soldiers are risking their lives to protect Israel and not the United States is as false today as it was two decades ago.
Last, Paul continues to be the favorite candidate of those who believe that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not hard to understand why. In a December 9 speech to supporters in Iowa, Paul had this to say: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”
Paul’s more mainstream supporters have always explained away his popularity with 9/11 “Truthers” as an unfortunate consequence of his altruistic, if at times naïve, libertarian ethos: The man just loves freedom so much that he’s loath to turn away backers who may think differently from him. To anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply not credible.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
50 Reasons To Not To Care About A Birth Certificate
From: YID With LID
Can you believe it? President Obama released the long form birth certificate this morning, and it isn't over.
There still people who don't believe the released birth certificate is real. Apparently if you have Adobe Acrobat and look at the PDF of the long form certificate and right click, with your left foot off the ground, while chewing on a Ritz Cracker and whistling the theme song from the old Barney Miller TV show, the birth certificate will reveal that the real Paul McCartney was killed in a car accent in 1968 and for the past 43 years we have been rocking to Wayne Newton's unknown brother Fig.
Of course, Donald Trump took all the credit, “I am really honored and I am really proud, that I was able to do something that nobody else could do,” Of course he forgot to mention the fact that two days before he told Anderson Cooper that a believable source who he could not name told him that the birth certificate was missing. I guess it got "un-missing" Mr. Trump.
And like the person who wins the lottery but complains that his take was only a few hundred million Trump isn't done. In his next breath, Trump declared that Obama needs to release his Occidental College school records, to dispel rumors that he was a bad student who did not deserve a transfer to Columbia University,or his acceptance to Harvard Law School.
This nonsense is a losing issue that will do nothing but alienate the moderate voters who are needed to beat Obama in the 2012 election. That is the objective--Nobama!
But I want everyone to know that I can compromise, I am willing to join the side of the tin-foil hat crowd, but only after we are done bashing the president on the following real issues (in no particular order) which have a much more urgent priority:
Can you believe it? President Obama released the long form birth certificate this morning, and it isn't over.
There still people who don't believe the released birth certificate is real. Apparently if you have Adobe Acrobat and look at the PDF of the long form certificate and right click, with your left foot off the ground, while chewing on a Ritz Cracker and whistling the theme song from the old Barney Miller TV show, the birth certificate will reveal that the real Paul McCartney was killed in a car accent in 1968 and for the past 43 years we have been rocking to Wayne Newton's unknown brother Fig.
Of course, Donald Trump took all the credit, “I am really honored and I am really proud, that I was able to do something that nobody else could do,” Of course he forgot to mention the fact that two days before he told Anderson Cooper that a believable source who he could not name told him that the birth certificate was missing. I guess it got "un-missing" Mr. Trump.
And like the person who wins the lottery but complains that his take was only a few hundred million Trump isn't done. In his next breath, Trump declared that Obama needs to release his Occidental College school records, to dispel rumors that he was a bad student who did not deserve a transfer to Columbia University,or his acceptance to Harvard Law School.
“How do you get into Harvard if you are not a good student?” Trump said. “I don’t know why he doesn’t release his records.”Oh Puleeze. Who Gives a flying Frisbee!
This nonsense is a losing issue that will do nothing but alienate the moderate voters who are needed to beat Obama in the 2012 election. That is the objective--Nobama!
But I want everyone to know that I can compromise, I am willing to join the side of the tin-foil hat crowd, but only after we are done bashing the president on the following real issues (in no particular order) which have a much more urgent priority:
- Obamacare
- Drill Here Drill Now
- High Taxes
- High Deficit
- Gun Control
- Unemployment
- China our arses
- Oil Prices are too high
- Lousy Relationship With Europe
- Appeasing Terrorists
Note To Obama (And Everyone Else): Conspiracy Theories Never Die or Fade Away
I utterly detest,loathe,hate,despise and any other word you can think of to express how I feel about conspiracy theories. I take history too seriously and know it well enough to discard conspiracy.
I would be sympathetic to Obama regarding his birth certificate if it weren't obvious to me that he let it fly under the radar because he believed it labeled all of his critics as crazy and detached from reality. Sadly, due to the efforts of the "Publicity In Chief" Donald Trump, "birtherism" had entered the mainstream and was sucking up all the oxygen while important were tossed aside. Obama's declining poll numbers and Trump's rising numbers made it necessary to end the debate, at least in the world of the rational. Pure politics drove the release as the fringe found mainstream outlets.
Sadly, as the President acknowledged it will not satisfy everyone. Par for the course as history goes. We have a film of a President being assassinated yet many dispute the assassin as Lee Harvey Oswald. Many have latched onto James Earl Ray's assertion that he did not kill MLK. Sirhan Sirhan? It had to be someone else.
Conspiracy theories are not confined to assassins. You have those who insist that "Gnostics" were the real Christians overwhelmed by the "phony" Christianity of the last 1800 years. The Knights Templar? What didn't they have their hand in? From protecting the bloodline of Jesus to inventing America as the Freemasons.
There are theories that are similar. FDR was accused of knowing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and of course plenty of people think George Bush knew about 9/11 and some think he orchestrated it. Or Dick Cheney. Then there's Edwin Stanton who some think was in on the assassination Lincoln. And who can forget Reagan making a deal with Iran not to release the hostages before the 1980 election or his bringing crack to the inner city? Yawn.
The more rational among us will let this rest, but of course the Orly Taitz's and Alex Jones's of the world will find "holes" in the certificate and feed Jerome Corsi's new book on the subject as the truth.
So,let me take a moment to predict the charges on why the long form is false in the eyes of hard core "birthers". In bullet format:
*It's printed on paper that wasn't invented in 1961
*The paper was too thick or too thin than was normal in 1961
*The ink is too dark or too faded
*The handwriting is not from the same hand
*The birth certificate did not identify him as a Muslim or have college transcripts.
*It wasn't written in Hawaiian
*It's a fraud because we know his parents were really Darth Vader and Alex Jones
*The flip side has a "Made In Kenya" stamp.
*Just Because (stick out your tongue while saying)
*Obama can't be telling the truth because he's never told the truth.
Just a little bit tongue in cheek, but as I'm typing this I'm betting the long awaited release of the long form has been torn to shreds as a fraud. Blah blah blah. Time,history and conspiracy theories keep rolling along.
I would be sympathetic to Obama regarding his birth certificate if it weren't obvious to me that he let it fly under the radar because he believed it labeled all of his critics as crazy and detached from reality. Sadly, due to the efforts of the "Publicity In Chief" Donald Trump, "birtherism" had entered the mainstream and was sucking up all the oxygen while important were tossed aside. Obama's declining poll numbers and Trump's rising numbers made it necessary to end the debate, at least in the world of the rational. Pure politics drove the release as the fringe found mainstream outlets.
Sadly, as the President acknowledged it will not satisfy everyone. Par for the course as history goes. We have a film of a President being assassinated yet many dispute the assassin as Lee Harvey Oswald. Many have latched onto James Earl Ray's assertion that he did not kill MLK. Sirhan Sirhan? It had to be someone else.
Conspiracy theories are not confined to assassins. You have those who insist that "Gnostics" were the real Christians overwhelmed by the "phony" Christianity of the last 1800 years. The Knights Templar? What didn't they have their hand in? From protecting the bloodline of Jesus to inventing America as the Freemasons.
There are theories that are similar. FDR was accused of knowing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and of course plenty of people think George Bush knew about 9/11 and some think he orchestrated it. Or Dick Cheney. Then there's Edwin Stanton who some think was in on the assassination Lincoln. And who can forget Reagan making a deal with Iran not to release the hostages before the 1980 election or his bringing crack to the inner city? Yawn.
The more rational among us will let this rest, but of course the Orly Taitz's and Alex Jones's of the world will find "holes" in the certificate and feed Jerome Corsi's new book on the subject as the truth.
So,let me take a moment to predict the charges on why the long form is false in the eyes of hard core "birthers". In bullet format:
*It's printed on paper that wasn't invented in 1961
*The paper was too thick or too thin than was normal in 1961
*The ink is too dark or too faded
*The handwriting is not from the same hand
*The birth certificate did not identify him as a Muslim or have college transcripts.
*It wasn't written in Hawaiian
*It's a fraud because we know his parents were really Darth Vader and Alex Jones
*The flip side has a "Made In Kenya" stamp.
*Just Because (stick out your tongue while saying)
*Obama can't be telling the truth because he's never told the truth.
Just a little bit tongue in cheek, but as I'm typing this I'm betting the long awaited release of the long form has been torn to shreds as a fraud. Blah blah blah. Time,history and conspiracy theories keep rolling along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
