Monthly Archives: December 2010

Wha? Neil Abercrombie Hawaii Gov Asks For Obama Birth Certificate.

This is a cool Christmas gift: Abercrombie “has only been governor of Hawaii for less than three weeks, but he’s said in interviews this week that he’s already initiated a process to make policy changes that would allow Hawaii to release additional evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.”

I have read a bunch on this topic, and I can tell you exactly how this is going to play out.

We liberals will do two things. The exact two things I declare in other posts. Combined, they are our modus operandus.

First: Name-Calling; Second: Change-The-Topic.

Abercrombie may actually follow through with this effort. Not just say he will. This will be highly entertaining. We liberals believe we are so morally superior that we really do not need very much confirmation of some pet theory of ours in order to be convinced we are correct. Rank and file, this is us. It does not matter whether the topic is as obscure as the intricacies of state law regarding the types of birth documentation that were in action in Hawaii in 1961, or the advanced methods for discerning ambient teperature a thousand years ago from tree rings. We simply need a whisper of authentic “proof” and we are off and running, foaming at the mouth as usual and calling everyone “racist” as usual.

If Abercrombie follows through AT ALL, we wil begin to see the “change the topic:” it will be, I predict, not so confidently, that it may be: legalese to induce obfuscation. If the argument can get derailed to such things as who is able to ask what and when, the whole roiling mob will wander in that direction.

It will take an astute, wily long-term democrat who has woken up and realized we are taken over by communists to realize: hey, we have jumped FROM show the “birth certificate,” to who has [insert legalese here] probable cause, or compelling interest, or parens patriae, or whatever.

Our short attention spans will move to the next sordid topic, as China tightens the noose a bit tighter right in front of us, with our approval and support. And Obama will have yet again side-stepped the birth certificate issue, and both sides will be calling each other the same names as always.

Because, folks, here is the deal: you have been told that the birth certificate has been shown, and it was on Kos and everywhere else, but the truth is this: take notes – this will get complicated: In 1961 Hawaii, there were two kinds of “certificates” indicating that a baby was born in Hawaii. One would be produced in some circumstances, and the other produced in other circumstances. The one type is what we call a “birth certificate,” and the other kind is what we have for Obama. Two differnt things. Two different documents serving two different circumstances. That’s it.

In many of our states in the union, people can get a “driver’s license,” which also serves generally as a valid state-issued idenitifucation card, or a person can also get an “identification card.” The “identification card” can cetainly serve as an ID, as can the driver’s license.

But can you use the “identification card” as your license to drive? No. for that, you need the official state legal document that is both an ID and the document to demonstrate the privilege of being able to drive. Two documents. Similar, but not the same.

Now, if you are an irate, Kool-aid drinking liberal, maybe it is time you slow down for a bit- privately – I will tell no one – my blog is primitive because I really don’t know how to run this internet, with all of its tubes and everything  – I cannot determine who you are from your visit to my blog, and I certainly have no way of figuring out what local liberal authorities should be informed that you are now “racist” because you are looking into this two-different-document issue. I won’t tell. Go look for yourself: follow this concept and see if it is true: In Hawaii in 1961, there were two certificates for a newborn; one is the “birth certificate” proper, and the other is the ONLY thing that has been shown, been verified, etc., regarding Obama. Go look it up. This info is everywhere – but you may have to look OUTSIDE of your ECHO CHAMBER. Yes, that echo chamber – the one you accuse all conservatives as living in.

I have never read or heard a conservative declare they will not read some news site because it has libeal info – but it is normal for me to hear liberals swearing they won’t watch – gasp – foxnews, or look at other conservative media.

How do you know what your opponent is up to? How do you know how to counter opposing arguments with undecideds? Hello Hello Hello Echo echo echo

OK – now you are on point: two types of documents for documenting a newborn. Obama has shown the wrong one. And has never shown the correct one.

Now: consider this: (with global warming erasing all snowy winters, this will not be easy): a baby is born in a remote, rural place during a snowstorm. A knowledgable but amateur midwife delivers. Everything goes just fine, as humanity has done for millenieux.  But roads are blocked, offices are closed down, etc. The parents cannot manage to make a legal report of the birth for four entire days. Does this child get a birth certificate that declares which hospital, or which physician? No. There was no physician. There was no hospital. There was a snowstorm. [If you do not know what “snow” is, you can probably find archival video on Youtube. It was really cool, before AGW stole it all.]

So, what do you give the child? A similar certification. That is the type of document that has been shown for Obama as evidence of his eligibility to be Prez. That is the green piece of paper paraded around Daily Kos.

Now, go look at the top of the green official-looking form there at Daily Kos. It says “Certification of Live Birth.”

Now go dig deeper and you will learn that it is not a “Certificate of Live Birth.”

Look at this, for starters: Obama’s birth date is given as Aug 4, 1961, in Hawaii; these twins were born in Hawaii also, on Aug 5, 1961: one day later.

What does their form say? Does it say, “Certificate of Live Birth,” or “Certification of Live Birth”? Did Hawaiians just free-form it, and document whatever they wanted on any old form? And what certificate would be given for a baby born on a less-developed Hawaiian island, for example,  to some low-income couple, for whom it took a couple days to get the birth filed? If they bothered at all to be speedy about it? Is there a rule about the type of birth certification to be given? Go find out yourself, if you care, and if you dare.

What will Neil Abercrombie find? he has just set himself out on this very same mission.


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leading Advocates for Women’s Rights, or Capitalist Pigs?

We liberals need to have things in simple, black-or-white terms. Makes it easy. No shades of grey at all. Helps us determine our political discourse, which amounts to: name-calling. How can you figure out what name to call someone if you cannot paint with a broad brush?

So, it makes these kinds of things challenging for us to recognize.

Let’s face it: at this point, it is becoming clear that our beloved mom-and-pop shops are being swallowed up by Big Business. In case you have not been properly indoctrinated, I will fill you in: small business = virtuous, large business = evil. One of my fellow liberals – a guy who withheld my final paycheck and got slapped by the Attorney General for it, was prous to point out how he loved to patronize this little lunch counter place because it was a small business. I guess this is great because the owner of the means of production is quite close to the worker who  – er- actually “generates” the wealth when and where he or she chooses, coming and going on a whim as competing opportunities arise suffers enslavement at the droning factory, never to have a carefree day or see the sun again.

Lately, if you have been following the comings and goings of the abortion industry, you have noticed what might look like a victory for pro-lifers – who should be led by american democrats, with our focus on human rights as well as civil rights, and a focus on sticking up for the voiceless and powerless in our society, but are not because of the marxist ideals about managing society from the top-down.

The apparent victory is that many abortion clinics are closing down. A whole bunch this year. More than the bunch in San Francisco. Business must be slow! Hey, not so fast on the cheers and high-fives, you pro-lifers.

What is happening is the Walmart-ization of the abortion industry. In some cases, changing views are leading to fewer abortions. but in other locales, mom-and-pop shops (get hold of that mom and pop that fetus) are bing put out of business by Planned Parenthood.

Here is a link to a story where this was a contested issue, making this Walmart-ization apparent:

In Corpus Christi (the irony), Texas, a Planned Parenthood affiliate was being urged to begin providing abortions, as well as whatever services were being provided so that the fed govt could be over-billed, and the money generated being helpful for the local war chest re-election coffers, so that favorable legislators can benefit from the money laundering.

But the local chapter declined. They declared that there already plenty of mom-and-pop chop shops, and so this specific PP did not need to begin killing babies.

The story gives some indication of the pressure to begin aborting. Hypothetically, if the Corpus Christie Planned Parenthood (God, forgive them) site began providing abortions, the mom-and-pop chop shops would have competition. Walmart versus the local grocer / local sundry store. We liberals hate that big, mean Walmart.

Now, we don’t hate Starbucks or Pixar or Random House. Somehow, they are immune. As if they produced value and enabled a decent life in the same way as affordable groceries do.

If Corpus Christie PP began performing abortions, the mom-and-pop shops would eventually be driven out of business. PP has the machinery to buy the politiicians, so this looks pretty inevitable.

This story, and other info, readily obtainable from PP itself, note the data necessary to put the pieces together:

Nationwide, the total number of abortions is going down, while Planned Parenthood is steadily increasing the number performed per year, capturing what? another 5% of the market in the last year or two. Whose slice of the pie are they taking? The mom-and-pop-chop shops.

Planned Parenthood is doing exactly what we liberals hate Walmart for: killing smaller independent business.

So, you decide: is Planned Parenthood a Leading Advocates for Women’s Rights, or Capitalist Pigs?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pete Seeger sacrificed.
Wow. A liberal article actually acknowledges that one of our pantheon of role model heroes is actually a marxist. Pete Seeger sacrificed.

This breaks the taboo of NEVER mentioning who, among us marxists, is a marxist.

BTW: Please note: Barney Frank is an INDEPENDENT!!!! Please never mistake him for a class warfare advocate!!! He is simply an indenpendent!!!

Cooncidentally, I just heard Van Jones interviewed on some NPR show. Any metion of his political party?

Seriously: I will give $100 to whomever answers that, yes, NPR identified his party affiliation accurately. We will figure out terms and conditions. Post a note or email me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

(D)? (R)? (I)? Un-Tag: Everyone tagged by party, unless socialist. Why?

Often, I have some idea to blog about, but I feel like the set-up – that is, providing supporting for the handful of tenets that must be acknowledged before presenting my thesis of interest — is so demanding that I just give up, and figure I will write it all out later.

One of the things that makes it very challenging, at this historical point, to blog about the bastardization of the American democratic party (lower-case) by socialism, is that the socialists have somehow developed a custom by which everyone EXCEPT marxists are identified by their political affiliation.

Wow, that was wordy. What I really want to say is:

Why is it that EVERY political figure EXCEPT a marxist gets identified by their political affiliation?

Some time soon, here in the U.S., the marxists are going to feel the britches, and begin believing that they deserve credit for all of their noble humanitarianism, and are upset by being ignored; they will begin to promote the socialist identity and affiliation of Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters because they (marxists) believe (mistakenly) that public discourse has “advanced” so much that time has come to drop the charade.

In the meantime, there is an awesome TABOO against noting that a politically active person is a socialist.

Why do I care?

Because I try to explain to my comrades that “we” are celebrating and following marxists, rather than constitutionalists, but the discussion goes nowhere since self-avowed marxists have their political identity supressed.

If only it were common knowledge, or at least acknowledged in Wikipedia, that Gloria Steinen, Herbert Marcuse, Frank Marshall, “Mary” (PPM), and Bob Dylan were self-admittedly socialists, then we could discuss the surrupticious take-over of our party.

But we don’t. We patently refuse to accept this label, even when self-admitted in the year 2009, as in the case of Van Jones.

What do we do, instead?

Recall: Number One Tactic: name-calling.

What is it called when you accurately identifiy someone as Republican? No big deal.

What is it called when you describe someone as democrat? No big deal.

what is it called if you accurately describe someone, per their own admission, as socialist?

Red-baiting McCarthyism. As one decades-long dedicated dDem told me: I lived through theMcCarthy Era; there are no communists in the democratic party.

Wow. Posibly the most successful political marketing campaign evar.

Van Jones is not a marxist? Frank Marshall is not a marxist?


Well, now you know. And you can be aware. You have to dig deep to hit accuracy. Look at Wikipedia’s entry on Herbert Marcuse, a MAJOR architect of marxism:

Does it say, anywhere, he was a marxist? No. How would the budding investigator know? Frankly, I think Wikipedia is awesome. So, I give it lots of Cred. So do others, I am pretty sure. If it identifies all prominent american political figures, including their political affiliation, but systematically fails to note those who have a ‘socialist’ affiliation, what chance do I have to inform you that the democratic party has been co-opted by marxists?

Wikipedia fails to identify Herbert Marcuse as a marxist?

Seriously? In media, each and every political figure is routinely tagged by political affiliation, unless socialist. Why. Splain this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized