Well, you may be onto something Obama desperately doesn't want you to be onto.
'Cause the Secret Service is coming after you!
Apparently Obama's so terrified of the questions and of being exposed, that he's sending the SS after the so-called "Birthers"...
Black SUVs following people.
The SS knocking on peoples' doors.
"They said they had to make sure anyone who put forward this information wasn't a physical threat to the president," says Swensson. "They were doing their job. They were professional. They tried to dissuade me from what I was doing, but I wasn't going to have anything to do with that."The SS trying to talk people out of openly questioning Obama's eligibility and/or demanding he show everyone his birth certificate.
WTF?! The SS effectively trying to talk people out of enjoying their First Amendment-protected speech? Clearly, that has nothing to do with "protecting the safety and security of the President". It's about subtle intimidation of a political nature! Clearly, the SS is following what appears to be orders that are perhaps inappropriate, ie. of a political, and not safety/security... bordering on a violation of peoples' First Amendment rights. It seems to me they're really, really pushing it, perhaps too far, perhaps outside the legal scope of their duties.
Has the Secret Service been transformed into the Political Gestapo under the Obamacrat Reich?
Wonder if the SS did this for Bush? Lots, lots and LOTS of folks "sounded like they could potentially pose a physical threat to" President Bush. Did the SS have to go after them, too, 'cause it's their job to "protect the President"?
If the SS was going around saying hello to lots of folks who asked inconvenient questions and made inconvenient comments about Bush, don't you think the Hard Left and the Big Old Media would've made a big stink over that?
Is it normal for the SS to go after political opponents and citizens asking inconvenient questions? Why is it that the SS would think that just because people say they want to see Obama's birth certificate, then they must necessarily be a potential physical threat to the President?
Or is the SS being used for political intimidation purposes? Is there more going on than is admitted by the SS?
11 comments:
Do you believe that Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the position of U.S. Presidential office?
Well, the problem I have is that I've seen NO VALID PROOF that he is. I've looked far and wide and come up with nothing in the way of valid evidentiary proof that could possibly stand up in a serious, no-nonsense court of law.
All I've gotten is a lot of folks telling me that I'd be nuts to think he isn't, just because. JUST BECAUSE. Sorry, but I won't be intimidated- my mind and analysis based on observable evidence... is sovereign and cannot be cracked like it once could be.
They never, never, never offered any valid proof.
And neither did Obama.
Do YOU believe, in the absence of valid evidentiary proof that would stand up in a serious, no-nonsense court of law, believe he is eligible?
Do YOU want to simply believe based on political correctness and overwhelming social pressure?
And don't try to mention the unauthenticated COLB uttered by the Obama camp. If you know anything about that, you know it's clearly NOT valid evidentiary proof, and not just because Hawaii refuses to confirm its authenticity, and refuses to confirm that the state issued it. If you don't know this, then you're ignorant, either by accident or by deliberation. Or, even, you are aware of the facts but choose to pretend they don't matter, and that the Constitution doesn't matter.
Further, if, in fact, Obama is ineligible, and folks like yourself don't care, because you find the Constitution to be something you can amend just like that, sans proper procedure, as convenient, then think of this: If Obama doesn't have to have to prove conclusively that he's eligible under the Constitution, the GW Bush can be President again! Do you want that? Do you want to start that, and be expected to be consistent and fair and allow the Right to amend the Constitution as easily and conveniently as the Left does? I mean, this ought to terrify Leftists, who believe that we Righties are as awful and potentially dangerous as... Hitler, who changed the German Constitution to suit his agenda. Should you guys, therefore, set the precedent for this? And don't be an asshole and go around defaming me by distorting what I just wrote, for it's just a thought experiment for you to perhaps come to a realization, nothing more. It's about starting a slippery slope to the unknown, giving the Right every right to do what you guys have done, so that they can laugh in your face when you say, "You can't do that! It's unconstitutional!".
Anyway, know what? I know exactly the response you're going to give me, so you'd be wasting your time bothering. You Leftists are all giving the same talking points and none of you have anything new to say on the issue that would make any impression on me whatsoever. Really. I've found y'all to be that pathetic and ineffective, so that if you carry on nevertheless, it's a sign of insanity on your part.
If you can provide valid evidentiary proof that Obama is eligible, rather than just saying I'm nuts to ask for it, then I'm interested in your response. But if you're just going to utter the same bullshit the Left (and many public-scorn-averse pussies on the Right!) keeps pushing out.
You didn't answer my question.
As for yours:
"Do YOU believe, in the absence of valid evidentiary proof that would stand up in a serious, no-nonsense court of law, believe he is eligible?"
Mu. I think there's a sufficient body of evidence that has yet to be contravened which supports his eligibility.
"Do YOU want to simply believe based on political correctness and overwhelming social pressure?"
No. My position is based on an evaluation of the evidence that's been provided and the contrast between it and what Birther's have tossed out.
"Further, if, in fact, Obama is ineligible, and folks like yourself don't care..."
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of articulating my own positions. If you'd rather do battle with the creations of your imagination, be my guest, but don't engage in the intellectual dishonesty of ascribing them to me.
"You Leftists are all giving the same talking points..."
How is non-birtherism "Leftist"? I would think that the position transcends ideological leaning.
"If you can provide valid evidentiary proof that Obama is eligible, rather than just saying I'm nuts to ask for it, then I'm interested in your response."
I'm not saying that you're nuts to ask for it. I'm asking if you believe that Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the position of U.S. Presidential office. You didn't answer above, which now raises the question of why.
Here we go again.
Nothing new from you.
No valid evidentiary proof.
Just the same invalid bullshit, as I predicted.
Bye-bye. Enjoy your bliss.
And I'd like to emphasize the "BYE-BYE".
Hint, hint. NOT an invitation to waste my time further.
Go and tell your few readers on your blog what a fecking lunatic you think me to be. Go practice projection to make yourself feel better.
Sigh. Leave it to Audrey to try to argue this in the most clumsy fashion possible.
Obama produced his birth certificiate during the election? Does that ring a bell for anyone here? Sentinel? Audrey?
Leave it to Patrick to duel with the imaginary straw-stuffed opponents he finds more convenient to take on.
I've been asking CS for clarification on his position and resolution to the prima fascie furthering of Birtherism and its heavy reliance on the reversal of onus of proof.
Asking others to provide further clarification of their positions might seem somewhat foreign to those that prefer to invent positions on behalf of others, but I'm quite happy with the contrast between that approach and my above repeated requests to address the passive advancement of birtherism.
Ho ho ho, Audrey.
Let it never be said that your "rhetoric of assholery" nonsense has never been treated with the seriousness it deserves.
This is a very simple matter, Audrey. Sentinel has either aware that Barack Obama released his birth certificate for public examination or he isn't.
If he wasn't, he may be surprised to learn that Obama was born in Hawaii. If he was, then he wouldn't be.
To me it's kind of interesting that you couldn't approach this in a straight forward manner. For example, there are plenty of other (false) reasons someone could suspect Obama is ineligible to be President.
For example, one could believe that Obama hadn't been a permanent resident of the United States for at least 14 years. A person could believe that Obama had committed a criminal offense. A person could believe that Obama had sworn an Oath to support the Constitution, then rebelled against it. A person could believe that Obama is younger than 35 years old.
All of these beliefs would be false. But any of them would be encompassed by your question regarding constitutional eligibility.
If you want to determine whether or not Sentinel is a question, the constitutional eligibility question isn't sufficient -- you need to ask about that birth certificate.
Why you would skate around the issue of his birth certificate is, quite frankly, perplexing, but that's nothing new.
Perhaps you'd like to lecture Sentinel about a Venn diagram and pretend that's a devastating argumentative tactic.
In the meantime, Audrey, it's kind of interesting that one of the internet's premiere topic nazis is clearly so intent to drag this particular thread away from it's topic -- the topic being visits by the Secret Service to these birthers.
I'll do what you've previously pretended you think is the proper thing to do and drag it back: Do you really think the Secret Service should be paying such visits a sparse collection of lunatics that no one takes seriously anyway?
These people pose no credible threat to the safety of the President. And for anyone who may not be aware that Obama publicly released his birth certificate, such actions may indeed provoke suspicion.
The last time I checked, it isn't a crime to be ill-informed or stubborn (fortunately for you).
What does your horoscope tell you about that, o astrology master?
Heh. I meant to write "if you want to determine whether or not Sentinel is a birther".
Other than that, the rest of it stands.
"If you want to determine whether or not Sentinel is a question..."
I don't. I assume he's a person. Because he raised the issue above, I want to determine what his beliefs are regarding Obama's constitutional eligibility. Unlike the "Look, over there! Something your man did..." trademark rhetoric that some employ, my question actually addresses what the poster I'm responding to brought up.
"Why you would skate around the issue of his birth certificate is, quite frankly, perplexing..."
I've no doubt that some might find actually asking others to clarify their position to be perplexing, especially if they have a proclivity for skipping that step and simply inventing positions on behalf of others. I fail to see how their personal perplexity has any relevance or importance.
"In the meantime, Audrey, it's kind of interesting that one of the internet's premiere topic nazis is clearly so intent to drag this particular thread away from it's topic"
Scroll up. I think readers here are perfectly capable of determining for themselves where discussion deviated away from the mere issue of investigating people "asking questions" and into one of an allegation of fear of "being exposed". Your browser's search function might provide some assistance.
I do think there's some area for concern regarding the intersection of birtherism and potential violence. I don't know enough about the specifics of this circumstances in this instance to be able to glean whether the Secret Service's actions went outside of that or not. There have been a number of birthers who have suggested that Obama's presidency is illegal, and who have invoked repeatedly the tradition of revolution in the face of illegitmate government. I think that's cause for concern. Whether or not there's been an overreaction to that concern yet, I don't know, and the article CS cited doesn't provide enough verifiable facts for me to discern. CS did, however, posit a motivation of "fear of being exposed". If you'd like to take up the issue of Obama's legitimacy for office with him (seeing as how he raised it), be my guest, but the effort to chastise me for simply asking him to clarify his position is more of an indictment of your approach to discussion than of mine.
"I don't. I assume he's a person. Because he raised the issue above, I want to determine what his beliefs are regarding Obama's constitutional eligibility. Unlike the "Look, over there! Something your man did..." trademark rhetoric that some employ, my question actually addresses what the poster I'm responding to brought up."
Ah, Audrey. Disingenuous to the very end.
Apparently, Audrey, what you're missing here is that the post from which you linked here from asks whether or not Sentinel is a birther.
But as we just determined, your question was broader -- it was about Obama's eligibility in general.
One could hold many mistaken beliefs about Obama's legitimacy that would not make them a birther. Yet your question treats questions regarding Obama's legitimacy as a blanket method of detecting birtherism.
That methodology, as I've shown, is severely flawed. Care to address this point in an honest manner?
"I've no doubt that some might find actually asking others to clarify their position to be perplexing, especially if they have a proclivity for skipping that step and simply inventing positions on behalf of others. I fail to see how their personal perplexity has any relevance or importance."
Audrey. You should know better than to say something as insipid as this.
The questions of whether or not Obama's place of birth renders him ineligible to be President revolve directly around the matter of his birth certificate.
You're trying to paint Sentinel as a birther. So the matter of whether or not Sentinel thinks Obama was born outside the United States -- and the document that proves he wasn't -- is the most direct path to that answer.
I suspect you don't really want that answer. You just want someone you can paint as a "right-wing extremist", even if the theme of their post is justified regardless of whether or not one believes Obama wasn't born in the USA.
"I think readers here are perfectly capable of determining for themselves where discussion deviated away from the mere issue of investigating people "asking questions" and into one of an allegation of fear of "being exposed". Your browser's search function might provide some assistance."
Indeed it has, Audrey. Tell me, what do we find here?
That's you. Not addressing the topic of the post -- the Secret Service apparently going after birthers, but you asking Sentinel whether or not he believes Obama is eligible to be President.
Goodbye, topic. Hello, Audrey's eternal sense of hypocritical self-indulgence.
Post a Comment