Rotating Header Image


The important issue at hand as I type this is the validity under our Constitution of a highly undocumented individual — Barack Hussein Obama or Barry Soetoro, both of which identities the same individual has used — by his own determination remains undocumented, is on the verge of seizing control of the Executive Branch of the United States of American government.

This issue and the utterly grave, dismal consequences and ramifications such an act could and would have, are hardly minor concerns or mere fantasy in nature within the minds and perspectives of those citizens — of which I am one — who have pondered and continue to question just who it is in our nation who can require any individual (including Barack Hussein Obama and/or Barry Soetoro) verify beyond a reasonable doubt who they are, where they were born and to whom on what date.  And what their moral and ethical character is based upon their established behaviors prior to presenting themselves for any Oath of Office as to the Presidency (or any other public office, while the Presidency is, surely, the most concerning destination).

These concerns, these questions, are hardly minor, do not represent imaginary fears or projections of loathesome plots or whatever else can be said to refer to serious questions that challenge emotional, social assumptions.  A pretty face and a well-spoken composure can and does often overrule many people’s willingness to look more closely at a person’s character and many of the people who voted for Barack Hussein Obama (identity by which his candidacy for the Presidency was titled) are well documented at this date as being demonstratively, emotionally and therefore subjectively swayed by his physical performances.

The term, “falling in love,” though fascinating and enjoyable to most human beings, is, psychologically, an act of psychosis:  one “falls” from reason and becomes infatuated by possibilities, the fantasies of newfound indulgences without framework or organization, a moreorless “spree” of the mind, complete with the frosting of physiological reactions.

And this certainly does well describe many millions of mostly emotionally-agitated people who voted for Obama and why they voted for him:  they “fell” for the man and the idea of quesioning that which he had not or has not now made known would result in the “loss” of the object-o-adoration.  Few of the people who voted for Obama even know who he is or what he believes in, also well documented recently about those voters.  they voted for and appear “in love with” the idea of another, but not another in reality — because reality has not been revealed while the idea of someone has:  a fantasy, a story-line, a sales pitch, a very fancy product has been sold.

“The first Black President,” many in media proclaim.  “The hope and change,” the political party brayed.  “His voice” many claimed moved them.  Then there is Oprah Winfrey’s ridiculous inexactness of “he’s the one.”  It’s the language of commercialism:  feeling better about oneself by buying new drapery, which when put on becomes new camouflage.  You leave your dreary self, you have become like a projectile pushed upon a new personna and  joined with them, say, “in the ‘air’.”  Floating, not real, who cares about the real, you’re floating.

But ask these same persons for specifics and the responses are laughter, smiles as if on a first date, coyness, group huggery, “isn’t he fahbu-lous.”  It’s the same thing as a crush-stage of feeling in-love with someone you know very little about beyond the appearance level.

So through to the present, what’s being repetitively documented all over the internet is the retaliation-like-a-protective-lover of what they appear to be experiencing as the “competition” encroaching on their psychosis:  how dare anyone question their object (in this case, Obama), how crazy and “bad” must the questioner be who questions their love object, how busy they get decrying the credibility of anyone “moving” on the pinnacle of their affection, posing possible loss of the pinnacle or epitome-place by their love object.  A deification would result, a loss of the lover, the crushing result to the psychology of the affected seems to pose a greater threat to the affected than the reality of the scope of damage their love object can inflict on them.

To the issue of the title of this post, there is this shamefully, Oprah-type irrationally skewered article on Wikipedia:  BARACK OBAMA CITIZENSHIP CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

And about that, it’s a horribly frank example of the subjective, emotionally defaming, “retaliatory” state of mind of one — whoever wrote that headline and the article that follows — who is threatened by the possibility of someone “back there on Earth” asking questions that just might deflate the gas that’s got them up there in that fantastical air, held afloat by their love object on a string.

The term, “conspiracy theories,” is routinely applied to others by defensive individuals who seek to ridicule a possibility they can’t and won’t consider.  Tagging questions with an “ooginess” such as “that’s a conspiracy theory” then sets the tagger off to laughing (ridiculing, devaluing) the person or persons with the questions, while looking no farther into the questions themselves.  It’s like washing your hands without soap in a dark room:  your hands aren’t clean but you’ve done something inorder to pretensively do something while not having to look at the results because you then imagine a desired result — clean hands that are not clean.

No one knows who Barack Hussein Obama and/or Barry Soetoro is because neither of those identities has released or will release any personal, defining details about himself to the public:  no academic records, no state government records, no medical records, no actual Birth Certificate.

And the image file published on “Barack Obama’s” campaign website (and corroborator, dailykos) is not a Birth Certificate, nor is it an image of a Birth Ceritificate, nor is it an image file of a Certificate of Birth, it’s a manufactured, or theatrical rendition (behavioral word for “forgery”) of what the publisher of those two sites intended would satisfy the question as to where the candidate was born and when.

And instead of confronting these dire questions, the questions themselves are denigrated.  The questions threaten those “under the influence” of this love object as they also do threaten the love object himself.  Which is a shame under any daily circumstances — imagine showing a .jpeg or .gif file of an composite graphic to any Department of Motor Vehicles and expecting them to not react disfavorably, or, imagine doing likewise inorder to garner any credibility anywhere, and yet this is what Barack/Barry has done inorder to garner the U.S. Presidency.  That and offer up a good stage performance of who and what “a President” should look and sound like.

The media, Wikipedia and many Leftwing websites and people using public commenting on the internet, they’re not touching these issues but instead are attempting to ridicule those who consider them.  By these examples, then, those “crazy” Founding Fathers were involved in a “fringe” “conspiracy theory” when they set about disproving monarchistic rule.


2 C O M M E N T S

  1. Nihiltres says:

    I might be wasting my time posting this but, Wikipedia, in particular, doesn’t appeal at all to emotion. Specifically, Wikipedia merely repeats the claims made by others, and is reasonably fair and balanced, insofar as I can judge it. It repeats the arguments made by others and the available facts and doesn’t present any judgement, any argument.

    It might be fair to argue that the title’s inclusion of the phrase “conspiracy theories” is a form of bias, but I disagree: the subject of the article are unproven claims (“theories”) about the idea that some person or group has secretly falsified birth information about Obama (a “conspiracy”). The combination of these words is natural for a concise title.

  2. -S- says:

    Your very comment affirms the inherent Leftwing bias: assuming you’re wasting your time commenting and commenting, specifically, here, this site.

    Wikipedia does not limit it’s use of these rogue phrases to definitions only, or, as used only as defining terms, but applies them in derogatory, presumptuously derogatory, colloquialisms: those who function within that (Leftwing) colloquial territory will “get” or know they’re in like-minded territory and that territory is a mutual or shared, “conjoined” perspective that denigrates “out of trend” subjects and considerations. Colloquial information (or, content) is fine as long as it’s identified as such: cultural belief acceptable in a civilization or by way of civilization deemed integrated to (a particular or many, etc.) civilization/s.

    Thus, Wikipedia allows for the application of terms such as “fringe” as synonymous with “conspiracy theory” inquiries or questions, implying (very easy to recognize for most) that the very questions are borderline, or, out-of-phase-with-acceptable, or, otherwise, “out of our trendy perspective/language,” “not of *us*” and more such as that.

    It’s marginalizing inquiry. Anyone who has ever functioned (produced, been productive) in any realm of craft (or work that goes beyond repeating physical functions prescribed to be performed), anyone in any competitive function understands the inherent importance of never dismissing ANY question or concept. Because that’s the beginning of the end of productivity, of original thought, of sincere expression. Dismissing ideas or lines of inquiry is one thing, proving them unsuitable is another (not thematically relevant, unsupported and mere allegation, etc.).

    If you don’t “care for” an idea, or line of inquiry, then prove it irrelevant to a discussion, or unsupportable or incredible in allegation (unsubstantiated, whatever). But ridiculing the question — as also the questioner — while also being unwilling to discuss/interact with the question is an indication of a primitive (or, suppressive) perspective.

    If Wikipedia can be said to be anything, it’s that it is intellectually IMMATURE. I’m reading your comments again and you’re trying to defend a pointlessness of terms that is circular and closed.

    However, it is not just or only Wikipedia who is characterized by such. Several large Libertarian or socially-liberal but on the Right on defense/economy sites are meeting places for similarly closed-society denigrations of ideas. So this problem I’m discussing and noting is behavioral, not so much any one political party characteristic, but a POLITICAL methodology used by certain interest groups that are oddly joined in similar denigrations of original inquiry. It’s a method used to attempt to silence “difference.”

    The biggest intellectual, or, academic ripoff, however, is that Wikipedia characterizes itself as a defining source, a place of reference for ‘absolutes’ — while other websites, however, subjective among any political range, are just that: subjective political meeting places.

    So although the inherent social pressures remain the same and for the same subjective human pressures (to change or demand a “one note” behavior, as in, what’s demanded of people in order for them to be regarded as a part of a group of whatever definitions [wear the same clothing, colors, think the same things, denigrate the same things, laugh at the same things, buy the same things, denigrate the same, etc., create cohesion of personality and create a group-force]), individual websites are not sold or don’t solicit as reference source for anything but opinion. Wikipedia is subjective opinion being sold or perpetuated as a false persona: unbiased, “pure information” of reference.