Birther: Obama has no authority to send me to war... [Archive]

LightinDarkness

14th July 2009, 09:28 AM

I don't know of any "mainstream" (as in, everyone left of Alex Jones) right-wing personality that is embracing birther woo. In fact when all of it started I wanted to see what they would do and Rush Limbaugh was making fun of them and deriding them as conspiracy loons on his website.

As for the birther himself - well, just like the tax woos and the FOTL woos hes perfectly entitled to believe in woo. It just so happens that the woo isn't reality, and hell be going to war or to jail.

Brainster

14th July 2009, 11:02 AM

I don't listen to the talk show guys anymore, so I don't know where they've come down on this matter. The major conservative blogs have been virtually universal in panning the Birthers: Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/04/the-sadly-obligatory-scotus-birth-certificate-post/), Right Wing News (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/06/my_latest_townhall_column_3_re.php), Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32087_Malkin_on_Nirth_Certifikit_Kooks_-_Plus-_Hate_Mail_of_the_Day), Michelle Malkin (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY0OTgxYWYzYTJmOTVjODhjYWFmZDQ0ZWQzMzFhYzQ=), etc.

Read the comments section on those posts; the Birthers come out in force. And plenty of the smaller conservative blogs have latched onto the Birther gambit. In a way, it reminds me of the people who thought that Bush and Cheney couldn't be elected because they were both from Texas; it's a Hail Mary pass.

headscratcher4

14th July 2009, 11:29 AM

While probably not mainstream...some politicians are more than happy to play into it...at least in Kansas.

http://washingtonindependent.com/50552/an-obama-birther-for-kansas-secretary-of-state

dudalb

14th July 2009, 12:00 PM

It's incredibly dumb, but no dumber then a lot of what I heard on the Left during the Bush Administration.
The ability of people to wear political blinders, where on the stupidity and craziness is on the OTHER side of the poltical spectrum, never ceases to amaze me.

Alt+F4

14th July 2009, 03:17 PM

The birthers must think that Ann Dunham was the most incredible teenager that ever lived!

Far into her pregnancy she takes an arduous trip to Kenya even though the Mau Mau are still a threat. Fearing a crappy birth on TWA she remains in Kenya and gives birth to Barack. Shortly later, with a machete in one hand and the future President in the other, she hacks her way through the Kenyan jungle to find the only telephone in 100 miles in order to phone in a fake Hawaiian birth announcement to her local newspaper.

Future anthropologist then Ann convinces everyone in the village that they will be struck by an African voodoo curse if anyone squeals about the Kenyan birth.

After sneaking baby Barack into the U.S. without a passport by hiding him in her carry-on, Ann uses the amazing guile that only this 18-year old possesses to not only have the INS erase all documentation that she left the country but also convince Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children to issue Barack a birth certificate.

This is more amazing than Smallville!

geni

14th July 2009, 03:22 PM

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/71760.html

One can only imagine how the right wing talkers...Glenn, Rush, Savage...would have responded if a major had gone to court when we went to war arguing that Bush wasn't the real president (because he wasn't "elected")...

Technicaly the title is correct no? Going to war is a matter for congress?

patchbunny

14th July 2009, 06:38 PM

Major, eh? Heck of a career path to be throwing down the toilet.

Ysidro

14th July 2009, 06:50 PM

Technicaly the title is correct no? Going to war is a matter for congress?

No, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Prez tells the military to go. Congress doesn't tell anyone what to do, they just say it's ok to do it.

dudalb

14th July 2009, 07:19 PM

The congress is not in the Chain of Command, thank heavens.
They have power because in the end they control the purse strings but they have no direct command authority.
Put it this way. If Obama were to order a buck private to carry his luggage, the private would be obligated under military law to do it.
If a congressman ordered the private to do it, the private would almost certainly do it,becuase he knows his officers would not want to piss off a congressman, but would be under no obligation under military law to do it.

dropzone

14th July 2009, 08:08 PM

Future anthropologist then Ann convinces everyone in the village that they will be struck by an African voodoo curse if anyone squeals about the Kenyan birth.Actually, I've been considering parlaying my crappy Anthro cred into a curse removal business (it's more like me to tell people they are better off than they think than it is for me to tell them their "private" will fall off), but a fat white guy isn't who they want doing it, so I need a Madame Juju personna. Skinny white teenager Ann probably ran into the same problem.

ktesibios

14th July 2009, 09:09 PM

No, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Prez tells the military to go. Congress doesn't tell anyone what to do, they just say it's ok to do it.

Actually, the texts of the declarations of war which were passed by Congress in 1917 (World War I) and immediately after Pearl Harbor (World War II) are of some interest:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and

That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.Source (http://www.nationalcenter.org/DeclarationofWWI.html)

and
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United states of America:

"Therefore be it

"Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states." Source (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/dec04.asp#japan)

In each case, Congress formally recognizes the existence of a state of war and then directs the President in his capacity as C in C to Get on With It and for Pete's Sake Don't Lose. In effect, Congress is giving the President an order, in a general "here's your task- hop to it and don't screw up" way and expecting it to be carried out.

CORed

15th July 2009, 09:53 AM

No, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Prez tells the military to go. Congress doesn't tell anyone what to do, they just say it's ok to do it.

The last time the US Congress issued an actual declaration of war was right after Pearl Harbor in WWII. None of the "wars" since then were officially wars, though in most, if not all cases, there was some kind of congressional resolution authorizing the use of force.

Brainster

15th July 2009, 10:16 AM

Well, the orders for that major have been reversed, and the kooks (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009) are having a field day:

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

Yes, of course that's what it means. It couldn't possibly mean they want to keep the major in the US for a disciplinary hearing.

:rolleyes:

LightinDarkness

15th July 2009, 11:39 AM

Well, the orders for that major have been reversed, and the kooks (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009) are having a field day:

Yes, of course that's what it means. It couldn't possibly mean they want to keep the major in the US for a disciplinary hearing.

:rolleyes:

I was thinking the exact same thing - the kooks are celebrating as if this were a victory, when its fairly obvious this was done (1) in order to discipline the solider and (2) for the saftey of other members of the military. I wouldn't want a conspiracy kook who believes he doesn't have to obey any orders because Obama is President fighting in a war zone. He would endanger the lives of other, more rational, service members.

boloboffin

15th July 2009, 12:07 PM

Even the WND story says a hearing is scheduled for July 16. My question - after the military guy finds himself suffering all the penalties the Army's going to throw at him, can he then turn around and sue his lawyer, Orly Taitz (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/), for filling his head full of this garbage?

shecky

15th July 2009, 12:24 PM

A fascinating article on the wonderful legal mind of Orly Taitz at the OC Weekly (http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz).

Brainster

15th July 2009, 01:39 PM

This article implies (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/777472.html) that the reason the major was not ordered to deploy is because he was allowed to rescind his request:

Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier's orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.

"A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty," Quon said.

She added that there is an administrative process to request revocation of orders. As of this afternoon, Cook had not asked for his orders to be revoked, Quon said. She could not say why the soldier's orders were pulled today by 3 p.m. CDT.

"Because of the Privacy Act I couldn't go into it," Quon said.

He did not submit the paperwork to rescind the request, but the army may have decided to consider the lawsuit as the equivalent.

boloboffin

15th July 2009, 01:39 PM

Brainster

15th July 2009, 01:58 PM

Dude's been fired from his job (http://washingtonindependent.com/51177/birther-soldier-fired-from-his-civilian-defense-contracting-job).

ETA: Oh, Brainster, I thought that was a different guy. Clearly not. So this guy volunteers to go to Afghanistan and then throws up a lawsuit claiming Obama can't order him to go to Iraq? WTF?

My first guess is that it was a planned stunt all along. I think the other day somebody mentioned that this guy is a freeper, so they may have put him up to it.

BTW, Shecky, enjoying that OC Weekly article on Orly Taitz, particularly this bit:

Aside from World Net Daily, more traditional conservative media sources—not to mention politicians—have condemned the birth-certificate question as a waste of time. In January, talk-show host Michael Medved classified Taitz and the other eligibility attorneys as “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitive, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters.” Taitz sent him a letter demanding a retraction.

Hooray for Medved! Knowing him he probably announced that he'd seen pictures of Taitz and realized he was wrong to call her filthy, but that he stood by the rest of his comments.

ETA: See here for a post by the major (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2214505/posts) (roaddog27) at the Freepers:

Well, looks like things may well be moving along.

As a Plaintiff in this class action, I get mailing from Dr. Taitz from time to time. This is an attachment to one of those mailings.

As always, have at it
1 posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:28:02 AM by roaddog727

So it sounds like Taitz herself put him up to it.

headscratcher4

16th July 2009, 08:18 AM

Brainster

16th July 2009, 08:59 AM

Fortunately...it is only the wing-nuts that are trying to perpetuate this BS...along, of course with some GOP wingnuts in Congress.

http://washingtonindependent.com/51057/house-birther-bill-up-to-nine-co-sponsors

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with such a bill; had it been in place last year we would probably not be hearing all this nonsense.

Because Obama would have been disqualified.

Kidding! I am sure that Obama would have furnished the same proof he has and it would have been accepted.

headscratcher4

16th July 2009, 09:03 AM

I find the whole thing amusing, actually... and not a little sad.

timhau

16th July 2009, 10:21 AM

I'm shocked. Someone hired a person called Orly (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/orly.jpg) as their lawyer?

Nosi

17th July 2009, 09:44 PM

I was thinking the exact same thing - the kooks are celebrating as if this were a victory, when its fairly obvious this was done (1) in order to discipline the solider and (2) for the saftey of other members of the military. I wouldn't want a conspiracy kook who believes he doesn't have to obey any orders because Obama is President fighting in a war zone. He would endanger the lives of other, more rational, service members.

Never mind the safety of the cook! You don't want a lot of :rule10 :rule10 men staring at you with loaded rifles, especially when your sleeping...bit vulnerable.

ktesibios

17th July 2009, 09:57 PM

i'm shocked. Someone hired a person called orly (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/orly.jpg) as their lawyer?

ya rly ;)

60hzxtl

19th July 2009, 02:44 PM

Far into her pregnancy she takes an arduous trip to Kenya even though the Mau Mau are still a threat. Fearing a crappy birth on TWA she remains in Kenya and gives birth to Barack. Shortly later, with a machete in one hand and the future President in the other, she hacks her way through the Kenyan jungle to find the only telephone in 100 miles in order to phone in a fake Hawaiian birth announcement to her local newspaper.

Future anthropologist then Ann convinces everyone in the village that they will be struck by an African voodoo curse if anyone squeals about the Kenyan birth.

Too many Tarzan movies in your past - Kenya was a British Colony, complete with hospitals, paved streets, and street lights and electric fans. Just a little hint of racism there?

Myron Proudfoot

20th July 2009, 08:38 AM

Too many Tarzan movies in your past - Kenya was a British Colony, complete with hospitals, paved streets, and street lights and electric fans. Just a little hint of racism there?

Well, you're right, that was a bit much. But he makes a valid point even without the "primitive Africa" bit. Birtherism requires you to believe that a teenage college student about to give birth for the first time would leave her home, where she had supportive family and friends and knew the quality of the health care (good) and make her way halfway around the world via multiple long flights to a country she'd never visited before, where she was uncertain of the quality of the care she'd receive, among strangers who were not necessarily friendly to her. And then, once her baby was born, to make it back to the US, again via multiple long flights without leaving any evidence in US embassy records of her or her baby traveling. and doing so with a newborn! Like most CTs it requires a lot more suspension of disbelief than the "official story."

Nosi

21st July 2009, 10:41 AM

Well, you're right, that was a bit much. But he makes a valid point even without the "primitive Africa" bit. Birtherism requires you to believe that a teenage college student about to give birth for the first time would leave her home, where she had supportive family and friends and knew the quality of the health care (good) and make her way halfway around the world via multiple long flights to a country she'd never visited before, where she was uncertain of the quality of the care she'd receive, among strangers who were not necessarily friendly to her. And then, once her baby was born, to make it back to the US, again via multiple long flights without leaving any evidence in US embassy records of her or her baby traveling. and doing so with a newborn! Like most CTs it requires a lot more suspension of disbelief than the "official story."
Yes, Africa was a civilized British colony, still, there must have been some risk with all that long haul flying when your about to drop a baby! There would be risks even today doing that.

Greg_in_CO

21st July 2009, 10:47 AM

Alt+F4

21st July 2009, 10:48 AM

Too many Tarzan movies in your past - Kenya was a British Colony, complete with hospitals, paved streets, and street lights and electric fans. Just a little hint of racism there?

Ever hear of the Mau Mau Rebellion? Just a hint of historical ignorance there?

Alt+F4

21st July 2009, 10:53 AM

Well, you're right, that was a bit much. But he makes a valid point even without the "primitive Africa" bit.

I'm a she actually. Kenya was a hellhole in the 1950s and early 1960s.

timhau

21st July 2009, 03:19 PM

I'm a she actually.

That doesn't make your avatar any less wrong.

Alt+F4

21st July 2009, 04:57 PM

That doesn't make your avatar any less wrong.

What does my avatar have to do with the fact that I'm a woman and was pointing out that conditions in Kenya during the 1950s and early 1960s was very bad for Kenyans?

And...why is my avatar "wrong"?

60hzxtl

22nd July 2009, 07:49 AM

Ever hear of the Mau Mau Rebellion? Just a hint of historical ignorance there?

But by 1964, when Obama Sr. became a father Kenya was on the way to independance - Mau Mau was just a tad earlier - Obama Sr. was not from a mud hut carrying a spear as was implied by the original poster. He was a Government scholarship lad, getting an international education.

CptColumbo

22nd July 2009, 07:53 AM

Isn't his lawyer (Orly Taitz) the same person who claimed that she is only a citizen of Florida, and not of the United States? Therefore, she didn't have to pay Federal income tax. Then when she got to court and admited that she has a US passport. Also she admited that she uses Interstate highways and uses a bank protected by the FDIC.

For a dentist she's a rotten lawyer.

Alt+F4

22nd July 2009, 08:06 AM

But by 1964, when Obama Sr. became a father Kenya was on the way to independance - Mau Mau was just a tad earlier - Obama Sr. was not from a mud hut carrying a spear as was implied by the original poster. He was a Government scholarship lad, getting an international education.

Wow, epic fail.

- President Obama was born in 1961, not 1964.
- Kenya gained independence from Great Britian in 1963.
- The Mau Mau were still active in parts of Kenya as late as 1963.
- Nothing in my original post said anything about the President's father.
- My post mentioned the President's father's home villiage. If you bothered to do any research you would see that as late as 2008, that village, Nyangoma-Kogelo, had neither paved roads, running water or electricity.

You're the one that has watched too many Tarzan moives, with the black Africans so happy with the "improvements" the white imperalists gave to them.

Alt+F4

22nd July 2009, 08:10 AM

60hzxtl

22nd July 2009, 08:13 AM

You are right about 1961, '64 was my mistake. The rest is wild eyed speculation.

Alt+F4

22nd July 2009, 08:15 AM

You are right about 1961, '64 was my mistake. The rest is wild eyed speculation.

You think it's wild eyed speculation that Kenya gained independence in 1963? Really?

Myron Proudfoot

22nd July 2009, 08:18 AM

I'm a she actually. Kenya was a hellhole in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Ah, OK. didn't know. TY.

As for the "hell hole." I suspect that as a visiting US citizen (and a white woman) Mrs. Obama might have been allowed to use whatever hospital facilities the local Brits used. I have no information on how good, or how poor, those facilities were in 1961. They might well have been "hell holes."

That said, it's still pretty silly (at best) to think that's she would have abandoned family and a known safe environment to travel halfway around the world to give birth in unknown circumstances, which might very well have been far below the stands she could have expected in Hawaii in 1961.

FWIW I've taken a few brief looks at Hawaiian newspapers for the summer of 1961 to check the airline ads. Haven't seen any flights to Africa, or anywhere even close yet, though my searches have been brief. My suspicion is that such a journey would have taken at least 48 hours in the air, not including lay-overs, delays, etc. And that's a minimum. Maybe if I get more time I'll be able to dig a little deeper and figure out if it was even possible to fly from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 in under 2 days and what routes might be used. Hawaii to Hong Kong to Malaysia to India to Kenya?? (shrug).

60hzxtl

22nd July 2009, 08:20 AM

You think it's wild eyed speculation that Kenya gained independence in 1963? Really?

No. The rest of the script about "born in Kenya" nothing to do with your posts.

headscratcher4

22nd July 2009, 08:20 AM

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lou-dobbs-raises-questions-about-obamas-bi

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/matthews-birther-wacko/

The nuts are really coming out of the woodwork.

First, atop, is Dobbs playing to the nutjob crowd, also at that site is a GOP Congrssman being booed for saying Obama is a citizen (as well as a nutty diatribe from a town-hall questioner...it looks like a Palin rally from the last election).

The second is Chris Matthews and a GOP Congressman. See how many times Matthews has to prod the dumb-ass to say that he agrees that Obama was born in the U.S.

Is the GOP that afraid of the crazies?

Also, Liz Cheney on Larry King the other night also played into the controversy...never saying that she thought Obama was a citizen and justifying the crazies because Obama's foriegn policy has put America in danger, and Obama doesn't stand up for America, so the crazies are understandable if not justified.

Wow.

Alt+F4

22nd July 2009, 08:22 AM

Alt+F4

22nd July 2009, 08:23 AM

No. The rest of the script about "born in Kenya" nothing to do with your posts.

Ok. :)

headscratcher4

22nd July 2009, 08:24 AM

What you have to believe to believe this is that it is all a great plot. That a half African man plotted to hide where his child was born so that his child could grow up to be President.

Or, you have to believe that an African American man (Obama) successfully plotted (how?) to hide where he was born so that he could run for President. He would have been hiding it in the 1970s and 80s when it was practically inconceivable that he would ever be President, and he would have been hiding it though while admitting that he spent several years of his childhood in an Islamic country (while he knew he would be President, he didn't know that his exposrue to Islam would be an issues?).

headscratcher4

22nd July 2009, 08:29 AM

FWIW I've taken a few brief looks at Hawaiian newspapers for the summer of 1961 to check the airline ads. Haven't seen any flights to Africa, or anywhere even close yet, though my searches have been brief. My suspicion is that such a journey would have taken at least 48 hours in the air, not including lay-overs, delays, etc. And that's a minimum. Maybe if I get more time I'll be able to dig a little deeper and figure out if it was even possible to fly from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 in under 2 days and what routes might be used. Hawaii to Hong Kong to Malaysia to India to Kenya?? (shrug).

My guess, Kenya at the time being a British Colony, the best way to get there would have been through London or another British Colonly...Hong Kong? Any direct flights from Hong Kong in 1961 (hard to imagine why there would be)?

Otherwise, you would have to think that she flew from Hawaii to the Mainland and on to New York, where she flew to London for a direct flight to Kenya. Again, it starts to add nearly rediculous amounts of steps to make it even remotely credible...not to mention the colusion.

BTW. Wouldn't an American going to Kenya in 1961 have needed a visa (I don't know the answer)? Wouldn't the Visa have to have been issued in London (as it was a Colony)? Or from a British counsel in LA, DC, SF or NYC? Did they have a British counsel in Hawaii in 1961?

Brainster

22nd July 2009, 08:48 AM

And now Rush Limbaugh has signed on (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595):

On his show today, Limbaugh told listeners, "As you know, I'm in the midst of another harassing audit from New York State and New York City for the last three years. We're up to 16 different ways I have to prove to New York City and state tax authorities where I have been every day – not just work week – but every day, for the past three years."

He continued, "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. I have to show them 14 different ways where the h--- I am every day of the year for three years."

Myron Proudfoot

22nd July 2009, 09:19 AM

My guess, Kenya at the time being a British Colony, the best way to get there would have been through London or another British Colonly...Hong Kong? Any direct flights from Hong Kong in 1961 (hard to imagine why there would be)?

Otherwise, you would have to think that she flew from Hawaii to the Mainland and on to New York, where she flew to London for a direct flight to Kenya. Again, it starts to add nearly rediculous amounts of steps to make it even remotely credible...not to mention the colusion.

BTW. Wouldn't an American going to Kenya in 1961 have needed a visa (I don't know the answer)? Wouldn't the Visa have to have been issued in London (as it was a Colony)? Or from a British counsel in LA, DC, SF or NYC? Did they have a British counsel in Hawaii in 1961?

I was thinking it'd be a somewhat shorter flight from east to west, than to go east from Hawaii to Kenya via Europe. And Hong Kong because I thought I saw ads for flights there in the Hawaiian paper and as a British Colony I figured it'd have the most air routes to other British-controlled areas.

Of course, given the facts, this is a bit like wondering if she would have ridden a magic carpet or a flying unicorn since we know the birthers are engaged in fantasy...!

boloboffin

22nd July 2009, 11:17 AM

And now Rush Limbaugh has signed on (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595):

Come to the dark side, Brainster. We have hope.

Arus808

22nd July 2009, 11:19 AM

And now Rush Limbaugh has signed on (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595):

wow, what a hypocrite. for the past year, he was denying all of the birfers claims

headscratcher4

22nd July 2009, 11:30 AM

I was thinking it'd be a somewhat shorter flight from east to west, than to go east from Hawaii to Kenya via Europe. And Hong Kong because I thought I saw ads for flights there in the Hawaiian paper and as a British Colony I figured it'd have the most air routes to other British-controlled areas.

Of course, given the facts, this is a bit like wondering if she would have ridden a magic carpet or a flying unicorn since we know the birthers are engaged in fantasy...!

I can see direct flights from India to Kenya....not sure about Hong Kong or say Singapore...I think if you went via the west you'd have even more stops than if you went East ... US Mainland, London, Kenya...

BTW....I don't expect that flying to Kenya in 1961 was easy or cheap. I think that routes and prices were pretty steep in those days...Where did the money come from for all of this flying back and forth?

Alt+F4

25th July 2009, 05:27 AM

I can see direct flights from India to Kenya....not sure about Hong Kong or say Singapore...I think if you went via the west you'd have even more stops than if you went East ... US Mainland, London, Kenya...

BTW....I don't expect that flying to Kenya in 1961 was easy or cheap. I think that routes and prices were pretty steep in those days...Where did the money come from for all of this flying back and forth?

I think the quickest way to fly from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 would be Honolulu->Los Angeles->New York->London->Nairobi.

I see the insane birthers are yet to come up with one single American woman who was pregnant in the early 1960s, made this trip and said what a cake walk it was.

In addition to the tremendous costs (both were college students at the time and not from wealthy families) I wish the insane birthers would why a pregnant woman would risk malaria, cholera and/or yellow fever.

Alt+F4

25th July 2009, 06:45 AM

And now Rush Limbaugh has signed on (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595):

Actually the drug addicted gas bag that currently runs the Republican Party was pushing this bull during the campaign. Rush insinuated that Obama's October trip to visit his sick grandmother in Hawaii was somehow part of a nefarious birth certificate cover up plot.

boloboffin

25th July 2009, 09:10 PM

I think the quickest way to fly from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 would be Honolulu->Los Angeles->New York->London->Nairobi.

I see the insane birthers are yet to come up with one single American woman who was pregnant in the early 1960s, made this trip and said what a cake walk it was.

In addition to the tremendous costs (both were college students at the time and not from wealthy families) I wish the insane birthers would why a pregnant woman would risk malaria, cholera and/or yellow fever.

Especially if the plan was to get a baby born to take over America. Wouldn't you just stay in Honolulu to make sure all the jots and tittles were in place? No, the PTB love concocting hairbrained schemes to mock the few that can figure it out.

"Wait, what if we flew Anne to Kenya, had the baby there, and then pretended he was born in America anyway??"

***Illuminati falls as one onto the ground, laughing hysterically***

"I guess that means go for it!"

Brainster

25th July 2009, 11:39 PM

Especially if the plan was to get a baby born to take over America. Wouldn't you just stay in Honolulu to make sure all the jots and tittles were in place? No, the PTB love concocting hairbrained schemes to mock the few that can figure it out.

One of the better conservative blogs has actually suggested that perhaps Obama's mother was already worried about a custody fight and so that might explain why they went to such lengths to convince people that Barack was born in Honolulu. Of course, when I pointed out that if that was the object it might have been simpler just to have the baby in Hawaii, I got the crickets.