Makers and Takers

~ Written by Jim Lloyd ~

Updated

Regarding the current occupant of our White House, when I ran for mayor last year, had I been asked to prove my citizenship, I could and would have produced a regular, legal, official birth certificate in about five minutes. I needed it for my passport. But ever since said occupant first was questioned about proving his citizenship, it’s been double speak, shuckin’ and jivin’, and mostly, accusations of racism on the part of the questioners.

Racism? How? His mother was white. He looks black. Maybe that’s the reason why he (as the least qualified presidential candidate in the history of this country) got 97% of the black vote. Who are the racists now? But back to that birth certificate. What’s the problem? What’s the problem Katie Couric? Why has the media zipped it’s lips on the whole question? There have been explanations for years now. But not to the satisfaction of many, many experts.This is the office of President of the United States!

The facts check out (see below). Is anybody out there listening? Alive? Ok, by now I’m sure I’m teetering on the towering, dark and windy edge of the precipice of federal hate-crime-ism! But let me slog bravely on.

What’s going on here? Not a single media type (I’m avoiding words like “reporter”, “journalist’, “newsman” that are of course today obsolete) has taken up the truth torch here. Why is the simple question of where this occupant was born totally avoided ? In light of these new simple, verifiable questions that have come to light why is there TOTAL SILENCE? Do we have to file lawsuits individually? Where is the Department of In-Justice? (Oh that’s right, they’re awfully busy protecting the New Black Panther Party’s offering a $10,000 BOUNTY on the life of a 28 year old Hispanic man who shot a 17 year old black youth who so closely resembled the son of the occupant, if he had had one!) (And speaking of that, where is the outrage about black-on-black murder?) Black-on-black murder seems to happen EVERY WEEK in Riviera Beach. (Every day?) Where is the outrage?

There was a 17 year old black youth who shot and killed 2 unarmed white British tourists for no reason up in Orlando a year or so back. Does HE resemble the son of the occupant if he had had one? We have a media with an obvious bias. We have an occupant with an obvious bias. (In spite of his mother and grandparents who did not abandon him, he threw them repeatedly under the bus!) Could a person who looks black be a racist? Amazing. Un-heard-of. Al and Jessie, check in here. Where is your outrage?

Could it be that if we admit racism has all but disappeared on the lighter side, you’re out of business? No racism, no fortune in your filthy, money grubbing pockets? Racism must live to support the media bias and the occupant’s bias and Al and Jessie’s bias. So the birth certificate’s questions are neatly and securely hidden under the cloak of racism. And that’s a big part of Election 2012.

Folks out there, it’s the Makers vs the Takers. If this Dear Nation is to survive, the Makers must survive. Anybody out there want to answer these latest questions about the occupant’s birth?

Resources:

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa .” This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known then as the ” British East Africa Protectorate.”
3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital .” This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home,” respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Resources: http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)
Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media?
Please send this to everyone you know with the hope that we can force the media as well OUR NATION to address this CORRUPTION.
Advertisements