Talk-Polywell.org

Not Obama's. Mine. I have two of them. A real one, and a lying one. Confused ? Let me explain.

I was adopted. Back when I was about four years old, I went before a Judge and he asked me if I wanted to have my new daddy's name, or keep the one I was born with. I chose to acquire the name of my new daddy. So did two of my sisters.

The Judge ordered the original records sealed, and new birth documents to be issued. A new certified copy of my birth certificate shows my Adopted father as the father at birth.

This is of course a lie. This is likewise a routine lie used in virtually all cases of adoption ostensibly to protect the adopted child from the realization that they were adopted. This practice is common in all 50 states. In other words, State Government officials routinely issue birth certificates which are officially sanctioned lies.

So what ? It's for a good reason, and therefore it is of no consequence that state officials will certify a document which is actually untrue.

When is there ever a circumstance in which truth matters regarding a Birth Certificate ? NEVER !


.... oh, wait...

Beyond the political implications, obvious to anyone not drinking the koolaid, there are also medical implications should you ever need treatment for an inherited disease.

hanelyp wrote:Beyond the political implications, obvious to anyone not drinking the koolaid, there are also medical implications should you ever need treatment for an inherited disease.

This is true, but in this case the damage is limited to the adopted person. In the case where a lying birth certificate is used as a credential, the damage is spread far and wide.

Diogenes wrote:

hanelyp wrote:Beyond the political implications, obvious to anyone not drinking the koolaid, there are also medical implications should you ever need treatment for an inherited disease.

This is true, but in this case the damage is limited to the adopted person. In the case where a lying birth certificate is used as a credential, the damage is spread far and wide.

The trouble is that he got elected. Where he was born is of secondary concern - as a practical matter. Election in 2010. That is where my effort goes.

I hope you don't unwittingly marry your sister. Most character traits are genetic - there are such examples where separated siblings end up in the same line of work, same environments and hence meet each other and end up considering each other as suitable partners.

MSimon wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

hanelyp wrote:Beyond the political implications, obvious to anyone not drinking the koolaid, there are also medical implications should you ever need treatment for an inherited disease.

This is true, but in this case the damage is limited to the adopted person. In the case where a lying birth certificate is used as a credential, the damage is spread far and wide.

The trouble is that he got elected. Where he was born is of secondary concern - as a practical matter. Election in 2010. That is where my effort goes.

I agree completely. It would be tantamount to impossible to fix anything which has already happened, but with enough information, people can take steps to insure it doesn't happen again. The necessity is to educate enough people to take those steps.

chrismb wrote:I hope you don't unwittingly marry your sister. Most character traits are genetic - there are such examples where separated siblings end up in the same line of work, same environments and hence meet each other and end up considering each other as suitable partners.

No worries in that regard. All but my two oldest siblings were adopted at the same time. We all knew about the adoption right from the begining. Nothing was hidden from us.

I have heard that this has occured in the past though.

Diogenes wrote:Not Obama's. Mine. I have two of them. A real one, and a lying one. Confused ? Let me explain.

I was adopted. Back when I was about four years old, I went before a Judge and he asked me if I wanted to have my new daddy's name, or keep the one I was born with. I chose to acquire the name of my new daddy. So did two of my sisters.

The Judge ordered the original records sealed, and new birth documents to be issued. A new certified copy of my birth certificate shows my Adopted father as the father at birth.

This is of course a lie. This is likewise a routine lie used in virtually all cases of adoption ostensibly to protect the adopted child from the realization that they were adopted. This practice is common in all 50 states. In other words, State Government officials routinely issue birth certificates which are officially sanctioned lies.

So what ? It's for a good reason, and therefore it is of no consequence that state officials will certify a document which is actually untrue.

When is there ever a circumstance in which truth matters regarding a Birth Certificate ? NEVER !


.... oh, wait...

It is unfortunate that in the past it was regarded as a good thing to lie to adopted kids about their being adopted. Your parents are to be commended for not hiding the truth from you. But that was obviously not where you meant to go with this ....

I also have quite a bit of personal experience with adoption, but don't really need to add any information to discredit your point.

To make such changes on a birth certificate requires a legal process. You cannot simply show up at the hall of records and request whatever changes you would like to a birth certificate.

I am continually amazed that President Obama's political opponents insist on spinning this entirely implausible conspiracy theory. It is not entirely impossible, of course. It is not entirely impossible that the moon landings were faked either.

In 2008 there was an election. You guys lost -- in part due to the absolutely wonderful job you did when you controlled all four branches of government in 2000-2006, in part because the alternative you offered for the executive branch was frighteningly bad.

You get another shot at the executive branch in 2012. Bring us a credible alternative, and work to get that alternative elected, and you can be rid of Obama in short order.

Or just keep up teh crazy. Whichever you think will work better.

Wittgenstein wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Not Obama's. Mine. I have two of them. A real one, and a lying one. Confused ? Let me explain.

I was adopted. Back when I was about four years old, I went before a Judge and he asked me if I wanted to have my new daddy's name, or keep the one I was born with. I chose to acquire the name of my new daddy. So did two of my sisters.

The Judge ordered the original records sealed, and new birth documents to be issued. A new certified copy of my birth certificate shows my Adopted father as the father at birth.

This is of course a lie. This is likewise a routine lie used in virtually all cases of adoption ostensibly to protect the adopted child from the realization that they were adopted. This practice is common in all 50 states. In other words, State Government officials routinely issue birth certificates which are officially sanctioned lies.

So what ? It's for a good reason, and therefore it is of no consequence that state officials will certify a document which is actually untrue.

When is there ever a circumstance in which truth matters regarding a Birth Certificate ? NEVER !


.... oh, wait...

It is unfortunate that in the past it was regarded as a good thing to lie to adopted kids about their being adopted. Your parents are to be commended for not hiding the truth from you.

In retrospect, I have to say my Adopted Father was a very good man. How many men would Marry a poor woman with 5 children, and then raise them as his own?

Wittgenstein wrote:[
But that was obviously not where you meant to go with this ....

I also have quite a bit of personal experience with adoption, but don't really need to add any information to discredit your point.

To make such changes on a birth certificate requires a legal process. You cannot simply show up at the hall of records and request whatever changes you would like to a birth certificate.

I have found from long experience that you can't get anyone to admit something if you present it to them aboveboard and upfront. You usually have to trick them into admitting something before they realize it contradicts their position. There is a book that gives examples of this sort of maneuvering. It is called "the Tactics of Mistake." by Gordon R. Dickerson. (great book!)


I am not suggesting that anyone showed up at the hall of records and requested changes to a birth certificate.

I am suggesting that it is routine for State government officials to put false information on the birth certificates of adopted children.
If you know about adoptions, will you acknowledge that this is true?

Wittgenstein wrote: I am continually amazed that President Obama's political opponents insist on spinning this entirely implausible conspiracy theory. It is not entirely impossible, of course. It is not entirely impossible that the moon landings were faked either.

I keep hearing the word "Conspiracy", but I never understood why people want to claim that. The people who are claiming that there was some sort of "conspiracy" are those who are on the nut fringe, and probably have tin foil hats to keep the government from reading their thoughts.
(God help me, I WISH the government WOULD read my thoughts!)

Oh, and the moon landing was provably not faked because anyone can bounce a laser beam off the moon and get the return echo from the mirrors left up there by the astronauts.

Wittgenstein wrote: In 2008 there was an election. You guys lost -- in part due to the absolutely wonderful job you did when you controlled all four branches of government in 2000-2006,

Three branches of Government. And yes, the two elected (executive and legislative) branches of Government sucked.

Wittgenstein wrote: in part because the alternative you offered for the executive branch was frighteningly bad.

I disagree with that assessment completely. I think what we ended up with is frighteningly bad. I'm still frightened.

Wittgenstein wrote: You get another shot at the executive branch in 2012. Bring us a credible alternative, and work to get that alternative elected, and you can be rid of Obama in short order.

I am long past the point where I think qualifications matter in elections. (what with the election of "Mr. Experienced" and all) What matters is who controls what the American people are allowed to hear. The Media. Until we get balance in the Media, the Liberal side will always have a ten point advantage.

Wittgenstein wrote: Or just keep up teh crazy. Whichever you think will work better.

It is my intent to educate people concerning this issue. Give them the facts, and urge them to draw their own conclusions. I don't think that's crazy. I think there are a lot of people on my side that have espoused silly, and poorly thought out and researched theories, and I think those people have been called crazy and mocked and maligned, but I think they are ignorant and foolish as opposed to crazy.

Diogenes wrote:
I am suggesting that it is routine for State government officials to put false information on the birth certificates of adopted children.
If you know about adoptions, will you acknowledge that this is true?

I cannot say how routine it is, but it does happen.

However, it is not no holds barred. It is only done in certain specific circumstances, and requires a legal process.

Wittgenstein wrote: In 2008 there was an election. You guys lost -- in part due to the absolutely wonderful job you did when you controlled all four branches of government in 2000-2006

Diogenes wrote: Three branches of Government. And yes, the two elected (executive and legislative) branches of Government sucked.

A bit of a joke on my part. Four branches includes the media. The media totally rolled over for Bush. You probably don't agree with my joke. Withdrawn.

Wittgenstein wrote: in part because the alternative you offered for the executive branch was frighteningly bad.

Diogenes wrote: I disagree with that assessment completely. I think what we ended up with is frighteningly bad. I'm still frightened.

[/quote]

Whatever the reasons, Obama won the election. The electorate decided which ticket they liked better or found scarier.

Diogenes wrote:

Wittgenstein wrote: You get another shot at the executive branch in 2012. Bring us a credible alternative, and work to get that alternative elected, and you can be rid of Obama in short order.

What matters is who controls what the American people are allowed to hear. The Media. Until we get balance in the Media, the Liberal side will always have a ten point advantage.

Now this is just nuts. I keep hearing about the "liberal-controlled media", but everywhere I go all I see is Fox News. Look, you guys can't have it both ways. You can't brag about Fox being the number one news channel in American and simultaneously bitch about how your point of view is being suppressed.

Air America went belly up; all of the remaining radio talk shows I can hear all seem to have a eensy-teensy bit of political bias in the other direction.

No one is prevented from hearing conservative opinions. I wish I could figure out how to avoid having to hear them all the darn time. Seriously -- I can't remember the last time I went into a restaurant of bar that didn't have Fox on. We're all allowed to hear conservative opinion. We're hardly allowed not to hear it.

[/quote]

Diogenes wrote:
I think there are a lot of people on my side that have espoused silly, and poorly thought out and researched theories, and I think those people have been called crazy and mocked and maligned, but I think they are ignorant and foolish as opposed to crazy.

Huh? You're using the fact that kids sometimes get false parent name information placed on birth certificates as part of the adoption process to blow kisses at a silly, poorly thought out and researched theory, to which your stated situation does not apply.

Your side does not have a monopoly on ignorance or foolishness. It would be nice if those of us who are not ignorant, foolish, or crazy on both sides could actually try to accomplish something.

Wittgenstein wrote: A bit of a joke on my part. Four branches includes the media. The media totally rolled over for Bush. You probably don't agree with my joke. Withdrawn.

I didn't realize it was a joke because it never occurred to me to regard conservatives as owning the media. Yes, they are slowly taking it over, but at the moment, everything BUT Fox news is firmly in the hands of Liberals.

Wittgenstein wrote: Whatever the reasons, Obama won the election. The electorate decided which ticket they liked better or found scarier.

This is true, but I have always felt that an uniformed public is worse than a coin flip. Propaganda and public manipulation are detrimental to good governance.

Wittgenstein wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Wittgenstein wrote: You get another shot at the executive branch in 2012. Bring us a credible alternative, and work to get that alternative elected, and you can be rid of Obama in short order.

What matters is who controls what the American people are allowed to hear. The Media. Until we get balance in the Media, the Liberal side will always have a ten point advantage.

Now this is just nuts. I keep hearing about the "liberal-controlled media", but everywhere I go all I see is Fox News. Look, you guys can't have it both ways. You can't brag about Fox being the number one news channel in American and simultaneously bitch about how your point of view is being suppressed.

Air America went belly up; all of the remaining radio talk shows I can hear all seem to have a eensy-teensy bit of political bias in the other direction.

No one is prevented from hearing conservative opinions. I wish I could figure out how to avoid having to hear them all the darn time. Seriously -- I can't remember the last time I went into a restaurant of bar that didn't have Fox on. We're all allowed to hear conservative opinion. We're hardly allowed not to hear it.

Conservatives Own Talk radio AND Fox News. Admitted. However, these venues do not cover the rest of the American Population that isn't ostensibly a large Plurality of Older White males. THAT segment (which is the bulk of the population) is owned by the Liberals. The television that they hear is completely Liberal. The Movies they watch are completely Liberal. The talk shows they see are Liberal, the newspapers and Magazines they read are Liberal.

Yeah, Fox news and Talk radio are conservative, but they make up a very small part of how most people get their information. There are plenty of people that get their news from their entertainment, and of course the entertainers are biased, sometimes extremely biased.


Stolen Uniforms from members of the
NAtionalsoZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei on Family Guy. Basically calling McCain/Palin Supporters Nazis.


Tina Fey mocking Sarah Palin.

Wittgenstein wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
I think there are a lot of people on my side that have espoused silly, and poorly thought out and researched theories, and I think those people have been called crazy and mocked and maligned, but I think they are ignorant and foolish as opposed to crazy.

Huh? You're using the fact that kids sometimes get false parent name information placed on birth certificates as part of the adoption process to blow kisses at a silly, poorly thought out and researched theory, to which your stated situation does not apply.

I'm using the fact that State officials lie about birth certificates to point out that you can't trust state officials statements regarding birth certificates.

State officials (As far as I know, in all 50 states) have impeached credibility on birth certificates, but most people are unaware of this. Most people would absolutely refuse to believe that a State government official would intentionally lie to them about the contents of a birth certificate. I think I have so far demonstrated that they not only would lie, but that they routinely do so.

Wittgenstein wrote: Your side does not have a monopoly on ignorance or foolishness. It would be nice if those of us who are not ignorant, foolish, or crazy on both sides could actually try to accomplish something.

Alas, It seems to be ever thus. I personally think everyone has a little bit of crazy in them, but they don't realize it because to them it seems normal. People can see others eccentricities, but usually not their own.

The question of the 0s birth may not have been an issue had it not been met by evasion. As it was met by evasion, the question arises what was being hidden. Or maybe it was a reflex response to hide anything about his past, like all the college papers he supposedly wrote but no one can find.

I personally think everyone has a little bit of crazy in them, but they don't realize it because to them it seems normal. People can see others eccentricities, but usually not their own.

I revel in mine. It removes "crazy" from the argument. As in:

"Yes I'm crazy. But are you correct?"

Diogenes wrote: everything BUT Fox news is firmly in the hands of Liberals

I am a liberal, I see EVERY SINGLE network proffing up NOTHING but the right wing agenda but for 3 shows, Bill Moyers, Racheal Maddow and Kieth Olberman.

SO you have one network you think is OK, I dont even have one network.

As I said, the fact that Palin, will have her own show on FOX puts everything into perspective, I think.