Wednesday, 5 August 2009

An Island of Spice, Slaves and myths of Sovereignty

Apologies for returning again to the subject of President Obama's eligibility, but current events on the other side of the Atlantic, and the frantic efforts on the part of the President's supporters to vilify and ridicule those who dare to ask uncomfortable questions and to debunk, almost unseen, any scrap of evidence which might suggest that their idol may have been less than honest with them has been keeping me highly entertained this week.

As I indicated on Monday, I have no idea whether the document which has turned up purporting to be Barrak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate is the real deal or not, indeed there are certain aspects to it which are rather dubious, albeit, none of us are experts on this subject . It may still be genuine, but it would be unwise to bet the farm on the belief that it will definately turn out to be.

However, genuine or not, it remains an educational exercise to observe the behaviour of those seeking to debunk the document, and indeed to dismiss as "crank fofdder" the wider argument about Obama's eligibility to be President, by any means they can. The usual trick used by the left wing on both sides of the Atlantic is to mock and ridicule those who are merely seeking the truth on any matter in which they hold their own myths to be sacred truths, and this trick has been used with great ferocity by those attacking the so called “Birthers”.

However, it is hard to take seriously ridicule coming a group of people who are so pathetically desperate to believe every scrap of fraud reeking “evidence” of their beloved hero's unquestioned eligibility tossed to them by a progressively defensive Obama camp. It is not only their self imposed gullibility which damages their credibility, it is their hypocrisy and tendency for telling downright lies.

They continue to insist that Barry O “has produced a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate” in the full knowledge that the document he has produced is not a real birth certificate. They further claim that “Hawaiian officials have confirmed he was born there” whilst ignoring how carefully worded the statements of those Hawaiian officials used when addressing the subject. (What is an "original vital record" when its at home?)

In any event, under any other administration, they would be the last to accept the word of a government official who effectively says “Trust me, you don't need to see the documents, but I have and they are cool!” but in this case they are more than ready to accept any unsubstantiated assurance.

Of course, together with the ridicule, they inevitably resort to allegations of racism, which they have already used widely against anyone who dares to question “the one's” divine right first to be elected and now use condemn anyone who does not believe in his right to rule without any criticism. “Racist” and “racism” as we know are the most multi-purpose words in the English language, and amongst their myriad of meanings we find that they now apply to anyone who fails to support the doctrine that when a non-white person aspires to the most powerful job in the world, he or she does not need to produce the sort of documentation which anyone else would have to produce if they wanted to become an insurance clerk.

Their most recent weapon, before they became obsessed with debunking the alleged birth certificate with all sorts of pretend history, was alleged discovery of birth notices in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers announcing that Mr & Mrs Obama had been blessed with a bouncing boy called Barrack, which they insisted was the ultimate proof of their great leader's US birth.

Are you buying that? On the day I can take a newspaper birth announcement to the bank as proof of identity, and get a loan, I will take that argument seriously. A birth notice proves nothing more than that someone has paid for three line of space in a newspaper. The anti-birthers obviously missed all those movies where the crooks told the kidnap victims parents to put an ad in the paper saying something like “the Iceman has risen” meaning “We've left the cash under the bridge”. They can be placed for all sorts of reasons without supporting evidence.

I could walk into a newspaper office tomorrow and place an announcement declaring that I was marrying the rather well appointed American actor Matthew McConaughey but that wouldn't make it a fact, however much I might wish it was.

When the fact that anyone can place a birth notice whether true or not, is pointed out to the Obama worshippers, they mockingly cry “For what reason? How did thy know he would be running for president 45 years later?”. Such a response, which I have seen given a number of times. is totally dishonest. We all can all think of reasons why someone in 1961, might want their child, or grandchild, to have the advantages and security of a US citizenship rather than a somewhat less advantageous African one, and so can they. Someone might have an even greater motive if they had just been introduced to the truth of an African tribal marriage, and the disturbing potential for unreliability of the little one's daddy.

But don't expect honesty from an Obama worshipper attacking a “birther”.

Returning to the birth certificate, after the argument about when Kenya started calling itself a Republic, which I addressed on Monday, the second main argument they use to discredit the document is the claim that Mombassa was part of Zanzibar at the time Obama was born.

This is not only a totally disingenuous argument, but it brings us to some rather interesting events of British History, which is, of course, no longer taught in our schools.

As we all know, Zanzibar is a tiny island off the coast of Kenya and Tanzania, until recently when it became a tourist destination (best visited in the cooler months) it was known mostly for its spices and for being used by Arab slavers to hold African slaves before they were transported North. Meanwhile Mombasa is a coastal town in Mainland Kenya, which, by the middle of the 20th Century, had become one of the trading ports in East Africa.

Over the centuries the “ownership” of both Zanzibar and sections of the east African coast, including the sea port of Mombasa, changed frequently, partly as a result of the Arab slave trade, with records of Arab involvement going back to at least the 12th Century, followed by a short lived Portuguese settlement after the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498.

Zanzibar’s claim to sovereignty over Mombasa dates back to the early 19th Century when it was nominally annexed by the Sultan of Zanzibar, after a brief period as a British Protectorate. However, that sovereignty became merely theoretical after 1896 when Mombasa and most of Kenya’s coastal region became part of the British Kenyan protectorate following the Anglo Zanzibar war.

The Anglo Zanzibar war is now most famous as a question in Trivial Pursuit, on account of being the shortest war in history, as hostilities lasted a total of 38 minutes.

Needless to say, Britain won the war, and as a result, from 1896 until 1963, Mombasa was run and administered by Britain as part of Kenya, by British officials and civil servants. The sultan formally presented the town to Britain in 1898, although technically Zanzibar retained sovereignty this was in name only and the coastal provence, including Mombasa became part of Kenya and run by the British. Anyone born in Mombasa in that period was automatically a Kenyan (and British) subject. Mombasa was ceded to the Republic of Kenya in December 1963, when both Kenya and Zanzibar became independent.

Hence British and Kenyan civil servants would have certified any such document both in 1961 when it was part of the colony of Kenya and in 1964 when it was part of the Republic of Kenya. The theoretical role of Zanzibar, which played no part in governance of Mombasa at any point in the 20th Century, is a total irrelevance. A Red Herring thrown into the mix by liars to discredit what they most fear,

However, like the truth about Britain's role in coastal East Africa during the 19th and early 20th century, and the degree to our presence there was motivated by the long war we fought against slavery, the facts are hidden and distorted so as to produce the dishonest version of history we are now required to believe in.

Only a fool would bet what they can not afford on the Kenyan birth certificate proving to be genuine but only an even greater fool would expect honesty from those currently seeking to discredit the document.

8 comments:

Dr.D said...

Sarah, have you discussed your interest in Mr. Matthew McConaughey with your husband? He may have something to say about the matter! LOL

alanorei said...

Thanks, Sarah

Chuck Norris's WND article takes a middle-of-the-road approach to this question but backs BHO into a corner, nevertheless.

Although OT, it is interesting that world-renowned Christian evangelist Dr Billy Graham prevaricated in much the same way as BHO when Billy was asked if he was or had ever been a 33rd Degree mason. As a KJB-Only independent Baptist, I have never been a mason of any degree and don't intend ever to be.

You would have thought it easy for Billy to make an equivalent declaration.

Or BHO to do likewise w.r.t. publishing his birth certificate.

The tactics of ridicule you mention, btw, are the same as those used by:

1. The British left, MSM and old gang parties, denouncing the BNP.

2. Senior airforce officers refusing to investigate UFO sightings by reputable witnesses, including in one case an artillery forward observation officer.

3. Evolutionist academics e.g. Prof. Dawkins, refusing to countenance any evidence in favour of special creation.

4. Christian academics, including PhDs, refusing to address honestly any ms. or other evidence in support of the KJB against the modern versions.

5. 'Gay rights' supporters refusing to countenance any evidence (both sociological and scriptural) demonstrating the link between sodomites and paedophiles.

BHO's mouthpieces are in good or at least suitable company.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Blogger Dr.D said..."Sarah, have you discussed your interest in Mr. Matthew McConaughey with your husband? He may have something to say about the matter! LOL"

Possibly, but were he to, he might have to explain why he takes an extra interest in NewsNight when Emily Maitlis is in the anchor chair. :-)

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Alanorei

Please understand when I say this I consider you a friend, and have considerable respect for you, but I don't agree with the final point you make in your latest post

Paedophiles are neither heterosexual or homosexual, they are adults who are attracted to children. Some may have preferences for little boys, whilst other prefer girls, however, many are attracted to children in general, and it is not equivalent to an adult sexual relationship.

Male paedophiles have far greater access to boys than they do to girls. How often do you see men taking groups of girls camping unsupervised in the woods, or entering a girls locker room after sports?. So there may be disproportionate levels of attacks on boys by strangers, but that is because paedophiles are opportunists, and they have far greater opportunity to be alone with boys than they do with girls.

When it comes to domestic child abuse, the victims are overwhelmingly female, because male relatives have equal access to girls.

I am sure you feel no empathy with a man man who molests a little girl, but you are blaming gay men for those men who molest boys, which is ludicrous if you think about it.

Please do not take this the wrong way, as I do value your contributions to my blog. However, I do not share the anti-gay views of many within the nationalist community.

Sarah

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Alanorei

Further to my last message, I want to stress that my concern only related to the final point.

The rest of your message was very well put and well directed. Even point 2, although I am not convinced about UFOs there is clearly something occurring which needs to be investigated. The reluctance to investigate sightings inevitably makes one serious.

As to ridicule, it is a tool which has been used throughout history, although in the past it was largely the other way round, for instance, the mocking lampoons used against the French royal family before the revolution.

The difference is now it is the establishment who are mocking the people

However, luckily most of our opponents do not have the style to carry it off, which is why they resort to vilification.

alanorei said...

All interesting points, Sarah

Thank you for your response. But you'll note that I didn't say all sodomites were paedophiles, simply that a link exists between the two.

I have in mind the work of Dr Trevor Stammers, Family and Youth Concern Bulletin, No. 89, Autumn 1997. At the time he was a tutor in general practice at St George's Hospital Medical School.

He states "Though most homosexual men are not paedophiles, 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men overall are homosexual. Around 80% of the victims of paedophilia are boys molested by adult males."

I take your point about opportunism exercised by the paedophile. However, Dr Stammers's point is that, opportunistic or not, about a third of all child molesters are already identified as sodomites. A simple calculation shows that sodomites are therefore 26 times more likely to engage in paedophilia than 'straight' males.

This finding is comparable with that of Stephen Green in The Sexual Dead End, published 1992, p 189, who found by analysing crime data for the year 1973 that "a homosexual man is 23 times more likely to interfere with someone under 16 than a heterosexual." Green states that data for 1980s yield similar results.

The findings are the same in the US and elsewhere. Dr Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute reports from having carried out a comprehensive survey that "About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story."

Again, I agree that many of these crimes may be opportunistic but if so, the evidence shows that they are committed by opportunistic homosexuals already identified as such. That is key. It also accords with scripture, Genesis 18:20, 19:4, 5 (KJB only).

Historically, male child or youth molestation can be shown to be not only opportunistic but also aggressive and deliberate i.e. 'targeted,' e.g. by groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). I commend for study (if you can stomach it), the essay by the late Michael Swift in Appendix 3 of Mr. Green's book, from as far back as 1987, urging extermination of the "hetero swine" and consistent with NAMBLA attitudes.

Further insights can be gained from The Pink Swastika by Lively and Abrams, showing how the Hitlerian movement was in fact riddled with intentional, pre-meditated pedastry. (Which makes it ironic that the sodomite-supporting age-of-consent-lowering old gang parties should accuse the anti-child molestation BNP of being 'Nazi.')

You will appreciate, Sarah, I'm sure, that I don't mention the above to be argumentative but simply in an effort to give the whole picture. The above information cannot be dismissed lightly and must not be, I believe.

alanorei said...

Re: your last comment, thanks again, Sarah. It is well understood and much appreciated.

You'll see from my comment before this one that some compelling information exists to support the point I made in my earlier post, which I hope is helpful.

teacher.paris said...

96% of the community shown in the 30 minute video at the top of this page voted for Obama.

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7648