Old and New Birthers: Skepticism About Obama's Birth Eligibility Spreads

Rate this post

Freeway sign in Bethel, Pennsylvania -- one of many such signs across America

Unlike FoxNews’ Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, although he avoided Obama’s birth eligibility during the ’08 presidential campaign, Rush Limbaugh eventually did voice his doubts.
Last Tuesday, November 23, on his radio show, Rush again called into question the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as president, declaring him to be a phony.
The comment came during his analysis of the disclosure that Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, a purported representative of the Taliban negotiating with the Afghan government, actually is an impersonator. Limbaugh said:

“The imposter got into the equivalent of the White House in Afghanistan. Did they not ask this guy for some kind of identification? They clearly didn’t. They clearly didn’t ask this guy for his birth certificate. How in the world could they trust in a leader and even give money to somebody who has not been properly vetted? Well, because it happened here in the United States. We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”

H/t ObamaReleaseYourRecords.
Then there is a new convert to the growing ranks of Obama eligibility skeptics. He is Ulsterman — the blogger for NewsFlavor to whom DeepThroat2, the anonymous “White House insider,” has been leaking insider information on the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.
In his post of November 22, 2010, “The Ulsterman Report: Reflections on the White House Insider,” Ulsterman wrote:

…what of the “certification file” allegedly mentioned by Nancy Pelosi? Does such a file actually exist? Was it Pelosi’s knowledge of the certification process that has allowed her to ultimately remain in power despite overseeing historical losses against Democrats during the midterm elections? Or does Pelosi have knowledge of something else? While Insider has repeatedly described any mention of Barack Obama’s eligibility status as “birther” nonsense, they have also initiated that subject themselves on occasion. Why? If the issue is so silly, so beyond the realm of possibility, why bring it up at all? Perhaps as Insider has also hinted at, there does appear to be something there, but that something might prove so debilitating to the nation’s political process that it leaves Insider not wanting to play any part in such a damaging outcome? Of this I am certain – Insider knows far more on this subject than they have yet indicated.
As for myself regarding the subject of the “birther” issue, I now openly admit to having “found religion” as it were. There indeed does appear to be something amiss. President Obama has spent millions hiding what most would indicate as rather basic information. Education records. Writings. Travel records. And yes, clear and comprehensive proof of birth and/or citizenship. Until recently, I was among those who discounted claims of a cover-up surrounding Barack Obama’s birth story as the silly rants of those with far too much time and resulting paranoia on their hands.
No more.
Throughout the Insider interview series, good people have come forward to offer an abundance of information that at the very least, raises the distinct possibility that a determined and ongoing cover up has in fact been underway surrounding this nation’s current president – and any time there is a cover up, there exists the resulting and required question of WHY? And so I am now left asking that very question, more often, and more loudly. I hope to be able to ask it of Insider soon.

All I can say is this:

Welcome, Mr. Ulsterman! Though late, you are most welcome to join the Obama Truth-Seekers — Americans who still think for ourselves, have the courage of our intelligence and convictions, and refuse to be intimidated by mockery (“birthers”) from seeking the truth about The Fraud.


Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Old and New Birthers: Skepticism About Obama's Birth Eligibility Spreads

  1. I believe one of two things are going to happen on Monday when the SCOTUS decides if they will proceed with Kerchner’s case… Either this is going to blow wide open (just in time for the holidays) or will be the final nail in the birther coffin until the 2012 election.
    If the case moves forward, Obama proven a fraud, found ineligible and removed from office… there will be serious egg on Beck’s and (especially) O’Reilly’s face. Bill last year went as far as to say “His staff investigated, and that he had actually seen Obama’s birth certificate.” Bill, with all due respect… you’re a pinhead lair. If the case becomes national news, it will be interesting to see how these two back peddle their complicit cover up of the issue over the last two years.
    My gut tells me that the SCOTUS does not have the balls to take this case on. They will spout the same “standing” garbage that all lower courts have thus far and hope that the next election resolves the issue without any blood (actual or theoretical) on their hands.

  2. Ulsterman is a fraud.
    See https://ulster-man.blogspot.com/

    • Thank you, Munsterwoman. That website is most useful because it gives solid evidence instead of speculation. I’ve begun doublechecking on the claims made and can already verify that while there indeed is a Mount Royal University in Canada, there is no Jan Wendt on its faculty. See https://notes.mtroyal.ca/HR/MRCPhoneDirectory.nsf/LEBNWW?OpenView.
      I also did a Google search for the “Canadian Journal of Naturalism” in which the purported article by “Professor Jan Wendt of Mount Royal U.” will appear in the journal’s Spring 2011 issue, but there is no “Canadian J. of Naturalism.” The only references to such a journal are blogs about Ulsterman’s article.
      I went on NewsFlavor to find the Nov. 13, 2010 Ulsterman’s article, “University Professor Declares Conservatism ‘Mental Illness’,” which was referenced by the “Ulsterman’s Untruths” blog, in which Ulsterman purportedly claims a Professor Jan Wendt (who we now know does not exist) of Mount Royal U. wrote an article for the non-existent “Canadian J. of Naturalism” on conservatism being a mental illness. But I cannot find the Ulsterman article on NewsFlavor, although there are quite a few blogs that refer to and reproduce Ulsterman’s article.

  3. There is a magazine called The Canadian Field-Naturalist, though.
    Guess Munsterwoman was wrong about the Mount Royal University, as well. Concerning staffing, staff change all the time. If someone doesn’t get tenure, they move on to another University/college.

  4. BTW, forgot to add, there is a Media Science Institute, which Munsterwoman denies exists.
    I’ve been in cities where there were satellite universities in small office buildings and/or small campuses of larger universities, with teacher’s/professor’s salaries paid by the larger university.
    And, it’s possible that Columbia had connections at the Media Science Institute in San Diego.
    And, I found a Jan Wendt here ….. guess what the title was……..Media Web Symposium.
    The most negative that can be said of Ulsterman was that he made some sloppy notes and had the name wrong.
    So, there is a Media Services Institute and there is a Jan Wendt that is connected with the media business enough to be a speaker at a convention in 2010.

    • anna,
      I’m not Munsterwoman, nor is Munsterwoman a regular on the Fellowship. Why don’t you go on Munsterwoman’s blog, Ulsterman’s Untruths, and communicate what you’ve found to her directly? Go to: https://ulster-man.blogspot.com/2010/11/intro-to-ulsterman.html#comments

      • anna,
        I see you’d already gone onto Munsterwoman’s blog, and that she’s responded to your assertions!
        This is what Munsterwoman wrote on December 18, 2010 12:37 PM:
        I’m impressed at how you can be simultaneously so adamant and yet so obviously wrong.
        1) “Wrongon, munsterwoman There is a Mount Royal University.”
        I didn’t say there wasn’t. I said there was no Jan Wendt at Mount Royal University. I’m sorry you can’t read. I would note, however, that Ulsterman’s scrubbed article did not refer to “Mount Royal University.” It referred to “Mount Royal College.” *That* was sloppy.
        2) “There is a magazine called The Canadian Field-Naturalist.”
        That’s swell. There are also many other nature journals. But the journal identified in Ulsterman’s scrubbed article was “the Canadian Journal of Naturalism,” which is still a made-up publication.
        3) “Coincidentally, I found a Jan Wendt here and guess waht the title was……..Media Web Symposium.”
        If you’d clicked on the link in her name, you’d be sent to this page. *That* “Jan Wendt” is a German tech marketer, not a Canadian naturalist. Moreover, as clearly evidenced by the picture accompanying the bio, the Jan Wendt at that conference IS A MAN. Also, I see you completely glossed over Ulsterman’s use of a stock photo to depict “Jan Wendt.” And, of course, his own scrubbing of the article after being called out over it being fake.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.