Defogging the Fogbow’s Obama Delusions

~NEW INTRO: thefogbow.com fancies and declares itself to be something that it is not, namely; honest. Here is how its intro page introduces the site:

Fogbow: The Birther Debunkers

The Fogbow is a community of people who enjoy debunking the lies of the “birther” movement and discussing the birther antics.

The heart of our community is our forum. We follow every aspect of the birther movement and debunk every claim the birthers make. The entire birther movement is a fabric of lies – lies about the U.S. Constitution, lies about Supreme Court decisions, lies about U.S. law, and of course, lies about the President of the United States and his wife and family. ~

They all thought they had the anti-birther debunking thing down pat because they rightfully see right through the false assumptions of many or most of the birthers that I’ve ever come across, but they had never met yours truly and the facts and truths that I’ve slowly managed to uncover.

Well!  No problem, just another dumb birther to play cat-&-mouse with, and abuse to their hearts content.  They were having fun with their new play toy until the facts and insights I shared turned out to not be like foam clubs but hardwood clubs that were smacking them down good.  But worse, they were so irrefutable that they were toxic to their dogma and a revelation to anyone with an open mind.

Since people with open minds come to the forum looking for truth, they had to prevent them from running into the actual truth and not their delusional version of it, and so what was their open & honest response to an open debate about the merits of their views vs those I shared?  Did they highlight the Great Debate and invite all to come observe and participate?

Nope.  Quite the opposite!  Instead they banished the thread that they had created for addressing my Vancouver birth scenario, consigning it to a sub-sub-basement quarantine zone so no truth-seeker would ever see it.

And did they stop there with their open and honest pursuit of the truth?  Hardly.  They also locked me out of participating in any thread that was open to the public, -least I spread my damn undesirable penicillin-like truth to others and cure them of their fogbow infection.

So that is the background of the war that I waged against the most vile assortment of infantile lowlifes on the entire internet.  The hundreds of filthy, snide personal attacks against their caricature of my person were of such a nature that they would have gotten a person banned for life at any other website in America, and the civilized world.

Like cornered rats or cats, they hissed and clawed but could not draw any blood because the shield of truth neutralized every attempt at countering what sane thinking and unbiased reason and actual facts dictate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Open warfare raged at the fogbow.com as arrows flew left and right at the rational truth about citizenship and the facts regarding the long-form birth certificate of Barack Obama.  Who prevailed?  Read on…

At the beginning of every Congress, new senators and reps fill out their IRS paperworkso they can get paid. Like every new job, that involves showing proof of citizenship to HR, — in the Senate, that’s the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. Senator Obama obviously passed that test.

What an unsubstantiated crock. There is no vetting of elected representatives by any government employee. They are vetted by the electorate. The are automatically presumed to be Americans.

Like every job”(???)  What folly! That would be like saying that the Joint Chief has to present his proof of appointment to office by the President to the private guarding the military base he visits.

“…you have no idea how to interpret court rulings. A ruling doesn’t just apply to persons with the exact same fact pattern as the party in the case, it applies to anyone to whom the rationale described fits. In other words, none of the citations in Wong Kim Ark applied solely to the Chinese, so that is true of the ruling as well. “

But there are huge logic errors in your conventional-thinking view, and you are blind to them.
“you have no idea how to interpret court rulings” leaves out a necessary adverb: “properly” (interpret), with the authoritative high priests of the legal world assigning themselves the sole authority to pontificate on what is “proper”, and anyone else with a brain just needs to view himself as just an ignoramus.

Such is not how the founders viewed the authority of legal scholars, -as having the power to decide what is proper or not.
With possession of such power, they can, and do, decide any damn thing that they want, and do it all of the time.

Also, you and everyone else must take sides by embracing one of two opinions; either there are no definable limits on how one can interpret the court’s interpretation, and thus one can omit highly relevant details that are vital to it, resulting in the view that the court was composed of idiots whose “excess and irrelevant details” can be thrown out as plain unnecessary and an undesirable distraction from their “real position”,

or… you must give full respect to exactly what their opinion says, -nothing less than it and nothing more than it.
Otherwise, someone is appointing himself god to determine what the gods of the high court meant.

That is a man making himself the sole interpreter of the all-important words of the Oracle. He can say that the Oracle’s words mean whatever he wants them to mean. See the problem?

The authority of the court is thereby usurped by one who rightfully has no authority to reinterpret their words and sentences.  Just as the justices have no moral nor constitutional authority to reinterpret the words of the Constitution to mean what they want them to mean.

“On the other hand, many of the references [in the Wong Kim Ark court opinion] talked about people born in the country, so the ruling cannot be applied to give citizenship to anyone born abroad.”

On the other hand, the actual holding references specific details that no authority has the authority to simply and legitimately ignore.

No one has such authority and yet you and all of the Legal Profession Kool-Aid drinkers are quick to presume, declare, assert, and believe that someone has such authority, and it is the Attorney General, all based on nothing constitutional.

Just because he can and does set the policy of the nation, does not mean that his authority to do so does not go outside of that which the Constitution gives him, -which does not include the authority to make law, -only enforce it.

Wong Kim Ark, in reality, applies to everyone born in the United States (save diplomats and enemy soldiers) regardless of whether they have zero, one or two citizen parents.

There you go… making yourself the interpreter god who can arbitrarily discard that which does not suit you, all while claiming the high-ground of consensus opinion of how to self-servingly reinterpret the explicit words of the high court.

How can any sane mind look at their words and have any impression other than a very strong one that they were extremely self-limiting the extent of the impact of their opinion?

Their details could not have been either more relevant on the one hand or more irrelevant on the other to what they wished to convey.
Those with your built-in bias don’t even flip a coin to decide which; you just consult your bias and automatically decide in favor of the “irrelevant” option. That is hugely dishonest from an intellectual standpoint.

Neither you nor anyone else has any logical, moral, or intellectual basis to mindlessly decide that there is zero distinguishing difference between all persons born within U.S. borders.

“Born of crash-landed Martians?””Fine, you can be President!” “Just don’t be born of a foreign ambassador and you are thus identical to the sons of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

Hardly. The alien-born who are of “Foreign stock” can never be described as natural born citizens, and similarly, the alien-born of very, very transient guests can never be described as native sons of America via birth to permanent resident immigrants with ever-deepening American roots.

There is a GIGANTIC qualitative difference between children of immigrants (raised in America to be Americans) and children of transients or “non-immigrant aliens” (raised in a foreign country by foreign parents to be foreigners with foreign values). Yet where is there ANY acknowledgement of that very clear and easily understood truth? No where! Why???

Because of the stupidity and arrogance of A.G. John Griggs in exploding the breadth of the meaning of the Wong court’s opinion (which only covered children of immigrants, not transients) by throwing out the clearly elucidated context of the high court’s opinion, which only covered permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants engaged in business.

What reinterpretation might plausibly ignore would be race and occupation which were protected from discrimination by the same 14th Amendment, but cannot rationally ignore the issue of residency, since it is central to where or not foreign parents are actually members of American society or merely here today and gone tomorrow, which would impact the self-identification of their U.S. born child.

Residency is central to citizenship rights as one cannot serve in Congress or as President without the required number of years of residency, nor can immigrants become naturalized.

Barack Obama is considered a U.S. citizen not by the ruling of the high court but by the policy interpretation of Griggs, which has never been challenged as incorrect. That is because we live in a miasma of confusion in which everyone just holds on to the tail of the elephant in front of them, existing with all the curiosity and skeptical nature of the three monkeys.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ballentine opined: But misrepresenting what the court said or held is being dishonest as such are facts, not opinion.

Wow! The pot calls the china teapot black! The only misrepresenting is that being done by all the biased truth-hating sycophants of conventional thinking whose minds exist inside a box inside a box. In the Legal Matrix of delusion.

The court’s opinion says what it says. Any interpretation of it is an exercise in bastardization, with no referee to expose false logic, false reasoning, and false conclusions. Group-think presumption reins.
You can’t even conceive that there could be facts, truths, realities that didn’t fit into your neat little world. You are like the first white man to explore North America, who, along with his native companion, came upon a sturdy, well built dam. He praised the dam building expertise of the natives, a kind of dam he had never seen before nor even imagined.

The native responded; “No, that’s not built by us.”
“No? then who built it?
“Oh, that was built by an animal.”
“An animal??? How could that even be possible???  It would take a great amount of ingenuity and skill to weave together so many perfectly placed sticks.
“Well, those beavers are pretty smart.”
“Beavers??? What is a beaver?”
“You don’t know about beavers?
“No, I’ve never even heard that such a creature existed. I can’t imagine how it could be so intelligent.”
“Well, regardless of your preconceptions, it’s real, it’s an animal, and it builds dams just like people, only better. Time to revise your ideas. Expand your view of reality. It’s not as small as you think.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suggest you should stop pretending to be a legal expert when you clearly are not.

My answer: “-And we are forever stuck with the consequences of John Griggs’ “interpretation” of Wong.”

Strange how our pseudo-scholar, like everyone else who has ever read what I’ve written, including Mario, will not touch that third rail of historical truth. It is Kryptonite to their entire Matrix delusion. It has never yet been mentioned by anyone in anyway at anytime. Like it doesn’t even exist!

Wow! It must be awfully right on target to be so universally ignored! Otherwise everyone would treat it like a pinata, but my pinata doesn’t even get acknowledged to be right in front of their faces.  Strange, isn’t it?

Not really. They all must maintain the big fat establishment lie that all consensus opinion is based purely on the words of the Supreme Court, when in fact they are actually based on supporting the established government policy set in place by the opinion of the unelected Attorney General, and not Congress nor the courts.

It is a giant pervasive sham, and facade that pretends to be the real face of real legal opinion but all of the priests of the system must support the “SYSTEM” first and last, ’cause it is the great club that they are elite members of.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~said Fukino, Hawaiian Health Director, (-reputed debunker of wild conspiracy leaps of presumption, in attacking reasonable skeptics):
“They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated.  The whole thing is silly.”  [the FEIGNED EXASPERATION of “the grown-up” who knows “the truth” but is put-upon with childish “silly” imaginings.]

That is exactly what any and every intelligent person engaged in a cover-up would say. Feigned exasperation. But no, in warped world, they would just admit everything or say something that hits the mind as highly suspicious. Sure, that is what any ordinary liar would do, wouldn’t they?

“Fukino expanded on previous public statements…”

THERE WERE NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS EVER MADE!
Public statements are official statements. All official statements are signed. Nothing released as a “News Release” (with all claims sheltered in the legal protection of quotation marks), attaches legal liability to anyone in regard to the truthfulness of the words.

No one at all is legally attached to any of the claims.
NEWS RELEASE: (QUOTE) “Barack Obama is a pedophile and a pornographer, so claims Dr. Noise.” (UNQUOTE) -with no signature.

hmmmm, certainly looks legitimate, regardless of the presence of quotation marks. It’s quoting someone from sometime and someplace. Just not sure when or where or who. But it must be true cause someone said it. After all, it’s in print, and print can’t lie.  The reporter continued:

Fukino expanded on previous public statements: “The first is that the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice.”

The devotees of the One who must not be doubted, are deliberately led to believe a falsehood via deceptive and carefully chosen wording, -picked by legal council to be deliberately ambiguous and shielding from any legal liability, -or rather, professional ethics liability.

The faithful, with their minds in high-speed mode, instead of slow-motion methodical mode, fail to grasp what the truth is behind these words: “so-called “long form” birth certificate”
The misconception is that those words are attributable to the director, when she never used them at all. She never referred to any long-form birth certificate. Rather, her words were very, very carefully chosen to avoid it, instead  she only referred to a “record of live birth” just as the reporter accurately conveyed.
That means a record of not-dead birth. Whose record? Ann’s record. The one found in her written affidavit birth certificate application which stated a home birth for Jr.  That is all that it means!

Yes, it definitely “absolutely exists”  The big fat cover-up lie is that that record is what the faithful want to believe that it is, when the deceptive language used points to that not being the actual truth.
No official from Hawaii has ever mentioned the existence of a HAWAIIAN hospital birth certificate.  Ever.

They are too smart and too clever to make that mistake. They know full well that it would be a complete lie, and so they avoid it to avoid legal liability for making false statements as government authorities.
And when they use the words “original birth certificate” they do so knowing that whatever is in their archive can be tagged with that label, no matter what it is. Yes, that “original” birth certificate for an adopted child is actually a total fake. No one will ever be allowed to see nor know of the actual original. So “original” has been badly bastardized in practice.

“She found the “original”birth record, properly numbered,[BIG LIE], half typed and half handwritten, [TRUE!] and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, [HUGE LIE!] located in the files.
She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity.

Uhhhh, that would be “attesting” to, -not “asserting to”, but either way, it is false since there is no way in hell to know who really put out those “news release”s.

“It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,” Fukino said.

Oh it is real alright. The falsehood is in the nature of what “it” really is. “It” is not what they deceitfully pretend it is. “It” is an application affidavit by Ann attesting to birth at home i Honolulu, not an original Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth.

That is the simple reality and cannot be disproven, and is not even contested by anyone in Hawaii since no one has even been asked, -especially not under oath.

The reporter continued:  ~ Fukino said… Lingle…would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor’s office’s request: “Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?” she asked.

The depth of her dishonesty is seen in that statement. It is a flat-out deception of false logic.

WHAT SECRET?? FUKINO LIES TO THE GOVERNOR, -SHE IS BELIEVED BY THE WOMAN WHO APPOINTED HER AND WHO DID NOT SEE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE FILE.

Oh sure, Fukino told the governor the actual truth about there being no real birth certificate when her Democrat higher-ups, including Obama himself, had prevailed upon her to not let the truth come out.  And why the hell would she have done that???

Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity.

LET’S SEE IT! PROVE IT! I CAN’T WAIT!  Can’t do, never happened. More lies.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42519951/ns/p

I pointed out that if S.A.Dunham had given birth in Canada, as in your speculation, the record of live birth would still be there, even if Ms Dunham had failed to register the birth there.

Undoubtedly, if attended by someone who had the responsibility to create a record. Otherwise, one would not exist.

Are you in fact claiming that the registration document of a birth in Canada in 1961 required the signature of the ‘attending physician’? 

All certificates require certification by the person officiating over them. That certification only comes in the form of a signature, except in the case of a government entity that also has an official seal.

Until you do that, all you have is nonsense.

Nonsense surely must be disprovable. But where are we??? Still waiting for the facts that show impossibility. Yet none have arrived.  Only counter-speculation based on the odds of what might have been.
I’m waiting for more than that. I’m waiting for “No, she could not have flown from Vancouver to Hawaii without a U.S. passport.” A bullet to the head of the scenario. But there are no such bullets.

Every hypothesis makes it through as plausible, even if not typical. But if you feel compelled, as you do, keep trying. But don’t be surprised if nothing pans out. Maybe the Indonesian adoption is faulty. It is kind of an important element since without an Indonesian passport, Obama had no ID.
But since there is no record of him having a U.S. passport, he had to have had an Indonesian one. It’s simple logic.

You’re the one making extreme claims; the onus is on you to prove them. We are under no obligation to debunk crap you pulled out of your ass.

The proper context of the debate is not 2014. It is 2007 or 2008 when an unknown candidate fathered by the subject of a foreign power and not native America citizens, sought the presidency even though completely unvetted by any investigation of any unbiased sort.

Questions would legitimately need to be asked and answered so the American people would know who the hell this guy is and where he is coming from, historically and ideologically.
That was never done. And has never been done yet. At least not by the should-be town criers in the MSM.

If it was 2007, you could not complain that the burden is on me to prove the truth of the scenario. It would be on the candidate, the one who knows all of the answers, supposedly, to clear up the record and end the speculation, -the doubts, the questions.

Now that might never happen. That does not mean that it should never happen because it should, -just for the sake of history, if not for justice.
But those who worship at his alter, and burn incense to the Great One, who don’t want to know any truth that is upsetting of their zeitgeist, will not engage in the turning over of any rocks that might have something nasty under it. Better to just close their eyes when that happens and ignore what is plainly seen.

delusionist wrote: What part of THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN AFFIDAVIT? don’t you get. Obama was not born at home. His BC contains the sig of the attending physician and indicates the hospital in which he was born.

WOW! You are simply too juvenile, naive, and ignorant to have a conversation with. Go and learn the truth about the horrendous problem of counterfeiting, especially counterfeiting of birth certificates.

You must literally know nothing about the ability of photo-editing programs. I don’t have that short-coming as I’ve edited over 14,000 photos. How much skill do you have with photoshopping photos?

There was no “investigator”. Abercrombie had the AG check on it. The AG instructed Abercrombie, according to HI law, that Abercrombie had no right to access Obama’s BC.

That makes perfect sense. The problem is what he said in public about getting to the bottom of it. I was surprised that he would think he had such authority, but assumed that he wielded it anyway, albeit illegitimately.
That, and a claim that he said what I said he said, were all I ever read about him and his quest.
So now you’ve informed me of the facts, and I’ll assume they are accurate.

I recall that an old college friend of his talked to him on the phone about the whole situation, and he revealed that nothing was found except something “written down” in the archives. But after his remarks became known, and after some time had passed, the revealer of the conversation with the governor denied the contents of the call and having made the statements that he did, I believe, on the radio. Much mystery, as is standard around any cover-up and the strong-arm intimidation that men with unlimited power are willing to exert.

What Director Fukino said was that there was a record in the archives (a true statement) half handwritten and half typed. Also a true statement, as that is how BCs are created.

Yes, there is an affidavit in the archive, in two versions, hand-written, and typed. Which is NOT how BCs are created. They “were” created by making a certified “True Copy” of the image of the original hospital certificate obtained from the microfilm reel on which it was located.

Eventually, all microfilm images were digitized and stored in a data-base from which an image of the original, -minus the imagery of the background paper on which it was filled-out, was super-imposed on a piece of security paper, whose pattern replaced the imagery of the original paper. THAT was how older birth certificates were made from start to finish.
Now the hospital certificate in this digital age is directly scanned into the system, -no microfilm. It’s all simple common sense.

The handwritten part contains personal information and information for CDC, census, etc., and is never seen on anyone’s BC which is produced.

That is not true. All such information would be entered into a properly designed and designated form in typed manner. There is no process for filling in such information by hand. Hand writing simply can’t be trusted and may be illegible.

But the give-away is that the original is “HALF-hand written”. An affidavit that is 50-50 will not contain the information you assume. None of that would be entered anywhere until the affidavit was legally validated by evidence or testimony from credible witnesses. THAT is the scenario, and is for you to show to be impossible.

[neither] The AG nor the governor had or have any authority to subpoena anything from the HI DOH. That would only be produced by a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

That is a false characterization of his authority. He, being the boss of the director of Health, could tell her to look at the file, and he could tell her to allow his personal researcher to check it also. That is not the issuing of a subpena, which, as you say, he cannot do. It is an administrative executive authority which no DoH director would attempt to block.

Abercrombie said: “It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ..”

Well, there you go. We can all go home now because that puts the whole matter to bed. No CERTIFICATE!, just something WRITTEN by hand. Gee, what ever could that be? An application affidavit? Banish the thought! It simply MUST be something else…. but I’ll be damned if I can figure out what.

rosy queried: Instead of presuming, why don’t you find out? I gave you the contact form and the telephone number of the Department of Vital Statistics in Vancouver. You may find that your presumption is incorrect.

Just to show just how much I do not care, I’ll share the fact that I do not even have long-distance service. I paid for it for over 10 years. Used it about four times and finally cancelled even though it was only about 3 dollars a month.

No cell phone either. Not interested. Also, as of three months ago, I’ve been disconnected from my cable provider. DSL only. And the radio only has two stations worth listening to. It’s more quiet around here than any of you could bear.

I hypothesized that birth in Vancouver did not result in a birth certificate, and then I explained how that could happen in a hospital setting. I never said it must be assumed that she gave birth in a hospital there.

Do you seriously consider that an unattended birth, with no later contact with medical professionals either for mother or child, was a likely scenario?

I presume the opposite, I suggest in a comment added to the scenario or in a later exposition that the reason that a black baby was seen in a Honolulu maternity ward was that one or both of them needed further medical attention or examination.

I presume that there were two records. One was that made by a hospital office clerk for their records, while the official, government document record, the Certificate of Live Birth, required the signature of the doctor that attended, as well as that of the mother who provided, under oath, the legal facts concerning the child. That certificate then went to the government vital statistics office in the health dept.

I should also point out at this juncture that Barack Obama’s LFBC, being a document following HI law, does have the signature of the attending physician.

I’m sure that it does, in every fertile and gullible imagination that simply must believe in him. But in the archives, no such document exists unless it was surreptitiously inserted. But it probably exists in cyber space on the dept. server. A faked file uploaded into the digital archive.

 In order to get a birth certificate by affidavit, the Health Department required an investigation. That would include doctors or midwife’s notes, the mother, plus any witnesses. Those babies would get a birth certificate, but it wouldn’t be registered in 4 days
The baby would get a birth certificate if the investigation checked-out. But I don’t believe one would be required.
The government accepts at face value the validity of documents signed under penalty of perjury unless person-to-person verification is required by statute. So eye-witnesses would not have to be interviewed, -only make notarized statements of fact.
But there were no such witnesses who would or could make a factual claim for her about a home birth. And perhaps no proof of one year residency as required. So her affidavit would have just gathered dust in their files, unaccepted and not moved on to the birth certificate stage.  So, even if born in Hawaii, his mother never obtained a birth certificate for him.

Parents didn’t call in to the newspapers to report a baby. The records came from the DoH. If parents wanted a special announcement, they could purchase a personal ad.

What obtuseness. Who said anything about a “special” announcement???  Oh, and parents didn’t call in, because… oh,.. you said so! I bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge oh great Baal!

 You must have a vision problem as well as a comprehension problem, since several photographs of baby Obama have been posted on this thread already.

That is false because of the false assumption as to context.  Zero photos of the FAMILY together like normal people. There was NO FAMILY! OBAMA LIED! A baby by itself is not relevant.

Where were, and are, all of the wonderful photos taken by Obama’s father of his wife & son? Or by his mother of her son and loving husband???  They never lived together so there are no photos!

We would all guess that most, if not all, photos were taken by the grand parents, and those photos would NOT have gotten lost by moving since they didn’t move. Understand? They would still exist, but have we ever seen them or do they not exist? They would have been prime autobiography photos.

Neither you nor anyone else have a right to see, or have documented, every moment of the young Barack Obama’s life

See. There goes your logic train, -right off the tracks. The extremeness of your bias is seen in the words you feel compelled to employ. “every moment” The problem is that there is not even ONE moment.

NO PHOTOS at all! ZERO. Except that one of him as a young baby. I would expect at least one like that. But no parents, not individually, together, nor together with him. You can argue that they were just as unconscientous as other parents were, and many others, but I don’t consider that to be normal, even though I’ve seen it in my own family plenty when kids were very young and parents as well.
As for the possibility of his mother losing such photos, most of them would have never left the Dunham home in Honolulu. It would have been home-base, as it was in fact for his entire young life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 ~ ~Exactly – baby surrendered first, agency finds parents afterwards.   Adoptions in the 1960s were closed adoptions. It was absolutely not up to the parents.

Ouch! that is so dense it hurts my brain. The baby, you see, belonged to Ann. She was NOT going to surrender it to any agency or organization unless they swore to her that there was a couple waiting for it, and not an orphanage waiting for it. How much more clear can I be?  That was not up to the organization or agency. It was up to Ann.She, I’ll postulate, was unwilling to sign her child away to anyone but an adoptive couple, -or to an organization that assured her that they had one in waiting, instead of informing her that they did not, and didn’t know when they ever might. No orphanage for her baby. No limbo of parentless-ness.
See? She was a great person looking out for the best interest of her pending child. I salute her!
“…but you present no evidence except your perception”

Allow me to explain. You see, what we have here is a failure to communicate. You are complaining that I am not presenting actual proven history when what you are looking at is pure speculation, and not in the same ball park as proven history.

Why do you keep insisting that a historical hypothetical speculative scenario has to satisfy the standards of a historian who only deals in known facts?
Please explain how it could be both speculation and be fact? If it is fact then it is not speculation. But it all hinges on what is actually “known”, and not postulated.

“Your logical fallacy is: reversal of the burden of proof. You are the one making these claims, you have to support them. It is not our job to prove negatives.”

Obviously, you have not understood what your job is. It is… 2007, and Obama has just announced his candidacy. Immediately the Vancouver scenario appears. His supporters must a.) prove it to be false. or b.) allow a huge dark cloud to hang over their candidates head, with the presumption that a lack of refutation implies veracity for the claims.

Today, the issue is not his candidacy, nor his presidency, but his legacy. There the dark cloud sits because no one can dispel it. Doing so is the job of everyone here and at obamaconspiracy.com to accomplish. So far, it’s not going so good. Maybe something key will turn up. It might take only one fact and it will collapse. But gee, where is that one fact to be found?

“What Indonesian adoption? He wasn’t adopted in Indonesia.”

The scenario is that he was adopted in Indonesia after Ann’s second husband Lolo Soetoro was recalled back to his country from Hawaii without his new wife and step-child.  He brought with him copies of their marriage certificate and her full custody agreement with Obama Sr from their divorce papers.

“He did have, and does have, a US passport. As a natural-born citizen of the USA (whether you like it or not), he couldn’t have got an Indonesian passport even if such a thing had been applied for as he would not have qualified for one.”

Wait a minute, now you are putting your competing scenario up against mine only dishonestly pretending before the world that yours is not 100% speculation also.
So prove your claims. You cannot prove any of them or else I would not have written the scenario and would not be here trying to open your eyes to the real world that you can’t accept.

Reality shatters your delusional mind-set and so you pretend that the delusion is real and reality is unproven. That is the emotional position of a dependent child who must hang on for as long as possible to her security blanket since reality is too cruel.

“~if Obama had been adopted by Soetero, which he wasn’t, he would not have lost his USA citizenship.”

Correct, he would not have lost his non-existent citizenship, nor his presumed common law citizenship. Both of which do not make him what the Founders required, something to which a certain word is connected:

N-A-T-U-R-A-L.

User avatar
The Fogbow Grand Wizard
 
Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

6 Responses to Defogging the Fogbow’s Obama Delusions

  1. sillyhaha71 says:

    “”So, SAD would have to had to keep her son unless a family was available to adopt her son? Certainly an orphanage or foster family could be found for Obama if his mother didn’t want him.

    Boy, your option sure doesn’t give Ann any credit at all for being a concerned human being. She did NOT WANT HER CHILD TO LANGUISH IN AN ORPHANAGE! Nor in foster care. SHE WANTED IT TO BE ADOPTED. So she kept looking.””

    “In 1966, the LA Bureau became the first agency in the country to openly recruit single parents. The effort was designed largely to find permanent adoptive homes for African-American children.”

    “”WOW! Talk about proving my point and disproving yours! NO COUPLES WHO WANTED NEGRO BABIES. SINGLES HAVING TO BE “RECRUITED” since even they weren’t lining up for such an opportunity.””

    You’re such a selective reader! You ignored this:

    “cases involved “Negro” children requested by white couples”
    I’m sure it’s an inadvertent oversight on your part. You’re all about honest discourse.

    Adoption agencies “recruit” parents all the time. They still do. Even for white kiddos. And the LA agency recruited because they were one of the first to allow white couples to adopt black babies and to allow single adults to adopt babies at all. They had to spread the word. Aka “recruit”.
    And parents were seeking the agency for trans-racial adoption: “Since 1950, the Bureau has placed 1150 Negro children”
    [LA IN 1966 IS NOT SEATTLE IN 1961. GENERALITIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIFIC COUPLE AT A SPECIFIC TIME, WHICH WAS ANN’S DELIVERY TIME. LEADING UP TO IT, NO COUPLES EXISTED WHO WERE THEN INTERESTED.]

    Earlier you stated:

    “”The specific type of demographic qualifiers include married couples not of the same gender (the only kind back then) financial well-being, crime-free background, -desire to adopt, etc, etc. Single people were not in the demographic, ruling out a whole lot of people””

    I’ve proven you wrong. Single persons were allowed to adopt in the 60′s, esp if they were interested in trans-racial adoption! Single persons had been trying to adopt for some time but agencies (and in some states, laws, forbade them from doing so). Now they were allowed to do so.

    There is and was no such thing as picking up a child and signing permanent adoption papers the day you pick up your child. Families waited months for their child to legally become their child!!
    [THAT IS NOT RELEVANT. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS THAT ONE SINGLE COUPLE THAT WAS WILLING TO ADOPT THE TYPE OF BABY THAT ANN WAS GOING TO HAVE. I POSTULATE THAT WHEN SHE NEEDED THEM, THEY DID NOT APPEAR. IOW, NO WAITING COUPLE HAD COMMUNICATED THAT THEIR PREFERENCE ALLOWED FOR AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN BABY. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN WAITING ADOPTIVE PARENTS BUT NONE IN SEATTLE OR VANCOUVER THAT WOULD ACCEPT A RACIALLY DIFFERENT CHILD.

    It has been repeatedly proven to you that when a mother surrenders her infant, the infant becomes a ward of the state before it can be adopted. Adoptive parents adopt from the agency, not from the mother. So no, SAD wasn’t under the assumption that she would get to know anything about couples wanting her child.

    [THAT IS IRRELEVANT. SHE NEEDED TO KNOW ONLY ONE THING; WAS THERE A COUPLE WILLING TO TAKE HER CHILD? IF “YES”, THEN SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO SIGN IT AWAY. IF “NO”, THEN SHE WOULD NOT SIGN ANYTHING. SHE WOULD KEEP TRYING ELSEWHERE.]

    “SAD wouldn’t need to change planes to go from Hawaii to LA! A shorter, cheaper flight to a specialized adoption agency that matched black children with black or white families! That worked with white couples requesting black infants.”

    [YOU ARE IGNORING THE SCENARIO. IT POSTULATES THAT SHE RESETTLED IN Seattle TWO TO THREE MONTHS BEFORE DELIVERY. TALK ABOUT LA DOES NOT TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.]

    SAD was raised on the West Coast in her teen years. She knew that LA was the largest city on the west coast. Those in Hawaii would have also known this. SAD would have known that racial diversity was greater in LA through news coverage and high school classes. She absolutely would have known that Washington and BC had much less racial diversity.
    [ODDS WERE NOT A FACTOR IN HER FRAME OF MIND. OPTIMISM WAS. SHE ASSUMED THAT ALL WOULD WORK OUT AS HOPED. HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL…]

    Even if SAD was looking for an adoptive home, agencies in Hawaii could have and would have provided her with info about other cities that could meet her adoption needs!!! The agency in LA had been doing trans-racial adoption for 7 years by the time SAD would have needed an agency. They had been specializing in finding homes for black children for 15 years by 1964.

    [NOW WE KNOW SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND SETTLED IN A STRANGE CITY ALONE WITH NO FRIENDS OR ACQUAINTANCES. PROBLEM IS THAT SHE DIDN’T KNOW THAT. YOUR VIEWPOINT IS OVERLY INFORMED BY YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH ACQUIRING INFO VIA THE INTERNET. SHE MAY HAVE BEEN VERY SINGLE MINDED ABOUT RETURNING TO SEATTLE AND NOT SETTLING ANYWHERE ELSE.]

    SAD was also married to a man who knew immigration requirements for entry into the US! Why would she go to Canada … and then think she could return to the US if she kept her child?
    [BECAUSE THE US AND CANADA HAD A VIRTUAL OPEN BORDER FOR CARS AND PLANES.]

    Under your scenario, SAD wasn’t going to leave her child with an agency. She would only leave her son if he was adopted out. Thus, she must have known that there was a chance she would have to return with her son … which required a border crossing!!

    [AIRPLANES FLY OVER BORDERS, THEY DON’T DRIVE OVER THEM. AND AS AN AMERICAN RETURNING HOME TO THE WELCOMING STATE OF HAWAII, MOST RACIALLY DIVERSE STATE IN THE NATION, WHAT CUSTOMS OR INS AGENT WOULD LOOK AT A MOTHER WITH A NEWBORN AND THINK THAT IT WAS NOT THE CHILD OF THE MOTHER IT WAS WITH, AND WHO WAS NURSING IT?]

    You still haven’t explained how SAD got her newborn biracial child out of Canada.
    [CANADA, YOU SEE, IS A FREE COUNTRY. YOU DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO LEAVE.]

    You’ve said:
    “what sane person would presume that there were no agencies in Hawaii or Seattle???”
    No doubt there were, but no private society or public agency able to find interested adoptees, nor willing to assume guardianship of a newborn baby that was not adoptable in their area.

    Lm k of TFB (my WordPress username is different, but I’m me).

  2. sillyhaha71 says:

    But you need permission to enter the U.S. 😉
    [YOU DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO ENTER YOUR OWN COUNTRY, EVER.]

    You’re claiming that SAD contacted adoption agencies in Hawaii, Seattle and Vancouver and that the agencies all told her whether or not they had a Negro family waiting to adopt a Negro infant. Yet, the release of that information was illegal as I explained on TFB in more detail. So you’re asserting that somehow 3 agencies (or EVERY agency she contacted in each location) was willing to violate the law for a 17 year old girl? Uh, that’s illogical.

    [YOU MISREAD. I MENTIONED NEGRO PARENTS TO ILLUSTRATE THE NUMERICAL PAUCITY OF COUPLES WHO WOULD BE NATURAL ADOPTERS. THE NUMBER OF WHITE COUPLES WOULD BE PROBABLY EVEN LESS. I DID NOT SAY THAT SHE ASKED ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF VETTED, ADOPTIVE PARENTS. ONLY WHETHER OR NOT ANY EXISTED. IF YOUR THINKING WAS NOT SO BIASED, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE MADE SUCH A PRESUMPTUOUS ERROR.]

    SAD married the father of her child. Why would she marry if she planned to surrender her infant? Why would SAD leave her husband of 3 months after her wedding and move to the mainland?
    [AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT I WROTE. SHE DID NOT PLAN TO SURRENDER HER INFANT. SHE HOPED TO FIND IT TO A COUPLE WHO WANTED IT MORE THAN SHE DID. SURRENDER IMPLIES GIVING IT UP TO ANY ENTITY THAT WOULD TAKE IT. YOU KNOW THAT I SAID SHE WAS NOT WILLING TO DO THAT WITHOUT ASSURANCE THAT ADOPTIVE PARENTS WERE WAITING. SHE DID NOT GET THAT ASSURANCE FROM ANY SOCIAL AGENCY. AND SOON THE BABY WAS READY TO ARRIVE. THEN SHE HAD NO CHOICE IN HER MIND BUT TO BE ITS MOTHER.
    MARRIAGE WAS TO PREVENT THE CHILD, IF NOT ADOPTED, FROM BEING BORN A BASTARD, WHICH WAS AVOIDED.]

  3. sillyhaha71 says:

    You need to provide proof that you are a U.S. citizen to enter the US. Thus, you need permission to cross the border. Your passport certifies citizenship.

    [WHAT YOU “NEED” AND WHAT YOU “NEEDED” ARE NOT THE SAME. Past vs. Present. Learn to distinguish the difference. You already know that to go from Canada to the U.S. in 1961 only required a U.S. Driver’s License. NOT a Passport.]

    So now everyone is supposed to know that you mean “any couple willing to adopt” even though you’ve ALWAYS said “Negro couple”? Agencies cannot provide ANY info to expecting mothers or prospective couples about anything other than their procedures for surrendering/adopting a child. They can say “this is how the process works” (we meet with you, have you fill out initial forms, etc). They cannot say “yes/no we have a couple that can adopt your infant now”. You’ve ALWAYS stressed that agencies would do that, but it was illegal for them to do so. You claim that SAD wouldn’t leave her infant without that info. You’ve ALWAYS maintained that she would need the adoption to be immediate, so the answer of “We have a family who could take in a Negro child” would not be adequate according to you. BUT AGENCIES CAN’T ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE LAWS AT THE TIME FORBADE THEM FROM DOING SO. They cannot, by law, say yes or no we have a couple waiting to adopt a Negro baby. And you have ALWAYS been specific about parents being willing to adopt a Negro child.

    I could buy that one agency would break the law, but multiple agencies? Nope.

    [BREAK THE LAW??? WHAT LAW? YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO QUOTE ANY BECAUSE NONE EXISTED IN WASHINGTON STATE NOR BRITISH COLUMBIA IN 1961. WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THE PAST AND THE PRESENT ARE IDENTICAL?]

    Now you claim that SAD married Obama Sr., against her parents will [YOU ARE IMAGINING THINGS AGAIN. WHAT LITTLE I’VE SAID ABOUT THE MARRIAGE IS THAT IT MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN OBLIGATORY IF FOR ONLY THE ONE REASON OF AVOIDING GIVING BIRTH TO A CHILD OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK] and his parents will even though hoping an agency will give her the info she wanted? That is absurd.

    In the 60s, and earlier, there were homes for unwed mothers. SAD didn’t have to marry Obama Sr. if she was truly hoping to surrender her child. Read “The Girls Who Went Away”, which I’ve mentioned to you repeatedly. If SAD went to a home for unwed mothers, the agency would have had months to find a couple willing to adopt a Negro infant. Agencies weren’t limited to their city. Couples could have been recruited from many areas (some agencies even preferred that adoptive couples live in a different community to maintain confidentiality). Confidentiality was legally mandatory.

    [THE POSTULATION IS THAT SHE LIVED AT HOME UNTIL SOMETIME DURING ABOUT THE 6TH MONTH AND THEN, WITH NO HOPE IN HAWAII, SHE MOVED TO SEATTLE TO TRY THERE AND LIVE THERE AND BE WITH FRIENDS THERE, AND GO TO SCHOOL THERE AND MAYBE RAISE THE CHILD THERE IF ADOPTION FAILED.]

    So, you want folks to believe that SAD married, even though she truly didn’t have to? Did she hide her plan from her new husband? Why would he have married her with the understanding that she wanted the infant to be adopted? He wouldn’t have. The couple was in love. Many witnesses have attested to this. [HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THAT IS HILARIOUS! THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!]

    [I PERCEIVE THAT YOUR ARE IN LA-LA-LAND. You see, there is real marriage and then there is pretend, legal, paper marriage. It prevents the social embarrassment of being pregnant and having a child outside of marriage. A very, very undesirable thing back then, which was presumed to be something that could haunt a respectable person for life, damaging their reputation. A simply paper marriage secured her reputation so no one could ever point an accusing finger at her and proclaim “SHE HAD A BLACK BASTARD BABY WITH A MAN WHO WAS NOT HER HUSBAND! SHE HAS LOW MORAL CHARACTER AND EVEN WORSE JUDGEMENT. YOU SHOULD NOT HIRE HER.”

    The word surrender was and is the term used in adoption. If a woman hopes to adopt out her child, she is hoping to surrender the care of the infant to an adoption agency and adoptive couple. The word surrender does not mean abandon. The word is the term used for all adoptive processes. The term is used on the adoption forms! I’m using the word correctly for your scenario. According to your scenario, SAD was hoping to immediately find a couple to give her child to for adoption. The CORRECT term is SAD was hoping to immediately find a couple to surrender her child to for adoption. This is more evidence that you don’t understand how adoption works.
    [YOU CONTINUE TO RUN AWAY FROM THE SCENARIO. THERE WAS NO ADOPTION POSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO COUPLES WILLING OR WANTING TO ADOPT A NEGRO BABY. NOTHING ABOUT THE ADOPTION PROCESS IS EVEN RELEVANT. IT WOULD BE THE SAME FROM THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SITUATION IF THERE WERE NO PREGNANT WOMEN WILLING TO SURRENDER THEIR BABY.
    NO BABY, NO ADOPTION. NO ADOPTIVE PARENTS,… NO ADOPTION, AND THUS NO SURRENDER. SHE WAS NOT GOING TO ABANDON HER CHILD TO A MOTHERLESS LIFE!
    AS AN ONLY CHILD SHE WOULD KNOW A LOT ABOUT LONELINESS, AND WAS NOT GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSIGNING THE FLESH OF HER FLESH TO EVEN GREATER LONELINESS.

  4. Slartibartfast says:

    Not only is Mr. Nash’s scenario not consistent with the norms of both childbirth and adoption in the early sixties,
    [~ SPECIFIC SITUATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NORMS. OTHERWISE VARIABILITY WOULD NOT EXIST. INDIVIDUAL CHOICE WOULD NOT EXIST, NOR INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY.~]
    but he’s also misrepresented the statement of Barack Obama Sr. that he and Dr. Dunham were considering adoption.

    [~ “MISREPRESENTING”? THAT MISREPRESENTS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY READ. I REPRESENT THAT HE MENTIONED THAT ADOPTION WAS BEING CONSIDERED. I REPRESENT THAT ANY YOUNG VIVACIOUS, AMBITIOUS, ADVENTUROUS, INTELLIGENT COLLEGE-BOUND WOMAN WOULD NOT HAVE WELCOMED THE NEWS THAT SHE WAS PREGNANT AND WOULD HAVE A BABY WHETHER SHE WANTED TO OR NOT. THE FIRST AND ONLY THING TO COME TO MIND WOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTION, JUST AS POST-ROE V WADE THEY’VE ALL THOUGHT OF ABORTION. ~J

    This statement was made in the context of trying to get his student visa extended.

    [~ YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL CONTEXT, WHICH I DO UNDERSTAND SINCE I’VE BEEN IN A SIMILAR SITUATION OF BEING INTERROGATED BY A CONSULAR OFFICER ABOUT A MARRIAGE THAT WAS FAKE. THE ATMOSPHERE IS ONE THAT CRIES OUT FOR FULL CANDID TRUTHFULNESS. HE WAS BEING OPEN AND HONEST SINCE THAT WAS WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM. NO MOTIVATION WAS RELEVANT. JUST THE FACTS. HOW THE OFFICER MIGHT VIEW THEM WAS UP TO HIM, FOR BETTER OR WORSE. ~]

    Mr. Nash takes this as a kind of statement against interests—assuming that an American child would help his case. In truth, the exact opposite is true. Mr. Obama wasn’t trying to get a green card, he was trying to get permission to stay in school
    [~BAD CHOICE OF WORDS. HE WAS NOT TRYING TO STAY IN SCHOOL SINCE THAT WAS GUARANTEED. HE WAS TRYING TO STAY IN THE COUNTRY. ~]
    a kid would mean either time and money diverted from academic pursuits

    [NEITHER COULD BE PRESUMED, BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE, IT IS DONE ALL OF THE TIME BY MEN WHO FATHER CHILDREN, AND IS UNRELATED TO THE SORT OF MORAL TURPITUDE THAT WOULD RESULT IN EXPULSION.]

    or impregnating an American and then leaving her to take care of the baby on her own—neither of which would be very helpful.
    [~GEE, WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE BABY BEING ADOPTED? HOW COULD SHE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF A BABY THAT SHE DIDN’T HAVE? HMMMMMMM? ~]

    On the other hand, saying that the couple was considering adoption wouldn’t hurt his chances of getting the visa extended. [AND SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO LIE]

    In other words, rather than the statement about considering adoptions being against Obama Senior’s interests (which lends it more credibility), it is actually self-serving, which invites greater skepticism, particularly since this is the sole piece of evidence which suggests any consideration of President Obama being put up for adoption.

    [~I DON’T SEE WHERE IN THAT REASONING THERE IS ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FACT THAT THE ADOPTION DECISION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CONSENT. A FATHER ONLY HAS, AND PERHAPS “HAD” PARENTAL RIGHTS OVER A LIVING BABY, NOT AN UNBORN FETUS.
    ANN COULD TRAVEL ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SHE CARED TO AND HAVE HER CHILD THERE, AND GIVE IT UP FOR ADOPTION, WITHOUT HIM EVEN KNOWING IF SHE EVER GAVE LIVE BIRTH OR NOT, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING HE COULD SAY OR DO TO STOP HER.
    IF FACT, IN THE NOTES FROM HIS INS MEETING IN LATER AUGUST ’61, HE APPARENTLY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT HE HAD BECOME A FATHER SINCE HE DID NOT MENTION IT AT ALL.
    DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING THAT INFORMATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIKELY SINCE IT WOULD CERTAINLY EVENTUALLY BE MADE KNOWN. ~]

    So, Mr. Nash, it has now been demonstrated that your scenario was based on assumptions that are, at best, not nearly as reliable as you thought and, at worst, almost certainly erroneous. Not to mention that one of the things being called into question is whether adoption was seriously considered AT ALL.
    In light of this, do you think that there is reason to reconsider your scenario? If so, why shouldn’t we just throw it out altogether? If not, why? Do you only consider evidence that you believe supports your preconceived conclusions?
    Which do you choose to give up, Mr. Nash, your Vancouver scenario or your integrity?

    [~UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOUR MASTER, LORD BARACKULA, THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, SO IT SEEMS BOTH WILL REMAIN INTACT. BUT JUST AS SOON AS SOME OBAMA-LOVER CAN PRESENT SOME REAL EVIDENCE OR LOGIC TO CRIPPLE THE SCENARIO, I WILL BE ALL TOO READY TO ADMIT “CHECK-MATE”.

    BUT INSTEAD IT CONTINUES TO APPEAR THAT I AM THE ONE SEEING YOU IN A CHECK-MATED POSITION SINCE ALL OF THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE HOLLOW -FACTUALLY OR LOGICALLY. THAT IS HOW REALITY IS, IT DOESN’T GIVE YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT. ~

  5. sillyhaha71 says:

    Response left for Nash @ TFB.

  6. Slartibartfast says:

    Response at the Fogbow too also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: