Gutting Big Fat Foggy o-BAM’-uh Birth Lies

The real truth about the Obamination

…from deep inside the hidden, quarantine zone at, comes another knock-down, drag-out battle of truth versus lies, stupidity, faux, feigned naivete about government, and obscene vitriol that would melt most monitors.  Obama comes out the loser, as he always will.

We’ve pointed out that even if your [Vancouver birth] scenario is possible (which is very much in doubt), it is nowhere near plausible and, in fact, there is an overwhelming likelihood that it is completely false.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. O.J. Simpson, simply could not have killed his wife. The prosecution’s scenario is implausible, in fact there is a great likelihood that it is wrong.  So you have no business considering that it might indeed be true.  If the scenario doesn’t seem to probably fit, you must acquit!” And Obama’s guilty lies walk free.

So… Does “not guilty” reeeeally mean he was innocent?? Does “not likely” reeeeally mean that Obama’s black hole (where a story should be) can be presumed to contain unknown, unrevealed facts that prove his innocence? Only in flatworld where gullible Jones-townians live.

“…you can’t speak for Stanley Ann Dunham. She’s not you. And you can’t speak for the hospital staff about what they may or may not have seen in 1961. They’re not you. See how that works?”

Yes, but they could speak, and they did not. That is the point. Silence is not golden for the golden Obaminator since it does not back-up his non-story of what happened. He can’t know for sure anymore than we can. So we have to look to the testimony of those who were there, and there is none.

So how exactly does that help to validate his false narrative?  That dog should have barked and it did not. That definitely means something, and it means he knew the murder. Verdict? He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (See how that works?)

I’m not sure what he gains from our failure to disprove its “possibility” — since many, many, infinitely many things are “possible”

Yes, but are they all linked together in a compounding improbability that should grow exponentially greater with each added element, rather than continue to remain completely plausible?

What the heck are the odds of all of its elements, combined together ,-not causing an improbability so great that it is almost immeasurable?

“THIS conjecture, unlike the Vancouver “scenario,” is not, in Nash’s mind, merely a speculation, -is not merely the product of a razor-sharp mind navigating the vast universe of ideas free of bias and following where logic leads :crazy: , but is an absolute, known, proven fact.”

Hey!, you’re forgetting that just because someone says something does not make it true.
In fact I have no such dogmatic view of the birth certificates. What I have is a logical certainty because I know how the world really works, and how to discern incriminating behavior. I’ve been following it closely for 60 years, since reading the daily paper as a paperboy, age 8, and later daily newspapers and weekly news magazines through life. You can’t even grasp have many stories of fraud and corruption I’ve read over my lifetime.

So I used psychology on ya’ll by staking out a dogmatic position to provoke you into attempting to logically prove the validity of the fake birth certificates, and upon finding yourselves unable to do so, coming to realize that there might be a problem after all.
It seems that only then would the possibility of the scenario reflecting something close to reality sink into your dogmatic, sycophantic skulls.

By the Nash-Vancouver Conjecture, when a thing is possible it is the same as a certainty.

No, that is your own reflection in the mirror, -not mine. My aim is merely to bring you folks to the realization that the scenario is a possibility. Logic will take it from there, or should, but can’t, since it’s block by your unadmitted bias.

Nash wrote: “Birth certificate fraud!!! Aren’t you simplistic morons aware of the epidemic in birth certificate fraud? HELLLOOOO, Photoshop?!”

Answer: In how many of those cases, when a questioned birth certificate is presented for verification, does the issuing authority not recognize where its own record has been subverted, fabricated, or stolen? Fraudulent birth certificates are not validated by the issuing authority — they are exposed.

You are a deceiving forked-tongue devil. Not even a small child is as stupid and gullible as you pretend to be.  Do you really believe that your readers don’t see the absurdity of your so-called explanation? If so, you’re too dumb to put on your own pants.
The heart of hearts of the Obama religion is the fundamental tenant that humans do not lie if they work for government.
If that brain-dead falsity is seen to not be true, then the very foundation of your world collapses.

Your unmitigated, relentless, undiminished effort to support that false doctrine is the only thing that holds you up.
Remove it and you’ll fall into the huge sinkhole where solid ground of presumption of innocence has collapsed, -that innocence eroded away by the water of suspicion raised by inexplicable acts, events, and statements.

I have an idea! Let’s presume, just for a minute, that politically appointed people, with close affinity for and worshipful attitude toward their great leader, are asked to do him a tiny favor, something that EVERYTHING rides on.

In flat-world the King’s servants don’t tell him “okay”, instead they retain their integrity fully intact and refuse their king; but in the real world they go along to get along and support their champion.    All the time, everyday, year in, year out, just as the specially-appointed Subah-cult-devotee Fuddy did when “Hawaii-born” Obama asked for something his mother had been denied due to lack of corroborating witnesses.

Shye had seen his mother’s application for a birth certificate, -a half-century old affidavit in the archive, so she choose to believe Ann’s claim of home birth in Honolulu.  What’s so wrong with giving the PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES the birth certificate that he “no doubt” deserved?  All it would take was the equivalent of a little white criminal lie.  Why would she think that she had to be the stick in the spokes of Obama’s eligibility bicycle?   What’s worse than someone who’s not a team player?  Everyone knows the cop code, -never rat on a fellow officer no matter how damn guilty he is.

What exactly, in the real world, is unreasonable about that possibility? NOTHING!

“What does the law say? [about the authenticity of a birth certificate] -And the law says: “what does the issuing authority say?”

What a damn fool you are. Your endless appeal to authority would make a fifth grader blush with shame. But not you! Everyone stand and salute the flag of AMERICAN HONESTY IN GOVERNMENT!!!
If you actually were capable of grasping the truth about human nature, and the pathetic history of its failure, you would understand some very simple truths, including that the Attorney General of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA was a lying bastard just like you, and was proven to be so by uncovered secret evidence that sent his lying ass to prison. Nixon would have been next if Ford hadn’t pardoned the corruptocrat who had appointed him.

So quite your damn lying pretensions about how people appointed by and serving their corrupt, hack political bosses are as honest as Angels, and everyone should join you in bowing at your alter of naivete and obedience to self-serving liars in government. You are a pathetic mendacious fraud.

As for Fuddy, the boot-licking governor’s replacement of his newly hired Health Dept. Director with Fuddy (after he mysteriously resigned for “personal reasons”, unbeknownst to him)  was at the request of the Great Hawaiian Hope who needed a subservient type person to allow access to off-limit records in order to quell the rising tide of questions about his pathetic excuse for official birth verification.

He needed a long form to shut-up those voices, and so she opened the door to the files, with eyes wide open, in for a penny, in for a pound. And so she, having crossed that bridge, had no reservation about sealing her supposedly upright actions with her signed statement.
Her predecessors were willing to obfuscate and deceive but not to allow access to the files or to outright lie in their official capacity. But Fuddy was. And did, and now conveniently she is mysteriously dead. When the hell does the mystery ever end with Obama’s secret background?

Like it or not, the scientific use of the word “theory” (as in the Theory of Evolution [by Natural Selection]) is NOT the same as the use of the word in common non-sciency parlance. In science, it’s a term of art, as Teh Lawyahz would say, but it’s not correct to assume that the use of the word in ordinary language is or should be the same as in science. In ordinary speech, “theory” means a hypothesis or conjecture that is not (yet) fully proven, almost the opposite of the scientific usage. Who’s correct? ‘Fraid the linguistics folk would probably say ordinary speech wins (that is, technical users cannot dictate to the general population how a technical word should be used by non-technical users).

Well, sammy boy, you just shot your own head off with that fine elucidation. Thanks!
In your two-dimensional thinking, you failed to recognize the parallels to Obama’s unconstitutionality. You see, in the “science” of legalese in Britain, they had a definition for “natural-born subject” and it was anyone who was a subject. By that fiction of legal “science”, even those born of aliens were deemed to be “natural” subjects.

See?? It’s all just a twist and trick of language distorted by a little legal fiction. Everyone is a “natural-born” subject of the King!  In Britain, -and in the colonies as well, -until…. July 4th 1776. Then that bastardization of language and logic came to an end in the thinking of the founders.
Then the words they used were no longer fictional legalese expressing the fake legal science of Britain, but were just ordinary common words of the common people.
A natural citizen. A born citizen. A born natural citizen. A natural born citizen. Common English. A return to sanity and a rejection of falsity.
Now you understand, don’t you.

However, I agree, you’re correct that Nash’s crap isn’t theories (in any sense of the word), coz it’s just the idiot rambling outpourings of a racist moron.

Nash: You are a fool. I present a speculative scenario that needs to be shown to be impossible.

by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jul 03, 2014

The Gnish Gnash does not have theories, they do not deserve that much credit. They are at best poor quality absurdist racist fantasies. The only facts he has presented throughout his long wastage of electrons is that he is woefully and intentionally ignorant and lazily ignorant on almost all fronts.
He general style is to present ponderous long winded scenarios that even the worst of the pulp fiction writers of the 30’s would have gagged at and calls them research and yet has nothing to show for any of it, except the well deserved derision of anyone with an IQ about room temperature.
His usual response when cornered on one of his many lies and fabrications is to say it is so because he says it is so. He is intellectually and factually dishonest even above and beyond that standard achieved by most birthers.

Aaaaaahhhh, the more irrational become the attacks, -the more totally devoid of specific refutation of any detail, the more your pathetic hopelessness is manifested. Like I always say about you flying monkeys, you can’t refute anything and so you just blast toxic farts into the air hoping to scatter people away from paying any attention to the details and speculations that you can’t refute and do not dare to even mention.
How often does that happen? Better question is “when does it NOT happen? It happens continuously and endlessly, and yet the Scenario still stands, undisproven.

I thought all you bozos were supposed to be big Obama defenders, and yet you can’t defend him against the scenario, so you just caterwaul and whine about not having to defend your lying, lawless champion, and pretend that there’s some sort of burden on me to convert a speculation into actual history.
But there is no such burden on me. It is on you to show your champion is spotless, truthful, honest as the day is long, and not the lying snipe that he is.

A speculative scenario needs data to become more than just idle speculation. Creativity and thinking outside the box are good, but then facts/supporting evidence/data are needed to move from ideas to potential possibilities. It’s up to you to provide that data, and you’ve provided none.

What a stupid crock! Data??? What is this, a contest of statistics? Or historical facts where there are none? You deceitfully pretend that actual facts are out there but I’ve just failed to provide them to all you great defenders of an unconstitutional president. BUT THERE ARE NO FACTS THAT ARE KNOWN, OR NOT SEALED OFF.

A speculative scenario based on logic based on a few known things is not even in the ball park as what is described by the word “idle”. Was Einstein’s relativity theory mere “idle” speculative theory? What exactly made it not idle but factual?

I wrote: “There is no reason to think that she knew Ann Dunham. Her recollection was that the Dr. West she had lunch with answered her question regarding if there was anything new (and interesting), to which he replied: “A Stanley had a baby.  Now that’s something to write home about.” A Stanley??? How odd, and even more so since that was her father’s name, (not her mother’s)

No mentioned of the date of the birth, only that a Stanley had a baby, (sometime recently, which the theory postulates was about 2-3 days before).”

1. What is your source for “A Stanley had a baby.”? I can respond once I read the exact source you used.

This is not a contest of sources. There is only one source and it is what she said from her 50 year old memory. The quote spread across the net lacks a crucial word to make it make sense (“a”).  I simply supplied it.
Are you going to argue, after understanding the logic of her response, that the simple little word “a” can be categorically ruled out as not having been spoken? (“Stanley had a a baby.”)
If so, then you must prove that both she, and the doctor as well, somehow knew the person of Stanley Ann Dunham.
That is the challenge for you, I don’t have to prove that they didn’t know each other since that is implicit in her response. She had never heard of a female named Stanley.
Get it now? “A Stanley had a baby!” -not the Stanley that they knew had a baby, -that would not have struck her mind as odd if she already knew a female Stanley. But it was odd and that was why she wrote to her father about it.

“She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.
I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson,

That never happened because it could not have happened. His name was NOT musical. It was pronounced Barrack; BAIR’-ak  o-BAM’-ah as revealed by his own family, including his brother who founded the foundation named after their father, and still pronounces his name as all of his family does just as it actually was, -not as Jr. bastardized it.
Tucker Carlson called the foundation’s number and was shocked to hear that pronunciation in the recorded message. He reported what he heard but failed to grasp its implications of deliberated, calculated manipulation.
BAIR-ek = Barry. ba-ROCK = Rocky. Yes, Virginia, reality is not what you thought it was.

Nash wrote: “A Stanley had a baby!” -not simply: “Stanley had a baby!”

response: “I’m not pissing about sources. I want to know where you read that the quote. It’s not a source contest. The quote is different than what I remember it being and I would like to read your source.  Certainly you’re able to show where you read that quote.

It is not a source quote. It is a quote of what was actually said. You cannot claim that it would be incorrect and the version lacking the word “a” is correct, or you’d be supporting a mindless proposition what would make no sense. Is that what you are in fact supporting? Do you dare to try to explain the logic of the sentence when “a” is missing? I thought not.

You still ignore the issue of law. Why would 2-3 adoption agencies be willing to violate the LAW for SAD? You keep refusing to answer that question. One agency? Maybe. But multiple agencies breaking the LAW to give SAD information she wasn’t legally entitled to have simply wouldn’t happen.
THAT is too stupid to answer, but since you are mentally handicapped, I’ll provide you a correction. Telling a prospective adoptive-baby provider nothing at all about prospective adoptive parents is not a violation of the law. Telling her that they did not exist is not either, nor is telling her that they do exist.
Why can’t that sink into your thick skull? Why does your bent mind conflate two things that are completely different?

In addition, hospitals didn’t discharge women within 2-3 days of birth. SAD would have been hospitalized for 5 days, likely longer.

Thank you for echoing the scenario’s presentation of the Vancouver situation. If in a hospital, the formal paper work wouldn’t even be presented until the third or fourth day, by which time she had left, with no paper work filled out. Why bother when he was going to be registered back in Hawaii? So she thought.


So please show that there are no naturalized citizens in the Secret Service. I’m getting tired of showing facts and only having a few even acknowledged.

Okay, just point me to how that can be done. I’ve read all the regulations and they make it clear via their concerns that candidates with only a foreign background would not be welcome to even apply, ever. No one with an entirely foreign background would be welcome to carry a loaded weapon around the President.  They would only allow natural born citizens.

There is simply no reason to risk what happened to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, or a similar high official of Pakistan this very year. Both machine-gunned by their own security guard. How did their egalitarian, inclusive policy work out for them? Not so good. Security is the highest priority, -not equal opportunity.

And it is really stupid and ignorant of what I’ve written to even mention naturalized citizens. Would you ever in a thousand years allow a naturalized Pakistani citizen (from a country where 90+ of the people hate us) to be allowed access to and launch authority over American nuclear weapons?
Only natural born citizens are allowed such access and authority, otherwise the world would have been destroyed long ago.  And that goes for every nuclear nation on Earth. Which one would consider for a second any other policy?  Remember Murphy’s Law.  The only way to fight it is via a very strict vetting policy, topped by the natural criterion of a singular citizenship, a purely American nature and background, and no other.

“So why are the Fogbow posters frauds like Slartibartfast?”

Because they have nothing but losing, lame fantasies to defend their Dear Leader. They are all corrupt and maniacal when it comes to normal thinking and reasoning.

You can’t begin to imagine the devious, demonic, demented and delusional responses I’ve had to wade through in the thread devoted to my Vancouver birth scenario. Brains would be flying if they didn’t have skulls.

Over 1,500 posts of slime and infantile stupidity that I’ve slogged through, ever astonished at the new lows that they sink to, -unprintable anywhere in the world.
They make dogs and pigs look like geniuses and gentlemen in comparison.
All in their desperate attempt to defend the great Lord Barackula.


~final post at the secret, “Fema Camp 7” quarantined thread titled:

A. R. Nash: Barack Obama was born in Vancouver, B. C.

by obama–nation » Thu Jul 03, 2014

BillTheCat wrote: We’re giving him a free platform to perform in and he gets responses every single day – Not just Mario and one or two of us, but a big group of people.He will never go away unless he is banned. And frankly, IMHO, he’s overstayed his welcome, even in FEMA camp (but that’s why Foggy is in charge, and not less tolerant folks like me, heh). Having a debate is one thing. When it becomes yelling at a brick wall, it’s time to stop. IMHO.

Well guess what?  It’s is time to stop when I say it’s time, -and it is time to stop, (unless you can’t resist carrying on without me). But who can predict the future? Certainly not me. (Reelected?????) Maybe I’ll change my mind for some unfathomable reason. But I think I’ve shared enough truth with those here who have a half-honest soul.

Like I already stated earlier, tomorrow (July 4th) is my independence day from this retarded toilet. Can’t you comprehend plain English? Is your memory shot from too much smack?

Time for all of you losers to get a life, instead of faithfully consigning yourselves to cleaning up Obama’s piles for life. That should be below even your dignity, but the problem is that none of you have any since dignity does not come without honesty.

Some of you fancy yourselves as intellectually honest, but fail to grasp that your presumed honesty does not keep you on the straight and narrow path of the truth since your thinking is so distorted by deep ingrained bias in favor of an unconstitutional fraud of an American.
Wait! I take that back.

Yes, Obama is an American, just like the so-called Dreamers brought here as children and raised as Americans. They and Obama are Americans! But neither are United States citizens. And last I checked, only a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is eligible to be President.

To even be a citizen requires meeting certain obligations and requirements: SUBJECTION to The Full Depth of National Sovereign Jurisdiction:

Financial Obligation; (Americans are obligated to pay U.S. income taxes on taxable income world-wide while living abroad)

Military Obligation; (from conscription age up to 25 years old, male American permanent residents are required to register with Selective Service)

Loyalty Obligation; (full allegiance required and expected vs disloyalty up to and including treason.)

Barack Hussein Obama, foreign student from Kenya, a guest of the U.S. on a 1 yr. student Visa; NOT SUBJECT!!!! His son born subject to only British jurisdiction as his own website declared: also,… NOT SUBJECT!!!

The consequence per the 14th Amendment: OBAMA Jr.: ~NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN!!!

~Accept it, it’s the LAW of these UNITED STATES. Why do you not respect the law??? (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 1898).

When will you start showing some respect for the opinion of the SUPREME COURT OF THESE UNITED STATES?
(I know… never!)

and that’s all she wrote…. toota lu, traitors!


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”.

3 Responses to Gutting Big Fat Foggy o-BAM’-uh Birth Lies

  1. WEll 5 years of compete and utter failure on your part certainly speaks louder than your words.

  2. sillyhaha71 says:

    I see that you still refuse to give your source for “a Stanley had a baby”.

    When I Google your exact quote, the ONLY links that google finds are h2ooflife, Doc. C’s 1,000 Word Challenge and RCRadio’s blog linking to Doc. C’s website. links are listed; it’s a data site of birth and death dates by name., which lists birth and death dates for people named Stanley.

    So, again, what is your source for “a Stanley had a baby”? Right now, you are the ONLY source for that quote. So unless you provide your source, one must conclude that you are purposefully and unethically manipulating a quote to say what it never said.

    Fess up, Nash!

    • arnash says:

      The owner of Facebook “obama release your records” directed me to the original website regarding the bogus Barbara Nelson article, so I read it an others, and put them into a new post which is password protected until I’m done organizing it and commenting. But this is the heart of what it contains:

      “However, Nelson later told WND that her knowledge of the birth came only from West, with whom she was dining, and the subject was brought up because of the mother’s novel name and the “musical” name of the son, Barack Hussein Obama.

      She told WND at the time that the conversation also was memorable because Obama’s mother’s name was Stanley, named after her father, and the son also was named after his father.

      However, Nelson told WND, “I don’t know in what capacity [West] knew about this particular birth.”
      Nelson explained that West was a leader in the development of obstetrics services throughout Hawaii before Obama was born, however, she said the assumption that West delivered the baby, or that she said that, were wrong.

      “Being one of the leaders in obstetrics in Hawaii, he could have had physical or informational access to all of the obstetrics [on the islands],” she told WND.

      The discussion centered on the “peculiarity of a woman named Stanley,” she said.

      “I just said tell me something [that has happened],” she said. “And he says Stanley had a baby, and that’s something to write home about.”

      [Nash notes: The Dr. failed to clearly speaking the first word of his reply, or she failed to hear it since it was nothing more than the letter “a”. It is very normal to semi-speak that vowel when it starts a sentence since it is normally pronounced: “uh”, instead of as the long version pronunciation (“A”). What he said was: “uh Stanley had a baby.” The “uh” goes undetected by the listener since it is very prone to being truncated, and just sounds like part of the exhaling as speaking begins. A similar failure of pronunciation occurred with the most famous words ever spoken: “That’s one small step for (uh) man, -one giant leap for mankind.” Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11.] Password: sillyhaha

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: