LET's TALK - Pakistan in 1981-NO AMERICANS?????
Submitted by brainon4u2 on Wed, 08/05/2009 - 17:54
There is an argument that since Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, and Pakistan was on the State department's no travel list, that Obama could not have traveled there with a US passport.
My question is, do you know if Pakistan prohibited Americans from entering the country? I have read this a couple of times and would like to know if you have any links that support this idea. Google search did not turn up much useful info.
Thanks!
»
LET's TALK - Pakistan in 1981-NO AMERICANS?????
No, this is a political legend fabricated to meet the needs of "Birthers."
The US does not now, nor has it ever, had a "No Travel List." The only country in which a US passport is invalid is Cuba, as there is an Economic Embargo. There was no such embargo against Pakistan in 1981, and travel to Pakistan has never been restricted by the US government.
Just as the Iran and North
Just as the Iran and North Korea are places the US govt would not like you to travel, American's still go there. Same thing with Pakistan. The US govt has never, to the best of my knowledge, not allowed any of its citizens to go anywhere they choose to go. They just warn them and say don't go.
Cuba
Cuba
Ordinary US citizens are
Ordinary US citizens are barred from traveling to Cuba without a special Treasury Department license. While violating that requirement year after year, both Venceremos and Pastors for Peace have been lobbying Washington to end the travel ban. They are Americans who STILL GO to countries where they are "banned" from going.
Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in why Obama is so secretive about his past but the whole travel to Pakistan thing just doesn't work as a *gotcha* point or smoking gun unfortunately.
New York Times printed an
New York Times printed an article about travel to Pakistan on June 14, 1981, which said Americans just needed a visa to travel there. Two months later, the U.S. consul general in Lahore, Pakistan, wrote to the Times to say he'd "welcome an influx of Americans"
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-w...
Article from 1981 when the author states all you need is a visa.
Thank you
very much!
Page 5 has the
Page 5 has the quote
"Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports."
Of course the birthers will say there really was a ban on travel, and the New York Times added this article as part of the NWO cover up as did the Hawaii newspapers and everyone else who is in on the plot.
My question is this, and they never seem to have an answer.
If the NWO/Bilderburg/Illuminiati/Zionist controlling empire that decides our fate planted Obama in power to take over the world, why would they put someone who could not be eligible? They say they rig the votes, control all the government, why not let McCain win or Hillary or a goat for all that it matters. If they truly plan everything, and have been for hundreds of years, then who put someone in office who could foil the whole scheme.
Its one thing to question the authenticity of a birth cert
But man- you sure are on the cutting edge of all things supportive of Obama. Why, I bet you know more about Obama than you do the Constitution. : )
Why, because I refute the BS
Why, because I refute the BS that the birthers tote around, like you couldn't travel to Pakistan in 1981, when there is a whole travel review done in 1981 about travelling to Pakistan. I have problems with the things lots of people do, Obama included, but watching the birther sheeple eat this crap up is funny.
I understand that
but have you not noticed the treatment "Birthers"get? THATS laughable. they are branded racists and kooks- not because they fall for every forgery that comes around , but because they dare have the audacity to ask why Obama is sealing his records. And here you are going out of your way to stifle the argument. After reading many of your posts , I just question your motives is all.
Progressives are big on labeling
Don't ever forget what they did to Dr. Paul...first thing out of a progressive's mouth when they realized his threat to their success was to call him a "kook." They understand the damage a label can do and even discuss just the right labels to adhere to various people and their agendas.
Whenever I hear someone use the term "birther" I have to wonder about their agenda and why they are not interested in simply finding out the truth. I wonder what they have done to call the question, for there certain is a question of legitimacy and eligibility to be answered. We cannot, obviously, expect our executive level to answer the question, the judicial system is corrupted and simply dismisses, and what about the legislative level...they will hardly even pay their constituents any attention when asked to investigage. So, the system of checks and balances is now what I would call "failed."
Whenever I post to someone regarding the kookiness of "birthers" I simply ask where are Obama's credentials and why is he hiding them. As we all know, there is a long list of concealed or unavailable documents regarding his history. The bottomline is we have an "elected" leader about whom we know very little and this sets a very dangerous precedent, imo.
Alpacas - IT'S DOABLE
You need to think on a broader scale
They don't need a legal president. In fact, isn't all this attention on Obama convienent if you're his controllers.
Remember, they don't plan everything, they steer it in their direction. I can think of several scenarios where Obama either provides cover or becomes the fall guy.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I don't know
but maybe someone else will have your answer.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Any
one?