Main Menu

Deep Throat

President Soetoro (not)

President Obama

Woodward and Bernstein had their informant, highly-placed in the Nixon administration, who provided them with information and direction in investigating the Watergate scandal. I don’t have any sources in the Obama administration, but I do have the occasional attorney and journalist who send me things. Like Woodward and Bernstein, I don’t disclose my private sources.

One of these sources forwarded the following email sent to the New Jersey State Assembly, by Dr. Sanford Aranoff who, if my research is accurate, has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and is a professor in New Jersey. Other publications by Aranoff include the article “The Age of the World” discussing methods employed to reconcile the Torah (Jewish scripture) and scientific views about the age of the world (no, he is not a Creationist).

The letter ties recent events in Latin America to the Obama eligibility controversy. It makes a remarkable logical leap in suggesting that Obama would ignore the Supreme Court should they ever rule against him.

The Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to  endanger democracy.

Suppose the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Obama was not born in the U.S., and  so cannot be President. Will Obama ignore the ruling?

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. This means Obama will  ignore a ruling that he was not born in the U.S.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country’s democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army’s chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military – backed by  Congress and the Supreme Court – ejected Zelaya from office.

The Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America’s agenda. In their place, it has advocated “improving America’s image,” multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial  to the advancement of US interests.

Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for  Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats?

Obama’s foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter’s tenure in  office.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical  ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.

, , , , , , ,

157 Responses to Deep Throat

  1. avatar
    Heavy June 30, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    Doc, have you noticed that the only ones paying attention these days are you and the usual cast of traitors? How sad. It used to be fun. That is until you turned this site into HateOrly.com. Ithought you were more creative than that. Guess I was wrong. Liberals are very deceptive.

    Oh, by the way, this issue will not die!

    http://fairfactsmedia.blogspot.com/2009/07/story-that-wont-die.html

  2. avatar
    racosta June 30, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    That link states “But still many doubts remain about the eligibility of the Messiah to be US president.”

    Doubts remain only in the simple minds of Birthers, and as soon as the word Messiah is used all credibility of the article is gone and the article can be relegated to the nearest round file, the trash can.

  3. avatar
    NBC June 30, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    Doc, have you noticed that the only ones paying attention these days are you and the usual cast of traitors?

    Do not be too harsh on yourself dear Heavy.

  4. avatar
    NBC June 30, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    Oh and Heavy, have you abandoned your hopes to address the de facto officer doctrine?

    I am not surprised.

  5. avatar
    NBC June 30, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    Obama’s foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter’s tenure in office.

    Fascinating… Obama is finally a president who does not want to mingle in foreign affairs under the guise of ‘spreading democracy’ and his policy is most ideologically driven?…

    Fascinating blinders

  6. avatar
    NBC June 30, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    What I believe to be a fascinating misunderstanding is that people consider Obama calling the coup an illegal act evidence of him supporting the Zelaya. Zelaya had gotten into significant troubles trying to call a constitutional convention to change the Honduras Constitution. The Supreme Court had found his actions to be illegal and Congress was looking to impeach the President. That would have been the proper democratic response. Instead, due to circumstances which remain vague, the Honduras army, claiming to act on orders of the Supreme Court, removed the President from power and exiled him.
    Rather than letting democratic processes lead, the opponents of Zelaya have now created a situation where Zelaya is seen as the victim. As some have argued, this is an extremely poorly timed action which have strengthened rather than weakened Zelaya’s position. With less than 30% support, it was far from certain that Zelaya would find sufficient support for his attempts to rewrite the Constitution, let alone for his re-election efforts.
    It’s the support for proper democratic processes which guides the US policies, rather than political ideologies.

  7. avatar
    jtx June 30, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    NBC:

    So now you are an “expert” on Honduran law and current affairs as well as an authority on US law and the presidential eligibility matter???

    Fascinating!!

    Hasta la vista, trooper.

  8. avatar
    richCares June 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    the liar chimes in, oh well!

  9. avatar
    JeffSF June 30, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    it appears that Aranoff, like Heavy, supports the concept of a military coupe being part of democracy. Even though history has shown that once the precedent has been established that the military can intervene in a political matter, the military tend to intervene to make sure that the civilians never have the power to rein in their military.

    If in some alternate fantasy world President Obama were to be declared to be born in Kenya or on Mars by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama could indeed choose to ignore that ruling. Frankly, if that were the case, then President Obama of course would be aware of his Martian heritage and be unlikely to resign after pulling off the greatest conspiracy in the history of Democracies.

    However, Congress could impeach(and the Senate convict) him for concealing his Martian birth, and then he would no longer be President, and if he refused to leave office, he could be removed by proper law enforcement(Secret Service I believe would be rather a stickler for such things). This is how things would be done under our constitution. Military coupes are bad for democracies.

  10. avatar
    nbc June 30, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    I am fascinated how Heavy uses the Rasmussen poll which is untested and strongly at odds with other polls which show the President’s approval ratings around 55-60%. What is even more ironic is how Heavy attempts to distract from the issues rather than discussing his failure to appreciate the ‘de facto officer doctrine’.

    Quite telling my dear friend.

  11. avatar
    nbc June 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    So Gallup shows the ratings hovering around 60% quite steadily.

    So why the Rasmussen ratings? Well, according to Rasmussen Bush’s approval ratings were

    Rasmussen 7/21 – 7/27 Approve 33 disapprove 65 spread -32

    Obama has a long way to go before meeting the numbers of his predecessor. But let’s be realistic and understand that the Rasmussen numbers seem to portray a picture at odds with the other polls.

  12. avatar
    nbc June 30, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    Unlike you, I do not claim or pretend to be an expert, I present my results, reasoning with supporting material and do not hide behind excuses to discuss the facts and interpretations.

    Let’s compare a measure of success here

    Eligibility lawsuits dismissed/denied 40+
    Eligibility lawsuits Pending 3 (Kerchner, Strunk and soon to be dismissed Keyes v Obama)
    Eligibility lawsuits Appealed 4

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    I think Aranoff’s letter points out a key characteristic of the nObama movement. That is, they interpret everything that happens through the lens of their hatred of Obama. In this case, they turn a military coup into a democratic process, just because Obama is on the other side of the issue.

  14. avatar
    nbc June 30, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    I was wrong, Congress’s ability to impeach was dropped from the 2003 revision of the Constitution. I was surprised when reading the Constitution that I could not find any references to impeachment proceedings. This may explain why the Supreme Court and the Army decided to send the President abroad. It also makes their actions harder to support from a democratic perspective.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    If you want HateOrly.com, go read this http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=24

    I’m relatively nice to Orly, given her actions. I pull my punches all the time.

  16. avatar
    Black Lion June 30, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    Wow..using Michael Savage as a source to anything. This is such a hate filled individual that he is banned from Great Britian. Along with known terrorists. Because Savage is the source we know that whatever he says we know it would be something to show President Obama in a negative light…His ignorance knows no bounds…Which is probably why he doesn’t use his real last name Weiner. That says it all about him.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    Rasmussen is to polls what WorldNetDaily is to news.

  18. avatar
    Epectitus June 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    Understand that “there are lies, damn lies and statistics.” The Rasmussen parsing simply uses a mathematical operation to come up with a result that is actually quite meaningless. It subtracts from the approval rating those who approve, but do not “strongly” approve. It then compares that to the percentage of those who “strongly” disapproves. It is not an “approval rating,” per se, as it makes no effort to account for any but the most polarized answers. As such, it is a measure of polarization, not popularity.

    Even Rasmussen puts Obama’s actual overall approval rating at 54%.

    This is still at the low end of other polls, but Rasmussen has consistently skewed anti-Obama, demonstrating a systemic bias in comparison to other pollsters.

  19. avatar
    Heavy June 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    Another hater who does not pay attention.

  20. avatar
    nbc June 30, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    Oh the irony my friend, the irony.

  21. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 30, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    I couldn’t agree with you more Dr. C. Nate Silver over really open my eyes to polling Org. The man is a statical savant.

  22. avatar
    TRUTH June 30, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    Had to luv what I heard on the news yesterday. I forget the mans name, the one that speaks for Obama often at the podium. Sorry bout my oldtimerz. Anyways, with reference to Obamas promise “no middle class tax increases”. This man says “we’re leaving that option open.” HAHAHA!!! To those wondering, that means “Its ON THE WAY”. And DO NOT try to give me a history lesson of who else raised taxes when they said they would not. This is YOUR MESSIAH we’re talking about. The Savior of the Free WOrld, Fixer of ALL, Liar of Often.

  23. avatar
    TRUTH June 30, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    LMAO!!! Yep, Surnames make a person bad, Don’t they “BLACK LION”! I crown Thee “Green Weenie Award Winner” of the week.

  24. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    A usurper cannot be impeached. If federal law enforcement chose not to remove an usurper, then it is up to the usurper to leave voluntarily.

    Negotiations will be undertaken with a full pardon high on the priority list.

  25. avatar
    Catbit June 30, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    TRUTH been drinking again?

  26. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 30, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    A person who was ELECTED to an office cannot be a “usurper” whether qualified or not.

    An unqualified person who is ELECTED to office is called a “de facto” officer.

    The Constitution is clear: there are 3 ways, and 3 ways only, that Obama can be removed from office prior to the expiration of his term.

    1) He can resign.
    2) He can be impeached and convicted by the Senate.
    3) He can be removed temporarily or permanently due to physical or mental incapacity, pursuant to the 25th Amendment.

    Anything else is a fantasy.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

    Sven and Heavy belong to the execute before trial school of judicial process.

  28. avatar
    richCares June 30, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    “MESSIAH”, hey truth, that’s passé, catch up will you.

    Why don’t you go back to claiming von Brunn was a registered Democrat. You have no creditability here!

  29. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    Funny how those claiming to defend the Constitution are also willing to abandon in when convenient.

  30. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:33 am #

    After more research, consulting foreign resources, the following picture is emerging: The Honduras President’s attempt to hold a referendum to change the Constitution was not prohibited by the Constitution. The changes involved minimum wage, nationalization of utilities and a provision which would allow a President to be re-elected. A provision which would have taken effect after the President’s term would have ended.
    Most countries, including the Catholic church have spoken out against the actions of the Honduras military.
    So what do the ‘defenders of the Constitution’ have to say about this? Is it going to be like the embarrassing unfamiliarity of Heavy with the De Facto Officer Doctrine?
    Fascinating.

  31. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 1, 2009 at 7:32 am #

    To usurp is to seize without right. Barry is without right to hold the Office of the President of the United States, i.e. an usurper.

    1) He cannot resign from an office he had no right to hold.
    2) He cannot be impeached from an office he never rightfully held.
    3) You’re blinded by your fantasy of having an usurper destroy this country from the inside.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2009 at 8:02 am #

    President Obama did not “seize” his office. He won it in a free and fair election, an election that was certified by Congress, and took office after being duly sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in accordance with the laws of the United States and the will of the voters. President Obama has every right to his office.

    The silly rumors about him being born in Kenya, the legally impossible fantasy about his having lost his citizenship as a child, and the crank attempts to create a novel and historically unjustified redefinition of the constitution do not create ineligibility. They only create an argument for the public schools to spend more effort in teaching critical thinking.

  33. avatar
    kimba July 1, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    It appears to me that what happened in Honduras is exactly what the birthers are calling for here: ignore the Constitution and have the military remove the President bodily. We have all seen the comments by birthers creepily fantasizing for the day they see the entire Obama family frog-marched out of the White House and sent to a life sentence on some island ( G’mo?)The two Little girls included. The Honduras thing makes them think their fantasy could come true here too.

  34. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 9:01 am #

    Birthers have really shown they lack critical thinking skills and sven fully qualifies on this. It’s amazing how they spout “usurper” or “messiah”, the use of those words immediately identifies them as idiots and you can’t reason with an idiot, It is sad to be so full of hate that the brain atrophies. I would imagine that Birther addresses are in large demand in So African scam circles, they are easy marks.

  35. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 1, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    Don’t forget they want to include all liberals and/or Democrats and anyone who is a supporter of President Obama. We are all traitors in their eyes and should be brought up on some type of criminal charges.

  36. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 9:57 am #

    As usual TRUTH speaking anything but the truth and Heavy is is usual uninformed self….But it doesn’t surprise me that you and Heavy would be supporters of a hate monger like Savage (Weiner). The Rasumssen poll is not an accurate reading of Obama’s support. Additionally since you link to it from Savage and WMD’s website you know what you are getting. Biased information skewed to make Obama look bad.

    Surnames don’t usually make someone look bad…But in this case his name says what he is. Or maybe he is not proud of his given surname. Who knows. I have no problems with my screen name, Black Lion. I happen to be African-American and have a BA and MBA from Penn State University, home of the Nittany Lions, hence my name. However with all of the lies you expouse TRUTH, maybe your name is an oxymoron.

    I guess supporting a guy like Weiner that says the statements below shows us who you really are….

    Some of Weiner’s best…

    “The white Christian heterosexual married male is the epitome of everything right with America”.

    “They say, “Oh, there’s a billion of them (Muslims).” I said, “So, kill 100 million of them, then there’ll be 900 million of them.” I mean, would you rather die — would you rather us die than them?”

    “Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.”

  37. avatar
    Joyce July 1, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    “The changes involved minimum wage, nationalization of utilities and a provision which would allow a President to be re-elected.”

    Minimum wage and nationalization of utilities – them things is Marxist; anti God, and anti free market. Them Honduran patriots saved their country from Communist rule.

    Extending the number of terms a president can serve – well I don’t know; Republicans wanted to do that when Reagan was president.

  38. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    His name is Robert Gibbs. He, along with Emanuel, Axelrod and many others are responsible for this piece of dung that illegally occupies the Oval Office. It will be fun to watch that smarmy, arrogant ass hauled away in leg irons too!

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    Heavy, back in the old days you always added “soon” to that phrase.

  40. avatar
    racosta July 1, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    I guess all those voters must have illegally voted for this illegal president, mass numbers of illegal alens crossed over to vote. Or just maybe you are the illegal one.

  41. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    SOON!

    Feel better now?

  42. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    Are you of the illegals? You sure sound like one.

    Federal judges are calling for investigations into ACORN for voter fraud. They will find MUCH more than fraud. They will find outright threats and intimidation. If they have the balls to follow through, there will be enough eveidence to recall THE ONE. Wait! Can you recall a usurper?

  43. avatar
    racosta July 1, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    sure, Mickey Mouse voted and signed autographs after. You caught him, so smart! Now smarty, give us the names of those federal judges or did you just lie like you normally do.

    * Micky Mantle voted 8 times! you so smart!

  44. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 1, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/news-v-not-news/comment-page-2/#comment-12614

    Hmmm.. so do you think that’s the real story behind this? http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/news-v-not-news/comment-page-2/#comment-12614

    He certainly seems delighted to have received so much email!

  45. avatar
    racosta July 1, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    Not a single case of voter fraud in connection with Acorn has been found, there have been some problem registrations found which Acorn reported as required by law. So far the only fraud found has been fraud against Acorn, both Acorn and Judges have called for action against this. There have been no sightings of Mickey Mouse trying to vote. Only a right winger would vote for a cartoon character. This story is old and it’s over.

  46. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Not YET!

  47. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    truth’s name is much like Bush’s clear air act, a name that means the opposite. This is common among the wingers. The only thing we are not sure of is does truth lie or just believe the lie.

  48. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    Keep smokin’ dat wacky weed, Blacky!

  49. avatar
    racosta July 1, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    heavy’s link is about registration fraud, not a single instance of voter fraud was covered, not even one. Not a very discerning fellow that heavy.

  50. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    Blacky, is it better to lie or tell a half truth? You just did both! You are a liar, plain ans simple.

    BTW, what does it matter if you are black, where you went to school or your level of education? We did you feel compelled to share that information?

  51. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Federal judges are calling for investigations into ACORN for voter fraud.

    A single state judge urged a prosecutor go after ACORN for registration fraud, you mean.

  52. avatar
    jtx July 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    To Expelliarmus:

    You seem to misunderstand the definition of “usurper” … and if he is one, he can certainly be removed whether by impeachment or other means. I think it’s doubtful that impeachment can legally be done should he be ineligible so that other methods are more likely.

    It may be that Biden will become the new occupant of the OO. “Youse guys” should like that! But of course there are other scenarios.

    Merely because he was “elected” (ignoring any vote fraud) does not mean he was eligible to BE elected but merely means that he WAS elected. He can still be ineligible and will eventually be so found to be.

    It’s truly sad that you “patriotic Americans” (who seem to live on this blog only to attack others) cannot see the implications of having an illegal president. One would think you’d favor having him definitively proven to validly holding the office under the laws of our country … but you apparently won’t care until it’s too late. There are millions who DO care, however, and the issue will not rest nor will it be defeated by your ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.

  53. avatar
    jtx July 1, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Doc:

    That seems rignt in line with your “judicial” philosophy on this blog. Most of you have long ago abandoned both the Constitution or any semblance of legal proceedings.

  54. avatar
    jtx July 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    thisoldhippie:

    “traitors” – perhaps, but more likely many of you are just foolish and “really believe” since you like the Kool-Aid (at present).

  55. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    Actually, when he is declared inelligible, Biden will not be able to assume the presidency. Pelosi will be acting President until a special election can be held. Aaaahh, the mere thought of this prick getting his due brings atear to my eye and puts a smile on my face at the same time.

  56. avatar
    jtx July 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    kimba:

    It’s a frequent “debating” technique (the O-borter uses it quite often) to put words into the mouths of others. You might open up your mind a bit.

    You should read “They Thought They Were Free” by Milton Mayer about the development of the Hitler government in Nazi Germany … especially the part about “Then It Was Too Late” where he says:

    “”To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it – please try to believe me – unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, “regretted,” that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these “little measures” that no “patriotic German” could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”

  57. avatar
    JeffSF July 1, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    “3) You’re blinded by your fantasy of having an usurper destroy this country from the inside.”

    I think this is the crux of much of the birfer belief system- they believe that everyone who supports President Obama wants our system destroyed. I find that bizarre. I give even Birfer’s the benefit of the doubt that they actually want what is best for this country but are just tragically deluded. But they all seem to believe that all of us have some odd desire to see our country, and our lives, and our families lives destroyed.

    No- I voted for Barrack Obama because I liked his optimism and positive nature, and I thought his plan was better than the other guys. I never expected him to be perfect, nor do I expect him to be mistake free.

    I just hope at the end of his first term the economy is in better condition than it was when he started, that we won’t have chosen to invade any more countries we don’t need to invade, and heck maybe there might be some health care reform.

    Oh- and at the end of the first 4 years, I intend to point out that he has not seized all the private guns in America, that he hasn’t created a private army, that he hasn’t been revealed as a secret Muslim and that by the way- he hasn’t been shown to have been born in Kenya or Indonesia or Canada.

    I will point out that the country still functions, that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are still spewing out their particularly vile form of hatred without limitation, that the sanctity of marriage hasn’t changed and that dogs are not sleeping with cats.

  58. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    that’s what jtx the liar says. Reminder, your opinion is worthless.

  59. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    You mean Sven has stopped pursuing his “Indonesian refugee” or his “Diplomatic Passport” theories so he is now on the “usurper bandwagon”? Amazing. They all claim to be followers of the Constitution but only the parts that suit their purposes. For instance Obama does not meet the qualifications of the Constitution but he can be removed by means other than impeachment (even though the US Constitution explicitly states that the President can only be removed by Congress). Truly amazing.

    Additionally there was an interesting article over at the right wing mag Town Hall titled “3 reasons to stop obsessing over Obama’s birth certificate”.

    See link…
    http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/06/30/3_reasons_to_stop_obsessing_over_obamas_birth_certificate?page=full&comments=true

    When the right wing mags are calling the birthers out and saying this issue does not have any wings, it is pretty bad. However if you read the bile that consists of the comments over there, you can see why this issue will never go away. Of course since that writer had the gall to call the birthers dumb among other things he is now a tool of Obama. Of couse it couldn’t be that once he saw the lack of evidence the birthers had he realized they had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any cases or removing the sitting duly elected President of the United States, he decided to jump off the crazy train.

    It is so funny how the birthers keep recycling the same disproven birther “talking points” and calling it evidence. It is actually not as funny as it is pathetic.

  60. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    So, you admit that you voted AGAINST Bush! That is why you sick SOB’s must be stopped!

  61. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    like Sandy Hill, who keeps repaeting points she has been clearly shown are wrong. Why?, to convince the dumb ones.

  62. avatar
    JeffSF July 1, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    “and if he is one, he can certainly be removed whether by impeachment or other means. I think it’s doubtful that impeachment can legally be done should he be ineligible so that other methods are more likely.”

    What would be those ‘other means’? Where are they provided for in the Constitution?

    “It may be that Biden will become the new occupant of the OO. “Youse guys” should like that! But of course there are other scenarios”

    What other scenario’s? Unless Biden is also removed from office, he would definetly become president under any situation that President Obama was not able to be president.

    “Merely because he was “elected” (ignoring any vote fraud) does not mean he was eligible to BE elected but merely means that he WAS elected. He can still be ineligible and will eventually be so found to be.”

    As has been pointed out many, many times- he was not just elected to office- the Congress validated him and the Chief Justice swore him in- he is President, until impeached.

    “One would think you’d favor having him definitively proven to validly holding the office under the laws of our count”

    What most of us keep pointing out are those technical things called facts. Your side has no facts, just speculation. Meanwhile the facts that are known(copy of Birth Certificate, Birth announcement) demonstrate his eligibility.

    If I thought President Obama was ineligible, I would support his impeachment. That is because I support the Constitution. Coupes are not constitutional.

  63. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Heavy, you are such an idiot…If you had read TRUTH’s post he was the one that made an issue of my name in response to my comment about Savage…I was just responding to him by clarifying and explaining the origin of my screenname. So my advice to you would be to read a bit more carefully before responding…Remember it is better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it to be the truth…

    “keep smoking the wacky weed blacky”? Wow. Do I even need to respond to that one? I guess I should feel honored since you attempt to disparage other intelligent posters like RichCares and NBC when you have nothing of substance to say.

    As usual a person’s true colors come out of hiding. And please tell me where I told a lie or half truth. I was responding about Weiner. And if there was something that I said that was not true, please let me know. Unlike you I like to respond as accurately as possible.

  64. avatar
    Joyce July 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    ”To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it – please try to believe me – unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.”

    I believe that.

    From accounts written by those who encountered Germans both inside Germany and out at the time, they could see the process alive in the attitude and demeanor of the Germans. Based of those stories, Obama would seem to be the anti Hitler.

  65. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    Oh, I read it, Blacky. I’m still unclear of your motives, but I think I know why. I won’t get into stereotypes, but they exist for a reason. Good luck, bro!

  66. avatar
    JeffSF July 1, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    Jtx- exactly what does that have to do with the Obama Presidency- draw the line for me please?

    Show me how that statement couldn’t be applied to the previous administration as equally as this one? I am sure you can cut and paste some explanation from WND, but in your own words please.

  67. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    just came back from that townhall link, reading the comments was very difficult, the stupidity of Birthers is bigger than I thought. They really do need mental care, seriously!

  68. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    You seem to misunderstand the definition of “usurper” … and if he is one, he can certainly be removed whether by impeachment or other means. I think it’s doubtful that impeachment can legally be done should he be ineligible so that other methods are more likely.

    Yes, an usurper is someone who does not hold color of title or took the office without election or appointment. This is why Obama can never be called an Usurper and at best a ‘de facto’ officer. And the proper means to determining this is not by quo warranto but through impeachment.

    The laws, legislative history all are clear on this topic.

    Most patriotic Americans understand that the Constitution protects the President from being challenged once elected to avoid the obvious abuse of such processes to interfere with his policies.
    Separation of powers it’s called and I am fascinated how so many of those who want to see Obama fail, insist on a reinterpretation of the Constitution to meet their needs.
    Fortunately our judiciary is not playing along.

  69. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    That’s hilarious coming from someone who seems to want to ignore Constitutional constraints to further their goals.
    Legal proceedings are, as Doc and others have so carefully explained, unlikely avenues to settle these questions.
    In 2010, you have the opportunity to vote for a new Congress and have the President impeached. Or you will have to wait until 2012 when President Obama’s first term expires.

  70. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    Rich, I would have to agree with you. Those comments are so far off the mark it was like reading material from a five year old or from Heavy. (no insult to any 5 year olds out there)

    I think Sandy Hill is really Orly…She comes over here asking the same debunked questions acting like it is the first time and she is looking for a reasonable explanation. But then she comes back with similar questions. Sounds Orly or one of her followers. However on second thought maybe not. If it was Orly or one of her followers like the great Martin Pinsky and Portugese War Hero Peter Fransisco then the grammer would be off and the grasp of English would be barely readable.

  71. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    We must be ‘stopped’ for being against Bush? What kind of world do you live in my dear friend?

    You had an opportunity to ‘stop us’ at the polls and yet the citizens of the US spoke clearly when electing a President and a 60 seat Senate and a majority house.
    Now we are seeing some great things happening and the shadows of our recent past may finally be put to rest.

  72. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    That will be a very long smile indeed.

  73. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    It’s a powerful marketing tool that has caused much recent pain. Remember the socalled ‘Patriot Act’… Anything but..

  74. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Interesting kinds of dreams you have. Well rest assured (pun intended), you will have much more time for the dreams to continue as in the real world, your dreams are likely to come true.

  75. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    To usurp is to seize without right. Barry is without right to hold the Office of the President of the United States, i.e. an usurper.

    You are wrong. Someone who is sworn into an elected office and found to be ineligible is not a usurper but rather a ‘de facto officer’. One of the consequences is that his actions remain legally and constitutionally valid. So even if President Obama were shown to be ineligible, and the chances are minimal to non-existent, he still remains the ‘de facto officer’ and only impeachment can be used as there exist no other method to determine his ineligibility in court as ‘Quo Warranto’ was explicitly denied to apply to the office of the President.

  76. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    JTX: Merely because he was “elected” (ignoring any vote fraud) does not mean he was eligible to BE elected but merely means that he WAS elected. He can still be ineligible and will eventually be so found to be.

    Which means that he is at least a de facto officer and not a usurper. For someone who claims to have been employed in the legal profession, your understanding thereof seems somewhat rusty.

  77. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    Put this in your bong and smoke it!

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102691

  78. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    You are right that the changes proposed were unsettling to the oligarchy of Honduras and they responded predictably.
    With most of the world reacting in kind to the US response, it’s hard to single out President Obama.

  79. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Hahaha, you’re funny Heavy a link and no argument. And of all places to WND… I thought we were discussing the facts, not your dreams.
    Once you’re done researching the De Facto Officer Doctrine which you seemed, somewhat embarrassingly, ignorant of, we can explore the facts surrounding Honduras.

    PS: Have you read the Honduras Constitution? If so, who has the power to appoint and fire the Chief of the Army?

  80. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    Actually, when he is declared inelligible, Biden will not be able to assume the presidency. Pelosi will be acting President until a special election can be held.

    What provision of the U.S. Constitution allows for this? What’s the section that provides for holding a “special election”?

  81. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    So let’s look at the text of the referendum

    Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente? = Sí…….ó………..No.

    That’s it…

    For those who struggle with foreign languages:

    Do you agree with the installation of a fourth ballot box during the 2009 general elections so that the people can decide on the calling of a national constituent assembly? Yes or no.

    Note that even if the Referendum would pass, it would be too late for a second term for the President Zelaya.

    So the claim that Zelaya wanted a second term seems more like one of Heavy’s dreams: at odds with reality

  82. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    So what did Zelaya attempt to do?

    Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

    Interesting, rather than forcing a change to the Constitution and the term limit, which is explicitly claimed in the Constitution to be involiable, the President was asking for a non-binding informational vote.

  83. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    Most of you have long ago abandoned both the Constitution or any semblance of legal proceedings.

    For starters: Oh, the irony.

    To continue: Do you realize how much of an idiot your statement makes you look like?

    This site is replete with entire articles and discussion threads about relevant constitutional, statutory, and case law.

    Yet you continue to assert citation-free nonstarters such as: “You seem to misunderstand the definition of ‘usurper'” (O RLY? If you are such the legal expert, it should be no problem for you provide legal definition that supports your assertion.)

  84. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    And contrary to my earlier findings, there may be a Constitutional way to impeach

    they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress.

    Given that the Constitution was revised several times since 1982, I will have to do some research here.

  85. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    It is 205:15

    The Chamber of Deputies establishes whether there are grounds for impeachment of the president or cabinet ministers (205:15). No extraordinary majority is stipulated.

    However it was repealed by decree 157 in 2003.

  86. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    In Heavy’s dreams the Constitution was rewritten to allow for a special election. Do not mess with his dreams 😉

  87. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    1-I don’t know who the hell this Weiner person is your referring to specifically. A Green Weenie award is a slang used by more than just one person to recognize stupid actions of others.

    2-You seem to be taking my post exactly backwards. I wasn’t making fun of your name “Black Lion”. I was making fun of YOU for accusing someone else of hiding behind a different name. SO Mr. MBA, why don’t you post your Birth name in here? You seem to think Savage should use his real name.

    3-I’d appreciate when you call me a liar to point out Specific Lies I have Told. Otherwise keep your educated piehole shut.

    and Richycareless, your still blowing senseless smoke out your yap I see.

    Hey HEAVY, ever notice whenever you point out a big Blunder of Obamas how his croonies come screaming to his defense, but use rhetoric as their ammo and Do Not even mention the same subject you originally post about the MEssiah?

  88. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    Happens ALL the time. I’ve made many posts that point to their messiah’s blunders and they go totally unanswered.

    Liberals are living, breathing contradictions.

  89. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    Again, ZERO Defense of your Anointed One with reference to the subject posted, just more whining rhetoric. I don’t care about credibility with you, or here for that matter. Are you proud 5 people find you credible because you regurgitate what they say to you? Be sure to put that in your Memoirs. “All Five Of My Buddies in OCT found me creditable.” You’ll go FAR.
    ..PS..gotta budget to Pay those Taxes you aren’t supposed to have to pay?

  90. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    Actually yes I was drinking. Why did I make a typo? You sure didn’t defend it any other way.

  91. avatar
    kimba July 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    Please, spare me the “Obama is just like 1930’s Hitler” crap.

  92. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Crap? Really? Think about it.

  93. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Well, TRUTH seems to be a liberal in his own words.

  94. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    I have…
    Crap.. Total Crap

    Or perhaps one of your ‘dreams’ again?

  95. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    Heavy…You are right…Let us not get into stereotypes…They do exist for a reason…And that is for the ignorant to find excuses why they have not acomplished what they wanted in life while others have…So bring on any stereotype you want. I don’t have a problem with it. From your posts you have already shown the kind of person you are.

    Truth-I had never heard of the Green Weenie award. So if I did misinterpret your intent then I apologize.

    Weiner is the real name of the hatemonger known as Michael Savage….

    You use your surname first and then I will use mine. Somehow I doubt that will happen though. I never said he should use his name. I just found it interesting that his real surname fits the kind of individual he is to a tee…

    You wanted to know what lies you have told…Anytime you repeated the debunked rantings of the idiotic birthers, you were perpetuating misinformation, which is considered a lie.

    The original post had nothing to do with a blunder by Obama. It was about a discredited poll result put forth by Rasmussen that you link to through WND and Savages’ website. Two proven misinformers of the truth. So you can stick that in your piehole and smoke it along with Heavy and his “wacky weed”, bro.

  96. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    I find it fascinating that TRUTH seems to prefer a President who dogmatically hold to his promises rather than one willing to reconsider when circumstances change.

    I understand that our recent ‘presidential’ examples have been less than exemplary in the area of reason and logic but I find it surprising that somehow the ability to adapt is seen as a weakness.

    I see dogmatic thinking to be a major cause of the demise of our freedoms.

  97. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    CLEARLY, you have not.

  98. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    Wassup, Blacky? Watch you tokin’ ’bout stereotypes?

    I want to know why you were compelled to share your heritage, alma mater and education with us.

  99. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Actually Rich that would be Heavy, although it fits with Truth also. Both are walking contradictions, claiming to be defenders of the Constitution while advocating ways to ignore it in order to remove a President they happen to dislike. Can you imagine if anyone considered a liberal had called Bush a usurper? They would have been labeled as unpatriotic and asked if they have their country.

  100. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    Heavy has also made postings which showed an unfamiliarity with the ‘de facto officer’ doctrine. So far they have remained unanswered and yet they lie at the foundation of the ‘manufactroversy’

  101. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    Clearly in your dreams perhaps. Sweet dreams. Hope you have no nightmares about De Facto Officer Doctrine 😉

  102. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    “Anointed One”, hey truth, that’s passé as well, catch up will you.

    tell us more about von Brunn the registered Democrat.

  103. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    WEINER? oh now I scroll up an reread the bottom of your first post I see that. Weiner…Weinee, I can see the confusion. I’ll take the hit.

    But your still clueless as a bag of hair making accusations of me repeating birther rantings. Another general no-substance comment. So Light your Pipe back up, put in a DVD from your Good Times collection and dream about Spreading the Wealth. I make a lot less than you MBA so I’ll take this time to Thank you for the change(cents)

  104. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    ….it’s Passe’? ONly thing passe’ is your whining. Agree, Disagree..I don’t Care! But say SOMETHING you clueless bag of bones.

    As for Von Brunn being a registered Dem. Have you Disproved that yet? I may have jumped the gun making the statement, but it wasn’t off the top of my head. I heard it on a local radio Station, in Liberaltown Gainesville FL. No, I’ve not pursued the legitimacy of it, have YOU??.. other than your whiney anti-conservative liberal media clowns?

    Passe’? I looked it up in wikipedia, it had your picture.

  105. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    You sound like a birther calling him the Messiah and annointed one. Is that how you see him? Fascinating… He surely is doing some good work which may confuse some to see him as such… 😉

  106. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Heavy, dude are you for real? Probably not…I think you just like to use your inferior mind to try and get people riled up. Which is OK. However you get your jollies. However you’ve got to stop watching “What’s Happening”, “Diff’rent Strokes”, and “Good Times” because you are starting to sound even more ignorant than usual.

    I wasn’t compelled to share anything with you. I made the statement I made as a response to another poster and you took it up and ran with it. I wonder why? Does it bother you? A person of color being educated? I only ask because you seem to be the only one to make an issue of it and continually bringing it up. I guess you might be feeling a bit inadequate. That’s OK. Maybe that is why you dislike the President so much. Because he has a BA from Columbia and a JD from Harvard. I guess some folks should be at your house cleaning up after you and calling you “Massa”.

  107. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    I may have jumped the gun making the statement, but it wasn’t off the top of my head. I heard it on a local radio Station, in Liberaltown Gainesville FL.

    Well that settles it, it was on the Radio and thus it must be the TRUTH.

    ROTFL

  108. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    Truth, that’s OK. I am paying as much in taxes now as I did under your hero George Bush. So I don’t mind helping out the less fortunate like you with some change.

    And “Good Times” was a bit before my time. I did see it once as a rerun but since I am from the suburbs it really didn’t click for me. It might have for you during your time growing up in your trailer.

    So now you claim you do not repeat the rantings of the birthers? Or is that the truth as you know it?

  109. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    ANd where do you get ALLLLLLL of your facts NBC? The Demogog FACT Library, verified to be 100% factual registered by the Library of Facts? You’ve NEVER repeated something you heard without intensive research I take it? Your My IDOL! you and clueless that is.

  110. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Blacky, my brotha, how do you know that I am not black? You don’t and won’t.

    YOU are the one who brought it up…OUT OF THE BLUE. Noone asked you, yet you felt the need. Now I know why. Cose yoos a edjumacated black man and you wants the world to know! Noffin’ wrong wit dat. jus be honest when you beet yo chess.

  111. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    Hilarious, Heavy’s best response so far… Pretending to be a ‘bro’. Wow…

  112. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 3:41 pm #

    LION, I say what’s on MY Mind, not other peoples. I don’t like many things I hear on conservative talk radio, but I do like more what I hear than what I don’t like.

    MOm n Dad never had a trailer, but I sure started out in a couple. And proud of them. Not bad on E-2 pay back then.

    I’ll tell ya what, you can keep your stimulus, just mail me a couple RuthChris’s certificates and we’ll call it even. 🙂

    OH yeah, almost forgot to mention. GO BUCKEYES!!

  113. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    “No, I’ve not pursued the legitimacy of it, have YOU??..”

    Yes, you were mislead! That’s really normal for a clueless bag of bones like you, easy to mislead, go follow your hate. You are a sucker for crap, you and your constant whining about the anointed messiah, to a Christian that is blaspheme. Your insults are humorous and show your ignorance . Your screen handle is an oxymoron. Do people point at you and shout dummy?

  114. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Where do I get my facts your wonder? I am fascinated to hear you ask this question. Regardless, when I do research I go back to original sources, double check sources, read conflicting reports, analyze, reason, apply logic. It’s hard work but well worth the effort. Have you considered it? Your responses present a somewhat conflicting and confusing position on this.

    The Demogog FACT Library, verified to be 100% factual registered by the Library of Facts? You’ve NEVER repeated something you heard without intensive research I take it? Your My IDOL! you and clueless that is.

    I am sorry to hear that you consider someone who does not repeat rumors to be clueless but it helps understand where you are coming from.

  115. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Anybody remember that comic song “I heard it on the radio”?

    And our master mind truth had to look up the meaning of passé in WikiPedia, now that is clueless. I can just hear him singing “now I know my ABC’s”. hey truth, give us more to laugh at, brightens out day.

  116. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Truth…That was funny…I can respect that and your humor. I can imagine the tough times growing up on the salary of an E-2. I can respect your parents for that. There is something we have in common. RuthChris is an awesome steakhouse. It is my second favorite to Smith & Wollensky’s. If you are ever in NYC, you have to check in out.

    Go Buckeyes…They are going to be tough but I believe that my squad will be able to pull it out for a second year in a row and take the Big Ten.

    As for Heavy I don’t really care what you are. By the content of your response you have already answered the question for the rest of us. So you can keep your “wacky weed” to yourself and toke up all you want. I guess in that respect you are more similar to the “Usurper” than you care to admit. Or to Bill Clinton.

  117. avatar
    Black Lion July 1, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    NBC, you are right. That was classic Heavy. Especially with his pathetic attempt at ebonic slang…Kind of like the “blackface” minstrel shows of the early 20th century. Just funny. He should hang out with the other commedians like Orly, Berg, Swensson, and von Brunn.

  118. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    OK, Blacky. Whatever you say, bro. Just don’t be afraid to be who you are.

  119. avatar
    kimba July 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    OK, Thought about it. Comparing Pres Obama to Hitler IS pure crap. This is why people call birthers “fringe”. You say whacky wing nut sh!t like “Oooo, Obama is like Hitler”.

  120. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Please explain.

  121. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    First you explain to me the de facto officer doctrine as it applies to your claims about President Obama.

    Remember your somewhat embarrassing unfamiliarity with the doctrine? Are you intending to revise your earlier position or defend it? Or have you abandoned any hope here.

  122. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    As to ‘explaining’ why the statement is ‘crap’, looking back in history almost anything appears to have arisen through incremental steps, which seen by themselves appear to be of little relevance.
    We have seen some examples of this in our loss of freedom under the ‘patriot’ act leading us down a path of self destruction.
    As to how this all applies to Obama, other than that his actions and orders will affect the future path seems somewhat begging the question aka crap. By referring to Hitler and Nazism, an incomplete and unnecessary reference is made to events which looking back ‘went totally wrong’.

  123. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    Quoted from NBC..”I am sorry to hear that you consider someone who does not repeat rumors to be clueless but it helps understand where you are coming from.”

    WHO says false things again? I did NOT say that, which you claim I did. Make your accusations as does richclueless, I find them funny. Typical of you who are scared to admit you screwed up.

  124. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Let me remind TRUTH of his own words, although I am somewhat amused and confused of his short term memory.

    You’ve NEVER repeated something you heard without intensive research I take it? Your My IDOL! you and clueless that is.

    You’re welcome

  125. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    HAHAHAHAHAAAaaa!!!! Richy really thinks I looked that up in wikipedia. Man your so clueless you don’t even know when your being juked. LOL!!! whata class act you are.

  126. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    TRUTH (sic): Typical of you who are scared to admit you screwed up.

    On the contrary, unlike some I do not have any problem admitting that I ‘screwed up’. It’s a risk that comes with doing careful research, that occasionally one makes a mistake. Of course when mindlessly repeating rumors, the risks of making mistakes increases significantly.

  127. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Looking up a word one does not understand in a dictionary or Wikipedia is nothing to be ashamed of.

  128. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    Spare me with the de facto stuff. So, I’m not familir with it. Am I to be embarrassed? I’m sure there are MANY things you are not familiar with that I am.

    I asked, KIMBA to explain, not you. And what you did offer was a bunch of libspeak. NO SUBSTANCE AS USUAL!

  129. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    wow, you really didn’t know, did you? those HaHaHa’s are used by 10 year old kids, is that your age.

  130. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    I am glad you accept your ignorance, and there is nothing wrong with, except of course because of your ignorance you made some assertions about the President. Have you come to reconsider your claims then?

  131. avatar
    Heavy July 1, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    Absolutely NOT!

  132. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    Am I correct to infer from this that you still hold the to the same assertions about the President, which are contradicted by a doctrine with which you admit to have no or limited familiarity?
    Do facts not matter? As to your link to GunnyGspot, is there anything particular which you believe to be relevant and defensible? Other than the fact that the same ignorance with the de facto officer doctrine is repeated on the site.
    The blog post is interesting as it places much hope in the statement ‘significant’ when all it was used for is to establish why the Government’s period to extend time beyond the limit is excusable.

  133. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    Such a NOBLE post NBC. I hear people like you all the time make that very statement.”I admit when I’m wrong.” .. but you NEVER EVER DO. Its a B.S. statement in a attempt to make you feel good about yourself.

    ANd then WHAT happens when a person does admit a mistake, as I did? …”I may have jumped the gun making the statement….” You CHASTISE me for saying it. Yep, so much for your Noble ideas on being an honest person. You Claim it but your actions prove otherwise. You just yap your trap in here with a lot of people that happen to “like” the same Person of Interest, so you all agree with one another, avoiding the lies he has already proven. Just hold hands and sing KumByYahh whilst your taxes increase and your cost of living goes to hell. BUT, don’t stop reminding US BIRTHERs that it’s us Haters that caused this….because of BUSH. Take NO BLAME, just point the finger.

  134. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    As to your link to GunnyGspot, is there anything particular which you believe to be relevant and defensible? Other than the fact that the same ignorance with the de facto officer doctrine is repeated on the site.
    The blog post is interesting as it places much hope in the statement ’significant’ when all it was used for is to establish why the Government’s period to extend time beyond the limit is excusable.

  135. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    TRUTH (sic) Such a NOBLE post NBC. I hear people like you all the time make that very statement.”I admit when I’m wrong.” .. but you NEVER EVER DO.

    Then it would be easy for you to provide us with an example? In fact, I can point you to an example where I admit to be wrong, on this site. So we already have to reject your ‘never ever’ claim. Perhaps you can rescue the remaining part from being ‘ill informed’?

  136. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    TRUTH (sic)ANd then WHAT happens when a person does admit a mistake, as I did? …”I may have jumped the gun making the statement….” You CHASTISE me for saying it. Yep, so much for your Noble ideas on being an honest person. You Claim it but your actions prove otherwise.

    I am not chastising you for making a mistake, I do not have that much time on my hands to correct every single mistake of yours. I do however point out that a mistake based on some rumor you heard on some radio, somewhere, sometimes, somehow, is bound to cause an embarrassing mistake.

    You just yap your trap in here with a lot of people that happen to “like” the same Person of Interest, so you all agree with one another, avoiding the lies he has already proven. Just hold hands and sing KumByYahh whilst your taxes increase and your cost of living goes to hell. BUT, don’t stop reminding US BIRTHERs that it’s us Haters that caused this….because of BUSH. Take NO BLAME, just point the finger.

    Nice red herring my dear friend. Of course, there is the matter of ‘avoiding the lies he has already proven’…

  137. avatar
    kimba July 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Explain? You have to have it explained that to compare Pres Obama to Hitler is batsh!t crazy wingnuttery? Hitler was a totalitarian dictator who hid behind a party with “Socialist” in the name. Hitler’s political and social policies are polar opposite to Obama’s. But you don’t think deeply enough to see that, you cry “Obama, he’s like Hitler” because it sounds scary and menacing. You and your ilk are becoming more marginalized every day.

  138. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    You just yap your trap in here with a lot of people that happen to “like” the same Person of Interest, so you all agree with one another, avoiding the lies he has already proven.

    You are referring to Taitz’s site, of course.

  139. avatar
    TRUTH July 1, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    Even in your weak attempt to say you weren’t putting me down, you Put Me Down. I have nothing more for you NBC. Get back to your Orly and Berg chats your so good at. Damn the Birthers, those Haters.

  140. avatar
    kimba July 1, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Holy cow, more Barack Obama AKA’s? Do you guys sit around the campfire making up AKA’s?It’s like the old name game! “Barack Barack Bo Barack, Banana Fanna Fo Farack, Me My Mo Marack! Barack!”

  141. avatar
    richCares July 1, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    “Even in your weak attempt to say you weren’t putting me down, you Put Me Down.”

    Yes, he did put you down, quite nicely with a lot less insults than you would spout. You should thank NBC!

  142. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    Truth (sic)Even in your weak attempt to say you weren’t putting me down, you Put Me Down. I have nothing more for you NBC. Get back to your Orly and Berg chats your so good at. Damn the Birthers, those Haters.

    I am somewhat surprised as to your outburst as it does not really represent my feelings. And I did not claim nor deny that I was putting you down, those are your own words. I responded to you feeling ‘chastised’ and I pointed out that that’s often the inevitable consequence of promulgating poorly researched rumors.

    I understand that you feel that you have nothing more for me and I appreciate your feelings and forthrightness here. I myself am still interested in what you may want to contribute to the discussions. I so far have found them to be quite helpful and clarifying.

  143. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    As to “putting down”, I looked up its meaning “Reduce in worth or character, usually verbally”

    I believe than rather reducing you in worth or character, I addressed your claims and arguments and showed them to be wrong, or lacking in caution.

    Putting down sounds more like the use of more familiar concept of ad hominems. I do try to avoid ad hominems because they are often inappropriate and ineffective, if not counter-effective.

  144. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    After revisiting my comments I have to agree with Truth about “weak attempt to put him down”

    I am not chastising you for making a mistake, I do not have that much time on my hands to correct every single mistake of yours.

    That was uncalled for and I apologize.

  145. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    Kreep files notice of appeal in Keyes v. Bowen.

    …I was wondering if he was going to; the deadline was next Monday.

  146. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    Jun 19 2009… What caused the delay?

  147. avatar
    Bob July 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    You really would have to ask Kreep (who likely wouldn’t tell you).

    It was Kreep’s (excuse me, Keyes’) right not to immediately file the notice of appeal. Normally, the attorney and client discuss the risks, benefits, costs, etc. of appealing…being that Kreep and Keyes are oh-so-busy, it may have taken some time for that to happen.

  148. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    Sorry Heavy, no “special election” under our laws or the Constitution. Just a nice, long line of succession that winds it way through the Cabinet if neither the Speaker of the House nor President Pro Tem Can Serve. See: 3 USC 19 (“Presidential Succession Act”) – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/19.html

  149. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    Oh my, did Heavy have a Honduras ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution in mind when he wrote this 😉

  150. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 1, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    JTX, you are the one who clearly doesn’t understand the de facto officer doctrine or the meaning of “usurper”. I would suggest that you look it up.

    Here is a starting point:

    Ryder v US
    on line at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html

    “The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted).”

  151. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 1, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    Those demonstrations received heavy coverage on Honduran television stations, which all but ignored the pro-Zelaya protests. Leftist broadcasters say they have been forced off the air or had signals interrupted by soldiers under orders of the new government. Micheletti said he would look into the allegations.

    Seeking to stem internal unrest, Congress approved a bill Wednesday that toughens a curfew in place since the coup. The law gives authorities the power to conduct warrantless arrests and removes constitutional rights to assembly and movement during the 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew.

    Sounds like democracy at its best to me. Do these birthers who are calling for “la revolucion” not realize that military coups usually end up with dictators such as Idi Amin Dada??

  152. avatar
    Joyce July 1, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    “In Heavy’s dreams the Constitution was rewritten to allow for a special election.”

    Heavy didn’t make that up, Orly did.

  153. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 2, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    Thanks for the update, Bob. Do you think Keyes’ motive for filing an appeal should disqualify his right of redress?

  154. avatar
    Bob July 2, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    If the court finds the action to vexatious or frivolous, he’s looking at sanctions.