Main Menu

A most curious article at the Post and Email

Update: as evidence and argument trickle in, the likelihood that the interview discussed below is authentic increases. I contacted Mr. Omolo by email and his reply was basically that since he did not know my motives, he would not talk to me. This is a theme in the Charlton interview too, and adds credibility. It looks like Mr. Omolo is aware of the dangers of talking to the wrong person and having his remarks interpreted for purposes he doesn’t approve of.

I have come upon a most curious article at the Post & Email blog from last August. The blog, whose articles appear under the name of John Charlton (thought by some to be the sock puppet of Charles E. Lincoln III, the disbarred lawyer writing Orly Taitz’s briefs of late). As a general rule, what I see at the Post and Email is the most outrageous of birther nonsense.

But this time, the Post & Email publishes what purports to be an interview with Leo Omolo, said to be a journalist and a family friend of the African Obama family, an interview which emphatically debunks the “grandmother tape” and asserts that President Obama was born in Hawaii. In the interview Mr. Omolo says that he listened to the “grandmother” tape, that he recognized the voice of Sarah Obama and that Sarah Obama said that she was present in Mombasa at the time the President was born in Hawaii, learning of the birth by telegram from her husband. (Mr. Omolo is a native speaker of the Swahili language and the Luo language.) This is a very important statement because it is the first published report of which I am aware which doesn’t rely on the real-time translation on the tape.

This article leaves two questions:

  1. Why would a birther blog publish an article that strongly asserts Obama was born in Hawaii?
  2. Is the interview authentic?

I cannot speculate on the first question, but I certainly have doubts that the interview is authentic for these reasons:

  1. There would have to have been a very long exchange of emails to create the interactive dialog presented in the article
  2. Mr Omolo’s name could have been harvested easily from the blog post cited in the article.
  3. The article asserts that Sarah Obama learned of her grandson by a telegram that reached her in Mombasa, but a previous newspaper report says she received a letter.
  4. The article asserts that Sarah Obama, in the taped interview, said she was in Mombasa when Obama was born, but Obama was in Hawaii. I have seen no interpretation of the tape before that suggests this. The phrase, it seemed to me, was introduced out of the blue by Bishop Ron McRae, who did not hear it from the translator. And what would Sarah Obama be doing in Mombasa in the first place, on the other side of the country from where she lived?
  5. The article has Omolo call the president “Barry”, which I have never seen from an African before.I have found a newspaper account that says the Obama family in Africa call him “Barry”.
  6. The article calls the President’s step grandmother “Sarah Hussein Obama”, but she is never called that in other reports, rather: Sarah Onyango Obama or Sarah Ogwei. Omolo does not use this name in other writing about her.
  7. The language and vocabulary in the article doesn’t seem consistent with the authentic writing of Omolo.
  8. The articles asks readers NOT to contact Mr. Omolo. Mr. Omolo asked me not to contact him too, so this one is shot down
  9. The claim that Omolo was Obama Sr’s “drinking buddy” seems a gratuitous detail. In an authentic article, there no hint that Omolo ever knew the President’s father. Other press reports say that Omolo was indeed Obama’s “drinking buddy.”
  10. The article says Omolo used italics at one point in his email, but Omolo doesn’t use italics in other writing that I have found.
  11. The Post & Email is not known for truthfulness.

, , , ,

59 Responses to A most curious article at the Post and Email

  1. avatar
    misha October 18, 2009 at 2:29 am #

    Most conservatives are hypocrites cut from the same cloth as Roy Cohn. The end.

    I said from the beginning, they are trying to drive Obama from office by circulating scurrilous rumors. They are epitomized by junkies who failed out of college.

    I ran into that bunch in Anchorage. Sanctimonious SOBs. Fie on them.

  2. avatar
    Scroller October 18, 2009 at 3:59 am #

    Dr. C, this is interesting.

    (1) concerning your point 9 this Boston Globe article of 9/21/08 has Omolo as a drinking buddy of Barack Obama Sr.

    (2) John Charlton has other interviews of similar format with luminaries (which seem to add some weight to an assessment of this one as authentic) at:

    (3) From a cursory skimming of comments on one of Charlton’s articles (have lost the link) I noticed he says if Obama was born in Hawaii then he was still not a NBC because he was British. The point being Charlton may not personally be committed to the Kenya birth even though promoting it; he is committed to destroying Obama.

    (4) “The Post and Email” is offering jobs and payment for Obama-attackers for hire (no mailing address or identified location). It would be interesting to know the details of the funding of this. Charlton–whoever he is–appears intelligent, a skilled hired hack, working full-time at this with intent to manage others doing the same, and with access to significant funds. Who is pumping this? Lots of right-wing astroturfing going on these days…

    (5) If the Omolo interview is genuine the significance is this is the first known instance of a Luo and Swahili speaker listening to the non-english portions of the Sarah Obama phone call and giving his interpretation of the comments. He does not agree with the Kenya birth interpretation at all. Since that phone call has been the claimed evidence for the Kenya birth, and since Omolo is at once a native speaker, a credible journalist, and an old friend of Barack Obama Sr., this would be another independent demolition of the Kenya birth notion for Barack Jr.

  3. avatar
    Con Rep October 18, 2009 at 6:40 am #

    Charlton also wrote an editorial on the same date about the interview. The point of that piece seems to be that Obama, Sr.’s first name was properly spelled “Barrack.” Charlton concludes that Sr. therefore wasn’t present when Jr. was born, or he would have had two “r’s” in his name.

    He also makes a somewhat bizarre reference to a listing in the “Polk Title Gazette,” when I assume he means the Polk Directory of Honolulu.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 18, 2009 at 8:34 am #

    Thank you for that solid information. By the way, I emailed Mr. Omolo, and posted a comment on his blog asking if the interview is authentic. If it is, as you say, it is important that a native Lou and Swahili speaker comments on the tape recording. He declined to answer, saying he didn’t know who I was or what my motives were. I gave it one more try, but his reluctance to reply is echoed by the Post and Email article. Hmmm.

  5. avatar
    Vince Treacy October 18, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    Here is Leo’s recent take on Charlton:

    [quote] John Charlton Says:
    October 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM


    A concerned citizen just got this reply from the AG’s office in HI about the nbc issue:

    Would beg your input on what this response means (something that I could quote you on, at the Post & Email).

    [begin Leo’s response]

    [ed. My input is that I do not have any faith in you – Mr. John Charlton – or your publication the Post and Email. I suspect your blog’s motivation for existing is directly opposite to the intention of my blog.

    As of today, October 9, 2009 you are permanently banned from commenting at this blog. You have the sole honor of that ban to yourself. No other person or journal has earned this distinction. As far as I am concerned, you no longer even exist in the blogosphere.

    I do not trust you and I find your attempt to jump from journalist to lawyer arrogant, suspicious and very sad. I will not grace your Seussian Hooplah with another glance. I encourage my readers to ignore your dangerously misleading legal analysis.

    No future links to your blog will be posted here. All prior links will remain although this statement will be added as an update. I will not attempt to revise history and erase my prior – very mistaken – support of your blog.

    Readers, there appears to be a very well coordinated attempt in the blogosphere to control damage which my recent reports and legal analysis have generated in opposition to the official Hawaii DoH story.

    [end quotes]

    Fun. A lot like watching a circular firing squad – on the deck of the Titanic – as the band plays on — to the tune of The World Turned Upside Down.

  6. avatar
    jvn October 18, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    That’s one of the problems in living in the ambiguous and foggy world of conspiracy theories. After a while not everybody follows the same tangent you do, and thus, they become the “enemy of all that is true…”

    That is particularly true on the internet where attention gets you advertising revenue and paypal donations, not to mention the a** kissing praise that Donfrio craves.

    There are as many Obama conspiracy theories as their are birthers – each has his or her own theory that sometimes agrees with others and sometimes doesn’t.

    And they all have their own websites.


  7. avatar
    Con Rep October 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    I believe Charlton is Lincoln (Orly quotes him liberally on her site).

    So instead of Donofrio’s finding of Charlton’s “attempt to jump from journalist to lawyer arrogant, suspicious and very sad,” perhaps he should find Charlton’s attempt to jump from disbarred lawyer to journalist to lawyer even sadder — and instructive.

  8. avatar
    cosmic bookworm October 18, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    How about this: When Sarah Obama said that she saw the birth of Barack Obama in Mombassa, she was remembering the birth of Barack Obama the father, not the son who was born in Hawaii.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    This has always been a possibility, and the position that I took initially. In the transcript, the word used is “he” and the last named person before that sentence refers to the father. Greg Doudna, however, has taken the position as the result of his study of the tape that Sarah Obama was present wherever she was when Barack Obama was born wherever he was.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    Or it may be that Lincoln ghostwrites for Charlton some of the time, as he does for Orly Taitz.

  11. avatar
    Con Rep October 18, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Or it may be that Lincoln ghostwrites for Charlton some of the time, as he does for Orly Taitz.

    It could be. But considering the nature of the dominant grievances — POTUS legitimacy, judicial malfeasance and mortgage foreclosure — it’s not too much of a stretch to believe it’s the same source.

  12. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo October 18, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    In reading the comments here, a thought came to my mind that made me chuckle. You and I are in the same situation. We really do not know whether Obama was really born in Hawaii.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    I don’t stay awake at night worrying about it.

  14. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 18, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    I don’t know for sure whether you were born where you say you were. You can show me a birth certificate, but that doesn’t put it to rest. I mean, that birth certificate could have been forged.

    There is way that you will eliminate all doubt from any situation.

    Now, we look on it being a preponderance of the Evidence. And right now, we have beyond that, going into “clear and convincing proof” that Obama was born in the United States. The only ones who don’t want to acknowledge that are the ones who hate him so much that if he said that the sky was blue, they’d call him a liar, and convince themselves that the sky was green just to contradict him.

  15. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo October 19, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    I notice that when Obama supporters address the issue of whether he was born in Hawaii their answer usually contains many absurd examples of how nothing would satisfy the birthers no matter what is said. Rather than give the litany of extreme examples, why not just give the evidence showing that he was born in Hawaii.

    Before you answer, I already know what you are going to say. Before you say it, please know that what you are going to say does not conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.

  16. avatar
    richCares October 19, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    the COLB plus statement by Dr Fukino that he was born in Hawaii, can you dispute her comments?

  17. avatar
    Benji Franklin October 19, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    Dear Mario,

    No fidelity to the framers’ intent can be claimed for NBC when the formula used to reckon the parent’s(‘) status at the moment of the child’s birth (the actual determinants of NBC)has both new-statute and inconsistent foreign statute effected factors which change the yes/no eligibility determination of individuals in ways that were not contemplated at the time of ratification. When your reckoning of a candidate’s presidential eligibility requires you to check a particular nation’s particular post- U.S. Constitution era for a changed definition of residency, legal fatherhood, bigamy, lawful marriage status, gender favoring, domicile etc, that would determine the parent’s status at the moment of the child’s birth, and dependently, the ostensible NBC eligibility status of the child (candidate), you have acted out confirmation that your interpretation of NBC allows unconstitutional amendment by other nations. Your claimed concern for a clause whose prescription remains so fatally ambiguous turns a familiar analogy on its head because your two citizen parent formula effectively can be satisfied by any nation’s adoption of ridiculous statutes that by materially changed reckoning are able to claim the parent’s required status at that moment in name only. Thus your “sacred” definition of NBC is absurdly incapable of keeping its Framer’s charge alive; too fragile to honor their intent, it is therefore, a teapot in a tempest!

    You’re increasingly coming up empty-handed with this issue, Mario. Consider switching to arm-wrestling.

    Benji Franklin

  18. avatar
    euphgeek October 19, 2009 at 1:43 am #

    Yes, actually the COLB does conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Under “Place of Birth” it says “Honolulu.” If you know of any other place in the world outside of the U.S. named Honolulu, you may have a case. Otherwise the COLB proves that Barack Hussein Obama II, the 44th President of the United States, was born in Hawaii.

  19. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 19, 2009 at 1:54 am #

    Obama is presumed, by law, to be eligible for the office he holds.

    It is the burden of anyone who challenges him to provide evidence otherwise.

    It happens that Obama has voluntarily chosen to release a copy of the official document issued by the State of Hawaii certifying his birth in Honolulu in 1961; that State officials have released at least two public statements confirming his birth there; and that independent researchers have found contemporaneous announcements of his birth published in local newspapers of records. Thus, all reasonable and intelligent people understand that his birth in Hawaii is evidenced by legally admissible documents that would be considered conclusive in a court of law.

    However, none of that is required. Again, Obama’s election was confirmed by Congress following the procedures set forth in the Constitution, and he was duly inaugurated.

    It is up to anyone who challenges him to prove that he is not eligible.

  20. avatar
    Bob October 19, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    Also: Index data. Publicly accessible.

    It would be so easy to prove Fukino a liar by requesting the index data and showing that Obama isn’t listed there.

  21. avatar
    Lupin October 19, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    “Before you answer, I already know what you are going to say. Before you say it, please know that what you are going to say does not conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.”

    A Webster-worthy example of meretriciousness.

  22. avatar
    Greg October 19, 2009 at 7:54 am #

    Before you say it, please know that what you are going to say does not conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.

    Evidence doesn’t need to conclusively prove a point in order to be relevant to that point. It need not conclusively prove that point in order to be admissible. Any single piece of evidence need not conclusively prove a point in order for the point to be proved by a collection of similar pieces of evidence.

    Your client’s car was found at the scene of the accident. It was running. Your client was standing, looking dazed and confused, at the side of the road. He had a seat-belt bruise running from his left shoulder to his right hip. He smelled of alcohol. His breathalyzer came back showing a BAC of 0.10. There were skid marks leading up to the accident.

    None of this is direct evidence that your client was driving the car or that he was drunk. It’s all circumstantial evidence. No single piece of evidence proves, conclusively, that your client was driving drunk. And, since there is no direct evidence, not even the whole set of evidence can prove, conclusively, that your client was driving drunk.

    But, it makes it more likely than not that your client was driving drunk. It even proves the fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

    The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii proves the fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Yes, Obama could have been transported here by space aliens who forged all his vital records. That’s not a reasonable doubt, Mario. But, the large number of claims in your papers that are debunked with two minutes or less of internet research prove that you are not a reasonable lawyer!

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 19, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Before you say it, please know that what you are going to say does not conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.

    This brings to mind the child who asks a parent why something is the way it is, and after the explanation, says “why?” again. It doesn’t matter what the answer is, the response continues to be “why?”. It seems axiomatic to the birthers to say “that is not conclusive” to whatever evidence is brought forward. If this were not true, I submit the birthers would have been satisfied by the Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii, with any lingering doubts of forgery satisfied by the secondary evidence of the statement of Hawaiian officials, any doubts about fraud by the timeliness of the registration.

    The fact is that birthers do not believe that Barack Obama is eligible to be president, and nothing that could be said will make any difference. If a certified copy of the hospital registration appeared, if the Supreme Court ruled on the merits, it still wouldn’t be conclusive because this was never about evidence in the first place. You know, and I know, that if this were ever ruled on by a competent authority, the evidence for Obama’s birth in Hawaii would be considered conclusive. Why pretend otherwise? To this you may reply that further evidence, obtained through a discovery process, might change the balance, but possibility is not evidence (and I’m not even willing to grant you possibility at this point).

  24. avatar
    jvn October 19, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    You are so right Dr. C! And that’s exactly why the President is right to not give anything to the birthers at all.

    Judge after judge has been “gotten to.”

    The COLB is “forged.”

    The pictures of the COLB are “fake.”

    The internet is being “scrubbed.”

    The statements by the Director of the Hawaii DOH are “not conclusive” because she didn’t make the statements under oath (and I have it from a reliable source that she had her fingers crossed when the statements were released).

    If the SCOTUS was to release a unanimous opinion that the President was born in Hawaii and was a “natural born citizen,” the birthers would proclaim that as a “treasonous act” and continue their calls for the military to stage a coup.

    To give in on any issue to these nutjobs would undermine the Office of the Presidency.

    I applaud the way the administration is handling these cranks!

  25. avatar
    Chris October 19, 2009 at 10:50 am #

    People’s Front of Judea vs. Judean People’s Front

  26. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida October 19, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    Mario tips his hand, yet again.
    “Before you answer, I already know what you are going to say. Before you say it, please know that what you are going to say does not conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.” can be roughly translated to read:

    No matter what “proof” is provided of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, we (Birthers) will either refuse to accept it, or simply pretend it’s been debunked.

  27. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion October 19, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Since I wasn’t there when Obama was born, I can’t say for certain where he was born.

    However, the overwhelming credible evidence supports the belief that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. I’ve yet to see any credible evidence to support any other theories.

  28. avatar
    Bob October 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    American Grand Jury (on its new “business” site) posts its “response” to Judge Lambeth’s order.

  29. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    Mario and the other birthers remind me of a teacher I had in 7th grade. During geography class she said that the Grand Canyon is in Colorado. I raised my hand and pointed out that the Grand Canyon is in Arizona. She said that I was wrong and that it is in Colorado.

    The next day I brought an atlas to class and showed her a map which clearly placed the Grand Canyon in Arizona. He response? “The map is wrong.”

  30. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 19, 2009 at 12:16 pm #


    His “valid Hawaii state birth certificate” directly says that he was born in the city of Honolulu, county of Honolulu, Island of Oahu, State of Hawaii.

    Add that to the statement from the State of Hawaii Department of Health, and the various statements that Janice Okubo has made, and it serves as legal proof.

    Like I said, if Obama said that the sky was blue, you’d convince yourself that the sky was green just to contradict him.

  31. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Do these people really believe that they will get a favorable ruling by accusing the Court of obstruction of justice and treason?

  32. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 19, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    Sadly, yes, they do…

    They figure if they point out the court’s treasonous actions, the court will stop doing those treasonous actions.

    And since Obama is a “domestic enemy” any ruling providing him aide and comfort must fit the definition of Treason…

  33. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 19, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    He reminds me of a 2-year-old that when you disagree with him goes “nuh uh” to whatever you say.

  34. avatar
    Black Lion October 19, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Well I suspected that Orly would get her sheeple to pay off her judical sanction. From her people’s website today….

    loved the message in the “Purpose for donation” column
    Posted on | October 19, 2009 | 2 Comments

    Donation Details

    Total amount: $20.00 USD
    Currency: U.S. Dollars
    Confirmation number: 4RY70702YM760224N
    Purpose: For sanction from the crazy Judge
    Contributor: Vicki Davis

    Category: Events, HOT ITEMS!, Uncategorized

    2 Responses to “loved the message in the “Purpose for donation” column”

    October 19th, 2009 @ 3:57 am
    $20 from England.
    Keep going Orly.

    Henry Tisdale
    October 19th, 2009 @ 10:41 am
    Way to Go, Vicki.

    That’s enough to cover 4 donations according to the 4000 @ $5 each. I can afford an additional one hundred above donation, and I am sure there are 199 more out there who can afford the same or more than that.

    Orly, paying off that crazy judge is a piece of cake. But I also am gonna resend my letter to him, and copy the Bar with which he is registered, plus the Gov, the GA Senators and Land’s representative will also get copies. Judge Land is guilty of treason against the constitution and somewhere there exists the power to make him pay. We are all still Americans, and Obama and Soros had better put up their dukes for a REAL FIGHT. Stealing our sovereignty is NOT a piece of cake and they both will soon realize it.

    So let’s sit back wait for Judge Carter to flex his Marine muscles again. I still have faith in him. I have tons of faith in you, my Captain.

    Amazing. These are probably the same people that you can convince that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth…You have to wonder sometimes how dumb people are. I guess these are the same people we could send to infamous 419 scam letters to….

  35. avatar
    wendy October 19, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    One would have hoped that Land’s ruling (after 30+ other cases being dumped), and explanation, might have sunk in. Clearly, that isn’t the case.
    The most hilarious ranting is how the birthers are demanding to UPHOLD THE LAW. When a judge does exactly that.. they flip out. Like, “if you don’t like what the law is, defy it, and it will magically go away”.
    Still waiting to hear what Carter has to say. And still very concerned as to the defiance, when he actually does follow the law.
    Where is the secret service when we need them?

  36. avatar
    jvn October 19, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    The internet makes it easier for the nuts to gather, but it also makes it easier for the authorities to keep track of them!

  37. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    I wonder if Orly is planning on reporting her PayPal income to the IRS.

  38. avatar
    Bob October 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Where is the secret service when we need them?

    The U.S. Marshals guard federal judges, and they visited someone who wrote a nastygram to Judge Robertson (in DC).

    And the secret service has visited Carl Swensson.

  39. avatar
    Bob October 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    Small gifts need not be reported.

    But how many donors will claim those gifts as tax deductions?

  40. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida October 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    When does everyone here expect judge Carter’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss? If he takes too long, Orly isn’t going to have much time for discovery (That is, of course, dependent on the off chance that he doesn’t grant the Defense motion to dismiss.)

  41. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida October 19, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    These nutcases honestly believe that by putting together their own group of likeminded nutcases and simply calling themselves a “Grand Jury” gives them some sort of legal standing to indict somone? Head->Desk

  42. avatar
    SvenMagnussen October 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    I’ve donated to OCT’s designated charity. Where’s your donation, Rickey?

  43. avatar
    SvenMagnussen October 19, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Bob, have you donated to OCT’s favorite charity or do you count your wisdom as a donation?

  44. avatar
    Bob October 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    And the relevance of you or me to Taitz’s fundraising is…?

  45. avatar
    SvenMagnussen October 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Here’s an idea, Bob. Why don’t you skip lunch some day and donate the money you were going to spend on lunch to OCT’s favorite charity?

    I don’t know you, Bob. But if I gambled at MGM Grand, then I’d bet you could afford to skip a lunch or two for a good cause.

    Like the Marxist says, spread the wealth around, Bob.

  46. avatar
    Bob October 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    So no relevance, just trolling.

  47. avatar
    sponson October 19, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    Is it possible that the interview is a fabrication, a sort of “poison pill” tactic in which it is hoped that debunkers will later cite the interview, which is bogus, and will be used to attack the credibility of debunkers who use it as evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii? I hate to say it but this seems like a crude imitation of Karl Rove’s tactics, fore example in the CBS/Rather/Bush/Texas Air National Guard case.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 19, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    If that is the idea, it didn’t catch on. I had never heard of the interview until I stumbled upon it as part of a Google search. I really don’t know

  49. avatar
    sponson October 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    Perhaps a new interview, if he can be convinced to do it, with Mr. Omolo is in order. It seems like this is an opportunity for a mainstream journalist to add another brick into the wall of independent contemporary evidence that the President was born where any reasonable person understands that he was born, along with the birth notices in the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin, along with so many other accounts.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    I thought the Wikipedia would be a good charity for anyone wanting to give something back, since I use the Wilipedia so much on this site.

    My real favorite charity is:

  51. avatar
    Adrianinflorida October 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm #


    Chris: People’s Front of Judea vs. Judean People’s Front

  52. avatar
    G October 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Wow! ROFL! Talk about delusions of grandeur! Yeah, I don’t think the courts are going to take too kindly to their response and veiled threats…that is if they don’t just “File 13” the whole thing. These AGJ’ers can gather and kvetch and write all the meaningless indictments they want…but if they think any actual official in any capacity whatsoever is going to take their silly little games seriously….wow….just wow.

  53. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion October 19, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    And notice they keep claiming they’re a “real Grand Jury” and part of the compliant is that the Judge refuses to acknowledge them as such.

    It’s like a little kid stamping their foot and going “I’m right I’m Right I’m Right” until they have a meltdown and need a time out or a nappie

  54. avatar
    Kevin Bell October 19, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    Listening to Mario define NBC on blogtalk radio. What hoot that moron.

  55. avatar
    Kevin Bell October 19, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    Congress can not define a NBC since only nature can define a NBC? WTF

  56. avatar
    Kevin Bell October 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Mario is going down in a fireball. Wong Kim Ark is based on Vattel?!?! Mario is wayyyyyyyyyyyy over his head. I can’t believe that Mario is taking advice from his client. LOL

  57. avatar
    myson October 20, 2009 at 1:28 am #

    Actually i read that interview a while several months back, cant remember when again (laptop crashed a few weeks ago lost many data).

    I actually think the interview is
    real the tone of the interviewee is very African

  58. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 20, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    Vattel is cited in Wong Kim Ark – by the dissent. If he’d looked at the quotes page here he might have realized why that wasn’t such a good idea…

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 20, 2009 at 8:14 am #

    Thanks for your perspective. You may well be right.