Main Menu

The occasional open thread (“The end of life as we know it” edition)

So what’s on your mind?

301 Responses to The occasional open thread (“The end of life as we know it” edition)

  1. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2010 at 12:01 am #

    Someone explain to me the Lakin dilemma, he demands release of records that would only furher confirm Obama’s Hawaiian birth. That seems silly unless Lakin believes that they will show a Kenyan birth (rather unlikely). The COLB and statements by Hawaii’s gov can only be confirmed. Is the birther mind that diseased? What’s going on here?

  2. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 5, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    Lakin, like all birthers, believe that the original documents will show something that is not quite right about the Birth Certificate, and therefore cast even more doubt onto the birth certificate. For instance, they continually state that if the doctor didn’t sign off on it, it’s not valid. Or, if it was only based upon the word of family members, then it must be filed as a fraud.

    Of course, none of their fantasies actually are legally plausable. they just want to make more hay on the President. And if they somehow did get it (which they won’t), and it was confirmed by a doctor, they’d just continue on with their line about how he’s not eligible, because his father was Kenyan. Or he’s not eligible because of dual citizenship. Or he’s not eligible because somehow at the age of 6, he gave up his U.S. Citizenship by somehow automatically acquiring Indonesian Citizenship. Or he’s not eligible because his name is Barack Hussein Obama II. Or he’s not eligible because of the color of his skin.

  3. avatar
    misha September 5, 2010 at 1:12 am #

    How about the proposed Islamic community center, in lower Manhattan:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/this-is-islam.html

  4. avatar
    Gregory September 5, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    richCares: Someone explain to me the Lakin dilemma, he demands release of records that would only furher confirm Obama’s Hawaiian birth… Is the birther mind that diseased? What’s going on here?

    You are ascribing to Lakin and his supporters the capacity of forethought. Although psychologists used to believe that forethought (the ability to project events into the future) was a universal human trait – the Lakin case has now shown this assumption to be false.

    Perhaps an analogy would help explain what I mean. Think of Lakin as a chess player – playing a game of chess (that is, his court martial) against the U.S. government. Unfortunately Lakin is not able to visualize what the board would look like if he were to move a piece. In fact, Lakin (to continue the analogy) is not even aware that chess pieces can be moved at all.

  5. avatar
    Sean September 5, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    dunstvangeet: Lakin, like all birthers, believe that the original documents will show something that is not quite right about the Birth Certificate, and therefore cast even more doubt onto the birth certificate.For instance, they continually state that if the doctor didn’t sign off on it, it’s not valid.Or, if it was only based upon the word of family members, then it must be filed as a fraud.Of course, none of their fantasies actually are legally plausable.they just want to make more hay on the President.And if they somehow did get it (which they won’t), and it was confirmed by a doctor, they’d just continue on with their line about how he’s not eligible, because his father was Kenyan.Or he’s not eligible because of dual citizenship.Or he’s not eligible because somehow at the age of 6, he gave up his U.S. Citizenship by somehow automatically acquiring Indonesian Citizenship.Or he’s not eligible because his name is Barack Hussein Obama II.Or he’s not eligible because of the color of his skin.

    The Birthers can find something. Remember what they found wrong with the COLB: A certification is not a certificate, African is not a race, there’s no seal, etc…..

  6. avatar
    Keith September 5, 2010 at 3:25 am #

    I am reminded of another Army doctor who went batshirt insane as a result of his active duty in a war zone.

    Dr. William Chester Minor, was born in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to missionary parents. He became a skillful doctor and served in the Union Army at the Battle of the Wilderness. He was required, on at least on occasion, to brand deserters, some probably Irish immigrants with an idea to return to Ireland and fight for independence, with a ‘D’ on their cheek or forehead. This seems to have disturbed him greatly (as it would anyone, I think), and he had a lifetime paranoia of Irishmen taking their revenge.

    After the war, though his skills were much sought after, his mental state deteriorated and he was allowed to resign with pension. In 1872, while in England on a tour of Europe, he shot a man who he thought was an Irish terrorist that had sneaked into his room through the floor boards. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent all but the last few years of his life in the Crowthorne insane asylum at Broadmore,

    During his stay his stay in the asylum he contributed to the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary by providing thousands of usage quotes. He also perform an autopenectomy (that is, he cut off his own penis).

  7. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 5, 2010 at 3:30 am #

    richCares: Someone explain to me the Lakin dilemma, he demands release of records that would only furher confirm Obama’s Hawaiian birth. That seems silly unless Lakin believes that they will show a Kenyan birth (rather unlikely). The COLB and statements by Hawaii’s gov can only be confirmed.Is the birther mind that diseased? What’s going on here?

    The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

  8. avatar
    Lupin September 5, 2010 at 3:50 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    This is a wonderfully delusional statement that couldn’t better illustrate the racist paradigm that lies at the core of the birthers’ mindset. What we have here is a perfectly ordinary BC which has further been authenticated by the proper government services, but since that fact conflicts heads on with the underlying world view that a n*** cannot possibly be legitimately president, the birther must perforce find a way to nullify it, as opposed to adopting a new worldview.

    I remember a case ten plus years ago where the plaintiff was because of personal hatreds that had nothing to do with the business was absolutely and totally convinced that the defendant was a thief. There was absolutely nothing, independent audits, etc. that could convince her otherwise. She lost every court case, enriching an attorney who (IMHO) was preying on her delusion, and in fact wasted rather enormous [sums] of money in her completely quixotic quest for retribution. There are people who are just totally impervious to the truth.

  9. avatar
    misha September 5, 2010 at 5:12 am #

    Lupin: This is a wonderfully delusional statement that couldn’t better illustrate the racist paradigm that lies at the core of the birthers’ mindset.

    And clinical insanity.

  10. avatar
    Dave September 5, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    Dr Kate writes the
    seminal paper in birther science
    :

    Americans’ consciousness is raised daily, following a predictable, exponential pattern…

    E = mC

    Where E = energy we need to move ideas forward; m= mass of people; C= speed of light squared–consciousness squared

    You’d think she’d have something to say about her huge march on Washington which is happening, umm, tomorrow. No wait, maybe this is her saying something about it in her characteristic extremely elliptical way.

    Anyway, I’m pretty sure she said a while ago that her huge March on Washington starts tomorrow, so expect headlines soon.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2010 at 9:17 am #

    Uh, that should be E = mc

  12. avatar
    misha September 5, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Uh, that should be E = mc

    What about E=mc³ ?

  13. avatar
    AnotherBird September 5, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    The only confusion is with those who hide behind the birth lunacy. A simple document like a birth certificate wouldn’t confuse the general electorate. They all have one.

  14. avatar
    Mike September 5, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    Keith: I am reminded of another Army doctor who went batshirt insane as a result of his active duty in a war zone.Dr. William Chester Minor

    There was also a book about him, called The Surgeon of Crowthorne, which makes fascinating reading; if you haven’t read it, you should.

  15. avatar
    Arthur September 5, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    What’s on my mind? What’s on my mind! I’ll tell you what’s on my mind–why can’t my dog merengue?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc9xq-TVyHI

  16. avatar
    gorefan September 5, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it.

    This is based on the mistaken conclusions of people like Miss Ticky and Butterbezillion. They asked the DOH loaded questions and when they didn’t get the answers they wanted, they assumed that meant the BC was amended. Total delusion on their parts.

  17. avatar
    HORUS September 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    Of course you don’t have a single shred of evidence to support those allegations.

    You are nothing but a Big, Fat, Liar!

  18. avatar
    jamese777 September 5, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    Why wouldn’t the state of Hawaii, with a Republican Governor and a Republican Attorney General have stated publically that the COLB was amended?

    The Director of the Hawaii Department of Health has verified the authenticity of the COLB posted on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website when she testified under oath before the State of Hawaii’s Senate Committee on Government Operations.
    Dr. Chiyome Fukino said: “For more than a year, The Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS POSTED A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ON HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.”
    Here’s a link to a transcript of her testimony:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28117439/Sb2937-Testimony-Jgo-02-23-10-Late
    Just because some anonymous people posting on the internet say that the birth records were amended doesn’t make it so.

  19. avatar
    Majority Will September 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Carl Spackler: So I jump ship in Hong Kong and I make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas.

    Angie D’Annunzio: A looper?

    Carl Spackler: A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I’m a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald… striking. So, I’m on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one – big hitter, the Lama – long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.

  20. avatar
    Arthur September 5, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    Maj. Will:

    It’s too bad Carl Spackler is unavailable to caddy for Tiger Woods. His savvy, his experience, his wisdom and indefatigable spirit, surely would have kept Tiger’s in and outs on the up and over.

  21. avatar
    Majority Will September 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    Arthur: Maj. Will:
    It’s too bad Carl Spackler is unavailable to caddy for Tiger Woods. His savvy, his experience, his wisdom and indefatigable spirit, surely would have kept Tiger’s in and outs on the up and over.

    That would’ve been nice.

  22. avatar
    katahdin September 5, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Mike: There was also a book about him, called The Surgeon of Crowthorne, which makes fascinating reading; if you haven’t read it, you should.

    Dr. Minor was also the subject of a fascinating book, “The Professor and the Madman,” about his role in the creation of the the Oxford English dictionary.

  23. avatar
    Sean September 5, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    I am curious, how was the COLB amended? Phil Berg likes to claim this, but he doesn’t say how. If he’s talking about the number that’s blacked out, that was not redacted on Factcheck.org.

    What was amended.

  24. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 5, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    HORUS:
    Of course you don’t have a single shred of evidence to support those allegations.You are nothing but a Big, Fat, Liar!

    Let’s label people:

    I’m a Big, Fat Liar.
    Doc C is an enabler.
    You’re a active participant.

    And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

  25. avatar
    Majority Will September 5, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Let’s label people:I’m a Big, Fat Liar.
    Doc C is an enabler.
    You’re a active participant.And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

    No, because you’re a proven, lying idiot with severe mental problems.

  26. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    “…because you are fearful of the truth”
    .
    typical wingnut response as in “you are afraid of Palin”
    really sven, this gets old and is boring, it is part of wingnut “projection”!
    .
    what would be amazing and world shaking would be if you brought actual proof for your phantasies, now that would be something!

  27. avatar
    Dave September 5, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Let’s label people:I’m a Big, Fat Liar.
    Doc C is an enabler.
    You’re a active participant.And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

    Hi Sven. Here’s a label: you’re a guy who doesn’t answer questions.

    Here’s a question for you to not answer: Why is it that out of about 200 GOP members of Congress, the number that have called for an investigation into the President’s eligibility is zero?

    For bonus points, clarify if it does or does not involve a massive conspiracy.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen (quoting): I’m a Big, Fat Liar.

    A liar is someone who intentionally deceives. If (a) you believe what you’re saying or (b) you do not intend that anyone actually believe what you are saying, then you aren’t a liar. I cannot disprove either of these possibilities.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    Sean: I am curious, how was the COLB amended?

    But of course Obama’s middle name was changed from Mohamed to Hussein.

  30. avatar
    Scientist September 5, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    The most common reason for amending is adoption. But if that’s the case, the amended COLB shows Barack Obama, Sr. as the father. So then is Sven’s case that he adopted Barack Jr? If so, then someone else is the biological father. Regardless, it makes no difference.

    Another reason for amending would be a gender change. Is it Sven’s contention that the President began life as a female and changed to male later on? Is that really what you’re saying Sven?

    Then there are errors. I suppose Sven is trying to suggest that the original had a different birthplace from Honolulu (say Maui) and that was what was amended. But in order to amend, you need to document that the original was wrong and you are amending to the correct data. So, if there is an amendment it is the amended data that is correct and the original that is wrong. And the amended says born in Honolulu. Is that your argument Sven?

    So you see Sven, even if I pretend you are correct, nothing changes.

  31. avatar
    Sean September 5, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    The COLB says that it isn’t valid if it’s amended. Phil Berg quite naturally sees this as a quick way of getting to his foregone conclusion. “It’s amended.” he says.

    He misses the most important part: how?

    It’s kind of like Lucas Smith glossing over the people and circumstances that lead to his “Kenyan Birth Certificate,” or Polarik reveling not his identity and/or credentials as a document expert.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    Scientist: The most common reason for amending is adoption.

    Actually paternity judgments and acknowledgment of paternity are an order of magnitude more common than adoptions.

  33. avatar
    Keith September 5, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    Mike:
    There was also a book about him, called The Surgeon of Crowthorne, which makes fascinating reading; if you haven’t read it, you should.

    Uh, yeah. That’s why I was reminded of him. Finished it last week 🙂

  34. avatar
    Keith September 5, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Sean: The COLB says that it isn’t valid if it’s amended. Phil Berg quite naturally sees this as a quick way of getting to his foregone conclusion. “It’s amended.” he says.He misses the most important part: how?It’s kind of like Lucas Smith glossing over the people and circumstances that lead to his “Kenyan Birth Certificate,” or Polarik reveling not his identity and/or credentials as a document expert.

    The how is by photoshopping (or other similar program name turned verb) a couple of black spots onto the scanned image. This action automagically invalidates the piece of paper that was scanned. Not only but also, borrowing from physics and the ‘scary action at a distance’ conundrum, it even invalidates the archive copy that is held in the Hawai’ian State Secrets Cone of Silence Extra Dollop of Seal Fat Archive.

  35. avatar
    Gregory September 5, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it.

    Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth should have the word “amended” on it – if any of your claims had an ounce of credibility to them.

    But since it doesn’t, they don’t.

  36. avatar
    Daniel September 5, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Let’s label people:I’m a Big, Fat Liar.
    Doc C is an enabler.
    You’re a active participant.And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

    Oh no, that’s not why they’re calling you names….. ROFLMAO

    But I understand that you have to convince yourself of that in order to avoid having to laugh at your reflection in the mirror.

  37. avatar
    Obsolete September 6, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    Let me guess birther logic- his Hawaiian birth certificate said born in Kenya, so he had it amended to say he was born in Hawaii.
    Why haven’t illegals figured out how to just amend their Mexican BC’s to say “born in Hawaii”?
    It’s fun and anyone can do it!

  38. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 6, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    Keith:
    The how is by photoshopping (or other similar program name turned verb) a couple of black spots onto the scanned image. This action automagically invalidates the piece of paper that was scanned. Not only but also, borrowing from physics and the scary action at a distance’ conundrum, it even invalidates the archive copy that is held in the Hawai’ian State Secrets Cone of Silence Extra Dollop of Seal Fat Archive.

    Using Sven’s logic if Dr C was to ban Sven from this site, Dr C should expect to see the local police at his door for murdering Sven.

  39. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 6, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    misha: How about the proposed Islamic community center, in lower Manhattan:http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/this-is-islam.html

    Misha, I think you got it right – people opposing the ‘ground zero mosque’ are handing Islamic extremists a victory.

  40. avatar
    Lupin September 6, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    SvenMagnussen: And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

    Personally I could care less about the truth, whatever it is, but I’m old enough to recognize a bigot and a fool when I see one.

  41. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 6, 2010 at 4:34 am #

    Majority Will:
    No, because you’re a proven, lying idiot with severe mental problems.

    As a lying idiot with severe mental problems, I think I’m entitled to affirmative action. You’re discriminating against me because I’m disabled.

  42. avatar
    katahdin September 6, 2010 at 5:51 am #

    SvenMagnussen: As a lying idiot with severe mental problems, I think I’m entitled to affirmative action. You’re discriminating against me because I’m disabled.

    Aren’t conservatives against affirmative action? I mean, except for the legacy programs for the subpar children of the elite. That’s just Natural Law (unnecessary wingnut capitalization provided free of charge.)

  43. avatar
    Majority Will September 6, 2010 at 6:14 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    As a lying idiot with severe mental problems, I think I’m entitled to affirmative action. You’re discriminating against me because I’m disabled.

    Aren’t you Dick Whitman who doesn’t exist? None of you exist. You have babbled yourself into non-existence and complete irrelevance. You were amended.

    Birthers are entitled to nothing and you’ll like it.

  44. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Actually paternity judgments and acknowledgment of paternity are an order of magnitude more common than adoptions.

    So, the question remains, suppose the COLB was amended, so what? It can only be amended due to new and more accurate information. If an original that said “place of birth Mombasa” is amended to say “place of birth Honolulu”, it’s because Mombasa is incorrect and Honolulu is correct. if it’s amended to change the father, it’s because the person originally named was not the father.

  45. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 6, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    katahdin:
    Aren’t conservatives against affirmative action? I mean, except for the legacy programs for the subpar children of the elite. That’s just Natural Law (unnecessary wingnut capitalization provided free of charge.)

    It’s Doc’s site.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A liar is someone who intentionally deceives. If (a) you believe what you’re saying or (b) you do not intend that anyone actually believe what you are saying, then you aren’t a liar. I cannot disprove either of these possibilities.

    We have a controversy, Doc. What’s your affirmative action policy?

    I’m “severely” handicapped and would like a level playing field to compete with those that have benefited at my expense in the past.

  46. avatar
    Gordon September 6, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    Sven Magnunson seems to be the longest running Birther on this site Doc, as the old standby Heavy seems to have dropped off. That being said, his latest attempt at humor is revealing. That rant about affirmative action came from nowhere.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    SvenMagnussen: We have a controversy, Doc. What’s your affirmative action policy?

    I’m “severely” handicapped and would like a level playing field to compete with those that have benefited at my expense in the past.

    Since you know the details of your disability better than I, perhaps you could suggest an appropriate accommodation.

  48. avatar
    AnotherBird September 6, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Let’s label people:I’m a Big, Fat Liar.
    Doc C is an enabler.
    You’re a active participant.And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

    Truth. Truth. You have produced absolutely nothing to even remotely challenges the birth certificate that Obama has published on the internet. I am sorry Sven, you are hiding from the truth. Why are you afraid of the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, and a natural born citizen of America?

  49. avatar
    Jerry Reed September 6, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    Hey, Doc, here’s a quote from Honest Abe about what constitutes a lie:
    “I believe it is an established maxim of morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood. And the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.”

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Gordon: Sven Magnunson seems to be the longest running Birther on this site Doc, as the old standby Heavy seems to have dropped off. That being said, his latest attempt at humor is revealing. That rant about affirmative action came from nowhere.

    It’s great to be able to think outside the box, just so long as you know where the box is.

  51. avatar
    Jerry Reed September 6, 2010 at 9:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen: “The COLB posted online by Obama should have the word “Amended” on it. Notwithstanding the fraud of editing a COLB to mislead and confuse the electorate, the amendment of the original birth records will show Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.”
    Analyze this statement by the standard of Abraham Lincoln previously posted. How can Sven possibly know that the COLB was edited to mislead, and should contain the word amended? Sven, what’s your actual evidence, or is this merely something you would devoutly wish to believe?
    Brings to mind another quote, by early 20th Century journalist and social critic H.L. Mencken: “The average man does not get pleasure out of an idea because he believes it is true, he believes it is true because he gets pleasure out of it.”

  52. avatar
    Sharshar September 6, 2010 at 9:37 am #

    You want ugly? This is UGLY!

    http://www.georgehutchins.com/hutchins-4-us-congress-2.htm

  53. avatar
    charo September 6, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    Doc,

    I found an old thread in which you discussed issues raised by Butterdezillion so I don’t feel out of line providing you with this link. Butterdezillion credited you with correcting her about some information and linked to your blog. I don’t know if you were aware of that. (A commenter said that you could not be trusted because you have had to be corrected numerous times- thought you would find that amusing.) I would like to see your response to any or all of what she alleges here.

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-whopper-that-got-away-4/#comments

  54. avatar
    AnotherBird September 6, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    Sharshar: You want ugly?This is UGLY!http://www.georgehutchins.com/hutchins-4-us-congress-2.htm

    Maybe “weird” would be a better adjective.

  55. avatar
    Lupin September 6, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m “severely” handicapped and would like a level playing field to compete with those that have benefited at my expense in the past.

    Should we all wear hoods too?

    That’s going to make typing difficult.

  56. avatar
    HORUS September 6, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    Gregory: You are ascribing to Lakin and his supporters the capacity of forethought.

    They have no forethought because most of them are the same people who believe they will be Raptured away in 2012.

  57. avatar
    Lupin September 6, 2010 at 10:39 am #

    It is very hard to take Butterdezillion seriously.

    In the frontpage of her blog, she goes at great length (using a rather gory example from Mexico) to claim that “Obama’s eligibility is and always has been about law enforcement, because our entire system of law enforcement of already-existing laws has utterly failed. This has nothing to do with politics.”

    Then she goes on, rather candidly I thought, to whine about the Clinton impeachment: “You can say, as did our Senators a few years ago regarding perjury and obstruction of justice, ”Tee-hee. It’s just about sex. It doesn’t matter.””

    It is amply clear that Butterdezilion only cares about the law and enforcing the law when democrats are in power — and the target.

    I searched in vain for any example of Butterdezillion being concerned about any of the Bush’s administration rather egregious violations of the laws regarding surveillance and torture, not to mention any outrage at the lack of prosecution of military subcontractors who stole money, or perhaps about secret renditions….

    All these important, fundamental wrongdoings which are all indisputably illegal do not in the least bother Butterdezillion, but alleged perjury about a consensual affair… Quick, raise the guillotine!

    The kindest thing one might say about Butterdezillion is that he or she is a liar and hypocrite, a political partisan without a shred of patriotism, in short a scoundrel.

    Why would anyone pay the least attention to a person like that beyond me.

  58. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    And you’re calling me names because you are fearful of the truth.

    If I were afraid of the truth, I would have nothing to fear from listening to you.

  59. avatar
    Gregory September 6, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Since you know the details of your disability better than I, perhaps you could suggest an appropriate accommodation.

    I sometimes wonder whether Dr. C’s obvious wit and talent as a writer isn’t being wasted responding to birthers and their nonsense (in a “casting pearls before swine” kind of way). I mean it’s not exactly a “duel” if one side is armed with a bazooka and the other, a water pistol.

  60. avatar
    Gregory September 6, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Sharshar: You want ugly?This is UGLY!http://www.georgehutchins.com/hutchins-4-us-congress-2.htm

    Let’s not rush to judgment, Sharshar. Dr. C. should seriously consider sprucing up this web site with the same web design that did such a good job with Mr. Hutchins’ site. I hear that that firm not only comes up with an amazing number of ideas (and uses all of them), but is are also willing to do the work for cheap.

  61. avatar
    Mike September 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    katahdin:
    Dr. Minor was also the subject of a fascinating book, “The Professor and the Madman,” about his role in the creation of the the Oxford English dictionary.

    I haven’t seen that one; I’ll see if I can find it. Thanks!

  62. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett September 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:I’m “severely” handicapped and would like a level playing field to compete with those that have benefited at my expense in the past.

    The ball pit at Chuck E Cheese seems perfect.

  63. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm #

    Gordon: That being said, his latest attempt at humor is revealing

    I believe that everything Sven posts is an attempt at humor…. albeit usually lame and agonizingly repetitive.

    But I’ve not yet seen anything from Sven that could possibly be expected to be taken seriously.

  64. avatar
    Keith September 6, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Using Sven’s logic if Dr C was to ban Sven from this site, Dr C should expect to see the local police at his door for murdering Sven.

    I suspect not. It would take years for the good folks at SG-1 to track down all the clones.

  65. avatar
    Black Lion September 6, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    charo: Doc,I found an old thread in which you discussed issues raised by Butterdezillion so I don’t feel out of line providing you with this link. Butterdezillion credited you with correcting her about some information and linked to your blog. I don’t know if you were aware of that. (A commenter said that you could not be trusted because you have had to be corrected numerous times- thought you would find that amusing.) I would like to see your response to any or all of what she alleges here. http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-whopper-that-got-away-4/#comments

    BZ as usual doesn’t provide evidence for her conclusions…She is basically implying that some sort of conspiracy happened either when Reagan was President or that the State Department has somehow purged all of the records of Obama’s mother. But she can not provide any evidence of this happened other than the claim of some individual that he got his mothers passport information. Yet this is not provided. So we just have her word that this happened….

    And in her comments she makes a claim and when asked for evidence, goes with the “it is not the right time” defense, which in english means I am making stuff up again….BZ is not a resource for anything other than humor….

    Barclay Price Says:

    August 27, 2010 at 4:11 am | Reply
    Butterdezillion, you’ve claimed that Obama is using the old birth certificate of a girl who died in August of 1961. I am fascinated about this. Is the time right yet to divulge the name of this girl? If I need to wait longer, I certainly will. I know you wouldn’t lead anyone astray.
    And you’re certainly not a liar, right? Please tell me!

    butterdezillion Says:

    August 27, 2010 at 5:34 pm | Reply
    It’s not the right time yet. Sorry.

    ksdb Says:

    August 28, 2010 at 7:14 pm | Reply
    Technically, Obama is using somebody else’s birth certificate NUMBER, not their certificate.

    butterdezillion Says:

    August 28, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    Right. His genuine COLB probably looks just like Factcheck except for the BC#, note of the amendment, and it probably is a LATE COLB as well.

    IOW, everything except the measures showing legal validity/status would be the same.

  66. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    charo: I would like to see your response to any or all of what she alleges here.

    Butterdezillion’s link to Phil Jacobsen’s mother’s passport application, which Jacobsen supposedly received, takes you here:

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/phils-passport-photo/

    So where is the passport application? All she has is a photo, which could have come from a family photo album for all we know. If Jacobsen actually received a passport application from 1953, why hasn’t he posted it?

  67. avatar
    nbc September 6, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    President Obama during his Labor Day speech in Milwaukee

    And when times are tough — when times are tough, I know it can be easy to give in to cynicism. I know it can be easy to give in to fear and doubt. And you know, it’s easy sometimes for folks to stir up stuff and turn people on each other, and it’s easy to settle for something less, to set our sights a little bit lower.

    Instead of ignorance, fear and hatred he is offering hope to better ourselves, rather than set our sights lower.

    You can watch the video and read the transcript of the speech here, one part is missing though:

    “Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” he told a crowd largely consisting of union members.

  68. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 6, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Since you know the details of your disability better than I, perhaps you could suggest an appropriate accommodation.

    My inner voices are discussing it.

    But, I’ll give you a heads up and tell you a therapeutic massage in the Presidential Suite at the Aria in Las Vegas is a leading contender … 3 nights and 4 days. And since Horus called me a Big, Fat Liar, I want to be comped like a Whale while gambling like a grandmother on a fixed pension.

    Don’t say anything now, Doc. Someone will approach you in a few days.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    charo: (A commenter [at Butterdezillion’s blog] said that you could not be trusted because you have had to be corrected numerous times- thought you would find that amusing.) ) I would like to see your response to any or all of what she alleges here.

    Better trust someone that is corrected than someone that refuses to listen to reason and repeats the same misinformation over and over (I am speaking generally here and not about Butterdezillion).

    One of the challenges in dealing with Butterdezillion is that her arguments are intricate, and her documentation extensive. For someone like myself who deals with repetitive, baseless birther garbage all of the time, there is a tendency to be hasty in dismissing things, and that leads to mistakes.

    For Butterdezillion’s argument to be true then they must all be lying, and we are left with the ultimate question of “why.” If the Department of State were trying to cover up a passport application from Stanley Ann Dunham prior to Obama’s birth, why not just destroy that one piece of paper, rather than cook up some fantastic tale of destroying hundreds of millions of records, a lie so huge that it could never be kept from being discovered? The conspiracy theory makes no sense on the face of it.

    But to deal with the specific claims of BZ’s “Whopper That Got Away” page, will take some time. Could make a good article.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Black Lion (quoting Butterdezillion): It’s not the right time yet. Sorry.

    I would suggest that it is not the right time for Butterdezillion to disclose the name of the person who died in August of 1961 that she claims owns the certificate number on the Obama FactCheck COLB because she either doesn’t know of such a person, or does know of someone who died in August of 1961 but has no way to tie it to the Obama certificate number.

  71. avatar
    Gregory September 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    Black Lion:
    It’s not the right time yet. Sorry.

    IOW: Answer unclear, ask again later.

  72. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 6, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    Gregory:
    IOW: Answer unclear, ask again later.

    I’m sure it will come up ‘all signs point to yes’ soon… 😉

  73. avatar
    charo September 6, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Rickey:
    Butterdezillion’s link to Phil Jacobsen’s mother’s passport application, which Jacobsen supposedly received, takes you here:http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/phils-passport-photo/So where is the passport application? All she has is a photo, which could have come from a family photo album for all we know. If Jacobsen actually received a passport application from 1953, why hasn’t he posted it?

    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/jacobsen-affidavit1.pdf

  74. avatar
    charo September 6, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    Rickey,

    I think Doc will sort it all out when he gets the time.

  75. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 7, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    One part that is missing is a copy of the “application” from Jacobsen’s mother, as opposed to the photo. The government in the Strunk case filed an affidavit indicating that some applications were retained, not others — I believe that the passport apps of naturalized citizens may have been retained. (I’d have to go back to the affidavit to check & don’t have time to check now — but I remember very specifically that certain types of apps were retained, and others were not.) If we can’t see the application with the specific info that tells us what type of app it is, then the fact that it was possible to locate that doc. is meaningless.

    I am skeptical because I do not know why that doc. would would be withheld — it seems obvious that it should be attached to a statement attesting to its existence.

    That being said, the fact that one document was locatable when another wasn’t, when both come from a period of time when destruction was authorized, is meaningless. It just mean that some, but not all, documents were destroyed — which is pretty much what the government said in its affidavit anyway.

  76. avatar
    sfjeff September 7, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    In Gainesville, Fla., a pastor’s plan to hold a public burning of Qurans to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has already set off angry protests from Afghanistan to Indonesia and elicited a formal response from the U.S. Embassy condemning the plan. Now, the book burning has another high-profile foe: Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of American forces fighting in that country.

    “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” Petraeus told The Wall Street Journal. “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”

  77. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    charo:
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/jacobsen-affidavit1.pdf

    The affidavit doesn’t include copies of any of documents which Jacobsen received. Without knowing any details about his mother, we can’t determine if her records should have been part of the destruction program or if they were exempt. As Expelliarmus has pointed out, if Mrs. Jacobsen was a naturalized citizen her passport applications would not have been part of the destruction program. Stanley Ann Dunham was a natural born citizen, so her passport applications were destroyed.

    So basically it proves nothing.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    Expelliarmus: One part that is missing is a copy of the “application” from Jacobsen’s mother, as opposed to the photo.The government in the Strunk case filed an affidavit indicating that some applications were retained, not others.

    Broadly speaking, the applications of natural born citizens were destroyed and others were not. A passport application for someone born a US Citizen abroad (to US citizen parents) would likely have a Consular birth certificate attached, something that could only be obtained from the State Department, making it a vital document to retain.

    My new article, New Hope for the Doc’s FOIA, has links to background material, not previously cited, on the destruction project.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Slartibartfast: I’m sure it will come up all signs point to yes’ soon…

    So I’m sitting in the chair looking at the magic 8 ball, and my genius kid walks in and says “you know that the Magic 8 ball has 4 negative answers, 4 positive answers and 8 noncommittal answers?”

    [Edited: the numbers are 5, 5 and 10. I must have misremembered what my always-right kid said many years ago.]

  80. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 7, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    sfjeff: In Gainesville, Fla., a pastor’s plan to hold a public burning of Qurans to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has already set off angry protests from Afghanistan to Indonesia and elicited a formal response from the U.S. Embassy condemning the plan. Now, the book burning has another high-profile foe: Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of American forces fighting in that country.
    “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” Petraeus told The Wall Street Journal. “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”

    How unsurprising that people burning books helps the Taliban. I wish those closed-minded idiots could be made aware that they are putting US troops (and civilians) in more danger and giving aid and comfort to the enemy by doing the most un-American thing imaginable.

  81. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 7, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So I’m sitting in the chair looking at the magic 8 ball, and my genius kid walks in and says “you know that the Magic 8 ball has 4 negative answers, 4 positive answers and 8 noncommittal answers?”

    I hate to do this, but I need to call you to task here. The idea that there were 16 possible answers given by a magic 8-ball got my Spidey sense tingling – the ‘die’ of a magic 8-ball is a Platonic solid and therefore has either 12 or 20 sides (since it definitely has more than 8, 6, or 4 sides). A little research on Wikipedia showed 20 standard answers:

    10 positive:

    As I see it, yes
    It is certain
    It is decidedly so
    Most likely
    Outlook good
    Signs point to yes
    Without a doubt
    Yes
    Yes – definitely
    You may rely on it

    5 non-committal:

    Reply hazy, try again
    Ask again later
    Better not tell you now
    Cannot predict now
    Concentrate and ask again

    and 5 negative:

    Don’t count on it
    My reply is no
    My sources say no
    Outlook not so good
    Very doubtful

    Apologies for correcting your son, but I know you like to maintain the highest standards of accuracy possible. I don’t know about Butterdezillion’s magic 8-ball, but I’m betting that it’s something like this:

    Kenyan BC (3x)
    dual citizen
    Indonesian adoption
    attended madrassa
    grandma registered fraudulent BC
    Governor Lingle lied
    Dr. Fukino perjury
    de Vattel rules!
    BC from home birth
    Hawaii DOH obfuscation
    Speaker Pelosi fraud
    Factcheck forgery
    Politifact forgery
    ‘Dr.’ Polairk is an expert
    The conspiracy is after you
    Usurper
    Hawaii DOH denial is a confirmation
    used foreign passport in Pakistan

  82. avatar
    ellid September 7, 2010 at 7:47 am #

    Gregory:
    Let’s not rush to judgment, Sharshar. Dr. C. should seriously consider sprucing up this web site with the same web design that did such a good job with Mr. Hutchins’ site. I hear that that firm not only comes up with an amazing number of ideas (and uses all of them), but is are also willing to do the work for cheap.

    Holy crap, it’s John Candy come back from the grave!

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    Slartibartfast: I hate to do this, but I need to call you to task here.

    I’m sure my kid was right. I just misremembered (it was some 10 years ago). He was never wrong.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    Slartibartfast: How unsurprising that people burning books helps the Taliban.

    And setting fire to construction equipment outside a Tennessee Islamic center construction site. Since no one has mentioned, maybe no one else saw this item:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/national/main6814690.shtml

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    Rickey: The affidavit doesn’t include copies of any of documents which Jacobsen received. Without knowing any details about his mother, we can’t determine if her records should have been part of the destruction program or if they were exempt.

    The Jacobsen affidavit confirms my research that there is an index to passports issued. However, Strunk did not ask for passports issued, only applications.

  86. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Jacobsen affidavit confirms my research that there is an index to passports issued. However, Strunk did not ask for passports issued, only applications.

    Yes, I am certain that the State Department still has records of all passports issued.

    One thing which may be holding up your request is that Obama may have traveled to Indonesia on his mother’s 1965 passport, so all information about him in that record would have to be redacted before they can provide it to you. Of course, when he returned to Hawaii for an extended visit when he was in third grade he would have had his own passport.

  87. avatar
    gorefan September 7, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Expelliarmus: I believe that the passport apps of naturalized citizens may have been retained.

    According to the memo that came with the Galovich Declaration, “Applications of foreign born citizens” were being retained. How do you know that Mrs. Jacobsen was naturalized?

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/strunk-v-d-o-s-doc-37-2-declaration/

  88. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    As predicted earlier convicted forger Lucas Smith is attempting to make a comeback with the help of the Post and Fail. Nothing says desperation more that supporting a convicted forger felon that has not been able to prove anything he has claimed. If I recall even some Post and Fail and Freepers don’t believe the tall tales of Smith….I guess Rondeau is getting desperate….

    “I met Lucas Smith at the September 8, 2009 hearing in the case Barnett et al v. Obama. I found Lucas Smith to be a serious and credible individual, as did others who met him at the hearing (the second of three hearings in the Barnett case prior to its dismissal by Judge David O. Carter despite prior assurances by the judge that the case would be heard on its merits.)

    …..

    In other words, we (Obama and his attorneys) do not want to hear what Lucas Smith has to say, either in live testimony or in a written deposition, and we certainly do not want the purported Kenyan birth certificate to be made a matter of record and to be subjected to professional analysis by the court.

    ……

    We can presume that at that point Obama’s attorneys were in a state of panic. They well-knew that they could not disprove the Kenyan birth certificate or discredit any testimony by Lucas Smith. Their best course of action was to get the September 8 hearing over with as quickly as possible, keep Lucas Smith away from the court, and insure that the case would be dismissed. For without a dismissal, they were in deep trouble.

    …..

    I suggest that the time has come for the judicial branch of this government to exercise its proper role and take such action as may be necessary to insure that the Kenyan birth certificate in the possession of Lucas Smith be subjected to forensic examination, and to take such action as may be required upon receiving the report of the results of such examination.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/eyewitness-at-ca-eligibility-hearing-recounts-his-impressions-of-lucas-smith/

    And in the comments…It seems there are sheep that seem to belive in Lucas….

    Chance says:
    Monday, September 6, 2010 at 7:58 AM
    It would be great if someone else who was born at that time stepped forward with thier bc. We could then compare. BUt for the record, I believe Lucas Smith.

    Bob1943 says:
    Monday, September 6, 2010 at 12:42 AM
    Perhaps Dr. Ron Polarik, who investigated Obama’s online COLB and determined it is an absurd fraud, could give the Obama Kenyan BC a look?

    And some with common sense can spot a fraud a mile away….

    Mik Taerg says:
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 4:12 AM
    Just to make it clear Lucas has been debunked, even humiliated, various times. But he insists.
    First of all the Chief Administrator who supposedly signing his fraud was not yet appointed at the date stamped on his fraud. On Feb 19 2009 the CA was Jennifer Othigo not Helton Maganga. This has been discussed at length and anyone can search the “debate” and the supporting evidence on the net.
    Most recently he claims Obama was born a subject of Zanzibar when his own fraud clearly states Republic of Kenya, is he debunking himself ?

  89. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    More Smith excerpts below from another article the Post and Fail ran….

    ” Lucas Daniel Smith has just completed a mailing to each member of Congress a copy of a document which he stated is a certified copy of the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II showing that Obama was born in Kenya, Africa. Each birth certificate copy was sent with a seven-page, individually-notarized letter by certified mail. The project was completed on August 31, 2010.”

    ……

    “In an interview with the Christian News Review on July 13, 2010, Mr. Smith described his background as a sociologist studying in Africa, how he obtained the document from Coast Province General Hospital, the cost, and the military and police presence there. A second interview with Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster from August 18, 2010 can be found here.

    ……

    1. Would you be willing to send The Post & Email anything that proves your travel to Kenya (or whatever country was your first destination in Africa) before you accessed the personnel at the Mombasa hospital (the stub of an airline ticket, hotel receipt, etc.)? Do you have anything that shows when you re-entered the U.S. from Kenya after you obtained the document?

    I have a plethora of documentation which puts me in the following countries in February of 2009: Democratic Republic of the Congo, The People’s Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Kenya. I will provide this documentation in person to both Congress and attorneys. I will not distribute electronic copies of this documentation until the documentation has been reviewed by members of Congress or disclosed during Congressional investigations/hearings or entered in as evidence in eligibility litigation here in the United States or the United Kingdom.

    …..

    3. What convinces you that the document you have in your possession is a copy of his original hospital record? Is there any chance someone gave you a fake document and passed it off as real?

    I have been analyzing Barack Obama’s Kenyan CPGH hospital birth certificate for more than one year. This document has withstood the test of time. It has never been discredited. On February 19, 2009 I personally entered Coast Province General Hospital under the guise that I was looking for my sister that had fallen ill while she was working Kenya. It wasn’t until I was inside of the hospital and face to face with administrative staff that I mentioned anything regarding my desire to procure (or purloin) a certified copy of Barack Obama’s original birth record. The significance of the guise was to eliminate any possibility that the hospital’s staff (seeing dollar signs) would be “waiting” for me with a forged or fake document.

    ……

    Some have questioned the date format and other aspects of the document which Mr. Smith obtained, stating that it would have been written in the European format of day/month/year. However, Smith has provided an envelope which he claims is from Mombasa from 1897 showing a month/day/year format:”

    ……

    No hospital in the United States has claimed that Obama was born there. Only Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has stated that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, but a person formerly employed in the Hawaii Elections Office says that Obama “was not born in Hawaii” and that “the government there knows this.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/exclusive-lucas-daniel-smith-speaks-with-the-post-email/

    And in the comments…Some still don’t believe him….I guess some Post and Fail readers are not sheeple….

    Mik Taerg says:
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 5:10 AM
    the best supporting evidence of the Kenyan Bc’s authenticity:
    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946

    Mr. Crocket says:
    Monday, September 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM
    Lucas Smith said “Does anyone have any idea just how many man hours went into that project? I’ve been working around the clock (literally) since July 1st, 2010 and didn’t complete the project until August 31, 2010. Two full months. Do you know how long it took just to address the envelopes and the certified mail receipts? How about scanning all of that into a PDF? How about finding a notary public that was willing to notarize more than 500 pages (by the way, they don’t do that for free)? And has anyone ever spent more than $3000 dollars on postage, certified mails fees and notary fees to inform US Congress of Mr Obama’s ineligibility to hold Office? A patriotic supporter paid those fees in full for this project. What have you done?”

    Working hard instead of working smart should not warrant sympathy from the readers!

    Smith addressed the envelopes by hand rather than purchasing laser mailing labels (600 for $50), and printing them out on a printer.
    ….

    Then Smith decided to scan each and every letter, envelope, and receipt. To what benefit? With the exception of the addressee, all of the letters are the same. A scan of one letter, and a list of the recipients would have satisfied most people.

    For some unknown reason Mr. Smith thinks Congress will now express interest in a document that is only accompanied by a story about how it was obtained. Is that story true? We only know that Smith has so far refused to provide any documentation to back up his story. Mr. Smith should be introduced to the cart and the horse. Then he can be told which one should be placed in the front.

    Smith would rather admit to selling a kidney (a felony http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000274—e000-.html) than provide any proof of travel to Africa. Does anyone else see something strange about that?

    And Lucas responds with a long diatribe/response….

    Lucas Smith says:
    Monday, September 6, 2010 at 11:11 PM
    Good night everyone. I want to thank everyone here for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech here on this comments sections of this article.

    This will be my last comment on this article.

    I’m a man of character. I took the time to hand address each and every envelope to its Congressional recipient. That means something to me and should mean something to other individuals of character. I don’t expect everyone to understand. The Letter to Congress project wasn’t about sending off some cheap note to Congress which would be ignored or even worse, not noticed in the first place……

    …..

    Lastly, regarding organ sales. Yes, organ sales are illegal in the USA. But why should they be? Organ sales save lives. AND DO NOT attempt to tell me that organ “donations” save lives. Look up the statistics before you open your mouth or grab your keyboards. People don’t just go around giving away kidneys and livers or other organs everyday. There’s an immensely long waiting list for a kidney and other organs and most people die waiting for their number to be called.

  90. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 7, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Rickey:
    Of course, when he returned to Hawaii for an extended visit when he was in third grade he would have had his own passport.

    Ha Ha Ha Ha.

    Soebarkah returned to Hawaii by himself in the third grade (most likely he was escorted by a State Dept employee or an NGO contracted with the State Dept) and he had his own passport? Are you sure or are you guessing? Is that a US passport or an Indonesian passport?

    And why would Stanley Ann let her own passport expire at this time but make sure Soebarkah’s passport was up to date? Did she not renew her US passport because it would have killed the story Soebarkah was an abandoned or orphaned Indonesian child with American grandparents in Hawaii? With American grandparents as the next of kin, the State Department would have expedited Refugee Status travel documents for the child so he could return to the US immediately.

  91. avatar
    Greg September 7, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: most likely he was escorted by a State Dept employee or an NGO contracted with the State Dept) and he had his own passport? Are you sure or are you guessing?

    How long have you been posting this story? How much longer until you give some proof that it has any basis in reality?

  92. avatar
    sfjeff September 7, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Has Sven changed his novel to “Soebarkah and the Pirates?” Really not quite as catchy. I think it will hurt sales.

  93. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 7, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    sfjeff: Has Sven changed his novel to “Soebarkah and the Pirates?” Really not quite as catchy. I think it will hurt sales.

    Since we’re on the open thread …

    I bought a coffee mug at a theme park yesterday. It has a picture of a pirate on it with the words, “Surrender the booty.”

  94. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Since we’re on the open thread …I bought a coffee mug at a theme park yesterday. It has a picture of a pirate on it with the words, “Surrender the booty.”

    It seems like that may have been inspired by Lucas Smith’s campaign to con every last birther out of their “booty” with his ridiculous Kenyan BC….

  95. avatar
    sfjeff September 7, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    We all know ‘booty’ is pirate code for original hospital authenticated birth certificate

  96. avatar
    Daniel September 7, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    My inner voices are discussing it.
    But, I’ll give you a heads up and tell you a therapeutic massage in the Presidential Suite at the Aria in Las Vegas is a leading contender

    Well that’s easily as plausible a happenstance as your birther fantasy

  97. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Soebarkah returned to Hawaii by himself in the third grade (most likely he was escorted by a State Dept employee or an NGO contracted with the State Dept) and he had his own passport?

    Barack was shipped off to the grandparents in the 3rd grade, put on board an airplane on one end as an “unaccompanied minor”, most likely with his travel documents in a glassine envelope pinned to his shirt. If he didn’t already have his own passport, his mother would have gotten one for him a short time before the trip was planned. Airlines generally accept minors age 5+ — and airline employees escort them on and off the plane and assure that they are met by authorized, id-carrying adults at the destination. “Shipping off to grandma’s” is a very common ritual for parents who live at some distance from the grandparents. The kids are sent to fly alone because of the cost of airfare. That would have been particularly significant back in the 1960’s, as airlines then generally had “youth” fares offered at a substantial discount off of the cost of an adult fare.

  98. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    gorefan: How do you know that Mrs. Jacobsen was naturalized?

    The point is that we don’t know whether Jacobsen’s mother was American-born or foreign-born, and/or naturalized because the copy of the application has not been included with any docs posted on the internet. The production of her application would only be significant for purposes of countering Galovich’s declaration if the mother was in fact American born. I’d note that Jacobsen’s affidavit specifically fails to mention whether or not the mother was born on US soil.

  99. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    With American grandparents as the next of kin, the State Department would have expedited Refugee Status travel documents for the child so he could return to the US immediately.

    So in your fantasy Obama returned to the U.S. during third grade under expedited refugee status, but six months later he was allowed to return to his mother and stepfather in Indonesia? Please explain how that was arranged.

    As for Stanley Ann, she didn’t need to renew her passport at that time because she had no plans to travel anywhere. People often allow their passports to lapse if they have no immediate plans to use them.

  100. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    I’d note that Jacobsen’s affidavit specifically fails to mention whether or not the mother was born on US soil.

    And he makes a point of stating that he himself is a natural born citizen, so his omission of information about his mother’s status may be telling.

  101. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 7, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Rickey:
    So in your fantasy Obama returned to the U.S. during third grade under expedited refugee status, but six months later he was allowed to return to his mother and stepfather in Indonesia? Please explain how that was arranged.As for Stanley Ann, she didn’t need to renew her passport at that time because she had no plans to travel anywhere. People often allow their passports to lapse if they have no immediate plans to use them.

    The Obama-Soetoro narrative was Barry was in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971.

    Obama’s mother, divorced from Obama’s father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering _ Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html

    A quick check of Obama’s Social Security Form SS-5 will show Obama identified himself as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen in the mid-70’s. He was a refugee was the early 70’s to the early 80’s. Many refugees reside in America as Permanent Residents and then naturalize to become a US Citizen.

  102. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    The hypocrisy of the right wing haters….

    “As ThinkProgress has reported, the Dove World Church based out of Gainesville, FL, is organizing an “International Burn a Quran Day” on September 11. Gen. David Petraeus warned yesterday that the hate campaign “could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.” Gen. William Caldwell — the commander of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan — echoed Petraeus’ admonition on CNN yesterday afternoon:”

    The hate pastor leading the Quran burning is Terry Jones, author of the a book called “Islam Is Of The Devil.” During a combative interview with CNN host Kiran Chetry this morning, Jones seemed unwilling to reconsider his “Burn a Quran Day,” and instead offered his prayers to soldiers who might be put at greater risk:

    Jones said that he is “weighing the situation,” but emphasized that he’s not backing down from the event. During the interview, he repeatedly conceded that he “would indeed offend” Muslims. But, he claimed, “peaceful Muslims” should be supporting his hate campaign. “Moderate Muslims should be on our side,” Jones argued.

    Chetry, unable to restrain herself any longer, indignantly responded: “No moderate Muslim’s going to be on your side when you’re burning their holy book! I mean, that just sounds silly.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/07/burn-quran-soldiers-lives/

  103. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Black Lion: The hypocrisy of the right wing haters….“As ThinkProgress has reported, the Dove World Church based out of Gainesville, FL, is organizing an “International Burn a Quran Day” on September 11. Gen. David Petraeus warned yesterday that the hate campaign “could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.” Gen. William Caldwell — the commander of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan — echoed Petraeus’ admonition on CNN yesterday afternoon:”The hate pastor leading the Quran burning is Terry Jones, author of the a book called “Islam Is Of The Devil.” During a combative interview with CNN host Kiran Chetry this morning, Jones seemed unwilling to reconsider his “Burn a Quran Day,” and instead offered his prayers to soldiers who might be put at greater risk:Jones said that he is “weighing the situation,” but emphasized that he’s not backing down from the event. During the interview, he repeatedly conceded that he “would indeed offend” Muslims. But, he claimed, “peaceful Muslims” should be supporting his hate campaign. “Moderate Muslims should be on our side,” Jones argued.Chetry, unable to restrain herself any longer, indignantly responded: “No moderate Muslim’s going to be on your side when you’re burning their holy book! I mean, that just sounds silly.”http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/07/burn-quran-soldiers-lives/

    I guess we can see the real Terry Jones right here….Beware if you actually watch this trash….This is the guy that WND and others of the religious right are defending….Which shows who these individuals really are….

    “Pastors Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp of the Dove World Outreach Center, sponsors of “Burn a Koran Day,” let it all hang out. You won’t believe this one.

    Warning: this insane video is absolutely not safe for work, and possibly not safe for human beings.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37077_Burn_a_Koran_Day_Pastors_Let_the_N_Word_Flow

  104. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    Black Lion: Jones said that he is “weighing the situation,” but emphasized that he’s not backing down from the event.

    That’s a meaningless statement. It’s like saying “I’m not sure if want to shoot someone but I’m still going to point the gun at him and pull the trigger.”

  105. avatar
    Gordon September 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    SvenMagnussen

    A quick check of Obama’s Social Security Form SS-5 will show Obama identified himself as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen in the mid-70′s. He was a refugee was the early 70′s to the early 80′s. Many refugees reside in America as Permanent Residents and then naturalize to become a US Citizen.

    I don’t care what anyone says, Sven Magnunson CRACKS ME UP.

  106. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: A quick check of Obama’s Social Security Form SS-5 will show Obama identified himself as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen in the mid-70′s. He was a refugee was the early 70′s to the early 80′s. Many refugees reside in America as Permanent Residents and then naturalize to become a US Citizen.

    I’m interested in how you know this (seeing that you didn’t provide a link to support it). Especially in light of the fact that according to US law there was no way for the President to have lost or given up his US citizenship (the citizenship that his grandmother committed fraud to obtain for him in order for his mother to throw it away somehow a few years later according to the birthers) and that a person who planned to run for president in kindergarden (according to the article you linked) would be unlikely compromise their citizenship.

    The degree to which your tinfoil hat is impervious to facts and reason would be impressive if the effects weren’t so pathetic.

    There is a bigger chance that every single birther on the planet will become a staunch Obama supporter in the next 30 seconds than that the president is ineligible for his office.

    Time’s up.

  107. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    Gordon: SvenMagnussen A quick check of Obama’s Social Security Form SS-5 will show Obama identified himself as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen in the mid-70′s. He was a refugee was the early 70′s to the early 80′s. Many refugees reside in America as Permanent Residents and then naturalize to become a US Citizen.I don’t care what anyone says, Sven Magnunson CRACKS ME UP.

    He is amazing…Even with no evidence, he can be certain of such events. I mean his musings are really a work of fiction. Nowhere else could someone born in the US be a refugee and then a naturalized citizen. Even when in 1965 the State Department was aware that Obama was a natural born citizen of the US. Sven really does give us a good daily laugh with his stories…I am looking forward to the book…

  108. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Black Lion:
    He is amazing…Even with no evidence, he can be certain of such events.I mean his musings are really a work of fiction.Nowhere else could someone born in the US be a refugee and then a naturalized citizen.Even when in 1965 the State Department was aware that Obama was a natural born citizen of the US.Sven really does give us a good daily laugh with his stories…I am looking forward to the book…

    Birthers also routinely jump from one bandwagon (based purely on ridiculous speculation) to the next especially if they’re caught contradicting themselves. They have to keep their delusions alive or their heads will explode.

  109. avatar
    Greg September 7, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: A quick check of Obama’s Social Security Form SS-5 will show Obama identified himself as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen in the mid-70′s.

    Show us a copy. then.

    Or, how about something simpler. Finish this statement:

    “I know that Obama’s SS-5 will show what I claim because _______”

  110. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    The Obama-Soetoro narrative was Barry was in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971.

    And where does the “narrative” state that Obama never returned to Hawaii to visit his grandparents during that time period? And of course we know that he did return, because we have seen a photograph of him in third grade in Honolulu.

    You still haven’t explained how a minor refugee from Indonesia was able to return to Indonesia after being granted refugee status by the State Department.

  111. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 7, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Rickey:
    And where does the “narrative” state that Obama never returned to Hawaii to visit his grandparents during that time period? And of course we know that he did return, because we have seen a photograph of him in third grade in Honolulu.
    You still haven’t explained how a minor refugee from Indonesia was able to return to Indonesia after being granted refugee status by the State Department.

    You claimed he returned to Indonesia after returning to Hawaii in 1971. I posted a link where Obama has stated he was in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971.

    The grade school picture you’re referring to has the date 1969 on it. This was the year the Soetoro adoption was finalized.

    At the end of 1971 or the beginning of 1972, the Soetoro adoption was annulled by complaint filed by BHO Sr indicating he did not voluntarily give up his parental rights. The Hawaii District Court ruled BHO Sr was the father and ordered the Soetoro adoption annulled and BHO’s II birth record to be amended.

  112. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    You claimed he returned to Indonesia after returning to Hawaii in 1971

    I made no such claim. I said that he returned to Indonesia after visiting his grandparents when he was in third grade.

    The rest of your note is pure Sven fantasy.

  113. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    You claimed he returned to Indonesia after returning to Hawaii in 1971. I posted a link where Obama has stated he was in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971.
    The grade school picture you’re referring to has the date 1969 on it. This was the year the Soetoro adoption was finalized.
    At the end of 1971 or the beginning of 1972, the Soetoro adoption was annulled by complaint filed by BHO Sr indicating he did not voluntarily give up his parental rights. The Hawaii District Court ruled BHO Sr was the father and ordered the Soetoro adoption annulled and BHO’s II birth record to be amended.

    You’re babbling again, Sybil. Go play in traffic.

  114. avatar
    Greg September 7, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: This was the year the Soetoro adoption was finalized.

    Adoptions have records. Where have you shown the records?

    SvenMagnussen: At the end of 1971 or the beginning of 1972, the Soetoro adoption was annulled by complaint filed by BHO Sr

    Docket number? Let’s see a copy of this complaint, please?

    SvenMagnussen: The Hawaii District Court ruled BHO Sr was the father and ordered the Soetoro adoption annulled and BHO’s II birth record to be amended.

    And the order is, where?

    Call up the clerk of court, Sven, and ask him/her to copy the contents of BHO Sr’s complaint. It’ll be a few cents per page, plus a fee for retrieving the box from storage. If, in fact, there is such a complaint.

    These are not insurmountable research tasks, Sven, and the fact that you cannot even point to the attempts you’ve made to exhaust the available research paths indicates quite clearly that you are a piker, not interested in any sense in the truth!

  115. avatar
    Dave September 7, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Dr. Kate and her Usurpathon rally swept into DC last night with a candlelight vigil at the Vietnam Memorial. Today she and Rev. Manning made the rounds of Issa’s office, Walter Reed (to show support for LTC Lakin), and the Supreme Court to make presentments or something — or I suppose that’s what they did, because naturally the Marxist Nazi MSM is not reporting this huge rally. Actually, even Dr. Kate has reported only a few words about last night and nothing about today. But here’s a comment on her blog that hints at the stupendous size of this rally:

    Yesterday I spent several hours walking all around the Vietnam Memorial looking for the Userpathon people. The National Park Service told me they had a permit on file for a candlight event on the grassy area on the East end of “The Wall” begining at 8pm, however, at 8:30 I didn’t see any Userpathon people there (or anywhere else at the Vietnam Memorial) so I left. ??

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    Expelliarmus: The point is that we don’t know whether Jacobsen’s mother was American-born or foreign-born, and/or naturalized because the copy of the application has not been included with any docs posted on the internet. The production of her application would only be significant for purposes of countering Galovich’s declaration if the mother was in fact American born. I’d note that Jacobsen’s affidavit specifically fails to mention whether or not the mother was born on US soil.

    Butterdezillion claims to have gone over the list of exceptions to the destruction plan with Jacobsen and that none of them fit this “simple application”. What is not clear, however, is whether BZ actually saw the application in person or is just taking the detective’s word for what’s on it.

  117. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Dave: Dr. Kate and her Usurpathon rally swept into DC last night with a candlelight vigil at the Vietnam Memorial. Today she and Rev. Manning made the rounds of Issa’s office, Walter Reed (to show support for LTC Lakin), and the Supreme Court to make presentments or something — or I suppose that’s what they did, because naturally the Marxist Nazi MSM is not reporting this huge rally. Actually, even Dr. Kate has reported only a few words about last night and nothing about today. But here’s a comment on her blog that hints at the stupendous size of this rally:

    Aren’t the handful of hardcore birthers hiding under bridges?

    “Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” whined the troll.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Rickey: One thing which may be holding up your request is that Obama may have traveled to Indonesia on his mother’s 1965 passport, so all information about him in that record would have to be redacted before they can provide it to you.

    I think you may have hit upon something there.

  119. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 7, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    You claimed he returned to Indonesia after returning to Hawaii in 1971. I posted a link where Obama has stated he was in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971.
    The grade school picture you’re referring to has the date 1969 on it. This was the year the Soetoro adoption was finalized.
    At the end of 1971 or the beginning of 1972, the Soetoro adoption was annulled by complaint filed by BHO Sr indicating he did not voluntarily give up his parental rights. The Hawaii District Court ruled BHO Sr was the father and ordered the Soetoro adoption annulled and BHO’s II birth record to be amended.

    There was no adoption the state department already has said this did not happen. So again you’re making shit up

  120. avatar
    Black Lion September 7, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    Dave: Dr. Kate and her Usurpathon rally swept into DC last night with a candlelight vigil at the Vietnam Memorial. Today she and Rev. Manning made the rounds of Issa’s office, Walter Reed (to show support for LTC Lakin), and the Supreme Court to make presentments or something — or I suppose that’s what they did, because naturally the Marxist Nazi MSM is not reporting this huge rally. Actually, even Dr. Kate has reported only a few words about last night and nothing about today. But here’s a comment on her blog that hints at the stupendous size of this rally:

    It looks like it was really successful…I was watching the Mets/Nats game tonight and they kept showing shots of the different Washington sites but no group of people anywhere other than in the ballpark….

    Dr Kate’s remarks…

    drkate
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 8:58 pm
    Greetings All! the platoon is just getting in from another successful day, and a report is forthcoming.

    Primus, and all, as you know, numbers were not our goal, it was impossible to do something on the scale of the Restoring Honor rally, or the upcoming 911 and 912 rallies. We opted for focus, quality, creativity and flexibility. It has worked us well so far!

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/the-usurpathon-begins/#more-4114

  121. avatar
    charo September 7, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think you may have hit upon something there.

    [re: One thing which may be holding up your request is that Obama may have traveled to Indonesia on his mother’s 1965 passport, so all information about him in that record would have to be redacted before they can provide it to you.]

    Do you really think that having to redact information would take that long? The affidavit from Jacobson claims that he requested his information in September of 2009, and he received a response four months later that claims to have redacted information to protect third parties.

    It took four months.

  122. avatar
    Bovril September 7, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Re the Userperthon

    One of the wicked ebil obots over at Politijab actually lives in DC and went to this major rally.

    Grand total…….3 people, no sign of Manning.

    http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4616&start=75

  123. avatar
    Dave September 7, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Bovril: Re the UserperthonOne of the wicked ebil obots over at Politijab actually lives in DC and went to this major rally.Grand total…….3 people, no sign of Manning.http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4616&start=75

    Wow. A commenter on her blog promised to bring a chartered busload from NC. Must’ve been pulling her chain.

  124. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    charo:
    Do you really think that having to redact information would take that long?The affidavit from Jacobson claims that he requested his information in September of 2009, and he received a response four months later that claims to have redacted information to protect third parties. It took four months.

    Apples and oranges. Strunk filed his FOIA requests in October and November, 2008. It took him 22 months to get his response, so it is reasonable to expect that Doc’s request would take at least that long.

  125. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    Dave:
    Wow. A commenter on her blog promised to bring a chartered busload from NC. Must’ve been pulling her chain.

    Or more likely, there was a birther who strapped himself to a urine soaked recliner in a dark basement for many hours, held on to a big steering wheel and drove his busload of supporters, cursed dark skinned drivers and occasionally waved a gun in the air.

    All the while muttering, “Beep, beep! Move it, commie, fascist, dark people! I’ve got a message for the usurper!”

  126. avatar
    Rickey September 8, 2010 at 1:17 am #

    The irony meter explodes on Dr. Kate’s blog as someone using the handle “Army D.A.V.” posted a YouTube video of Bobby Darin singing “Simple Song of Freedom.” The poster apparently doesn’t realize that Darin was a supporter of Bobby Kennedy and the song was written to protest the Vietnam War.

    No doubt some folks enjoy doin’ battle
    Like presidents, prime ministers and kings
    So let’s all build them shelves so they can fight among themselves
    and leave us be those who want to sing
    Come and sing a simple song of freedom
    Sing it like you’ve never, ever, sung before
    Let it fill the air
    Tell the people everywhere
    We, the people here, don’t want a war

  127. avatar
    charo September 8, 2010 at 5:40 am #

    Rickey:
    Apples and oranges. Strunk filed his FOIA requests in October and November, 2008. It took him 22 months to get his response, so it is reasonable to expect that Doc’s request would take at least that long.

    Maybe, but Strunk’s case was wrapped up in litigation that lead to the forced releasing of the information, in effect. There was an agreement for the release from what I understand, but the agreement was made after it was determined that Strunk was entitled to what was released. I personally think that any request that appears to come from a birther (and we know that Doc is not one but the birthers are the ones with reputations for asking) and there isn’t any hurry to get them answers.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 8, 2010 at 6:36 am #

    Rickey: Strunk filed his FOIA requests in October and November, 2008. It took him 22 months to get his response, so it is reasonable to expect that Doc’s request would take at least that long.

    A State Department person told me last year that passport information requests don’t usually take “this long” and that was 8 months ago. Mr. Jacobsen says he got his information in about 4 months (although I don’t know if he went the FOIA route — there is an alternative fee-based route for passport information apart from FOIA).

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 8, 2010 at 6:50 am #

    charo: The affidavit from Jacobson claims that he requested his information in September of 2009, and he received a response four months later that claims to have redacted information to protect third parties.

    Yes, exactly.

  130. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 8, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    But we don’t know how Jacobson’s request was framed. He might have been very specific as to dates & places, making it easier for the records to be located and provided.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 8, 2010 at 7:47 am #

    Expelliarmus: But we don’t know how Jacobson’s request was framed. He might have been very specific as to dates & places, making it easier for the records to be located and provided.

    He receive 5 responsive documents. That suggests to me, if they were all simple applications as he claims, that there were 5 applications. That’s about as broad as what I asked for. What’s taking all the time is that it got sent for legal review twice. Given the recent FOIA scandal at Homeland Security, I find it very plausible that politics is causing the delay. I’m seriously thinking about filing a FOIA on the handling of this FOIA.

  132. avatar
    Black Lion September 8, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Some humor from the Bob Campbell and his AGJ traitors….

    http://americangrandjury.org/run-home-to-momma

    “Obama is a typical criminal. He was raised in an environment that lent itself to criminal activity in order to make ends meet. The grandfather, Dunham, was a known communist, his friend, Marshall Davis, an even bigger communist. Grandmother Dunham had ties to the CIA, Stanley Ann, the daughter and mother to Obama Jr. had the same ties. By the time Obama was old enough to think for himself he was headed down the wrong path for which there was no return.

    I believe the years of parental neglect, possible sexual abuse and intentional brainwashing by his family had taken its toll on Obama Jr.

    Along came the “hidden years” of secretly working in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the CIA and Barack Obama was truly running on the “dark side.”

    The dark side soon introduced Obama to people like Bill Ayers, Reverent Wright, Percy Sutton, Khalid al-Mansour, Louis Farrakhan and others – from there Obama graduated into Politics in the sewer pit of all sewers, Chicago.”
    …..

    Most facts show that Obama was always a Muslim. His years in Indonesia started the process – in his later years of working with the CIA Obama’s knowledge of Islam, the language and customs served him well.
    …..

    Although hard to prove, there are enough facts that point to Obama being owned by the Saudi Royal Family. They financed his education at Harvard and heavily invested in his campaign for president.

    And in the comments, this charming post….

    Tabasco says:
    September 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    I am shocked. But there are people who openly support Communism in this country. We better get aware of that fact if we are to fight it.
    I think we need a new think. A new way to explain to people our side of the issues. For example in the old days all blacks were republicans opposed to democrats. Now they support the democrats. We need to win them back by study of what happened and taking a positive view.
    Obviously they have bought off on the welfare state. But we must show them all the damage that has caused them in more crime, jails, loss of family and education. no opportunity to do better etc. We must find a way to convince them that they are better off with the opportunity to make it in society than to have a free handout where their life is in corruption.
    They should focus on the minority baseball players making $20 million plus per year and convince them that is better than a welfare check with the family in jail or out on drugs etc. It is up to us to sell how good life can be in a free society instead of under communism etc. We need to win the hearts and minds of all people not simply this one election.
    There are those who think if the Republicans win in Nov it will allow Obama to blame the Republicans and make it easier for him to win reelection. OMG. NO NO NO.
    When a free American stands there arguing that Communism is better than our present life and people listen to that crap, then we have a problem. We must properly educate our children.
    I always talk to my children and grandchildren about politics and how bad Obama is. I want them to understand and know the truth.

  133. avatar
    Black Lion September 8, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Here is a stunning bit of hypocrisy by the Post and Fail. On numerous occasions, the Post and Fail have advocated seditious acts, from overthrowing the duly elected government to overturning the majority vote of the people. However this article, where they are examining “treason” is hilarious. They have the audacity to imply that President Obama, duly elected, is committing treason. Amazing….

    “On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 511, which “declared” John McCain to be a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to two U.S.-citizen parents. However, the resolution failed to address the questionable citizenship of Barack Obama, who himself claimed dual citizenship at birth and appears to have had Indonesian citizenship at least at some point in his life.

    There were those who raised the eligibility question of one or both candidates to persons with authority over elections, but no one, not even a state attorney general, would investigate whether or not either major-party candidate met the eligibility requirements for president.

    The state Electoral Colleges would not investigate. The Supreme Court refused to stay the election so that the eligibility question could be answered.

    Some say the election was stolen by Obama and his supporters. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to determine Obama’s eligibility, but despite the promise of a California judge, not one court has heard a case on its merits.

    ……

    During the joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009, Senate president Dick Cheney failed to call for objections, and despite constituent letters to members of the Senate and House, it appeared that no one had submitted a written objection to attempt to qualify Obama.

    …….

    State attorneys general have been asked to investigate Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve but have failed to do so. Have they committed treason?

    On September 2, Lt. Col. Denise Lind stated that compelling Obama to open his records could prove “embarrassing” to him and denied Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin’s access to them to discover whether or not Obama is eligible to hold office. Is she a traitor as well?

    ……

    People in positions of power within the U.S. government have been tried and convicted of treason before. So why is Obama still occupying the White House if he cannot prove his eligibility?”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/07/a-history-of-treason/

    And in the comments, the usual birthers….

    Joe Marine says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 8:14 AM
    I charge Obama, McCain, HR Clinton, Leahy, Menendez, Coburn and McCaskill of treason for their skullduggery, introduction and support of Senate Resolution 511 which gave cover to both Obama and John McCain.
    Obama and McCain were and are not eligible for the Office of POTUS

    Robert Laity says:
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 10:26 PM
    The giving of aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States while owing allegiance to the United States is Treason. Furthermore,those who are guilty of such acts are strictly prohibited from holding any office under the United States of America.

    The status of U.S. Senator, is considered a position of trust wherein the duties of such office compel the holder of said office to act in allegiance with the laws of the United States and with it’s constitution.

    The Constitution allows that just two individuals,witness to the same acts of treason,make the charge of treason against the alledged perpetrator. To date this has been done. I am one of those individuals who have made a charge of treason against Barack Obama. (See City of Tonawanda,NY Police Department complaint #10-002-896).

    There are now countless others who have,on due diligence,examined evidence against Mr. Obama regarding these allegations. Indeed,the British Broadcasting Corporation filmed Obama in the act of aiding and comforting Raila Odinga,the current Prime Minister of Kenya by campaigning for him overtly to replace a US ally,President Kabaki,as President of Kenya.

    Odinga’s associations include radical muslim groups who were involved in the bombing of US embassies,one in Tanzania and one in Nairobi. It is interesting to note that upon discussion of this matter with Gordon Duff of “Veterans Today” he stated that:

    “The embassies were a black op covering for a broken arrow recovery…we did it ourselves while hunting for three missing nuclear warheads that landed off the coast of Somalia and were recovered by groups from Zimbabwe and South Africa.It is believed that they had been landed at Mombasa and moved inland” Duff further asserted that “The information” I “have is totally made up”:

  134. avatar
    sfjeff September 8, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    The Post and Fail is as usual long outrage and short of facts:

    “People in positions of power within the U.S. government have been tried and convicted of treason before.”

    I can’t find any.

    ” So why is Obama still occupying the White House if he cannot prove his eligibility?”

    And the PE can’t even tell the disconnect between a person convicted of a crime and a President legally sworn in, and confirmed by every governmental body

  135. avatar
    Majority Will September 8, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    Black Lion
    I always talk to my children and grandchildren about politics and how bad Obama is. I want them to understand and know the truth.

    I weep for the future. This old, racist fool wouldn’t know the difference between Karl and Groucho.

  136. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    There was no adoption the state department already has said this did not happen.So again you’re making shit up

    From a legal standpoint, an annulled adoption is an adoption that never happened. Obama’s theory is that “Barry Soetoro” was issued the Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US State Department. Since the Soetoro adoption was annulled, then the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was voided.

    For a minor to revoke a CLN before the minor turns 18 years and 6 months old, an affirmative statement must be signed, dated and sworn to. Consequently, the CLN followed Obama after his adoption was annulled.

    That’s why I say we should look at Obama’s SS-5. He filed for a SSN in the mid-70’s as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen. The Connecticut prefix for his SSN was due to a return address of his refugee sponsor located in that state.

  137. avatar
    misha September 8, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Majority Will: wouldn’t know the difference between Karl and Groucho.

    If Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist production.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.

  138. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 8, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):

    There was no adoption the state department already has said this did not happen.So again you’re making #### up

    From a legal standpoint, an annulled adoption is an adoption that never happened. Obama’s theory is that “Barry Soetoro” was issued the Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US State Department. Since the Soetoro adoption was annulled, then the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was voided.

    For a minor to revoke a CLN before the minor turns 18 years and 6 months old, an affirmative statement must be signed, dated and sworn to. Consequently, the CLN followed Obama after his adoption was annulled.

    That’s why I say we should look at Obama’s SS-5. He filed for a SSN in the mid-70′s as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen. The Connecticut prefix for his SSN was due to a return address of his refugee sponsor located in that state.

  139. avatar
    Black Lion September 8, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):From a legal standpoint, an annulled adoption is an adoption that never happened. Obama’s theory is that “Barry Soetoro” was issued the Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US State Department. Since the Soetoro adoption was annulled, then the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was voided.For a minor to revoke a CLN before the minor turns 18 years and 6 months old, an affirmative statement must be signed, dated and sworn to. Consequently, the CLN followed Obama after his adoption was annulled.That’s why I say we should look at Obama’s SS-5. He filed for a SSN in the mid-70′s as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen. The Connecticut prefix for his SSN was due to a return address of his refugee sponsor located in that state.

    Again great story but lacking something lawyers like to call evidence. Can you show us a copy of this mysterious application for a SS# where he claims he is a Permanent Resident? Can you give us the name of this so called sponsor? Where in CT are they located? Can you prove he was a refugee? Or do you mean he was a member of the group called the “Fugees”?

    Sven, I like a good work of fiction as much as the next guy. But every great work of fiction is based somewhat on reality, or in this case common sense and proof. In over a year of you making this stuff up you have never provided us with either. So tell us why anyone in their right mind not on meds would believe anything you say without evidence?

  140. avatar
    Majority Will September 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Senseless, repetitive birther troll babbling.

    C’mon, Sybil. Come up with something original or at least a new sock puppet to be ridiculed.

  141. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 8, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):From a legal standpoint, an annulled adoption is an adoption that never happened. Obama’s theory is that “Barry Soetoro” was issued the Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US State Department. Since the Soetoro adoption was annulled, then the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was voided.For a minor to revoke a CLN before the minor turns 18 years and 6 months old, an affirmative statement must be signed, dated and sworn to. Consequently, the CLN followed Obama after his adoption was annulled.That’s why I say we should look at Obama’s SS-5. He filed for a SSN in the mid-70′s as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen. The Connecticut prefix for his SSN was due to a return address of his refugee sponsor located in that state.

    Incorrect Sven. From a legal standpoint the nullification would still have paperwork associated with it and the state department would have record that Obama was Adopted and the adoption was annulled. Obama’s theory? Not his is your theory. There was no certificate of loss of nationality you have shown no such thing occurred. Why is it Obama’s mother remained a citizen of America but magically her young son did not? None of that makes sense in your twisted story. A minor cannot have an adult act on their behalf in regards to citizenship. Obama was never a citizen of indonesia. Obama applied as a US Citizen you have no proof he applied as just a resident. Also SSN has already stated that the social security prefixes don’t necessarily mean that it was tied to that state. Also Social security is a federal entity that back then had regional offices that sent out social security cards it was probably issued from CT because that was the office that handled it.

  142. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 8, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: He filed for a SSN in the mid-70′s as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen. The Connecticut prefix for his SSN was due to a return address of his refugee sponsor located in that state.

    And here is where Sven crosses the Styx of logic, without any hope of return. He has not even paid the ferryman.

    In order to get an SSN number, Barack Obama needed a birth certificate. The birth certificate said born in Hawaii. And Barack was a minor when applying for the number. Any application from a minor claiming NOT to be American, but born in the USA would have set off alarms.

    Of course, across the Styx of logic, in Sven’s Cloud Cuckoo Land, someone will argue that precisely this impossible combination led to a computer erroneously giving a CT number to someone in Hawaii.

    Oh, and someone better tell Sven that a legal procedure which was later ruled to never have happened, cannot have any legal consequences – and certainly no adverse consequences for a paasive party in the procedure.

  143. avatar
    sfjeff September 8, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    And of course Sven has yet to produce a single example of a 10 year old who has successfully renounced his citizenship.

    When I read ‘Tom Swift and his Atomic Flying Laboratory” as a child, there were more facts in that book than in Sven’s writings.

  144. avatar
    obsolete September 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Sven, does it hurt to have a bicycle growing out of your shoulder?

  145. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 8, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    And here is where Sven crosses the Styx of logic, without any hope of return. He has not even paid the ferryman.In order to get an SSN number, Barack Obama needed a birth certificate. The birth certificate said born in Hawaii. And Barack was a minor when applying for the number. Any application from a minor claiming NOT to be American, but born in the USA would have set off alarms.
    Of course, across the Styxof logic, in Sven’s Cloud Cuckoo Land, someone will argue that precisely this impossible combination led to a computer erroneously giving a CT number to someone in Hawaii.
    Oh, and someone better tell Sven that a legal procedure which was later ruled to never have happened, cannot have any legal consequences– and certainly no adverse consequences for a paasive party in the procedure.

    Naturalized citizens, or US citizens born in a country other than the US and become US citizens, do not have birth certificates that prove they are US Citizens. They have birth certificates which prove they were born in a country other than America.

    A Naturalized citizen uses a Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship to obtain a SSN.

    Permanent Residents, or people legally residing in America, can obtain a SSN if they are authorized to work in America. Permanent Residents use their immigration docs, such as Form I-551 or I-94 or other immigration docs.

    We know Obama didn’t use his HI COLB to obtain his SSN because he wouldn’t have had a Connecticut prefix if he had done so.

  146. avatar
    Greg September 8, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Connecticut prefix for his SSN was due to a return address of his refugee sponsor located in that state.

    Which one? What was their address?

    Obama’s theory is that “Barry Soetoro” was issued the Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US State Department.

    Where, specifically, has Obama claimed this as his theory?

    He filed for a SSN in the mid-70′s as a Permanent Resident of the US and not a US Citizen.

    Really? And you can prove this, how?

    Since the Soetoro adoption was annulled, then the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was voided.

    On what date, exactly, did Obama get a Certificate of Loss of Nationality?

    Since the Soetoro adoption was annulled, then the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was voided.

    What’s the docket number of the complaint that annulled the adoption?

    What’s the name of the judge that signed the annulment?

    “I, SvenMagnussen, know that what I claim is true because _______”

    What, specifically, leads you to believe anything you have stated?

    Anything? Bueller?

  147. avatar
    Bovril September 8, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    Sven deary

    Paul is not talking about “Naturalized citizens, or US citizens born in a country other than the US and become US citizens, ”

    He’s talking about Obama whose is none of the above.

    And guess what to get to be a “Naturalized citizens, or US citizens born in a country other than the US and become US citizens, ” you have to show said BC you cretin.

  148. avatar
    Greg September 8, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: They have birth certificates which prove they were born in a country other than America.

    People who were born in a country other than America don’t have COLBs stating they were born in Honolulu.

    We know Obama didn’t use his HI COLB to obtain his SSN because he wouldn’t have had a Connecticut prefix if he had done so.

    We don’t know that.

    If Obama had gotten his SSN at birth, and it had something other than Hawaii, and there was a 100% correlation between birth place and SSN, then we’d know that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to know something!

  149. avatar
    Majority Will September 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: more of the exact same senseless birther trolling drivel

    Wake up, Sybil. You’re not paying attention again.

  150. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 8, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Naturalized citizens, or US citizens born in a country other than the US and become US citizens, do not have birth certificates that prove they are US Citizens. They have birth certificates which prove they were born in a country other than America.A Naturalized citizen uses a Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship to obtain a SSN.Permanent Residents, or people legally residing in America, can obtain a SSN if they are authorized to work in America. Permanent Residents use their immigration docs, such as Form I-551 or I-94 or other immigration docs.We know Obama didn’t use his HI COLB to obtain his SSN because he wouldn’t have had a Connecticut prefix if he had done so.

    Once again this has been explained to you. The prefixes don’t always point to them originating in a certain state. Social Security is a federal entity and at the time certain offices sent out the numbers.

  151. avatar
    Keith September 8, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

    Black Lion: Although hard to prove, there are enough facts that point to Obama being owned by the Saudi Royal Family.

    Much easier to prove that Glenda Beck is owned by the Saudi Royal Family. He’s being openly bankrolled by them after all.

  152. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm #

    Keith:
    Much easier to prove that Glenda Beck is owned by the Saudi Royal Family. He’s being openly bankrolled by them after all.

    And then there was President Bush getting to first base (at least) with the Saudi Royal Family…

  153. avatar
    richCares September 8, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Why are you people responding to sven, we all know where he get his info (hint:large rear end). Do us all a favor and ignore him.

  154. avatar
    Rickey September 9, 2010 at 12:26 am #

    Greg:
    If Obama had gotten his SSN at birth, and it had something other than Hawaii, and there was a 100% correlation between birth place and SSN, then we’d know that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    My ex-wife was born in Brooklyn. The prefix of her SSN is 210, a number assigned to Pennsylvania. She has never lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Why she was given the 210 prefix is unknown, but it shows that such things happen.

  155. avatar
    Rickey September 9, 2010 at 12:33 am #

    In other news, Orly filed a Motion to Compel a deposition of Damon Dunn in Taitz v. Dunn, but her Motion was rejected because she failed in include the $40 filing fee.

    She truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37113985/TAITZ-v-DUNN-Rejection-Order-Taitz-v-Dunn

  156. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    richCares: Why are you people responding to sven….

    for the same reason i saw all the “star wars” films. the story lines got progressively more ridiculous and the plot holes became painfully gargantuan but……. there was always a childish excitement and curiosity about the next installment in the series.

  157. avatar
    misha September 9, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    SvenMagnussen: We know Obama didn’t use his HI COLB to obtain his SSN because he wouldn’t have had a Connecticut prefix if he had done so.

    My cat’s SSN prefix is 212. Why is that?

  158. avatar
    misha September 9, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    SvenMagnussen: We know Obama didn’t use his HI COLB to obtain his SSN because he wouldn’t have had a Connecticut prefix if he had done so.

    Sven: uckfay ouyay

  159. avatar
    AnotherBird September 9, 2010 at 6:53 am #

    SvenMagnussen: We know Obama didn’t use his HI COLB to obtain his SSN because he wouldn’t have had a Connecticut prefix if he had done so.

    Huh. A birth certificate is used as evidence for citizenship by birth or just birth, and not for place of residency.

  160. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 9, 2010 at 6:58 am #

    Bovril: Sven dearyPaul is not talking about “Naturalized citizens, or US citizens born in a country other than the US and become US citizens, ”He’s talking about Obama whose is none of the above.And guess what to get to be a “Naturalized citizens, or US citizens born in a country other than the US and become US citizens, ” you have to show said BC you cretin.

    If his argument had any sense of logic, it would continue with “refugees do not always have birth certificates” and “immigrants from some countries cannot obtain birth certificates” (I am sure some immigrants from Kenya might have to obtain their birth certificate from Mr Smith). But no – and of course what would an after-adoption Indonesian passport (which is one of Sven’s chimeras) say about Obama’s birth place? The same thing as that slip of paper the adopters call the “Indonesian school record”, of course.

    There is no merit in Sven’s argument (understatement).

  161. avatar
    Black Lion September 9, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    How the birther lies don’t ever die….

    WorldNetDaily’s Zombie Lies March On
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    When we detailed how WorldNetDaily’s Joe Kovacs spread lies about Elena Kagan purportedly representing President Obama in birther-related lawsuits — followed quickly by a complete walkback and replacement of Kovacs’ article with something else — we noted that the original falsehood-laden article was reposted at numerous other websites, thus ensuring it will live forever uncorrected.

    Snopes.com, which published a debunking of the story that sent WND scrambling, is now reporting that it got an angry email from someone questioning the debunking and accusing it of being politically biased liars. Snopes continues:

    This correspondent’s e-mail was also posted to the web, and from there it was embellished and sent winging around the Internet through e-mail forwards and blog posts, all undertaken by people who also didn’t bother actually reading our article or otherwise verifying the veracity of what they were reproducing — they gleefully passed it on with complete disregard for the truth because it seemingly confirmed concepts they wanted to believe.

    This phenomenon prompted a wave of e-mail messages to us (many of them collected here) from people who mindlessly forwarded us the original message, accused us of being liars, insisted they would never, ever trust us again, and demanded that we remove the “false” information about the non-existent Obama/Kagan eligibility connection from our site. All of these correspondents had clearly not made even the slightest effort to read our article (if they had, they’d have known that we didn’t claim no docket items containing the names “Kagan” and “Obama” existed); they instead either blindly accepted the accusatory e-mail at face value or repeated the very same error that WND made and then berated us for supposedly stating that “there were no such dockets.”

    Every single one of those correspondents received a detailed response from us explaining why they were mistaken. To date, we haven’t received a single apology.

    So, WND’s zombie lies continue to live. Exactly what Joe Kovacs was paid to do. Good job, Joe — your sleazy pack of lies accomplished exactly what you and Joseph Farah wanted.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  162. avatar
    Black Lion September 9, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    Good article on birther derangement….It is definately worth reading in its entirety….

    “In May of 2008, the Bush State Department introduced a blog on America.gov called, “Rumors, Myths, and Fabrications: A Guide to What Isn’t True.” The State Department blogger introduced himself: “My name is Todd Leventhal. I’ve worked researching false stories about the United States for the State Department for 15 of the past 21 years.” So the blog was new, but Leventhal’s work on false claims for the government was not, since he’d worked in this area for a long time.”

    …….

    ” Right on top of things, only a couple of weeks ago, World Net Daily got itself into a snit–”State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen; Counter-misinformation’ website aims to debunk birth controversy”–about a year-old post on this defunct State Department blog about a two-year-old post on FactCheck.org:

    The State Department is maintaining a “counter-misinformation” page on an America.gov blog that attempts to “debunk a conspiracy theory” that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers. …

    The entry “The Obama Birth Controversy” was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established “to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East,” as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.”

    …….

    “Somehow, in the Birfistani way of things, the statement by FactCheck, of well-established information in response to a conspiracy theory, has now become an official, “recent” statement by the US State Department, a guilty admission that President Obama had both his mother’s and his father’s citizenship as a child, though not as an adult, and we have the Post & Email’s Sharon Rondeau saying stupid stuff like this:

    SHARON: I think the question is very appropriate because, as you said, he is a dual citizen, and the State Department has admitted that. … So looking at the birth certificate is important as well as all of his documentation. However, the State Department’s recent admission is huge, and in my opinion, it most likely disqualifies him. … It even makes one wonder if he ever had American citizenship. If not, then the State Department has made a false statement.”

    Rondeau was interviewing the hate-mongering ex-PUMA known as “Dr. Kate”:

    Obama is a dual citizen. The only thing we know is that he’s British, Kenyan and Indonesian.

    Obama is not a British citizen. Obama is not a Kenyan citizen. Obama is not an Indonesian citizen. In fact, the only official statement by the State Department regarding possible dual citizenship was filed in Strunk v. US Department of State/US Department of Homeland Security about Indonesia:

    – President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. “natural born” citizen and is eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    – President Obama is not an illegal alien and has never been a citizen of Indonesia.

    – President Obama never was adopted by Lolo Soetoro

    ………..

    “Dr. Kate, who is a dual citizen herself, born in Mexico, says she has always known she could not be president. Well, no, she can’t, not because she is a dual citizen, but because she is a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born citizen.”

    It is some good stuff….However also mentioned is the infamous “Usurperthon” being held by Dr Kate….

    “Dr. Kate is just wrapping up her three-day “Usurpathon” in Washington DC, having put out the call:

    This blog asks all other blogs to organize your readers, help us gather 10,000 patriots across the country who will

    -rotate into the Capitol for a rolling revolution, code word, “UNCLE”, until the illegal occupation is stopped. Blog live from the event, inspire other Americans to do the same in their cities and capitols.

    -Keep the issue alive until it is finally resolved

    Code word, “UNCLE”?

    Lord have mercy, she has to be the worst walking advertisement for Smith College I have ever encountered. The featured speaker at the “vigil” was to be Birther Minister of Hate James David Manning, but he didn’t show up. Our spy (thanks, Mata Mari!) reported Dr. Kate, two other women, and two Park Rangers assigned crowd control, would have heard the speech, anyhow.”

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=12190

  163. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 9, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    This is from Dr. Kate’s ‘first report from the field’ of the Usurpathon:

    Our next stop was Walter Reed Memorial Hospital to honor and thank Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. At the busy entrance on Georgia Avenue, Patriots stood with thanks and in praise for those who do honor the oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. No need for protest here, just thanks. We distinctly have the feeling that very few people inside Walter Reed know about Lt. Col. Lakin…and we know those who do. In conversations with passengers in cars entering and leaving, and with the drivers, the story is told of a man who is being punished for helping Americans. The word somehow trickles back into the compound…and later a call from Lt. Col Lakin himself, grateful for the support with well wishes for our effort.

    We are relieved to report that Lt. Col. Lakin is working at Walter Reed and is able to go home and spend time with his family.

    It is difficult to see whether the Army is purposely trying to create a mistrial, so as to never deal with the issue. Clearly Judge Lind’s decision is grounds for reverse, perhaps intentional reversible error. Or, will they try to make an example of him by separating Obama from the decision to send Lt. Col Lakin to the Afghanistan war theater? Has Obama purposely broken the chain of command, such that a lowly judge can make a decision like this by herself? What exactly is in the new executive orders on Court Martials? Military buffs and JAG, we are banging on your windows for help. There is a fire in the house!

    The sheer amount of misinformation implicit in this is impressive. The crazy is still strong with Dr. Kate! I really wish I could have followed her around DC for the usurpathon – it would have been fascinating…

  164. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Slartibartfast: ( quoting Dr kate ) Patriots stood with thanks and in praise for those who do honor the oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    does she realize that, according to her definition, that would only include LTC lakin from our entire active military personnel.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 9, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    OK, somebody explain to me this comment from Chris Strunk (at the Post & Email):

    If the truth is told this is all about Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) and when viewed throught [sic]the lens of the Hegelian method of thesis / antithesis equals synthesis by a left and a right discourse that leads to the NWO with Glenn Beck rubbed against BHO to give us the Genni of NWO.

  166. avatar
    Rickey September 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: OK, somebody explain to me this comment from Chris Strunk (at the Post & Email)

    Beats me, but knowing Strunk it probably has something to do with the Jesuits.

  167. avatar
    Majority Will September 9, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: OK, somebody explain to me this comment from Chris Strunk (at the Post & Email):

    Fourteen shots of Jägermeister within ten minutes.

  168. avatar
    NbC September 10, 2010 at 4:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If the truth is told this is all about Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) and when viewed throught [sic]the lens of the Hegelian method of thesis / antithesis equals synthesis by a left and a right discourse that leads to the NWO with Glenn Beck rubbed against BHO to give us the Genni of NWO.

    He appears more lucid than usual?

  169. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 10, 2010 at 4:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: OK, somebody explain to me this comment from Chris Strunk (at the Post & Email):

    Caritas in veritate is an encyclical letter by (“Ab 5.45 wird zurueckgebeten. Widerstand ist zwecklos.”) Pope Benedict XVI. Amongst others, it contains the sentence “Each person finds his good by adherence to God’s plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32).”

    The encyclical letter for some people proves that the Roman Catholic Church is involved in the New World Order conspiracy. Both Beck and Obama must play their part of the plan. As for the Genii of the NWO, one name that comes up frequently is that of the Polish star Dorota Rabczewska, also known as Doda Elektroda, because she is so er, beautiful and intelligent.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cms_fq0nXMc (it is at 0.47)

    Here Doda explains that she did it all because she wanted to sing (just translating the title), and at the end reveals that she is part of Benedict’s Love NWO:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOUs1CemvrQ&NR=1

  170. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    The following comments from the Post and Fail illistrate why the birthers will never be satisfied or believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States….

    cicno says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM
    Unfortunately, Native Born’ and Natural Born’ in fact are used interchangeably in U.S. case law throughout history….for 250 years, the courts use those words to mean the same thing, born on U.S. soil……….and the law, as of right now, says if you are born on U.S. soil you are Natural Born……if you are a citizen at birth, you are natural born….that is the law……..sorry.

    Pete says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 8:35 PM
    ROFLOL. Who cares about US Case law, and by the way there was no United States prior to 1776, so just about 234 years. The issue here has nothing to do with case law’ it has to do with Constitutional interpretation. Thus, it’s about what the SCOTUS thinks’ the definition was for Natural Born, as it pertains to qualifications of POTUS, was in 1790. Let me tell you why it isn’t native born and give you examples:

    The founding fathers clearly gave themselves, even those born on native soil’ an exemption to be POTUS, by claiming that anyone born AFTER 1790 had to be Natural born. Since George Washington and all of the early POTUS were born on then US soil—Native born, why bother for an exemption? The answer is simple, they weren’t Natural Born; because they were born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain, they were born subjects.

    Most importantly, the Constitution clearly references the “law of nations” which means Vattel’s book the law of nations’ which was accessible by the founding fathers. How do I know that say George Washington read and incorporated Vattel, simple it’s one of the books HE NEVER RETURNED TO THE NEW YORK CITY LIBRARY!

    Your argument is a straw man’ in that it makes a claim about US Case law, which is irrelevant. The question is what is the Constitution meant’ by Natural Born Citizen’ as it refers to special requirement for POTUS. The answer is clearly outlined by the founding fathers, born on native soil, but who felt they needed a special addition to allow themselves to be POTUS, that place of birth wasn’t adequate that it had to include jurisdiction. Finally, a description of Natural Born by Vattel whose book is cited in the pages of the Constitution and was clearly read by George Washington, and I quote: “Born on Native soil of Native Parents”. Finally, even the 14th Amendment, so found of by Obots, states that those “Born under the Jurisdiction of the United States are US Citizens”.
    Now we have covered the history and the language, lets do an Obama check. 1)Born on Native soil—Unknown—Conflicting evidence. 2)Born under the Jurisdiction—Failed, he was born a British Subject and has made that claim himself. 3) Born of Citizen Parents—Failed, his father was British Subject. Basically, there is NO possible way that Obama is NBC since he claimed he was born under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom—and yes he has made this claim publically.

    Robert Laity says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM
    Sorry cicno,
    Anyone aspiring to or entering into the office of POTUS,VICE-POTUS and those others in the line of succession cannot enter into said offices UNLESS:

    Both of their parents are american citizens,naturalized or born here. The parent’s ameriican citizenship MUST be in effect at the time of a child’s birth

    AND

    The President,VP,Speaker MUST have been born IN the mainland of the USA.

    Not only do you have them making up reasons why the founders gave themselves exemptions, (missing the obvious point that the US did not exist when the founders were born), they make up parts of the Constitution and requirements like being “born on the mainland of the USA”….The facts remain that no matter what evidence is released or explanation is given what something happened, the birthers hate Obama so they prefer to believe in the vast conspiracy and everyone is lying or corrupt rather than the obvious answer that they are wrong….As long as Obama is the President, they will be around….

  171. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Or better yet. Even though the birthers know that Lucas Smith is a convicted forger, because they hate Obama, they would prefer to believe in him and his so called evidence…Even when their own point out obvious issues with Smith, the Obama derangement kicks in and they attempt to defend him no matter what. It is amazing how a group of people so sure that a conspiracy is happening and all of the politicans are criminals are in bed with convicted felons like Smith, Manning, or Charles Lincoln. Amazing.

    Examples….

    Harry H says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 11:35 AM
    Here is my letter I just sent to a local newspaper. Whether it will be published remains to be seen:

    To the Editor:

    Attached is a copy of a certified birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II. It is from the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya.

    On its face, this document has much greater validity than the unnumbered, uncertified, unsigned internet image of a Hawaiian secondary birth document upon which Obama has staked his presidency.

    Unlike the purported secondary document from Hawaii, which Hawaii has never verified as authentic, this Kenyan Certificate of Birth bears a certificate number, states a hospital of birth, is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by the chief administrator who released the document on Feb. 19, 2009, has the imprint of baby Obama’s foot, and bears an official seal.

    It does not take an expert in document authentication to see that the Kenyan birth certificate ranks much higher in face validity than the possibly forged document produced by Obama’s own campaign office in 2008.

    If there is any doubt that our Commander-in-Chief is a foreigner, Congress should immediately investigate the facts and hold open, fair hearings to definitively ascertain the truth.

    DGroundhog says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM
    Auntie Madder – WND’s debunking’ of Lucas’ document is a ridiculously poor attempt – and Lucas has responded to EVERY allegation WND has made about his document in subsequent videos.

    WND is comparing a GOVERNMENT BC to Lucas’ HOSPITAL BC. WND claimed the Hospital did not exist by the name Coast Province General Hospital’ until AFTER 1961. Lucas found a reference to Coast Province General Hospital in a pre-1961 official Annual Report on the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya’ – thus disproving another WND allegation.

    Visit Lucas’ YouTube site (user (Inspector Smith) and watch his videos before you throw too much confidence behind WND’s debunking’.

    AuntieMadder says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM
    DGroundhog,
    WND’s debunking may be horrible and, therefore, irrelevant. (Please notice that WND’s debunking of Smith’s document is not in the text I copied from the article.) What is relevant is that WND has made the growing list of those whose offers to have the document authenticated have been declined by Smith. Further, Smith’s refusal to date to allow anyone to authenticate the document or even put him in touch with someone who can do so, and what look to be disappearing acts when it’s time to put up or shut up are just as relevant, if not more so.

    BobWilson says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 1:56 AM
    It’s a shame that this true and accurate birth certificate simply won’t be believed by the “sheeple” because of its source.
    This is the wost thing that could have happened to the eligibility movement. Why, Oh Why, couldn’t God have made someone else find this before Lucas Smith did????

    Lucas Daniel Smith does indeed have a criminal record. He has been convicted of two Class D felonies and one “serious misdemeanor.”

    When Obots claim we shouldn’t buy this birth Certificate because it comes from a convicted forger, I reply “yes, but he was not convicted of forging THIS particular document, so what else do you got?”
    It ususlly shuts the Obots up.

    DGroundhog says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 4:48 PM
    Passing a few bad checks hardly gives a person the skill set required to create a forged Kenyan BC.

    says:
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 1:13 AM
    A bout a month ago I posted a comment on Smith’s “Youtube” page; simply inquiring as to when we might see some documentation of his adventures in Africa…Later that day when Smith logged in to his account, he immediately obliterated my post, had me excoriated, then bizarrely launched into a spiel regarding his unwavering support for “free speech”. I don’t know about the authenticity of this piece of paper he’s waving around but I do know that the man is unbalanced.
    He also had promised to fill us in on the details of his days long detention by authorities in Miami Fl which interrupted one of his frequent jaunts to his hut on an island in the Caribbean This encounter with law enforcement involved, according to him, the confiscation of his beloved “BC” I haven’t heard another word of this incident although he promised to produce another video showing that the HOLY GRAIL was still intact Smith’s most devoted followers either run interference for their King or neglect to call the man on his many contradictory statements. The whole thing is very strange

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/exclusive-lucas-daniel-smith-speaks-with-the-post-email/comment-page-3/#comment-21445

  172. avatar
    Rickey September 10, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Oh For Goodness Sake blog reports that Orly has been smacked down – humiliated, really – by a California State Court ruling in a landlord-tenant case:

    This is a non-Birther lawsuit of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s in which she is suing tenants of hers for a quarter-million dollars. A hearing is scheduled for today in Medical Dental Development, LLC v Pierson, et al:

    Plt., Medical Dental, Motion for Summary Judgment — Denied; Plt. fails to meet his burden of proof. Notice is insufficient, failing to comply with CCP 437c(a. No points and Authorities accompanies the motion in violation of CRC 3.1113. No Separate Statement of Undisputed Fact accompanies the motion. CCP 437c No facts are presented to the court with the motion that even begins to meet the burden of proof required for a summary judgment. The moving papers in the “motion “ are nothing short of AWFUL. The form of the motion doesn’t come close to complying with the rules of court.

    http://www.occourts.org/tentativerulings/sperkrulings.htm (scroll down, it’s the last case on the list)

  173. avatar
    Majority Will September 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Deal camp quickly unfriends’ infamous birther attorney
    11:30 am September 9, 2010, by Chris Seward

    Nathan Deal’s Republican camp just did a quick about-face when it realized it had befriended infamous “birther” attorney Orly Taitz on the campaign’s Facebook page, Political Insider’s Jim Galloway reports.

    Birthers argue that President Barack Obama isn’t qualified to be president because, they claim, he was born in Kenya. Hawaii’s official position is that he was born in that state and has a valid birth certificate.

    Before being unceremoniously ditched, Taitz specifically boasted about being Deal’s new “friend.”

    http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/09/09/deal-camp-quickly-unfriends-infamous-birther-attorney/?cxntfid=blogs_georgia_elections_news

  174. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    From the MAD magazine type website the Sonoran News comes this humorous entry. It is regarding the birthers favorite forger, Lucas Smith. It is amazing how the birthers will use the FOIA information to further their conspiracy theory….

    http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100908/frontpage_Obama.html

    From the article….

    “Jeff Lichter, who interviewed Smith a year ago when he first came forward with the certified birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital, said everything he told The Post & Email in the current interview is exactly what Smith told Lichter last year. He said Smith seems well-researched and appears credible.

    Other dot-connecting pieces of the puzzle have recently been brought to light through Freedom of Information Act requests for Dunham’s passport and her second husband, Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro’s visa and immigration records made by Kenneth Allen of Tucson. Again, some of these bits of information raised more questions than answers.

    However, one interesting bit of information revealed Dunham had Obama removed from her passport in 1965. Why, we don’t know, although several people speculate Obama obtained an Indonesian passport, as his adoption by Soteoro would have made him an Indonesian citizen.

    So far, Obama’s paternal step-grandmother has stated Obama was born in Mombasa and that she was present when he was born and members of the Kenyan Parliament have openly stated Obama was born in Kenya, while no hospital in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States will claim to be his birthplace.

    However, Coast Province General Hospital has claimed Obama’s birth, stating his parents’ names, the date and time of birth, his weight and length, and includes a footprint. It is signed by the attending doctor as well as the supervisor of obstetrics.

    And, now that every member of Congress has been provided with a copy of what appears to be a legitimate certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya, we can only question what they plan to do with that information.”

    My guess is that Congress will file it in the circular filing cabinet under their desks….Along with the fake grand jury presentments and all of Orly’s so called toliet paper fllings….

  175. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Funny article…

    “Terry Jones, the Florida pastor threatening to burn a Koran tomorrow on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, was a high school classmate of Rush Limbaugh.

    The Cape Central High School (Missouri) website has the perhaps unsurprising coincidence front and center, noting:
    “Rush Limbaugh USED to be Cape Girardeau’s most prominent export. One of his classmates from the Central High School Class of 1969 is dominating the news right now: Terry Jones, the Gainesville, FL, preacher who is threatening to hold an ‘International Burn a Koran Day’ on September 11.”

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/rush-limbaugh-pastor-terry-jones-were-high-school-classmates/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  176. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Haley Barbour, possible birther?

    “A reporter followed up to ask Barbour for his opinion as to why so many Americans (wrongly) think Obama is a Muslim.

    “I don’t know why people think what they think,” Barbour said. He paused and then added, “This is a president that we know less about than any other president in history.”

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/doesnt-haley-barbour-know-how-read

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 10, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    Black Lion: Funny article…“Terry Jones, the Florida pastor threatening to burn a Koran tomorrow on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks…

    I was thinking of burning a copy of Berg v. Obama et al tomorrow.

  178. avatar
    Whatever4 September 10, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I was thinking of burning a copy of Berg v. Obama et al tomorrow.

    I would think the papers would self-immolate, because “the stupid, it burns. “

  179. avatar
    Steve September 11, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?
    For example, I have a friend who is a big Glenn Beck fan. He says he’s never wrong about anything.
    I pointed out one piece on Politifact that proved Beck was wrong, this article about John Holdren and whether or not he advocated forced abortions:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
    When I showed my friend this, he said that it was biased and wrong, that of course Holdren advocated forced abortions, he wrote about it the subject, didn’t he?
    Is it possible Politifcat got this wrong? Is it possible for reasonable people to look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions?

  180. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 11, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    Steve: Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?
    For example, I have a friend who is a big Glenn Beck fan. He says he’s never wrong about anything.
    I pointed out one piece on Politifact that proved Beck was wrong, this article about John Holdren and whether or not he advocated forced abortions:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
    When I showed my friend this, he said that it was biased and wrong, that of course Holdren advocated forced abortions, he wrote about it the subject, didn’t he?
    Is it possible Politifcat got this wrong? Is it possible for reasonable people to look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions?

    Steve, there’s a difference between writing about something and advocating it – many people have written about Hitler and no one thinks they are Nazi sympathizers. If you read the quotes from the book in question that are in the article you linked it is clear that they are discussing forced sterilization, not advocating it. A good rule of thumb to use with Glenn Beck is to assume anything he says is completely wrong until you can verify it (with any source besides FOX News).

  181. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 11, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    Steve: Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?

    To answer your question – you should always read things like Snopes, Factcheck, and Politifact with an open mind and a bit of skepticism – they’re generally good about providing links where you can get more information if you question something they’re saying, but in this case it’s obvious from the quotes that Glenn Beck’s interpretation of the text is nowhere near that of a sane human being.

  182. avatar
    aarrgghh September 11, 2010 at 2:18 am #

    Steve: Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?
    For example, I have a friend who is a big Glenn Beck fan. He says he’s never wrong about anything.
    I pointed out one piece on Politifact that proved Beck was wrong, this article about John Holdren and whether or not he advocated forced abortions:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
    When I showed my friend this, he said that it was biased and wrong, that of course Holdren advocated forced abortions, he wrote about it the subject, didn’t he?
    Is it possible Politifcat got this wrong? Is it possible for reasonable people to look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions?

    if your friend considers glenn beck an unimpeachable source, he may already be a lost cause and you may be wasting your time trying to use factcheck et al to refute him; it sounds like beck and whomever else he’s listening to has already poisoned that well. try to find out what other sources your friend considers unimpeachable, who have contradicted beck. (o’reilly and coulter come to mind.) since beck has never been a model of consistency, it’s very likely you can dig up statements from beck contradicting himself. the folks at the daily show do this all the time with devastating effect.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 11, 2010 at 6:57 am #

    Steve: I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact. Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?

    You can “pretty much” trust what those sites say. They have a commitment to accuracy and objectivity, but they’re not perfect and occasionally make mistakes. However, when they find they have made a mistake, they publish corrections. Further they will give you the sources they used to draw their conclusions and you can decide for yourself.

  184. avatar
    Sean September 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Steve: Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?
    For example, I have a friend who is a big Glenn Beck fan. He says he’s never wrong about anything.
    I pointed out one piece on Politifact that proved Beck was wrong, this article about John Holdren and whether or not he advocated forced abortions:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
    When I showed my friend this, he said that it was biased and wrong, that of course Holdren advocated forced abortions, he wrote about it the subject, didn’t he?
    Is it possible Politifcat got this wrong? Is it possible for reasonable people to look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions?

    For Politifact and Snopes, their job is to be accurate. Glenn Beck on the other hand makes his business selling propaganda. His propaganda is labeled as “never being wrong.” He’s even went so far as to sell his product in the form of “Beck University” in which he rewrites history to be more palatable to White Christians. Glenn Beck cares nothing about facts. He even admitted that he lied during his rally about holding George Washington’s original speech in his hands. In the same rally, he lied about why the Washington Monument had two different colored kinds of marble.

    Glenn Beck admits that facts don’t apply to him. He told Barbara Walters that he’s just a comedian and can’t be held accountable for checking his facts.

  185. avatar
    Majority Will September 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Sean:
    For Politifact and Snopes, their job is to be accurate. Glenn Beck on the other hand makes his business selling propaganda. His propaganda is labeled as “never being wrong.” He’s even went so far as to sell his product in the form of “Beck University” in which he rewrites history to be more palatable to White Christians. Glenn Beck cares nothing about facts. He even admitted that he lied during his rally about holding George Washington’s original speech in his hands. In the same rally, he lied about why the Washington Monument had two different colored kinds of marble.Glenn Beck admits that facts don’t apply to him. He told Barbara Walters that he’s just a comedian and can’t be held accountable for checking his facts.

    Beck’s comedic act is that of a giddy, stoned adolescent with a tanker full of gasoline and a Zippo lighter.

  186. avatar
    Daniel September 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    Steve: I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?
    For example, I have a friend who is a big Glenn Beck fan. He says he’s never wrong about anything.

    If you want the truth, follow the money. The money don’t lie.

    Factcheck et al make their money by being an accurate, unbiased source of facts. IF they lose the reputation for that, they lose the business.

    Beck makes his money from stirring up contraversy and preaching to the right winger choir. He tells the wingnuts what they want to hear, and he makes a lot of money doing it. Factual reporting is not required, and in fact may be detrimental to the aim of his business, therefore he has no stake in honesty. If he lets facts get in the way of stirring the pot, he loses the business.

    Follow the money

  187. avatar
    Dave September 11, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    Steve: Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?

    I wanted to add one thing. Politifact and Factcheck are similar projects — journalists fact checking statements of politicians. Snopes is something else altogether. Snopes is really all about urban legends. If you browse their site you’ll find that most of it has nothing to do with politics — it’s all about rumors that spread on the internet via email forwards and cut-and-paste bloggers. Some of those rumors are political — or are used to further political agendas — and that’s why they sometimes get mentioned on political websites. Also, as far as I know snopes is not run by journalists, just people who like to research rumors in their spare time.

  188. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    Steve: Sorry to the change the subject and forgive me for sounding naive, but I have a question about Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.
    Can you pretty much take whatever they rule on a certain thing and take it to the bank or could what they say be subject to some interpretation?
    For example, I have a friend who is a big Glenn Beck fan. He says he’s never wrong about anything.
    I pointed out one piece on Politifact that proved Beck was wrong, this article about John Holdren and whether or not he advocated forced abortions:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
    When I showed my friend this, he said that it was biased and wrong, that of course Holdren advocated forced abortions, he wrote about it the subject, didn’t he?
    Is it possible Politifcat got this wrong? Is it possible for reasonable people to look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions?

    Politifact didn’t get it wrong. Your friend obviously has a problem with what words actually mean. The way Glenn Beck described it was that the position was proposed by Holdren and it was something Holdren himself believed in. The authors in the book made it quite clear that what they mentioned were methods that have been discussed in society but their conclusion was that they were inherently against such practices. So yes it was disingenuous of Beck to suggest that Holdren proposed such a thing.

  189. avatar
    Steve September 12, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    My friend’s exact response to what Politfact said about Holdren was this:
    “(Politifact said) We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young… man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don’t shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, “We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy.”

    In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.”

    Steve, that’s like saying he at one point really wanted to sleep with his sister but then said ,”Hell no, that’s a little extreme.”

    Again, I think he’s off-base, but I’m not sure how to respond.
    I think my friend is a reasonable person, but I don’t understand how he could see the same evidence Politifact did and arrive at a different conclusion.

  190. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 1:59 am #

    Steve: My friend’s exact response to what Politfact said about Holdren was this:
    “(Politifact said) We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young… man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don’t shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, “We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy.”In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.”Steve, that’s like saying he at one point really wanted to sleep with his sister but then said ,”Hell no, that’s a little extreme.”
    Again, I think he’s off-base, but I’m not sure how to respond.I think my friend is a reasonable person, but I don’t understand how he could see the same evidence Politifact did and arrive at a different conclusion.

    He’s way off base. His form of logic is like reading a history book where it talks about WW2 and Hitler’s extermination of the jews and then claiming the author holds the view that jews should be exterminated. It’s called context and your friend should learn what it means.

  191. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 2:05 am #

    Steve: but I don’t understand how he could see the same evidence Politifact did and arrive at a different conclusion.

    Its the same type of thinking the birthers have. Where something is completely innocuous and they somehow think there is a conspiracy involved. Say for instance how people claim Obama is creating a youth army, Beck claimed that a video of young black men marching in cadence was Obama creating a youth army. But then if you looked closely you would understand that the video in question was of Step Dancers. It just shows how Glenn likes to make things up

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oJCbWACV54

  192. avatar
    Daniel September 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Steve: I think my friend is a reasonable person, but I don’t understand how he could see the same evidence Politifact did and arrive at a different conclusion.

    He arrived at the conclusion before he read Politfact, and so had to skew what he read in order to fit his conclusion.

  193. avatar
    Steve September 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    Oh, and I brought up the concept of prima facie evidence with a birther and his response was …”prima facie evidence is indeed accepted as “proof” UNLESS it is challenged. Then the level of proof is raised wherein all contradictory evidence must be considered. All I am saying is that the validity of Obama’s birth facts is being challenged. The simple solution, the obvious solution, the “transparent” (remember that whopper?) is for Obama to release all his records and prove that the challenge is wrong.”

    Is he right about that?

  194. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 12, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Steve: Oh, and I brought up the concept of prima facie evidence with a birther and his response was …”prima facie evidence is indeed accepted as “proof” UNLESS it is challenged. Then the level of proof is raised wherein all contradictory evidence must be considered. All I am saying is that the validity of Obama’s birth facts is being challenged. The simple solution, the obvious solution, the “transparent” (remember that whopper?) is for Obama to release all his records and prove that the challenge is wrong.”Is he right about that?

    No. There hasn’t been any evidence produced that could be presented in a court of law to impeach (a certified copy of) the COLB.

  195. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    NO —
    The impact of “prima facie” evidence is to shift the burden of proof to the the other side. “Prima facie” creates a legal presumption that a fact is true, unless it is controverted by evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption.

    See: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm or
    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/prima-facie-evidence.html

    The most significant thing as far as birthers are concerned is that once a party has produced prima facie evidence, that party has produced enough — the other side has an opportunity to produce their own evidence, but they can’t demand that the prima facie evidence be supplemented with more stuff to prove the same point.

    As of yet, the birthers have produced no evidence whatsoever in support of their assertions, hence the prima facie evidence stands.

  196. avatar
    Sef September 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    Expelliarmus: NO —
    The impact of “prima facie” evidence is toshift the burden of proof to the the other side. “Prima facie” creates alegal presumption that a fact is true, unless it is controverted by evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption.See:http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htmor
    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/prima-facie-evidence.htmlThe most significant thing as far as birthers are concerned is that once a party has produced prima facie evidence, that party has produced enough — the other side has an opportunity to produce their own evidence, but they can’t demand that the prima facie evidence be supplemented with more stuff to prove the same point.As of yet, the birthers have produced no evidence whatsoever in support of their assertions, hence the prima facie evidence stands.

    I think I take issue with this. You are saying that if the birthers produce a “Kenya birth certificate”, whatever its validity, with the words “prima facie evidence” on it then the burden automatically shifts to the defense to impeach the document. I don’t think it works that way.

  197. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    Steve: Oh, and I brought up the concept of prima facie evidence with a birther and his response was …”prima facie evidence is indeed accepted as “proof” UNLESS it is challenged. Then the level of proof is raised wherein all contradictory evidence must be considered. All I am saying is that the validity of Obama’s birth facts is being challenged. The simple solution, the obvious solution, the “transparent” (remember that whopper?) is for Obama to release all his records and prove that the challenge is wrong.”Is he right about that?

    Totally incorrect thinking Steve. You seem to know some pretty unknowledgeable people or it is your attempt at concern trolling. Prima Facie means at first face, that the evidence is self explanatory. The COLB Obama has presented is a valid state document which has been vouched for by State Officials. This is the same document which can be used to get federal IDs, Passports, etc. Where your birther friend falls off track is that he thinks prima facie is only valid until it is challenged. The problem with this is that birthers believe the word challenged could mean anything like just merely questioning it. That somehow if people question it the COLB suddenly is no longer evidence and Obama must further prove himself. This is a ridiculous notion. In order for the birther claims to have any actual weight they would have to have real evidence that fully contradicts the COLB and the State Officials statements. Thus far no birther has ever presented anything that qualifies as evidence.

  198. avatar
    Steve September 12, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    I need smarter friends.

  199. avatar
    Randy September 12, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    Steve: I need smarter friends.

    Yes you do.

  200. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    Sef: I think I take issue with this. You are saying that if the birthers produce a “Kenya birth certificate”, whatever its validity, with the words “prima facie evidence” on it then the burden automatically shifts to the defense to impeach the document. I don’t think it works that way.

    No — I didn’t say that — prima facie does NOT mean “any” — the “Kenya birth certificate” would have to be authenticated and meet legal requirements for admissibility as evidence. It’s not a matter of the words “prima facie evidence” being printed — it has to do with the validity of the document itself.

    The picture of Obama’s COLB posted on the internet is not “prima facie” evidence — however, the actual document is, provided that it is properly certified — something that can be determined only by someone who is able to see the actual document. (Such as the factcheck.org team which handled and photographed the COLB displayed on their web site).

    The paper COLB is “prima facie” evidence because it is a certificate issued by the public agency that has the job of recording all births in that state.

  201. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Just to help you understand why a Kenya birth certificate with the word “prima facie” printed on it doesn’t work, here is what would be required to get the document admitted into evidence:

    Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902 (3):

    (3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States.

    The Lucas Smith forgery — the one purportedly attested by Heltan Maganga from the Coast Provincial hospital — would not work simply because in Kenya – like the US — official birth records are not maintained by hospitals, so by definition, the hospital administrator would not be the person “authorized by the laws of the foreign country” to make the attestation. You would need something issued by the Department of Civil Registration or one of its district offices – see http://www.births.go.ke/birth_cert.htm

  202. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    And to follow up the above post — the Hawaii COLB is not a “foreign” document, so it comes in under FRE 902 (4) pertaining to certified records:

    (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

  203. avatar
    Steve September 12, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Totally incorrect thinking Steve. You seem to know some pretty unknowledgeable people or it is your attempt at concern trolling. Prima Facie means at first face, that the evidence is self explanatory. The COLB Obama has presented is a valid state document which has been vouched for by State Officials. This is the same document which can be used to get federal IDs, Passports, etc. Where your birther friend falls off track is that he thinks prima facie is only valid until it is challenged. The problem with this is that birthers believe the word challenged could mean anything like just merely questioning it. That somehow if people question it the COLB suddenly is no longer evidence and Obama must further prove himself. This is a ridiculous notion. In order for the birther claims to have any actual weight they would have to have real evidence that fully contradicts the COLB and the State Officials statements. Thus far no birther has ever presented anything that qualifies as evidence.

    In other words, they need actual proof that the information on the COLB is false, not just that there is a possibility that it could be false?

  204. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    Steve:
    In other words, they need actual proof that the information on the COLB is false, not just that there is a possibility that it could be false?

    Its not even the possibility of it Steve. So far the birthers are questioning it just to questioning it. If there was a possibility they would have presented some proof by now

  205. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    Steve: In other words, they need actual proof that the information on the COLB is false, not just that there is a possibility that it could be false?

    They need actual, admissible evidence that has enough probative value that it is sufficient to overcome the official records of the state of Hawaii.

    The word “proof” is confusing — “evidence” is a factual matter with that has a tendency to prove something; “proof” is a conclusion drawn by the trier of fact.

    So a better way to put it is that they need to come up with better evidence than the Hawaii COLB — that is, something that is significant enough to really prove that the Hawaii document is false, not something tangential or of minor significance.

  206. avatar
    Steve September 12, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Its not even the possibility of it Steve. So far the birthers are questioning it just to questioning it. If there was a possibility they would have presented some proof by now

    For example, one of this guy’s assertions is: “…it is common knowledge that Hawaii registered illegals by employing the COLB end around in the early sixties much as anchor babies are being used to gain US citizenship by illegals today. If I had the time and talent I probably wouldn’t have to look too far to find a court case involving a fraudulent Hawaiian COLB. ”
    Even if that were true, and I doubt it, though it would make it seem possible that the COLB was fraudulently obtained, it would still not be enough to overcome the evidence of the COLB and the state officials vouching for that information, right?
    Besides, without the original, there would be no COLB since the information on the COLB is based on what’s on the original document. The information on the COLB would not contradict it, right?
    Not a concern troll, just like to know what to say about these things.

  207. avatar
    Northland10 September 12, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Steve:
    In other words, they need actual proof that the information on the COLB is false, not just that there is a possibility that it could be false?

    Its not even the possibility of it Steve. So far the birthers are questioning it just to questioning it. If there was a possibility they would have presented some proof by now

    Bingo… Even when asked to provide proof of the possibility, such as a recently printed Hawaii Long Form (with appropriate obscuring, and not even Obama’s), they have provided nothing.

  208. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 12, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Steve: For example, one of this guy’s assertions is: “…it is common knowledge that Hawaii registered illegals by employing the COLB end around in the early sixties much as anchor babies are being used to gain US citizenship by illegals today. If I had the time and talent I probably wouldn’t have to look too far to find a court case involving a fraudulent Hawaiian COLB. ”

    That’s patently false. Just part of the birther mythology, like their claim that the Constitution requires the President’s parents to be citizens.

    Even if that were true, and I doubt it, though it would make it seem possible that the COLB was fraudulently obtained, it would still not be enough to overcome the evidence of the COLB and the state officials vouching for that information, right?

    Right. They would need to come up with evidence particular to Obama — i.e., some sort of testimony or documentary evidence that would unequivocally show that fraud took place in Obama’s case.

    Example: it is common knowledge that retail stores suffer a significant amount of loss do to shoplifting. That doesn’t invalidate the cash register receipt you get after you make a purchase in the store.

    The fact that it is possible for something to happen is not evidence that it did happen.

    If you followed the birther rationale, then no Hawaii birth certificate would be valid — nor would birth certificates from states like California or Texas — where fraud is known to be more common and has been documented — ever be valid.

    Besides, without the original, there would be no COLB since the information on the COLB is based on what’s on the original document. The information on the COLB would not contradict it, right?

    That’s true as well. The COLB is drawn from the original, so we know that the original contains the identical information as to city of birth, date and time of birth, etc.

    The original would have more information — information not included on the COLB – for example, Obama’s birth weight — but it couldn’t possibly have any contradictory information.

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    Expelliarmus: If you followed the birther rationale, then no Hawaii birth certificate would be valid — nor would birth certificates from states like California or Texas — where fraud is known to be more common and has been documented — ever be valid.

    Well, you know, I might be comfortable with no more presidents from Texas.

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    Steve: For example, one of this guy’s assertions is: “…it is common knowledge that Hawaii registered illegals by employing the COLB end around in the early sixties much as anchor babies are being used to gain US citizenship by illegals today. If I had the time and talent I probably wouldn’t have to look too far to find a court case involving a fraudulent Hawaiian COLB. ”

    What to say about such a thing is to ask for documentation that it is the case (birther web sites don’t count). That should end the discussion.

  211. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Steve: For example, one of this guy’s assertions is: “…it is common knowledge that Hawaii registered illegals by employing the COLB end around in the early sixties much as anchor babies are being used to gain US citizenship by illegals today. If I had the time and talent I probably wouldn’t have to look too far to find a court case involving a fraudulent Hawaiian COLB. ”
    Even if that were true, and I doubt it, though it would make it seem possible that the COLB was fraudulently obtained, it would still not be enough to overcome the evidence of the COLB and the state officials vouching for that information, right?
    Besides, without the original, there would be no COLB since the information on the COLB is based on what’s on the original document. The information on the COLB would not contradict it, right?
    Not a concern troll, just like to know what to say about these things.

    Common knowledge? Ask your birther friend for documentation of any cases where this has happened. Does he have any actual proof that illegals were registered by the state of Hawaii and an end run around the COLB was done. If there was an end run Obama wouldn’t have a valid Hawaiian COLB which says he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. So why doesn’t your birther friend show you a court case that actually involved fraud by the State of Hawaii in regards to birth registrations as this is essentially what he is claiming, and if it was so simple he would have presented you with an actual case.

    He is banking on your own ignorance of not calling him out on it. Most birthers don’t think people will actually go through the work to prove them wrong this way they don’t have to prove any of their claims.

    Your “friend” is making two different claims that there may be cases of a fraudulent COLB and 2 that the state of Hawaii has been known for falsifying information to get illegal aliens in the country and used an end run around the COLB. Now do you understand that saying someone used an end run around the COLB would mean that there would be no COLB at all in the picture. So your friend needs to make up his mind in what he’s saying.

    Also even if there was one case of a fraudulent COLB that would not even come close to meaning that there’s a possibility of Obama’s being fraudulent. Its a ridiculous notion and is lazy thinking. You could claim that every COLB ever issued by the state of Hawaii then must be fraudulent because of one possibility. I had a friend that used to say everything is possible but I had to explain to him the difference between what’s possible and what’s probable. Saying that everything is possible is a lazy way of not having to prove one’s claims.

    I’m curious about what your motives might be. Any rational person would be able to quickly use the socratic method to tear apart your “friend’s” arguments it sounds too much like when people ask questions and say its for a friend when in actuality its for them personally

  212. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    Bob,
    It’s actually not “a friend.”
    Here is the debate I’m talking about:
    http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdThread=Tx1K83FXBF4C0C5&displayType=tagsDetail
    I’m trying to disprove what “Miller” is saying.

  213. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 12:33 am #

    Steve: Bob,
    It’s actually not “a friend.”
    Here is the debate I’m talking about:
    http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdThread=Tx1K83FXBF4C0C5&displayType=tagsDetail
    I’m trying to disprove what “Miller” is saying.

    damn who debate on amazon?

  214. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    Steve: Bob,
    It’s actually not “a friend.”
    Here is the debate I’m talking about:
    http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdThread=Tx1K83FXBF4C0C5&displayType=tagsDetail
    I’m trying to disprove what “Miller” is saying.

    How about instead of trying to disprove what Miller is saying try getting Miller to prove what he is saying?

  215. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): How about instead of trying to disprove what Miller is saying try getting Miller to prove what he is saying?

    Point taken.

  216. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    Oh, and thank you.

  217. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 12:39 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    How about instead of trying to disprove what Miller is saying try getting Miller to prove what he is saying?

    First of all, he seems to be stuck on the idea that anyone could get a birth certificate from Hawaii. That’s true, but it wasn’t until 1984 that they could do that. In 1961, you could only get one by being born there. He’s talking about a law that didn’t come into existence until 23 years after the fact.

  218. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    Steve: Bob,
    It’s actually not “a friend.”
    Here is the debate I’m talking about:
    http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdThread=Tx1K83FXBF4C0C5&displayType=tagsDetail
    I’m trying to disprove what “Miller” is saying.

    (Oops, got the wrong quote. Sorry, Dr.)

    First of all, he seems to be stuck on the idea that anyone could get a birth certificate from Hawaii. That’s true, but it wasn’t until 1984 that they could do that. In 1961, you could only get one by being born there. He’s talking about a law that didn’t come into existence until 23 years after the fact.

  219. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    He also states that “that document is being legally challenged which is also allowable under law.” Well, it’s been two years and none of the 75 or 80 cases that have been brought in these two years have gotten past a motion to dismiss, and that’s the law. I don’t know where he is getting his information about this “law,” but it isn’t borne out in reality in the courts

  220. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: He also states that “that document is being legally challenged which is also allowable under law.” Well, it’s been two years and none of the 75 or 80 cases that have been brought in these two years have gotten past a motion to dismiss, and that’s the law. I don’t know where he is getting his information about this “law,” but it isn’t borne out in reality in the courts

    I love his bit about quo warranto. Another fool who doesn’t understand what Quo Warranto is for and how it can be used

  221. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    I love his bit about quo warranto.Another fool who doesn’t understand what Quo Warranto is for and how it can be used

    You know these fools, Bob. They think they can change the law just by having some number agree with their misinterpretation of it. And when that doesn’t happen, it’s because “President Obama paid someone off.” lmao

  222. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 1:00 am #

    I mean, it’s not like Hawaii doesn’t know that the president claims to be born there and has posted a copy of his birth certificate on the internet that says he was born in Hawaii. If it was fraudulent, the state of Hawaii would have prosecuted him for it by now, not claim that he was born there and even enact a law to disregard repeated requests for it. They sure didn’t go to the trouble they should have if it was fraudulent in the former case, and they went to more trouble than they should have if it didn’t exist in the latter case..

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2010 at 7:52 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: First of all, he seems to be stuck on the idea that anyone could get a birth certificate from Hawaii. That’s true, but it wasn’t until 1984 that they could do that. In 1961, you could only get one by being born there. He’s talking about a law that didn’t come into existence until 23 years after the fact.

    A couple of corrections here. The law was passed in 1982, not 1984 and the law does not allow “anyone” to get a birth certificate, only the child of a resident of Hawaii (for a year) who gives birth out of state. The certificate is a “certificate of foreign birth” not a “certificate of live birth.” Many states provide birth registration for the children of their residents upon proof of their child being born in another jurisdiction.

  224. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    Steve: For example, one of this guy’s assertions is: “…it is common knowledge that Hawaii registered illegals by employing the COLB end around in the early sixties much as anchor babies are being used to gain US citizenship by illegals today. If I had the time and talent I probably wouldn’t have to look too far to find a court case involving a fraudulent Hawaiian COLB. ”Even if that were true, and I doubt it, though it would make it seem possible that the COLB was fraudulently obtained, it would still not be enough to overcome the evidence of the COLB and the state officials vouching for that information, right?Besides, without the original, there would be no COLB since the information on the COLB is based on what’s on the original document. The information on the COLB would not contradict it, right?Not a concern troll, just like to know what to say about these things.

    Check the thread again Steve. Look at the recent replies. Miller was making that claim up as a way of being facetious. Look at how he replied when asking for proof. He said he wouldn’t give it for personal reasons and only his other birther has seen it but if you give him $10 then maybe he will.

    It was his swipe at Obama claiming Obama could release the long form by paying $10 but he refuses to for personal reasons. However, this discounts the statements of state officials, the COLB and birth announcements.

  225. avatar
    sfjeff September 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    One thing I always find amusing is when Birthers cite common knowledge. If common knowledge were a real standard, then we could say “its common knowledge in Hawaii that President Obama was born there”- but we don’t use that as evidence because we know that ‘common knowledge’ in and of itself means little.

  226. avatar
    AnotherBird September 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A couple of corrections here. The law was passed in 1982, not 1984 and the law does not allow “anyone” to get a birth certificate, only the child of a resident of Hawaii (for a year) who gives birth out of state. The certificate is a “certificate of foreign birth” not a “certificate of live birth.” Many states provide birth registration for the children of their residents upon proof of their child being born in another jurisdiction.

    This is what I like about this site, getting corrected well researched information. It is all about learning, isn’t it.

  227. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    AnotherBird: This is what I like about this site, getting corrected well researched information. It is all about learning, isn’t it.

    Tearing apart that Miller guy is just way too easy. Seriously I’m not having much fun

  228. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A couple of corrections here. The law was passed in 1982, not 1984 and the law does not allow “anyone” to get a birth certificate, only the child of a resident of Hawaii (for a year) who gives birth out of state. The certificate is a “certificate of foreign birth” not a “certificate of live birth.” Many states provide birth registration for the children of their residents upon proof of their child being born in another jurisdiction.

    Thanks for that info, Doc. I knew the law was in the early 80’s but no sure of exactly what year. Do you have an Hawaii statute source for the certificate of foreign birth just in case I need it in the future?

  229. avatar
    Black Lion September 13, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Tearing apart that Miller guy is just way too easy. Seriously I’m not having much fun

    I know….I am engaging in some of the same arguments over at the following site:

    http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/obama-amends-courts-martial-rules-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-25277

    They don’t like evidence that contradicts their beliefs….See the post below….

    Miri | September 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Reply
    fyi, Black Lion, there is a ban on the very mention of Wong Kim Ark on this blog. It does not apply. Do NOT bring Wong Kim Ark up ever again.

    Now that you have once again regurgitated your cut-and-pasted talking points, again, we do not like cut-and-pasted talking points. You’re on notice. Do not repeat them again. Once is enough.

    A link, please, to the definition you cite.

    We get that you conflate Native with Natural-Born. There is a crucial difference that scholars disagree about. This is WHY the SCOTUS must definitively rule. However, analysis of the intent of the Founders shows that their concern was with undivided allegiance to THIS country and no other. Obama, being a self-admitted British citizen AT BIRTH, later a Kenyan citizen, also an Indonesian citizen (provided that his stepfather did not lie on school registration forms), cannot have undivided allegiance to the United States. The fact that he was a British SUBJECT AT BIRTH proves him ineligible. The fact that he was and may REMAIN a dual or even triple citizen, proves him ineligible.

    Because we do not know the exact circumstances of his birth, we do not know IF he was born within this country. We do not know, for certain, when he was born. If he was born in Hawaii, was Hawaii a state at the time of his birth? Was he born on Native Hawaiian lands, into the allegiance of yet another “nation” within our nation?

    By your definition, his parents (plural) must be citizens of the U.S., for him to be a U.S. CITIZEN at birth, if born elsewhere. But, again, we do not KNOW the circumstances of his birth. Heck, we don’t even know his name.

    The Full Faith doctrine does not apply to digital images on partisan blogs and campaign websites. If he would produce the document to a court, then perhaps that doctrine may come into play. You have no COLB issued by the state of Hawaii. Do you?

    Present it to a Federal Court and we shall see what we shall see. However, he’s not presenting any COLB from Hawaii in any federal court. Far from it.

    The state of Hawaii cannot seal anything from a federal court, if the court should subpoena the documents. In fact, by their own laws, they WILL release the documents if subpoenaed. Seal or no seal. Adoption or no adoption. Privacy laws or no privacy laws. Certain things are far more important than embarrassment or individual privacy.

    Father’s race: nobody asked the father what he considers his race to be. It has been documented elsewhere that Obama Sr. was not present at the birth. Was not present at any hospital because Obama Jr. was not born in a hospital. Was not asked what race he is by anyone at the HDoH.

    At best, if the birth was filed by a person “with knowledge” of the event, that person wrote African on the registration. That is, if you accept as fact what’s on that digital image that pretends to be a COLB. But I don’t accept anything on that digital image as fact.

    Self-categorization of “race” is the norm NOW, not in 1961, so it’s useless to cite current procedures.

    If you think blindly following orders equals a “true hero” then you must really admire the guards at Nazi death camps. It is beyond the pale for you to personally attack McInerny and Vallely simply because they disagree with Obama and you about whether he’s eligible or not. They are heroes. They served this country admirably. They deserve the respect of all Americans.

    “Extreme right?” Well, perhaps so. They are extremely right in their evaluation of this situation.

    Just because someone disagrees with Obama or contends that he is ineligible, does not make them biased. Does not make them WRONG. Does not make them extremists or bigots or racists.

    Perhaps others who are not retired do not come out in support of LTC Lakin because they see what is happening to him: Threats of tasering? Isolation? Prevention of due process? Ridicule in the media? Media blackout of the events in this case?

    Black Lion, if that Kapiolani letter was removed because of HIPAA then why was it there for months UNTIL someone pointed out the nexus between fundraising and false statements?

    This had nothing to do with HIPAA. Hospitals are well acquainted with that law. If it violated the law to post a letter from someone who wrote about his own birth there, who by writing the letter surrendered any claim to privacy, who has a perfect right to reveal any personal information about himself that he cares to reveal, then the letter would NEVER have been on the website in the first place.

  230. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    They ban the mention of Supreme Court cases? lmao. Who does that? Is there some kind of moderator there who makes sure that no information contrary to their preconceived notion is posted?

  231. avatar
    Bovril September 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Fut,

    It’s Birferstan of course they censor Ebil Lieberal Obot’s, it’s a given.

  232. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    Oh geez, they even have moderation. Well, my comment there will never show up

  233. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    Yup, my comment didn’t make it past moderation. That place is just a birther echo chamber for the choir. Guess they either didn’t like my posting a Senate Resolution or didn’t like my name.

  234. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    Haha this is just too fun. Good lord I ask him questions and he just skips most of them. Its too funny. I don’t see how Steve was having such problems with this guy he’s entirely too easy to disarm

  235. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Yup, my comment didn’t make it past moderation. That place is just a birther echo chamber for the choir. Guess they either didn’t like my posting a Senate Resolution or didn’t like my name.

    Don’t mention the supreme court or even that birthers keep losing, or that you can’t use quo warranto to remove a president. That’s a big no no futternuts

  236. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Don’t mention the supreme court or even that birthers keep losing, or that you can’t use quo warranto to remove a president.That’s a big no no futternuts

    In other words, Bob, just don’t mention how ineffective and loony their silly arguments are. lol

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Do you have an Hawaii statute source for the certificate of foreign birth just in case I need it in the future?

    You can find these references under the Links menu at the top of the web site, under Hawaiian Vital Statistics Law. The reference for out of state births is here:

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

    The name of the certificate came from spokesperson Okubo. I have never been 100% comfortable with this statement because I fear she conflated an out of state certificate with a foreign born adoption. Here is the rule as to the form of the certificate of foreign birth. In ALL cases, however, the place of birth will tell what the place of birth is (DUH). NBC has a number of references on “certificate of foreign birth” on his web site.

    NBC: if you read this, you might want to correct the spelling in the title of the article in the preceding link.

  238. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: In other words, Bob, just don’t mention how ineffective and loony their silly arguments are. lol

    Don’t make them do stuff they’re reading superfudge

  239. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: FUTTHESHUCKUP: Do you have an Hawaii statute source for the certificate of foreign birth just in case I need it in the future?You can find these references under the Links menu at the top of the web site, under Hawaiian Vital Statistics Law. The reference for out of state births is here:http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htmThe name of the certificate came from spokesperson Okubo. I have never been 100% comfortable with this statement because I fear she conflated an out of state certificate with a foreign born adoption. In ALL cases, however, the place of birth will tell what the place of birth is (DUH). NBC has a number of references on “certificate of foreign birth” on his web site.NBC: if you read this, you might want to correct the spelling in the title of the article in the preceding link.

    Thanks for that, Doc. I have used that statute on numerous occasions. I also found Hawaii’s Department of Health policy on this matter.

    http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-120.pdf

  240. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Haha this is just too fun. Good lord I ask him questions and he just skips most of them. Its too funny. I don’t see how Steve was having such problems with this guy he’s entirely too easy to disarm

    I guess I’m just not very good.

  241. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Steve: I guess I’m just not very good.

    You just have to watch out for the misdirection, Steve. They fail to address valid points that you make and they don’t have an answer to and either address only those that they think they have an answer to or bring up something new. You have to press them on the points they don’t want to answer; if you give them a pass on them, it makes it look as though they are winning when all they are really doing is avoiding those points that expose their arguments as false

  242. avatar
    Obsolete September 13, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    Don’t worry Steve, keep at it and you’ll get better! We all started out debunking a bit shakier than we are now.
    After a while, the birthers just recycle the same points. They are pretty limited.

  243. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: You just have to watch out for the misdirection, Steve. They fail to address valid points that you make and they don’t have an answer to and either address only those that they think they have an answer to or bring up something new. You have to press them on the points they don’t want to answer; if you give them a pass on them, it makes it look as though they are winning when all they are really doing is avoiding those points that expose their arguments as false

    Yeah, they have this judo-like move of using the evidence that proves your point to somehow prove theirs.

  244. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    They also try to make you overthink a particular question. I noticed you had a very detailed answer about the cost of flying from Hawaii to Kenya back in 1961 that even included the number of pounds it cost to fly there as well as how fast the plane traveled back then. Once they have you focused on minutia like that, they know they have distracted you from the real issues. Don’t get me wrong, it was interesting and informative, but these fools don’t give a whit about being informed or they wouldn’t be birthers

  245. avatar
    Majority Will September 13, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    Steve: I guess I’m just not very good.

    Steve,
    To add to what Fut said and in my opinion, the most common birther tactic from birthers that like to argue (as opposed to a discussion) is the fallacy of moving the goalposts.

    More here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

    And here:
    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts

    And remember this one very important point – no matter how well founded your reasoning, you will never convince a birther of the truth. Ever.

    Why? The truth is of no actual interest to a birther and not their primary motivation behind questioning this President’s eligibility.

    Claiming to only want to uphold the law or the Constitution is a ruse and a lie.

  246. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    Steve:
    Yeah, they have this judo-like move of using the evidence that proves your point to somehow prove theirs.

    Birthers don’t have any evidence its all conjecture. They throw out things which have no relevance. Just follow my lead Steve. Always ask questions. If they refuse to answer them ask them again. Ask them how what they claim would apply how it would affect eligibility. For example he keeps bringing up the school records as if they have relevance, they don’t.

  247. avatar
    G September 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    Steve: Yeah, they have this judo-like move of using the evidence that proves your point to somehow prove theirs.

    You give them entirely too much credit. What you view as a “judo-like move”, I consider to be nothing but a merely cowardly dodge and attempt at misdirection or misinformation.

    As others have said – keep on them to answer simple and direct questions. Don’t let them off the hook for their dodges and call them out on their misinformation. If you ask a question and they turn around and ask one of you instead of answering it – boldly call them out on it instead of taking their bait to switch the topic.

  248. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    It’s kind of like Bizaro World with them. Chain e-mails and World Net Daily are reliable sources; Politifact and Factcheck.org are not. The Governor of Hawaii and the Annenbergs publicly endorse John McCain and secretly work to get his main adversary elected.
    Up is down; left is right. The Communists and the Nazis were on the same side…

  249. avatar
    Majority Will September 13, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Steve: It’s kind of like Bizaro World with them. Chain e-mails and World Net Daily are reliable sources; Politifact and Factcheck.org are not. The Governor of Hawaii and the Annenbergs publicly endorse John McCain and secretly work to get his main adversary elected.
    Up is down; left is right. The Communists and the Nazis were on the same side…

    It is a despicable Bizarro World with a thick coating of Orwellian values driven by fear and hatred.

  250. avatar
    Black Lion September 13, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Yup, my comment didn’t make it past moderation. That place is just a birther echo chamber for the choir. Guess they either didn’t like my posting a Senate Resolution or didn’t like my name.

    They kept threatening to ban me there….I think they let me post so that they had excuses to push the misinformation. The moderator over there is Brigette and she had already decided that Obama was guilty, that Lakin is a hero, and that the state of HI is lying…

  251. avatar
    Majority Will September 13, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    Black Lion:
    They kept threatening to ban me there….I think they let me post so that they had excuses to push the misinformation.The moderator over there is Brigette and she had already decided that Obama was guilty, that Lakin is a hero, and that the state of HI is lying…

    Banned from wading in a fetid cesspool filled with mentally challenged degenerates?

    Oh nooooooooo.

  252. avatar
    Black Lion September 13, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Yup, my comment didn’t make it past moderation. That place is just a birther echo chamber for the choir. Guess they either didn’t like my posting a Senate Resolution or didn’t like my name.

    Fut, I think they wrote this comment in regards to you…

    Miri | September 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm | Reply While we’re reminding people, the Nazis were the extreme LEFT. Socialists.

    To whom it may concern: The Constitution mentions Natural Born Citizen. There was no definition, because the Founders knew what the definition was: Born on the soil to TWO citizen parents. No allegiance whatsoever to any other country. That means, no British subject AT BIRTH need not apply to be POTUS. Persons with thinly veiled obscene pen-names or angry-looking avatars will not be allowed to comment at this blog.

  253. avatar
    Steve September 13, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    Black Lion: Fut, I think they wrote this comment in regards to you…Miri | September 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm | Reply While we’re reminding people, the Nazis were the extreme LEFT. Socialists. To whom it may concern: The Constitution mentions Natural Born Citizen. There was no definition, because the Founders knew what the definition was: Born on the soil to TWO citizen parents. No allegiance whatsoever to any other country. That means, no British subject AT BIRTH need not apply to be POTUS. Persons with thinly veiled obscene pen-names or angry-looking avatars will not be allowed to comment at this blog.

    Nice double negative.

  254. avatar
    Daniel September 13, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    Black Lion:
    They kept threatening to ban me there…

    Most Birthers only pretend to be for free speech. I havn’t seen a birther blog yet that wouldn’t moderate out anyone who dared to not be a birther.

    But they sure do drip and moan if they get moderated anywhere else. The ones censoring any non-birther comments on their own blog are usually the loudest whiners about free speech elsewhere.

    “You’re being intolerant by not tolerating my intolerance”… the plaintive cry of the yellow-spined birther boobie.

  255. avatar
    Majority Will September 13, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    Steve:
    Nice double negative.

    Once you put on birther shoes, you check your logic at the door.

    I’ve read many hundreds of birther attempts to discredit the eligibility of the POTUS.

    They have all failed. The sad part is running into reasonably intelligent birthers who have made up their minds.

    Another prevalent birther stance is for the POTUS to release . . . . everything, anything, whatever is demanded.

    Is that really a question of eligibility or is it mining for damning political dirt?

    The Constitution doesn’t demand a hospital name or doctor’s signature.

    When did those requirements become law?

    How many Presidents could comply?

    Why is this President different?

  256. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 14, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    Black Lion:
    Fut, I think they wrote this comment in regards to you…Miri | September 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm | Reply While we’re reminding people, the Nazis were the extreme LEFT. Socialists.
    To whom it may concern: The Constitution mentions Natural Born Citizen. There was no definition, because the Founders knew what the definition was: Born on the soil to TWO citizen parents. No allegiance whatsoever to any other country. That means, no British subject AT BIRTH need not apply to be POTUS. Persons with thinly veiled obscene pen-names or angry-looking avatars will not be allowed to comment at this blog.

    I’ll go back and see, Black Lion. Sounds like they are living in an alternate realit. Guess I’ll have to prove them wrong with my little pop quiz:

    1. The German Democratic Republic (GDR), East Germany under Soviet rule, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea under Kim Jong Il, are/were both democracies because they have the word “democratic” in their names. True or False?
    ————-
    Here’s a famous quote from 1946 by REV. MARTIN NIEM–LLER, A German WWI Uboat captain, about what occurred during Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany. Read it carefully since there will be a quiz at the end.

    “When the Nazis came for the socialists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a socialist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn’t a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~QUIZ~~~~~~~
    1. Whom did Hitler come for first?

    a. capitalists
    b. businessmen
    c. socialists
    d. republicans
    ———————————————
    2. Whom did Hitler come for second?

    a. Catholics
    b. social democrats.
    c. republicans
    d. capitalists
    ———————————————-
    3. Whom did Hitler come for third?

    a. business owners
    b. protestants
    c. capitalists
    d. trade unionists
    ———————————————-
    4. When did Hitler come for the capitalists.

    a. never
    b. after the trade unionists
    c. first
    d. last
    ————————————————————-
    4. When did Hitler come for the business owners?

    a. before the trade unionists
    b. never
    c. before the socialists
    d. after the capitalists
    ————————————-

    BONUS QUESTION FOR EXTRA POINTS!!!

    5. Karl Marx was:

    a. a capitalist
    b. a socialist
    c. a Jew
    d. a business owner
    e. b & c above
    f. all of the above

  257. avatar
    Steve September 14, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    The guy who usually starts the threads on Amazon is Garland Petersen. He’s never met a chain e-mail he didn’t like and how he lived to voting age without meeting his fate in some sort of Darwin Awards-type incident is beyond me.
    On another thread, Garland posted the article that stated that “Not one person from Columbia remember Obama.”
    I pointed out that his roommate remembered him.
    Another guy named Nico said he needed more proof than that, more than one person.
    I pointed out that the premise of the thread was that nobody remembered Obama during his days at Columbia and that all it took was one person to disprove that. I asked if he thought Obama’s roommate was lying or what proof he had that the roommate’s account was not true and he said I was acting like a spoiled teenager, demanding proof while ignoring his proof.
    Well, I’m not the one who was saying nobody at Columbia remembered Obama.

  258. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 14, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    Well, its a waste of time to talk to the birthers, but quite a few people remember Obama from Columbia — Snopes has a good article here:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp

    Snopes also discusses the source of that story. The fallacy is that birthers have drawn the opposite confusion — the fact that some people who are interviewed did not know Obama is taken as evidence that Obama wasn’t there … as opposed to the obvious fact that Columbia is a large university and there would have been no reason for most people to know him. The icing on the cake is that the rumor comes in part from an article by Wayne Allen Root, who also said (in the same article) that he only associated with other white students, and he and his white friends avoided associating with black students. So, any wonder why they didn’t know Obama?

  259. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 14, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    Steve: The guy who usually starts the threads on Amazon is Garland Petersen. He’s never met a chain e-mail he didn’t like and how he lived to voting age without meeting his fate in some sort of Darwin Awards-type incident is beyond me.On another thread, Garland posted the article that stated that “Not one person from Columbia remember Obama.”I pointed out that his roommate remembered him.Another guy named Nico said he needed more proof than that, more than one person.I pointed out that the premise of the thread was that nobody remembered Obama during his days at Columbia and that all it took was one person to disprove that. I asked if he thought Obama’s roommate was lying or what proof he had that the roommate’s account was not true and he said I was acting like a spoiled teenager, demanding proof while ignoring his proof.Well, I’m not the one who was saying nobody at Columbia remembered Obama.

    His profile also claims he’s a mental health professional I think we get where his opinion is coming from

  260. avatar
    Lupin September 14, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    This being an open thread, I hope you won’t mind if I stray a little to indulge in a smallish rant.

    Several months ago, when the Polanski case hit the media, I read a huge and varied amount of commentary in the US press and on the blogs, absolutely NONE of which — even by expert attorneys — made the point that no one had bothered to file a criminal complaint against Polanski in his home country, i.e.: France.

    I think we’re all familiar with the basic facts: Polanski entered into a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, then left the US because he believed (rightly or wrongly) that the California Judge wasn’t going to abide by the terms of the plea bargain.

    When this matter hit the media again earlier this year, virtually the question every French lawyer asked himself was: why didn’t the California authorities refile their criminal complaint in France?

    To this day, no one, absolutely no one, has answered this most basic question.

    Filing for extradition then was about as wrong-headed (or ignorant?) as could be, since even a cursory perusal of the extradition treaty between France and the US showed that neither country will extradite its own citizens (a common practice in international law); they insist on trying them themselves. So it was a literal waste of time and/or grandstanding.

    France routinely prosecutes its own citizens for crimes committed abroad. A French citizen who had been arrested in Thailand for having sex with children in 2006, and had managed to flee Thailand and return to France, was subsequently arrested in Paris after the Thai police filed a complaint, and, this month, was tried and sentenced to 15 years in jail.

    This is how international justice works, and it gets results. I really wish America and Americans (whom I dearly love) would sometimes step outside their sandbox, take off their tunnel glasses and learn how things work in the world outside their borders.

    End of rant.

    In Polanski’s case, however, since no charges were filed, and plea bargains are not admissible under French Law for serious crimes, and further the statute of limitation ran out, he is, for all intents and purposes, technically “innocent”.

  261. avatar
    Black Lion September 14, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Interesting perspective on the so called mosque at Ground Zero….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html?_r=1

    “Sometime in 1999, a construction electrician received a new work assignment from his union. The man, Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, was told to report to 2 World Trade Center, the southern of the twin towers.

    In the union locker room on the 51st floor, Mr. Abdus-Salaam went through a construction worker’s version of due diligence. In the case of an emergency in the building, he asked his foreman and crew, where was he supposed to reassemble? The answer was the corner of Broadway and Vesey.

    Over the next few days, noticing some fellow Muslims on the job, Mr. Abdus-Salaam voiced an equally essential question: “So where do you pray at?” And so he learned about the Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower.
    He went there regularly in the months to come, first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer.

    On any given day, Mr. Abdus-Salaam’s companions in the prayer room might include financial analysts, carpenters, receptionists, secretaries and ironworkers. There were American natives, immigrants who had earned citizenship, visitors conducting international business — the whole Muslim spectrum of nationality and race.

    Leaping down the stairs on Sept. 11, 2001, when he had been installing ceiling speakers for a reinsurance company on the 49th floor, Mr. Abdus-Salaam had a brief, panicked thought. He didn’t see any of the Muslims he recognized from the prayer room. Where were they? Had they managed to evacuate?”

  262. avatar
    Black Lion September 14, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    More perspecitve on the so called 9/12 Freedom Rally….

    Old liar Andrew Brietbart claimed that there were no racist anti Obama signs in that he could see in the crowd…..

    “Breitbart: “Turn around and look at the American people, media. These are the people that you called racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe.” Addressing the crowd during FreedomWorks’ September 12 tea party rally in Washington, DC, Breitbart accused The Los Angeles Times of “cast[ing] aspersions on the American people.” He continued:

    This is the American people. Turn around and look at the American people, media. Look at them. These are the people that you called racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe. If you don’t like the American people I’ve got a place of warm weather south of Miami that will take you in open arms. How arrogant can you get?”

    …..

    Rally filled with inflammatory signs
    Media Matters was present at the September 12 event and captured the following photos of signs carried by ralliers, including a photo of Andrew Breitbart standing near a sign that read, “Obama is half white, half foreign, and all wrong for America!”:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201009130053

    Some of the signs are classic. It still goes to show that the birthers need to visit a proofreader before writing their signs…

  263. avatar
    Dave September 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Some Taitz comedy: she posts about how she has been invited to a reception for the President in New York. She includes a scan of the invitation. It is an event of the DCCC and DSCC, the two Democratic Congressional election funds.

    She acts like this is inexplicable. Perhaps she has forgotten that in 2006, she donated $1000 to the DSCC. And perhaps she is not ready to recognize that her largish donation from four years ago has a much much higher profile with the Democrats than her lawsuits.

  264. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 14, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    Steve:
    Yeah, they have this judo-like move of using the evidence that proves your point to somehow prove theirs.

    And that’s what happens when you give them too much information. It gives them a wide range of opportunities to start arguing tangential factual claims that you made in your response to them. Referring to the answer you posted to Miller about the flight from Hawaii to Kenya, you could find yourself arguing about the 1961 exchange rate from pounds to dollars or the type of aircraft used to fly from London to Mombasa. They will hone in on something that cannot be absolutely proven just to skirt the real issues.

    They do this because they know that the argument will end up ion a Mexican standoff and they claim victory on that basis because you failed to prove your point beyond any doubt.They will always try to keep you on the defensive because they know that you can prove that their real claim is false. Whenever you post to them keep that in mind and keep them on the defensive rather than letting them put you on it.

    Black Lion posted a blog that he was posting to yesterday. I went there and someone said that the President wasn’t eligible because he didn’t meet the definition of natural born as required by the Constitution. I posted to this person and told them that there was no definition of natural born in the Constitution. My comment didn’t make it through moderation, but Black Lion told me that someone had posted a response in which the responder said that the definition didn’t need to be in the Constitution because “everyone knows what was in the minds of the founding fathers” regarding natural born. Now, this is just such an argument that results in a Mexican standoff because no one can absolutely prove what was in the minds of people who died a couple of hundred years ago. Sure, I could post quotes by those who say that being born on American soil means that they are natural born and that person could post quotes of those who say that being a natural born citizen requires both parents be citizens. This argument cannot be won by either side, so what I do is post the definitions of citizenship in the 14th Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and US Code Title 8 and then challenge them to show me where in American law that a natural born citizen is defined otherwise. I’ve asked a question I already know the answer to since I know that there is no other definition anywhere in American law. I also point out that opinions are not law.

    Birthers are all tricks and no facts, and you have to watch out for those tricks or you’ll get trapped.

  265. avatar
    Black Lion September 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: And that’s what happens when you give them too much information. It gives them a wide range of opportunities to start arguing tangential factual claims that you made in your response to them. Referring to the answer you posted to Miller about the flight from Hawaii to Kenya, you could find yourself arguing about the 1961 exchange rate from pounds to dollars or the type of aircraft used to fly from London to Mombasa. They will hone in on something that cannot be absolutely proven just to skirt the real issues.They do this because they know that the argument will end up ion a Mexican standoff and they claim victory on that basis because you failed to prove your point beyond any doubt.They will always try to keep you on the defensive because they know that you can prove that their real claim is false. Whenever you post to them keep that in mind and keep them on the defensive rather than letting them put you on it.Black Lion posted a blog that he was posting to yesterday. I went there and someone said that the President wasn’t eligible because he didn’t meet the definition of natural born as required by the Constitution. I posted to this person and told them that there was no definition of natural born in the Constitution. My comment didn’t make it through moderation, but Black Lion told me that someone had posted a response in which the responder said that the definition didn’t need to be in the Constitution because “everyone knows what was in the minds of the founding fathers” regarding natural born. Now, this is just such an argument that results in a Mexican standoff because no one can absolutely prove what was in the minds of people who died a couple of hundred years ago. Sure, I could post quotes by those who say that being born on American soil means that they are natural born and that person could post quotes of those who say that being a natural born citizen requires both parents be citizens. This argument cannot be won by either side, so what I do is post the definitions of citizenship in the 14th Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and US Code Title 8 and then challenge them to show me where in American law that a natural born citizen is defined otherwise. I’ve asked a question I already know the answer to since I know that there is no other definition anywhere in American law. I also point out that opinions are not law. Birthers are all tricks and no facts, and you have to watch out for those tricks or you’ll get trapped.

    Fut, I couldn’t agree with you more….The birthers will never answer questions directly….They just repeat the same birther talking points regarding Vattel and dual citizen. As I showed on another thread they have even gone as far as to state that the Constitution defintes natural born as having 2 citizen parents. This is why they moderate their blogs. They dislike any contrary information and no amount of proof will ever change their minds that somehow Obama is not eligible and guilty of something…..

  266. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 14, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Black Lion:
    Fut, I couldn’t agree with you more….The birthers will never answer questions directly….They just repeat the same birther talking points regarding Vattel and dual citizen.As I showed on another thread they have even gone as far as to state that the Constitution defintes natural born as having 2 citizen parents.This is why they moderate their blogs.They dislike any contrary information and no amount of proof will ever change their minds that somehow Obama is not eligible and guilty of something…..

    I’ve been going to gretawire at Faux for about three years. I started when her shows were about current events in law and crime, but her format changed when the campaigns in 2008 started. Since her coverage was so biased, I decided to leave after the election. However, my plans changed when they started this birther crap, and I have been going there ever since just to refute the birthers. In the two plus years of making these silly claims, I have seen and gotten wise to most, if not all, their little tricks.

    They would report me and got me banned several times because they didn’t like my posting the truth about this issue, but i was always able to get around the ban. Now, I don’t get banned at the forum anymore because either she’s gotten wise to the birthers or she just cares more about her blog than her forum.

  267. avatar
    Dave September 14, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Related to Taitz’s recent post about her invitation to a Democratic fundraiser featuring the President, Pelosi, Reid, and many other Democratic Congressmen, one of her regulars “hippybiker” posts this rather chilling comment:

    It boggles the mind! All of the “Scum Of The Lowest Order” together in one place. Mr., we could use a man like Earl Turner here.

    If you don’t get the literary reference, there is a book “The Turner Diaries” which is a novel written in the form of the diary of the fictional Earl Turner. Wikipedia has this to say about the book.

    The Turner Diaries is a novel written in 1978 by William Luther Pierce (former leader of the white Nationalist organization National Alliance) under the pseudonym “Andrew Macdonald”. The Turner Diaries depicts a violent revolution in the United States which leads to the overthrow of the United States federal government, nuclear war, and, ultimately, to a race war leading to the extermination of all Jews and non-whites. The book was called “explicitly racist and anti-Semitic” by The New York Times and has been labeled the “bible of the racist right” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    The novel has been associated with a number of real-life violent crimes. Most notably, some have suggested that a scene depicting preparation for the bombing of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the FBI national headquarters, served as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh, who had promoted the book.

    So this is where we are now, Taitz’s buddies wishing for the fictional hero who helps exterminate all the Jews.

  268. avatar
    Rickey September 15, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    I received a letter from the California bar today. The letter refers to Case No. 10-0-8298, which is an older number than they one they gave to my complaint (10-1-7921). It appears that the Taitz case is stil ongoing, under the older number. From the letter:

    “We are aware of the filings/pleadings of Ms. Taitz and her public iterations against Mr. Obama releated to his birth certificate and other matters, as well as the sanctions that have been imposed, and the rulings of the court(s).”

    The gist of the remainder of the letter is that I can file a “verified accusation” against Orly, but not having been either her client or the target or her tirades I am not in a strong position to file a formal complaint, which is pretty much what I expected. But at least I have gotten confirmation that the California Bar is aware of her antics and we can only hope that ultimately they will take some action.

  269. avatar
    Keith September 15, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    Rickey: I received a letter from the California bar today. The letter refers to Case No. 10-0-8298, which is an older number than they one they gave to my complaint (10-1-7921).

    Is this the original complaint perhaps? http://www.scribd.com/doc/15546236/Taitz-State-Bar-Complaint

    I once saw a link to another one, from an ex-California lawyer now practicing in Illinois. Dunno which is oldest.

  270. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 16, 2010 at 4:22 am #

    Black Lion: or the type of aircraft used to fly from London to Mombasa

    One birther here used a book on 1960s African airlines to prove that Canada Air had a direct link to Kenya. In fact, the book actually said that one particular African airline used Canadairs, a type of aircraft. That is how history gets falsified.

    The same birther proved that in 1961 the new type of jets were already flying from India to Kenya. So we had Obama sr and his pregnant wife flying three quarters of the circumference of the globe from Hawaii to San Francisco, to New York, to London, to Dubai, to Mumbai/Bombay and thence to … Nairobi, because Mombasa could not take even the smaller jets at the time. Oh, and the same source said the flight from India to Kenya was once a week, so the Obamas would have needed to stay in Kenya for two weeks at least. Time enough to get to Mombasa and back to Nairobi, but what about the stinky birth announcements in the Hawaiian papers?

    And when we brought those up, we got the laconic answer that of course the Obamas did not go by plane but by boat and Obama was really born much earlier… Talk about moving the goal posts.

  271. avatar
    Bovril September 16, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Actually in 1961, the flight was even more tortuous.

    The flight from London would stop at Beirut or (ocassionaly) Larnaca for refuelling, then on to Bahrain (not Dubai).

    Larnaca option was being wound down at that point due to Greek-Turkish yelling and screaming in Cyprus.

    From Bahrain, the option was usually Aden, then Nairobi, then puddle jumper to Mombasa.

    Pre 1956, it actually was rather easier as you would transit through Egypt then straight down but the Suez Crisis buggered that one up…..

  272. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 16, 2010 at 9:13 am #

    Steve: It’s kind of like Bizaro World with them. Chain e-mails and World Net Daily are reliable sources; Politifact and Factcheck.org are not. The Governor of Hawaii and the Annenbergs publicly endorse John McCain and secretly work to get his main adversary elected.Up is down; left is right. The Communists and the Nazis were on the same side…

    Steve I think I found the reason why logic and common sense doesn’t work on Miller:

    http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdPage=5&newContentNum=142&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1K83FXBF4C0C5&displayType=tagsDetail&newContentID=Mx1KPT15371PQ20#Mx2I4ZSOZQ94A1D

    “Am I a Birther. Absolutely not…but I honestly believe he is hiding something. What, I do not know. That he didn’t receive the usual amount of vetting is obvious. He received an inordinate amount of favorable press with very little actual grilling. He is charismatic and most reporters gave him a pass. Just my opinion but I think the fear of being called a racist probably chilled most potentially negative press too. Thinking that doesn’t make me a racist. I won’t tell you how I voted but I will say that the individual I was pulling for didn’t make it to the general election.

    Stephen, to validate what I say here go back to my earlier posts in this thread.

    I’ve done the best I can for being in the eighth grade but I will get better with time. I’m outa here, waay past my bedtime.”

    That should pretty much explain why he can’t speak with any authority on any subject he breaches

  273. avatar
    Black Lion September 16, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    A poster (SueDB) over at NBC’s site posted the following article….And it basically describes all of the so called Obama derangement sites and their ultimate objective, which is to screw over these idiots and wingnuts that believe in their nonsense….

    http://www.adl.org/mwd/students.asp#1.%20%20What%20is%20a%20tax%20protester?

    1. What are patriots for profit’?

    A term used to describe those individuals in the “patriot” movement who perpetrate scams and frauds against other people, usually fellow members of the movement. It also refers to people who attempt to make money by selling various products and “kits” to members of the movement. By far the most numerous of the “patriots for profit” are the people who cater to would-be tax protesters. Groups such as “Your Heritage Protection Association” (which boasted of from 20 to 30,000 “dues-paying” members in the early 1980s) and the “Pilot Connection Society” (which in the early 1990s would “untax” its reputed 5,000 members for $1200 plus 10% of their debt to the IRS) have flourished in an atmosphere consisting of a combination of paranoia and gullibility.

    By far the most striking example of a “patriot for profit” group, however, has been Roy Schwasinger’s “We the People.” Schwasinger and his agents claimed that the United States government had been bankrupt since 1993, rendering all transactions since then invalid, and that it had lost a class-action suit to this effect in the Supreme Court, which rendered a judgment against the government in the hundreds of trillions of dollars in gold. Delta Force commandos had been sent to recover this gold, now overseas. The average participant in the class-action suit would receive around twenty million dollars. Congress had designated the group “We the People” as the official agency to process the claims. For only $300, “We the People” would handle a claim and allow the person who pressed it to receive, eventually, millions of dollars. Actually, the only millions of dollars were those that the multi-state group took in. Thousands of people paid their $300 in order to become part of the class-action suit, despite the incredible nature of the claims made by “We the People.”

    Members of the “patriot” movement are particularly susceptible to frauds like this because they distrust the media, the government, lawyers and virtually every other authority who might warn them against such frauds. They are also obsessed with privacy and they believe that there are many wealthy people (like the Rockefellers and the Kennedys) who became wealthy through little known tricks and strategies. Thus they are predisposed to listen to all the “wrong” people and ignore the warnings of all the “right” people. This is one way in which members of the “patriot” movement are not victimizers but victims.

  274. avatar
    Rickey September 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    Keith:
    Is this the original complaint perhaps? http://www.scribd.com/doc/15546236/Taitz-State-Bar-ComplaintI once saw a link to another one, from an ex-California lawyer now practicing in Illinois. Dunno which is oldest.

    That, I would guess, is the one which is still active. Mine was not a formal complaint, but a detailed letter which was designed to make sure that they haven’t dropped it. The complaint you linked to was filed before Orly was sanctioned, so I am encouraged by the fact that the State Bar is aware of her recent activities.

  275. avatar
    Sean September 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    Hey, anyone know the Chiyome Fukino quote in which she references the COLB posted online being the one the DOH issued?

  276. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 16, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    Sean: Hey, anyone know the Chiyome Fukino quote in which she references the COLB posted online being the one the DOH issued?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28117439/Sb2937-Testimony-Jgo-02-23-10-Late

  277. avatar
    Sean September 16, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Anyone know anything about this Noel Clay, a State Dept spokesman who says Obama is a “dual citizen?”

    Is this another Tim Adams?

  278. avatar
    sfjeff September 16, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    The only reference to a “Noel Clay” in Google news is an article by Jerome Corsi dated 8/24 on WND.

    Neither Jerome Corsi or WND have any credibility except with the gullible and easily bilked. I am not even reading the article.

  279. avatar
    Scientist September 16, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    The article does not say Obama is currently a dual citizen, nor does it quote any statements in that regard by Mr. Clay.. It claims quotes factcheck saying that he was a dual citizen until 1982 when his right to Kenyan citizenship lapse.. I’m not convinced even that is the case. I believe he may have had a right to claim Kenyan citizenship (which would have required renouncing US citizenship), but since he never did so, I’m not sure it’s correct to state that he ever was a dual citizen. Sort of like owning a call option. It gives you the right to buy shares, but unless you exercise it, you aren’t a shareholder.

  280. avatar
    Majority Will September 16, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    Sean: Anyone know anything about this Noel Clay, a State Dept spokesman who says Obama is a “dual citizen?”Is this another Tim Adams?

    Here’s a good write up of the whole story:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=12190

    It doesn’t mention Clay but I’m not sure how germane he was to the usual WND misinformation campaign.

  281. avatar
    Steve September 17, 2010 at 2:57 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Steve: It’s kind of like Bizaro World with them. Chain e-mails and World Net Daily are reliable sources; Politifact and Factcheck.org are not. The Governor of Hawaii and the Annenbergs publicly endorse John McCain and secretly work to get his main adversary elected.Up is down; left is right. The Communists and the Nazis were on the same side…Steve I think I found the reason why logic and common sense doesn’t work on Miller:http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdPage=5&newContentNum=142&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1K83FXBF4C0C5&displayType=tagsDetail&newContentID=Mx1KPT15371PQ20#Mx2I4ZSOZQ94A1D“Am I a Birther. Absolutely not…but I honestly believe he is hiding something. What, I do not know. That he didn’t receive the usual amount of vetting is obvious. He received an inordinate amount of favorable press with very little actual grilling. He is charismatic and most reporters gave him a pass. Just my opinion but I think the fear of being called a racist probably chilled most potentially negative press too. Thinking that doesn’t make me a racist. I won’t tell you how I voted but I will say that the individual I was pulling for didn’t make it to the general election. Stephen, to validate what I say here go back to my earlier posts in this thread.I’ve done the best I can for being in the eighth grade but I will get better with time. I’m outa here, waay past my bedtime.”That should pretty much explain why he can’t speak with any authority on any subject he breaches

    I wonder what Garland’s excuse is.

  282. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 17, 2010 at 5:27 am #

    I just found this on Dr. Kate’s site – ‘Dr.’ Manning is calling for a birther-truther team up. Just in case one or the other isn’t crazy enough for you…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUcFhyrBEQs&feature=player_embedded#!

  283. avatar
    ballantine September 17, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    Scientist: The article does not say Obama is currently a dual citizen, nor does it quote any statements in that regard by Mr. Clay.. It claims quotes factcheck saying that he was a dual citizen until 1982 when his right to Kenyan citizenship lapse.. I’m not convinced even that is the case. I believe he may have had a right to claim Kenyan citizenship (which would have required renouncing US citizenship), but since he never did so, I’m not sure it’s correct to state that he ever was a dual citizen. Sort of like owning a call option. It gives you the right to buy shares, but unless you exercise it, you aren’t a shareholder.

    .

    A “call option” is a good analogy as to how this subject was viewed in the early republic. For example, our state department in the 19th century recognized that our naturalization statutes made citizens of persons born to citizen parents oversees. However, such was seen as a conditional citizenship and the state department would not issue a passprot to such persons until they returned to America to claim their citizenship. England in the early 19th century had a similar view. While there were statutes conferring the status of a natural born subject on children of subjects born oversees, English courts did not deem such persons to owe allegiance to England unless such persons returned to England to claim their citizenship. Those who claim that Obama had a dual allegaince with England don’t understand that if a child was born of English parents on American soil in the early republic, neither the United States nor the English government would think such child owed allegiance to England upon birth.

  284. avatar
    Steve September 17, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Another gem from Garland Peterson:
    “When it comes to the Annenburg Foundation, no reality at all because they are up to their neck in falsehood, deceit. Anything that George Soros is connected with is not only not credible, but is lawless, corrupt and evil.

    Since the Annenburg Foundation has ties to the Weather Underground and Bill Ayers and his ilk, that foundation cannot be trusted under any circumstances. I cannot say the same about Politifact.com. I do not know enough about them. But I will tell you and everyone who wants to ridicule/scoff or disagree with what I say, which pretty much includes everyone except for a few, when I do not know something. I will not lie and say things I’m unsure about and I have not lied about anything I have posted, not once, not ever. If there is any errors in what I have said, it has been unintentional; either the source is in error, then I also am in error, but I assure you Stephen I believe what I post and am not lying. ”

    Never knew Soros was behind Factcheck.
    I’m sure Soros and Factcheck don’t know it either.
    Maybe I’m a little naive, but since when did people and foundations publicly support one candidate in an election while secretly working to get the other candidate elected?

  285. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 17, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Steve: Another gem from Garland Peterson:
    “When it comes to the Annenburg Foundation, no reality at all because they are up to their neck in falsehood, deceit. Anything that George Soros is connected with is not only not credible, but is lawless, corrupt and evil.
    Since the Annenburg Foundation has ties to the Weather Underground and Bill Ayers and his ilk, that foundation cannot be trusted under any circumstances. I cannot say the same about Politifact.com. I do not know enough about them. But I will tell you and everyone who wants to ridicule/scoff or disagree with what I say, which pretty much includes everyone except for a few, when I do not know something. I will not lie and say things I’m unsure about and I have not lied about anything I have posted, not once, not ever. If there is any errors in what I have said, it has been unintentional; either the source is in error, then I also am in error, but I assure you Stephen I believe what I post and am not lying. ”Never knew Soros was behind Factcheck.
    I’m sure Soros and Factcheck don’t know it either.
    Maybe I’m a little naive, but since when did people and foundations publicly support one candidate in an election while secretly working to get the other candidate elected?

    I got tired of responding to him. After he started bringing up the new world order crap and used pravda as a source its obvious he’s not interested in a factual conversation. Miller supposedly isn’t going to post there anymore after I destroyed him. Garland confuses the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with the Annenberg Foundation which are two separate entities.

  286. avatar
    Steve September 17, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I got tired of responding to him. After he started bringing up the new world order crap and used pravda as a source its obvious he’s not interested in a factual conversation. Miller supposedly isn’t going to post there anymore after I destroyed him. Garland confuses the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with the Annenberg Foundation which are two separate entities.

    His skull is pretty thick. Very difficult to get things through it.

  287. avatar
    Keith September 18, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    FYI, here’s an alert about standard operating procedure for New Ltd. franchises:

    How to manufacture (anti-Green) News

    For context, Australia just had an election which resulted in a hung Parliament, meaning no one party could form a Government. After more than two weeks negotiation, the Labor party gained the support of the Greens (never in doubt) and three Independents to form a minority Government.

    It is the sworn goal of the conservative Coalition (Liberal Party / National Party) to undermine the minority government of course.

    The media should stay out of manufacturing news to further that goal and just report it, but of course Rupert doesn’t believe in an independent press.

    For further context: Rupert’s wholly owned Australian GlenBeck rant-a-like, is being sued under Australia’s Racial Vilification Act by a group of Aborigines. I don’t think Bolt get published in The Australian, he’s mainly in the down market tabloids. The stuff he is being sued for is fairly minor compared to some of his revolting regurgitations, but these folks were singled out personally, and I think have a good case.

    Aborigines sue Bolt over racial writings

  288. avatar
    Dave September 22, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    It probably shouldn’t pass unremarked that our Constitutional Hydrologist, Dr. Kate, has now revealed that the whole Obama Conspiracy is the doing of the Vatican (The New World’s “Secret Order”). This was revealed to her through some NWO conspiracy videos of Walter Veith. She asks:

    Was Islam created by Rome? Do they worship the same things?

    and helpfully includes a photo with the caption “Pope Kisses Koran”. Apparently secret societies are also somehow involved.

    I am not familiar with the work of Walter Veith, and lack the patience to sit through his videos, but a bit of googling leads to allegations that one of the “secret societies” he’s all fussed about is the Mormons. You know, like Glenn Beck. Dr. Kate does not mention this.

  289. avatar
    Black Lion September 23, 2010 at 6:29 am #

    Along the same tangent is the Texas Board of Education having a problem with how Islam is being presented in the textbooks…

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39311882/ns/us_news-education

    “It appeared that Texas had finished battling over textbooks — with social conservatives winning a clear victory in May — but the Texas State Board of Education is taking up another explosive curriculum question: Are Texan youth being fed a sugar-coated version of Islam while Christianity is unfairly taken to task for its sins?

    At a three-day meeting that started Wednesday, the board is scheduled to consider a resolution that would require it to reject textbooks that it determines are tainted with teaching “pro-Islamic, anti-Christian half-truths and selective disinformation,” a bias that it argues is reflected in current schoolbooks.

    ……

    One of his supporters was board member Don McElvoy, a key player in pushing through changes to economics and history curriculum standards for public school students in May. Among those changes were provisions calling for curriculum to emphasize the importance of capitalism, raise doubts that the doctrine of separation of church and state is embedded in the Constitution and cover “the unintended consequences” of progressive “Great Society” legislation, affirmative action and Title IX, a 1972 act that mandated equal access to federally funded programs for girls, most notably for sports programs.

    McElvoy said he believes that academic writers skew to the left politically and repeatedly denigrate the importance of Christianity in American culture.”

  290. avatar
    AnotherBird September 23, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Black Lion: Along the same tangent is the Texas Board of Education having a problem with how Islam is being presented in the textbooks…http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39311882/ns/us_news-education“It appeared that Texas had finished battling over textbooks — with social conservatives winning a clear victory in May — but the Texas State Board of Education is taking up another explosive curriculum question: Are Texan youth being fed a sugar-coated version of Islam while Christianity is unfairly taken to task for its sins?
    At a three-day meeting that started Wednesday, the board is scheduled to consider a resolution that would require it to reject textbooks that it determines are tainted with teaching “pro-Islamic, anti-Christian half-truths and selective disinformation,” a bias that it argues is reflected in current schoolbooks.……One of his supporters was board member Don McElvoy, a key player in pushing through changes to economics and history curriculum standards for public school students in May. Among those changes were provisions calling for curriculum to emphasize the importance of capitalism, raise doubts that the doctrine of separation of church and state is embedded in the Constitution and cover “the unintended consequences” of progressive “Great Society” legislation, affirmative action and Title IX, a 1972 act that mandated equal access to federally funded programs for girls, most notably for sports programs.McElvoy said he believes that academic writers skew to the left politically and repeatedly denigrate the importance of Christianity in American culture.”

    There should be a separation of Don McElvoy and Texas Board of Education.

  291. avatar
    Steve September 23, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    I have a general legal question.
    When writing about last month’s judge’s ruling overturning California’s Prop 8, Gregg Jackson said that judges don’t have the authority to strike down or overturn laws, that only the state legislature and the voters in a referendum have that power.
    He said that the judge’s ruling is only binding to the parties involved in the case.
    That doesn’t make sense to me. I thought under our system of checks and balances that the judicial branch can rule about the constitutionality of a law.

    Here’s a link to the guy’s blog
    http://greggjackson.com/blog/

    Here’s what he says:
    “Most headlines cite how Judge Walker “struck down” the so-called “gay marriage ban.”

    For starters, judges can’t “strike down” any law whether it be a statute or constitutional amendment such as Prop 8. And it is a shame that so many “conservative” lawyers continue to parrot this toxic liberal lie. Judges may hear individual cases and rule on them as long as they have jurisdiction. But judges don’t possess any legislative authority. Period!

    And in aother entry:
    “Point #2: Judges can’t “strike down” or “overturn” any law, statute or constitutional “amendment. The judiciary may opine on individual cases before them but their rulings are merely binding (if in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution) on the parties involved in the lawsuit. But a judge’s opinion can’t, in any way, change, alter or overturn any individual law, statute or constitutional amendment. Judges possess “neither the power of the sword nor the purse.” (Federalist 78) All legislative powers belong to the sovereign people of California. The only way that a constitutional amendment may be changed is by the people or via their elected representatives. Prop 8 is the Supreme Law of the Land and cannot be “overturned” by judicial fiat.”
    The judge did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and issue a ruling. But a judge’s opinion isn’t law.

    The only way the actual constitutional amendment, Prop 8,may be altered or overturned in any way is via another constitutional amendment, according to the California Constitution itself. Only the voters may revoke or overturn a constitutional amendment or initiative statute.

    Thus, one man-one woman marriage is still the law of the land unless and until the voters amend the constitution to revoke it.”

  292. avatar
    obsolete September 23, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Steve, there are a lot of cases where voters in California passed a proposition that a judge later ruled was unconstitutional, and so was struck down. California law has to fit inside the framework of the US Constitution. Otherwise, voters in California could vote for a proposition that outlaws Christianity, or legalizes slavery of Caucasians. The Constitution is not up for a popular vote.

  293. avatar
    misha September 23, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    obsolete: voters in California could vote for a proposition that outlaws Christianity, or legalizes slavery of Caucasians

    Wait, they can’t?! Uh, oh.

  294. avatar
    Dave September 23, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    Steve: I have a general legal question.
    When writing about last month’s judge’s ruling overturning California’s Prop 8, Gregg Jackson said that judges don’t have the authority to strike down or overturn laws, that only the state legislature and the voters in a referendum have that power.
    He said that the judge’s ruling is only binding to the parties involved in the case.

    Bearing in mind that I’m not a lawyer… Jacksons statements need to be compared to reality, because they are in part quite true, in part true but quibbles, and in part just plain false. It is true that laws are made by being passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, or by other means like the insane CA proposition process. And it is true that nothing that a judge can say changes the fact that that law has been made a law. It is also true that the orders of a judge are only binding on the case at hand.

    However, there is also such a thing as judicial precedent, and this principle is not in fact an invention of liberal activist judges. The principle of precedent is older than this country, and it exists because it’s a real bad idea if you can’t count on getting consistent interpretations of the law from the courts.

    For this reason, once SCOTUS has ruled that a law is unconstitutional, that law is for all practical purposes toast. If you want to quibble, you can correctly say the law is still there. If you want to quibble more, you can correctly say that the SCOTUS order only applies to the case at hand. However, when you’re done quibbling, the fact remains that the law cannot be enforced, because the precedent is there and it is next to certain that any future court case will follow the precedent.

    I would point out though that the press does often jump the gun on calling a law overturned on the judgement of a lower court. This still generates a precedent, but a precedent with a higher probability that another court might see fit to not follow it.

  295. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 23, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    Steve: I have a general legal question.
    When writing about last month’s judge’s ruling overturning California’s Prop 8, Gregg Jackson said that judges don’t have the authority to strike down or overturn laws, that only the state legislature and the voters in a referendum have that power.
    He said that the judge’s ruling is only binding to the parties involved in the case.

    Well, he’s wrong — but even under his construction, the “parties” in the case included the state of California — and the relief that was sought was an injunction against the state, prohibiting the state from applying or enforcing Prop 8.

    So maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but assuming the ruling stands, Prop 8 is off the books in California.

    Because this is a decision by a federal district court judge, it is not binding on any court in any other state. That is, if there is no appeal, that ruling will stand and apply to California, but it won’t directly impact laws in Arizona or Oregon. Of course — neither did Prop 8, which is a California law only — but the point is that if a similar issue came up in Kansas, it would have to be litigated all over it, and a Judge in Kansas could reach a different conclusion.

    “Point #2: Judges can’t “strike down” or “overturn” any law, statute or constitutional “amendment. The judiciary may opine on individual cases before them but their rulings are merely binding (if in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution) on the parties involved in the lawsuit.

    A ruling that involves a determination of law establishes precedent that is binding only within that district. As noted above, since the state of California was, in fact, a party involved in the lawsuit, the issue has been determined finally for California. The only recourse is for the state to appeal the ruling to the 9th circuit, and the governor & attorney general have said they will not do so.

    Other courts are free to consider that precedent, but it is not binding on them. So if a similar lawsuit was brought in Missouri, the court there would not have to follow the California case.

    But a judge’s opinion can’t, in any way, change, alter or overturn any individual law, statute or constitutional amendment.

    The case of Marbury v. Madison established the exact opposite — that the judiciary holds the ultimate authority as to determining whether a given law is Constitutional. The courts can’t change the Constitution, but they have the final word on interpreting what it means.

    Prop 8 is the Supreme Law of the Land and cannot be “overturned” by judicial fiat.”
    The judge did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and issue a ruling. But a judge’s opinion isn’t law.

    Well, Prop 8 applied to California only — not “the Land” — and, as noted, it has been nullified by the court’s ruling in a lawsuit that was brought against the state of California.

  296. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 23, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Steve: I have a general legal question.

    Here’s a link to the guy’s blog
    http://greggjackson.com/blog/

    According to the guy’s bio on his blog, his only educational credential is a BA degree in business & economics from Colby College (a small liberal arts college in Maine) — see http://www.greggjackson.com/biography.html

    Colby does not currently offer such a major — a student could major in economics, but not “business” — see http://www.colby.edu/academics_cs/majmin.cfm — and Jackson doesn’t show up as a notable alumni on other internet sources, such as Wikipedia, so I have my doubts even as to the modest credential he claims.

    In any case, it doesn’t make him a legal expert. I think he’s misunderstood what he has been told by others. The use of phrases like “Law of the Land” to refer to a California initiative reflects a very muddled understanding of the legal issues he’s trying to write about.

    [Correction to above comment provided by the author — I did a Google search and found a reference to Jackson (class of 1990) in a Colby magazine – http://www.colby.edu/colby.mag/issues/current/features.php?articleid=415&issueid=33 — so to the extent that I questioned his credentials, it does appear that he attended Colby in the late 80’s.]

  297. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2010 at 4:07 am #

    From Resistnet, one of the major Tea Party sites:

    We were forewarned and no one would listen. This is one of the goals of the Islamic plan to get a Muslim in the White House of the USA. He is there to enable them to increase their invasion. American tax payers are paying to build Mosques world wide. Yet try to replace a Greek Church or a new Christian Church. We can’t put our hands in the air to pray but the Muslims can block traffic with their butts in the air for blocks and blocks which disrupts American Life.

    Hussein is there to destroy the American Economy, Hussein is there to destroy our job markets and create chaos to make us weak. Thank GOD Americans are fighting back and Hussein and his tribe will out of there. How dare they attack and ignore our Constitution and our beliefs.

    This is America and it will remain America once we get rid of the jerks and corruption in our White House and wants to destroy American and make us a One World Gov.

    DUMP THE MUSLIM AND HIS TRIBE – THEY ARE A DISGRACE TO THE AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE.

    http://www.resistnet.com/

    “Tribe?” Bring on the hoods, brothers.

    It’s like standing outside a latrine in a hot summer.

  298. avatar
    Dave September 24, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    Lupin: [quoting Resistnet:] Yet try to replace a Greek Church or a new Christian Church. We can’t put our hands in the air to pray but the Muslims can block traffic with their butts in the air for blocks and blocks which disrupts American Life.

    Can anyone give me a clue what this guy is talking about? “Hands in the air”? “block traffic”?

  299. avatar
    misha September 24, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    Dave: “Hands in the air”?

    http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/deeperstill/2008/09/06/raised%20hands%20in%20worship.JPG

    Lupin: Muslims can block traffic with their butts in the air for blocks and blocks

    http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/Italy-islam-muslim-street-prayer.jpg

  300. avatar
    BatGuano September 24, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Dave:
    Can anyone give me a clue what this guy is talking about? “Hands in the air”? “block traffic”?

    i’m not sure about the butts and hands but….. the greek church that was destroyed during 9/11 is trying to rebuild. instead of building the exact same structure they would like to go bigger. the port commission has said no to this ( altho they did offer an alternative site where the church could build higher ). this is about zoning restrictions and not religion . unfortunetely people are using it to protest the ” ground-zero mosque “.

  301. avatar
    Dave September 24, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    BatGuano:
    i’m not sure about the butts and hands but….. the greek church that was destroyed during 9/11 is trying to rebuild. instead of building the exact same structure they would like to go bigger. the port commission has said no to this ( altho they did offer an alternative site where the church could build higher ). this is about zoning restrictions and not religion . unfortunetely people are using it to protest the ” ground-zero mosque “.

    Oh, that story. I didn’t make the connection. Actually, as I recall, there’s more to the story than that. Apparently the port commission is authorized to shell out money to help with rebuilding, and only offered them $20 million. The church wanted substantially more, in addition to having other objections to the port commission’s offer.