Main Menu

Birther v CNN

CNN has not been shy about confronting the birther movement with hard-nosed facts and informed opinion. It was CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin that may have been the first to label them “whack jobs.”

Anderson Cooper has carried on the tradition with a hard-hitting interview with Terry Lakin and his attorney Paul Jensen.

Now Cooper is back, confronting birtherism in a strong commentary today and an eviscerating  interview with Texas State representative Rep. Leo Berman.

Click image for Anderson Cooper interview video with Berman

I give Cooper 95% because he mistakenly said that John McCain had not released his medical records. In fact both Obama and McCain released medical information: Obama, a summary and McCain, volumes. Berman was pitiful, travel ban to Pakistan and all.

169 Responses to Birther v CNN

  1. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Black Lion: Anderson Cooper goes head-to-head with Texas State Rep. Leo Berman,……

    this needs it’s own article/thread (doc?). wow. just….. wow.

  2. avatar
    Liberty Dawn November 30, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Wow! Natural born in Article II.

    Millions will stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin on 12/14/10.

    Americans are educated, informed and ready to stand for truth!

    Anderson Cooper’s a lackey of a reporter. His personal agenda usurps honest journalism. I give him a 5% because he knew McCain and Obama ran for president.

    Stay tuned as all will see that darkness never overtakes the light. Simple physics.

  3. avatar
    Liberty Dawn November 30, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    “Angrily dismiss anyone who disagrees . . . .” Your entire premise of a conspiracy makes me laugh. There’s no anger here.

    Just vigilance for truth Article II.

    Ha, ha, ha. “Birthers”. Ha, ha, ha

    “Marked by accusations and backstabbing. . . ” Ha, ha, ha.

  4. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Liberty Dawn: Millions will stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin on 12/14/10.

    Millions? You’re an idiot. Lakin is going to prison. Want to join him?

  5. avatar
    Liberty Dawn November 30, 2010 at 10:00 pm #

    “Want to join him?”

    What’s the crime Mr. Intelligence?

  6. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Laura Lingle is a Liar.  No news release was ever released stating that Obama was born a Kapoloni Hospital. That’s a Fact!

  7. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    It has been determined that it is possible for Obama to release to long-form BC. Obama won’t! He’s go someting to hide. What Cooper produces is NOT an ORIGINAL Birth CErtificate. Cooper nor FactCheck even produced a “real” birth certificate; only an image.

    FackCheck is not credible media outlet. It had ties to Obama. In any event, The BC was never released, only a photo images were posted and they could have come form anywhere.

  8. avatar
    Sean November 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    Liberty Dawn: Wow!Natural born in Article II.Millions will stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin on 12/14/10.Americans are educated, informed and ready to stand for truth!

    Truth? Leo Berman seemed to be allergic to truth. He kept clinging to that Pakistan rumor. Two more questions and he would have said ni&&er.

  9. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    Anderson Cooper’s statement from Laura Lingle is a complete lie. There is no evidence Obama was born Kapoloni Hospital in Hawaii. As for the long-form birth certificate, Robert Gibbs, David Axlerod and Barack Obama have all refused the acknowledge it’s existance. That’s because Obama doen’t have a long-form birth certificate suggesting Obama wasn’t born in a hospital. Something else (The vital record) is being used to derive Obama’s COLB. It isn’t the long-form BC. The question is what? Perhaps a sworn statement from the grandmother???

  10. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Liberty Dawn: Americans are educated, informed and ready to stand for truth!

    do you believe there was a ban on US citizens traveling to pakistan in 1981 ?

  11. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    There wasn’t a ban on Pakistan but given the strong US advisor against going there in 1981, it remains to be seen HOW EASY it was for Americans to travel to Pakistan even it was possible. It still doesn’t answer what passport Obama used. If Obama used an Indonesian passport, it would have been a hell of lot easier to get into Pakistan. The real question should have been could lowly John Blow get a passport into Pakistan. Probably unlikely. I like how Cooper evades and tries to use Bush as an excuse. I like how Cooper acknowledges that Obama’s college records are protected by federal privacy laws and Obama FOR SOME REASON doesn’t want to release them on his own behalf. Hey Cooper! I would really like to know what that reason is?

  12. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    When I listen to these interviews, it makes me want to scream. If only Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, Gary Kreep or Margaret Hemenway were to get on the program. Anderson Cooper would have his hands full.

  13. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:29 pm #

    Anderson Cooper also is very misleading and frankly dishonest when he states the courts have thrown this issue out. That is absolutely not true. No court has ever addressed the MERITS of what was being discussed. All the court case have thrown out on techicalities like standing and political question; barriers invented by the courts. No court has ever rejected these arguments.

  14. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    Jason: If Obama used an Indonesian passport,

    obama was not eligible in 1981 for indonesian citizenship. by indonesian law a person must be 18years of age and have spent 5 consecutive years ( or 10 nonconsecutive years ) living in country before they can even apply for citizenship. obama only had 4. even if he moved back to indonesia after high school the earliest he could have applied for citizenship would have been 1984. long after the trip to pakistan.

  15. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro. Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian. Obama returned to the US a few years later but it is unknown what kind of immigration process took place. Obama was an Indonesian citizen and had lost his US citizenship. However, at the age of majority, Obama could have reclaimed his US citizenship. At 18 Obama was in Indonesia for some reason (To see his mother who wasn’t actually living there) possiblely to reaffirm his Indonesian citizen in order to obtain a passport.

  16. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Jason: Anderson Cooper also is very misleading and frankly dishonest when he states the courts have thrown this issue out. That is absolutely not true.

    they were discussing the kerchner case. it was rejected out yesterday by the SCOTUS. how was cooper’s comment a lie or misleading.

  17. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    We don’t know why SCOTUS rejected Kerchner. They didn’t say. But neither SCOTUS nor the appeals court ever addressed any the merits or factual questions. This was true for all court cases. Cooper’s comment – “no Court has supported this…” – Complete lie. No has been given the chance.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    Jason: There wasn’t a ban on Pakistan but given the strong US advisor against going there in 1981, it remains to be seen HOW EASY it was for Americans to travel to Pakistan even it was possible. It still doesn’t answer what passport Obama used. If Obama used an Indonesian passport, it would have been a hell of lot easier to get into Pakistan.The real question should have been could lowly John Blow get a passport into Pakistan.Probably unlikely.I like how Cooper evades and tries to use Bush as an excuse.I like how Cooper acknowledges that Obama’s college records are protected by federal privacy laws and Obama FOR SOME REASON doesn’t want to release them on his own behalf.Hey Cooper!I would really like to know what that reason is?

    You’re a pathetic liar.

  19. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    I’d like to see Cooper tangle with Kerchner, Apuzzo, Kreep or Hemmenway. No way Cooper will bring them on.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 30, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro.Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian.Obama returned to the US a few years later but it is unknown what kind of immigration process took place.Obama was an Indonesian citizen and had lost his US citizenship.However, at the age of majority, Obama could have reclaimed his US citizenship.At 18 Obama was in Indonesia for some reason (To see his mother who wasn’t actually living there) possiblely to reaffirm his Indonesian citizen in order to obtain a passport.

    Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Adoption is often frowned upon in Muslim countries and also the State department when looking into Ann Dunham’s passport stated there was no adoption. The school has stated that children are often put down with the last name of the head of household regardless of status. Children cannot willingly give up or renounce US Citizenship and he could not become a Indonesian citizen as Indonesia does not recognize dual citizens. The school record also states that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no proof he was ever an indonesian citizen.

  21. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Jason: Laura Lingle is a Liar.  No news release was ever released stating that Obama was born a Kapoloni Hospital. That’s a Fact!

    And you’re an idiot and illiterate. Fact.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle

  22. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records. I would really like to know.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 30, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Jason: I’d like to see Cooper tangle with Kerchner, Apuzzo, Kreep or Hemmenway.No way Cooper will bring them on.

    Kerchner, Apuzzo, Kreep and Hemmenway are bumbling fools. Especially the douche known as Mario Apuzzo who comes here from time to time, takes a beating then crawls back to his heavily moderated site.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Liberty Dawn: “Want to join him?”What’s the crime Mr. Intelligence?

    You don’t know? Wow. I hope you know a real lawyer.

  25. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro. Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian.

    adoption does not affect citizenship. either US or indonesian. indonesia at the time did not accept dual citizenship* and the US would not accept the citizenship renunciation of a 6-10year old and there nothing a mother or step-father can do to effect that status. plus the 5 consecutive year residence and 18year old age limit still applied.

    *recently indonesia have accepted dual citizenship for children till the age of 18 if one of their biological parents are indonesian. but…… obama would not apply in this scenario.

  26. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    Jason: So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records.I would really like to know.

    What are you trying to find other than your paranoid delusions?

  27. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 30, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    Jason: Anderson Cooper also is very misleading and frankly dishonest when he states the courts have thrown this issue out.That is absolutely not true.No court has ever addressed the MERITS of what was being discussed. All the court case have thrown out on techicalities like standing and political question; barriers invented by the courts.No court has ever rejected these arguments.

    Except the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana

  28. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    Jason: So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records.I would really like to know.

    possibly for the same reason that most presidents have not released their school records.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 30, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Liberty Dawn: Wow!Natural born in Article II.Millions will stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin on 12/14/10.Americans are educated, informed and ready to stand for truth!Anderson Cooper’s a lackey of a reporter.His personal agenda usurps honest journalism.I give him a 5% because he knew McCain and Obama ran for president.Stay tuned as all will see that darkness never overtakes the light.Simple physics.

    Millions? You guys can’t even get a dozen to attend any birther rally.

  30. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro.Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian.Obama returned to the US a few years later but it is unknown what kind of immigration process took place.Obama was an Indonesian citizen and had lost his US citizenship.However, at the age of majority, Obama could have reclaimed his US citizenship.At 18 Obama was in Indonesia for some reason (To see his mother who wasn’t actually living there) possiblely to reaffirm his Indonesian citizen in order to obtain a passport.

    Your birther fantasies are irrelevant.

  31. avatar
    Jason November 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    “Except the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana”

    although that court apparently reached the conclusion that Obama was NBC they never addressed any of the other arguments. Even so, the courts finding that Obama was an NBC was based on a “standing” technicality and not on the merits; meaning the counter arguments were rejected based on a lack of standing to accept them as facts rather than a merit consideration.

  32. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    Jason: Cooper’s comment – “no Court has supported this…” – Complete lie.

    which court has supported a birther suit ? i understand your belief about merits ( although one case is listed above ) but that doesn’t make what cooper said a lie or misleading. if i’m wrong please point out how.

  33. avatar
    Daniel November 30, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    Liberty Dawn: Americans are educated, informed and ready to stand for truth!

    Most are, which is why most don’t buy into the birther crap.

  34. avatar
    Sean November 30, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Jason: Anderson Cooper’s statement from Laura Lingle is a complete lie. There is no evidence Obama was born Kapoloni Hospital in Hawaii. As for the long-form birth certificate, Robert Gibbs, David Axlerod and Barack Obama have all refused the acknowledge it’s existance.That’s because Obama doen’t have a long-form birth certificate suggesting Obama wasn’t born in a hospital.Something else (The vital record) is being used to derive Obama’s COLB.It isn’t the long-form BC.The question is what?Perhaps a sworn statement from the grandmother???

    Tell us about the Grandmother, Jason. We’ve never heard about it.

  35. avatar
    Daniel November 30, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro.

    It is also believed that the Earth is flat, and that inviosible purple spotted unicorns from Betelguese IV have taken over the Illuminati.

    What some whacko fringe, be it flat earthers or birthers, happen to believe, is not really relevant to anyone but themselves.

  36. avatar
    Daniel November 30, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Jason: So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records.I would really like to know.

    Why didn’t Bush? Or Bush Snr? Or Reagan? Or any other POTUS?

    Why is it you don’t subject any other President to the same criteria you insist on Obama?

    What is different about this President that he is singled out by you for special harrassment?

  37. avatar
    Sean November 30, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Millions?You guys can’t even get a dozen to attend any birther rally.

    There weren’t enough people at Berg’s birther rally to push start a Yugo downhill.

  38. avatar
    Daniel November 30, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    Wow the Birthers are out for volume over quality tonight.

    Too bad their success rate here is pretty close to their success rate in court.

  39. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Jason: Laura Lingle is a Liar.  No news release was ever released stating that Obama was born a Kapoloni Hospital. That’s a Fact!

    Who is Laura Lingle? The Governor of Hawaii’s first name is LINDA.

  40. avatar
    Sean November 30, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    Jason: I’d like to see Cooper tangle with Kerchner, Apuzzo, Kreep or Hemmenway.No way Cooper will bring them on.

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro.Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian.Obama returned to the US a few years later but it is unknown what kind of immigration process took place.Obama was an Indonesian citizen and had lost his US citizenship.However, at the age of majority, Obama could have reclaimed his US citizenship.At 18 Obama was in Indonesia for some reason (To see his mother who wasn’t actually living there) possiblely to reaffirm his Indonesian citizen in order to obtain a passport.

    The Indonesian Citizenship Myth_One of the earliest myths in the birther belief system is the claim that Barack Obama is really “Barry Soetoro”, who lost his US citizenship upon adoption by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national.
    This dates back to Philip Berg’s original lawsuit, when he claimed that both Barack Obama AND his mother lost their US citizenship upon her marriage, saying in his original complaint ( 31) that:
    “Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.”
    Berg cites the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). But let’s see what that says:
    “From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.”
    This section only applies towards marriages before 22 September 1922. Yet Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in 1967. This section simply doesn’t apply.
    But what about the claim that Barack Obama lost his US citizenship. Again we can look to the very same act that Berg cited, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401:
    “A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:…..”
    This section shows that even had Stanley Ann Dunham renounced her US citizenship, it wouldn’t have effected Barack Obama’s citizenship.
    But could Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro renounced Barack Obama’s citizenship? Again, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 407:
    “A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.”
    So again we see that nothing that Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done would have affected Barack Obama’s US citizenship.
    But what Berg doesn’t cover in his filings, and is usually ignored by the birthers, is that the 1940 law was amended in 1952 by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3. And that makes the citizenship status of Barack Obama even clearer. For example, we see section 349 (a), which says that:
    “From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —
    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”
    As you can see here, anything Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done to renounce Barack Obama’s US citizenship simply would not have worked in the eyes of US law. Barack Obama himself would have had to do so after his 21st birthday, or after his 25th had he not returned to the United States by then and established a permanent residence.
    And when did he return to the United States? In 1971, around his tenth birthday.
    Furthermore, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355, says:
    “A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”
    So has we see here, there is no way under US law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship due to action of his own OR that of his mother before he was 21 years of age. Under US law, he maintained his birthright US citizenship with no loss or interruption, and no deed for “naturalization” or any “oaths of citizenship” because Natural-Born US citizens don’t require such.
    So that’s on the US side. What about the Indonesian side of the claim?
    Berg has it partly right in that Indonesia didn’t allow for dual-citizenship at the time. However, Indonesian citizenship law at the time states the ways that someone could become naturalized in that country and what they would have to do to lose said citizenship.
    The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
    “Article 2.
    (1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.”
    Note the age limit there – less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967. This would have made Obama either five or six – over the age limit according to Indonesian law. Furthermore, they didn’t move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.
    Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.
    I’d like to note at this time that there is no credible evidence to suppport an adoption claim in the first place. The main records that are used to cite such are Obama’s Indonesian School record and the Soetoro-Dunham Hawaiian divorce decree. Neither though say adoption anywhere in the paperwork.
    Ironically enough, the Indonesian School record gives Obama’s birthplace as “Honolulu, USA”. Placing many birthers into claiming that the school record is a credible document to “prove” adoption, but ignoring that by that logic, it’s also a credible document to prove birthplace as well.
    Also, according to Article 14 of 62/1958:
    “(1)If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence.”
    and Article 17 of 62/1958:
    “e.being declared as lost by the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Cabinet Council on the request of the person concerned if the person has reached the age of 21, is domiciled abroad and does not become stateless at the declaration of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as being lost;”
    “k.other than for state’s service, domiciling abroad during 5 consecutive years by not declaring one’s wish as to continue being a citizen before the period has lapsed and thereafter every two years; such a wish shall be declared to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at one’s residence.”
    As we can see from all those, even IF Obama had been granted Indonesian citizenship, (which under Indonesian law he couldn’t due to being over age and unable to renounce the US citizenship), Obama would have lost the Indonesian citizenship after living outside of the country for five years.
    So to recap:
    Under US law as shown in Sections 317(b), 401, and 407 of the Nationality Act of 1940, and Sections 349 (a) and 355 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, neither Stanley Ann Dunham or Barack Obama would have lost US citizenship upon marriage to Lolo Soetoro. Neither could Barack Obama have lost US citizenship due to actions taken by his mother.
    Under Indonesian Law 62/1958, Article 2, there was no way to grant Indonesian citizenship to Barack Obama due to being over the age limit as defined by Indonesian law. In addition, the inability to renounce Barack Obama’s US citizenship would have rendered him unable to be granted Indonesian citizenship until the age of 21, and he would have had to returned to Indonesia to live AFTER his mother divorced Lolo Soetoro to meet the guidelines in Article 5 of that law.
    In short, there is no possible way under either United States OR Indonesian law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship and been granted Indonesian citizenship as a child.
    This myth is busted.

  41. avatar
    Sef November 30, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Jason: I’d like to see Cooper tangle with Kerchner, Apuzzo, Kreep or Hemmenway.No way Cooper will bring them on.

    Yeah, that would be fun. The resulting youtube visits would totally overload the net.

  42. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro.Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian.Obama returned to the US a few years later but it is unknown what kind of immigration process took place.Obama was an Indonesian citizen and had lost his US citizenship.However, at the age of majority, Obama could have reclaimed his US citizenship.At 18 Obama was in Indonesia for some reason (To see his mother who wasn’t actually living there) possiblely to reaffirm his Indonesian citizen in order to obtain a passport.

    Bullshit. The President was never adopted by anyone, let alone Lolo Soetoro.

    Go back to Birtherstan and leave the grown ups alone, okay?

  43. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Daniel: Wow the Birthers are out for volume over quality tonight.Too bad their success rate here is pretty close to their success rate in court.

    I think they’re the same person.

  44. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Jason: “Except the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana”although that court apparently reached the conclusion that Obama was NBC they never addressed any of the other arguments.Even so,the courts finding that Obama was an NBC was based on a “standing” technicality and not on the merits; meaning the counter arguments were rejected based on a lack of standing to accept them as facts rather than a merit consideration.

    But you’re a coward, an idiot and you’re obviously not a lawyer. Dumbass.

  45. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    Sean:
    Tell us about the Grandmother, Jason. We’ve never heard about it.

    Hate to tell you this, Jason old sport, but “the grandmother” has repeatedly and clearly said that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    FAIL.

  46. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    Jason: There wasn’t a ban on Pakistan but given the strong US advisor against going there in 1981, it remains to be seen HOW EASY it was for Americans to travel to Pakistan even it was possible.

    how easy?…….. well, if mexico is any indication, fairly easy. i live close to the border and travel into mexico frequently ( medical, dental, recreation…. lunch ). currently mexico is on the US state dept travel warnings list ( http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html ). i have not noticed any difference crossing the border with my US passport.

  47. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    ellid:
    Hate to tell you this, Jason old sport, but “the grandmother” has repeatedly and clearly said that President Obama was born in Hawaii.FAIL.

    i think he was referring to the theory that grandma dunham had placed the birth notice.

  48. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    ellid: Who is Laura Lingle?

    Laura Lingle Lylder. she wrote some books about growing up in a small house on a mesa.

  49. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Jason: There wasn’t a ban on Pakistan but given the strong US advisor against going there in 1981, it remains to be seen HOW EASY it was for Americans to travel to Pakistan even it was possible

    currently mexico is on the US state departments travel warning list. i get into mexico frequently ( medical, dental, recreation,… lunch ) and have noticed no difference or experienced any problems using my US passport. how easy? very easy.

    ( 20min-1hr border wait sucks tho ).

  50. avatar
    Dave December 1, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    I’m losing track — does anyone know of a current Congressman or Congressman-elect who is anywhere near Berman’s level of birtherness?

  51. avatar
    Mary Brown December 1, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    These people are delusional. The next thing I expect is one of them announcing that the aliens from V have been training Obama for this moment.

  52. avatar
    misha December 1, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    Leo Berman is also an anti-semite. Google it.

  53. avatar
    misha December 1, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    Jason: There wasn’t a ban on Pakistan but given the strong US advisor against going there in 1981,

    There was the same advisory in effect, when I went to Israel. Also, the only way to lose citizenship, is to formally renounce it. Even serving in a foreign army will not cause loss., despite that proviso.

    That’s what I was told by a legal affairs officer, at the Tel Aviv US Embassy.

  54. avatar
    BatGuano December 1, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    Liberty Dawn: ….and ready to stand for truth!

    then will you agree these are truths :

    – there was no travel ban to pakistan in 1981.

    – a US citizen can travel to a country on the state dept travel warning list.

    – obama could not have obtained indonesian citizenship as a child.

    ?????

  55. avatar
    sfjeff December 1, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    Sean- your post regarding the Indonesia was a thing of beauty.

  56. avatar
    Sean December 1, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    sfjeff: Sean- your post regarding the Indonesia was a thing of beauty.

    That wasn’t me I copied that from something called BadFiction.

  57. avatar
    US Citizen December 1, 2010 at 1:33 am #

    “Millions will stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin on 12/14/10.”

    Well at least they’ll get standing somewhere.

  58. avatar
    obsolete December 1, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    sfjeff: Sean- your post regarding the Indonesia was a thing of beauty.

    Too bad birthers will ignore it and keep the zombie lie alive…

  59. avatar
    Steve December 1, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    Jason: So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records. I would really like to know.

    Because he is not required to release them?
    Privacy laws?

  60. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2010 at 2:05 am #

    Jason: So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records. I would really like to know.

    Probably for the same reasons no President or Presidential candidate has released theirs.

    Does Berman look a little like Dr. Jack Kervorkian?

  61. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2010 at 2:57 am #

    Jason’s idotic and racist little tirades reminded me to point out that once again, Mario has refused to deny any connection with ultra right-wing organizations, even though he posted messages AFTER my asking him to do so, and responded to far more trivial messages (with ad hominem attacks).

    It would be easy for him to say that he’s undertaken this case pro bono or nearly so, or to state that as far as he knows Kerchner is paying him out of his own pocket (after all how could I prove him wrong?) but he has steadfastly refused to comment on this, not even with a sarcastic dismissal.

    I would bet anything that were we able to follow the money the trail would end with some entity like The Kochs who are stirring up and using bigots to further their own agenda. (See the links to the articles I re-posted yesterday.)

    Note that in the past, the pattern has been not to enlist the help of prestigious lawyers and politicians, but to find little disgruntled men looking for fame and a quick buck. Mario fits the pattern to a T.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 7:27 am #

    Jason: There wasn’t a ban on Pakistan but given the strong US advisor against going there in 1981, it remains to be seen HOW EASY it was for Americans to travel to Pakistan even it was possible.

    No, a “strong US advisor[y] against going there” is as much a bald-faced lie as the “travel ban.” Tourism was being ENCOURAGED for Americans at that time (as evidenced by the New York Times tourism article cited by Anderson Cooper).

    How easy? According to an 1981 State Department Advisory, Americans just had to show up at the border to obtain a free 30-day tourist visa. Pretty damned easy.

  63. avatar
    ellid December 1, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    Lupin: Jason’s idotic and racist little tirades reminded me to point out that once again, Mario has refused to deny any connection with ultra right-wing organizations, even though he posted messages AFTER my asking him to do so, and responded to far more trivial messages (with ad hominem attacks).It would be easy for him to say that he’s undertaken this case pro bono or nearly so, or to state that as far as he knows Kerchner is paying him out of his own pocket (after all how could I prove him wrong?) but he has steadfastly refused to comment on this, not even with a sarcastic dismissal.
    I would bet anything that were we able to follow the money the trail would end with some entity like The Kochs who are stirring up and using bigots to further their own agenda. (See the links to the articles I re-posted yesterday.)Note that in the past, the pattern has been not to enlist the help of prestigious lawyers and politicians, but to find little disgruntled men looking for fame and a quick buck. Mario fits the pattern to a T.

    He also didn’t reply to any of the posts where I brought up my background as a legal secretary and called him an ambulance chaser. I think some part of what passes for his brain knows very well that he’s in over his head.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    Liberty Dawn: “Angrily dismiss anyone who disagrees . . . .” Your entire premise of a conspiracy makes me laugh. There’s no anger here.

    The “conspiracy” is not my premise, but the premise of the birthers who believe that the State of Hawaii, the Congress, the US Federal Courts and the Media are all engaged in a massive cover-up for President Obama.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    Liberty Dawn: What’s the crime Mr. Intelligence?

    Crime? Failure to move with his unit. His unit was deploying to Afghanistan and he didn’t show up.

    His stupidity in believing long-proven-false Internet rumors is not a crime.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    Jason: FackCheck is not credible media outlet. It had ties to Obama.

    No, it doesn’t.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    Jason: Laura [sic] Lingle is a Liar.  No news release was ever released stating that Obama was born a Kapoloni [sic] Hospital. That’s a Fact!

    Lingle misspoke, but there is no reason to think it was an intentional lie. Public officials seldom lie about things in the public record. But the FACT which you cannot avoid is that the press release did say Obama was born in Hawaii, and that is the key fact which you cannot (reasonably) deny.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    Jason: That’s because Obama doen’t have a long-form birth certificate suggesting Obama wasn’t born in a hospital.

    The same form in Hawaii is used for all types of birth, hospital and home.

  69. avatar
    aarrgghh December 1, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    doc: I give Cooper 95% because he mistakenly said that John McCain had not released his medical records. In fact both Obama and McCain released medical information: Obama, a summary and McCain, volumes.

    while mccain did release volumes of his medical records during the 2008 campaign, it might be more accurate to say that he gave the press (but not the public) a quick and dramatic show and tell:

    “McCain to allow peek at medical records”

    Sen. John McCain will give select members of the media a three-hour glimpse at his medical records Friday.

    … Presidents and candidates have released records in the past, and some, like McCain, have stipulated that the records cannot leave the room.

    “Medical records state McCain fit, cancer-free”

    The release of eight years of McCain’s medical history was meant to allay any fears among voters that he is not prepared to handle the physical de mands of the job. It is the most detail he has disclosed about his health since 1999, when during his first run for president he released 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records to address concerns about lasting damage from his 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

    The campaign choreographed the release of the records: it posted a summary online, organized a conference call with McCain’s doctors, and gave a select group of reporters three hours to pore over records in Arizona, but not make photocopies.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama…

    “It is believed” is not evidence. It is believed that the Earth is only 600 years old, that the moon landing is fake and that George W. Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In fact about the same number of people believe in witches as that Obama was born outside the US.

    Why don’t you say “I believe” and then give reasons?

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    aarrgghh: while mccain did release volumes of his medical records during the 2008 campaign, it might be more accurate to say that he gave the press (but not the public) a quick and dramatic show and tell

    Ah yes, thanks for reminding me of the circumstances. This is similar to the “release” of his birth certificate, where only one reporter got to look at it.

  72. avatar
    Greg December 1, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    A few weeks after the NY Times travel article was published a member of the embassy staff wrote a letter to the NY Times to amplify and reiterate the points in the article – that travel there was enlightening and that Ericans needed 30-day visas. The US government was encouraging travel to Pakistan!

    If birthers had taken a few minutes to research these things before publishing them they would have avoided some of these bald-faced lies!

  73. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 1, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    Jason: So Cooper you tell me….Why won’t Obama release his college records. I would really like to know.

    What do his college records show? What would it matter?

  74. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 1, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    Jason: It is believed

    It is believed that R. Kelly could fly but thus far he has only shown a propensity of urinating on teenage girls. Why don’t you just say what you believe instead of relying on others and using weasel words?

  75. avatar
    The Magic M December 1, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    > although that court apparently reached the conclusion that Obama was NBC they never addressed any of the other arguments.

    What “other arguments”? The test for NBC is quite simple: first you check what the prerequisites are (“born on US soil” according to 200+ years of case law, not “… to two citizen parents according to Vattel” as the birthers dream it up), then you check if they are met.
    So how would the court “reach the conclusion that Obama was NBC” without this process? And if they used that process, what else would they have had to look at? It would be irrelevant what else birthers make up.

    > Even so, the courts finding that Obama was an NBC was based on a “standing” technicality and not on the merits; meaning the counter arguments were rejected based on a lack of standing to accept them as facts rather than a merit consideration

    Would you explain to me, kind master of the legal arts, what the difference between “accepting the counter-arguments as a merit consideration” and “… as facts” means in this context?
    A court never accepts counter-arguments as “facts” because an argument (“here is Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate so this proves his Kenyan birth”) is never automatically accepted as fact (“his Kenyan birth is proven”). Argument is *examined* – meaning nothing else than it’s a “merit consideration”. If it is found to be correct and unrefuted, then it becomes a “fact”.

    Actually, courts always rule based on the rules of evidence.

    Suppose A sues B, is not rejected on lacking standing, and presents evidence that, on its face, states B was born in Kenya.
    Now B can choose not to contest this evidence, meaning the court will accept it as correct for the purpose of said trial.
    However this does not create a “fact” that B was born in Kenya; he simply chose not to disprove A’s evidence in that single trial. But if C sues B, B is free to contest he was born in Kenya using his own evidence.

    So the word “fact” when applied to evidence introduced by the parties in a trial is a bit off anyway (unless we’re talking about established facts such as “the Earth revolves around the sun”).

  76. avatar
    Jules December 1, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Jason: Even so, the courts finding that Obama was an NBC was based on a “standing” technicality and not on the merits; meaning the counter arguments were rejected based on a lack of standing to accept them as facts rather than a merit consideration.

    You evidently have not read the ruling in Ankeny. I encourage you to do so.

    As you will see, the court considered the merits of the argument that Obama was not a natural born citizen by virtue of his father’s nationality. The court concluded:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance
    provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the
    United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of
    the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]
    a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too
    were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

  77. avatar
    Jason December 1, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    The court merely established court precedent in defense of that Obama was an NBC. But because the plantiffs could not establish standing, the court was unwilling to accept or consider the plantiffs court arguments as true based on some legal technicality. In establishing standing the court weighs evidence in the most favored light to one trying to establishing by accepting the evidence as fact. The counter evidence and counter arguments put forward were not consider legal precedent because of a standing technicality to make them true on their face. The court never considered the counter argument of the NBC argument. Instead the court declared Obama an NBC while summarily dismissing the counter arguments based on a standing technicality rather than on a merit consideration.

  78. avatar
    BatGuano December 1, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    Jason: based on a standing technicality

    “standing” is not a technicality it’s one of the foundations of our legal system. if you crash into someone else’s car i can’t sue you. i can prove that there was damage done ,expenses paid and it was your fault but……. not to me. i have not been damaged and have no right to sue you. that’s standing.

    did you see above about indonesian citizenship ?

  79. avatar
    Daniel December 1, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In fact about the same number of people believe in witches as that Obama was born outside the US.

    That may be a poor example, Doc, as there actually are Witches.

  80. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    Jason: The court merely established court precedent in defense of that Obama was an NBC.But because the plantiffs could not establish standing, the court was unwilling to accept or consider the plantiffs court arguments as true based on some legal technicality.In establishing standing the court weighs evidence in the most favored light to one trying to establishing by accepting the evidence as fact.The counter evidence and counter arguments put forward were not consider legal precedent because of a standing technicality to make them true on their face.The court never considered the counter argument of the NBC argument.Instead the court declared Obama an NBC while summarily dismissing the counter arguments based on a standing technicality rather than on a merit consideration.

    It is believed you have absolutely idea what you’e spewing. Where did you get your law degree?

    Your baseless speculation and paranoid delusions will always be unconvincing to sane people.

    Real lawyers here are disgusted by your amateur birther bullsh!t.

  81. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    Make that: “It is believed you have absolutely no idea what you’re spewing.”

  82. avatar
    Jules December 1, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    Jason: The court merely established court precedent in defense of that Obama was an NBC.But because the plantiffs could not establish standing, the court was unwilling to accept or consider the plantiffs court arguments as true based on some legal technicality.In establishing standing the court weighs evidence in the most favored light to one trying to establishing by accepting the evidence as fact.The counter evidence and counter arguments put forward were not consider legal precedent because of a standing technicality to make them true on their face.The court never considered the counter argument of the NBC argument.Instead the court declared Obama an NBC while summarily dismissing the counter arguments based on a standing technicality rather than on a merit consideration.

    Again, read the ruling. Tell me where you think that it indicates that the ruling is on the basis of standing.

    Had the ruling been based on standing, the ruling would not have come to a conclusion on natural born status. Where someone lacks standing to bring a claim, no set of facts needs to be accepted as true because the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief even if his version of the facts is correct.

  83. avatar
    The Magic M December 1, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    > The court never considered the counter argument of the NBC argument.

    It did. It said “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance
    provided by Wong Kim Ark”.
    There is no “counter argument” that trumps the language of the Constitution and legal precedent from WKA.
    Only in birthers’ dreamland would bringing in “additional evidence” of the various sorts they have been spewing (all of which predates WKA) a court to any other conclusion.

    You’re simply saying that SCOTUS erred in WKA and many other rulings on citizenship issues and that a handful of birther magic would “enlighten” the court and make it say “oh, well eff me sideways, we never thought about that, OMG, you’re right!” Dream on.

  84. avatar
    Greg December 1, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    Actually, Jason, since the case was decided on a motion to dismiss, the court assumed that everything the plaintiff’s told them (within reason) was 100% true. So, it’s 100% true that some think Obama was born abroad and 100% true that not a shred of evidence exists to support that hypothesis. It’s 100% true that Obama’s dad was not a US citizen, but 100% true that you don’t get to make up laws. Judges don’t have the luxury of birthers to go back in time and read the founder’s minds (if you squint REAL hard and ignore every lawyer who wrote in English it says you have to have citizen parents). They have to go on what the law IS! And the law is and always has been born here=eligible!

  85. avatar
    Greg December 1, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    Here’s what the court said:

    When reviewing a motion to dismiss, we view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor. Id. A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it is clear on the face of the complaint that the complaining party is not entitled to relief.

    Unlike other birther cases, this was based entirely on the 2-citizen parent theory:

    With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

    The evidence? Vattel among others.

    The court said, in dismissing this case that there are NO facts that can make Obama ineligible on this theory. You accused Obama of breaking a made-up law, so it doesn’t matter what “facts” you think support that fictitious crime – nothing can save it from being a figment!

  86. avatar
    joey December 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    The original trial court in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels dismissed the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
    The Indiana Court of Appeals was asked to overturn the lower court’s dismissal. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and offered an opinion on natural born citizen status under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 for both John McCain and Barack Obama: “persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”:–Ankeny v Daniels, November 12, 2009.
    The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court of Indiana to review the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court rejected hearing the appeal.
    Ankeny has not been appealed to the federal courts.

  87. avatar
    Jules December 1, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    misha:
    There was the same advisory in effect, when I went to Israel. Also, the only way to lose citizenship, is to formally renounce it. Even serving in a foreign army will not cause loss., despite that proviso.That’s what I was told by a legal affairs officer, at the Tel Aviv US Embassy.

    As I recall, the State Department advised against non-essential travel to Israel when I went there in 2003. Getting there was pretty easy. Like everyone boarding an El Al flight, I was questioned by airline security for five minutes before I was allowed to check in for my flight. On arrival at border control at Ben Gurion Airport, an Israeli official glanced at my passport and placed a stamp in it authorising me to be in Israel for the next 90 days.

    Like naturalisation in a foreign country, serving in a foreign army is a “potentially expatriating act” under US nationality law. This means that it results in loss of US citizenship only if done voluntarily and with intention to relinquish US citizenship. The latter requirement for the act to become actually expatriating is a result of the Supreme Court rulings in Afroyim v Rusk and Vance v Terrazas, which make it clear that it violates the 14th Amendment to deprive a US citizen of his citizenship when he does not intend to lose it.

  88. avatar
    BatGuano December 1, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    is anyone here from texas? i was just going to email rep. berman and, since he asked to be shown proof, invite him to this thread. to email berman you need to put in your address and….. i don’t think i’d get a reply back putting in a california address. i know i could just put in a fake texas address but i prefer to keep things as legit and above table when it comes to birthers.

    anyone up for the challenge ? i’d be curious to any (if any) reply you got.

  89. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    My jaw dropped over this past Thanksgiving: my mother-in-law is a birther*. This is purely anecdotal, but I think something that Doc should consider in his analytical approach on this site. My m-i-l is a registered democrat involved in local politics mainly. She likes the invites to the fancy dinners she gets through her connections. We don’t talk politics much because when my husband (mostly) and I ride her (all of us are Catholic) about supporting a party that is against some of the core beliefs we have, she gets mad. That is an OT subject. Anyways, she never reveals for whom she casts her vote in the big elections. It is a sort of don’t ask don’t tell if you will. She is a 72 year old widow with no access to the internet. Both of her sons (my husband and brother-in-law) work in the computer field. She has been exposed to the internet, is fascinated by it, but doesn’t want to pay the monthly bill to have access to it. She is a big number cruncher, and she is mad at Obama for “ruining the country.” It seems to be all about the deficit for her.

    Prior to the comment she made over the holiday, she never mentioned the “birther” issue. With her having no access to the internet and not being a news junky like I am (she generally follows world happenings), where is this coming from now? After she made her comment and we started to discuss it (I asked her what she thought of the COLB online, probably calling it a birth certificate just for sake of moving the conversation- she was not impressed with the idea of it online) a distraction occurred and we never got back to the topic. I will next chance I get.

    Getting to another point here, let’s say that someone like her watched the CNN interview (she already made her comment prior to Anderson’s interview). She may not have seen what you see and what others here have: oh it’s a complete smackdown. She may look at the soft-spoken kind of grandfatherly looking guy and take HIS side. When one is not all that familiar with the issue as everyone here is, there is a lot of information to digest at once. You have been living and breathing this issue for quite some time. Many people have not. Many people don’t have the time or the desire to get into the details. Internet? So what? Public officials saying something is so? Some people don’t take stock in that. There may be something to the issue because this Berman guy is on Anderson Cooper. Put yourself in the mindset of people who have not followed the issues to the degree that it is done here or on other sites and WON”T follow it to that degree.

    Is Anderson Cooper credible for someone who has started now caring about Obama’s birthplace? Anderson Cooper and quite a few members of the media were quite disrespectful of tea partiers. Maybe there are tea party sympathizers who saw Cooper’s interview and took away the complete opposite view simply because they remember how he made fun of tea partiers. Maybe some only caught a few words of it because of this or that distraction. If the birther issue is toast, why is Anderson Cooper even talking about it? Why is someone proposing legislation? After checking at Freep and seeing the latest post on Lakin, the birther issue will be news after he is likely convicted. His brother is going to make it a crusade.

    * There are birther degrees. Her comment was something to the effect that I don’t even know if he was born in this country.

  90. avatar
    BatGuano December 1, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    charo: Why is someone proposing legislation?

    because rep. berman is acting on a false premise. i have no doubt he believes ( or believed ) what he was saying. but as we’ve seen in this thread much (if not all) of what he said is false. i find it worrisome that legislation is being proposed based solely on an internet rumor. shades of tokyo rose imo.

  91. avatar
    BatGuano December 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    charo: Put yourself in the mindset of people who have not followed the issues to the degree that it is done here or on other sites and WON”T follow it to that degree.

    i did when i first saw the clip. i think the audio delay played a bit of a problem with a comprehensive quid pro quo and berman’s desire to make a statement as aposed to answer questions didn’t help much. if i knew nothing on the subject would i be any better informed now. prob not. but nothing new there with televised politics.

  92. avatar
    G December 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    charo: * There are birther degrees. Her comment was something to the effect that I don’t even know if he was born in this country.

    In talking to some people, particularly the older or less educated – I’ve found that many of them are just lashing out and mad about the economy & their perceived state of this country and so it is easy for them to vent their frustrations by blaming Obama and often slandering him. They seem to perceive him as “different” or question his patriotism, etc. simply because they are unhappy and is easy for them to just spout off and go along with slander and rumors. When questioned deeper, they don’t ever seem to have any facts or substance behind their accusations other than they heard or read similar slander somewhere, so they are just repeating it.

    charo: Is Anderson Cooper credible for someone who has started now caring about Obama’s birthplace? Anderson Cooper and quite a few members of the media were quite disrespectful of tea partiers. Maybe there are tea party sympathizers who saw Cooper’s interview and took away the complete opposite view simply because they remember how he made fun of tea partiers. Maybe some only caught a few words of it because of this or that distraction. If the birther issue is toast, why is Anderson Cooper even talking about it? Why is someone proposing legislation? After checking at Freep and seeing the latest post on Lakin, the birther issue will be news after he is likely convicted. His brother is going to make it a crusade.

    Yes, Anderson Cooper is considered one of the better and more credible news reporters in the business today. He’s earned his bona fides as a fact-based field reporter through wars, storms and other major events in this country and throughout the world. He’s known for doing his homework and being willing to call out claims that don’t hold water.

    If someone is just unhappy with his prior reporting on a certain topic or other that they hold personal bias for…then they credibility problem lies with them for only wanting to hear what they want to hear and not actually caring to hear the truth or opinions different than their own.

    I don’t know what complaints you are making about Tea Party coverage on CNN. Do you have any actual examples to back up that claim?

    I often have it on in the background while I’m working and I don’t see where your charge that he makes fun of Tea Partiers comes from, other than if he’s called out any claims that Tea Party folks have made that just don’t hold up to the facts. That is what a reporter should do.

    Maybe certain folks have been too brainwashed by just watching a blatant propaganda outlet like FOX News and mistakenly thinking that cheer-leading and actively promoting Tea Party events is the same as reporting on them or investigating them…because it is not.

    The reason he reported on the birthers recently is because of that idiot in the Texas legislature that is currently trying to introduce a blatant birther bill….as well as similar measures currently being proposed in several other states. So it became “timely” to mention again because of that.

  93. avatar
    Black Lion December 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    The Unkillable “Obama’s Grandmother Says He Was Born in Kenya” Myth
    By David Weigel

    The Truth About Hillary author Ed Klein and occassional GOP troublemaker John LeBoutillier have decided, for some reason, to torpedo whatever reputations they have left with a cheeky novel titled The Obama Identity which repackages conspiracy theories about the president as mysteries investigated by a man named “Higgy” Higginbothem. It’s extremely weird for two reasons. One: Based on interviews it seems like LeBoutillier actually believes the conspiracy theories. Two: The book takes debunked conspiracy theories and reframes, recasts and rewrites them for the sake of drama.

    Take one case I know very well. In the novel, Higgy visits Kenya before Obama in 2004, during the candidate’s shoe-in U.S. Senate bid. He visits the home of “Obama’s grandmother” and discovers — shock! — that she admits her grandson is Kenyan but fiendish translators are trying to cover it up.

    The mention of Obama’s birth reminded me why I had come all this way. So I decided to jump right in.

    “Malik, can you please ask your grandmother if it is true that her grandson was born in Mombasa?”

    It seemed like Malk had been down this road before. He sighed as he began the translation, and it was clear that Grandma Obama understood what the question was even before he was finished. Her one-word answer came back fast.

    “Ndiyo.”

    “What does ndiyo mean?” I asked.

    “It means ‘yes’ in Swahili,” Malik said.

    I was caught up short. This was the very answer I’d wanted.

    “Mailk, is your grandmother saying, ‘yes,’ he was born here in Kenya? Is that what she is saying?”

    She answered before the translation. “Ndiyo,” she repeated. I suspected she understood English more than she let on.
    Suddenly Malik stood up and leaned closer to his grandmother. They began a quick back-and-forth. Abubakar listened.

    “He is telling her that she can’t say Barack was born here in Kenya, because then he can’t be president,” Abubakar whispered into my ear. “But she says, she doesn’t care, because Allah will make him president anyway.”

    This is a fictionalized version of a muddled 2008 phone call that an anabaptist bishop, Ron McRae, made to Kenya. He claimed to have spoken to and record Sarah Obama, the president’s step-grandmother, at a party with a translator helping answer questions about where Barack Obama was born. But after he asked one question and got an affirmative response, he asked for more details and the translator, having misunderstood the first question, explained that Barack was not born in Kenya.

    MCRAE: I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present was he born in Kenya?

    TRANSLATOR: Yes, she says yes she was, she was present when Obama was born.

    MCRAE: Okay, when I come in December, I would like to come by the hospital where he was born. Can you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa.

    MALIK: Oh, yeah. No, Obama wasn’t born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

    MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

    MALIK: He was born in America, not in Mombasa.

    MCRAE: Okay. Do you know whereabouts he was born?

    MALIK: Hello?

    MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

    MALIK: Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii, in the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there.

    I wrote about this at the time, and I’m genuinely surprised to see it resurrected as fiction with totally different wording and timing — 2004 instead of 2008, the interviewer in the room instead of on the phone, the questions clearly worded instead of worded to trap the woman into giving a wrong answer.

    http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/11/29/the-unkillable-obama-s-grandmother-says-he-was-born-in-kenya-myth.aspx

  94. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 1, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Jason: When I listen to these interviews, it makes me want to scream. If only Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, Gary Kreep or Margaret Hemenway were to get on the program. Anderson Cooper would have his hands full.

    Yeah, it WOULD be difficult for Anderson Cooper to keep a straight face and not laugh while refuting all the lies and myths that crowd would spew.

  95. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    Jason: It is believed that Obama became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted or acknowledged by the step father Lolo Soetoro.Obama’s school recrod shows him as being Indonesian.Obama returned to the US a few years later but it is unknown what kind of immigration process took place.Obama was an Indonesian citizen and had lost his US citizenship.However, at the age of majority, Obama could have reclaimed his US citizenship.At 18 Obama was in Indonesia for some reason (To see his mother who wasn’t actually living there) possiblely to reaffirm his Indonesian citizen in order to obtain a passport.

    Philip Berg called, he wants his myth back.

    Under US law a US citizen cannot renounce their citizenship as a minor child. Nor can it be renounced by the parents.

    Under Indonesian law, only children under the age of five can be granted Indonesian citizenship via adoption, and that’s only if the previous citizenship can be renounced. Obama was over the age of five when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and, again, US citizenship for a minor cannot be renounced.

    Bottom line, there is no way under US or Indonesian law for Barack Obama, Jr. to be granted Indonesian citizenship or lose US citizenship as a child.

  96. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 1, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Sean:
    There weren’t enough people at Berg’s birther rally to push start a Yugo downhill.

    And “Dr. Kate” had a total of 3 people at her “Usurpathon”

  97. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    Mary Brown: These people are delusional. The next thing I expect is one of them announcing that the aliens from V have been training Obama for this moment.

    Well, David Ecke has claimed that Obama is a “reptillian” Does that count?

  98. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 1, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Sean:
    That wasn’t me I copied that from something called BadFiction.

    And I thank you for citing it too. Original is at:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/the-indonesian-citizenship-myth.html

  99. avatar
    BatGuano December 1, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: Under Indonesian law, only children under the age of five can be granted Indonesian citizenship via adoption,…

    forgot about that part. thanks for bringing it up. a few times i’ve heard birthers speculate that lolo adopted obama before the age of five. i’ve also heard a few claim that lolo is his biological father. neither scenario would affect his US citizenship ( or lack of indonesian citizenship ).

  100. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    BatGuano:
    because rep. berman is acting on a false premise. i have no doubt he believes ( or believed ) what he was saying. but as we’ve seen in this thread much (if not all) of what he said is false. i find it worrisome that legislation is being proposed based solely on an internet rumor. shades of tokyo rose imo.

    Let me be clear. I was asking through the eyes of others, not myself.

  101. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    G: I don’t know what complaints you are making about Tea Party coverage on CNN. Do you have any actual examples to back up that claim?

    http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3958

    Yes, he did apologize after much controversy and when practically forced to.

    G: n talking to some people, particularly the older or less educated

    My m-i-l is not illiterate. She just doesn’t have access to the internet.

    G: When questioned deeper, they don’t ever seem to have any facts or substance behind their accusations other than they heard or read similar slander somewhere, so they are just repeating it.

    I didn’t get a chance to delve into where she got her information. I just know it isn’t from the internet.

    G: The reason he reported on the birthers recently is because of that idiot in the Texas legislature that is currently trying to introduce a blatant birther bill….as well as similar measures currently being proposed in several other states. So it became “timely” to mention again because of that.

    I was speaking through the eyes of someone not following the birther issues. IMO, many people are not following the nuances at all. I would expect there to be more lashing out.

  102. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    G: They seem to perceive him as “different” or question his patriotism, etc. simply because they are unhappy and is easy for them to just spout off and go along with slander and rumors.

    Their views, whatever they are, didn’t seem to stop them for voting for him initially, which I believe my m-i-l did.

  103. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    My m-i-l doesn’t have the internet, but there are those who have it but don’t have the time to surf. For instance, my very good friend is a critical care nurse. She works mega hours and on her days off, she has other pressing matters. Not everyone has a job where they can surf.

  104. avatar
    G December 1, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    charo: G: n talking to some people, particularly the older or less educated

    My m-i-l is not illiterate. She just doesn’t have access to the internet.

    Charo –

    I said “less educated” not illiterate. Illiterate simply means that someone cannot read. I did not in any way imply that.

    Less educated, particularly in this case, simply means that they are not well versed in actual factual information in the topic of which they are talking about.

    It is not a critique nor an attack on your MIL. Many people do not have time to follow politics, understand macro and micro economics, study history, understand how government actually works or research info or to have looked into the “birther” claims for that matter.

    Yet that doesn’t seem to stop people from forming opinions on the matter. Nothing wrong with an opinion.

    It is just if people really don’t know what they are talking about or are not that educated on the topic, they shouldn’t be afraid to just simply admit that and be willing to learn more to form a more educated opinion.

    Instead, it seems in today’s America people will boastfully make authoritative statements on topics they know very little about all the time and therefore just spread more false information to those that are simply gullible enough to take what they say at face value.

    Your MIL doesn’t need the internet to hear this stuff. All she needs is to overhear some other person complaining and making such uneducated statements and to take them at their word and then parrot what they said.

    Simple ill-informed rumor mongering and fact-free gossip have been around forever. Word of mouth has always been the main way that such stuff gets spread in the past. The internet just adds an additional venue to spread it faster and to a broader audience.

  105. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    G:
    Charo -I said “less educated” not illiterate.Illiterate simply means that someone cannot read.I did not in any way imply that.Less educated, particularly in this case, simply means that they are not well versed in actual factual information in the topic of which they are talking about.It is not a critique nor an attack on your MIL.Many people do not have time to follow politics, understand macro and micro economics, study history, understand how government actually works or research info or to have looked into the “birther” claims for that matter.Yet that doesn’t seem to stop people from forming opinions on the matter.Nothing wrong with an opinion.It is just if people really don’t know what they are talking about or are not that educated on the topic, they shouldn’t be afraid to just simply admit that and be willing to learn more to form a more educated opinion.Instead, it seems in today’s America people will boastfully make authoritative statements on topics they know very little about all the time and therefore just spread more false information to those that are simply gullible enough to take what they say at face value.Your MIL doesn’t need the internet to hear this stuff.All she needs is to overhear some other person complaining and making such uneducated statements and to take them at their word and then parrot what they said.Simple ill-informed rumor mongering and fact-free gossip have been around forever.Word of mouth has always been the main way that such stuff gets spread in the past.The internet just adds an additional venue to spread it faster and to a broader audience.

    The point here is not specifically my m-i-l but that she probably represents a certain percentage of people. As I said, I think she voted for Obama, and she may be lashing out. This website is not going to get to people who don’t have the resource or the time to consider beyond the surface. The birther issue has been around for over two years. I think it was scientist who said that people don’t care about the particulars of Obama’s background. What you MAY start seeing is people who now will look for a reason to want Obama out who didn’t care when they cast their vote in 2008.

  106. avatar
    G December 1, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    charo: Their views, whatever they are, didn’t seem to stop them for voting for him initially, which I believe my m-i-l did.

    I think you missed the part where I did try to address this:

    G: I’ve found that many of them are just lashing out and mad about the economy & their perceived state of this country and so it is easy for them to vent their frustrations by blaming Obama and often slandering him.

    I probably could have been a little clearer. These people voted for “change” then (whatever they perceived it to be) and are currently unhappy with the state or pace of things 2 years later…including the economic recession which he inherited…

    So their “hope” has turned to frustration or disappointment. Whether deserved or not, it is their perception. And it is simply easier for them to point the finger at the President as a simple target to grasp onto and blame for everything and trash talk him.

    Who knows if your MIL even believes half of the stuff she’s saying. Slander out of anger is just a simple outlet that many folks use to vent – Doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it based on any facts or reality. Its just easier to distrust someone and trash talk them when you are disappointed or unhappy.

    That’s my take on what’s actually going on here.

  107. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    G: Instead, it seems in today’s America people will boastfully make authoritative statements on topics they know very little about all the time and therefore just spread more false information to those that are simply gullible enough to take what they say at face value.

    cough * Newt * cough * Gingrich * cough

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    charo: I didn’t get a chance to delve into where she got her information. I just know it isn’t from the internet.

    If not from the Internet (and not from email), then the second most likely source in my mind would be a supermarket tabloid. Does she talk a lot about celebrity scandals?

  109. avatar
    James M December 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    Black Lion: MCRAE: I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present was he born in Kenya?

    TRANSLATOR: Yes, she says yes she was, she was present when Obama was born.

    I would love to know how “were you present” translates to and from Swahili. It is a peculiar idiomatic expression in English. I wonder how the idea of “being present” without specifying a place, differs from, e.g., “were you here“.

  110. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If not from the Internet (and not from email), then the second most likely source in my mind would be a supermarket tabloid. Does she talk a lot about celebrity scandals?

    No. She likes to read long novels from the library, usually historical fiction. I do want to get back to that issue with her, hopefully at Christmas. There is no new source of people that she hangs around. She lives in a small town and has been there all of her life. [She is a wonderful m-i-l, btw, and has the best laugh.] Did she SEE a copy of a tabloid while at the checkout Maybe. Her comment about Obama is the first of that sort. That is why I was surprised.

  111. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 5:48 pm #

    G: Who knows if your MIL even believes half of the stuff she’s saying.

    She didn’t go on a rampage about his birthplace or Pakistan, or any of that. She made one comment that I started to follow up on, but with three kids, there is always a distraction.

  112. avatar
    G December 1, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    charo: G: I don’t know what complaints you are making about Tea Party coverage on CNN. Do you have any actual examples to back up that claim?

    http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3958

    Yes, he did apologize after much controversy and when practically forced to.

    Good grief, Charo! Talk about a making a “tempest in a teapot”. LOL!

    THAT is the source of the Tea Party and your outrage here? ONE single, small “glib” statement of saying “Teabagging” that AC once made in response to his fellow pundit, conservative David Gergen as an off-color joke?

    That he made way back in May and then when asked about it, HE issued a fairly lenghtly apology:

    “I think it’s an incorrect statement to say I was, in any way, trying to disparage legitimate protests. I don’t think it’s my job to disparage, or encourage, which oddly other networks seemed to be doing. Protest is the great right of all Americans, and it’s not my job in any way to make fun of people or disparage what they’re doing.”

    “If people took offense to that and felt that I was disparaging their legitimate right to protest, and what they were doing, then that is something I truly regret, because I don’t believe in doing that,” he said. “Having this discussion just takes away from the real story.”

    Good grief! Look, people say “glib” things all the time that they regret or probably shouldn’t say – and many don’t even get around to apologizing for them quickly. We all do it. Get over it already!

    This whole conservative website is just LOOKING for an EXCUSE to be angry. It is called FAUX outrage and any Tea Party person who is still claiming “moral outrage” about this is full of it and just using that as an excuse to discredit anyone who isn’t in 100% lockstep with them.

    For one thing, it IS true that it was Tea Party folks themselves who INITIALLY used the term Teabag, including the verb form Teabagging to refer to what they were doing with their movement. Obviously, those poor folks who started saying that had no idea of the other dirty meaning of that word that had been around for awhile. They only stopped saying that after Rachel Maddow went over the top in pointing this out on her show.

    So yes, it can be construed as a derogatory term and using it today in terms of the Tea Party is meant as a form of either simple ridicule or derision. But the ridicule portion was in part brought upon the Tea Party itself for originally using the term in that way to describe what they were doing.

    There are lots of people out there (and yes, there are folks on all sides of a spectrum that do it) that go completely overboard reacting to what someone says JUST BECAUSE they are looking for a LAME EXCUSE to be outraged.

    This is definitely one of those situations. This ginned up controversy crud does everyone a disservice and even makes it harder for me to take such drama queen histrionics seriously.

    If conservatives or Tea Party folks want to be listened to and be taken seriously, they need to stop screaming that they are bleeding to death every time they get a tiny papercut and to stop crying wolf. This endless playing the victim card comes off silly, immature and weak and engenders no sympathy.

  113. avatar
    Randy December 1, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    BatGuano: anyone here from texas?

    I’m from Texas, not from his district, they got a whole lotta the other kind of crazy in Tyler, Texas.

  114. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    G:
    Good grief, Charo!Talk about a making a “tempest in a teapot”.LOL!THAT is the source of the Tea Party and your outrage here?ONE single, small “glib” statement of saying “Teabagging” that AC once made in response to his fellow pundit, conservative David Gergen as an off-color joke?That he made way back in May and then when asked about it, HE issued a fairly lenghtly apology:
    Good grief!Look, people say “glib” things all the time that they regret or probably shouldn’t say – and many don’t even get around to apologizing for them quickly. We all do it.Get over it already!This whole conservative website is just LOOKING for an EXCUSE to be angry.It is called FAUX outrage and any Tea Party person who is still claiming “moral outrage” about this is full of it and just using that as an excuse to discredit anyone who isn’t in 100% lockstep with them.For one thing, it IS true that it was Tea Party folks themselves who INITIALLY used the term Teabag, including the verb form Teabagging to refer to what they were doing with their movement.Obviously, those poor folks who started saying that had no idea of the other dirty meaning of that word that had been around for awhile.They only stopped saying that after Rachel Maddow went over the top in pointing this out on her show.So yes, it can be construed as a derogatory term and using it today in terms of the Tea Party is meant as a form of either simple ridicule or derision.But the ridicule portion was in part brought upon the Tea Party itself for originally using the term in that way to describe what they were doing.There are lots of people out there (and yes, there are folks on all sides of a spectrum that do it) that go completely overboard reacting to what someone says JUST BECAUSE they are looking for a LAME EXCUSE to be outraged.This is definitely one of those situations.This ginned up controversy crud does everyone a disservice and even makes it harder for me to take such drama queen histrionics seriously.If conservatives or Tea Party folks want to be listened to and be taken seriously, they need to stop screaming that they are bleeding to death every time they get a tiny papercut and to stop crying wolf.This endless playing the victim card comes off silly, immature and weak and engenders no sympathy.

    Sometimes one small comment means a lot (e.g. Imus). I randomly chose a website for the reason that it had his apology. You chose a very minor point of my comment to expound upon for a peeve you have. It wasn’t the thrust of the comment at all. The tea party HAS been taken seriously at this point.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 1, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    G:
    Good grief, Charo!Talk about a making a “tempest in a teapot”.LOL!THAT is the source of the Tea Party and your outrage here?ONE single, small “glib” statement of saying “Teabagging” that AC once made in response to his fellow pundit, conservative David Gergen as an off-color joke?That he made way back in May and then when asked about it, HE issued a fairly lenghtly apology:
    Good grief!Look, people say “glib” things all the time that they regret or probably shouldn’t say – and many don’t even get around to apologizing for them quickly. We all do it.Get over it already!This whole conservative website is just LOOKING for an EXCUSE to be angry.It is called FAUX outrage and any Tea Party person who is still claiming “moral outrage” about this is full of it and just using that as an excuse to discredit anyone who isn’t in 100% lockstep with them.For one thing, it IS true that it was Tea Party folks themselves who INITIALLY used the term Teabag, including the verb form Teabagging to refer to what they were doing with their movement.Obviously, those poor folks who started saying that had no idea of the other dirty meaning of that word that had been around for awhile.They only stopped saying that after Rachel Maddow went over the top in pointing this out on her show.So yes, it can be construed as a derogatory term and using it today in terms of the Tea Party is meant as a form of either simple ridicule or derision.But the ridicule portion was in part brought upon the Tea Party itself for originally using the term in that way to describe what they were doing.There are lots of people out there (and yes, there are folks on all sides of a spectrum that do it) that go completely overboard reacting to what someone says JUST BECAUSE they are looking for a LAME EXCUSE to be outraged.This is definitely one of those situations.This ginned up controversy crud does everyone a disservice and even makes it harder for me to take such drama queen histrionics seriously.If conservatives or Tea Party folks want to be listened to and be taken seriously, they need to stop screaming that they are bleeding to death every time they get a tiny papercut and to stop crying wolf.This endless playing the victim card comes off silly, immature and weak and engenders no sympathy.

    I just find it funny that the Tea Party people get offended by the word Teabagger considering it was them that used it first saying they would Tea Bag Washington. They thought it was a funny joke until it backfired on them.

  116. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    I don’t believe that teabagger was meant to be a joke by the tea partiers but just a failed experiment for a catchy phrase. I’ll admit that I didn’t know the reference made by Cooper until I saw it explained. Someone more in the know than I could have kept a running joke on me, had I referred to myself as a teabagger.

  117. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    G,

    Truce for a moment…

    I thought of you over Thanksgiving. We were traveling and listening to Sirius radio. I found a show called The Catholic Guy (Lino Rulli), and it is great! Really entertaining. You were kind enough to indulge my request to listen to Father Corapi so I really wanted to suggest this radio program. He’s funny and super-intelligent. I thought you might relate to him. Gotta have Sirius Radio though. We got it free for three months when we leased a new vehicle at the end of summer. Then of course, got hooked.

    Okay, now put the gloves back on…

  118. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    charo: Sometimes one small comment means a lot (e.g. Imus). I randomly chose a website for the reason that it had his apology.

    For the record, I thought the Imus situation was an over-the-top over-reaction as well. I totally understand why what he initially said was viewed as offensive by many – but I also felt that he was very contrite and quick to apologize and that should have been the end of it and he should not have left his job. It seemed to me that he bent over backwards to make up for that and still some people CHOOSE to not let it go. I consider that the same abuse – just looking for a reason to be angry and go after someone.

    charo: You chose a very minor point of my comment to expound upon for a peeve you have. It wasn’t the thrust of the comment at all. The tea party HAS been taken seriously at this point.

    Kind of ironic, isn’t it? I merely expounded upon a minor point that you or certain Tea Party folks you were speaking for were making an overblown an unnecessary issue out of. It simply was brought to the level of a detailed reply because you made a big deal out of it. So, tit for tat, I guess.

  119. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    charo: I don’t believe that teabagger was meant to be a joke by the tea partiers but just a failed experiment for a catchy phrase. I’ll admit that I didn’t know the reference made by Cooper until I saw it explained. Someone more in the know than I could have kept a running joke on me, had I referred to myself as a teabagger.

    I think you’ve summed up exactly what happened there to a T – a few people early in the movement thought it was a clever and catchy phrase. It seems fairly clear that they sincerely had absolutely NO idea about its other meaning…which is why the phrase then became so picked up and used – it *DID* become a running joke after all and I think a lot of people only learned what the phrase also meant *because* of it becoming a running joke. However, a lot of time has past, so for most people, the novelty of the running gag has run its course.

  120. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    charo: G,

    Truce for a moment…

    I thought of you over Thanksgiving. We were traveling and listening to Sirius radio. I found a show called The Catholic Guy (Lino Rulli), and it is great! Really entertaining. You were kind enough to indulge my request to listen to Father Corapi so I really wanted to suggest this radio program. He’s funny and super-intelligent. I thought you might relate to him. Gotta have Sirius Radio though. We got it free for three months when we leased a new vehicle at the end of summer. Then of course, got hooked.

    Okay, now put the gloves back on…

    LOL! 😉 Ah, Charo, I hope you know one of the reasons I put the time in and give full responses to you is because I value you and both enjoy and respect your postings here. Yes, I push back and challenge you often – because I know you are intelligent enough and capable enough to respond with a reasoned dialog. I always learn as well from our back and forth and I certainly don’t disagree with everything you say. I hope it doesn’t come across that way. Anyways, I got a good chuckle out of the “Truce” and “gloves back on” book-ending of your post and I know you meant that in all good humor…so that is how I took it – as playful and witty repartee on our usual back & forth. 🙂

    Also, thanks for thinking of me on Thanksgiving!!! (I hope yours was good as well – I had an absolutely wonderful time that day spent with my families on both sides as well as getting to see a lot of friends on Saturday for a close friend’s surprise 40th birthday party. The only downside was that I didn’t get to see one of my niece’s (and her parents) that I usually get to on that day, because they had to go out of town to visit with other family – but I’ll see them all (hopefully) at least 3 times over the next month, so that is a good thing to look forward to…)

    Nope, I don’t have Sirius Radio and I probably won’t spend the money to get it. You see, if I’m in the car with my wife, she likes to drive (I navigate) AND control the radio – which she seems to like to flip through and change channels endlessly…LOL! When I’m by myself and driving, I usually have to keep the radio off because my phone is often ringing with work calls…

    But thanks for the suggestion & thinking of me all the same!

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    Salon.com has some interesting comments left on their article about the Berman interview.

    http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/12/01/anderson_cooper_birther/view/index1.html

  122. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    WND’s spin…

    “Berman started out strong, explaining that “it’s not an original birth certificate.” But here’s what he should have responded: “The document you are referring to, Anderson, is called a ‘certification of live birth,’ and it fails the test of proving Obama was born in Hawaii. There were and are several ways these documents can be obtained without a birth actually taking place in Hawaii. In addition, Hawaii has never released even the certification of live birth to anyone. The state refuses to do so. All we have in the way of a reputed certification of live birth is what the Obama campaign provided to select and privileged websites and journalists. Hawaii has never even confirmed that document that we’ve all seen on the Internet is an official, state-issued release. So clearly that is wholly inadequate for any state determined to ensure ballot integrity.”

    Berman went on to say we know for a fact Obama’s father was a Kenyan. However, we know nothing of the kind without a legitimate, original birth certificate. All we know is what is on the questionable document provided by the campaign. I, for one, have grave doubts that Obama’s biological father was a Kenyan. We certainly can never know if Obama continues to conceal the most innocent, non-secretive document any American holds – one all of us are asked to produce routinely throughout our lives. The digital document the Obama campaign released is not even suitable for obtaining a passport because it is so easily fabricated.

    Cooper, meanwhile, thinks we should all stop worrying about the birth certificate because some unknown, faceless bureaucrat in Hawaii, the state health director, has “acknowledged that, back in 2008, she has – and I quote – ‘personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate – certificate on record, in accordance with state policies and procedures.'”

    That’s all well and good, of course. But what does that birth certificate say? After all, no one doubts Obama was actually born. The question is where, when, to whom?

    Asked by Berman if Cooper had ever seen the birth certificate, the incredibly non-curious and factually challenged newsman replied: “You can go and see it. The nonpartisan fact-checking organization FactCheck.org, they – they looked at it. It has a raised seal. They say it’s legit.”

    No, FactCheck.org has never claimed to have seen anything other than the certification of live birth – a claim upon which it has established virtually its entire reputation. Prior to the 2008 presidential election, FactCheck.org was never considered the last word on the eligibility of candidates. In fact, John McCain’s own eligibility was determined in a hearing of the U.S. Senate – for which he had to produce his long-form birth certificate, not a digital simulation.

    Berman did get off track on Obama’s travels to Pakistan. But I think that’s what Cooper was counting on.

    I’d like to ask Anderson Cooper some questions: What’s wrong with wanting to see Obama’s birth certificate? Why is it so threatening to you? Where is your journalistic curiosity? Why were CNN and Dan Rather so eager to see George W. Bush’s National Guard records that had no bearing on his constitutional eligibility to serve in office? Why is there a lower standard of accountability for Barack Obama than any previous president?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234993

  123. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Lakin’s attorney: Conviction ‘certain’
    ‘He’s very disappointed in military justice system’

    WASHINGTON – Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, a distinguished Army flight surgeon, is “certain” to be convicted of disobeying orders, according to his lawyer, Neil Puckett.

    LTC Lakin will go on trial December 14 for refusing to deploy with his unit to Afghanistan. The senior officer questioned the legal validity of his orders because they originate ultimately with President Barack Obama, whose eligibility to serve as commander in chief under article II of the U.S. Constitution remains unproven.

    “Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain,” Puckett told WND. “He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed.”

    “There is not much left to do” in defense of his client, Puckett said. Lakin’s previous defense counsel, Paul Jensen, already “sought discovery of documents, and to introduce evidence and expert witnesses, but the judge shut down all those efforts.”

    During a September hearing, Colonel Denise Lind, the judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believed to be illegal.

    Lind also rejected defense requests to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.

    Stripped by the court of all possible defenses that might have justified his actions, Lakin has no chance of prevailing at trial.

    Lakin had intended, through a court martial, to resolve the nationwide dispute about Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

    Knowing he was risking imprisonment and dismissal from the service, Lakin deliberately disobeyed his superiors in order to force Obama to produce his birth certificate and documents related to his citizenship status.

    Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for LTC Terry Lakin. Click for information.

    His plan was frustrated when Col. Lind declared that Lakin’s orders were legitimate, without addressing the underlying eligibility issue, and ruled to limit the scope of the trial to the narrow question of whether Lakin had knowingly disobeyed orders.

    “This leaves us with a client who stands accused of missing the movement of an airplane, two failures to obey orders to meet his brigate commander, failure to report to Ft. Campbell, and failure to report to his unit,” said Puckett.

    “LTC Lakin asked many people to answer his questions about his misgivings about the legitimacy of the president, even the White House. He had a question that a lot of Americans have, a question that hasn’t been answered by the legislative branch or by the judicial branch. When he received his orders he had a conscience issue, whether he’d be obeying lawful orders,” Puckett explained.

    “LTC Lakin is a doctor, not a lawyer,” said Puckett. “He thought if he were to ask that question of the military courts, after being rebuffed in all other avenues, he’d get his answer. What he has discovered is that the military justice system cannot produce the answers to those questions. He could not have known, he was given inadequate legal advice. The military justice system is set up to help commanding officers maintain good order and discipline. It can’t make victims whole, it can only punish wrongdoers. He’s very disappointed in the system.”

    “We have to proceed without the documents, evidence and witnesses that have been denied to the defense. LTC Lakin is left to speak for himself and defend himself. It’s up to him whether he wants to testify in his own defense,” said Puckett.

    Puckett would not reveal Lakin’s decision or any other details of his defense plans. He predicted that Lakin would end up, at worst, convicted of two violations of disobeying orders, be dismissed from the service, and spend a year in confinement.

    Once guilt or innocence has been determined by his jurors, the trial will move to a presentencing hearing, when Lakin will have an unfettered opportunity to introduce mitigating evidence that might justify his disobedience in spite of Judge Lind’s limitations on the scope of the trial.

    “If he were to be convicted, he would have an open microphone to talk to the panel of jurors,” said Puckett.

    Puckett could not predict whether LTC Lakin plans to deliver an impassioned speech addressing the charges and the Obama eligibility issues.

    Supporters are mobilizing in Lakin’s defense. The officer has become a cause célèbre on the Internet, and rallies are planned next week in Arizona and at the court martial in Ft. Meade, Maryland.

    “Every American should support Lakin,” said Arizona organizer Jeff Lichter, a retired high school physical education teacher. “Don’t we all have a simple right to ask who our president is? Is he legitimate, is he qualified? That’s all Terry is asking. He has every right to ask the question, he asked it for a long time before he went public.

    “They’re not even going to allow him to put up any evidence, We feel the trial is already rigged, and they’re denying him his due process rights, He’s been denied access to records in Hawaii. He’s been told by Judge Lind that the orders he’s refusing to obey came from the Pentagon, not the commander in chief, so his question whether the commander in chief is eligible is irrelevant. It’s ridiculous. It’s all fixed.”

    Lichter’s rallies will take place at the state offices of Arizona Republican senators John McCain, and Richard Kyl, and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

    “We have 535 congressmen and none are ready to ask for an investigation of this issue? We just want these officials who have not kept their oaths to defend the constitution. They’re not doing it,” said Lichter.

    “Nobody has been able to break what’s apparently a cover-up of this issue. We want people to know about this in spite of the media blackout.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235561

  124. avatar
    James M December 3, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Black Lion:

    “If he were to be convicted, he would have an open microphone to talk to the panel of jurors,” said Puckett.

    Why in the world does he believe that? Couldn’t he just as easily be led out of the courtroom in shackles?

  125. avatar
    BatGuano December 3, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    Black Lion: ….and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.

    i would love to hear this testimony.

    i honestly can not comprehend how anyone that served in the military can not comprehend such a simple concept.

    think of it this way:

    i join the marines. first day of boot camp r. lee ermy asks me to drop and give him 20. i’m more than happy to give him 20 but…….. i’d like to see physical proof to my satisfaction that he can ask for such a task ( i’ll wait over in the mess hall eating bon-bons ). then i’d like to see physical proof to my satisfaction that he is eligible to request such a task ( more bon-bons). then i’d like to see proof of his superior officer that gave him the order to have been able to have given the original order…..then proof from his superior officer….. and his….. and his…….

    a 2year stint eating bon-bons, doing nothing and collecting complete benefits.

  126. avatar
    JohnC December 3, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Black Lion: That’s all well and good, of course. But what does that birth certificate say?

    By virtue of the fact that the information on the COLB necessarily comes from records on file with Hawaii, there is zero reason to believe the “long form” says anything different.

    If the COLB could simply say anything the recipient desires for it to say – original records be damned – the COLB would be utterly and completely useless to serve its primary and stated purpose: to serve as “prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

  127. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 4:31 pm #

    From GW….

    http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/exposed-mccain-was-misinformed-re-obamas-ineligibility-by-legal-advisor?replies=20

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=16161

    Theodor Frank, grad of U of Chicago law school and McCain legal advisor provided false information to McCain regarding Obama’s eligibility
    ————

    Margaret Hemmenway
    Dec 3, 2010

    Columnist Diana West (Washington Examiner/November 24) exposed the warp speed deletion of an entry about Army LTC Terry Lakin, in the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. This is a link to LTC Lakin entry before it disappeared down what West described aptly as the memory hole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrence_L._Lakin
    ———————————
    Ted Frank has a fine resume– from PointofLaw.com, he is described as an Adjunct Fellow with the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute. Frank has written for law reviews, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and The American Spectator and testified before Congress multiple times on legal issues. He also writes for the legal blog Overlawyered.com and serves on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society Litigation Practice Group. In 2008, Mr. Frank was elected to membership in the American Law Institute. Previously, Mr. Frank clerked for the Honorable Frank H. Easterbrook on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, was a litigator for ten years, served as the first director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest. Mr. Frank graduated from the University of Chicago Law School with high honors and of course, worked on the McCain-Palin campaign.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    James M: Why in the world does he believe that? Couldn’t he just as easily be led out of the courtroom in shackles?

    Puckett is a well-respected military lawyer, and so I would give considerable weight to what he says. I presume that this address to the jury would be part of the sentencing phase, after conviction.

  129. avatar
    James M December 3, 2010 at 8:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Puckett is a well-respected military lawyer, and so I would give considerable weight to what he says. I presume that this address to the jury would be part of the sentencing phase, after conviction.

    That will be a good Schadenfreude read. Really looking forward to it!

  130. avatar
    charo December 3, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    I can’t imagine that those who served closely with Lakin hate him and wish him harm. Given the number of years he has served in the military (including conflicts), the nature of his specialty, and the number of commendations he has received, I would be surprised to hear otherwise. I don’t see how anyone can credibly claim that he is trying to get out of serving. He will be at the mercy of those sentencing him. It is not as if there will be nothing in his favor to consider leniency. He did what he did, and he can’t present the defense he felt he was sure he was allowed. I wonder if ineffective counsel has been a successful defense (partially or fully) for a court marshal in past cases?

  131. avatar
    charo December 3, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    G:
    LOL! Ah, Charo, I hope you know one of the reasons I put the time in and give full responses to you is because I value you and both enjoy and respect your postings here.Yes, I push back and challenge you often – because I know you are intelligent enough and capable enough to respond with a reasoned dialog.I always learn as well from our back and forth and I certainly don’t disagree with everything you say.I hope it doesn’t come across that way.Anyways, I got a good chuckle out of the “Truce” and “gloves back on” book-ending of your post and I know you meant that in all good humor…so that is how I took it – as playful and witty repartee on our usual back & forth.
    Also, thanks for thinking of me on Thanksgiving!!!(I hope yours was good as well – I had an absolutely wonderful time that day spent with my families on both sides as well as getting to see a lot of friends on Saturday for a close friend’s surprise 40th birthday party.The only downside was that I didn’t get to see one of my niece’s (and her parents) that I usually get to on that day, because they had to go out of town to visit with other family – but I’ll see them all (hopefully) at least 3 times over the next month, so that is a good thing to look forward to…)Nope, I don’t have Sirius Radio and I probably won’t spend the money to get it.You see, if I’m in the car with my wife, she likes to drive (I navigate) AND control the radio – which she seems to like to flip through and change channels endlessly…LOL!When I’m by myself and driving, I usually have to keep the radio off because my phone is often ringing with work calls…But thanks for the suggestion & thinking of me all the same!

    I knew you couldn’t stay mad! We are supposed to be paring down, but instead, we have Sirius Radio, my husband is addicted to “Eve” and my son x-box live. So when Lent rolls around, these luxuries will have to go and probably should stay gone.

    Too bad that you can’t listen to the Catholic Guy. There are youtube videos if you want a sampling anyways. I’ll link some sometime,but you really are the expert at the youtube links.

    See ya.

  132. avatar
    G December 4, 2010 at 1:19 am #

    charo: I knew you couldn’t stay mad! We are supposed to be paring down, but instead, we have Sirius Radio, my husband is addicted to “Eve” and my son x-box live. So when Lent rolls around, these luxuries will have to go and probably should stay gone.

    Well, everyone deserves to get to enjoy life and have the fun and luxury that they can reasonably afford, so I hope when Lent comes around that things are well enough that you don’t have to sacrifice any such things that you truly would and deserve to continue to enjoy…and regardless, I’m glad you found and can enjoy your radio show, at least for the time being. I myself, who’ve sworn off video game systems for quite a few years now am considering getting an x-box 360 at some point…just because that new Kinect technology seems really, really cool and fun. BTW, what is “Eve”? Is that the Eve Online world or something else?

  133. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 4, 2010 at 6:45 am #

    charo: . He did what he did, and he can’t present the defense he felt he was sure he was allowed. I wonder if ineffective counsel has been a successful defense (partially or fully) for a court marshal in past cases?

    That he was advised falsely by his previous lawyer might be a factor that would be considered in mitigation of sentence, but it would never be a defense, for several reasons.

    One is that a mistake of law is not generally considered to be a defense to any crime, in civilian or military courts. Ineffective assistance of counsel can be grounds for an appeal of a conviction, but it is not a defense to the underlying offense — and those who prevail on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel simply win the right to have a retrial with a better lawyer.

    In circumstances where the law was very technical or complicated, the legal advice given to a defendant might come into play as part of the defense, especially where knowledge or specific intent are elements of the crime.

    But the problem for Lakin is that he is a military officer — he is expected to know that he has a duty to obey orders, and has no right to refuse orders on any ground other than that the orders themselves are patently illegal (such as if an officer orders an enlisted man to shoot an unarmed prisoner).

    He doesn’t seem to have though that it was o.k. to refuse the order in any case — it seems that he expected to be court martialed, but thought that the court-martial would afford him the opportunity of some sort of trial of the birther issues. That isn’t a defense, and the problem his current lawyer faces is that it actually potentially hurts his cause more than helps him if he harps on this. That is — his sentence might be mitigated if he assumed a very apologetic stance, admitting that he now recognizes the error of his ways. (Defendants are always better off at sentencing if they show contrition).

    It’s also not very good for a military officer to premise a legal defense on the theory that he is incredibly stupid and easily misled. And because he is being tried by other military officers, the more he pushes that argument, the bigger the hole he digs for himself.

  134. avatar
    Bovril December 4, 2010 at 7:21 am #

    charo: I can’t imagine that those who served closely with Lakin hate him and wish him harm. Given the number of years he has served in the military (including conflicts), the nature of his specialty, and the number of commendations he has received, I would be surprised to hear otherwise. I don’t see how anyone can credibly claim that he is trying to get out of serving. He will be at the mercy of those sentencing him. It is not as if there will be nothing in his favor to consider leniency. He did what he did, and he can’t present the defense he felt he was sure he was allowed. I wonder if ineffective counsel has been a successful defense (partially or fully) for a court marshal in past cases?

    Charo,

    I suggest that you go and wander a few of the websites catering to serving and ex military.

    Where they are aware of Lakin and his actions (nowehere near as wide spread as the Birfoon tendency would have you belive) the overwhelming opinion is of utter disgust.

    Cowardly [word removed, Doc] is probably one of the most supportive statements and the general tenor is that he should be treated as if he had deserted under fire.

    I might ad on THESE boards one of the recurring comments is their concern for the poor bastard who had to either deploy or be stop gapped in Lakins place, a comment Birfoons HAVE NEVER MADE.

  135. avatar
    sarina December 4, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    Jason: Laura Lingle is a Liar.  No news release was ever released stating that Obama was born a Kapoloni Hospital. That’s a Fact!

    You are right, Obama was not born at the “Kapoloni” hospital but he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center.
    Also who is “Laura Lingle” Linda Lingle’s sister?!

  136. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 4, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    James M:
    I would love to know how “were you present” translates to and from Swahili.It is a peculiar idiomatic expression in English.I wonder how the idea of “being present” without specifying a place, differs from, e.g., “were you here“.

    Sorry for the late response. Actually, in the two languages closest to English, Dutch and German, a problem would arise immediately. Both languages have a word that literally translates “present” but that would not be used in normal conversation. In other words, you’d expect people to say “dabei sein” (“erbij zijn”), “to be there”. Depending on what else is said in the sentence about place, it may lead to a question difficult to answer.

    Apart from that, you should consider that the shorter a sentence is, the more ambiguous it can be. You’re lucky if the translator “is present” to explain and solve the problem.

  137. avatar
    Daniel December 4, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Puckett is a well-respected military lawyer, and so I would give considerable weight to what he says. I presume that this address to the jury would be part of the sentencing phase, after conviction.

    From what I can see, the quotes attributed to Puckett are so far only from World Nut Daily. Is there any credible sources that show this, or any other words attributed to Puckett in that article, are actually from him?

  138. avatar
    Rickey December 4, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    charo: I can’t imagine that those who served closely with Lakin hate him and wish him harm.Given the number of years he has served in the military (including conflicts), the nature of his specialty, and the number of commendations he has received, I would be surprised to hear otherwise.I don’t see how anyone can credibly claim that he is trying to get out of serving.

    As far as I know, we haven’t actually heard from anyone who served with him. We do know that the Commanding Officer whose orders he refused to obey holds the Medal of Honor.

    However, it’s safe to say that the doctor who had to deploy to Afghanistan in Lakin’s place wasn’t too happy about it. I also doubt that the members of his unit who deployed to Afghanistan while he stayed behind have much sympathy for him. The members of the military (active and retired) who frequent the CAAFlog blog have expressed opinions of Lakin which demonstrate a lot of disgust, mixed with some pity that he was so gullible and showed such poor judgment. Overall the sentiment is that he deserves whatever punishment is doled out to him.

    Lakin disobeyed an order to report to his Commanding Officer and he deliberately missed movement when his unit was ordered to report to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Obeying those orders would not have required him to break the law, even if Obama happened to be ineligible. Consequently, the orders were lawful. Lakin should have known this, and what makes it worse is that he spoke with military lawyers who advised him that his orders were legal, and he disregarded them.

    What I would be interested in learning is how Lakin got into the birther movement in the first place. We know that there has been a concerted effort by birthers to find a plaintiff who would have standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility, and in that regard they have focused a lot of attention on the military. It is no coincidence that so many of the birther plaintiffs have had military connections – Cook, Rhodes, Hollister, Kerchner. Lakin technically isn’t a plaintiff, but his court-martial may not be the last we hear of him. It wouldn’t surprise if some birther lawyer isn’t already cooking up a theory whereby Lakin’s conviction will give him standing to file a birther lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would fail, of course, but when has failure ever dissuaded birthers?

  139. avatar
    Sef December 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    Rickey: It wouldn’t surprise if some birther lawyer isn’t already cooking up a theory whereby Lakin’s conviction will give him standing to file a birther lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would fail, of course, but when has failure ever dissuaded birthers?

    So he loses his pension (many, many $$) due to his own stupidity & he thinks that will give him standing??? Didn’t he learn anything from Orly’s failures? Maybe that was what Mario was angling for when he almost got sanctioned.

  140. avatar
    dch December 5, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    “He did what he did, and he can’t present the defense he felt he was sure he was allowed. I wonder if ineffective counsel has been a successful defense (partially or fully) for a court marshal in past cases?”

    Actually he had a fully quailified military court appointed lawyer the whole time (he ignored this quailified legal advice like all birthers do) he was listening and using that lawyer named Jensen. I can’t see how he has he can claim much on the basis of bad legal advice – the Army provided him with a military lawyer from day one, who advised him correctly.
    This is NOT a birther-case, it never was. The Army is not about to let an officer walk after disobeying a legal order.

  141. avatar
    ellid December 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    charo: I can’t imagine that those who served closely with Lakin hate him and wish him harm.Given the number of years he has served in the military (including conflicts), the nature of his specialty, and the number of commendations he has received, I would be surprised to hear otherwise.I don’t see how anyone can credibly claim that he is trying to get out of serving.He will be at the mercy of those sentencing him.It is not as if there will be nothing in his favor to consider leniency.He did what he did, and he can’t present the defense he felt he was sure he was allowed.I wonder if ineffective counsel has been a successful defense (partially or fully) for a court marshal in past cases?

    Lakin is facing a military court, not a civilian one. His good reputation and any friends he’s made over the course of his career are irrelevant. All that matters is that he knowingly, deliberately, and willfully disobeyed lawful orders, and that another doctor who hadn’t originally been expecting to go into a war zone is now there in his place.

    At *best* he’s facing some very stiff penalties, including loss of pension and other military benefits, plus a less than honorable discharge. At worst, he’s looking at hard time in Leavenworth. Either way about it, he’s in very, very deep trouble, and all the goodwill from his friends will not help him.

    It would be very sad if he hadn’t persisted in his folly despite being warned repeatedly that the President’s birth certificate was not even vaguely relevant to the case.

  142. avatar
    charo December 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    ellid:
    Lakin is facing a military court, not a civilian one.His good reputation and any friends he’s made over the course of his career are irrelevant.All that matters is that he knowingly, deliberately, and willfully disobeyed lawful orders, and that another doctor who hadn’t originally been expecting to go into a war zone is now there in his place.At *best* he’s facing some very stiff penalties, including loss of pension and other military benefits, plus a less than honorable discharge.At worst, he’s looking at hard time in Leavenworth.Either way about it, he’s in very, very deep trouble, and all the goodwill from his friends will not help him.It would be very sad if he hadn’t persisted in his folly despite being warned repeatedly that the President’s birth certificate was not even vaguely relevant to the case.

    Expelliarmus: That he was advised falsely by his previous lawyer might be a factor that would be considered in mitigation of sentence, but it would never be a defense, for several reasons.

    I was speaking of mitigation factors and phrased a poor question. You all are not enlightening me to the facts. I just feel compassion for the guy. That is generally my nature. I don’t believe Lakin was trying to screw over the guy who has to take his place. I believe he never thought it would get that far. All indications seem to indicate he served honorably up to this point.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 5, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    charo: I just feel compassion for the guy. That is generally my nature. I don’t believe Lakin was trying to screw over the guy who has to take his place. I believe he never thought it would get that far. All indications seem to indicate he served honorably up to this point.

    I would agree. Lakin made some bad choices based on some bad information and some bad legal advice. However, he must ultimately bear responsibility for his choices. There cannot be a free ride for those to who commit crimes just because they are birthers.

  144. avatar
    Majority Will December 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    charo: I was speaking of mitigation factors and phrased a poor question. You all are not enlightening me to the facts.I just feel compassion for the guy.That is generallymy nature.I don’t believe Lakin was trying to screw over the guy who has to take his place. I believe he never thought it would get that far. All indications seem to indicate he served honorably up to this point.

    Your compassion and baseless speculations are ill placed and sickening.

  145. avatar
    charo December 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would agree. Lakin made some bad choices based on some bad information and some bad legal advice. However, he must ultimately bear responsibility for his choices. There cannot be a free ride for those to who commit crimes because they are birthers.

    Many people get free rides who don’t deserve them, Marc Rich comes to mind.

  146. avatar
    charo December 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    Not saying he should get a free ride. That will be up to the jury.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Daniel: From what I can see, the quotes attributed to Puckett are so far only from World Nut Daily. Is there any credible sources that show this, or any other words attributed to Puckett in that article, are actually from him?

    I think Joseph Farah has some sense of ethics (or pragmatism) in a twisted way. While I would not trust the context or the commentary, I think that if something is between quotation marks on WND, then the person to whom it is attributed said it.

  148. avatar
    Sef December 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    charo: Many people get free rides who don’t deserve them, Marc Rich comes to mind.

    Also “Scooter” Libby. And his pal Dicky.

  149. avatar
    Daniel December 5, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think Joseph Farah has some sense of ethics (or pragmatism) in a twisted way. While I would not trust the context or the commentary, I think that if something is between quotation marks on WND, then the person to whom it is attributed said it.

    I think you are affording to Farah much more in the way of ethics than he deserves. WND has been caught many times in blatant and outright misquoting that can only be the result of malice, or abject stupidity. More than a few have gotten Farah in legal hot water, i.e. the Clark Jones lawsuit of 2001, where a portion of the settlement included a public statment, part of which reads…

    “Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context.”

    Of course this is just one example. WND has been caught numerous times misquoting, or simply making up quotes. Media watchdog sites like CONWEBWATCH and MEDIA MATTERS have a long and extensive list of aggregious contravention of `journalism`by WND. Most people, quite frankly, don’t even bother correcting WND any more when they are misquoted, knowing that even correcting them will only cause Farah to create more conspiracies.

    Still, while realizing how much I’m starting to sound like a conspiracist myself, how hard would it be to make a list of quotations, and “forget” to include a few attributions, thus making it seem as though all the quotes were by the same person?

    The bottom line is that Farah’s complete, blatant, and well documented history of lack of journalistic integrity and ethics makes it impossible for me to believe anything reported in WND, especially quotations.

    The irony of it all is that Joseph Farah, claiming to be a staunch, God fearing Christian, has apparently completely missed the whole `though shalt not bear false witness`part.

  150. avatar
    J.D. Reed December 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    From G:

    “Nothing wrong with an opinion.
    It is just if people really don’t know what they are talking about or are not that educated on the topic, they shouldn’t be afraid to just simply admit that and be willing to learn more form a more educated opinion.
    Instead, it seems in today’s America people will boastfully make authoritative statements on topics they know very little about all the time and therefore just spread more false information to those that are simply gullible enough to take what they say at face value.”.

    Great post, G! I’m sending a quote from a deceased libertarian, laissez-faire economist of the Milton Friedman school (so I can’t be accused of picking some liberal to make my point) who expresses similar sentiments regarding his chosen field:

    “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” – Murray Rothbard

  151. avatar
    charo December 5, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Sef:
    Also “Scooter” Libby. And his pal Dicky.

    You are not disproving my point.

  152. avatar
    Majority Will December 5, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    Daniel: The irony of it all is that Joseph Farah, claiming to be a staunch, God fearing Christian, has apparently completely missed the whole `though shalt not bear false witness`part.

    Farah has the same mindset as Mahmoud Ahmajinedad. It’s o.k. to lie if the (perceived) goal is glorious. And he’s also just as creepy, homophobic and would prefer a theocracy.

  153. avatar
    misha December 5, 2010 at 6:24 pm #

    Majority Will: Farah has the same mindset as Mahmoud Ahmajinedad.

    You know, I read Farah also causes barnyard animals to become skittish, just like Imadinnerjacket.

    Farah has never denied it.

  154. avatar
    Majority Will December 5, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    misha: Imadinnerjacket.

    LMAO

  155. avatar
    Black Lion December 5, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    From GW…

    http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/exposed-mccain-was-misinformed-re-obamas-ineligibility-by-legal-advisor/page/3?replies=63#post-2327083

    Anderson Cooper, Kapi’olani Hospital Obama birthplace?, Other misinformation from CNN
    Posted on December 3, 2010
    by citizenwells| 96 Comments
    Anderson Cooper, Kapi’olani Hospital Obama birthplace?, Other misinformation from CNN

    “Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

    “Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called
    for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
    the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay. The
    messages he had received referred to articles or news items
    which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
    alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For
    example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of
    March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
    had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
    but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
    North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command
    had launched its offensive in South India and left North
    Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a
    paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
    him predict the thing that had actually happened.”…George Orwell, “1984‘

    I realize that not everyone who watches CNN is a far left mesmerized OBot. Many have been fooled for years into thinking that they are actually getting new, facts, the truth from CNN. Anderson Cooper proved once again several days ago that he and CNN are nothing more than a mouthpiece of Big Brother, Obama.

    From Safeguard our Constitution.

    “Anderson Cooper, in a recent interview with Texas State Representative Berman, said Obama was born at Hawaii’s Kapi’olani Hospital- can he explain why the hospital won’t verify Obama’s birth there?- and why a letter purportedly from Obama posted on Kapi’olani’s website- was quickly removed after a reporter’s inquiry?

    If Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital, can Cooper explain why no ORIGINAL birth record- to include a hospital name and attending physician– has been released?

    Why is Cooper content to rely on verbal assurances from an obscure bureaucrat in Hawaii- who claims to have “personally seen and verified” that there is an original birth certificate on record? (is he thus admitting that the Certification of Live Birth which he repeatedly confuses with an original birth certificate- is NOT the original birth record)?

    Does Cooper believe it is acceptable that the sole arbiter of the President’s Constitutional eligibility under Article II, Section 1, is one Hawaiian bureaucrat- who says “trust me”?

    If there is an original birth record on file– why can’t the American public see this document?– why can’t TX Rep Berman have a copy of this 1961 original birth record?”

    Read more:

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/softballquestions.html

    Here is a good example from Anderson Cooper’s blog of an uninformed American. This person may want the truth. They won’t get it there.

    “Nina November 29th, 2010 10:08 pm ET
    All Federal government employees MUST have a complete security background investigation according to their “clearance” by the FBI especially if they are in the position of “Commander and Chief”.”

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/29/the-birthers-are-back-join-the-live-chat/

    The truth. Philip J. Berg’s assistant provided this information.

    “We have received a lot of question asking “How did Obama get this far, he must have had background checks as he is a U.S. Senator.”

    However, this is inaccurate according to Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI. Background checks are not performed on those elected, once elected they work for Congress and are handed a secret clearance. See below:

    This is a conversation between the Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI and Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2.

    Caller – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

    FBI – The short answer is no, no we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

    Host – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?.

    FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

    Host – Even people running for president of the United States of America?.

    FBI – That’s correct.

    Host – That’s a little weird

    FBI – Well, its part of democracy, its part of what the American people want, they want to be able to vote for somebody to represent them in Washington and they don’t want us to get in the way of that and we have no predilection to get in the way of that.

    Host – Yeah, but what if they’re voting for a bad person and they don’t know that person is bad, do you follow me?. I’m saying, if the guy’s got a background and maybe he’s involved with some people that he shouldn’t be involved with, shouldn’t we know that as voters?.

    FBI – Well, I think you’d agree that the American political process is about as rigorous as you’ll ever see and if there’s dirt back there, probably the opponent is gonna get it out probably before anyone else will.

    Host – Now I know why you’re the head of the FBI, they’re good, aren’t they?.””

    Read more:

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimescom-colb-update-comments-insights-fbi-response-special-agent-in-charge-background-checks-elected-officials-american-political-process-berg-website-comments/

    Nina, are you getting this information on CNN?

  156. avatar
    Rickey December 5, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    charo: I just feel compassion for the guy.That is generally my nature.I don’t believe Lakin was trying to screw over the guy who has to take his place. I believe he never thought it would get that far. All indications seem to indicate he served honorably up to this point.

    Actually, most servicemen and servicewomen who are being court-martialed have served honorably up until the point when they violated the UCMJ. Repeat offenders do not remain in the service, so the military generally doesn’t have multi-time offenders.

    Lakin may not have intended to screw over the guy who took his place, but he knew that his unit was being deployed and he knew that another doctor would have to go in his stead.

    He knew that he was going to be court-martialed. He said as much in the videos he made. What did he think would happen after that? Did he really believe that he would be allowed to see Obama’s birth records and he then could tell the Army, “Okay, I’ll deploy to Afghanistan now,” and the Army would be okay with that? Or if was allowed to see the birth records and he wasn’t satisfied with what he saw, that the Army would agree that he was justified in disobeying his orders?

    I expect his punishment to be fairly severe. The Army can’t send a message that it is understandable for an officer to disobey orders because he or she has qualms about the person who issued them. The military can’t operate that way, regardless of how sincere the qualms might be. The military will sometimes entertain sincere questioning of orders, if the orders do not have to be executed immediately. In fact, the Army allowed Lakin to question his orders, he just didn’t like the answers he was given. Disobeying orders is another matter altogether.

  157. avatar
    Black Lion December 6, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    It know seems like our old buddy ORYR has a hate hard on for Col. Sullivan from CAAFlog and reistnet is now pimping Lakin….

    From GW…

    http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/defenders-of-the-constitution-send-ltc-terry-lakin-web-site-to-all-you-can?replies=4

    Jeffrey Mayton has sent you a message on Patriotic Resistance

    Subject: Defenders of the Constitution ….. send LTC Terry Lakin web site to all you can!

    ————
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

    JMayton H.R.1503 Coalition
    ————

    To reply to this message, click here: http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/message/listInbox?xg_source=msg_mes_private

    Exposed: Now we know why the anti-American obots love Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin Basher, Colonel Dwight Sullivan of CAAFLOG…

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/now-we-know-why-anti-american-obots.html

  158. avatar
    Black Lion December 6, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    The exploitation of the seditious coward continues by the birther world….Hilarious…I wonder how many supporters there will be of a treasonous coward that hates his country?

    http://freedommusings.blogspot.com/2010/12/save-terry-lakin-save-constitution.html

    Urgent Update – Save Terry Lakin, Save the Constitution!
    The Obama cover-up is in full swing, and unless you help him today, a brave patriot, and yes quite possibly our entire way of life will be railroaded by the anti-freedom forces presently cementing their control over every aspect of our lives.

    Friends, as I write this, LTC Lakin’s family shared what could be their last Thanksgiving supper together for years. While we prepare our turkeys and remove our Christmas decorations from storage, the atmosphere at LTC Lakin’s house is one that is painful to contemplate. This honorable military professional and his courageous wife are putting on brave faces and smiles for their three small children, knowing that this may be the last holiday they share as a family for God knows how long. In just a matter of days, LTC Lakin will face the politically driven Court Martial and smear job against him, designed not to seek justice, but to protect the Imposter in Chief. If convicted, LTC Lakin could be sent directly to the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, and heaven alone knows when his children may ever know another Christmas with Daddy.
    The slavish Obama media lapdogs have stifled this story in an effort to further protect the usurper now sitting in the oval office. Legal case after legal case challenging Obama has been suppressed and dismissed on procedural grounds — never on the merits. None of Obama’s records are public. The American people now need to know how this brave Army officer has risked everything; his career, his liberty and his family to protect our ordered liberty and uphold the Constitution. The public needs to know the truth about Obama’s birth certificate!

    LTC Lakin’s entire trial has been rigged to ensure the truth of Obama’s deception is never revealed. Justice has been repeatedly denied and due process squelched in the name of dirty politics. LTC Lakin’s only hope is a massive public outcry where Americans demand justice… not only for the Lakin family, but for the sovereignty of our country and the integrity of our Constitution.
    So today I need a sacrificial gift from you to enable Declaration Alliance to fearlessly sound the clarion call and rally the American people to LTC Lakin’s side as he battles in the courtroom in defense of our beloved nation. Without the Constitution, we are not America, and all our institutions of freedom and law are imperiled.
    We must quickly mobilize public opinion. We can gain LTC Lakin the support he deserves by producing a public relations campaign and national outcry that reaches millions of your fellow citizens with this critical information. We may bring legal action ourselves. All of these efforts will be expensive. But I know you will agree, FREEDOM IS WORTH THE COST!

    A gift of $125 or perhaps even $250 or $500 will help deliver the truth to households all across America. The fact is, unless we get out word about LTC Lakin’s plight, an honorable and heroic military man, standing in the gap for you and me in the cause of liberty will be destroyed and the Constitution trampled.
    I know you cherish freedom as much as I do, so please send in your best possible gift today.

    Keep Faith,

    Ambassador Alan Keyes
    http://www.Proof-Positive.com

    If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:
    Declaration Alliance
    National Processing Center
    PO Box 131728
    Houston, TX 77219-1728

  159. avatar
    Black Lion December 6, 2010 at 10:01 am #

    CAAFlog’s take on Keyes’ attempt to exploit Lakin….

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/03/alan-keyes-tries-to-raise-money-with-ltc-lakin-family-photo/

    Alan Keyes tries to raise money with LTC Lakin family photo
    By Dwight Sullivan, December 3, 2010

    As thefogbow.com points out, Dr. Alan Keyes has posted this appeal for money, along with a Lakin family photo and reference to LTC Lakin’s “three small children.” But, oddly, it doesn’t appear that the money Dr. Keyes seeks would go to LTC Lakin’s defense or to provide for those three small kids if daddy goes off to the USDB. Rather, Dr. Keyes offers this pitch: “So today I need a sacrificial gift from you to enable Declaration Alliance to fearlessly sound the clarion call and rally the American people to LTC Lakin’s side as he battles in the courtroom in defense of our beloved nation.”

    The entire post is worth the read — it’s about as guano crazy as it can be. But gosh it looks like Dr. Keyes is trying to make a buck off of LTC Lakin’s plight.

  160. avatar
    Rickey December 6, 2010 at 10:16 am #

    A preview of what to expect at the Lakin court-martial, courtesy of the Oh For Goodness Sake blog:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=14533

  161. avatar
    Black Lion December 6, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    From Lakin’s own attorney….WND trying to spin the truth and the so to be future of Lakin…

    “Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain,” Puckett told WND. “He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed.”
    …….

    “This leaves us with a client who stands accused of missing the movement of an airplane, two failures to obey orders to meet his brigate commander, failure to report to Ft. Campbell, and failure to report to his unit,” said Puckett.”
    …….

    “LTC Lakin is a doctor, not a lawyer,” said Puckett. “He thought if he were to ask that question of the military courts, after being rebuffed in all other avenues, he’d get his answer. What he has discovered is that the military justice system cannot produce the answers to those questions. He could not have known, he was given inadequate legal advice. The military justice system is set up to help commanding officers maintain good order and discipline. It can’t make victims whole, it can only punish wrongdoers. He’s very disappointed in the system.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235561

  162. avatar
    Black Lion December 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    WND Adds Birther Columnist
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    A Dec. 3 WorldNetDaily article touts its newest columnist, Diana West, for “her boldness and penchant for eliciting dropped jaws from opposing pundits.” It also helps that she’s a birther.

    WND notes that West has discussed “the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States.” Indeed, West wrote a Nov. 22 op-ed promoting the case of WND birther poster child Terrence Lakin, whom she sympathetically portrayed as “a senior military officer with an unblemished career” who is committing “what amounts to a historic act of civil disobedience for which he may well serve time in prison.”

    The reality she failed to meniton is that a military judge has already ruled that, according to military law, the personal beliefs or convictions of a soldier are not enough for the soldier to deem an order illegal, that Lakin cannot introduce any evidence related to Obama’s citizenship at his court-martial, and that the military court was not the proper venue for determining the eligibility of a president.

    Farah again repeats his disingenous claim that WND has “the broadest spectrum of political opinion found anywhere.” But West does not widen that supposed “spectrum” — she’s another right-wing columnist at a website already lousy with them. Indeed, WND highlights her advice to Republcans “not to compromise with Democrats.”

    West is not bold. She’s a standard-issue right-wing columnist, and a birther to boot. That latter is what likely sealed the deal for WND, given the speed at which she was added following her birther column.

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

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Berman has also introduced a bill to make it a felony for anyone to try to implement the new Health Care Act.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/07/texas-aca-nullification/

  164. avatar
    misha December 12, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Berman has also introduced a bill to make it a felony for anyone to try to implement the new Health Care Act.

    I wrote before: Berman is an anti-semite.

  165. avatar
    G December 13, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Berman has also introduced a bill to make it a felony for anyone to try to implement the new Health Care Act.http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/07/texas-aca-nullification/

    Wow. What a complete moron and hate-filled nut that Berman is. These folks are so itching to revisit the Civil War it is sad. Unfortunately, he’s not the only RW nut trying to pull this unconstitutional stunt. From the last paragraph of the article you cited:

    Yet Berman is hardly the only right-wing leader to embrace the pre-Civil War notion that states can simply nullify laws that they don’t like. Governors Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Bobby Jindal (R-LA) each signed obviously unconstitutional laws claiming to nullify the Affordable Care Act. Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz recently claimed — falsely — that two or more states can nullify federal laws simply by joining together into an agreement with each other. One state attorney general candidate even read aloud from the works of a right-wing pseudo-historian who once wrote that “[t]he real watershed from which we can trace many of the destructive trends that continue to ravage our civilization today, was the defeat of the Confederate States of America in 1865.”

  166. avatar
    Bovril December 13, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    If I recall correctly, Berman files 13 bills on the same day, 10 of which may be argued as either unconstitutional or deliberately infringing on Federal perogatives.

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/BillSearchResults.aspx?NSP=1&SPL=True&SPC=False&SPA=False&SPS=False&Leg=82&Sess=R&ChamberH=True&ChamberS=True&BillType=B;JR;;;;;&AuthorCode=A2205&SponsorCode=&ASAndOr=O&IsPA=True&IsJA=False&IsCA=False&IsPS=True&IsJS=False&IsCS=False&CmteCode=&CmteStatus=&OnDate=&FromDate=&ToDate=&FromTime=&ToTime=&LastAction=False&Actions=&AAO=&Subjects=&SAO=&TT=&ID=iZske6nqV

    I particularly like the bill 303

    Relating to the imposition of a fee for money transmissions sent to certain destinations outside the United States

    8% charge For moneys sent to Mexico, Central or South America ONLY…..

  167. avatar
    Black Lion December 13, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    From OFGS….

    Birthers Call For Court-Martial Of Lakin Judge

    Not that what Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. does would have any affect on the military justice system, but the attention whore of Birfistan will protest at LTC Lakin’s court-martial beginning tomorrow.

    Major General Vallely calls the department of justice Court Martial system corrupt, calls to relive military judge Denise Lind of her duties as a judge and have her court martialed, calls on everybody to support LTC Lakin. Join me on December 14-15 at Fort Meade and support Lakin, join Major general Vallely in calling to court martial a corrupt military judge Denise Lind.

    Other assorted nuts reportedly coming Ft. Meade’s way: MissTickly, Dr. Kate, Pamela Barnett, RaceBannon, Charles Kerchner, Rev. James Manning, Miki Booth, Jerome Corsi, Conservative Monster Steve Cooper, Rudy Davis.

    I guess we might assume Ducky Hemenway and Mrs. Rondeau will attend, though Paul Rolf Jensen, probably not, and Walter Fitzpatrick is otherwise engaged. And there is a move afoot to have Rep. Alan West (R-FL) show up, which would ensure Alan Keyes, if he shows up, is not the only black face, since Rev. Manning, as a felon, will not be allowed on base.

    A Fail of Birthers will be there, in any case

    Last Monday, Vallely’s merry band of senior citizens celebrated “Terry Lakin Day,” by the way, visiting the offices of Senators McCain and Kyl, who weren’t there:

    Play ball!

    As the queen of the birthers I am delighted to announce a new citizen in my kingdom: A major league baseball player, Luke Scott from Baltimore Oreos. Please, call every members of that team and urge them to come to nearby Fort Meade on Dec 14-15 and support American hero LTC Lakin, fighting corrupt and illegitimate regime and a corrupt judiciary

    No, I didn’t make that part up to make Orly look ridiculous. She does these things herself.

    For what it’s worth to you sports fans out there:

    Luke Scott’s comments do not reflect the opinion of the Baltimore Orioles organization,” team spokesman Greg Bader said Wednesday in an e-mail. “The fact is that Barack Obama is our President, duly elected by the people of the United States. End of story.

    LTC Lakin is planning to plead not guilty, according to his lawyer, Neal Puckett. Col. Dwight Sullivan of CAAFlog and CDR Philip Cave of Court-Martial.com will attend the trial; The Fogbow will also have an observer there, our own Mata Mari; and Reality Check blog talk radio will have them as guests discussing what’s gone on in the trial. Be sure to tune in.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=14695

  168. avatar
    Black Lion December 13, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    Rudy Davis, aka lonestar1776 discusses the Lakin trial and requests that crazy nut Alex Jones support Lakin….

    Basically the usual wingnuttery….

    A request to Alex Jones to talk about LTC Lakin Court Martial on his radio show

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyWAaVzcnLI&feature=player_embedded

  169. avatar
    Black Lion December 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    “CDR Charles Kerchner to Attend Lakin Court Martial

    The American Patriot Foundation is pleased to announce that CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired), the Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner et al v Obama case, will be attending the court-martial of LTC Terry Lakin beginning on December 14. The Kerchner case was fought in the federal court system, and CDR Kerchner (Retired) recently submitted a Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility under Article II, Section 1, but the court refused to grant it a hearing.

    CDR Kerchner is coming to the Court Martial in Fort Meade, Maryland, to demonstrate his support for LTC Lakin, “in his heroic stand to attempt to get the U.S. Constitution’s eligibility clause (Article II, Section 1) enforced and Obama’s original contemporaneous, primary source birth records released to the public and properly vetted.”

    We are pleased to have this distinguished retired military officer attending this important trial, who also challenged Obama to prove conclusively that he was born in Hawaii as claimed, by releasing certified true and correct copies of his original. long form birth registration records and any and all amendments to same.

    We anticipate that other prominent activists in the eligibility movement will be in attendance at court-martial next week, also showing their solidarity with the cause, along with other military officers and veterans.”

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/kerchnertoattend.html

    Captain Pamela Barnett, USA Retired, will also attend.

    From Unlawful President December 11, 2010.

    “Captain Pamela Barnett, USA Retired and Commander Charles Kerchner, USN Retired, will both stand with LTC Terry Lakin during his court martial trial next week Dec. 14-16 at Fort Meade, MD, in a show of solidarity in wanting proof that Barack Hussein Obama is a lawful POTUS under the U.S. Constitution under Article II, Secion 1, Clause 5. Both Barnett and Kerchner are/were lead plaintiffs in separate lawsuits (Ambassador Alan Keyes is the other lead plaintiff with Barnett) challenging Obama’s eligibility and both groups of plaintiffs were also denied justice just as LTC Lakin has been denied justice. Neither case (Barnett, Keyes et al v. Obama or Kerchner et al v. Obama et al) were heard on merits or granted discovery on whether Obama is a lawful potus under the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause.

    Both lawsuits stated that prior SCOTUS rulings and historical meaning define a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (Not native born as Obama has stated he is on his campaign website) as someone born of two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil, and both arguments provided evidence that obama may have not have been born in Hawaii and may have lost U.S. citizenship, if he ever had it, when he was adopted by an Indonesian father when he was living in Indonesia. A lack of u.s. citizenship would explain Obama’s refusal to release his school records in addition to his birth records.

    Barnett’s case which is on appeal to the 9th Circuit has also included two affidavits from licensed private investigators that show Obama’s use of a Connecticut issued social security number when he never lived in the state. The report also showed that the SSN Obama uses is also shared with someone born in 1890. The SSA refuses to release the original application to show who originally applied for this SSN. This situation is indicative of SSN fraud. The U.S. State Department has stated in a FOIA response that Obama’s mother’s passport records were destroyed prior to 1965 even though most peoples records were not destroyed prior to 1965. This would have given us insight to her location at the time she gave birth.”

    Read more:

    http://unlawfulpresident.com/?p=17