Main Menu

Leading questions taint latest WND Obama “poll”

Are you aware of this sentence?

WorldNetDaily commissioned a poll on the national awareness of questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. Now quick, answer me whether you are aware that there are questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. Even if you just stepped off the space ship from Mars you’re aware of those questions because I told you about them in the first sentence of this paragraph. That’s about what happened in question 1 of the WND poll conducted by Wenzel Strategies, an Ohio-based public opinion research firm who has done a series of polls for WorldNetDaily. Here’s poll question number 1 (note the word “are” instead of “were”):

1. Are you aware of questions raised about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of president?

I can hear the Verizon Wireless guy saying, “I’m aware of it now.”

And while we’re into leading questions, how about (emphasis added):

2. What is your view of lingering questions about Obama’s eligibility to be President?

  • Questions are not valid (32.1%)
  • Obama met requirements (9.1%)
  • Requirements outdated (4.5%)
  • Questions are troubling (7.9%)
  • Obama should prove birth (41.9%)
  • Not Sure (4.4%)

Diluting the results

The interpretation of the results of Question 2 is far more biased than the question itself. The WorldNetDaily spin on the results of the question says “Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility.” They way they force that small number is to dilute the response to Question 2 with other responses that overlap it. Before one can say that “Obama met requirements”, they have to get past the first response: “Questions are not valid” (32%). In fact, one could in theory answer with any one of those 6 responses and still believe that Obama has proven his eligibility.

How important is this extremely important information?

The next question argues the importance of Obama releasing educational records with the false premise that there is  proof of Obama’s presidential eligibility in school records, and then asks the respondent for an opinion on whether the records should be released:

3. President Obama has refused to release his educational records, which could prove or disprove whether or not he was born in the United States as required by the Constitution. What is your opinion of the fact Obama has not released his educational records?

Does the fact that your life is in danger concern you?

This one is a hoot. They wave the words “nuclear disaster” in front of the respondent and then expect an unbiased opinion on the future of nuclear power in the US (emphasis added):

8. America is relying more and more on electric power today to run everything from computers to heaters to electric cars, and some parts of the country already suffer from a shortage of electricity. Some have said the only way to generate enough electricity is to build new nuclear power plants. But, in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster in Japan, new questions have arisen. Do you think America should press forward to once again begin building nuclear power plants, or should plans for nuclear power plants be shelved?

The poll is ridiculous, an attempt to shape rather than to gauge public opinion. I think the opinion research industry should unite to condemn this unethical kind of polling.

76 Responses to Leading questions taint latest WND Obama “poll”

  1. avatar
    JoZeppy March 21, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Push polling is nothing new, and as long as there are people willing to pay for a push poll, there will be polling agencies will to take that money. Some 8 years ago, at the height of the Halliburton scandals, I got a call from what I can only conclude was a Halliburton push poll (and yes. I do always participate when I get the call). They started with the generic questions of “do you have a postive or negative opinion of…Vice President Dick Cheny.” “do you have a positive or negavie of Halliburton.” It then went on to “if you were told that Halliburton subsidaries offer vital services to American servicemen overseas, would that change you view of Halliburton?” From there it went on and on asking if the next positive thing that Halliburton allegedly does would change my opinion. While I did get frustarted with the poll, I refused to hang up, and give them an excuse to drop my partial responses.

    One more reason why it’s always important to look at the questions asked and the order they’re asked in, when someone cites to a poll whose numbers seem suspect.

  2. avatar
    Sef March 21, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    For question 2, of course the questions are troubling. The questions indicate the poor thought processes and willingness to accept fringe theories of a segment of our population. Looking back on the educational pushes of the Eisenhower & Kennedy administrations compared to the dumbing down since Reagan is disheartening. We’s in biiiig trouble.

  3. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    I have commissioned my own 100% scientific poll that asks the following question:

    “Despite the fact that Barack Obama is the only President in the hiistory of the US to publically display his birth certificate, a whiny group of unpatriotic sore losers known as “birthers” is attempting to smear him. Do you think the President should:”

    1. ignore them
    2. call them out as the nutjobs that they are
    3. make fun of them
    4. invite them to the White House for a beer

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    Scientist:
    I have commissioned my own 100% scientific poll that asks the following question:

    “Despite the fact that Barack Obama is the only President in the hiistory of the US to publically display his birth certificate, a whiny group of unpatriotic sore losers known as “birthers” is attempting to smear him. Do you think the President should:”

    1. ignore them
    2. call them out as the nutjobs that they are
    3. make fun of them
    4. invite them to the White House for a beer

    In the interests of objectivity, I think you should add

    5. Create a White House task force to give them anything they ask for in the futile hope that they will stop asking.

  5. avatar
    richCares March 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    WND’s audience are primarily people with pupu brains, that leads to the contention that J..Farah is a scam artist. click that paypall!

  6. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In the interests of objectivity,

    Objectivity? We don’t need no stinkin’ objectivity!

  7. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    They all sound like legit questions to me. Unfortunately, it appears that the OP
    has difficulty with simple English definitions with such words as “lingering”. Obots want to believe that the issue is dead. But it is not. More and more people are learning of this fake and fraud. That would make the Obots look really bad because they support him without question.

    Until yesterday, when even some liberal Democrats used the impeachment word. But alas , according to our Constitution only a president can be impeached. However; a usurper can be removed from office. A big difference. Do you understand the difference?

  8. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    richCares: WND’s audience are primarily people with pupu brains, that leads to the contention that J..Farah is a scam artist. click that paypall!

    And once again it has become glaringly apparent on this forum. Too bad mental health professionals aren’t more readily available. So many birthers will most likely end up with Darwin Awards from their own stupidity.

  9. avatar
    Bovril March 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Dear NutJobCrawlsSadly,

    I assume you understand the concept of a leading question, you way have seen the phrase used whilst brushing the Cheeto’s dust off your wife beater, watching TV in your mothers basement.

    The “poll” starts by outright lying, followed by BS along with Birfoon wet dream imagination.

    Only the small minded and ignorant have any “lingering” doubts about the legitimacy of the President. They didn’t vote for him in the first place, would never vote for him even if all the made up cack Birfoons demand was published and are a small and shrinking tiny minority.

    As for the asinine comment abouit a “usurper”, last I checked in my copy of the Constitution, the guy

    1. Who got the greatest number of the popular votes and

    2. The greatest number of the Electoral College votes and

    3. Had those votes certified by Congress and

    4. Was sworn in

    Is the President and sad little muppets like you get bugger all squared apart from heart burn.

    Looking forward to losing the next Presidential election I hope Birther.

  10. avatar
    Daniel March 21, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    World Nut Daily intentionally manipulating poll numbers to sell stuff?

    Say it ain’t so……….

  11. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 21, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “Despite the fact that Barack Obama is the only President in the hiistory of the US to publically display his birth certificate, a whiny group of unpatriotic sore losers known as “birthers” is attempting to smear him. Do you think the President should:”

    1. ignore them
    2. call them out as the nutjobs that they are
    3. make fun of them
    4. invite them to the White House for a beer
    5. Create a White House task force to give them anything they ask for in the futile hope that they will stop asking.

    Doc, you should add this poll to your post – then we can all gather ’round and marvel at the psyantifuk results…

  12. avatar
    Daniel March 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck:
    They all sound like legit questions to me.

    Of course they do. WND carefully crafts it’s “polls” to make sure they sound legit to the weak minded.

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Until yesterday, when even some liberal Democrats used the impeachment word.

    You have no idea how much liberal criticism there has been of President Obama (nor of just how fierce it has been), do you? The difference is that the left is upset over substantive and important issues regarding things which the president has done (or failed to do) rather than spewing buzzword-laden, ignorant rants full of bigoted baseless lies in an effort to vilify the Commander-in-Chief of our nation in a time of war (wasn’t that what we were always told we shouldn’t do during the Bush administration – ‘it’s unpatriotic to question the president in a time of war’…). I can come up with a laundry list of reasons why I’m unhappy with the president and argue them with an effectiveness that you birthers couldn’t even conceive of, but people like you are an example of why, given the available alternatives, I’m behind President Obama 100%…

  14. avatar
    Joey March 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck:
    They all sound like legit questions to me. Unfortunately, it appears that the OP
    has difficulty with simple English definitions with such words as “lingering”. Obots want to believe that the issue is dead. But it is not. More and more people are learning of this fake and fraud. That would make the Obots look really bad because they support him without question.

    Until yesterday, when even some liberal Democrats used the impeachment word. But alas , according to our Constitution only a president can be impeached. However; a usurper can be removed from office. A big difference. Do you understand the difference?

    Actually it is Barack Hussein Obama who is constantly bringing up the issue of his own eligibility and making jokes out of it like having the Marine Corps band stop playing “Hail to the Chief” and break into “Born in the USA” at the Gridiron Club dinner a week ago.
    Obama is using the issue to force potential Republican opponents to go on the record as “birthers” or “non-birthers.” Then he demonizes and makes fun of the “birthers.”
    Barack Obama must be relieved to know that he can’t be impeached. The only other branch of government that could impact his term in office is the Supreme Court of the United States and they have denied full Court hearings to 13 Obama eligibility appeals thus far.
    The Supreme Court has shown no inclination to mess with the electoral will of 69,456,897 American voters.
    When asked if she questioned the president’s faith and citizenship, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin responded: “I don’t, and those are distractions, what we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”

    “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives

    [The President’s eligibility]] “I don’t think it’s an issue that we need to address at all, it is not an issue that even needs to be on the policy-making table right now whatsoever.”—Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

    “If there was any shred of truth to [Obama eligibility conspiracies], Hillary Clinton and her wonderful investigative opposition research machine would have found it and would have used it. For Republicans to even be bringing it up, I think it’s a waste of energy and time.”–Mike Huckabee, Former Republican Governor of Arkansas and potential 2012 Presidential candidate

  15. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    The Governor of HI Abercrombie announced in January that he would release more information

    “…..Abercrombie was asked: ‘You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?’

    He acknowledged the birth certificate issue would have ‘political implications’ for the next presidential election ‘that we simply cannot have’…..”

    However, after several months, he gave up and now hides behind one of his own with a lie that says he can not release any information. Yet Hawaii’s own law per their DOH says that he can , see link at end documenting how HI has gone to a great deal to break their own laws to protect the usurper. Someone that Gov. Lingle even stated “95%+ people of Hawaii don’t even know who he is…”. Yep, she said that.

    Back to current Governor Abercrombie, alleged long time Obama family friend and known socialist. As noted:

    “…….But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

    And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health…..”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html#ixzz1HFkXdF1R.

    Why is it that Obama has spent millions and millions not to show a $12 birth certificate?
    A certificate that millions of Americans need to work in many states in order to get a job (proof of citizenship required) or to play youth baseball ? McCain showed his birth certificate during the campaign while Obama put up a faked forged “certificate” produced by Axelrod/Gibbs. Also, prior presidents have revealed their birth certificates. Why not Obama?

    Obama For America has paid the law firm Perkins Coie $2.3 million since they announced his campaign for president according to the federal election commission. There is no real reason to doubt that is true. And Perkins Coie has defended the campaign against eligibility suits, whether filed by birthers or on whatever other grounds. However, it is very hard to imagine that all those fees went purely to defending against birther lawsuits. Common sense would dictate that there are many other reasons a PAC would need to retain the services of a law firm. Ironically even if the entire 2.3 million really did go to defending against birther lawsuits then all that proves is that the birthers forced him to waste all that money defending against frivolous lawsuits – hardly a smoking gun. As for documentation here are a few:

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/30G/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106138

    And these figures don’t include the dozens of more lawsuits that are on going. Nor do they include the money that the military had to spent to handle a case for a miliatry officer who questioned Obama’s eligibility. Including those costs the figures are well into the millions and millions.

    Why doesn’t he just show his documents ?

    Obots would have you believe that the GOP Governor of HI saw the Birth Cerificate or somehow resolved the situation. Obviously based upon the new governors findings the prior adm. did not resolve the situation. Also, during an interview with Rusty Humphries in 2008 the prior Gov Lingle specifically stated she did not see the birth certificate. Nor did the Bush Adm., nor did the Electoral College. Obots will claim hey OBama wont he vote. Yes he did, but based upon fraud, deception, and misrepresentation. The DNC changed many state certifications to avoid compliance with Constitution. This is well documented..

    Back to Hawaii. The fact remains that HI DOH law states that a person of interest can see the records. Obama’s own cousin viewed the records, and found no OBAMA in the index record files !

    Transparency ?? Not.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011031813068/us/politics-and-economics/obama-gets-a-failing-grade-on-transparency.html

    Here is link that has ALL the rules and regs that the HI officials and representatives have broken in this coverup.

    Seems to any open minded person reviewing this infomation that something stinks here.

  16. avatar
    elid March 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck:
    They all sound like legit questions to me. Unfortunately, it appears that the OP
    has difficulty with simple English definitions with such words as “lingering”. Obots want to believe that the issue is dead. But it is not. More and more people are learning of this fake and fraud. That would make the Obots look really bad because they support him without question.

    Until yesterday, when even some liberal Democrats used the impeachment word. But alas , according to our Constitution only a president can be impeached. However; a usurper can be removed from office. A big difference. Do you understand the difference?

    Why, yes. I do understand the difference between a usurper, who overthorws a legitimate government, and a President, who is legally elected and duly sworn, just like President Obama.

  17. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You have no idea how much liberal criticism there has been of President Obama (nor of just how fierce it has been), do you? The difference is that the left is upset over substantive and important issues regarding things which the president has done (or failed to do) rather than spewing buzzword-laden, ignorant rants full of bigoted baseless lies in an effort to vilify the Commander-in-Chief of our nation in a time of war (wasn’t that what we were always told we shouldn’t do during the Bush administration – it’s unpatriotic to question the president in a time of war’…). I can come up with a laundry list of reasons why I’m unhappy with the president and argue them with an effectiveness that you birthers couldn’t even conceive of, but people like you are an example of why, given the available alternatives, I’m behind President Obama 100%…

    Hear! Hear!

    Excellent post. Agreed.

  18. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    funny thing if the poll was taken in 2008 and had the following results

    2. What is your view of questions about Obama’s eligibility to be President?

    Questions are not valid (32.1%)
    Obama met requirements (41.1%) <<
    Requirements outdated (4.5%)
    Questions are troubling (7.9%)
    Obama should prove birth (9.1%) <<
    Not Sure (4.4%)

    would you obots still be whining ????

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Seems to any open minded person reviewing this infomation [sic] that something stinks here.

    Perkins Coe represented the Obama Campaign. Presidential campaigns have large legal expenses (check how much the McCain campaign paid – not as much as Obama but still huge). You’re confusing campaign expenses with Obama’s personal expenses. Now explain how writing a couple of briefs in dismissed lawsuits comes to $2.3 million in fees.

    You might also explain what your garbage truck emptying has to do with the topic of the WND poll where you dumped it.

    Your misrepresentations do indeed stink.

  20. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Why, yes. I do understand the difference between a usurper, who overthorws a legitimate government, and a President, who is legally elected and duly sworn, just like President Obama.

    >>First off you don’t even know what the definition of usurper is. A usurper
    can have many means available to come into public office. A governor of North Dakota was removed from office and he didn’t “overthrow” anyone,

    http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

    This governor didn’t meet the qualifications and he was removed from office. The
    same thing could happen to a president.

    What about a usurper who lies and defrauds millions of Americans by saying
    he’s qualified, but he really isn’t ?? Yet still gets elected.
    Wouldn’t you call that illegal ? Or would you say the means justified the end ?

    I think not. Try again.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: would you obots still be whining ????

    Objectively exposing bias in a poll is not “whining.”

    By the way, the logical fallacy used in your comment is called “argument by questioning.”

    You might check here:

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

  22. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: funny thing if the poll was taken in 2008 and had the following results2. What is your view of questions about Obama’s eligibility to be President?Questions are not valid (32.1%)Obama met requirements (41.1%) <<Requirements outdated (4.5%)Questions are troubling (7.9%)Obama should prove birth (9.1%) <<Not Sure (4.4%) would you obots still be whining ????

    A worthless poll does not become worthwhile depending on whether it gives the results you want.

    You may not know, but I have a standing challenge to find a “pro-Obama” birther; that is someone who agrees with most of Obama’s policies and thinks he is doing a good job, but is concerned about his birth circumstances. I suspect the answer will be “No”, but that wouldn’t happen to describe you, would it?

  23. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    Perkins Coe represented the Obama Campaign. Presidential campaigns have large legal expenses (check how much the McCain campaign paid – not as much as Obama but still huge). You’re confusing campaign expenses with Obama’s personal expenses. Now explain how writing a couple of briefs in dismissed lawsuits comes to $2.3 million in fees

    >>>First off if you read carefully, and I know this is hard for some people who drink the obama kool aid , the OP clearly stated
    “is no real reason to doubt that is true. And Perkins Coie has defended the campaign against eligibility suits, whether filed by birthers or on whatever other grounds. However, it is very hard to imagine that all those fees went purely to defending against birther lawsuits. ”

    Also, note that Perkin Cole attorneys/employees were noted to be present at a majority of the 60+ cases in the court room. In addition, the firm continued to bill after the election was over.

  24. avatar
    Greg March 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    Obama’s president of North Dakota?

    If not, then what happened to a North Dakotan governor under the NORTH DAKOTA constitution has zip to do with the UNITED STATES Presidency serving under the UNITED STATES Constituion!

    A rational person would look at the fact that birthers are 0-74 in their lawsuits and begin to wonder if maybe they had something wrong in their analysis. Not birthers, though, it’s just more proof of the conspiracy. Now even the facts are conspiring against them!

  25. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: would you obots still be whining ????

    Objectively exposing bias in a poll is not “whining.”

    By the way, the logical fallacy used in your comment is called “argument by questioning.”

    You might check here:

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

    >>> I said if the poll results came out differently would you still
    be complaining that the polls were exposing bias ?

    It is an entirely different question.

  26. avatar
    Greg March 21, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Obots, you are fighting a losing campaign against reality! McCain’s lawyers continued to bill after the election was over, as any schmuck can learn by looking at the FEC records.

    Why can’t you do simple Internet research?

  27. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    question for you obots

    Would you label His Excellency Peter Ogego a “birther” ?
    If not, what would you label him ?

    http://dprogram.net/2008/11/22/wrif-radio-detroit-kenyan-diplomat-confirms-barack-obama-is-born-in-kenya/

  28. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Obots-Answer the question!!! Are you or are you not a “pro-Obama birther”. There may be a cash reward involved for the correct answer.

  29. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2011 at 2:14 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Would you label His Excellency Peter Ogego a “birther” ?
    If not, what would you label him ?

    A prankster. Most morning radio shows consist of pranks, fart jokes and sexual innuendo, and a bunch of commercials.

  30. avatar
    Greg March 21, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    You know, Obots, there’s a blog that debunks all these Obama “Conspiracies.” Now, if I could only remember the name. You could go there and read the archives where the Kenyan ambassador’s statement was debunked. Anyone know where One might go to research an “Obama Conspiracy?”

  31. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Why, yes. I do understand the difference between a usurper, who overthorws a legitimate government, and a President, who is legally elected and duly sworn, just like President Obama.>>First off you don’t even know what the definition of usurper is. A usurpercan have many means available to come into public office. A governor of North Dakota was removed from office and he didn’t “overthrow” anyone,http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html This governor didn’t meet the qualifications and he was removed from office. Thesame thing could happen to a president.What about a usurper who lies and defrauds millions of Americans by sayinghe’s qualified, but he really isn’t ?? Yet still gets elected.Wouldn’t you call that illegal ? Or would you say the means justified the end ?I think not. Try again.

    Moodie wasn’t a usurper. He just wasn’t eligible. Again there’s no proof Obama has lied about his eligibility. So far everything points to him being born in America. You’re also going under the assumption that he would know he wasn’t eligible even if his parents lied to him.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Would you label His Excellency Peter Ogego a “birther” ?
    If not, what would you label him ?

    I would label him “misunderstood.”

  33. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: question for you obotsWould you label His Excellency Peter Ogego a “birther” ?If not, what would you label him ?http://dprogram.net/2008/11/22/wrif-radio-detroit-kenyan-diplomat-confirms-barack-obama-is-born-in-kenya/

    Ogego also said some rather off base remarks in his original speech. He is an opportunist. How exactly would be he in the know as he has no access to vital records?

  34. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    not, then what happened to a North Dakotan governor under the NORTH DAKOTA constitution has zip to do with the UNITED STATES Presidency serving under the UNITED STATES Constituion!

    >>I beg to differ, a usurper is a usurper no matter how they violate the constitution.
    Whether it is a state or not. It is still a violation of the law. If a governor can be removed, then so can a president. The Constitution of the USA allows for it to be done as it is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

    Article 2 – The Executive Branch
    Section 4 – Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    Greg: You know, Obots, there’s a blog that debunks all these Obama “Conspiracies.” Now, if I could only remember the name. You could go there and read the archives where the Kenyan ambassador’s statement was debunked. Anyone know where One might go to research an “Obama Conspiracy?”

    Google returns about 10 million estimated results for Obama Conspiracy. Pick the first one.

  36. avatar
    ObotsRunAmuck March 21, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    clarification, to the above , so there is no misunderstanding

    >>I beg to differ, a usurper is a usurper no matter how they violate the constitution (whether it be the state’s constitution or USA constitution).
    Whether it is a state or not. It is still a violation of the law. If a governor can be removed, then so can a president. The Constitution of the USA allows for it to be done as it is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

    Article 2 – The Executive Branch
    Section 4 – Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

  37. avatar
    Scientist March 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: If a governor can be removed, then so can a president. The Constitution of the USA allows for it to be done as it is explicitly stated in the Constitution.
    Article 2 – The Executive Branch
    Section 4 – Disqualification
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    What is your point? That a President can be impeached? Who knew? You are just full of great information.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): ObotsRunAmuck: question for you obotsWould you label His Excellency Peter Ogego a “birther” ?If not, what would you label him ?http://dprogram.net/2008/11/22/wrif-radio-detroit-kenyan-diplomat-confirms-barack-obama-is-born-in-kenya/

    Ogego also said some rather off base remarks in his original speech. He is an opportunist. How exactly would be he in the know as he has no access to vital records?

    Wrong guy. Ogego is the Kenyan Ambassador who was ambushed on the Mike in the Morning radio show. He said something to the effect that Barack Obama’s birth place was a well-known attraction. I said:

    This is clearly a misinterpretation, since the “well-known attraction” is the village of Kogello, not the Coast Hospital in Mombasa. The Ambassador’s assistant, the next day, said that the Ambassador was misunderstood, and that the Ambassador had no way of knowing where Obama was born. This theme will re-occur I suspect. The testimony of someone who has no reason to know something carries no weight.

  39. avatar
    Greg March 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    So, if Burundi’s Constituion allowed for the removal of an executive without impeachment, that means the UNITED STATES Constituion also so allows? There’s only one way mentioned in the Constituion for removing a President. You’ve quoted it and it starts with the letter “I.”

  40. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: clarification, to the above , so there is no misunderstanding>>I beg to differ, a usurper is a usurper no matter how they violate the constitution (whether it be the state’s constitution or USA constitution).Whether it is a state or not. It is still a violation of the law. If a governor can be removed, then so can a president. The Constitution of the USA allows for it to be done as it is explicitly stated in the Constitution.Article 2 – The Executive BranchSection 4 – DisqualificationThe President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Prove any qualifying “crime” has been committed then. Oh, that’s right…birthers have been trying to do nothing else since late 2008…and so far ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

    Can’t even get the main attack dog in Congress, Issa, who would have to initiate such things and who would desperately love to take down Obama, to do anything.

    No real evidence of any “CRIMES”, etc. in the real world. Sucks to be a birther.

  41. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    Bill Bowman also has an excellent article out today on this.

    Beyond what has already been addressed here, he investigated the background and credentials of the associated polling firms as well as their direct connection to the birther author of this WND article.

    Here’s the link and I highly recommend reading the whole article:

    http://turningthescale.net/?p=177

    I’ll only recap the conclusion’s summary:

    The company’s “About Us” page touts the conservative credentials of its major players.

    So, let’s recap: You have an unabashedly conservative, Obama-hating, Birther-loving online rag commissioning a poll from an unabashedly conservative polling outfit. The poll questions are worded to exact a specific response, and the results are spun to present a specific picture which, of course, serves to exaggerate the relevance of the Birther Movement.

    Sounds like an intellectual honesty fail on all counts.

  42. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    Isn’t this the same reality challenged, angry troll from a few days ago? Is Tracey skipping through IP addresses again?

  43. avatar
    Thrifty March 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Ugh. I hate push polls. I got a call about a week before the 2010 midterms which gradually started to include questions like this:

    “Would you be more or less likely to vote for (Democratic candidate) knowing that he hired a superintendent of schools who later almost bankrupted the school district?”

    and

    “Would you be more or less likely to vote for (Republican candidate) knowing that he once ran a successful business?”

    After a while I became kinda agitated and outright said “I don’t want to participate in your stupid push poll. Goodbye.” and hung up amid protestations that this wasn’t a push poll.

  44. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Majority Will: Isn’t this the same reality challenged, angry troll from a few days ago? Is Tracey skipping through IP addresses again?

    Sure seems that way.

  45. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Thrifty: Ugh. I hate push polls. I got a call about a week before the 2010 midterms which gradually started to include questions like this:“Would you be more or less likely to vote for (Democratic candidate) knowing that he hired a superintendent of schools who later almost bankrupted the school district?”and“Would you be more or less likely to vote for (Republican candidate) knowing that he once ran a successful business?”After a while I became kinda agitated and outright said “I don’t want to participate in your stupid push poll. Goodbye.” and hung up amid protestations that this wasn’t a push poll.

    Even worse, some of these push polls seem to be much more unethical than that. They open with their leading “push” questions as a screen and then might hang up on you early (to remove you from their stats) if you aren’t aswering as they want you to answer.

    I question the motives of a lot of these polls. Polling numbers often exclude those that don’t fully complete the poll. Those partial poll contacts don’t even appear in their statistics of number of people spoken to. It is in the agenda driven interest of push pollers to get those that don’t share their agenda to exit before completing the poll – whether they succeed in getting you to hang up on them in disgust or they decide to ditch you before you ruin their meme.

  46. avatar
    Thrifty March 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: clarification, to the above , so there is no misunderstanding>>I beg to differ, a usurper is a usurper no matter how they violate the constitution (whether it be the state’s constitution or USA constitution).Whether it is a state or not. It is still a violation of the law. If a governor can be removed, then so can a president. The Constitution of the USA allows for it to be done as it is explicitly stated in the Constitution.Article 2 – The Executive BranchSection 4 – DisqualificationThe President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    A president can be removed via an act of Congress or through a vote by his cabinet as outlined in the 25th amendment. Though the latter really only pertains to a president classified as unable to discharge his duties due to disability, not for any criminal act.

    Regardless, notice that neither of these involves the courts. The removal of that North Dakota governor did. Because the North Dakota constitution has different procedures than the United States one.

  47. avatar
    Stanislaw March 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    Scientist: What is your point?That a President can be impeached?Who knew?You are just full of great information.

    Well, this is a birther we’re dealing with here. Any sign of intelligence, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction.

  48. avatar
    Majority Will March 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    Scientist: What is your point?That a President can be impeached?Who knew?You are just full of great information.

    The birthers from the south probably think it means a painful insertion of the official state fruit of Georgia. Or at least they hope so.

  49. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck:

    Also, note that Perkin Cole attorneys/employees were noted to be present at a majority of the 60+ cases in the court room.

    Do you have evidence of that? Can you name the 60+ birther cases (or even half of them) in which Perkins Coie (and at least get the name right) attorneys or employees were present in the courtroom? What is your source?

    In addition, the firm continued to bill after the election was over.

    Of course they did. Do you actually believe that legal expenses for an election cease on election day?

  50. avatar
    Sef March 21, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Also, note that Perkin Cole attorneys/employees were noted to be present at a majority of the 60+ cases in the court room.

    Even lawyers enjoy a good show.

  51. avatar
    Jamese777 March 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

    The lowest job approval rating that President Obama currently has in any poll is 46% disapprove.
    If only 9% don’t care about his eligibility, that means a whole lot of people who care about Obama’s eligibility don’t hold it against him in terms of job approval.
    Here’s a link to an average of all the latest national public opinion polls:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

  52. avatar
    Northland10 March 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: The same arguments spewed forth again… blah, blah, blah…

    Nutjob is banned and tags ORA to come in. These people watch to much tag-team wrestling. Oh but, they will win… any day now… the ebil userper will be marched out of our WHITE house… Obats are afwaid…. wahh…

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    ObotsRunAmuck: Also, note that Perkin [sic] Cole [sic]attorneys/employees were noted to be present at a majority of the 60+ cases in the court room.

    Even if this were true (and I find it highly implausible) there is no way you could know it. Yours is a lie of convenience, the kind of thing birthers make up because they have no real information.

    I take a very dim view of people who tell lies to make their points because their commentary is worthless at best, and often disruptive.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

    Northland10: Nutjob is banned and tags ORA to come in

    Just so folks know, when a new nut job arrives, I check IP addresses against prior posters.

  55. avatar
    misha March 22, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    ObotsRunAmuck: They all sound like legit questions to me.

    What about the internet rumors about Joseph Farah and barnyard animals? That sounds like a legitimate question to me.

    Please note, I am not accusing Joseph Farah of molesting sheep, or other ruminants. It is just that there is a persistent internet rumor that barnyard animals become skittish when Joseph Farah is near. I am simply asking a question that needs to be answered.

    All I am asking is for Joseph Farah to issue a simple statement like, ‘I do not take liberties with sheep. This is nothing more than a scurrilous rumor.’ Or, ‘I love animals.’

  56. avatar
    Keith March 22, 2011 at 3:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Just so folks know, when a new nut job arrives, I check IP addresses against prior posters.

    They know that. They are sophisticated internet nerds. They just move to a new library branch or coffee shop.

  57. avatar
    The Magic M March 22, 2011 at 4:47 am #

    > Nutjob is banned and tags ORA to come in.

    … and has a similarly abysmal way of quoting (with the quoted text appearing normally and his own reply prefixed with something else).

  58. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 22, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    Keith: They know that. They are sophisticated internet nerds. They just move to a new library branch or coffee shop.

    Back in the day I used to just use aol to jump ip bans. Everytime you would sign onto aol it would assign a new ip address. This even worked with the broadband connection. I could just use the internal internet window in aol and I would get around bans. So yes as horrible as AOL was it still had its uses.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 22, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    misha: What about the internet rumors about Joseph Farah and barnyard animals? That sounds like a legitimate question to me.

    Sort of off topic for Obama Conspiracy Theories, though.

  60. avatar
    The Magic M March 22, 2011 at 11:10 am #

    > Sort of off topic for Obama Conspiracy Theories, though.

    Misha could start Obarnyard Conspiracy Theories. 😉

  61. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 22, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Latest from farah:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=277753

    He claims he called three passport offices and said he only had a short form from hawaii, would that be enough? hawaii said yes, the other two said no.

    Do you think he’s BSing?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: He claims he called three passport offices and said he only had a short form from hawaii, would that be enough? hawaii said yes, the other two said no.

    Do you think he’s BSing?

    If you’re asking whether he is lying, my gut says no. However, keep in mind what happened here. Farah is calling local offices. Offices in Hawaii deal with Hawaiian birth certificates all the time, and they know precisely what one is. Offices in Virginia and DC rarely see Hawaiian birth certificates, and the person they spoke to may have never seen one. Further, Farah really mislead the office by calling the Hawaiian form a “short form” because a “short form” usually refers to some kind of form that is less than the standard form issued by a state, and the COLB is the standard form.

    Further, local passport offices don’t decide on the adequacy of the documentation in the first place, so they were being asked something outside their responsibility.

    And last, Joseph Farah admits that he lied to those folks. Does that tell you something?

  63. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 22, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    Good and fair points. I wonder why he didn’t just say “would a certificate of live birth work?”

  64. avatar
    Scientist March 22, 2011 at 1:10 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Latest from farah:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=277753He claims he called three passport offices and said he only had a short form from hawaii, would that be enough? hawaii said yes, the other two said no.Do you think he’s BSing?

    According to his article he contacted passport offices in Hawaii, Washington DC and Virginia. The list of Passport Agencies does list ones in Honolulu and Washington, DC, but none in Virginia. Every member of my family has a passport and none have anything other than short forms, from severall diifferent jurisdictions. My wife’s isn’t even issued by the state (Indiana) but by the city.she was born in. So Farah’s story is pure bs.

    Then he goes on about how the President doesn’tt have to show stuff that ordinary Joes do. Well of course not. When he flies, he doesn’t go through security, he drives straight on to Air Force One. His motorcade doesn’t have to stop at red lights either.

  65. avatar
    Scientist March 22, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    I forgot to llnk to the list of Passport Agenciies. None in Virginia.

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/npic/agencies/agencies_913.html

  66. avatar
    Daniel March 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    Good and fair points. I wonder why he didn’t just say “would a certificate of live birth work?”

    Probably because that would not have garnered him the answer he wanted to get

  67. avatar
    Steve March 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    http://www.wnd.com/?fa=PAGE.view&pageId … 166449906c

    If anyone needs a CPA, this guy dumped Molotov Mitchell.

  68. avatar
    WAYK March 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    Dr C seems to be unaware that he is applying a double standard.

    Dr C’s argument against the Wenzel poll is that because it contains (as Dr C believes) leading questions and bias this must invalidate in entirety the Wenzel poll. Dr C appears to be fallaciously arguing a false dilemma i.e. “either all the results of the Wenzel poll are valid or none of the results of the Wenzel poll are valid.” That there might be another way to interpret the Wenzel poll results is not something Dr C seems inclined to explore. However, a third way of assessing the Wenzel poll results is simply to compare the Wenzel poll with other polls on the same issue. Even without wading into the mathematics of Kalman filtering and backwards smoothing, if the Wenzel poll essentially agrees with other polls conducted by other pollsters, also identifying a clear trend in public opinion, we can eliminate gross bias from our understanding of its results. Since other polls, even those commissioned by organizations sympathetic to Obama, have shown a significant trend in American opinion which is not convinced that Obama was born in the US, and the Wenzel poll is consistent with that trend, this can only mean that large numbers, indeed many millions, of Democrats and African-Americans are not persuaded by the claim that Obama was born in the US, and thus someone holding the contrary view should not be stereotyped as isolated or partizan or racist or crazy.

    (For the record, an example of PRO-Obama poll bias: in July 2010 CNN asked “Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?” Placing “definitely born in the US” first in the sequence of possibilities may have conditioned respondents to prefer this possibility as their answer. CNN’s pollsters might have better controlled for bias; notwithstanding, in the actual CNN poll 27% of all respondents held the opinion that Obama was definitely or probably born OUTSIDE the US, which figure included 15% of all Democrat respondents. CNN reporting its poll stated: “President Obama’s birth certificate has been certified authentic by the Republican governor [Lingle] of Hawaii. His birth announcement appeared in print in 1961.” Clearly, it is not within the official competence of a Governor to certify births, Lingle has never legally attested to Obama’s alleged COLB with her handwritten signature, and no printed example of Obama’s alleged birth announcements has ever been produced; for the implications of the latter see below).

    Assuming hypothetically that Dr C is correct that the possibility of bias and dissimulation requires that the Wenzel poll results be rejected completely, then, using Dr C’s own standard, it cannot be explained why Dr C does not reject the online images purporting to depict Obama’s COLB and his birth announcements. The dubious evidentiary basis of the images, which constitute the only purported evidence of Obama’s birth in the US, must surely mean they too should be rejected completely; but to them Dr C seems to apply another standard.

    Dr C believes the online images allegedly depicting Obama’s COLB and birth announcements are genuine. There are many ways in which these images raise more questions than answers, so let’s keep to the possibility of bias and dissimulation:

    1a) Factcheck itself posted a story which stated that a Presidential candidate was able to lie with legal impunity to voters and that a candidate’s right to lie, and a voter’s right to be lied to, were indeed protected by or from federal and state law. http://tinyurl.com/pols-lies

    1b) Politico and Daily Kos posted an image (scan) of Obama’s alleged COLB, reporting they had received it via e-mail from the Obama campaign, but although this scan had no discernable HDoH seal or mailing folds, this did not erode their belief in its truth.

    1c) Obama’s website Fight The Smears, a political advertising vehicle not subject to any legal requirement to tell the truth, also published the same image.

    1d) Factcheck – see 1a – posted photos of Obama’s COLB, claiming to have been shown it late at night by unnamed person(s) at Obama HQ (though neither the person(s) nor the location were identifiable from the photos). Factcheck went to Obama HQ to counter rumors that the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS image was fake (e.g. no seal); Factcheck had the unusual notion that if it were fake then Obama HQ would be the place to expose the forgery, rather than HDoH. Anyhow, Obama’s alleged COLB strangely contained digital artifacts unique to the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS image, which Factcheck never checked; the alleged COLB now sported mailing folds (which the accusations of fakery had said should not be have been absent from the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS image); however Factcheck did not photograph the mailing envelope or receipts, a simple and obvious check of the fact of mailing. Moreover because Factcheck did not request from HDoH (or omitted to report the request) either a non-certified copy of Obama’s vital records (as it was legally entitled to do but again omitted to report) or a certified copy (as it was legally entitled to do since Obama had forfeited privacy with release of the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS image), Factcheck only had the word of the Obama campaign – again see Factcheck’s understanding of the law in 1a – that the paper it claimed to have been shown was a genuine COLB issued by HDoH. Factcheck did write that “We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response”, although Factcheck omitted to tell us what had been the other questions that HDoH refused to answer, except two: Obama’s Sr.’s race being listed as “African” and security paper. If Factcheck asked other questions, e.g. concerning HDoH’s refusal to meet Factcheck’s legal entitlement to a non-certified or certified copy of Obama’s vital records, Factcheck omitted to report it. In mitigation it might be suggested that Factcheck “forgot” to check its legal entitlement under the law; but Factcheck cannot have been unaware of this entitlement, given it had cited and linked to the relevant Hawaii law in an earlier story. It must be presumed that Factcheck, if it is a responsible research organization, sought the advice of legal counsel, which necessarily explains the omissions as bias; while to have “forgotten” to ask HDoH for its legal entitlement or not to have sought the advice of legal counsel constituted professional dereliction.

    1e) The ultimate source claimed for the image(s) of Obama’s alleged COLB (i.e. Obama and his campaign) was under no legal obligation to tell the truth and had legal impunity for any lies told. The initial scan of Obama’s alleged COLB was sent by Obama and his campaign to Politico\Daily Kos only because OBAMA was keeping quarantined at HDoH any records concerning himself the release of which he controlled. If this was not bizarre enough, HDoH were refusing to issue even those records which did not require Obama’s permission for release (non-certified COLB, index data, processing records etc.) and which it was legally obliged to release. After the scan was published, under Hawaii law Obama automatically forfeited privacy in the matter of his vital records, and HDoH were legally obliged to release all Obama’s vital records to Factcheck and anyone else; what followed was a even more bizarre statement from HDoH Director Fukino which, for a year prior, she had been adamant it was illegal for her to make. Uncheckable information from a source with a legal impunity for lying, other sources piling factual inexactitude on illegality on irrationality, all this yielding no coherent innocent explanation. Clearly, many people find it difficult to work these sources into a credible point of view or rationalize their behavior as a series of random events; hence the polling trend.

    1f) The images (and allegedly paper) purporting to depict Obama’s COLB on openly sympathetic websites passed through an unknown number of hands and processes before reaching the webpages where the public viewed them. Nobody in the chain can be certain what previous hands or processes may have done to these images (and paper) . As a consequence their evidential value in or out of court is precisely zero.

    Applying Dr C’s standard, we should reject the images of Obama’s COLB because although they contain and are surrounded by unexplained elements the websites promoting them are guilty of bias and dissimulation in the reporting of these elements and their ultimate source cannot be trusted.

    2) The claim that Hawaii newspapers announced Obama’s birth is not made on the basis of original paper copies of newspapers from 1961, but on microfiche holdings in public libraries. Unfortunately, Factcheck did not post an image of Obama’s birth announcement which came directly from any of these public holdings but used a privately sourced image; Factcheck chose not to cross-check the facts concerning these public holdings; Factcheck did not see fit to cross-check the privately sourced image with the publicly sourced images; Factcheck chose not to facilitate its readers’ own comparisons of the public images with its privately sourced image by publishing both; and Factcheck’s present image of the birth announcement links to no source and the “original” is unavailable.

    Furthermore, the public holdings of Obama’s birth announcements are issued to members of the public WITHOUT continuous supervision. Such microfiches are only admissible as evidence into court under two exemptions of the Hawaii and Federal Rule of Evidence: 803(16), which permits the admission of an “ancient document” older than 20 years (including a photographic copy when the original is unavailable), and 901(b)(8). Exemption and admission of evidence under these rules is only possible when there is (quote) “NO SUSPICION CONCERNING ITS AUTHENTICITY”. However, an unimpeachable chain of custody or hands cannot be established when material was not in the custodian’s or a subordinate’s physical possession; was not always in the custodian’s or a subordinate’s view, after being taken into physical possession; was not in the custodian’s or a subordinate’s physical possession and then secured so that tampering could not occur; and was not kept in a secured area, with access restricted to authorized personnel only. Microfiche copies of an “ancient document” that have been handled by members of the public not under continuous supervision are, by definition, not without suspicion concerning their authenticity and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Note the HRE-FRE requirement is not “a proven suspicion” or “a probable suspicion” or “a more-than-probable suspicion” but literally “NO suspicion” i.e. even the merest suspicion renders material submitted under the “ancient documents” exemption inadmissible.

    Applying Dr C’s own standard, Obama’s birth announcement should also be rejected because it is evidentially suspect and, although its contains and is surrounded by unexplained elements, Factcheck is guilty of bias and dissimulation in its reporting of these elements.

    3) Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a considered disregard for the law and the constitution by illegally conspiring with Bank of America (forgery etc.) to destroy Wikileaks so as to protect “an eco-system” of corruption and fraud at Bank of America ( http://www.prwatch.org/node/9871 and http://tinyurl.com/66rkkjm and http://tinyurl.com/GnGd2 ); and Obama has unprecedentedly assumed to himself the power to order, without restraint of law, the secret physical liquidation of US citizens ( http://tinyurl.com/3a9scle and http://tinyurl.com/2f2z8b9 ). It would therefore be a serious error to imagine that Obama and his advisers are incapable of deception and criminality.

    Dr C asks us to believe nothing the Wenzel poll says, on account of its bias and dissimulation, lest we believe everything it says; conversely, Dr C asks us to believe everything that Obama\Politico\Daily Kos\FTS\Factcheck say, even though they are guilty of far worse bias and dissimulation, lest we believe nothing they say. This is clearly a double standard. As Glenn Greenwald (“18th most influential liberal in the U.S. media”) writes:

    “Obama supporters who are dutifully insisting that the President [Obama] not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground [that the target] is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they’re actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That’s the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it’s true — no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death… Obama uses…secrecy and immunity…not to shield Bush lawlessness from judicial review, but his own.”

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 25, 2011 at 12:17 am #

    WAYK: Dr C seems to be unaware that he is applying a double standard.

    Dr C’s argument against the Wenzel poll is that because it contains (as Dr C believes) leading questions and bias this must invalidate in entirety the Wenzel poll. Dr C appears to be fallaciously arguing a false dilemma i.e. “either all the results of the Wenzel poll are valid or none of the results of the Wenzel poll are valid.”

    I don’t believe that I said that; however, if one comes upon a stinking pile of garbage, there might theoretically be something of value at the bottom of it, but I spend my time on more promising avenues.

    The same may be said of your long comment, which I didn’t finish reading. However, it should be noted that there is no legally binding requirement that WAYK tell the truth and in fact he may lie with impunity on the Internet.

    Anyway, you’re still banned.

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 25, 2011 at 1:14 am #

    WAYK:
    Dr C seems to be unaware that he is applying a double standard.

    For good reason – he isn’t.

    Dr C’s argument against the Wenzel poll is that because it contains (as Dr C believes) leading questions and bias this must invalidate in entirety the Wenzel poll.

    Pretty much – it’s the old ‘garbage in, garbage out’ principle. The questions are extremely poorly designed and as such any analysis of the results is essentially worthless.

    Dr C appears to be fallaciously arguing a false dilemma i.e. “either all the results of the Wenzel poll are valid or none of the results of the Wenzel poll are valid.”

    The results are valid (I assume that the polling company made the phone calls and complied the results – I’ll assume that they didn’t put their finger on the scale, either…) they are just meaningless.

    That there might be another way to interpret the Wenzel poll results is not something Dr C seems inclined to explore.

    Because no one cares about the analysis of a flawed statistic – it doesn’t tell us anything of value.

    However, a third way of assessing the Wenzel poll results is simply to compare the Wenzel poll with other polls on the same issue.

    So are you going to compare it only with other flawed polls or are you going to try to compare apples and oranges?

    Even without wading into the mathematics of Kalman filtering and backwards smoothing,

    I call bull$hit. Wade into the mathematics all you like – I checked out Kalman filtering and backwards smoothing and there’s nothing there that will save this incompetent poll. Don’t worry about getting too technical, either – I’ve got a PhD in Mathematics, so I’ll do my best to keep up…

    if the Wenzel poll essentially agrees with other polls conducted by other pollsters, also identifying a clear trend in public opinion, we can eliminate gross bias from our understanding of its results.

    The Wenzel poll cannot agree with other (unbiased) polls because it is asking a different (and ill-posed) question.

    Since other polls, even those commissioned by organizations sympathetic to Obama, have shown a significant trend in American opinion which is not convinced that Obama was born in the US, and the Wenzel poll is consistent with that trend, this can only mean that large numbers, indeed many millions, of Democrats and African-Americans are not persuaded by the claim that Obama was born in the US, and thus someone holding the contrary view should not be stereotyped as isolated or partizan or racist or crazy.

    If you want to cite polls and give your interpretation of the results, I’ll point out how your analysis is full of crap – until then it’s just another unsupported (and unsupportable) BS from a birther… *YAWN*

    (For the record, an example of PRO-Obama poll bias: in July 2010 CNN asked “Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?” Placing “definitely born in the US” first in the sequence of possibilities may have conditioned respondents to prefer this possibility as their answer.

    This statement marks you as either an idiot or dishonest – which is it? (I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why…)

    CNN’s pollsters might have better controlled for bias; notwithstanding, in the actual CNN poll 27% of all respondents held the opinion that Obama was definitely or probably born OUTSIDE the US, which figure included 15% of all Democrat respondents.

    Did they think that he was born outside of Hawai’i or that Hawai’i wasn’t a US state at the time of his birth? There is no way to gain a nuanced understanding of public opinion on the subject without a more detailed poll (or at least all of the questions in this one as well as the cross-tabs).

    CNN reporting its poll stated: “President Obama’s birth certificate has been certified authentic by the Republican governor [Lingle] of Hawaii. His birth announcement appeared in print in 1961.” Clearly, it is not within the official competence of a Governor to certify births, Lingle has never legally attested to Obama’s alleged COLB with her handwritten signature, and no printed example of Obama’s alleged birth announcements has ever been produced; for the implications of the latter see below).

    Sorry, but Dr. Fukino (the custodian of President Obama’s birth certificate at the time) testified under oath that the COLB posted online was a copy of the president’s birth certificate. What Governor Lingle did or didn’t say is irrelevant (though it does corroborate Dr. Fukino’s testimony and official statements on the subject).

    Assuming hypothetically that Dr C is correct that the possibility of bias and dissimulation requires that the Wenzel poll results be rejected completely, then, using Dr C’s own standard, it cannot be explained why Dr C does not reject the online images purporting to depict Obama’s COLB and his birth announcements.

    This is not even a remotely valid comparison – it’s not worth a response other than to laugh in your face – HA-HA!

    The dubious evidentiary basis of the images, which constitute the only purported evidence of Obama’s birth in the US, must surely mean they too should be rejected completely; but to them Dr C seems to apply another standard.

    Images that are completely consistent with the ‘official’ narrative and have been repeatedly confirmed by officials of the Hawai’i DOH – a certified copy of the document purportedly shown in the images which the Hawai’i DOH has confirmed exists (as well as confirming the relevant data – born in Honolulu) would be accepted a prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i – and thus natural born citizenship – in every single US court including the SCOTUS

    Dr C believes the online images allegedly depicting Obama’s COLB and birth announcements are genuine. There are many ways in which these images raise more questions than answers, so let’s keep to the possibility of bias and dissimulation:

    The only way that they raise more questions than answers is if you are a bigot who has let their prejudice against the president overcome their objectivity.

    [more ignorant, incoherent babbling deleted…]

    If you cannot see that the WND poll is junk, the CNN poll (while not extremely insightful) is not, and that the image of the COLB is a completely different issue then I pity you your ignorance (and/or lack of intelligence).

  71. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 25, 2011 at 1:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t believe that I said that; however, if one comes upon a stinking pile of garbage, there might theoretically be something of value at the bottom of it, but I spend my time on more promising avenues.

    The same may be said of your long comment, which I didn’t finish reading. However, it should be noted that there is no legally binding requirement that WAYK tell the truth and in fact he may lie with impunity on the Internet.

    Anyway, you’re still banned.

    I believe that the relative amounts of time spent on our responses to WAYK is conclusive proof that you’re a wiser man than I… 😉

  72. avatar
    Greg March 25, 2011 at 1:23 am #

    So, we have to reject the COLB because we reject a biased poll? What was that about false dilemmas?

    Oh, and brevity is the soul of wit.

  73. avatar
    The Magic M March 25, 2011 at 4:30 am #

    > 1e) The ultimate source claimed for the image(s) of Obama’s alleged COLB (i.e. Obama and his campaign) was under no legal obligation to tell the truth and had legal impunity for any lies told.

    Now where did you pull that piece of “legal expertise” from again? Obama had legal impunity for any lies told? His campaign workers did the same? Laughable.

    > The initial scan of Obama’s alleged COLB was sent by Obama and his campaign to Politico\Daily Kos only because OBAMA was keeping quarantined at HDoH any records concerning himself the release of which he controlled.

    Obama had nothing to do with any records being withheld by the DoH. “Keeping quarantined” assumes that he had to actively keep his records sealed which he didn’t.

    > After the scan was published, under Hawaii law Obama automatically forfeited privacy in the matter of his vital records

    Plain nonsense. Hawaiian law does not have a waiver clause with the effect you claim.
    Private data remain private, even if they are published by the person concerned. May the IRS disclose your income to anyone once you’ve posted it on your blog?

    > what followed was a even more bizarre statement from HDoH Director Fukino which, for a year prior, she had been adamant it was illegal for her to make.

    So even if, arguendo, Fukino was not allowed to make such a statement, why would that make such a statement untrue?

    > Clearly, many people find it difficult to work these sources into a credible point of view

    Clearly, birthers try their best to ignore and obfuscate that Hawaiian authorities have confirmed both Obama’s Hawaiian birth and the authenticity of his COLB several times. As one birther ad says about Obama, I say to you: You tried and you lied but it won’t go away. No sane person will buy your contrived “arguments” why Hawaii did not say what it clearly said.

    > or rationalize their behavior as a series of random events; hence the polling trend.

    I suspect most people didn’t even know Hawaii has confirmed Obama’s credentials multiple times.

    > As a consequence their evidential value in or out of court is precisely zero.

    Of course, you fool. No-one would produce “images” as evidence in court, they would produce the actual certified copy. But to show it to the world, they had to put it up in digital form. Any amoeba can understand that. Since you are capable of speech, you cannot be dumber than an amoeba, so you must be intentionally lying and obfuscating. Pathetic.

    > and their ultimate source cannot be trusted.

    The Hawaiian DoH? The former Republican governor of Hawaii? Yeah, beeeg konspeeraceee, dude!

    > 2) The claim that Hawaii newspapers announced Obama’s birth is not made on the basis of original paper copies of newspapers from 1961, but on microfiche holdings in public libraries.

    Then why don’t you refute this prima facie evidence by finding an actual copy of said newspapers *not* containing Obama’s birth announcement?

    Then again, even if you could not, you’d just move the goalposts and claim these announcements “don’t prove anything”.

  74. avatar
    Scientist March 25, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    WAYK: Obama has unprecedentedly assumed to himself the power to order, without restraint of law, the secret physical liquidation of US citizens ( http://tinyurl.com/3a9scle and http://tinyurl.com/2f2z8b9 ).

    Let’s look at this very curious statement from our friend WAYK

    There are certainly legitimate reasons to question Obama’s “anti-terrorism” policies, whiich, sadly, have followed those of his predecessor. Of course, none of those have the slightest thing to do with his eligibility for office. But, it’s entertaining to see how some of the far-right birther crowd have all of a sudden discovered civil liberties. Where were they when Bush was trampling those same rights? Had they been in the forefront of opposing the Patriot Act, renditions, waterboarding, etc., then they would at least have some credibility as defenders of the Constitution. As it is, they have none.

    Now, let’s look at this American citizen, Anwar, al-Awlaki. He was born in the US,, the child of 2 Yemeni citiizens. So he is a US citizen by virtue of the birthright citizenship that the vast majority of birthers oppose. Yet all of sudden, if it can somehow be twiisted against Obama, the birthers do a 180 and crown him a full citizen,(while denying the same to Obama who had a US citizen parent). They certainly have earned a gold medal in mental gymnastics.

  75. avatar
    JoZeppy March 25, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    WAYK: The images (and allegedly paper) purporting to depict Obama’s COLB on openly sympathetic websites passed through an unknown number of hands and processes before reaching the webpages where the public viewed them. Nobody in the chain can be certain what previous hands or processes may have done to these images (and paper) . As a consequence their evidential value in or out of court is precisely zero.

    You may want to brush up on your rules of evidence. A government document with a seal is a self authenticating document. You don’t need a chain of custody for it to be admissable. The paper copy is still prima facie evidence.

  76. avatar
    JoZeppy March 25, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    I’m not going to go point by point poking holes in WAYK’s insane and reality free zone of insanity…but to just pick a few juicy bits:

    WAYK: 1b) Politico and Daily Kos posted an image (scan) of Obama’s alleged COLB, reporting they had received it via e-mail from the Obama campaign, but although this scan had no discernable HDoH seal or mailing folds, this did not erode their belief in its

    Actually they are evident. You just have to look closely. You see when you scan a 3 dimensional document, those elements, that don’t differ in color, aren’t always as clear as they would be in the origial paper. Anyone who has ever scanned a document with a notary seal could tell you that (that’s why you’ll note some people will shade a notary seal with pencil before scanning).

    WAYK: . Anyhow, Obama’s alleged COLB strangely contained digital artifacts unique to the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS image, which Factcheck never che

    That’s probably because there is no legitimate source claiming the existence of “digital artifacts” and in fact was debunked by a real computer expert known as Dr. Krawitz.

    WAYK: checked; the alleged COLB now sported mailing folds (which the accusations of fakery had said should not be have been absent from the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS im

    Nothing suprising about that. Folds and raised seals don’t always show up clearly on a scan (thus the reason for them photographicing it).

    WAYK: ); however Factcheck did not photograph the mailing envelope or receipts, a simple and obvious check of the fact of mailing

    You’re assuming they kept it? I don’t know about you, but I usually throw out the envelope when I get mail, and rarely keep reciepts (and certainly don’t keep them for over a year).

    WAYK: Moreover because Factcheck did not request from HDoH (or omitted to report the request) either a non-certified copy of Obama’s vital records (as it was legally entitled to do but again omitted to report) or a certified copy (as it was legally entitled to do since Obama had forfeited privacy with release of the Politico\Daily Kos\FTS image), Factcheck only had the word of the Obama campaign – again see Factcheck’s understanding of the law in

    Actually, you’re dead wrong on the law. Hawaii law strictly forbids the release of vital records to non-interested parties (and the definition of who is considered an interested party is very limited). There is no waiver provision in the statute (big surprise! a birther is wrong on the law).

    WAYK: The ultimate source claimed for the image(s) of Obama’s alleged COLB (i.e. Obama and his campaign) was under no legal obligation to tell the truth and had legal impunity for any lies told.

    Except of course laws covering conspiracy and forgery of a government document.

    WAYK:After the scan was published, under Hawaii law Obama automatically forfeited privacy in the matter of his vital records, and HDoH were legally obliged to release all Obama’s vital records to Factcheck and anyone

    Again, you would be 100% wrong here. Hawaiian privacy statutes forbid the release of vital records to just anyone.

    WAYK: The images (and allegedly paper) purporting to depict Obama’s COLB on openly sympathetic websites passed through an unknown number of hands and processes before reaching the webpages where the public viewed them. Nobody in the chain can be certain what previous hands or processes may have done to these images (and paper) . As a consequence their evidential value in or out of court is precisely

    As said earlier…the paper copy is prima facia evidence as a self authenticating document.

    WAYK: Applying Dr C’s standard, we should reject the images of Obama’s COLB because although they contain and are surrounded by unexplained elements the websites promoting them are guilty of bias and dissimulation in the reporting of these elements and their ultimate source cannot be trusted.

    But we have confirmation of the facts in the birth certificate by parties that were anything but friendly to Obama (i.e. the Republican governor of Hawaii). As the document appears to be like any other Hawaiin COLB and all evidence points to him being born in Hawaii, and no evidence has been brought forward to contradict it (and the unlikelihood that the President will mail a paper copy to every voting age citizen), I accept it.

    WAYK: The claim that Hawaii newspapers announced Obama’s birth is not made on the basis of original paper copies of newspapers from 1961, but on microfiche holdings in public libraries. Unfortunately, Factcheck did not post an image of Obama’s birth announcement which came directly from any of these public holdings but used a privately sourced image; Factcheck chose not to cross-check the facts concerning these public holdings; Factcheck did not see fit to cross-check the privately sourced image with the publicly sourced images; Factcheck chose not to facilitate its readers’ own comparisons of the public images with its privately sourced image by publishing both; and Factcheck’s present image of the birth announcement links to no source and the “original” is unavailable

    Feel free to go to any public liabrary and prove them wrong.

    WAYK: Furthermore, the public holdings of Obama’s birth announcements are issued to members of the public WITHOUT continuous supervision. Such microfiches are only admissible as evidence into court under two exemptions of the Hawaii and Federal Rule of Evidence: 803(16),

    Actually, under the Rules of Evidence, you don’t need the birth announcements. You already have the COLB which is prima facie evidence of the facts on it. I’m not going to bother going to fight the other inaccuracies in what follows because it’s unneccessary.