Main Menu

American idiot

One of the most intellectually offensive web sites that I occasionally visit (because people send me links) is the American Thinker. The articles there have a literate writing style and the web site looks like a commercial news site. Yet amid an attractive context, one finds utter idiocy. Case in point:

The left has painted “birthers” as racists, nuts, and paranoids. What gets left out of the equation is: one, Obama has spent millions of dollars on attorneys protecting his birth certificate; two, Obama apparently traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when Americans were banned from going there; …

Idiot: n. Anyone who still believes in a 1981 US – Pakistan travel ban.

Readers here should know by now that Barack Obama hasn’t spend millions of dollars protecting his birth certificate and they know that there never was any kind of a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981. The former is a rumor proved false by a simple analysis of what cases Obama was actually named in, and what his attorneys actually did, coupled with the total lack of evidence the rumor has a basis in fact. The travel ban is proved false by contemporary State Department documents and articles in the newspaper of Americans visiting Pakistan.

Nothing but praise for Donald Trump’s recent birther outbursts:

And this is why Trump needs to keep raising the birth certificate issue. He shouldn’t stop even when the left ridicules him.

It looks to me that the right is doing the ridiculing. The left is just enjoying the show.

The spew of anti-liberal stereotypes is outside the subject area of this blog, but I will mention the invocation of the name of the right-wing bugbear, Alinsky.

The author, “Robin of Berkeley” is self described as a “recovering liberal” but I would describe Robin as a terminally-ill conservative myself.

, ,

36 Responses to American idiot

  1. avatar
    ASK Esq April 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Doc, it goes without saying that if birthers and their sites stuck to verifiable facts, they wouldn’t exist.

  2. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    The silliness of the “millions of dollars” argument is exemplified by considering that there would be a commensurate amount of money spent of lawyers on the plaintiff side. Are the birthers saying that they have spent $3M attempting to prosecute this travesty? Even if the plaintiff attorneys donated their time, there would still be the value of their time. Especially, when one considers the minimal amount of effort defendants’ attorneys need to put in compared to all the work plaintiffs’ attorneys to write their briefs. I don’t hear Orly or Leo or Mario screaming that they haven’t been paid.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    Sef: Are the birthers saying that they have spent $3M attempting to prosecute this travesty? Even if the plaintiff attorneys donated their time, there would still be the value of their time.

    One of the Obama attorneys in California worked pro bono.

  4. avatar
    Monty April 1, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Robin’s a she I think although gender doesn’t impact on their dumbness.

  5. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One of the Obama attorneys in California worked pro bono.

    Yes, I know, but their time still had value, even if they did not charge anyone for it. I doubt their office staff worked pro bono. I don’t hear the clamor.

  6. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    I know I’ve come across this “Robin of Berkley.” A rather hateful person with some serious issues. She wrote a rather offensive article about the President’s mother a while back (every sort of character assination you could think of all based on nothing but speculation).

  7. avatar
    gorefan April 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    “The travel ban is proved false’

    I’m sure your aware of this letter to the editor.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?sec=&spon=&scp=3&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

    “To the Editor:

    One of the pleasures of the Foreign Service is being able to serve in cities like Lahore, and I would welcome an influx of Americans who might have been inspired to come by Barbara Crossette’s piece, ”Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History” (Travel Section, June 14).

    But please caution them.

    While tourists can obtain a free, 30-day, non-extendable visa to Pakistan at the Wagah border crossing (on the rail route from New Delhi to Lahore), tourists cannot make the reverse journey from Pakistan to India through the same crossing unless they already have an Indian visa. The Indians only offer this service, so far as I know, to tourists debarking at airports. We have had a number of Americans stranded in Lahore who did not know this, and they tend to be too discouraged to enjoy the city. JOHN S. BRIMS, United States Consul General, Lahore, Pakistan”

    The other day, I posted this to a birther who mentioned the travel ban. He thanked me for my good work and for debunking this story. I told him that it had been debunked years ago, almost as soon as Berg mentioned it in his lawsuit.

    Later, I saw him post a comment that the 2008 VP candidate for the Libertarian Party didn’t know anyone who knew the President at Columbia. I posted that it had also been debunked. I don’t think he posted much after that.

    I am not sure what this means but I suspect there is a new crop of birthers.

  8. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion April 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

    I’ve written about “Robin of Berkeley” before. First in March of 2010

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/03/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-31-march-2010.html

    and again last month

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2011/02/dispatches-from-birtherstan-24-february-2011.html

    She claims to be a “recovering liberal and a psychotherapist” Based on comments she’s made in her writing, it looks like she got mugged by an African-American male, and has since projected the face of her attacker on Obama. Example:

    “Years ago, I came face to face with a man who also didn’t know that I existed. He had no qualms about injuring me and leaving me lying wounded in the middle of the street.
    I wasn’t a person to him. I was nothing. This is where all evil begins: the dehumanizing of another.

    From what I have seen this last year, Obama shows no ability to walk in another person’s shoes. This would require empathy and sensitivity, traits that are nowhere to be found.

    Frankly, every time I see Obama, I catch a glimpse of the man who mugged me.

    And that, to me, is the true danger and horror and shock of Barack.”

    and:

    “But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book, The Gift of Fear, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they’re about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly. I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn’t want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world.
    I’ll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards. I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.”

    and then later:

    “A number of years ago, I was the victim of a brutal street crime. Although I was left with a broken nose and two black eyes, I learned soon thereafter that I wasn’t a “good victim.”
    A progressive friend, Fran, clued me in. When I told her what happened, she said, “What you went through wasn’t half as bad as what he has suffered.” Fran was referring to the fact that I am white and the assailant was black. In other words, my suffering didn’t matter.”

    She’s claimed that “Communist Brainwashing” was the only reason why Stanley Ann Dunham would have married a black man, gone on rants about how the left victimizes women, and written about “anti-White bias”.

    I think it’s safe to say part of this is due to her looking at Obama and seeing, not the face of the President of the United States, but a black male coming to mug her and leave her bleeding. That’s why she defines Obama and his policies as causing PTSD and similar issues. Because she’s projecting rather than analyzing. And when she sees the face and race of her mugger rather than the leader of this country, the stress and trauma from her attack will colour how she sees that leader’s policies and opinions.

    She might not see herself as racist, but her own internalized trauma is causing her to act like one.

  9. avatar
    elid April 1, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    I also seriously, seriously doubt that any of Robin’s actual friends told her she should feel sorry for the mugger, especially if she was as badly injured as she claims.

  10. avatar
    thefarleftView April 1, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Idiot: n. Anyone who still believes in a 1981 US – Pakistan travel ban.

    Moron n, anyone who denies that a travel ban existed in Pakistan because
    they have a convenient memory due to fact that they are lemmings and incapable
    of reasoning outside the OBOT

    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then , but
    now the sick and twisted want to change the definition of things to suite
    their own temporal agenda (e.g. global cooling….opps…global warming…opps….climate Change, gay marriage, constitutional definition of natural born citizen which Vattel defined by including the words….natural….born…and get this …>>>>>citizen in the
    same paragraph. But, alas, libs can not connect the dots it seems.

    gotta love that Donald Trump !! don’t ya ?

  11. avatar
    thefarleftView April 1, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    he silliness of the “millions of dollars” argument is exemplified by….the fact that Lt Col Latkins case alone spent hundreds of thousands of dollars due to vast amount of resources taken at trial (hundreds of military people present). Libs just don’t get it, but alas they flunk math classes and have to take lib art classes instead. Anybody remember global cooling? It was going on about the same time the press was hawking about the travel “ban” to Pakistan.

  12. avatar
    y_p_w April 1, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then , but
    now the sick and twisted want to change the definition of things to suite
    their own temporal agenda …..

    The US has never had a travel ban for any of it’s citizens to any country. The closest that would come to it would be the economic embargo regarding Cuba, which effectively makes it a crime for US citizens and permanent residents to purchase travel to Cuba without a license from the Treasury Dept. I think there were similar policies in place against Libya and Iran at some time, but not Pakistan.

  13. avatar
    Judge Mental April 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    thefarleftView: he silliness of the “millions of dollars” argument is exemplified by….the fact that Lt Col Latkins case alone spent hundreds of thousands of dollars due to vast amount of resources taken at trial (hundreds of military people present). Libs just don’t get it, but alas they flunk math classes and have to take lib art classes instead. Anybody remember global cooling? It was going on about the same time the press was hawking about the travel “ban” to Pakistan.

    Lakin’s court martial had absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama did or didn’t do. Any expenses bill should be sent to him or his dog bite lawyer or split between all the birther idiots who encouraged his stupidity and played on his gullibility.

    Between 1977 and 1982 I split my working time between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bahrain. I can categorically asssure you that for US citizens there was no travel ban to Pakistan in 1981. There were thousands of US citizens living, working and visiting Pakistan before, during and after 1981.

    I went on to spend the most of the next 30 years living and working in Yemen, Egypt and the UAE. I now split my time between UAE and UK. You are quite simply wrong about the Pakistan ban.

  14. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    thefarleftView: Moron n, anyone who denies that a travel ban existed in Pakistan because
    they have a convenient memory due to fact that they are lemmings and incapable
    of reasoning outside the OBOT
    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then , but
    now the sick and twisted want to change the definition of things to suite
    their own temporal agenda (e.g. global cooling….opps…global warming…opps….climate Change, gay marriage, constitutional definition of natural born citizen which Vattel defined by including the words….natural….born…and get this …>>>>>citizen in the
    same paragraph. But, alas, libs can not connect the dots it seems.
    gotta love that Donald Trump !! don’t ya ?

    You remembered wrong. Simple as that. There is documentary evidence that it was a whole lot easier to get into Pakistan than many other countries around the world. There was no ban. All evidence points to the fact that there was no ban. The very State Department advisory that explains what you need to do to go to Pakistan readily available. All you had to do was show up at the border, and you get a 30 day visa. Does that sound like a “travel ban” to you? You have nothing to support your contention that there was a travel ban but your obviously faulty memory. So faulty that you pretend that you even heard of Vattel before 2 years ago.

  15. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    thefarleftView: he silliness of the “millions of dollars” argument is exemplified by….the fact that Lt Col Latkins case alone spent hundreds of thousands of dollars due to vast amount of resources taken at trial (hundreds of military people present). Libs just don’t get it, but alas they flunk math classes and have to take lib art classes instead. Anybody remember global cooling? It was going on about the same time the press was hawking about the travel “ban” to Pakistan.

    The former LtCol Lakin defended himself at a trial. All that has ever been done in any Obama case is to file a Motion to Dismiss, and attend a hearing. Trials are expensive. Re-filing the same Motion to Dismiss is not. The one time the government won attorneys’ fees for responding to one of these frivolous suits, they asked for less than $3k.

    Perhaps if you took a couple of lib arts classes you’d know how the courts work?

    Oh, and if the press was hawking a travel ban to Pakistan, you should have no trouble providing us with proof of it (funny, the only thing I’ve seen is a NYTimes story talking about Pakistan as a vacation destination…doesn’t sound like much of ban to me).

  16. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    thefarleftView: Idiot: n. Anyone who still believes in a 1981 US – Pakistan travel ban.
    Moron n, anyone who denies that a travel ban existed in Pakistan because
    they have a convenient memory due to fact that they are lemmings and incapable
    of reasoning outside the OBOT
    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then , but
    now the sick and twisted want to change the definition of things to suite
    their own temporal agenda (e.g. global cooling….opps…global warming…opps….climate Change, gay marriage, constitutional definition of natural born citizen which Vattel defined by including the words….natural….born…and get this …>>>>>citizen in the
    same paragraph. But, alas, libs can not connect the dots it seems.
    gotta love that Donald Trump !! don’t ya ?

    Then you have alzheimers because there was no travel “ban” and it wasn’t called then. A travel advisory isn’t a travel ban. Chances are you had no idea where Pakistan was in the 80s.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=1&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?sec=&spon=&scp=3&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

    Why do you continue to lie about something that was debunked over 2 years ago?

  17. avatar
    Rickey April 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    thefarleftView:

    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then

    Please show us proof that you were alive and had a functioning brain in 1981.

    There was no ban on travel to Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan International Airlines had regularly scheduled service from JFK in New York to Pakistan in 1981, which would have made no sense if Americans weren’t allowed to travel there. PIA’s website even has a photo of one of its planes at JFK Airport in August, 1981 (it’s the second photo down):

    http://www.historyofpia.com/unusualaircraft.htm

    So look in a mirror before you call other people morons.

  18. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 1, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    thefarleftView: he silliness of the “millions of dollars” argument is exemplified by….the fact that Lt Col Latkins case alone spent hundreds of thousands of dollars due to vast amount of resources taken at trial (hundreds of military people present). Libs just don’t get it, but alas they flunk math classes and have to take lib art classes instead. Anybody remember global cooling? It was going on about the same time the press was hawking about the travel “ban” to Pakistan.

    Latkins? You can’t even get that one right. Lakin spent money because he changed lawyers in midstream from a probono to a paid one.

    Also there was no travel ban

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=1&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?sec=&spon=&scp=3&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

  19. avatar
    richCares April 1, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    why answer “thefarledtview”, he iss locked into far right hate and incapable of learning or making corrections. All he can do is continue proving his ignorance.

  20. avatar
    Judge Mental April 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    To be fair farleftview obviously isn’t talking about the cost of Lakin’s defence, I think he’s talking about the cost to the military and thus the taxpayer, in trying him.

    Still utter codswallop of course as only one person brought that situation about….and it sure as heck wasn’t Obama.

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 1, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    To be fair farleftview obviously isn’t talking about the cost of Lakin’s defence, I think he’s talking about the cost to the military and thus the taxpayer, in trying him.

    Still utter codswallop of course as only one person brought that situation about….and it sure as heck wasn’t Obama.

    What amazes me is how the birthers treat a BF like convicted felon Lakin like a hero completely unaware of how big of a hypocrite that generally makes them…

  22. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    thefarleftView: he silliness of the “millions of dollars” argument is exemplified by

    TFLV, that particular sequence of bits is copyrighted. You owe me $16 trillion.

  23. avatar
    Suranis April 1, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    constitutional definition of natural born citizen which Vattel defined by including the words….natural….born…and get this …>>>>>citizen in the
    same paragraph. But, alas, libs can not connect the dots it seems.

    I know this should be obvious to anyone that can actually think a little but I’m going to say it anyway. Vattel never inclided the words natural born citizen in the same paragraph. Why so I make this outragous assertion? Simple. Vattel was german. he wrote “Le droit des gens, ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains” In French

    Remember France, the country you would have been hating since 2003 when they refused to suppord Bushes war with Iraq? Everything french was bad till a black guy came to the presidency?

    Heres what Vattel did write.

    “Les Citoyens font les membres de la Société Civile Liés cette Société par certains devoirs & fournis fon Au torité il participent avec égalité fes avantages Les Naturels ou îndigènet font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens La Société ne pouvant fe foutenir & fe perpétuer que par les enfans des Citoyens ces enfans y fui vent naturellement la conditionn de leurs Pères & entrent dans tous leurs droits La Société eft cenfée le vouloir ainfi par une fuite de ce qu elle doit fa propre confervation & l on préfume de droit que chaque Citoyen en entrant dans la Société réferve fes enfans le droit d en être membres La Patrie des Pères eft donc celle des enfans & ceux ci de Bb 3 viennent”

    The part you love is “Les Naturels au indigenet” which translates as “the native, or indigenous”. You could translate it as natural born citizen, but if you were following Vattel, the only people actually eligible for the presidency are American Indians…

    And Vattel did also say (No french this time) “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

    So even Vattel says his treatise was not universal in law, and is not fallowed in England, and by extension the colonies.

    And by the way George Washington could speak about as much french as you can.

  24. avatar
    BatGuano April 1, 2011 at 7:29 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    … constitutional definition of natural born citizen which Vattel defined by including the words….natural….born…and get this …>>>>>citizen in the
    same paragraph.

    i like this new argument. the words “natural”, “born” and “citizen” do not exist next to each other or even in the same sentence….. but they do exist in the same paragraph.

    good work eagle-eye.

  25. avatar
    Rickey April 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    Judge Mental:
    To be fair farleftview obviously isn’t talking about the cost of Lakin’s defence, I think he’s talking about the cost to the military and thus the taxpayer, in trying him.

    The cost to the taxpayers was minimal. The prosecutors and the court-martial panel were salaried active duty military, who would have been paid whether they were trying Lakin or an AWOL enlisted soldier. There might have been some expense incurred in bringing in Lakin’s replacement to testify, but I doubt if the trial cost taxpayers tens of thousands, much less hundreds of thousands.

    In fact, I can’t imagine how even Lakin’s defense could have cost hundreds of thousands. I would love to know how much money his supporters raised and how much his dog bite attorney was paid, but of course they will never release that information.

  26. avatar
    Daniel April 1, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then ,

    Well I was alive in the 1980’s AND I was an adult with a job. There was no travel ban to Pakistan, by that name or any other. People travelled back and forth freely…. like my Boss, who went on business trips there four or five times a year.

    You may remember “distinctly”…. but you still remember incorrectly.

  27. avatar
    Daniel April 1, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    Libs just don’t get it,

    I’m not a “lib”. I’m a card carrying Republican. How’s it feel to be wrong…AGAIN!!

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    gorefan: I am not sure what this means but I suspect there is a new crop of birthers.

    For some reason the phrase “TRUMPet WinSock Puppet” came to mind.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    thefarleftView: Moron n, anyone who denies that a travel ban existed in Pakistan because
    they have a convenient memory due to fact that they are lemmings and incapable
    of reasoning outside the OBOT

    I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then

    liar. n someone who makes an assertion without bothering to read the documentary evidence presented that proves otherwise.

    By the way, do you also have vivid memories of being abducted by aliens?

  30. avatar
    aarrgghh April 1, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion:
    I’ve written about “Robin of Berkeley” before. … Based on comments she’s made in her writing, it looks like she got mugged by an African-American male, and has since projected the face of her attacker on Obama.

    there is a saying that i’ve elaborated upon and have been using as one of my email signatures. my elaboration is in the phrasing and the addition of the second clause:

    “a conservative may be just a liberal who’s been mugged, while a liberal may be just a conservative who’s been arrested.”

  31. avatar
    Daniel April 1, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: By the way, do you also have vivid memories of being abducted by aliens?

    That’s a pretty unfair comparison, Doc.

    Do you really think it’s right to insult the intelligence of alien abductees by comparing them to birthers?

  32. avatar
    Joey April 1, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    The American taxpayers will be making back the money spent on the Lieutenant Colonel Lakin court martial since we will no longer be paying him a salary until the age of retirement and we won’t be paying him a pension.

  33. avatar
    Judge Mental April 1, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Nice one Joey!

  34. avatar
    Judge Mental April 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm #

    Couldn’t agree more Rickey.

  35. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    aarrgghh: there is a saying that i’ve elaborated upon and have been using as one of my email signatures. my elaboration is in the phrasing and the addition of the second clause:

    “a conservative may be just a liberal who’s been mugged, while a liberal may be just a conservative who’s been arrested.”

    LOL! That’s awesome. I’ll have to remember that one.

  36. avatar
    misha April 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    thefarleftView: I was alive in 1980s and distinctly remember travel “ban” as it was called then

    There never was a travel ban; there was an advisory. It’s the same advisory the State Department issued about Israel. I went there despite the travel advisory. The day before I arrived, a terrorist shot three gentile tourists, killing one.

    I visited one kibbutz, and was asked to join – which I did.

    Know why? Because the person giving the tour said they practice ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ Every American visiting was appalled, except for me.

    I knew that was Lenin. BTW, I would not mind seeing that applied to Trump and his coterie.