Off-topic Dump 2.1

Posted on April 26, 2011 by Dr. Conspiracy

This site is about Obama conspiracy theories and crank views related to his eligibility to be President. President Obama as President, how well he is doing, whether you like him or not is off-topic. The 2012 election is off topic except as to how it relates to the aforementioned topics. Economic policy is off topic. Conservative vs Liberal is off topic. Jews vs Christians vs Muslims is off topic. Off topic comments get moved here, where they cannot be discussed or replied to. They also might just be deleted.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.

View all posts by Dr. Conspiracy →

This entry was posted in Lounge, Off topic. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Off-topic Dump 2.1

Jes Beard says:

April 26, 2011 at 3:35 pm

Scientist: So as far as your concerned quoting a statute correctly or incorrectly is of no consequence?I am not surpised to hear that from yyou.

Just out of curiosity, what does it exist for?

When the statute is not one at issue in the blog entry, you are correct that it doesn’t matter. You want to quote for me the statute in Pennsylvania on who could register to vote in that state in 1830? I am not going to argue with whatever you offer, because it doesn’t matter to the current discussion.

As to what by blog exists for, it is a vehicle for me to write. Some of that is (or will be) political/economic commentary, some libertarian philosophy, some creative writing, some on gardening, some reporting.

It exists as a vehicle for my writing, and for commentary on that writing (or, suggestions on how to improve my gardening), but NOT as a site devoted to reviewing every theory under the sun about whether Obama is or is not legitimately holding office.

This site, and several others, serve that purpose. If you want another one, you go create it.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Trump has wrecked Romney’s chances, and that’s all I care about.

Keep talking, Donald. By the time you are done, the GOP will have imploded.
Sean says:

April 26, 2011 at 3:55 pm

misha:
Trump has wrecked Romney’s chances, and that’s all I care about.

Keep talking, Donald. By the time you are done, the GOP will have imploded.

Yesterday, Chris Mathews described Romney as dog food that no dog wants to eat no matter how many times you serve it to them.
Thrifty says:

April 26, 2011 at 3:57 pm

misha: Trump has wrecked Romney’s chances, and that’s all I care about.

How has he done that?
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

April 26, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Thrifty: How has he done that?

By making Romney appear too sane to be a Republican of course.
G says:

April 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Jes Beard: When the statute is not one at issue in the blog entry, you are correct that it doesn’t matter. You want to quote for me the statute in Pennsylvania on who could register to vote in that state in 1830? I am not going to argue with whatever you offer, because it doesn’t matter to the current discussion. As to what by blog exists for, it is a vehicle for me to write. Some of that is (or will be) political/economic commentary, some libertarian philosophy, some creative writing, some on gardening, some reporting.It exists as a vehicle for my writing, and for commentary on that writing (or, suggestions on how to improve my gardening), but NOT as a site devoted to reviewing every theory under the sun about whether Obama is or is not legitimately holding office.This site, and several others, serve that purpose. If you want another one, you go create it.

Hey, you are free to have your own site all you want. This site exists for debunking and challenging conspiracy claims. You don’t want us going there and challenging aspects of what you write, fine. But if you come here, you are doing so knowing that is what we do here.

YOU are the one who came over here and keeps coming back, so if you wish to come here, be prepared to be challenged on those issues.

If you can have a healthy and scholarly dialogue, people will settle down and treat you with respect. I’m sure you can understand that respect needs to be earned. If you are truly a libertarian in nature, than you should have a healthy sense of self-responsibility and to hold yourself accountable for your own statements and actions.
Suranis says:

April 26, 2011 at 4:09 pm

nemocapn: That’s my sentiment, too. I’d like to see a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket, but I know some people think that’s crazy.

I actually quite like Ron Paul, but I have no time whatsoever for his son.
nemocapn says:

April 26, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Suranis: I actually quite like Ron Paul, but I have no time whatsoever for his son.

Same here. Ron Paul is way better than Rand Paul, and Billy Graham is way better than Franklin Graham. (in my opinion)
G says:

April 26, 2011 at 4:25 pm

Suranis: I actually quite like Ron Paul, but I have no time whatsoever for his son.

I feel the same way about both of them. Rand definitely lacks the wisdom and experience of his father and therefore, has so far come across closer to dangerously naive as opposed to just a sincere idealist, like his father.

I may not consider many of Ron Paul’s ideas to be practical for the 21st century global interconnected reality we live in, but he is at least very sincere and consistent in his stance. His ideas often sound good in theory and I’m glad to have him out there in the space of democracy, serving to provide alternative options for consideration. I just don’t see many of those ideas being either practical or pragmatic in practice. On too many of those issues (gold standard), “that ship has long sailed” and there is no sensible way to “turn back the clock” without causing greater damage in the process.

Ron Paul also knows how to make his arguments and treat his opponents in a respectful manner. So, I can disagree with him and not have interest in voting for him, yet still very much respect him and be glad that he’s part of the broader specturm of public conversation.

The saddest irony is how poorly many of Ron Paul’s ardent followers are able to live up to any of his standards.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 26, 2011 at 4:39 pm

Slartibartfast: If you are against President Obama for his policies, fine (if you’re against him because of the right-wing straw man of his polices, that’s another matter entirely and not one for this blog…). But if you are against President Obama because you think he’s a… negro, communist, socialist, left-wing, Kenyan, muslim, CIA agent, Soviet spy, nazi, etc. (I think you get the point) then you are making a prior judgement of the man rather than judging him by his actions. Another way of saying that is that you are prejudiced against President Obama and prejudiced people are known as bigots. Birtherism is based on some sort of prejudice against the president – ergo, all birthers are bigots.

I’m against Obama because he’s a dolt who clearly does not prize the America of the Founders. I do believe that Obama is a socialist or a very aggressive Keynesian. Choose. I believe his policies are dunderheaded and disastrous. I don’t see why “socialist” should be listed along with contentions that are clearly irrational. After all, several members of his administration are unabashed socialists. In any event, my assessment of him is based on his actions. I don’t care what he claims in that regard. In other words, my dispute with him is ideological, nothing more.
G says:

April 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm

Michael David Rawlings: I’m against Obama because he’s a dolt who clearly does not prize the America of the Founders. I do believe that Obama is a socialist or a very aggressive Keynesian. Choose. I believe his policies are dunderheaded and disastrous. I don’t see why “socialist” should be listed along with contentions that are clearly irrational. After all, several members of his administration are unabashed socialists. In any event, my assessment of him is based on his actions. I don’t care what he claims in that regard. In other words, my dispute with him is ideological, nothing more.

Fair enough. I may not view things as you do, but I certainly feel you are entitled to your perspective and opinion.

We may all have different definitions for what we view as “socialism” or if/when it becomes an issue or problem at all or where it might be practical or helpful for a society… but again, those are all within the realm of philosophical disagreements, so I don’t see any use in arguing about it and am fine to just accept that we view things differently.
Slartibartfast says:

April 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm

Michael David Rawlings: I’m against Obama because he’s a dolt who clearly does not prize the America of the Founders.I do believe that Obama is a socialist or a very aggressive Keynesian.Choose.I believe his policies are dunderheaded and disastrous.I don’t see why “socialist” should be listed along with contentions that are clearly irrational.After all, several members of his administration are unabashed socialists.In any event, my assessment of him is based on his actions.I don’t care what he claims in that regard.In other words, my dispute with him is ideological, nothing more.

Okay, thanks for explaining. I accept your dispute with President Obama is ideological and based on your view of his positions (which I believe are based on right wing propaganda rather than facts – but that’s not a discussion for this site…). So, in my opinion (which is nothing more than what I think) your ignorance (which may or may not be willful) has left you vulnerable to right-wing propaganda* which has prejudiced you (to some extent) against President Obama. So I would consider your bigotry (which I feel has been hinted at in your comments) to be both relatively mild (non-existent when compared to a birther) and unintentional (I believe that you truly feel you are being objective – I have no questions about your motives whatsoever). As for the label ‘socialist’, I don’t feel that it is appropriate for someone who is arguably ideologically to the right of President Nixon…

*not your fault, but you should probably watch less FOX NEWS. Do you ever find out what they’re saying on MSNBC? I keep track of what they’re saying on FOX to make sure that I can debunk it (it’s pretty easy to do) – can you do the same to liberal arguments? I doubt it.
nemocapn says:

April 26, 2011 at 5:26 pm

G: . Worse, some of the more unhinged folks would have to say unnecessary, undeserved and uncalled for vile things about his wife, kids and other family.

One of the worst accusations was that Laura Bush was a murderer. What a horrible thing to say about a lovely first lady.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 5:45 pm

Greg: More people voted for Obama than for any other Presidential candidate in the history of this nation.

Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote.
James M says:

April 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm

nemocapn:

One of the worst accusations was that Laura Bush was a murderer. What a horrible thing to say about a lovely first lady.

She did kill her friend Michael Douglas in 1963 in a vehicle accident. There is no reason to call it murder, but it was a vehicular homicide, even if an accident.

Was there some point to bringing the subject up? I remember it being brought up as an example of how fatal car accidents can happen, such as the accident with Senator Kennedy.
James M says:

April 26, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Jes Beard: It exists as a vehicle for my writing

I find that a Rhodia notebook and a relatively inexpensive fountain pen works well as a vehicle for my writing.

If you have a public blog, I would say that it exists as a vehicle for you to *broadcast* your writing, which is a distinct objective from writing.
Scientist says:

April 26, 2011 at 6:52 pm

Michael David Rawlings: I’m against Obama because he’s a dolt who clearly does not prize the America of the Founders. I do believe that Obama is a socialist or a very aggressive Keynesian. Choose. I believe his policies are dunderheaded and disastrous. I don’t see why “socialist” should be listed along with contentions that are clearly irrational. After all, several members of his administration are unabashed socialists. In any event, my assessment of him is based on his actions. I don’t care what he claims in that regard. In other words, my dispute with him is ideological, nothing more.

I find the idea of Obama as a “socialist” laughable. In any other Western country, he’d be a moderate conservative. Who are the socialists in the administration? The folks with power in the economic area are Tim Geithner and his minions who are friends of Wall Street. In fact the only socialist on the national stage in Bernie Sanders. If you’d like to give an old guy a good laugh, send him an EMail calling Obama a socialist.

As for America of the Founders, here’s the thing. There were no large multinational corporations in those days. If we were all small farmers and shopkeepers these libertarian notions might have some attraction. Government grew in response to the excesses of large corporations in the late 19th and early 20th century. It’s simply fantasy to think that indiviiduals or even groups of individuals can stand up to these behemoths. Government does a mediocre job of controlling the corporations, but it’s all we have. Get rid of corporations and then we can talk about reducing governnment.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Michael David Rawlings: After all, several members of his administration are unabashed socialists.

So? My grandfather was a communist, then socialist. He read Der Tag until it ceased publication, and subscribed to the Yiddish Forward until he died. I was a kibbutznik. My mother was a social rebel. My wife and I lived together for three years before we married, and shared a house with my mother.

Israel was founded by eastern European socialists. Golda Meir was a Marxist.

Did you know if Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist production?

Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
Rickey says:

April 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Michael David Rawlings: .I do believe that Obama is a socialist or a very aggressive Keynesian.

“We are all Keynesians now.” – Richard Nixon, 1971
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 7:13 pm

Scientist: In fact the only socialist on the national stage in Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, I am proud to say, is Jewish.
nemocapn says:

April 26, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Scientist: I find the idea of Obama as a “socialist” laughable

I agree with you, Scientist. Socialism has become a meaningless word in United States that’s hurled as an insult.

What amuses me is that my great-grandfather called himself a Communist and a Christian socialist in the 1880’s. He wrote an economic history of the United States. His book has been rediscovered by some of Ron Paul’s supporters and a NWO conspiracist. The NWO guy wrote a flattering review of it. He liked it because great-grandpa railed against banks expanding and contracting the currency. None of them had any idea they’re reading the work of a self-proclaimed socialist. LOL.

Before the wall of the Berlin Wall, 20th century Americans were taught to fear socialists and communists. I used to have the same fear, too, until I read what they were actually advocating. My socialist great-grandfather advocated the 8 hour work day, a graduated income tax, and giving women the right to vote. Wow, aren’t those really evil ideas? When someone says Obama is a socialist, I have to ask, “what is your definition of a socialist?” Chances are that it’s not “the workers own and control the means of production.”
Suranis says:

April 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm

As a guy in crazy socialist Europe I find the idea of president Obama being a socialist utterly hilarious. He would be fairly comfy in the British Conservative Tory party.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:02 pm

Suranis: He would be fairly comfy in the British Conservative Tory party.

He rescued GM. The Swedish government refused to rescue Saab.
nemocapn says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:04 pm

misha: He rescued GM. The Swedish government refused to rescue Saab.

Reagan rescued Chrysler.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:09 pm

Scientist: I find the idea of Obama as a “socialist” laughable. In any other Western country, he’d be a moderate conservative. Who are the socialists in the administration? The folks with power in the economic area are Tim Geithner and his minions who are friends of Wall Street. In fact the only socialist on the national stage in Bernie Sanders. If you’d like to give an old guy a good laugh, send him an EMail calling Obama a socialist.As for America of the Founders, here’s the thing. There were no large multinational corporations in those days. If we were all small farmers and shopkeepers these libertarian notions might have some attraction. Government grew in response to the excesses of large corporations in the late 19th and early 20th century. It’s simply fantasy to think that indiviiduals or even groups of individuals can stand up to these behemoths. Government does a mediocre job of controlling the corporations, but it’s all we have. Get rid of corporations and then we can talk about reducing governnment.

From the Lockean perspective, a Western perspective, he most certainly is a socialist. Controlling corporations?! LOL! Obama’s policies are the decimation of small business and corporate welfare run amuck in the billions, and that idiot Bush got the ball rolling for him. Hell, socialist Western Europe has all but erased small business from its economic infrastructure. Big business is the only thing that can survive heavy-handed regulation and taxation. I don’t see the big corporations being dragged kicking and screaming toward governmental largesse. . . . In the meantime, small business and the middleclass are shrinking. You true-believing leftists are so silly and naive, though repeatedly debunked by historical economic experience.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:15 pm

nemocapn: Reagan rescued Chrysler.

No, that was Carter: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html

Reagan did approve stiff tariffs on Japanese big bikes, to give Harley time to recover.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:18 pm

misha: So? My grandfather was a communist, then socialist. He read Der Tag until it ceased publication, and subscribed to the Yiddish Forward until he died. I was a kibbutznik. My mother was a social rebel. My wife and I lived together for three years before we married, and shared a house with my mother.Israel was founded by eastern European socialists. Golda Meir was a Marxist.Did you know if Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist production?Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

Do you have a point? Socialism is good? Is that it? The issue is whether or not Osama is a socialist. Of course he is in heart of hearts, but he can only push things so far. In his case the goal is to co-opt big business. Funny. It’s we conservative-libertarians that are most opposed to corporate welfare nowadays. Hmm.
gorefan says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:20 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Big business is the only thing that can survive heavy-handed regulation

Every time people talk about deregulation, they always say it leads to lower prices due to more competition. Can you name some of the industries that have been deregulated since the Reagan Presidency, that have actually led to more competition and lower prices? It’s not that I doubt what you say, I just don’t have the facts. Can you fill me in?
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Michael David Rawlings: The issue is whether or not Osama is a socialist.

Here’s my take on Rand Paul:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/05/asshole-of-year.html

Touché.
JoZeppy says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm

Michael David Rawlings: From the Lockean perspective, a Western perspective, he most certainly is a socialist. Controlling corporations?! LOL! Obama’s policies are the decimation of small business and corporate welfare run amuck in the billions, and that idiot Bush got the ball rolling for him. Hell, socialist Western Europe has all but erased small business from its economic infrastructure. Big business is the only thing that can survive heavy-handed regulation and taxation. I don’t see the big corporations being dragged kicking and screaming toward governmental largesse. . . . In the meantime, small business and the middleclass are shrinking. You true-believing leftists are so silly and naive, though repeatedly debunked by historical economic experience.

From a “Western perspective”? Western what? Use of the term Western usually includes Western Europe.

And since when do socialists give out corporate welfare? Socialism and proping up big business usually don’t go hand in hand.

As for the shrinking middle class….oddly enough, the middle class usually does better under those evil socialist democrats, than under republicans….During the past 60 years that the census bureau has been tracking the numbers, real incomes for the middle class grew twice as much under democratic presidents than under republican presidents, and six times as fast for the working poor. But don’t let facts get in the way of your tirades.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:37 pm

G: Generally, I agree with a majority of what you said. However, I want to make a few further points, just so that we are clear and we don’t have any false memes going on here. Any rational person would agree that crazies exist on ALL aspects of the political spectrum – right, left, up and down. When we get to the irrational Derangement Syndromes (whether BDS or ODS or otherwise) ALL of it is WRONG. Further, NONE of one form of xDS is justification for adopting another. This should not be a matter of Right/Left but a simple common sense matter of Right/Wrong. What can be said is that in the current enviornment, the Right specifically needs to do a better job of not pandering and supporting their crazy elements and kick them to the curb. Sadly, this hasn’t really happened since the Birchers were properly marginalized and scorned decades ago…sadly, EVEN THEY are now back and even given prominent sponsor booths at certain conservative events these days… that is definitely a cancerous problem and has been more and more tarnishing the entire GOP.Nor should any false equivalencies enter into the mix. Case in point – 9/11 Trutherism is utter crazy cr*p. I think we all can agree on that and get a laugh out of the general intent of your clever quip, “Truthers to the left of me, birthers to the right.” However, if we actually looked at that example seriously, it becomes apparent that there is more to that picture than meets the eye. A certain segment of Birthers also happen to be crazy 9/11 Truthers. Chalk it up to the segment of Birtherism that comes from simply being predisposed to an anti-government and paranoid conspiracy mindset. These are the folks that are often ranting about other nutty stuff like black helicopters, chem trails, FEMA camps and “lizard people”, regardless of who is in office. There is no clear right/left necessarily in that mix…just paranoid crazy.

Bull. The left has always been the epicenter of crazy, tolerated by the leftward-leaning mainstream media and the Democratic Party. The vast majority of the conservative movement knows damn well that birthers are idiots. On the other hand. . . . 9/11 Truthers. The Plame-Wilson scam. Population-bomb hysteria. Global-cooling hysteria 40 years ago. Global-warming hysteria today. Race-baiting, class warfare pimps as far as the eye can see. Leftist nutcases who use epithets like “fascist” or “Nazi” to describe their political opponents (Lockeans for crying out loud!) as casually as a dog licks it genitals. Don’t sidle up to me about the political right’s failings. I despise the political left unrelentingly and know them for the demagogues and the thieves and the thugs that they are. Busy-body, control freaks. That’s contemporary liberalism, as opposed to the classical liberalism of our founding..
Slartibartfast says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Big business is the only thing that can survive heavy-handed regulation

You mean the regulations that are supposed to keep the water we drink, the land we live on, and the air we breathe clean? Or the regulations that keep our food supply safe? Or the regulations that keep our nuclear industry from having a Chernobyl? Wouldn’t it have been nice if regulations had required BP to spend half a million on equipment that may have prevented the blowout in the gulf (something many other countries require)? And as for corporate welfare, how much did BP pay in income taxes last year? Was it less than the $0 that Exxon-Mobil paid? Is it okay to force companies that do business in the US to pay taxes in the US? You have neither a monopoly on the truth nor the moral high ground here – in fact, from where I’m sitting, it looks like you’re working from a bunch of fallacious axioms – but that not important here (while picayune details about Indonesian adoption are…). I suspect we’ll be seeing more and more of your type – conservatives pushing back hard against the birthers – until the birthers are completely marginalized, but don’t think that since you can filet a birther on the facts that you could take on any of the liberals here without a real fight… and you might just be surprised at the outcome.
nemocapn says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:43 pm

misha: No, that was Carter: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html

Reagan did approve stiff tariffs on Japanese big bikes, to give Harley time to recover.

It may have started under Carter, but Reagan bailed out Chrysler during his administration. The Reagan administration provided $400 million in loan guarantees in February 1981:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=G4EcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fVIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6898,6077418&dq=reagan+chrysler&hl=en

I remember when it happened.
Scientist says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:46 pm

Michael David Rawlings: That’s contemporary liberalism, as opposed to the classical liberalism of our founding..

Founding/schmounding. In those days you were lucky to live until 40. Keep the 18th century, thanks; I’ll take the 21st century for $2,000, Alex.
Scientist says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Not your fault though, apparently you were born a presumptuous ass.

You can kiss mine you sanctimounius fool. Your web site sucks too.
Slartibartfast says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Bull.The left has always been the epicenter of crazy, tolerated by the leftward-leaning mainstream media and the Democratic Party.The vast majority of the conservative movement knows damn well that birthers are idiots.On the other hand. . . .9/11 Truthers.The Plame-Wilson scam.Population-bomb hysteria.Global-cooling hysteria 40 years ago.Global-warming hysteria today.Race-baiting, class warfare pimps as far as the eye can see.Leftist nutcases who use epithets like “fascist” or “Nazi” to describe their political opponents (Lockeans for crying out loud!) as casually as a dog licks it genitals.Don’t sidle up to me about the political right’s failings.I despise the political left unrelentingly and know them for the demagogues and the thieves and the thugs that they are. Busy-body, control freaks.That’s contemporary liberalism, as opposed to the classical liberalism of our founding..

Parrot your right-wing talking points all you like, but I’m not going to let you piss down my neck and tell me its raining – you you’re just another holier-than-thou right-wing Libertarian idiot who’s probably read too much Ayn Rand and sucked down too much of the teabagger kool-aid that the Koch brothers have been doling out. I’d tear apart your baseless ignorant economic arguments (on the facts – historical economic statistics give the lie to your rants…) but it would be off-topic and you’re not worth it.
Keith says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:00 pm

misha: Ian Anderson and Jennie Anderson.

snot running down his nose… as he bends to pick a dog-end

They just don’t write songs like they used to.

Saw your post at ATS. Hope you recover soon.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:12 pm

Slartibartfast: If you spent some time checking out the discussions on this site (and if you didn’t, it’s your own damn fault for not doing recon…), you would know that I was treating you with kid gloves compared to my treatment of lying, hypocritical, stupid, ignorant, moronic, idiotic, dishonest, unpatriotic, unAmerican, seditious birthers. How I treat people depends on whether on not I think that they are acting in good faith (not whether they agree with me or not – it happens that almost all of the people who act in good faith here more or less agree with me, but the former is the standard I use to judge them rather than the latter. I thought that you had some interesting ideas (one of which I wanted to explore in a way you hadn’t) and made a couple of minor (i.e. easily corrected) errors. We’ve been discussing on other threads the fact that birthers will never acknowledge errors while most obots (and people of good character in general – Professor Chin and Doc C were cited as examples) acknowledge the argument and either admit their mistake or rebut the criticism. You chose to say “my facts are right” without any additional argument. This sends up red flags to many of us here. I urge you to try to prove that these misgivings that I (and I believe others) have about your character wrong. Fair warning – you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to give up that right, then anything you say can, and will, be held against you. Know your rights, these are your rights… – The Clash

I just got to this site, as a member of yours suggested I link my stuff to it as you guys were like-minded birther debunkers. If you have information unknown to me about certain matters, I have no problem with that. I’m wide open to good, solid information. Instead you want to be an ass about, beating me over the head about a matter that I haven’t looked at in over a year. I wrote those pieces months ago. So update me. But you take your lectures and your tone and shove them, you arrogant prick I’m light years ahead of most intellectually, and if paid any real attention to my stuff you would know that and know that your attitude is out of line and unnecessarily presumptive and provocative. Enough.

I’ll look at what you’ve got and update that particular article accordingly, but my stuff is solid and well worth the effort that was invested in it.

I know plenty of things you don’t, jackass, as we all possess any number of insights that no one person can possibly contain. I don’t go about lecturing people who are clearly open to the facts and trying to get it right. Screw you!
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:17 pm

nemocapn: It may have started under Carter, but Reagan bailed out Chrysler during his administration. The Reagan administration provided $400 million in loan guarantees in February 1981

I did forget. Oops.
Obsolete says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Still waiting to hear all about the conspiracy theory goodness that Valerie Plame was really just a “desk jockey”…

Our new friend has let his ideological blinders make him believe all sorts of nonsense, it seems.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:28 pm

gorefan: Every time people talk about deregulation, they always say it leads to lower prices due to more competition.Can you name some of the industries that have been deregulated since the Reagan Presidency, that have actually led to more competition and lower prices?It’s not that I doubt what you say, I just don’t have the facts.Can you fill me in?

Yeah because I definitely have competition for my cable provider being all of one provider Cablevision
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:40 pm

Obsolete:
Still waiting to hear all about the conspiracy theory goodness that Valerie Plame was really just a “desk jockey”…

Our new friend has let his ideological blinders make him believe all sorts of nonsense, it seems.

You actually expect an answer?
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:54 pm

longtime racist and bigot Pat Buchanan stepped in it today

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/pat-buchanan-birther-apologist-obama-af
G says:

April 26, 2011 at 10:00 pm

misha: I am hoping Trump will declare. I believe he actually will.Romney is preparing:http://gawker.com/#!5791102/did-mitt-romney-steal-his-nurdle-from-aquafresh

LOL! Thanks for that link. Wow – that totally does look like the Aquafresh nurdle and not at all like an R! LMAO! What a disaster of a logo!

On a serious note, I think there is no doubt that Romney will “officially” enter the race at some point. Same with Pawlenty and Newt. I think the chances are really good that Santorum and Bachmann do as well.

Trump – at first I thought it was just a publicity stunt…but he’s so egotistical that I don’t think he can resist his poll numbers…and that no amount of crazy, bad publicity or flack against him will deter what he views as “ratings”, as long as those GOP base polls continue to support him. He just might not be able to resist officially jumping in the race… I don’t think any direction he takes on this will surprise me anymore, so his “Apprentice Finale” will be an interesting spectacle to watch and see what he does, no matter what you think of him or his show.

I was completely surprised to see Barbour officially “drop out” so soon. That was a shocker to me – and despite his stated reasons, the obvious elements come down to primarily his inability to gain even meager traction in the polls, coupled with his family’s desire NOT to have him run…which resulted in the loss of “fire in the belly” and pragmatism over ego decision.

Still, with how early it is in the crazy season, coupled with how no one else has really fully “jumped in” yet, as well as taking into account the historical record of how much front runner status is meaningless this far out; I would have expected him to have stayed in through at least May and the first “debate” contest or two, just to see if he could “gain traction” from those events. So yeah, shocked to see him pull the trigger and get cold feet so soon…

Some of his followers think that this opens space for Mitch Daniels… I laugh at that. Mitch has no chance and doesn’t have the “fire in the belly” either…nor does his family want him to run. He’s eventually going to bail.

I fully expect Ron Paul to run again. I don’t see why he wouldn’t. He’s already got his base and a strong fundrasing base through them. He probably still has a lot of $$$ left over from his last run. Besides, at his age, this is his last real chance at trying and he’s always found value to running to be part of adding to the conversation. It is the rest of the GOP that doesn’t want him there.

I’ve been saying that Huckabee wouldn’t run this time, since this past December, when I first got the feeling he wasn’t eager to jump in. I still feel that way, despite the strong desire and polling out there amongst the GOP to get him to run. I think he’s too comfortable where he’s at with his FOX show, but will hold off announcing that he’s not in for as long as he thinks he can get away with it, for the sake of his book sales and appearance fees. The “fire in the belly” is just not there either. He had quite a bit of financial struggles during his 2007/8 campaign and I think he’s reluctant to revisit going through that process again.

Palin? Who knows. I never rule out her ego and the self-delusional echo chamber of her rabid and devoted fan base. She could pop back in the picture at any time as even some third party Tea-Party candidate if she wants too. Not that she stands a chance… but I don’t know if her ego can resist. Nothing will surprise me there.

Bolton – not going to enter. The “neo con” vote doesn’t stand a chance in the current climate, so Mr. Moustache is going to be out.

Huntsman – not running in 2012…this is not the right climate for someone like him. He’s just wisely looking forward to 2016 and trying to setting himself up for it now.

The rest of them: Cain, Roemer, etc. – inconsequential at this point. Would anyone really notice if they entered or not? Would it even make a difference?
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 10:11 pm

Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): longtime racist and bigot Pat Buchanan stepped in it today

Buchanan is an anti-semite, and has defended slave owners.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm

Slartibartfast: Oh noes! Mikey called me a petty, snotty little twit! Whatever will I do?I tried to point out something that I thought made you look like a complete idiot (a spelling error in the very term that you were discussing) in a subtle and playful way (I like wordplay) which you ignored (using the term ‘DUEL citizen’ in your response). I responded in an obvious and playful way (making fun of you a little because your ego clearly needs deflating). You had a snit. Now you look like an egotistical, self-important, pseudo-intellectual idiot (at least to me).

“Whatever will I do”; “You had a snit”; Your ego needed deflating”; “Now you look like an egotistical, self-important, pseudo-intellectual idiot”.

Uh-huh. And I say again and with good reason that you’re a snotty little twit, though I do recognize you to be a well-read and intelligent person. These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You are foolish to believe that I’m just another “pseudo-intellectual idiot”.

Slartibartfast, pay attention this time. That particular edit was executed by my software. The error also appears in the articles. My spell check was automatically inserting “duel” in place of “dual”. I never noticed it before, nor when I copied and pasted that post. I thanked you for the tip in the above, though it came to me a bit smarmily. I spent hours yesterday going through those articles, correcting them with an eye out for other homophones. I turned the automatic thingy off so it will prompt me in the future. Also, I entered “dual” in the data base. I rely on the spell check to guard against typos. That’s the irony.

Do you really believe I don’t know the difference between the two terms and their spellings? Snap out of it.

When I wrote “Obama an Indonesian Citizen?” I was battling a certain click on a conservative chat board. I was asked to lead the charge and rid our board of them because of my background in citizenship and nationality law. Hence, the thrust of the article was essentially: “so what, birthers; whether these things be true or not, obviously a minor cannot lose his citizenship.” However—LOL!—it is now abundantly clear to me that leaving the matter at that is a huge stumbling block for some. Fine. I’ve updated my blog accordingly with a disclaimer. Beyond that, relative to what really matters, I still don’t care. I. Don’t. Care. LOL!

I don’t play well with smarmy leftists, particularly when in one breath they state that political differences are not relevant and then in the very next, out of nowhere, insinuate that I’m a brainwashed dolt, something about FoxNews. What the?! Given lefty’s tendency to think and argue in slogans . . . right back at ya. Typical example of this: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/02/average-atheists-unexamined-thought.html

Moving on. . . .

Scientist has an important question for me.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 28, 2011 at 7:35 pm

misha: The conservative movement is a haven for white nationalists, anti-semites, theocrats, anti-tax rebels, misogynists and assorted other kooks.What you write is basically drivel.

Drivel, eh? You forgot “homophobe”, “fascist”, “religionist”, “warmonger” LOL!

Slogan speak.
misha says:

April 30, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Mary Brown: It baffles me but then very intelligent Germans supported Hitler.

Martin Heidegger was an influential German philosopher known for his existential and phenomenological explorations of the “question of Being.” His best-known book, “Being and Time,” is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century and he has been influential beyond philosophy, in literature,psychology, and artificial intelligence.

Heidegger remains controversial due to his involvement with Nazism and statements in support of Adolf Hitler.

In fact, Heidegger was an ardent supporter of Hitler, and agreed that Jews should be expelled from universities, both faculty and students.
tom says:

May 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky.”HILLARY AND OBAMA : MAFIA WAR”.

prof7prof@yahoo.com
tel. 347-494-4235 New York
“Barack Obama 2012 :KGB technology 2008”

YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvG4nLRn4PI
“Mikhail Kryzhanovsky, KGB, CIA, FBI and US Secret Service “Filament”
YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksQU0D-D2_Y
======================
My personal situation and my deep concern about the U.S. national security pushed me to write this letter.
I have nothing to lose after I’ve refused to participate in CIA-FBI conspiracy I have no money, no job, no permanent place to stay. I’m telling the truth though I understand that I violated Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Part I . “Kremlin” operation.
I was born in 1958 in Ukraine, I’m a former KGB USSR and SBU (Ukrainian Security Service) intelligence senior officer, and KGB “Nabat” anti-terror group member (a sniper). In 1991-1992, as SBU illegal intelligence officer, I came to Moscow to get into Russian President Boris Yeltsin “inner circle” to influence his decisions,extremely anti-Ukrainian at the time. Operation was in progress until Kremlin got information about it, and in 1992 Russia and Ukraine signed a Treaty to stop mutual espionage. I had to resign and move to Europe for security reasons.
====================
Part II. “Millenium Hilton” operation
In 1995 I came to USA where I hoped to work for the government as strategic intelligence analyst . In September I was recruited at “Millenium Hilton” by two CIA agents and signed a certain obligation as “Filament”. Then they introduced me to FBI National Security Division agent and next was a joint CIA-FBI conspiracy.
They were impressed by my intelligence, counter-intelligence and anti-terror experience, and also, by my research in political science. They decided to “copy” my Moscow operation .I had to spy on the U.S. Congress and work with Congress Librarian James Billington who knew me as a political scientist through his Moscow representative, and could introduce me to Senators and Representatives. They wanted also to influence the White House and approved my idea to create special instructions for American president on successful election and re-election campaigns, strategic planning and top decisions making, national security, foreign policy and diplomacy, propaganda, economy, war and special operations.
I was paid $900 to start the job and they guaranteed me “anything I wanted”, including special CIA status – “stay in USA as long as you want and do whatever you think is necessary” and “best medical service in the world” . It was clear that political surveillance and control over the White House and the U.S. Congress, not national security, was and is the CIA and FBI top priority. Besides, they were interested in effective interrogation,tortures and murders methods -I gave them detailed instructions on that, and that was a big help in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We talked about the Gestapo methods and I asked them about Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller – reaction was really rude: “Never ask questions about him. Don’t even try to look after him in America”. Interesting, right ?
I wrote “The Professional” presidential handbook, a system of top political management for President Bill Clinton – they wanted me to stay close to him. And then they said thay had “a very important job up to my high professional skills as a sniper” – read this carefully, Mr Bill Clinton. Maybe, CIA Director Leon Panetta can explain more.

I was in Washington , D.C. couple of times and met some people. After that I tried to avoid them – I didn’t want to kill politicians and be next Lee Harvey Oswald.
. In 2000 I ‘ve sent a letter to DCI Tenet saying that I stop cooperation with CIA.They’ve pressed me very hard in return. I’m immigrant, but I have no green card,no citizenship until now. For years INS ignored my family reunion petition.
There was open and aggressive surveillance in the streets and taking pictures right in my face, illegal searches of my apartment in my absence and stealing papers and phone books, breaking the mail boxes and stealing my correspondence.I had to fight back.
Three months before 9/11 tragedy happened, in June 2001,I’ve warned American President George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate on CIA anti-American activity, national security collapse and my personal situation.
Senator Hillary Clinton refused to mess with CIA . In 2002 I’ve called Lus Mendez, her Office Director and asked her to tell her boss the following:”I refused to work for CIA, I’ve saved your husband’s (Bill Clinton’s life), you must help me now”. Only after that she helped my family to come to USA. Mrs Clinton wasn’t surprised when I said :”I saved Bill Clinton’s life” – can she explain America why ?
And would she take some responsibility for 9/11 and 3,000 dead Americanas ? Let’s investigate.

In September 2002, White House sent a request to the Dept. of Justice, where FBI Director R. Mueller blocked it because I was a “joint” CIA-FBI project. Let’s investigate.
June 14, 2004 ,the Office of NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer: “If an investigation is ultimately opened, someone from the Bureau will contact you. Janya Washington”.
March 24, 2010, Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D) New York Office: “You have to hire a lawyer if it’s about American national security.We can just trace your correspondence with CIA but we can’t investigate anything. Susan Orlove, Director of the Office”. Let’s investigate what Schumer is doing at his Office !
June 8, 2010 U.S. Office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzerald (Ken Starr, his predecessor, brought Bill Clinton to impeachment procedure).
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
RE: OSC File No: HA-10-2641
Dear Mr. Kryzhanovsky
Your allegation that Mr. Panetta is involved in a CIA-FBI conspiracy, which you call the “Millenium Hilton” operation, even if true, is not activity that falls within the prohibitions of the Hatch Act. Therefore , we are closing the above referenced file.
Sincerely, Erica S. Hamrick
February 6, 2011 From: Mulqueen, Clifford, Deputy Commissioner/General Counsel, New York City Commission on Human Rights
“The New York City Commission on Human Rights does not have jurisdiction over the agencies you take issue with.Talk to Attorney General, CIA, US Congress”.
I wrote to President Obama ,Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary and Mark Kappelhof, Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division – nothing happened. Let’s investigate why national security is not Obama’s priority ?
In 2007, ALGORA, a small publishing company, released my “White House Special Handbook, or How to Rule the World in the 21st Century”, based on “The Professional”. 300 universities and colleges including Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Georgetown and Oxford, learn top political management in a right, KGB way .
President Barack Obama is using my advices on economy, diplomacy, domestic propaganda, war, and if he wants to build socialism, he’s moving in a right direction . Something else is very important. On July 2, 2008 he made the following statement :” We can’t continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We got to have a civilian national security force that just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded”. Many people , including Paul Broun, a Republican Congressman, think that Obama wants to establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship, but I think he means KGB with its structure and methods – exactly as I explain in my book.Then Leon Panetta promised him “full loyalty and support”. Looks like Obama promised CIA political power (in exchange of support ? money for campaign ?) and new “civilian national security force ” already exists – that’s CIA with additional secret functions of total control.
One more thing. I’ve discussed with CIA Gestapo practice. They liked it , but talking about Gestapo Chief Mueller who disappeared after World War II was a taboo and that meand CIA saved him and moved him to USA. Does Obama know about that ? Does American and international Jewish community has the right to ask him about that ?

I was ready to leave America , but then I said to myself – let them leave, all 20 000 CIA bastards, why me ? As intelligence agency CIA does not exist, America is deaf and blind and that’s the fact we have to face.
===================
Part III. Mafia war.
In October, 12 2010, I had a meeting with two Secret Service agents, John and Bratt (646-842-2107) – they were pretty nervous about the video “How to kill President Obama” I put on YouTube to show the vulnerability of the protection system (video was based on a real fact – DCCC sent me invitation for a dinner with Obama). I’ve asked them why they allow the White House press office to put Obama’s next day schedule on Internet with exact time and place of his trips – it gives a perfect possibility to kill him. You know what they told me ? That it was Rahm Emanuel’s order and they can do nothing. On October 2, 2010 Emanuel was fired but they keep posting every day it’s OK with the White House meetings, but not with the trips.Interesting.
More interesting – they told me they wanted me to work for them too, considering my experience, and they were ready to pay me.Still ,I don’t know what’s the job,but what if it’s same stuff CIA wnted me to
They said :” We know you as “Filament”, you work for CIA and we want you to work for us too under the same alias. We’ll pay you”. So, I’m still acting CIA agent and they’re still sure I’ll do political murders ? And who’s the target now – Obama ? That’s why Secret service is nervous – they are in the game ?And now I have to work for US Secret Service – doing what ? I’m still waiting for a phone call.
That’s not the end. On January, 20 2011 I talked to FBI agent Eric Perry. He said that the video I put on YouTube made “high authorities, people on the very top vextremely nervous”. He didn’t explain if it was FBI Director Robert Mueller, the White House Chief of Staff or somebody else. He asked me to delete the video from YouTube. Interesting – why FBI is so nervous, it’s not their job. They are in the game ?
Looks like there’s mafia war inside the White House and there’s connection with campaign 2012. I don’t want to speculate, but I’m 30 years in espionage business and I undrestand far more than people tell me. Even if it’s a White House mafia war and the Secret Service is in it, we have to do something.
Like with JFK assassination, you don’t need huge conspiracy – it’s enough if CIA Director, FBI Director and Secret Service Director make a deal. Back in 1963 they made a deal not to touch Lee Oswald untill he finished the job – simple, right , Mrs Hillary Clinton ? Your mafia soldier (or captain ?) CIA Director Leon Panetta, who wants sniper Kryzhanovsky back, is very “loyal” to you and your husband since he was his Chief of Staff ? Your mafia soldiers FBI Director Robert Mueller and Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan are good fellas too ?
Sorry, I violated omerta.
=====================
Part IV. Obama might be KGB “illegal spy”

There’s a lot of suspicious information concerning our socialist President Obama’s place of birth, his original birth certificate and his Columbia University attendance records. Looks like he might be a KGB “illegal spy” or a “plant”. I have some questions – what they were talking about with Bill Clinton in December 2008 and why Obama hired Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State ? Did Bill Clinton blackmail Obama ? How ?
Do you remember espionage scandal of a century – in June ,2010 GBI arrested 10 (ten) Russian illegal spies, a whole ring. Obama ordered to exchange them for 4 former CIA secret sources arrested in Russia. There was no investigation – why ? Maybe there’s another Russian “ring” in America ? Or 2 ? or 3 ? Who knows ? 10 Russian spies were sent back to Russia without a single question ! What is that ? Who is Obama ?
He’s destroying America – its called “socialist intervention into the US economy”. Why ? Show me a single American who’s happy about that.

The highest intelligence level — illegal spies, intelligence operatives who are secretly deployed abroad and covertly operate there under assumed names and well-documented cover stories, masquerading as native citizens. It’s very important if you get , for example, original birth certificate of American citizen, who died (at young age preferably) or any records and documents on him(birth, wedding, death, any IDs, etc) .

The process of training and “installing” such officer is rather complex and includes:

a) Special training.
Foreign language, general, political and special (espionage and counter-espionage) knowledge of the target country; personal cover story — new biography, special technical devices, recruitment methods). Up to three years.
b) Illegal probation period abroad. A trip abroad through intermediate countries with numerous changes of passports and cover stories, jobs, personal connections. Then he gets to the target country, stays there for another 1-2 years and goes back to his country for additional training and correction of cover story — actually, it’s his first combat assignment. The most important part of this assignment is to check the reliability of the cover story and documents; the cover story has to be reinforced with new and old true facts, like short-term studies at universities or professional training courses).
c) Intermediate legislation.
On his way back the officer could stay in an intermediate country for another 1-2 years, make contacts with business, scientists, government employees, celebrities.
d) Basic legislation.
Officer comes to the target country, obtains genuine documents, gets a job which allows him to travel and talk to many people, recruit informants thus creating an illegal station.

The illegal is usually supplied with a variety of cover documents to make him “invisible” for counter-intelligence — some are used only to cross the borders on the way to a target country, others — to live there, other documents — only for travel to “third countries” to meet with officers of legal or illegal stations or to be used in case of urgent recall to home country (in that case the illegal is supposed to transit at least two or three countries). His further activity depends on how professional counter-espionage service is working in the country.
He could fail in his mission also because of:
– poor training and low quality documents
– neglecting security rules.
– one mistake in pronunciation can give you away
– treason (traitor-informant or a “mole” inside his own service)
– low personal security level (while working with sources)

If we talk about “legal plants”, KGB (and modern Russian SVR) loves to recruite Harvard, Yale and Columbia students and “push” them to the top of American politics – US Congress, the White House, the Cabinet.
It might the reason CIA together with FBI and Secret Serevice conspire to give Obama “one-way ticket” – you can imagine the scandal if Obama IS a Russian “illegal spy” !

Obama’s hidden public records:

1. Dunham-Obama marriage license. Not released.
2. Dunham-Soetoro marriage license. Not released.
3. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama adoption records. Not released.
4. Obama’s aka Soetoro’s Besuki School application obtained.
5. Obama’s aka Soetoro’s Punahou School records. Not released.
6. Selective Service Registration – a proven forgery released and a criminal act.
7. Obama’s Occidental College records. Not released.
9. Obama’s passport from Indonesia, he had to have one to attend school in Indonesia. Not released.
10. Obama’s U.S. Passport, if one exists. Not released.
11. Obama entered Pakistan on what countries passport. Not released.
12. Obama’s Columbia University records, a foreign exchange student? Not released.
13. Obama’s Columbia University thesis. Not released.
14. Not one name of any student who knows Obama attendant Columbia released or known.
15. Obama’s Harvard Law School records, a foreign exchange student? Not released.
16. Obama’s Harvard Law Review articles, none released.
17. Obama’s Baptism certificate, if one exists ? None released.
18. Obama’s Illinois State Senate records. Not released.
19. Obama’s Illinois State Senate schedule. Not released (alleged to have been lost).
20. Obama’s Law practices client list and billing records. Not released.
21. Obama’s University of Chicago scholarly articles, none released or exists.
22. The reason Obama lost his license to practice law in Illinois. Not released.
23. Explanation for his false Connecticut Social Security number

===========================

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
a former KGB intelligence officer
a former KGB “Nabat” anti-terror group member (a sniper)
a former Ukrainian National Security officer
CIA, FBI and US Secret Service “Filament”
the author of the “White House Special Handbook”
PS I’m unemployed, but I’ll fight for freedom, I’ll fight the CIA machine even if I’m the only person in America who cares about it’s national security. Wanna help me fight for America ? Why should KGB officer protect you all by himself ?
thefarleftView says:

May 5, 2011 at 12:36 pm

[This comment has been moved to the off topic dump because it is not related to the article where it was left. Doc.]

SC can rule that it matters, it is up to them, this case is entirely different than the fraud that BO has gotten away with to date

The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles. See the State Democratic Party of Hawaii certification of nomination forms[embedded below] for the Presidential election years of 2008 for Obama, 2004 for Kerry, and 2000 for Gore.

See this summarizing quote from the Butterdezillion blog post of 10 Sep 2010:

“It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.”
Source: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09

What did the State Democratic Party officials in Hawaii know about Obama and his now hidden and sealed 1961 original typed long form birth registration documents in Hawaii, and subsequent amendments to same, which would cause them to change their normal certification of nomination procedures for presidential candidates?

Is this possibly more evidence in Hawaii and elsewhere of possible misprision of a felony?

The American people and electorate have good reason to be concerned!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html
NBC says:

May 5, 2011 at 2:20 pm

The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles. See the State Democratic Party of Hawaii certification of nomination forms[embedded below] for the Presidential election years of 2008 for Obama, 2004 for Kerry, and 2000 for Gore.

I have and the forms submitted all contained the same language. I assume that you have studied the Hawaiian election laws? In the 2008 election, the form was submitted by the National DNC just like in preceeding elections.

The ‘story’ was that the DNC had used two different forms of certification, one sent to 49 States, the other, more extensive form, sent to Hawaii. This was done in all previous elections.

The one sent to Hawaii

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:

The so-called ‘long form’ certification

Also

Hawaii HRS 11.113
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

Glad to have been of help
Joey says:

May 5, 2011 at 2:53 pm

thefarleftView:
SC can rule that it matters, it is up to them, this case is entirely different than the fraud that BO has gotten away with to date

The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles. See the State Democratic Party of Hawaii certification of nomination forms[embedded below] for the Presidential election years of 2008 for Obama, 2004 for Kerry, and 2000 for Gore.

See this summarizing quote from the Butterdezillion blog post of 10 Sep 2010:

“It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.”Source: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09

What did the State Democratic Party officials in Hawaii know about Obama and his now hidden and sealed 1961 original typed long form birth registration documents in Hawaii, and subsequent amendments to same, which would cause them to change their normal certification of nomination procedures for presidential candidates?

Is this possibly more evidence in Hawaii and elsewhere of possible misprision of a felony?

The American people and electorate have good reason to be concerned!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

However the Supreme Court of the United States is NOT concerned. They have had 13 (I repeat THIRTEEN) opportunites to rule on challenges to Barack Hussein Obama II’s eligibility to be President of the United States as a natural born citizen and the Supreme Court has denied hearings to all thirteen of those appeals.
The allegations of ineligiblity in three of those appeals challenged Obama’s eligibility on the precise grounds that TheFarLeftView states above: Kerchner v Obama, Hollister v Soetoro (first attempt) and Hollister v Soetoro (second attempt) plus Taitz v Obama.
Not even one of the nine Justices has ever asked attorneys representing the President to submit a brief stating his defense position in any of the 13 appeals.
Michael David Rawlings says:

May 6, 2011 at 10:50 pm

Scientist: Could you actually tell us what your argument is? Perhaps you could answer my 2 questions from 7:06 AM with a simple yes or no.

Yes, I will get to those questions soon. Okay? For the moment my argument is that NBC is a lying ass dog, a man who knows just enough about case law to be dangerous.

[That argument is off topic for this web site. Moving this to the dump. Doc.]

Comments are closed.

Off-topic Dump 2.1

About Dr. Conspiracy

53 Responses to Off-topic Dump 2.1

Welcome

Conspiracies

Recent Comments

Donate

Recommended books

Quick Reference

Archives

Quick Reference