Main Menu

Arizona posse wants to see original birth certificate

WorldNetDaily reports that a Maricopa County, Arizona, posse wants to see Barack Obama’s original birth certificate, not an electronic copy or a paper copy. WND’s Jerome Corsi cites an unnamed and unidentified “sources close to the investigation” in the latest article on the topic from WND.

Of course, the problem is that WorldNetDaily misrepresents its named sources and one cannot give any credence to what they claim from an unnamed source who is obviously isn’t going to complain.

Perhaps the posse, appointed by birther-friendly sheriff Joe Arpaio, is angling for a trip to Hawaii. I don’t know. Perhaps someone stood outside the sheriff’s office and flipped a coin: “heads they want to see the birth certificate, tails they don’t.” Who knows.

When something happens, it happens. For now, WND’s report is no better than a fart in the wind. (Do I sound dismissive?)

137 Responses to Arizona posse wants to see original birth certificate

  1. avatar
    richCares November 1, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    WND reports are worthless, at least you can smell a fart in the wind!

  2. avatar
    GeorgetownJD November 1, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    Definitely angling for a trip to Hawaii.

  3. avatar
    Rickey November 1, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    I want to see the original birth certificate, too. And I’d like a pony.

  4. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 1, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    It’s hard to tell who is playing who for the bigger fool…..Arpaio or Corsi.

    It’s also important to remember (if you want to use brain cells on this nonsense) that the posse members have no police authority…..zip, nada.

    If they show up in Honolulu looking for stuff they’re going to be laughed off the island.

    One question for those of you who have followed this from the beginning: Can anyone (other than a state official) look at the original birth document under any circumstances?

  5. avatar
    Keith November 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    CarlOrcas: One question for those of you who have followed this from the beginning: Can anyone (other than a state official) look at the original birth document under any circumstances?

    Yes.

    Barack Hussein Obama II

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm #

    Keith: Yes.
    Barack Hussein Obama II

    I thought even the person named in the document couldn’t see the original….in the vault…..etc.

  7. avatar
    john November 1, 2011 at 11:58 pm #

    Actually there is a loophole in Hawaiian Law that allows literally thousands and thousands of people access to the birth certificate and they might not even know it.

    §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

    This means even distant cousins can get access. Orly Taitz should track a 10th cousin to Obama and use him or her to gain access to the birth certificate.

  8. avatar
    Sean November 2, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    What exactly does the posse intend to do on that trip it Hawaii?

  9. avatar
    gorefan November 2, 2011 at 12:50 am #

    There is another update but it appears to just repeat the same info.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=363025

    It does show that birthers don’t understand how copy machines, security paper and fluorescent lighting can effect digital images.

  10. avatar
    y_p_w November 2, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    CarlOrcas: I thought even the person named in the document couldn’t see the original….in the vault…..etc.

    UIPA has a provision that the person named in a record has the right to inspect the records pertaining to the person in that record. It could be requested in person or in writing, although I’d think they’d prefer it in writing if it requires that the original document be somehow segregated from other documents that area considered private. Since the original birth certificates are in a bound volume, I’d think they would be careful to protect other birth certificates in the same volume from being viewed.

    I had an earlier thought that it might be possible for the person named on a birth certificate to assign a representative who could inspect the original, but I don’t know if that’s been tested or if Hawaii might have a different interpretation of how the various vital records and information practices laws would work together.

    I don’t believe even a valid court order could allow for the viewing of an original birth certificate. I was under the impression that a valid court order could at most obtain a certified copy of a birth certificate.

  11. avatar
    gorefan November 2, 2011 at 2:30 am #

    This must be Sheriff Joe’s exit strategy.

    He could not just let it die but he can drop in Hawaii’s lap. When they say no, we’re not going to send you the microfilm/bound volume, he can say I tried. And then go on about his business..

  12. avatar
    Steve November 2, 2011 at 2:30 am #

    I’ve noticed no normal, reputable news outlet is reporting this. Not a word about it on AZCentral.com.

  13. avatar
    Egharcsar November 2, 2011 at 5:10 am #

    Hi doc.”The power of a county sheriff”
    returned this site.

    THE SHERIFF
    MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT

    By: Alan Stang

    http://www.etherzone.com/2009/stang032009.shtml

    “On June 27th, 1997, the sheriffs won; in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system of checks and balances is the key:

    “. . . The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)

    Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

    Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.

    He quotes President Madison again: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922)

    No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Tom Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.

    Madison explains: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.”

    Alan stang makes this concluding Point before relating other cases.

    “What does all this mean today in the Battle for America? Sheriff Mack says it proves that the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers.

    What? The sheriff can do that? He’s not just a character in a movie? That’s right. Not only can the sheriff do that; sheriffs have already done that, more than once. Most Americans are not aware of that because lying, conspiracy scumbags like Rush Humbug, Shallow Sean Hannitwerp and Hugh Blewitt (a lawyer) etc., haven’t told them.”

    For the benefit of those without access to the pay servers here’s link to.Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/898/case.html

    I guess we’ll see how this case plays out. Lots of immediate jurisdiction issues to compel a separate state to action. But what if this sheriff construes m v h to keep o off the ballot, that might be the real shocker.

  14. avatar
    The Magic M November 2, 2011 at 5:52 am #

    gorefan: This must be Sheriff Joe’s exit strategy.

    I don’t think so. Whenever WND cites anonymous sources, you can be 100% sure they only exist in Farah’s or Corsi’s head.

    And why not? For WND, it’s a win-win strategy. Either their fiction correctly predicts reality, or they can twist it as “someone got to Arpaio and his posse” if the latter deny it or simply don’t do what WND predicted they’d do.

  15. avatar
    The Magic M November 2, 2011 at 6:01 am #

    Oh, and I missed this one:

    Obviously WND (or Arpaio, but likely just WND) have just moved the goalposts again.
    Asking for the “original microfilm reel with more than just Obama’s BC on it” is setting up an even more unrealistic hurdle – even if somehow both Hawaiian law and Obama allowed someone to access Obama’s original vault BC, I’m sure this wouldn’t apply to the other people on that reel. How would someone construct “tangible interest” simply by claiming “including those would make it even more impossible to be a forgery”?

    I think this gives away the next step in the infinite goalpost line birthers have been planning – if actually someone got to look at the original vault BC, birthers would simply say “now show us the ones around it, then it will all be over”.

    Talk about pathetic…

  16. avatar
    Scientist November 2, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    Egharcsar: Hi doc. ”The power of a county sheriff”
    returned this site.
    THE SHERIFF
    MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT

    What a load of hooey, E Glenn (What does the E stand for? What are you hiding?). Talk about over-interpreting a court ruling. But let’s pretend that a sherriff has more power within his county than the President. Did you see the words “his county”? The document is not in Sherriff Joe’s county, but in Oahu, where Sherriff Joe has no more power than you or I.

  17. avatar
    US Citizen November 2, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    Scientist: The document is not in Sherriff Joe’s county, but in Oahu, where Sherriff Joe has no more power than you or I.

    Not necessarily.
    You’ve not yet completed comparative farting tests.
    Joe may have more power than all of us.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    The idiot birther bigot mantra: “Any . . . day . . . now.” *

    Pathetic.

    (*translation: Dark skinned people with funny names can’t possibly be true Americans.)

  19. avatar
    Paul November 2, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    This is really going to piss off Oily Taint. She’s always accusing WND of stealing her thunder.

  20. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2011 at 10:02 am #

    john:
    Actually there is a loophole in Hawaiian Law that allows literally thousands and thousands of people access to the birth certificate and they might not even know it.

    §338-18Disclosure of records.(a)To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.(b)The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    (5)A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

    This means even distant cousins can get access.Orly Taitz should track a 10th cousin to Obama and use him or her to gain access to the birth certificate.

    Poor John. So many postings here, and almost always wrong.

    Hawaii has defined “common ancestor” as a sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or first cousin. And even if anyone fitting that definition requested a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, you know what they would receive? The same short-form COLB which Obama posted on the Internet in 2008.

  21. avatar
    G November 2, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    Sorry John, but that is NOT how the term “common ancestor” has been interpreted and applied for this type of document request. It pretty much only refers to a close blood relative and NOT the loose and distant degrees of separation you wish to suggest.

    That becomes pretty much meaningless fairly quickly, because if you go back far enough, just about everyone is related to everyone else on this planet.

    john: (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
    This means even distant cousins can get access. Orly Taitz should track a 10th cousin to Obama and use him or her to gain access to the birth certificate.

  22. avatar
    john November 2, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    Yes, that is why I believe it to be a loophole. If you are related to Obama even if it goes back a couple hundred years, you can see the birth certificate. The provision is simple. I will agree however, that it is farfetched to claim you are related because everyone is related Adam or Noah. But, I don’t see unreasonable to concluded you related because you and Obama share a great great great great grandparent.

  23. avatar
    Horus November 2, 2011 at 10:31 am #

    This was in the Huffington Post over the weekend.
    I had sent the link to Doc.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/joe-arpaio-birther-orly-taitz_n_1064045.html

  24. avatar
    Scientist November 2, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    US Citizen: You’ve not yet completed comparative farting tests.
    Joe may have more power than all of us.

    Than yours maybe, but my farts are awesome

  25. avatar
    Horus November 2, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    y_p_w: Since the original birth certificates are in a bound volume, I’d think they would be careful to protect other birth certificates in the same volume from being viewed.

    Birthers would NOT be happy with just viewing Obama’s BC.
    They would once again move the goal posts and insist that they be allowed to compare Obama’s BC with others issued around the same time, to try to prove it is a forgery.

  26. avatar
    gorefan November 2, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    The Magic M: Whenever WND cites anonymous sources, you can be 100% sure they only exist in Farah’s or Corsi’s head.

    In the second article they actually say they are quoting Sheriff Joe.

  27. avatar
    The Magic M November 2, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Horus: They would once again move the goal posts and insist that they be allowed to compare Obama’s BC with others issued around the same time, to try to prove it is a forgery.

    They already have. Check WND’s latest articles on the Arpaio issue.

    G: that is NOT how the term “common ancestor” has been interpreted and applied for this type of document request

    It’s just a rehash of same-old same-old. Bet we’re going to read “everyone has Adam and Eve as common ancestors, the Bible proves it” again soon as well. That should make up for another headline in WND’s “faith under fire” department – “Court throws out Bible as evidence – says Holy Scripture is ‘hearsay'”.

  28. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 2, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    “Perhaps someone stood outside the sheriff’s office and flipped a coin: “heads they want to see the birth certificate, tails they don’t.” Who knows.”

    Orlyanka! Meaning the Doc once again proved he knows Russian! Orlyanka being both a endearing way of saying Orly, and something settled by the flip of a coin.

    Heads, Orly will again spend 40,000 dollars on a doomed electoral campaign. Tails, she won’t have that money because some court somewhere somehow somewhen will sanction her that amount.
    Yes, I know, It’s the obot version of “Any day now”.

    Can posses be sanctioned?

  29. avatar
    Norbrook November 2, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    I always love the concept that a sheriff has more power than a governor or President in his county. You ever want to know who has more? The county judge. Any sheriff who tried to pull the crap that the idiots in the birther/states rights/sovereign citizen groups think they could are going to find themselves in jail in very short order. One might note that Sheriff Joe is having a lot of problems right now trying to explain how he misspent state and federal funds.

  30. avatar
    Loren November 2, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    Majority Will:
    (*translation: Dark skinned people with funny names can’t possibly be true Americans.)

    This is bolstered somewhat by the fact that Birthers seem very concerned with the Constitutional eligibility of Obama, Jindal, and Rubio, but curiously unconcerned with the eligibility of Rick Santorum.

    Santorum’s dad was an immigrant too. And he’s currently running for President. But when was the last time you saw a Birther even ASK if and when his father naturalized?

    Kerchner did a FOIA request for Rubio’s parents’ immigration records, and Rubio isn’t even running. But has he done anything about Santorum? Nope.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Scientist: Than yours maybe, but my farts are awesome

    Is it the methane ratio or something a little more subjective like comparing them to a Mozart sonata?

  32. avatar
    JD Reed November 2, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    Can anyone tell me how to go about researching the naturalization of Santorum’s father?
    With basc directions I can do it, providing I don’t have to travel to distant archives or libraries.

  33. avatar
    Origuy November 2, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

    Aldo Santorum’s obituary from the St. Augustine Record. It doesn’t say when he was naturalized, but he was in the U.S. Air Force during WW2. He could have been a resident alien, but an Italian non-citizen immigrant probably would not have been inducted.

  34. avatar
    sfjeff November 2, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    I am rather perplexed by the logic in demanding the ‘microfilm’ when Hawaii says that they have the original on file, and that they copied the original.

    Oh and I watched the video of Orly talking to Sheriff Joe. What a pair made in Birther heaven. What I really loved was Orly complaining to Sheriff Joe about how Hawaii supposedly violated its own laws in Hawaii and please Sheriff Joe do something about it.

    Worst lawyer ever.

  35. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    sfjeff:

    Oh and I watched the video of Orly talking to Sheriff Joe. What a pair made in Birther heaven. What I really loved was Orly complaining to Sheriff Joe about how Hawaii supposedly violated its own laws in Hawaii and please Sheriff Joe do something about it.

    Worst lawyer ever.

    Orly motion for a re-hearing in Taitz v. Fuddy is here. I don’t have the patience to wade through it.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/71146731/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-et-al-HI-CIR-CT-Orly-Taitz-Petiton-for-Re-Hearing-11-30-11

  36. avatar
    G November 2, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Just more of Mad Orly’s whining demands for ponies and utter misinterpretation of everything that has been explained to her repeatedly every step of the way…all of which she blames the world for.

    Rickey: Orly motion for a re-hearing in Taitz v. Fuddy is here. I don’t have the patience to wade through it.http://www.scribd.com/doc/71146731/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-et-al-HI-CIR-CT-Orly-Taitz-Petiton-for-Re-Hearing-11-30-11

  37. avatar
    Scientist November 2, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    Rickey: Orly motion for a re-hearing in Taitz v. Fuddy is here. I don’t have the patience to wade through it.

    A question for the lawyers here: have any of you ever filed a motion for reconsideration or re-hearing in a case you lost? It seems to me that Orly files more in a month than the totality of lawyers in most states do in a year. I mean, after all, the judge just heard your best arguments, which you are supposed to make in court. Why would he overturn his own judgement a few days later?

  38. avatar
    Joey November 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    “Dr. Ron Polland” is back one more time claiming that the White House ordered a copy of Obama’s short form in 2008, yet the document is stamped as being issued in 2007. To Polland, this “proves” that the factcheck.org copy of the short form is a “forgery”??????????????

    It’s a “slam dunk,” don’t ‘cha know!
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/dr-ron-polland-slam-dunk-evidence.html

  39. avatar
    Tarrant November 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    Didn’t Polarik also a one point claim that HE was the one that forged the certificate? How many distinct entities and organizations forged certificates that amazingly enough looked otherwise identical

  40. avatar
    Joey November 2, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Tarrant:
    Didn’t Polarik also a one point claim that HE was the one that forged the certificate? How many distinct entities and organizations forged certificates that amazingly enough looked otherwise identical

    As they say in Roman Catholic Catechism school, “it’s a mystery.”

  41. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 2, 2011 at 3:56 pm #

    Scientist: What a load of hooey

    Yes it is! And the good news is that even Sheriff Joe, with all his delusions of grandeur, has never bought into this fantasy.

  42. avatar
    Dave November 2, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    There is a pattern to the birthers: the allegation of things that are dubious, but if true, irrelevant. The Sheriff in an earlier episode explained that this “posse” is not a government group of any kind, i.e. it is just a group of private citizens. So what they want is not particularly interesting.

  43. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Here is a comment from the WND article about Sheriff Joe that neatly demonstrates the underlying motivation of bigotry and the sheer stupidity and paranoia of some birthers:

    Karen R. SUNY Albany
    “I’ll be extremely surprised if [Arpaio] finds it in Hawaii. IF Obama was born in this country at all, he had to have been born in the state of Washington. It is also highly possible that the actual Dunham baby died, and that Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian communist child rescued by Dunham and Soetoro before the great purge; if so Barry is not even Dunham’s child. Has anyone thought about doing a DNA test to see whose child he actually was?”

    This kind of bizarre birther comment is common in the WND cesspool. Farah and his entourage are grinning all the way to the bank.

    And birthers (as we have seen here again and again) seem to believe that repeating lies makes them magically true. So many people are asking questions? Of course. It’s the same despicable bunch of obsessive, fringe lunatics rocking back and forth mumbling “any . . . day . . . now”.

  44. avatar
    Welsh Dragon November 2, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    Origuy:
    Aldo Santorum’s obituary from the St. Augustine Record.It doesn’t say when he was naturalized, but he was in the U.S. Air Force during WW2. He could have been a resident alien, but an Italian non-citizen immigrant probably would not have been inducted.

    It’s worth remembering that Aldo Santorum came to the US in 1930 at the age of 8 – it’s most likely that any naturalization was as a result of his father’s naturalization. I’ve no conclusive evidence that his father (Pietro/Pete/Peter) naturalized but he seems to have lived in the US from his arrival in 1927 until his death in 1975, had an early SSN and was registered for the draft in WWII so the odds seem in his favour.

  45. avatar
    Predicto November 2, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    Scientist: A question for the lawyers here: have any of you ever filed a motion for reconsideration or re-hearing in a case you lost? It seems to me that Orly files more in a month than the totality of lawyers in most states do in a year. I mean, after all, the judge just heard your best arguments, which you are supposed to make in court. Why would he overturn his own judgement a few days later?

    In California, if you file a motion for reconsideration that does not demonstrate new facts or law, you generally get sanctioned. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1008).

    Of course, Orly doesn’t file in California very often.

  46. avatar
    Loren November 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    Welsh Dragon: It’s worth remembering that Aldo Santorum came to the US in 1930 at the age of 8 – it’s most likely that any naturalization was as a result of his father’s naturalization. I’ve no conclusive evidence that his father (Pietro/Pete/Peter) naturalized but he seems to have lived in the US from his arrival in 1927 until his death in 1975, had an early SSN and was registered for the draft in WWII so the odds seem in his favour.

    If and when Aldo naturalized is relevant to satisfying the Birther standard of eligibility, but in terms of evaluating whether that standard is actually legitimate, and whether the Birthers themselves are even consistent in applying it, their absolute silence on Santorum speaks volumes.

    They’ve never questioned or doubted Santorum’s eligibility. They’ve never speculated on his father’s immigration and naturalization dates. They’ve certainly never requested documents from the State Department like they did with Rubio or Obama. They’ve never even researched Aldo’s history online and written about it. Aldo Santorum’s citizenship status is a complete and utter non-issue to all Birthers.

    Just like Ralph Nader’s parents. Or Dennis Kucinich’s parents. Or Mike Gravel’s parents. Or Nancy Pelosi’s mom. Their eligibility has never been questioned; it’s simply been tacitly accepted.

    As it should be. Because for US-born candidates, parental citizenship DOESN’T MATTER. So no one, Birther or otherwise, gives a second thought to Santorum’s dad, not even enough to bother with a rationalization. The question simply never even comes up. So when die-hard Birthers are caught failing to apply their own standards across the board, it shows that they aren’t even internally consistent.

  47. avatar
    G November 2, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    They are consistent in questioning candidates who aren’t “white”.

    Loren: As it should be. Because for US-born candidates, parental citizenship DOESN’T MATTER. So no one, Birther or otherwise, gives a second thought to Santorum’s dad, not even enough to bother with a rationalization. The question simply never even comes up. So when die-hard Birthers are caught failing to apply their own standards across the board, it shows that they aren’t even internally consistent.

  48. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Scientist: A question for the lawyers here:have any of you ever filed a motion for reconsideration or re-hearing in a case you lost?It seems to me that Orly files more in a month than the totality of lawyers in most states do in a year.I mean, after all, the judge just heard your best arguments, which you are supposed to make in court.Why would he overturn his own judgement a few days later?

    Of course, most lawyers have clients who are paying for their services, and most clients don’t want to waste their money on frivolous motions and appeals. I don’t know that we have established that Orly has ever had a paying law client.

  49. avatar
    Scientist November 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Predicto: In California, if you file a motion for reconsideration that does not demonstrate new facts or law, you generally get sanctioned. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1008).

    Why would you not present those facts or law at trial or the hearing, but all of sudden have them 2 or 3 days later? That seems like it would happen very rarely if ever. I’m trying to get a sense of how frequent motions for reconsideration are. My sense is that Orly may have filed more of them in the last year than entire law firms file in a decade.

  50. avatar
    Welsh Dragon November 2, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    Loren: They’ve never questioned or doubted Santorum’s eligibility. They’ve never speculated on his father’s immigration and naturalization dates. They’ve certainly never requested documents from the State Department like they did with Rubio or Obama. They’ve never even researched Aldo’s history online and written about it. Aldo Santorum’s citizenship status is a complete and utter non-issue to all Birthers

    The closest they came was when Santorum mentioned his ancestry in one of the early Republican debates. A couple of freepers posted on it the next day but it was a mess because they had the wrong candidate – IIRC they thought it was Pawlenty! I hadn’t seen the debate but did a bit of research just to work out which one it was. A couple of minor anomolies piqued my curiosity and drew me in further than I intended before I decided I had better things to do.

  51. avatar
    Judge Mental November 2, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    Joey:
    “Dr. Ron Polland” is back one more time claiming that the White House ordered a copy of Obama’s short form in 2008, yet the document is stamped as being issued in 2007. To Polland, this “proves” that the factcheck.org copy of the short form is a “forgery”??????????????

    It’s a “slam dunk,” don’t cha know!
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/dr-ron-polland-slam-dunk-evidence.html

    Joey….it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Polland”s “back” at this point in time on the strength of that 2007/2008 claim . It’s over 6 months old, dated 30 April.

  52. avatar
    Scientist November 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    G: They are consistent in questioning candidates who aren’t “white”.

    Rubio is white. His ancestors were Spaniards who moved to Cuba (just like Castro). Spain is just as much part of Europe as Italy or Greece or France.

  53. avatar
    Joey November 2, 2011 at 9:46 pm #

    Judge Mental: Joey….it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Polland”s “back” at this point in time on the strength of that 2007/2008 claim . It’s over 6 months old, dated 30 April.

    How about “back” on the Front Page of BirtherReport!

  54. avatar
    G November 2, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    The Birthers and their ilk don’t consider Cuban’s to be “white”… they tend to view all hispanics the same way…as “foreign” and different from them.

    Scientist: Rubio is white. His ancestors were Spaniards who moved to Cuba (just like Castro). Spain is just as much part of Europe as Italy or Greece or France.

  55. avatar
    jayhg November 2, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    Scientist: Rubio is white.His ancestors were Spaniards who moved to Cuba (just like Castro).Spain is just as much part of Europe as Italy or Greece or France.

    Dude, he is not white to a birthers. Birthers think Spain is right next to Tijuana………

  56. avatar
    Sally HIll November 3, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    Whew! I’m glad I’m not one of those die hard birthers you speak of so harshly here.

    I think most people don’t take Santorum seriously….I know I don’t. However, he is running, although certainly not close to being on any ballot – he should be researched. And he was. Here is what I’ve gathered from other birther sites and on my own.

    NBC – Michele Marie (Amble) Bachmann: b. 6 Apr 1956 Waterloo, Black Hawk Co.,
    F – David John Amble: b. 1929 MN; d. 2003
    M – (Arlene) Jean Johnson: b. c1932 MN

    Unsure – Richard John “Rick” Santorum: b. 10 May 1958 Winchester, Frederick Co., VA;
    F – Aldo Santorum – arrived in US at the age of 7
    M – Catherine Dughi: b. 1918 [in Who’s Who of American Women 1958-1965]
    GF – Adam John Dughi: b. 1893 Montarsiccio, Italy; d. 1975 St. Petersburg, FL
    GM – Mayme Keane: b. 1888 Philadelphia, PA; d. 1966 Philadelphia, PA

    I’m guessing Aldo naturalized prior to Rick’s birth given his military records, but that’s just a guess. Also since Rick’s grandmother was born in Pennsylvania, and his grandfather died in Floria, his grandfather likely came to the US where he met his wife. In that his grandmother was born and died in Philadelphia, PA, it would stand to reason that Rick’s mother was most likely born in PA as well, making her a US Citizen. Rick is likely is NBC, but that is inconclusive since we are not sure where his mother was born or if his father naturalized prior to his birth. Does it really matter? He is a go no-where candidate. I have a feeling if he miraculously finds himself the GOP nominee, you’ll hear the birthers loud and clear on the matter.

    NBC – Herman Cain: b. 13 Dec 1945 Memphis, TN
    F – Luther B. Cain, Jr.: b. 1925 Memphis, TN ; d. 1982 Atlanta, GA
    M – Lenora Davis: b.1925 GA; d 2005 Atlanta, GA

    NBC – Newton Leroy (“Newt”) McPherson Gingrich – Adopted: b. 1943 Harrisburg, PA
    F – Newton Searles McPherson: b. 1923 PA; d. 1970
    M – Kathleen Daugherty: b 1925 Enola, PA; d 1996

    NBC – Randal Howard “Rand” Paul, M.D.: b. 7 Jan 1963 Pittsburgh, Allegheny Co., PA;
    F – Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul, M.D.: b. 1935 Pittsburgh, Allegheny Co., PA;
    M – Carol(yn) Jean Wells: b. 1936 Pittsburgh, PA

    NBC – Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr.: b. 1960 Palo Alto, San Mateo Co., CA
    F – Jon Meade Huntsman: b. 1937 Blackfoot, ID
    M – Karen Christena Haight: b. California

    NBC – James Richard “Rick” Perry: b. 1950 Paint Creek, Haskell Co., TX
    F – Joseph Ray Perry: b. c1925/6 TX; m. Jun 1947 Haskell, Haskell Co., TX
    M – Amelia June Holt: b. c1928/9 TX

    NBC – Willard Mitt Romney: b 1947 Detroit, Mich.
    F – US Citizen – George Wilcken Romeny: b 1907 Chihuahua, Mexico; d. 1995 Mich.
    GF – Gaskell Romeny: b. 1871, Salt Lake City, Utah; d. 1955 Utah
    GM – Anna Amelia Pratt: b. 1876 Salt Lake City, Utah; d. 1926 Utah
    M – Lenore LaFount: b. 1908 Logan, Utah; d. 1998 Brighton, Mich.

    Personally, I think the pro-Obama people are die-hard racists. They don’t like Cain, a real black man, but Obama is okay, because he is at least half white. As long as his skin is not dark like Cains and he speaks like a white man, he is okay. But when the skin gets dark and the voice is slightly indicative of a race other than white – that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.

    ‘Bbirthers’ have done their research as to who is and is not a NBC – they are not hypocrites like most who post here.

  57. avatar
    Keith November 3, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    Scientist: Than yours maybe, but my farts are awesome

    When I turned 60 a couple of months ago, I was told in no uncertain terms that from now on I should:

    1) never pass a toilet
    2) never trust a fart
    3) never waste an erection

  58. avatar
    Keith November 3, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    Norbrook: I always love the concept that a sheriff has more power than a governor or President in his county.

    Yeah, well, for things that are within the purview of his office he does. On the other hand things that are not within the purview of his office, he does not.

    For instance, he does not have any more authority than the Governor when it comes to running the school district within his county. He doesn’t even trump the lowliest fireman at an active fire.

  59. avatar
    G November 3, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    Wow…just wow! You took what was otherwise a reasonable and informative post for you and then dropped this load of projection hooey!

    Sorry, but the only one fixated on the aspect, ratio or color tone of someone’s skin here is folks like YOU. Folks like you simply assume others must be “racists” because you can’t see a world beyond your own narrow minded perspective and therefore assume everyone else must view things under the biased lens that you see them.

    How very sad for you. And completely delusional.

    The anti-Cain posts I’ve seen here have mostly ridiculed him for his statements or policies. You however seem to have a fixation with racial issues over actual issues.

    Sally HIll: Personally, I think the pro-Obama people are die-hard racists. They don’t like Cain, a real black man, but Obama is okay, because he is at least half white. As long as his skin is not dark like Cains and he speaks like a white man, he is okay. But when the skin gets dark and the voice is slightly indicative of a race other than white – that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.

  60. avatar
    Keith November 3, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    Scientist: Rubio is white.His ancestors were Spaniards who moved to Cuba (just like Castro).Spain is just as much part of Europe as Italy or Greece or France.

    Probably true, but Spaniards are southern European, Think Mediterranean ‘dusky’, not Scandanavian white. Remember too that Spain was part of the Moorish Empire for several hundred years. There is a significant amount of genetic mixture with the African Moors that ruled in Iberia.

    Wait a minute! Moors! The Moors were African Muslims!

    OMG! Rubio must be a secret Commie Mooslem Nazi Buggerast!

  61. avatar
    randel November 3, 2011 at 2:01 am #

    wait a minute. i’m hispanic descended from Spanish immigrants who came from Spain to Florida some 500 years ago. I live in Texas where the family line ended up centuries ago. I’m not allowed to call myself white. I’m forced to call my self hispanic, which is not a race but an ethnicity like germanic or italian or slavic. Rubio is not white by that standard. at least not in Texas where we like to keep track of the hispanics so that we can jerrymander voting districts to dilute their voter strength.

  62. avatar
    randel November 3, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    i have NO moor blood in me. the moors were hated by the Spanish so much that the Spanish named a Mexican town “Matamoros” which means “kill the moors” after Spanish settlers fought off Moor attackers who tried to invade and take over that nothern Mexico city.

  63. avatar
    Daniel November 3, 2011 at 2:35 am #

    Sally HIll: Personally, I think the pro-Obama people are die-hard racists. They don’t like Cain, a real black man, but Obama is okay, because he is at least half white. As long as his skin is not dark like Cains and he speaks like a white man, he is okay. But when the skin gets dark and the voice is slightly indicative of a race other than white – that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.

    Really, Sally? I mean… really?

    I stopped using the “I know you are but what am I” defence when I finished kindergarten over 40 years ago.

    Do you really think we’re going to fall for that lame ploy?

    Sally HIll: Bbirthers’ have done their research as to who is and is not a NBC – they are not hypocrites like most who post here.

    OK You reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaallly need to go get a dictionary and look up the meaning of “research”. Here’s a hint… it doesn’t mean “read everyone that agrees with what I need to be the truth”.

  64. avatar
    Majority Will November 3, 2011 at 3:48 am #

    “. . . that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.”

    Oh, the irony.

  65. avatar
    AnotherBird November 3, 2011 at 5:26 am #

    Sally HIll:
    Whew!I’m glad I’m not one of those die hard birthers you speak of so harshly here.

    Personally, I think the pro-Obama people are die-hard racists.They don’t like Cain, a real black man, but Obama is okay, because he is at least half white.As long as his skin is not dark like Cains and he speaks like a white man, he is okay.But when the skin gets dark and the voice is slightly indicative of a race other than white – that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.

    We’ll call that a shot over the brown. It is you who has drawn the race line. The fact that you have made the distinction of “a real” shows your obvious prejudice.

    The irony is that dredging through the a list of peoples names without producing anything in law that defines NBC is a clear indication that you are in fact a diehard Birther.

  66. avatar
    misha November 3, 2011 at 5:29 am #

    Sally HIll: Bbirthers’ have done their research as to who is and is not a NBC

    I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that’s right here! Hope this helps your quest.

    Thanks for visiting.

  67. avatar
    The Magic M November 3, 2011 at 5:32 am #

    Loren: So when die-hard Birthers are caught failing to apply their own standards across the board, it shows that they aren’t even internally consistent.

    They’ve never been from the start.

    The typical reply to my “how can you be sure GWB was eligible” has always been “he was vetted by Congress”.
    There’s the plainest inconsistency of them all.
    When Congress considered Bush eligible, that was “vetting him”.
    When Congress considered Obama eligible, that was “535 traitors trying to destroy the Constitution”.

    Sally HIll: They don’t like Cain, a real black man, but Obama is okay, because he is at least half white. As long as his skin is not dark like Cains and he speaks like a white man, he is okay. But when the skin gets dark and the voice is slightly indicative of a race other than white – that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.

    Whoa, projecting much? It’s the birthers who claim that everyone who criticizes Obama is called a racist, when in fact none of that ever happens.

    In the real sane world, no-one who criticizes Obama or Cain is accused of being a racist.
    However going “show me your papers, boy” *is* justly called racism – no matter if someone says that about Obama or Cain.

    Sarah, show us Obots where we attack Cain on anything but his politics. Otherwise STFU you propagandist liar.

    Birthers, however, seem to think Cain is the only way to stop Obama from being elected a second time, based on the racist meme “all Blacks will vote for the black guy because they only care about race”.
    (And I can prove it; just look at all the WND posts claiming “Cain + Keyes, the ticket that gives nightmares to Democrats”. Yeah, right, why would it? Because they are black? Because that will make “liberals” think “damn, now we can’t get the black vote because there’s more than one black guy to vote for”? That’s projecting your own racism on “liberals”.)

  68. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn November 3, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    But did the birthers get official forms, proven not to be forgeries, to declare, without a doubt, that all the GOP candidates:

    1) are natural born citizens
    2) that their parents were citizens when they were born
    3) that there was no switcheroo in the hospital cradle where some commie switched babies to make sure a non-natural born baby was taken home
    4) that they never denounced American citizenship
    etc?

    No? Of course not. You take their word for their histories.

  69. avatar
    Northland10 November 3, 2011 at 6:47 am #

    The Magic M: Birthers, however, seem to think Cain is the only way to stop Obama from being elected a second time, based on the racist meme “all Blacks will vote for the black guy because they only care about race”.
    (And I can prove it; just look at all the WND posts claiming “Cain + Keyes, the ticket that gives nightmares to Democrats”. Yeah, right, why would it? Because they are black? Because that will make “liberals” think “damn, now we can’t get the black vote because there’s more than one black guy to vote for”? That’s projecting your own racism on “liberals”.)

    That strategy worked so well in the 2004 when Obama stomped Keyes in the Senate race.

  70. avatar
    Scientist November 3, 2011 at 6:50 am #

    Hey Sally, Have you ordered your advance copy of Herman Cain’s new book, “The Audacity of Grope”?

  71. avatar
    Scientist November 3, 2011 at 7:02 am #

    Sally HIll: Bbirthers’ have done their research as to who is and is not a NBC – they are not hypocrites like most who post here.

    In your research, I hope you examined the 12th Amendment, which states, “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” None of those candidates meet the criteria to be President. Barack Obama, on the other hand, does.

    Bye-bye…….

  72. avatar
    Loren November 3, 2011 at 7:04 am #

    Sally HIll:
    Here is what I’ve gathered from other birther sites and on my own.

    As we’ve all seen over the last three years, Birthers have yet to be convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii even after a short-form birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate, documents attesting to the chain of custody of the long-form birth certificate, two newspaper birth announcements, and several formal and informal statements from the state of Hawaii itself. And as this very blog post demonstrates, that’s STILL insufficient for them, and now some of them want to see Hawaii’s microfilm.

    So when you say that you’ve determined that Cain was born in Tennessee, or Newt was born in Pennsylvania, or Perry was born in Texas…what documentary evidence are you basing that on? I mean, surely you aren’t just taking the word of websites like Wikipedia or their campaign sites. How many of their birth certificates have you seen to confirm that they’re telling the truth? Newt was adopted; have you seen his adoption records?

    Also, you seem awfully certain that Cain was born in Tennessee. But there are lots of reports, going back over a decade, that he was born in Atlanta, Georgia. Jerome Corsi regularly makes a huge deal out of the fact that a high school newspaper named the wrong Honolulu hospital; why is there no equivalent scrutiny of Cain when major news outlets repeatedly named a completely wrong STATE?

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2011/10/where-are-herman-cain-birthers.html

  73. avatar
    Scientist November 3, 2011 at 7:22 am #

    Loren: Also, you seem awfully certain that Cain was born in Tennessee. But there are lots of reports, going back over a decade, that he was born in Atlanta, Georgia. Jerome Corsi regularly makes a huge deal out of the fact that a high school newspaper named the wrong Honolulu hospital; why is there no equivalent scrutiny of Cain when major news outlets repeatedly named a completely wrong STATE?

    Not to mention that Romney was supposedly born in Detroit? That is right across the river from Canada. How hard would it have been for his folks to slip across to Windsor, Ont. to take advantage of the great socialized medicine in Canada (alright, Canada didn’t have socialized medicine in 1947, but maybe Romney is lying about his age) and then come back and register the birth? His dad was a big-shot auto exec who would have had a much easier time bribing or cajoling doctors than a poor student like Obama’s dad.

  74. avatar
    ballantine November 3, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    Bbirthers’ have done their research as to who is and is not a NBC – they are not hypocrites like most who post here.

    Actually, most have not. Most just repeat nonsense from idiots like Donofrio and Apuzzo. Most birthers have no understanding of law and no idea what the courts or the founders actually said. When it is pointed out the that courts have rejected their nonsense, they simply go back to citing the idiot birther lawyers who would probabaly be sanctioned if they ever argued their nonsense in a real court.

  75. avatar
    Loren November 3, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    Scientist: Not to mention that Romney was supposedly born in Detroit?That is right across the river from Canada.How hard would it have been for his folks to slip across to Windsor,Ont. to take advantage of the great socialized medicine in Canada (alright, Canada didn’t have socialized medicine in 1947, but maybe Romney is lying about hisage) and then come back and register the birth?

    Ditto all that for Sarah Palin. Not only was she supposedly born in some one-horse town in extreme north Idaho, roughly an hour’s drive from one of Canada’s major cities, but she’s ADMITTED that her parents used to go into Canada for health care.

    That’s a heckuva lot more plausible than supposing someone flew halfway around the planet to give birth in a third-world country she’d never visited.

  76. avatar
    Jim F November 3, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    Let me get this straight. Orly is going back into court to argue in front of the judge who she labeled as “DUMB OR CURRUPT”. I hope the judge starts by finding her in comtempt. Is she really that stupid?

  77. avatar
    Arthur November 3, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    Several commentators have raised the epistemological irony of birthers trying to make truth claims about their favorite candidates’ citizenship after having sought for the last three years to discredit the cultural, institutional, and governmental bodies that make it possible to discern fact from fiction about these candidates.

    The birther chickens are coming home to roost and their eggs are hatching nihilism.*

    If a Perry, Bachman, or Cain should win the election, it’s funny to imagine the collective brain-fart birthers would experience on Inauguration Day, as they argue, red-faced and eyes a bulge, that Congress, state health departments, and the judiciary must now be accounted trustworthy and accurate.

    *Sally Hill, in this instance, I mean nihilism to refer to a radical form of cognitive skepticism, in which all external assertions of truth or knowledge are considered corrupt or false, as in the old saying attributed to a Quaker elder, “Everyone’s queer, ‘cept me and thee – and thou art a little peculiar!”

  78. avatar
    El Diablo Negro November 3, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    I am not a Cain supporter, but I think is it great that he has the opportunity to showcase his views. Just because he is a black republican means nothing to me, I threw out labeling a long time ago. Cain is a self made man, and a hard working successful black man is just as intimidating as a well spoken black man. I know from experience, being a black network engineer (in Kentucky) causes double-takes when I walk into the building. I do not hate politics,I just partisan politics. Contrary to popular belief, at least where I live, blacks do not hate Cain, They are hoping for a Cain vs. Obama debate just to see where they both stand.

    Sally HIll: Personally, I think the pro-Obama people are die-hard racists. They don’t like Cain, a real black man, but Obama is okay, because he is at least half white. As long as his skin is not dark like Cains and he speaks like a white man, he is okay. But when the skin gets dark and the voice is slightly indicative of a race other than white – that’s where you liberals draw the racist line.

  79. avatar
    El Diablo Negro November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    Also, as far as I am concerned Obama is black, he will not be mistaken for white. My mother is French/Cherokee, but you would would not see that in me. I always fill out African American is the check box. Half-White was never a widely used term till 2008, It was Black or White.

  80. avatar
    The Magic M November 3, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    Arthur: it’s funny to imagine the collective brain-fart birthers would experience on Inauguration Day, as they argue, red-faced and eyes a bulge, that Congress, state health departments, and the judiciary must now be accounted trustworthy and accurate

    Since birfers have already believed in six impossible things before breakfast, that will come as natural to them as 1-2-3 or “it never was about the birth certificate (but now again it is)”.

  81. avatar
    e.vattel November 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    When Shakespeare writes the following in Henry V what does he mean regarding the children.

    “Were all thy children kind and natural?”

  82. avatar
    Scientist November 3, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    e.vattel: When Shakespeare writes the following in Henry V what does he mean regarding the children. “Were all thy children kind and natural?”

    Rumor has it that it was the Earl of Oxford.

  83. avatar
    Welsh Dragon November 3, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    e.vattel:
    When Shakespeare writes the following in Henry V what does he mean regarding the children.

    “Were all thy children kind and natural?”

    In context he’s not talking about chidren at all. The chorus is bemoaning that England is being undermined by traitors in particular:

    “…
    three corrupted men,
    One, Richard Earl of Cambridge, and the second,
    Henry Lord Scroop of Masham, and the third,
    Sir Thomas Grey, knight, of Northumberland,
    Have, for the gilt of France,–O guilt indeed!
    Confirm’d conspiracy with fearful France;…”

    I suppose ” Were all thy subjects loyal and true” didn’t scan.

  84. avatar
    Predicto November 3, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Scientist: Why would you not present those facts or law at trial or the hearing, but all of sudden have them 2 or 3 days later? That seems like it would happen very rarely if ever. I’m trying to get a sense of how frequent motions for reconsideration are. My sense is that Orly may have filed more of them in the last year than entire law firms file in a decade.

    Exactly true.

    But most states don’t have a rule as strict as California, nor do the federal courts.

  85. avatar
    gorefan November 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    e.vattel: Were all thy children kind and natural?”

    Natural referred to whether the children were legitimate or born out of wedlock.

    “NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple.”Samuel Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language

    M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. “In France,” said M. Marbois, “they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.” John Admas, The Works of John Adams, vol. 3 (Autobiography, Diary, Notes of a Debate in the Senate, Essays) [1851]

  86. avatar
    G November 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    H/T for the great Douglas Adams reference!

    The Magic M: Since birfers have already believed in six impossible things before breakfast, that will come as natural to them as 1-2-3 or “it never was about the birth certificate (but now again it is)”.

  87. avatar
    Critical Thinker November 3, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    Also, three weeks before the judge made a single ruling on her Taitz v Fuddy case, Orly asked her flying monkeys to demand that Congress subpoena the judge and several other officials to testify in front of a congressional committee regarding Orly’s delusions about Obama’s SSN and birth certificate.

    Jim F:
    Let me get this straight. Orly is going back into court to argue in front of the judge who she labeled as “DUMB OR CURRUPT”.I hope the judge starts by finding her in comtempt. Is she really that stupid?

  88. avatar
    Critical Thinker November 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    I’ve heard rumors that Michele Bachmann was born in Canada also. Has she ever proved that she was not? I know that there is something that she claims to be her “birth certificate” available online, but that is a very suspicious document. First, it’s for someone named Michele Amble. Have she ever shown any documentation of her name change? Also, has Miss Tickly officially certified that the raised seal is indeed raised and not embossed or debossed? And, the document is called a “certificate of live birth” which is not the same as a “birth certificate.” I think Donald Trump made that very clear. And remember the mix-up with John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy? Are we to believe that Bachmann was born in Waterloo, IA but does not know that John Wayne the actor was born in Winterset, IA? Very, very suspicious.

    Scientist: Not to mention that Romney was supposedly born in Detroit?That is right across the river from Canada.How hard would it have been for his folks to slip across to Windsor,Ont. to take advantage of the great socialized medicine in Canada (alright, Canada didn’t have socialized medicine in 1947, but maybe Romney is lying about hisage) and then come back and register the birth?His dad was a big-shot auto exec who would have had a much easier time bribing or cajoling doctors than a poor student like Obama’s dad.

  89. avatar
    Joey November 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    Does anyone know if there is any member of Congress who has ever spoken in support of the “two citizen parent” theory of birtherism?
    Every member of Congress that I know of has only flirted with the birth certificate branch of birtherism.

  90. avatar
    e.vattel November 3, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Were the all the children kind and natural…

    Who are the natural children…how is this related to natural born citizen. Thought you guys were deep thinkers?

  91. avatar
    e.vattel November 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm #

    Were all the children kind and natural.

  92. avatar
    e.vattel November 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm #

    It is going to be revealed in this fabled forum the meaning of natural in natural born citizen and why the Founders used the term.

    First…you guys need to ponder the correct meaning…of..

    Were all they children kind and natural.

    What does Shakespeare mean by kind and natural children. Does he mean friendly children?

    So far none of you have responded correctly. Try again.

  93. avatar
    G November 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    I don’t know who you think you are talking to, other than the voices in your own head, because since you showed up, you’ve been the only one talking to yourself in these 3 weird posts of yours….posts which don’t make any sense and therefore aren’t worthy of any serious response, anyways. You should see a professional about those voices you are hearing…

    e.vattel: So far none of you have responded correctly. Try again.

  94. avatar
    Daniel November 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    El Diablo Negro:
    Also, as far as I am concerned Obama is black, he will not be mistaken for white. My mother is French/Cherokee, but you would would not see that in me. I always fill out African American is the check box. Half-White was never a widely used term till 2008, It was Black or White.

    I’m a Celt, through and through, but you wouldn’t know it from looking at me, since I’m not blue.

    Let’s see how many historians we have around here….

  95. avatar
    Scientist November 3, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    e.vattel: It is going to be revealed in this fabled forum the meaning of natural in natural born citizen

    It means a citizen born without anesthetics or drugs to induce labor. Some people consider it must be a birth outside a hospital, but others accept hospital births as long as drugs are not admminstered. In Shakespeare’s day, all births were natural, since there weren’t drugs available.

    I guess you were accuurate in your prediction. It has been revealed.

  96. avatar
    Daniel November 3, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    e.vattel:
    It is going to be revealed in this fabled forum the meaning of natural in natural born citizen and why the Founders used the term.

    Yeah I’m sure you believe yourself to be the only expert in the world on the subject, and you probably believe you are a dead Swiss Philosopher too.

    They have pills fhat.

    In the meantime please be assured that we will give your puerile and self deluded opinions, on the subject of Constitutional Law, all the consideration they deserve.

  97. avatar
    Rickey November 3, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    e.vattel:
    It is going to be revealed in this fabled forum the meaning of natural in natural born citizen and why the Founders used the term.

    Encyclopaedia Metropolitana by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, et al., Vol. XIV, 1845:

    “An alien cannot purchase lands for his own use; an alien female cannot be endowed with lands, although she become the wife of a natural-born subject; But an alien may acquire any kind of personal property; his children born in Great Britain are generally to be held natural-born subjects.”

    Case closed, and you’re welcome.

  98. avatar
    misha November 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    e.vattel: Thought you guys were deep thinkers?

    “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes”

    Deep enough for you?

  99. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater November 3, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    E.vattel is one of two people dancing rabbit/dragging canoe or Dean Haskins. I know in the past Dean Haskins has used the vattel monicker

  100. avatar
    BatGuano November 3, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    e.vattel:
    Were all the children kind and natural.

    where is fancy bread, in the heart or in the head?

    hey! this game is fun!

  101. avatar
    BatGuano November 3, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    E.vattel is one of two people dancing rabbit/dragging canoe or ….

    he’s been posting the same stuff today at
    http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/
    as dragging canoe

  102. avatar
    misha November 3, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    BatGuano: he’s been posting the same stuff today as dragging canoe

    Drag this.

  103. avatar
    Welsh Dragon November 3, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    E.vattel is one of two people dancing rabbit/dragging canoe or Dean Haskins.I know in the past Dean Haskins has used the vattel monicker

    I suspect it’s dancing rabbit/dragging canoe who in turn I think is freeper “bushpilot1” – the obsession with “kind” and “natural” rather gives him away.

  104. avatar
    Northland10 November 3, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    E.vattel is one of two people dancing rabbit/dragging canoe or Dean Haskins.I know in the past Dean Haskins has used the vattel monicker

    (btw, it is not Haskins),

    Since “dragging the dancing vattel rabbit through the bush” just keeps dropping the same old stuff everywhere, I will just quote myself when he plopped the same nonsense at NBC’s place.

    Kind born citizen? I can only figure E. Vattel is venturing into some version of natural kind philosophy of biology and transferring it to citizenship status. If I understanding him correctly, as he would see Obama as not the same “kind.” To be of a separate “kind” yet in the same grouping might be referred to as “unnatural” (a “natural kind” grouping being natural since it requires no human determination). This would explain the idea of “natural law” e. vattel is using and causes him to see Obama as a citizen as unnatural. This does give some insight of his true feelings.

    The only person I have seen plugging this is “dancing rabbit.” Oh wait, that is the same person as e. vattel (are you bushpilot1 also, or just pushing)

    The next thing he will mention as part of his natural and kind is spurious, so I might as well requote myself quoting Virginia law:

    I imagine e. vattel has this in mind when he refers to to spurious. From a Virginia 1691 law:

    “And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever. . .”

    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html

    Now I have responded to what dancing will eventually say (unless Doc bans him first, again).

  105. avatar
    jayhg November 3, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

    e.vattel:
    Were the all the children kind and natural…

    Who are the natural children…how is this related to natural born citizen. Thought you guys were deep thinkers?

    Hey everyone, this evattle is really a poster called bushpilot1 who says that the founders meant that only WHITE people could be president. He said it over at free republic and one of them called him out on it. He refused to say it again and has been saying this “kind” which he hopes someone will read the way he wishes life to be, and that is that white people rule over all the other tuypes of people.

    One or two told him him to go backto storm front over on free republic, but he just stopped saying that only whites are supposed to be president of the US and just kept repeating this “kind” bullshit, but this is what he means by it.

  106. avatar
    jayhg November 3, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    e.vattel:
    It is going to be revealed in this fabled forum the meaning of natural in natural born citizen and why the Founders used the term.

    First…you guys need to ponder the correct meaning…of..

    Were all they children kind and natural.

    What does Shakespeare mean by kind and natural children. Does he mean friendly children?

    So far none of you have responded correctly.Try again.

    You mean nobody has told you what you want to hear…..that only white people are supposed to be president of the United States……right, bushpilot1??? I dare you to respond.

  107. avatar
    gorefan November 3, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    e.vattel: Who are the natural children…how is this related to natural born citizen. Thought you guys were deep thinkers?

    Ublike you, we just prefer not to make things up.

  108. avatar
    John Reilly November 3, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    Ms. Dr. Taitz, Esq. (or as Dr.C would say, the gift that keeps on giving) as applied to the 9th Circuit for a writ of mandamus (which she can’t spell correctly) in the Barnett case ordering Hawaii to deliver the originals to some military authority in Hawaii so that Ms. Dr. Taitz, Esq., and her experts (I think that was Manny, Moe & Jack) can view them. The application is replete with spelling errors, and, in any event, never quite explains why an appellate court ought to go rooting about for new evidence. Perhaps that topic was not covered in her law school.

  109. avatar
    misha November 4, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    jayhg: …..that only white people are supposed to be president of the United States……right, bushpilot1???

    “In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriages in the United States. Although every state with such a law banned marriage between a white person and an African American, some laws, including Virginia’s, went further and prohibited marriage between whites and other non-white ethnic groups such as Asians and Native Americans.

    In 1963 the Lovings engaged Bernard Cohen, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, to appeal their conviction. Judge Bazile denied the appeal, stating that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    A unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s law…”

    Read on:
    http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967

  110. avatar
    misha November 4, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    John Reilly: Perhaps that topic was not covered in her law school.

    Mail order degrees usually do not.

  111. avatar
    Keith November 4, 2011 at 12:10 am #

    John Reilly: The application is replete with spelling errors, and, in any event, never quite explains why an appellate court ought to go rooting about for new evidence.

    Just curious.

    If some Judge finally gets around to sanctioning her again, I assume that whatever court she appeals the sanction to can throw out the penalty or reduce it.

    My question is: can that appeals court also increase the penalty (assuming it already isn’t maxed, of course)?

  112. avatar
    John Reilly November 4, 2011 at 12:58 am #

    One would think an appeals court, if it thought the penalty too low, would be required to reverse and remand for further proceedings.

    The appeals court could impose its own sanction for a frivolous appeal or contempt towards the appellate court.

    My attorney friends assure me that sanctions are far less common in real life than on TV.

  113. avatar
    misha November 4, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    John Reilly: My attorney friends assure me that sanctions are far less common in real life than on TV.

    I’m shocked, just shocked.

  114. avatar
    John Reilly November 4, 2011 at 1:08 am #

    What was interesting in Loving v. Virginia in the context of Hawaii birth certificates is that because the Lovings could not marry in Virginia, they married in the District of Columbia. They were prosecuted for living together as a married interracial couple. The Supreme Court struck down the Virginia law, but not on the grounds that Virginia had to recognize a District marriage, but because the law was just plain stupid. One would think full faith and credit could have been asserted as well.

    The trial judge in Virgina said God made the races separate. If God indeed desired that Black folks and white folks could not marry, God would have made them different species, rather than races. A God which can make a hippopotamus could surely figure out Biology 101. I guess science was not taught in Virginia schools much like law was not taught as Ms. Dr. Taitz’s Esq. law school.

  115. avatar
    G November 4, 2011 at 1:17 am #

    LOL! Good way of putting it!

    John Reilly: The trial judge in Virgina said God made the races separate. If God indeed desired that Black folks and white folks could not marry, God would have made them different species, rather than races. A God which can make a hippopotamus could surely figure out Biology 101. I guess science was not taught in Virginia schools much like law was not taught as Ms. Dr. Taitz’s Esq. law school.

  116. avatar
    misha November 4, 2011 at 1:26 am #

    John Reilly: I guess science was not taught in Virginia schools

    If it’s not in the bible, it’s not true. Just ask Palin, Bachmann, Hagee and the rest of their coterie.

    Remember, Bachmann and Santorum signed this:

    Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/bachmann-pledge-slavery-family-leader

    Science? Facts? Who needs them, when you have the bible? Hitchens is right.

  117. avatar
    Lupin November 4, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    misha: If it’s not in the bible, it’s not true. Just ask Palin, Bachmann, Hagee and the rest of their coterie.

    I’m not even sure they’re THAT enlightened.

    Take abortion for instance.According to the Bible, Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

    If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. — Exodus 21:22-23

    The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

    And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6

    Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

    Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

    God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

    And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. — Numbers 31:15-17

    (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

    Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. — Hosea 9:14

    Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. — Hosea 9:16

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. — Hosea 13:16

    God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

    Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. — 2 Samuel 12:14

    God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

    The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. …
    And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

    God’s law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

    Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. — Genesis 38:24

    See what I mean? Those yahoos don’t even KNOW the Bible, or use it purely for their self-serving ends.

  118. avatar
    The Magic M November 4, 2011 at 5:24 am #

    G: H/T for the great Douglas Adams reference!

    If you’re referring to the “six impossible things”, that’s Lewis Carrol. 😉 (If I made a DA reference without noticing it, shame on me, he’s my favourite author.)

    misha: “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes”

    Funny to see that you quote Marx correctly while most Germans use the incorrect quote “Religion ist Opium für das Volk” (the difference being that misha’s correct quote means “religion is what people use to dumb themselves down” whereas the incorrect quote means “religion is what is used to dumb down the people”, inferring some nefarious plan by “them”).

  119. avatar
    misha November 4, 2011 at 5:36 am #

    The Magic M: Funny to see that you quote Marx correctly while most Germans use the incorrect quote

    I don’t know if I ever mentioned this, but I grew up in a Yiddish speaking home. To those who do not know, Yiddish is based on Middle German. During the Middle Ages, Jews in Germany used Hebrew letters which had the same sounds, when writing German words.

    It eventually became another language, with some Hebrew and Russian thrown in.

  120. avatar
    Keith November 4, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    The Magic M: Funny to see that you quote Marx correctly while most Germans use the incorrect quote “Religion ist Opium für das Volk” (the difference being that misha’s correct quote means “religion is what people use to dumb themselves down” whereas the incorrect quote means “religion is what is used to dumb down the people”, inferring some nefarious plan by “them”).

    Ain’t enlightenment grand!

    I like to learn something new everyday, and this is something new to me today.

    So the ‘standard’ English translation: ‘religion is the opiate of the people‘ should actually be ‘religion is the people’s opiate‘.

    Subtle, nuanced, and yet somehow startling!

  121. avatar
    Scientist November 4, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    Lupin: Take abortion for instance.According to the Bible, Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

    Just from a practical sense I’m trying to figure out how it would work to say that a fetus is a person, since it’s inside another person. Does that mean that I can crawl up into someone else’s body cavities if I feel like it? Even if you pretend the fetus is a person and you remove it from the mother and it dies that isn’t murder, since no person has a right to be inside another person.

  122. avatar
    G November 4, 2011 at 7:48 am #

    Oops! You are correct. My mistake. Getting my references mixed up.

    The Magic M: If you’re referring to the “six impossible things”, that’s Lewis Carrol. (If I made a DA reference without noticing it, shame on me, he’s my favourite author.)

  123. avatar
    The Magic M November 4, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Keith: So the standard’ English translation: religion is the opiate of the people‘should actually be religion is the people’s opiate‘.

    Not being a native speaker, I’m not sure I get the subtle difference between those two. “Of the people” would be correct in my interpretation, whereas “for the people” would be the wrong translation that most people in Germany know.

  124. avatar
    The Magic M November 4, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    Scientist: how it would work to say that a fetus is a person, since it’s inside another person

    Probably along the same lines as considering Siamese twins two different persons, even if they happen to share one or more organs.

    Scientist: Does that mean that I can crawl up into someone else’s body cavities if I feel like it?

    I don’t see how that would relate to “being a person”.

    Scientist: since no person has a right to be inside another person

    At least implicitly that right would be granted in that special case, once you decide to consider a fetus a person.

    [Note: personally, I take no side in this issue. I used to be strictly pro-life (and a conservative hardliner in general) when I was a minor, changed to pro-choice around the age of 18 and have not thought about the issue since turning 30. I’m rather indifferent towards most political or ethical questions.]

  125. avatar
    Daniel November 4, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Lupin: Take abortion for instance.According to the Bible, Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life…Those yahoos don’t even KNOW the Bible, or use it purely for their self-serving ends.

    Or one could point to another Holy Grail of extreme right Christianity, the “no premarital sex” concept. Most insist that the Bible forbids pre-marital sex, when it certainly does not. An excerpt from an essay I wrote, for your enjoyment….
    ____________________________________

    Now most of this post is written to those who claim to believe in a literal Bible. As such it speaks to literal meanings. Those of you who are not literal absolutists may not find the subject to be as much of a problem, but I invite your comments anyways (not that you need my permission). You may even find the study somewhat helpful. I originally wrote the study shortly after I left Bible seminary.

    ___________________________________________________

    The Bible does not forbid sex before marriage. In fact the Bible really has nothing at all to say about pre-marital sex. And no…. the word “fornication” does not count.

    Fornication does not mean “premarital sex”. Fornication literally means, “sexual immorality”. Proof of this comes from the Bible itself. Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Obviously a married woman cannot have “premarital sex” since she is married. Thus the contention that fornication is just another word for premarital sex is shown to be false.

    So then what does it mean?

    The details are very important in this case. To get a proper view of the intent of the original text, it is necessary to return to the original languages. The words in the original Greek and Hebrew that are translated as “fornication” in our English versions are

    Hebrew 02181 zanah {zaw-naw’} 08457 taznuwth {taz-nooth’}

    Greek 1608 ekporneuo {ek-porn-yoo’-o} 4202 porneia {por-ni’-ah} 4203 porneuo {porn-yoo’-o}

    Now neither of these word roots mean premarital sex, or even refer to a lack of chastity. An actual literal translation of either is “sexual immorality”. “Same thing!!” you say? Perhaps to those not used to rightly dividing the Bible.

    We have seen that the words used in the original languages refer to sexual immorality. One has to define what constitutes sexual immorality in order to label any particular act or activity as fornication. Fortunately the Bible does define sexual immorality in extremely precise detail. Leviticus 18 specifically details what things are permissible and forbidden sexually. There are “thou shalt nots” for every thing from bestiality, to incest, to marrying widows. The passage even goes so far as a specific “thou shalt not” for sex during menstruation, a pretty specific detail in my mind. Yet in all that passage, and indeed in all the Bible, there is no “thou shalt not”, nor even any reasonable equivalent, for premarital sex.

    If God went into such great detail and specifics to define sexual immorality to the point that even the times of the month are specified, one would think that something as common and broad as premarital sex would have rated at least a passing mention too? The only logical reason for that activity to have been left out is that God simply did not intend for it to be forbidden (unless, of course, you think God made a mistake?).

    So now that we see that premarital sex is not forbidden in the Bible, one must ask… Why have some Christians taken to adding to the Bible that particular stricture, indeed making it almost paramount above all others, without it being in “God’s Word”? I don’t know. Perhaps you should ask St. Augustine. It was his uptight attitude which seemed to be the start of this puritanical fallacy.

  126. avatar
    Rickey November 4, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

    Daniel:

    The Bible does not forbid sex before marriage. In fact the Bible really has nothing at all to say about pre-marital sex. And no…. the word “fornication” does not count.

    Fornication does not mean “premarital sex”. Fornication literally means, “sexual immorality”. Proof of this comes from the Bible itself. Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Obviously a married woman cannot have “premarital sex” since she is married. Thus the contention that fornication is just another word for premarital sex is shown to be false.

    I would go a step further and suggest that “fornication” meant consorting with prostitutes. The word “fornication” is derived from the word “fornix,” which means a structure with an arch. In olden time prostitutes plied their trade under such arches, essentially the equivalent of a red light district in more modern times.

    Obviously there were (and are) compelling health reasons to be wary of prostitutes, just as there were compelling health reasons, just as there were health reasons to avoid eating certain foods.

  127. avatar
    PaulG November 4, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    The Magic M: Not being a native speaker, I’m not sure I get the subtle difference between those two. “Of the people” would be correct in my interpretation, whereas “for the people” would be the wrong translation that most people in Germany know.

    My understanding is that opiate is meant as a reference to painkillers, which was a major use of opium is those days. He talks of the suffering of people and suggests that religion is a way of coping. He also suggests that if they weren’t suffering, they wouldn’t need religion, at least as I read it.

  128. avatar
    G November 4, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Thanks Daniel. That is one of the things I love about this site! All the extra fascinating and informative info that is shared and I can learn from. Thanks to you & the others here, this entire thread has been chock full of interesting tidbits that add additional understanding to the linquistic meanings of various words & terms. I’ve really been enjoying the entire thread and the research it has spawned.

    Daniel: Or one could point to another Holy Grail of extreme right Christianity, the “no premarital sex” concept. Most insist that the Bible forbids pre-marital sex, when it certainly does not. An excerpt from an essay I wrote, for your enjoyment….

  129. avatar
    misha November 4, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    Rickey: In olden time prostitutes plied their trade under such arches

    A priest is walking in midtown Manhattan, to a cathedral to say Mass.

    A woman in a doorway says, “hey Father! Quickie for twenty bucks.” He ignores her.
    A second woman in a doorway says, “Father, bet you could use a quickie. Twenty bucks.” He ignores her.
    A third woman in a doorway says, “Hi Father. I’ll give you a quickie for twenty bucks. How about it?” He again ignores her.

    As he is passing out wafers, a nun he knows appears in front of him. He whispers to her, “Sister, could I speak with you after Mass?” “Of course, Father.”

    After Mass, he draws the nun aside and asks sotto voce, “excuse me Sister, but what’s a quickie?”

    The nun replies, “for you Father, twenty bucks.”

  130. avatar
    e.vattel November 4, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    . The other important meaning of gecynd (natural) is ‘groups linked by blood’, specifically species’, ‘genus’, race’, offspring’, family’ and children’.

    http://homepage3.nifty.com/iyeiri/jshell/08kenkyu9b.pdf

  131. avatar
    Daniel November 4, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    e.vattel:
    . The other important meaning of gecynd (natural) is ‘groups linked by blood’, specifically species’, ‘genus’, race’, offspring’, family’ and children’.

    http://homepage3.nifty.com/iyeiri/jshell/08kenkyu9b.pdf

    I’m sorry, were you under the mistaken impression anyone was listening to you?

  132. avatar
    PaulG November 4, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    So is the nun saying her price is twenty dollars? Or is she just quoting the going rate? In which case it might be she doesn’t know what a quickie is either, just the the price, which would be sort of charming, really.

    Wears the candle? Yes, it does.

  133. avatar
    gorefan November 4, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    Daniel: The other important meaning of gecynd

    rom your interesting but irrelevant article

    “Inborn (= gecynd) human nature’ among Hroðgar’s people in the hall is well represented by their noisy merrymaking, fornication and pagan rituals. The people are loud and excited, having entertainment drinking mead, minstrels’ singing, and their lord’s
    treasure-giving until midnight. Among Heorot’s people is Unferð, who is a reminder of Cain in the Bible”

    So is Hermain Cain a kind?

  134. avatar
    jayhg November 4, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

    e.vattel:
    . The other important meaning of gecynd (natural) is ‘groups linked by blood’, specifically species’, ‘genus’, race’, offspring’, family’ and children’.

    http://homepage3.nifty.com/iyeiri/jshell/08kenkyu9b.pdf

    sorry bushpilot1……….the time will never come when only white people can be president of the United States. I know the black man in charged of the free world gives you hives, but such is live sometimes.

    Barack Obama is President of the United States and he is black.

  135. avatar
    Head Researcher November 4, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    If this person is “bushpilot”, he sent me “bug” pictures at Free Republic and said Dr. C. sent me there. Can you Obots please set him straight???

    Thank you!!!

    The Head Researcher

  136. avatar
    Daniel November 5, 2011 at 1:29 am #

    Head Researcher:
    If this person is “bushpilot”, he sent me “bug” pictures at Free Republic and said Dr. C. sent me there. Can you Obots please set him straight???

    Thank you!!!

    The Head Researcher

    If only we could, Squeeky…. If only we could

  137. avatar
    Keith November 5, 2011 at 1:53 am #

    Rickey: I would go a step further and suggest that “fornication” meant consorting with prostitutes.

    I would agree with that and would add the suggestion that the ‘prostitutes’ that are being referred to are actually “Temple Prostitutes”.

    While it is undoubtedly true that there were ‘ordinary’ sex workers, it is the “Temple Prostitutes that the Bible is most concerned with, and to this end goes out of its way to associate the Temple Prostitutes with the sex workers.

    Source Wikipedia: Sacred Prostitution
    The Hebrew Bible uses two different words for prostitute, zonah (–”)‎ and kedeshah (§“ש”)‎. The word zonah simply meant an ordinary prostitute or loose woman. But the word kedeshah literally means “consecrated (feminine form)”, from the Semitic root q-d-sh (§“ש)‎ meaning “holy” or “set apart”.

    Whatever the cultic significance of a kedeshah to a follower of the Canaanite religion, the Hebrew Bible is quick to connect the term with a common prostitute. Thus Deuteronomy 23:17-18 warns followers:

    None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh.
    You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (keleb) into the house of the Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

    The meaning of the male form kadesh or qadesh is not entirely clear.

    The Hebrew word keleb (dog) in the next line may also signify a male dancer or prostitute,

    Pagan worship included a rite called “The Sacred Marriage” where the myth of Inanna, Goddess of Love and Dumuzid her shepard consort was acted out. Inanna was associated with the planet Venus, many of her associated myths seem to have to do with the movements of the planet. Even today Venus is associated with love.

    Matrifocus: Sacred Prostitution by Johanna Stuckey

    In the “Sacred Marriage” material, the female participant is always called Inanna (Sefati 1998:305), so her human identity is obscured. That is not surprising, for I suspect that, during the ritual, the only female present was Inanna. What I am suggesting is that the Nin.Dindir/entu was a medium. Through talent and training, she went into a trance and allowed Inanna to take over her body. Then the goddess could actually be present during the ritual. To a greater or lesser degree, the king could similarly have embodied the god Dumuzi.

    A medium is “… a social functionary whose body only, the person’s awareness suppressed while in an ecstatic state, serves as a means for spirits to assist and/or communicate with members of the medium’s group in a positive manner” (Paper 1995:87). The “witch of Endor” in the Hebrew Bible (I Samuel 28:7-25) was likely a medium, and other ancient examples include the oracular priestesses through whom Apollo spoke at Delphi and the Maenad devotees of Dionysus (Kraemer 1989:49). Today mediums function in many religions: for instance, Chinese, Korean, African, and African-Christian of the Americas (Paper 1997:95,104-107,222-226,303; Sered 1994:181-193). Interestingly, the majority of contemporary mediums are female (Paper 1997:95).

    Ancient Mesopotamia, like most other cultures, had its prophets and seers (Westenholz 2004:295). A number of them probably worked through trance. Indeed, “… ecstatic religious functionaries, that is, those whose religious functioning involves trance, are virtually ubiquitous in human cultures” (Paper forthcoming). So it would not surprise me to discover that the Inanna of the “Sacred Marriage” rite was actually properly named, for the goddess was using the body of a willing and devout ecstatic and priestess, who was certainly not a “cult prostitute.” On the contrary, she would have had extremely high status and have been deeply revered, for she was chosen of the goddess. Finally, then, the identity of the human female participant in the ritual is irrelevant. She was Inanna!

    “Tragically,” says one contemporary scholar, “scholarship suffered from scholars being unable to imagine any cultic role for women in antiquity that did not involve sexual intercourse” (Gruber 1986:138). However, recent scholars are fast setting the record straight. Even if ancient priestesses were involved in ritual sex, even if they received offerings for their temples, they were not [ordinary, sex worker] prostitutes but devotees worshipping their deity.

    It is really important to understand this point. Temple prostitutes are not hookers looking to satisfy their johns lust for a few bucks. They are priestesses performing a religious rite, transforming themselves and their partner into the respective deities relevant for that rite. The psychological mindset is exactly the same as when the Roman Catholic priest transforms the wafer into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ. The mundane objects are no longer mundane objects, they are ritually transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. (I know, the Protestant view is that this is a symbolic transformation, not so the Roman Catholic view).

    The point of the denigration of prostitutes in the Old Testament then becomes clear: it is the focal point of a religious struggle between the two religions. The Jewish priests are discouraging their people from consorting with what they consider to be a false religion.

    Their idea of the ‘one true God’ was a completely unique idea in the middle east, all other religions considered their Gods interchangeable depending on what region they were in, and many Jews had been tempted to the Pagan religions during the captivity and after the return rite up to Jesus time.