Main Menu

Really right answers

Thanks to commenter John for pointing me to an article over at Mario Apuzzo’s blog that itself pointed me to a web page I didn’t know about: A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship, an obvious take off on the title of Apuzzo’s web site. The web site itself is called “Birther Think Tank” and that’s what I’m visiting in this article. The site itself is the work of someone familiar to us here, Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter.

According to the site’s mission statement, Squeeky was demanding the long form birth certificate from Barack Obama, but once it was produced she was satisfied. The site now emphasizes debunking the two-citizen parent eligibility theory.

Squeeky is a an entertaining and creative writer, as we’ve seen by some of her writing contest entries here. Visiting her site will probably help you to have a much nicer day than if you visited Apuzzo’s.

189 Responses to Really right answers

  1. avatar
    Sean January 10, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Doc, I think there’s a typo there. “but once it was produced she was satisfied.” Is it she “wasn’t” satisfied?

  2. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    The tag line is classic: “Unanswered questions just make you more suscpicious!”

    If the questions are honest and legitimate, it’s a good consideration.

    But a person can always invent more questions, I think it’s a birther’s primary duty! Inventing questions in an attempt to invent suspicion.

    Her redecorated stop sign reminded me of the nut slapping infowars stickers on all the stop signs around here …. he’s still at it, has expanded to a 2-mile radius now! Some signs are up to 3 stickers each now. Got to love the heartland.

  3. avatar
    Reality Check January 10, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Squeeky seems to have gone on a sabbatical. There have been no new articles on BTT since December 6 despite new craziness from both Mario and Leo.

  4. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Since putative attorney Apuzzo proudly censors his cesspool of a meretricious blog, he should title it,

    “A Birther’s Place To Get Only The Answers About Natural Born Citizenship That They Want To Hear – Bigots Welcome”.

    Does Mario have a barbecue every March 6th to celebrate the Dred Scott decision?

  5. avatar
    John January 10, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Doc,

    I got a chance to see that book again on the Constitution that was in reference section at the public school. I can now confirm is was not the book that you cited.

    The book is titled “The Constitution and It’s Amendments” It is a several volume set. Here is the Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Its-Amendment-Vols-1-4/dp/0028648587/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326214440&sr=1-7

    In this book, the author makes a mention of “Natural Born Citizen” regarding Article II Section 1 of the eligibility of the POTUS.

    The author maintains that meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution and intent of the words was unclear. The author leaves you with a question – does NBC mean simply born in the US or does is it mean born on US soil to parents who US citizens.

    The book was written in 1998.

  6. avatar
    John January 10, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    I have to agree with the NH Reps that Obama is clearly not an NBC by the Senate Resolution 411 that was passed for McCain:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

    The most important statement is the following:
    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
    Comments
    Permalink
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    As one can see the 2 prong test was used – McCain was born on US Soil (Military base is considered US Soil and complete juristication) and he was born of parents (Both Mom and Dad) who were US citizens.

    Obama clearly fails this test.

  7. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    “Does Mario have a barbecue every March 6th to celebrate the Dred Scott decision?”

    Majority WIll, I have yet in my many weeks of visiting this site, seen you ONCE post anything that is venom-free.

    For no other reason, sir, be careful – your gall bladder will be soon acting out.

  8. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    “Does Mario have a barbecue every March 6th to celebrate the Dred Scott decision?”

    Majority WIll, I have yet in my many weeks of visiting this site, seen you ONCE post anything that is venom-free.

    For no other reason, sir, be careful – your gall bladder will be soon acting out.

    Which is worse?

    Denouncing a birther’s evil bigotry and despicable lies or remaining silent?

    You are free to skip over my posts unless for some bizarre reason you are incapable.

    You may not have been aware of that. You’re welcome.

  9. avatar
    bovril January 10, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Come along “Saipan Annie”, at least get the medical terms right.

    If MW needs to watch his gall bladder then his posts would be full of BILE not venom, sheesh, the quality of the current Birfoons is a sad reflection of the good old days

  10. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Her concern over the integrity/capacity of his venom sacs is touching.

  11. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    If I may speak once more, if it is a fact that Mr. Apuzzo is a bigot and a liar, yes, we must rise and call him on it.

    This is our solemn responsibility.

    However, it is not a fact that he is either.

  12. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Saipan Annie: If I may speak once more, if it is a fact that Mr. Apuzzo is a bigot and a liar, yes, we must rise and call him on it. This is our solemn responsibility.However, it is not a fact that he is either.

    No, but he is wrong about pretty much everything he says about citizenship law. He really should stop embarrassing himself.

  13. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    If I may speak once more, if it is a fact that Mr. Apuzzo is a bigot and a liar, yes, we must rise and call him on it.

    This is our solemn responsibility.

    However, it is not a fact that he is either.

    You’re certainly entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong, misguided or driven by willful ignorance it may be.

    For example, whether or not you’ve seen me once post anything that is venom-free just means either you’re not very observant, you’re lying or your standards are truly bizarre.

    And all could be accomplished solemnly, of course.

  14. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    I’ve been a big fan of Squeeky’s for a while. There’s been a highly amusing conversation on one of her threads ( http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/with-a-kwock-kwock-here-and-there/ ) with David Farrar (one of the Georgia ballot challenge plaintiffs). In light of the saying “a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”, what does it say about a man who has Orly Taitz as a lawyer? He’s moved on from Squeeky’s now, but if his comments are any indication then he’s got some big surprises in store on the 26th… I would point out what happened the last time Orly went into a courtroom in Georgia and I urge everyone to lay in sufficient stocks of popcorn. πŸ˜‰

    Squeeky,

    Wherever you are, please come back soon!

  15. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I’ve been a big fan of Squeeky’s for a while.There’s been a highly amusing conversation on one of her threads ( http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/with-a-kwock-kwock-here-and-there/ ) with David Farrar (one of the Georgia ballot challenge plaintiffs).In light of the saying “a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”, what does it say about a man who has Orly Taitz as a lawyer?He’s moved on from Squeeky’s now, but if his comments are any indication then he’s got some big surprises in store on the 26th…I would point out what happened the last time Orly went into a courtroom in Georgia and I urge everyone to lay in sufficient stocks of popcorn.

    Squeeky,

    Wherever you are, please come back soon!

    She made quite an interesting and entertaining turnaround (at least from the posts I’ve read here and on her blog).

  16. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    I lean towards the opinion that she was a mole trying to build up birther street cred. Tee hee!

    Majority Will: She made quite an interesting and entertaining turnaround (at least from the posts I’ve read here and on her blog).

  17. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I lean towards the opinion that she was a mole trying to build up birther street cred.Tee hee!

    Works for me.

    Tee hee, indeed!

  18. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    Ballantine,

    I am pleased by your acknowledgement that Mr. Apuzzo’s character has been unfairly assailed. Many thanks.

    As for his legal judgment, I think you will agree that he has the right to express his views just as we all do.

    If ‘the left’ disagrees with his professional judgment, so be it.

  19. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Ditto!

    Slartibartfast:
    I’ve been a big fan of Squeeky’s for a while.There’s been a highly amusing conversation on one of her threads ( http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/with-a-kwock-kwock-here-and-there/ ) with David Farrar (one of the Georgia ballot challenge plaintiffs).In light of the saying “a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”, what does it say about a man who has Orly Taitz as a lawyer?He’s moved on from Squeeky’s now, but if his comments are any indication then he’s got some big surprises in store on the 26th…I would point out what happened the last time Orly went into a courtroom in Georgia and I urge everyone to lay in sufficient stocks of popcorn.

    Squeeky,

    Wherever you are, please come back soon!

  20. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    I was not aware that Mario had hired an anonymous P.R. firm to defend his birther reputation or his censored cesspool of a birther blog.

    His numerous puerile ad hominem posts here and on the CAAFlog site tell a different story.

  21. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Saipan Annie: If the left’ disagrees with his professional judgment, so be it.

    It isn;t just the left that disagrees with Apuzzo, it’s the right and center too, along with every judge has he has ever appeared in front of.

  22. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    If I may speak once more, if it is a fact that Mr. Apuzzo is a bigot and a liar, yes, we must rise and call him on it.

    Mr. Apuzzo is demonstrably prejudiced against President Obama and therefore a bigot and while he may not be lying, if he isn’t then he is an incompetent lawyer. I would also note that he has a moderation policy that would make any Soviet-era minister of propaganda proud. Will you rise and call him on that?

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    First, US Military bases are NOT US Soil, but are you saying then that only people born on Military bases can be President? I mean, if you’re going to assert that “born to American citizens” is a necessary requirement they you need to assert the ” on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone” part. In fact, you’d have to assert the 1936 part too. Why just pick one of the criteria in the Resolution?

    John: Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

  24. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Ballantine, I am pleased by your acknowledgement that Mr. Apuzzo’s character has been unfairly assailed. Many thanks.As for his legal judgment, I think you will agree that he has the right to express his views just as we all do. If the left’ disagrees with his professional judgment, so be it.

    As someone who has wasted many an hour debating Apuzzo, I have my own opinion as to his character which I will keep to myself. However, as a lawyer I find his legal opinions to be an embarrassment. I will let others speculate the reason for this. Only so much of law is a matter of opinion which is why our ethic rules provide for sanction for persons who misrepresent the law.

  25. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    Everyone’s titled to their opinion of course. I simply don’t see the need for there to be any “conspiracy” to explain Squeeky.

    I simply think she had PUMA based motivations to cause her to develop an upfront suspicioun and bias towards Obama and therefore be susceptible early on to the doubts being sowed by “Birtherism”. The mere “he must be hiding something” meme simply fills an emotional appeal for certain folks. She got suckered into all the “show us the LFBC” nonsense, that’s all. There seem to be a number of folks who were susceptible to the con artists’ early games that became satsified after that and weren’t so “invested” in needing to keep up the con or so terminally ODS that they fully “broke from reality” in the process. These folks finally moved through the grief stages to acceptance.

    The nonsense of the made up 2-parent nonsense simply falls apart easily upon any serious investigation. Therefore, someone who is now able to think critically again who looks into it can also see the holes in that story and is able to detect the scam. Very few people like to find out that they are being scammed, so that can motivate someone to go after the scammers, once they discover that truth.

    That’s my hypothesis of what happened with Squeeky.

    Once Obama resolved that, she was satisfied and able to accept it and move on. It sure seems like the majority of

    Slartibartfast:
    I lean towards the opinion that she was a mole trying to build up birther street cred.Tee hee!

  26. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    “Mr. Apuzzo is demonstrably prejudiced against President Obama”

    Slartibartfast : Please support and validate this statement.

    We can disagree with each other’s positions / interpretations without being a ‘bad’ person.

  27. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: First, US Military bases are NOT US Soil, but are you saying then that only people born on Military bases can be President? I mean, if you’re going to assert that “born to American citizens” is a necessary requirement they you need to assert the ” on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone” part. In fact, you’d have to assert the 1936 part too. Why just pick one of the criteria in the Resolution?

    I find it comical that people still say Resolution 511 says one must have citizen parents. It says citizen parents are sufficient, not necessary. Cannot you people read? WIth such resolution, they entered the Tribe and Olson opinion into the record that said birth on US soil alone was sufficient to be natural born. Duh.

  28. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    >The author maintains that meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution and intent of the words was unclear. The author leaves you with a question – does NBC mean simply born in the US or does is it mean born on US soil to parents who US citizens.The book was written in 1998.

    So that is the best you can do? A book that says the meaning is unclear. Can you find one book that says you need citizen parents. Someone challenged me to find a book that supported the birthright definition. I found 400 books on google books in about 15 minutes. There are certainly hundreds more.

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

    Show us how many you can find.

  29. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    I think that many people are careless about the distinction between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions and people like Mario play to those confusions. Cherry picking quotes helps, too.

    Ballantine: I find it comical that people still say Resolution 511 says one must have citizen parents.It says citizen parents are sufficient, not necessary.Cannot you people read?WIth such resolution, they entered the Tribe and Olson opinion into the record that said birth on US soil alone was sufficient to be natural born.Duh.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    The article is correct.

    Sean: Doc, I think there’s a typo there. “but once it was produced she was satisfied.” Is it she “wasn’t” satisfied?

  31. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    I would think that his filing of frivolous* lawsuits against President Obama would amply demonstrate his prejudice, his ignorance or dishonesty regarding the law is self-evident (as Ballantine pointed out), and the moderation policy of his blog is clearly draconian. Of late he’s been buying in to the racist (not to mention ludicrous) theory that President Obama is the child of Malcolm X. Are you really sure you want to defend this scumbag?

    * that being the term used by a federal judge.

    Saipan Annie:
    “Mr. Apuzzo is demonstrably prejudiced against President Obama”

    Slartibartfast : Please support and validate this statement.

    We can disagree with each other’s positions / interpretations without being a bad’ person.

  32. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I think that many people are careless about the distinction between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions and people like Mario play to those confusions. Cherry picking quotes helps, too.

    I think it is worse than that. You were over at Turley’s blog where we were literally arguing what the meaning of “is” is. Not much one can do when your opponants refuse to acknowledge the meaning of plain English and literally resort to claiming “up” means “down” and “right” means “left.” .

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Well, he has let a couple of my comments in. I think the existence of critics on his site legitimizes his painting the specter of an army of identity-hiding “Obama enablers.” Conspiracy theories are no good with enemies.

    Majority Will: “A Birther’s Place To Get Only The Answers About Natural Born Citizenship That They Want To Hear – Bigots Welcome”.

  34. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    I disagree that Mr. Apuzzo’s character has been unfairly assailed at all. You may not be aware of it, but Apuzzo used to be a fairly regular poster here in the early days.

    His problems go way beyond just utterly “misguided” opinions or doing a lawyer’s job in pushing his client’s position. Many of us tried to give him as much benefit of the doubt as possible and simply assume those two factors at play.

    However, he was caught outright lying on several occasions. One clear memorable example is when his claims of the “Indonesian travel ban” were completely debunked and shown to not be true, by providing evidence from literature and records of that time period, in which travel from the US was happening and even advertised.

    Yet Mario ignored the facts and kept trying to still push the deception of the “Indonesian travel ban” myth repeatedly. So for him to continue to do so as he did is to knowingly tell a lie. That is just the most memorable instance. If I recall, there were several other outright lies he was caught on as well.

    Therefore, a charge of calling him a liar is a justified one.

    In terms of the charge of racism, there have been a number of statements he’s made that certainly make someone suspicious of his motive and intent in that area. So, while I personally don’t want to label him as a racist, I can see where others feel that he’s demostrated that he is one.

    Therefore, that is an area where Mario’s statements have left a real question mark on his character as well.

    So no, I don’t see that Mario’s been “unfairly assailed” in the least. Sorry.

    Saipan Annie:
    Ballantine,

    I am pleased by your acknowledgement that Mr. Apuzzo’s character has been unfairly assailed. Many thanks.

    As for his legal judgment, I think you will agree that he has the right to express his views just as we all do.

    If the left’ disagrees with his professional judgment, so be it.

  35. avatar
    nbc January 10, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    Saipan Annie: As for his legal judgment, I think you will agree that he has the right to express his views just as we all do.

    Sure, even if he is totally wrong. And the facts suggest that he indeed is.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    Well thanks for following up. Obviously, I’m not going to plunk down $570 for a set, but maybe at the library…

    John: I got a chance to see that book again on the Constitution that was in reference section at the public school. I can now confirm is was not the book that you cited.

  37. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    I admit that is another hypothesis which fits the facts and I’m not suggesting a conspiracy (I think Squeeky acted alone ;-)), but I think (for various reasons) that her “conversion” was merely a revelation of her true beliefs. I could be wrong–unfortunately Squeeky is the only one who can answer the question, and I don’t think that she’ll be forthcoming either way even if she does return from her hiatus.

    G: That’s my hypothesis of what happened with Squeeky.

  38. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, he has let a couple of my comments in. I think the existence of critics on his site legitimizes his painting the specter of an army of identity-hiding “Obama enablers.” Conspiracy theories are no good with enemies.

    Orly uses the same tactic when it suits her agenda. Donofrio panicked and banned all non-attorneys. Most birther sites just keep the door locked or in the case of Free Republic ban and delete as quickly as they spot disagreement. WND was deleting selective comments in back and forth discussions making it look like birthers were talking to themselves.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    G: However, he was caught outright lying on several occasions. One clear memorable example is when his claims of the “Indonesian travel ban” were completely debunked and shown to not be true, by providing evidence from literature and records of that time period, in which travel from the US was happening and even advertised.

    Yet Mario ignored the facts and kept trying to still push the deception of the “Indonesian travel ban” myth repeatedly. So for him to continue to do so as he did is to knowingly tell a lie. That is just the most memorable instance. If I recall, there were several other outright lies he was caught on as well.

    Pakistan. But otherwise, right on. πŸ˜€

  40. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    “I would think that his filing of frivolous* lawsuits against President Obama would amply demonstrate his prejudice, his ignorance or dishonesty regarding the law is self-evident (as Ballantine pointed out), and the moderation policy of his blog is clearly draconian. Of late he’s been buying in to the racist (not to mention ludicrous) theory that President Obama is the child of Malcolm X.”

    First off, why is it racist to believe that Obama is the son of Malcolm X? Malcolm enjoys great stature as an invaluable civil rights leader; his paternity would elevate Obama in the eyes of many if not most African-Americans.

    As for dishonesty, if we can agree that the law is interpreted differently by those with opposing perspectives, it is NOT dishonest for Mr. Apuzzo to hold a perspective that differs from that of ‘the left’, is it?

    Should we not agree to be fair about this?

    Judging from the level of education and expertise of those posting here, it is only fitting.

  41. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    “More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/

    Mario has yet to admit he was wrong. No surprise there.

  42. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    “Well, he has let a couple of my comments in.”

    Thank you Dr. C.

    In point of fact, as is your policy here, Mario does not screen out comments – much to the criticism of those on ‘the right’!

    He invites open and honest discussion of the issues.

  43. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    A mentor of mine pointed out that no discussion in good faith is possible unless the parties can agree to the same logical framework. Without that, it doesn’t even matter if they agree on the facts. You will never, ever, ever find a birther who is willing to agree on (or usually even discuss) the logical and legal principles their arguments are founded on–they are either unaware that they’ve built their houses on sand or don’t understand the importance of a proper foundation…

    Ballantine: I think it is worse than that.You were over at Turley’s blog where we were literally arguing what the meaning of “is” is.Not much one can do when your opponants refuse to acknowledge the meaning of plain English and literally resort to claiming “up” means “down” and “right” means “left.”.

  44. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    Saipan Annie: First off, why is it racist to believe that Obama is the son of Malcolm X?

    Oh, come on now. Malcolm X is a red flag and a dog whistle. Let’s leave the faux naivete for another audience, OK?

    And I’m sorry, it’s wrong to go around speculating about who someone’s father is when you don’t know. How would you like it if I claimed to be your father? The laws may shield such talk when it involves public figures, but IMO, ethics and morals apply whether one trashes a public or private figure.

  45. avatar
    y_p_w January 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: First, US Military bases are NOT US Soil, but are you saying then that only people born on Military bases can be President? I mean, if you’re going to assert that “born to American citizens” is a necessary requirement they you need to assert the ” on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone” part. In fact, you’d have to assert the 1936 part too. Why just pick one of the criteria in the Resolution?

    Has there been any conclusive evidence that he was in fact born on a military base or even in the Canal Zone? He hasn’t published an image of his birth certificate and all we have is the word of one reporter who claims to have seen it without being allowed to record any photographic or video evidence.

    There are still those who question whether or not Obama’s COLB or long form exist as real documents, even though we have Factcheck.org personnel attesting to seeing and handling the COLB (along with pictures) and NBC’s White House correspondent attesting to have seen and handled the long form (along with pictures).

    I personally want to see a court receive a copy of one of those documents and declare them to be genuine. They’re cheap and can be ordered by the hundreds. I’d even be OK with the copies being held by a state registrar of voters for public inspection. I realize it might be possible for someone to deface a document out of spite (which would invalidate it) but it would place someone in a position to be charged with a crime for damaging an original public record, and it would be an easy matter to procure a replacement.

  46. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    “More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/

    Mario has yet to admit he was wrong. No surprise there.”

    Dear Majority Will:

    Please know that I sense that your vigorous defense of Mr. Obama is well-intended. It is admirable. Mr. Obama must greatly value your loyalty.

    However, I again send along a caution. Be careful of what you are saying. I trust you do not want to find yourself in an embarrassing position.

    Understandably, all of our tempers have been much tested these past few years. It is time for us to pause, regulate our affect, and behave admirably, even and especially when we disagree.

  47. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    “Oh, come on now. Malcolm X is a red flag and a dog whistle”

    What do you mean? Apologies, I am not following you on this.

  48. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Saipan Annie: What do you mean? Apologies, I am not following you on this

    Oh, stop it…

    Saipan Annie: However, I again send along a caution. Be careful of what you are saying. I trust you do not want to find yourself in an embarrassing position.

    Apologies, I am not following you on this. Are you going to argue there was a ban on travel to Pakistan?

  49. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    “Oh, stop it…”

    Stop what? I am asking you sincerely.

    As for Pakistan, I am not familiar with this debate.

  50. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Slartibartfast: A mentor of mine pointed out that no discussion in good faith is possible unless the parties can agree to the same logical framework. Without that, it doesn’t even matter if they agree on the facts. You will never, ever, ever find a birther who is willing to agree on (or usually even discuss) the logical and legal principles their arguments are founded on–they are either unaware that they’ve built their houses on sand or don’t understand the importance of a proper foundation…

    Such is true. If memory serves, Mario has tried to argue that the Supreme Court saying “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government” meant children born within the United States. He argued that “All free persons born in Virginia are citizens” didn’t mean all free persons born in Virginia are citizens I guess in bizzaro Jersey speech. He claimed that the word “citizen” meant “naturalized citizen even though such would mean only naturalized citizens could serve in Congress. He claimed that all citizens under the 14th Amendment are “naturalized” even though the Amendment distinguishes between citizens by birth and naturalization. I could go on and on. Again, there is a limit to the extend that law is a matter of opinion. What a case or legal authority states is a fact. Whether they are right or wrong is an opinion. It is not a matter of opinion what the Court in Wong Kim Ark actually said. It is a matter of opinion whether it is right.

  51. avatar
    JoZeppy January 10, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    Saipan Annie: As for dishonesty, if we can agree that the law is interpreted differently by those with opposing perspectives, it is NOT dishonest for Mr. Apuzzo to hold a perspective that differs from that of the left’, is it?

    Only if by “the left” you mean the 99.99% of the members of the bar that try to keep at least one foot in the realm of reality. However, if you are trying to imply that this is a “conservative v. liberal” legal interpretation, then you are just as dishonest as Mario. Mario is pushing a crackpot legal theory that any real and modestly honest attorney would have to admit is total garbage.

  52. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Saipan Annie:

    I am your father Annie. Just as much as Malcolm X is Obama’s. In fact, much more. Are you coming for dinner on Sunday?

  53. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    “It is a matter of opinion whether it is right.”

    So why can’t this illustrious group of America’s finest intellects refrain from ridiculing and attacking someone whom they regard as intellectually less-than?

    It is conduct unbecoming of you all to behave the way you do.

  54. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    ‘I am your father Annie. Just as much as Malcolm X is Obama’s. In fact, much more. Are you coming for dinner on Sunday?”

    What time is dinner, and where? πŸ™‚

  55. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Saipan Annie: However, I again send along a caution. Be careful of what you are saying. I trust you do not want to find yourself in an embarrassing position.

    Are you threatening me?

  56. avatar
    Ballantine January 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    Saipan Annie: “It is a matter of opinion whether it is right.”So why can’t this illustrious group of America’s finest intellects refrain from ridiculing and attacking someone whom they regard as intellectually less-than?It is conduct unbecoming of you all to behave the way you do.

    No one has done more name calling than Mario in these debates.

  57. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Saipan Annie: It is conduct unbecoming of you all to behave the way you do.

    Your presence here is optional. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    We didn’t start with the “Who’s your Daddy?” Mario did and you defended him.

  58. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Saipan Annie: In point of fact, as is your policy here, Mario does not screen out comments – much to the criticism of those on the right’!

    He invites open and honest discussion of the issues.

    “Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere.”

    I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered.”

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

  59. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    “Mario does not screen out comments”

    Whew! I’m still laughing. Funniest thing posted here in awhile.

  60. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    “Are you threatening me?”

    In no way, and if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize. I have stepped into this discussion in the spirit of collegial concern. Sometimes we [all] say things that we later regret. That’s all.

  61. avatar
    sfjeff January 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    “Saipan Annie: First off, why is it racist to believe that Obama is the son of Malcolm X? ”

    I think by itself, and in isolation, perhaps it wouldn’t be.

    But his opponents clearly chose an African American who most of America views negatively. They could have chosen Martin Luther King, they could have chosen Thurgood Marshall. They could have chosen Bill Cosby.

    Or any one of millions and millions of other anonymous African Americans in the United States.

    But they only speculate as to fatherhood with figures they can vilify- in this case Malcolm X.

  62. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Thanks for the correction.

    Majority Will: Pakistan. But otherwise, right on.

  63. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Well said. I agree.

    JoZeppy: Only if by “the left” you mean the 99.99% of the members of the bar that try to keep at least one foot in the realm of reality. However, if you are trying to imply that this is a “conservative v. liberal” legal interpretation, then you are just as dishonest as Mario. Mario is pushing a crackpot legal theory that any real and modestly honest attorney would have to admit is total garbage.

  64. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Not true. He selectively allows certain comments through. See his own policy.

    There is a long history of others here, including Dr. C. submitting comments on his blog that never see the light of day. That is screening.

    Therefore, while I appreciate an honest debate and defense, I think you need to be more careful with your word choices.

    Stating “Mario does NOT screen out comments” is verifiably a false statement.

    You are free to say that he does not screen out ALL comments, but he does screen and openly states that as his policy for the blog.

    When you defend easily disprovable hyperbolic claims, you only damage your own cause and credibility. Please be more careful with your word choice and keep your absolutism in check.

    In terms of what you just said and how you just said it, you are in error.

    Saipan Annie: In point of fact, as is your policy here, Mario does not screen out comments – much to the criticism of those on the right’!
    He invites open and honest discussion of the issues.

  65. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    “But his opponents clearly chose an African American who most of America views negatively.”

    Actually, Malcolm X has been rising in popularity. Are you familiar with Manning Marable’s 2011 biography?

  66. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    A word of advice, if you claim to not be familiar with a particular debate, that perhaps you shouldn’t be making snap judgment commentary on it at all.

    Take a look at the bizarre commentary response you gave to Majority Will (reposted below), where you respond to his pointing out the Pakinstan ban issue and resort to some bizarre and uncalled for response and charges that have nothing to do with what he said or pointed out at all.

    If you claim to not know about something, then you can either educate yourself on the issue and make a proper contextual reply on the issue at hand or you should keep your unwarranted blowhard snap judgments to yourself.

    I do not know you and would like to give you the benefit of the doubt as an honest broker and sincere commentator, but responses such as this set from you only reflect badly on you and cause me to question your motives and sincerity.

    Saipan Annie:
    “Oh, stop it…”

    Stop what? I am asking you sincerely.

    As for Pakistan, I am not familiar with this debate.

    Saipan Annie:
    “More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/

    Mario has yet to admit he was wrong. No surprise there.”

    Dear Majority Will:

    Please know that I sense that your vigorous defense of Mr. Obama is well-intended. It is admirable. Mr. Obama must greatly value your loyalty.

    However, I again send along a caution. Be careful of what you are saying. I trust you do not want to find yourself in an embarrassing position.

    Understandably, all of our tempers have been much tested these past few years. It is time for us to pause, regulate our affect, and behave admirably, even and especially when we disagree.

  67. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    You seem to be missing the point.

    Invoking his name is still a bogeyman construct for “angry radical muslim black man” that panders to certain dog-whistle fears in…how can I put this politely…those predispositioned to have fears or concerns about blacks or muslims uprising…

    So, you might not prefer to view that as racism, but it is a degree of real racially (and/or anti-muslim bigotry) motivated perceptions and fear that exist within some segments of the populace.

    So it entirely is a racially driven dog-whistle to stoke those fears and concerns in those susceptible crowds.

    There are legitmate arguments on bigotry as to what degree of generalizations and concerns construe defining how prejudice (or merely ignorant) someone is and at what point it crosses from being merely a “charged” statement to true bigotry/racism.

    But let’s not be coy and deceitfully pretend that the problem and these dynamics do not exist at all and that these dog-whistles are there.

    Saipan Annie:
    “But his opponents clearly chose an African American who most of America views negatively.”

    Actually, Malcolm X has been rising in popularity. Are you familiar with Manning Marable’s 2011 biography?

  68. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    “It is a matter of opinion whether it is right.”

    So why can’t this illustrious group of America’s finest intellects refrain from ridiculing and attacking someone whom they regard as intellectually less-than?

    It is conduct unbecoming of you all to behave the way you do.

    Mario is one of the most high-profile leaders of a movement of bigots bent on overthrowing the lawfully elected President of the United States in a coup against the Constitution of the United States. This group has told countless lies which they never correct or apologize for, is seemingly unconcerned with the myriad of racist voices in their midst, and continually demonstrate their ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty by endlessly repeating patently false assertions in the face of thorough debunking. Most birthers have shown themselves to be perfectly comfortable with any accusations or smears directed towards President Obama, his family, his administration, or anyone they perceive as on his “side” (i.e. anyone that disagrees with their tinfoil hat nonsense) and repeat them ad nauseam without any corroboration whatsoever (certainly nothing from outside of their echo chamber). Every birther (person who thinks there is a question about President Obama’s eligibility) is either ignorant*, stupid, or dishonest and I have yet to see one that wasn’t bigoted against President Obama**. You can put yourself in this group or act as an apologist for them if you wish, but then you invite being painted with the same brush.

    * and generally they are willfully ignorant.

    ** I do not just mean that they are opposed to President Obama, but that they are opposed to him for bigoted or irrational or false reasons.

    Saipan Annie:
    First off, why is it racist to believe that Obama is the son of Malcolm X? Malcolm enjoys great stature as an invaluable civil rights leader; his paternity would elevate Obama in the eyes of many if not most African-Americans.

    Ignoring for the moment that while you don’t seem to know what racist dog whistles are you seem quite fluent in the language, all I said was that the particular theory that Mario subscribed to was racist. As for speculating on someone’s parentage without any evidence–I suggest that, as someone who has been accused of being Hitler’s granddaughter (which I’m implicitly doing right now) would be more understanding. After you prove that you are not Hitler’s granddaughter I will listen to any particular theory you have about President Obama’s parentage and explain why it is racist.

    As for dishonesty, if we can agree that the law is interpreted differently by those with opposing perspectives, it is NOT dishonest for Mr. Apuzzo to hold a perspective that differs from that of the left’, is it?

    As a lawyer, Mr. Apuzzo holds positions which are necessarily either incompetent or dishonest–take your pick.

    Should we not agree to be fair about this?

    You can agree to call Mario out for his lying, his ignorance, his stupidity, and his bigotry or we can agree to disagree and I’ll call you out for being his apologist. That’s fair.

    Judging from the level of education and expertise of those posting here, it is only fitting.

    There’s something you should understand about people with education and expertise–we don’t, as a rule, tolerate fools gladly. You might want to think about that before posting more foolish comments.

  69. avatar
    Keith January 10, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    “More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/

    Mario has yet to admit he was wrong. No surprise there.”

    Dear Majority Will:

    Please know that I sense that your vigorous defense of Mr. Obama is well-intended. It is admirable. Mr. Obama must greatly value your loyalty.

    However, I again send along a caution. Be careful of what you are saying. I trust you do not want to find yourself in an embarrassing position.

    Understandably, all of our tempers have been much tested these past few years. It is time for us to pause, regulate our affect, and behave admirably, even and especially when we disagree.

    Concerned Troll is concerned.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Well, I think you have answered your own question. Coincidentally, I wrote an article today about Birther reading problems:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/birthervision-part-2/

    Ballantine: Cannot you people read?

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    I found the book and that’s not quite what it says. See my article on it here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/birthervision-part-2/

    John: The author maintains that meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution and intent of the words was unclear. The author leaves you with a question – does NBC mean simply born in the US or does is it mean born on US soil to parents who US citizens.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    I don’t know about you, but every comment I have made on Apuzzo’s blog goes into moderation before it appears. I assume that applies to everyone. On the other hand no comments go into moderation here unless I explicitly mark the poster for moderation and I do that for certain violations of the site policy.

    Apuzzo has blocked comments I made, however. Especially if I make a mistake and correct it in a follow up, he has allowed the mistake to stand, and deleted the correction. That’s why I rarely comment there.

    Let me add that I am having a problem with a few comments going into moderation that shouldn’t, specifically folks who reply to Lucas Smith and John Drew. I have made some changes that might fix that, but I really don’t understand why it happened in the first place.

    Saipan Annie: In point of fact, as is your policy here, Mario does not screen out comments – much to the criticism of those on the right’!

  73. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    Neither Mr. Apuzzo nor I ascribe to the Malcolm X paternity theory out of malice.

    According to the model of MacArthur ‘Genius” Howard Gardner, Malcolm possessed multiple intelligences. He clearly qualified as possessing genius intelligence in the realm of linguistic intelligence and interpersonal intelligence; and from what I understand of his dancing and athletic talent, he possessed impressive bodily-kinesthetic intelligence as well.

    So how can one construe it as insulting to be blessed by a father like Malcolm?

    I ask this with all sincerity.

  74. avatar
    Joey January 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    Neither Mr. Apuzzo nor I ascribe to the Malcolm X paternity theory out of malice.

    According to the model of MacArthur Genius” Howard Gardner, Malcolm possessed multiple intelligences. He clearly qualified as possessing genius intelligence in the realm of linguistic intelligence and interpersonal intelligence; and from what I understand of his dancing and athletic talent, he possessed impressive bodily-kinesthetic intelligence as well.

    So how can one construe it as insulting to be blessed by a father like Malcolm?

    I ask this with all sincerity.

    It might have to do with the fact that Malcolm X and Ann Dunham were never the same state of the union at the same time and there is no proof that they ever met.

  75. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 10, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    “A word of advice, if you claim to not be familiar with a particular debate, that perhaps you shouldn’t be making snap judgment commentary on it at all.

    Take a look at the bizarre commentary response you gave to Majority Will (reposted below), where you respond to his pointing out the Pakinstan ban issue and resort to some bizarre and uncalled for response and charges that have nothing to do with what he said or pointed out at all.

    If you claim to not know about something, then you can either educate yourself on the issue and make a proper contextual reply on the issue at hand or you should keep your unwarranted blowhard snap judgments to yourself.’

    I am quite aware that given the regular participants at this blog, i do not ‘belong’ here.

    However, I have come in peace and good will.

    My comment about the Pakistan issue was made as a general caution. There are many things we do not yet know. Dr. C. himself stated this recently in a post concerning the eligibility issue.

    And so, if you support Mr. Obama as you profess, you will be careful to not create a situation that could complicate matters.

    As with all of us, Mr. Obama likely has had challenges about which none of us know.

    Dr. C: if you feel my participation has been disruptive, I will respectfully no longer post here.

  76. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    The credibility of your sincerity is becoming very strained–just sayin’…

    Let’s put this another way–do you think that it is okay if I make a baseless and unsupported allegation that your child is the bastard offspring of Mario and Martha Trowbridge (author of the racist theory)? I don’t think that is appropriate, nor do I think it is appropriate to slander President Obama, his parents, Malcolm X, and anyone that is deemed necessary to have been “in” on the conspiracy on the strength of pure speculation without any credible evidence whatsoever. If you think differently then you are not a very ethical person, in my opinion (certainly not a good Christian). Also, you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to seeing racism–why is that?

    Saipan Annie:
    Neither Mr. Apuzzo nor I ascribe to the Malcolm X paternity theory out of malice.

    According to the model of MacArthur Genius” Howard Gardner, Malcolm possessed multiple intelligences. He clearly qualified as possessing genius intelligence in the realm of linguistic intelligence and interpersonal intelligence; and from what I understand of his dancing and athletic talent, he possessed impressive bodily-kinesthetic intelligence as well.

    So how can one construe it as insulting to be blessed by a father like Malcolm?

    I ask this with all sincerity.

  77. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Neither Mr. Apuzzo nor I ascribe to the Malcolm X paternity theory out of malice. According to the model of MacArthur Genius” Howard Gardner, Malcolm possessed multiple intelligences. He clearly qualified as possessing genius intelligence in the realm of linguistic intelligence and interpersonal intelligence; and from what I understand of his dancing and athletic talent, he possessed impressive bodily-kinesthetic intelligence as well.So how can one construe it as insulting to be blessed by a father like Malcolm?I ask this with all sincerity.

    Einstein was a genius. Yet if you wrote an article claiming he was my father it would be demeaning both to me and to Einstein. Why? Because it isn’t true. Don’t you get it? Going around speculating that X is Y’s father is demeaning, bcause lies are demeaning. And in repeating lies as you do, you demean yourself.

    Saipan Annie: Dr. C: if you feel my participation has been disruptive, I will respectfully no longer post here.

    If you stay, will you promise only to state things that are verifiably true?

  78. avatar
    sfjeff January 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Neither Mr. Apuzzo nor I ascribe to the Malcolm X paternity theory out of malice. According to the model of MacArthur Genius” Howard Gardner, Malcolm possessed multiple intelligences. He clearly qualified as possessing genius intelligence in the realm of linguistic intelligence and interpersonal intelligence; and from what I understand of his dancing and athletic talent, he possessed impressive bodily-kinesthetic intelligence as well.So how can one construe it as insulting to be blessed by a father like Malcolm?I ask this with all sincerity.

    And I ask you why did Birthers chose to ‘guess’ that Obama’s father was Malcolm X rather than Bill Cosby?

    Or Thurgood Marshall?

    Or Martin Luther King?

  79. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    Take a look at the bizarre commentary response you gave to Majority Will (reposted below), where you respond to his pointing out the Pakinstan ban issue and resort to some bizarre and uncalled for response and charges that have nothing to do with what he said or pointed out at all.

    What charges do you think are uncalled for?

    If you claim to not know about something, then you can either educate yourself on the issue and make a proper contextual reply on the issue at hand or you should keep your unwarranted blowhard snap judgments to yourself.’

    I am quite aware that given the regular participants at this blog, i do not belong’ here.

    I think you will find that the only thing you need to “belong” here is a willingness to engage in debate in good faith.

    However, I have come in peace and good will.

    And you come with a patter that is remarkably similar to past birther trolls.

    My comment about the Pakistan issue was made as a general caution. There are many things we do not yet know. Dr. C. himself stated this recently in a post concerning the eligibility issue.

    And what do we not know about the “Pakistan travel ban”? It is demonstrably untrue (no State Department ban and a New York Times article about travel to Pakistan at the time) so any person of integrity would admit they were wrong, stop repeating the lie, and correct their mistake–why has Mario done none of this?

    And so, if you support Mr. Obama as you profess, you will be careful to not create a situation that could complicate matters.

    What brings us together is not support of President Obama, but instead our disdain for people who would wrap themselves in the flag while defecating on the Constitution (failure to understand this is another common birther blind spot, by the way).

    As with all of us, Mr. Obama likely has had challenges about which none of us know.

    I think that the POTUS might have slightly more difficult challenges in his life than you do…

    Dr. C: if you feel my participation has been disruptive, I will respectfully no longer post here.

    This was a pretty lame attempt to play the martyr card–you have as much right to post here as anyone (just like Wong Kim Ark is as much a citizen as any natural born citizen).

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    Unless I want this site to become an anti-birther echo chamber, I have to be resigned to the fact that there will be some rough spots when people who disagree with me visit.

    Some of the language directed at birthers can get pretty rough. The end result is disruption. However, I can and will live with disruption as long as it doesn’t totally take over the site.

    What I find most disruptive, and what more than anything else results in a visitor being banned, is an attitude that the only question worth discussing is the commenter himself and someone posts nay-saying comments all over the place, and tries to take on everybody else. If you want an example of such a downwardly spiraling scenario, look at Dr. Drew’s recent comments.

    Jesus said: “a soft answer turns away wrath.” It works like a charm online.

    Saipan Annie: Dr. C: if you feel my participation has been disruptive, I will respectfully no longer post here

  81. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast: G: Take a look at the bizarre commentary response you gave to Majority Will (reposted below), where you respond to his pointing out the Pakinstan ban issue and resort to some bizarre and uncalled for response and charges that have nothing to do with what he said or pointed out at all.

    If you claim to not know about something, then you can either educate yourself on the issue and make a proper contextual reply on the issue at hand or you should keep your unwarranted blowhard snap judgments to yourself.’

    Slarti, back up a little. The section above was part of G’s reply post.

  82. avatar
    Keith January 10, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Slartibartfast: What brings us together is not support of President Obama, but instead our disdain for people who would wrap themselves in the flag while defecating on the Constitution (failure to understand this is another common birther blind spot, by the way).

    That is the best, most succinct, spot on, explanation on the topic I have ever seen.

    Quotes like that deserve a ‘likes’ feature.

  83. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 10, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Oops! My question to Annie still stands, though.

    Majority Will: Slarti, back up a little. The section above was part of G’s reply post.

  84. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

    Saipan Annie: And so, if you support Mr. Obama as you profess, you will be careful to not create a situation that could complicate matters.

    That’s a little insulting to the conservatives here who didn’t vote for the President and don’t support the President’s politics.

    I absolutely support their right to vote and support whoever they think is right for the job. That is a treasured American value.

    But they and I know that birther b.s. and bigotry shows utter disrespect for our laws and the people who uphold them. And to label our judges and state officials as traitors is vile and contemptible.

  85. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Keith: Slartibartfast: What brings us together is not support of President Obama, but instead our disdain for people who would wrap themselves in the flag while defecating on the Constitution (failure to understand this is another common birther blind spot, by the way).

    That is the best, most succinct, spot on, explanation on the topic I have ever seen.

    Quotes like that deserve a likes’ feature.

    Agreed.

  86. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 2:35 am #

    Let me turn around and ask with all seriousness, how can anyone take claims of Malcom X to be his father with all seriousness?

    Saipan Annie: So how can one construe it as insulting to be blessed by a father like Malcolm?
    I ask this with all sincerity.

  87. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 2:44 am #

    What?? Had you actually spent the time to read the citation and link that Majority Will originally provided, instead of leaping to making an uninformed response, you might have learned something and not keep putting your foot in your mouth with such obviously ignorant replies.

    Yeah, we DO know with certainty that there was NO Pakistan “travel ban” at that time. Why? Because there is direct and tangible evidence from US travel agency advertisements of that time period saying people from here could travel there. Thus, such claims are demonstrably false. Simple as that.

    This information was investigated and resolved well over 3 years ago. Old news. It is one thing for you to initially say you were simply unaware of it. Understandable. But to then be provided with the explanation and links to prove it and just blithly continue to act ignorant…no excuse. You only come across bad and foolish in doing so.

    Simple rule – if you don’t know what you are talking about, it is best for you to not say anything at all. No one appreciates or respects willful ignorance on display.

    Saipan Annie: My comment about the Pakistan issue was made as a general caution. There are many things we do not yet know. Dr. C. himself stated this recently in a post concerning the eligibility issue.

  88. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    First of all, if you are going to post here, let me introduce you to the Quote function that appears to the right of a poster’s name and the time they post. Please learn to use that, as it will automatically paste the original poster’s comments in the Reply box for you and do so in a manner that is distinguishable from your reply text.

    That will greatly improve your readibility and reduce confusion. Thank You.

    Second, no one here is “creating a situation that could complicate matters”. That is an absurd accusation on its face.

    We simply serve to investigate claims where necesary and be able to explain the clutter and confusion and myths that all originate from one side of this equation only – the Birther nonsense.

    And yes, not a single claim from Birthers has withstood scrutiny. Only one side is playing a game of trying to insert intentional obfuscation here – the Birthers and their con artist Concern Trolls.

    Saipan Annie: And so, if you support Mr. Obama as you profess, you will be careful to not create a situation that could complicate matters.

  89. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    So. Such meaningless speculation is utterly irrelevant without any actual sitution that merits attention. Simple as that. Petty gossip-mongering serves no valuable purpose amongst serious-minded people and is completely disconnected from any real issues at hand.

    Saipan Annie: As with all of us, Mr. Obama likely has had challenges about which none of us know.

  90. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    Thank you, Dr. C.

  91. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    “you come with a patter that is remarkably similar to past birther trolls”

    Correction, please. I am not and never was a ‘birther’.

    Mr. Obama was, indeed, a ‘natural born citizen’ – as the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.

    Also, I am not a troll.

    I have not called you names and respectfully request that you refrain from doing so with me.

  92. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    *blink* *blink*

    …So you’ve given him an entirely different birth father AND birth mother!

    LMAO! What color is the sky in the world you live in?

    Wow…some people believe the most absurd things…

    Saipan Annie: Mr. Obama was, indeed, a natural born citizen’ – as the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.

  93. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    No, not different parents. The same parents, identified by their actual names.

  94. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    I am Saipan Annie’s father. Elisabeth Taylor was her mother. All true.

  95. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    This is no laughing matter. If you care about Mr. Obama you will reserve your ridicule.

  96. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    G:
    *blink* *blink*

    …So you’ve given him an entirely different birth father AND birth mother!

    LMAO!What color is the sky in the world you live in?

    Wow…some people believe the most absurd things…

    And sometimes extraordinary claims require . . . intervention by medical professionals.

    Unless it’s a poor attempt at humor . . . but even then.

    ” . . . careful to not create a situation that could complicate matters.”

    Yeah. Whatever. I want to know more about that Mars story.

  97. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Saipan Annie:
    “you come with a patter that is remarkably similar to past birther trolls”

    Correction, please. I am not and never was a birther’.

    I never said you were, but you certainly sound like one…

    Mr. Obama was, indeed, a natural born citizen’ – as the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.

    You also seem very comfortable repeating baseless, racist lies–you seem more and more like a birther to me…

    Also, I am not a troll.

    Yes, you are.

    I have not called you names and respectfully request that you refrain from doing so with me.

    You have disrespected every person who comments on or reads this thread with your nonsense and you seem to be nothing more than a pseudo-birther troll with Obama Derangement Syndrome. I respectfully request that you stop posting your foolish babbling.

  98. avatar
    Stanislaw January 11, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    John:
    I have to agree with the NH Reps that Obama is clearly not an NBC by the Senate Resolution 411 that was passed for McCain:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

    The most important statement is the following:
    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
    Comments
    Permalink
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    As one can see the 2 prong test was used – McCain was born on US Soil (Military base is considered US Soil and complete juristication) and he was born of parents (Both Mom and Dad) who were US citizens.

    Obama clearly fails this test.

    *sigh* John how many times do people have to explain the same thing to you?

    The reason the Senate passed that resolution is because McCain, unlike Obama, was not born in the continental United States. The Senate passed that resolution because they knew that the issue may arise in the future.

    Nothing–nothing–in that resolution uses any “two-prong” test.

    Nothing–nothing–in that resolution says that the only definition of natural-born citizen is one who is born on American soil to parents who are themselves both American citizens.

    Don’t you get tired of being wrong? Don’t you get tired of the rest of us having to literally talk down to you because you can’t seem to understand the simplest concepts? Don’t you get tired of being embarrassed on a daily basis by everyone here? Don’t you get tired of looking like a fool?

  99. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Annie: I don’t really care about Obama, but I do care very much about you. Before Liz died she asked me to look out for you.

  100. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    ‘racist lies’?

    My statements are neither racist nor lies. If you knew anything about my life you would know that to accuse me of being racist is totally inappropriate.

  101. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    Saying that President Obama is the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman is a racist lie (and a baseless allegation as well). Sorry Annie, but what you say belies your denials.

    Saipan Annie:
    racist lies’?

    My statements are neither racist nor lies. If you knew anything about my life you would know that to accuse me of being racist is totally inappropriate.

  102. avatar
    Bob January 11, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Saipan Annie,
    You do “sound” familiar. Have you previously commented here under a different name?

  103. avatar
    Ballantine January 11, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    Saying that President Obama is the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman is a racist lie (and a baseless allegation as well). Sorry Annie, but what you say belies your denials.

    What kind of person would say such a thing when there is no evidence to support it?

  104. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    Well, we know that birthers have no compunctions about saying such things…

    Ballantine: What kind of person would say such a thing when there is no evidence to support it?

  105. avatar
    Stanislaw January 11, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    Ballantine: What kind of person would say such a thing when there is no evidence to support it?

    The kind of person who wants us to believe that the scary, radical Black President has at least one scary, radical Black parent. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  106. avatar
    The Magic M January 11, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    Stanislaw [quoting john]: The most important statement is the following:
    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    As one can see the 2 prong test was used

    No, as one can see, a novel 4 prong test was used:

    (1) he was born to American citizens
    (2) he was born on an American military base
    (3) he was born in the Panama canal zone
    (4) he was born in 1936

    So according to SR 511, that makes him an NBC.

    Therefore I agree, by SR 511, Obama isn’t an NBC because he clearly fails tests (2) through (4).

    The funny part is that birthers claim that (1) is significant while (2) through (4) aren’t. You can’t argue that away except with handwaving or guesswork.

    If being born in 1936 isn’t required to be NBC, why did they mention it?
    If being born in 1936 isn’t required to be NBC and they mentioned it “in passing” (one could say “in dicta” ;-)), why is being born to two citizen parents not “dicta”?
    Maybe you only need two citizen parents if you’re born in the PCZ? Or if you’re born on a military base? Or if you’re born in 1936?

    John, can you properly argue this or is this just another case of “I pick my crumbs from where I want to”?

    And why did no-one protest about Obama? If McCain was “in on it”, why didn’t the Senate pass a resolution that declared “McCain was born on a military base and therefore is an NBC”? That would’ve left no doubt about Obama.
    Your version of reality doesn’t just require everyone to be “in on it”, but also that for some strange reason, Congress vetted McCain using wording that clearly excludes Obama in an act caused by a vicious Dem attack on McCain who was allegedly colluding with them already (the proper “deal” would’ve been to suggest to McCain “we don’t mention your citizenship and you don’t mention Obama’s” behind the scenes), yet they somehow forgot to play the same charade with Obama. Or something, I lost track with all the mutually exclusive collusion/enmity that switch constantly during the process…

  107. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Saipan Annie: If you knew anything about my life you would know that to accuse me of being racist is totally inappropriate

    Don’t forget, I know all about your life, more than you do, in fact.

  108. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Bob – no. This is my only ‘presence’ at Obama Conspiracy Theories.

  109. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    Stanislaw: *sigh* John how many times do people have to explain the same thing to you?

    The reason the Senate passed that resolution is because McCain, unlike Obama, was not born in the continental United States. The Senate passed that resolution because they knew that the issue may arise in the future.

    Nothing–nothing–in that resolution uses any “two-prong” test.

    Nothing–nothing–in that resolution says that the only definition of natural-born citizen is one who is born on American soil to parents who are themselves both American citizens.

    Don’t you get tired of being wrong? Don’t you get tired of the rest of us having to literally talk down to you because you can’t seem to understand the simplest concepts? Don’t you get tired of being embarrassed on a daily basis by everyone here? Don’t you get tired of looking like a fool?

    And it was a non-binding resolution. Birthers’ eyes glaze over the non-binding part.

  110. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    “The kind of person who wants us to believe that the scary, radical Black President has at least one scary, radical Black parent.”

    Now who is talking like a racist, sir?

    Malcolm X, a scary radical Black? History has shown that much if not most of his advocacy was not only appropriate, it was essential to capture the attention of those in political power.

  111. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Saipan Annie:
    This is no laughing matter. If you care about Mr. Obama you will reserve your ridicule.

    Too late. I’m LMAO.

    I’m going with the facts of birth from the state of Hawaii over asinine, delusional, puerile unsubstantiated, anonymous, non-authoritative and bizarre smear tactics.

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

  112. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Saipan Annie: Mr. Obama was, indeed, a natural born citizen’ – as the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.

    To baselessly smear the memory of the President’s mother and father, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. is despicable.

  113. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Majority Will – a question, please.

    What would be your reaction if Mr. Obama stepped forth and relayed what I have? If he explained that extenuating circumstances – beyond his control – were what dictated the misrepresentation of his paternity?

  114. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 11, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    If you google “Malcolm X Jo Ann Newman Obama” it is pretty much anti-obama blogs spewing this nonsense.

    http://www.thepostemail.com
    obamarecords.com
    terribletruth.wordpress.com

    are the top three.

  115. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Saipan Annie: What would be your reaction if Mr. Obama stepped forth and relayed what I have? If he explained that extenuating circumstances – beyond his control – were what dictated the misrepresentation of his paternity?

    What has been your reaction to my revealling the truth about YOUR paternity?

  116. avatar
    Ballantine January 11, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Saipan Annie: Majority Will – a question, please. What would be your reaction if Mr. Obama stepped forth and relayed what I have? If he explained that extenuating circumstances – beyond his control – were what dictated the misrepresentation of his paternity?

    And what if Mitt Romney comes forth and explained his father was really Charles Manson? What is your point. Again, what kind of person continues to say such things without of shred of proof to support it? It doesn’t make you look very good.

  117. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    “What has been your reaction to my revealling the truth about YOUR paternity?”

    I have posed a fair question.

  118. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    Saipan Annie: I have posed a fair question

    So have I. Now please answer it.

  119. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    Ballantine: And what if Mitt Romney comes forth and explained his father was really Charles Manson?

    It would humanize Mitt and make him seem less like a corporation, so it might actually help him. I don’t know why Mitt is hiding the truth.

  120. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    No, you have posted things that have shown yourself to be of poor character, Ms. pseudo-birther troll.

    Saipan Annie: I have posed a fair question.

  121. avatar
    Bob January 11, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    Annie,

    What if the sky falls in?

  122. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    “What is your point.”

    My point is: well intentioned that you all appear to be, at the same time you demonstrate callous indifference and/or intolerance to what Mr. Obama may be personally experiencing.

    if Mr. Obama’s closest supporters pounce upon, rip apart and devour any information that does not suit their fancy, how does this demonstrate authentic loyalty or compassion?

    As I stated yesterday, please, if you care about him, show him in a genuine way.
    Attacking and ridiculing those who present ‘unpleasant’ information is not the way to demonstrate your good will toward him.

  123. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    “So have I. Now please answer it.”

    If I were to discover information about my maternity or paternity that contradicted what I had been led to believe, I would accept it with as much grace and compassion that I could.

  124. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    “What if the sky falls in?”

    In many of our lives, ‘the sky’ does fall in. We then pray for the strength to endure our trauma, and to emerge intact.

  125. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    Until you can stop yourself from repeating baseless lies that reek of racism, you deserve the attacks you bring upon yourself. As I said before, the people here are not unified by support for President Obama, but by their disgust towards people who, for instance, repeat racist lies in an attempt to smear the president–people like you.

    Saipan Annie:
    “What is your point.”

    My point is: well intentioned that you all appear to be, at the same time you demonstrate callous indifference and/or intolerance to what Mr. Obama may be personally experiencing.

    if Mr. Obama’s closest supporters pounce upon, rip apart and devour any information that does not suit their fancy, how does this demonstrate authentic loyalty or compassion?

    As I stated yesterday, please, if you care about him, show him in a genuine way.
    Attacking and ridiculing those who present unpleasant’ information is not the way to demonstrate your good will toward him.

  126. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    “As I said before, the people here are not unified by support for President Obama, but by their disgust towards people who, for instance, repeat racist lies in an attempt to smear the president–people like you.”

    Smearing the President is by no means my intent. I believe he has found himself in an untenable situation that was not of his creation.

  127. avatar
    Lupin January 11, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Saipan Annie: Attacking and ridiculing those who present unpleasant’ information is not the way to demonstrate your good will toward him.

    I’m trying to be nice here, but what you said/wrote is really kind of ridiculous.

    “Obama is the secret child of Malcom X” sounds like one of those “Bat Boy” stories from Weekly World News — and they have photos!

  128. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Saipan Annie:
    “As I said before, the people here are not unified by support for President Obama, but by their disgust towards people who, for instance, repeat racist lies in an attempt to smear the president–people like you.”

    Smearing the President is by no means my intent. I believe he has found himself in an untenable situation that was not of his creation.

    Your assertion is asinine, baseless and despicable as well as a pathetic attempt to smear the President and his family.

    Do you need help understanding those words? Apparently so.

  129. avatar
    Ballantine January 11, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    Saipan Annie: “As I said before, the people here are not unified by support for President Obama, but by their disgust towards people who, for instance, repeat racist lies in an attempt to smear the president–people like you.”Smearing the President is by no means my intent. I believe he has found himself in an untenable situation that was not of his creation.

    Making outragious claims without proof is a smear. Normal people do not make such claims. You clearly have no proof or you would say so. Therefor it is clear you are a smear artist or have something wrong with you.

  130. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Attacking and ridiculing those who present unpleasant’ information is not the way to demonstrate your good will toward him.

    You’ve presented nothing but an idiotic, unsubstantiated allegation.

    You are trolling.

  131. avatar
    thisoldhippie January 11, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

    Seems to me Miss Annie hasn’t produced any “evidence” anyway. All she does is repeat baseless BS that is on some really nasty websites.

  132. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

    I don’t care about your intent–your actions brand you as a dishonest troll trying to smear the president with lies. If you don’t want to be treated like vermin then show some decency, integrity, and class. I believe that you are a racist troll, but, unlike you, I actually have evidence to support my belief–your own words.

    Saipan Annie:
    “As I said before, the people here are not unified by support for President Obama, but by their disgust towards people who, for instance, repeat racist lies in an attempt to smear the president–people like you.”

    Smearing the President is by no means my intent. I believe he has found himself in an untenable situation that was not of his creation.

  133. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    “Obama is the secret child of Malcom X”

    He was not a secret child. He was very real to all those around him.

    However, the-powers-that-be assumed that ‘America’ would not vote for the son of Malcolm X.

    Just look at the reaction here – years later – amongst liberals. The association of Malcolm as ‘scary’, as ‘radical’. The assumption that it is a smear to say that he is Malcolm’s son.

    Malcolm was gifted, accomplished, brave, persevering.

    Yes, he had unorthodox methods. He had faults, and childhood emotional damage that haunted / controlled him throughout his life.

    But guess what? He did an amazing job making the most and the best of his God-given talent.

    He even died doing it.

    You may enjoy reading about what Malcolm did during his years in prison, to turn his life around. And what he did with his life, from the moment he was set free.

    To connect Mr. Obama with this sort of man is by no means a smear. It’s an honor!

  134. avatar
    sfjeff January 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    “Smearing the President is by no means my intent. I believe he has found himself in an untenable situation that was not of his creation.”

    You still haven’t replied as to why you think Birthers decided to guess Obama’s father- if he isn’t from Africa- must be Malcolm X- rather than:
    Bill Cosby
    Thurgood Marshall
    Martin Luther King Jr.

    The only untenable situation that I see that President Obama has found himself is the economic mess he walked into. Frankly his leadership on that has been hit and miss- some good and some so-so. But otherwise, he seems to be doing fine.

    Unfortunately for him though, the Republicans seem to be ignoring the Conservative fringe candidates and are voting for a moderate Republican who could actually defeat Obama, if the Evangelicals can overcome their prejudice against Mormons.

  135. avatar
    Lupin January 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    Saipan Annie: He was not a secret child. He was very real to all those around him.

    However, the-powers-that-be assumed that America’ would not vote for the son of Malcolm X.

    You obviously don’t get it: this is as ridiculous a statement as, say, “Obama was raised by Yeti in Tibet.”

    It could serve as a joke in a lame comedy show.

    If you weren’t so sad in your beliefs, you’d actually make me laugh.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

    This morning my barber speculated whether folks would vote for Mitt Romney because he was a Mormon. Then she added that a Mormon would be better then the Muslim we had now. A couple of minutes later, she said, “there’s no way Obama could have sat in the front pew in that church for 25 years and not believe what that man [Jeremiah Wright] was preaching.”

    You could hear the irony meters exploding 5 miles away.

    Lupin: You obviously don’t get it: this is as ridiculous a statement as, say, “Obama was raised by Yeti in Tibet.”

  137. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    Saipan Annie: If I were to discover information about my maternity or paternity that contradicted what I had been led to believe, I would accept it with as much grace and compassion that I could

    But you have NOT handled it with grace, not at all. You have now discovered that who you thought were your parents are not and that in fact, I am your father and Liz Taylor was your mother. Now, show us how you accept that with grace and compassion. I bet you will simply try to ignore the truth, but you can step up to the plate and prove me wrong.

  138. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    So the “powers-that-be” way back in 1961 decided that Obama would run for president one day, and so had his hospital birth certificate say something else?

    You can see why you’re getting the “comedy routine” responses.

    Saipan Annie: However, the-powers-that-be assumed that America’ would not vote for the son of Malcolm X.

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    I’ve been looking for a better phrase than “smear artist,” something more earthy and viscerally connecting. “Propagandist” is probably a word most birthers wouldn’t understand, and doesn’t quite fit either. There is “rumor monger” and that might be good, but I’m still looking for something better.

    Ballantine: Therefor it is clear you are a smear artist or have something wrong with you.

  140. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Did Tokyo Rose have children?

  141. avatar
    bovril January 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    “Baghdad Bob” or “Goebells” like spring to mind

  142. avatar
    Arthur January 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Saipan Annie:

    One of the many things that I find troubling about your recent comments is your misuse of the word “information.” For example, you write, “If Mr. Obama’s closest supporters pounce upon, rip apart and devour any information that does not suit their fancy, how does this demonstrate authentic loyalty or compassion,” and “Attacking and ridiculing those who present unpleasant’ information is not the way to demonstrate your good will toward him.”

    While “information” has multiple meanings, you appear to use the word as a synonym for “accurate data,” i.e., knowledge about a thing or circumstance that is demonstrably factual. However, your comments about President’s Obama’s birth cannot be considered information. In the first place, they rely on fallacious support: conjecture, hearsay, and unproven arguments. Second, your comments contradict data that has been certified to be accurate by the state of Hawaii, and though it is possible that the state of Hawaii could be part of a vast deception, no credible information exists to support that conjecture.

    Your willingness to misrepresent specuation as information leads me to dismiss your opinons and disparage your character.

  143. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is “rumor monger” and that might be good, but I’m still looking for something better.

    I prefer Chewbacca Defender

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

    “The aim of the argument is deliberately to confuse the jury by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi, or a red herring.”

  144. avatar
    thisoldhippie January 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    Saipan Annie: “Obama is the secret child of Malcom X”He was not a secret child. He was very real to all those around him. However, the-powers-that-be assumed that America’ would not vote for the son of Malcolm X. Just look at the reaction here – years later – amongst liberals. The association of Malcolm as scary’, as radical’. The assumption that it is a smear to say that he is Malcolm’s son.Malcolm was gifted, accomplished, brave, persevering. Yes, he had unorthodox methods. He had faults, and childhood emotional damage that haunted / controlled him throughout his life.But guess what? He did an amazing job making the most and the best of his God-given talent.He even died doing it.You may enjoy reading about what Malcolm did during his years in prison, to turn his life around. And what he did with his life, from the moment he was set free.To connect Mr. Obama with this sort of man is by no means a smear. It’s an honor!

    Malcolm X isn’t the issue here. The issue is that you are making statements with regard to the President’s parentage without any supporting evidence. Further, for the right and most conservatives, Malcolm X is the epitome of the scary black man, second only to Farrakhan. The name immediately brings up negative connotations for many white people, even though it should not.

  145. avatar
    Arthur January 11, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    bovril: “Baghdad Bob” or “Goebells” like spring to mind

    Or “Swift-Boater.”

  146. avatar
    J. Potter January 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve been looking for a better phrase than “smear artist,” something more earthy and viscerally connecting. “Propagandist” is probably a word most birthers wouldn’t understand, and doesn’t quite fit either. There is “rumor monger” and that might be good, but I’m still looking for something better.

    Plenty of good suggestions at:
    http://thesaurus.com/browse/liar

  147. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    “Malcolm X is the epitome of the scary black man, second only to Farrakhan. The name immediately brings up negative connotations for many white people, even though it should not.”

    Yes. It should not.

  148. avatar
    J. Potter January 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    I’m leaning towards “foolbender” … it doesn’t seem to exist, but I feel the meaning is readily apparent. I’ll put in for a patent this afternoon πŸ˜‰

  149. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    “So the “powers-that-be” way back in 1961 decided that Obama would run for president one day, and so had his hospital birth certificate say something else?”

    No. That is not what I have stated.

    The ‘powers-that-be” to which I refer are those who launched and supported his political career.

  150. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Saipan Annie: The powers-that-be” to which I refer are those who launched and supported his political career.

    Interesting speculation but there is not much evidence for this now is there? And it runs quite counter to common sense.

    But I do understand why some feel that the speculation is worth exploring.

  151. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Where is your accepting the truth about your parentage with grace? You have yet to do so.

  152. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    J. Potter:
    I’m leaning towards “foolbender” … it doesn’t seem to exist, but I feel the meaning is readily apparent. I’ll put in for a patent this afternoon

    How about evil clown? Like Limbaugh.

  153. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve been looking for a better phrase than “smear artist,” something more earthy and viscerally connecting. “Propagandist” is probably a word most birthers wouldn’t understand, and doesn’t quite fit either. There is “rumor monger” and that might be good, but I’m still looking for something better

    Doesn’t “birther” already encompass all of those?

  154. avatar
    thisoldhippie January 11, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    These people have already trashed President Obama’s actual parents in every which way they can. Now they want to create a new scenario with nothing but fantasy.

  155. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    “These people have already trashed President Obama’s actual parents in every which way they can.”

    Excuse me, please, but how am I “these people”? Never have I trashed Mr. Obama’s parents. Never.

    I have the utmost respect for both of them.

  156. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Saipan Annie: I have the utmost respect for both of them.

    The question of course is: Are we talking about his real parents or the speculative parents? And which one is which in your opinion?

    Let me ask a different question: By proposing, without much supporting evidence, that President Obama was not born to Dunham/Obama, do you consider such a proposal an act of respect?

  157. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Saipan Annie: He invites open and honest discussion of the issues.

    ROTFL

  158. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Saipan Annie: If I were to discover information about my maternity or paternity that contradicted what I had been led to believe, I would accept it with as much grace and compassion that I could.

    But that would require some evidence not just empty speculation. Or would you accept without reason and logic, the pronouncements of a third party?

  159. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    thisoldhippie: These people have already trashed President Obama’s actual parents in every which way they can. Now they want to create a new scenario with nothing but fantasy.

    Yes, speculating, without any real evidence that somehow President Obama is Malcolm X’s love child and that a new identity was created by those in ‘power’ runs counter to the evidence and common sense. Hence it does not surprise me that some have chosen exactly such a foolish path.

  160. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    “By proposing, without much supporting evidence, that President Obama was not born to Dunham/Obama’

    Ann Dunham’s actual identity is Jo Ann Newman. I contest only who was presented as his father. If you are genuinely interested in this matter, there are many online sources to consult.

    “do you consider such a proposal an act of respect?”

    Perhaps you should ask Mr. Obama that question.

  161. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    “But that would require some evidence not just empty speculation. Or would you accept without reason and logic, the pronouncements of a third party?”

    Again, perhaps you should ask Mr. Obama.

  162. avatar
    J. Potter January 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Saipan Annie: “By proposing, without much supporting evidence, that President Obama was not born to Dunham/Obama’Ann Dunham’s actual identity is Jo Ann Newman. I contest only who was presented as his father. If you are genuinely interested in this matter, there are many online sources to consult.“do you consider such a proposal an act of respect?”Perhaps you should ask Mr. Obama that question.

    Do you often invent problems and expect others to solve them? You’re a proponent of the question, you have assumed the burden of proof. investigate, verify, report your findings. Don’t ask the target of your chracter assassination to aim your weapon, to retrieve your projectiles, or perform your forensics. Do your own dirty work. If not feasible, then admit error.

  163. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.

    I will say no more on this matter.

  164. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Again, perhaps you should ask Mr. Obama.

    You made the accusation. It is cowardly to make an accusation without evidence.

    Obviously, you have nothing. Nothing but a lot of spare time to make up asinine fantasies.

    Classic concern troll.

  165. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.

    I will say no more on this matter.

    There you go with veiled threats again.

    Whatever. Your trolling is boring.

  166. avatar
    thisoldhippie January 11, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.I will say no more on this matter.

    You have not presented any “truth,” you have only tried to pass off a fantasy based on nothing. Show us proof that Stanley Anne Dunham was not who she said she was. Show us proof that President Obama’s father was Malcolm X. Until you have tangible evidence you are nothing but a liar who likes to gossip.

  167. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    Saipan Annie:
    Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.

    I will say no more on this matter.

    Are you Mario Apuzzo’s alter ego or are you just representing him?

    (Beth, Please give appropriate credit to Attorney Mario Apuzzo
    for the story you cite:
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-putative-president-barack-hussein.html
    source: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/wolf-v-fuddy-dismissed-will-file-motion-of-reconsider)

    (Puzo1 said…
    Dear Mr. Apuzzo,

    I am unable to access my blogger account. May I trouble you to post this on my behalf? It is in response to a question by ZLG, posted at your latest blog entry.

    Thank you.

    Saipan Annie
    source: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/09/attorney-mario-apuzzo-on-terry-lakin.html)

    Puzo1 = Mario Apuzzo

    Apuzzo has made the same veiled warnings in the past about “be careful what you say”.

  168. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Again, perhaps you should ask Mr. Obama.

    I am asking you? Why should Obama have to answer such meaningless questions without at least some reason and logic to support these speculations. We have seen so far, countless unsupported, unsubstantiated claims about our President. It has not stopped people from continue to make assertions that they believe may hurt our President. I find that unfortunate.

  169. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    Majority Will: Saipan Annie: Again, perhaps you should ask Mr. Obama.

    You made the accusation. It is cowardly to make an accusation without evidence.

    The concern troll appears to become unmasked?

  170. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.

    Is that why some birthers appear to have no regard for the truth and search for unsubstantiated claims about his childhood, his citizenship, his loyalties, etc? Is that what is driving this trend?

    Makes sense to me.

  171. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    nbc: The concern troll appears to become unmasked?

    This troll’s defensiveness of Apuzzo’s character and birther b.s posted here and elsewhere is the key.

    The unsubstantiated warnings and concern troll admonitions were typical of Apuzzo’s own posts.

    Again, whatever. The DUI business in Jersey must be in a rut.

  172. avatar
    nbc January 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So the “powers-that-be” way back in 1961 decided that Obama would run for president one day, and so had his hospital birth certificate say something else?

    It’s even less credible as she believes that at a later time, the powers that be, decided that Obama would make for a good political candidate but that they had to hide the circumstances of his birth.

    To achieve this, they managed to file retroactive birth announcements in at least two Hawaiian newspapers in 1961, file a birth certificate with Obama’s corrected name and hide the existence of a previous birth certificate. All this because some unnamed group of people thought that connecting Obama’s name with Malcolm X would undo his political ambitions.

    Of course, a much simpler explanation is that people who believe that connecting president Obama’s name with Malcolm X could potentially affects his political ambitions and most of these improbable scenarios would disappear.

    Occam’s razor helps us resolve the issue quite quickly. The lack of any supporting evidence, renders the speculation improbable.
    So why do people still continue in making poorly support speculations about President Obama. Annie appears to suggest that arguing counter to the truth is unproductive so before making speculative suggestions and then put the burden on the President to rebut them fails to abide by her proclaimed position. Or am I missing something here?

  173. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    nbc: So why do people still continue in making poorly support speculations about President Obama. Annie appears to suggest that arguing counter to the truth is unproductive so before making speculative suggestions and then put the burden on the President to rebut them fails to abide by her proclaimed position. Or am I missing something here?

    It’s nothing more than a weak and childish disinformation and propaganda effort and it’s pretty obvious where it’s coming from.

  174. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Annie, Time to put up or shut up. Prove your case or go home. And I can help you with the awesomely powerful tools of DNA science. I will need DNA from the President-a fork or spoon he used is sufficient-and DNA from a few Obama relatives in Kenya and a few Shabazz relatives here. It will be easy, because those whose ancestors are from East African, like the President, have many different markers from those whose ancestors are from West Africa, like the descendants of slaves in the US.

    If you are unwilling to submit your claims to rigorous scientific testing, then no one cares what you say.

    Signed, Your father (me)

  175. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Ann Dunham’s actual identity is Jo Ann Newman.

    No, her name remained Joanne Wodward, even though she married Paul Newman. She never was Jo Ann newman. Just like your mother was always Elizabeth Taylor, even when she married Richard Burton or Eddie Fisher or the others. Your mother slept around a lot, but she was a beautiful woman and I loved her.

    Your father (me)

  176. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Agreed.

    Majority Will: To baselessly smear the memory of the President’s mother and father, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. is despicable.

  177. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    Yep. That pretty much says it all.

    Lupin: I’m trying to be nice here, but what you said/wrote is really kind of ridiculous.
    “Obama is the secret child of Malcom X” sounds like one of those “Bat Boy” stories from Weekly World News — and they have photos!

  178. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    BINGO. Well said.

    It reminds me of a young bratty child who taunts his younger sibling with made up lies of claiming the kid was adopted and he doesn’t really belong in the family and his parents don’t really love him.

    Same irresponsible and utterly immature line of smear here. Simply put – it is offensive for anyone to make up lies about someone else’s family or heritage. That’s all there is to it.

    Ballantine: Making outragious claims without proof is a smear. Normal people do not make such claims. You clearly have no proof or you would say so. Therefor it is clear you are a smear artist or have something wrong with you.

  179. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    *rolls eyes*…

    Oh boy…so now your fantasy requires some decades-in-the-plannning vast conspiracy that they “knew” he would be president someday.

    ROTFLMAO!

    Yeah, you fall in the category of laughable kooks along with the guys claiming they travelled through time and space with Obama and visited secret bases on Mars…

    Yeah…because any long hatched sinister plot to make some child achieve the presidency one day would be to instead give him such a traditionally American sounding name of “Barack Hussein Obama II”… yeah…that’s the ticket… *rolls eyes*

    Saipan Annie: However, the-powers-that-be assumed that America’ would not vote for the son of Malcolm X.

  180. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Did you, or did you not accuse Stanley Ann Dunham of filing a false birth report for Barack Obama, a crime in Hawaii?

    Saipan Annie: Excuse me, please, but how am I “these people”? Never have I trashed Mr. Obama’s parents. Never.

  181. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    LMAO.

    Actually…that’s a fairly apt description for what these twits are trying to do with such nonsense as this.

    So, I like the term and will start using it from now on.

    El Diablo Negro: I prefer Chewbacca Defender

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

    “The aim of the argument is deliberately to confuse the jury by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi, or a red herring.”

  182. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

    Truly a lame and comical form of Concern Trolling, but intentional and blatant Concern Trolling, nonetheless.

    nbc: Occam’s razor helps us resolve the issue quite quickly. The lack of any supporting evidence, renders the speculation improbable.
    So why do people still continue in making poorly support speculations about President Obama. Annie appears to suggest that arguing counter to the truth is unproductive so before making speculative suggestions and then put the burden on the President to rebut them fails to abide by her proclaimed position. Or am I missing something here?

  183. avatar
    Keith January 11, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Excuse me, please, but how am I “these people”? Never have I trashed Mr. Obama’s parents. Never.

    So calling them liars is not ‘trashing’ them? You show ‘utmost respect’ for somebody’s parents by insisting that they reject their child and lie to him about who they are?

  184. avatar
    Keith January 11, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Scientist: I will need DNA from the President-a fork or spoon he used is sufficient-and DNA from a few Obama relatives in Kenya and a few Shabazz relatives here.

    Dr. Drew may have saved a cigarette butt as a souvenir.

  185. avatar
    NBC January 11, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Saipan Annie: I will say no more on this matter.

    I understand…

  186. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 11, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Well, all in all that was a pretty pathetic trolling run. The non-birther sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome like you and dr john “failed scholar” drew, phd have taken meaningless and ineffectual trolling to a new level.

    Saipan Annie: I will say no more on this matter.

  187. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    We really are facing the bottom of the Troll barrel these days, aren’t we?

    Quantity…yes. Quality…no.

    Slartibartfast:
    Well, all in all that was a pretty pathetic trolling run.The non-birther sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome like you and dr john “failed scholar” drew, phd have taken meaningless and ineffectual trolling to a new level.

  188. avatar
    roadburner January 13, 2012 at 7:43 am #

    Saipan Annie: Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.I will say no more on this matter.

    the problem is sally, you only have a handful of outlandish allegations about president obamas parentage (please note – your president should be addressed by his proper title, not `mr´) with absolutely nothing in the way of evidence.

    the only thing hard for him is understanding where the hell the birthers are getting this crap from, and how they can possibly believe it.

    saying you´re going home and taking your ball with you does your case no good. back it up with evidence, not speculation and supposition, and we´ll take you seriously

  189. avatar
    The Magic M January 13, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    Saipan Annie: Every time the truth is attacked here, you make it more difficult for Mr. Obama.

    Yeah right, as if the writings of some unimportant people on an unimportant blog (no offense, Doc, just looking at the big picture) would somehow have a negative effect on “Mr Obama” in his trying to “keep his deceit hidden”.

    Then again, birthers have never had a problem with turning “some pro-Obama blogger said Obama was…” into “Obama stated he was…”.