Main Menu

Are Birthers a hate group?

As I’m reading a book on hate groups right now, that question naturally comes to mind. I’ve been thinking about an article with this title for a few days now. I thought: “This should be pretty straightforward. Define ‘hate group’ and then collect some of the really hateful things birthers say and give examples.”

That would be straightforward, but it wouldn’t be valid. I could use the same methodology to proves that Birthers are racists, or that they are illiterate – for example, check out this one I just found at Orly’s site:

You mean that Parke Bostrom is so stupid that he thinks that Obama is rligible for to be president of the United States. I guess he can’t read or hasn’t heard of our Condtitution of the United States. Obama father was a british suject and his mother was a American, but that put obama with a dual citizenship and no way in hell he can ever be President of the United States. Does corrupt Democrats slip him on the ballot and the election commitee kept thir mouth shut, that is treason against the United States. If you want Obama enoughto go to prison for that whatever he is, go for it.

There’s no question that there is a lot of hatred directed against Barack Obama from people on the Right and from the Birthers in particular. It wasn’t a warm fuzzy feeling that put Obama’s head onto a chimpanzee baby and wrote “now you know why no birth certificate.” My personal view is that conspiracy theory thinking is what defines Birthers, not hate. That said, I also believe that hatred is the “gateway drug” to Birtherism and that the closed world of birther web sites reinforces hate speech and amplifies hatred. And in time, perhaps Birtherism will evolve into a pure hate group, just as it appears to have evolved from retelling rumors to full-blown paranoid conspiracy thinking.

,

260 Responses to Are Birthers a hate group?

  1. avatar
    Foggy February 25, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    I think hatred of the president — in most cases based upon racism — is the foundation for becoming a birther. A prerequisite, as it were. But the birthers are just a subset of those who hate President Obama. The other ingredient — the one that allows conspiracy theorists to believe in their conspiracies — is what separates the birthers from the other haters.

    The other conspiracy theories — Moon landing hoax, second shooter in Dallas, 9/11 troofers — are not based on hate the way this conspiracy theory is. Normal people are always ready to re-evaluate their conclusions about a subject if new evidence surfaces.

    But all of these conspiracy theories require that you reach your conclusion first, and evaluate all newly discovered evidence in light of whether it supports the conclusion or not. This is how a hearsay remark by a Kenyan legislator has more credibility in the birther mind than repeated press releases by an American state government. It’s not so much that the birthers are unAmerican in all cases, it’s that one item fits the predetermined conclusion they’ve reached, and the other doesn’t.

    But I don’t think anyone became a birther without hating on President Obama beforehand.

  2. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 26, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    I can see hatred or extreme partisan dislike of Obama being one of the gateway drugs into the Birther world, but I also think there is something else that has to be in the mix or the stuff would not have taken off the way it did. Probably an extreme underlying generalized dislike and distrust for government and government authority. Maybe the hatred stuff applies more to the First Generation Birthers.

    But now you have Second Generation Birthers who arose because of the widespread availability of Birther Legal Crank Writings. Couple that with an underlying distrust of government, and now you have Birthers who don’t particularly hate Obama, or Rubio, or Jindal.

    I see it happening like with the Sovereign Citizens. Your first guys to fight income taxes were probably as close to being anarchists as you can get and actively hated the government and owed tons of taxes. But as a result of their activities, a lot of books and written materials and DIY No-Tax kits were put into circulation and some people were stupid and/or delusional enough to buy into it.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 26, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    Answer: yes. They preach extremely vitriolic hatred and advocate violence against anyone who disagrees with them. Their ever changing excuses for the hatred don’t matter. The excuse that not ALL of them advocate violence doesn’t matter: enough many of them do and none of them speak against it. They are a hate group.

  4. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2012 at 1:21 am #

    I check in to Patrick Mckinnion’s site (http://badfiction.typepad.com) for his neat appraisals’ of Birferstan haters. He also covers the latest in Biferstan. I am glad that he does as I can no longer wade through the cesspools of birther hate. The only birther I personally know is estranged from his family, and sadly lost his relationship with his daughter. The few times I talked to him I emphasized what he is losing (to no avail). When I asked him about his cohorts I found he has none, all his ties to birferstan are through the web, poor guy. The conclusion one gets from talking to birthers is that hate is very toxic, it poisons the soul. The comments birthers post here affirm that toxicity.

  5. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 1:49 am #

    Thank you Foggy, Squeeky & Joe Acerbic.

    You have all shared a perspective on this issue and made points that I too feel captures where the mix and origins of hate & conspiracy mix to create the Birthers.

    You’ve each done such a great job with explaining it in your own words, that I have nothing to add, except to say, “ditto”.

  6. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 26, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    Larry Sinclair, an openly gay man, claims he took illegals drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in 1999.

    If true, aren’t there all kinds of public policy implications to this story given the president’s role in the drug war and in defining the federal government’s evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives?

    If not true, how is this not a conspiracy theory worthy of scrutiny?

    Is extreme partisan support and love for Obama from Dr. Con and his ilk the real reason why the most scientifically significant and compelling conspiracy theories go unexamined here?

  7. avatar
    Rickey February 26, 2012 at 2:52 am #

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Larry Sinclair, an openly gay man, claims he took illegals drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in 1999.

    If true, aren’t there all kinds of public policy implications to this story given the president’s role in the drug war and in defining the federal government’s evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives?

    If not true, how is this not a conspiracy theory worthy of scrutiny?

    Is extreme partisan support and love for Obama from Dr. Con and his ilk the real reason why the most scientifically significant and compelling conspiracy theories go unexamined here?

    This may be a surprise to you, but there is nothing unusual about a gay man being open about it nowadays. As for Larry Sinclair, he has no credibility whatsoever. Just because a crank makes unsubstantiated and salacious claims doesn’t mean than anyone is obliged to take him seriously.

    I wasn’t aware that the Federal government has “evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives.” If you know of such policies, please elaborate, and while you are at it please explain how they have anything to do with Obama’s eligibility to be President.

    Are you saying that Larry Sinclair’s claims are “scientifically significant and compelling?” I don’t. And if you would spend some time going through this blog’s archives, you would find that every birther conspiracy theory has been thoroughly examined here.

  8. avatar
    Lupin February 26, 2012 at 3:24 am #

    The section of the Venn Diagram that encompasses birthers and racists is by far the largest one.

    Recently I was rereading old issues of FANTASTIC FOUR and was struck by the fact that Stan Lee’s purposefully outrageous dialogue put in the mouth of the uber xenophobic HATE-MONGER (Hitler in disguise with a KKK hood) super-villain can now be found routinely in any right-wing candidate, without creating a tide of super-heroic indignation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate-Monger

    That’s what they are now: old comic-book villains.

    Sad.

  9. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    Are you seriously talking about the guy who severely failed lie detector tests??? That Larry Sinclair fraud? And you wonder why no one pays any attention to him… *sheesh*

    Newsflash for you: We don’t pay attention to the completely non-credible bottom-feeding sludge in the conspiracy world, regardless of whether it makes ludicrous claims about Obama or not. Notice we don’t waste time discussing Tim Turner and the “Restore America Plan” or “Ulsterman” here either.

    All of those things, Larry Sinclair, Tim Turner, Ulsterman, et. all are so overwhelmingly full of completely out-there malarky, that they don’t merit being paid attention to here.

    Again, you only demonstrate how completely gullible and deranged you must be to buy into and care about any of this ludicrous and slimy B.S. Your pathetic hate has really damaged your brain.

    Your time would be better spent searching for Mole Men and Lizard People…

    Kenneth Olsen: If not true, how is this not a conspiracy theory worthy of scrutiny?

  10. avatar
    Lupin February 26, 2012 at 3:27 am #

    Kenneth Olsen: Larry Sinclair, an openly gay man, claims he took illegals drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in 1999.

    If true, aren’t there all kinds of public policy implications to this story given the president’s role in the drug war and in defining the federal government’s evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives?

    Actually — NO!

    Should young Bush partying drunk with hookers raise questions vis a vis his policies towards the booze lobby or prostitution or professional sports?

    What about his wife running over ex-boyfriends? Should that impact the US interstate motorway policies?

    NO!

    Your comment reeks of homophobia.

  11. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 3:34 am #

    Members of a hate group feel their hatred is justified. I see little difference in attitude between the “birther” hate group and those who ridicule the birthers. You ridicule what you hate (look at the general definition of hate- I looked at several and there was only one that linked the word with fear- in this case, I would say a feeling of superiority controls but the outcome is the same). Going to events and videotaping so that everyone can as a group, laugh together at the actions of a lost person is ridicule, and I would go even further and say somewhat sick. Why, Orly is coming to a town near you, or even if she isn’t, take a drive and come see! If you can’t make it, we’ll help you out with live feeds or at least post videos afterward and transcripts! Wait with baited breath for the “salacious” details! I can’t believe someone of high intelligence actually used that word on another thread as he expressed his excitement at the prospect of another Orly foible- look at what the word actually means! He can’t have meant it. (I see Rickey used it above, but that was not my reference.)

    In the eyes of the some, ridicule can be justified. There are those who legitimately discuss the issues and take them apart objectively. They are few. I find it fascinating that the same Squeeky who was so ridiculed here before is now one of the gang because she has turned to ridicule. The fact that she always said beforehand she was only looking for definitive proof and that she would be satisfied when she got it made NO difference at the time of the ridicule. True to her word, when the evidence to satisfy her came to light, she made a public statement. But it was only when she started to ridicule that she became part of the gang. She always had that intelligence and creativity. She was a non-person at the time: a birther.

  12. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 26, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    Looks like I have to add a couple more to the litany of my flaws!

    Why would you deep thinkers and scientists cite a lie detector test to impeach Larry Sinclair’s credibility? Haven’t lie detector tests been found to be junk science that is not admitted in a court of law?

    Can we agree that if Larry Sinclair’s claims are true, then he deserves no scrutiny from Dr. Con and the deep thinkers and scientists at Obama Conspiracy Theories?

    Can’t we concur that if Larry Sinclair’s claims are untrue, then the hundreds who bought his book and believe him (see Amazon.com) deserve the kind of loving scrutiny and correction only available from the deep thinkers and scientists at Dr. Con’s self-proclaimed “one-stop destination” for Obama conspiracy theories?

  13. avatar
    Greenfinches February 26, 2012 at 3:56 am #

    I find it delightful that Squeeky gave up her old ludicrous writing style and frequent attacks on ‘malebeasts’, and and adoped some common sense……. and was warmly welcomed. I recall G encouraging her so to do for quite a while, and lo, it bore fruit!

    I can’t mourn the old ‘tee hee’ which now makes only very rare appearances.

    I am sorry charo but I disagree. Many of the commenters here do not ridicule at all and those that do make the good point, if you don’t want to be ridiculed then don’t be ridiculous.

    charo:

    I find it fascinating that the same Squeeky who was so ridiculed here before is now one of the gang because she has turned to ridicule.The fact that she always said beforehand she was only looking for definitive proof and that she would be satisfied when she got it made NO difference at the time of the ridicule.True to her word, when the evidence to satisfy her came to light, she made a public statement.But it was only when she started to ridicule that she became part of the gang.She always had that intelligence and creativity.She was a non-person at the time: a birther.

  14. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 26, 2012 at 4:12 am #

    charo:
    I see little difference in attitude between the “birther” hate group and those who ridicule the birthers.

    The false equivalency is one of the oldest and most worn out excuses spewed by members of all kinds of hate groups. There is a big difference between wanting to kill people because of their race, religion (or lack thereof), political persuasion or sexual orientation or whatever and ridiculing and exposing the wannabe killers for what they are. There’s a difference between attack and defence. “Who started it” actually matters.

  15. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 4:14 am #

    Sorry Charo, but I think you are that your comparison is nothing but a false equivocation.

    First of all, Orly publically puts herself out there. As the old truisms go,”better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it” and “if you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous”.

    Nobody here is “stalking” private Birthers. Everyone who gets mocked OPENLY put themselves out there and INVITED it upon themself.

    Don’t you believe in personal responsiblity? Actions and words have consequences. Cause and effect. Simple as that.

    Nobody here is picking on “innocent” folks at all. Nor are we making up reasons to mock them.

    Second, credibility is something that is gained and lost. Squeeky faced a lot of skepticism and hostility early on. She is currently treated with a lot of respect because of the quality of her writing skills, her clever use of humor and imagery. Her style has grown and changed significantly over the years. It is not simply because she “agrees” with us that she’s earned respect. Nor is it because she “mocks” people. It is because she’s demonstrated the ability to follow through with proper research and arrive at a reasoned analysis. She’s shed the need to deny “inconvenient truths” and adjust her opinions and understanding, based on what the facts show.

    Your personal biases are again causing you to seek out “false equivocation” here.

    Just because all the regulars here reject Birtherism and mock it is not an example of “group think” any more than it is “group think” to believe that the Earth is round and travels around the sun and that the Flat Earth Society folks are utterly bonkers and completely unworthy of being treated seriously.

    Also, if you would take your tempermental blinders off, you would be able to see a clear pattern and connection between how people dialogue on here and how they are treated.

    Simply put, serious and respectable inquiries are treated with respect. Ire begats ire. Trolling of any type is easily detected and generates an instantly hostile response. Adult and professional discourse leads to a healthy back-and-forth and respect, even amongst folks of different beliefs and ideologies.

    Spouting nonsense or reguritating long debunked myths, does not. Disingenuously asking and repeating questions that have been already answered multiple times also will lead to disrespect and loss of credibility for a poster.

    It really is as simple as that, Charo.

    The dialogue between you and I is a perfect example of that. You know I enjoy seeing you post here and having conversations with you. You know I also have always viewed you as merely “birther sympathetic” – someone who is smart enough to realize that it is bunk, but who just deep down, really, really wishes that some nasty dirt could be found to tarnish and take down Obama and make him go away. When you are pleasant or reasonable in your conversation here, you generate a response from me in kind. When we have misunderstood each other, we’ve been good at maintaining a back & forth to work through the bumps and arrive at an understanding. And when we’ve been at odds or felt that something was uncalled for, we’ve each openly called out that behavior too.

    You’ve never really explained any of your motivations, but I suspect that your basis stems from what you see as a religious/ideological connection and that you have been raised to view folks that aren’t as ultra-conservative as you as either “the enemy” or “the other” and therefore, you simply “feel” that the government is “under threat” or “ursurped” whenever someone you don’t consider as “one of your own” has power. Disclaimer – that is complete speculation on my part and I only throw it out there for dialogue of you explaining what drives you and letting you know the impression (right or wrong) that I’ve been left with.

    If you want to know what I am intolerant of – it is irrational intolerance itself. That and willful ignorance. And intentional dishonesty. Those are where my personal prejudices and lack of sympathies lie.

    To leave things on a light hearted note, reading your post here in defense of Orly and the emotionally hate/fear based Birthers, comes across like this famous YouTube moment in history: (caution: NSFW – contains swearing…)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

    charo: Members of a hate group feel their hatred is justified. I see little difference in attitude between the “birther” hate group and those who ridicule the birthers. You ridicule what you hate (look at the general definition of hate- I looked at several and there was only one that linked the word with fear- in this case, I would say a feeling of superiority controls but the outcome is the same). Going to events and videotaping so that everyone can as a group, laugh together at the actions of a lost person is ridicule, and I would go even further and say somewhat sick. Why, Orly is coming to a town near you, or even if she isn’t, take a drive and come see! If you can’t make it, we’ll help you out with live feeds or at least post videos afterward and transcripts! Wait with baited breath for the “salacious” details! I can’t believe someone of high intelligence actually used that word on another thread as he expressed his excitement at the prospect of another Orly foible- look at what the word actually means! He can’t have meant it. (I see Rickey used it above, but that was not my reference.)In the eyes of the some, ridicule can be justified. There are those who legitimately discuss the issues and take them apart objectively. They are few. I find it fascinating that the same Squeeky who was so ridiculed here before is now one of the gang because she has turned to ridicule. The fact that she always said beforehand she was only looking for definitive proof and that she would be satisfied when she got it made NO difference at the time of the ridicule. True to her word, when the evidence to satisfy her came to light, she made a public statement. But it was only when she started to ridicule that she became part of the gang. She always had that intelligence and creativity. She was a non-person at the time: a birther.

  16. avatar
    Lupin February 26, 2012 at 4:18 am #

    G: Just because all the regulars here reject Birtherism and mock it is not an example of “group think” any more than it is “group think” to believe that the Earth is round and travels around the sun and that the Flat Earth Society folks are utterly bonkers and completely unworthy of being treated seriously.

    One couldn’t put it better.

  17. avatar
    aarrgghh February 26, 2012 at 4:28 am #

    one of my favorite quotes comes from jefferson: “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

    ridicule is a legitimate weapon against nonsense. no one likes being the target of it, but it is not the same as hate. like any weapon it can be abused, especially when it has no valid rationale, but there is no equating birfers, who insist an ever-growing list of americans need to be hung, and sane folk who are guilty only of laughing at them.

  18. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 4:32 am #

    The only valid statement you just made is that yes, you keep revealing a litany of your personal flaws to us…you certainly suffer from a whole host of issues. That is of your own doing. Personally, I don’t have the slightest interest in knowing about you and what you believe. You are entitled to your opinions and tastes, but none of us is entitled to care. You are the one who is coming here and letting your freak flag fly.

    Again, you completely and repeatedly miss the point about worthless nuts, hacks and pathological liars. We don’t have to pay attention or take any of them seriously, no matter how much you love them.

    In terms of the Larry Sinclair, you completely miss the whole point about bringing up the failed lie detector tests – that he has a record of being someone who is not credible at all.

    The whole point here is that you are beating long-dead horses which have gone nowhere. Larry Sinclair went out of his way during the 2008 campaign to try to make these same silly, slimy bogus claims. The whole reason there *was* lie detector tests in the first place is that he was inviting such stuff and even trying to hold press conferences on the issue… and all that resulted in only EPIC FAIL on his part. So yeah, that angle of debased smears was tried with full gusto last cycle. It withered and died on the vine quite quickly.

    It only reveals how utterly desperate YOU are and how you have not even a scrap of anything to go on, that you have to resort to trotting out such weak and moldy oldies as this, in order to justify your fervent ODS.

    Who cares that either of your pet cranks have a small delusional following that bought any of their books or what not. Guess what, so did Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite. And yes, that is exactly how I see you sad little kooks – as a deranged Cult. Which is why I have no sympathy in openly mocking you.

    Oddly enough, your sad protestations of Concern Trolling also invoke shades of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

    But you yourself come across like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

    Kenneth Olsen: Looks like I have to add a couple more to the litany of my flaws!Why would you deep thinkers and scientists cite a lie detector test to impeach Larry Sinclair’s credibility? Haven’t lie detector tests been found to be junk science that is not admitted in a court of law?Can we agree that if Larry Sinclair’s claims are true, then he deserves no scrutiny from Dr. Con and the deep thinkers and scientists at Obama Conspiracy Theories?Can’t we concur that if Larry Sinclair’s claims are untrue, then the hundreds who bought his book and believe him (see Amazon.com) deserve the kind of loving scrutiny and correction only available from the deep thinkers and scientists at Dr. Con’s self-proclaimed “one-stop destination” for Obama conspiracy theories?

  19. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 4:33 am #

    Very well said. I completely agree on all accounts.

    aarrgghh: one of my favorite quotes comes from jefferson: “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

    ridicule is a legitimate weapon against nonsense. no one likes being the target of it, but it is not the same as hate. like any weapon it can be abused, especially when it has no valid rationale, but there is no equating birfers, who insist an ever-growing list of americans need to be hung, and sane folk who are guilty only of laughing at them.

  20. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 26, 2012 at 4:35 am #

    If “Birthers” is a group that includes people with widely divergent views on Obama’s origins, veracity, and political qualifications, does the term really mean anything or simply serve as a catch-all phrase for you deep thinkers and scientists to vilify others for your own self-aggrandizement?

    Pssst! Did you hear that there’s an image out there of Dr. Con having a very dark and very unacceptable thought?! It’s not a pdf, but authorities are vouching for its authenticity:

    http://www.lysanderspoonerlawschool.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=183

  21. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 4:52 am #

    G: someone who is smart enough to realize that it is bunk, but who just deep down, really, really wishes that some nasty dirt could be found to tarnish and take down Obama and make him go away.

    You are just so brilliant…

  22. avatar
    US Citizen February 26, 2012 at 5:03 am #

    If “group think” is a viable indicator of truth, how does a birther explain that much praise is offered for all these judges *before* a case, then the same posters declare these same judges corrupt when they don’t get their way?

    Doesn’t it seem a bit ridiculous to belief in something in order to obtain a wish, then when that wish isn’t granted, not believe in the same thing for various supposed reasons?

    And isn’t it a bit far-fetched to consider that Obama successfully threatened, without exposure, somewhere around 100 or more judges?
    Think about it. What if a judge said no or exposed him?
    Seen any unexplained deaths of judges lately?

    So.. bottom line…. is it rational to believe that Hawaii’s state dept, their GOP governor, a GOP chief justice, the FBI, CIA, DNC and maybe 100 judges all coordinated a huge conspiracy to elect and retain a foreign black democrat?
    Does that REALLY make sense?

  23. avatar
    DP February 26, 2012 at 5:03 am #

    I think it’s obviously true on its face. Simply read any number of comments on Free Republic, Orly’s site, etc. They seethe with hatred for an imaginary secular humanist, UnAmerican, atheist, Muslim whatever. Hatred of “The Other” is everything. It is the glue holding all this ridiculous conspiracy nonsense together, and at this point it’s like a drug for the worst of the worst. They need their hit.

    I realize that there are some Birthers who may not realize how truly sick the core of this stuff is, or the dog whistles to which they are responding. But honestly, it’s so obvious on its face at this point that ignorance is becoming willful denial, for which I can’t muster all that much sympathy.

    You don’t find much of anything like it on the anti-birther sites. You find bemusement, sorrow, scorn, incredulity, etc. But the anti-birthers don’t hate the birthers at a gut level, and they don’t have an emotional need to hate them. You don’t see anti-brthers writing in lurid detail their fantasies of what justice will be imposed on the birthers when blood is required for the tree of liberty. You don’t see us jonesing for a civil war.

  24. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 26, 2012 at 5:05 am #

    Eric Hoffer in his book “True Believer” wrote:

    Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.”

  25. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 5:22 am #

    There are so many examples of wild speculation and misstatements that I don’t even know where to begin. Just a couple of points: if finding it kind of disgusting to follow a “lost” person (which is the adjective I used to describe Orly) is a defense of her, then so be it. I don’t understand the euphoria that comes with every birther foible. I said many times that I would like to see the issue of the NBC resolved by the Supreme Court, although those here say it has been. I scrutinize small details; that is the way I am. I get disgusted when I see my religion mocked; that is the way I am.

    I suppose there is no point in going any further.

  26. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:24 am #

    Not interested in your website or driving traffic to it. That’s really why you are here, aren’t you? You are just some pathetic random loser on the internet, desperate to goad people into paying attention to you and your useless blog. Guess what – we are not interested. You have demonstrated that you are just another random kook desperate for attention. The internet is full of them. You are simply as inconsequential and not worthy of coverage on this blog as the other pathological bottom feeders.

    Your whole premise again, is nothing but a transparent fallacy: You Birthers are so overwhelmingly reeking of such utter desperation that you feel the need to spew endless made up cr@p against the wall and hope that one of your made up smears will gain traction. That is what you all have in common. Just because your myths are incoherent and often contradictory, doesn’t make you a body of real “diversity”.

    You are all full of BS and either genuinely nuts yourselves or disingenously trying to incite the nuts. So, you really are all just different flavors of the same irrelevance.

    Read the rest of the posts above. We’ve already explained at length why we are justified in openly mocking and ridiculing those that willfully act ridiculous. You’ve earned your mockery and villification. Go cry somewhere else if you don’t like it. I’ve got no sympathy or regrets in mocking you.

    Kenneth Olsen: If “Birthers” is a group that includes people with widely divergent views on Obama’s origins, veracity, and political qualifications, does the term really mean anything or simply serve as a catch-all phrase for you deep thinkers and scientists to vilify others for your own self-aggrandizement?

  27. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:26 am #

    Well Charo, that was pithy defensiveness. You clearly have chosen not to contest or correct what I’ve said, so I can only assume that I was right about where part of your motivation truly is rooted…

    charo: You are just so brilliant…

  28. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:30 am #

    Exactly. Another, case in point:

    http://viletweets.com/

    DP: You don’t see anti-brthers writing in lurid detail their fantasies of what justice will be imposed on the birthers when blood is required for the tree of liberty. You don’t see us jonesing for a civil war.

  29. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 5:32 am #

    G: “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

    And its worked so well for this issue. Statesmen can’t ignore unintelligible propositions brought forth in debate. Police/federal authorities can’t ignore legitimate threats, but most of us can just ignore the ridiculous.

  30. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 5:33 am #

    G:
    Well Charo, that was pithy defensiveness.You clearly have chosen not to contest or correct what I’ve said, so I can only assume that I was right about where part of your motivation truly is rooted…

    You’re right. I spend every waking moment just a’hoping and a’praying for that bit of dirt.

  31. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 26, 2012 at 5:40 am #

    Hey letter man, Should the subtitle of Dr. Con’s blog be “A torrent of bile for every simple question.”?

    Did you ever answer my question about why a deep thinker and scientist such as yourself would rely on an unscientific and inadmissible lie-detector test to impeach Larry Sinclair’s testimony?

    Have deep thinkers and scientists found that the length of a blog post comment is inversely proportional to its content?

  32. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:50 am #

    Oh, come off it, Charo! Again, you are making exaggerations beyond anything that actually happened. Enough with the false “victim” card. Come off your sense of false aggrievement and high horse.

    1) Re: Orly – Nobody is “stalking her”. Yet that sure is how your description of the situation comes across. There is nothing inappropriate about folks simply travelling to attend an open hearing. The Birthers do that all the time too. We don’t go “woe is me” because they merely showed up in a courtroom. That is a public right.

    2.) Please clarify WHERE exactly your religion was “mocked”. Because I surely don’t see where that has happened in the course of this dialogue.

    3.) You are not being attacked because of your purported desire to see NBC defined by the USSC. Others have mentioned a similar desire. Other than many simply pointing out that:

    A) An extremely strong case can be made that our body of law and the courts, including the USSC, *have* ruled on clarifying MANY of the situations that are qualifications for NBC (such as birth within US soil as a qualifier). Yes, there remains some gray areas within all the possible permutations of jus sanguinis, but that is irrelevant to Obama anyways.

    B) In terms of those other jus sanguinis permutations, it doesn’t matter how much anyone might simply “desire” a complete definition. The reality is that the USSC doesn’t go around making defintions. They simply rule based on matters that come before them that are within their purview. Therefore, until a plausible scenario emerges in which there was a justified need for the USSC to rule on such things, it will not be a matter that they deal with. As there is no such scenario at hand at present, there is simply ZERO reason for them to address the issue and ZERO need for them to do so.

    C) None of the “requires parents when born on US Soil” nonsense has any actual basis in our existing laws. All the deVattel, 2-citizen parent, “natural kind”, etc. nonsense is just a fiction created out of whole cloth, mostly starting with Leo Donofrio in 2008. So anyone expecting the USSC to treat those claims seriously EITHER is being dishonest with themself or simply is insufficiently educated on the topic to know what they are really talking about.

    4) Final point, you seem to be simply mad because Birther Fails result in mass laughter. Well, you need to carefully think about where these events are originating from. HINT: Not here. We don’t create these nosense events or frivolous lawsuits. The hype and activity ALL comes from ONE direction only – Birthers. So, as a cite that observes and reports on those events, *of course* the drama caused by their clown show is going to be noted and invoke fits of laughter… *duh*. Again, you seem to be having a problem accepting how mere Cause & Effect work…

    charo: There are so many examples of wild speculation and misstatements that I don’t even know where to begin. Just a couple of points: if finding it kind of disgusting to follow a “lost” person (which is the adjective I used to describe Orly) is a defense of her, then so be it. I don’t understand the euphoria that comes with every birther foible. I said many times that I would like to see the issue of the NBC resolved by the Supreme Court, although those here say it has been. I scrutinize small details; that is the way I am. I get disgusted when I see my religion mocked; that is the way I am. I suppose there is no point in going any further.

  33. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:58 am #

    You are going overboard again. I never said that was your ONLY motivation. I said I suspect that sure is *part* of what is at the root of your interests in these matters. HINT: the very passage you quoted from me in your retort spells out that I said *part*

    I think you are just mad, because I’ve hit at a kernel of truth. Of course I realize that you have “additional” areas of curiosity and concern beyond that. Nor do I think you spend every waking moment about it. …But I do think whenever you have other frustrations in life, your gut dislike for Obama and whomever else you reflexively blame the ills on the world for, simply become convenient “punching bag” crutches for you to direct and deflect your upset feelings.

    But unless you can openly and unequivicably tell me that there is ZERO truth to what I just said, then you are just trying to cover and dodge…

    charo: You’re right. I spend every waking moment just a’hoping and a’praying for that bit of dirt.

  34. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 6:03 am #

    Do you have a suggestion to go along with that, or are you just venting?

    charo: And its worked so well for this issue. Statesmen can’t ignore unintelligible propositions brought forth in debate. Police/federal authorities can’t ignore legitimate threats, but most of us can just ignore the ridiculous.

  35. avatar
    Lupin February 26, 2012 at 6:05 am #

    @charo:

    All things considered, it is better and mire enlightened to mock the birthers than lock them all up in jail or a loony bin, depending where they belong.

    Regarding your religion (presumably Christian?) — while I respect the teaching of Christ which I try to follow in my daily life, early in said life, I became tired of apologizing for the evils of organized churches, ranging from the inquisition to the pope’s turning a blind eye to the plight of the Jews in WWII, to the sex scandals, etc, etc. (Not mentioning it interference in political campaigns, as venial sin.)

    To quip, one cannot choose one’s family, but one can certainly choose one’s church.

    Obviously I can’t throw all those ministers and priests and bishops etc in jail, but I’m content with mocking them ( la Monty Python or Saturday Night live) whenever I can.

  36. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 6:32 am #

    I already did give you my answer on that. You either simply don’t like it or failed to grasp it:

    Kenneth Olsen: In terms of the Larry Sinclair, you completely miss the whole point about bringing up the failed lie detector tests – that he has a record of being someone who is not credible at all.

    In other words, pointing out the failed lie detector tests was simply trying to be “brief” in my response back to you to convey that his record lacks credibility. I do agree that lie detector tests are not perfect and are subject to criticism. That doesn’t mean the lie detector tests were wrong. He did take and fail them. You can chose to believe that those results don’t mean anything, but I consider them to simply reinforce the lengthy pattern of deception that is found throughout his life. He’s got quite a long rap sheet and history of dubious claims and criminal deception. In my view, he’s pathological.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html

    Kenneth Olsen: Did you ever answer my question about why a deep thinker and scientist such as yourself would rely on an unscientific and inadmissible lie-detector test to impeach Larry Sinclair’s testimony?
    Have deep thinkers and scientists found that the length of a blog post comment is inversely proportional to its content?

  37. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 6:33 am #

    G: But unless you can openly and unequivicably tell me that there is ZERO truth to what I just said, then you are just trying to cover and dodge

    There is zero truth. I stopped beating my husband yesterday. My religion was mocked previously.

  38. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 6:36 am #

    Hi Charo,

    I read your comment and I take what you’ve said seriously. Like you, I think there’s always a risk of taking cruel delight in the failures and foolishness of the opposition. Likewise, ridicule, and comedy in general, can be a form of subversion and aggression. This is especially true in dictatorial regimes, where comedy is the only safe way to even modestly criticize the government. Interestingly, literary and drama critics have also claimed that comedy has an important moral dimension. The argument goes that by using ridicule to expose foibles and excesses, comedy can improve society by mocking its faults into oblivion.

    Regarding the use of “salacious” to describe the thrill of waiting for news of Orly’s failures; well, in all honesty, that sounds like something I’d say, though I don’t remember writing it! In defense of whoever used it, people have been known to use language inappropriately, sometimes for comic effect and sometimes because they didn’t know they were misusing it. For example, in your post above, the correct term is “with bated breath” rather than “with baited breath.” Baited breath? Why that sounds almost . . . salacious!

    BTW, as a kid I used to wait with bated breath to see, someone who, at the time, was one of television’s most salacious figures, the Latin temptress, Charo. Speaking of Charo, here’s a review of one of her performances from 2002:

    “Finally she hit the stage and launched into a ridiculous latin-pop number, the chorus of which went “todo, todo, ole!” She then asked the crowd, ‘Do you like my dress?’ and the crowd went nuts; I don’t know why, it was a huge pink-and-white gaudy looking thing. But she replied ‘Well, I don’t!,’ and with ‘don’t’ she ripped it off (velcro cutaway, always a classic) to reveal something even more hideous – a skintight silver bodysuit with sequins and hip flare. The crowd went nuts, and if you want validation for just how weird this world is, think of a crowd going nuts for a 65-year old woman in skintight sequins and a terrible tit job.

    “She sang another latin-pop song, the chorus of which was equally inane. I think it went ‘Me gusto Charo, me gusto Charo.’ Then came the long, pathetic, and absolutely inimitable ‘boob monologue,’ which I now kick myself for not making a bootleg recording of. ‘I have to exercise every morning or my maracas will sink to the floor!’ was one of the only zingers I remember. The phrase “cuchi cuchi” found its way into the monologue, and the crowd went nuts. Then she revved up her dust-covered hit song, ‘Cuchi Cuchi,’ and get this – she went into the crowd and started dancing with members of the audience!”

    http://www.speakeasy.org/~kabrams/8-12-02.htm

    A rather salacious display, don’t you think?

  39. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 6:41 am #

    G: But I do think whenever you have other frustrations in life, your gut dislike for Obama and whomever else you reflexively blame the ills on the world for, simply become convenient “punching bag” crutches for you to direct and deflect your upset feelings.

    I don’t have the energy to be upset. Yesterday was the first day off I’ve had in weeks. I am employed full time working one on one with a disabled girl, I home school, and I am taking a class to get additional certification. My kids have sports. None of this is frustrating; it’s simply exhausting. Yet, I could not sleep because I had coffee yesterday so I checked in here. IMO, the atmosphere is escalating. Step away for awhile and come back; you may get a different perspective. This site is probably not good for me.

  40. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 6:44 am #

    Arthur: “with bated breath” rather than “with baited breath.”

    Thank you! I was too lazy to check. As for the real “Charo” I have had that discussion before. I picked charo because it is kind of a combination of my name and my daughter’s which happens to morph into charo. I appreciate your comment about ridicule. And it wasn’t you who used salacious.

  41. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 6:45 am #

    charo: I scrutinize small details; that is the way I am. I get disgusted when I see my religion mocked; that is the way I am.

    That’s a fair and accurate description of what I’ve observed reading your posts. I won’t fault you for that; likewise, I won’t fault someone for getting disgusted by birthers who mock the Constitution, the President, and courts,. If it’s fair for a religious person to push back against idiotic remarks, it’s fair for a political person to push back, too.

  42. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    charo: I picked charo because it is kind of a combination of my name and my daughter’s which happens to morph into charo.

    Thanks for the correction–it seemed like an incongruous choice.

  43. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 6:49 am #

    Arthur: That’s a fair and accurate description of what I’ve observed reading your posts. I won’t fault you for that; likewise, I won’t fault someone for getting disgusted by birthers who mock the Constitution, the President, and courts,. If it’s fair for a religious person to push back againstidiotic remarks, it’s fair for a political person to push back, too.

    My comments were not directed at any particular person (and even includes some other sites). I didn’t even identify the salacious person because the identity was not important. I understand the push back, but I do see similarities between the behavior of hate groups and some “anti-birther” behavior. But, I am not a licensed psychologist.

  44. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    When you put it that way, I do see your point.

    So, I’ll willingly retract that speculative accusation, if you can simply be honest and openly tell me what ALL is driving you on this stuff.

    Because in fairness, there is more than just an academic interest in the definition of NBC that motivates you here. Most of Birtherism didn’t move the goalposts to the “2 citizen parent” arguements until after the LFBC came out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you originally here posting doubts about his COLB?

    You’ve been “sympathetic” and posting on Birtherism since before the LFBC happened. So, your “doubts”, etc. have always gone beyond that.

    So I don’t want to play guessing games and you don’t like me speculatively “judging” you. So why don’t you just tell us what led you to follow and keeps you sympathizing with Birtherism?

    In terms of the religion issue, if you can’t specifically point out where this happened, I have no idea what you are talking about. If it is some past grudge with someone else, I don’t see the relevance, unless you can provide the context. Without that, it frankly just comes across like you are making excuses.

    charo: There is zero truth. I stopped beating my husband yesterday. My religion was mocked previously.

  45. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    charo: But, I am not a licensed psychologist.

    Me neither, that’s why I practice it.

  46. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    A fair point. For the record, I was happy to hear from you again on here, just sorry that it seemed to start of so edgy and devolve from there. I’m glad you are busy working.

    The atmosphere is a bit more heated at the moment, simply because the Birthers have had quite an active time as of late and are quite raw from not just the increased accumulation of losses, but also that several of them were preceded by over-hyped expectations and followed by quite a severe loss.

    That also always leads to a “lower quality” of trolls that pop up over here to whine… which tends to more quickly wear thin the patience and tolerance of the rest of us as a result….

    So yes, you are quite correct that it has been a heightened atmosphere as of late. Then this article gets posted and that happens to be the one you come across when you return here… LOL! Yeah, talk about bad timing…

    I think I’m going to take your advice and step away from here for several hours. I got up real early this morning intending to tackle other things…so I’ll get back to focusing on that for awhile…

    charo: IMO, the atmosphere is escalating. Step away for awhile and come back; you may get a different perspective.

  47. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 8:19 am #

    G: . So why don’t you just tell us what led you to follow and keeps you sympathizing with Birtherism?

    I don’t remember. I was following America’s Right first I believe. I don’t know how I came across that site. I remember one of my initial thoughts was that Obama Sr’s name was not on the certificate. I heard and read Michelle Obama stating that Obama’s mother was very young and very single when she had him. I thought that was good grounds to doubt the birth certificate. I explained that Obama’s father’s name was spelled differently on a published paper (as Barak). There was other evidence that suggested he had never really lived with Stanley Ann. There was the weirdness (IMO) of how the release of the initial release of the COLB was handled. We are delving into the past here, but you asked. There were other points, but I think you get the idea. As for two parent theory, I never thought about it until I read about the issue, probably from Leo’s blog. I don’t remember being taught anything about the parentage of Presidents one way or the other. When I went to law school, that was never discussed at all. The argument was interesting to me because I could see how the population of our country would make that issue relevant. This is just a very short synopsis.

    I will give you a current example of my attention to small details. I have heard Dd. C mention several times that he believes President Obama was given a new social security number because his number was so widely publicized. I went to the government website to see what the rules are concerning the granting of a new number. I wrote a comment yesterday about that, but I can’t find the thread. It got lost in the shuffle. I am not going to rewrite the whole comment but in essence, to get a new number, you have to show that someone has been misusing it. I said that I don’t believe that has happened in Obama’s case because wouldn’t we have heard about it like we did with the security breaches concerning the passport and student loan prying?

    Now, is that looking for dirt? I went to see what the rules state. You wouldn’t have. Then I spent time seeing what the law is concerning redaction because all of our numbers are out there. Interestingly, the little research I did shows that states are attempting to redact, but it is difficult and funding can be a problem. I also mention that I previously found a website that sells products with Obama’s known social security number. I wondered at the legality of that (it was a site that would sell any product on demand, not just Obama stuff).

    So, that is how my mind works. It started with Dr. C stating that Obama was likely assigned a new number. I went to find out if that would be possible under the law.

    I am not going to change in that regard. I don’t believe I will comment here any more about the whole issue. Private research just for me on anything Obama and where that leads.

  48. avatar
    Zachary Bravos February 26, 2012 at 8:19 am #

    Sorry but I must defend the real Charo. Yes, she is over the top, maybe even salacious at times, but at the core she is very talented. She plays the guitar with passion and skill. Here is a clip of her playing Recuerdos de la Alhambra. I have struggled to play this piece for 30 years:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXxxbAAmS1M

    Zack

  49. avatar
    Zachary Bravos February 26, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    My father in law is a birther. He also believes that President Obama is a Muslim. He is 85 years old and fought in World War II. He sends me “Obama is a Muslim” stuff almost everyday and I respond to him showing him facts and links to articles that debunk his posts. It does no good. I think that he simply cannot accept how much the world has changed. He desperately wants the world to be as he remembered it when he was young, when no one with a Muslim name and even vaguely “foreign” would have a chance to be president. I’m going to see him in about an hour. We will go walk at the health club. I will ask him what he thought about the link I sent to him at fogbow showing all the people who remember the young Barack Obama, he will smile and shake his head and tell me how you cannot believe everything on the internet, we will talk some more, he will tell me about President Roosevelt, about how Obama has a secret plan to destroy the United States, I will tell him that there is no reason to believe that, he will shake his head knowingly at my ignorance. The world has left him behind and he wants his world back. I love him very much.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    So you didn’t see that Orly Taitz reported public records with 39 different social-security numbers for Obama? That happened when Obama became a public figure BEFORE his SSN became public. That can only be indicative of people putting his name on credit applications. I see no reason to doubt that the same thing happened with his real social security number once that became known.

    Putting Obama’s name on a credit application or on some high-school kid’s “fake ID” is a small thing; It is not newsworthy like a breach in a government system. You would never see it in the newspaper because no public source is going to disclose it. It’s just some high-school kid being cute. The SSA will issue a new number if someone is using yours and you can’t resolve the problem. And frankly, the SSA is going to interpret its rules favorably for the US President. Right.

    Finally SSA writes:

    “If you receive a new Social Security number, you will not be able use the old number anymore. ” This fits perfectly the failure of the old number to E-Verify.

    You string little anomalies together, assign questionable significance to each one and then once put together think that it’s a pile of evidence. However, your story fails to take into account the wildly implausible nature of what you are suggesting and the dozens of objections that have been made as to why it could never have happened — the greatest being the fact (and I have experienced this myself) that you can’t file your income taxes unless your SSN, name and date of birth match the government system.

    For some years, I did my father’s taxes and I kept getting errors back that his SSN didn’t match. What I found out was that his birth date in the SSA system was wrong and since the SSN and birth date didn’t match, the IRS computers kicked it out.

    charo: I am not going to rewrite the whole comment but in essence, to get a new number, you have to show that someone has been misusing it. I said that I don’t believe that has happened in Obama’s case because wouldn’t we have heard about it like we did with the security breaches concerning the passport and student loan prying?

  51. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Zachary Bravos: Sorry but I must defend the real Charo. Yes, she is over the top, maybe even salacious at times, but at the core she is very talented. She plays the guitar with passion and skill. Here is a clip of her playing Recuerdos de la Alhambra. I have struggled to play this piece for 30 years:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXxxbAAmS1MZack

    Very impressdive, Zach–thanks for the link! As a struggling guitar player, I’m floored by her skills.

  52. avatar
    Zachary Bravos February 26, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    Also, Charo has been named flamenco guitar player of the year several times.

  53. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You string little anomalies together, assign questionable significance to each one and then once put together think that it’s a pile of evidence.

    I did not do that. I left open the fact that we would have heard about it. I was willing to be wrong on the issue. Most of what I wrote was about the past.

  54. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    And I don’t follow Orly in general. I don’t read her complaints; I only see synopses of what transpires.

  55. avatar
    Foggy February 26, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    charo: … to get a new [Social Security] number, you have to show that someone has been misusing it.

    Yes, and Orly Taitz obviously misused it by publishing his SSN repeatedly and in the face of court rules and court orders. She can recite the SSN by memory; so can a lot of birthers. If anyone publishes my SSN on a blog, I’ll go get a new one, too.

  56. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    Foggy: Yes, and Orly Taitz obviously misused it by publishing his SSN repeatedly and in the face of court rules and court orders. She can recite the SSN by memory; so can a lot of birthers. If anyone publishes my SSN on a blog, I’ll go get a new one, too.

    If you read above, there is a website that was selling products with the number.

  57. avatar
    charo February 26, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    I took misuse to mean using it to get credit, stealing money,… .

  58. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 26, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    charo: I am not going to rewrite the whole comment but in essence, to get a new number, you have to show that someone has been misusing it. I said that I don’t believe that has happened in Obama’s case because wouldn’t we have heard about it like we did with the security breaches concerning the passport and student loan prying?

    Er no. “Not having heard of something” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    I mean, the Secret Service probably receives reports of hundreds of threats to Obama and his family, but only rarely is one considered significant enough to receive media attention.

    Maybe Obama ran one of those free credit checks on himself and saw someone trying to use his number. Or maybe he subscribed to one of those services that notifies him of any changes to his credit report.

    Or maybe the Social Security Administration is going to treat him a little bit differently because he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and his social security number has been blasted all over the internet. Anybody could Google “Obama social security number” and probably find it listed hundreds of times over.

    The information on the SS site is not the same as their regulations governing such things. For example, there is nothing written there about getting a new social security number if you are happen to be a prosecution witness admitted into the federal witness protection program… but those folks definitely get new social security numbers along with all sort of fake identity papers, courtesy of the US Government.

  59. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    To begin with, Larry Sinclair had a 27-year long criminal record (including fraud) and outstanding arrest warrants at the time he suddenly “remembered” his supposed encounter with Obama and made his silly allegations. Also, I would bet that some political opponent of Obama’s actually did investigate Sinclair’s allegations.

    I agree with Zachary Bravos that a big motivation for Birthers is nostalgia. What they hate is the change in their own life.

    Birthers do not see themselves as racists because, like the great majority of people, they are not racist on a personal, one-to-one level. But Birtherism is definitely racist. As a group, as an organization, it’s goal is just to exclude certain people.

  60. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree February 26, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Doc C,

    It seems the comments to your post got a bit derailed. What book are you reading on hate groups, and who is the author? Does the author define what a hate group is, and how does that compare to your own understanding?

  61. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    Expelliarmus: Or maybe the Social Security Administration is going to treat him a little bit differently because he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and his social security number has been blasted all over the internet. Anybody could Google “Obama social security number” and probably find it listed hundreds of times over.

    In fact, it might be that the Social Security Adminiistration routinely removes all Presidents and other top officials from E-Verify and other databases for security reasons. The President is simply not treated the same as everybody else. To pretend he is is really quite silly. When I fly from my local airport, I wait in a line, get asked a bunch of questions, take my shoes off, have all my belongings scanned, can’t bring toothpaste or shampoo, etc. I also have to stop at red lights on the way to the airport. When the President has visited and flown out of our local airport, his motorcade was whisked through every red light, taken through a secluded gate directly onto the runway, where the limo rolled directly onto Air Force One and then straight into the air. It might not be fair, but he simply isn’t treated the same as you and I.

    So before Orly and charo go around talking about things they don’t know about, prove to me that Social Security doesn’t treat the President differently than o\thers as TSA, FAA and 100 other government agencies do. Show me a search of Bush’s SSN from his time as President. Or Clinton’s. Go ahead…

  62. avatar
    Thrifty February 26, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    I’d say no. While they’ve certainly got plenty of hate, and are a group, hate groups tend to target other groups with their hatred. Birthers laser focus it all on Barack Obama.

  63. avatar
    Paper February 26, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Because, for one, it is merely a bad lie, not a conspiracy, and certainly not a meaningful aspect of one.

    But what I’m wondering is why Dr. C. hasn’t done an article on Kenneth Olsen. If it is true that Kenneth Olsen runs counter-intelligence for the NWO, and takes orders directly from Rockefeller, such as when Olsen took orders directly to Barack and Hillary at their secret meeting dividing up the government before the election, if all that is true, why hasn’t Dr. C. done at least one article on Kenneth Olsen?

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Larry Sinclair, an openly gay man, claims he took illegals drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in 1999.

    If true, aren’t there all kinds of public policy implications to this story given the president’s role in the drug war and in defining the federal government’s evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives?

    If not true, how is this not a conspiracy theory worthy of scrutiny?

    Is extreme partisan support and love for Obama from Dr. Con and his ilk the real reason why the most scientifically significant and compelling conspiracy theories go unexamined here?

  64. avatar
    Bill DuBerger February 26, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    As a bi-partisan anti-conspiracist, the subject of motivation always fascinates me.

    First, one must acknowledge the difference between racial hatred and political hatred. In politics, there are those on both the right and left who hate the opposing ideology with a severe passion. They see their political opposition as an enemy that must be destroyed.

    I’ve read too many birthers discussing non-birther topics to ignore the ones who hate Obama, but would love to have Alan West on the presidential ticket. Or Consider Clarence Thomas to be one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices. Or Thomas Sowell as one of their favorite modern political philosophers.

    As I alluded to on the thread about “the New Hate” book Doc posted, there was a time during the Bush years when Democratic Underground was dominated by the LIHOPers and MIHOPers…and if you didn’t self-identify in one or the other, you were viewed with suspicion. These were truthers who believed Bush either made 9/11 happen on purpose, or at a minimum, let it happen on purpose. The hatred for Bush was white hot.

    Let’s not forget the hatred for Clinton…hardly race based…and he was impeached.

    I won’t deny racism is a factor for some, but to categorize all birthers as racially motivated is intellectually lazy.

  65. avatar
    RuhRoh February 26, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    The birthers aren’t yet sufficiently organized be called a hate group. A hate group has a distinct focus of their hate which is generally an inherent characteristic of the group targeted.

    However, there’s little consensus amongst Birthers as to why they hate the President, and this impedes their ability to organize effectively. There are nearly as many reasons for their hate as there are Birthers: race, religion, political party, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-mescgenation, anti-immigration, etc. , etc. If there is little agreement on WHAT is hated, organization becomes problematic.

    The lack of organization also means that Birtherism has become a “big tent”, welcoming members of actual hate groups of many stripes. There is a great deal of intersection between hate groups being watched by SPLC, ADL and the FBI and the Birthers.

    The FBI talks about 7 stages of hate groups and the Birthers seem to be stuck at Stage 1-defining themselves. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2003-pdfs/mar03leb.pdf/at_download/file

    I agree with Doc that they are nearly all conspiracy theorists. Most of them believe several conspiracy theories. And I agree with Foggy and others that there is a whole lot of hate in all of them. But their inability to define the hate, and hence to organize, would keep them from being a true hate group at this point IMO.

  66. avatar
    Foggy February 26, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Bill DuBerger: I won’t deny racism is a factor for some, but to categorize all birthers as racially motivated is intellectually lazy.

    One time, when Politijab was still active, a leader of the birther movement (Ed Hale) joined our chat room. Not knowing that the board owner could record the chat, he confidentially assured us that 90% of the birthers were just racists who couldn’t stand the thought of a black president. Anecdotal evidence, no more. But he was a leader of the movement for many months…

  67. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    “most scientifically significant and compelling conspiracy theories go unexamined here”
    LOL, do you know how foolish your views are?

  68. avatar
    Bill DuBerger February 26, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Foggy: One time, when Politijab was still active, a leader of the birther movement (Ed Hale) joined our chat room. Not knowing that the board owner could record the chat, he confidentially assured us that 90% of the birthers were just racists who couldn’t stand the thought of a black president.

    I am fairly confident in suggesting you wouldn’t cite Ed Hale as a credible source for much of anything. I wouldn’t for this either.

  69. avatar
    Paper February 26, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    I know some Birthers very closely. I wouldn’t say they themselves are a hate group, but it takes a certain level of emotion, hatred, fear, anger, to be a committed birther in the face of reality. That is my personal experience with those I know. One such person is also connected to militia groups, but it’s not about race, at least not for him. He seethes about those who he feels conspire against America, including the Rockefellers. So he hates some WASPs, too. He used to rail about the Clintons and murder, then at first liked George W. Bush, but then turned on him as much as any of them.

    I know others, unfortunately, with different favors and intensities of belief. Though I can see racism lurking in the mix, I’ve been thinking lately that bigotry, soft and hard, may be a better word these days for what I more prevalently see.

  70. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 26, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial behavior can be proven to be true?

    If that’s possible, is it then possible that the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?

  71. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    “The birthers aren’t yet sufficiently organized be called a hate group.”
    .
    Very good observation, this would explain their poor crowd gathering abilities and the fail of the Birther Summit. Their hate is not rational which explains their problems with their own families. They seem to spout silliness without a care (i.e. Kenneth Olsen)

  72. avatar
    Paper February 26, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Conspiracies exist. There actually are conspiracies. But is there “one ring to rule them all”? But nonetheless the President was born in America, no matter how you look at it.

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial behavior can be proven to be true?

    If that’s possible, is it then possible that the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?

  73. avatar
    donna February 26, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    the birthers represent the LAST STRAW EFFECT

    while the chatter is that we are a center-right nation, we are center-LEFT on social issues

    robert putnam’s book “american grace” is a study which concludes, inter alia, that the youth are leaving the church in droves due to conservative politics

    80% of evangelical teens are having sex

    a recent study of “Demographic Trends in the Republican Party” concludes :

    “The Republican Party is not a party of the young.”

    “Membership is already shrinking and the trend suggested in these polls is one which would leave the Republican party as a much smaller minority party in less than a generation.”

    “for the younger generation of Republicans social issues are an absolute non-priority, or at best issues of convenience which they don’t prioritize significantly.”

    “at the very least it means that prioritizing social issues is a big mistake in the long term as it turns away younger voters and panders to a vocal minority which won’t be around for long.”

    pat buchanan’s (racist) book on the dying “white america”

    whites are now the MINORITY in texas

    latinos will change elections from now into the future

    and the LAST STRAW …… a skinny black guy, with a strange (seemingly muslim) name and background, “questionable” religion, and “pals” is now president which made way for the formation of the birthers when the UNDERLYING REASONS are ALL OF THE ABOVE

    and ALL OF THE ABOVE gave birth to people like santorum

  74. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    Kenneth Olsen: If that’s possible, is it then possible that the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?

    Wait, this site is opposed to the meaning of symbols? Wow, the conspiracy is deeper than I thunk it was.

  75. avatar
    Lupin February 26, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    Kenneth Olsen: the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?

    And you haven’t even exposed their anti-platonician agenda!

  76. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen: the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk

    I’m sorry, but Dr C and the regulars are well versed in semantics.

  77. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    Lupin: And you haven’t even exposed their anti-platonician agenda!

    And don’t forget the anti-disestablishmentarianists–they’re all over the place. In fact, this site is so pro Church of England it’s like an episode from “The Vicar of Dibley”!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gT8b5kM_Pw&feature=related

  78. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 26, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Well, I/ve been called a few things in my time, from Sans Culotte and Polish Communist to White Guardist, but anti-semantic is a new one.

    Notwithstanding I wrote a thesis on semiotics. But I like anti-semantic. Monty Python judges would split it up as “ant is a man tick”, but they didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.

    As for your question, not that you really expected tthe Spanish Inquisition, I mean an answer, but when something that is claimed to be a CT turns out to be true, those who disbelieve it, become the conspracy theorists.

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial behavior can be proven to be true?

    If that’s possible, is it then possible that the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?

  79. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    “If that’s possible, is it then possible that the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?”
    .
    What a nasty thing to say for Kenneth Olsen, the guy who sells Vaseline to Larry Sinclair. Some advise for Kenneth Olsen is for him to cease proving his ignorance. He has cinched his position as a birther, he makes stuff up.

  80. avatar
    Bill DuBerger February 26, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    Can a verbivore be anti-semantic? In choiring mines want two no.

  81. avatar
    Greenfinches February 26, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial behavior can be proven to be true?

    If that’s possible, is it then possible that the name of this site exposes the anti-semantic closed-mindedness of Dr. Con and his ilk?

    anti-semantic? Do pleaase explain, I wonder if this is attractive….!

  82. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Well, I/ve been called a few things in my time, from Sans Culotte and Polish Communist to White Guardist, but anti-semantic is a new one.

    Sans Culotte! Ye Gods, they’re the worst Culottes of the bunch. I hope you’ve managed to get a descent pair of Sansabelts.

  83. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    Apparently Sinclair dumped Kenneth Olsen for Obama, and Olsen can’t get over it, his hate of Obama is a jealous rage over Sinclar preferring Obama over him. It is possibly because Olsen bought the generic brand of Vaseline to save money, it did not work as good, you blew it Kenneth! (or is that blow it)

  84. avatar
    RuhRoh February 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Is there some reason that Kenneth Olsen is allowed to disrupt and derail every thread on which he posts? I was under the impression that ignoring trolls was the best course. Apparently I stand alone there.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    I think charo is a good example of why one can’t characterize the birthers as a hate group, even it is a majority hate group. The way charo puts information together is characteristic of conspiracy-theory-style information processing, not hate thinking. However, that said, it may be that conspiracy-style doesn’t characterize the birthers either. Some of it could be hate without the paranoid style.

    charo: In the eyes of the some, ridicule can be justified. There are those who legitimately discuss the issues and take them apart objectively. They are few

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    No. Junk science would be if lie detectors predicted lies as well as tossing a coin. In fact they do better than that. That said, it is possible to fool a lie detector and so their results are not conclusive. In some circumstances lie detector results are admissible in court. For details see:

    http://www.truthorlie.com/admissible.html

    Kenneth Olsen: Haven’t lie detector tests been found to be junk science that is not admitted in a court of law?

  87. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: I/ve been called a few things in my time, from Sans Culotte and Polish Communist to White Guardist, but anti-semantic is a new one.

    On one thread here, J. Edward Tremlett called me “a beach blanket bolshevik.”

    Aside from the alliteration, I did spend a lot of time on the beach in Eilat, a bourgeois pastime.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    In one sense your cartoon is on target because I was one of those folks willing to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt until something was proven (which it eventually was).

    Of course the difference here is that Monica Lewinsky was not out trying to make money hawking a book.

    Kenneth Olsen: Pssst! Did you hear that there’s an image out there of Dr. Con having a very dark and very unacceptable thought?! It’s not a pdf, but authorities are vouching for its authenticity:

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    And that is the crux of the mental processing error of conspiracy-minded individuals. They make connections between random events but lack the discrimination to discard meaningless ones.

    US Citizen: And isn’t it a bit far-fetched to consider that Obama successfully threatened, without exposure, somewhere around 100 or more judges?
    Think about it. What if a judge said no or exposed him?
    Seen any unexplained deaths of judges lately?

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

    Ezekiel 18:23 – The Bible

    charo: I don’t understand the euphoria that comes with every birther foible.

  91. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    RuhRoh: I was under the impression that ignoring trolls was the best course. Apparently I stand alone there.

    I agree with you, but sometimes I cannot stop myself from the refudiation of drivel. At least, Sarah Palin thinks so. I’ll also check with Seamus, as soon as he is taken off the roof:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/birther-summit-cancelled-glory-hound-blamed/#comment-158578

  92. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 26, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen: If not true, how is this not a conspiracy theory worthy of scrutiny?

    How would you suggest one go about proving it isn’t true?

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Sorry, where did I say that I was relying on a lie detector test? I didn’t even know Sinclair had taken a lie detector test. In fact I still don’t. [Edited to say: since writing that sentence I read the Politico article and now I have heard about the lie detector test.]

    When I first read: “A torrent of bile for every simple question.”?” I thought it was: “A torrent of bible for every simple question.”? in reference to my comment:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/are-birthers-a-hate-group/#comment-158741

    I think that there is more Bible than bile in what I right, although I could be mistaken.

    You do raise one valid point though. When this blog started it might have been true that it was a “one shop destination” for fringe views about Obama, but the topic has grown beyond one person’s ability to adequately cover. There are literally millions of you, and just one of me.

    Kenneth Olsen: Hey letter man, Should the subtitle of Dr. Con’s blog be “A torrent of bile for every simple question.”?

    Did you ever answer my question about why a deep thinker and scientist such as yourself would rely on an unscientific and inadmissible lie-detector test to impeach Larry Sinclair’s testimony?

  94. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 26, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen: Did you ever answer my question about why a deep thinker and scientist such as yourself would rely on an unscientific and inadmissible lie-detector test to impeach Larry Sinclair’s testimony?

    A question for you, sir: Exactly what you know, really know, that leads you to believe Larry Sinclair is telling the truth?

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    Thanks. Somehow Sinclair reminds me of someone else…

    In any case I bookmarked the article in case someone else comes in hawking Sinclair goods.

    G: He’s got quite a long rap sheet and history of dubious claims and criminal deception. In my view, he’s pathological.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    I daresay it isn’t. This is why I tend to avoid birther sites most of the time.

    charo: I don’t have the energy to be upset.Yesterday was the first day off I’ve had in weeks…This site is probably not good for me.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    And state-issued fake birth certificates too 😉

    Expelliarmus: if you are happen to be a prosecution witness admitted into the federal witness protection program… but those folks definitely get new social security numbers along with all sort of fake identity papers, courtesy of the US Government.

  98. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm: I see it happening like with the Sovereign Citizens. Your first guys to fight income taxes were probably as close to being anarchists as you can get and actively hated the government and owed tons of taxes. But as a result of their activities, a lot of books and written materials and DIY No-Tax kits were put into circulation and some people were stupid and/or delusional enough to buy into it.

    Squeeky, for more information on the development of the current Sovereign Citizen Movement, I recommend checking out the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). They both have done some nice articles on the SC origin in the Posse Comitatus movement of the 1970s and 80s and its morphing into various militia movements and the current Sov Cit wave. Though the growing tax protest movement was a spark, the real growth happened when the leaders took advantage of the farm crisis that was causing many hard working farmers in the Midwest to lose their family farm.

    The Posse was generally a very racist group with most subscribing to some flavor of Christian Identity, but, since its core belief was broader, some Sov Cits have not incorporated the racist part. Ironically, there are even some black Sovereign Citizen adherents (often you will see Moorish in their name, and it is possible that some have included racism in their beliefs). Though the grifters of the birthers are likely not SC adherents, I suspect some are followers as seen in the antics of Fitzpatrick, Huff and Swenson (I should mention, Huff is a Christian Identity follower).

    In my current opinion (is that IMCO?), I believe the Sovereign Citizens to be the truly dangerous group as compared to the various KKK, Skinhead and neo-Nazi groups. This is the ideology that has spawned Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Gordon Kahl, the Montana Freeman and Jerry and Joseph Kane. It is my hope that the continued losses by the birthers does not push more of them to embrace the Sovereign Citizen ideology.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/book-review-the-new-hate/

    Unfortunately, reading back over that book review, I really didn’t focus on the “hate” angle and that was because I wasn’t far enough into the book, which I still haven’t finished.

    I don’t have a well-formed opinion on what hate group is beyond saying that a hate group is one defined by its hatred of some individual or group. That’s why I read books, to gain ideas to try out.

    Lawyerwitharealdegree: It seems the comments to your post got a bit derailed. What book are you reading on hate groups, and who is the author? Does the author define what a hate group is, and how does that compare to your own understanding?

  100. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    I’m sorry, who exactly is Kenneth Olson and why should I do an article on him?

    Paper: But what I’m wondering is why Dr. C. hasn’t done an article on Kenneth Olsen

  101. avatar
    donna February 26, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    why would ANYONE find sinclair “credible”?

    Larry Sinclair is wanted in Colorado

    Public records and court filings reveal that he has a 27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit. The record includes forgery charges in two states, one of which drew Sinclair a 16-year jail sentence. The Pueblo County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office also has an outstanding warrant for Sinclair’s arrest for forging an acquaintance’s signature and stealing her tax refunds.

    Colorado records list him with 13 aliases

    In prison, according to state records filed in federal court, Sinclair was disciplined 97 times for infractions including assault, threats, drug possession, intimidation, and verbal abuse, most recently in 1996.

    The Pueblo County Sheriff’s website, which pictures Sinclair under the word “Wanted,” cites felony theft and forgery charges.

    Sinclair’s notoriety, and his scheduled press conference, however, has drawn the interest of the Colorado authorities.

    “We’ve notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they will investigate,” Hall said.

    This February, the website Whitehouse.com reportedly offered Sinclair $100,000 if he could pass a polygraph test verifying his claims. He took them up on it, and the site said in a press release that the polygraph organizers said his results “indicated deception.” Sinclair then suggested the polygraph’s sponsors had been bribed to skew the results against him, an allegation his lawyer, Sibley, said he would expand on at his press conference.

    Sibley is best known as the lawyer for the “D.C. Madam,” the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Earlier this year, the Florida Bar Association suspended Sibley’s license to practice law, in part for being a “vexatious litigant,” a suspension that applies in Washington, D.C., as well.

    Sinclair’s brushes with the government long predate his recent interest in Senator Obama. The details of his criminal record surfaced after he filed a defamation suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against three anonymous online critics with names like TubeSockTedD who had written, among other claims, that he was living in a mental institution at the time he allegedly met Obama.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    I think you have hit on an important conceptual point. One couldn’t characterize the Birthers as a “hate group” without first characterizing them as a “group” and that might not be possible yet.

    RuhRoh: The birthers aren’t yet sufficiently organized be called a hate group. A hate group has a distinct focus of their hate which is generally an inherent characteristic of the group targeted.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Yes, it is possible. I seem to recall that the Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories give examples.

    However, birther conspiracy theories (and this is what I study, not all possible crank views) have been exposed as false. It’s not a matter of “unproven speculation” but of “disproven speculation.” At some point normal people look at the evidence and decide.

    I have no semantic problems with the blog’s title. If one of these theories had any reasonable backing, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory, and it wouldn’t be a subject for the blog.

    Kenneth Olsen: Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial behavior can be proven to be true?

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Bless their hearts.

    donna: 80% of evangelical teens are having sex

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    A word to the wise is sufficient.

    RuhRoh:
    Is there some reason that Kenneth Olsen is allowed to disrupt and derail every thread on which he posts?I was under the impression that ignoring trolls was the best course. Apparently I stand alone there.

  106. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    Charo:

    Thank you for saying nice things about me. Just one correction. Before I began ridiculing the two-citizen parent birthers in earnest, I was busy ridiculing Obama and the Obots. Sooo, there was not any real big change in my behavior, just in the targets I was aiming at.

    I still don’t ridicule the Birth Certificate Birthers because I can not in good conscience condemn someone for being too suspicious of what they are told by the powers that be. There are just too many lies we are all fed daily for me to feel comfortable teasing these people. Just like with the 9-11 Truthers, I don’t personally believe what they believe, but I am not going to spend my time trying to convince them otherwise. In these times, it is safer and smarter to be un-warrantedly suspicious, than to be un-warrantedly un-suspicious.

    That being said, I do think a lot of the Birth Certificate stuff has left the realm of reasonable suspicion and has become paranoia. However, a little paranoia is a good thing in 21st Century America. IMHO. (which means “in my human opinion.”)

    As far as ridiculing the two citizen parent Birthers, I see that as a good thing, and a blow in defense of Reason as opposed to Imaginary Law, and outright deception. There is a danger in ridicule which I try to be aware of. One of the most under-rated and under-read books ever written is Das Narrenschiff (1494) by Sebastian Brant. Or, The Ship of Fools, in English. I have a Dover Edition, translated by Edwin Zeydel. In Chapter 40, Taking Offense at Fools, it reads in part:

    Fools daily one may see who fall
    Yet ridicule them one and all
    And, scorning them, make pretense wise
    But earn a Fool’s Cap – what a prize!

    One fool, another fool will goad,
    Both traveling the selfsame road,
    But rocks that cause one fool to stumble
    Will also make the other tumble.

    One crab will scold the other ’cause
    He’s walking backward on his claws
    Yet none goes forward – in reverse
    They follow th’ others, which is worse.

    Sooo, sometimes I stop to try to make sure which way I am sidling. Sometimes, I am not sure.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  107. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    If we couldn’t come up with a straightforward definition of birthers, you might be right. Unfortunately for you, that’s easy to do:

    birther (aka “birfer”, “resident of biferstan”, “birfoon”)– n. A person who (lacking any credible evidence whatsoever and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) believes that President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for his office.

    No one forced the birthers to be bigots or to tolerate (or spew) racism or to endlessly repeat (or make up) lies and while ignorance and stupidity are not shameful, willful ignorance and the glorification of stupidity are.

    Kenneth Olsen: If “Birthers” is a group that includes people with widely divergent views on Obama’s origins, veracity, and political qualifications, does the term really mean anything or simply serve as a catch-all phrase for you deep thinkers and scientists to vilify others for your own self-aggrandizement?

  108. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Arthur: And don’t forget the anti-disestablishmentarianists–they’re all over the place. In fact, this site is so pro Church of England it’s like an episode from “The Vicar of Dibley”!

    Stupid Anglicans… oh wait.. oops… I think I will go and sit in the corner on my three-legged stool.

  109. avatar
    donna February 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #

    Bless their hearts.

    BEST giggle of the day doc c

    KUDOS

  110. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial behavior can be proven to be true?

    If I could amend that to, “Is it possible that a theory that includes conspiratorial thinking be proven true” I would agree. For example, during WWII, members of the United States government were often skeptical of reports coming from Europe of Nazi atrocities against Jews. Some of this skepticism was due to the fact that during WWI, fictional accounts of brutality against non-combatants were used by both sides to inflame public opinion against the enemy. Likewise, there were those in the State Department who viewed reports of genocide as anti-German propaganda hatched from the conspiratorial thinking of Jews who were ready to pin any crime on the Nazis, no matter how farfetched. Of course, in this case, the reports were not far-fetched, and the so-called conspiratorial thinking was true.

  111. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    I find it interesting that you clipped Foggy’s comment right before he said that it was “anecdotal evidence”…

    Bill DuBerger: Foggy: One time, when Politijab was still active, a leader of the birther movement (Ed Hale) joined our chat room. Not knowing that the board owner could record the chat, he confidentially assured us that 90% of the birthers were just racists who couldn’t stand the thought of a black president.

    I am fairly confident in suggesting you wouldn’t cite Ed Hale as a credible source for much of anything. I wouldn’t for this either.

  112. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    If true, aren’t there all kinds of public policy implications to this story given the president’s role in the drug war and in defining the federal government’s evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives?

    I see none. Obama already admitted to having done illegal drugs, good for him. I’d love to vote for a gay, lesbian or transgender chief executive if they show the ‘balls’ to get our country back on track. Under President Obama’s leadership much has changed for the better of our society. Why should I care about rumors of a sexual encounter? Explain that to me.

  113. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    Thrifty:
    I’d say no.While they’ve certainly got plenty of hate, and are a group, hate groups tend to target other groups with their hatred.Birthers laser focus it all on Barack Obama.

    While they indeed focus their hatred on Obama, it’s certainly not a laser focus. The less focused hatred tends to wonder around a bit from all liberals to all non-whites to all non-christians but there are plenty enough rants by birfoons where they fantasize about exterminating any or all of those groups.

  114. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    That reminds me of Santorum ‘arguing’ that children who go to college lose faith. He mentioned a 64% rate of children losing their faith, when in fact, the study shows a remarkable 76% of those NOT going to college exhibiting a decline in religious service attendance. Santorum is an ignorant fool who has no understanding on science, just look at his stance of Intelligent Design, Evolution, Global Warming etc

    The assumption that the religious involvement of young people diminishes when they attend college is of course true: 64 percent of those currently enrolled in a traditional four-year institution have curbed their attendance habits. Yet, 76 percent of those who never enrolled in college report a decline in religious service attendance.

    What I find hilarious is that the Catholics are showing ‘a disturbing trend’

    In 1997, 45 percent of incoming freshmen at Catholic colleges said they support keeping abortion legal, with 55 percent opposed. Four years later, the same students were 57 percent pro-abortion, 43 percent pro-life. Similarly, stu- dents’ support for legalizing homosexual “marriages” increased from 55 percent to 71 percent. Approval of casual sex increased from 30 percent to 49 percent.

    For all three issues, the increase in support among students at Catholic colleges was far more dramatic than increases at other religious colleges. This difference, however, is largely explained by a disturbing trend among Catholic students generally, rather than any particular factors at the in- stitutions involved in the survey. HERI’s analysis shows that Catho- lic students’ support for abortion, homosexual unions, and casual sex increased at roughly the same dramatic rate regardless of whether the students enrolled at a Catholic, nonsectarian, or other religious college.

    Thank God Catholics do not listen too carefully to their Pope… The trend is not related to College as much as to children growing up and separating themselves from the indoctrination of their youth. Blaming college education is just ridiculous. Hence Santorum…

    Please God, let him be the Republican front-runner… After all, is it not clear that most Republican candidates appear to believe that God inspired them to run, which leads to but one conclusion: God is a Democrat.

  115. avatar
    Bill DuBerger February 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I find it interesting that you clipped Foggy’s comment right before he said that it was “anecdotal evidence”…

    Oh good grief…it’s a conspiracy…

    It’s not like the entire quote was scrubbed from the innertoobs….it was 2 comments up from my response. Anyone reading the entire thread would have read Foggy’s “anecdotal evidence” comment before my response.

    Sheesh!

    Ed Hale is a goofball. Anecdotal or not…his opinion is worthless.

  116. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    misha: I’m sorry, but Dr C and the regulars are well versed in semantics.

    Oh, Ken is just indulging his nihilipilificationism.

  117. avatar
    aarrgghh February 26, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think charo is a good example of why one can’t characterize the birthers as a hate group, even it is a majority hate group.

    hmm … the next question, of course, is: “when does a ‘majority hate group’ become a ‘hate group’?”

  118. avatar
    DP February 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    charo: I don’t remember.I was following America’s Right first I believe.I don’t know how I came across that site.I remember one of my initial thoughts was that Obama Sr’s name was not on the certificate.I heard and read Michelle Obama stating that Obama’s mother was very young and very single when she had him.I thought that was good grounds to doubt the birth certificate.I explained that Obama’s father’s name was spelled differently on a published paper (as Barak).There was other evidence that suggested he had never really lived with Stanley Ann.There was the weirdness (IMO) of how the release of the initial release of the COLB was handled.We are delving into the past here, but you asked. There were other points, but I think you get the idea.As for two parent theory, I never thought about it until I read about the issue, probably from Leo’s blog.I don’t remember being taught anything about the parentage of Presidents one way or the other.When I went to law school, that was never discussed at all. The argument was interesting to me because I could see how the population of our country would make that issue relevant.This is just a very short synopsis.

    I will give you a current example of my attention to small details.I have heard Dd. C mention several times that he believes President Obama was given a new social security number because his number was so widely publicized.I went to the government website to see what the rules are concerning the granting of a new number.I wrote a comment yesterday about that, but I can’t find the thread.It got lost in the shuffle.I am not going to rewrite the whole comment but in essence, to get a new number, you have to show that someone has been misusing it.I said that I don’t believe that has happened in Obama’s case because wouldn’t we have heard about it like we did with the security breaches concerning the passport and student loan prying?

    Now, is that looking for dirt?I went to see what the rules state.You wouldn’t have.Then I spent time seeing what the law is concerning redaction because all of our numbers are out there.Interestingly, the little research I did shows that states are attempting to redact, but it is difficult and funding can be a problem.I also mention that I previously found a website that sells products with Obama’s known social security number.I wondered at the legality of that (it was a site that would sell any product on demand, not just Obama stuff).

    So, that is how my mind works.It started with Dr. C stating that Obama was likely assigned anew number.I went to find out if that would be possible under the law.

    I am not going to change in that regard.I don’t believe I will comment here any more about the whole issue.Private research just for me on anything Obama and where that leads.

    Well, I’ve never miocked Christianity, and I’ll try to take your assertion of good intent seriously. I will warn you in advance, however, that as someone whose job inolves painstaking detail, it doesn’t strike me as such.

    1. Obama Sr’s name is on the certificate. Both the COLB and the original copy. To state otherwise is factually wrong.

    2. Obama’s mother was somewhat young when she had him, though not technically single. The collapse of the marriage so soon after the birth of Obama does, however, effectively yield many of the same results.

    I’m at a loss though as to why that makes the birth certificate suspect. The implication of your statement is that the birth certificate for every child born of a young woman, single or about to be left so, is suspect. That seems an extreme position to take that is not warrented by the actual details of how birth certificates are generated and recorded. It smacks of class disdain for those perceived to be somehow lesser. I do not acuse of you of that, but you should be aware that is a conclusion others could draw.

    3. Obama’s father’s name was spelled differently on a published paper.

    I’ll stipulate it’s true for the sake of argument, but that’s a huge “so what?” Life isn’t some Ellery Queen novel where the murder is actually solved by brilliant deduction against some seemingly meaningless detail. Most seemingly meaningless details are, in fact, meaningless. I can serach my own files and find a half-dozen examples of my name being misspelled on documents. My wife’s name was misspelled on our youngest son’s brth certificate, which, by the by, was a surprisingly convoluted pain to get fixed.

    4. There was other evidence that suggested he had never really lived with Stanley Ann.

    I doubt that. But again, so what? It clearly wasn’t a marriage that had long-term prospects. That happens to a number of women. There is no basis for assuming the birth certificates of all associated children are illegitimate. Certainly not with regard to the actual time and place of birth. The only thing one can easily imagine being more susceptibel to error is the name of the father, which is irrelevant for natural born status if Obama was born in Hawaii.

    5. There was the weirdness (IMO) of how the release of the initial release of the COLB was handled.

    I can’t imagine what. COLBs are a standard piece of modern documentation that states give out all the time. The Obama campaign simply posted one assuming, in a sane world, that would be sufficient. I think a lot of the original hysteria came from people who simply don’t know about modern documentation standards and don’t understand what a COLB is. The purported evidence of fraud was always ridiculous and has been debunked more than adequately for anyoen who pays attention to detail.

    6. “I said that I don’t believe that has happened (SS number replacement) in Obama’s case because wouldn’t we have heard about it like we did with the security breaches concerning the passport and student loan prying?”

    Why? It would represent no breach of anything. It would be a routine bureaucratic act, fully legal , fully mundane, and intended to be fully private since the SS adminsitration legally doesn’t want the new SS number trumpeted about in public.

    And it is possble to get a new social security number under the law. That’s an easily verifiable fact.

  119. avatar
    Paper February 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    Oh, I didn’t at all mean you should! I was applying his own rhetorical strategy to him, dmonstraring how ridiculous his questions are. A variation on the old, when did you stop beating your children rhetoric. He likes his ludicrous ifs, thinks he is making some gran point, but it’s just pettiness.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m sorry, who exactly is Kenneth Olson and why should I do an article on him?

  120. avatar
    aarrgghh February 26, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    donna: the birthers represent the LAST STRAW EFFECT

    it is my hope that they represent the last gasp.

  121. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    Getting a new SSN

    Should you get a new Social Security number?

    If you have done all you can to fix the problems resulting from misuse of your Social Security number and someone still is using your number, we may assign you a new number.

    You cannot get a new Social Security number:

    To avoid the consequences of filing for bankruptcy;
    If you intend to avoid the law or your legal responsibility; or
    If your Social Security card is lost or stolen, but there is no evidence that someone is using your number.

    If you decide to apply for a new num-ber, you will need to prove your age, U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status and identity. For more information, ask for Your Social Security Number And Card (Publication Number 05-10002). You also will need to provide evidence that you still are being disadvantaged by the misuse.

    you’re welcome Charo.

  122. avatar
    aarrgghh February 26, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    as noted often above, we are judged by the company we keep. birfers have zero credibility denying hate when their blogs and forums are heavily moderated and allow hate speech to stand. what else is that but explicit approval?

  123. avatar
    donna February 26, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    how can they “deny hate” when taitz and others QUICKLY research the backgrounds of the adjudicators?

    when involved in lawsuits, attorneys research the judges’ previous decisions and appellate review

    other than in birtherstan, i have YET TO SEE attorneys query as to the judge’s religions and other such info

    this from a birtherstanian:

    Who is Judge Michael Malihi? When was he born? Where was he born? Who are his parents? Does he have siblings? Is he married? Does he have children? Don’t you folks find it just a little interesting that we know all of the above info on all the other Georgia judges…….but not him? Why is that?

    Is he a Sunni like Obama?

  124. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Spot on! It bears repeating. This is exactly the crux of what is broken within their thought process… lack of discernment.

    Dr. Conspiracy: And that is the crux of the mental processing error of conspiracy-minded individuals. They make connections between random events but lack the discrimination to discard meaningless ones.

  125. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    as noted often above, we are judged by the company we keep. birfers have zero credibility denying hate when their blogs and forums are heavily moderated and allow hate speech to stand. what else is that but explicit approval?

    I do not like to judge people by the company they keep and find Charo’s ‘arguments’ to be highly contrived and speculative leading me to doubt his/her motivations but I guess, people may be motivated by irrelevant facts and data. Who am I to judge…

  126. avatar
    Sean February 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Larry Sinclair, an openly gay man, claims he took illegals drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in 1999.

    If true, aren’t there all kinds of public policy implications to this story given the president’s role in the drug war and in defining the federal government’s evolving policies towards gay, lesbian, transgender, and closeted bi-sexual chief executives?

    If not true, how is this not a conspiracy theory worthy of scrutiny?

    Is extreme partisan support and love for Obama from Dr. Con and his ilk the real reason why the most scientifically significant and compelling conspiracy theories go unexamined here?

    There is a rumor that Kenneth Olson and Larry Sinclair murdered two 12 year old boys in a child prostitution deal gone bad.

    Should we investigate this?

  127. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    You ridicule what you hate

    That’s one reason to ridicule, but as with the clown, you can ridicule that which is ridiculous, you can laugh about that which is funny.

    Going to events and videotaping so that everyone can as a group, laugh together at the actions of a lost person is ridicule, and I would go even further and say somewhat sick.

    You are a bit harsh on the birther. As to those interested in pursuing the truth, there are those who spend time and effort reporting on what really happened at these hearings. So far these people are much better sources of information than the birthers themselves, as we have seen in various cases. Making fun of people who are trying to abuse our legal system to have someone who is our President removed because of their personal dislike of the person or his policies is something that I find utterly democratic. We do not shut them up, we let them speak and expose their ignorance.

  128. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    Now, is that looking for dirt?I went to see what the rules state.You wouldn’t have.

    Wow…. That’s quite a broad statement… And the rules do not support your position, and in fact show that one can obtain a new SSN. But you object stating that such an action would have been widely publicized… Wow… That’s some critical thinking… Absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Even though the number is clearly tagged as problematic. That by itself should give you some pause to think.

  129. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    I heartily second that! If only!

    aarrgghh: donna: the birthers represent the LAST STRAW EFFECT
    it is my hope that they represent the last gasp.

  130. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Agreed! I would classify it as merely tacit approval, but that is really just splitting hairs.

    I would also add that it is different from the mere “guilt by association” types of “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” nonsense that goes on all the time. The context matters.

    Merely being related to someone, or working/living in the same area as they did is the type of false correlation of sin that goes on all the time.

    However, willfully participating in a movement or group and not being willing to denounce the bad actors within that group group *IS* providing tacit approval.

    aarrgghh: as noted often above, we are judged by the company we keep. birfers have zero credibility denying hate when their blogs and forums are heavily moderated and allow hate speech to stand. what else is that but explicit approval

  131. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Orly finally admits

    My provision of a tariff or duty on the corporations importing products from the third world countries will help overcome the disparity in cost, which is caused by the added expense of stringent EPA regulations. It will help CA and US companies as a whole to stay more competitive

    This was the jest of my answer

    Yes Orly, we all know your jest

  132. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Chief Justice-“Birther” of the US Supreme Court Fuller:

    “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    “Birther” Alexander Porter Morse: “The natural born are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

  133. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Yes, they lost to the prevailing thought that under Common Law, it was anyone born on soil who was natural born. Fuller was the dissenting judge in United States v Wong Kim Ark.

    Are you now quoting losing opinions…

    Shame on you… If you have any

  134. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Morse again

    There are two classes of persons who by the law of Great Britain are deemed to be natural born British subjects 1 Those who are such from the fact of their having been born within the dominion of the British Crown 2 Those who though born out of the dominion of the British Crown are by various general acts of Parliament declared to be natural born British subjects By an act of Congress passed Feb 10

    Ouch… That’s the common law we adopted…

    Is it not time people read Morse before they quote others allowing themselves to be exposed as ill-informed?

  135. avatar
    justlw February 26, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    charo: I explained that Obama’s father’s name was spelled differently on a published paper (as Barak).

    Unless it was a paper he had absolute final editorial control over, I’m not surprised. My first name is common enough that it appears on this very web site multiple times, and yet I’ve had it misspelled for me in the byline for things I’ve written.

    …and the president’s name is uncommon enough that even putative professional news organizations still are misspelling it in 2012.

    <blockquote
    There was other evidence that suggested he had never really lived with Stanley Ann.

    But there’s the thing: if I had seen such evidence and considered it credible, I would not have then wondered, “Hmm, is the BC fake?” I would have wondered, “Hmm, why would she travel to Kenya, the home country of someone she’d never even really lived with?”

    I’m not the first person to point out that this is what makes it so hard to counter conspiracy theories: there’s no one solid argument to counter. There are a hundred ghost images, blithely abandoned when debunked, only to be reconjoured at a moment’s notice.

    And I think that is what makes anti-conspiracists get strident from time to time. Just as in Donna’s “last straw” explanation above, the lack of logical discourse can get overwhelming, and there’s a point where you just can’t do anything but point and laugh, to save your own sanity.

  136. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 26, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    nbc:
    Yes, they lost to the prevailing thought that under Common Law, it was anyone born on soil who was natural born. Fuller was the dissenting judge in United States v Wong Kim Ark.

    Was he the one who complained that the majority decision makes a child of any mongol passing through a natural born citizen and eligible to be President?

  137. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    I agree that the quantification as a “hate group” can be quite a topic of debate. The problem here is trying to over-reduce anything to a single cause motivation. There will always be degrees of overlap between motivations, causes and associations. There will always be some level of variety of opinion and direction within a broader group. So the classifications will have areas where they blur, where there are generalized commonalities and where they have unusual exceptions.

    That being said, I would personally lean towards classifying Birthers as a “hate group” in general.

    Their motivations for why they are Birthers may differ…and “hate” is certainly a strong word.

    However, I challenge anyone to find a Birther who is one who isn’t motivated by a negative animus against Obama specifically and more importantly, to some broader level of bigotry that he represents to them – whether that is his political affiliation, his race, perceptions of his religion based on the sound of his name, or some sense of xenophobia.

    So yes, for simplicity, I’ll call those forms of animus driven fears, “hate”. In terms of Obama specifically, he is clearly the “symbol” that represents that “last straw” as Donna aptly put it. In terms of Obama specifically, the challenge has been out there for 4 years now to find a “pro-Obama” Birther – one who holds Birther views, yet would vote for him “if only” their concerns were laid to rest . Hasn’t happened yet. I seriously doubt such a creature exists. So yeah, I would put that as another part of the litmus test in support of this being a “hate-based” group.

    Further, because Obama is merely a strawman symbol for their hate, I completely disagree that the Birther movement is actually about Obama as a real person himself. No, it has nothing do do with who the man actually is personally. It is all about what he “represents” in the Birther’s mind.

    So I would say that Birtherism *is* actually targeting much broader groups of people by going after Obama – and that has been the real point of their attacks directed against him all along. He is just a symbol and cover for the more generalized bigotry they have towards whichever group(s) he represents in their fears. As mentioned, while these base motivations may differ (and overlap) between race, religion, xenophobia, ideology and anti-government sentiment, they are all still a way to rationalize and target someone’s generalized fears. Again, I would classify that as part of the definition of what a “hate” group is.

    Further, look at the reaction by Birthers towards anyone that disagrees with them or rules against them. They quickly resort to threats of harm. Fortunately, most of them are simply too craven to act upon their underlying anger…. But their very statements open a disturbing window into their mentality and are a foreboding indicator of the types of acts of discrimination and harm towards others that they might inflict, if they felt they had the backing and support to get away with it. Almost anyone they perceive as “the other” or who doesn’t bend to “their will” is a valid “target” in their worldview. . So yeah, I disagree that we can examine Birtherism and come away with saying that is merely directed at a specific individual.

    Therefore, I lean towards viewing Birtherism as a legitimate “hate group” classification. Yes, it has a lot of overlaps with other existing “hate groups” out there. Yes, it has a variety of motivations behind it…with the underlying connection being Obama as a common SYMBOL for each of them to project their varied animus upon.

    But I would argue that most of the various “hate groups” that are classified out there have quite a bit of overlap and cross-over appeal between them as well. I would also argue that these other “hate groups” are rife with examples of the paranoid conspiracy mindset amongst their followings too.

    I don’t think we need to separate out the paranoid conspiracy mindset as separate or unique from what makes a “hate group”. If anything, I view it as the “gateway” mentality towards becoming susceptible to hate-based thinking in the first place. Heck, it is probably one of the key “common threads” that leads to overlap and cross-over appeal between various hate groups.

    Thrifty: I’d say no. While they’ve certainly got plenty of hate, and are a group, hate groups tend to target other groups with their hatred. Birthers laser focus it all on Barack Obama.

  138. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    The citizenship of Obama is the citizenship of his father.

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, “Birther” James F. Wilson of Iowa, in 1866:

    “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    Obama senior was a temporary sojourner.

    “Birther” Justice Miller:

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

    Obama cannot meet the standards to be a citizen how can he possibly be a natural born citizen.

  139. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 26, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    This is exactly what I see as the commonality between all birthers. Just like a chimera (a species which has traits from two distinct lines of inheritance) would falsify evolution, I think that a birther that didn’t hate President Obama (for whatever reason) would falsify a lot of obot theories about birthers. I would point out that Scientist has been looking for one of these chimeras for years with no luck…

    G: However, I challenge anyone to find a Birther who is one who isn’t motivated by a negative animus against Obama specifically and more importantly, to some broader level of bigotry that he represents to them – whether that is his political affiliation, his race, perceptions of his religion based on the sound of his name, or some sense of xenophobia.

  140. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: Was he the one who complained that the majority decision makes a child of any mongol passing through a natural born citizen and eligible to be President?

    He was the one who admitted that under the majority ruling, Wong Kim Ark could be a president… Yes… I am glad birthers quote him as an authority…

  141. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    Obama senior was a temporary sojourner.

    By no legal standard was he a temporary sojourner… But have you no ability to defend your previous statement?

    Lynch v Clarke

    My conclusion upon the facts proved is, that Julia Lynch was born in this state, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn. That they came here as an experiment, without any settled intention of abandoning their native country, or of making the United States their permanent abode.(a) They never concluded to remain here permanently, and after trying the country, they returned to their native land, and there ended their lives, many years afterwards. They took Julia with them to Ireland; she continued to reside there, and when Thomas Lynch died, she was about fourteen years of age, and a resident of Ireland.

    It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.

    I understand…

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    The US Supreme Court, after citing Justice Miller said:

    This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together — whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.

    [citation omitted]

    In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:

    “It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”

    US v. Wong

    I guess they didn’t agree.

    Rowena: “Birther” Justice Miller:

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

  143. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

    Miller was wrong in his pure Dicta. US v Wong Kim Ark not only found a child born to subjects of a foreign state to be a citizen, but a natural born as well.

  144. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 26, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Rowena,

    If you actually wanted to contribute to this discussion you could tell us why you hate President Obama, what would be required to convince you of his eligibility, and explain to us why no other POTUS has been subject to the demand of “show me your papers” (which is a well-known racist dog whistle).

  145. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    Rowena is allowing herself to be used as a tool to spread foolish notions. No regard for truth or lacking any self respect she allows herself to be manipulated to spread foolish comments that on closer scrutiny fail to establish her case.

    Ah the smell of birther in the morning.

  146. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    “Birther” Horace Gray never declared WKA a natural born citizen. WKA was declared a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domciled at his birth.

    Obama senior was never a permanent resident.

  147. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Poor Rowena fails to acknowledge the relevant legal rulings and instead focuses on the losing judge (Fuller) who admitted that under the Majority ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark, a child born to alien parents would be able to run for President, or dicta from the Slaughterhouse case which was overruled by the 14th Amendment and the US v Wong Kim Ark case.

    Sad… But a clear case of birtheritis.

  148. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Hi Charo,

    Thank you for your earnest and detailed response. That was what I was looking for in helping me understand where you are coming from on all this. I really appreciate it. I apologize for being overly harsh in my speculation earlier. I can only assess by what I have to go on.

    The way I would characterize you – and I mean this as a friendly criticism for you to take to heart and reflect upon – is that, like very many good folk out there, you are simply susceptible to develop a heightened level of “suspicion”, when you are being spoon-fed such “spin” and “doubt” from sources that you ideologically self-identify with and therefore, accept more implicitly. I would say that is very similar to the whole propaganda business model that Fox News employs to help brainwash a certain receptive demographic to their spin.

    In terms of the specific examples of what fed your “suspicions”, I would ask you to carefully read all of what DP wrote at 3:13pm and justlw said at 4:45pm. I echo their points and hope that you will not dismiss them.

    The overall point is that your internal bias led you to more readily accept the “spin” fed to you by your sources, because at a gut-level, you more implicitly viewed those sources as “one of your own”. As a result, your efforts of research started off with a bias – accepting the spin of those premises at face value and focusing your own fact-finding efforts in a direction that assumed those “suspicions” as valid on their face.

    From the points that DP and justlw made, I hope you can see that the real problem is that the very “spin” you were given was biased from the start and that that whole set of information can come across as completely innocuous, when not being pre-cast under such a “sinister” light. At some point, one has to assess why their internal gut bias would be so willing to accept those “sinister” premises in the first place…

    charo:
    I don’t remember. I was following America’s Right first I believe. I don’t know how I came across that site. I remember one of my initial thoughts was that Obama Sr’s name was not on the certificate. I heard and read Michelle Obama stating that Obama’s mother was very young and very single when she had him. I thought that was good grounds to doubt the birth certificate. I explained that Obama’s father’s name was spelled differently on a published paper (as Barak). There was other evidence that suggested he had never really lived with Stanley Ann. There was the weirdness (IMO) of how the release of the initial release of the COLB was handled. We are delving into the past here, but you asked. There were other points, but I think you get the idea.

  149. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Remember the “Birther” Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize. Nothing more.

    The Congress has no power to make natural born citizens.

  150. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

    “Birther” Horace Gray never declared WKA a natural born citizen. WKA was declared a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domciled at his birth.

    Obama senior was never a permanent resident.

    WKA was declared a citizen because he could not be naturalized citizen and thus could only be a citizen if he were a natural born citizen. The argument by Judge Gray shows that any child born on US soil, with only minor exceptions, is under our Constitution, a natural born citizen.

    Residency was not a requirement under common law, and the courts have since held that it is not relevant Munro v Merchant 26 Barb 400 cited in Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan, 5 A. 360 (Conn. 1886).

    A child born in this State of alien parents during its mother’s temporary sojourn here is a native born citizen”

    Under Luria v US we find that native born citizens differ in one way from naturalized in that they are eligible to be President.

    It’s so simple. Even the Court in Ankeny v US recognizes this, or Thisdale v Obama or the AGJ in Farrar v Obama in GA.

    Hard to argue with all these legal cases that totally destroy your position. If Gray was really a birther then why are the birthers still denying President Obama’s eligibility as Justice Gray’s arguments logically make President Obama not only a citizen, but a natural born one by virtue of his birth on US soil.

    So why are you quoting Justice Fuller who admits to as much?…

    Please explain yourself my dear…

    Fuller; Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

    Fuller objected to the ruling which made them eligible to the presidency. Why is it that everyone but the occasional birther has such problems comprehending US v Wong Kim Ark?

  151. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    Remember the “Birther” Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize. Nothing more.

    The Congress has no power to make natural born citizens.

    They never did, although tried in 1795 when declaring children born abroad to a US father, natural born… Luckily that oversight was quickly corrected.

    The Constitution always recognized that natural born are those born on soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. I thought you had understood this from US v Wong Kim Ark or perhaps Lynch v Clarke…

    Somehow these facts must have escaped you. No worrries, we are here to help.

  152. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

    Even the government in its appeal of the lower court’s ruling to the Supreme Court understood

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)

    Sorry my friend, you have no case.

  153. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    In terms of the “2 parent theory”, what is your current take? I know you’ve seen the analysis on this site of Leo, Mario, etc.

    I’m sure you’ve read the official CRS report on these issues as well:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

    Further, we now have quite an established pattern of court and hearing rulings that have rejected those arguments and have affirmed what all the lawyers here has been repeatedly saying about NBC and what WKA and the Minor cases meant. In other words, the conclusion of Ankeny and the CRS report on NBC have been reaffirmed EVERY time they have come before an official body to weigh in on the issue.

    In IN, that is now 8 officials that have agreed (original Ankeny case, 3-judge panel in the Appeal, 4-panel board at Friday’s ballot hearing).

    The administrative judge and the SoS in GA have also confirmed that conclusion. So that is two more right there. As did the judge in VA for the Tisdale case.

    Leo, Mario and every other Birther laywer out there have a 100% loss records on these type of “Constitutional” arguments. They tried appeals all the way up to the USSC, which wasn’t interested either.

    So, with all that has taken place on these “novel theories”, where do you currently stand on the merit of their arguments and why do you feel that way?

    charo:

    As for two parent theory, I never thought about it until I read about the issue, probably from Leo’s blog. I don’t remember being taught anything about the parentage of Presidents one way or the other. When I went to law school, that was never discussed at all. The argument was interesting to me because I could see how the population of our country would make that issue relevant. This is just a very short synopsis.

  154. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    Let’s help Rowena:

    The Constitution recognizes natural-ized and natural-born citizens, the former are citizens per statute, the later children by virtue of birth. Since the Constitution does not define the term ‘natural born’ its definition is to be found in Common Law, which in the days of the Constitution was based on English common law which declared any child born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents and with minor exemptions, a natural born citizen. This was the law of the lands before, during and after the revolution.

    It’s that simple.

  155. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    Lynch v Clarke

    My conclusion upon the facts proved is, that Julia Lynch was born in this state, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn. That they came here as an experiment, without any settled intention of abandoning their native country, or of making the United States their permanent abode.

    Temporary sojourn… Not even domiciled…

    He states no exception to the latter proposition; although there are some exceptions to the former, in favor of children of British subjects who are born in foreign countries. Whether the foreign parents were in England, in itinere, or for occasional business, their children born during their stay, were natural born subjects.

    In itinere (just passing through)

    concluding

    6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

    Tada…

  156. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    US v Wong Kim Ark

    Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

  157. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    I do think you do a good job of detailed researching…but I also think you are fairly guilty of bias and jumping to unscientific conclusions and therefore, tend to limit your research to an extent that it conforms to your pre-conceptions and also tend to discount aspects that don’t conform.

    In terms of this topic of your SSN research, etc, I hope you read the responses by Expelliarmus @ 9:21 am, which helps further explain and support the points made by Doc C @ 8:38 am.

    I actually did see the research on SSN change requests you posted on another thread (can’t find it at the moment, either). You need to grasp that your research was FINE… and it was not challenged on what you posted, because it was a good listing of the rule. It is not the rules that you found which is in question, only the conclusions you jumped to based on them.

    As mentioned, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Please remember that rules exist as a framework – they will often define a certain extent of boundaries of what is or is not permissible. However, unless they contain explicit language in where they [constrain / exclude / include] in their guidelines, then the full set of valid options and possibilities is broader than just the scenario you conclude. Pay careful attention to conjunctions and conditionals in the verbiage (and, or, not, but only, if and only if, etc.) before you leap to conclusions.

    charo:

    I will give you a current example of my attention to small details. I have heard Dd. C mention several times that he believes President Obama was given a new social security number because his number was so widely publicized. I went to the government website to see what the rules are concerning the granting of a new number. I wrote a comment yesterday about that, but I can’t find the thread. It got lost in the shuffle. I am not going to rewrite the whole comment but in essence, to get a new number, you have to show that someone has been misusing it. I said that I don’t believe that has happened in Obama’s case because wouldn’t we have heard about it like we did with the security breaches concerning the passport and student loan prying?

    Now, is that looking for dirt? I went to see what the rules state. You wouldn’t have. Then I spent time seeing what the law is concerning redaction because all of our numbers are out there. Interestingly, the little research I did shows that states are attempting to redact, but it is difficult and funding can be a problem. I also mention that I previously found a website that sells products with Obama’s known social security number. I wondered at the legality of that (it was a site that would sell any product on demand, not just Obama stuff).
    So, that is how my mind works. It started with Dr. C stating that Obama was likely assigned a new number. I went to find out if that would be possible under the law.
    I am not going to change in that regard. I don’t believe I will comment here any more about the whole issue. Private research just for me on anything Obama and where that leads.

  158. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    WKA’s citizenship was based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment is an Act of Congress.

    The Congress ONLY has the power to naturalize.

    “Birther” Minor did not require the 14th amendment. If WKA was a natural born citizen he would not need the 14th Amendment.

    “Birther Gray had to create a new definition to the “subject to jurisdiction”

    The new definition was..a child born in the US to parents who were permanent residents.

    “Birther” Gray never ruled WKA was a NBC. Those who claim WKA was ruled a NBC are political theorizing.

  159. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    Rowena:
    WKA’s citizenship was based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment is an Act of Congress.

    The Congress ONLY has the power to naturalize.

    “Birther” Minor did not require the 14th amendment. If WKA was a natural born citizen he would not need the 14th Amendment.

    “Birther Gray had to create a new definition to the “subject to jurisdiction”

    The new definition was..a child born in the US to parents who were permanent residents.

    “Birther” Gray never ruled WKA was a NBC. Those who claim WKA was ruled a NBC are political theorizing.

    Wow, you are stupid. An Amendment is not an act of Congress. Did you graduate the 5th grade. Congress can do anything it wants by Amendment. You clearly have not read WKA as it has been pointed out that it in no way require permanent residency. It also never says WKA is a citizen under the 14th Amendment. It concludes he is a citizen after spending the first 23 pages of the case saying a person of his status was a citizen under the original Constitution because the NBC clause was based upon the English common law and the next 20 odd pages saying a person of his status would be a citizen under the 14th as well as it simply re-stated previous law. Why do you post on a case you have never read?

    And the Minor court never said Minor was a natural born citizen either. The discussion of citizenship there has nothng to do with Minor’s citizenship. So you haven’t read that case either just repeating the idiot Donofrio’s ramblings,

  160. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    WKA’s citizenship was based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment is an Act of Congress.

    Two problems

    1. It is a Constitutional Amendment
    2. It is merely declarative of the rules of citizenship since the Constitution.

    “Birther Gray had to create a new definition to the “subject to jurisdiction”

    That’s an intricate part of the definition of natural born as found in our Common Law tradition.

    The new definition was..a child born in the US to parents who were permanent residents.

    Nope the definition included those born in the US who were permanent residents or domiciled but not limited thereto.

    You are making a logical error that when all children born on US soil, to resident alien parent, are considered to be natural born, that natural born means born on US soil to resident alien parents. That would exclude all those who are born on US soil to resident non-alien parents…

    Remember that Fuller and the Government both understood that under the Constitution, WKA was natural born. Domicile was not a requirement but it strengthened the position. Common law was not restricted to those domiciled, and neither was allegiance limited to only those children. In fact, any child born to alien parents while traveling through the US, illegal or otherwise, is born under full jurisdiction and owing full allegiance to the United States.

    Remember how the argument in US v WKA went. The term natural born was left undefined thus its meaning is to be found in Common Law

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

    thus

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    Glad to help…

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Uh, you might want to ask for a refund to that correspondence school civics class you took.

    Article. V.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    US Constitution

    Frankly, someone who doesn’t even know what a Constitutional Amendment is has no business trying to tell ANYBODY ANYTHING about the law.

    Rowena: The 14th amendment is an Act of Congress.

  162. avatar
    DP February 26, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    A general question.

    People like Rowena are just hopeless idiots at best. At worst they’re drumming up obfuscation to cover up motivations that are obvious even to them.

    But what about people like Charo? I will accept that this individual thinks they are being objective. But who goes around questioning other people’s birth stories and birth certificates in the first place? If it comes with a state seal, I would just assume a birth record is correct as a matter of course. So would any court, unless the state in question lodged an objection regarding fraud.

    In this case, the state of Hawaii has said as many ways as it can for sane people that, yes, Obama was born here. That conforms to the well established facts of his biography. He published for viewing a COLB from the state of Hawaii, which is a perfectly legitimate record of birth. He even got the state to release an authenticated copy of the original birth certificate itself, which the state of Hawaii said in writing it stands behind.

    Seriously. Why would anyone acting in good faith question that? I can’t really see a reason other than latent hysteria over the fact that someone on the darker side of brown, with one of those odd brown names, is President. It’s just unnatural to them.

  163. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm (Quote) #

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

    “Miller was wrong in his pure Dicta.”

    Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court defines the 14th’s first clause said:

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    Read a good book on conspiracy theories. You might start with Shermer’s book: The Believing Brain (link in the Recommended Books section).

    DP: But what about people like Charo? I will accept that this individual thinks they are being objective. But who goes around questioning other people’s birth stories and birth certificates in the first place?

  165. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    But what about people like Charo? I will accept that this individual thinks they are being objective. But who goes around questioning other people’s birth stories and birth certificates in the first place?

    Based on some pretty flimsy ‘evidence’ at best. What if President Obama’s father was never much of a father or husband? How does that affect President Obama’s status by virtue of his birth on soil? Anything else is just irrelevant speculation.

    The same with the SSN. As I have shown, a new SSN may be assigned, and the existence of a flag on President Obama’s SSN may be seen as supporting that his SSN is being flagged because of possibility of fraudulent use now that the number was widely published? And yet, the absence of any public acknowledgement is seen as evidence of what?

    One can claim to be critical or even a cynic but really, there are limits where such behavior just merges with the rest of the birthers imho.

  166. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Rowena:
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm(Quote) #

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

    “Miller was wrong in his pure Dicta.”

    Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court defines the 14th’s first clause said:

    “the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign States, born within the United States.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

    And Gray explains that such was dicta and wrong. Gray, in holding, defines the term (though we know you don’t understand holding and dicta):

    “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

    Again, why are you commenting on a case you clearly haven’t read.

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    Someone who doesn’t know what a Constitutional Amendment is shouldn’t try to pass off dicta as definition (and probably wouldn’t know what dicta is in the first place).

    Rowena: Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court defines the 14th’s first clause

  168. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court defines the 14th’s first clause said:

    Do you understand the concept of dicta? Do you understand how the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark overruled the Slaughterhouse ruling? Do you understand these simple concepts?

    You quote from the dissenting Judge, Fuller, who in his dissent laments how the majority opinion would grant natural born status to those born to alien parents on our soil but not to children born to US citizens born abroad.

    You ignore how the Government raised the issue in US v WKA as ‘Did the court err in finding that WKA was natural born’? All these people clearly recognized the relevance of the ruling.

    And you cite to dicta that was clearly overruled in US v WKA which found WKA to be a citizen by virtue of being born on US soil to alien parents, and thus, while unable to be naturalized, he was still a natural-born citizen? Fascinating

  169. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    Poster NBC’s maxims:

    “If dicta supports Obama it is not dicta”

    “If a ruling or holding refutes Obama it is dicta”

  170. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    Rowena:
    Poster NBC’s maxims:

    “If dicta supports Obama it is not dicta”

    “If a ruling or holding refutes Obama it is dicta”

    If only you understood what dicta means. No one has ever disputed that Justice Miller’s statement was dicta and obviously overruled by the holding of WKA. Now go find out what these terms mean.

  171. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    “If dicta supports Obama it is not dicta”

    “If a ruling or holding refutes Obama it is dicta”

    US v WKA is not dicta, as it addresses the concept of natural born citizen, which is immediately relevant to the citizenship status of Wong Kim Ark, who could not be naturalized.

    Explain why you cite a dissenting judge who admits to WKA being natural born as if his dissenting opinion has any relevance to your case?

    Sorry my friend, but if you cannot understand the concept of dicta then you have a real problem but surely you MUST understand at least that citing the dissenting judge is somewhat misleading?…

    Show us that you understand the ruling in US v WKA and we can talk…

    What where the steps taken by the Court to establish that WKA was still a citizen, even though he could, under US statute, not be a natural-ized citizen?

    Show us that you can actually apply some logic and reason and are not doomed to be manipulated by the foolish writings of others?

  172. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Rowena may want to educate her/himself and read up on such concepts as obiter dictum, holdings etc and read this excellent article

    First of all Justice Fuller’s statement is completely dicta

    Dissenting opinions are always considered dicta.

    So why Rowena cited it, is beyond me, especially since Fuller accepts that under the majority ruling, WKA is natural born.

    Show us at least an attempt to educate yourself Rowena… Just surprise us.

  173. avatar
    DP February 26, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Read a good book on conspiracy theories. You might start with Shermer’s book: The Believing Brain (link in the Recommended Books section).

    I get the conspiracy mind set. But the sheer cognitive dissonance of this one amazes me.

    At some level, these people have to know that they wouldn’t be dreaming up all kinds of imaginary suspicions to doubt some average person’s birth certificate. If they were in HR for some company, and Obama applied for a job there, they’d just glance at his COLB and accept it without a second thought. But when he attains a position that threatens their emotional sense of how the world should be, then suddenly this innocuous documentation must be held to an absurd, “prove the negative” threshold no one would ask of anyone they happened to come across in day-to-day life.

    The power of their emotional need to not acknowledge Obama as President is awe inspiring in a sad sort of way.

  174. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Someone who doesn’t know what a Constitutional Amendment is shouldn’t try to pass off dicta as definition (and probably wouldn’t know what dicta is in the first place).

    Excellent point. But she/he is not pretending to know much of anything, she/he is just letting her/himself be manipulated by the foolish writings of others. That’s worse…. No respect…

  175. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    NBC’s maxim:

    “When Supreme Court Justices quote Vattel; the Supreme Court Justices never quoted Vattel”

  176. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    WKA was never ruled a natural born citizen. Period.

  177. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    “When Supreme Court Justices quote Vattel; the Supreme Court Justices never quoted Vattel”

    Are you now making up facts? I asked you before, have you no shame my friend… Are you so unable to defend your behavior that you have to make up ‘facts’.

    Shame shame shame… A concept with which you may not be fully familiar though.

    Explain to us why you are citing the dicta and dissenting opinion of Justice Fuller, who accepts in his dissent that under the Majority Opinion, WKA is indeed natural born.

    What relevance does it have that he cites Vattel? It has no legal value, and Fuller himself shows you to be wrong about WKA.

    Does that not worry you in the slightest?

  178. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Rowena: When Supreme Court Justices quote Vattel

    Hi Rowena – I think you made a typo. It’s “Mattel,” as in Barbie.

  179. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    Have you read Fuller’s summary of Gray majority opinion. Fuller understands what Gray said as does anyone who can read basic English:

    “The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule “was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;” and “that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

    Really not that hard to understand.

  180. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    Rowena:
    WKA was never ruled a natural born citizen. Period.

    The court doesn’t need to call WKA a natural born citizen to clearly define such term and have it be part of the holding. I know you don’t understand these things, but that is the law. Sorry.

  181. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    WKA was never ruled a natural born citizen. Period.

    Let me help you once again. WKA was ruled to be a citizen (according to the Government, a natural born citizen) based on the following logical reasoning and I understand that this may were you got confused as it involves capabilities that you have failed to show to be familiar with. So I understand and I will speak S L O W L Y.

    Is Wong Kim Ark a US citizen? The Court observed that the Constitution recognizes the power of congress to natural-ize and mentions the term natural-born citizen. The court observes that 1) WKA could, under US statute, not be natural-ized 2) the definition of natural born was not defined in the Constitution.

    The court set out to show how natural born means born on soil, with minor exceptions and rules that therefor WKA is in fact a US citizen, observing that a child born on US soil, even to alien parents, is natural born, with minor exceptions.

    it’s so simple but I appreciate that it may take some time for you to fully grasp the impact of the holding and ratio decidendi in this ruling.

    If you need any help, may I suggest Arkeny v Daniels (sic) which walks you through the exact logic that led them to find a child born on US soil, to alien parents, to be natural born. Or Judge Malihi who based on the convincing argument in Arkeny (sic) found that President Obama was indeed a natural born citizen.

    What’s so hard to comprehend here that you have to resort to citing the dicta of a dissenting judge and other irrelevant material while ignoring that the dissenting Judge agrees that under WKA, the defendant indeed is natural born and eligible to be president. Why do you ignore the Government’s position raised as “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born” even though, the lower court never explicitly made this statement, the Government understood the logic of the ratio decidendi and the impact thereof.

  182. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    ballantine: Have you read Fuller’s summary of Gray majority opinion. Fuller understands what Gray said as does anyone who can read basic English:

    I doubt Rowena has read either Wong Kim Ark the opinion or the dissent other than what she has been spoonfed. She/he has shown a complete inability in understanding such concepts as Constitutional Amendment, Dicta, dissenting opinion and more.

    It’s mind boggling.

  183. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    Well said! I agree.

    DP: I get the conspiracy mind set. But the sheer cognitive dissonance of this one amazes me.

    At some level, these people have to know that they wouldn’t be dreaming up all kinds of imaginary suspicions to doubt some average person’s birth certificate. If they were in HR for some company, and Obama applied for a job there, they’d just glance at his COLB and accept it without a second thought. But when he attains a position that threatens their emotional sense of how the world should be, then suddenly this innocuous documentation must be held to an absurd, “prove the negative” threshold no one would ask of anyone they happened to come across in day-to-day life.

    The power of their emotional need to not acknowledge Obama as President is awe inspiring in a sad sort of way.

  184. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    “Are Birthers a hate group?”

    Rowena: WKA was never ruled a natural born citizen. Period.

    There’s your answer. I think birthers can be divided into two groups: Fascists and proto-fascists. Like Orly Taitz or Newt MacPherson Gingrich:

    “Gingrich went on to describe “the rule of two of three” — a made-up rule with no foundation in American law — in which two branches of government could out-vote the other one. He wasn’t kidding, by the way.

    SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

    GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.

    Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/quote_of_the_day_28034177.php

  185. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Chief Justice Fuller was a “Birther”. We have a CJ of the Supreme Court stating Obama would not qualify as a natural born citizen.

    Spin it all you want. Fuller quoted Vattel’s definition.

    Chief Justice “Birther” Waite used Vattel’s definition.

    Chief Justice “Birther” Marshall used Vattel’s definition.

    Justice “Birther” Daniel used Vattel’s definition.

  186. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 26, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Dr. Con,
    re: lie detector test…
    FYI, letter man is G.

  187. avatar
    Foggy February 26, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    Rowena:
    Chief Justice Fuller was a “Birther”. We have a CJ of the Supreme Court stating Obama would not qualify as a natural born citizen.

    Spin it all you want. Fuller quoted Vattel’s definition.

    Chief Justice “Birther” Waite used Vattel’s definition.

    Chief Justice “Birther” Marshall used Vattel’s definition.

    Justice “Birther” Daniel used Vattel’s definition.

    Don’t you hate it when the birthers have been the World’s Biggest Epic Fail since 1898? 😀

  188. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    Rowena:
    Chief Justice Fuller was a “Birther”. We have a CJ of the Supreme Court stating Obama would not qualify as a natural born citizen.

    Spin it all you want. Fuller quoted Vattel’s definition.

    Chief Justice “Birther” Waite used Vattel’s definition.

    Chief Justice “Birther” Marshallused Vattel’s definition.

    Justice “Birther” Daniel used Vattel’s definition.

    Fuller lost to Gray definition by the common law. Waite said it was defined by the common law but didn’t address the status of children of aliens under the common law. Marshall and Daniel cited Vattel on topics unrelated to natural born citizenship or citizenship at birth and cannot be cited as authority on citizenship. Marshall citing Vattel solely on the topic of domicile in a time of war means he was looking to Vattel opinion on that subject. I know birthers don’t understand that a citation is only relevant to the context of the citation. A lawyer would be sanctioned by a court for making such a dumb claim. Why do you post on things you don’t understand?

  189. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    DP: But when he attains a position that threatens their emotional sense of how the world should be, then suddenly this innocuous documentation must be held to an absurd, “prove the negative” threshold no one would ask of anyone they happened to come across in day-to-day life.
    The power of their emotional need to not acknowledge Obama as President is awe inspiring in a sad sort of way.

    Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

    It’s that simple.

  190. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Folks, Rowena is just clearly intentionally Trolling here. He/She is acting stupid and obtuse on purpose.

    Rowena is just a broken record and purposely repeating the very same insincere questions she has already repeatedly asked and been given answers on this forum under other threads.

    Time to simply call it out for what it is and ask that Rowena be put in Moderation.

    Everything he/she is saying and cluttering up this thead with is just a repeat of the same nonsense she cluttered these threads with over the past few days:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/racist-ballot-challenge-in-alaska/#comments

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/the-allen-files/#comments

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/is-rick-santorum-a-natural-born-citizen/#comments

    Here is just a sampling of conversation excerpts demonstrating that she is simply rehashing the same failed arguments over and over again:

    Rowena: What kind of law is a natural born citizen? What kind of law is the 14th Amendment? What kind of law made WKA a naturalized citizen? Is a transient alien student an immigrant? What law states a transient alien student is a permanent resident?

    Rowena: Congress has constitutional authority to pass laws regarding naturalization. Is the 14th Amendment a law?

    G: *sigh* Stop being so obviously obtuse.A Constitutional Amendment becomes part of the Constitution. *duh* The authority for Congress to pass naturalization laws does NOT require a Constitutional Amendment. So stop trying to disingenuously pretend that the 14th Amendment is anything other that what it is. You’ve already been given many detailed answers in these regards. No one is falling for your weak Concern Trolling tactics… your schtick is as transparent as it gets. So stop pretending to be stupid and asking questions you already should know the answer to…

    Rowena: Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”What Article, Section, Clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to establish natural born citizens?

    G: None you fool. By definition, one is Born a citizen when they are Natural Born. It does NOT require an act of Congress (i.e. “naturalization”) to convey that citizenship upon them. It comes with birth. Hence why NBC citizens do NOT have papers declaring or establishing their citizenship. It comes automatically with birth. *DUH*Again, stop being so obviously and intentionally obtuse.

    ballantine: You just show your studipity by saying WKA was naturalized, as no one ever said such a thing except idiots like Apuzzo. It has been pointd out to you what such term means, but that means nothing to you and your talking points.If you were able to understand English, you might know that the Court said the 14th Amendment and the NBC clause mean the same thing and hence WKA qualifies under both. No authority has ever said one needs to be a permanent resident. Such has been pointed out to you. A typical birther, you make no attempt to support your assertions. You just repeat them over and over. Since you obviously don’t know how to read case law, why to you pretend to on the internet?

    ballantine: Is it really possible an adult doesn’t understand that Congess’ ability to pass an amendment is not limited to its enumerated powers? Is it really possible that anyone cannot see that the Amendment itself ditinguishes between citizens by birth and those naturalized? Are these people really that stupid or just putting us on?

    carlos: Congress has constitutional authority to pass laws regarding naturalization. Is the 14th Amendment a law?Yes. The 14th Amendment is law. It’s law that supercedes any law Congress may pass. Constitutional amendments are not enacted by Congress. Statutes are. The Constitution specifies that Congress is empowered to enact statutes regarding naturalization. Since the earliest days, this has been construed to include citizenship at birth (natural born citizenship). The Supreme Court has never ruled otherwise.There is nothing in the Constitution which says Congress cannot enact statutes extending citizenship at birth. But of course, that has no bearing at all on the eligibility of the President since he is native born.

    Therefore, unless Rowena can behave and do something other than be a disingeuous broken record, he/she is not worthy of anything other than a FOAD response.

  191. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    FYI – this is an open forum. Anyone can chose to respond to something someone else mentions, regardless of whether they initially directed their response at a particular person.

    Kenneth Olsen: Dr. Con,re: lie detector test…FYI, letter man is G.

  192. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Chief Justice Fuller was a “Birther”. We have a CJ of the Supreme Court stating Obama would not qualify as a natural born citizen.

    And his position was argued and lost to a majority of the ruling.

    Is that the best you have.

    Hilarious… And Fuller admitted to WKA being natural born. I guess that he understood the relevance of a majority ruling better than you.

    Hilarious… Such a FAIL

  193. avatar
    donna February 26, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    if i may and to be CONSISTENT (and NOT RACIST), what are the birther findings on santorum, romney and rubio, to name 3?

  194. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Why do you post on things you don’t understand?

    Because she allows herself to be manipulated by others but is willing to be made look foolish. No self respect at all.

    What a day… Got me a ‘live’ birther who made a total fool of herself. Love it…

  195. avatar
    brygenon February 26, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm: I can see hatred or extreme partisan dislike of Obama being one of the gateway drugs into the Birther world,

    I know a birther so full of hate that she took her name from a woman who tried to shoot a president.

  196. avatar
    carlos February 26, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Horace Gray never declared WKA a natural born citizen.>>>>>

    That was the decision. He was a citizen at birth.

  197. avatar
    carlos February 26, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    The 14th amendment is an Act of Congress.

    That’s false. The fact that you don’t know something so elementary to a serious discussion of this topic pretty much discredits your whole argument.

  198. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    G: Folks, Rowena is just clearly intentionally Trolling here. He/She is acting stupid and obtuse on purpose.

    Well either she is a very good troll or she is great example of why birthers fail in courts time after time. Either way, her musings serve a great purpose as it allows us to educate those willing to learn.

  199. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

    This is the first paragraph WKA Syllabus.

    A child born in the US to parents who have a permanent domicil and residence in the US becomes a citizen.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of the son?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

  200. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    Rowena:
    “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

    This is the first paragraph WKA Syllabus.

    A child born in the US to parents who have a permanent domicil and residence in the US becomes a citizen.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of the son?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

    So what. The syllabus is not part of the opinion and is not relevant to what the holding is. Duh. The court concluded he was a citizen, not a citizen under the 14th Amendment, because both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the definition of natural born subject and all of that is holding as any legal proposition necessary for disposition of the case is part of the holding. Now read the actual case. If you can’t see that it says the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing, time to take remedial English classes.

  201. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Rowena:
    “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

    This is the first paragraph WKA Syllabus.

    A child born in the US to parents who have a permanent domicil and residence in the US becomes a citizen.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of the son?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

    Oh and real lawyers look at the Supreme Court reporter. Here is what the actual syllabus says:

    “2. As the constitution nowhere defines the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States,” except by the declaration in the fourteenth amendment that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” resort must be had to the common law, the principles of which were familiar to the framers of the constitution.

    3. Under the common law, every child born in England of alien parents, except the child of an ambassador or diplomatic agent or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born, was a natural-born subject.

    9. Before the Civil Rights Act, April 9. 1806, c. 31, i 1 (14 Stat. 27), or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, all white persons born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were natural-born citizens of the United States.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=q-8GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA458&dq=wong+Kim+Ark+supreme+court+reporter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WdRKT5P-Luut0AGA-OCODg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

  202. avatar
    carlos February 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of the son?

    Not relevant. His mother was citizen at the time he was born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And holdings of the Supreme Court subsequent to WKA have held that even the children of illegal immigrants are natural born if born in the US.

  203. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

  204. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    A child born in the US to parents who have a permanent domicil and residence in the US becomes a citizen.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of the son?

    You are confusing two things here. WKA’s parents were domiciled, and under US domicile rules, Obama’s parents were also domiciled. But the question is: Was the permanent domicil a requirement? From the ruling it is clear that it was not.

    Ankeny v Daniels certainly did not interpret it to be that way. You see, children born on US soil, even if their parents were temporarily sojourning here, or in itinere, were still born under full US jurisdiction and owing full allegiance. So while domicil may have strengthened the case, it is by no means a requirement under the ratio decidendi established in US v WKA.

    Let me once again walk you through as you appear, as I had expected, to be still somewhat confused

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    Every child born in England to alien parents with minor exceptions is natural born

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    The same rule was in force in the United states afterwards and continued to prevail.

    QED

    Thanks for playing.

  205. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Well, I would disagree that any blatantly obvious, obtuse and repetitive troll is “good” at anything.

    In fact, I would say that not only makes them bad in character and bad at making an arugment, but most importantly BAD at being able to Troll at all.

    As you know, I like being able to provide education and answers on this forum and respond to questions…even to the unreasonable ones.

    …But that has its limits. Once it becomes clear that it is just the same broken record conversation over and over and over again, it quickly becomes unnecessary clutter.

    You want to educate someone reading, well guess what, you did that the first few times you answered that same question. Beyond that, you’re just reliving Groundhogs Day and making a blog thread unreadable.

    nbc: Well either she is a very good troll or she is great example of why birthers fail in courts time after time. Either way, her musings serve a great purpose as it allows us to educate those willing to learn.

  206. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    carlos: Not relevant. His mother was citizen at the time he was born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And holdings of the Supreme Court subsequent to WKA have held that even the children of illegal immigrants are natural born if born in the US .

    Rowena: ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

  207. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

    Was his mother? Now we have an interesting conundrum, don’t we… But we already know that the residency status has no relevance.

    He was surely domiciled and residing in the United States, under its full jurisdiction and his son was born under full US jurisdiction owing full allegiance to the United States and thus clearly a natural born citizen. After all, are you saying that President Obama is not even a US citizen? After all, that is the only logical conclusion under your ‘reasoning’

    ROTFL

  208. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    G: Folks, Rowena is just clearly intentionally Trolling here. He/She is acting stupid and obtuse on purpose.

    I was thinking he/her had some liquid help in their comments today. Even though I had seen his/her trolling before, today, it was even less logical (14th amendment is and act of Congress). Maybe he/her was TUI.

  209. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Rowena:
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

    WKA doesn’t say such is required. The raionale for disposing of the case is part of the holding. The rationale was the common law was adopted and such included children of permanet residents. I know you don’t understand this and have only read the syllabus on an internet site that is not the actual syllabus. Duh. It is simply a lie to say that WKA requires resident parents. Such was not the common law and Gray’s definition of subject to the jurisdiction only excludes two types of persons, children of ambassadors and invading enemies. This has been pointed out to you numerous times so at this point you are simply lying.

  210. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Ankeny v Daniels

    Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis’s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):

    Fully rejecting Vattel

    The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

    concluding

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

  211. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.

    Is natural born citizen mentioned in the syllabus? Is citizen parents?

  212. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Rowena: Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

    Yes. He was a travelling salesman.
    Here’s his story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btFefWIlaNs

  213. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm (Quote) #

    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

  214. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    Well, at least one of her most recent comments actually posted something “new” from her. (I’m just going to refer to someone that posts as Rowena as a she, until I hear otherwise).

    Was posting the first paragraph of the WKA syllabus just an obviously sloppy “selective quote mining” attempt? Sure.

    But at least it was *finally* a “new angle” from this poster. Just about everything else she wrote on here today comes across as a “cut/paste” of the very same questions she asked on several other blog threads here over the past few days….

    Northland10: I was thinking he/her had some liquid help in their comments today. Even though I had seen his/her trolling before, today, it was even less logical (14th amendment is and act of Congress). Maybe he/her was TUI.

  215. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    AGAIN:

    carlos: Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of the son? Not relevant. His mother was citizen at the time he was born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And holdings of the Supreme Court subsequent to WKA have held that even the children of illegal immigrants are natural born if born in the US.

    ANSWER ALREADY GIVEN. Address those counterpoints or move along…

    Rowena: ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm (Quote) #ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

  216. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    G February 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm (Quote) #

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

  217. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Rowena:
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.

    Is natural born citizen mentioned in the syllabus? Is citizen parents?

    Yes, it says natural born citizen is defined by the common law definition of natural born subject. Can’t you read? It also defined who is a natural born citizen prior to the 14th Amendment:

    “Before the Civil Rights Act, April 9. 1806, c. 31, i 1 (14 Stat. 27), or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, all white persons born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Pretty clear huh? Also defined 14th Amendment citizenship:

    “It affirms the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the territory in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, except the children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies during a hostile occupation, and children of Indian tribes owing direct tribal allegiance. It includes the children of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

    Same rule. Duh. Says the ancient rule INCLUDES children of resident aliens. It doesn’t say such is required as it only lists two exceptions. See, all you have to do is read the right syllabus. You are either drinking or have English issues.

  218. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    AND…

    ballantine: WKA doesn’t say such is required. The raionale for disposing of the case is part of the holding. The rationale was the common law was adopted and such included children of permanet residents. I know you don’t understand this and have only read the syllabus on an internet site that is not the actual syllabus. Duh. It is simply a lie to say that WKA requires resident parents. Such was not the common law and Gray’s definition of subject to the jurisdiction only excludes two types of persons, children of ambassadors and invading enemies. This has been pointed out to you numerous times so at this point you are simply lying.

    Keep asking the same stupid questions and I’ll keep pasting the same existing answers.

    Rowena: ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm (Quote) #ballantine February 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm “So what”.Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his son?

  219. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    Northland10

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

  220. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    NOT required. Irrelevant.

    Explanations already given.

    When did you stop raping children and murdering kittens?

    Rowena: G February 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm (Quote) #Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

  221. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    G February 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm (Quote) #

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

  222. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    Rowena:
    Northland10

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

    Are you retarded? It has been repeatedly pointed out that the Court made no such requirement and all you can do is repeat the same post over and over. Your posts here really are getting embarassing.

  223. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Rowena: Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

    Yes, he was. No doubt about it. As permanent as any of us, since we are all here temporarily. Are you happy now?

  224. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm (Quote) #
    :
    Northland10

    “Are you retarded?”

    Answer my question.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

  225. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Rowena:
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm(Quote) #
    :
    Northland10

    “Are you retarded?”

    Answer my question.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

    You haven’t commented on the real syllabus yet. The one the Justices would have read. Cat got your tongue. Feel pretty stupid you cited an internet syllabus.

    “Before the Civil Rights Act, April 9. 1806, c. 31, i 1 (14 Stat. 27), or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, all white persons born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    “It affirms the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the territory in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, except the children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies during a hostile occupation, and children of Indian tribes owing direct tribal allegiance. It includes the children of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

    Can you explain this clear language that makes you look oh so stupid showing up in the actual syllabus?

  226. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Rowena: Answer my question.
    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth of his child?

    Yes, he was.

  227. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    WKA does not apply to Obama if his father was not a permanent resident. This seems to be the reason why the question is being avoided.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent at the birth of his child. Its a valid question.

  228. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Rowena:
    WKA does not apply to Obama if his father was not a permanent resident. This seems to be the reason why the question is being avoided.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent at the birth of his child. Its a valid question.

    No, it has been shown over and over there is no such requirement. Again, where is you comments on what the syllabus says since you think such is relevant. Feel too stupid to comment? Still drinking so you can’t read? What does it say about residence?

    “Before the Civil Rights Act, April 9. 1806, c. 31, i 1 (14 Stat. 27), or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, all white persons born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    “It affirms the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the territory in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, except the children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies during a hostile occupation, and children of Indian tribes owing direct tribal allegiance. It includes the children of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

  229. avatar
    US Citizen February 26, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    In regards to lie detectors, I found this link below.
    It’s an MRI-based lie detection service.
    This might be interesting to some of the lawyers here as they’ve apparently been able to enter their findings into evidence.

    http://www.noliemri.com

  230. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    Scientist: Was Obama’s father a permanent at the birth of his child. Its a valid question

    He was. Why are you avoiding the answer?

  231. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

    The question is directed to Ballentine, G, NBC and Northland.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth his son?

    His INS records indicate he was not a permanent resident. Are the INS records in error?

    Since Obama’s father was not a permanent resident how can he be compared to WKA’s father.

    WKA’s father was determined by the court to be a permanent resident at his birth. This is in the Syllabus and the Holding.

  232. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    Rowena: His INS records indicate he was not a permanent resident. Are the INS records in error?

    Yes. They were in error. He was a permanent resident. Now, are you satisfied? Goodbye.

  233. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Rowena:
    The question is directed to Ballentine, G, NBC and Northland.

    Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth his son?

    His INS records indicate he was not a permanent resident. Are the INS records in error?

    Since Obama’s father was not a permanent resident how can he be compared to WKA’s father.

    WKA’s father was determined by the court to be a permanent resident at his birth. This is in the Syllabus and the Holding.

    Nope. That is why we have anchor and vacation babies today. Duh! Show us where it says residency is required in the syllabus. Why won’t you comment on the syllabus language that shows you are wrong. Avoiding embaraswsing yourself? We all can read the language. What do these mean:

    “Before the Civil Rights Act, April 9. 1806, c. 31, i 1 (14 Stat. 27), or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, all white persons born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    “It affirms the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the territory in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, except the children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies during a hostile occupation, and children of Indian tribes owing direct tribal allegiance. It includes the children of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

  234. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Rowena: Was Obama’s father a permanent at the birth of his child. Its a valid question.

    Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990? It’s a valid question.

    Were you an accessory after the fact? It’s a valid question.

    Answer my question.

  235. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    And you’ve been repeatedly given answers by ALL of us mentioned…and then some.

    Sorry, but an answer is still an answer, whether you particularly like hearing it or not.

    You want a further response, here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfrQ8ZutmLE

    Rowena: The question is directed to Ballentine, G, NBC and Northland.Was Obama’s father a permanent resident at the birth his son? His INS records indicate he was not a permanent resident. Are the INS records in error? Since Obama’s father was not a permanent resident how can he be compared to WKA’s father.WKA’s father was determined by the court to be a permanent resident at his birth. This is in the Syllabus and the Holding.

  236. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 26, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    I have to say that all the repetition by “Rowena” has convinced me: the text in WKA describing the circumstances of Won Kim Ark is in fact the exclusive requirements for being natural born citizen. Therefore ONLY a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

  237. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: Therefore ONLY a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

    Fortunately, I live in Chinatown.

  238. avatar
    Rowena February 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    “This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands” Sarah Obama

    Wonder what “the US president passed through my hands” means? Must be “dicta”.

    This issue is really an embarrassment to the presidency. Does she believe Obama was adopted?

    http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/Obamas%20grandmother%20throws%20party%20/-/1070/912088/-/format/xhtml/-/v2290wz/-/index.html

  239. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    Rowena:
    “This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands”Sarah Obama

    Wonder what “the US president passed through my hands” means? Must be “dicta”.

    This issue is really an embarrassment to the presidency. Does she believe Obama was adopted?

    http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/Obamas%20grandmother%20throws%20party%20/-/1070/912088/-/format/xhtml/-/v2290wz/-/index.html

    Changing the subject? Why are you avoiding commenting on what the syllabus says? I know it is embarrassing. Why not just admit you are wrong.

  240. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    I was away for a while but I think I heard some scratching from something below the bridge. Probably nothing.

  241. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Rowena has abandoned her misleading quotes and is now pretending that WKA only applies to permanent resident citizens.

    As I have shown, there is no such requirement in WKA and Ankeny v Daniels concurs.

    What can I say… The birther brain does tend to explode when confronted with facts.

    She has yet to apologize for her misleading claims and ignorance.

    To answer Rowena, Obama’s father was definitely domiciled in the United States and his mother was both domiciled and a US citizen. But this is all irrelevant as the only question that remains is was President Obama, at his birth, under full allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. The answer is yes.

    The domicil issue is totally irrelevant as I have outlined but Rowena is still in a bit of denial

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born

    Every child unless child of ambassador or invading military is natural born

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    The same rule applied in the United States afterwards…

    It’ so simple that Rowena will refuse to acknowledge.

    Such a FAIL.

  242. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Not in response to Rowena, who is unteachable, but for anyone wanting to know more about this undoubtedly curious statement, see my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/birther-math-part-1/

    Rowena: “This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands” Sarah Obama

  243. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    Therefore ONLY a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

    And under her interpretation President Obama is not even a citizen… Yes, she is not very good at comprehension but she is surely a lot of fun to correct. If she is not a real life birther, she is an excellent troll. My congratulations…

  244. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not in response to Rowena, who is unteachable, but for anyone wanting to know more about this undoubtedly curious statement, see my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/birther-math-part-1/

    Thanks Doc for once again exposing our birther troll.. Not that she is willing to learn or able to do so but given that the US birth of President Obama has been clearly established, her moving to ‘Kenya birth’ now that her WKA arguments have failed show the shallowness of the birther argument.

  245. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    So far I have come to one certain conclusion, that most birthers hate to be exposed to facts and will do anything to avoid them. And when exposed, their immediate reaction is to deny, ignore and detract.

    And yet, that they have confirmed that even the Government and the dissenting Judge considered WKA to be natural born is fascinating, forcing them to move to ‘well Obama’s father was not domiciled’…

    Hilarious… See spot run…

  246. avatar
    donna February 26, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    has ANYONE calculated how many learned pairs of eyes have looked over these FRUITLESS endeavors/BOGUS assertions and adjudged them FALSE?

    over 41 FAILED state birther bills

    93 TRIAL COURTS – FAILED = 93 judges

    52 (X3 JUDGE panels) APPELLATE COURTS – FAILED = 156 judges

    16 TIMES (X9) SUPREME COURT JUSTICES – FAILED

    since 2008, NUMEROUS UNSUCCESSFUL ballot challenges

    2 congressional research service reports

    not to mention the media

  247. avatar
    anchorbaby February 26, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Rowena:
    Did you know that in WKA, Gray referred to Dicey’s Conflict of Laws, and in that Treatise, in the American Notes, Dicey listed “students” in the same list as “ambassadors,” as those whose domicile was NOT considered to have been changed when they were temporarily resident in another country in that capacity…

  248. avatar
    nbc February 26, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    anchorbaby: Dicey listed “students” in the same list as “ambassadors,” as those whose domicile was NOT considered to have been changed when they were temporarily resident in another country in that capacity…

    ROTFL

  249. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    anchorbaby: Rowena: Did you know that in WKA, Gray referred to Dicey’s Conflict of Laws…

    Rowena and anchorbaby are the same person. Sven perhaps?

  250. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 26, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Sean: There is a rumor that Kenneth Olson and Larry Sinclair murdered two 12 year old boys in a child prostitution deal gone bad.

    Should we investigate this?

    I can verify this. I was one of the boys.

    …I got better.

  251. avatar
    US Citizen February 27, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Thomas Brown: …I got better.

    Your dad must have an awesome set of tools.

  252. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    Nope.

    misha: Rowena and anchorbaby are the same person. Sven perhaps?

  253. avatar
    Lupin February 27, 2012 at 2:24 am #

    Guys, guys… Talking to Rowena is obviously a waste of time…. Reason and facts penetrate her mind like water a chunk of marble…

    Heck, I have more effective communication with my dogs.

  254. avatar
    justlw February 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Just in case anyone missed this — from the “Troll” thread:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Speaking of trolls, we will not be hearing from Rowena anymore.

    Rowena is:

    DancingRabbit
    DraggingCanoe
    E.Vattel
    PseudoObama
    tallbull

    Yes, folks, one of our most notorious trolls from the past. I figured out your real name, didn’t I, Mike? Maybe I should put your picture on the Troll sign?

  255. avatar
    misha February 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    BillTheCat: Yup, they are indeed a hate group, no question.

    I think they are worse. See my comment above:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/are-birthers-a-hate-group/#comment-158904

  256. avatar
    bovril February 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    Bill,

    I don’t think you were here several months ago where G, myself and a few others reviewed the pathologies of the Birfoon mindset and posited that with the Birthers we are seeing a true distributed Internet based cult.

    They mix cult behaviour and classic symptoms with its outright religious bogotrry, intolerance and zealotry in a distributed manner using the Internet (as seen in Birther echo chambers) as the substitute for the written “received gospel”.

    (I also seperately identified the Birther memes as showing most of the characteristics of an infection, a parasite and a cancer…….)

  257. avatar
    aarrgghh February 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

    now here’s a perfect showcase of wingnut projection and victimology in an illustrative new post (from our own birfer “veritas”, it appears) via freeper county:

    Let’s Tell The Truth: America is NOT Racist!
    Vanity | 02-27-12 | Veritas2002

    It is racism, plain and simple, that got Barack Obama elected president. When 98% of Black people pulled the lever for Obama, that’s racism (probably the same 98% of Blacks who said OJ Simpson was innocent of murdering his White estranged wife).

    No, America is not racist but the people who point their fingers at the rest of us ARE the most racist you can find. Contrary to what Martin Luther King Jr asserted, Obama was elected based on the color of his skin. You cannnot get any more racist than that.

    When Obama inaugurates an “African-Americans for Obama” re-election group, that’s racist. And what’s so troubling is that no one calls him on it. We all know that if we were to form a “White People for ….” Chris Matthews and the other Communists in the media would be apoplectic.

    It is NOT the average American who is racist in this country – it IS the minority group of vocal LEFTISTS in this country who call everyone else racist who are the REAL racists. They play the race card wherever it can be played.

    What will stop this? Only when we call out the true racists in this country – those Blacks who play the race card to eek out advantages for themselves – with the government, in the workplace, in the supermarket. In addition to them, we need to call out those who are intent on calling America a racist country. That is designed to make us feel guilty for injustices we have allegedly done. That has to stop. We need to call the accusers just what they are – the REAL racists since they are the ones talking about race all the time.

    The worst thing that Leftist communists worry about is that 1) the race card will no longer play among White people and 2) that Black people will wake up and see that it is not in their personal long term interest to play the race card. It is NOT in the interest of any Black person to play the victim so that the Communists can use them to assert power over the rest of us.

    No, America is not racist; but it’s the leftist communists in Washington, California, Seattle, and Vermont who ARE racist simply because that’s what they focus on to maintain power. It has to stop – NOW!”

    how many wingnut cliches can you find?

  258. avatar
    justlw February 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    aarrgghh: probably the same 98% of Blacks who said OJ Simpson was innocent of murdering his White estranged wife

    This sounds a lot like someone on HuffPo, “nychuck,” who made his debut quoting heavily from the “Vogt report,” but after being thoroughly shut down on that, began ranting about “you all just play the race-card” / “same ones who cheered OJ Simpson”, with an extra dollop of “Bill Ayers” on the side.

    I pointed out that one of his admitted heroes hadn’t just “palled around” with tarrists — she slept with a member in good standing of an avowed secessionist organization, and bragged about it in her memoir.

    He stopped posting after that.

  259. avatar
    justlw February 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    And again I didn’t make it clear that I was quoting someone quoting someone. I really can be taught, honest.

  260. avatar
    Montana March 1, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Mitt Romney’s Mexican father, hmmmmm…….Are the simple minded “BIRTHERS”, going to ask Romney for his birth certificate? We all know this was never about a birth certificate, if it was then these same people would be asking Romney for his. It’s about small minded people who hate African Americans and do not have the brains to review a President’s policy so they make something up. So sad, so sad.