Main Menu

One v. many

This essay was prompted by a couple of comments left on the blog here that have to do with the Arizona Cold Case Posse. The short one from commenter marshman I’ll repeat following:

Arpaio’s meeting yesterday in AZ can be found at westernjournalism.com . They say the birth cert and selective service card are a fraud. Where are they wrong?

The other one was a fine synopsis of that event by commenter G.

When I read both of those comments, I felt that I should probably do something with the March 31 Arizona press event and I noted that I really hadn’t dismantled the Cold Case Posse report piece by piece. That led to the realization that I really didn’t want to do mess with the Cold Case Posse report any more. In actuality the only news out of Arizona is Sheriff Joe Arpaio embracing birtherism. The “investigation” is just a repackaging of Jerome Corsi’s book and Mara Zebest’s WorldNetDaily articles. What they said is not news, but that they said anything is. The Cold Case Posse meeting was really a story looking for some news.

In my 3+ years here, I have done a lot of debunking of birther claims, but I realize that there is just one of me and there are many of them. There are 27 websites listed below in the Bad and Ugly section. Add to that multiple writers cranking out birther propaganda, half a dozen birther attorneys cranking out frivolous lawsuits, and many individual birthers leaving comments all over the Internet. So once again, I arrive at clarity and peace, not anxious about the inability of one person to keep track of  every piece of confetti the birthers throw. Despite the flash and noise, birthers are no closer to achieving any real objective than they were a year ago.

While it may be easy, one still tires of shooting fish in barrel. So my answer to marshman is to think for himself. Anyone with an open mind, reasonable intelligence and an Internet connection can debunk anything the birthers have come up with.

If you want coverage of the March 31 Press Conference, you can watch the entire video here. If you want to see the full Cold Case Posse debunked you can go to the Fogbow Special Report here, read John Woodman’s excellent book, read Frank Arduini’s debunking of Mara Zebest, or read my articles tagged “Cold Case Posse” or in the category “Joe Arpaio.” It’s all out there.

,

59 Responses to One v. many

  1. avatar
    Greenfinches April 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Ok then Marshman; where did the CCP attack the actual birth certificate?

    I saw some criticisms of aspects of the scanned version [on the WH website] – but nothing about the actual birth certificate itself. The criticisms of the scan seemed to be nonsense to me, but then I have been reading John Woodman’s critique there and know what a reasonable (self-proclaimed Republican) man’s attitude to this scan may be. Check that out, all on this site. And remind me also why any alleged deficiencies amount to fraud….

    As for the real issue here, let me know will you about the alleged fraud in the birth certificate?

  2. avatar
    john April 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    And I would tell Marshman, you are absolutely right. The evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING. This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body. Doc C, FogBow, John Woodman, and Frank Arduini are simply not credible sources of information when compared to Arpaio’s investigative body. Unless Doc C can bring about a report from the FBI, CIA or DOJ that directly refutes Arpiao’s investigative findings, Doc C and his pard are just uncredible Obot propaganda. Mark Zullo has also shared a little more insight into the investigative process that further discredits many of Doc C’s and Company’s speculative findings.

  3. avatar
    MN-Sunshine April 1, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    “So my answer to marshman is to think for himself. Anyone with an open mind, reasonable intelligence and an Internet connection can debunk anything the birthers have come up with.”

    Amen!

    I ran into my first birther rant a couple of years ago and explored the internet to find the answers. It seems that the birther sites have to twist themselves into pretzels to explain their way of thinking. It also reminds me of the saying that if you see hoof prints, think horse, not zebra. Birthers see zebras from outer space! I’m a very logical kind of person (think accounting, math, computers, etc., that’s me). The essays by the anti-birthers were logical and well thought out. They made sense. Doc, you’ve been one of my favorite sites since I’ve found you. You can’t educate people who don’t want to be educated, but thank you for putting the information out there in a logical, straightforward fashion. * People seeking answers will find you. *

  4. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    Doc,

    Arpaio has followed the birthers down the rabbit hole.

    I’ve watched this man since shortly after he became Sheriff and while he’s always been willing to do whatever it took to get attention he was always careful not to go to far off the rails. And if he did he just dropped it and moved on.His moves have always been calculated to get him in the right place for the next election…..just to the right of center.

    This time he seems to have taken up residence in Wonderland. While there is clearly a constituency for this nonsense it’s not large enough to get elected…..even in Maricopa County.

    Bottom line: This is truly baffling…..even for Arpaio. That he can’t see it is distressing. That others continue to buy in is depressing. Nothing you can say or do will change their minds.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    ROFL. Read my latest article:

    Pixelation is normal: Cold Case Posse lied

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/04/pixelation-is-normal-cold-case-posse-lied/

    john: And I would tell Marshman, you are absolutely right. The evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING.

  6. avatar
    Thrifty April 1, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    There are 27 websites listed below in the Bad and Ugly section. Add to that multiple writers cranking out birther propaganda, half a dozen birther attorneys cranking out frivolous lawsuits, and many individual birthers leaving comments all over the Internet. So once again, I arrive at clarity and peace, not anxious about the inability of one person to keep track of every piece of confetti the birthers throw. Despite the flash and noise, birthers are no closer to achieving any real objective than they were a year ago.

    Well, Birthers are bound to produce more than the other side. When you don’t care about honesty or quality work, and are completely without shame, you have much more stamina.

    The last point is particularly true. Birthers are annoying at worst. There’s no need to debunk them. The only reason to do so is for fun. Even in the real world, when they’re in court, you often don’t need to do anything, as evidenced by recent losses to empty chairs.

  7. avatar
    Thrifty April 1, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    See that’s the thing. The Cold Case Posse is not an official body. It’s a group of volunteers working without taxpayer money to investigate Birther claims. They’re hobbyists, just like us. Real cops do it for a living. The CCP did it for fun.

    john: This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body. Doc C, FogBow, John Woodman, and Frank Arduini are simply not credible sources of information when compared to Arpaio’s investigative body.

  8. avatar
    Obsolete April 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    john: This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body.

    1. Who are they? Name them.
    2. Is there anyone who wasn’t already a birther before the “investigation” started?

  9. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    john: evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING.

    The posse uncovered nothing. It simply regurgitated unsubstantiated (and often debunked) theories from unqualified people.

    john: This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body.

    One more time: They didn’t investigate anything. They threw up stuff that had been on the internet for years. There is nothing “official” about the posse (whoever they are) because they have no authority to investigate anything.

  10. avatar
    SluggoJD April 1, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    john:
    And I would tell Marshman, you are absolutely right.The evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING.This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body.Doc C, FogBow, John Woodman, and Frank Arduini are simply not credible sources of information when compared to Arpaio’s investigative body.Unless Doc C can bring about a report from the FBI, CIA or DOJ that directly refutes Arpiao’s investigative findings, Doc C and his pard are just uncredible Obot propaganda.Mark Zullo has also shared a little more insight into the investigative process that further discredits many of Doc C’s and Company’s speculative findings.

    It’s time Dr. C kicks you off for good.

    There’s a thing known as intellectual honesty. It means that, even if you are the dumbest person in the world, as long as you post what you believe to be true, at least you are being honest, even if wrong.

    But in your case, you just lie. You lie and lie and lie.

    It’s time your plug was pulled.

  11. avatar
    Daniel April 1, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    john: The evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING.

    While I agree you are definitely stunned, John, still I have to ask, how many court cases have you won?

  12. avatar
    Northland10 April 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    john: Unless Doc C can bring about a report from the FBI, CIA or DOJ that directly refutes Arpiao’s investigative findings, Doc C and his pard are just uncredible Obot propaganda. Mark Zullo has also shared a little more insight into the investigative process that further discredits many of Doc C’s and Company’s speculative findings.

    John, do tell us when the FBI, CIA, or DOJ actually take up an investigation on these findings. While your at it, let us know when the Sheriff actually submits the findings to any prosecutor or court.

    Propediem.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    John is our court jester.

    SluggoJD: It’s time Dr. C kicks you off for good.

    There’s a thing known as intellectual honesty. It means that, even if you are the dumbest person in the world, as long as you post what you believe to be true, at least you are being honest, even if wrong.

  14. avatar
    Rickey April 1, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    john:
    And I would tell Marshman, you are absolutely right.The evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING.

    Especially the part where they admit that real forensic experts told them that no conclusions can be drawn by examining pdfs and photocopies. But why let real experts get in the way of confirming your foregone conclusions?

  15. avatar
    G April 1, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Good points. Agreed!

    Thrifty: Well, Birthers are bound to produce more than the other side. When you don’t care about honesty or quality work, and are completely without shame , you have much more stamina.

    The last point is particularly true. Birthers are annoying at worst. There’s no need to debunk them. The only reason to do so is for fun. Even in the real world, when they’re in court, you often don’t need to do anything, as evidenced by recent losses to empty chairs.

  16. avatar
    G April 1, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    Exactly!

    CarlOrcas: The posse uncovered nothing. It simply regurgitated unsubstantiated (and often debunked) theories from unqualified people.

    One more time: They didn’t investigate anything. They threw up stuff that had been on the internet for years. There is nothing “official” about the posse (whoever they are) because they have no authority to investigate anything.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    In my view, honesty is easier than dishonesty. However, i agree with your comment about quality work.

    Thrifty: Well, Birthers are bound to produce more than the other side. When you don’t care about honesty or quality work, and are completely without shame, you have much more stamina.

  18. avatar
    G April 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    I agree with you that honesty is easier than dishonesty.

    However, I think Thrifty’s remark went to the point that it is easier to pull nonsense out of one’s @ss then it is to put in the time and effort to research the facts and dig for the truth.

    Dr. Conspiracy: In my view, honesty is easier than dishonesty. However, i agree with your comment about quality work.

  19. avatar
    Paper April 1, 2012 at 11:29 pm #

    This comment makes me think we should just skip the middlemen (FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc.) and go straight to trial by ordeal. We take the birth certificate and toss it in the fire. If it burns, it is merely fraudulent. If it survives the fire completely unscathed, then it actually is a forgery.

    Burns…someone planted false information in Hawaii. Survives unscathed…someone forged the certificate itself.

    That should settle it once and for all, don’t you think?

    john: Unless Doc C can bring about a report from the FBI, CIA or DOJ that directly refutes Arpiao’s investigative findings…

  20. avatar
    G April 1, 2012 at 11:59 pm #

    Ah yes, the Witch Trial method of determination… ;)

    Paper: We take the birth certificate and toss it in the fire. If it burns, it is merely fraudulent. If it survives the fire completely unscathed, then it actually is a forgery.
    Burns…someone planted false information in Hawaii. Survives unscathed…someone forged the certificate itself.
    That should settle it once and for all, don’t you think?

  21. avatar
    BillTheCat April 2, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    john:
    …is COMPELLING and STUNNING.This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body.Doc C, FogBow, John Woodman, and Frank Arduini are simply not credible sources of information when compared to Arpaio’s investigative body.

    Seriously, it’s like you are living in some alternate reality, a bizarro world out of a cartoon. Your statements leave me truly flabbergasted and agog.

  22. avatar
    Lupin April 2, 2012 at 4:35 am #

    john:
    And I would tell Marshman, you are absolutely right.The evidence uncovered by Arpaio’s possess is COMPELLING and STUNNING.This is a result of 6 month investigative findings from an official investigative body.Doc C, FogBow, John Woodman, and Frank Arduini are simply not credible sources of information when compared to Arpaio’s investigative body.Unless Doc C can bring about a report from the FBI, CIA or DOJ that directly refutes Arpiao’s investigative findings, Doc C and his pard are just uncredible Obot propaganda.Mark Zullo has also shared a little more insight into the investigative process that further discredits many of Doc C’s and Company’s speculative findings.

    And yet Obama IS going to be reelected.

    You realize the government knows who you are and where you live, you seditious imbecile, and after Obama is reelected, I bet they show up on your doorstep and it’s good-bye Johnnie.

  23. avatar
    Egh April 2, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    cw’s post lists clinton as the original birther just today. Here’s the only research bing returned so far. I wonder which form of lc’s electric plasma will will out?

    http://gulagbound.com/27615/did-obama-assassinate-clinton-delegates/

  24. avatar
    Majority Will April 2, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Egh:
    cw’s post lists clinton as the original birther just today.Here’s the only research bing returned so far. I wonder which form of lc’s electric plasma will will out?

    E. Glenn: Thanks for letting me know another place where the deranged, paranoid lunatics hang out and stroke each other.

  25. avatar
    Majority Will April 2, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    john: Mark Zullo has also shared a little more insight . . .

    john, a serious question for you:

    Who is Mark Zullo?

    I’ve never heard of him. Have you?

    What’s his authority? Credentials? Background? Education? Nationality? Motive? Who does he work for? Who is paying him?

  26. avatar
    JPotter April 2, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Majority Will: Who is paying him?

    That is to say, who’s paying his living expenses while he works his fingers to the bone day and night, doing whatever it is the Non-Profit Posse is doing? No need to imply he’s being paid for his non-profit work for the Non-Profit Posse. But he does have to eat. Has to pay the mortgage.

    Please do not play coy, John; ‘non-profit’ does not mean ‘not funded’.

  27. avatar
    JPotter April 2, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    Egh: http://gulagbound.com

    Wow, EGH, that is some serious crazy! A blog for wannabe sov citizens! I, too thanks you …. another gem for the collection.

    “What the Marxstream media isn’t telling you ….. Nat’l Popular Vote is a Ticket to Trotsky!”

    Glad I saw that.

  28. avatar
    The Magic M April 2, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    Lupin: You realize the government knows who you are and where you live, you seditious imbecile, and after Obama is reelected, I bet they show up on your doorstep and it’s good-bye Johnnie.

    I usually tell birthers (knowing they’ve very likely already alienated most of their friends and family) that their loved ones are spying on them and report their every move to Soros personally. There’s only a few times of the year when I feel bad for doing so. ;)

  29. avatar
    Paper April 2, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    Yes, exactly. But I should note that this trial by ordeal is not merely a stacked deck, not merely the end result of a witch hunt. There is a clear result which would indeed prove beyond all doubt that the birth certificate is true, real and correct.

    If we toss the birth certificate into the fire and then the fire turns into water, then the birth certificate clearly is accurate. I have been assured personally by birther ambassadors that such a result would be sufficient to prove President Obama is eligible for his office.

    G:
    Ah yes, the Witch Trial method of determination…

  30. avatar
    aarrgghh April 2, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Majority Will: Who is Mark Zullo?
    I’ve never heard of him. Have you?
    What’s his authority? Credentials? Background? Education? Nationality? Motive? Who does he work for? Who is paying him?

    i think we all know who mark zullo is.

  31. avatar
    Arthur April 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Lupin: You realize the government knows who you are and where you live, you seditious imbecile, and after Obama is reelected, I bet they show up on your doorstep and it’s good-bye Johnnie.

    “Take this quivering pile of dreck to Room 101.”

  32. avatar
    bovril April 2, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    I love how Birfoons spout nonsense, it makes me smile on the inside….

    Let us take John’s comment about how the ubermensch “investigators” and what was originally described as “World class experts” used multiple scanners with identical results.

    First, that was not an original statement but appears to be one of the ever evolving and changing statements that gets thrown in, presumably as feedback from when Obots have torn ideas to shreds.

    Second, exactly what TYPE of scanners were used John..?

    I mean were they all flatbed or page feed or combination
    What manufacturers were tested
    What was the age of these scanners
    Were they matched against the scanner the White House used (unlikely as the CCCP have already stated they didn’t contact the WH)
    How were the scanners calibrated
    What wear was noted on the scanners
    Was the platen cleaned and checked for scratches and wear
    Etc

    For example, for John and Trader a piece of information that should be plain to even the most enpaupered mind.

    Scanners are not magical pieces of electronic wizardry their are horrible mashes of electromechanical art.

    Two prime examples

    The feeding mechanism is mechanical, typically roller dragging
    The scan bar mechanism is hauled back and forth on a pulley and ratchet system

    Both of these as well as all the other mechanical parts WEAR and wear unevenly such that over time a scanner will acquire varying characteristics such as under or over shooting, not returning to a consistent start point, sheet feeding can drag or slide, debris can build up on the scanner plate or the bar mechanism, scratches and other wear characteristics will build on the galss platern……to name but a few.

    So, saying that they CCCP used a variety of scanners all of which showed identical results is what we in the trade call….complete and utter bollocks

  33. avatar
    Dave B. April 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    I’ve been wondering quite a bit about who Mike Zullo is myself, although the people who say, against all evidence, that President Obama’s background is a mystery seem totally incurious about him. I’ve seen some material about Zullo’s background in Arizona for which the evidence has suddenly become absent; and while there are those who alchemize such absence of evidence into evidence, I won’t make too much of that. The little itch in the back of my brain that really wants to get scratched is, is there a prior connection between Joseph Farah and Mike Zullo?

  34. avatar
    JPotter April 2, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    Dave B.: The little itch in the back of my brain that really wants to get scratched is, is there a prior connection between Joseph Farah and Mike Zullo?

    You betcha Red Ryder, they go to the same face barber. Evil Brotherhood of the ‘Stache, Unite!

    Roll Call

    Candidate Profile

    Ironically, I once woked for a company whose sartorial policy allowed ‘staches, but not beards, because people with ‘staches were trustworthy, but beards were suspicious. I think they meant to say “dirty hippies” … but, you know.

  35. avatar
    JPotter April 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    bovril: I mean were they all flatbed or page feed or combination

    Can I get a shout-out for my drum scanners? Anybody? Anybody?

    I could organize a birfer field trip to a service bureau. Will check ahead for handicap-accessibility. I promise.

  36. avatar
    bovril April 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Here’s another littel fun factoid….

    Our wonderful ubermensch keep saying they BOUGHT (dropped by Zullo at the church howdy doody) a total of 685 “rolls of microfiche”

    One of the (many) parts that has been annoying me is the terminology they keep on using and the costs we should be seeing.

    They said they bought 685 ROLLS of microfiche, well

    A. I’ll believe that when I see an official receipt
    B. Microfiche don’t come on rolls, microFILM comes on reels

    Microfiche comes an a A6 sized card, typical number images per card, 98

    Assuming they bought 685 microfiches of data that equals approx 67,000 records

    MicroFILM data of the period would have probably been on 16mm film which comes/came in 100, 130 or 215 foot lengths

    Typical figures for number of images per roll is between 2,000 and 2,500

    Assuming they bought 685 reels that would be between 1,370,000 and 1,712,500 records

    Commercial rates for scanning to an electronic image is approx 2 cents per image and that seems to be a typical flat cost without indexing or running OCR on the CONTENT.

    Does anyone here belive that Corsi and the CCCP ACTUALLY manually went through a minmum of 67,000 to a maximum of 1.7 MILLION records.

    Oh and Zullo said during his spiel…“…685 rolls of microfiche were copied….on your dime…(audience chuckles) …a good use of your money…” (H/T to Mr Brown at the Fogbow)

    So the CCCP appears to have, in direct opposition to the Shurrif’s continual squealing, actually spent substantial amounts of Maricopa County money…..

  37. avatar
    Thrifty April 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Doc, maybe it’s just my imagination, but it seems like you’ve been putting up these sorts of “frustrated and tired with Birthers” posts more and more often lately. If it’s bothering you, maybe you should be more aggressive in your moderation. Free and open discourse is one thing, but in the year and a half I’ve been following this blog I’ve seen 1, maybe 2 Birthers who even remotely argued in good faith, against dozens who were just around to stir up trouble and smear the President. They never let us post on their sites, why extend them that courtesy?

  38. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 4, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    Anyone have a take on this latest WND flush of Corsi’s mind? Specifically, I’m wondering to what degree they may be fudging the idea that the Governor need not sign this law for it to be applicable to the Arizona SOS. Thoughts?

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/tea-party-to-arizona-check-obamas-eligibility/

  39. avatar
    Paper April 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    There is value to exposing the mendacity or pettiness or thoughtlessness of such people’s views. While not obligated to offer free speech (Dr. C not being the government despite all his attempts!), allowing as much as practical allows fools and villains to be exposed. As such, it isn’t about winning an argument or proving each troll a fool; it’s about the process of exposure.

    That said, I do think there is the balancing danger of getting sucked into pettiness, of even giving too much hope to birthers by engaging them on a level they don’t actually deserve or to which they rise. Thus, courts just say, goodbye, good luck, next. But that is our own concern, whether or not to engage, and the extent to which we jeopardize our own quality of life by playing in barrels of tar, by discussing technical points and endless hypotheticals that don’t even matter because the President was born in America. Or how much mental space we give birthers by even acknowledging their nonsense.

    Our remedy to such an “injury” is simply to skip reading them, or not to reply.

    As the host of this blog, Dr. C. does pretty well, I think, in letting certain characters have their run, and then reigning them in as appropriate. It’s part of the job, if one is going to host a good blog on such a topic in the first place.

    A troll may think they’ve stirred a hornet’s nest and laugh and laugh, but the difference is they go off not giving any of it a second thought, while anyone else who wants, such as ourselves, has a chance to broaden our understandings and character.

    “Oh, I punked those Obots good!” Oh, really. I know birthers personally, closely, and I am thankful to G-d that I somehow escaped and do not have to carry, as they themselves do, the burden of their petty, shallow grievances. They do me a service, by showing me what not to do with my life.

    So, punk me some more, punks. I grow, you wither. I’d rather you grew too, but as the Dalai Lama says, the best remedy is being happy, living a full life. So sorry, I didn’t let you poison my life. I just can’t be a codependent to your addiction. Thank you for showing me what not to do, so that I merely have foibles instead of pathologies.

    Amen.

    Thrifty:
    Doc, maybe it’s just my imagination, but it seems like you’ve been putting up these sorts of “frustrated and tired with Birthers” posts more and more often lately.If it’s bothering you, maybe you should be more aggressive in your moderation.Free and open discourse is one thing, but in the year and a half I’ve been following this blog I’ve seen 1, maybe 2 Birthers who even remotely argued in good faith, against dozens who were just around to stir up trouble and smear the President. They never let us post on their sites, why extend them that courtesy?

  40. avatar
    Paper April 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Or to raise our game and keep it raised.

    Paper: Our remedy to such an “injury” is simply to skip reading them, or not to reply.

  41. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Arizona v Arizona: Anyone have a take on this latest WND flush of Corsi’s mind?

    Oh, this is good … trying to make an end-run around Brewer, who recently veto’d a birther bill passed by the legislature.

    He states a statute dictates that if both houses pass a resolution, then the SOS has to act. He quotes AZ 41-121-1. Assuming that’s correct …. the tea party is collecting signatures for this petition:

    http://www.teapartytribune.com/petition-asr-41-121-1/

    Read it carefully …. it attempts to create a situation in which MCSO, not the SOS, will verify Obama’s eligibility! LOL!

  42. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Right, exactly. What I’m trying to figure out is if this is another case of WND bending reality, by asserting that this is a novel legal maneuver. My WND b.s. detector suggests they might just be spinning that, that some people think they can, but it is not actually legal. So I wonder if anyone has the skinny on it?

    JPotter: Oh, this is good … trying to make an end-run around Brewer, who recently veto’d a birther bill passed by the legislature.

    He states a statute dictates that if both houses pass a resolution, then the SOS has to act. He quotes AZ 41-121-1. Assuming that’s correct …. the tea party is collecting signatures for this petition:

    http://www.teapartytribune.com/petition-asr-41-121-1/

    Read it carefully …. it attempts to create a situation in which MCSO, not the SOS, will verify Obama’s eligibility! LOL!

  43. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 4, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Arizona v Arizona: Right, exactly. What I’m trying to figure out is if this is another case of WND bending reality, by asserting that this is a novel legal maneuver. My WND b.s. detector suggests they might just be spinning that, that some people think they can, but it is not actually legal. So I wonder if anyone has the skinny on it?

    There’s no way to tell at this point but I suspect your b.s. detector is on target.

    The notion that the legislature (one or both houses) could (by resolution as opposed to law) direct one constitutional officer (the Secretary of State) to gather information to satisfy the curiosity (there is no criminal investigation) of another constitutional officer (a county sheriff) is a mind bender…….even for Arizona.

  44. avatar
    bovril April 4, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Then continuing idiocy of the Birthers is astounding…..

    Reading the words of the ACTUAL statute it says

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/41/00121.htm

    A. The secretary of state shall:

    1. Receive bills and resolutions from the legislature, and perform such other duties as devolve upon the secretary of state by resolution of the two houses or either of them.
    (emphasis added)

    So, in the insane mind of the Birther, they shouldn’t need BOTH houses to do this, only ONE, so why the two houses path…..???

    Next, states don’t get to ask for the Presidents qualifications and sure as hell not some rinky-dink sherrifs department, that is the prerogative of and only of Congress via the the process of certifying the Electoral College votes or via impeachment.

  45. avatar
    Dave B. April 4, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    I took a look at ARS 41-121:
    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/00121.htm&Title=41&DocType=ARS
    Here’s ARS 41-121B:
    “B. The secretary of state may refuse to perform a service or refuse a filing based on a reasonable belief that the service or filing is being requested for an unlawful, illegitimate, false or fraudulent purpose or is being requested or submitted in bad faith or for the purpose of harassing or defrauding a person or entity. This subsection does not apply to election filings.”

  46. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 4, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    Well, this is about resolutions, which can be passed by one or both houses. Resolutions normally have no enforceable power (unless a joint resolution is signed by the executive). So in that respect their birther petition is just riding on the coattails of that procedure.

    What I’m trying to parse is if this ARS 41-121 *requires* the SoS to do what a resolution says. That’s certainly how WND sees it, and how it looks at first glance.

    *Receiving* bills and resolutions is just receiving, but the next part of that sentence says perform such other duties as devolve upon the SoS by resolution. Section B that Dave B. highlights doesn’t seem to limit change that, at least on my first parsing.

    But what I am suspecting is that this law may require the Arizona SoS to perform the duty spelled out in a resolution, but that that is precisely all such resolutions can do. Namely, the SoS would be required to send such a request to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but that is all, merely send a request.

    I don’t see that there is anything enforceable here. DWS could just ignore it, file it in the circular file, or just say no, but thanks for asking so nicely. And then the SoS could go to lunch.

    The only seemingly enforceable aspect seems to be the SoS would have to send a letter. Ooh, watch out. Maybe DWS could just cut and paste her response from the Selective Service, edit it slightly, or just send a thank you card for helping Obama’s reelection campaign.

    bovril:
    Then continuing idiocy of the Birthers is astounding…..

    Reading the words of the ACTUAL statute it says

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/41/00121.htm

    A. The secretary of state shall:

    1. Receive bills and resolutions from the legislature, and perform such other duties as devolve upon the secretary of state by resolution of the two houses or either of them.(emphasis added)

    So, in the insane mind of the Birther, they shouldn’t need BOTH houses to do this, only ONE, so why the two houses path…..???

    Next, states don’t get to ask for the Presidents qualifications and sure as hell not some rinky-dink sherrifs department, that is the prerogative of and only of Congress via the the process of certifying the Electoral College votes or via impeachment.

  47. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    And so yes, Corsi and WnD are spinning b.s. as always.

    Corsi writes:

    “Evoking an overlooked provision of state law, Arizona tea party groups are circulating a petition urging a chamber of the state legislature to pass a resolution that would force Arizona’s secretary of state to examine Barack Obama’s birth credentials.”

    Well, no.

    It would just require the SoS to send a certified letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz with a request.

    Corsi gies on to add:

    “Brian Reilly, co-chairman of a gathering of tea party groups held Saturday at the Church on the Green in Sun City West, Ariz., said the strategy is to ‘force the hand’ of Bennett ‘without requiring the Arizona legislature to pass a bill in both houses and to get the governor’s signature.’

    “Reilly said the petition serves as a ‘command for the Arizona secretary of state to perform,’ which would require Obama to submit eligibility documentation even if Arizona never passes an eligibility statute.”

    But a resolution based on this petition would not do that either.

    That raises the question, could a differently worded but nonetheless mere resolution, in Arizona, force a candidate to provide eligibility documentation. I don’t think so. Because a resolution would only be binding on the SoS, not a candidate.

    But then I wonder, could a resolution be worded to require the SoS to NOT act, to NOT certify a candidate unless that candidate provided certain documentation? That seems like overreach. This petition doesn’t go that far, but could any resolution go that far?

    Thoughts?

  48. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    Always remember, everything WND does, is designed to: first, keep the readership whipped up and coming back for more; and second, keep the readership whipped up and coming back for more. The more whipped up the better. Devotion = donation.

    Success (meaing achieving their purported goals) would kill the gravy train.

    Their actions need not be sensible as a means of effecting real-world results, only in terms of carrying on the show, maintaining the misdirection. Don’t look behind the curtain–LOOK! Over here! We’re Doing Something!

    Check the comments. The marks are lapping it up.

    WND exists to fulfill WND’s goals and service the interests of their backers. WND could care less about the desires of its devotees. Create a specific, unfillable desire based on a general fear, hold out the illusion of hope that the desire may be satisfied, and agitate constantly.

    Keeping this approach in mind, WND is a fairly brilliant operation. Considering what scraps they have to work with.

  49. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 4, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    Oh, I know. Just wanting to parse out exactly how in this instance. Mostly just intrigued by this resolution business.

    JPotter:
    Always remember, everything WND does, is designed to: first, keep the readership whipped up and coming back for more; and second, keep the readership whipped up and coming back for more. The more whipped up the better. Devotion = donation.

    Success (meaing achieving their purported goals) would kill the gravy train.

    Their actions need not be sensible as a means of effecting real-world results, only in terms of carrying on the show, maintaining the misdirection. Don’t look behind the curtain–LOOK! Over here! We’re Doing Something!

    Check the comments. The marks are lapping it up.

    WND exists to fulfill WND’s goals and service the interests of their backers. WND could care less about the desires of its devotees. Create a specific, unfillable desire based on a general fear, hold out the illusion of hope that the desire may be satisfied, and agitate constantly.

    Keeping this approach in mind, WND is a fairly brilliant operation. Considering what scraps they have to work with.

  50. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Arizona v Arizona: Thoughts?

    Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Bottom line: They’re nuts!

  51. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    Arizona v Arizona: “Brian Reilly, co-chairman of a gathering of tea party groups held Saturday at the Church on the Green in Sun City West, Ariz., said the strategy is to force the hand’ of Bennett without requiring the Arizona legislature to pass a bill in both houses and to get the governor’s signature.’

    Well, the strategy is clear but what do they expect? How would they envision enforcing such a resolution?

    It’s perhaps binding on the SOS, although it would not survive any legal scrutiny, but it would be totally non-binding on anyone else.

    Still, interesting how desperate they are getting.

  52. avatar
    Mr. Spock April 5, 2012 at 2:20 am #

    bovril: A. The secretary of state shall:

    1. Receive bills and resolutions from the legislature, and perform such other duties as devolve upon the secretary of state by resolution of the two houses or either of them.
    (emphasis added)

    I read it to mean that the Legislature can request that the SoS perform other duties than those specified by law. I thinking of duties like attend conferences with SoS from other states, or maybe instigate a process to impeach a Sheriff for dereliction of duty (I can dream).

    Dave B.: “B. The secretary of state may refuse to perform a service or refuse a filing based on a reasonable belief that the service or filing is being requested for an unlawful, illegitimate, false or fraudulent purpose or is being requested or submitted in bad faith or for the purpose of harassing or defrauding a person or entity. This subsection does not apply to election filings.”

    Clearly the ‘additional duties’ do not extend to violations of State or Federal laws or Constitutions, or enforcing fantasy provisions of a law.

  53. avatar
    Keith April 5, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    Sorry folks, I have to own up. Mr. Spock is me. I used that name for a snarky response to someone elses Star Trek references, and I got tripped up by the back button.

  54. avatar
    Ariane April 5, 2012 at 4:54 am #

    you have such a good sense when you’re writing, please keep doing the good work.http://www.decolarpassagens.net

  55. avatar
    Arthur April 5, 2012 at 6:25 am #

    Ariane: you have such a good sense when you’re writing, please keep doing the good work.

    I see Dr. C.’s spam fitler let one through.

  56. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 5, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    Well, that’s the main question. The Arizona constitution says the powers and duties of the SoS shall be set by law. The law includes this phrase about “devolving” duties from legislative resolutions. As the duties *devolve* from the resolution, I would think at first blush that that means such duties are circumscribed by the limits of a resolution (which is not an enforceable law). They also are duties that devolve, not powers, which is another little slice of the dice.

    Moreover, they aren’t actually petitioning for anything substantial, so that suggests somebody already knows that they can’t.

    When you look at what they actually are requesting, it isn’t really much. A letter. That fits the whole idea of the SoS acting as the arm of the legislature expressing the sense of the body, in this case specifically conveying that sense to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So that seems a legitimate use of the SoS. But changing the legal election process would seem beyond this scope. I would think.

    Mr. Spock: I read it to mean that the Legislature can request that the SoS perform other duties than those specified by law. I thinking of duties like attend conferences with SoS from other states, or maybe instigate a process to impeach a Sheriff for dereliction of duty (I can dream).

    Clearly the additional duties’ do not extend to violations of State or Federal laws or Constitutions, or enforcing fantasy provisions of a law.

  57. avatar
    Arizona v Arizona April 5, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    Of course, it is nice to see someone writing laws that express their belief in devolution, which by the inverse property means they also believe in evolution.

  58. avatar
    nbc April 5, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Arizona v Arizona: When you look at what they actually are requesting, it isn’t really much. A letter. That fits the whole idea of the SoS acting as the arm of the legislature expressing the sense of the body, in this case specifically conveying that sense to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So that seems a legitimate use of the SoS. But changing the legal election process would seem beyond this scope. I would think.

    So in other words, form over substance? Imagine that. Another blow to the hopes of the birthers who want to have President Obama removed…

    What a shame…

  59. avatar
    JPotter April 5, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    nbc: form over substance?

    RWNutJobbery, including birtherism, is all form w/o substance. The substance is only implied, and the source assigned to a target. The marks eat it up, expect the goodies, only to be disappointed and enraged, and blame the target. Will the marks clue in to the game and turn on the agitators? How to enable that. Hmmm.