Main Menu

Archive | December, 2012

Noonan doubts judge’s GOP credentials

This was published at The American Resistance Party web site, attributed to birther plaintiff Edward Noonan:

As one of the litigants in Attorney Orly Taitz’s upcoming Barry Soetoro (aka BHO) eligibility case (Jan 3, 2013), I have doubts that Judge Morrison C. England, Jr can be objective about removing the Usurper-in-Chief from office. England will be incapable of being fair and honest in this “Soetoro eligibility” matter. I will admit that England was nominated by George W. Bush (on March 21, 2002) for the seat on the Federal bench but I can hardly believe that England is a stalwart GOPer.

I have been unhappy with England in the past. He was the “conservative turncoat” who decided anyone that contributed money to Prop 8 could be “outed” in newspaper articles. The same leftist garbage is currently being pulled back East where names of private GUN OWNERS are being highlighted in the local newspapers. This so-called Judge (England) ruled that it is okay to ridicule and give out names and addresses of those that contribute to anti-gay causes and campaigns.


Judge England disregarded Supreme Court rulings that allowed the NAACP and the Socialist Workers Party to conceal their membership or contribution lists after encountering public hostility. But the anti-gay patriots were not allowed the same status. Thus, I do not feel kindly towards Mr. England.

Every judge has politics, but they are expected to follow the law, and if they don’t their decisions get overturned.

The non-sequitur in Noonan’s complaint here is that in the NAACP/SWP case, the organization was allowed to keep its records private. That’s different from the disclosure of public records. If the NAACP members and SWP members had made political contributions, or registered something with the State, their records would be public also.


Retrospective retrospective

It has been on my mind that about this time of year, I usually write some sort of retrospective, a “year in birtherism” or “major birther stories of the year” article. I’m not so much inclined to do it this year. There was just one big birther story in 2012: “Obama re-elected despite birthers.”

My first retrospective article was published a year after the blog started: “Obama Conspiracy Theories 2009 Retrospective.” I wrote then:

If any one thing about the year was remarkable, it was the persistence of those who support these views. What started up as a few Internet blogs turned by year’s end into a new word, "birther" entering the vocabulary as a runner up for "word of the year."

2010 was such a disappointing year, I titled my retrospective “Not with a bang but a whimper.”

When I look back at things from this last day of 2010, I see not much cheer for the birthers. All their great hope lawsuits have been to the Supreme Court and been denied. Terry Lakin plead guilty and tearfully said that disobeying orders was not the way to get his questions answered. Taitz lost her bid for political office. National birther events haven’t generated enough attendance to fill a school bus. … It’s pretty pathetic.

I called 2011 “The year of the long form.”

Thinking back over the past year, I think no single event more influenced the birther movement than the release by the White House of a certified copy of Barack Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii…

You can browse through earlier articles here:


Cruel and unusual punishment

While I can greet conspiracy theories with bemusement, and find interest in the psychological underpinning for believing impossible things, there is one part of the birther movement that troubles me deeply, and that is the moral depravity exhibited by some of the birthers.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The 8th Amendment to the US Constitution

Compare that to our “patriots” commenting at ObamaReleaseYourRecords:

Ron: id like a front row seat at his hanging. i want to be close enough to hear his neck pop when it breaks and close enough to see him shit his pants and piss all over his self. id get it on my phone cam as a reminder and post it on youtube over and over. Pelosi should be next right after him for her part in this crime. they can do a group hanging for all the treasonous democommies in our government. we the people need to demand this and all you judges who lied and dropped the cases about his criminal actions you all need to spend life behind bars with only a TV channel that plays Obama speeches 24/7 365 days a year that cant be turned off. you all need to live a life of constant Obama running his yap telling lies.

and the reply:

ThomasThePaine: This POS does not deserve a merciful trapdoor… He should be hoisted slowly without any neck snapping.

Let me hasten to say that the first of those two comments has been deleted by the ORYR moderator after a complaint was filed. The second, which exhibits sadistic cruelty, is still there as of this writing.

On my way to church this morning, I saw this car:


Note the character urinating on the word “Obama.”

Moral depravity and sadism among the birthers disturbs me as a moral person, but also it makes me afraid, not for myself or for President Obama, but for some innocent third party who might become a target for the frustrated evil of people like these. In this country one can legally own weapons capable of killing dozens of people in minutes, even in hardened locations like police stations and military bases.

Now, with the Internet, deviants can meet and reinforce their own kind. When I remarked at ORYR about the first comment above, saying “That’s truly a vile comment,” I was greeted by the remarkable reply: “Who are you to judge? What are your credentials?” I’m a human being; what else does one need to express moral outrage? Maybe the verbal masturbation of these folks on the Internet satisfies their need for violence. I hope so. I’m just thankful none of them live next door.


Birther rumors pervade treason complaint

Walter Fitzpatrick III has a list 5 of treason complaints written against President Obama in the last 2 months over at his Jag Hunter site.

I looked at one of them sent 4 days ago to a Florida federal grand jury by Navy veteran Joseph Mayer, and found it filled with birther nonsense. The rhetoric is rather over the top, and Obama is blamed for lots of things that have gone wrong in the world. Adding things like “Obama is a Muslim” and references to his social-security number show that Mr. Mayer is suffering from a severe deficit of facts as well as a distorted perspective on current events. He’s so far detached from reality that he even believes the POSFKBC (President Obama’s second fake Kenyan birth certificate), the one with the baby footprint on it.

Peppering federal grand juries with affidavits seems to be a current birther emphasis, promoted by such web sites as The Hidden 4th Branch who say:



Reverse engineering Dr. Onaka

Birther blogger Butterdezillion has a reputation for, how shall I say it, “non-linear thinking.” She’s a pretty good researcher, persistent and I think accurate. The problem with her writing is that the conclusions typically turn out the opposite of what one gets with the usual rules of logic.

The latest example of BZ’ discovery of hidden meaning in plain text is a letter purportedly faxed to every member of Congress in which she says, in part:

Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image is NOT “identical to” that in the official record.

Cat staring off into spaceI had read that paragraph before without attribution at various web sites, and it frankly made no sense. Now with Butterdezillion’s name attached, the explanation is no longer a mystery. You see, what you don’t say is more important to Butterdezillion than what you do say, and in this case apparently only some special magic formulation can convey Obama’s eligibility, and any failure to use the magic words means the opposite is true. BZ reminds me of the cat in a Kliban cartoon captioned: “Cats see things we don’t.”

What Onaka actually said to Bennett was:

Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.

What Onaka actually said to Kobach was:

  1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
  2. The file number for the Certificate of live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is 151 61 10641.
  3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.

Photo of cat



Let’s say you have a list of things such as: Barack Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham, birth certificate, social-security number, selective service registration, fraud, college records, Frank Marshall Davis, etc. From the list you can pick some number of them to make a combination. This seems to be the process from which yet another Obama conspiracy theory has arisen, selecting the combination of “Stanley Ann Dunham,” “fraud” and “social-security number.”

The social-security number of Barack Obama’s mother is well-known and fully verified. The number, 535-40-8522, appears for example on her 1976 passport application that I obtained via FOIA. It’s also in the publicly available Social Security Death Index:


Given the availability of public records about deceased persons, I was more than a little perplexed to see an article claiming that she had a fraudulent social-security number (insinuating that the practice runs in the family). The article, “Obama’s Mama Had a Fraudulent Social Security Number Too!” appears at the We the People of the United States blog.

The basis of this claim is the familiar examination of a low-resolution copy of a document and speculation that there is something wrong with it, in this case, the Stanley Ann Dunham’s application for a social-security number. The writer “Bridgette” obtained a copy of Dunham’s application form from the Social Security Administration. Here is the image published:


The argument that the application is a fake is based on the revision date on the form, which appears at the bottom.  The claim is that the blurry revision date on this form completed in 1959 doesn’t match any actual revision date of such forms, dates obtained from SSA. The author reads the date as 7-55, 7-65, or 7-68. The SSA response lists 9-42, 7-56 and 7-69 as the SS-5 form revision dates covering the time period. One might argue that birthers see only what they want to see in documents and question the interpretation of the smudgy date, but we can do better than that.

In the article there appears these paragraphs:

Using Ann’s number shown on the form above, 535-40-8522, numbers were checked in the final number sequence.  I started with 535-40-8518 – 28.  Only two people within the sequence died.  One was Stanley A. Dunham,   born  29 Nov. 29,  1942,  and died   Nov. 7,  1995 at age  52 in  96826 (Honolulu, Honolulu, HI)    (last benefit none specified).   SS # issued in  Washington.    She applied on  May 22, 1959 at age 16.

The other person in the sequence was  J. Henriksen with the number,  535-40-8526.  He/she  was born in  1926  and died in  1986.  His SS number was issued in Washington.   That meant he was  33 when he applied for a social security number in 1959 while Stanley Ann was only 16.     (The original Social Security Act  was  initiated in 1935 and was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. ).

This mention of Henriksen, applying for a social-security number probably on the very same day that Dunham applied, and probably at the very same office (given that the numbers assigned were only 4 apart), certainly raised an immediate question in my mind: What form was used for Mr. Henriksen’s application? Apparently this thought didn’t enter the mind of the writer at the WTPOTUS blog, or if it did nothing was published about it. I, however, did not let the matter end there, but requested a copy of Mr. Henriksen’s social-security application and it arrived yesterday. The original copy I received from SSA seems clear enough to me to determine confidently that the revision date is 7-55, the same as was surmised by the WTPOTUS writer for Dunham’s application. Despite what the SSA thinks, the Social Security office in Seattle, Washington, in 1959 was using a form with a revision date of 7-55.

Henriksen SSA-5 Application

The forms appear identical, even to the employee initials at the lower left of the form. There’s nothing whatever wrong with Dunham’s social-security application.