Main Menu

Taitz threatens Supreme Court with treason charge

As you probably know, the Supreme Court of the United States put the case of Noonan v. Bowen (actually a petition for a stay) on the list for its February 16th conference. The Court has not asked for a response (meaning that they aren’t seriously considering the case), but Orly Taitz, attorney for Noonan, filed something anyway [link to Taitz web site].

No one is going to accuse Orly Taitz of trying to suck up to the Supreme Court, since part of the brief is a demand for the two Obama appointees on the Court to recuse themselves, and she accuses a clerk of the Court of monkey business in a previous case of hers before the Court, Lightfoot v. Bowen, and then lying to cover it up.

And Nazis—did I mention Nazis? Here’s one of several:

Based on the behavior of the U.S. judges during the Obama regime, it is clear that Justice Breyer did not teach the Russian judges democracy and the independence of the judiciary but it is the other way around, the Russian judges taught American counterparts some telephone justice akin to the “judges letters” sent to judges during the NAZI regime.

Oh, and if the Court doesn’t hear her case, they will be guilty of:

It is time, it is high time for the Supreme Court of the United States to act, to assume the jurisdiction, as not doing so will be treason to the constitution.

TREASON? :shock: This brief is so “over the top” that we may be looking at a crash landing on the Moon!

,

198 Responses to Taitz threatens Supreme Court with treason charge

  1. avatar
    Paper February 10, 2013 at 12:10 am #

    She has it all wrong, though. The justices are just following the secret codes, the secret meanings from the founders. She shouldn’t worry so much. It’s all part of the plan, and her role as the hero will soon be upon her.

    Wikileaks supplied me with this advance copy:

    “In the year 2013, after the false ending of the earth, the Nine shall wait to open the enclosed letter until treason appears in their councils. After the Nine have read its contents, they shall deliver this selfsame letter to the Innocent Herald who shall know its purpose. Forthwith, the Nine will declare the Usurper usurped and reveal the True Constitution hidden until this most propitious time.”

  2. avatar
    Dave B. February 10, 2013 at 12:53 am #

    Don’t you know Mario’s going to hit the roof. All the trouble he’s gone to, and it was just secret codes all along. Gosh, if we’d only known that from the beginning, think of how simple this whole mess would’ve been.

    Paper: She has it all wrong, though. The justices are just following the secret codes, the secret meanings from the founders.

  3. avatar
    Paper February 10, 2013 at 1:00 am #

    You can’t rush destiny, nor secret codes.

    Dave B.:
    Don’t you know Mario’s going to hit the roof.All the trouble he’s gone to, and it was just secret codes all along.Gosh, if we’d only known that from the beginning, think of how simple this whole mess would’ve been.

  4. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 10, 2013 at 1:21 am #

    How does one go about ‘charging’ SCOTUS with treason?

    Wouldn’t Congress have to handle that, impeaching the justices one at a time?

    And then the sitting President would naturally be required to appoint replacements ….. ;)

  5. avatar
    BillTheCat February 10, 2013 at 3:37 am #

    She is a psycho. Good luck with the threats Orly, too bad none of them will ever read it.

  6. avatar
    justlw February 10, 2013 at 4:20 am #

    And Nazis—did I mention Nazis?

    Well there’s your problem right there. She thinks Godwin’s Law is a real law.

  7. avatar
    Northland10 February 10, 2013 at 7:43 am #

    The Court has not asked for a response (meaning that they aren’t seriously considering the case), but Orly Taitz, attorney for Noonan, filed something anyway

    If she really wanted to file something, she could have found something of more use, such as a Petition for a writ of certiorari.

  8. avatar
    Yoda February 10, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    And Nazis—did I mention Nazis?

    Brings to mind Lewis Blacks bit about Beck. It is on youtube. Search Nazi Tourette’s.

  9. avatar
    Bob February 10, 2013 at 8:52 am #

    If Obots were like Birthers the February 17th headline would be:

    Supreme Court Rules on Obama’s Eligibility

    It’s finally over! The Supreme Court has heard the accusations against Obama and ruled that he is eligible to be president of the United States and that his birth certificate is genuine and that he has not been fraudulently using a Social Security number that isn’t his.

  10. avatar
    realist February 10, 2013 at 9:37 am #

    “No. 12A606
    Title:
    Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
    v.
    Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State”

    “IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    CASE #A-12606

    NOONAN ET AL V BOWEN

    SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE”

    Just sayin’. :)

  11. avatar
    alg February 10, 2013 at 9:50 am #

    A simple medical procedure could solve this problem…Orly’s brain could use an enema. The risk though is that there would probably be nothing left.

  12. avatar
    Bernard February 10, 2013 at 9:56 am #

    Taitz submission to the Supreme Ct notes (as last minute evidence) that Ann Dunham (Mama Obama) had little Barack (then age 8) dropped from her passport in 1969 – and Taitz says that the primary reason for dropping someone from a US passport is that the person has relinquished his US citizenship.

    I have an advantage, I worked for the US Passport Office in NYC from 1971-1974. I saw thousands of birth certificates and handled thousands of passports. Until about 1972, “group” passports were possible – husband & wife on the same passport, sometimes husband, wife, & kids on one passport, often one parent & kid, etc. The problem with group passports is that the entire group always had to cross borders together (you may remember, more than 30 years ago, stories of children somehow stranded in a foreign country unable to board a flight home – because the parent whose passport they were on was not accompanying them – the State Dept could straighten this out once it got to amend that parent’s passport). So the principal reason for dropping someone from a group passport was because that person was not accompanying the other person(s) on the passport; and usually that person was then issued a passport of his own. Meaning, Dunham had reason to travel by herself and so she had little Barack taken off her passport AND GIVEN A US PASSPORT OF HIS OWN.

    If, instead, Barack had relinquished his US citizenship, he’d have to go (with a parent or guardian) to a US diplomatic mission in a foreign country and commence the formal paperwork that would lead to the State Dept eventually issuing him a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. By the way, by conceding that Barack had once been on Dunham’s US passport, Taitz is admitting that (at least originally) Barack was a United States citizen.

    By the way, based on my experience with the Passport Office, the birth certificates issued by Hawaii to Obama (both short and long) are the genuine article and either one is sufficient proof to get Obama a US passport.

  13. avatar
    Reality Check February 10, 2013 at 10:19 am #

    Bernard

    Thanks for the informative comment about group passports and procedures from that era. Do you have any theory on the word “Soebarkah” that is stricken out along with Barack Obama’s name on the back of Ann Dunham’s passport application? I have contended that this is not a name but something in Indonesian indicating he is the “son of Soetoro” or something to that effect. Like most I believe that Obama’s name was incorrectly added in this section since he most likely had his own passport by the time Ann renewed hers. That is why Obama’s name was crossed out.

  14. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 10, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    Don’t forget, she also wants the Clerk hanged.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 10, 2013 at 10:44 am #

    I know I’m sounding like a cracked record but I do not believe that Orly Taitz passed either the Taft law degree or the CA Bar. She must ahve had someone impersonating her. It’s not just that she has absolutely no idea about the law or the Constitution, she cannot write in a coherent way. Her written English – and this is someone who made a disgusting remark a few months ago about CA officials with Spanish names (which also shows she knows nothing of the history of the country or the state she lives in) – is hopeless. You cannot discern much meaning in it, and unless there isn’t an exam requirement, she cannot have passed.

  16. avatar
    dogsled February 10, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    Crazy lady !!!!

  17. avatar
    Thinker February 10, 2013 at 11:09 am #

    I see Orly is once again demonstrating how much she loves the United States by comparing it to Nazi Germany.

  18. avatar
    Bob February 10, 2013 at 11:58 am #

    Here’s the parody comment I left on Orly’s site which she put through:

    Franklin Lancaster

    I’m so happy that the Supreme Court will be hearing Obama’s eligibility case and that finally, ONCE AND FOR ALL, we will know whether or not Obama is eligible. I’m sure he will be found ineligible but I’m prepared to accept the verdict whichever way it goes and move on.

    Thanks for everything and good luck!!!

  19. avatar
    Paula February 10, 2013 at 12:18 pm #

    I do not understand for the life of me, why American citizens are not interested in seeing this man’s documentation to be eligible for president. Do people in general, have any idea the lengths Obama has gone to to hide his records? He has spent millions of his own dollars to hide who he is from the American people! I don’t understand why it is such a crazy notion to want to see them! Does the general population know of the concerns of some the top intelligence officers regarding this matter? Are we this thoroughly brainwashed,blind or apathetic? Doesn’t ANYONE WONDER WHY HE IS USING A PROVEN FAKE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? Doesn’t this behavior concern people? If this is all true, this makes Watergate look like child’s play! Imagine for a moment, what he would have planned for the country, if he actually went to this extent to get into that office, it’s certainly not going to have been for his own entertainment, I can assure you of that! If this man conned his way into office, he did it for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON and we are in serious, serious danger, What the hell could asking him to prove himself hurt when you consider what’s at stake for us in all this! IT USED TO BE A LAW TO PROVE YOUR ELIGIBILITY! WE have NO sense of responsibility to our own nation anymore, we have taken far too much for granted for far too long, something our founding fathers warned against and I have a feeling we are about to pay the piper. I think the American population is going to be in for a very big and a VERY UNPLEASANT SURPRISE, VERY SOON! God Help us!

  20. avatar
    donna February 10, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    Paula:

    are you new to the “party”? doc has numerous, annotated, verifiable sources refuting your long refuted assertions

  21. avatar
    john February 10, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    Orly writes about some very shady things happening the the US Supreme Court. It is dishearting for Orly, or for any lawyer for that matter appealing to SCOTUS, that their petitions are never seen by the justices. Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only. I can speak for any lawyer, that I certainly don’t want any Law Clerk reviewing my petition. The law clerk’s job is forward the petition on to the Justices. They read the petition and make the decision.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    Hi, Paula. It seems you have accidentally stumbled into the real world here where that nonsense you’re writing is well known and long discredited.

    If you’re interesting in learning more about the real world, you might start with my Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories. Otherwise, don’t hang around here because you’ll get your delusions bruised.

    Paula: I do not understand for the life of me, why American citizens are not interested in seeing this man’s documentation to be eligible for president. Do people in general, have any idea the lengths Obama has gone to to hide his records? He has spent millions of his own dollars to …

  23. avatar
    john February 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    Bottom Line – Orly’s demand – Law Clerks lay your freaking hands and eyes off my petition. Your job is forward my petition to the Justices. My petition is for the JUSTICES EYES ONLY. THEY MAKE THE DECISION. I have to agree with Orly. If I went to Leonardo De Vinci or Mikeangelo for help, you certainly would not want one their apprentices.

    Despite, their very scholarly law education and background, SCOTUS law clerks are just that, clerks that handle legal documents. I want the infinite wisdom of the justices to read and review my petition.

  24. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    aesthetocyst:
    How does one go about ‘charging’ SCOTUS with treason?

    Wouldn’t Congress have to handle that, impeaching the justices one at a time?

    And then the sitting President would naturally be required to appoint replacements …..

    No you got it wrong. It is only after Obama is kicked out of office because of fraud that a “special election” will be held and then the new president will appoint the replacements.

  25. avatar
    Paula February 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    People bashing this woman obviously have no idea, JUST HOW ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT our government has become! Turn off your TV’s PLEASE and do some research of your own!

  26. avatar
    Jim February 10, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    john:
    Orly writes about some very shady things happening the the US Supreme Court.It is dishearting for Orly, or for any lawyer for that matter appealing to SCOTUS, that their petitions are never seen by the justices. Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only.I can speak for any lawyer, that I certainly don’t want any Law Clerk reviewing my petition. The law clerk’s job is forward the petition on to the Justices. They read the petition and make the decision.

    John, in the real world, the clerk’s job is as gatekeeper for the Justices. Do you realize how much garbage is sent every year to the SCOTUS? I wouldn’t want them wasting their time on that stuff when more important cases, like actual life and death ones, are needing their attention.

  27. avatar
    Bob February 10, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    Paula,

    Orly Taitz is saying we will have the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter this week. I hope you can accept it.

  28. avatar
    Yoda February 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    Paula: People bashing this woman obviously have no idea, JUST HOW ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT our government has become! Turn off your TV’s PLEASE and do some research of your own!

    I think that I can speak for some of the people on here when I say that many of us do our own research. Many of us have extensive legal backgrounds and experience. We have independently and collectively come to the conclusion that not a single thing that Orly says about the BC, procedure, law or the President (from an eligiblity standpoint) is true.

    Most of us rightly believe that even if she was correct on the law, which she isn’t, she has no right to bring these actions in Court because Courts do not have the power to remove a sitting president.

    And worse, we resent the fact that she wants to shred the Constitution in order to achieve her goals. I could go on and on, but I will leave it at this:

    Orly is the single worst lawyer I have ever seen and is probably the worst lawyer in history.

  29. avatar
    richCares February 10, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    “Doesn’t ANYONE WONDER WHY HE IS USING A PROVEN FAKE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? ”
    my wife and I accidently switched SSN on our tax return, it was promptly returned due to incorrect SSN’s. How many times has Obama had his forms returned due to incorrect SSN, would that be none? Do you know what “PROVEN” even means.

  30. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree February 10, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    john:
    Orly writes about some very shady things happening the the US Supreme Court.It is dishearting for Orly, or for any lawyer for that matter appealing to SCOTUS, that their petitions are never seen by the justices. Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only.I can speak for any lawyer, that I certainly don’t want any Law Clerk reviewing my petition. The law clerk’s job is forward the petition on to the Justices. They read the petition and make the decision.

    You are clearly not a lawyer, and you don’t speak for me, or thousands of others lawyers either.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    First off, Soebarkah is an Indonesian surname–just type it in the search box on Facebook. Second, if you saw “Johnson” would you conclude that the father’s name was “John?” And exactly where is the string “Soetoro” in “Soebarkah?” This is a glaring problem with your idea.
    Applying a little form criticism here, I note that this is a US Passport application that will be seen exclusively by the US Government. In that context, nothing in the Indonesian language makes sense.

    If I had to speculate, I’d interpret it as Dunham saying “MR. Soebarkah told me to write this on there and then cross it out” or if not in Dunham’s handwriting: “I, Mr. Soebarkah, crossed this out because it was inapplicable.”

  32. avatar
    Gabe February 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere, a true incarnation of Lady Liberty, willing to go into a den of vipers, to try and keep the American dream alive!

  33. avatar
    Reality Check February 10, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    Thanks. That makes as much sense as any theory I have seen.

    Dr. Conspiracy: If I had to speculate, I’d interpret it as Dunham saying “MR. Soebarkah told me to write this on there and then cross it out” or if not in Dunham’s handwriting: “I, Mr. Soebarkah, crossed this out because it was inapplicable.”

  34. avatar
    john February 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    “John, in the real world, the clerk’s job is as gatekeeper for the Justices.”

    I would agree on that. I guess it is Orly’s intent and request or demand to have her petition seen and considered by the Justices themselves.

    I seriously doubt that of all the birther case petitions that have gone to SCOTUS, NOT ONE has ever been seen or read. by ANY justice.

    In Conference, the Justices hear a case number (Maybe a Case Title) and recommendation from a clerk – Consider or Deny. The justices very rarely 2nd guess the clerk’s recommendation and the petition is either taken up or denied.

  35. avatar
    john February 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    The Justices of the US Supreme Court are individuals who captivate the infinite wisdom of our law, something a SCOTUS law clerk simply cannot do.

    I think that is really what Orly wants.

  36. avatar
    richCares February 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    “Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere,”
    so that’s what this foul mouthed, insulting wicked witch is to you. She is lucky they stopped burning witches at the stake.

  37. avatar
    Yoda February 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    Gabe: Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere, a true incarnation of Lady Liberty, willing to go into a den of vipers, to try and keep the American dream alive!

    Then why does she want to destroy the Constitution?

  38. avatar
    Yoda February 10, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

    john: The Justices of the US Supreme Court are individuals who captivate the infinite wisdom of our law, something a SCOTUS law clerk simply cannot do. I think that is really what Orly wants.

    Once again, birthers get caught between what the law is and what they want it to be.

    Put bluntly, no cares what Orly wants.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

    The Supreme Court gets 10,000 cases each term. At best, I would expect a justice to see a summary unless it gets a recommendation from a clerk.

    john: I seriously doubt that of all the birther case petitions that have gone to SCOTUS, NOT ONE has ever been seen or read. by ANY justice.

  40. avatar
    Bob February 10, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

    john:
    I think that is really what Orly wants.

    Not everybody gets everything they want.

  41. avatar
    Bob February 10, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    How long would a Supreme Court law clerk last at his/her position if they were to put such a pile of crap as Orly’s case in front of a judge?

  42. avatar
    aarrgghh February 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

    Paula: People bashing this woman obviously have no idea, JUST HOW ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT our government has become!

    points for deft application of the taitz comma. is that you, svetlana?

  43. avatar
    Jim February 10, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Supreme Court gets 10,000 cases each term. At best, I would expect a justice to see a summary unless it gets a recommendation from a clerk.

    Especially with the pile of unorganized crap that Orly submits.

  44. avatar
    john February 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    Orly tried to intercept Chief Justice Roberts a while back and give him her documents directly. I recall, nothing happended. Justice Roberts probably never saw the documents and case was denied later on by the SCOTUS Clerks.

  45. avatar
    Thinker February 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    I have a serious question for the people who are trying to defend Orly Taitz. She has posted more than once in the last couple of days that the US will have a special election to replace Obama when he is forced out of office because of birfer-related crimes. (This won’t happen because there are no birfer-related crimes (except those committed by birfers themselves, like Linda Jordan and Walt Fitzpatrick), but in this hypothetical, let’s assume there are.) The Constitution lays out the procedure for what happens when a President leaves office before his term is over, and it does not include a special election. There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow a special election to replace the President. Doesn’t her saying that we will have a special election–contrary to the specific process for replacing a President as laid out in the Constitution–make you think that she doesn’t know what she is talking about? The Presidential line of succession is middle school civics stuff, but she doesn’t understand it. Don’t you think this fundamental misunderstanding might be evidence that she doesn’t know what she talking about in other aspects of US civics and law as well?

  46. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 10, 2013 at 1:42 pm #

    From das Wiki, under Indonesian Names:

    “Naming forms

    Indonesians do not generally use the Western naming practice of a given first name and a family last name. The majority of Indonesians do not have family names as the West would understand them but, such names as are given, are geographically and culturally specific. Hence, names such as Supomo, Soeprapto, etc. beginning with “Su, Soe” and ending with an “o” are usually Javanese. In general, Indonesian names fall into one of the following categories (in order of popularity):

    A single name, such as Sukarno and Suharto
    Two (or more) names without a family name, such as Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono…”

    Taking “Soe” as a prefix, what is left from “Soebarkah?” Why, Barkah. Can the similarity to Barack be a coincidence?

    I think Ann started to enter her son’s name transmogrified into an Indonesian proper name, and then crossed it out because entering it where she did was unnecessary or incorrect.

    A tantalizing possibility: if little Barack was old enough, perhaps he wrote it there himself, and his mom had to cross it out!

  47. avatar
    charo February 10, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    Concerning social security numbers, I came across two interesting bits:

    A Virginia woman wanted to prove how lax the government is in protecting privacy rights. She published the SS numbers of high profile people that she gleaned from public information. She won her case under a First Amendment claim and was allowed to keep the numbers on her website. Another jurisdiction may or may have ruled differently.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072805887.html

    I also learned that when an illegal immigrant pulled a fake SS number out of the air to use on a credit application (that did belong to someone else, I think a juvenile), the US Supreme Court found that there was no violation of the federal law he was charged under because he didn’t knowingly use a known person’s number. So, the idea that someone may randomly come up with your number to put on a loan application and later defaults, well, too bad for you if it results in a problem. Bad law, IMO. (too lazy to find where I read this)

  48. avatar
    Rickey February 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    john:

    I seriously doubt that of all the birther case petitions that have gone to SCOTUS, NOT ONE has ever been seen or read. by ANY justice.

    You’re forgetting that Orly gave her “dossier” to John Roberts back in 2009, and he promised to read it.

    I’m guessing that Justice Roberts wasn’t impressed.

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/chief-justice-john-roberts-orly-taitz-march-14-2009-idaho-lecture-taitz-met-roberts-university-of-idaho-roberts-agrees-read-documents-us-supreme-court-clerk-danny-bickle-lightfoot-v-bowen/

  49. avatar
    Rickey February 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

    Paula: IT USED TO BE A LAW TO PROVE YOUR ELIGIBILITY!

    Really? Which law was that? Have you seen George W. Bush’s proof of eligibility?

  50. avatar
    Scientist February 10, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

    Yoda: Most of us rightly believe that even if she was correct on the law, which she isn’t, she has no right to bring these actions in Court because Courts do not have the power to remove a sitting president.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court is never a tryer of facts. They are not going to hear witnesses on whether an SSN is real or fake. The most they possibly do is remand the case back to the lower court for trial. Given that it is a ballot case for an election that is long over, there is nothing the lower court could possibly do.

  51. avatar
    Xyxox February 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

    Paula: IT USED TO BE A LAW TO PROVE YOUR ELIGIBILITY!

    Cite the precise US or State code you are claiming here, please.

  52. avatar
    Thinker February 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Paula: There is no connection between Orly Taitz being an America-hating, bigoted, delusional, incompetent moron and government corruption. Her understanding of the facts and the law is incorrect. That’s why she loses every time.

    Paula:
    People bashing this woman obviously have no idea, JUST HOW ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT our government has become! Turn off your TV’s PLEASE and do some research of your own!

  53. avatar
    Dave B. February 10, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

    People defending this woman obviously have no idea JUST HOW ABSOLUTELY batshit crazy she is.

    Paula: People bashing this woman obviously have no idea, JUST HOW ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT our government has become!

  54. avatar
    Dave B. February 10, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

    John, what you want and what you get are sometimes quite different things. I think great artists, just like Supreme Court Justices, make up the betternots about who gets to waste their time, and not the potential time-wasters.

    john: If I went to Leonardo De Vinci or Mikeangelo for help, you certainly would not want one their apprentices.

  55. avatar
    scott e February 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    there are no protestants on the U.S.supreme court for the first time, so there probably won’t be any of that kind of insidious bigot talk, i sure hope not.

    she told me once that as a moldavian jew, she was worried about throwbacks to soviet oppression, i agree.

  56. avatar
    justlw February 10, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

    Paula: top intelligence officers

    You mean like “the Chief investigator of the Special investigations unit of the US Coast Guard” ?

    I would think this would be a problem for anyone trying to find sympathy for the birther cause. If a retired Coast Guard reserve noncom, acting as a private citizen, has to have his title constantly inflated in order to make it sound like one’s case is credible, what does this say about the validity of the case?

    Or are there other “top intelligence officers” that didn’t make the cut in your, I mean Orly’s, latest filing?

  57. avatar
    Norbrook February 10, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Xyxox: Cite the precise US or State code you are claiming here, please.

    Tsk. Isn’t it obvious? Just look at the pigmentation!

  58. avatar
    US Citizen February 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    I find it amazing that Orly, a supposed Jew, would banter around the word Nazi so flippantly.

  59. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

    Paula: Do people in general, have any idea the lengths Obama has gone to to hide his records?

    Yes–he has not signed a release. Not signing something takes 0 minutes.

  60. avatar
    US Citizen February 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm #

    Paula,

    After more than four years of trying to explain why each and every claim you made is false, you’ll have to forgive some of us for not wanting to expend the energy explaining it over once again.

    To date there’s been approximately 200 lawsuits brought on this matter and not one has succeeded.
    Birthers have enjoyed a zero success rate.
    This is not because every judge in every state is corrupt, bribed or threatened, it’s because birthers truly have no real evidence.
    There’s many republicans and others that would LOVE to have good evidence of what you claim, but truly there’s nothing out there.
    I can understand how you might find this unbelievable, but it’s the truth.
    There’s no FEMA camps, Islamic wedding rings, communist fathers or gay boyfriends (of Obama’s), lizard people, forged birth certificates or stolen social security numbers either.
    In addition, ask yourself why Sheriff Arpaio, who makes the same claims you have, has not done anything other than scant press conferences.
    Ask yourself why a republican health director and governor approved of Obama’s birth certificate or why a republican chief justice swore him in.
    Don’t you think these people would be heroes to their party and believers such as you?
    The answer is that these people work with facts, not innuendos or claims with no evidence.
    As difficult as it is for you to believe it, there’s more evidence that Obama is legally president than there is for the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and God himself.
    Just because you and others believe something, doesn’t make it true.

  61. avatar
    justlw February 10, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    john: The Justices of the US Supreme Court are individuals who captivate the infinite wisdom of our law

    “encapsulate”

    “incorporate”

    “embody”

    “know just oodles about”

    “don’t have all the time in the world to entertain every motion entered by loonies who oh so very cleary have not one clue as to”

    HTH!

  62. avatar
    Rickey February 10, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    john:
    Orly tried to intercept Chief Justice Roberts a while back and give him her documents directly. I recall, nothing happended. Justice Roberts probably never saw the documents and case was denied later on by the SCOTUS Clerks.

    Orly said that Roberts promised her that he would read them.

    Do you have proof that he didn’t read them?

  63. avatar
    DaveH February 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm #

    As an attorney, Orly Taitz should have known better than to attemp ex parte communications regarding a case she was putting before the court. It wasn’t just Roberts. She also accosted Scalia at a book signing.

    Real attorneys don’t attempt to speak to judges directly about their cases unless they have the defense attorneys present. Orly doesn’t know anything about the law or proper procedures. She’s a total incompetent.

    john:
    Orly tried to intercept Chief Justice Roberts a while back and give him her documents directly. I recall, nothing happended. Justice Roberts probably never saw the documents and case was denied later on by the SCOTUS Clerks.

  64. avatar
    scott e February 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm #

    john:
    Orly tried to intercept Chief Justice Roberts a while back and give him her documents directly. I recall, nothing happended. Justice Roberts probably never saw the documents and case was denied later on by the SCOTUS Clerks.

    i have the video of that.

  65. avatar
    jayHG February 10, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

    Andrew Morris:
    I know I’m sounding like a cracked record but I do not believe that Orly Taitz passed either the Taft law degree or the CA Bar. She must ahve had someone impersonating her. It’s not just that she has absolutely no idea about the law or the Constitution, she cannot write in a coherent way. Her written English – and this is someone who made a disgusting remark a few months ago about CA officials with Spanish names (which also shows she knows nothing of the history of the country or the state she lives in) – is hopeless. You cannot discern much meaning in it, and unless there isn’t an exam requirement, she cannot have passed.

    I agree. Something is not right and there was a time when they were not as strict as today in verifying identities when you went to take it.

  66. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

    I love the way she “respectfully” makes demands upon the Justices…

    “The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of [sic] clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance.”

  67. avatar
    Thinker February 10, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

    Tatiz should stop playing footsie with anti-Semites and Holocaust doubters. Remember the gun show she went to with all the swastikas and pro-Hitler paraphernalia? Just recently, she did an interview with Jeff Rense, who thinks history has been too hard on Adolph Hitler. She is not fighting oppression with her crazy jihad. She is fueling it.

    scott e:
    she told me once that as a moldavian jew, she was worried about throwbacks to soviet oppression, i agree.

  68. avatar
    justlw February 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm #

    john: Orly tried to intercept Chief Justice Roberts a while back and give him her documents directly.

    scott e: i have the video of that.

    And so can we all!

    It’s not something I’d be adding to my demo reel if I were her, but if others think this is a shining moment in her crusade, so be it.

  69. avatar
    misha marinsky February 10, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

    Gabe: Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere

    Orly never rode a horse. She doesn’t know a horses’s ass from a hole in the ground.

    Gabe: a true incarnation of Lady Liberty

    Orly Taitz is a fascist, in the actual meaning.

    Gabe: willing to go into a den of vipers, to try and keep the American dream alive!

    Exactly how are snakes keeping us from the American Dream? What exactly is the American Dream?

  70. avatar
    donna February 10, 2013 at 7:19 pm #

    john: Justice Roberts probably never saw the documents and case was denied later on by the SCOTUS Clerks.

    their “clerks” are lawyers from the country’s top law schools and the justices choose their own –

    do you think the justices are unaware of the birthers and their follies?

    they denied cert 22 times and NOT ONCE has ONE justice requested papers from respondents

    justlw: It’s not something I’d be adding to my demo reel if I were her

    she’s selling her GA & NH DVDs – she lost both cases

  71. avatar
    misha marinsky February 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    scott e: she told me once that as a moldavian jew

    Where and when did you speak with her?

    scott e: she was worried about throwbacks to soviet oppression, i agree.

    She is a fascist, literally. She wants to replace Obama with someone that she approves of, by force. Orly Taitz does not believe in democracy. The Settlers are where Orly comes from:

    Settler leader calls democracy an obstacle to Israel’s higher calling

    Veteran settler leader Benny Katzover: ‘We didn’t come here to establish a democratic state.’

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settler-leader-calls-democracy-an-obstacle-to-israel-s-higher-calling-1.407490

  72. avatar
    US Citizen February 10, 2013 at 10:30 pm #

    misha marinsky: She wants to replace Obama with someone that she approves of, by force. Orly Taitz does not believe in democracy.

    The United Taitz of America?

  73. avatar
    nbc February 11, 2013 at 12:35 am #

    john: I seriously doubt that of all the birther case petitions that have gone to SCOTUS, NOT ONE has ever been seen or read. by ANY justice.

    Probably true, the task of the clerks is to throw out the garbage so that the justices can focus on real issues. But in various cases the petition was brought to the full conference, only to be summarily ignored for self evident reasons.

    The birthers are abusing our legal system, using frivolous claims, ignorant of the laws and our Constitution and they get what the deserve: ridicule….

    Nothing more nothing less…

    Come on John you really do not think that any of these cases have any merits?

  74. avatar
    misha marinsky February 11, 2013 at 1:05 am #

    Gabe: Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere

    Orly: “One if by land, two if by sea…vhat’s my next line? Hey, can somebody tell what I say next? OK, horse, lets go back. This horse is giving me such a headache, you wouldn’t believe it.”

    Stable: “Orly, vas machst du pferd?”

    Orly: “You only care about the horse, you momser.”

  75. avatar
    Horus February 11, 2013 at 1:20 am #

    Andrew Morris:
    I know I’m sounding like a cracked record but I do not believe that Orly Taitz passed either the Taft law degree or the CA Bar. She must ahve had someone impersonating her. It’s not just that she has absolutely no idea about the law or the Constitution, she cannot write in a coherent way. Her written English – and this is someone who made a disgusting remark a few months ago about CA officials with Spanish names (which also shows she knows nothing of the history of the country or the state she lives in) – is hopeless. You cannot discern much meaning in it, and unless there isn’t an exam requirement, she cannot have passed.

    Not just that but she claims to be a Dentist too!
    I know for certain I would not trust her fingers in my mouth!

  76. avatar
    misha marinsky February 11, 2013 at 1:31 am #

    Horus: Not just that but she claims to be a Dentist too! I know for certain I would not trust her fingers in my mouth!

    Is it safe?

  77. avatar
    justlw February 11, 2013 at 2:49 am #

    Gabe:
    Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere, a true incarnation of Lady Liberty, willing to go into a den of vipers, to try and keep the American dream alive!

    Ringing them bells, firing them guns

  78. avatar
    nbc February 11, 2013 at 3:40 am #

    Gabe:
    Orly Taitz, is a modern day Paul Revere, a true incarnation of Lady Liberty, willing to go into a den of vipers, to try and keep the American dream alive!

    Hahaha… Quite funny… Orly and the American dream could not be further apart. Well done.

  79. avatar
    Lupin February 11, 2013 at 3:41 am #

    US Citizen: After more than four years of trying to explain why each and every claim you made is false, you’ll have to forgive some of us for not wanting to expend the energy explaining it over once again.

    I feel very much like this when I read Bob Gard’s nonsense about Vattel.

  80. avatar
    AlCum February 11, 2013 at 8:22 am #

    john:
    Orly writes about some very shady things happening the the US Supreme Court.It is dishearting for Orly, or for any lawyer for that matter appealing to SCOTUS, that their petitions are never seen by the justices. Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only.I can speak for any lawyer, that I certainly don’t want any Law Clerk reviewing my petition. The law clerk’s job is forward the petition on to the Justices. They read the petition and make the decision.

    The decision was made more than a century ago, and the matter is moot. It is well established that anyone born on US soil and under US jurisdiction is a natural born citizen.

  81. avatar
    AlCum February 11, 2013 at 8:30 am #

    Paula:
    I do not understand for the life of me, why American citizens are not interested in seeing this man’s documentation to be eligible for president.

    I saw it already and so did everyone else. In fact, Paula, Obama’s “documentation to be eligible for president” is the first and ONLY US president for whom you’ve seen any documentation at all as a candidate. No previous president in history had every released his birth certificate to the public prior to taking office.

    Why are you stating lies?

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2013 at 9:13 am #

    Taitz has published this draft of the supplemental brief. Still a draft?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Noonan-Suplemental-brief-draft.pdf

    BTW, the font on that document heading is Footlight.

  83. avatar
    donna February 11, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    doc: Taitz has published this draft of the supplemental brief.

    “315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW”?

    does she have affidavits from those citizens?

    after berating the justices (and their clerks), she asks that they appoint a special prosecutor?

    what makes her think that a clerk won’t decide that too?

    i don’t believe she asked why no justice has asked for papers from respondents – hmmm

  84. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    john:
    Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only.

    But your girlfriend Orly posts her petitions on her website, for all to see. Are you saying that she doesn’t want anyone to read them?

  85. avatar
    Yoda February 11, 2013 at 11:01 am #

    john:
    Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only.

    Most lawyers understand how the legal system works. Usually those who don’t know, learn quickly. USUALLY.

  86. avatar
    donna February 11, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    john: Most lawyers write their petition for the Justices’s Eyes Only.

    are you saying that appellants frivolously file cert applications? that they never think they are not justified and will not be granted cert?

    wow – what a thought that lawsuits go through trial courts, the laborious and costly appellant process and just for more fun they file a petition for writ of certiorari

  87. avatar
    donna February 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    UNBELIEVABLE!

    how many false and disproven statements can’t you put in one post?

    you truly are “UNBELIEVABLE!

  88. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 11, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    315 Million US Citizens? According to the 2010 Census results from Wikipedia, the estimated population of the USA was 308,745,538. Orly cannot even be bothered to get basic facts correct that take all of 45 seconds to validate. She truly is below mediocre as a lawyer and a communicator.

  89. avatar
    misha marinsky February 11, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    Graham Shevlin: 315 Million US Citizens?

    You’re forgetting the fetuses, which Orly’s crowd considers actual people.

    “Mommy, I haven’t emerged yet, but please sign Orly’s petition for me.”

  90. avatar
    misha marinsky February 11, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

    Paula: I do not understand for the life of me, why American citizens are not interested in seeing this man’s documentation to be eligible for president.

    Did you see George W. Bush’s? I read on the ‘net that W was actually born in Saudi Arabia.

    Paula: Do people in general, have any idea the lengths Obama has gone to to hide his records?

    Do you know the lengths George W. Bush has gone to, to hide the fact he has a misdemeanor conviction? That’s right: W has a criminal record.

    “Bush pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor DUI charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driving privileges briefly revoked…”

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/george-w-bush-dui-arrest-record

    Do you know the lengths Dick Cheney has gone to, to hide the fact he has two felony convictions for DWI?

    “Cheney first privately disclosed the arrests in 1989, after he had been nominated for Secretary of Defense…Cheney told members of the Senate Armed Services committee about the DWI arrests during a closed confirmation hearing. Cheney told the senators that he believed it would be best to publicly disclose the busts. But Armed Services committee members said there was no need for the disclosure and subsequently confirmed Cheney in a 20-0 vote.”

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/dick-cheneys-youthful-indiscretions

  91. avatar
    Northland10 February 11, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    scott e:
    there are no protestants on the U.S.supreme court for the first time, so there probably won’t be any of that kind of insidious bigot talk, i sure hope not.

    she told me once that as a moldavian jew, she was worried about throwbacks to soviet oppression, i agree.

    If there was actually Soviet oppression, we would not be hearing from Orly or you. She would have been shut down years ago. Having a President you don’ agree with is not oppression.

  92. avatar
    gls February 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    Wow! All the name calling. Why not just have some court somewhere order discovery to solve this once and for all? Does the Constitution not require the candidate to be a “natural born citizen?” That is a higher bar than just being born in the country.

  93. avatar
    Dave B. February 11, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    Gosh, this could change EVERYTHING!

    gls:
    Wow!All the name calling.Why not just have some court somewhere order discovery to solve this once and for all?Does the Constitution not require the candidate to be a “natural born citizen?”That is a higher bar than just being born in the country.

  94. avatar
    donna February 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    gls: That is a higher bar than just being born in the country.

    REALLY? a higher bar? how many americans would that discriminate against?

  95. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

    gls: Does the Constitution not require the candidate to be a “natural born citizen?”

    Which candidate? The election is over. There are no more candidates unless you are discussing 2016, and really it’s too early for that. Come back in about 3 years.

    Till then, relax and enjoy life a bt.

  96. avatar
    AlCum February 11, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

    gls:
    Wow!All the name calling.Why not just have some court somewhere order discovery to solve this once and for all?Does the Constitution not require the candidate to be a “natural born citizen?”That is a higher bar than just being born in the country.

    No it isn’t. Courts already have decided. What more can you ask for?

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

    Would TEN court decisions that say that being born in the country qualifies one to be a natural born citizen make you happy? Well …

    TODAY IS YOUR LUCKY DAY!

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/

    gls: Wow! All the name calling. Why not just have some court somewhere order discovery to solve this once and for all? Does the Constitution not require the candidate to be a “natural born citizen?” That is a higher bar than just being born in the country.

  98. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    gls:
    Wow!All the name calling.Why not just have some court somewhere order discovery to solve this once and for all?Does the Constitution not require the candidate to be a “natural born citizen?”That is a higher bar than just being born in the country.

    So in other words, “Why can’t some court make that boy show his damn papers??”, right??

  99. avatar
    Northland10 February 11, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    You have really stirred up Orly’s followers over the last month or so. Soros must have a big bonus waiting for you.

  100. avatar
    RoadScholar February 11, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: So in other words, “Why can’t some court make that boy show his damn papers??”, right??

    It’s worse than that, Patrick. They want to make him show papers he cannot show, because anything shown will be called a forgery. They demand a proof they who will accept no proof will accept. It’s Catch-22 meets Franz Kafka channelling Jim Crow.

    Face it: they would really like to just get to the lynchin’ part.

  101. avatar
    gls February 11, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

    The higher standard…….

    Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court case:

    The Court in Minor made a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen.

    Nearly $2 million in legal fees to keep everything secret. Just move along, nothing to see here, all is well, trust us, the “truth” is what we say it is.

    Hey, this isn’t just about Obama. It needs to be decided because others are coming along such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Stick to the Constitution!

  102. avatar
    donna February 11, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

    gls: Hey, this isn’t just about Obama. It needs to be decided because others are coming along such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal.

    then the birthers had better get right on rubio and bojangles

    and ted cruz while they are at it too

    rubio is being referred to as the gop savior

    let the birther lawsuits begin unless they don’t sue “brown” people and tea party favorites

  103. avatar
    justlw February 11, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

    gls:

    The Court in Minor made a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen.The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of“natural-born citizens” as non-exclusively including those born in the US to parents who were citizens.

    FIFY. On to Wong Kim Ark, then?

  104. avatar
    misha marinsky February 11, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

    gls: Hey, this isn’t just about Obama. It needs to be decided because others are coming along such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Stick to the Constitution!

    What are you going to do when Rubio and Jindal are candidates? It’s going to happen. Rubio is going to announce for ’16.

  105. avatar
    Arthur February 11, 2013 at 11:00 pm #

    misha marinsky: What are you going to do when Rubio and Jindal are candidates? It’s going to happen. Rubio is going to announce for ’16.

    I’m sure that most birthers would be glad to deny presidential eligibility to Rubio, Jindal, Cruz and anyone else who’s darker than they.

  106. avatar
    AlCum February 11, 2013 at 11:16 pm #

    gls:
    The higher standard…….

    Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court case:

    The Court in Minor made a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen.The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of“natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens.Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen.

    Nearly $2 million in legal fees to keep everything secret. Just move along,nothing to see here, all is well, trust us, the “truth” is what we say it is.

    Hey, this isn’t just about Obama.It needs to be decided because others are coming along such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Stick to the Constitution!

    You’re factually and historically incorrect. Please read the Minor v Happersett ruling. It’s obvious you have not. The ruling states explicitly that it is NOT deciding the issue, yet you seem to believe that it does. How silly you are.

    Nor has Obama spent $2 million, or even anything, on these silly cases. He was not even a defendant in most all of them. You are confusing his national campaign’s legal fees, for running a national campaign, with birther suits. most of them were ignored, as they were moot.

  107. avatar
    donna February 11, 2013 at 11:30 pm #

    gls: Nearly $2 million in legal fees to keep everything secret.

    everything secret like what you have kept “secret” due to privacy laws?

    “The $2 million is a figure that has been promoted by World Net Daily, a conservative Web site that has tried its best to fan the flames of the birther movement. In a number of articles, it has speculated that all of the legal fees spent by the Obama campaign since the election have been devoted to defending the president against a series of lawsuits concerning the certificate — all of which have been ultimately dismissed as frivolous.

    According to Federal Election Commission filings, since January 2009 those legal fees total $2 million.

    The filings do not break out exactly how much was spent on the lawsuits and Obama campaign officials decline to engage in ‘birther’ questions. But it’s pretty clear that the bulk of the legal spending was devoted to other matters, such as winding down the campaign and defending against FEC investigations into the financing of Obama’s presidential bid. John McCain’s campaign, which did not raise nearly as much money as Obama, has spent $1.3 million on legal fees since the election, according to an article last month in Roll Call.”

    The Pinocchio Test

    There will always be cranks, conspiracy freaks and fringe operators in our political system. It is certainly important to raise questions that have not been fully addressed. But it is bizarre to see two possible presidential candidates give support to absurd and false claims that have been debunked time and time again.

    Four Pinocchios

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/more-birther-nonsense-from-donald-trump-and-sarah-palin/2011/04/11/AFrme2MD_blog.html?hpid=z2

  108. avatar
    ObiWanCannoli February 11, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

    I always felt that Orly knew her law, and that she legitimately passed her law school and bar exams. She just got into birtherism because no law firm will hire her or no one will retain Orly’s legal service for anything. Once she found out exploiting the FMs is easy as taking candy from a new born, she doubled-down on her birther rhetoric and court filings.

    Well, I just read her draft of the supplemental brief. Now I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that Orly IS insane and has a severe mental illness. She actually believes in what she writes and writes like she talks. The extra commas you see in her writings are her Aaaaahmmms. Just replace the commas with Aaaahmms and read. You will know what I mean. I can understand this type of vitriol and insanity from a private citizen, but definitely not from an officer of the court. I would expect the justices to revoke her supreme court privileges.

    Not that I believe Orly is a civil rights lawyer, but is it normal for a civil rights lawyer to make disparaging remarks about the president, judges and other public officials?

  109. avatar
    Dave B. February 11, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

    gls: The higher standard…….

    About that “higher standard” of yours– here’s what Chief Justice Waite said in Minor:
    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
    First, let me point out that Chief Justice Waite by no means established such an exclusive definition of natural born citizen as you imagine. But what about those doubts, that some persons born in the country would not be citizens? For a better understanding of those, you need look no further than the Dred Scott case.
    According to Chief Justice Taney,
    “this class of persons were governed by special legislation directed expressly to them, and always connected with provisions for the government of slaves, and not with those for the government of free white citizens. And after such an uniform course of legislation as we have stated, by the colonies, by the States, and by Congress, running through a period of more than a century, it would seem that to call persons thus marked and stigmatized, ‘citizens’ of the United States, ‘fellow-citizens,’ a constituent part of the sovereignty, would be an abuse of terms, and not calculated to exalt the character of an American citizen in the eyes of other nations…free persons of color were not citizens, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws; and this opinion has been confirmed by that of the late Attorney General, Caleb Cushing, in a recent case, and acted upon by the Secretary of State, who refused to grant passports to them as ‘citizens of the United States.'”
    I didn’t spend any great amount of time looking through the case for those references. You can pin the majority opinions in Dred Scott to the wall, spit on them, and you’re bound to hit such malignancy as that; they’re so thoroughly riddled with it.
    That’s where the “doubts” Chief Justice Waite referred to came from: they were in regard to the children of slaves and other non-white persons. Your “higher standard” is obsolete, and odious.
    And that’s not even addressing your outright lie about legal fees.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    I don’t how the Supreme Court makes such decisions, but I think everybody would be better off if Orly had to hire a real lawyer to take her cases to court, Supreme or lower.

    ObiWanCannoli: . I would expect the justices to revoke her supreme court privileges.

  111. avatar
    The Magic M February 12, 2013 at 5:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think everybody would be better off if Orly had to hire a real lawyer to take her cases to court, Supreme or lower

    How about that one guy (Mr Black or Back or whatshisname) who sponsored her p.h.v. appearance in … (IN? MS? I keep mixing her cases up)? He didn’t appear to be much better than her during oral argument, except that he knew a little more about the rules.

  112. avatar
    JZ February 12, 2013 at 10:22 am #

    Bernard:
    Taitz submission to the Supreme Ct notes (as last minute evidence) that Ann Dunham (Mama Obama) had little Barack (then age 8) dropped from her passport in 1969 – and Taitz says that the primary reason for dropping someone from a US passport is that the person has relinquished his US citizenship.
    ….

    Under Perkins v Elg a minor child’s citizenship may not be relinquished by any act of the parent(s). There is no way that Obama could have relinquished his citzenship before adulthood, nor could his mother or stepfather have taken any legal action to relinquish it on his behalf.

  113. avatar
    sfjeff February 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    gls: Hey, this isn’t just about Obama. It needs to be decided because others are coming along such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Stick to the Constitution!

    Note that no Republican buys the made up definition of NBC either.

    That is because all Americans, including Republicans, learned growing up that anyone born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President.

    Now you won’t read this. You will just post more Birther dreck under another name, in another cowardly Birther drive by. But them’s the facts. All Americans know what you are selling is a lie- and probably a racist lie.

  114. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    gls: defining

    “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

  115. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    sfjeff: Note that no Republican buys the made up definition of NBC either.

    That is because all Americans, including Republicans, learned growing up that anyone born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President.

    Now you won’t read this. You will just post more Birther dreck under another name, in another cowardly Birther drive by. But them’s the facts. All Americans know what you are selling is a lie- and probably a racist lie.

    The use of “others” from a birther is a telling choice.

  116. avatar
    JPotter February 12, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    gls: The higher standard…….

    How is a older, less definitive ruling a ‘higher’ standard?

    To paraphrase the Christ:

    “Wong came not to destroy Minor, but rather to fulfill it.”

  117. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

    RoadScholar: It’s worse than that, Patrick.They want to make him show papers he cannot show, because anything shown will be called a forgery. They demand a proof they who will accept no proof will accept.It’s Catch-22 meets Franz Kafka channelling Jim Crow.

    Face it: they would really like to just get to the lynchin’ part.

    Pretty much so. The birtherstani have been moving the goalposts across the field, out of the parking lot, down the freeway, and are now about three or four time zones away.

    Fact is that there is not a single piece of evidence – now or ever – that they will accept. Ever. I remember the birthers telling each other that the long form was a forgery in 2009 BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED. There is no reason to believe they won’t dismiss anything else that disproves their pet theory.

    And yes, there are a certain number of birthers that are pretty open about their desire to see President Obama executed, usually by hanging. Which has been the traditional punishment for those of his hue who got “uppity” or “above themselves” or “forgot their place”. Judge Lynch doesn’t lurk far from the hearts of many birthers.

  118. avatar
    gls February 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.

    First Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 4 1790

    …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”
    Approved March 26, 1790

    It is far from settled law that all persons born in the United States also natural born citizens as some here would have you believe. The framers of the Constitution wanted to eliminate the possibility that someone with foreign influence would become president. This needs to be decided before we go into another election.

    For the record:
    I would oppose anyone who did not meet the eligibility requirements for the office of president regardless of race, creed, color or party affiliation. It is not a matter of race or party affiliation but a matter of following the Constitution.

    When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

  119. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 12, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    gls: Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.

    First Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 4 1790

    …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States: ….”
    Approved March 26, 1790

    Okay, gls, let’s be consistent in our arbitrary interpretation of group plurals here, shall we?

    “……”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;…”

    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural AND “natural born citizens” plural. So the single child of citizens of the United States, etc, does not qualify to be so considered.

    Next, “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States:”

    Note that they say, “to persons” plural, and “whose fathers” plural. So that right of cirtizenship cannot descend to children of multi-child families if ANY of that family’s fathers have never been resident in the United States.

    See how silly you look when you righteously pretend to be God’s chosen parser of the English language, for purposes of getting rid of a President you don’t like?

  120. avatar
    Dave B. February 12, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Note that they say “children”, plural, too. And “shall be considered as natural born citizens”, plural. And “persons whose fathers”, yet more plurals. Gosh, it’s just so confusing, all those plurals, isn’t it?
    It’s settled. Your goofy and utterly inept attempt at drawing an argument from the Naturalization Act of 1790 isn’t about to unsettle it, either.

    gls: Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.

  121. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    A few things:

    * It is not in the GOP interest to insist on two American citizen parents because it means that Rubio and several others will be out of the running in 2016.

    * One of the rules of statutory interpretation is that the singular includes the plural, and vice versa, except where the context or the express language of the statute require otherwise.

    * As it isn’t clear if Orly actually sent the latest flamethrower brief, I thought I’d help her on her way and just emailed it to the Court.

    * The Supreme Court can revoke appearance privileges. Let’s hope they do so this time and then try and shut her down on other fronts, e.g. complaint to the CA Bar, vexatious litigant, contempt of court

  122. avatar
    MattR February 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

    gls: …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; …

    What does the citizenship status of children of citizens who are born outside the United States have to do with the citizenship status of children of non-citizens born inside the United States?

    When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer.

    What kind of crazy job were you applying for? I have filled out the paperwork for a security clearance (for a job I eventually passed on) and it did not require a birth certificate or medical records. No other employer has even checked anything beyond my driver’s license (to prove identity), social security card (to prove my right to work in the US) and potentially the facts on my resume and my college transcript (though I don’t think anyone actually ever checked the last one)

  123. avatar
    Jim February 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

    gls:
    The higher standard…….

    Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court case:

    Another good point in the Minor case…they also established that there are only 2 types of citizens in the United States.

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    So, according to Minor, if you’re born a citizen you are eligible. If you gain citizenship later via naturalization, you are not. Since the President was born a citizen, he is eligible.

  124. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm #

    MattR: it did not require a birth certificate or medical records.

    The only time I’ve needed a BC was to get a passport and have never even seen my medical records.

    I suspect gls is just providing a list of all the things birthers say they need to see from President Obama and putting it into a “I needed those to get a job” argument.

  125. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2013 at 4:45 pm #

    Jim: they also established that there are only 2 types of citizens in the United States.

    Alexander Porter Morse confirmed that in his treatise on citizenship in 1881. He cited verbatim AG Bates opinion from 1858.

    “The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them) ; it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”

  126. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    Does it bother your conscience when you tell a lie or it is as normal for you as breathing?

  127. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    Scientist: Does it bother your conscience when you tell a lie or it is as normal for you as breathing?

    As we’ve seen time and again, the hardcore birther can’t seem to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

  128. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 12, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    MattR: I have filled out the paperwork for a security clearance (for a job I eventually passed on) and it did not require a birth certificate or medical records.

    Not to mention that if and when anyone needs to show a Birth Certificate, it is NEVER the “original.” It is a copy made based on an original on file with the State of birth.

    Birthers: Dumb? Crazy? Dishonest? Disloyal? Misguided? Gullible? Check one or more.

  129. avatar
    gls February 12, 2013 at 6:00 pm #

    What is it they say about attacking the messenger? Personal attacks are the last refuge of (fill in the blank)!

  130. avatar
    Yoda February 12, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    gls: What is it they say about attacking the messenger? Personal attacks are the last refuge of (fill in the blank)!

    Bu for Reagan, the messenger in this case would probably be in a mental institution,

  131. avatar
    DaveH February 12, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    gls:
    Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.

    First Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 4 1790

    …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”
    Approved March 26, 1790

    It is far from settled law that all persons born in the United States also natural born citizens as some here would have you believe. The framers of the Constitution wanted to eliminate the possibility that someone with foreign influence would become president.This needs to be decided before we go into another election.

    For the record:
    I would oppose anyone who did not meet the eligibility requirements for the office of president regardless of race, creed, color or party affiliation. It is not a matter of race or party affiliation but a matter of following the Constitution.

    When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer.We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    Must have been one heck of a job.

    When I joined the Navy for a 6 year stint in advanced electronics, they only asked for my birth certificate and my driver’s license and I was told that the background check they’d run on me was going to cost around $100,000. No other information was required and the copy of the BC I gave them was a photostat without a raised seal.

    President Obama never applied for a job at the same place you applied. And he wasn’t even required to provide a BC but he did.

    Your claim regarding the requirements for employment smells just a bit like a bovine byproduct. If they have your SSN, they can find out everything they need to know about you with the exception of the medical records and it wouldn’t be likely that they would ask for that information. If they want to know you’re healthy, they’d have their own physician give you a physical.

  132. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2013 at 6:10 pm #

    gls: Personal attacks

    … the last refuge of of those who can recognize when someone is lying.

  133. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2013 at 6:22 pm #

    gls:
    Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.

    First Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 4 1790

    …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”
    Approved March 26, 1790

    So, are you claiming that only those born outside the limits of the US can be natural born citizen? This, repealed, quote only discusses foreign birth.

    I recommend reading quotes before copying them.

  134. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm #

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    What kind of job requires that?

  135. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm #

    gls:
    The higher standard…….

    Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court case:

    The Court in Minor made a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen.The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of“natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens.Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen.

    Did Chief Justice Waite forget about his “direct holding” when he administered the oath to a President with a non-citizen father?

    I suspect you have not even read the case.

  136. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm #

    gls:
    What is it they say about attacking the messenger?Personal attacks are the last refuge of (fill in the blank)!

    What is it they say about trolls who post debunked birther lies?

    You must be devastated.

    And you’re not a messenger unless you’re being paid to post birtherism drivel? Or is this just for giggles? Either way, not taking you seriously is not much of an attack unless you’re paper thin.

  137. avatar
    donna February 12, 2013 at 6:39 pm #

    gls:

    when one applies for a job, one’s résumé includes “schools, memberships, associations”, prior employment, etc

    as an applicant, why would you divulge any other information?

  138. avatar
    JoZeppy February 12, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    gls: Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.
    First Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 4 1790
    …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”
    Approved March 26, 1790

    It also said “born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States.” So does that mean one has to be born outside of the US to be a NBC? Of course not. It’s was a naturalization act, so it has nothing to do with those who didn’t need to be added as citizens.

    gls: It is far from settled law that all persons born in the United States also natural born citizens as some here would have you believe. The framers of the Constitution wanted to eliminate the possibility that someone with foreign influence would become president. This needs to be decided before we go into another election.

    No…it’s settled. That’s why every court has come to the exact same conclusion and why the Supreme Court has denied cert every single time. It is decided, at least in terms of those born on US soil not to diplomatic parents….oh and beating the “foreign influence” dead horse doesn’t get you any milage either, as it has yet to be shown that “foreign influence” meant anything more than being born abroad.

    gls: For the record:
    I would oppose anyone who did not meet the eligibility requirements for the office of president regardless of race, creed, color or party affiliation. It is not a matter of race or party affiliation but a matter of following the Constitution.

    Then it would probably be helpful if you learned what those actual eligibility requirements were, rather than clinging to theories that were fully rejected more than a century ago.

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    Well, then I’m guessing you should be used to not having your expectations met, as no presidential candidate has ever done that in the entire history of our Republic.

  139. avatar
    JD Reed February 12, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    gls:
    “When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer.We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.”

    Please specify what job you were applying for. In my working life, I held 7 private-sector full time jobs and worked for the federal government, military and civilian. No civilian employer ever asked for BC, credit records, family records, medical records or school records. My resume usually included associations and memberships. As I recall, only the federal govt. required a BC. Most employers required only an SSN, not a physical SS card, and they accepted my word on my educational attainments (although they would likely have checked had they bedome suspicious.)
    So I repeat my challenge: What sort of employer required ALL the documentation you mentioned?
    And FYI, even if you don’t accept it, Mr. Obama has supplied copies of two different versions of his birth certificate, and on no job he has ever held has an employer found anything amiss with this SSN. (Nor has the IRS). Elected office does not require medical records or school records, as voters are free to decide against a candidate whose info they don’t consider acceptable, sufficient or trustworthy. Since Mr. Obama has been re-elected, school records and medical records are moot. As a sheer matter of law, they always were. Anyone drawing breath is medically eligible, and arguably our greatest president had less than a year of formal schooling, so the quantitative bar for education is set markedly low if you make Mr. Lincoln a precedent. Members of Congress can weigh in on a president’s associations and memberships, if they consider them less than seemly.
    But birthers are now right about something they’ve heretofore always been wrong about: Barack Obama is ineligible to be elected president of the United States.

  140. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2013 at 7:17 pm #

    Arthur: What kind of job requires that?

    I don’t believe that prospective employers are allowed to demand to see a birth certificate. My understanding is that the age discrimination laws prohibit it unless reaching a certain age is legal requirement for the job.

    I’ve had pre-employment physicals and drug screens, but my medical records? No way.

    My B.S. meter is telling me that gls has more than his or her share of it.

  141. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 7:23 pm #

    Rickey: My B.S. meter is telling me that gls has more than his or her share of it.

    I agree.

  142. avatar
    misha marinsky February 12, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    Did you expect this from George W. Bush, who has a misdemeanor conviction, or Dick Cheney who has 2 felony DWI convictions?

    Arthur: What kind of job requires that?

    Top level security clearance? Otherwise, I call BS.

  143. avatar
    misha marinsky February 12, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    Personal attacks are the last refuge of (fill in the blank)!

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. – Samuel Johnson

  144. avatar
    misha marinsky February 12, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    JoZeppy: Well, then I’m guessing you should be used to not having your expectations met, as no presidential candidate has ever done that in the entire history of our Republic.

    I hope Obama’s election makes gls miserable.

  145. avatar
    misha marinsky February 12, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

    Wasn’t gls a car model’s trim level?

    Like the GL was the first trim level, and GLS the next trim level up?

  146. avatar
    sfjeff February 12, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    P>When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    Like all the others I shake my head in wonder. Since I have been gainfully employed for longer than I wish to admit I will say that I have never, ever provided any of the records that you apparently provided in a wheel barrow to your employer.

    I would mention memberships only when they were professionally relevant- a trade organization not the my ACLU membership.

    So often when Birthers make these kind of statements I just wonder whether they seriously have never been employed in the U.S. Most HR organizations would not even allow such documents be collected.

  147. avatar
    SluggoJD February 12, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    gls:
    Congress also approached a definition of “natural born citizen.”
    Note that they say “children of citizens” plural.

    First Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 4 1790

    …”And children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”
    Approved March 26, 1790

    It is far from settled law that all persons born in the United States also natural born citizens as some here would have you believe. The framers of the Constitution wanted to eliminate the possibility that someone with foreign influence would become president.This needs to be decided before we go into another election.

    For the record:
    I would oppose anyone who did not meet the eligibility requirements for the office of president regardless of race, creed, color or party affiliation. It is not a matter of race or party affiliation but a matter of following the Constitution.

    When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer.We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

    You’re a liar.

    May your pants catch on fire.

  148. avatar
    Keith February 12, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

    Arthur: What kind of job requires that?

    If he told you he would have to kill you.

  149. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 9:41 pm #

    Keith: If he told you he would have to kill you.

    Ahhhh . . . so you’re saying secret agent? Maybe even a double-aught secret agent? Terrifying.

  150. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

    misha marinsky:
    Wasn’t gls a car model’s trim level?

    Like the GL was the first trim level, and GLS the next trim level up?

    So you’re saying he’s a talking car? Like in “Knight Rider”? That explains a lot, actually.

  151. avatar
    gls February 12, 2013 at 9:51 pm #

    It has been a very interesting tour of your blog. I want to thank everyone who participated. One can always tell when entering a site dominated by the left. It is very predictable and this site didn’t disappoint.

    You will note that I didn’t personally attack anyone, just presented some information was not allowed by the “gatekeepers.” The responses were immediate and resounding attacking not only the information but personally attacking the poster. Accusations included: being a “birther”, being silly, being a crank or conspiracy freak, inept, a liar, a mental case among others. I see I was not alone, anyone who disagreed were subject to the wrath.

    The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses. It appears the favorites were number 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” and number 13 “Pick a target, personalize it and paralyze it although others (there’s that word again) made their appearance.

    Just for the record there were no lies, all the things listed as being required for my employment were absolutely required as were updates from time to time. Some items provided by me and some from releases signed by me. And yes thank you, it was “a heck of a job” actually a career.

    Once again thank you for participating, you have restored my faith that the left has not wavered from it’s mission.

  152. avatar
    Dave B. February 12, 2013 at 9:54 pm #

    Never saw that one coming.

    gls: The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses.

  153. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 12, 2013 at 10:11 pm #

    Dave B.:
    Never saw that one coming.

    Yeah me neither. It seems to be the go to everytime a fringe dweller gets caught lying.

  154. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 12, 2013 at 10:14 pm #

    gls:
    It has been a very interesting tour of your blog.I want to thank everyone who participated.One can always tell when entering a site dominated by the left. It is very predictable and this site didn’t disappoint.

    You will note that I didn’t personally attack anyone, just presented some information was not allowed by the “gatekeepers.”The responses were immediate and resounding attacking not only the information but personally attacking the poster.Accusations included: being a “birther”, being silly, being a crank or conspiracy freak, inept, a liar, a mental case among others.I see I was not alone, anyone who disagreed were subject to the wrath.

    The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses.It appears the favorites were number 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” and number 13 “Pick a target, personalize it and paralyze it although others (there’s that word again) made their appearance.

    Just for the record there were no lies, all the things listed as being required for my employment were absolutely required as were updates from time to time.Some items provided by me and some from releases signed by me.And yes thank you, it was “a heck of a job” actually a career.

    Once again thank you for participating, you have restored my faith that the left has not wavered from it’s mission.

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed don’t be ridiculous. It’s funny how everytime you fringe dwellers get caught lying you claim someone is using alinsky tactics. You know without you guys studying his tactics his family’s estate wouldn’t be getting that much in royalties. His book used to be out of print but ever since the tea party and the crazy right came along you guys made demand for it to be back in print. Yes you lied plenty of times. No employer asks for the amount of documents you claim you needed.

  155. avatar
    Bernard February 12, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    With reference to Soebarkah ….
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/what-is-the-akond-of-soebarkah/
    …. this word or name appears only once, in the passport paperwork done in Indonesia by Mama Obama and written after she wrote out the name of Barack Obama – and then crossed it out. So evidently it did not replace the name Obama. Was it an addition? It’s not related to the Soetoro family name.

    Nobody is clear on what this word means or whether it’s a family name or a personal name (I hardly think it’s a nickname for someone with a shorter name). I suspect that Mama Obama was confused by something someone said to her while she was filling out the passport papers – we may never know. Perhaps it was the name of a family servant or babysitter that she thought might somehow be traveling with them.

    What it was, it was NOT Barack Obama’s name or an alternative name for him.

  156. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

    I’ve never read “Rule for Radicals.” Never heard of Alinsky until his name was brought up by birthers. But I do know b.s. when I see it, and I respond accordingly. Don’t let the door hit you in the, and so forth.

    gls: The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses.

  157. avatar
    DaveH February 12, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    gls:
    It has been a very interesting tour of your blog.I want to thank everyone who participated.One can always tell when entering a site dominated by the left. It is very predictable and this site didn’t disappoint.

    You will note that I didn’t personally attack anyone, just presented some information was not allowed by the “gatekeepers.”The responses were immediate and resounding attacking not only the information but personally attacking the poster.Accusations included: being a “birther”, being silly, being a crank or conspiracy freak, inept, a liar, a mental case among others.I see I was not alone, anyone who disagreed were subject to the wrath.

    The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses.It appears the favorites were number 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” and number 13 “Pick a target, personalize it and paralyze it although others (there’s that word again) made their appearance.

    Just for the record there were no lies, all the things listed as being required for my employment were absolutely required as were updates from time to time.Some items provided by me and some from releases signed by me.And yes thank you, it was “a heck of a job” actually a career.

    Once again thank you for participating, you have restored my faith that the left has not wavered from it’s mission.

    At least you were allowed to comment here without having your comment removed and replaced by a “butt face”.

    Odd that you can not see the hypocrisy in your statement. Most birther blogs don’t allow comments unless you’re in step with their thinking. They luv them some echo chambers and slapping each other’s backs. Alinksy tactics? You don’t even know who the guy was or what he did, do you?

    Again, it is doubtful what you wrote about your employment requirements were true. No employer would ask for all of your medical records. That would be against the law. If they were concerned about your health, then they can make you get a physical before with a doctor of their choice before employing you.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2013 at 10:36 pm #

    Don’t look at me– I haven’t read it.

    gls: The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses

  159. avatar
    Sudoku February 12, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

    Not buying it. Private companies aren’t allowed to ask for most of that. Something super secret like the CIA or diplomatic assignments? You don’t have to provide it, they do their own checking, thank you very much.

    So, what was your job? Who did you work for? Surely something so important would have a statement of hiring practices or something similar so that we could verify your claims.

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

  160. avatar
    Sudoku February 12, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

    Odd, isn’t ? I haven’t read him, hadn’t heard of him before the birthers started using his name as an insult. Maybe we should at least get the CliffNotes…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Don’t look at me– I haven’t read it.

  161. avatar
    justlw February 12, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

    gls: What is it they say about attacking the messenger?

    Calling BS on what you said is not “attacking the messenger”. It is the precise definition of “attacking the message.”

  162. avatar
    JD Reed February 12, 2013 at 10:55 pm #

    Majority Will: What is it they say about trolls who post debunked birther lies?

    You must be devastated.

    And you’re not a messenger unless you’re being paid to post birtherism drivel? Or is this just for giggles? Either way, not taking you seriously is not much of an attack unless you’re paper thin.

    Hear, hear!

  163. avatar
    justlw February 12, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

    misha marinsky: Top level security clearance?

    Not even. Even SCI clearance checks don’t require the applicant to provide these things.

  164. avatar
    Sudoku February 12, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

    PS. Don’t you think the DNC, the Clintons, the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, the RNC, etc., were all interested in Obama? He was vetted, just like every other presidential candidate has been. Why should he be different?

    If you believe other presidents/presidential candidates provided all that stuff, please, post links for us.

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer. We should expect nothing less of a presidential candidate.

  165. avatar
    justlw February 12, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

    justlw: Not even. Even SCI clearance checks don’t require the applicant to provide these things.

    I’ll revise that a bit — quite a bit, actually. Many if not all of these thing will be checked by the investigators, and many of those things do require the applicant to provide an authorization to release information.

    But for any job I’ve been on the hiring side of, the normal amount of information that would be verified would be: employment history and degrees claimed (which is much different from “school records”). Some jobs will require a physical (again, much different from “medical records”).

  166. avatar
    SluggoJD February 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm #

    gls:
    It has been a very interesting tour of your blog.I want to thank everyone who participated.One can always tell when entering a site dominated by the left. It is very predictable and this site didn’t disappoint.

    You will note that I didn’t personally attack anyone, just presented some information was not allowed by the “gatekeepers.”The responses were immediate and resounding attacking not only the information but personally attacking the poster.Accusations included: being a “birther”, being silly, being a crank or conspiracy freak, inept, a liar, a mental case among others.I see I was not alone, anyone who disagreed were subject to the wrath.

    The Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals so frequently used by the left were liberally applied in the responses.It appears the favorites were number 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” and number 13 “Pick a target, personalize it and paralyze it although others (there’s that word again) made their appearance.

    Just for the record there were no lies, all the things listed as being required for my employment were absolutely required as were updates from time to time.Some items provided by me and some from releases signed by me.And yes thank you, it was “a heck of a job” actually a career.

    Once again thank you for participating, you have restored my faith that the left has not wavered from it’s mission.

    You’re a hilarious loser, nothing more. You write like you’re supposed to be somebody, but dude, guess what? Obama is President. And you’re relegated to posting BS on a message board.

    Fake bravado is so brave!

  167. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 11:30 pm #

    gls: And yes thank you, it was “a heck of a job” actually a career.

    Imaginary jobs always are. Heck, that is. And do you know how you can tell if you’ve really lost it? You start talking about that pretend job like it was a career.

  168. avatar
    misha marinsky February 13, 2013 at 12:08 am #

    gls: you have restored my faith that the left has not wavered from it’s mission.

    You were expecting the Spanish Inquisition, maybe?

  169. avatar
    bobj February 13, 2013 at 12:18 am #

    Arthur:
    I’ve never read “Rule for Radicals.” Never heard of Alinsky until his name was brought up by birthers. But I do know b.s. when I see it, and I respond accordingly. Don’t let the door hit you in the, and so forth.

    I have read the book and once again the commenter trying to use it (gls) gets it wrong. Rule number 13 is: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (not paralyze it).

    The “rules” part of the book is in a chapter called Tactics. It is not a how-to-argue-with-conservatives-from-a-liberal- perspective segment.

    The continued misuse and abuse of the themes of that book is mystifying. But I guess when one judges a book by its cover…

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2013 at 1:41 am #

    If I had to pick, I would say you’re lying.

    gls: When I applied for employment all my records including birth certificate, school records, credit records, family records, associations, memberships, medical records, etc. were provided and subject to review by the prospective employer.

  171. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2013 at 2:51 am #

    gls: Nearly $2 million in legal fees to keep everything secret.

    A drive by birther bigot spreading long debunked birther lies who also ignores a logical and common sense refutation is all too predictable.

  172. avatar
    The Magic M February 13, 2013 at 4:01 am #

    bobj: But I guess when one judges a book by its cover…

    If you look at the two most typical birther sites (WND and Birther Report/ORYR), you will realize that headlines are more important than content.
    Why? Because their writers have obviously found that most readers don’t read all articles, but will browse the headlines, so propaganda value is achieved by using misleading headlines throughout.

    The same pattern is true for books – you can be sure 99% of birthers have never read Vattel or Alinsky, they just equalize “Law of Nations = what the Constitution means by that term” and “Radicals = gay Marxist Muslim terrorists”.

    To take a simple analogy, if Leonard Nimoy had been elected President, they would cite his book “I am Spock” as proof he is not a natural born citizen since he clearly admitted he was half Vulcan.

  173. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2013 at 9:10 am #

    bobj: I have read the book and once again the commenter trying to use it (gls) gets it wrong.

    Now wait just a minute! . . . So you’re saying a birther got his facts wrong? I never heard of that, either.

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2013 at 10:01 am #

    Sometimes I use misleading headlines, but I fully expect MY readers to say “huh?” and read on.

    When I read your comment, I was reminded of Mario Apuzzo saying “Dr. Conspiracy is begging the question” which is probably all his readers need to hear.

    The Magic M: If you look at the two most typical birther sites (WND and Birther Report/ORYR), you will realize that headlines are more important than content.
    Why? Because their writers have obviously found that most readers don’t read all articles, but will browse the headlines, so propaganda value is achieved by using misleading headlines throughout.

  175. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2013 at 10:23 am #

    Majority Will:
    gls: Nearly $2 million in legal fees to keep everything secret.

    A drive by birther bigot spreading long debunked birther lies who also ignores a logical and common sense refutation is all too predictable.

    Hey, at least it deflated back down to $2M. I guess now that the election’s long over, that meme has had time to depressurize, blow off some steam ;)

  176. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 13, 2013 at 10:32 am #

    gls: Just for the record there were no lies, all the things listed as being required for my employment were absolutely required as were updates from time to time.

    Liar. I am an employer, and my brother has a security clearance to work on military technology. Neither of us have ever heard of a job that requires the documents you mentioned. So tell us what the job was that required all that documentation and maybe we’ll believe you. Don’t, and everyone can safely assume you’re a liar.

    Maybe you don’t get it: WE are defending the truth (that BHO is eligible, and a natural-born American) against the lies spread by the likes of YOU, who have no critical-thinking skills whatsoever… NOT the other way around. If you did, you’d have discovered how many individual non-fact turds you’ve swallowed from the propagandists trying to destroy the President, and who don’t care what harm they do to America at the same time.

    WE are defending America, the Constitution and the rule of law from YOU. You just can’t stand it that BHO is a bright, capable, well-liked leader. Well, too damn bad. When you attack America the way you do, don’t expect anything but ridicule, hostility, and contempt.

    He have facts. We have references. We have documents. We have court decisions.

    Birthers have idle speculation and misinformation. Plus racism, hate, and envy.

    That’s why we will always win, and you, being losers, will always lose. And 50 years from now, Obama will be remembered as a good or perhaps great president, and Birthers will be remembered as having been arrogant, lying scum… if they are remembered at all.

  177. avatar
    ScottRS February 13, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    Birthers have idle speculation and misinformation.Plus racism, hate, and envy.

    You forgot hearsay, innuendo and conjecture. They have bunches of that, too. Also.

  178. avatar
    MN-Skeptic February 13, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Liar. I am an employer, and my brother has a security clearance to work on military technology. Neither of us have ever heard of a job that requires the documents you mentioned. So tell us what the job was that required all that documentation and maybe we’ll believe you. Don’t, and everyone can safely assume you’re a liar.

    I figured it out! We’re used to thinking of employers like the U.S. Government and Xerox and McDonald’s. Think outside the box. The KKK, maybe. Or some right wing paramilitary organization. Then it all makes sense!

  179. avatar
    The Magic M February 13, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: Think outside the box.

    Dog catcher for Jerome Corsi? WND author? Dental assistant for Orly Taitz?

  180. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: I figured it out! We’re used to thinking of employers like the U.S. Government and Xerox and McDonald’s. Think outside the box. The KKK, maybe. Or some right wing paramilitary organization. Then it all makes sense!

    Yes . . . it was either the KKK or the S.S.

  181. avatar
    JD Reed February 13, 2013 at 11:15 pm #

    GLS, you haven’t even given us a clue about what employer demanded from you all this detailed information. Just re-asserting that it happened this way does nothing for your credibliity, which as you can judge from reading these posts, is kinda anemic around here.

    You’re asking for a lot of transparency from others; why can’t you tell us as much as possible about your own mystery job, without compromising any legitimate confidentiality interests? If you don’t, I think everyone is justified in believing that you just made it all up.

  182. avatar
    misha marinsky February 13, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

    JPotter: Hey, at least it deflated back down to $2M.

    It got as high as $4.5M.

  183. avatar
    AlCum February 14, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    JD Reed:
    GLS, you haven’t even given us a clue about what employer demanded from youall this detailed information. Just re-asserting that it happened this way does nothing for your credibliity, which as you can judge from reading theseposts, is kinda anemic around here.

    You’re asking for a lot of transparency from others; why can’t you tell us as much as possible about your own mystery job, without compromising any legitimate confidentiality interests? If you don’t, I think everyone is justified in believing that you just made it all up.

    Of course he’s fabricating it. He’s a birther. They can’t tell the truth from their fantasies. No job requires this. I’ve never had to show my birth certificate to any prospective employer. I only ever saw it once in my adult life, when I purchased a copy from the county clerk to complete my passport application. It was of course a short form, the kind that birthers say is inadequate to get a passport.

  184. avatar
    G February 14, 2013 at 1:25 am #

    Of course he can’t tell you the actual career field or job…because he made it up… as long as he remains completely “vague”, he can avoid having the qualifications for such a position actually looked into and utterly debunked.

    It is a lazy tactic of the pompous whopper-telling blowhard and an obvious “tell”…

    JD Reed: You’re asking for a lot of transparency from others; why can’t you tell us as much as possible about your own mystery job, without compromising any legitimate confidentiality interests? If you don’t, I think everyone is justified in believing that you just made it all up.

  185. avatar
    Daniel February 14, 2013 at 3:27 am #

    Has GLS ever actually even had a job, at least that anyone can verify?

  186. avatar
    brygenon February 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    The Good Doctor, in the article, wrote:
    “The Court has not asked for a response (meaning that they aren’t seriously considering the case),”

    I remember learning about that from some real lawyers, among our friends at the Fogbow and the CAAFlog, but my impression was that the principle is specific to petitions for certiorari.

    Applications for stay are different. They first to go the individual Justice assigned to the circuit. Justices might grant stay without hearing from the opposing party. The full Court will later hear both sides. A stay temporarily prevents some irreversible action, to give the parties and the Court time to work stuff out.

  187. avatar
    donna February 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    Daniel: Has GLS ever actually even had a job, at least that anyone can verify?

    since, as an applicant, he relinquished all info & documents to prospective employers except for his shoe size, his “job” is probably fighting identity theft

  188. avatar
    HKL (Keith away from home) February 14, 2013 at 4:56 pm #

    Daniel:
    Has GLS ever actually even had a job, at least that anyone can verify?

    I think I talked to him at work just the other day. He asked me if I wanted fries with my burger.

  189. avatar
    Bernard February 18, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

    I have a theory about the business with the SSNs:

    The latest bit of nonsense is that a man living in the Chicago house formerly home to the Obama family is using the same SSN as that attributed in various documents to Obama himself. This supposedly leads to the absurd conclusion that when the Obamas moved to DC the one and only tenant for their old home was the very guy whose SSN Obama had already been using for several years. What’re the odds???

    Curiously, although this man’s name and address are known, it seems nobody has contacted him directly about this — or, if they did, they got an explanation that was conveniently scrapped.

    My theory is that the Obamas own the house in Chicago, and this man is their tenant. He pays rent to the Obamas. The document which connects this man with Obama’s SSN is not described (maybe even the birfers don’t know its precise nature), but I theorize that it’s the billing records of either the property tax office or the public utilities (water & power) office. Since this man is the mere renter, it is the landlord – Obama – who is still responsible for paying the property tax and the utility bills and therefore Obama’s SSN remains on the records even though the name of the person in residence has been changed.

    About three years ago some birfer “investigators” ran the various names associated with the President and his parents – as many as they could think of, including misspellings and alternative name – through one or more of those subscription datebases that has property tax rolls, voter registration rolls, utility rolls, etc. – AND covering a time span of more than 20 years. They considered every possible permutation of the names a hit – thus counting several mentions of a MISTER Stanley Dunham or a Barry Dunham, etc. etc. Even though many of these came from places where the future President never stayed, and many of them date from periods where the future President was known to living elsewhere, and even where the Stanley Dunham or Stanley Obama was clearly identified as a male, the birfers counted all of these as some sort of evidence against the President, connecting dozens of implausible addresses and SSNs with the President. It would seem that a conspiracy that could invent a US citizenship for Barack Obama would have been a lot less sloppy about his residential addresses and SSN – but the birfers claimed they hit paydirt.

  190. avatar
    AlCum February 18, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

    Bernard:
    I have a theory about the business with the SSNs:

    The latest bit of nonsense is that a man living in the Chicago house formerly home to the Obama family is using the same SSN as that attributed in various documents to Obama himself.This supposedly leads to the absurd conclusion that when the Obamas moved to DC the one and only tenant for their old home was the very guy whose SSN Obama had already been using for several years.What’re the odds???

    The “investigators” did nothing more than a credit header search, which I’ve done on numerous occasions. Such a search turns up all known persons and SSNs associated with a particular address. There does not have to be any relationship between or among any of these people except that they once lived at or were associated with that address. There is no connection, almost always, between unrelated parties. If I live in an apartment, and 10 years ago someone else lived there, a credit header search on that address would show both of us and both our SSNs would be associated with the address, even though the two of us are complete strangers and have nothing to do with one another.

  191. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Bernard: I have a theory about the business with the SSNs:

    I have another theory; that the debt collector who found a record for Harry Bounel was looking at the same database that has debt collectors regularly bothering me for debts I never incurred or to find people who never lived at my address nor had my phone number. In other words, it’s just bad data–conveniently created a year after Obama became President.

    If you look at Orly’s debt collector’s affidavit/proof that Bounel lived at the Obama house, it is all based on a single record entered in 2009. He and Orly also claim that Bounel was born in 1890, which would make Bounel 119 years old in 2009. The debt collector wrote to the Social Security Administration to try to get Bounel’s SS#, and received a response saying the law did not permit releasing such private information. For some reason, the debt collector’s affidavit nonetheless avers that the response validates his suspicion that Obama’s SS# once belonged to Bounel. In other words, it’s all incredulous crap.

    If Orly had any real evidence of Bounel’s SS#, she wouldn’t be trying to track down everyone or anyone who once knew Bounel and could establish if/when/how he died. (That is because if she could prove to the SSA that Bounel had died, the SSA could then lawfully release Bounel’s SS#). Even today, she has posted on her website that she phoned some old woman who may have lived in the same neighborhood as Bounel when she was 11 years old and when Bounel was in his 50s (in the 1940s); Orly didn’t believe her when she said she didn’t remember Bounel so Orly has published this woman’s name and phone number, and is telling her supporters to try calling the woman to insist she cooperate…. As if that wasn’t enough, in true Orly style, she describes this poor woman as someone who “seems to be one of these old leftist Democrat Jews who always voted for the Democrats no matter what… [and] would defend a fellow Democrat no matter what.”

  192. avatar
    Bernard February 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    I am very grateful that people set me straight on the credit/debt collectors’ databse(s). That explains a lot. And the birfers, as I said, were counting every imaginable permutation of names as a hit, and then claiming that the Prez had lived at all those addresses, used all those SSNs, etc.

    Ask yourself: IF we momentarily accept that Barack Obama’s personal history (birthplace, citizenship, etc.) is all the result of a clever conspiracy …. then why would the conspirators have gotten sloppy about his residential history and his SSN? It would seemed to have required an immense amount of energy to be so extremely counter-productive to the conspiracy by contriving so many addresses and SSNs.

    Anyway, going back to my earlier comment about baby Barack being deducted from Mama’s passport: First, the fact that he had been on her US passport (as was allowed back then) means that he had, at that early age, started out as a US citizen (otherwise he would never have been included in her US passport). And, as someone pointed out, he could not have his US citizenship taken away as a minor – even if a parent wanted that done (he might, however, had a second nationality added — former Pres candidate Michelle Bachman was a dual citizen, US & Swiss).

    After 1972 the US State Dept required one person – one passport, no more groups (not husband-wife, nor mama-baby, nor siblings), which increased the number of passports but avoided a lot of those situations where someone got left behind without a passport to get home.

    So, in a way, Taitz has undermined her own case.

  193. avatar
    Rickey February 18, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —

    I have another theory; that the debt collector who found a record for Harry Bounel was looking at the same database that has debt collectors regularly bothering me for debts I never incurred or to find people who never lived at my address nor had my phone number.In other words, it’s just bad data–conveniently created a year after Obama became President.

    A friend who lives in Texas told me last week that he received a call from a collection agency in Pennsylvania which is trying to collect on an unpaid traffic ticket. He has an uncommon name, but I did a check for him and discovered three men in Pennsylvania who have his name.

    These thing happen all the time. 60 Minutes did a report a couple of weeks ago to the effect that 30% of credit reports have errors in them.

    I’ve said it many times before, but it bears repeating – information obtained from credit bureaus must be independently verified.

  194. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 18, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

    Rickey: I’ve said it many times before, but it bears repeating – information obtained from credit bureaus must be independently verified.

    Agreed. And in the case of Taitz’s debt collector, I don’t think he was even referencing data from the credit bureaus. Instead, I think he was referencing pretty much any “public” data on the internet. Indeed, I’ve read some birthers claiming that his data proves that Michelle Obama was previously married to Bounel (who was born 74 years before her). Sheesh! Oh yeah, Taitz really has undisputable proof!

  195. avatar
    The Magic M February 19, 2013 at 4:13 am #

    J.D. Sue: I’ve read some birthers claiming that his data proves that Michelle Obama was previously married to Bounel (who was born 74 years before her)

    That was the claim until they found (a) Bounel’s actual birth year. (Though I doubt that would make birthers retract that marriage claim, after all, they are NEV-R-WRONG.)

    Somehow nobody, including the IRS, seemed bothered how someone aged 100+ still filed papers with his SSN under a completely different name.

    Oh, and yes, the Almighty Conspiracy somehow overlooked that they could just have assigned Obama any new SSN they wanted. Those incompetent fools, a 50+ year plan ruined by such a simple oversight. I wonder why our Alien Overlords haven’t fired Soros yet. What goods does he have on them? Juicy photos of Supreme Overlord Gr’sheesh’gnarx with Eccentrica Gallumbits?

  196. avatar
    misha marinsky February 19, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    J.D. Sue: in true Orly style, she describes this poor woman as someone who “seems to be one of these old leftist Democrat Jews who always voted for the Democrats no matter what… [and] would defend a fellow Democrat no matter what.”

    Here’s another gem from her blog: “A 90 year old Socialist Shimon Peres returns a favor to Obama, Netanyahu makes a strategic move in response”

  197. avatar
    misha marinsky February 19, 2013 at 4:58 pm #

    HKL (Keith away from home): He asked me if I wanted fries with my burger.

    Letterman: I was back home for a visit, and ran into Dan Quayle. So we talked, one Hoosier to another. Then Quayle said to me, “Do you want fries with that?”

  198. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —
    .Even today, she has posted on her website that she phoned some old woman who may have lived in the same neighborhood as Bounel when she was 11 years old and when Bounel was in his 50s (in the 1940s); Orly didn’t believe her when she said she didn’t remember Bounel so Orly has published this woman’s name and phone number, and is telling her supporters to try calling the woman to insist she cooperate…. As if that wasn’t enough, in true Orly style, she describes this poor woman as someone who “seems to be one of these old leftist Democrat Jews who always voted for the Democrats no matter what… [and] would defend a fellow Democrat no matter what.”

    The surprising thing is that she actually got the right person, but as it turns out it wasn’t as difficult as one might think. As a child the woman had a very unusual name. When you Google it, the first thing that comes up is her husband’s obituary, which mentions that she is from the Bronx and that they were married in 1950 (they were married for 61 years). She lives in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. and has a listed phone number.

    An interesting thing is that the 1940 census taker got the street in the Bronx wrong. The census taker thought that the address was a Daly Avenue address, but the building is on the corner of Daly Avenue and E. Tremont Avenue and actually is an E. Tremont Avenue address.

    One ridiculous thing is Orly’s insistence that this woman must have known Harry Bounel because they were neighbors. The address is an apartment building in the Bronx and Bounel is listed as a lodger in one of the apartments (which means that he was renting a room from the actual tenants). Plus Bounel was 50 years old in 1940 and the girl was 10.

    Of course, even if the woman remembers Bounel she probably wouldn’t tell Orly.