Birthers to the rescue! I had nothing to write about today, but lo and behold something popped up at the Lysander Spooner Law School blog (not a real law school), an article about me, taking me to task for something I didn’t write. The Spooner article is essentially an ad hominem argument that goes something like “Mike Zullo is right and I am wrong about Obama’s documents because Zullo is virtuous and I am not.”
Anyhow, let’s count the mistakes1 in the article:
- The article appears to be in response to the article published here titled, “Is Mike Zullo running a scam on the birthers?” The article suggests: “Kevin Davidson has gone to the internet to suggest that Mike Zullo is running a scam on "birthers.” The problem is that the article mentioned is not mine. It was written by Jim. I will note that while the Spooner article mentions me by name 8 times, it fails to mention its own author once, appearing only under the title “administrator.” The blog belongs to Ken Olsen2, a birther and legal crank. I actually am certain that Zullo is running a scam; I just don’t know what kind of a scam it is—whether it is a financial scam or a information scam.
- Olsen describes me as a “retired civil servant.” That’s not really accurate. I did work for Greenville County, South Carolina, for 6 years right after I got out of college, but I was in private industry for 30 years after that until I retired.
- Olsen says: “Mike Zullo has politely requested unrestricted access to the source documents that can demonstrate whether the Cold Case Posse’s conclusion that the LFBC PDF is a fake is right or wrong.” Such a request is not in the public record; indeed Zullo in answer to a question stated specifically that he had not contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, and I am not aware of him ever saying that he had contacted the White House either. So exactly when and to whom did Zullo make this polite request? Perhaps Zullo’s request was rhetorical.
- Olsen says, “Zullo has successfully found an independent, highly-qualified expert who substantiates the conclusions of the Cold Case Posse.” The report to which Olsen alludes has not been published and so nothing can be said about whether the writer is an expert in the content of the report.
- Olsen says, “Kevin Davidson claims to be interested in ‘obama’ conspiracies, yet ignores many of the most compelling theories regarding ‘obama,”…. That is somewhat true. Some of the sleaziest smears are mainly avoided on this web site. This is the Larry Sinclair/Jack Cashill material. However, there is nothing “compelling” about them and there’s nothing in the way of evidence to examine or debunk. Olsen is banned here for trying to hijack threads by posting some of this stuff. It isn’t true, however, that I have completely ignored this topic, see for example: articles tagged Larry Sinclair and articles tagged Jack Cashill.
- Olsen says: “Mike Zullo is quiet and persistent, and presents the problematic facts as they have been found.” Holding press conferences, publishing videos and making regular appearances on radio is not being “quiet.” Zullo is a major publicity hound. In fact Zullo has consistently refused to discuss the problematic facts in his own claims, like the fake vital records manual, and others. He won’t debate and he blew off a subpoena to appear in court.
- Olsen says: “Kevin Davidson hides from the facts, and claims to be scientific as he advocates disregarding the simple scientific approach of examining the best evidence.” How am I “disregarding examining the best evidence?” Birthers in general seem to believe that anti-birthers’ primary motivation is to help Obama keep his records sealed, and to oppose their release. This isn’t true. I work with the evidence I have available and I try to correct the record about why other evidence is not available. I don’t advocate for or against the President releasing material the birthers would like to see. I note that the literature on conspiracy theories says that evidence rarely settles anything.
- Olsen says: “Mike Zullo is modest, and will admit he is wrong if the evidence proves it.” That statement is painfully ironic. Name one instance when Zullo ever admitted he was wrong. If he’s never admitted he is wrong, then how does Olsen know he would. In fact Zullo has not only been proven wrong, but a liar. See details here: “Indicting Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse,” “Cold Case Posse video fraud: it gets worse” and “Cold Case Posse: backed into a corner.”
- Olsen concludes: “Mike Zullo is a good faith seeker of the Truth; Kevin Davidson is a self-regarding, pseudo-scientific hypocrite.” I’ll let history be the judge of that.
Mr. Olsen is not invited to defend his article here.
1Olsen does get a couple of things right. I do like to hear myself talk, and I do have a problem reconciling my sometimes-derisive language and my religious convictions, but even Jesus got angry at the hucksters of his time. I should hasten to add that by birther standards, Olsen’s article does not display a remarkable number of mistakes.
2Olsen is somewhat of a pest leaving comments and emails calling me a coward for not getting into “his issues” and not letting him hijack the threads here and degrade the level of discourse to character assassination and smear. He also tries to get by the ban on this blog using fake names. His approach, as a fan of Jack Cashill, is really not much conspiracy theory, but an attempt to twist facts to make them look bad. Reading such material and having to respond to it is a dirty and smelly job, and I have largely ignored Olsen, and in fact I wouldn’t have known about the article here if someone hadn’t tipped me. But to my surprise, I find that Olsen seems rather fixated on me, publishing articles (none of which I have or will read) such as:
- Davidson is “obama’s” Plaything
- Dr. Con needs credit
- Kevin Davidson Wins Piltdown Man of the Year!
- Dr. Conspiracy: Succor for “obama”
- Dr. Con vs. Dr. Cashill
- Dr. Con Fusion
- Dr. Conspiracy
- Dr. Con of the Cross before The Truthfiction
- Dr. Conspiracy: Image Faked
As a smear artist, Ken Olsen is really not very good.