Main Menu

What Happened to BR

In my initial report on Google’s shut-down of Birther Report, I included this from the Google report on the site:

2 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including madadsmedia.com/, burstnet.com/.

It appears that MadAdsMedia, an online supplier of advertising to BR, was itself struck by malware. It’s detailed in an article at Tech Worm, that says that thousands of websites were blocked by Google Safe Browsing as a result. OCConenct.com, for example is returning the Google warning as of this writing.

image

MadAdsMedia contacted affected web sites, and so BR knows what’s going on. All BR has to do is to request that Google review their site, now that MadAdsMedia has fixed their problem. So why is BR moving to a new host anyway? Perhaps because this isn’t the first time Birther Report has run into conflict with Google terms of service. Comments appearing at various web sites (see link below) as coming from the BR owner says that in October 2013, Google shut off AdSense advertising at BR for violating its terms by “targeting individuals.” This latest seems to be the straw that goaded the camel to get moving on finally moving the BR site to a host with less restrictive policies.

Read more:

, ,

137 Responses to What Happened to BR

  1. avatar
    Curious George February 9, 2014 at 2:48 pm #

    Never, ever expect the truth to be told by the birther horde.

  2. avatar
    Thinker February 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    Well, if I were a birfer, I might think that MadAdsMedia was targeted with the specific purpose of harming Birther Report, just like how Xerox has changed the software in every one of its Workstations to discredit Doug Vogt and Mark Gillar.

  3. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 9, 2014 at 6:21 pm #

    It’s back!!! 615 pm eastern time Sunday and BirtherReport is back.

  4. avatar
    QuoVadis February 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm #

    an honest question. what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought? I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2014 at 7:27 pm #

    No, honestly, I have never for a moment considered that possibility scenario.

    QuoVadis: an honest question. what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought? I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

  6. avatar
    QuoVadis February 9, 2014 at 7:30 pm #

    thank you for the honest response.

  7. avatar
    sfjeff February 9, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

    I no more give it any thought than I do what I would do if it was discovered that flying unicorns power the rotation of the earth.

  8. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 9, 2014 at 7:44 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

    Like Doc it has never crossed my mind. But I wonder……exactly how do you see it happening? Who do you see doing it…..when…..where?

  9. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 9, 2014 at 7:48 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

    Honest? Gee that Obama would ever be arrested in conjunction to birther claims falls into the same realm of possibility of what will you do when aliens invade earth or the sun goes supernova? Have you ever given that any thought?

  10. avatar
    QuoVadis February 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm #

    Carl,

    I don’t believe there is a precedent for the arrest of the person occupying the office of the chief executive of the usa. my guess would be federal marshals by the order of either the senate or scotus? it is arrest, not impeachment/removal. if they punt, it’ll be impeachment/removal.

  11. avatar
    NBC February 9, 2014 at 8:52 pm #

    QuoVadis:

    I don’t believe there is a precedent for the arrest of the person occupying the office of the chief executive of the usa. my guess would be federal marshals by the order of either the senate or scotus? it is arrest, not impeachment/removal.

    Under what statute would our President be arrested? There is no evidence that he is ineligible or that he has committed any fraud, so the question now becomes one of legal foundation. Under our laws, our President is at a minimum a de facto president, so how would the judiciary deal with such matters? Have you heard of the de facto officer doctrine? Also, I doubt that our President could be prosecuted for any crimes committed during his presidency until he has left office.

  12. avatar
    NBC February 9, 2014 at 8:55 pm #

    QuoVadis: I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

    You will never have an opportunity to rub salt, as it presumes that there are legal foundations for an arrest of our President. None really have been proposed. While some people have argued ‘fraud’, or ‘ineligibility’, once again, the lack of supporting legal foundations will make prosecution highly unlikely.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 9, 2014 at 8:56 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    Carl,

    I don’t believe there is a precedent for the arrest of the person occupying the office of the chief executive of the usa.my guess would be federal marshals by the order of either the senate or scotus?it is arrest, not impeachment/removal.if they punt, it’ll be impeachment/removal.

    Perhaps you can tell us where in Federal law or the constitution this power to arrest the president comes from?

  14. avatar
    NBC February 9, 2014 at 8:56 pm #

    QuoVadis: my guess would be federal marshals by the order of either the senate or scotus?

    Scotus? Unlikely, as to the Senate well there is the Sergeant of Arms… But really under what argument?

    On the orders of the Senate, the SAA is the only person who can arrest the president of the United States.

  15. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 9, 2014 at 8:59 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    Carl,

    I don’t believe there is a precedent for the arrest of the person occupying the office of the chief executive of the usa.my guess would be federal marshals by the order of either the senate or scotus?it is arrest, not impeachment/removal.if they punt, it’ll be impeachment/removal.

    You are correct…..there is no precedent. And, more important, there is no authority.

    U.S. Marshals work for the President so it’s unlikely anyone from the judicial or legislative branches could order them to do anything….let alone arrest their boss.

    For the sake of discussion, however, let’s say it is possible: What would you see President Obama being arrested for….what crimes?

    And who is the “they” you see punting on impeachment? How would you see that working…..especially in the Senate?

  16. avatar
    NBC February 9, 2014 at 9:02 pm #

    Of course, the SAA only has jurisdiction over those people who have violated Senate rules.

  17. avatar
    QuoVadis February 9, 2014 at 9:04 pm #

    the situation will be unique and the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it. the demand from the public will also sway how the situation will be resolved. it will have to be done in a completely non-partisan manner. it will be a tragic failure of government and will shake the foundations of our society…..very sad.

  18. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 9, 2014 at 9:10 pm #

    NBC: On the orders of the Senate, the SAA is the only person who can arrest the president of the United States.

    Here’s the Senate website re the SAA: http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/generic/saa_faq.htm

    I wonder if the Senate has ever gone to the trouble to approve rules to implement this power. Certainly not in the years I’ve been paying attention to politics.

    And then there is the question of just how the the SAA would effect the arrest?

    Other than all that what we’re dealing with is a birther’s wet dream.

  19. avatar
    JPotter February 9, 2014 at 9:12 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    Carl,

    I don’t believe there is a precedent for the arrest of the person occupying the office of the chief executive of the usa.my guess would be federal marshals by the order of either the senate or scotus?it is arrest, not impeachment/removal.if they punt, it’ll be impeachment/removal.

    If “they” “punt” … what?

    You seem to be assuming that we’re sharing some assumption of yours. Quod infernum est est, Quo Vadis?

  20. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 9, 2014 at 9:17 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    the situation will be unique and the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it.the demand from the public will also sway how the situation will be resolved.it will have to be done in a completely non-partisan manner.it will be a tragic failure of government and will shake the foundations of our society…..very sad.

    You still haven’t answered any of our questions let alone under what authority you think arrest of the president comes from.

  21. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 9, 2014 at 9:17 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    the situation will be unique and the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it.the demand from the public will also sway how the situation will be resolved.it will have to be done in a completely non-partisan manner.it will be a tragic failure of government and will shake the foundations of our society…..very sad.

    What “situation” do you foresee…..when?

  22. avatar
    gorefan February 9, 2014 at 11:49 pm #

    QuoVadis: an honest question. what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?

    An honest question for you: what will you do when an alien space craft lands on the your front lawn? Have you given it any thought?

    IMO. the probabilities that either your event or mine will occur are roughly the same.

  23. avatar
    Suranis February 10, 2014 at 12:02 am #

    Don’t give away the landing sites of the Invasion fleet, Gorefan.

  24. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 10, 2014 at 12:20 am #

    Well, yes, QV, it would be very sad, except for one thing: EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS NONSENSE. Regarding Obama’s eligibility and/or identity, anyway. No forged papers, no usurperation, no recriminations against his evil minions, no frog marching, no arrests. No Marshalls, no Citizens Grand Juries. Nothing.

    It. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

    But please do take down my name as one of the treasonous enablers of Obama’s usurpification. That’s my real name, I’m in Baltimore, and I’m easy to find.

    Bring it.

    The last time the SCRI survey was held, Obama was projected to enter the list of past Presidents at 15th best. GWB has bottomed out at #39, or fifth worst. Obama is a brilliant, strong and capable leader. He will not be remembered as a fraud, or as ineligible. There may be a tiny footnote, like with Arthur, that a fringe of partisan swine disputed his eligibility. That’s all, pal. That’s the way it will go down.

    Looking into the future, predicting how cases would be ruled, etc., we have always been right. Birthers have always been wrong.

    Why do you suppose that might be?

  25. avatar
    RanTalbott February 10, 2014 at 12:58 am #

    Thomas Brown: There may be a tiny footnote, like with Arthur, that a fringe of partisan swine disputed his eligibility.

    I think it’ll be more than just “a tiny footnote”: the obstructionism, largely driven by the influence RWNJs (including birthers) have on GOP primaries, will be recorded as a significant factor in Obama’s Presidency. There will be much cursing by our descendants of our inability to reach even half-assed compromises, much less real solutions, to deal with some very serious problems because too many mindless ideologues managed to take center stage, instead of being laughed off of it.

  26. avatar
    BillTheCat February 10, 2014 at 2:58 am #

    QuoVadis:
    thank you for the honest response.

    LOL any. day. now.

  27. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 10, 2014 at 5:28 am #

    QuoVadis: I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound

    So you’ll rather be volunteering for all the firing squads that will put us Obots against the wall, as most of your fellow birthers said they would?

  28. avatar
    RanTalbott February 10, 2014 at 5:57 am #

    QuoVadis: the situation will be unique

    Not at all: black people have often been lynched for crimes they didn’t commit, or for acts that weren’t even crimes, by mobs who sometimes acted under color of authority.

    Fortunately, we’ve pretty much put a stop to that. But many birthers do seem to be eager to revive that shameful tradition.

  29. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 10, 2014 at 6:40 am #

    Haven’t given it a thought. I’m expecting the end of the Mayan calender and all its ramifications with more trepidation, which is to say none.

    An honest question. Just what do you think Obama is possibly going to be arrested for? Just what charges, by what court are you anticipating?

    You obviously missed the memos, talking point or otherwise. Obama got elected twice, by considerable margins, and the Electoral college and the house and senate have all approved it twice, their decision is final and irrevocable, and if you haven’t gotten the word yet, not subject to court review or intervention.

    As to actually arresting the current incumbent POTUS, ya gots bupkis. It has already been looked in to, by previous AG’s, and there is NO legal authority for ANYONE to arrest a sitting POTIS. So tough luck there.

    QuoVadis:
    an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

  30. avatar
    aarrgghh February 10, 2014 at 7:38 am #

    the only president in the nation’s history to be arrested, imprisoned and indicted for treason was jefferson davis and there was very good reason for that.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will February 10, 2014 at 7:43 am #

    QuoVadis: an honest question. what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?

    Honestly, that’s really asinine.

  32. avatar
    aarrgghh February 10, 2014 at 8:56 am #

    QuoVadis: the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it.

    shorter: as always, we’ll just make things up.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2014 at 9:19 am #

    I’ve spent 5 years blogging about Obama Conspiracy theories, written over 3,000 articles on the subject, and read almost a quarter of a million comments on it. In addition I have read countless legal briefs on Obama’s eligibility, news stories and books. If anyone is qualified to judge the validity of these claims about Obama, I think it is I. And my view, not pulling any punches, is that the birthers are barking mad. Your scenario that somehow truth and falsehood are going to switch places in the next 3 years is ludicrous. These are no longer the days when you can denounce the old lady next door as a witch and get her burned. We have legal processes that weed out the crank claims like yours.

    You should understand that when I say “barking mad” that I am not saying “clinically insane,” because there is a community where such views are considered normal. There was a time when burning witches was the community norm. The community where you hang out that thinks like you is just too small to matter, and because it lacks any rational basis, is not going to grow.

    QuoVadis:
    the situation will be unique and the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it.the demand from the public will also sway how the situation will be resolved.it will have to be done in a completely non-partisan manner.it will be a tragic failure of government and will shake the foundations of our society…..very sad.

  34. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 10, 2014 at 9:23 am #

    QuoVadis: QuoVadis

    Psalm 22:28 ESV

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com

  35. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 10, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    Notorial Dissent: Haven’t given it a thought. I’m expecting the end of the Mayan calender and all its ramifications with more trepidation, which is to say none.

    I thought the mayan calendar “ended” back in 2012?

  36. avatar
    Curious George February 10, 2014 at 10:56 am #

    Quo Vadis

    “the situation will be unique and the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it.the demand from the public will also sway how the situation will be resolved.it will have to be done in a completely non-partisan manner.it will be a tragic failure of government and will shake the foundations of our society…..very sad.”

    In other words, violate the Constitution to save the Constitution. Become a member of a mob and ignore the rule of law. It will not be unique as there have always been anarchists who want their own way and will mold revolt and sedition to meet their needs. If anything this will represent a tragic failure of the people who have been misled by those with a nefarious agenda. Start thinking for yourself.

  37. avatar
    sfjeff February 10, 2014 at 11:15 am #

    QuoVadis:
    the situation will be unique and the remedy for it will have to be equally unique in that existing law/precedent will have to be molded to it.the demand from the public will also sway how the situation will be resolved.it will have to be done in a completely non-partisan manner.it will be a tragic failure of government and will shake the foundations of our society…..very sad.

    Basically you are saying that Congress has the power to arrest any President- by declaring that he isn’t the President?

    Birthers seem blind to the implications of the extra-Constitutional solutions that they imagine.

    The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it is as good of a framework as I have ever seen. Birthers- being unable to remove the President constitutionally, seem more than willing to propose unconstitutional methods to remove him from the White House.

    Quo suggests that Congress or the Supreme Court would somehow do this.

    Other Birthers have suggested that the military step in.

    Ignoring of course, that once you set the precedent that removing a President can be done extra-Constitutionally- that others will feel free to do the same thing.

    Why Birthers want America to be a banana republic with Presidents serving at the whim of the military or the Supreme Court is beyond me- all I can assume is that they are blinded by their rage against Obama.

  38. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 10, 2014 at 12:02 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I thought the mayan calendar “ended” back in 2012?

    I don’t think it ever ends, it just started a new cycle.

    sfjeff: Why Birthers want America to be a banana republic with Presidents serving at the whim of the military or the Supreme Court is beyond me

    Because they’re all little basement dictators whose prime desire is to be God Emperor of the World (see e.g. Thomas MacLeran who said the first thing he’d do when elected President is to expel all Muslims, citizen or not).

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm #

    I went to Belize and talked to the Mayan guy who makes the calendars. He said: “how can a circular calendar end?”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/the-end-of-the-world/

    The Magic M (not logged in): I don’t think it ever ends, it just started a new cycle.

  40. avatar
    Jim February 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I went to Belize and talked to the Mayan guy who makes the calendars. He said: “how can a circular calendar end?”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/the-end-of-the-world/

    They found an extension of the Calendar, it goes all the way past the year 3500… or in birther terms about the time Orly properly serves a defendant.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/story/2012-05-08/maya-apocalypse-calendar-2012/54879760/1

  41. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    sfjeff: Basically you are saying that Congress has the power to arrest any President- by declaring that he isn’t the President?

    Birthers seem blind to the implications of the extra-Constitutional solutions that they imagine.

    The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it is as good of a framework as I have ever seen. Birthers- being unable to remove the President constitutionally, seem more than willing to propose unconstitutional methods to remove him from the White House.

    Quo suggests that Congress or the Supreme Court would somehow do this.

    Other Birthers have suggested that the military step in.

    Ignoring of course, that once you set the precedent that removing a President can be done extra-Constitutionally- that others will feel free to do the same thing.

    Why Birthers want America to be a banana republic with Presidents serving at the whim of the military or the Supreme Court is beyond me- all I can assume is that they are blinded by their rage against Obama.

    The U.S federal government is limited by the U.S. Constitution. A “unique solution” to a usurper in the Office of the President of the U.S., popularly elected, can only come from citizens who object to a violation of the U.S. Constitution and exercise powers and rights reserved for the States and individuals.

    An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity from objectors. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity by assuming the office.

  42. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 10, 2014 at 2:05 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: An ineligible President waives qualified immunity by assuming the office.

    But….but….if the person (any gender, any race) is serving as President then he/she/it has been found eligible, right?

    How does one go about “assuming the office” without winning a majority of the votes in the Electoral College and having that vote certified by Congress?

  43. avatar
    RanTalbott February 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm #

    CarlOrcas: But….but….if the person (any gender, any race) is serving as President then he/she/it has been found eligible, right?

    Sure, but not necessarily correctly so.

    It’s a hypothetical issue (despite the screeching of birfers), but Congress has been known to make mistakes (.g., about whether some laws it’s passed are constitutional). So it could still be an interesting subject for discussion, if we could keep the 8-year-olds away from the table.

  44. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 10, 2014 at 2:45 pm #

    CarlOrcas: But….but….if the person (any gender, any race) is serving as President then he/she/it has been found eligible, right?

    How does one go about “assuming the office” without winning a majority of the votes in the Electoral College and having that vote certified by Congress?

    Your confusing a qualified President with an eligible President. A qualified President is sworn in regardless of eligibility. Obama has set a precedent. An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity because he knows or should know he is ineligible and is violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing himself to be sworn in.

  45. avatar
    interestedbystander February 10, 2014 at 2:58 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Your confusing a qualified President with an eligible President.

    Skipping over your spelling error … you are confusing what you want with what you’ve got. There are no do-overs. Obama won, start dealing with it.

  46. avatar
    JoZeppy February 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The U.S federal government is limited by the U.S. Constitution. A “unique solution” to a usurper in the Office of the President of the U.S., popularly elected, can only come from citizens who object to a violation of the U.S. Constitution and exercise powers and rights reserved for the States and individuals.
    An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity from objectors. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity by assuming the office.

    It’s so funny when birther try to make up the law by pulling utter BS out of their backsides. What you wrote has no basis in reality. The States and individuals have no power to alter an office as defined in the Constitution. The only way to remove a President is by impeachment. There are no “powers and rights reserved for the States and individuals” beyond voting for him.

    Your “qualified immunity” claim is just something pulled out of the far reaches of your bowels and doesn’t merit any further response. You might as well base your whole argument on “because I say so.” At least that way you’d be a little more honest.

  47. avatar
    Whatever4 February 10, 2014 at 3:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Your confusing a qualified President with an eligible President. A qualified President is sworn in regardless of eligibility. Obama has set a precedent. An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity because he knows or should know he is ineligible and is violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing himself to be sworn in.

    But who defines ineligible in this case? Half a dozen bottom-tier lawyers and a few hundred keyboard researchers? How does the military “know” that the action isn’t a takeover of another sort? How are these people different from a small band of anarchists?

  48. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 10, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Your confusing a qualified President with an eligible President.

    At least we weren’t confusing “your” and “you’re.” How seriously is one supposed to take what you say, when you can’t even master basic English? I stopped making that mistake in the third grade.

  49. avatar
    NBC February 10, 2014 at 3:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The U.S federal government is limited by the U.S. Constitution. A “unique solution” to a usurper in the Office of the President of the U.S., popularly elected, can only come from citizens who object to a violation of the U.S. Constitution and exercise powers and rights reserved for the States and individuals.

    An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity from objectors. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity by assuming the office.

    ROTFL, no wonder the birthers continue to fail in court. There is just no foundation for this to be found in our Constitution or laws.
    If people do not like Obama, they can vote against him, that’s the power the people have.

    Other than that, they remain powerless in their often faulty beliefs.

    Look Sven, you are funny but again your arguments are devoid from reality and foundation in history, legal precedent, our Constitution and our laws. Other than that… You are quite entertaining

  50. avatar
    NBC February 10, 2014 at 3:35 pm #

    CarlOrcas: But….but….if the person (any gender, any race) is serving as President then he/she/it has been found eligible, right?

    You found one of the many weak points in Sven’s ‘arguments’. Otherwise, anyone could claim that someone is not eligible and the system would collapse. Which is exactly why we have Quo Warranto proceedings, De Facto Officer doctrine, and clearly defined parties who determine eligibility for the President.

    Sven wants anarchism… Which runs counter to our Constitution.

  51. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 10, 2014 at 4:07 pm #

    RanTalbott: Sure, but not necessarily correctly so.

    It’s a hypothetical issue (despite the screeching of birfers), but Congress has been known to make mistakes (.g., about whether some laws it’s passed are constitutional). So it could still be an interesting subject for discussion, if we could keep the 8-year-olds away from the table.

    Yes indeed. It’s a political problem and the Constitution provides a simple solution to that political problem: Impeach the person and remove him/her from office and move on.

    For the sake of discussion (with or without the kiddies) let’s say it was established (after inauguration) beyond any doubt that a President was ineligible to occupy the office then Congress could impeach and try him/her in a matter of a days.

    That gets to the heart of the whole thing today: Birthers don’t like Barack Obama and they’re mad that he won two elections. So….if they can’t have their way they’re going to make stuff up, yell and scream and lay the middle of the living room floor kicking a screaming until things change. You nailed it: They’re ill tempered children….with foul mouths.

  52. avatar
    sfjeff February 10, 2014 at 4:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The U.S federal government is limited by the U.S. Constitution. A “unique solution” to a usurper in the Office of the President of the U.S., popularly elected, can only come from citizens who object to a violation of the U.S. Constitution and exercise powers and rights reserved for the States and individuals.

    An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity from objectors. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity by assuming the office.

    Tell us more good Sven.

    Tell us how you- an individual-have the authority to declare the President and ursurper and remove him from the White House- even though I- an individual- say he is not an ursurper?

    The answer to me is clear- follow the U.S. Constitution.

    But I would be amused to hear your elaboration on why you get to decide who is President- not me.

  53. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 10, 2014 at 4:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Your confusing a qualified President with an eligible President. A qualified President is sworn in regardless of eligibility. Obama has set a precedent. An eligible President enjoys qualified immunity. An ineligible President waives qualified immunity because he knows or should know he is ineligible and is violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing himself to be sworn in.

    No….you’re confusing Reality with Birther Fantasyland; two different places and two different sets of rules.

    The President and most of us live in Reality and that’s where he won two elections and was lawfully sworn in as President.

    So….what you’re left with is a political problem. You lost twice at the polls and he can’t run again. So…..impeach him. It’s really simple. Once he’s convicted in the Senate he’s out of office.

    That’s how it works in America….in Reality.

  54. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 10, 2014 at 4:18 pm #

    sfjeff: Tell us more good Sven.Tell us how you- an individual-have the authority to declare the President and ursurper and remove him from the White House- even though I- an individual- say he is not an ursurper?The answer to me is clear- follow the U.S. Constitution. But I would be amused to hear your elaboration on why you get to decide who is President- not me.

    Has Sven moved on from his adventures of Barry and the Pirates?

  55. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 10, 2014 at 4:19 pm #

    Whatever4: How are these people different from a small band of anarchists?

    Anarchists are usually better organized.

  56. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 10, 2014 at 4:23 pm #

    NBC: Sven wants anarchism… Which runs counter to our Constitution.

    Sven is a child. He wants his way and if he doesn’t get it he’s going to keep throwing a fit.

  57. avatar
    sfjeff February 10, 2014 at 4:46 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Has Sven moved on from his adventures of Barry and the Pirates?

    hah!

    I had forgotten about Barry and the Pirates!

  58. avatar
    aarrgghh February 10, 2014 at 5:52 pm #

    svenmagnussen
    needs just one thing
    his birfer law
    decoder ring
    burma shave

  59. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 10, 2014 at 6:03 pm #

    sfjeff: Tell us more good Sven.

    Tell us how you- an individual-have the authority to declare the President and ursurper and remove him from the White House- even though I- an individual- say he is not an ursurper?

    The answer to me is clear- follow the U.S. Constitution.

    But I would be amused to hear your elaboration on why you get to decide who is President- not me.

    An objection to a usurper is not a demand for removal. An objector can seek a redress of grievances as the usurper fulfills the will of the majority by signing and implementing laws, rules, regulations and executive orders objected to by the minority.

    Since the usurper waived qualified immunity, as his executive level federal officers have done, they may be held personally liable for harm, if any, that occurs to an objector as the usurper fulfills the will of the people.

    For example, let’s say I lost my health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. You may not object, but I do. If it happened to you, you may shrug your shoulders and dismiss it as an inconvenience for the greater good … the Good and Plenty Doctrine. But I object and demand an exemption because Obama is ineligible even though the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress voted, in the majority, for Obama as the most qualified for President of the U.S. Not only do I want an exemption, I want to be compensated for the harm caused to me by implementation of the ACA.

    The Bill of Rights protects me from the majority, as it protected Obama from being exposed as ineligible during the campaigns (the Privacy Act is derived from the Bill of Rights and is not specifically enumerated in the Const.). If Obama were eligible, he and his executive level federal officers would have qualified immunity.

    I respect your constitutional right to vote for and support a usurper as POTUS. Why don’t you respect my constitutional right to object to a trespass on the U.S. Const. and seek a redress of grievances in federal court?

  60. avatar
    Curious George February 10, 2014 at 6:16 pm #

    CarlOrcas

    “That gets to the heart of the whole thing today: Birthers don’t like Barack Obama and they’re mad that he won two elections. So….if they can’t have their way they’re going to make stuff up, yell and scream and lay the middle of the living room floor kicking a screaming until things change. You nailed it: They’re ill tempered children….with foul mouths.”

    I couldn’t have said it better. Anarchy rules the day with Birthers.

  61. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 10, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

    Sven,

    The first four paragraphs of your message are, to put it bluntly, utter nonsense. Trying to discuss them is a waste of time

    SvenMagnussen: Why don’t you respect my constitutional right to object to a trespass on the U.S. Const. and seek a redress of grievances in federal court?

    This paragraph, however, is pretty simple: You have the right to object all you want. No one is stopping you from posting messages here or filing all the lawsuits you want. Have at it and keep us posted.

  62. avatar
    sfjeff February 10, 2014 at 6:55 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Bill of Rights protects me from the majority, as it protected Obama from being exposed as ineligible during the campaigns (the Privacy Act is derived from the Bill of Rights and is not specifically enumerated in the Const.). If Obama were eligible, he and his executive level federal officers would have qualified immunity.

    I respect your constitutional right to vote for and support a usurper as POTUS. Why don’t you respect my constitutional right to object to a trespass on the U.S. Const. and seek a redress of grievances in federal court?

    You have the right to object to anything you want to.

    You don’t have right to have your objections respected.

  63. avatar
    Daniel February 10, 2014 at 7:16 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I respect your constitutional right to vote for and support a usurper as POTUS. Why don’t you respect my constitutional right to object to a trespass on the U.S. Const. and seek a redress of grievances in federal court?

    Well Sven I can guarantee you that if an ineligible person ever does become President, I’ll be right there with you.

    Since Obama is eligible, however, you’re just blowing smoke, and so I laugh at you.

  64. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 10, 2014 at 7:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: An objection to a usurper is not a demand for removal. An objector can seek a redress of grievances as the usurper fulfills the will of the majority by signing and implementing laws, rules, regulations and executive orders objected to by the minority.

    Considering he’s not a usurper your objection holds no weight. You have no right to seek redress because you are full of butthurt. You guys have had over 200 chances and have failed miserably on each one.

    SvenMagnussen: For example, let’s say I lost my health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare

    You would have to actually have health coverage in order to lose it Sven.

    SvenMagnussen: But I object and demand an exemption because Obama is ineligible even though the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress voted, in the majority,

    Except your problem is that Obama is eligible to serve as president in 2017 he won’t be eligible. I objected to the Iraq War using your logic you could claim that the election of 2000 was given to President Bush by the supreme court and I could get him removed based on saying he wasn’t really President. The problem is that’s not how the law works.

    SvenMagnussen: The Bill of Rights protects me from the majority, as it protected Obama from being exposed as ineligible during the campaigns

    Umm no since he wasn’t ineligible and he wasn’t exposed as ineligible before during or after the campaigns.

  65. avatar
    JPotter February 10, 2014 at 7:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Bill of Rights protects me from the majority, as it protected Obama from being exposed as ineligible during the campaigns

    No matter how you slice it, for Obama to be ineligible, he would have had to have been born elsewhere, or fall into some very exceptional cases. Any of these circumstances would have left paper trails in foreign countries. How does the Bill of RIghts, amendments to the US Constitution, or any US law, keep foreign records under wraps?

    Hiding such would require resort to the laws of whatever jurisdiction applied.

    Oh, let me guess, you may assert that no one could possibly discover the other end of the paper trail without first picking up the bread crumbs here in the states. And all that requires is for a man to have kept his origins a complete secret … from birth. Or have a conspiracy do it for him.

    Sure.

    If 3 people can keep a secret only if 2 of them are dead …. then every person a person has ever met can keep a secret if …. ummm …. ?

  66. avatar
    Rickey February 10, 2014 at 8:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    For example, let’s say I lost my health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. You may not object, but I do. If it happened to you, you may shrug your shoulders and dismiss it as an inconvenience for the greater good … the Good and Plenty Doctrine. But I object and demand an exemption because Obama is ineligible even though the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress voted, in the majority, for Obama as the most qualified for President of the U.S. Not only do I want an exemption, I want to be compensated for the harm caused to me by implementation of the ACA.

    I see that you are once again regaling us with your twisted logic and jaw-dropping misunderstanding of the Constitution.

    I will confine myself to the ACA issue. Everyone who has “lost” their health insurance coverage due to the ACA was offered a replacement policy which complies with the law. Furthermore, for the first time every American is eligible to buy health insurance, so if you don’t have it the blame falls squarely on you.

    Besides, Obama’s signature was not necessary for the ACA to go into effect. Since Congress was in session, if Obama hadn’t signed or vetoed it within ten days (Sundays excepted) it would have become law without his signature. Article One, Section 7. Look it up.

  67. avatar
    JoZeppy February 10, 2014 at 8:54 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: An objection to a usurper is not a demand for removal. An objector can seek a redress of grievances as the usurper fulfills the will of the majority by signing and implementing laws, rules, regulations and executive orders objected to by the minority.

    Since the usurper waived qualified immunity, as his executive level federal officers have done, they may be held personally liable for harm, if any, that occurs to an objector as the usurper fulfills the will of the people.

    For example, let’s say I lost my health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. You may not object, but I do. If it happened to you, you may shrug your shoulders and dismiss it as an inconvenience for the greater good … the Good and Plenty Doctrine. But I object and demand an exemption because Obama is ineligible even though the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress voted, in the majority, for Obama as the most qualified for President of the U.S. Not only do I want an exemption, I want to be compensated for the harm caused to me by implementation of the ACA.

    The Bill of Rights protects me from the majority, as it protected Obama from being exposed as ineligible during the campaigns (the Privacy Act is derived from the Bill of Rights and is not specifically enumerated in the Const.). If Obama were eligible, he and his executive level federal officers would have qualified immunity.

    I respect your constitutional right to vote for and support a usurper as POTUS. Why don’t you respect my constitutional right to object to a trespass on the U.S. Const. and seek a redress of grievances in federal court?

    And all of this confirms what we already knew….you don’t have the slightest clue about the law. I don’t think there is a single thing you said that can be remotely linked to any real basis in the law. Congratulations! You have manged to reach perfection in your ignorance.

  68. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 10, 2014 at 9:34 pm #

    It boils down to this, Sven:

    You are a rotten American. Disloyal. Without honor. Unmanly. Cowardly. Self-centered. Seditious. Unlawful. And lacking any real respect for the Constitution.

    Who are your betters, that you might emulate them?

    Glad you asked.

    We are, to start with. If (God help us) Ted Cruz were to be elected by the Constitutionally-mandated process, we would not clog up the courts and waste public resources filing idiotic ballot challenges and pointless lawsuits, disingenuously claiming he’s ineligible. We won’t encourage soldiers to disobey orders because he “isn’t really the CIC.” We won’t “try to destroy him” or call him a “usurper.” We won’t “pray for him to fail.” We won’t squawk that he “stole the election” and he “isn’t my President.”

    Why not?

    Because we’re good Americans. Because we can put aside partisanship for the good of the country.

    Who else are good Americans? Law-abiding, Constitution-respecting, honorable Americans?

    The millions of soldiers, LEOs, and plain old Americans who didn’t vote for Obama, some of whom would take a bullet rather than vote Democratic… but they accept the will of the majority. They suck it up and carry on. Like grown-ups.

    Because they are better Americans than you, Sven.

    Just like almost everyone else in the country.

  69. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 10, 2014 at 10:23 pm #

    Thomas Brown:
    It boils down to this, Sven:

    You are a rotten American.Disloyal.Without honor.Unmanly.Cowardly.Self-centered.Seditious.Unlawful.And lacking any real respect for the Constitution.

    Who are your betters, that you might emulate them?

    Glad you asked.

    We are, to start with.If (God help us) Ted Cruz were to be elected by the Constitutionally-mandated process, we would not clog up the courts and waste public resources filing idiotic ballot challenges and pointless lawsuits, disingenuously claiming he’s ineligible.We won’t encourage soldiers to disobey orders because he “isn’t really the CIC.”We won’t “try to destroy him” or call him a “usurper.” We won’t “pray for him to fail.”We won’t squawk that he “stole the election” and he “isn’t my President.”

    Why not?

    Because we’re good Americans.Because we can put aside partisanship for the good of the country.

    Who else are good Americans?Law-abiding, Constitution-respecting, honorable Americans?

    The millions of soldiers, LEOs, and plain old Americans who didn’t vote for Obama, some of whom would take a bullet rather than vote Democratic… but they accept the will of the majority.They suck it up and carry on.Like grown-ups.

    Because they are better Americans than you, Sven.

    Just like almost everyone else in the country.

    I, and many others, have taken an oath to preserve,protect and defend the Constitution without consideration for the political ramifications or personal consequences of accusing the Commander-in-Chief of being a constitutionally defective federal, superior officer. A willful violation of the Constitution and established precedent a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be President waives sovereign immunity of the U.S. and qualified immunity of its executive level federal officers.

    Either your oath means something or step aside and let the patriots perform their duty.

  70. avatar
    Joey February 10, 2014 at 10:45 pm #

    Sven ignores the fact that there were 50 ELIGIBILITY legal challenges to Barack Obama adjudicated in 22 states in the 2012 election cycle alone. Barack Obama was victorious in every eligibility challenge and in 19 eligibility challenges, the President was specifically ruled to be a natural born citizen in the Court’s order.

    Here’s just one example: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is ELIGIBLE as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).” February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

    The eligibility challenges in Georgia went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States which refused to review the lower courts’ rulings.

  71. avatar
    Rickey February 10, 2014 at 11:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: A willful violation of the Constitution and established precedent a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be President waives sovereign immunity of the U.S. and qualified immunity of its executive level federal officers.

    That sentence makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise. Are you sure that you’re an American?

  72. avatar
    bgansel9 February 10, 2014 at 11:10 pm #

    QuoVadis:
    an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?I won’t be one of the birthers that will visit sites like this to put salt in the wound as the result I have been waiting for will have been satisfied.

    An honest question: When January 20, 2017 comes around and Barack Obama leaves office without having thrown all of the crazy righties in FEMA camps and removing your guns, will you finally admit you were WRONG about him?

  73. avatar
    bgansel9 February 10, 2014 at 11:17 pm #

    JoZeppy: For example, let’s say I lost my health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. You may not object, but I do. If it happened to you, you may shrug your shoulders and dismiss it as an inconvenience for the greater good … the Good and Plenty Doctrine. But I object and demand an exemption

    And when your favorite soft drink company changes their formula and takes your favorite soft drink out of production, do you put up a fuss then too? Do you blame it on the president?

    The loss of your policy is not due to who is president, it’s due to whether your policy met the standards. It didn’t, so it was removed and replaced with another, better policy and that you didn’t then arrange for new coverage is your own fault.

  74. avatar
    aarrgghh February 11, 2014 at 12:09 am #

    patriots know
    law’s always been
    the right to sue’s
    the right to win
    burma shave

  75. avatar
    bgansel9 February 11, 2014 at 12:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You should understand that when I say “barking mad” that I am not saying “clinically insane,” because there is a community where such views are considered normal. There was a time when burning witches was the community norm. The community where you hang out that thinks like you is just too small to matter, and because it lacks any rational basis, is not going to grow.

    BAM!

  76. avatar
    JPotter February 11, 2014 at 12:53 am #

    SvenMagnussen: preserve,protect and defend the Constitution

    Always a good idea. I bet if you tried just one more time to explain how subverting the Constitution constitutes preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, it will suddenly be crystal clear for everyone. Just … one … more … time.

    SvenMagnussen:Either your oath means something or step aside and let the patriots perform their duty.

    Yeah, you “patriots” are serving the memory of the Revolution very well.

    The French Revolution, that is.

  77. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 11, 2014 at 7:22 am #

    SvenMagnussen: A willful violation of the Constitution […] waives sovereign immunity of the U.S.

    What the duck?

    This awfully sounds like “because you all knew your Prez was not eligible, everything the US did was a crime”. Y’know, like something straight out of the North Korean state news.

  78. avatar
    Curious George February 11, 2014 at 7:43 am #

    Sven,
    ” A willful violation of the Constitution and established precedent a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be President…”

    Sven, how does one who is born in the state of Hawaii become a naturalized citizen?

  79. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 11, 2014 at 7:49 am #

    Joey:
    Sven ignores the fact that there were 50 ELIGIBILITY legal challenges to Barack Obama adjudicated in 22 states in the 2012 election cycle alone. Barack Obama was victorious in every eligibility challenge and in 19 eligibility challenges, the President was specifically ruled to be a natural born citizen in the Court’s order.

    Here’s just one example: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is ELIGIBLE as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).” February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

    The eligibility challenges in Georgia went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States which refused to review the lower courts’ rulings.

    Those cases were submitted as Eligibility Clause challenges and then successfully reformulated as a Qualification challenge by defense counsel. The court had no choice but to dismiss after the Congress voted to qualify candidate Obama after a reading of the Electoral College vote. The Founding Fathers never intended for the Eligibility Clause to be used to disqualify a candidate for POTUS or VPOTUS.

    The Eligibility Clause is used by an objector after an ineligible President assumes office. By assuming the office of POTUS, the ineligible President waives sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Executive level federal officers of the U.S. government waive qualified immunity after notice of Obama’s trespass on the U.S. Const.

    Eric Holder, Jr. has been formally noticed of Obama’s ineligibility in a detailed letter. He has chosen to correct the matter by resigning. Other Obama appointees should follow.

  80. avatar
    JPotter February 11, 2014 at 9:29 am #

    SvenMagnussen: He has chosen to correct the matter by resigning.

    News to me. Seems to be news to Eric Holder, too. Might want to, y’know, check your sources.

    You do have sources other than your fevered imagination … ?

  81. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 11, 2014 at 9:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Those cases were submitted as Eligibility Clause challenges and then successfully reformulated as a Qualification challenge by defense counsel

    I don’t think successfully means what you think it does. The cases whether labeled as Eligibility challenges or Qualifications challenges have been spectacular failures.

    SvenMagnussen: The court had no choice but to dismiss after the Congress voted to qualify candidate Obama after a reading of the Electoral College vote.

    The courts had no choice but to dismiss because they have no jurisdiction over a sitting President. The constitution doesn’t allow the courts to give you the remedy that you seek.

    SvenMagnussen: Eric Holder, Jr. has been formally noticed of Obama’s ineligibility in a detailed letter

    How does one become formally “noticed” of something that isn’t true?

    SvenMagnussen: He has chosen to correct the matter by resigning

    Say what? Where is this announcement of Holder’s resignation?

  82. avatar
    Matt February 11, 2014 at 11:43 am #

    Say what?Where is this announcement of Holder’s resignation?

    Any day now.

  83. avatar
    JoZeppy February 11, 2014 at 11:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I, and many others, have taken an oath to preserve,protect and defend the Constitution without consideration for the political ramifications or personal consequences of accusing the Commander-in-Chief of being a constitutionally defective federal, superior officer. A willful violation of the Constitution and established precedent a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be President waives sovereign immunity of the U.S. and qualified immunity of its executive level federal officers.Either your oath means something or step aside and let the patriots perform their duty.

    Sven, I don’t like to be uncivil, but you’re a freaken’ idiot. As a fundamental starting point, no birther has ever produced an iota of evidence of the President being born anywhere but Hawaii. For all of mad Orly’s ranting, for all of Zullo’s hand waiving, they haven’t even attempted to prove the President is born somewhere other than Hawaii. So fundamentally, your entire argument (besides having no basis in law), is based on a complete lack of any factual foundation. You assume the President’s ineligibility, not only with no evidence to support that assumption, but massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

    Secondly, your statements about soveign and qualified immunity and waiver have no basis in law. Here’s a hint, if you can’t point to a statute or court opinion, or heck, even a law review article, you’re on pretty weak ground. In other words, just because you think it sound pretty cool doesn’t make it binding on the reality based community. It’s all fundamentally B.S. of no value.

    Finally, if you did take an oath to uphold the Constitution, how exactly are you keeping that oath by going to great lenghts to undermine it, and think of extra-Constitutional means to overthrow a Constitutionally elected and sworn president? Trying to save the Constitution by destroying it? You my friend, in addition to being an idiot, are an ungovernable malcontent who cares little of Constitutional government, but only to have a government that fits your beliefs. You would be far happier in a totalitarian state, so long as your “dear leader” fits you personal beliefs, and perfectly willing to forcefully quash any dissent. You are no patriotic American. You’re just a nutter.

  84. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:

    Say what?Where is this announcement of Holder’s resignation?

    There’s been no announcement. Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker asked Holder how long he planned to stay on as AG, and he replied “well into 2014.” Some people jumped on this as an announcement that Holder is resigning. He probably will resign one of these days, but now now.

    Of course, there is nothing unusual about an AG not serving for a President’s full terms. The only one to do it in recent years was Janet Reno. G.W. Bush had three attorneys general during his two terms. Reagan also had three.

  85. avatar
    sfjeff February 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Founding Fathers never intended for the Eligibility Clause to be used to disqualify a candidate for POTUS or VPOTUS.

    The Eligibility Clause is used by an objector after an ineligible President assumes office. By assuming the office of POTUS, the ineligible President waives sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Executive level federal officers of the U.S. government waive qualified immunity after notice of Obama’s trespass on the U.S. Const.

    Sven

    That whole post is nonsensical.

    Seriously completely detached from reality.

  86. avatar
    bgansel9 February 11, 2014 at 12:31 pm #

    Rickey: Of course, there is nothing unusual about an AG not serving for a President’s full terms. The only one to do it in recent years was Janet Reno. G.W. Bush had three attorneys general during his two terms. Reagan also had three.

    But, if Obama’s AG resigns, that means his entire presidency has been a significant failure. LOL

  87. avatar
    Suranis February 11, 2014 at 12:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Those cases were submitted as Eligibility Clause challenges and then successfully reformulated as a Qualification challenge by defense counsel.

    That explains why several of those rulings have specifically stated that Barack Obama is ELIGIBLE to be President and is a Natural Born Citizen. Specificly;

    Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen
    who is eligible to serve as President. See, e.g., Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County
    Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot;
    finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that
    Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v.
    Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause
    4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the
    United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of
    their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md.
    Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012 (relying on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark to hold that Obama is a
    “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as President); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s
    eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”),
    decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar et al v. Obama et al., No.
    2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal
    denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections
    Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (overruling objection to Obama’s placement on 2012
    primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for
    office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v.
    Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 112 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection
    filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born
    citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 103) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate
    sufficiently established birth in the United States); Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Adm. Apr.
    10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that,
    assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny
    and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12
    SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (recommending
    rejection of objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form
    birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection
    overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 113 (Ill. Bd.
    Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in
    2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 104)
    which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States);
    Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to
    keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”); Jordan v. Secretary of
    State Sam Reed, No. 12-2-01763-5, 2012 WL 4739216 (Wash. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2012) (dismissing as
    frivolous plaintiff’s complaint seeking to prevent state from including Obama on 2012 ballot, noting that
    many similar birther claims had been filed and, in some cases, such as Ankeny v. Governor of State of
    Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009), courts addressed the merits of the birther claims; concluding: “just as all
    the so-called evidence offered by plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another,
    so too has all the law rejecting plaintiff’s allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was
    “BIRTHER” CASES STRING CITE
    Last Updated: December 21, 2012

    Yes there probably has been a few more since then. This is copied from a PDF, sorry for the louse formatting.

  88. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    Sven, like so many veterans who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, is under the impression that the oath he took when he was sworn in created a lifetime obligation. Sven forgets the fact that when a member of the military re-enlists, he or she has to take the oath again. That in and of itself proves that the oath is not a perpetual oath. If it were perpetual, there would be no need to take it multiple times.

    However, even if you grant that the oath is perpetual, the birthers always forget this part of it:

    “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States.”

    Sven can’t have it both ways. He can’t pick and choose which parts of the oath he will comply with.

    Furthermore, the oath requires soldiers and sailors to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But the oath doesn’t give those soldiers and sailors the authority to determine who those enemies are. That authority lies with the Commander-in-Chief.

    It should go without saying that you cannot “protect and defend” the Constitution by subverting it. The only Constitutional way to remove a sitting President is by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

  89. avatar
    interestedbystander February 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm #

    JoZeppy – perfectly said. Bravo. Sven is indeed an idiotic malcontent who is fooling virtually nobody with his schtick, other than the one or two village idiots on FR who probably can’t tie their own shoelaces – Red Plasticine and Little Jeremiah come to mind as two of the stoopidest.

  90. avatar
    Joey February 11, 2014 at 1:12 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Those cases were submitted as Eligibility Clause challenges and then successfully reformulated as a Qualification challenge by defense counsel.The court had no choice but to dismiss after the Congress voted to qualify candidate Obama after a reading of the Electoral College vote. The Founding Fathers never intended for the Eligibility Clause to be used to disqualify a candidate for POTUS or VPOTUS.

    The Eligibility Clause is used by an objector after an ineligible President assumes office. By assuming the office of POTUS, the ineligible President waives sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Executive level federal officers of the U.S. government waive qualified immunity after notice of Obama’s trespass on the U.S. Const.

    Eric Holder, Jr. has been formally noticed of Obama’s ineligibility in a detailed letter. He has chosen to correct the matter by resigning. Other Obama appointees should follow.

    I’m not talking about BALLOT eligibility cases that were dismissed. I’m talking about ballot ELIGIBILITY lawsuits where there was a DEFINITIVE ruling of Barack Obama’s eligibility because the judge ruled that he is a natural born citizen.
    Here’s another example, from the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse’s home state of Arizona:
    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

    U.S. Atoorney General Eric Holder has no jurisdiction over STATE ballot eligibility challenges.

  91. avatar
    aarrgghh February 11, 2014 at 2:15 pm #

    not sure why sven continues to fap this chicken. even his fellow birfers left him behind a while ago:

    dinodino: Sure, Sven’s theories are interesting. What I vigorously object to is his presentation of his theories as FACT, while steadfastly refusing to present one solitary scrap of evidence in support of his theories.

    I am not at all convinced that Sven isn’t working for the other team (Fogbow types).

  92. avatar
    Daniel February 11, 2014 at 2:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I, and many others, have taken an oath to preserve,protect and defend the Constitution without consideration for the political ramifications or personal consequences of accusing the Commander-in-Chief of being a constitutionally defective federal, superior officer. A willful violation of the Constitution and established precedent a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be President waives sovereign immunity of the U.S. and qualified immunity of its executive level federal officers.

    Either your oath means something or step aside and let the patriots perform their duty.

    You really need to stop quoting that oath at the same time you’re pssing on it.

    I take my service oath very seriously. Seriously enough that I wouldn’t use it as fodder to feed a delusional, seditious, anti-american delusion like yours.

    You are a disgrace to the oath you claim you took. I pity you.

  93. avatar
    Joey February 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

    As Doc C. pointed out not too long ago:
    Article 88 of the a Uniform Code Of Military Justice

    “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    (1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

    (2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

    (3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

    (4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

    (5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

  94. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm #

    Joey: I’m not talking about BALLOT eligibility cases that were dismissed. I’m talking about ballot ELIGIBILITY lawsuits where there was a DEFINITIVE ruling of Barack Obama’s eligibility because the judge ruled that he is a natural born citizen.
    Here’s another example, from the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse’s home state of Arizona:
    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

    U.S. Atoorney General Eric Holder has no jurisdiction over STATE ballot eligibility challenges.

    U.S.C.A for the Tenth Circuit, Craig v. U.S., cited for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, no person has a right to be declared a natural born citizen because it is not defined by the Constitution, Congress does not have Constitutional authority to enlarge or abridge the rights of a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, and neither does the Executive Branch.

    The opinions you cite are unconstitutional. Eligibility cannot be determined affirmatively because of the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph. Eligibility can only be determined by a process of elimination. A non-U.S. citizen is not eligible to be President or VP. A person who has not reached the age of 35 is not eligible. A naturalized citizen is not be eligible for President or VP. And finally, Ted Cruz and John McCain are not eligible for President or VP.

    But, Ted Cruz and John McCain may be determined to be qualified to be sworn-in, like Obama, if they receive a majority of electoral votes in the Electoral College.

  95. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 11, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The opinions you cite are unconstitutional. Eligibility cannot be determined affirmatively because of the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph. Eligibility can only be determined by a process of elimination. A non-U.S. citizen is not eligible to be President or VP. A person who has not reached the age of 35 is not eligible

    Okay Sven, process of elimination; Obama was born in Hawaii which is within the United States. He was born a citizen, people who are born citizens cannot be naturalized. There are only two ways one can be a citizen either they are natural born or naturalized. Since Obama could not be naturalized because he was a citizen at birth he can only be a natural born citizen.

  96. avatar
    aarrgghh February 11, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

    Obama Exposer: Seems like Sven is for team Obama.

    little jeremiah: I think Sven is playing for the other team.

    rolling_stone: Uh wrong I think you have been reading too much FOGBLOW.

    Triple: How could you be this wrong by random chance?

    big bad easter bunny: For the sake of the country I hope the judge knows the law way better than you do.

  97. avatar
    JoZeppy February 11, 2014 at 3:01 pm #

    interestedbystander: JoZeppy – perfectly said. Bravo. Sven is indeed an idiotic malcontent who is fooling virtually nobody with his schtick, other than the one or two village idiots on FR who probably can’t tie their own shoelaces – Red Plasticine and Little Jeremiah come to mind as two of the stoopidest.

    Deep down, I’m convinced Sven is nothing but performance art. Simply put, no one could be that genuinely stupid. I don’t think even Orly could convince herself of the crazyness that comes from Sven. He’s a troll for trolling’s sake…and yet I get drawn in every time, and feel the need to respond. Either Sven is monumentally stupid, or someone who has far too much time on his hands.

  98. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 11, 2014 at 3:02 pm #

    JoZeppy: Deep down, I’m convinced Sven is nothing but performance art. Simply put, no one could be that genuinely stupid. I don’t think even Orly could convince herself of the crazyness that comes from Sven. He’s a troll for trolling’s sake…and yet I get drawn in every time, and feel the need to respond. Either Sven is monumentally stupid, or someone who has far too much time on his hands.

    He was a lot more entertaining when he was recounting from his fictional novel Barry and the Pirates. Now he’s taken himself too seriously.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm #

    Color me embarrassed. I did not know that McCain and Cruz were mentioned in the Constitution.

    SvenMagnussen: Eligibility can only be determined by a process of elimination. A non-U.S. citizen is not eligible to be President or VP. A person who has not reached the age of 35 is not eligible. A naturalized citizen is not be eligible for President or VP. And finally, Ted Cruz and John McCain are not eligible for President or VP.

  100. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 11, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Color me embarrassed. I did not know that McCain and Cruz were mentioned in the Constitution.

    Statutory citizens and naturalized citizens receive certificates as proof of citizenship. Those certificates and their citizenship are revocable while they reside inside the United States. That’s why they are not eligible for POTUS and VP.

    A native born person’s citizenship is irrevocable while they reside in the U.S. Obama is a native born person with his U.S. citizenship revoked while he resided in Indonesia. Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their U.S. citizenship.

    Citizenship is a precious, property interest. A statutory or naturalized citizen’s property interest is conditioned upon an acquisition free of fraud. Consequently, a statutory citizen or a naturalized citizen can never be eligible for POTUS or VP.

  101. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: U.S.C.A for the Tenth Circuit, Craig v. U.S., cited for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, no person has a right to be declared a natural born citizen because it is not defined by the Constitution,

    I see that your reading comprehension deficit has set in again. The Court of Appeals in Craig v. U.S. said no such thing. This is what it actually said:

    Mr. Craig has no legally cognizable right to be deemed “the First Legally
    recognized ‘Natural Born American Citizen’” or “the Last” of them. R., Vol. I,
    Doc. 11 Attach. 1, at VII. Mr. Craig’s amended complaint does not describe any
    unlawful discrimination that he has suffered or will suffer due to the allegedly
    “extensive opportunities of immigrants and naturalized citizens to obtain, protect and preserve their status.”2 Id. at IV. Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim
    is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a)
    to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen
    pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts
    to define.

    Nowhere in the decision does the Court of Appeals say that Craig wasn’t entitled to his declaration because “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. He wasn’t entitled to it because he had “no cognizable right” to be declared a natural born citizen.

  102. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    A native born person’s citizenship is irrevocable while they reside in the U.S. Obama is a native born person with his U.S. citizenship revoked while he resided in Indonesia. Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their U.S. citizenship.

    So you are reduced to proclaiming that lie again.

    Obama was too young to have been able to renounce his U.S. citizenship while he was living in Indonesia, and there was nothing that his mother and stepfather could have done to cause him to lose his U.S. citizenship.

    Furthermore, you have never produced an iota of evidence to support your fantasy that Obama was naturalized after returning to the United States at the age of 9 or 10.

  103. avatar
    Jim February 11, 2014 at 4:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: A native born person’s citizenship is irrevocable while they reside in the U.S. Obama is a native born person with his U.S. citizenship revoked while he resided in Indonesia. Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their U.S. citizenship.

    How come the law only allows people 18 and up to renounce their citizenship?

    Loss of Citizenship and Nationality

    “A U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401), INA 310 (8 U.S.C. 1421) or a U.S. noncitizen national INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408), INA 101(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(29)) will lose U.S. nationality (“expatriate”) her or himself by committing a statutory act of expatriation as defined in INA 349 (8 U.S.C. 1481), or predecessor statute, but only if the act is performed (1) voluntarily and (2) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken (Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)): a person cannot lose U.S. nationality unless he or she voluntarily relinquishes that status.”

    Note the person must voluntarily relinquish their citizenship, nobody else can do it for them.

    F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

    Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

    And, a 5 year old child would not be allowed to renounce their citizenship. Besides, where’s the paperwork? If there’s nothing to show he renounced it, then he didn’t renounce it.

  104. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2014 at 5:11 pm #

    JoZeppy: Either Sven is monumentally stupid, or someone who has far too much time on his hands.

    It could be both.

  105. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 11, 2014 at 5:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Statutory citizens and naturalized citizens receive certificates as proof of citizenship. Those certificates and their citizenship are revocable while they reside inside the United States. That’s why they are not eligible for POTUS and VP.A native born person’s citizenship is irrevocable while they reside in the U.S. Obama is a native born person with his U.S. citizenship revoked while he resided in Indonesia. Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their U.S. citizenship. Citizenship is a precious, property interest. A statutory or naturalized citizen’s property interest is conditioned upon an acquisition free of fraud. Consequently, a statutory citizen or a naturalized citizen can never be eligible for POTUS or VP.

    Sorry but no. Citizenship cannot be revoked for living outside the country this was put to rest in Afroyim V Rusk and Vance V Terrazas. One has to voluntarily and knowlingly relinquish their citizenship. Obama wasn’t old enough to be able to relinquish his US Citizenship.

  106. avatar
    sfjeff February 11, 2014 at 5:18 pm #

    Ho Ho!

    So Sven’s back to “Barry and Pirates”- where the Pirate Child Barry had his citizenship sekretly revoked while on the pirate Ship Soekerabh……

    Further and further into fantasy land.

    I don’t think this one will be beating “Peter Pan”

  107. avatar
    JPotter February 11, 2014 at 5:59 pm #

    Rickey: The only one to do it in recent years was Janet Reno. G.W. Bush had three attorneys general during his two terms. Reagan also had three.

    Reno was the longest server ever. I whizzed through the list of Attorneys General …. looks like the long-term average has been 3yrs. Several have hung on for 5 … and about as many lasted less than a year.

    http://www.justice.gov/ag/aghistlist.php?range=81

    If the wingnuts really want Holder to resign …. then beg your congressmen to just leave him alone. Ginning up ridiculous witchhunts makes his inevitable resignation (they all resign eventually, duh) politically impossible, delaying his exit.

    I’m not that experienced with Sven Mag. His stupidity of his rants has a fractal nature. The closer you look, the more the stupidities multiply!

    Note to SM: the best lies are mostly (mostly!) true. If you can’t even fool the nuts that want to believe the gist of your chosen lie, then your’re doing it wrong. Really, really, wrong.

  108. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

    sfjeff:
    Ho Ho!

    So Sven’s back to “Barry and Pirates”- where the Pirate Child Barry had his citizenship sekretly revoked while on the pirate Ship Soekerabh……

    Further and further into fantasy land.

    I don’t think this one will be beating “Peter Pan”

    Sven exemplifies the inherent dishonesty of birthers. He has been told time and again that Obama could not possibly have lost his citizenship while in elementary school in Indonesia, yet he persists in spreading the lie because without it his entire argument falls apart at the seams.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2014 at 6:29 pm #

    The argument is more than just the negative impossibility one. We also have the affirmative statements by the US State Department.

    In its response in the Strunk case, the US State Department said:

    “To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama may be an illegal alien or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.”

    Jim: And, a 5 year old child would not be allowed to renounce their citizenship. Besides, where’s the paperwork? If there’s nothing to show he renounced it, then he didn’t renounce it.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm #

    For more, see Sven’s blog:

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/03/obama-naturalized-as-us-citizen-in-1983.html

    And for someone who writes just like him, see:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145692043/SCOAL-2013-06-Xx-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Amicus-Brief-Moore

    Rickey: Sven exemplifies the inherent dishonesty of birthers.

  111. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2014 at 7:14 pm #

    I had forgotten about the Albert Moore amicus brief. Either Sven is Albert Moore or Moore stole his material from Sven.

    Moore, incidentally, is 75 years old. He was admitted to the Bar in 1964. If he were my attorney and I saw his inept amicus brief, I would drop him in a nanosecond.

  112. avatar
    sfjeff February 11, 2014 at 9:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    For more, see Sven’s blog:

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/03/obama-naturalized-as-us-citizen-in-1983.html

    And for someone who writes just like him, see:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145692043/SCOAL-2013-06-Xx-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Amicus-Brief-Moore

    I had forgotten the extent of Sven’s imaginary Barry and the Pirates world.

    Reading his blog, and all of his imaginary tales about Barack Obama…..I don’t think we can call delusionary rantings ‘lying’- I think Sven really believes this stuff.

    What is sadder is reading the comments on his page, which offer the full litany of Birther claims, often contradicting each other in their efforts to explain their reason by President Obama can’t possibly be President.

    What a bunch of loons, being taken advantage of by Zullo and company

  113. avatar
    JPotter February 12, 2014 at 1:03 am #

    Kerchner is purporting to be raising funds for BR, posting this link at BR:

    http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/donate.htm

    If you follow the link, you’re taken to a Paypal page, which explains you are donating to help “BR/ORYR”, by giving cash to “Right Way Network, Inc.” RWN is a North Carolina corporation, apparently located in Franklin, apparently involved in networking. It doesn’t seem to have a web presence, at least not under that name.

    May your giving (and particularly your lack thereof) reflect your esteem for the recipients.

  114. avatar
    Ellen February 12, 2014 at 9:26 am #

    Re: “an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?”

    That seems about as likely to me as the country suddenly discovering that the Washington Monument straps on roller skates every Saturday night and skates over to visit the Lincoln Memorial.

  115. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2014 at 9:29 am #

    QuoVadis:
    an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?

    I don’t waste my time dwelling on things that will never happen. If people like you adopted the same philosophy, you might have done something constructive with the last six years of your life.

  116. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2014 at 9:38 am #

    Ellen:
    Re: “an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?”

    That seems about as likely to me as the country suddenly discovering that the Washington Monument straps on roller skates every Saturday night and skates over to visit the Lincoln Memorial.

    Wow! The inevitable, filthy fan-fiction practically writes itself!

  117. avatar
    sfjeff February 12, 2014 at 11:19 am #

    Ellen: Re: “an honest question.what will you Obama supporters do when barry is arrested, or have you given it any thought?”

    That seems about as likely to me as the country suddenly discovering that the Washington Monument straps on roller skates every Saturday night and skates over to visit the Lincoln Memorial.

    LOL….that made me think of “Night at the Museum 2″- and that made me wonder when a Birther was going to claim that was a secret documentary….

  118. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2014 at 5:48 pm #

    JPotter:
    Kerchner is purporting to be raising funds for BR, posting this link at BR:

    http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/donate.htm

    If you follow the link, you’re taken to a Paypal page, which explains you are donating to help “BR/ORYR”, by giving cash to “Right Way Network, Inc.” RWN is a North Carolina corporation, apparently located in Franklin, apparently involved in networking. It doesn’t seem to have a web presence, at least not under that name.

    Right Way Network, Inc. was incorporated in North Carolina on 8/14/13. The registered agent and presumptive owner is a man named Robert W. Nelson, Jr. He is a member of the “Patriot Action Network”:

    http://patriotaction.net/profile/RobertNelson81

  119. avatar
    JD Sue February 12, 2014 at 6:16 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: the Good and Plenty Doctrine.

    Ah, yes, the Good and Plenty Doctrine. (See, e.g., G&P v. Other Candy, et al., 123 CommTV 456 (Hershey, PA 1950s) (Choo Choo Charlie, J., concurring, “Love that Good and Plenty. Really rings the bell. Don’t know any other candy that I love so well”)).

  120. avatar
    JPotter February 12, 2014 at 6:39 pm #

    Rickey: Right Way Network, Inc.

    Yes, curious isn’t it? “BR”, Kerchner, Volin, etc. portray these sites as the effort of a lone individual, with some support from friends. Yet the request for “donations” doesn’t seem to be directed to an individual ….. hmmm ;)

    Is BR / ORYR an astroturf front? Or maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe Nelson is “BR”.

  121. avatar
    JD Sue February 12, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their U.S. citizenship.
    Citizenship is a precious, property interest.

    —–
    Since when can a minor revoke a precious property interest?

  122. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 12, 2014 at 6:53 pm #

    JPotter: Yes, curious isn’t it? “BR”, Kerchner, Volin, etc. portray these sites as the effort of a lone individual, with some support from friends. Yet the request for “donations” doesn’t seem to be directed to an individual ….. hmmm

    Is BR / ORYR an astroturf front? Or maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe Nelson is “BR”.

    What I wonder is how “Right Way Network, Inc.” is going to book the money that comes in via its PayPal account?

    Assuming they aren’t a non-profit it will have to be booked as income and then if and when they send the money to BirtherReport/ORYR how will they book it?

    BR/ORYR isn’t a non-profit so that won’t help. And I can’t, off the top of my head, think of a legitimate tax deductible business expense.

    Mr. Nelson could be setting himself up for a significant tax bill should a lot of money flow through his company.

  123. avatar
    JPotter February 12, 2014 at 7:28 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Assuming they aren’t a non-profit

    Kerchner is being up front, stating such donations aren’t tax-deductible. BR is also posting links to the same Paypal page, which cryptically state RWN is ‘assisting’ BR, and that BR can be contacted directly … at a Yahoo address.

    Of course, no explanation as to why donations to BR/ORYR are being sent to RWN is given by anyone. Birfers must be trusting folks ;)

  124. avatar
    Dave B. February 12, 2014 at 9:38 pm #

    Remember sunshine can be found behind the cloudy skies
    So let your hair down and go on and cry…

    SvenMagnussen: Why don’t you respect my constitutional right to object to a trespass on the U.S. Const. and seek a redress of grievances in federal court?

  125. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 13, 2014 at 12:10 am #

    That’s right, Sven. Anyone of any age can renounce his or her US citizenship.

    But first he or she must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with… a herring!

  126. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 13, 2014 at 1:12 am #

    Rickey:
    Sven, like so many veterans who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, is under the impression that the oath he took when he was sworn in created a lifetime obligation. Sven forgets the fact that when a member of the military re-enlists, he or she has to take the oath again. That in and of itself proves that the oath is not a perpetual oath. If it were perpetual, there would be no need to take it multiple times.

    However, even if you grant that the oath is perpetual, the birthers always forget this part of it:

    “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States.”

    Sven can’t have it both ways. He can’t pick and choose which parts of the oath he will comply with.

    Furthermore, the oath requires soldiers and sailors to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But the oath doesn’t give those soldiers and sailors the authority to determine who those enemies are. That authority lies with the Commander-in-Chief.

    It should go without saying that you cannot “protect and defend” the Constitution by subverting it. The only Constitutional way to remove a sitting President is by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

    Enlisted personnel take an oath to obey orders. Officers take an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution.

    A factual statement the Commander-in-Chief is not eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States is not contemptuous of the U.S Constitution. Supporting an ineligible Commander-in-Chief is contemptuous of U.S. Constitution. The first step to excise an ineligible commanding officer is notification.

    And the decision to maintain your loyalty oath throughout your life is personal. You may institute an expiration date on your loyalty oath, I do not. Individuals who restate their loyalty oath do so to memorialize the event, i.e. re-enlistment, promotion, etc.

    I know people who claim their loyalty oath expired during their lifetime. I respect their decision, but disagree with it. Objecting to an ineligible President is not an attempt to remove or impeach. I respect your right to support an ineligible President. I do not understand why you would disrespect anyone who does not support an ineligible President.

  127. avatar
    justlw February 13, 2014 at 1:45 am #

    Rickey: The registered agent and presumptive owner is a man named Robert W. Nelson, Jr.

    You have got to be kidding me.

  128. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2014 at 1:55 am #

    justlw: You have got to be kidding me.

    Nope, it’s really registered to that name. And “Right Way Network” … “Right Wing Network”. Not too subtle on the branding. Robert W Nelson Jr. is a pretty common name. Plenty of them all over the country. Not quite as dirt common as “J. Potter” … ;)

    Hmmm. Now I have “Charles Nelson Reilly” on the brain.

  129. avatar
    justlw February 13, 2014 at 2:14 am #

    JPotter: Hmmm. Now I have “Charles Nelson Reilly” on the brain.

    I’ve seen the man unhinge his jaw, and swallow a Volkswagen whole.

    …but why would you intentionally brand yourself as a RWNJ? Truth in packaging laws?

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2014 at 8:45 am #

    No. To obey the Constitution means to respect the processes laid out in the Constitution, including the way a President may be removed (by the Congress). By your reasoning, the military becomes responsible for every aspect of government, should they not like how the elected officials do things. You are basically describing a military dictatorship. You’re advocating the destruction of the Country and the Constitution.

    SvenMagnussen: A factual statement the Commander-in-Chief is not eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States is not contemptuous of the U.S Constitution. Supporting an ineligible Commander-in-Chief is contemptuous of U.S. Constitution. The first step to excise an ineligible commanding officer is notification.

  131. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2014 at 9:33 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You are basically describing a military dictatorship. You’re advocating the destruction of the Country and the Constitution.

    “Sven Magnussen” is basically a Nazi in every important aspect, but for the swastika (and I don’t even know about that).

  132. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Supporting an ineligible Commander-in-Chief is contemptuous of U.S. Constitution.

    Eligibility is not in the eye of the beholder, ya kangaroo court lovin’ jackdaw.

    (I know, I know, not fair to jackdaws.)

  133. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 13, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    SvenMagnussen: A factual statement the Commander-in-Chief is not eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States is not contemptuous of the U.S Constitution. Supporting an ineligible Commander-in-Chief is contemptuous of U.S. Constitution. The first step to excise an ineligible commanding officer is notification.

    It’s not a factual statement that Obama is ineligible to hold the office of the President. It is not up to enlisted personnel to decide who is eligible and who is not. The de facto officer doctrine would apply and enlisted personnel would still be bound to follow the facially valid orders of the President.

    SvenMagnussen: I know people who claim their loyalty oath expired during their lifetime. I respect their decision, but disagree with it. Objecting to an ineligible President is not an attempt to remove or impeach. I respect your right to support an ineligible President. I do not understand why you would disrespect anyone who does not support an ineligible President.

    You’re objecting to something that is utter BS. There is no proof he is ineligible. There is nothing to support your claim.

  134. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2014 at 10:38 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Enlisted personnel take an oath to obey orders. Officers take an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution.

    Huh? This is the enlisted oath:

    I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

    Enlisted personnel have to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the President and all officers.

    Officers pledge that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. Those duties include obeying the orders of superiors, including the Commander-in-Chief.

    A factual statement the Commander-in-Chief is not eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States is not contemptuous of the U.S Constitution.

    When you’re ready to make an actual factual statement, please let us know.

    And the decision to maintain your loyalty oath throughout your life is personal. You may institute an expiration date on your loyalty oath, I do not.

    Your first mistake is to call it a “loyalty oath.” It’s an “Oath of Enlistment” or “Oath of Office.” Loyalty is just one component of the oath, and you can’t separate it from the rest.

    If the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave you an order today to deploy to Afghanistan, would you go? Of course you wouldn’t, because legally the oath you took eons ago has no effect.

    If you have a choice whether to “maintain” your oath after you have been discharged it is no longer a binding oath. It either is binding on everyone or it is binding on no one. How can you discharge the duties of an office when you no longer hold that office?

    Individuals who restate their loyalty oath do so to memorialize the event, i.e. re-enlistment, promotion, etc.

    You just pulled that out of your ass. The re-enlistment oath is mandatory because the original enlistment oath is inoperative when the original term of enlistment ends.

    The promotion oath is given to officers when they are promoted because the officer’s oath specifies the officer’s rank. Consequently, every time an officer is promoted a new oath has to be taken. It is not done for “memorializing” the event.

    I do not understand why you would disrespect anyone who does not support an ineligible President.

    Get back to me when and if we ever have an ineligible President. And I disrespect you because you have no respect for the Constitution which you claim to love.

  135. avatar
    John Reilly February 13, 2014 at 11:05 am #

    The question is not whether Pres. Obama is eligible in understanding the military oath.

    Pres. Obama is the President.

    That will not change until he leaves office.

    The decision on who IS the President has been made. Anyone who thinks that they have found the magic formula that makes Pres. Obama not the real President is delusional, and ought not to be allowed to play with sharp instruments.

    And, endorsing our colleague Lupin, I have frequently said folks like Sven are fascists who want to criminalize dissent with their thoroughly discredited views. They do not respect our Constitution, which they insist they are trying to uphold. The Constitution makes quite clear that once the oath is administered, a president IS the President.

    Imagine where we would be if the military refused to obey George Bush as President because they didn’t like the process by which he was elected. This is a prescription for anarchy.

    And, if it has not been said today, Sven is a racist troll. He has only been concerned with the Black guy in the White House.

  136. avatar
    sfjeff February 13, 2014 at 11:24 am #

    Using Sven’s rational, any enlisted man could refuse to obey orders on the grounds that his commanding officer is not really his commanding officer.

    John Reilly: Imagine where we would be if the military refused to obey George Bush as President because they didn’t like the process by which he was elected. This is a prescription for anarchy.

    Exactly.

  137. avatar
    Kate February 13, 2014 at 1:37 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Okay Sven, process of elimination; Obama was born in Hawaii which is within the United States. He was born a citizen, people who are born citizens cannot be naturalized. There are only two ways one can be a citizen either they are natural born or naturalized. Since Obama could not be naturalized because he was a citizen at birth he can only be a natural born citizen.

    For all the birthers idiotic nonsense regarding two citizen parents being required in order for a child born in the U.S. to be considered a natural born citizen, have they ever presented anyone who was born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents who went through the naturalization process? Of course not! I’ve asked Taitz several times if her sons were naturalized and if so, please provide proof of the same. She ignores the comment and refuses to post it because they are natural born citizens despite the fact that they were born prior to her becoming a citizen.

    Birthers claim to be such patriots yet they repeatedly ignore the law that states a minor cannot relinquish his citizenship nor can his parents relinquish his citizenship for him. They ignore this fact because it proves that Barack Obama never was an Indonesian citizen nor would he have been able to become an Indonesian citizen at the time they claim he did so. They also ignore the fact that Ann Dunham never relinquished her own citizenship which casts serious doubt on the idea that she’d want her son to do so. Facts are not friendly towards birthers. They conveniently ignore them in order to perpetuate their lies about our President.