Main Menu

The occasional open thread: What’s the difference between a birther and a gas monkey?

Place your Obama Conspiracy comments not related to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

Open thread titles are not necessarily intended be taken literally, nor to make sense.

216 Responses to The occasional open thread: What’s the difference between a birther and a gas monkey?

  1. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 28, 2014 at 9:26 am #

    Just gotta say I love LDS’ latest opus “Kenyans make typos, therefore my forged BC is legit”. It must really sting how quickly his claim to fame ca$h was struck down.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 28, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    Just gotta say I love LDS’ latest opus “Kenyans make typos, therefore my forged BC is legit”. It must really sting how quickly his claim to fame ca$h was struck down.

    It’s funny how kenyans are allowed to make typos yet Americans according to birthers aren’t allowed to. So much for him spending his time tracking down Obama Binary Options. What was his supposed deadline?

  3. avatar
    bob August 28, 2014 at 11:37 am #

    California Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of Barnett’s and Noonan’s ballot challenges.

  4. avatar
    gorefan August 28, 2014 at 1:51 pm #

    bob:
    California Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of Barnett’s and Noonan’s ballot challenges.

    From the opinion comes the Latin phrase of the year: ipse dixit

    ipse dixit (ip-sah-dicks-it) v. Latin for “he himself said it,” meaning the only proof we have of the fact is that this person said it.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ipse+dixit

    ipse dixit

    1. an arbitrary and unsupported assertion

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ipse+dixit

    The English translation of ipse dixit is SvenMagnussen

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 28, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    Just gotta say I love LDS’ latest opus “Kenyans make typos, therefore my forged BC is legit”. It must really sting how quickly his claim to fame ca$h was struck down.

    Speaking of LDS, he’s ever so upset that Zullo declared his “footprint” certificate is a phony.

  6. avatar
    wrecking ball August 28, 2014 at 3:22 pm #

    LDS is now throwing a belated tizzy-fit over zullo calling his birth certificate fraudulent.

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/mike-zullo-says-that-obama-footprint-birth-certificate-from-kenya-is-a-100-forgery/

  7. avatar
    y_p_w August 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Speaking of LDS, he’s ever so upset that Zullo declared his “footprint” certificate is a phony.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHxFNFWlZc

    Oh, him? He’s harmless. Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS.

  8. avatar
    Northland10 August 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm #

    Maryland is unFair.

    Denied August 28, 2014

    Fair and Miltenberger v. Walker – Pet. Docket No. 193 *

    http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/petitions/201408petitions.html

  9. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 28, 2014 at 7:08 pm #

    The topic title is best read in the voice of Frank Gorshin!

  10. avatar
    JoZeppy August 28, 2014 at 7:20 pm #

    wrecking ball: LDS is now throwing a belated tizzy-fit over zullo calling his birth certificate fraudulent.http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/mike-zullo-says-that-obama-footprint-birth-certificate-from-kenya-is-a-100-forgery/

    Whatever happened to that extradition of his? Just kinda faded into the background. Never expected that.

  11. avatar
    y_p_w August 28, 2014 at 7:23 pm #

    And since I’ve been interested in all forms of vital records, apparently Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie just got married in France. However, the oddity is that they got a California marriage license and brought a judge from California. They claim that it is legal that way.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-married/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    “In the days before coming to France, and as citizens of California, Brad and Angelina filled out their paperwork and obtained a marriage licence from a local judge, who also travelled to France to conduct the ceremony at Chateau Miraval,” the statement said. “They are therefore married under Californian law.”

    However, I was married in California. There is a specific place in the marriage license for the person solemnizing the marriage to fill out. There’s one box for the date and location of the ceremony. There’s a blank spot for the name of the city and another for the county. “CALIFORNIA” is preprinted.

    I’m not sure what they’re trying to do will result in a legally binding wedding ceremony. It sounds like they’re trying to get cute about this since they live in California.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 28, 2014 at 7:26 pm #

    WHICH voice of Frank Gorshin?

    I would prefer the voice of Warner Oland in the role of Charlie Chan.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: The topic title is best read in the voice of Frank Gorshin!

  13. avatar
    y_p_w August 28, 2014 at 7:26 pm #

    Oh – apparently others have been thinking the same thing.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/08/28/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-california-french-laws-for-marriages/14753315/

    Weddings do not necessarily seal the deal on marriages. States and countries have specific requirements for the steps couples must take to have a recognized marriage. The exact requirements vary.

    California marriage licenses authorize an official to “perform a marriage ceremony within the state of California,” according to a sample published by the state Department of Public Health. Instructions supplied with the license similarly specify that it “must be used only within the State of California.”

    And to be a valid marriage in France, a California judge can’t officiate in that country. Legally valid marriage ceremonies in France must be performed at city hall by a French civil authority, according to the French Embassy in Washington, D.C.

  14. avatar
    y_p_w August 28, 2014 at 7:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    WHICH voice of Frank Gorshin?

    As the Riddler I’m guessing.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 28, 2014 at 9:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    I would prefer the voice of Warner Oland in the role of Charlie Chan.

    More of a Sidney Toler man myself.
    Named my first Shih Tzu “Charlie Chan” after watching “Meeting at Midnight” aka “Black Magic” for the first time.

  16. avatar
    Lupin August 29, 2014 at 2:40 am #

    y_p_w: And to be a valid marriage in France, a California judge can’t officiate in that country. Legally valid marriage ceremonies in France must be performed at city hall by a French civil authority, according to the French Embassy in Washington, D.C.

    I think USA Today misunderstood what the Embassy said. French people do get married in Las Vegas all the time for the bling.

    However, in order for their marriage to be legally recognized in France, they must have it recorded by a French authority — in the US, the Consulate will do it for you; in France, any City Hall.

    This is not a “new” marriage with a new date etc., it’s just the authentication & recording (“transcription”) of the marriage performed abroad by a local / non-French authority.

    In addition to the marriage certificate, other / various documents such as birth certificates, etc. will be demanded before the marriage is recorded.

    http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/les-mariages-etranger_28622.html

  17. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 29, 2014 at 3:34 am #

    The question is, will they record it in France, or CA, and will it really matter? I have a feeling this will be one for attorneys to split hairs over at some point.

  18. avatar
    The European August 29, 2014 at 3:38 am #

    Lupin: I think USA Today misunderstood what the Embassy said. French people do get married in Las Vegas all the time for the bling.

    However, in order for their marriage to be legally recognized in France, they must have it recorded by a French authority — in the US, the Consulate will do it for you; in France, any City Hall.

    This is not a “new” marriage with a new date etc., it’s just the authentication & recording (“transcription”) of the marriage performed abroad by a local / non-French authority.

    In addition to the marriage certificate, other / various documents such as birth certificates, etc. will be demanded before the marriage is recorded.

    http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/les-mariages-etranger_28622.html

    Lupin, I guess, that a “marriage” performed by a Californian Judge in France can not be recorded in France as a valid marriage. The rule is easy (and exists as such in Germany as well) – a marriage which is valid in the country where it is performed is valid or can be made valid in France, if it does not violate the French “Ordre Public”. Even the blacksmith in Gretna Green can perform valid marriages in this sense, because he performs valid Scottish marriages.

    OTOH I guess that a marriage between chidren which can be valid in some places of the world would not be registered

    French law will certainly not allow a foreign judge to perform a marriage in France. This is still one of the most important jobs of the mayor or his adjoints. And if – what Is possible – Californian law allows a Californian judge to perform marriages outside the territories of California – this marriage would violate the French “ordre public” and be not recognized as valid in France.

  19. avatar
    The European August 29, 2014 at 3:42 am #

    The English translation of ipse dixit is SvenMagnussen

    Doc, your qote of the day !

  20. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 29, 2014 at 4:15 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    Just gotta say I love LDS’ latest opus “Kenyans make typos, therefore my forged BC is legit”. It must really sting how quickly his claim to fame ca$h was struck down.

    I have yet to find someone who would misspell his own name in his own signature…

  21. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 29, 2014 at 5:09 am #

    The European: Doc, your qote of the day !

    That’s ipso fatto a prima feces statement about a de yoghurt matter.

  22. avatar
    Lupin August 29, 2014 at 6:07 am #

    The European: Lupin, I guess, that a “marriage” performed by a Californian Judge in France can not be recorded in France as a valid marriage. The rule is easy (and exists as such in Germany as well) – a marriage which is valid in the country where it is performed is valid or can be made valid in France, if it does not violate the French “Ordre Public”. Even the blacksmith in Gretna Green can perform valid marriages in this sense, because he performs valid Scottish marriages.

    OTOH I guess that a marriage between chidren which can be valid in some places of the world would not be registered

    French law will certainly not allow a foreign judge to perform a marriage in France. This is still one of the most important jobs of the mayor or his adjoints. And if – what Is possible – Californian law allows a Californian judge to perform marriages outside the territories of California – this marriage would violate the French “ordre public” and be not recognized as valid in France.

    Yes, but we wouldn’t look at it the way you did, I suspect.

    It doesn’t really matter where the wedding ceremony is held. If the newlyweds were married according to California Law with a proper California Marriage license, then the ceremony can be held in Antarctica; the only thing the Judge/Minister has to do is countersign the Marriage license which will then be filed with the City Hall of Residence of the newlyweds.

    Up to that point, the French wouldn’t care or recognize that a wedding ceremony was conducted in their country.

    But if the newlyweds wanted their union to be also valid in France, they could then take their California Marriage license and start the process of transcription, although why would they if neither of the spouses is French?

  23. avatar
    y_p_w August 29, 2014 at 9:17 am #

    Lupin: Yes, but we wouldn’t look at it the way you did, I suspect.

    It doesn’t really matter where the wedding ceremony is held. If the newlyweds were married according to California Law with a proper California Marriage license, then the ceremony can be held in Antarctica; the only thing the Judge/Minister has to do is countersign the Marriage license which will thenbe filed with the City Hall of Residence of the newlyweds.

    Up to that point, the French wouldn’t care or recognize that a wedding ceremony was conducted in their country.

    But if the newlyweds wanted their union to be also valid in France, they could then take their California Marriage license and start the process of transcription, although why would they if neither of the spouses is French?

    None of this makes any sense, and perhaps something was lost in the telling of the details to the press.

    However, one thing is very clear – that a California marriage license is only valid for a ceremony that takes place in California. I’m looking at a certified copy of our marriage certificate/license, and CALIFORNIA was printed there when I picked up the license, while all other entries for the date and place of the ceremony were blank and had to be filled in by the “officiant”. This is what the state says:

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Documents/Marriage%20Ceremony%20info.pdf

    The marriage license may be obtained from any county in California. You are not required to get married in the county where you purchase the public marriage license; however, you must be married in California. You must file the license in the county where it was purchased.

    And if I didn’t make it clear, I was trying to get across that the only legal marriages performed in France are those conducted by a French civil authority that’s authorized to perform them. Bringing in a judge from California would not make a marriage performed in France legal under their laws nor the laws of California.

  24. avatar
    Lupin August 29, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    y_p_w: And if I didn’t make it clear, I was trying to get across that the only legal marriages performed in France are those conducted by a French civil authority that’s authorized to perform them.

    My wife and I were married in California (LA). We obtained a California Marriage license, then signed by the Minister who performed the ceremony. Later we went to the French Consulate and after some paperwork got it transcribed into the French “Etat Civil” register and received a “Livret de Famille”. No new ceremony was required.

  25. avatar
    Lupin August 29, 2014 at 9:37 am #

    Another more recent example: two friends of ours living in our region (in Soutrhern France), he British, she Irish, (finally) got married in Malta last spring.

    When they got back they did the necessary paperwork at our village’s town hall to register their new married status here, for the purpose of social benefits, inheritance law, etc., but that did not require our Mayor to perform a new ceremony.

    (In his absence I could actually do it since I’m on our city council.)

  26. avatar
    donna August 29, 2014 at 9:51 am #

    klayman has a new act in case No. 14-1484:

    from yahoo: Obama, Kerry, Clinton And U.N. Secretary General Sued For Racketeering In Providing Material Support To Terrorist HAMAS In War To Annihilate Israel

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-kerry-clinton-u-n-174500646.html

    from wnd: Obama named in RICO lawsuit

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/obama-named-in-rico-lawsuit/

  27. avatar
    y_p_w August 29, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    Lupin: My wife and I were married in California (LA). We obtained a California Marriage license, then signed by the Minister who performed the ceremony. Later we went to the French Consulate and after some paperwork got it transcribed into the French “Etat Civil” register and received a “Livret de Famille”. No new ceremony was required.

    I understand the concept of legal marriages performed elsewhere being legal in another jurisdiction. For the most part that wouldn’t be needed in the United States. I have friends and coworkers who were married overseas and returned to the US. Their marriage certificates are issued by a foreign jurisdiction and recognized just fine by government agencies and whatnot. I also know of someone who was married outside the US but divorced in the US. Both were legal.

    Apparently in California, one can insist on a foreign marriage being recorded in California by a petition to the court. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through since most authorities will recognize a properly translated birth certificate from another country.

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/FAQforMarriageLicenseCeremonyInfo.aspx

    A couple comes into the Recorder’s Office and presents their marriage certificate issued in a foreign country. They want the Recorder’s Office to record their foreign marriage certificate in California. Can their marriage be recorded in California?

    No. A foreign marriage certificate cannot be recorded in California. If the couple needs to establish a record of the marriage in California, they can file a petition in Superior Court to establish a Court Order Delayed Certificate of marriage.

  28. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 29, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    gorefan:

    Ipse dixit is synonymous with “allegation.” The court has ruled the plaintiffs have made allegations and those allegations are incapable of supporting an order to begin discovery of the facts.

    In other words, the court doesn’t want discovery to begin because the truth might be made public. No wonder the appeals court stated in all caps on top of the page of the opinion … “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”

  29. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 29, 2014 at 10:48 am #

    donna: Obama, Kerry, Clinton And U.N. Secretary General Sued For Racketeering In Providing Material Support To Terrorist HAMAS In War To Annihilate Israel

    Now you know where things will go in 2017. Anything the wingnuts do today, the GOP will do tomorrow, starting with the whole “sue the President” notion. Give it a few years and it will become commonplace to sue the President for the propaganda value (“we sue President Clinton over utter neglect in #Benghaaaazi and AG Holder for saying there’s racism in the US”).

  30. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 29, 2014 at 11:42 am #

    Hey Doc, have you ever considered doing a “Where are they now?” article about birthers who took their ball and went home? We know about Brian Reilly, who came back to the world of common sense, and has been exposing Zullo for what he is ever since, but then you have the ones like Montgomery Blair Sibley, who sulked quietly into the sunset, after the reality that he wasn’t changing anything sank in. Some sites like birthers.org fell silent and stopped updating shortly after Obama was reelected, as indicated by the leftover “We need patriots for 2012″ banner that still adorns that page.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2014 at 11:50 am #

    Larry Klayman (and a bunch of John Does) has filed a wacky RICO lawsuit against Barack Obama yesterday alleging a criminal conspiracy to launder money sent to HAMAS to buy rockets to fire on Israel.

    Alleged co-conspirators are:

    Hillary Clinton
    HAMAS
    Malik Obama
    John Kerry
    Ban Ki-Moon

    IIRC, a civil RICO plaintiff has to show individual harm from the criminal enterprise. Some of Klayman’s unnamed co-plaintiffs are allegedly family members of people killed by Hamas. Klayman himself claims to have been in Israel during a HAMAS attack, and it got him upset.

    The case number is 1:2014cv01484

    Should you be interested, here’s the complaint.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2014 at 11:51 am #

    Not an easy topic to research.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Hey Doc, have you ever considered doing a “Where are they now?” article about birthers who took their ball and went home?

  33. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 29, 2014 at 12:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Klayman himself claims to have been in Israel during a HAMAS attack, and it got him upset.

    It upsets me every time Klayman does something that makes the news. Guess I should sue him then, huh?

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not an easy topic to research.

    Ah well.

  34. avatar
    y_p_w August 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ipse dixit is synonymous with “allegation.” The court has ruled the plaintiffs have made allegations and those allegations are incapable of supporting an order to begin discovery of the facts.

    In other words, the court doesn’t want discovery to begin because the truth might be made public. No wonder the appeals court stated in all caps on top of the page of the opinion … “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”

    Not exactly. This is a fairly simple legal term. All that means is that a decision can’t be cited as precedent by another court. That doesn’t mean they’re not official nor binding on the case.

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm

    Unpublished Opinions of the California Courts of Appeal are opinions not certified for inclusion in the Official Reports that are not generally citable as precedent.

    I’m not a lawyer, but what an “unpublished opinion” is pretty easy to find out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinions_in_the_United_States

  35. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 29, 2014 at 3:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Not an easy topic to research.

    You just need to get some Flying Monkeys.

  36. avatar
    gorefan August 29, 2014 at 4:20 pm #

    Freedom Friday will begin with the first 30 minutes consisting of questions to Carl Gallups. Ask about the Zullo investigation.

    FREEDOM FRIDAY WITH CARL GALLUPS – TODAY!
    5-7 PM ET. Go to CarlGallups.com and listen LIVE!
    1330 WEBY AM – Gulf Coast Talk Radio (live stream and podcast)

    1st 30 minutes – Carl’s monologue and YOUR CALLS! Phone Lines Open! 850-623-1330 Call in and be heard all over the nation and world! ASK THE PREACHER! Ask questions about Zullo investigation, ask questions about current events – share your opinions!

    https://www.facebook.com/carlgallups2

  37. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 29, 2014 at 4:26 pm #

    Oh boy! Will there be NEW information? So excite!

  38. avatar
    gorefan August 29, 2014 at 5:07 pm #

    It’s starting right now.

    http://www.1330weby.com/index.php/listen-live

  39. avatar
    Arthur B. August 29, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In other words, the court doesn’t want discovery to begin because the truth might be made public. No wonder the appeals court stated in all caps on top of the page of the opinion … “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”

    OMG! This guy knows how to get the sekrit documents!!

  40. avatar
    gorefan August 29, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ipse dixit is synonymous with “allegation.” The court has ruled the plaintiffs have made allegations and those allegations are incapable of supporting an order to begin discovery of the facts.

    It means unsupported allegations. For example when you allege President Obama naturalized in 1983. It is an unsupported allegation based only on your statement.

  41. avatar
    Rickey August 29, 2014 at 5:35 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It’s funny how kenyans are allowed to make typos yet Americans according to birthers aren’t allowed to.So much for him spending his time tracking down Obama Binary Options.What was his supposed deadline?

    Speaking of typos, a couple of days ago I was searching the Social Security Death Index for a man named Lucien Montpeirous, who died in 2009. At first I couldn’t find any record of him. Then I discovered that the Social Security Administration misspelled his surname as Montbeirous. Mistakes happen.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 29, 2014 at 6:15 pm #

    Carl has gotten especially boring lately no reason to even listen anymore.

  43. avatar
    Keith August 29, 2014 at 7:57 pm #

    y_p_w: Apparently in California, one can insist on a foreign marriage being recorded in California by a petition to the court. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through since most authorities will recognize a properly translated birth certificate from another country.

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/FAQforMarriageLicenseCeremonyInfo.aspx

    A couple comes into the Recorder’s Office and presents their marriage certificate issued in a foreign country. They want the Recorder’s Office to record their foreign marriage certificate in California. Can their marriage be recorded in California?

    No. A foreign marriage certificate cannot be recorded in California. If the couple needs to establish a record of the marriage in California, they can file a petition in Superior Court to establish a Court Order Delayed Certificate of marriage.

    Or, they could just have another ceremony in California. Which would be easier I wonder.

  44. avatar
    gorefan August 29, 2014 at 8:18 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Carl has gotten especially boring lately no reason to even listen anymore.

    I heard the first half hour, the time when they were taking questions. No questions about Zullo were asked.

    My god that’s brilliant, no questions means not having answer any. He bought them at least two weeks without having to give an update.

    Next strategy should be to schedule a press conference for sometime in October, then a day or two before cancel because they just got new evidence that they have to follow-up. That should buy them a couple more months. If Birthers get mad, Gallups can always get indignant again and call them a bunch of cry babies.

  45. avatar
    y_p_w August 29, 2014 at 9:27 pm #

    Keith: Or, they could just have another ceremony in California. Which would be easier I wonder.

    Not sure how legal that would be – for a legally married couple to get married in another jurisdiction.

    My wife and I got married in California. I don’t think it would be legal for us to get married again in Nevada just to establish paperwork there. Of course there’s full faith and credit with the states, although I’ve brought up that the Constitution actually says there’s procedures to follow that Congress can determine (“proven” by the Governor or keeper of the state seal).

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1739

    Something tells me that they were legally married in California (probably in this judge’s chambers) but then brought the same judge along just to perform an unofficial ceremony in France for their friends. Then whoever is talking to the press is getting all the details mixed up.

  46. avatar
    Keith August 30, 2014 at 2:31 am #

    y_p_w: Something tells me that they were legally married in California (probably in this judge’s chambers) but then brought the same judge along just to perform an unofficial ceremony in France for their friends. Then whoever is talking to the press is getting all the details mixed up.

    I find that the most obvious scenario.

    Lots of people have a ‘renewal of vows’ ceremony. I really don’t see what the problem would be with registering the second marriage too. Except that there is a question there asking if you are currently married or divorced or widowed. So if you are married in France and answer “not married” or “already married” in California for the renewal, I suppose you could be in trouble.

    I sort of suspect I answered that question incorrectly when I got married for the second time. I checked ‘not married’ and then noticed there was a check box for ‘divorced’. It read ‘not married’ not ‘never married’ so I just checked the first one that applied. I hope nobody ever challenges me on it – my wife might be upset to find out we aren’t legally married and we’re living in an “I Love Lucy” scenario all these years.

  47. avatar
    Lupin August 31, 2014 at 4:23 am #

    I recently trolled for a couple of days on Anne Coulter’s official forum (it was linked here a brief while ago) and i was astounded to see that quite a few regulars there HATE Ted Cruz, Christie (not a surprise there) and Mitt Romney — whom Coulter herself officially endorsed and urged to run again.

    Of even Coulter can’t convince her own followers to go with the most likely choices for the Republican Nomination, it makes you wonder about the rest of the GOP.

    Any thoughts?

  48. avatar
    Dave August 31, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    This is the last day of Impeach Obama Week. For pictures of the resulting massive wave of demonstrations, see their website.

    Notably absent is a picture of the demonstration in front of the White House. Fortunately, the incomparable Beth Ethier of Wonkette was there and she has the story.

  49. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 31, 2014 at 3:36 pm #

    Dave: This is the last day of Impeach Obama Week. For pictures of the resulting massive wave of demonstrations, see their website.

    LOL! What a bunch of turds!

  50. avatar
    Dave August 31, 2014 at 7:17 pm #

    My kids just showed me a music video that struck me as unexpectedly applicable to this blog:

    Weird Al: FOIL

  51. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 31, 2014 at 7:38 pm #

    Dave:
    My kids just showed me a music video that struck me as unexpectedly applicable to this blog:

    Weird Al: FOIL

    After all these years, the guy’s still got it!

  52. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) September 1, 2014 at 5:30 am #

    Lupin: Of even Coulter can’t convince her own followers to go with the most likely choices for the Republican Nomination, it makes you wonder about the rest of the GOP.

    Coulter has churned out so much crazy that she’s attracted the type of folks she probably wouldn’t want to meet in person.
    Kinda like our newest conservative party here in Germany which has its Facebook page overrun with xenophobes and nationalists.

  53. avatar
    RanTalbott September 1, 2014 at 5:54 am #

    Dave: For pictures of the resulting massive wave of demonstrations, see their website.

    Is it just me, or does it also appear to others that, despite the fact that NIOW planned this so almost no people would be driving long distances or shelling out for lodging, they actually got fewer participants than the pity parties in DC?

  54. avatar
    roadburner September 1, 2014 at 6:15 am #

    Dave:

    Notably absent is a picture of the demonstration in front of the White House. Fortunately, the incomparable Beth Ethier of Wonkette was there and she has the story.

    wondeful report!

    i do like sticking it in and twisting it for the birthers by reminding them that their `million man whatevers´ always get less attendance than a small town gay pride march.

    for some reason it gets them ranting beautifully! :D

  55. avatar
    Dave September 1, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    I have to say that National Impeach Obama Week does a far better organizing job than most similar wingnut groups. They never make ridiculous predictions of massive attendance — on the contrary, they recognize that attendance will be small and urge forms of protest that do the best they can with tiny numbers.

  56. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 1, 2014 at 12:05 pm #

    “Don’t stand there gawping, like you’ve never seen the hand of God before! Now, today we’re going to do marching up and down the square impeach the President. That is, unless any of you got anything better to do. Well? Anyone got anything they’d rather be doing, than marching up and down the square impeaching the President?”

  57. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 1, 2014 at 1:47 pm #

    A bunch more back-biting going on at Gerbil Report. Apparently Falcon is a real smooth talker with the ladies, as every female birther there trades acidic barbs with him. Its always fun to see someone give him a taste of his own medicine. I’ve seen schoolyard brawls that were more civil.
    I also noticed a change in the wind, in that last article GR posted. Looks like its starting to shift towards going after Cruz.

  58. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 1, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Looks like its starting to shift towards going after Cruz.

    Oh, be still, my heart.

  59. avatar
    Notorial Dissent September 2, 2014 at 3:58 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Looks like its starting to shift towards going after Cruz.

    And this is a surprise, exactly to whom???? He’s fresh meat as opposed to the current course they can’t get to. Not that they’ll do any better with him, since they still haven’t learned, but I suspect he is the new bright and shiny of the moment.

  60. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 2, 2014 at 8:50 am #

    Notorial Dissent: And this is a surprise, exactly to whom???? He’s fresh meat as opposed to the current course they can’t get to. Not that they’ll do any better with him, since they still haven’t learned, but I suspect he is the new bright and shiny of the moment.

    Well, I honestly expected Gerbil Report to take the Free Republic route, and totally look the other way with Cruz. Granted FR completely discourages birther talk of any kind now. The mind of a RWNJ is very hard to peg sometimes.

  61. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) September 2, 2014 at 11:47 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Looks like its starting to shift towards going after Cruz.

    Well, the wingnuts gotta prepare for post-2016. They can’t go on about Obama forever, but they will gladly take any new chance to birf, believing that if they somehow could get a court in 2049 to rule “Antarctican-born Céline Dowe-X’neel is ineligible as the result of a virgin birth”, this would then somehow echo back in time to allow a challenge of Obama’s presidency as well. Because nothing will hurt birthers more than the continued existence of the entry “Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States” in every encyclopedia in the world.

  62. avatar
    Jim September 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Looks like its starting to shift towards going after Cruz.

    I may have to join the other side…Cruz as President would leave us in a bigger mess than Bush 2 did.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm #

    I see the occasional article on Cruz and his eligibility. I think the hard-core birthers they think that Obama entitles them to have their own ineligible president.

    Wouldn’t a Ryan/Cruz ticket be a hoot–one Canadian and maybe 2?

    If you haven’t seen this video about Canada running for President, check it out. It’s a hoot.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I also noticed a change in the wind, in that last article GR posted. Looks like its starting to shift towards going after Cruz.

  64. avatar
    Punchmaster via mobile September 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    Or better still, neither party running a white male candidate. I can hear the heads asploding already. :)

  65. avatar
    roadburner September 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

    over on gerbil report in this thread…….

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/09/video-canadas-vision-tv-obama-forged.html

    a poster named `thinkwell´ was discussing allegence. william dropped in and wasn´t amused by a quote from madison, and it all went downhill after i pointed out thinkwell´s use of `blood and dirt´ had some nasty connotations and linked to this……

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Soil

    banned again!

    i´m up to `28th e.p.lovejoy´ now :D

  66. avatar
    interestedbystander September 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm #

    I have never been able to bring myself to bookmark Gerbil Report – so every once in a while, if I really must see quite how far down the insanity plughole they are swirling, I just google “oryr”. It used to be top two or three in the Zullo press conference heydays, these days it doesn’t even come up on page one of the list, most of which appears to be Icelandic. I guess that is irrelevance for you.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2014 at 5:24 pm #

    And your comment deleted. Tsk,tsk.

    roadburner: banned again!

  68. avatar
    bovril September 2, 2014 at 5:41 pm #

    But…But….But… BR/ORYR (AKA Bonking Bob Nelson) told Foggy that he NEVER bans folks unless they …well do anything not sanctioned by the Borg Collective

  69. avatar
    roadburner September 2, 2014 at 6:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And your comment deleted. Tsk,tsk.

    cheers for the poke ;D

    actually, it was comments in the plural

    William seems to have more clout that bird-boy, and tends to use it when he´s having a difficult time

    my wiki link to `blood and soil´ probably didn´t help though :D

  70. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) September 3, 2014 at 6:16 am #

    Let’s see what birthers would make out of this one:
    http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/meet-girl-dna-three-parents

  71. avatar
    The European September 3, 2014 at 9:55 am #

    /offtopic

    Shooting Uzis creates bad karma:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/girl-uzi-accident_n_5755044.html

  72. avatar
    gorefan September 3, 2014 at 10:31 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    Let’s see what birthers would make out of this one:

    Here is another article they might find interesting. When the Constitution was written they created several translations for Dutch and German citizens living in Pennsylvania. This article looks to those translations as a way to interpret the Constitution.

    Page 51 of the article starts the discussion of natural born citizen.

    http://tinyurl.com/mbdnphr

  73. avatar
    Paper September 3, 2014 at 11:54 am #

    Very cool.

    gorefan: …This article looks to those translations as a way to interpret the Constitution….

  74. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) September 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm #

    Yikes. The Voeltz case in Florida still isn’t dead. Larry Klayman has submitted a writ of mandamus to the US Supreme Court. This is the “Miracle on 34th St” case. As I recall, the Florida Supreme Court did not accept this case because the appellate court did not issue a written opinion, just a ruling saying it was upholding the trial court’s ruling. Without a written opinion for the appeal, the FL Supreme Court can’t take the case, which I guess is one way of screening out frivolous applications like this one. I doubt SCOTUS will look on it any more favorably.

  75. avatar
    Notorial Dissent September 3, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    And the grift goes on.

  76. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm #

    The European:
    /offtopic

    Shooting Uzis creates bad karma:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/girl-uzi-accident_n_5755044.html

    That was tragic, for all involved. What makes it sting ever worse, is that it was completely preventable! A child isn’t gonna be strong enough to manually suppress the muzzle climb on a gun like that! The instructor was ultimately responsible for his own death.

  77. avatar
    DaveH September 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm #

    I have never known a firearms instructor to “instruct” from the side of the person that is firing a firearm. The smart place to be is directly behind the student. It was the instructors fault.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That was tragic, for all involved. What makes it sting ever worse, is that it was completely preventable! A child isn’t gonna be strong enough to manually suppress the muzzle climb on a gun like that! The instructor was ultimately responsible for his own death.

  78. avatar
    Benji Franklin September 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That was tragic, for all involved. What makes it sting ever worse, is that it was completely preventable! A child isn’t gonna be strong enough to manually suppress the muzzle climb on a gun like that! The instructor was ultimately responsible for his own death.

    As will be the instructor next week scheduled to teach her how to set the cruise control on a bulldozer. In both cases, all the ways in which the disaster is preventable are also AVOIDABLE utilizing carefully planned poor parenting.

  79. avatar
    Whatever4 September 3, 2014 at 10:24 pm #

    gorefan: Here is another article they might find interesting.When the Constitution was written they created several translations for Dutch and German citizens living in Pennsylvania.This article looks to those translations as a way to interpret the Constitution.

    Page 51 of the article starts the discussion of natural born citizen.

    http://tinyurl.com/mbdnphr

    Very interesting. Also interesting that the document defining our government was translated to meet the needs of local communities. So much for the idea that the Founding Fathers would have supported English-only laws.

  80. avatar
    Jim September 3, 2014 at 11:19 pm #

    An old President Obama nemesis is getting sentenced…

    http://news.yahoo.com/humiliated-dinesh-dsouza-seeks-probation-guilty-plea-200710513–sector.html

    I recommend they send him to Africa and have him help with the ebola outbreak. :D

  81. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 4, 2014 at 1:00 am #

    Jim:
    An old President Obama nemesis is getting sentenced…

    http://news.yahoo.com/humiliated-dinesh-dsouza-seeks-probation-guilty-plea-200710513–sector.html

    I recommend they send him to Africa and have him help with the ebola outbreak.

    I’m gonna laugh if the judge does give him community service…in the form of removing “Impeach Obama” signs from overpasses.

  82. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) September 4, 2014 at 4:35 am #

    gorefan: Here is another article they might find interesting. When the Constitution was written they created several translations for Dutch and German citizens living in Pennsylvania. This article looks to those translations as a way to interpret the Constitution.

    Very interesting.
    Reading that outdated German is always sort of strange and funny (as opposed to reading Goethe who was far ahead of his time, language-wise).

    (Translating “vacancies” as “erledigte Stellen”, p. 56, for example, sounds strange to modern German ears because “erledigt” today means “finished”, “done” or “exhausted” and not “vacant”.)

    Indeed the translation of “natural born” as “geborener” (p. 51) is still common today, as in “natural born killer” = “geborener Mörder”, since Germans understand the adjective “geborener” in everyday use in the sense of “made like this by nature” as opposed to “become like this by education or events in life or training/rehearsal”.
    We say things like “Er ist ein geborener Stratege” (lit. “he is a born strategist”, meaning “he’s a natural born strategist”) to denote somebody was had this special talent from birth, not acquired it by studying Sun Tzu for 30 years.

  83. avatar
    RanTalbott September 4, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    Jim: I recommend they send him to Africa and have him help with the ebola outbreak

    Help with treating? Or expanding?

  84. avatar
    JPotter September 4, 2014 at 7:23 am #

    Obscure Canadian show dusts off bithers, “teaches” controversy. Zzzzzzzzz.

    Now this is convoluted. A conspiracy-themed Canadian show that airs on Vision TV (“The Conspiracy Show with Richard Syrett”) has aired an episode on brtherism. The show has made such a (non-) impact, that I heard of it via a Brasilian birther who posted a link to a “Before It’s News” story on a Amazon forum. I had to find the link to the actual show for him:

    http://www.theconspiracyshow.com/?_ga=1.14237879.1469979723.1409828013#72

    It’s a Canadian show that rehashes moldy conspiracies. It took this show until its 3rd season to get around to the birthers…they had to cover such crucial topics as UFOs, the antichrist, peak oil, chemtrails, vampires, time travel, the death of Elvis, assassinations of MLK, RFK, 9/11, bible codes, hollow earth, alien abductions, crop circles, and aliens a few more times, before FINALLY stooping to dredging up birferism.

    What, no JFK???

    This low-budget show (check the sponsors….yikes) did manage to dig up Karl Denninger, and get Berg and Arpuzzo on camera (apparently they have nothing better to do LOL). They didn’t make much effort at covering the rational reality, merely setting up a token Democrat who happens to live in Canada.

    As the show covers the Berg and Apuzzo branches of birferism, it makes no mention of Papa ‘Paio or Zullo’s Clown Car Follies. Darn those competing cult denominations … and I suspect that travel to Arizona was simply not in the production budget.

  85. avatar
    RanTalbott September 4, 2014 at 7:36 am #

    JPotter: it makes no mention of Papa ‘Paio or Zullo’s Clown Car Follies

    And the Zullobots are almost as unhappy about that as they are about my injection of the evidence that he’s a dishonest buffoon into their complaining about being ignored.

    I was rather surprised to see Berg just flat-out lie about his infamous “Mama Sarah” tape hoax (starts about 6 minutes in). Do disciplinary committees consider that sort of bad behavior when deciding about reinstatement? Or has he, perhaps, decided his lawyering days are over?

  86. avatar
    JPotter September 4, 2014 at 7:47 am #

    RanTalbott: And the Zullobots are almost as unhappy about that as they are about my injection of the evidence that he’s a dishonest buffoon into their complaining about being ignored.

    To be fair, the show is only a whopping 20 or so min long … which somehow constitutes 2 “episodes” (bite-sized morsels of brain rot) … and barely gave them time to cover birferism up to the immediate reaction to the LFBC release. No hint that there will be a followup, to cover the rest of the birfer saga, from mid-2011 on.

    I’m still amazed that they dug up Denninger. What a time warp!

  87. avatar
    Arthur September 4, 2014 at 3:56 pm #

    Looks like Joan Rivers got the the Breitbart Treatment for daring to expose Obama’s homosexuality and Michelle’s ding-a-ling.

  88. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 4, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

    Arthur:
    Looks like Joan Rivers got the the Breitbart Treatment for daring to expose Obama’s homosexuality and Michelle’s ding-a-ling.

    Won’t be surprised at all, if the inmates at Gerbil Report are already talking about that.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater September 4, 2014 at 4:43 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Won’t be surprised at all, if the inmates at Gerbil Report are already talking about that.

    Yup already found the accusation come up on a gerbil report video on youtube.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater September 4, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    JPotter: To be fair, the show is only a whopping 20 or so min long … which somehow constitutes 2 “episodes” (bite-sized morsels of brain rot) … and barely gave them time to cover birferism up to the immediate reaction to the LFBC release. No hint that there will be a followup, to cover the rest of the birfer saga, from mid-2011 on.

    I’m still amazed that they dug up Denninger. What a time warp!

    Didn’t Denninger claim he wasn’t in good health at the time of the LFBC release and relied entirely on Vogt and Irey’s “analysis”.

  91. avatar
    RanTalbott September 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Didn’t Denninger claim he wasn’t in good health at the time of the LFBC release and relied entirely on Vogt and Irey’s “analysis”.

    No, he put out some videos of his own shortly after the release, some of which have been “mirrored” (i.e., lifted wholesale and uploaded by someone else) by at least a few people. A youtube search for “denninger obama birth certificate” will turn some up (probably more easily than checking his youtube channel because he’s put out many other videos).

    He made a Big Hairy Deal™ out of the absence of chromatic aberration, failing to realize that the raw scan had been cleaned up by a computer smarter than he is.

  92. avatar
    Arthur September 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yup already found the accusation come up on a gerbil report video on youtube.

    Yep. They’re talking about it under the current article. Joan Rivers is their new hero. One of the posters is even claiming Rivers was a Romney supporter, even though she publicly called him an idiot.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater September 4, 2014 at 6:33 pm #

    Arthur: Yep. They’re talking about it under the current article. Joan Rivers is their new hero. One of the posters is even claiming Rivers was a Romney supporter, even though she publicly called him an idiot.

    So like mormons birthers are trying to convert her in death.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2014 at 7:25 pm #

    Blog now running WordPress 4.0.

  95. avatar
    Dave B. September 4, 2014 at 11:21 pm #

    Interesting little tidbit from half-a-century ago:
    “Ineligible?

    A New York publisher has taken legal action to keep Sen. Barry Goldwater off the presidential ballot.

    The action was filed on the contention that Goldwater is not a natural-born citizen of the United States because he was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909, three years before it was admitted to the Union.”

    Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2014/09/04/3282183/fifty-years-ago-today-september.html#storylink=cpy

  96. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 5, 2014 at 9:08 am #

    Dave B.:
    Interesting little tidbit from half-a-century ago:
    “Ineligible?

    A New York publisher has taken legal action to keep Sen. Barry Goldwater off the presidential ballot.

    The action was filed on the contention that Goldwater is not a natural-born citizen of the United States because he was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909, three years before it was admitted to the Union.”

    Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2014/09/04/3282183/fifty-years-ago-today-september.html#storylink=cpy

    An ineligible President cannot be prevented from assuming the Office of the President of the United States. The will of the majority as to their chosen leader will not denied.

    The Eligibility Clause is used after an ineligible President assumes office by a person or group in the minority who object to an ineligible President assuming the office in violation of the US Constitution. The minority objectors cannot have the ineligible President removed from office, but can seek immunity from the laws, rules, regulations, appointments and executive orders signed into action or law by the ineligible President.

    A fatal flaw of the “birther” cases is that they seek to remove an ineligible President, prevent the ineligible President from taking the oath to assume the office, or demand an authoritative body investigate and determine the eligibility of the President.

    Orly should not seek removal of the President, but immunity from the laws, rules, regulations, appointments and executive orders of the ineligible President. With this approach, Obots can bask in the glory of a rogue President ignoring the parts of the Constitution he disagrees with while his accomplices dismantle the Constitutional republic with the mantra, “We have immunity because we are only following orders to destroy the republic!”

    First thing to do: Object to the appointments made by Obama and seek immunity from their determinations, rulings, opinions, rules, delegated authority and pleadings in the District Court.

  97. avatar
    gorefan September 5, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    SvenMagnussen: What photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?

    Blahahahahaha

  98. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 10:34 am #

    Talk about phoning it in! Over at Gerbil Report, they’re regurgitating Linda Jordan’s 2011 E-verify silliness, and acting like its breaking news. I honestly expected them to post an article blaming Joan Rivers’s death on Obama.

  99. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 10:35 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    An ineligible President…

    … an ineligible President …

    … an ineligible President…

    … cannot have the ineligible President removed from office…

    … signed into action or law by the ineligible President.

    … they seek to remove an ineligible President…

    … prevent theineligible President from taking the oath…

    … determine the eligibility of the President.

    … orders of the ineligible President.

    … a rogue President …

    That’s really stupid.

  100. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 10:40 am #

    He is a bit like a broken record, isn’t he?
    Sven really took that quote about repeating a lie over and over again, in an effort to make people think it’s true, to heart.

  101. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) September 5, 2014 at 11:02 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I honestly expected them to post an article blaming Joan Rivers’s death on Obama.

    Give them another day. They still have a backlog of gerbil pics to post and “Benghaaaazi” cries to utter.

    SvenMagnussen: The will of the majority as to their chosen leader will not denied.

    You mean like in the cases where the President lost the popular vote? Ah yes, I fondly remember President Gore, and how the GOP stood by and said nothing when the EC vote was ignored by Congress. Poor GWB, he would’ve made such a good President, what with “mission accomplished” and all. An opportunity wasted.

    SvenMagnussen: First thing to do: Object to the appointments made by Obama and seek immunity from their determinations, rulings, opinions, rules, delegated authority and pleadings in the District Court.

    You still don’t get the de facto officer doctrine, do you?

  102. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 5, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    An ineligible President is a trespass upon the Eligibility Clause of the US Constitution. The trespass does not occur until the ineligible President-elect assumes the office. An appointment by an ineligible President is a trespass upon Article VI of the US Constitution. US federal officers must swear or affirm to support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI.

    US federal officers cannot support the US Constitution and serve an ineligible President at the same time. To maintain their oath to support the US Constitution, US federal officers must provide assistance to a citizen who objects to a violations of the US Constitution and cannot offer pleadings in the US District Court to dismiss an objector’s lawsuit to prevent the destruction of the Constitutional republic by an ineligible President.

  103. avatar
    y_p_w September 5, 2014 at 11:12 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    You still don’t get the de facto officer doctrine, do you?

    He’s got that one case to fall back on where they didn’t apply the de facto officer doctrine, although that was based on the appointment being defective and not the officers being ineligible.

    If he could point to a single case of a legal judgement being overturned based on a judge being declared ineligible or improperly appointed, or a law that was overturned, then he may be on to something. At this point all he’s got is the weak argument about the Noel Canning case.

  104. avatar
    gorefan September 5, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    What photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?

    Blahahahahaha

  105. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 11:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    An ineligible President is…

    … the ineligible President-elect assumes the office…

    …appointment by an ineligible President is …

    … serve an ineligible President …

    … by an ineligible President.

    That’s really stupid.

  106. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 11:52 am #

    So whats all this SovCit silliness about? I hear a lot of birthers are dropping birtherism for it.

  107. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 5, 2014 at 11:57 am #

    y_p_w: He’s got that one case to fall back on where they didn’t apply the de facto officer doctrine, although that was based on the appointment being defective and not the officers being ineligible.

    If he could point to a single case of a legal judgement being overturned based on a judge being declared ineligible or improperly appointed, or a law that was overturned, then he may be on to something.At this point all he’s got is the weak argument about the Noel Canning case.

    Ryder v. United States, 515 US 177 – Supreme Court 1995

    1st paragraph, opinion of the Supreme Court:

    The [United States Court of Military Appeals] agreed with [Ryder] that the two civilian judges who served on the Court of Military Review had not been appointed in accordance with the dictates of the Appointments Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, but nonetheless held that the actions of those judges were valid de facto. We [, the Supreme Court, deliver a unanimous opinion to] hold that the judges’ actions were not valid de facto.

    Similar ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning. NLRB board members assumed their offices after a violation of the Appointments Clause. Every decision they participated in was voided. It doesn’t matter only 1 litigant objected to the board members appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause after 1,500 cases decided were decided without objection. All decisions were voided.

    The de facto officer doctrine doe not apply to violations of the Appointments Clause.

    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam) is distinguishable from Ryder and Noel Canning because Senator Buckley sought injunctive relief from an improperly appointed panel at the FEC that may adversely impact him in a future election. The cure for the improperly appointed FEC panel could be made by a legislative change in the FEC law to provide for appointments to be made to the FEC by the President in compliance with the Appointments Clause.

    The 1974 amendment to the FEC statute was defective and needed to be changed. If the statute was not changed, Senator Buckley’s objection to appointments on the FEC were noted and the de facto officer doctrine would not apply if Senator Buckley sued again to object to the appointments to the FEC board.

  108. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 12:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Lots of irrelevant misdirection…

    Nothing you wrote is on point, since President Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to hold the office to which he was twice elected. You lose. You get nothing.

    Harvard must have a much better law school than they did fifty years ago, if you’re any indication.

  109. avatar
    interestedbystander September 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    An ineligible President is a trespass upon the Eligibility Clause of the US Constitution. The trespass does not occur until the ineligible President-elect assumes the office.An appointment by an ineligible President is a trespass upon Article VI of the US Constitution. US federal officers must swear or affirm to support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI.

    US federal officers cannot support the US Constitution and serve an ineligible President at the same time. To maintain their oath to support the US Constitution, US federal officers must provide assistance to a citizen who objects to a violations of the US Constitution and cannot offer pleadings in the US District Court to dismiss an objector’s lawsuit to prevent the destruction of the Constitutional republic by an ineligible President.

    That was a nice collection of words. I’m working out how many different ways I can combine them more usefully, having recycled a few. I can’t really think of anything else to do with this nonsense, but I detest waste so feel I need to give it my best shot. Sven – please consider marshalling your resources less wastefully.

  110. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 12:09 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    So whats all this SovCit silliness about? I hear a lot of birthers are dropping birtherism for it.

    Looking for a different Magic Reset Button.

  111. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 12:27 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: Looking for a different Magic Reset Button.

    Oh, I’m just looking for a layman definition of what a Sovcit is.

  112. avatar
    gorefan September 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:What photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?

    Blahahahahaha

  113. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Oh, I’m just looking for a layman definition of what a Sovcit is.

    Can’t tell if srs…

  114. avatar
    The European September 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

    ZuLow got himself a new job:

    WASHINGTON – (Newsblaze) – Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s top deputy Lt. Mike Zullo was in the Nation’s Capitol on Thursday Morning.

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/09/newsblaze-sheriff-arpaios-obama-id.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29

  115. avatar
    Sef September 5, 2014 at 1:33 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    So whats all this SovCit silliness about? I hear a lot of birthers are dropping birtherism for it.

    It’s the “Next Big Thing”™ Checj out TFB for more info.

  116. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 2:17 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: Can’t tell if srs…

    No. I was being earnest. Turns out what I thought it was, wasn’t too far from the truth. A bunch of nuts going around saying “I don’t have to follow your laws, because I don’t recognize you as an authority.”

  117. avatar
    Crustacean September 5, 2014 at 2:17 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The de facto officer doctrine doe not apply to violations of the Appointments Clause.

    Wow, Sven, you nailed us! Game, set, and match.

    On the other hand, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a liar (Blahahahahaha), so perhaps this merits a closer look.

    In the case you cite, Ryder v United States, SCOTUS disagreed with the Court of Military Appeals “because two of the judges on the three judge panel were civilians appointed by the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation.” The problem with this is that “appellate military judges are inferior officers whose service requires appointment by a President, a court of law, or a head of a department. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.”

    As you wrote yourself, “An ineligible President cannot be prevented from assuming the Office of the President of the United States.” So even if Obama were ineligible (notice my clever use of the subjunctive there), he is the president of the United States, duly elected and confirmed by Congress; therefore, his appointments are NOT “a trespass” under the Appointments Clause.

    Finally, in that opinion, Rehnquist quoted Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886): “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” Get that, Sven? Read it again: “Despite technical defects in title to office.”

    Hmmm, where have we seen “multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken” before? You’re simply wrong, Sven. Or maybe you’re complicatedly wrong, I don’t know. I’m just glad we have a strong Constitution to protect us from yahoos like you and de facto attorney Taitz. Angry and ignorant is no way to go through life.

    (Oh crap, was that an on-topic comment from me? I must be growing up.)

  118. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: No. I was being earnest. Turns out what I thought it was, wasn’t too far from the truth. A bunch of nuts going around saying “I don’t have to follow your laws, because I don’t recognize you as an authority.”

    Oh, but it’s so very much more; secret powers revealed by arcane incantations! True popular power! Royal intrigue! They make Birfers look like conspiracy amateurs. Which, now that I think about it…

    Seriously, though, these people are fascinating and dangerous in a way Birfers can only dream of being.

  119. avatar
    RanTalbott September 5, 2014 at 5:35 pm #

    The European: ZuLow got himself a new job

    More like “a new excuse for a vacation”. I wonder if his frequent flyer miles are being properly booked as CCP corporate property…

    He did produce a couple of wonderful soundbites for the “reporter”:

    However Sheriff Arpaio is not politically motivated and this is taking its due course as a law enforcement investigation and political motivations have no bearing on the release of this information.

    And this gem:

    As to the legacy of the investigation, the veteran detective remarked “this is how law enforcement investigations should work” in terms of the police public cooperation

    Oh, yeah: cops should always hold years of press conferences to trot out already-debunked “conclusions”, and adamantly refuse to examine new evidence if it contradicts them.

    I wonder if TSA will make Zullo walk home because his newly-lengthened nose makes him fail biometric verification at the airport ;-)

  120. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 5:41 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: Oh, but it’s so very much more; secret powers revealed by arcane incantations! True popular power! Royal intrigue! They make Birfers look like conspiracy amateurs. Which, now that I think about it…

    Seriously, though, these people are fascinating and dangerous in a way Birfers can only dream of being.

    Woah! And we just let people that crazy mingle with the general population?

  121. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 5:51 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Woah! And we just let people that crazy mingle with the general population?

    Well, sure. Because freedumb.

  122. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

    One can’t help but wonder if Reagan closing down all of those insane asylums wasn’t a gigantic mistake…

  123. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 5, 2014 at 6:26 pm #

    Crustacean: Wow, Sven, you nailed us!Game, set, and match.

    On the other hand, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a liar (Blahahahahaha), so perhaps this merits a closer look.

    In the case you cite, Ryder v United States, SCOTUS disagreed with the Court of Military Appeals “because two of the judges on the three judge panel were civilians appointed by the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation.”The problem with this is that “appellate military judges are inferior officers whose service requires appointment by a President, a court of law, or a head of a department. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.”

    As you wrote yourself, “An ineligible President cannot be prevented from assuming the Office of the President of the United States.”So even if Obama were ineligible (notice my clever use of the subjunctive there), he is the president of the United States, duly elected and confirmed by Congress; therefore, his appointments are NOT “a trespass” under the Appointments Clause.

    Finally, in that opinion, Rehnquist quoted Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886): “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.”Get that, Sven?Read it again: “Despite technical defects in title to office.”

    Hmmm, where have we seen “multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken” before?You’re simply wrong, Sven.Or maybe you’re complicatedly wrong, I don’t know.I’m just glad we have a strong Constitution to protect us from yahoos like you and de facto attorney Taitz.Angry and ignorant is no way to go through life.

    (Oh crap, was that an on-topic comment from me?I must be growing up.)

    Many thought the appointments to the NRLB prior to the Noel Canning case were a mere technical defect. The appointees could be reappointed during a regular session of the Senate, the Senate could provide advice and consent, and Obama could reappoint them. After reappoint, they could affirm all their previous decisions making any concerns about violations of the Appointments Clause moot. Check google.com for articles prior to the Noel Canning decision. Many “Constitutional scholars” predicted concerns about violations of the Constitution by the invalid recess appointments will be moot.

    Not so. The appointees were removed and replaced after a 9-0 decision in SCOTUS. Over 1,500 cases will have to be reheard.

    All US federal officers in the DoJ derive their authority from the Attorney General. The Attorney General was appointed, after advice and consent of the Senate, by an ineligible President. Pursuant to Article VI, the Attorney General swears or affirms an oath to support the Constitution. The Attorney General and his subordinates cannot support the Constitution and an ineligible President. All appointments made by an ineligible President are invalid.

  124. avatar
    Sef September 5, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

    Northland10:
    One more down.

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv1020-23

    Oh boy! He called her a birther in the first paragraph.

  125. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 6:54 pm #

    Sef: Oh boy! He called her a birther in the first paragraph.

    The voices in her head are no doubt screeching about that!

  126. avatar
    gorefan September 5, 2014 at 7:08 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: What photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?

    Blahahahaha

  127. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Not so. The appointees were removed and replaced after a 9-0 decision in SCOTUS. Over 1,500 cases will have to be reheard.

    5 candidates for the NLRB were confirmed by the Senate on July 30, 2013, the Senate confirmed all 5 votes on the NCLB. The Supreme Court heard arguments for NLRB v. Canning on January 14, 2014. The Supreme Court had released their opinion in June of 2014.

    So, tell me how the appointees were removed and replaced after a 9-0 decisions in SCOTUS?

  128. avatar
    nbc September 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ryder v. United States, 515 US 177 – Supreme Court 1995

    Yes, the judges were not even de facto officers. Your point? Do you even understand the concept?

    Geez…

  129. avatar
    y_p_w September 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm #

    dunstvangeet: 5 candidates for the NLRB were confirmed by the Senate on July 30, 2013, the Senate confirmed all 5 votes on the NCLB.The Supreme Court heard arguments for NLRB v. Canning on January 14, 2014.The Supreme Court had released their opinion in June of 2014.

    So, tell me how the appointees were removed and replaced after a 9-0 decisions in SCOTUS?

    The number 1500 is also wrong. It’s more like 100, although it previously was cited as 400. A lot of these cases were resolved by the parties. Also – many of the parties may simply decide that it’s not worth the effort to contest the rulings.

    http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/212031-new-workload-threatens-to-paralyze-obama-labor-board#ixzz393XxdiS1

    NLRB spokesman Tony Wagner said the board has identified roughly 100 decisions that must be reviewed in the wake of the high court’s ruling in the case known as National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

    In the case, the Supreme Court concluded that Obama overstepped by purporting to use his recess appointment power to fill vacancies on the labor board two years ago when the Senate maintained it was in a “pro-forma” session.

    The number of cases designated for review, as a consequence, is far fewer than once thought. Early estimates were that the ruling could throw into question more than 400 cases from the period between January 2012, when the appointments were made, and August 2013, when the Senate approved new board members.

    ** **

    One reason the number of cases is lower than previously thought is that many of the decisions relating to specific labor disputes — such as accusations of improper terminations or alleged violations of union organizing rules — have been resolved.

    In many of those cases, involved parties may now elect to do nothing, allowing the decisions to stand.

  130. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 5, 2014 at 8:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Not so. The appointees were removed and replaced after a 9-0 decision in SCOTUS.Over 1,500 cases will have to be reheard.

    As has been pointed out, that’s wrong. That’s dishonest. And that’s really stupid.

    SvenMagnussen:

    …by an ineligible President.

    … and an ineligible President

    … by an ineligible President …

    That’s really stupid.

  131. avatar
    Keith September 5, 2014 at 9:32 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: No. I was being earnest. Turns out what I thought it was, wasn’t too far from the truth. A bunch of nuts going around saying “I don’t have to follow your laws, because I don’t recognize you as an authority.”

    Pretty much that in a nutshell. But more simply put its just “I don’t have to pay taxes because that name with all capitals refers to the shell company established for me at birth, and the flag behind you has a fringe on it. Come to my $500 a seat seminar and I’ll explain to you why you don’t have to pay the registration on your car (hint: it isn’t your car – you are only renting it.)”.

  132. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 5, 2014 at 10:23 pm #

    Keith: Pretty much that in a nutshell. But more simply put its just “I don’t have to pay taxes because that name with all capitals refers to the shell company established for me at birth, and the flag behind you has a fringe on it. Come to my $500 a seat seminar and I’ll explain to you why you don’t have to pay the registration on your car (hint: it isn’t your car – you are only renting it.)”.

    I actually heard someone mention flag fringes before. So I looked it up…and I came to the conclusion that Darwin was mistaken. Survival of the fittest isn’t how things really work, because these people are far too stupid to be alive…yet there they are.

    If we can convince them that oxygen contains secret mind control nanites, then maybe this whole problem will solve itself…

  133. avatar
    RanTalbott September 5, 2014 at 11:57 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Survival of the fittest isn’t how things really work, because these people are far too stupid to be alive…yet there they are.

    Well, we’ve substantially reduced, and changed, environmental pressures in industrialized societies. Which benefits more than just the stupid: with my eyesight, I probably would’ve been nailed by a predator before reaching puberty in prehistoric times.

    It would be interesting to see what our descendants have to say, in a few centuries, about the fact that we set things up so we preserve the birfoons along with the Hawkings.

    If birthers were capable of understanding what a “nanite” is, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place, so I don’t think your solution will work in practice ;-)

  134. avatar
    John Reilly September 5, 2014 at 11:57 pm #

    I was rethinking Sven’s theory.

    Does Sven mean that during the First Gulf War I could have sued and said that George Bush was an ineligible President because he (a) did not get a majority of the vote, and (b) lied about no new taxes. Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    And during the Balkan campaign, I could have sued and said that Bill Clinton was ineligible because (a) he did not get a majority of the vote, (b) dodged the draft, and (c) did not inhale. Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    And in the Second Gulf War and in Afghanistan I could have sued and said George Bush was ineligible because (a) he lost, saved only by the Supreme Court, (b) and was a really bad baseball team owner. Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    Does it make any difference none of these were declared wars, so the war itself was ineligible?

    I think I like this approach, Sven. Do I get to keep hazardous duty or flight pay? Do I get to keep my small disability rating? Can I wear my uniform when I want to intimidate local officials? What if I can’t fit into my uniform anymore? Will the government buy me a new one even if the President is ineligible?

  135. avatar
    John Reilly September 6, 2014 at 12:05 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Darwin was mistaken. Survival of the fittest isn’t how things really work, because these people are far too stupid to be alive…yet there they are.

    In one of the Republican debates, when the ten candidates were asked how many believed in Darwin’s theory, seven said they did not. There is much to be said to criticize Darwin. For example, Sen. Brownback has yet to evolve from the 17th century, a powerful fact disproving Darwin. He represents folks who think Darwin was wrong, and then read the latest Burpee seed catalog to buy the latest disease and bug resistant seed. And they don’t get it. Or they believe in their heart of hearts that global warming is a myth, but at the same time note the Spring arrives two weeks earlier than 10 years ago.

  136. avatar
    Lupin September 6, 2014 at 3:10 am #

    In a stunning moment of self-awareness and unconscious projection, the BirdBrain of Gerbil Report says:

    “They’re impenetrable blockheads. There will be no dastardly deed that will make them suddenly see the light or wise-up. They’re in this for the long haul.”

    It’s almost as if he was looking at himself in a mirror.

  137. avatar
    Suranis September 6, 2014 at 6:46 am #

    YOu know, if they were intelligent about it, they could actually give intelligent reasons for not believing in Darwin, all of which are sound reasons;

    (a) Darwin did not actually invent the notion of evolution. People had know that species change for a long time, it had been debated by churchmen. Peopke had been debating the mechanism that drives evolution. Darwin’s own father had been working on various theories about what drives Evolution.

    (b) Darwin’s theory as stated could not work. Its not his fault, he had no idea about Genetics and how traits are really passed on. The theory of Genetics was developed 100 years later by a Catholic Monk. So Darwin’s stated method was complete bunk.

    (c) Based on b, the theory of Natural selection would have taken far too long to create species diversity if had been working according the theory of Natural Selection advanced by Darwin. So obviously there are other factors.

    (d) No-one ever mentions that Darwin was wrong about the age of the planet. He thought it was 200,000 years old and ridiculed people who thought it was older.

    All of which are valid reasons for dismissing Darwin. People today believe in a kind of Neo-Darwinism.

    I think the row over Darwin is really because he was somehow captured by the row between Athiests and Churchmen, and Darwin advanced a theory that seemed able to remove a deity from the Equation. That’s also why people are today unwilling to admit the flaws in the theory, in public at least.

    But the other point is that Evolution was a known fact LONG before Darwin, and people saying that Darwin invented the concept are ignorant and/or lying.

    So you can reject Darwin mechanism, as I do at least partially, and still believe in Evolution.

    Don’t you wish that someone could have said something like I just said in the debates?

    John Reilly: In one of the Republican debates, when the ten candidates were asked how many believed in Darwin’s theory, seven said they did not

  138. avatar
    RanTalbott September 6, 2014 at 7:25 am #

    Suranis: People had know that species change for a long time, it had been debated by churchmen

    It goes back to before churchmen. I recently discovered that Project Gutenberg has gone way beyond the plain ASCII texts I remembered from many years ago, and now has a quite nice library of free books formatted for various e-readers. I’ve been reading A Short History of Greek Philosophy to fill in a bit of one of the gaps I created by focusing so narrowly on technology in school ;-) One of the surprises I got was that one of the very earliest philosophers (whose name eludes me) formulated a worldview in which life as a collective whole was striving for perfection, and believed humans had evolved from more-primitive animals. The brief overview didn’t say whether he had gotten into mechanisms (I’d guess not), but they definitely had a notion of species changing over time, and becoming “higher” forms. That’s over 2000 years before Darwin.

    Suranis: The theory of Genetics was developed 100 years later by a Catholic Monk

    If you’re thinking of Mendel, he was a contemporary. But there was a big delay in the development of genetics because Mendel’s work wasn’t widely accepted, and had to be re-discovered after he died.

  139. avatar
    welsh dragon September 6, 2014 at 7:26 am #

    Suranis:
    Snip

    (a) Darwin did not actually invent the notion of evolution. People had know that species change for a long time, it had been debated by churchmen. Peopke had been debating the mechanism that drives evolution. Darwin’s own father had been working on various theories about what drives Evolution.

    Snip

    (d) No-one ever mentions that Darwin was wrong about the age of the planet. He thought it was 200,000 years old and ridiculed people who thought it was older.

    Snip

    I think you’re thinking of Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, rather than his father.

    As for Darwin’s views of the age of the planet he seems to have believed it was several hundred million years old rather than 200,000. Indeed he writes to Wallace expressing concern about William Thomson’s low estimate of several tens of millions years for the age of the sun

  140. avatar
    The European September 6, 2014 at 7:53 am #

    John Reilly:
    I was rethinking Sven’s theory.

    Does Sven mean that during the First Gulf War I could have suedand said that George Bush was an ineligible President because he (a) did not get a majority of the vote, and (b) lied about no new taxes.Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    And during the Balkan campaign, I could have sued and said that Bill Clinton was ineligible because (a) he did not get a majority of the vote, (b) dodged the draft, and (c) did not inhale.Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    And in the Second Gulf War and in Afghanistan I could have sued and said George Bush was ineligible because (a) he lost, saved only by the Supreme Court, (b) and was a really bad baseball team owner.Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    Does it make any difference none of these were declared wars, so the war itself was ineligible?

    I think I like this approach, Sven.Do I get to keep hazardous duty or flight pay?Do I get to keep my small disability rating?Can I wear my uniform when I want to intimidate local officials?What if I can’t fit into my uniform anymore?Will the government buy me a new one even if the President is ineligible?

    John, please don´t take this personally, Fighting in an undeclared war, isn´t that terrorism ?

  141. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 6, 2014 at 7:58 am #

    John Reilly:
    I was rethinking Sven’s theory.

    Does Sven mean that during the First Gulf War I could have suedand said that George Bush was an ineligible President because he (a) did not get a majority of the vote, and (b) lied about no new taxes.Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    And during the Balkan campaign, I could have sued and said that Bill Clinton was ineligible because (a) he did not get a majority of the vote, (b) dodged the draft, and (c) did not inhale.Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    And in the Second Gulf War and in Afghanistan I could have sued and said George Bush was ineligible because (a) he lost, saved only by the Supreme Court, (b) and was a really bad baseball team owner.Then I could have avoided being shot at.

    Does it make any difference none of these were declared wars, so the war itself was ineligible?

    I think I like this approach, Sven.Do I get to keep hazardous duty or flight pay?Do I get to keep my small disability rating?Can I wear my uniform when I want to intimidate local officials?What if I can’t fit into my uniform anymore?Will the government buy me a new one even if the President is ineligible?

    I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

  142. avatar
    interestedbystander September 6, 2014 at 8:20 am #

    John Reilly: In one of the Republican debates, when the ten candidates were asked how many believed in Darwin’s theory, seven said they did not.There is much to be said to criticize Darwin.For example, Sen. Brownback has yet to evolve from the 17th century, a powerful fact disproving Darwin.He represents folks who think Darwin was wrong, and then read the latest Burpee seed catalog to buy the latest disease and bug resistant seed.And they don’t get it.Or they believe in their heart of hearts that global warming is a myth, but at the same time note the Spring arrives two weeks earlier than 10 years ago.

    As stupid as when Sarah Palin derided all that govt money wasted on fruit fly research, because wtf do fruit flies have to do with anything? But not as funny as when she mocked community organisers.

  143. avatar
    Benji Franklin September 6, 2014 at 9:37 am #

    SvenMagnussen: John Reilly:
    I was rethinking Sven’s theory.

    Does Sven mean that …………?

    For lawyers out there, what Sven really means is that in the wake of the exponentially growing many generations of the officer-disqualifying effects flowing from the administration of Usurper Chester Arthur, currently and prospectively, all matters of Constitutional, statutory, and legal doctrinal interpretation, will be officially settled by Sven Magnussen.

    And for non-lawyers out there, that’s what Sven really, REALLY means!

  144. avatar
    John Reilly September 6, 2014 at 10:57 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

    What country is that, Sven?

    In what branch of the service?

  145. avatar
    John Reilly September 6, 2014 at 10:59 am #

    The European: John, please don´t take this personally, Fighting in an undeclared war, isn´t that terrorism ?

    One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

  146. avatar
    Greenfinches September 6, 2014 at 11:26 am #

    very off topic,but are we ready for 10th September and internet slow down day…. so we can all see what may happen if some bright spark ends net neutrality, and slooooow speeds become the norm for those who don’t pay heavily?

    will the Gerbils pay up – and no, Doc, I am not expecting you to do so!

  147. avatar
    Jim September 6, 2014 at 11:48 am #

    Greenfinches:
    very off topic,but are we ready for 10th September and internet slow down day….

    Those poor soles over at BR…all that gay porn is going to be slowed down on them. Watch out Doc, they’ll be photoshopping you all over the place to fill their needs!

  148. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    I found this case this morning.

    https://www.courtlistener.com/dcd/cxH5/olympic-fed-sl-v-office-of-thrift-supervision/

    OLYMPIC FED. S&L v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 732 F. Supp. 1183 (D.C. 1990)
    District Court, District of Columbia

    “… [T]he court is bound by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Andrade, 729 F.2d at 1495-96, which explicitly rejects the claim that one cannot maintain an Appointments Clause challenge unless one can show that, had the Constitution’s requirements been followed, the outcome would have been different. The court will not accept it because the court absolutely rejects the proposition that the procedural protections conferred by various statutes and by the Constitution are nothing more than hollow gestures at the appearance of democracy. The Appointments Clause subjects the selection process to public scrutiny, thereby affecting who takes office, how they perceive their function, and how they exercise their powers. See Andrade, 729 F.2d at 1495 and n. 35 (Appointments Clause gives Congress some control over Executive Branch, within framework of system of checks and balances).”

    and

    “The Constitution and its system of checks and balances was written to protect the people. The restrictions it placed upon the branches’ exercise of power were not designed to ensure the branches’ interest in equal power, but to ensure that citizens would not find themselves governed by a single branch which had swept all the government’s power into its domain. Thus, entities which will be directly harmed by unconstitutional appointments clearly fall within the zone of interests which the Appointments Clause and the entire system of checks and balances was designed to protect.”

    The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, USDC D.D.C.

  149. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

    And you’re worth every penny, you magnificent goofball.

  150. avatar
    Suranis September 6, 2014 at 1:25 pm #

    I thought this liar lived somewhere in Northern Europe? How is that in service to his country…

    Unless he is TRYING TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF SOCIALISM IN AMERICAAAAAAAGHHHHH!!!!!

    SvenMagnussen: I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

  151. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 6, 2014 at 1:39 pm #

    Suranis:
    I thought this liar lived somewhere in Northern Europe? How is that in service to his country…

    Nope; Independence, MO.

    And terrorists frequently style themselves as patriots.

  152. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

    Your country must be a fictional place, that only exists in your head. Because you sure as hell aren’t talking about doing service for America.

  153. avatar
    John Reilly September 6, 2014 at 2:35 pm #

    So, Sven, when will you produce the President’s naturalization certificate you promised to show us?

  154. avatar
    Jim September 6, 2014 at 3:18 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: And you’re worth every penny, you magnificent goofball.

    Actually, he’s overpaid IMO.

  155. avatar
    Daniel September 6, 2014 at 3:19 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

    Every Terrorist believes himself to be serving his country.

    Every Terrorist believes himself a patriot.

  156. avatar
    Faceman September 6, 2014 at 3:57 pm #

    Re: Every terrorist believes himself a patriot.

    I think it was Ben Franklin who said: Revolution is always legal in the first person (Our revolution). It is only in the third person (their revolution) that it is illegal.

  157. avatar
    The European September 6, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    John Reilly: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

    John, it is a pleasure to read your posts.

    Doc attracts really good people.

    (and some nuts as well)

  158. avatar
    John Reilly September 6, 2014 at 5:26 pm #

    The European: John, it is a pleasure to read your posts.
    Doc attracts really good people.

    Thank you European.

    Have you considered that perhaps I’ve flown missions against your country?

  159. avatar
    Northland10 September 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m in service to my country and I’m not paid a dime.

    Well, that’s an interesting way to thank somebody who has risked his life multiple times to defend your freedom to make an ass of yourself.

    SvenMagnussen: The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, USDC D.D.C.

    You should read his most recent ruling. He called Orly a Plaintiff-Birther.

  160. avatar
    Keith September 6, 2014 at 9:37 pm #

    Suranis: (b) Darwin’s theory as stated could not work. Its not his fault, he had no idea about Genetics and how traits are really passed on. The theory of Genetics was developed 100 years later by a Catholic Monk. So Darwin’s stated method was complete bunk.

    Charles Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species” in 1859.

    Gregor Mendel published his “Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization)” in 1866.

    That is seven years later, not 100. Of course, Mendel’s paper went pretty much unnoticed until around 1900 when the importance of his work became well known. That’s still only 40 years after Darwin initial publication.

    All of which are valid reasons for dismissing Darwin. People today believe in a kind of Neo-Darwinism.

    Their are several problems with this statement:

    1) The most egregious problem is your use of the word ‘believe’. Science is not a religion or set of opinions. People don’t ‘believe in’ any science discipline or theory or hypothesis. Correctly put, people understand scientific theories to be the best explanation for natural phenomena available at a given point in time.

    2) That is very much like saying that people today ‘believe in a kind of Neo-Newtonianism’. You are suggesting that people should dismiss Newton because Einstein has advanced our understanding of gravity. You are saying that when one scientist has a great breakthrough in understanding the natural world, that that is the end of it for all time – his word is final. That is just utter rubbish.

    Scientists and understanding laymen do NOT ‘believe in’ (as you put it) neo-Darwinism. The current theory is formally known as the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis”. The word synthesis is important in the title: it denotes that the modern theory (formulated between the WW1 and WW2 and continually updated as new problems come to light and new problems solved) is a synthesis of many hypotheses and many peoples work. Darwin is exactly one person included in that synthesis.

    Darwin’s contribution to the MES is huge for sure, and some have likened it to someone inventing the transistor without an understanding of probability (genetics) or Quantum Physics (DNA). But Darwin’s is, never the less, only one contributer.

    3) That Darwin was a man of his times is undeniable. That Darwin believed in a 200,000 year old earth is irrelevant. Few, if any, people imagined that the earth could be as old as 14 billion years old at the time. Darwin knew he didn’t know everything about how natural selection worked, and that that understanding would come to others. His hypothesis (that is all that it ever was during his lifetime), was only one of many competing for notice and verification or dismissal in the scientific world. Darwin himself was convinced that he was right; it disturbed him and his personal religious conceptions; but his gargantuan and meticulous observations allowed him no other conclusions.

  161. avatar
    interestedbystander September 7, 2014 at 1:27 am #

    Well the clock is ticking. Will Zullo get his man in less time than it took to solve one of the biggest crime mysteries of the last two centuires?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

    Yep – Jack the Ripper finally nailed. Fascinating!

  162. avatar
    interestedbystander September 7, 2014 at 1:47 am #

    Bonsall Obot: Nope; Independence, MO.

    And terrorists frequently style themselves as patriots.

    Sven’s from the Show Me State? Is there an “I make fatuous claims that I won;t substantiate” State? Because if so, I’ll chip to help Sven move there.

  163. avatar
    The European September 7, 2014 at 2:25 am #

    John Reilly: Thank you European.

    Have you considered that perhaps I’ve flown missions against your country?

    Well, you are not that old …

    But honestly, my generation is thankful for the liberation in 1944 1945.

    For the time after that – Germany has never participated in a war. Afghanistan – there have been German troops – is not considered a war here but more like a police action.

    I am at 66 someone who was never a soldier and who never had to fear for the life of his chidren because of a war.

    A unique situation maybe since time began. I feel blessed for that.

  164. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 7, 2014 at 7:53 am #

    Northland10: Well, that’s an interesting way to thank somebody who has risked his life multiple times to defend your freedom to make an ass of yourself.

    You should read his most recent ruling. He called Orly a Plaintiff-Birther.

    There’s a difference between an Eligibility Clause challenge and an Appointments Clause challenge.

  165. avatar
    welsh dragon September 7, 2014 at 8:09 am #

    Suranis: (d) No-one ever mentions that Darwin was wrong about the age of the planet. He thought it was 200,000 years old and ridiculed people who thought it was older.

    I was just about to go to work when I posted yesterday so didn’t have time to go into any detail on this. The simple reason that “No-one ever mentions” this is that it’s simply not true. To quote from “The Origin of the Species”:

    “The action of fresh water on the gently inclined Wealden district, when upraised, could hardly have been great, but it would somewhat reduce the above estimate. On the other hand, during oscillations of level, which we know this area has undergone, the surface may have existed for millions of years as land, and thus have escaped the action of the sea: when deeply submerged for perhaps equally long periods, it would, likewise, have escaped the action of the coast-waves. So that in all probability a far longer period than 300 million years has elapsed since the latter part of the Secondary period”

    That is only one of several passages that clearly contradict the claim that Darwin thought the earth was only 200,000 years old.

    I don’t know were you got the idea from but I suspect you or your source have conflated Darwin with William Thomson’s estimate that the Earth had only been habitable for 200,000 years which in turn was based on his very low estimate of the age of the Sun.

  166. avatar
    The European September 7, 2014 at 8:25 am #

    Some religious people still can´t make peace with poor Darwin …….

  167. avatar
    donna September 7, 2014 at 9:11 am #

    the donald is still at it:

    Donald Trump wants hackers to hack into President Obama’s college records to check his place of birth.

    The controversial real estate mogul tweeted Saturday morning:

    Attention all hackers: You are hacking everything else so please hack Obama’s college records (destroyed?) and check “place of birth”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/216867-trump-to-hackers-find-obamas-birth-records

    SERIOUSLY??? what are all of his people in hawaii saying & doing? he needs a hacker?

  168. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 7, 2014 at 11:00 am #

    donna:
    the donald is still at it:

    Donald Trump wants hackers to hack into President Obama’s college records to check his place of birth.

    The controversial real estate mogul tweeted Saturday morning:

    Attention all hackers: You are hacking everything else so please hack Obama’s college records (destroyed?) and check “place of birth”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/216867-trump-to-hackers-find-obamas-birth-records

    SERIOUSLY??? what are all of his people in hawaii saying & doing? he needs a hacker?

    Trump is a very sore loser.
    This could actually end up exploding in his face though, because he’s the sort that hackers tend to go after.

  169. avatar
    interestedbystander September 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    I was going to say this won’t end well for The Donald, but nothing seems to dent his Taitz-level self-delusions. I am rather hoping they do hack his college records and find it says born in Hawaii, but I’d much rather know how much The Donald is really worth. That could be a spectacular own goal.

  170. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 7, 2014 at 2:33 pm #

    Truth be told, he’s probably hoping no one takes him up on his offer. Birtherism was dead in the water the moment Hawaii confirmed Obama’s bonafides are legit, but it would just got the true believers if some hackers were to confirm it even further.

  171. avatar
    donna September 7, 2014 at 2:58 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Trump is a very sore loser.

    my “confusion” has always been where is the right wing with their billions? don’t they have enough money to pay for someone to disclose obama’s records OR are they afraid of what they will find or have found?

    there is enough hate on the right to ascertain whether obama was born in the us (or not); whether he was only accepted to these fine institutions due to affirmative action; whether he has a “global view’ due to his background or due to his education, etc

    i think of the fox interview (no less) of Bernice Bowers, obama’s former classmate in hawaii:

    he was in AP U.S. History – you don’t get into AP classes at prestigious schools due to affirmative action

    and on his “global view”: “I can say that in particular the Punahou curriculum in the 70s was extremely focused on building global citizens. That was the goal.”

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2013/01/04/obama-classmate-dishes-fox-news

    i also look back at the PBS interview of conservative bradford berenson: “You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

  172. avatar
    Keith September 7, 2014 at 3:00 pm #

    donna: Donald Trump wants hackers to hack into President Obama’s college records to check his place of birth.

    Don’t tell me he has another season of his TV show coming up?!?

  173. avatar
    interestedbystander September 7, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    Keith: Don’t tell me he has another season of his TV show coming up?!?

    Ding DIng!

  174. avatar
    Steve September 7, 2014 at 5:04 pm #

    donna: Donald Trump wants hackers to hack into President Obama’s college records to check his place of birth.
    The controversial real estate mogul tweeted Saturday morning:
    Attention all hackers: You are hacking everything else so please hack Obama’s college records (destroyed?) and check “place of birth”

    Isn’t soliciting someone to commit a crime a crime in and of itself?

  175. avatar
    Dave B. September 7, 2014 at 7:11 pm #

    So here we are seven days into September. Exactly when are we supposed to hear from those “trained detectives and investigators” Pat Boone’s been palling around with?

  176. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2014 at 10:39 pm #

    donna:

    Donald Trump wants hackers to hack into President Obama’s college records to check his place of birth.

    Why does he believe that Obama’s college records contain any information about where he was born? A college might want to know an applicant’s citizenship, but why would it want to know where an applicant was born?

  177. avatar
    RanTalbott September 7, 2014 at 11:00 pm #

    Rickey: A college might want to know an applicant’s citizenship, but why would it want to know where an applicant was born?

    Financial aid: there might’ve been scholarships available to Hoosiers/Sooners/Tarheels/Estonian immigrants/whatever. I don’t know what college financing is like now, but, back in those days you could find odd stuff like “$500/year for a student born to two left-handed parents, in a Prairies state, in a month with no ‘R’ in its name”.

  178. avatar
    Dave B. September 7, 2014 at 11:09 pm #

    It’s kind of funny how a specific document that figures prominently on this list:
    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/new.html#step3
    isn’t good enough; but they’re obsessed with something that doesn’t even make THIS list:
    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/information/secondary-evidence.html

    Rickey: Why does he believe that Obama’s college records contain any information about where he was born? A college might want to know an applicant’s citizenship, but why would it want to know where an applicant was born?

  179. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2014 at 11:20 pm #

    RanTalbott: Financial aid: there might’ve been scholarships available to Hoosiers/Sooners/Tarheels/Estonian immigrants/whatever. I don’t know what college financing is like now, but, back in those days you could find odd stuff like “$500/year for a student born to two left-handed parents, in a Prairies state, in a month with no ‘R’ in its name”.

    That might be asked on a financial aid application, but I certainly never filled out a college application which asked me to indicate where I was born.

  180. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 7, 2014 at 11:51 pm #

    Of course, Trump doesn’t want the answer. He just wants people asking the question.

  181. avatar
    Keith September 8, 2014 at 12:28 am #

    Bonsall Obot:
    Of course, Trump doesn’t want the answer. He just wants people asking the question.

    Trump doesn’t give a sh!te about the answer or anybody asking the question.

    Trump just wants people to see his name and remember that he has a TV show.

  182. avatar
    Notorial Dissent September 8, 2014 at 9:02 am #

    The thing is, a college application will show most of that information, depending on how nosey they were back when he was applying, but it would certainly show place of residence and place of birth, and most likely citizenship, not that it would show what La Rump so wants and so would be useless in his vendetta. Besides, I seriously doubt if Obama’s college records are even on computer, he graduated far enough back that they are probably paper, or at this point more likely micro copy only. The same issue cropped up with financial aid information as it exists only on microform at this point, not that it is public information anyway.

  183. avatar
    Arthur Lampel September 8, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    More to the point, if any. The applications are more likely than not to have been discarded decades ago. Both colleges are private institutions and they would keep paper around only as long as it might be useful in litigation or otherwise. Max time to keep around five years. After that point it becomes a net liability to keep old applications.

    Transcripts are kept forever. Everything else is shredded or the equivalent.

  184. avatar
    y_p_w September 8, 2014 at 11:46 am #

    Arthur Lampel:
    More to the point, if any.The applications are more likely than not to have been discarded decades ago.Both colleges are private institutions and they would keep paper around only as long as it might be useful in litigation or otherwise.Max time to keep around five years.After that point it becomes a net liability to keep old applications.

    Transcripts are kept forever.Everything else is shredded or the equivalent.

    I needed to get an official copy of my transcript. Back when I was applying to grad schools, I couldn’t actually get one. UC Berkeley wouldn’t issue an official copy (with seal) directly to the student. That was restricted to mailing directly to a school or prospective employer, and it was cheap at $3. When I needed recommendations from professors, I was able to get an “unofficial copy” that was printed on plain white paper.

    However, I can get one now, and something got messed up. I thought I might need it when looking for a job. It was missing one of my AP exams (I passed five but it didn’t show math BC). Not a huge deal since it also said I graduated, but I called them up to see if they could find it and restore it. I eventually found out that they couldn’t do anything without something like the test score report I got from ETS and I didn’t feel like ordering a copy nor digging around my folks’ place to find it. Basically they had shredded all the original documents and had everything in electronic records. My file probably only existed as an electronic record of information and no images or scanned documents.

  185. avatar
    gorefan September 8, 2014 at 12:11 pm #

    Arthur Lampel: The applications are more likely than not to have been discarded decades ago.

    Certainly the apps for people who never enrolled or were not accepted were discarded. I’m not so sure about all the enrolled student apps.

    Factcheck did a piece about President Obama’s college records in 2009. There was this line:

    “The photo here is from his application to Occidental.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/

    Photo is the same as his Punahou senior yearbook photo.

    http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Barry_Obama_lg.jpg

    Occidental College did a piece on him and used the same photo.

    http://www.oxy.edu/our-story/oxy-people/obama-oxy

    It appears to me that there is some type of existing file other than just transcripts.

  186. avatar
    Whatever4 September 8, 2014 at 12:16 pm #

    Rickey: That might be asked on a financial aid application, but I certainly never filled out a college application which asked me to indicate where I was born.

    Are you sure about that? I’ve attended 8 colleges (3 degrees, plus personal enrichment courses), and I believe they all ask for city and state of birth. The Common Application used these days certainly asks for it.

  187. avatar
    Rickey September 8, 2014 at 4:34 pm #

    Whatever4: Are you sure about that? I’ve attended 8 colleges (3 degrees, plus personal enrichment courses), and I believe they all ask for city and state of birth.The Common Application used these days certainly asks for it.

    That could be. I haven’t filled out a college application in more than 40 years, but this web site says that the customary personal data on a college application includes:

    Name
    Social security number
    Current address
    Permanent address
    Telephone number
    Email address
    Birth date
    Citizenship
    Sex or gender
    Ethnic affiliation
    Parent or guardian contact information

    http://www.brighthub.com/education/college/articles/74162.aspx

    Toward the bottom of the page on the left is an image of an application form for Bradley University. It does not ask anything about an applicant’s birthplace.

    However, there also is a universal college application form which is accepted by participating colleges and it does not ask about birthplace.

    https://www.universalcollegeapp.com/documents/uca-first-year.pdf

    So I’ll concede that it is possible that Obama was asked about his place of birth on his college applications.

  188. avatar
    John Reilly September 9, 2014 at 12:29 am #

    I attended one undergraduate college. I was required to provide proof of my citizenship and fingerprints, which were, I understand, run through the FBI. And that’s after my congressman vouched for me.

  189. avatar
    John Reilly September 9, 2014 at 12:51 am #

    I should note now that football is back, that my college is one of the very few where the inter-collegiate athletes are paid with the full knowledge and consent of the NCAA, including the members of the football team.

  190. avatar
    GLaB September 9, 2014 at 3:30 am #

    John Reilly:
    I should note now that football is back, that my college is one of the very few where the inter-collegiate athletes are paid with the full knowledge and consent of the NCAA, including the members of the football team.

    West Point?

  191. avatar
    Keith September 9, 2014 at 5:46 am #

    GLaB: West Point?

    I’m thinking USAFA at Colorado Springs. But Annapolis is the same.

  192. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 9, 2014 at 9:20 am #

    Saw on Gerbil Report, that birther and all around RWNJ “Commieblaster” has just called it quits. They’re dropping like flies. “I used to be a birther like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.”

  193. avatar
    John Reilly September 9, 2014 at 9:48 am #

    Keith: I’m thinking USAFA at Colorado Springs. But Annapolis is the same.

    There is no NCAA prohibition against paying student athletes. The prohibition is treating student athletes different from other students.

  194. avatar
    bovril September 9, 2014 at 10:10 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Saw on Gerbil Report, that birther and all around RWNJ “Commieblaster” has just called it quits. They’re dropping like flies. “I used to be a birther like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.”

    Ahhhhh, the prescient and oh so rational Commieblaster….

    How about this little gem..

    What May Happen Between Now and November 2010 if an American Velvet Revolution Does Not Occur

    Based on what we have observed from Obama, thus far, and in Hugo Chavez’s Socialist/Communist takeover of the Venezuelan people, events that could potentially occur are:

    •Greater government control, takeover and/or shutdown of conservative TV or radio (i.e, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, etc.).

    •Greater government control, takeover and/or shutdown of the internet.

    •Additional government takeovers without the consent of the people.

    •An attempt to transfer US sovereignty to the United Nations or other authority.

    •Greater government gun control or the outlawing of guns.

    •Unconstitutional arrests of US citizens who are opposed to the Obama Administration and/or the creation of detainment camps.

  195. avatar
    Lupin September 9, 2014 at 11:58 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Saw on Gerbil Report, that birther and all around RWNJ “Commieblaster” has just called it quits. They’re dropping like flies. “I used to be a birther like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.”

    The Crazy is strong with this one!

    http://commieblaster.com/whoisjohngalt.html

  196. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 9, 2014 at 1:03 pm #

    John Reilly: There is no NCAA prohibition against paying student athletes.The prohibition is treating student athletes different from other students.

    Actually, the Military academies have a few special exemptions because of the way they are set up.

    For instance, they have no scholarship limit on their programs, because everybody who attends there is on scholarship. It would unfairly limit them to limit them to the same scholarship limit, when would be no walk-ons.

    And I think that the paying student athletes is the same, as everybody who attends there is paid as a cadet of the military academies. It might be specific to the military. I’d have to research the rules and regulations to see whether or not it’s specific to the military academies, or if it’s available to other people, such as ROTC cadets.

  197. avatar
    Crustacean September 9, 2014 at 6:17 pm #

    Meanwhile, over at Gerbil Report…

    Falcon writes, “You O-Holes are so damn stupid” in the same post in which he also writes, “Seems we got us an interloper… in our mists.” :)

    Ah, Falcon-mist in the morning. Smells like… defeat.

  198. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 9, 2014 at 6:21 pm #

    Birfers in the Mist.

    This time, it’s monkeyshines!

  199. avatar
    Crustacean September 9, 2014 at 7:04 pm #

    Meanwhile, over at Gerbil Report…

    Barry Soetoro, ESQ dredges up the tired, worn out claim that one of the Sandy Hook parents, Veronique Pozner, is really Veronique Haller, a legal counselor at the Swiss embassy in DC.

    I think I found Haller’s Facebook page. There’s a high probability she is the diplomat in question, because her Facebook “favorites” include Swiss Basketball Women, the US Dept of State, the Brookings Institution, and the Consulate General of Switzerland.

    Funny thing: she doesn’t look anything like the photo that ol’ BS posted (both clearly of Pozner). Now, BS has been known to have some fun with GerbilShop (TM), but this was presented as real. I wonder if BS believes his own BS.

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/09/washington-times-officials-wanted-for.html#idc-cover

    https://www.facebook.com/veronique.haller.1

  200. avatar
    RanTalbott September 9, 2014 at 7:13 pm #

    Guerrillas in the Mist.

    Fossey’s gone, but the denizens of Gerbil Report are more like chimps, anyway, with their constant fecal-flinging.

    So we should ask Goodall to take on the job. It’d be ideal for her, now, because she can do her field work from the comfort of home.

    If she can figure out chimps, she should be able to figure out their less-sophisticated cousins.

  201. avatar
    y_p_w September 9, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

    John Reilly: There is no NCAA prohibition against paying student athletes.The prohibition is treating student athletes different from other students.

    Actually, the prohibition is on paying student-athletes for their athletic ability or for the student-athletes to accept an outside “benefit” based on their athletic ability. They are allowed specific benefits based on athletic ability to be provided by the school and/or athletic department that can’t exceed specified limits.

    15.1 Maximum Limit on Financial Aid—individual.

    A student-athlete shall not be eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics if he or she receives financial aid that exceeds the value of the cost of attendance as defined in Bylaw 15.02.2. A student-athlete may receive institutional financial aid based on athletics ability (per Bylaw 15.02.4.1) and educational expenses awarded per Bylaw 15.2.6.4 up to the value of a full grant-in-aid, plus any other financial aid up to the cost of attendance. (See Bylaws 15.01.6.1, 16.3, 16.4 and 16.12.) (Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 5/26/09, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

    15.2.6.2 No Relationship to Athletics Ability. A student-athlete may receive financial aid awarded solely on bases having no relationship to athletics ability.

    This is the thing that trips up lots of NCAA athletes:

    16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports.

    It is possible for a student-athlete to be paid for legitimate teaching of athletic skills, such as a sport camp (often run by their college coaches) or a sport club. I’ve known many student-athletes who were assistant coaches for club sport teams. However, they tend to be very careful about accepting anything that could get them in trouble if it looks like they were given as such because they were student-athletes. The most obvious would be poor kids driving around in fancy cars provided by boosters.

  202. avatar
    Keith (not logged on) September 9, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

    John Reilly: There is no NCAA prohibition against paying student athletes.The prohibition is treating student athletes different from other students.

    Under NCAA rules every student-athlete is treated VERY different to other students – and not just when it comes pay. Army/Navy/Air Force have special rules that apply to them because of their unique purpose.

  203. avatar
    John Reilly September 10, 2014 at 12:40 am #

    Student athletes at the service academies receive no benefits for their participation in sports. Rather, most all, if not all students (there are exceptions) are required to participate in intercollegiate or intermural sports. What trips up other schools is the provision of “extra” benefits, that is benefits not available to all students.

    Students at Taft receive no pay for their attendance. I do not believe Taft is a Division 1 school.

  204. avatar
    y_p_w September 10, 2014 at 12:41 am #

    Keith (not logged on): Under NCAA rules every student-athlete is treated VERY different to other students – and not just when it comes pay. Army/Navy/Air Force have special rules that apply to them because of their unique purpose.

    Actually – all the service academies have an exception, including the US Coast Guard Academy and US Merchant Marine Academy – both in NCAA Division III. NCAA Division III is very different in that they don’t normally allow any kind of financial aid based on athletic ability. They’re all specifically mentioned in the D-I and D-III rules – all five. I suppose they’re not in the D-II rules because they don’t cover any service academies.

  205. avatar
    Keith September 10, 2014 at 2:08 am #

    John Reilly: What trips up other schools is the provision of “extra” benefits, that is benefits not available to all students.

    It is far from that simple. Student-Athletes at Division I schools get MANY benefits that are not available to general population students. General population students do not generally have access to the training facilities, coaching, consultation, snack bar and meals service, medical coverage, insurance, tutors, etc, etc, etc that Student-Athletes get as a matter of course.

    With regard to Div I universities, anyway, Student-Athletes in sports that have full-ride athletic scholarships limits, like football and basketball, cannot use academic scholarships to circumvent the athletic scholarship limit. In other words, a walk-on cannot be using an academic scholarship if the team is already at the scholarship limit. I’m not sure how this applies to sports that don’t have full-ride scholarships or numbers that cover a whole team, like baseball and volleyball etc.

    I am not an expert on this, and I am certainly not familiar with Div II or Div III except to know that there are differences.

    I cannot find any reference to Taft University playing intercollegiate sports so I don’t know what division they might play in. I can find Taft School (Waterbury, Connecticut) though, is that the one you mean? I don’t think it competes in NCAA sports either (its a private High School). Or maybe you meant Tufts?

  206. avatar
    Keith September 10, 2014 at 2:11 am #

    y_p_w: Actually – all the service academies have an exception, including the US Coast Guard Academy and US Merchant Marine Academy – both in NCAA Division III.NCAA Division III is very different in that they don’t normally allow any kind of financial aid based on athletic ability.They’re all specifically mentioned in the D-I and D-III rules – all five.I suppose they’re not in the D-II rules because they don’t cover any service academies.

    Thanks. I was not aware that the CGA or the MMA participated in intercollegiate sports. Are they actually in NCAA Div III or are they in NAIA?

  207. avatar
    Keith September 10, 2014 at 2:17 am #

    John Reilly: Students at Taft receive no pay for their attendance. I do not believe Taft is a Division 1 school.

    Taft is not listed in the NCAA Div I, Div II, or Div III membership lists on Wikipedia, nor on the NAIA membership list.

    NCAA rules do not apply to schools that are not members of the NCAA.
    NAIA rules do not apply to schools that are not members of the NAIA.

    So how exactly is Taft a relevant example for your argument?

  208. avatar
    y_p_w September 10, 2014 at 2:33 am #

    Keith: Thanks. I was not aware that the CGA or the MMA participated in intercollegiate sports. Are they actually in NCAA Div III or are they in NAIA?

    Both are in D-III. And it gets tricky since D-III supposedly only allows merit-based or need-based financial aid. Clearly they need an exception to the rules based on the school paying the full freight plus a stipend.

    And there’s a tiny exception that allows D-I athletic departments to pay student-athletes. There are “participation awards” that can be in the form of gifts or cash, with limits set by the NCAA. There’s one just for participating (with a bonus for seniors). There’s another one for just participating in a conference tournament. There’s another for winning a conference championship and/or conference tournament. There’s one specific to football for playing in a bowl game. There’s some legendary schwag bags given out to bowl game participants by the bowl game organizers that are designed to be under the NCAA limits, in addition to a bonus directly from the school. There’s also up to a $415 bonus for winning an NCAA championship.

    Of course these are optional on the part of the athletic department. I would guess that some don’t have the funds and don’t dole out these awards or don’t dole out the maximum.

  209. avatar
    y_p_w September 10, 2014 at 2:36 am #

    Keith: Taft is not listed in the NCAA Div I, Div II, or Div III membership lists on Wikipedia, nor on the NAIA membership list.

    NCAA rules do not apply to schools that are not members of the NCAA.
    NAIA rules do not apply to schools that are not members of the NAIA.

    So how exactly is Taft a relevant example for your argument?

    As a fan of NCAA athletics, I have heard that NAIA member schools as a matter of policy tend to recognize the validity of NCAA documents such as the National Letter of Intent. Neither here nor there, but sort of an interesting sidenote.

  210. avatar
    The Magic M September 10, 2014 at 5:49 am #

    Crustacean: Ah, Falcon-mist in the morning.

    As a funny side note, “Mist” means “crap” in German. :)

  211. avatar
    John Reilly September 10, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    Keith: So how exactly is Taft a relevant example for your argument?

    Some stuff should not be taken so seriously.

  212. avatar
    The European September 10, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    Why Isn’t The US Mentioned In The Bible? Because So Many Americans Will Be Raptured In The End Times

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/why-isnt-us-mentioned-bible-because-so-many-americans-will-be-raptured-end-times

  213. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 10, 2014 at 11:47 am #

    The European:
    Why Isn’t The US Mentioned In The Bible? Because So Many Americans Will Be Raptured In The End Times

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/why-isnt-us-mentioned-bible-because-so-many-americans-will-be-raptured-end-times

    OW!!! The stupid coming off that article…it actually hurts!

  214. avatar
    Crustacean September 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm #

    Sure, Andrew, pooh-pooh if you want. I prefer to keep an open mind.

    But let me see if I have this right: the End Times are going to be bad for the banking system? Darn it! As if the sea turning into blood and lakes of fire aren’t bad enough, we’ll have to deal with ATM problems, too?

    But I ain’t scared. Just yesterday I received an offer from JPMorgan Chase & Co. for their new “666 Golden Bowl VISA card”. Hell of a rate, too!

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: OW!!! The stupid coming off that article…it actually hurts!

  215. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm #

    I don’t see how someone can look at these ultra-contrived kook conspiracies, and go “Well, that makes perfect sense to me!!!”