Main Menu

Clueless Cruz comments: Hillary started the birther movement

In an interview with Katie Couric, Ted Cruz repeats the oft-heard, and oft-debunked Internet rumor that Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign started the birther movement.

You know it’s interesting, the whole Birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008  against Barack Obama.

— Ted Cruz

The interview was at Yahoo News, and reported by Brietbart News. For the real story, see Loren Collins’ “The Secret Origin of the Birthers.”

Read more:

, , , , ,

67 Responses to Clueless Cruz comments: Hillary started the birther movement

  1. avatar
    Steve June 30, 2015 at 7:05 pm #

    They say that as if it gives the movement some sort of credibility.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2015 at 8:00 pm #

    I left a comment at Breitbart pointing out that the Clinton story was a myth. One commenter disagreed, and offered Sidney Blumenthal as a Clinton adviser pushing birtherism; however, when challenged, he has not come up with anything birther. Blumenthal did spread around some right-wing stories about Obama around May of 2008.

  3. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 30, 2015 at 8:02 pm #

    No, they say it to discredit Hillary Clinton, by trying to portray her as manipulative and willing to do anything to win (even try to start a rumor that Barack Obama was not born in the United States to discredit him).

    In reality, some early birthers (such as Phil Berg) claimed to be Hillary Clinton supporters, but were part of people who called themselves PUMA (Party Unity My A**) and vowed to vote against Barack Obama in order to defeat him after he won the nomination, in order so that Hillary Clinton would then run 4 years and beat the Republican Incumbent. That was their theory. Of course, if you take a look at what they expounged, none of them were Hillary Clinton Positions, and really fell in line more with the Tea Party than Hillary Clinton’s positions on anything. They then came to basically hate Hillary Clinton, because she took a job with the Obama Administration herself.

  4. avatar
    Rickey June 30, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    No, they say it to discredit Hillary Clinton, by trying to portray her as manipulative and willing to do anything to win (even try to start a rumor that Barack Obama was not born in the United States to discredit him).

    In reality, some early birthers (such as Phil Berg) claimed to be Hillary Clinton supporters, but were part of people who called themselves PUMA (Party Unity My A**) and vowed to vote against Barack Obama in order to defeat him after he won the nomination, in order so that Hillary Clinton would then run 4 years and beat the Republican Incumbent.That was their theory.Of course, if you take a look at what they expounged, none of them were Hillary Clinton Positions, and really fell in line more with the Tea Party than Hillary Clinton’s positions on anything.They then came to basically hate Hillary Clinton, because she took a job with the Obama Administration herself.

    There were plenty of people who suspected that PUMA was really a front fo McCain, in part because the founder of the PUMA PAC donated money to McCain in 2000. Also, the PAC didn’t register with the FEC until June, 2008 by which time it was clear that Obama was going to win the nomination. The PAC was dissolved by the FEC in 2011 for failure to comply with reporting requirements.

    However, the founder is a registered Democrat.

  5. avatar
    justlw June 30, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

    In 2008, the Washington Times‘ magazine Insight was putting a lot of effort into blaming the Clinton campaign for Obama smears that were circulating, specifically the birther and madrassa stories.

  6. avatar
    Joey July 1, 2015 at 12:02 am #

    I believe someone from the Clinton campaign was quoted as saying that they looked into the Obama is not a natural born citizen rumors, decided there was nothing there, and dropped it.
    That always sounded reasonable to me. It would not be performing due diligence for an opposition candidate to ignore a potentially damagng rumor.

  7. avatar
    justlw July 1, 2015 at 12:22 am #

    Joey: It would not be performing due diligence for an opposition candidate to ignore a potentially damagng rumor.

    Just ask Obama. And Jack Ryan. (The Chicago Jack Ryan, that is.)

  8. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 1, 2015 at 4:08 am #

    dunstvangeet: No, they say it to discredit Hillary Clinton

    No, they made that claim long before anyone talked about potential candidates for the 2016 election. The claim “Democrats started it” is a simple foil for “birthers are not racist”.

  9. avatar
    Delongleggedmackdaddy July 1, 2015 at 8:46 am #

    I know it has already been said, however, my recollection is also that there were some Hillary supporters who were dissatisfied with the fact that Obama won the nomination

    After Obama won the nomination the Democrats called for party unity and those who were not happy with Obama’s nomination said they would never be in unity with the democratic party and their choice of Obama and started calling themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass).

    After Obama’s nomination, the PUMAs were then joined by other radicals and the collective group evolved (if you can call it that), into the modern day Birthers.

    The funny thing is, most Birthers have no knowledge of their PUMA origins and have instead made up the myth that Hillary started the Birther movement.

  10. avatar
    Krosis July 1, 2015 at 9:37 am #

    I believe the official interpretation of PUMA was People United Means Action.

  11. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 1, 2015 at 9:51 am #

    That was a backronym; they themselves started the name Party Unity My Ass and had to hide its origins to hide their motives.

  12. avatar
    sactosintolerant July 1, 2015 at 10:13 am #

    Bloomberg ran an article a few years ago with the WND-inspired headline “The Democratic Roots of the Birther Movement” that tried to trace birtherism’s lineage to Clinton strategist Mark Penn’s plan to exploit Obama’s otherness.

    Still, it offered no evidence that Clinton’s campaign specifically tried to cast doubt on Obama’s natural born status.

  13. avatar
    Fleagle July 1, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

    MSNBC reported the Hillary Campaign started the movement. Just go to YouTube and look for the video titled “Hillary Clinton starts Birther Movement”. Did they misrepresent the story too?

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2015 at 4:05 pm #

    But that is not what the video actually says. The graphic displayed in the video says:
    “Claims started in 2008 by Clinton Supporters,’ not “Clinton Campaign” as you said. And to be more specific, Politico reporter Ben Smith, said in the interview:

    What it goes back to is the Clinton Campaign, not Clinton herself or her staff, but her supporters.

    In fact, Ben Smith is wrong about it starting with Clinton supporters; there is no evidence for that. Obama born in Africa stories were traced back to a March 1, 2008 post at the Free Republic, and not to a Clinton supporter. Clinton supporters picked it up early on, but gave it up when the Honolulu newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth turned up.

    Fleagle: MSNBC reported the Hillary Campaign started the movement.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2015 at 4:08 pm #

    Fleagle: Just go to YouTube

    Said no one who ever wanted their argument taken seriously.

  16. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 1, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

    A Dishonest Troll said:
    Did they misrepresent the story too?

    Nope. You did. Now, why would you do that?

  17. avatar
    justlw July 1, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

    One a-birther, two a-birther, three a-birther, four
    Four a-birthers make a rally cuz there ain’t much more.
    Overcoming logic the birther-palooza goes
    Comin’ on the nets to have birthery fits, yo

    Making up a mess of woo
    Making up a mess of woo
    Lots of woo for me ’n’ you!

    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la
    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la

    Four a-birther, three a-birther, two a-birther, one
    Birtherism’s drying up like widdle in the sun,
    Flipping like a pancake, sitting like a lump,
    Fleagle, Orly, Zullo and Trump

    Making up a mess of crap
    Making up a mess of crap
    Seriously so much crap

    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la
    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la

    Two a-birther, four a-birther, one a-birther, three
    Trying to pretend they know jack about MRC
    Hey there, ev’rybody, won’t you come along and see
    How much the birthery fits are just lunacy

    Making up a load of dung
    Quite a smelly load of dung
    Really at the bottom rung

    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la
    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la
    Tra la la, la la la la, tra la la, la la la la
    [Fade to January 2017]

  18. avatar
    Joey July 1, 2015 at 5:49 pm #

    justlw: Just ask Obama.And Jack Ryan.(The Chicago Jack Ryan, that is.)

    Amen! 🙂

  19. avatar
    Joey July 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

    The first birther lawsuit was Hollander v McCain and the Republican National Committe, filed on March 14, 2008 alleging McCain was not a natural born citizen. McCain and the RNC got the New Hampshire District Court lawsuit dismissed on grounds of lack of standing.
    That was five months before Berg v Obama filed on August 21, 2008.

  20. avatar
    Fleagle July 2, 2015 at 9:22 am #

    Ok. So Ben Smith misled their listeners on MSNBC. Clinton campaign supporters are a very broad range of people, which can include the staff. This is when the birther movement gained traction. Claims that Obama was not born in the U.S. started with publications in the early 90’s. Furthermore, MIchelle made his origin even more dubious by calling Kenya his home country and making the claim he was “Kenyan”.

    I think an issue should be made of Cruz’s citizenship qualification, no matter how he tries to frame his identity. He won’t get elected anyway due to a range of other conservative positions. But at least he spent the first 18 years of his life on this continent.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2015 at 9:38 am #

    I wouldn’t say that Smith misled, but rather that he was wrong due to inadequate research into a very arcane topic. Because Barack Obama’s father was from Kenya (and has the same name as the President), various publications did say that the then Senator Obama was born in Kenya. Generally corrections were issued both in US and Kenyan news sources. The rest of that is just an overly literal reading of words like “home country” taking to mean “birthplace” instead of “ancestral homeland.”

    What is very important in my estimation is that no one prior to about September 2007, ever “claimed” that Obama was born in Kenya in the sense of using it in a negative way, and no one ever provided a source for such a contention. A news story without a source really doesn’t count.

    The earliest negative assertion that Obama was born in Kenya that I have been able to find is an article by John Ross at the “RED: No al la guerra” blog, where he wrote:

    Barak Obama, who was born in Kenya and attended an Islamic madrassa growing up in Indonesia, is against the war and never voted for it because he was not yet in congress when the vote was taken.

    — September 23, 2007

    That citation, however, seems to have had no traction and was never repeated, and for that reason I don’t credit it with being the origin of the birther movement.

    Fleagle: Ok. So Ben Smith misled their listeners on MSNBC.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2015 at 9:42 am #

    Feel free to make it an issue. Join the small troop of folks who flood with comments every Internet site where the issue gets mentioned. Heck, you could even file a lawsuit (not recommended, but anti-Obama activists filed 226).

    Fleagle: I think an issue should be made of Cruz’s citizenship qualification, no matter how he tries to frame his identity.

  23. avatar
    Loren July 2, 2015 at 11:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What is very important in my estimation is that no one prior to about September 2007, ever “claimed” that Obama was born in Kenya in the sense of using it in a negative way, and no one ever provided a source for such a contention. A news story without a source really doesn’t count.

    Exactly. And furthermore, it wasn’t until 2008 that anyone made the claim that Obama was *actually* born in Kenya while acknowledging that his generally-accepted birthplace was in Hawaii. Earlier claims by John Ross or the like were simply ignorant mistakes of fact (like when Google’s 2012 bio of Herman Cain erroneously said he was born in Atlanta), not claims of a cover-up or of inconsistent narratives by Obama himself.

    Because despite the occasional published error about Obama’s birthplace prior to his Presidential run, published accounts of Obama’s life in the ’90s and early 2000s *repeatedly* stated that he was born in Hawaii. Newspaper articles about him at Harvard, candidate profiles during his 2004 Senate run, his Illinois State Senate bio, etc. “Dreams From My Father” certainly makes no claim of a Kenyan birth. If anyone during that time had been even modestly aware of Obama’s personal history, they would have known that he claimed to be Hawaii-born. But no one prior to 2008 ever said “Obama SAYS he was born in Hawaii, but was he REALLY born in Kenya?”

    No, all that ever happened prior to 2008 was that someone made a mistake (and not even always the same one; remember the news article that said Obama was born in Indonesia?). And that’s because mistakes happen. Heck, if I ran for President and someone went digging through the college newspaper archives, they’d find an article repeatedly, and erroneously, quoting me as “she.” It’s not because I had a sex change; it’s because the student reporter looked at my name and thought that I was a girl, and screwed up the pronouns.

  24. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2015 at 12:01 pm #

    At the very least, Loren’s avatar should be given a Lincolnesque beard.

  25. avatar
    bob July 2, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

    FactCheck now has an article asking, “Was Hillary Clinton the Original ‘Birther’?

  26. avatar
    Kate July 2, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

    Fleagle:
    Ok.So Ben Smith misled their listeners on MSNBC.Clinton campaign supporters are a very broad range of people, which can include the staff.This is when the birther movement gained traction. Claims that Obama was not born in the U.S. started with publications in the

    early 90’s.Furthermore, MIchelle made his origin even more dubious by calling Kenya his home country and making the claim he was “Kenyan”.

    I think an issue should be made of Cruz’s citizenship qualification, no matter how he tries to frame his identity.He won’t get elected

    anyway due to a range of other conservative positions.But at least he spent the first 18 years of his life on this continen

    My great-grandparents were born in Italy on my Mother’s side and in Ireland on my father’s side yet both sets of grandparents referred to themselves as Italian and Irish respectively. My Italian grandmother often referred to Italy as the “old home country” yet nobody ever questioned her patriotism or her having been born in the U.S. My grandparents remembered all too well the heartache their own parents experienced who despite being good, hardworking people were treated as trash despite their children being born here, owning a successful business, buying a home and their own sons fighting for the country they had come to love when we went to war.

    The reason I relay this bit of family history is that I doubt there are many birthers whose own family haven’t experienced a bit of the same in one form or another. This country is too much of a melting pot and not all of us had ancestors who came over on the Mayflower despite the numbers who claim they do. As for your claim of Cruz having spent all his years in the U.S., do you really think that 3 years outside the U.S. had so much of an impact on Barack Obama that it would be a negative influence on the country of his birth?

    For all birthers ridiculous claims about what Vattel meant, they fail to realize that according to the founding fathers, a child could have been born on U.S. soil to citizen parents who returned to Europe, raising their children in the culture and custom of their ancestors, then return to the U.S. and after having lived here for 14 years, could then become President? Seems ridiculous that they would allow this but worry about the influence of a parent who wasn’t yet a citizen when a child was born to the point that they would not allow him to become President! Yet birthers ignorantly cling to their unfounded idea that both parents must be citizens in order to protect any ideas of foreign influence from intruding upon a child as he becomes an adult and possibly President. Please explain that one to us if you can.

  27. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 3, 2015 at 3:37 am #

    Fleagle: Clinton campaign supporters are a very broad range of people, which can include the staff.

    Reminds me of the RW’s flooding Twitter with an image of a Clinton election sticker showing the Confederate flag, yet none of them has yet been able to show it was actually created/distributed by the campaign (and not some of his supporters).
    The typical confirmation bias among them makes them accept that as “fact” because they want to believe it. (Just like with birthers, it’s useless arguing with them that anybody can make those stickers, they just alinsky you with insults.)

  28. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 3, 2015 at 3:49 am #

    Loren: No, all that ever happened prior to 2008 was that someone made a mistake (and not even always the same one; remember the news article that said Obama was born in Indonesia?). And that’s because mistakes happen.

    It’s also typical for confirmation bias that birthers take half a dozen articles saying “Kenya” or “Indonesia” as fact and tens of thousands of articles saying “Hawaii” as lies.

    Loren: Heck, if I ran for President and someone went digging through the college newspaper archives, they’d find an article repeatedly, and erroneously, quoting me as “she.”

    They would find many things about me. I was once issued a passport with the wrong eye colour. On my diploma, they made me 10 years younger (something I didn’t spot until 20 years after getting it). My last name has been mis-spelled so often I lost count (“b” getting changed to “p”, “k” getting changed to “ck”, umlaut getting changed to something else altogether, sometimes all of the above), sometimes my first name gets “i” changed to “y” etc.
    And I don’t even want to know in how many documents my bank mixed me up with my dad (he also got his account there and his first name coincides with my second). There’s 3 wrong transactions I know of and several incidents where I profited from my dad’s good reputation when it was obvious to me they mixed me up with him (not that my reputation isn’t good, but when you try to draw out 20,000 EUR, there’s usually a waiting period but they waived that because the manager who was in another room thought my dad, a client for 40+ years, was sitting outside).

  29. avatar
    donna July 3, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    From 2011: Mike Huckabee says Republicans are wasting “energy and time” time with the “birther” argument about President Obama — because if it was true, Hillary Clinton’s team would have dug it up during the 2008 primary campaign.

    Huckabee made the comments in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” in which he also said he’s “seriously considering making a run for it” in 2012 but that Obama will be tough to beat.

    Asked about the reluctance of some top national Republicans to say they believe Obama is a U.S. citizen in spite of the constant push from “birthers” questioning that fact, Huckabee replied that it was a silly effort, adding, “If there was any shred of truth to it, Hillary Clinton and her wonderful investigative opposition (research) machine would have found it and would have used it …I think is a waste of energy and time.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49918.html#ixzz3ephnzwwd

  30. avatar
    bgansel9 July 3, 2015 at 10:12 am #

    dunstvangeet: In reality, some early birthers (such as Phil Berg) claimed to be Hillary Clinton supporters, but were part of people who called themselves PUMA (Party Unity My A**) and vowed to vote against Barack Obama in order to defeat him after he won the nomination,

    A bunch of the PUMA nuts were right wing trolls.

  31. avatar
    justlw July 3, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

    bgansel9: A bunch of the PUMA nuts were right wing trolls.

    Rush Limbaugh was doing his best to flog the PUMA nonsense in 2008: “Operation Chaos” was the name he gave his big plan to sow discord in the Democratic ranks. Meanwhile, the Democrats, sensing that thanks to Dubya the race was still going to be just too darned easy, nominated a black guy named “Hussein.” Who won. Handily. Got re-elected, too. That had to sting.

    But that April, they of course had them their Tea Party rallies. I went to one near my house, and there was a guy wearing an “Operation Chaos” T-shirt (not being a big Rush listener, this was the first I’d heard of it), which listed its “Mission Objectives” on the back, the last one being “WIN IN NOVEMBER.” I thought, gee, might as well wear a shirt that says “DRINK DEEPLY OF MY SAD, BITTER TEARS.”

  32. avatar
    bgansel9 July 3, 2015 at 3:40 pm #

    justlw: I thought, gee, might as well wear a shirt that says “DRINK DEEPLY OF MY SAD, BITTER TEARS.”

    LMAO That just warms my little heart. Thanks for that laugh justlw.

  33. avatar
    Loren July 3, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

    donna:
    From 2011: Mike Huckabee says Republicans are wasting “energy and time” time with the “birther” argument about President Obama — because if it was true, Hillary Clinton’s team would have dug it up during the 2008 primary campaign.

    One of the earlier long-form articles about the Birther movement, which was published by The Atlantic or some similar online news outlet, cited sources from inside McCain’s camp who acknowledged that when the birth issue first started garnering public attention, folks in McCain’s campaign did what national campaigns always do with opposition research, and they looked into it.

    And as the article noted, they quickly concluded there was absolutely no merit to it, and thus the McCain campaign never made an issue of it either.

  34. avatar
    CRJ July 10, 2015 at 9:01 am #

    That’s because McCain had the same problem.

    “Obama said: “Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.”

    Calling the qualifications in the Constitution for the Office of President “a loophole” is exactly what they had to figure out how to jump through.

    ” The McCaskill Senate bill, “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act”, which she wrote by hand on a notepad after reading the Times article, specified a new part of the definition of “natural born citizen,” which, if the bill had passed, would have included “any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces.”

    Democrats knew McCain wasn’t qualified either but they needed Republicans to get through that loophole Obama was going to need. This is nothing knew, but trying to say there was opposition from “Inside” the D’s or “Outside” from R’s is really sounding like a denial of the facts.

    ” SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by D-McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.
    On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:
    “That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    On April 18, 2008, the New York Times concluded that the eligibility issue could only be resolved by a Constitutional amendment, but confirmed the political fait accompli.

    “Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months,” said D- Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. “We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.”

    Quotes:
    http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-strange-2008-mccain-obama-presidential-eligibility-debate#ixzz3fUbveRcv
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

  35. avatar
    CRJ July 10, 2015 at 9:34 am #

    Hillary Clinton was on record as saying that U.S. Sen Res 511 would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny and or was flimsy to paraphrase her statement.

    I took that as her last stand for integrity before selling out, understanding that though she had gone to bat for McCain in Co- Sponsoring 511, she also understood it was definitely just a signal turning left and not Constitutional as sound as an Amendment that would compromise the Office of the President to foreign influence by opening the door from “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” (which entails two generations) to the diluted state of one generation as understood by Aliens and Nationals naturalization processes of Title 8 and 14th Amend.

    JUSTICE Sotomayer new Hero for Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal in SCOTUS CASE #15A25 (?)

    Can’t believe we haven’t heard of the parades and enthusistic jubilee yet From Doc?

    I think Doc won the bet.. Based on his time line of “June” because the Judy v. Obama 25A15 Case has been ruled on that was Docketed June 29th.

    My loss in the time frame constituted my coming on here and saying,” Doc was right and I was wrong. ”

    I hope this fullfills that bet Doc(?). I just couldn’t quite get that positive affirmation that give ole Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal a green light to raise contribution funds through the Summer.

    I gave it my best shot but admittingly came up short. I admit I’m somewhat hurt that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t back me up with a Amici on this. While she allows Rubio to pick up speed the same way she did Obama she may find the same outcome.

    This has never truly been about me winning. It’s been about getting people who could win to stand up using the Constitution instead of abusing it.

    An Amendment is proper and Civil. The bully tactic is rude and abusive.

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/07/breaking-news-obamas-ineligibility.html?m=1

  36. avatar
    Loren July 10, 2015 at 3:06 pm #

    CRJ: That’s because McCain had the same problem.

    No he didn’t.

    If the rumors had been true and Obama *hadn’t* been born in Hawaii, the value of that to the McCain campaign wasn’t to get Obama tossed off the ballot; the value would’ve been in the scandal of Obama having lied about being born in Hawaii going all the way back to his Harvard days.

    And, to a certain constituency, there’s a big difference between being born the son of a U.S. navy officer on assignment in the Panama Canal Zone, and being born the son of an African exchange student in a third-world nation halfway around the world. Heck, it makes a difference to some people that Obama was born the son of an African exchange student ON U.S. SOIL.

    If you don’t think the McCain campaign could’ve made political hay out of Obama being actually born in Kenya, and then covering that up for 50 years, all that demonstrates is a massive failure of imagination on your part.

  37. avatar
    bovril July 10, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

    CRJ: Hillary Clinton was on record as saying that U.S. Sen Res 511 would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny and or was flimsy to paraphrase her statement.

    And once again, you’re making sh*t up, HC NEVER said anything of the sort and you remain a loser and a convicted domestic terrorist.

  38. avatar
    Rickey July 10, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

    CRJ:
    Hillary Clinton was on record as saying that U.S. Sen Res 511 would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny and or was flimsy to paraphrase her statement.

    On record? Where?

    Please provide a link to her exact words, not your paraphrase.

    JUSTICE Sotomayer new Hero for Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal in SCOTUS CASE #15A25 (?)

    If you’re going to keep mentioning Justice Sotomayor, how about learning how to spell her name?

    I gave it my best shot but admittingly came up short. I admit I’m somewhat hurt that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t back me up with a Amici on this. While she allows Rubio to pick up speed the same way she did Obama she may find the same outcome.

    There is no way that Hillary Clinton would want her name associated with that incoherent, frivolous petition which you filed with SCOTUS.

    Your problem – apart from your inability to write well – is that you haven’t the foggiest notion of how our legal system works. Even if you could prove that Obama is ineligible, you have no damages because you had no chance of being elected president in 2008 and 2012. And no court could rule in your case that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal can’t raise money to run for president, because you failed to make them parties to the lawsuit. Imagine that you are in an auto accident with two other vehicles. You sue one of the drivers but not the other. The case goes to trial and a jury rules that the person you sued was not at fault and that the accident was entirely the fault of the driver you didn’t sue. You can’t then ask the court to order that the at-fault driver pay for your damages, because the at-fault driver isn’t a party to the lawsuit.

    Have you even asked yourself why no one his filed an amicus curiae brief in support of your case?

    “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

  39. avatar
    donna July 10, 2015 at 5:46 pm #

    2008 The McCain campaign did hear of the rumors of Obama’s birth, and — though they were skeptical from the start — checked them out.

    “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States,” Trevor Potter, who served as the general counsel for the McCain campaign, told Weigel. “We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii.”

    Weigel also quotes an unnamed lawyer who was working for the McCain campaign and was asked to look into the legal merits of one of the early Birther lawsuits. “The conversation was along the lines of ‘this is idiotic, but explain to me why,’” that lawyer said. “I looked at whether the lawsuit was going to be dismissed. I said yes.”

    http://www.salon.com/2009/07/24/mccain_birthers/

  40. avatar
    Notorial Dissent July 10, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

    Judy, whatever credibility you had left, always assuming you had any to begin with, which I don’t, just goes right out the window when you make up fake claims and quotes, but then you are good at that, as that has been your stock in trade all along. You are too lazy and intellectually dishonest to actually do any real research or even make the attempt, and then you wonder why people treat you as the joke and laughingstock that you are. The only sensible thing you’ve done recently is piss away your chance to properly file your losing petition for review, at least you’ve saved yourself that money, and any more public humiliation, except you’ll find new and even stupider ways of arriving at the same point.

  41. avatar
    Loren July 11, 2015 at 12:25 am #

    CRJ: Hillary Clinton was on record as saying that U.S. Sen Res 511 would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny and or was flimsy to paraphrase her statement.

    Hold up…do you mean to suggest that Hillary said the Resolution itself wouldn’t satisfy a Constitutional challenge, or that the facts and legal opinions expressed in the Resolution wouldn’t withstand judicial scrutiny? Because those are VERY different things.

    If you mean the resolution itself wouldn’t be considered binding legal authority by a judge, well…and I’m going to speak lawyer here for a second…duh. It’s a non-binding resolution. It has no legal authority BY DEFINITION.

    So if that’s what you’re referring to, Hillary simply acknowledged that a non-binding resolution was, in fact, non-binding and only a resolution. Should we be impressed?

    On the other hand, if you mean to suggest that Hillary said that a court wouldn’t agree with the facts and legal opinions set forth in the resolution…well, I think we’d all be interested in seeing THAT quote. And since you say she’s “on record” saying that, surely you can back that claim up?

    Oh, and just to preempt any attempt to shift the responsibility here, neither I nor anyone else is going to try to find it for you, so please don’t respond with “It’s on the internet, find it yourself.” You see, YOU claimed this quote exists, so the onus is on YOU to establish its existence. I have every reason to doubt she said such a thing at all, I’m not about to go searching for a quote that I doesn’t exist.

    So please, prove my doubts wrong, and share this “record” of Hillary’s.

  42. avatar
    CRJ2016 July 11, 2015 at 3:07 am #

    RECORD OF HILLARY’S -sharing as asked

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2678/text

    http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_ive_crossed_commanderi.html
    HC ““I believe that I’ve done that… and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

    HC ” “There are certain critical issues that voters always look to in a general election. National security experience (and) the qualifications to be commander-in-chief are front and center. They always have been. They always will be,” she said.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/the-front-runner-s-fall/306944/

    [What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.]

    [Clinton was already under attack for an attitude of “inevitability”—the charge being that she imperiously viewed the primary process as a ratifying formality and would not deign to compete for what she felt she was owed]

    [Penn also left no doubt about where he stood on the question of a positive versus negative strategy. He made the rather astonishing suggestion to target Obama’s “lack of American roots”:]

    [On December 1 [2007], Clinton and her husband attended a private dinner with the influential Des Moines Register editorial board. Seated at opposite ends of a long table, they were stunned to hear journalists praise the skill and efficiency of the Obama and Edwards campaigns and question why Clinton’s own operation was so passive .. On the next morning’s staff conference call, Clinton exploded, demanding to know why the campaign wasn’t on the attack.]

    Judy v. McCain https://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2008cv01162/61642

    “Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States,” declares the resolution co-authored by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.
    The sponsors include both Democrats vying to be Mr. McCain’s opponent, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, as well as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
    ” Of course, the authors acknowledge the resolution would have little real influence were the matter of Mr. McCain’s eligibility hanging by a legal thread.”
    http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_028.htm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/politics/18web-hulse.html?pagewanted=print
    [The sponsors include both Democrats vying to be Mr. McCain’s opponent, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, as well as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
    Of course, the authors acknowledge the resolution would have little real influence were the matter of Mr. McCain’s eligibility hanging by a legal thread. ]

    Rickey: Hillary Clinton was on record as saying that U.S. Sen Res 511 would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny and or was flimsy to paraphrase her statement.

    The last two refer to what I was talking about as far as a paraphrase of Clinton about U.S. Sen. Res 511 the quote speaking about all the ‘authors’ that might be considered co-sponsors and their input and feelings.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 11, 2015 at 7:42 am #

    There is nothing in your citation that remotely touches on constitutional validity. It specifically said “influence.”

    CRJ2016: The last two refer to what I was talking about as far as a paraphrase of Clinton about U.S. Sen. Res 511 the quote speaking about all the ‘authors’ that might be considered co-sponsors and their input and feelings.

  44. avatar
    CRJ2016 July 11, 2015 at 11:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is nothing in your citation that remotely touches on constitutional validity. It specifically said “influence.”

    Of course I respect your feelings and input Doc, and attest that upon your definition of ‘Remotely’. Without your ‘feelings’ and ‘insights’ on ‘remotely’, the reason is lost for Constitutional validity and principle you infer.

    The Principle Reason’s for ‘natural born Citizen’ i know you have either refused to recognize, forgot, or diluted as unimportant; as the ‘spirit of the law’ for the ‘letter of the law’ which might /or/ can be used to Compromise the validity of the principle.

    This really sums up the ‘spirit’ of this site for it is impossible to remove the spirit of even the ‘letter of the law’ wished for a change without attributing that to a ‘spirit’ also which upon losing you would fall dead on the ground returning to dust.

    That also devolving from a spirit of source you might deny and celebrate the right to deny as a Constitutional Liberty. (smile)

    The inference of ‘influence’ of course is in the message to the Judicial Body, that was used by the U.S. Senate, but recognized as not ‘Constitutionally Binding’ in its limited influence; the scope of which the Judicial Branch is not under a contract by definition to uphold.

    In other words to be clear – The U.S. Senate recognized by and through its authors of U.S. Sen. Res. 511 that the ‘compromise’ was a ‘thread’ of Constitutional validity and might be cut by a boy scouts knife as easy.

  45. avatar
    Rickey July 11, 2015 at 2:32 pm #

    CRJ2016:

    [The sponsors include both Democrats vying to be Mr. McCain’s opponent, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, as well as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
    Of course, the authors acknowledge the resolution would have little real influence were the matter of Mr. McCain’s eligibility hanging by a legal thread. ]

    The last two refer to what I was talking about as far as a paraphrase of Clinton about U.S. Sen. Res 511 the quote speaking about all the ‘authors’ that might be considered co-sponsors and their input and feelings.

    How could it be a paraphrase of Clinton when the New York Times article doesn’t quote her? The only people who are quoted in the article are Senator Leahy and Senator McCaskill.

    So you just made up your paraphrase. Clinton never said anything which was even remotely similar to your paraphrase.

  46. avatar
    justlw July 11, 2015 at 3:21 pm #

    CRJ:
    Hillary Clinton was on record as saying that U.S. Sen Res 511 would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny and or was flimsy to paraphrase her statement.

    I took that as her last stand for integrity before selling out,understanding that though she had gone to bat for McCain in Co- Sponsoring 511, she also understood it was definitely just a signal turning left and not Constitutional as sound as an Amendment […]

    But your “paraphrase” is a paraphrase of something NYT columnist Carl Hulse wrote, attributing an opinion to “the authors” (plural) of the bill. The authors were Leahy and McCaskill.

    So Hulse’s indirect asessment of Leahy and McCaskill’s opinion of the bill’s influence is actually Clinton on the record?

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 11, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    Compromise between whom on what? I’m not interested in pure speculation.

    CRJ2016: The U.S. Senate recognized by and through its authors of U.S. Sen. Res. 511 that the ‘compromise’ was a ‘thread’ of Constitutional validity and might be cut by a boy scouts knife as easy.

  48. avatar
    Rickey July 11, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Compromise between whom on what? I’m not interested in pure speculation.

    Of course there was no compromise. The Congressional Record shows that there was no opposition to Senate Resolution 511 and it was passed unanimously without amendments, so no compromise was necessary.

  49. avatar
    Whatever4 July 12, 2015 at 6:47 am #

    CRJ2016: Of course I respect your feelings and input Doc, and attest that upon your definition of ‘Remotely’. Without your ‘feelings’ and ‘insights’on ‘remotely’, the reason is lost for Constitutional validity and principle you infer.

    The Principle Reason’s for ‘natural born Citizen’ i know you have either refused to recognize, forgot, or diluted as unimportant; as the ‘spirit of the law’ for the ‘letter of the law’ which might /or/ can be used to Compromise the validity of the principle.

    This really sums up the ‘spirit’ of this site for it is impossible to remove the spirit of even the ‘letter of the law’ wished for a change without attributing that to a ‘spirit’ also which upon losing you would fall dead on the ground returning to dust.

    That also devolving from a spirit of source you might deny and celebrate the right to deny as a Constitutional Liberty. (smile)

    The inference of ‘influence’ of course is in the message to the Judicial Body, that was used by the U.S. Senate, but recognized as not ‘Constitutionally Binding’ in its limited influence; the scope of which the Judicial Branch is not under a contract by definition to uphold.

    In other words to be clear – The U.S. Senate recognized by and through its authors of U.S. Sen. Res. 511 that the ‘compromise’ was a ‘thread’ of Constitutional validity and might be cut by a boy scouts knife as easy.

    Does this make any sense to anyone? Judy’s writing style baffles me.

  50. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 12, 2015 at 8:10 am #

    CRJ2016:
    In other words to be clear –

    You dimwit, that ship sailed a longtime ago.

  51. avatar
    Northland10 July 12, 2015 at 1:07 pm #

    Whatever4: Does this make any sense to anyone? Judy’s writing style baffles me.

    His word salad spinner is running at 10,000 rpm.

  52. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2015 at 1:09 pm #

    Whatever4: Does this make any sense to anyone? Judy’s writing style baffles me.

    I wonder if he speaks that way in conversation.

    He needs a remedial English class. He could start by learning that “principle” and “principal” are spelled differently. Overcoming his propensity to write in gibberish would present a significant challenge to his teacher.

  53. avatar
    Notorial Dissent July 12, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    Reads like vintage Judy to me, clueless and incomprehensible. His ability to actually communicate would seem to be non-existent. Reads just like his pleadings, totally incomprehensible.

  54. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2015 at 4:12 pm #

    bovril: And once again, you’re making sh*t up, HC NEVER said anything of the sort and you remain a loser and a convicted domestic terrorist.

    I don’t recall this coming up before, but sometime in the 1990s Judy’s ex-wife got a protective order which prohibited him from having unsupervised contact with their three children. In 2001, seven months after Judy was paroled, he was arrested for violating the protective order by making contact with his children.

    He claimed that he didn’t know about the protective order, but he parked his car a block from his ex-wife’s house and went to the back gate of the property to get the attention of the children. His ex-wife’s husband saw Judy and told him to leave and then called the police to report the incident.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/846569/Judy-arrested-after-visit-with-children.html?pg=all

    Apparently there also is still an active restraining order against him in favor of the LDS church.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2015 at 6:22 pm #

    Rickey: He claimed that he didn’t know about the protective order, but he parked his car a block from his ex-wife’s house and went to the back gate of the property to get the attention of the children. His ex-wife’s husband saw Judy and told him to leave and then called the police to report the incident.

    Convicted Domestic terrorist and stalker. Wow totally a winner in the birther movement.

  56. avatar
    CRJ2016 July 12, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

    Rickey: He needs a remedial English class. He could start by learning that “principle” and “principal” are spelled differently. Overcoming his propensity to write in gibberish would present a significant challenge to his teacher.

    There is an argument for arguments sake, and you folks demonstrate that perfectly. I have no argument with that pedantic writing style of yours Rickey-Ticky-Tembo. My College Professors understood me quite well. My graduating four year 3.7 GPA would be something you would respect.

    My problem is where ‘time x duties x projects’ meet the road at the same time. and it is true, once in awhile I don’t read what I’m writing 10 times. This of course exposes your lack of apathy, altruism, and pedantic ways to shine. I think someone much more wise once said, and I’ll be paraphrasing again: ‘They see with their eyes, hear with their ears, but still do not understand.’

    It happens.

    Rickey: Apparently there also is still an active restraining order against him in favor of the LDS church.

    Once again, you guys like going back twenty-two and picking things out of an LDS Church Owned Newspaper, when you know it was it was an LDS Prophet I protested. Your quote exemplifies for you indeed the ‘forgiveness of the State’ is greater than the ‘forgiveness of the Church’.

    Problem is , I’m not sure that reputation Mormons’ want? Ricky, you’ll Notice the Tenth Circuit and Utah Division have multiple Mormons serving at the Bench. Don’t you think it at least ‘curious’ the only active articles of me twenty-two years ago are Church Owned newspapers? Is that deeper than your GPA on Researching Skills that you criticized me for at one time?

    You will also Notice this last LDS General Conference as the ‘news’ provided’ they generally have stopped putting people in prison ‘apposing’ the vote as my Case got a little out of hand and I was stomped and beaten so badly by what the SWAT TEAM member told me when he watched it with me, was a true violation of the Rule of 9.

    If you don’t know what that means Research it, but suffice it to say, you nor the public has ‘seen’ what happened Feb 7th, 1993 to me, but it makes Rodney King’s video look playful and could cost the LDS Church Billions. If it wasn’t copyrighted by the Church, shown to the Judge in a criminal Case, and denied to the Defendant as evidence used against him, I’m sure you guys would have had friendships with me 9 years sooner.

    It wouldn’t be if you went and actually READ my book:
    “Taking A Stand – The Conservative Independent voice. ”

    Do you have a book Ricky I can go pick up at Barnes and Nobles to read about you?

    Rickey: I don’t recall this coming up before, but sometime in the 1990s Judy’s ex-wife got a protective order which prohibited him from having unsupervised contact with their three children. In 2001, seven months after Judy was paroled, he was arrested for violating the protective order by making contact with his children.

    This is awesome! How would I not know about something that was Ordered sometime in the 1990’s after the turn of the Century? Of course that answer is in my book you still haven’t read!

    Just so you folks don’t have to go ‘painfully’ read the book, which would be torture for you to get through, I can already attest its above your ‘pay-grade’:

    1- My first X, walked into Court 10 years after our Divorce, (after refusing to let me visit my kids and hiding them against the Court Divorce Orders in California, again the details in the book, its very painful to think of for these children’s sake and Courts now take a stand for Fathers Rights much more now than even then),..So 10 years because she read in the newspaper I was getting out and she had refused to let my children come see me.

    Mind you, two years had passed before I went to prison that she engaged in the same thing God bless her soul, that had a lot to do with her parents so I never held that against her spitefully at all.

    Anyway, she walks into Court gets that ‘Restraining Order in 2000-01. We were divorced in 1990.. very unusual with no contact, no letters of harm, no phone calls of any ugliness. No contact.. How does that even justify a Restraining Order? Well, your all Judges so, I’ll leave that to you to justify.

    Now I never make it out of the half-way House on that parole before being drugged by a Doctor illegally in a violation of ‘informed consent’. The half way House sends me back says we don’t want him. The Doctor flees his practice after being served papers in a law suit.

    I get out again in 2002. Yeah, it takes at least another year to get back to the Parole Board like every time you go back. It makes good on the States’ 50K they get off you.

    I get out first thing I do get a job, make some money, get an attorney and begin the process to get my visitation. That happens. I get two supervised visits first, before the Court eases up. That’s fine, whatever, lets’ get on with it. Well over 3K has been spent on my attorney getting this far after 10 years.

    After the 2nd supervised visit, regular Joint Custody sets in again. The kicker was in 2000, which was 2 years ago, I recall reading on the “Restraining Order” it was six months on the kids and her. I lose the paper in the move back off parole and into the hole again. Legal papers, yes, they disappear.

    So, I’m scheduled for the 3rd visit and they call me and tell me they are out of town. This is on a scheduled week end visit I’m suppose to have by Court Order. It just happened to be my daughter’s birthday, but I pick something up for the boys to so they don’t feel left out.. you know like a white elephant.

    I make the 30 mile drive with my Girl Friend to simply lay the gifts on the door and leave. They are not home remember, they told me they were out of town. I go there, and from the street you can see the back yard. There’s my kids playing in the back yard. Hey, they are home. I’ve been lied to.

    No problem. I motion the boys over. My daughter is out with her Mom. They are not there. I give the gifts to the boys, and hand them my daughter’s birthday gift. I ask the boys, is Scott there step dad home? Yes, he is. Will you go ask him if I can take a leak real quick. Sure.

    He comes out, says “No”. I say “Ok, I thought you were out of Town? No worries I’m leaving just dropping my daughters birthday gift off. C’ya.”, and I leave. Not a cross word said.

    Scott calls my P.O., It appears the Restraining Order, not even really thought about for two years, said 6 months for the kids, indefinite for the X. Even though she wasn’t there when I dropped my gifts off.. with a good job, my P.O. is just salivating when I walk into report Monday Morning. Its his call, he can make exceptions and see the light, but he chooses not to wanting the Reputation of sending CRJ back to the can. Hey, it will always be his story. He got it.

    I get sent back..lose everything again. Lose the kids, job, apartment, truck, everything. It takes me another year to get out on parole again, and the three years starts all over.

    Well, I don’t have the kids to worry about anymore this time. Scott got a new job somewhere in Kansas and the Family plays the same game of hide-n-go-seek that happened for the first ten years. I do not have a clue where she is. Does Utah Courts care? No.

    They are collecting child support and back child support though.

    I’m not sure what’s happened in you guys’ lives, but I can assure you we all go through very difficult times. Of course, my choices were my choices. I accept the fact that I lost big time. You can get vehicles back, you can get money back, but you just can not get ‘Time’ back.

    Those three kids do not want anything to do with me. They haven’t read the book either. And you know, Doc kind of reminds me of my Ex-Father-in-Law. Good guy, accept when it came to my kids. I have never seen my kids again in person. After they turned 18, I figure they are adults. I send them cards over a cell phone line and indirect contacts, just to let them know I’m still thinking about them..still loving them. Dads don’t give up, but after children become adults it has to be a two way road. My record of fighting for them is in Court. That’s all I have for them., but it wasn’t enough.

    They were lied to some, and had the newspapers account like you guys do. Its hard to imagine someone not seeing through the lines understanding there has to be a lot of story missing that the Reporters just didn’t squeeze in. That’s not important to you guys though until its Changed.

    I thought the same thing listening to the Parents who spoke at Donald Trumps Press Conference in Vegas. How the Reporters were blamed for taking half sentences and inflaming the public. Mr. Trump had these parents out there talking about their children being murdered and taken out of their lives by what you folks make light of, “illegal immigrants” choosing to use the windows and side door instead of coming through the front door. Good workers murdering and raping American children.

    The Record of Reporters is they are hard working, but the Crime isn’t kept in the stories. Its notable to understand that often it is the ‘half truth’ that comes out seizes the instance and creates a brand new story that HAS the TRUTH and the POWER to convey emotionally. Obama has burned his ‘fame’ up..he has squandered all he was given in uniting America. The silent majority is going to chew D’s a new one, if they do not get off his dead horse.

    That just the way it is. If Justice has no place among us, folks like Donald Trump are given an opportunity that is paved in the gold they have stashed. I’d hoped “Justice” was enough and that is more valuable than ‘gold’. I still believe it is.

    Yes, you know my Ex-father law didn’t know about the back child support being taken out either and being paid all the while I was missing 14 years of my children s’ life. In a phone call on the way back from New York in 2010 I stopped to say “Hi” and left a card.

    He called me, they have always known where I was, and always had my phone number. We had a conversation. I told him, ‘child support was paid’ as he tried to connect it with visitation’ which should never ever be done by either side at the expense of the children. He didn’t believe it. His daughter and her husband never told him. I told him I’d send the reports to him 10’s of thousands of dollars worth.

    He said something I can hear coming out of Docs mouth. Well, you should have had more money to see to it your visitation was upheld. So its still my fault. Hey, its the argument for argument’s sake that you all are so good at.

    Good on you, whistle your happy tune. Call me any name in the book, but do it knowing the truth.

    Little long, but it is for your benefits.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2015 at 10:39 pm #

    If you have to explain your criminal activity with a novelette it’s more than obvious you know you were guilty.

  58. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

    CRJ2016: I have no argument with that pedantic writing style of yours Rickey-Ticky-Tembo. My College Professors understood me quite well. My graduating four year 3.7 GPA would be something you would respect.

    My problem is where ‘time x duties x projects’ meet the road at the same time. and it is true, once in awhile I don’t read what I’m writing 10 times.This of course exposes your lack of apathy, altruism, and pedantic ways to shine.

    My lack of apathy? Who was your college professor, Norm Crosby?

    I have neither empathy nor sympathy for you. You once terrorized 17,000 people, many of whom feared for their lives because of your actions. And as far as I can tell you have never accepted responsibility for what you did. As one person who was there wrote, “Being held hostage at a large event with thousands of people like that was incredibly frightening.”

    http://allyouhavetodoisask.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-bomb-that-wasnt.html

  59. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2015 at 2:05 am #

    CRJ2016: My problem is where ‘time x duties x projects’ meet the road at the same time. and it is true, once in awhile I don’t read what I’m writing 10 times.

    That is perfectly understandable, everyone has the same problem. All the more reason to be concise. Its simple: say what you mean and then stop.

    CRJ2016: This of course exposes your lack of apathy, altruism, and pedantic ways to shine.

    I expect that “lack of apathy” towards you, is not a weaknesses that many of us here have.

    CRJ2016: Problem is , I’m not sure that reputation Mormons’ want?

    Me either, but then I’m a Zane Grey fan (sort of), so take that for what its worth.

  60. avatar
    Lupin July 13, 2015 at 2:22 am #

    My problem is where ‘time x duties x projects’ meet the road at the same time. and it is true, once in awhile I don’t read what I’m writing 10 times.

    [ETC.]

    Little long, but it is for your benefits.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYMla7qlBsg

  61. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    Wow, thanks for that link! It is an account by a person who was in the arena when Judy ran in with his fake bomb. CRJ actually showed up the comments and posted a link to this video the made in 2011. I have always heard that one can use the Bible to justify about any belief but I have never seen anyone use it to justify threatening to blow up an arena full of 17,000 people.

    I suppose it takes all kinds. The guy is insane.

    Rickey: http://allyouhavetodoisask.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-bomb-that-wasnt.html

  62. avatar
    Rickey July 13, 2015 at 10:37 am #

    Reality Check:
    Wow, thanks for that link! It is an account by a person who was in the arena when Judy ran in with his fake bomb. CRJ actually showed up the comments and posted a link to this video the made in 2011. I have always heard that one can use the Bible to justify about any belief but I have never seen anyone use it to justify threatening to blow up an arena full of 17,000 people.

    I suppose it takes all kinds. The guy is insane.

    I took a look at his self-published book, which can be previewed at Amazon.

    He refers to threatening to blow up 17,000 people as his “BOM threat hijinks” and claims that he was a political prisoner for eight years.

    Elsewhere (p. 21) he refers to his bomb threat as a “childish prank” (never mind that he was 27 years old at the time) and claims that his arrest was a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

    The book is replete with malapropisms, misspelled words, and gibberish. Consider this sentence:

    “I believe the office of the Presidency should be used as an honor and kept such without appeasement to rogue dictators however not forbid to speak with anyone of interest and support of the U.S. Constitution.” (p. 6)

    He also includes copies of e-mails which he sent to Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump in 2008. And the book is 376 pages long!

  63. avatar
    CRJ July 13, 2015 at 4:29 pm #

    Thank you Rickey for at least explaining to folks that it wasn’t a fake “bomb”, but was an actual “Book of Mormon” that those in the LDS Religion abbreviate B.O.M. in their monthly subscription Ensign.

    People who are not Mormons might not know that. That’s why the “videotape” was a very importantant piece of evidence the local news channel(s ) KTVX CH 2 even spent 10K in legal fees to get.

    I know you probably all agree here the testimonies of illegal aliens murdering and raping American children and getting 3-9 months for it is ridiculously a long time and those originally charged with disrupting a meeting and school should serve 9 years.

    It makes perfect sense to Obama and Hillary Clinton too.

    Part II. UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGE -Hillary Clinton’s COMPROMISED- The Trust Issue through Qatar. In a July 12th, 2015 feature by S.V. n’s White Male Voter Problem, gender and race are articulated as challenges to overcome rather than integrity and trust. That’s what, spotlighted on The Drudge Report, entitled Cont.., http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/07/part-ii-understanding-change-hillary.html

  64. avatar
    CRJ July 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

    If you think that Video is good wait till you see this Victims Story! Of course the Video used as evidence in the Case, denide that victim (due to as the Judge cited in Open Court, the fact they didn’t want 20/20 getting a hold of it) is one still held by the Copyright of The First Presidency (LDS CHURCH)

    This video was with held from the public to excuse the LDS Church members who like many police officers who have beaten victims unconscience we have seen, wanted to exempt themselves from civil prosecution. The Church copyright did exactly that.

    Funny how no one here has made a single comment about the Union of Church and State so obviously explained. I suppose that is none of your concern?

    1- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YxkUjKnvoXc

    2- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUMFLTpypno

    3-
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/fight-over-forgiveness-lds-church.html?m=1

  65. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 13, 2015 at 7:50 pm #

    CRJ: If you think that Video is good wait till you see this Victims Story! Of course the Video used as evidence in the Case, denide that victim (due to as the Judge cited in Open Court, the fact they didn’t want 20/20 getting a hold of it) is one still held by the Copyright of The First Presidency (LDS CHURCH)

    No one cares. What’s it like to be a convicted domestic terrorist who isn’t allowed to see his own family? Must be hard having no one take you seriously anywhere cody. So much so that you have to photoshop yourself to make you seem heroic when you’re nothing but a cowardly turd.

  66. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

    Was there supposed to be coherent statement in that stream pf gibberish?

    CRJ:
    If you think that Video is good wait till you see this Victims Story!

  67. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 14, 2015 at 4:04 am #

    Reality Check: Was there supposed to be coherent statement in that stream pf gibberish?

    Most of CRJ’s posts wouldn’t even pass the Turing test.