Main Menu

Archive | November, 2015

Obama’s conversion to Islam

It’s done with Photoshop

Here’s the first image I came across. It shows Obama holding a sign saying “Islam will dominate the world.”

Fake photo of Barack Obama holding pro-Islam sigh

It’s an obvious paste-up job. Note that the light comes from the left on the hands, but from the right on the face. Obama’s head has a white seam around it too. The facial image seems to be higher resolution than the hands.

Here’s the original.

Man holding pro-Islam sign

The next one has a bit better quality.

Photo of Obama dresses as Osama Bin Laden

But it is obviously derived with a little help from an original photo of Osama Bin Laden and a computer paint program.

photo of Osama bin Laden used to make fake Obama image

So that is how one converts Obama to Islam.

Running dogs

When I was a teenager my hobby was listening to shortwave radio. Some listeners collect postcards from radio stations they hear, called QSL cards. The listener would send the station a report of how good the reception was, and the station would acknowledge with a card.

One of my catches was Radio Peking (as it was known in those days) and they sent me a card. Only the card was not the only thing they sent. They sent me a Radio Peking calendar, a copy of Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book,” and some pamphlets full of Chinese Communist propaganda. (Mom thought the FBI might come to see me.)


I wasn’t impressed by the propaganda—it was pretty naive stuff—but one thing stuck with me, the phrase “running dogs.” The Wikipedia defines it as:

… lackey or lapdog, an unprincipled person who helps or flatters other, more powerful and often evil people. It is derived from the eagerness with which a dog will respond when called by its owner, even for mere scraps.

Carl Gallups photoChief among the birther running dogs is Carl Gallups, who cherishes every phone call, every word from Mike Zullo, basking in the reflected light of the “official law enforcement investigation, and validating his importance through the scraps of “information” shared with him. Gallups was a bit more contrite on his last Freedom Friday show, admitting that he only knew a small part of the Cold Case Posse investigation. This after a possible rebuke from Mike Zullo, told to Sharon Rondeau, “The only people who are going to know what transpired as far as this certificate is concerned is going to be me and Montgomery. Nobody else can speak to this, and they shouldn’t.”

From older comments at Birther Report, it appears that Zullo had his own pack of running dogs, but not so many nowadays. While not so public in his activities, Mike Zullo could have been considered the running dog of Sheriff Joe Arpaio (or perhaps minion is the better term for Zullo). Zullo says now, “I feel like I’m in limbo. I’ve basically been abandoned.”

If birthers knew the term, I’m sure that they would be quick to apply it to their opponents, but in fact I pay relatively little attention to President Obama. He doesn’t even give me scraps.

Ted Cruz defends his eligibility to be president

Confronts head on claims he’s not a natural born citizen

imageThe New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission will consider arguments today from petitioners seeking to prevent Cruz from appearing on the state’s Republican Primary Ballot.1 Two petitioners, Carmon Elliott and Chris Booth, challenge his eligibility based on the fact that Cruz was born in Canada, and their interpretation of the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the US Constitution’s list of requirements to become president. Ted Cruz responds through his attorney, arguing that he is eligible.

The Elliott Challenge

In the challenge filed, Carmon Elliott reports an intervention in Federal Court in 2008, challenging the candidacy of Senator John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone. Elliott argues that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become president because he was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, in Canada. Citing the Black Law Dictionary (9th ed) Elliott defines “natural born citizen” as “a person born within the jurisdiction of a natural government.” In addition Elliott cites Rogers v. Bellei and Perkins v. Elg noting that under the Constitution, foreign-born US citizens at birth do not stand under the same footing as the native born. Also appearing are Lynch v. Clarke, Shanks v. Dupont, The Venus, Dred Scott v Sandford, US v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett. Emmerich de Vattel and The Law of Nations gets a shout out too. The argument largely focuses on the distinction between the two sources of citizenship: birth and naturalization, arguing that Cruz must be a naturalized US Citizen. Elliott concludes by citing from an essay at The Free Republic:

So those born outside the United States to parents who are US citizens at the time of the person’s birth are both native citizens and also naturalized citizens, since their citizenship is a) granted to them by an Act of Congress, and b) effective from the instant of their birth, based on the fact that the person’s parents were US citizens at that moment.

The Booth Challenge

The Challenge of Christopher Booth covers some of the same ground as Elliott, citing the same Free Republic essay, but also cites a definition of natural-born citizen from a web site, The Federalist Blog, which is not an authority and expresses ideas that I have disagreed with in the past. He cites the more authoritative St. George Tucker who wrote that those naturalized according to acts of Congress are “incapable of being chosen to the office of president….”2  He cites the familiar speech of James Madison before Congress where he says that place of birth is what matters for Citizenship in the United States.

Neither challenger argues that a US President must have two citizen parents.

The Cruz Response

imageIt seems likely to this writer that the weighty arguments of the two challengers will not amount to much because Cruz attorney Bryan K. Gould, who will appear before the Commission today to defend Cruz’s eligibility, argues rather convincingly that the Ballot Law Commission does not have any discretion in the matter, and that as a matter of law, Cruz must appear on the ballot because the New Hampshire Secretary of State has already ruled that is a “regular” candidate.

In the Cruz response, attorney Gould follows his argument that the law requires Cruz to be on the ballot and that the challengers lack standing, with a head-on rebuttal of the arguments of the challengers that foreign-born persons like Cruz cannot become president. Gould begins:

The Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase “natural born Citizen.” But its meaning is not difficult to determine, evidenced by the fact that every single reliable authority is in agreement on what it means: a “natural born Citizen” is anyone who was a citizen at the moment they were “born”—as opposed to becoming a citizen later, through the naturalization process at some point after their birth.

Gould, rather than beginning with court decisions, cites various authorities. He cites the Naturalization of 1790 which calls the foreign-born children of US fathers “natural born citizens,” and cites authority for considering the acts of the First Congress significant in the interpretation of the Constitution. He also cites Robinson v. Bowen that found it “highly probable … that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen” due to his birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent. He also cites Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana. George Romney eligibility material appears, and Jack Maskell’s report for the Congressional Research Service is cited as authority.

If I had to summarize Gould’s approach, it is an appeal to modern authority and their interpretation of the historical sources. It does not attempt to argue from the historical sources themselves, except for the 1790 Act.

My prediction: Cruz wins on a dismissal.


All candidates allowed on the ballot.

1In addition to the two challenges discussed in this article to the eligibility of Senator Cruz, there are also challenges to Sanders from Andy Martin, and challenges against Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Santorum by Robert C Laity.  News reports say that Martin has challenged Ted Cruz as well, but I found no indication of such a complaint from Martin at the Ballot Law Commission web site.

Documents for these include:

2Mario Apuzzo used the same citation at John Woodman’s blog. The lengthy footnote from which the St. George Tucker quote comes deals exclusively with individuals who naturalize after birth, and there is nothing in the footnote that suggests that it was also intended to apply to persons who become citizens at birth.

Conspiracy v. accident

Things are going along just fine and then there is a crisis, a financial bubble bursts, unemployment surges, terrorists blow up something. We live in a world saturated with information and events, and it is only natural to try to make sense of them. One writer on conspiracy theories described them as a “poor man’s sociology,” an unscientific attempt to explain things.

The two large competing popular views of why events bad happen are that events are the result of an unseen malevolent hand engaged in a conspiracy, and the other is that things are more or less accidents and screw-ups (the Forrest Gump “**IT” happens view). Neither view is correct, a priori. Indeed both could be called a poor man’s sociology (or whatever scientific discipline one wants to apply). I do no agree that there are only these two alternatives. I believe that there are predictable natural processes too.

While there is serious debunking of the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, and the 9/11 Twin Towers controlled demolition theory, much of what appears for debunking is begging question by saying things like, “the government can’t keep a secret,” or to attack the sanity of the one presenting the theory. I prefer to limit my own application of ridicule to conspiracy theories to the really silly ones, like the guy who says that teen aged Obama teleported to a base on Mars.

Certainly in the Obama Conspiracy debunking process, we do invoke accident, such things as part of a date missing from a selective service registration, or a publicist client brochure saying Obama was born in Kenya. But invocation of an accident is not enough. It should be argued that the accident is plausible: in the case of the date stamp finding other date stamps with parts missing, and in the case of the brochure obtaining the testimony of the one who wrote it. Birthers say that the oddities in Obama’s story are so numerous as to be implausible as accidents; however, much of what birthers include in that list of oddities turn out not to be odd. One must also take into account  that massive amounts of material were sifted to come up with that list.

One of my preferred techniques is to find internal inconsistencies in the conspiracist narrative.  An example is a birther narrative that explains artifacts in Obama’s birth certificate PDF to an inept forger, while at the same time the birther narrative says Obama was out into office by the CIA who has some of the best forgers in the world. Another basic technique is to demonstrate that birther premises are false, such as their premise that no one used the phrase African American in 1961 or there was a travel ban to Pakistan in place for Americans in 1981 when Obama traveled there. Contemporary government documents blow apart both those stories.

Finally, I expect someone putting forward a conspiracy theory to offer some tangible evidence beyond a coincidence. Birthers tried that with Obama’s birth certificate, but that all fell apart under close scrutiny. If that evidence is testimony, then I expect some explanation of how the witness knows what he claims (this is where the Tim Adams story fell down), or if it is expert testimony, then I expect the witness to be an actual expert.

Insofar as Obama birthplace conspiracy theories, I think the skeptics have done a solid debunking job, and have not relied simply on skepticism and ridicule.

Dr. Deb: Hacked and tapped

I was asked the question whether the Dr. Deb (drdebdrdeb) commenter at Birther Report had accused me of hacking her email account. (I certainly didn’t hack it, and I have no reason to think anyone else did.) Dr. Deb didn’t say that I hacked her, but she did say that “Soros and tax funded Obots” hacked her and have tapped her phone and are taping her calls. Dr. Deb sees a vast conspiracy of Soros and the Obama administration that includes hacking and even murder. She says that Linda Jordan, Orly Taitz, Doug Vogt, Mike Volin, Martha Trowbridge, Joe Arpaio and Mike Zullo have had their computers hacked too and are in danger of losing their very lives.

Looking at comments at Birther Report, I find a community that will believe almost anything about alleged government misconduct. The word that comes to my mind is “traumatized” to describe their reaction to a continual onslaught of fear-laced stories about a regime that is out to get decent people. They are too traumatized to think rationally and critically about the stories they comment on. For them, government hacking of their email accounts is one of the milder points on their paranoid landscape.

The Dr. Deb hacking comment collection

November 17, 2015, posting as boomerbabe (this one looks like fallout from the Melendres contempt trial)

Look at this from the perspective of the typical American.
Granted, they already know that the Feds have all of their information.
But just imagine the revolt that will occur when they discover that the Feds hacked their emails, their online banking information and their credit cards.
Brennan and Clapper along with Barry altered Barry’s birth certificate and the witness was murdered the evening before he was to testify.
Most folks do not know that Muslims have infiltrated our government at high levels.
It is already starting to drip drip. Just check out Drudge and The Conservative Tree house.

November 14, 2015, posting as boomerbabe

Am I the only one who no longer posts here as a result of the hacking by the Soros and fed tax funded Obots?
BR, we are appreciative of all you do and we all miss posting here (and I speak for many birthers).
We hope you shall ban these haters of the free enterprise system and our stolen freedoms.

October 28, 2015, posting as boomerbabe

Nice Visualization, WTT,
For the present, it would be nice if the regime stopped hacking citizen’s email accounts and tapping their phone conversations.
You aren’t the only one who thinks Barry Soetoro is the Antichrist.
He sure acts like he is The One!
I find it fascinating how Biblical prophecy appears to be playing out.

April 13, 2015 (posting as drdebdrdeb in all following)

Glad you mentioned that about Google. What Barry accomplished via “net neutrality” NOT affects our freedom of speech.Look at what his minions did to Sheryll Atkinson1 (sic)! They hacked her computer and inserted propaganda in an attempt to frame her. They also bugged Rosen’s phone as well as the phone of his parents. This is a corrupt Chicago murderous thuggery administration. Everything Bari et al does is political.
I forgot to include that in my response to the Rat, Kitty. Thanks for the reminder.

BR commenters seem to be already to play the hack card. On November 5, 2015 BornTexas said:

Very weird. My post that you replied to is gone. So are several more.
Says site administrator is reviewing for approval. Draw your own conclusions.
Or, did someone hack the site or ID?

And Deb replied:

It happened to me also. It never happened before except when I attempted to post via TOR. Has BR been hacked?


Father Time,
I attempted to reply to you again. This time the message I received was:
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
I fear that this site has been hacked or taken over.

April 16, 2014

Hey Scott,
I just checked and saw something dated today. She has been hacked [] by Google. I was able to view the site on Mozilla Firefox.

I am concerned about government surveillance too, and I know that the NSA did collect telecommunications metadata, probably mine along with everybody else’s, and that the USA Patriot Act allows things that I wouldn’t agree with. Still, Dr. Deb, based on her online persona, doesn’t appear to be a threat to anybody, and certainly not the Obama administration. It looks to me like she he just acting paranoid.

1Sharyl Attkisson was a CBS News reporter who claims that her personal and work computers were compromised by some unauthorized access. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General did a forensic analysis of her iMac computer, and concluded that there was no evidence of unauthorized access to her computer. Attkisson and CBS News refused to provide to the DOJ what they claimed were independent forensic reports showing unauthorized access and alteration of file stamps on logs. The video showing characters disappearing on her computer screen was likely a stuck backspace key. There was no allegation that anything had been “inserted” into it to get her into trouble.

What would you expect from a birther?

Trump’s reign of error

The Donald has been in the news recently because he has said some things that weren’t true. One was that thousands of Muslims in Jersey City were in the streets cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Another was a Tweet of bogus statistics on race and crime. Trump has made so many crazy remarks that it’s hard to keep track of them—everything from tax rates, the economic benefits of fracking in Ohio, the number of women and children among Syrian refugees, Hillary Clinton as birther, unemployment numbers and on and on.

Cheering Muslims on TV?

He didn’t just make that stuff up. Such stories circulate on the Internet. Even the right-wing propaganda news site Breitbart News has debunked the Jersey City celebration story but debunking doesn’t erase the Internet. As for Trump, he doesn’t admit mistakes, rather doubling down telling George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, “It was on television. I saw it.”

Black on white crime ?

The race tweet has a citation to the “Crime Statistics Bureau – San Francisco.”


The statistics are completely bogus, for example 82% of murders of white persons were committed by white persons, not black. The “Crime Statistics Bureau” appears not to actually exist. The image of the gun-toting masked man in the bogus statistics image comes from a YouTube music video (that may be in Arabic—not sure):



Twitter was the source of the image Trump Tweeted, according to blogger Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs passed on from a guy with a modified swastika for his avatar.


Social Media

I see junk like this all the time on social media (especially Facebook). Trump himself seems to be trending downward on Facebook:



It is disturbing is that a prominent public figure running for president of the United States cannot be bothered to check his facts, even though he can easily have people check them for him. A president has advisors, but Trump seems to think he needn’t consult his before smearing large groups of people.

But remember, Donald Trump is a birther. What would you expect from a birther?

Read more: