Main Menu

Archive | Congress

Birther meets government

There seems to be a small cluster of instances of birthers meeting with the government going on. One is Tom Arnold who reports his meeting with the FBI in Las Vegas where he presented them with a Sheriff’s Kit. The story is recounted at Gerbil Report™. Arnold (who says that he is a retired law enforcement officer) alleged that Obama stole someone’s social-security number, forged his own birth certificate, unlawfully back-dated his “draft card” and engaged in election fraud. Following the visit, Arnold (newly added as number 357 to the list of Birthers from A to Z) discloses the shocking result:

I never heard from anybody

Wow Tom, you’re lucky not to be in a FEMA camp after a stunt like that! And to further tempt fate, he called in the same stuff to the FBI in Virginia.

Orly Taitz has been spending some time with her “barf bag”1 recently, but in­between retches was able to get out an article about “civil rights leader”2 Neil B. Turner’s upcoming attempt to present a letter to Darrell Issa at a “Citizen Lobby” visit with the congressman today. Turner says:

I will be presenting a Letter to Mr. Issa that will be included in an ‘information packet’ for him.

image(Please, oh please, let it be a Sheriff’s Kit.) Turner asks the Congressman Issa point blank in the letter why he voted to approve the Electoral College vote counts for “usurper” Obama. Was it because:

  1. a) You have been threatened with the loss of your life?, or
  2. b) You have been threatened with the loss of your loved ones’ lives?, or
  3. c) Something else?

Your personal response of A, B, or C is required.

Not “a, b, or c” or perhaps “1, 2 or 3”?

Turner has a history of writing up demands, such as this letter to the FBI from December of 2012, also sent to the US Attorney for the Southern District of California.

Meanwhile, Sharon Rondeau contacted the media representatives of Rep. Jim Jordan, Senator Mike Lee, and Rep. Louie Gohmert, to ask some rather pointed questions about the new administration policy regarding Cuba. In her lengthy article reprinted at Gerbil Report™, Rondeau talks mostly about Hitler and says in the letter, “Is Obama doing the same thing that Hitler did with the Reichstag in 1933?” While the letter is about Cuba relations and immigration, it closes with the obligatory:

Is it time to investigate Obama’s fraudulent credentials and find out who he really is and why he is taking the actions that he is?

Take heart, birthers, there will be more sunshine in the days to come.

Read more:


1The last time I needed a barf bag was crossing Lake Ladoga in a storm. Taitz is barfing over Obama as usual.

2As far as I was able to find, this is the only time Neil Turner was ever called a “civil rights leader.”

Congressman questions IRS Commissioner about Obama’s birth certificate

Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas questions IRS Commissioner John Koskinen about the lost Lois Lerner emails and other things:

Doggett: I believe that there has been a long-term commitment to hamstring, to encumber, to underfund the Internal Revenue Service, and discredit it, and the whole concept of progressive taxation in this country. Now let me ask you, to the seriousness of this investigation, and sir, have you ever been in Benghazi?

Koskinen: No.

Doggett: Do you know if you or Ms. Lerner have ever had any responsibility for anything having to do with Benghazi and our embassy there?

Koskinen: No.

Doggett: How about Area 51 out in Roswell, New Mexico, where all those space aliens allegedly came. Have you ever had any responsibility for that?

Koskinen: No.

Doggett: Have you ever had custody of the President’s birth certificate?

Koskinen: No.

Doggett: Well, Commissioner, I believe one of the mistakes you’ve made in dealing with the Committee today is that you did assume professionally this was a serious inquiry. I believe it is an endless conspiracy theory that’s involved here that is being exploited solely for political purposes. I don’t approve of Ms. Lerner. I don’t approve of the way the IRS handled all these matters. But I think there is a much larger cover-up issue here. And it is the desire of our Republican colleagues cover up these purported social welfare organizations that don’t want to disclose the secret corporate campaign contributions that they rely on to pollute our democracy.

H/t to Birther Report.

Confidence v. No Confidence

It looks like we’re on the “confidence” theme this week. I admit that I came down pretty hard on Paul Vallely in my article, “Former general confuses US with UK,”  mocking his call for a vote of “no confidence” on President Obama in the House of Representatives. Granted, I correctly noted that such a vote has no legal significance, but I did not fairly label it what it really is, a political ploy. (The idea that a vote by a majority of the Republican-controlled House would result in an Obama resignation is  ludicrous.) In this country, the political party in power governs, and the opposition tries to get them out. And those out of power in Washington today use every trick they can to make the Obama Administration look bad, and this “vote of no confidence” scheme should be viewed as what it is, politics.

One of the reasons that I wanted to back off a little on the current “no confidence” move is that it is not just something that right-wing nut jobs cooked up in their anti-Obama program. The other side tried the same gambit when it was the Bush administration in power. Turn the clock back to May of 2007 and read this from Think Progress:

Last week, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) called on the Senate to hold a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The White House and its conservative allies quickly derided the vote, calling it “nothing more than a meaningless political act.” This morning on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called it a “gotcha game.”

So what happened with that move? A resolution of no confidence was introduced, but even though  53 Senators voted to debate the issue (38 opposed), it fell shy of the 60-vote supermajority necessary to fend off a Republican filibuster. Although the “no confidence” vote was not held, Gonzalez did resign (for more on this controversial figure, check out the Wikipedia).

Folks like me on the Internet try to get good information, but we don’t govern the country, or try legal cases. If I make a mistake, the only consequence is a little hit on my credibility. When it comes to members of Congress, they have to make real decisions that affect real people, and their standard of correctness must needs be far higher than mine. When Congress needs a legal opinion, they may seek guidance from the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress, and that’s exactly what some did in 2007 regarding the “no confidence” question, resulting in the production of this report: “No Confidence” Votes and Other Forms of Congressional Censure of Public Officials from June of 2007.

The report concludes (in part):

Aside from obvious symbolic, political or publicity implications, there are no specific legal consequences in the passage of such a resolution, nor is there any legal significance or consequence for the Senate or the House to choose one phrase of disapprobation or condemnation over another, or to include or not to include the concept or expression of a loss of “confidence” in an official.

The report is of particular interest in its tabulation of historical resolutions of this type, going back to 1973.

“Complicity” doesn’t mean what you think it does, and other birther misapplications of the English language

lunaticSometimes I wish the birthers could hear themselves the way others do.1 I’m sure it would be a shock. 😯 Here’s a little bit of transcript from the Mike Volin “Where’s Obama’s Birth Certificate” Internet radio show yesterday talking about the delivery of his Sheriff’s Kit to members of Congress.

Caller: Hey Mike, I just wanted to mention that if we send these kits to like the TV stations, the news outlets, the papers and any other senators or congressmen, we should send them “certified” or “registered.” That way they actually have to sign for them. They actually have someone there, has to sign and acknowledge that they got the kit.

… doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of this – when it comes down, because anybody that is on  the wrong side and has notification of the evidence in hand are complicit with this crime, and that is one of the things that we need to keep these  congressmen and senators on their toes.  “You’re complicit with the crime that you have been made aware of.”

Some words don’t mean what birthers think they mean, and “complicity” may be one of them. Knowing about the commission of a crime and not reporting it is complicity. Where I think the first caller is mistaken, is in confusing complicity with being an accessory to the crime. Generally complicity is not itself a crime without significant subsequent involvement. Let me list some problems with calling anything here “complicity”:

  1. The Sheriff’s Kit never specifies exactly what the crime is. Even if the birth certificate is a fake, putting a fake document on the Internet is not a crime, and every President lies (well maybe not Jimmy Carter which was one of his problems). The birth certificate was never submitted to anyone as a legal document or used in candidate filings. Lying on TV is not fraud.
  2. Even if we did say that Obama’s selective service registration was forged, it happened more than 5 years ago and the statute of limitations has run out.
  3. Even if we did say that Obama’s birth certificate was forged, the Sheriff’s Kit doesn’t say who did it, when or where.
  4. Reading the Sheriff’s Kit does not give a member of Congress any personal knowledge of the commission of a crime. Indeed the compilers of the Sheriff’s Kit have no knowledge of the commission of a crime, only conclusions. The presentation is a narrative of arriving at conclusions, not evidence of a crime.
  5. Complicity implies failure to report a crime. The Sheriff’s Kit is public information, and law enforcement is already aware of it. The birthers actually think that the information they are plying on Congress actually came from law enforcement in the first place! There is noting left to report.
  6. The birthers want people to do something about a crime (whatever it is), but failure to do so is not complicity. TV stations, news outlets and papers have no legal duty to do something about a crime they are aware of—that’s not complicity.
  7. Congress has no role in prosecuting crimes. They can remove someone from office through impeachment, but not prosecute them for a crime. The decision to impeach or not is wholly up to the members of Congress and the failure to do so is not complicity.

Continue Reading →

Has Zullo shown the Reed Hayes report to anyone in Congress?

One of the many hidden mysteries surrounding Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse is the Reed Hayes report. Hayes, a handwriting expert, reportedly produced a report (sometimes labeled an “affidavit”) for Mike Zullo (not for the Cold Case Posse) that concludes that Obama’s birth certificate is a “100% forgery.”

The question of why the Hayes report remains a secret looms. To my way of thinking, the most likely reason is that Zullo, who seems to claim ownership of the report, is planning to include it in a book for sale. Zullo, however, is not saying that, so let’s assume for the sake of discussion that he has some motive other than financial gain, some motive that goes towards his goal of discrediting Obama’s personal story.

Given that the whole Cold Case Posse case against Obama stands or falls on the basic premise that the President’s birth certificate (White House PDF image) is a computer-generated forgery, and that premise is all but gone now that it has been found that what they call marks of forgery are artifacts of a common Xerox office machine that the White House owns, it would seem a matter of the utmost urgency that they get some new evidence out there. It hasn’t happened.

One of the big embarrassments for Mike Zullo was his presentation to Congressman Woodall. Woodall was unimpressed by the lengthy argument. The recording of that conversation, now scrubbed, did not mention anything about the Hayes Report, nor of any of the secret evidence that is supposed to be so convincing. So my question is: has Zullo shown the Reed Hayes Report to any member of Congress, and if not, why not?

Orly Taitz should read the Constitution

I don’t know how Orly Taitz passed the citizenship test, much less the bar exam, given her complete ignorance of the Constitution. Yesterday Taitz wrote:

Obama was running deficit  that is 3 times higher than the deficit that was incurred by Bush.

What’s wrong with this picture? Whether the number is right or wrong (I didn’t look it up), all federal spending is authorized by Congress. The President signs spending bills, but he doesn’t write them (he doesn’t write the ones that get passed).

Taitz goes on to say:

So in spite of additional 650 billion that he took from us in taxes this year, he managed to incur the same 1.2 trillion debt in 2013.

In fact, all revenue bills must begin in the House of Representatives, currently controlled by the Republican Party.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

— US Constitution, Article I, Section 7.

The lack of factual content makes the Orly Taitz blog less than worthless.