Navigation

Help us Mitt Romney; you’re our only hope

By on June 8, 2013 in Lawsuits

This article is in my “only hope” series:

Yes, once again a birther puts forward a vain hope to dislodge the President through legal action, this time in the person of Montgomery Blair Sibley. The occasion is the rejection of his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in his case Sibley v. Obama. The Court declined to delve into the matter Sibley raised, saying as so many courts before have said (going all the way back to Phil Berg’s 2008 case), the birther lacks standing, and in this case: Sibley’s “‘self declaration as a write-in candidate’ does not confer Article III standing….”

The inference drawn by Sibley is that Mitt Romney, who was in every sense a real candidate with a specific personal stake in the outcome of the 2012 election, does have standing. So Sibley has issued a public letter to Mitt Romney (which saves him the 46 cents for a postage stamp I guess), putting forward various conspiracy theories about Barack Obama, saying that the federal judiciary has failed in their duty, and asking for a 30 minute interview with Romney in which to present his case. (I thought folks were only allotted 15 minutes of fame.)

There are several problems with Sibley’s scenario. Individual harm from the outcome of the election does not alone confer standing on a candidate; a further requirement is that the court have the power to redress the alleged wrong and no court has the power to remove the President; only the Congress may do that. Romney has more sense than to get involved with birther nuttery anyway and finally, Obama is eligible in the first place, something that is well established, fully certified, and plainly obvious to everyone except the birthers.

21

Is Obama reading your emails?

By on June 7, 2013 in Misc. Conspiracies

Unlike the typical rhetorical article title, the answer to this one may be “yes.” Given that much of what happens in government anti-terrorism activity is secret, and a secret court can order surveillance, it’s hard to know what is and is not going on. The Bush Administration did things that were probably illegal, but the Obama Administration is at least claiming that there is legislation allowing them to do what they do. According to news reports, a significant portion of the intelligence briefing that the President receives comes from intercepted electronic communications. The Washington Post reports:

President Obama strongly defended the government’s secret surveillance of people’s phone records and Internet activities Friday, saying there are “a whole bunch of safeguards involved” and that Congress has repeatedly authorized the programs. …

Obama spoke at length about the need to find a proper balance between national security prerogatives and civil liberties.

It’s a little disconcerting when The Guardian, a UK newspaper, carries a story from a senior intelligence analyst, a whistleblower, saying that the US government taps into major Internet service providers (described as “partners”) in leaked documents, and the service providers say that they don’t know anything about it. Somebody is wrong there and I don’t know where the story will go.

What I do know is that some of the most brutal and repressive regimes in history have used secret courts, and of all the things related to this issue, that bothers me the most.

The question came to my mind, is it possible to encrypt communications so that the NSA can’t read it, and of course the answer is yes, although the methods may not be practical for general email messages.

Read more:

98

Moore brief in McInnish case

By on June 5, 2013 in Lawsuits

I must say that the McInnish v. Chapman lawsuit is a magnet for nutty birther theories. We had the Larry Klayman complaint, followed with the amicus brief from Lucas Daniel Smith (who brought the subject of this article to my attention – and no, I have never tried to access your computer), then the USJF brief, and now someone named Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. has submitted his own amicus brief.

If one sang the Sesame Street song: “one of these briefs is not like the other,”  this one might be the odd one (but then again maybe they all are). It is like the others in that it seems to ignore what the question before the Alabama Supreme Court is. They’re not deciding whether Obama is eligible to be President or not; they’re deciding whether the lower court correctly dismissed the case, a dismissal not based on Obama’s eligibility. Still the Moore brief is a bit out there, even by birther standards.

It has the usual old birther stuff: Fukino said “records” instead of “record,” Indonesian adoption and Barack Obama Sr. is not really the President’s father. But it also has a narrative structure that I have come to associate with a former commenter here, Sven Magnussen (and his host of sock puppets). Here’s a bit:

Obama was a naturalized citizen of Indonesia around 1968, when American Secretary of State Dean Rusk issued a certificate of loss of nationality to facilitate the Indonesian naturalization. In 1971, Obama was returned to the United States unaccompanied on his Indonesian passport. The Department of State referred him to Catholic Charities of Connecticut, under a contractual arrangement. Catholic Charities had Madelyn Lee Payne Dunham appointed guardian. In 1977 Obama started using the Social Security number of a deceased American citizen to avoid applying for one on the basis of his American citizenship….

Then it lapses into the April Fool story of Obama attending Columbia University under the name of Barry Soetoro with a foreign student scholarship. Oh, and he wants a DNA sample.

Of course this is pure fantasy. Its logic (if you can call it that) says that Obama had to use someone else’s social-security number because he wasn’t a citizen—only you don’t have to be a citizen to get a social-security number, only a legal resident. And of course Columbia University lists Barack Obama, not Barry Soetoro as a graduate.

I don’t know. Maybe this brief was submitted to make the birthers look crazy. Either way, the McInnish appeal is pretty much a publicity stunt all around.

Read more:

Update:

This is more than just reminiscent of Sven Magnussen, it is the same. I found substantially the same text on Sven’s blog.

Retreat

By on June 4, 2013 in Birthers, Mike Zullo, Orly Taitz

This is purely anecdotal, but I’m seeing a retreat among the birthers. In the old days, birthers said Obama was born in Kenya and then gave a bunch of “reasons.” Now whenever someone wants to say something bad about Obama, they feel the need to begin by the disclaimer: “I’m not a birther.” Whether right or wrong, I think the idea that “birthers are racists” stuck, and most folks don’t want to be call racists. The essential absurdity of the proposition, and the association with racism, makes it hard for anyone today to say Obama was born in Kenya, so they drop the conclusion and retreat to the reason.

I saw this “I am not a birther but…” just today on Twitter from someone who was bringing up the old saw about nobody remembering Obama from his college days. Does Mike Zullo say Obama was born in Kenya? No, he only talks about what he claims is identity theft/document fraud, a generic crime without the racial overtones. Orly Taitz is reported to have said that she doesn’t know where Obama was born, but also focuses on identity theft.

It makes no difference to me. They’re all birthers because the essence of birtherism is believing of conspiracy theory nonsense and false rumors about Obama, not the particular detail of what they say about where he was born.

Beck’s Boston Blunder

By on June 4, 2013 in Guest Essays, Misc. Conspiracies

On April 15th at 2:50 p.m, two bombs went off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The blasts killed 3 people; an 8 year old boy named Martin Rogers, a 29 year old restaurant manager named Krystle Campbell, and a 23 year old Chinese graduate student named Lu Lingzi. 260 people were injured by the bombs that day. At 3:31p.m, local Boston time, Alex Jones tweeted sympathy for the victims and mentioned his suspicion of a false flag operation; totally in character for a man who believes the weather can be a government conspiracy. At 5:39 p.m a story ran on The Blaze rebuffing Jones for being so quick to sound the “government did it” alarm.

Among the injured was a 20 year old Saudi Arabian citizen who was studying English at a school in the Boston area. He has a very common Saudi name, which I will not publish. His name has been published way too much for an innocent man. He has become the Richard Jewel of the Boston Marathon bombings. Jewel was the security guard at the 1996 Olympics who was a hero for alerting people to a bomb, but ended up being erroneously being labeled a suspect. According to interviews with the Saudi citizen, the FBI took a close look at him after he arrived at the hospital. Police and agents questioned him and even went to his apartment, while he was in the hospital. At about midnight on Monday he was told that he was considered a victim and nothing more. There were many conflicted press reports at this time which claimed a Saudi and/or “brown-skinned person” was a suspect or a person of interest. He was never officially designated either, but during the time of his investigation he was placed on a government watch list. He was taken off that list Monday night.

On April 19th Glen Beck appeared on his television show The Blaze and gave an ultimatum to the Obama Administration. The President had until Monday (April 22nd) to come clean or Beck would release documents which would “determine the fate of our nation”. Beck stated that this bombing was possibly the #1 story of the last 40 years.

““When I found out yesterday, who that guy is and what we have on him, and how our media was rooting for an American to be the killer. And how our president, this administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and everything else. How they have covered this up. How they have aided and abetted this guy is obscene, and it’s criminal. It’s out of control, and when America knows the full story on this, if she doesn’t stand up, and quite honestly, I think demand impeachment and the mass firing if not shutting down of agencies, we don’t stand a chance.” Glen Beck, April 19th, 2013

Beck did release the information he had, which amounted to nothing. Beck claimed his documents proved that the Saudi in the hospital was given a file which declared him to be a 212 3B. Such a designation by the Department of Homeland Security would be made before someone came to America and would prevent them from entering the country. Beck also claimed the file was removed on Wednesday April 17th and the Saudi was to be deported instead. Beck’s Obama Conspiracy proof was threefold: A) John Kerry had an unscheduled meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister on Tuesday April 16th. B) The President had an unscheduled meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister on Wednesday April 17th. C) Michelle Obama visited the Saudi in the hospital on Thursday April 19th.

The document Beck shows proving a file, or event, has the visa sponsor as The University of Findlay in Ohio. The bombing victim went to The New England English School. The name is the same, but the victim’s name is a common Saudi name. The Department of Homeland Security told CNN that another Saudi, with the same name, was found in violation of his visa in Boston after the bombing. The Saudi in violation of his visa was not involved in the bombing, nor was he injured in the bombings. Also, Beck’s claim that the 212 3B was rescinded on Wednesday was shot down by a guest on his show on April 24th. The guest was Bob Trent, a former special agent for the Department of Homeland Security. Trent also stated that if a person was designated a 212 3B, a meeting with the First Lady would not happen. This blows a hole in Beck’s claim that Michelle Obama relayed a message to the Saudi during her hospital visit to the victims on the 18th. John Kerry’s meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Foreign Minister was scheduled, however 15 minutes before the meeting the press was informed that no press coverage would be granted. This was explained as a scheduling conflict as Kerry had a meeting later that day and did not have time for a press event.

This leaves the President’s unscheduled meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister on Wednesday. President Obama, in an effort to make his presidency more transparent, has a public schedule on the White House web site. The President’s public schedule is not set in stone. He does attend functions and meetings that are not on the public schedule for a variety of reasons. Beck’s assertion that the President met with the Saudi Foreign Minister secretly and the Saudi student’s status was changed as a result is not supported by fact. The meeting was actually announced on the Saudi embassy website.

There is also a White House visitor log that was begun in late 2009. Some, though not Beck, have claimed that the victim visited the White House which indicates a connection. Again the Saudi student has a common name, and a search of the visitor log reveals 7 possible matches to the last name. There is only one match for the first and middle name. There are some conspiracy theorists who have claimed the Saudi in question visited the White House 600 times. There is no basis in fact for any such claim.

Glen Beck has refused back down and merely goes on to the next event which he thinks will bring down the President. He defamed a student to sling mud at Obama. The Saudi had to seek refuge in the Saudi Arabian Embassy because of death threats against him. He doesn’t think he will be able to attend college in America because of the publicity surrounding the case. It is sad that this kid was twice a victim; first of the physical bombs, and then of the attempts to tie them to President Obama.

Zullo tries to pull off a fast one on sheriffs

By on June 2, 2013 in Birth Certificate, Mike Zullo

Long-discredited rumors repackaged

In a video presentation by Mike Zullo to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association on June 1, pretty much everything he said was false besides his name. Zullo has made the claim that Obots don’t understand vital records. I have over 30 years professional experience with vital records, and I can assure the reader that Zullo is the one who is clueless in this area.

Let me give an example of a fast one that comes at around 49:00 in the video of the presentation. Here’s the transcript:

In 1961, the term used to describe black people on a birth certificate was “negro.”  In order to document this we obtained the 1960 vital statistics instruction manual containing the instructions for coding race on a birth certificate that where followed by every health department in the United States, including the Hawaiian Health Department. As you can see, if the parents race was reported as “colored,” “black,” “brown,” or “Afro-American” the Department of Health Services was required to consider the parents a “negro.” For those of you who may be wondering why the 1960 manual was consulted instead of the 1961 manual, it’s because the 1961 manual wasn’t published until 10 days after Barack Obama’s birth…

In a prior press conference, Zullo showed a code manual that he said was from 1961 and claimed that penciled notations on Obama’s form were in error, not matching the codes in this manual. I caught Zullo in the lie. His two manual screen shots were from 1968 and 1969 and the codes were wrong for 1961: fake manual, false conclusion. This time, he has abandoned the fraudulent codes and fallen back on a much older and long-discredited Internet myth (I debunked this in 2009 and 2012), that Obama’s father’s race says “African” where regulations require “negro” bolstered by what he calls a 1960 manual1. Whether his manual was from 1960, 1961, 1968 or 1969 doesn’t matter because his citation is inapplicable, misleading, and in a fake context.

Note the verbal slight of hand: the Zullo video says, “if the parents race was reported as ‘colored,’ ‘black,’ ‘brown,’ or ‘Afro-American’ the Department of Health Services was required to consider the parents a ‘negro.’’’ Barack Obama’s father reported his race as “African.” Is that “colored?” Is that “black?” Is that “brown?” Is that “Afro-American”? No, no, no and no. Is Zullo trying to trick the sheriffs? The instructions do NOT say to consider the race “negro” instead of “African,” and for the ethno­graphic­ally impaired, not all Africans (and not all Kenyans) are black. Zullo’s 1960 manual on screen was illegible, but the same section in the 1961 manual says: “If the birth place of the parent is not in the United States consider the parent’s race as “other non-white.”2Even that really doesn’t apply because “African” was not in the list.

Now again, listen to exactly what Zullo said: “if the parents race was reported as “colored,” “black,” “brown,” or “Afro-American” the Department of Health Services was required to consider the parents a ‘negro’.” Now, look at that carefully. What is the “Department of Health Services?” It’s not the 1961 Hawaii Health Bureau. Is it the later federal Department of Health and Human services (in 1960-61 it was the Department of Health, Education and Welfare)? Zullo would have the slow-witted reader to gloss over this ambiguity about a manual that was not intended for vital records processing for the State of Hawaii; the federal manual’s purpose is to tell the federal government how to key in the data from microfilmed records received from the states. I don’t know the precise manual that Zullo is citing, but it may well not even be a manual for use by states at all.

Let’s look back at what Zullo said one more time: “if the parents race was reported as “colored,” “black,” “brown,” or “Afro-American” the Department of Health Services was required to consider the parents a ‘negro’.” Note that the manual says “consider the parents a negro.” It does not say “change the race to negro” but “consider” it negro. In fact, “changing” it would be nonsensical because parents’ race was NOT PART OF THE 1960-61 FEDERAL DATA SET. The context of the quotation from Zullo (and you can see the same thing in the Federal manual from 1961) is that when determining the race of the child, one looks at the race of the parents, and for that purpose a colored/black/brown/Afro-American person is considered negro. Continue Reading →

Older posts Newer posts

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes