Flash!
Leo Donofrio has made a stunning claim on his blog in a new article: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.
One has to translate that headline from “birther speak” to normal usage. “Pending Litigation” means “we haven’t filed a lawsuit” and “Confirms” means “we say so, but we won’t tell you why or how”.
Hawaiian law requires that certificates that have been amended be distinctly marked “altered”, and Obama’s Certification of Live Birth clearly is not marked “altered”. This fact justifies a high degree of skepticism on Donofrio’s claim. Of course the word “Amended” in birther speak might mean something totally different from the normal usage.
Donofrio says:
I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH). (more…)




The Betrayal blog attacks Dr. C (Updated)
by Dr. Conspiracy on 20. Sep, 2009 in Dr. C. Comments
Dr. Conspiracy
Readers here may recall an article I published countering Leo Donofrio’s attack against FactCheck.org: Donofrio misfires. Donofrio had made the same mistake Mario Apuzzo made when he attempted to make Barack Obama into a current British Citizen through ignoring the repeal of portions of the British Nationality Act of 1948. One can see on the surface that the analysis is flawed because the conclusion is obviously something that the various British legislation did not intend. This is an application of the general principle: British legislators know their laws better than we do.
Nonetheless, I did make some mistakes in my analysis, pointed out by commenters here, and I hastily corrected my article, and did so several times, sometimes marked with [update] tags to indicate new material, and sometimes not.
Nobamas do not understand the concept of correcting mistakes, considering it somehow shameful (and this explains why they ignore contrary evidence and continue to push long-discredited speculation). Well, my corrections have come to the attention of the Betrayal blog who said:
There is a difference between “data” and “conclusions” (but I guess “false data” sounds worse.) I replied at The Betrayal, and we’ll see if it passes moderation:
[Update!] (more…)