Main Menu

Tag Archives | ppsimmons

March madness

Gallups doubles down on March “reveal”

Cast your thought back to November of last year when Mike Zullo booster Carl Gallups posted this headline:


What does it take for Gallups to declare it “monumental”? Not much. In this case it was the birthers being confused about a copy of the president’s birth certificate submitted by the Alabama Democratic Party in an amicus brief filed with the Alabama Supreme Court in the McInnish case. They seemed to think that a copy of a copy means two birth certificates.

In response to birther grumbling about Zullo being off the radar for a month, Gallups revealed that Mike Zullo had been traveling and that the investigation had taken a new turn—not a regular turn, but:

Well – it not only took a deeper turn – but it has now become much, much deeper! Deeper than you could ever imagine!

If I were looking for a word to characterize “deeper than you could ever imagine,” I think it would be “abysmal.”  The investigation took an abysmal turn from its previously really bad results.

What about the birth certificate? I thought that all of their arguments had been soundly demolished—ah, but not the secret argument. Gallups all but admits that nothing has been revealed that makes their case, but says:

I can also tell you that – based upon what I know – the birth certificate issue has been 100% settled. I am not at liberty to tell you how we know, but we now know without any argument or even the slightest shade of doubt – the birth certificate posted on the White House website is a 100% fabrication.

So having nothing to support their MONUMENTAL BREAKTHROUGH, they’re going for something completely different. When will this new turn be revealed? When will the birthers finally find out what Mike Zullo has been up to? Continue Reading →

Thought control

It’s 10:50 PM, December 19, 2012 as I write this article. I’ve just written some comments on a YouTube video posted by ppsimmons. If you had looked at the comment stream as I write this, you would see this exchange:

ppsimmons: … However? the Senate DID investigate J. McCain.

Kevin Davidson: The Senate never investigated McCain. All they did was pass a resolution and put into the record a letter from a couple of constitutional experts about people born in the Canal Zone to US parents being eligible.

ppsimmons: Actually Kevin – you are incorrect. They DID investigate McCain – officially. Senate hearing were held according to Constitutional authority. They pronounced "findings." They were published in Senate Resolution 511. They were very specific. Their findings went to the two requirements of Natural Born as outlined in SCT. rulings…place of birth and both parents US citizens at time of birth. They REFUSED to "investigate" Obama. A travesty of justice. Obama is NOT a US citizen. He is a fraud.

So if you read that exchange, you might think that I had raised a spurious objection and that ppsommons set me right. However, that’s not the whole story. Following that last remark, I said:

Kevin Davidson: If you are correct, then you should have no problem providing the date of the hearing and a link to the transcript. You can’t because it never happened.

You might refer to Chertoff’s remark, but this was an off-hand question asked him during a hearing on another topic.,

There was never any investigation of McCain whatever. It’s just another factoid in the eligibility denialist fantasy world.

Now the question is whether you have the integrity to admit you’re wrong.

Here’s the screen shot:


ppsimmons moderates his YouTube channel. The question is whether ppsimmons exercises thought control in his channel to make people think that he wins the arguments and others cannot respond, or whether it is exactly the opposite.

So I will set this article to automatically publish in 4 days and the reader can see whether thought control is real, or whether ppsimmons is honest, albeit deluded in his birther beliefs.

Here is my article on the subject from May of 2011 in which I concluded, and other commenters agreed, that no hearings were held.