Main Menu

Dean Haskins offers insight into Georgia hearing

Dean Haskins, director of The Birther Summit, was in Atlanta for the court hearing in the Georgia eligibility challenge last Thursday. His new article, GEORGIA HEARINGS — TWO OUT OF THREE AIN’T BAD is really rather interesting.

Probably the most important piece of information in the article is his clarification of what went on in the judge’s chambers before the hearing started. He wrote:

Prior to the start of the hearings on Thursday, the judge called the three attorneys who were present into his chambers and said that he could award them a default order because the defendant did not show up, but the attorneys stated that they would prefer to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record, in case there were any appeals.

Their having chosen to present evidence, therefore, precluded a default order, as such an order is awarded in the absence of any evidence being presented. The fact that evidence was presented means that Judge Malihi must make his recommendation based upon that evidence. …

According to Haskins, the “default judgment” widely anticipated based on earlier reports of the conference, isn’t going to happen. If Haskins has it right, it’s great news in my view because it means the judge will make a decision based on the merits and even if his decision is poorly reasoned, we’ll could get something definitive on appeal (I say “could” because an appeals court might rule that the Georgia Secretary of State has no authority to remove someone from the ballot and not address the merits).

In terms of the evidence presented, there was a long-form birth certificate showing Barack Obama was born in the United States, one Indonesian school document showing Barack Obama was born in the United States, one State Department internal memo from the 1970’s stating Barack Obama was born in the United States and a copy of the President’s passport showing his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. At no time did any attorney mention any evidence to indicate that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Orly Taitz only offered suspicions that various documents were fraudulent, but no alternate theory that would make the President ineligible. Judge Malihi is not going to rule that Barack Obama should be investigated for social security fraud — that’s completely outside his mandate and authority.

That leaves us (and this is I think where the title of Dean’s article comes from) with the two attorneys who made a Constitutional argument based on the widely-acknowledged fact that Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen.

As reported before, Dean Haskins is facing the wrath of Orly Taitz’s supporters for his well-founded criticism of her. This article wouldn’t be complete without including Dean’s version of the conversation he had with Orly Taitz (which he recounted to me in Atlanta):

Now, before proceeding with my report, let me say that, before Thursday, I had never personally met Orly Taitz. After she entered the courtroom, she approached the Media area, where I was standing with our live streaming equipment, and she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,” to which I replied, “You can apologize to me anytime you want.” Through clenched teeth, Orly quietly seethed, “You’re a piece of sh*t. You shouldn’t even be here.” Classy.

Dean seemed to be a nice fellow. I can only hope that he will be convinced of his error should the courts rule against him.

81 Responses to Dean Haskins offers insight into Georgia hearing

  1. avatar
    richCares January 31, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Dean Haskins, isn’t he the guy that harrassed an 80 yr old mother of a dead chlid born on same day as Obama, he wanted to prove Obama stole the little girl’s indentity all his work on this stupid theory was fruitless, he proved Virginia was born on the same day in a different city, different hospital and a different BC number. That was his “really big case”
    .
    as far as I’m concerned, Haskins is dispictable!
    .
    by the way he doesn’t seem to highlight this case anymore

  2. avatar
    bob January 31, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Haskins habitually leaves juvenile insulting comments anywhere on the Internet that people talk about him.

    That he was pleasant in Atlanta doesn’t make him nice.

  3. avatar
    Lord Basil January 31, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents. The Kenyan Marxist homosexual had only one, and as such, is not a natural born citizen. In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.

    The usurper will soon be gone, and America can be made whole again by electing Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, and a Congress full of hard traditionalists.

  4. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    Lord Basil: The constitution couldn’t be any more clear

    I definitively have to disagree on that, but from personal experience, I know how hard it is in process design to anticipate all the eventual permutations.

    Thanks for the article, Doc! My suspicion that the birthers had run away with themselves was correct. And more credit for Malihi, he’s following a process, a process being exploited by nuts, he’s trying to make the best of a bad situation.

    As for Haskins being classy …. no. Well-intentioned, severaly misguided, wolf in sheep’s clothing at best. I have no doubt he is calm, polite in person, but, keeping his “investigations” in mind and having interacted with him online (where he has been a typical, attack-dog ideologue), it’s a thin shell encasing a very ugly filling.

  5. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Lord Basil: The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents.

    Prove it.

    Copy, paste and post the section of the Constitution that says a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents.

    Here you go, birther boy:

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    Is that clear enough?

  6. avatar
    Sarina January 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    Lord Basil: The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents. The Kenyan Marxist homosexual had only one, and as such, is not a natural born citizen. In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.The usurper will soon be gone, and America can be made whole again by electing Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, and a Congress full of hard traditionalists.

    Hey Santorum’s father was Italian, why aren’t you whining about it? Where is his birth certificate?

  7. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    Sarina: Hey Santorum’s father was Italian, why aren’t you whining about it? Where is his birth certificate?

    And Gingrich is part grinch. Cartoon characters are citizens?

  8. avatar
    Paul January 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Lord Basil:
    The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents.

    How deluded do you have to be to read the Constitution and make that statement…?

  9. avatar
    richCares January 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    The constitution couldn’t be any more clear
    show us please

  10. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    Seriously, tho, Santorum Dad was naturalized prior to Santorum’s birth*, giving Santorum the green light, depending on which flavor of swiss cheese spread you’ve been eating.

    Corsi came to a tortured conclusion re Romney …. took pages to arrive at a stunningly obvious and unnecessary conclusion…and then mangled up the wording. He meant to birf, but instead he anti-birf’d!

    “But even if neither of Mitt Romney’s parents were natural-born citizens, it would not prevent Mitt Romney himself from being a natural-born president.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

    * Or was he? “Can we see those papers, please, Mr. Santorum?” **
    ** Just kidding, Santorum was born here, so it doesn’t freaking matter. To quote Red October:
    “Do they let you do that in America?”
    “Yes, Vassily.”
    “No papers?”
    “No papers.”

  11. avatar
    Egh January 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Hi majority will, you are correct to jump on lord basil for two reasons

    First. Ugly gloating name calling is not tolerated by our dear doc.

    Second, the constitution does not in words state who shall be a natural born citizen….

  12. avatar
    Bob January 31, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    Haskins motives are purely selfish. He sees the writing on the wall. Orly has become an outcast among even these nuts. The other plaintiffs in the Georgia ballot challenge have also distanced themselves from Orly.

    Haskins’ story about Orly calling him a POS just doesn’t ring true to me. As creepy as she is I just can’t imagine a person saying that out loud, in a courtroom, to a virtual stranger. It’s a fantasy meant to bolster his own standing among the Birthers and Birther-grifters.

  13. avatar
    US Citizen January 31, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Lord Basil: In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.

    Perhaps, but those same men would likely see TV, computers and cel phones as black magic too.

    The bottom-line is that you’re arguing a hypothetical opinion against already decided fact and that fact is: Obama IS the President of the United States and not even GOP members of congress currently are saying otherwise.

    One other fact- the more you, “Lord Basil” make these silly predictions and projections, the more you are disrespected and considered angry because of what you know yourself- that no one seriously of power agrees with you or is doing anything about your claims. Why you’d want these same people to rule the US when they’re wrong or scared is beyond me.

  14. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 31, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Bob: Haskins’ story about Orly calling him a POS just doesn’t ring true to me.

    I did find that as odd…was anyone in earshot of that exchange? It was a small courtroom.

  15. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: I did find that as odd…was anyone in earshot of that exchange? It was a small courtroom.

    I thought Dean was assisting with the camera, and Doc heard the exchange, as he was right in front of the camera?

  16. avatar
    ellen January 31, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    I find it hard to believe that the judge would have told the lawyers that he would enter a “default judgement” for them if the court accepts briefs in the case until Feb. 5.

  17. avatar
    Predicto January 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    ellen: I find it hard to believe that the judge would have told the lawyers that he would enter a “default judgement” for them if the court accepts briefs in the case until Feb. 5.

    Of course he didn’t tell them anything of the sort.

  18. avatar
    ellen January 31, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Re:

    “Lord Basil: In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.”

    Absurd. There are MANY quotes from the debate that show that by far the majority of the men who drafted the 14th Amendment held that it made everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the USA who was born in the USA a US citizen. One of the big exceptions in those days was American Indians on reservations, who some held were not “subject to the jurisdiction” (But there was special legislation to change that in 1924 or 1925) And the children of foreign diplomats were not “subject to the jurisdiction. But everyone else was, and that is the way that the majority of legislators felt.

    In addition SIX of the justices of the US Supreme Court (as opposed to only two in dissent) felt that way too in the Wong Kim Ark case.

  19. avatar
    Dave January 31, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    One thing that concerns me is that Haskins was not in the room when this judge discussed this with the lawyers, and I can’t find where he says whose report he’s basing this on.

  20. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Egh:

    . . . the constitution does not in words state who shall be a natural born citizen….

    Some people who claim that they respect the U.S. Constitution have obviously never taken a few minutes to read it.

  21. avatar
    ellen January 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Re: “The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents. ”

    There is no mention of parents in the Constitution, and the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written referred to the PLACE of birth, not the parents.

    Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”

  22. avatar
    donna January 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    taitz:

    Judge Malihi gave me a leave of court to petition the Superior court for Letters Rogatory to the Circuit Court of HI seeking local subpoena for Obama’s original birth certificate in lieu of the alleged copy attached to 01.25.2012 letter from Jablonski

    under what authority would malihi DENY her leave to petition the superior court?

    LAUGHABLE

  23. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Lord Basil: America can be made whole again by electing Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum,

    Wassa matta? You don’t like Romney? But then, who does?

  24. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    “Orly quietly seethed, “You’re a piece of sh*t.”

  25. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    (I just hit the wrong key.)

    “Orly quietly seethed, “You’re a piece of sh*t.”

    No, Orly and Lieberman are pieces of dreck.

    Hey Orly: go back to your West Bank settlement, and get your kicks from beating up Arabs. Oh, and you and Lieberman are momsers.

    Don’t like my saying this? Er zol vaksn vi a tsibele mit dem kop in drerd.

    Got that, schmuck?

  26. avatar
    bob January 31, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Bob:
    Haskins’ story about Orly calling him a POS just doesn’t ring true to me.As creepy as she is I just can’t imagine a person saying that out loud, in a courtroom, to a virtual stranger.

    It actually rings quite true. The only person more thin-skinned than Haskins is Taitz.

  27. avatar
    Sef January 31, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Lord Basil: In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.

    That might have been true prior to the ratification of the 14th because of that “dredful” Dred Scott decision. Afterwards, not so much.

  28. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    LOL! Taitz Taint!

    http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/142/2012/01/28/105319_600.jpg

    Mark Streeter, Savannah Morning News, 1/28/12

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    An interesting article about David Farrar appeared in his home town newspaper:

    http://www.cedartownstd.com/view/full_story/17337387/article-Cedartown-resident-among-those-filing-lawsuit-against-Obama

    He raises the constitutional issue, but his attorney at the hearing, Orly Taitz, went her own way.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    True, but he was in tight with the attorneys who were in the room. All of the reports of the conference came second hand.

    Dave:
    One thing that concerns me is that Haskins was not in the room when this judge discussed this with the lawyers, and I can’t find where he says whose report he’s basing this on.

  31. avatar
    Whatever4 January 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    J. Potter: I thought Dean was assisting with the camera, and Doc heard the exchange, as he was right in front of the camera?

    Some of the audience at home heard part of the exchange but thought Orly was talking to one of the Obots. I think an obot or two in the courtroom might have heard. I just saw a bit of a to-do, no details. It was over by the door with a row of media and court officers in the way — a very busy place at the time.

    Dean did talk about it right after the hearing.

  32. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: An interesting article about David Farrar appeared in his home town newspaper:
    http://www.cedartownstd.com/view/full_story/17337387/article-Cedartown-resident-among-those-filing-lawsuit-against-Obama

    Check out my comment, before they delete it.

  33. avatar
    Sean January 31, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    I love Dean’s Colin Powell challenge. Just classic con man stuff!

  34. avatar
    Sean January 31, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Lord Basil:
    The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents.The Kenyan Marxist homosexual had only one, and as such, is not a natural born citizen.In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.

    The usurper will soon be gone, and America can be made whole again by electing Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, and a Congress full of hard traditionalists.

    Who’s a Kenyan Marxist homosexual? The President happens to be a straight American Democrat.

  35. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Sean: Who’s a Kenyan Marxist homosexual? The President happens to be a straight American Democrat.

    It’s Little Lord Har Har’s fantasy, apparently. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  36. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    Scientist: Wassa matta?You don’t like Romney?But then, who does?

    Orly.

  37. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    This is one of my favorite articles on Dean Haskins (by Bill Bowman).

    The replies from Dean are just precious.

    Dean Haskins gets slapped by his bank (with a little help)

    (excerpt) Well, Haskin’s latest ploy to get publicity for this money grab is to offer a challenge for former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell. Haskins says he’ll give Powell $15,000 if Powell will spend three hours listening to Birther spew, and then either accept said spew or refute it with evidence acceptable to Haskins.

    See how he’s built in his out? Pretty clever, if he was dealing with people who have the IQ of a Q-tip.

    And to prove it, Haskins posted a scan of the check he would supposedly give to Colin Powell.

    Must be real, right?

    The rest with a laugh a minute commentary:
    http://turningthescale.net/?p=579

  38. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Sean:
    I love Dean’s Colin Powell challenge. Just classic con man stuff!

    Powell will ignore it. As my step-father, alev hashalom, used to say: When you argue with a fool, make sure you’re not doing the same thing.

  39. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    bob: It actually rings quite true.The only person more thin-skinned than Haskins is Taitz.

    I do not believe it. It is always abbreviated on blogs. Even if Orly had wanted to call Haskins a lying pile of sh*t, she would have said “you’re a layer pill of shat”.

  40. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 31, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: All of the reports of the conference came second hand.

    Funny. Unless they were all sworn to secrecy. And Orly breaking her oath “Please tell everybody, but do not tell them I told you.”

    A good place for Orly to find out how to atone for breaking an oath:
    http://islamqa.info/en/ref/125811

  41. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    Lord Basil: a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents. The Kenyan Marxist homosexual had only one, and as such, is not a natural born citizen.

    Sean: Who’s a Kenyan Marxist homosexual?

    Lord Basil is no Basil Fawlty: http://www.fawltysite.net/

    Lord Oregano’s thorazine is wearing off.

  42. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    Lord Basil:
    The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents.The Kenyan Marxist homosexual had only one, and as such, is not a natural born citizen.In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.

    Maybe you can help me out by identifying a single history text, civics text, or Constitutional Law text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. It’s perplexing that no birthers seem to be able to find one.

  43. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Orly has just submitted a 208-page dossier for Judge Mahili to wade through. We’ve seen it all before, but it can be found here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79963546/2012-1-26-Farrar-v-Obama-Exhibits-1-7

  44. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Rickey: Orly has just submitted a 208-page dossier for Judge Mahili to wade through.

    Ha! That’s nothing:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/what-idiot-wrote-these-ten-commandments,11174/

  45. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Rickey: Orly has just submitted a 208-page dossier for Judge Mahili to wade through.

    NSFW: Here’s what’s going on around the web.

  46. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Majority Will: Haskin’s latest ploy to get publicity for this money grab is to offer a challenge for former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell.

    An oldie but a goodie! Man, Haskins was all over the web defending that one. I hadn’t seen that one before, thanks, MW!

    Rickey: Orly has just submitted a 208-page dossier for Judge Mahili to wade through. We’ve seen it all before,

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Taitz has been outdone by Donofrito? He set the crazy standard in GA at 209 pages of spew. Orly needs to pick up the pace if she wants to retain the Birther Queen crown. Donofrito looks like he goes for the bling, if you know what I mean. 😉

  47. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Finally read Dean’s article. The additional detail and perspective are appreciated.

    It’s nice to see someone appearring to buck the groupthink, and try to be the voice of sanity for the insane, but his motives are crap. He still wants to control how others perceive and address him.* This attempt to present himself as being on the birther moral high ground is a childish method of claiming an unearned leadership position,** and superiority over others. King Birther to Orly’s Birther Queen.

    Thus the ‘feud’. It’s a catfight.

    I also note he still needs an editor in the worst way. He blew right through a b-head, for reason’s sake!

    * Note the intro: “If you are not going to read the conclusion of this article, please do not read any of it. Those whose critical thinking skills are limited, either genetically, or willfully, are required to read the conclusion at least three times before sending me your zombie hate mail.” … and the ‘disclaimers’ he runs over his comment boxes!

    ** Leadership over people that don’t seem to want any!

  48. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    “she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,”

    Hey Svetlana Orly: you never denied being a streetwalker in Moldova or Romania, or WTF you’re from.

    Why is that?

  49. avatar
    Obsolete January 31, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    J. Potter: ** Leadership over people that don’t seem to want any!

    That’s the reason i refer to Dean Haskins as “The Bürther Führer”. He wants to take over and control the birthers, whatever that means.

  50. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    J. Potter: An oldie but a goodie! Man, Haskins was all over the web defending that one. I hadn’t seen that one before, thanks, MW!

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Taitz has been outdone by Donofrito? He set the crazy standard in GA at 209 pages of spew. Orly needs to pick up the pace if she wants to retain the Birther Queen crown. Donofrito looks like he goes for the bling, if you know what I mean.

    As I recall, there have been some truly wild tantrums thrown by Thin Skin Haskins on the Amazon.com forums. Cleaning up the spittle must have taken hours.

  51. avatar
    J. Potter January 31, 2012 at 6:01 pm #

    Majority Will: As I recall, there have been some truly wild tantrums thrown by Thin Skin Haskins on the Amazon.com forums. Cleaning up the spittle must have taken hours.

    Why, yes, yes there were. It’s very quiet there now, still a good time. I can be foudn there under the same name. Not much left there but snark. And one guy that drones on and on about “Fast & Furious” and parroting Donofritoisms. My eyes glaze over at his posts, but there’s a merry band of realists that faithfully flush his commode regularly.

  52. avatar
    G January 31, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Oh yes, he had numerous thin-skinned tantrums last year. They can be found all over the blogosphere. He clearly was one of the biggest jerks in Birtherdom in 2011.

    With his semi-sanity showing as of late.. we’ll have to see if he returns to form in his behaviors, once this case is over. So far, not sure whether he’s just “sane” when it comes to disavowing Orly’s BS or if there is any chance that “epiphany” he had is for real and can eventually go beyond just his beef with Orly. He certainly still has “issues” of his own, that’s for sure….

    Majority Will: As I recall, there have been some truly wild tantrums thrown by Thin Skin Haskins on the Amazon.com forums. Cleaning up the spittle must have taken hours.

  53. avatar
    jayHG January 31, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Lord Basil: The constitution couldn’t be any more clear – a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to two citizen parents. The Kenyan Marxist homosexual had only one, and as such, is not a natural born citizen. In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen.The usurper will soon be gone, and America can be made whole again by electing Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, and a Congress full of hard traditionalists.

    There’s that mythical time again, “soon,” when President Obama aka Scary Black Man will no longer be Lord Basil’s president…………

  54. avatar
    wobre January 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    hi!!!

  55. avatar
    Obsolete January 31, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    More spam from Mike and Lord Basil (who I consider a spammer since he doesn’t seem to engage anyone- he just posts nonsense)

  56. avatar
    G January 31, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    *yawn* More SPAM.

  57. avatar
    e.vattel January 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

    Van Irion “The Judge wanted to enter a default judgement against the defendants”

  58. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Mike: Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.

    Did you get your Constitution copy from a Cracker Jack box, or off the back of a cereal box?

  59. avatar
    e.vattel January 31, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    If military officers, non commissioned officers or enlisted personnel wanted to challenge primary candidates being on the ballot would they be violating any federal law if the candidate happens to be the current sitting President?

  60. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 31, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    e.vattel: If military officers, non commissioned officers or enlisted personnel wanted to challenge primary candidates being on the ballot would they be violating any federal law if the candidate happens to be the current sitting President?

    .shrugs…ask Terry Lakin

  61. avatar
    Paul January 31, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Mike:
    DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

    oh fer christ’s sake… STFU!@#!

  62. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    I believe that it is time for Doc to ban Mike, who continues to post the same spam over and over again.

  63. avatar
    misha January 31, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    Mike: DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

    Your post does show that you are a 218th trimester fetus.

  64. avatar
    Paul January 31, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Rickey:
    I believe that it is time for Doc to ban Mike, who continues to post the same spam over and over again.

    I have to agree.

  65. avatar
    ASK Esq January 31, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    You know, if Orly Taitz calls you a piece of sh*t, it would be pretty hard to say she’s wrong.

    After all, if there’s anyone who’s gonna know what makes someone a piece of sh*t…

  66. avatar
    ASK Esq January 31, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    Wow, Mike, that is all so breathtakingly new to all of us here. We have never before seen your undeniable evidence. Surely there is nothing that could be said to counter your iron-clad claims.

    Or, you could just try reading any random posting on this board to see that you’re 100% wrong. If you’re gonna post a book-length screed, at least include something original, that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked a thousand times over.

  67. avatar
    JPotter January 31, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    e.vattel:
    If military officers, non commissioned officers or enlisted personnel wanted to challengeprimary candidates being on the ballot would they be violating any federal law if the candidate happens to be the current sitting President?

    It is my understanding that taking an active role in politics while serving in the active duty armed forces, is, at a minimum, a “getting frowned upon” offense. Conflict of interest and all. Ever see active duty personnel out campaigning? Knocking on doors? passing out literature? Active military service and political activity don’t mix. With good reason. The military is here to protect the nation from external threats, no matter who’s running the show. If the military takes an active interest in internal affairs … at best, it would merely serve to polarize military personnel who are supposed to be a unified force, at worst, hello banana republic, the coup was fun.

    The military is sworn to the Constitution and the Office (not the person) of the Presidency. Meditate upon this now, the enlistment oaths taken by all military personnel:

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    National Guard (Army or Air):

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.”

    Now, tell all your birther friends: take your sick little misguided attempts to subvert the armed forces of the United States, and shove them in the least convenient place you can find.

    Thank you.

  68. avatar
    Joe Acerbic January 31, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    Lord Basil:
    homosexual

    Diagnosis: PROJECTION. A psychology textbook case of it, considering that the actual White House that in reality was visited hundreds of times by a gay prostitute disguised as a reporter was REPUBLICAN.

  69. avatar
    John Reilly February 1, 2012 at 1:02 am #

    The tradition is that military officers do not even register to vote, although enlisted personnel are enouraged to do so. Following that tradition, I did not vote for President until 2008, although I was old enough to vote for the first President Bush.

    I recall reading that General MacArthur never voted, and that President Eisenhower’s first vote was for himself in 1952.

    The last thing we want is a politicized military. I know why real Russians like Dr. Taitz see nothing wrong with a politically active military; she is used to it.

  70. avatar
    e.vattel February 1, 2012 at 3:50 am #

    The challenge would be directed at the candidate not the President. The subpoena was directed to candidate Barack H.Obama.

    Is there a Federal law preventing soldiers from challenging a candidate?

  71. avatar
    Northland10 February 1, 2012 at 6:10 am #

    e.vattel (full disclosure – aka Dancing Rabbit/DragginCanoe):
    The challenge would be directed at the candidate not the President. The subpoena was directed to candidate Barack H.Obama.

    Is there a Federallaw preventing soldiers from challenging a candidate?

    My understanding would be that, active military, if out of uniform and not presenting themselves in their military role, might be able to challenge as a regular voter. However, as John Reilly mentions, I have heard there is a strong tradition, at least among officers to avoid any political involvement, including voting, to remain neutral. Given the importance of tradition, it might be allowed, but, the appearing of hyper partisanship by a soldier or officer may find itself a barrier to promotion (even if not specifically mention as an evaluation issue). Don’t forget, many soldiers living on a base, very possibly outside where they are registered, would have little time to spend on a civilian challenge.

    I do know, though I am not sure where it is written, that you may not do various political events in uniform.

    Disclaimer: I am not, nor have been military so I am relating my best understanding. Others, Phil Cave comes to mind, will likely have a much better response.

  72. avatar
    The Magic M February 1, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    Northland10: I do know, though I am not sure where it is written, that you may not do various political events in uniform.

    See e.g. here: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html
    Several points require “when not in uniform”, e.g. 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4, 4.1.1.9.

  73. avatar
    J. Potter February 1, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    e.vattel: The challenge would be directed at the candidate not the President. The subpoena was directed to candidate Barack H.Obama.Is there a Federal law preventing soldiers from challenging a candidate?

    Fool enough to use the handle “vattel” … not surprised that he’s doubling his density.

  74. avatar
    Daniel February 1, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    There is no law preventing a soldier from challenging, so long as he or she is doing so as a citizen and not as a soldier.

    There is, however, a culture of common sense in the military, which would prevent a soldier from doing something as ridiculous as challenging so obviously qualified a candidate as President Obama.

    Being patently stupid is a barrier to promotion.

  75. avatar
    JoZeppy February 1, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    e.vattel: If military officers, non commissioned officers or enlisted personnel wanted to challenge primary candidates being on the ballot would they be violating any federal law if the candidate happens to be the current sitting President?

    As mentioned before, it must be done entirely in their capacity as a civilian. Even pulling a Taitz and proclaiming yourself as a member of the military to somehow give the challenge some sense of credibility could cause problems for the soldier. So then to the point, how would this be any different from any other person making the challenge? What is so special about someone in the military doing it?

    e.vattel: The challenge would be directed at the candidate not the President. The subpoena was directed to candidate Barack H.Obama.

    Subpoena? Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Why exactly do you assume that with a challenge comes the right to subpoena? The power of a state court to subpoena any federal government official has its limits (I’m not going to do your research for you, I’ll leave it pretty general, and you can look it up). The state administrative body trying to subpoena the President….well, you saw how well that worked in Georgia.

  76. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    Daniel:
    There is no law preventing a soldier from challenging, so long as he or she is doing so as a citizen and not as a soldier.

    There is, however, a culture of common sense in the military, which would prevent a soldier from doing something as ridiculous as challenging so obviously qualified a candidate as President Obama.

    Being patently stupid is a barrier to promotion.

    The challenge also would have to be done is such a way as to not be disrespectful to the President. Accusing him of using a fake Social Security Number, for example, would be over the line. If the arguments were limited to the made-up two citizen parent requirement, it probably could be done in a way which would not be disrespectful.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    I’ve put Mike in the Auto-Spam filter.

    Paul: oh fer christ’s sake… STFU!@#!

  78. avatar
    G February 1, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    THANK YOU!!!

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve put Mike in the Auto-Spam filter.

  79. avatar
    richCares February 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    initially Dean and Orly claimed ID theft of Virginia Sunaha’s indentity/BC, then they found that Obama was not named Virginia Sunahara. Bummer!
    .
    as for putting mike in the cellar, San Kyu (japanese for thank you)

  80. avatar
    Keith February 2, 2012 at 4:20 am #

    Lord Basil: In fact, the men who drafted the 14th amendment might argue that he isn’t even a citizen

    Uh, no. The 14th Amendment accomplished two fundmental long lasting things: it over turned Dred Scott, and it overturned Barron v Baltimore.

    In seeking to overturn Dred Scott, the men who drafted the 14th amendment did so for the express purpose of ensuring that there would be no argument that any person born on American Soil was a natural born citizen. And that was necessary for the explicit reason that SCOTUS had found a way to disenfranchise black Americans because they were not considered citizens when they were born into slavery.

    Barron v Balitmore had found that the Bill of Rights restricted the Federal Government only, not the States. John Bingham is generally considered the main author of the 14th Amendment (though of course he did not do it alone) and it is this part of the 14th that he was most interested in, because there were states that were denying those rights to people based on race.

    Lord, you are so, so wrong. The authors of the 14th Amendment would be absolutely proud that their work had born fruit, even if it took over 100 years to do so.

  81. avatar
    Keith February 2, 2012 at 4:28 am #

    misha: Did you get your Constitution copy from a Cracker Jack box, or off the back of a cereal box?

    I can’t speak for all cereal boxes, but I have never known Cracker Jacks to publish false information.