First I want to call attention to two new entries under this site’s Bookmarks menu. One is the Birther Timeline, a link to a Fogbow history of birtherism document. The second is called “Food for Thought,” a page on which I intend to provide links to articles and video that I think are helpful in providing interesting ways to look at things. One of the first “Food for Thought” articles is an interview with Clay Johnson that was suggested by a commenter. The quote of the day for today comes from that interview:
Who wants to hear to the truth, when they can hear that they’re right?
In that interview, I hear that I was right to decide to avoid regular consumption of such information sources such as MSNBC, The Huffington Post and The Fogbow. (I visit these sites only when searching for a particular topic or someone suggests a story.) They are good sources of information, but they tend to say things that I agree with, and I don’t think that’s good for critical thinking. Mr. Johnson agrees.
This principle of avoiding sources I agree with leaves me in somewhat of a pickle in publishing this site because it’s nearly 100% anti-birther in its conclusions. Would I read my site if I were you? That you will have to decide for yourself.
This meandering introduction leads me to the case in point, which is a couple of articles about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, suggesting that he may be guilty of some pretty serious crimes. One article is: “Is This the End of Joe Arpaio? Keep Your Fingers Crossed!” at Gather.com and the other is: “The Evidence That Might Be Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Undoing” at Talking Points Memo. Here’s a central quote from the latter:
A three-person disciplinary panel of the state’s high court said there was enough evidence to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the sheriff and three of his closest allies participated in what the panel believes was federal crime in December 2009.
The article refers to a federal lawsuit against Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas that I wrote about in my article “Arpaio attacks enemies with questionable evidence.” Generally when I write an article like that one, I go to the original source, in this case the decision by Judge Wake denying a motion to dismiss in the federal suit. What I did not do was to read the Arizona Supreme Court disciplinary panel’s decision to disbar attorney Thomas, which is the basis for the quote above. (Hey, I was on vacation and the report is 247 pages.)
So did the Arizona Supreme Court disciplinary panel, after an investigation by independent counsel, actually say that Joe Arpaio is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a federal crime, or is this spin and wishful thinking? I certainly have some wishes and opinions about Joe Arpaio. Are these web sites telling me the truth, or just what I want to hear?
Go get a cup of coffee or something, while I read a couple hundred pages.
They quote Eisenhower, Churchill, Shakespeare ❗
OK, here are things the report actually says:
Sheriff Arpaio, through Chief Deputy Hendershott, closing their eyes to his Constitutional rights, ordered Mr. Stapley arrested. They never filed any documents or charges but instead surreptitiously videotaped his arrest, and held him in jail for hours. It was testified that no one ever filed anything against Mr. Stapley regarding this event, but took the time to call the press to inform them that he had been arrested.
Here is the “smoking gun” (Pages 216-7):
481. The evidence clearly and convincingly suggests that Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon, together with Chief Deputy Hendershott and Sheriff Arpaio, met on December 9, 2008, with the intention of stopping Judge Donahoe from issuing a ruling at a hearing scheduled the next day by filing criminal charges against him. That evidence is detailed in full throughout this opinion. Perhaps most telling, however, is the testimony of Sergeant Brandon Luth, who recounted Hendershott’s and Aubuchon’s reactions upon learning that the hearing had been vacated after the direct complaint against Judge Donahoe had been filed.
Sgt. Luth testified that Aubuchon “looked pleased” when she mentioned to Sgt.Luth that the hearing had been cancelled. In addition, Sgt. Luth testified that when he handed the direct complaint to Mr. Hendershott and informed him that the hearing had been vacated, Mr. Hendershott uttered the word “checkmate.” This, together with all the evidence, clearly and convincingly suggests that Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon conspired to muzzle Judge Donahoe.
482. Were this a criminal case, we are confident that the evidence would establish this conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, while Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon did violate ER 8.4(b) by violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, sanctions will not issue from this particular violation, nor will it be considered in aggravation. While a criminal charge or conviction is not necessary to a finding that Respondents violated ER 8.4(b), this Court is fully aware that it is not a criminal court. In criminal court, a finding that Respondents violated 18 U.S.C.§ 241 would involve additional pre-trial and trial criminal procedures and standards not applicable to this Court. As such, no sanctions will issue from this finding, nor will Respondents’ violation of 8.4(b) in this Claim be considered in aggravation.
The Supreme Court investigation involved a disciplinary action against three attorneys and not Sheriff Arpaio. However, it seems clear to me that the disciplinary panel considered Sheriff Arpaio part of a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. While the quotation doesn’t state this, at other points in the report it was stated that the arrest of Judge Donahoe was Arpaio’s idea. The liberal commentators got it right.
What is most disturbing from the point of view of this blog is the fact that the County Attorney and the Sheriff’s office made a false statement of probable cause to further their own interests and not the cause of justice. Sound familiar?
According to a major article at Salon.com:
“We are witnessing the end of the Joe Show,” says prominent Phoenix attorney Michael Manning, who requested a federal civil rights investigation of the sheriff in 2008. “I believe he will be indicted within the next 30 days.”
IANAL, and not even American, but there seems to be a logical reason why the justice system can already take actions against Thomas and his assistants, but not against Arpaio, The Shurf is a democartically elected official, and you need more than administrative law and deontology to get rid of him. “Were this a criminal case” – someone will have to ascertain that Arpaio committed a crime? A federal investigation perhaps?
>> They quote Eisenhower, Churchill, Shakespeare
That’s when I quit reading it. When I see something written by a birther that throws in everything but the kitchen sink like that, I take it as evidence of an unstable personality. The quote bit was way overboard here, and not appropriate to seriousness or objectivity.
There are multiple investigations going on. You’re right….this one, the disbarment proceeding, was an administrative matter involving the Supreme Court which licenses lawyers.
There are also two Federal investigations: One is civil and is well publicized dealing with the DOJ’s impending lawsuit agains the MCSO for discrimination against hispanics.
The other…..not as talked about…..is criminal and apparently covers the sheriff, his subordinates, Andrew Thomas and his people.
It struck me that the comments in the panel’s disciplinary findings were about as subtle as a rock. Essentially they’re saying…..”Hey we didn’t have any trouble figuring out these guys broke the law. What are you (the Feds) doing? What are you waiting for?”
“This principle of avoiding sources I agree with leaves me in somewhat of a pickle in publishing this site because it’s nearly 100% anti-birther in its conclusions. Would I read my site if I were you? That you will have to decide for yourself.”
Doc, I think you’re being too harsh … avoiding “sources you agree with” is too much of a simplification. The danger is consuming opinionated ‘information’.Opinions you tend to agree with and opinions you tend to disagree with will both reinforce the opinions you already hold.
I believe that your site in itself passes the recommendations made by Mr. Johnson. You source your material, and generally give cautions when linking to potentially or obviously biased material. Often you are calling out bias. You take feedback and make corrections. You objectively evaluate claims in a dynamic manner manner with your audience. You say “I don’t know” when you don’t. You make an effort to avoid unsupported claims. You’re not motivated by profit.
In short, the approach here is more Roger Serling …. “Presented for your consideration ….” rather than [insert overthetop pundit] “HERE”S WHAT SOME STUPID BIRTHER SAID TODAY AND WHAT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT!”
The comments can get a bit echo-y, a bit piling on, but we correct each other often.
On the other hand, you have admitted to engaging in deception. Hopefully this white background is the color of salt. 😉
Have to agree, it is an interesting read, but more like an overheated thesis than an objective opinion.
Heavy use of heavyhanded quotes … even wilder are the loaded section heads … The concurring opinion is litterally that, all opinion!
However, I did enjoy coming across the quote from Justice Jackson—in the “An especially fitting footnote to this matter” (oy vey.)—haven’t seen it in awhile. It’s a good one.
Another review of the situation at Salon: Sheriff Joe’s world crumbles
“We draw your attention to the Bar’s findings which indicate that Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio worked in concert to commit the crimes for which Mr. Thomas has, to a degree, been held accountable,” states a letter sent Monday to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, signed by four former Arizona elected officials and prosecutors.
In the letter, former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, former U.S. attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton, former Maricopa County attorney Rick Romley and former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard requested that DOJ bring an indictment or dismiss the drawn-out case.
“I think it is time to make that decision,” Charlton, who was a George W. Bush appointee, stated in an email. “I have been a vocal critic of Sheriff Arpaio. But there comes a time when an investigation must come to an end. It is appropriate (for) DOJ to go forward now, or explain why it cannot.”
“We are witnessing the end of the Joe Show,” says prominent Phoenix attorney Michael Manning, who requested a federal civil rights investigation of the sheriff in 2008. “I believe he will be indicted within the next 30 days.”
Here’s hoping that prediction has a better foundation than Orly’s “I will have Obama out of office in 60 days” back in 2008. 😉
Thanks, Keith. That is a really informative article.
No we don’t.
You’re both wrong!
Oh, you did! You did! You corrected me just now!
I was just thinking of what a conversation completely free of reproof or even partial disagreement would look like. Pretty dysfunctional! Great comedy potential in the form, too.
In the commentary on the Salon article, there’s a call to expel South Carolina! That’s not nice. Some states may be in need of an intervention ….. there is a rather large precedent for that … but disowning? C’mon. I live in one of ‘those’ states, too.
Rod Serling, no?
Ummm ….. yeah, that guy …. :)) …. It was after midnight.
Nice of him to go out in a blaze of birtherism, so if and when he does get nailed, it can be cited as yet more proof of the Vast Conspiracy.
John Dougherty has done a great job on this story over the years. Click on the “more John Dougherty” link at the bottom of this story and read the second story down, from a few weeks ago, “Sheriff Joe’s Anti-Fed Crusade” and then click on the links in it.
Now you’ll know more about Arpaio than you ever cared to know.
Heehee! Yes, Bovril, that’s the one I had in mind …. did! did! did! didn’t! did! Perfect example of 100% disagreement. For the 0% disagreement, I was thinking of the one in which they outdo each other in describing their miserable childhoods, which featured the classic comeback … “Luxury.” … oh, yeah, Four Yorkshireman!
Johnson in the interview doesn’t make a distinction between hobby interests, and general consumption of current events. For me, birtherism is a hobby, an amusement, but it does draw on current events, and the birthers insist on treating it as news. Their silliness and ineptitude keeps affirming my bias.
Another point not touched on is the gossip / gotcha content of contemporary ‘news’ … this could be covered by his advice to “pay attention to yesterday’s news”. The so-and-so said something stupid stories have a short half-life.
An important point comes up in Dougherty’s coverage of Arpaio …. the bulk of his financial support comes from out of state. By making himself a conservative cartoon, he’s set himself up as a hero and a paragon. People who aren’t close enough to see what happens when you get what you ask for are in love with the idea of the guy.
The first time I heard of him was in a 20/20 piece back in the 90s that covered the tents and pink underwear. It was a pretty positive portrayal. Tony Ortega describes the act to a ‘T’ in his piece for the Village Voice here. Foe a long time, to much of the country, Arpaio was seen as just doing what’s necessary, and Red America still wishes they could all have an Arpaio-unit.
Or so they think.
TPM article and mention of a 123 page draft of a proposed agreement which cuts the shuriff off at the knees.
Arpaio is using the same tactic with Obama, make all kinds of charges in the media without ever having to prove them or back them up with actual charges or Testimony under Oath.
A minor correction: The disciplinary panel’s “smoking gun” paragraph says the fateful meeting took place on “December 9, 2008”. The correct year is 2009.
Bill, favorite line out of that article…
If that doesn’t describe the failings of the Cold Case Posse, I don’t know what does…
Arpaio has got lots of problems with his posses.
They have no peace officer powers but they wear the same uniform, many carry weapons and drive marked cars. The general public can’t tell them from sworn deputies and, more troubling, officers from other departments can’t tell who they are if they run into them during an operation.
And, yes, you’re absolutely right about the “Cold Case Posse”: No authority. No investigation.
Here’s a conspiracy, but first. Though Taitz has good intentions, and ones I’d luv to see her win, she’s a bit of a Nutcase. All party’s have their crazies, and she happens to be the one representing, ummm….heck I don’t know who claims her, just to bad shes crazy because like I said, I’d LOVE to see her Win, but alas.
As for Joe Arpaio, heres an obvious Good Person wanting the “RIGHT” thing done when it comes to The Law. Lots of Left Loons whine about his tactics and croon he’s violating human rights, but he’s NOT and he’s doing a damn good job. Even his making sure someone on a ballot is eligible to be ON that ballot, he’s just doing his job. Because whether you Believe what you’ve seen so far or not, and I’m not saying I do or I don’t, but PROOF BEYOND a Reasonable Doubt has NEVER been proven. An Internet Picture isn’t enough, nor is the Word of some certain people that say “we seen it”. SURE you did!! The group here all crooned “we hope he never shows it because it will never make anyone happy”… then when supposedly it was shown, you changed you tune to “hahaha, that’ll show them. Now they can’t say anything”. COMPLETELY different tune. YET, it was no better than some teenager taking PhotoShop and putting together a Perfect B/C, “as far as we know”, which has still yet to be proven. Oh, the big mouth “Blog Experts” here will disagree, but it hasn’t been.
THEN, then as leftists always do, instead of defending the Case at hand, some clown turns it back around going after Arpio for some wrongdoing of HIS. Hell, if They can’t Prove A Sheriff did something wrong back in 2008, they’ll sure has hell never prove the President did anything wrong. Just a thought.lol
My conspiracy: Doctor Conspiracy is being Funded by an Underground Obama group to keep this Blog site going. He’s paying for it all from his own income of course, to hide the truth, but has a cash cow Piling up in an offshore account. GOOD Job Doc. Keep the candle burning and make the party proud.
ROMNEY in 2012 or Australia here we come, I’m not living under these crazy communists. WEST RULES!
I had you pegged as either a nutcase or a troll the second I saw your user name.
Another birther who doesn’t know how to spell or punctuate.
Truther: Here’s a free lesson for you.
1. It’s once, not ones.
2. It’s parties, not party’s.
3. It’s too bad, not to bad
And that’s just your first paragraph. I’m giving you a pass on the inappropriate capitalization and “luv.”
Not at all, sir, I believe most here will readily agree that your conspiracy has yet to be proven.
Back to the perils of opinionformation, infotainment, wall-to-wall editorializing, whatever you wanna call it, another point Johnson didn’t touch on is that a chunk of the populace is neither honest enough, or savvy enough, to realize or care about the difference. I suppose that part of the populace isn’t among his audience. But his thoughts on how to interact / help such persons would be of interest.
This morning, for the ∞th time, a birther, not happy about having his empty rhetoric called out, offered as proof of hitalking point a YouTube rant that proved to be completely free of primary source information. Just a guy ranting away, telling the viewer what to think. Yeesh.
Now, what did the good people of Australia do to deserve a loon like you? And what makes you think they would give you a visa to live there? Australia is looking for immigrants with actual skills and I don’t see any evidence of any in your case.
Pravda by any other name smells as bad….
The user name could have used a few more jingoistic terms. TRUTH1776 or AMERICANTRUTH or AMERICANTRUTHFULNESS would have been preferable. But then, the post itself could have used some blustery statements about how the poster was unafraid to tell the truth and stand against the Obama machine, but with Obama spelled on some “clever” variant like 0bama or Obummer or Odumbass.
Well, I think you’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really the way it is. Conspiracy theorists of all stripes believe that those who oppose them are either willfully ignorant, a part of the conspiracy, or paid shills. In fact, most people don’t believe most conspiracies. Debunking is an interesting hobby.
For those who haven’t been around since the beginning, our commenter TRUTH was active on my personal blog on Obama issues and here in the early days.
No, that’s not the issue. Arpaio conspired to knowingly bring false charges against the chief superior court judge of Maricopa County for the purpose is preventing that Judge from holding a hearing that Arpaio and his co-conspirators decided would not be in their interests, and he filed a frivolous lawsuit to harass political opponents. That is an abuse of office that ought to make every red-blooded American’s blood boil. This has nothing to do with Joe’s “get tough” policy on illegal immigrants.
Before you call Arpaio a “good person” I suggest you read the Arizona Supreme Court’s disciplinary report
and the summary of the lawsuit against Arpaio here:
That way you won’t be further embarrassed defending a corrupt sheriff.
What is obvious is that the same pseudo-investigation and trial by press conference that’s probably going to result in jail time for Arpaio is the very modus operandi of the cold case posse investigation of Obama. It is obvious from reading the posse report that it was a sham investigation consisting of innuendo and junk science. The mystery was why Arpaio did such a thing — now we know that it’s a pattern of behavior for him.
From time to time a decent person such as yourself comes by the blog and is persuaded to look at the original source material, not the pre-digested stuff on web sites. If you do, you’ll be better for the exercise.
HAH! You realize that the Australian Labor Party is currently in charge, don’t you?
And that the ALP is the official Australian member of the Socialist International. Of course it isn’t really socialist these days, but still…
And that the opposition party, the alternate to the Labor Party, which is the ‘conservative alternate to the supposedly ‘socialist’ party, calls itself the ‘Australian Liberal Party’.
And that Australia has a Universal Health Care system (called Medicare) that EVERYONE has to pay for (its an additional levy on the income tax return). With single payer and pharmaceutical price limits. And you can supplement it with private insurance too. And the only real Labor/Liberal ‘fight’ about the Medicare system is whether or not to add dental coverage?
And that there is effective national gun control laws (but people who actually need them can get what they need), that has significantly reduced the gun crime rate (alas nothing is perfect however). And it was the most conservative Liberal government in history that instigated the gun control reform.
And that there will be a nationwide ‘Carbon Tax’ going into effect in July? And that back when the Labor was pushing ‘Cap and Trade’, the Liberals wanted a ‘Carbon Tax’ instead, and now that that is what is being implemented, the Liberals want a ‘Cap and Trade’. or something. maybe. they’re not really saying anything about it except “SELL MORE COAL”.
And that the Government is sponsoring a major telecommunications upgrade that will see the copper wire network replaced by fiber to the home. And it is Government money that is doing it? And that the conservatives want to (partially) retire the copper network using Government money too, but not with FTTH, with a wireless system that will be obsolete and overcrowded before it is completed so they can do it all over again ( or more likely hand government back to Labor so they can blame them).
I could go on, but you should start to get the drift. Australia is by far more socialist than the USA is, and the policies you fantasize that Obama espouses are much more likely to be espoused by the Australian right wing than Obama and the Democrats.
And even if Labor loses the next election, the ( FSM forbid ) new Prime Minister, Tony “turn the boats around” Abbot, is so xenophobic that he will probably make you sleep in a packing container in Nauru for 5 years before he even considers looking at your visa application.
TRUTH likely is another birther who has never stepped foot outside of the U.S. All he needs to know is that your country is mostly white and that you speak English.
Two of my former high school classmates have lived in Australia for years. One has a daughter who was born in the U.S. and who moved to New York a few years ago. She came with the intention of staying here, but her fiance had diabetes and they moved back in less than a year because of the cost of health care here.
What would prove it – Obama’s birth in Hawaii – to your satisfaction?
This just shows how little of our legal system you actually know.
1. The Burden of Proof for this would not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but a preponderance of the evidence.
2. The burden of proof isn’t on Obama, but on the birthers. They are the ones making wild claims that claiming that Obama hasn’t proven them false.
3. You misrepresent what “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” actually means. That doesn’t mean that there’s no doubt. It means that there’s no reasonable doubt. Most people would not consider it reasonable to believe the following story:
Obama’s mother when she’s 8+ months pregenent goes on vacation to visit the homeland of her husband, without her husband (Obama Sr. has been proven to be taking classes in Hawaii during the summer of 1961). She takes a cross-world flight, that takes several days, flying into Nairobi, Kenya (at that time, Mombasa didn’t have an International Airport, and the only international airport in Kenya was in Nairobi). Then instead of going to the village of her husband to visit his family (the supposed reason for the trip), she travels hundreds of miles in the opposite direction (still don’t know the reason for this one), and has her baby in Mombasa. She then somehow makes it back to Hawaii, sneaks in the newborn with no documentation, and no records, so she can fraudently register him for the sole reason so that 35+ years later he can run for President…
I think that very unlikely.
Funny, I said exactly the same thing when Ronald Reagan ran for re-election. However, I stayed here, and we got through it.
You listen to Limbaugh, don’t you? Listen to this radio program about what you listen to and what it does to you:
If Doc hadn’t said he knows him, I’d have thought it was a deliberate spoof of typical birther writings.
I’ve said multiple times how birthers
(1) cannot handle homonyms (“one’s” / “once”)
(2) do not understand apostrophes (“party’s” instead of “parties”, but “shes” instead of “she’s”)
(3) use strange capitalization (“if They can’t Prove A Sheriff did”)
(4) use ALL CAPS
but I have rarely seen it all in one posting, especially (2) in the form of not just using apostrophes where they don’t belong (as in writing plurals as “‘s”) but also the other way around (“shes”).
Here is an example of an enormous irony meter explosion from several years ago:
December 21, 2008 at 10:20 pm
(excerpt) “Sally, your exactly correct. I said in here before, which you probably did not read, I worked the polls Nov. 4th. I can’t recall the exact numbers now, so I would probably misquote my original post, so I will estimate. We had something like 60 or 70 Spoiled Ballots at our precinct. 90% of those were Democrat voters. Of the Dem voters all but just a few made the mistake of voting not just for Obama, but for Multiple Presidents. WHY?… because they were to illiterate or to ignorant, or both, to read a ballot.* I SWEAR to you, I had to log at least 40 ballots where Obama voters picked between 6 and 12 total Presidents, because they did not read at the top of the column “CHOOSE ONLY ONE PRESIDENT”
The point being, we were just a very small precinct, living in a neighborhood with a small amount of minorities. I can only imagine how many uneducated, politically ignorant people voted elsewhere for him.
I’m not saying they don’t deserve to vote. But it sure makes someone question, if you can’t hardly read, can’t hardly spell your own name, can’t follow simple directions, how can you be expected to make a rational decision of whom you think is best suited for office? They DID NOT. They voted for race and race alone. A person should be proud to vote for someone of their race, but NOT if that is the only reason they are doing it, and I KNOW it was.”
*Emphasis was added to note exact moment of irony meter detonation.
Ain’t that the truth. That is exactly how they think. For the hardcore, unrelenting birther, that’s what I see; it is about the conspiracy. More than anything else that may factor.
I get these kind of comments all the time, made worse by the fact that I actually worked for and met some of the declared leaders of the conspiracy. Thus, interestingly enough, in my experience, a birther can combine all those reasons into one. Not “or,” but “and.”
As in….willfully ignorant, part of the conspiracy, *and* paid shill.
So, let me get this straight, Einstein… you SWEAR they voted for “between six and twelve” Presidential candidates, because of their RACE? How many minority candidates were there? Huh?
“Truth,” you’re a lying snack of Schlitz, and you know it.
And what it makes it even more ironical is that if all ignorant and illiterate people were disenfranchised, some red states might actually be in play for the Democrats.
For me, it’s not so much that I’m anti birther (although I am), it’s that I’m anti tells lies about President Obama. I am/was not a George Bush supporter, but it never occurred to me to make stuff up about the man and outright lie as is being done re: President Obama.
I do find that liberal blogs are much better at telling what actually is happening than, say Fox. I don’t see many instances of MSNBC miss labelling, say, a democratic senator who has done something and is involved in a scandal, as a republican. Yet we’ve seen that many times on Fox and many other conservative blogs will spin a headline outright.
Actually, I have seen Huff Post do this and there was a time not too long ago that I began to think that Huff Post was anti President Obama. If the President did something largely perceived as good, it was burried on Huff Post. But if the President let Bo run ahead of him, it might be a HUGH HEADLINE with something like, PRESIDENT OBAMA ENDANGERS DOG! Then you read the piece adn its’ nothing like that. These are just samples of the types of things that were on Huff Post at one time. I tried to comment on them and my comments would not be posted. I did not use profanity, but something like “keep hope alive, Huff Post, but President Obama is doing fine” and it would not be posted.
So anyhow, my point is that reading or not ready liberal/conservative blogs is neither here nor there to me. As long as I feel I’m getting the truth, good or bad, I’m okay with that.
Which brings me to why I read here, Dr. Conspiracy. I largely feel that you tell it like it is and let teh chips fall where they may. There was a time when I felt you actually was questioning President’s Obama’s natural born citizenship because of you trying to get that passport stuff. I didn’t get what you thought you might find relative to President Obama, but whatever. Different strokes and all that.
But as long as I feel I’m getting the truth and not spin, I’ll keep reading…….
…”were questioning” and a few words spelled incorrectly in my previous post……..sorry…..I’m at my office, it’s morning, we’re in the process of moving to a different location, I haven’t had coffee yet AND I’m hungry…..not excuses, just mitigating factors……..
The great thing about a theory is it exists apart from the theorist.
The LFBC PDF is a forgery or it isn’t.
Nothing about Arpaio has any bearing on the validity and soundness of the theory that the LFBC PDF is a computer-generated forgery.
I disagree. If it is true that Arpaio has been shown to use underhanded means to get at those he considers his political enemies, then it lends support to the idea that he would use underhanded means to discredit Obama, because it’s Obama’s Dept. of Justice that is leading the current federal investigation into misdeeds by the Arapaio and his staff.
Of course, birther accusations that the PDF is a computer-generated forgery are not really worth arguing. On the one hand, these accusations are demonstrable false, and on the other hand, the PDF has not been used in a official capacity and so any critique of it has no value in a court.
What you say may be true about theories. An illiterate is free to propose an alternate theory to gravity or evolution or relativity. However, when it comes to facts, the competence and honesty of the experimentor are very relevant. If the claimed experimental validation of a theory comes from someone whose previous work was found to be invalid and/or fraudulent and who stands to gain from the outcome, their studies wiil be met with great scepticism in the scientific community. Add to that the fact that said studies obviously lack essential controls and were conducted by invalid methodologies and no sensible person will put any credibility in those theories.
I think you used a “+” instead of a “-” back on page 1 of your theory.
Also, you can’t just ignore imaginary roots, especially when there are no real roots.
If the Birthers were not citing the Cold Case Posse’s credentials and using the phrase “law enforcement investigation” as a talking point, then I would agree that Arpaio’s history is irrelevant. However, insofar as anyone relies on Arpaio’s credibility as part of the argument, then his history is very important.
Most people do not take the time to learn all they need to learn about the LFBC and how PDF documents work. They either take somebody’s word that those who call it a forgery are actually experts or they take somebody’s word for what the indicators of a forgery are and naively observe that they are present. In either case, virtually everyone who has an opinion about the LFBC bases it on trust at some level and this is why Arpaio, Irey, Corsi, Polland, Vogt, Papa, Zebest and Zullo are essential parts of the story.
There are dozens of articles on this site that deal with the technical analysis of the LFBC. They stand alone; however, we aren’t here because of some objective scientific conclusion; we are here because of a bunch of self-proclaimed experts are pushing the claim.