The occasional open thread: 2nd term edition

312 Responses to The occasional open thread: 2nd term edition

1. ZixiOfIx says:

   January 25, 2013 at 12:54 am  ZixiOfIx(Quote)

   I don’t know if this has been mentioned or not, but this is for all the birthers who say that you can’t be a citizen of two countries and be President.

   I am reading A. Lincoln: A Biography, by Ronald White Jr., and went to look something up that I’d read. It led to this:

   Abraham Lincoln was a citizen of the Republic of San Marino. Citizenship was offered to Lincoln near the start of the Civil War, as a gesture of support for the Union and for Lincoln personally.

   http://history.state.gov/countries/san-marino

   Lincoln joins Thomas Jefferson and probably others who were citizens of more than one nation concurrent with being president.
2. Dr. Conspiracy says:

   January 25, 2013 at 1:21 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

   Add George Washington and James Madison (France).

   ZixiOfIx: Lincoln joins Thomas Jefferson and probably others who were citizens of more than one nation concurrent with being president.
3. BillTheCat says:

   January 25, 2013 at 1:21 am  BillTheCat(Quote)

   I love the new picture he has for this term, much more joyful 🙂
4. Rickey says:

   January 25, 2013 at 1:49 am  Rickey(Quote)

   Media Matters has published an extensive article on the many conspiracy theories of Jerome Corsi.

   http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/the-many-conspiracies-of-kerry-swift-boater-jer/192363
5. ImWilson says:

   January 25, 2013 at 2:24 am  ImWilson(Quote)

   Oh My God Rudy has lost his mind. Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4InCjfF_jW4
6. Lupin says:

   January 25, 2013 at 2:38 am  Lupin(Quote)

   Dr. Conspiracy: Add George Washington and James Madison (France).

   Of all possible cases I’m particularly impressed by that of Madison, because of his enthusiastic and grateful letter of acknowledgement to the French Government after being told he’d been granted French citizenship.

   Certainly one can’t argue that such a matter was totally unknown or hidden; his rivals at the very least must have known of this and could have made political hay of it during the campaign. Yet i could find no mention of such arguments used against Madison.

   He was therefore elected as a dual citizen fair and square.

   BTW, Dr. C, I understand from my LA office that someone with a name much like yours recently purchased an ebook copy of NEMOVILLE which includes the Vattel microcosmic story which I plugged here.

   If so, first, thank you! Also, I’d be interested if you were to give it a brief review here in the open thread (or another open thread when you get around to reading it).

   Frankly, like Voltaire, Vattel the fiction writer has aged better than Vattel the political/legal writer. (This in no way diminishes his latter role in history; I’m just saying that his fiction has aged better than his essays and treatises.)
7. The Magic M says:

   January 25, 2013 at 4:29 am  The Magic M(Quote)

   ZixiOfIx: but this is for all the birthers who say that you can’t be a citizen of two countries and be President. […]

   Abraham Lincoln was a citizen of the Republic of San Marino. Citizenship was offered to Lincoln near the start of the Civil War

   It’s not just for the “no dual citizen can be President” birthers. In fact, it is for all birthers. Because birthers claim US law does not recognize dual citizenship, they would conclude (as they have for Obama) that accepting San Marinoan (?) citizenship automatically renounced his US citizenship, making him not even a US citizen.

   So there you have it, birthers effectively say Lincoln wasn’t a citizen while continuing to be Presidenting While White (which is of course a-OK for birthers).
8. Majority Will says:

   January 25, 2013 at 6:02 am  Majority Will(Quote)

   Rickey:
   Media Matters has published an extensive article on the many conspiracy theories of Jerome Corsi.

   http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/the-many-conspiracies-of-kerry-swift-boater-jer/192363

   They left out his paranoia based, “scientific” research on the source of oil. From Black Gold Stranglehold:
   “Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith expose the fraudulent science that has been sold to the American people in order to enslave them — the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and a finite resource. On the contrary, this book presents authoritative research, currently known mostly in the scientific community, that oil is not a product of decaying dinosaurs and prehistoric forests. Rather, it is a natural product of the Earth. The scientific evidence cited by Corsi and Smith suggests that oil is constantly being produced by the Earth, far below the planet’s surface, and that it is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the Earth’s rotation.”
9. The Magic M says:

   January 25, 2013 at 6:49 am  The Magic M(Quote)

   Follow the money.

   It can’t be a coincidence that almost every right-wing conspiracy theory resolves to “we can waste as many resources as we like without consequences for all eternity” (i.e. a “do as thou wilt” for big corporations) and “everyone who says otherwise is a gay Satanist Muslim Marxist NWO demon from Hell”.
10. misha marinsky says:

    January 25, 2013 at 7:10 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Rickey: Media Matters has published an extensive article on the many conspiracy theories of Jerome Corsi.
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/the-many-conspiracies-of-kerry-swift-boater-jer/192363

    Corsi Hid ‘Gay Life’ to Write Pulp Novellas – help spread the truth:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2012/09/claim-corsi-hid-gay-life-to-write-pulp.html
11. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 25, 2013 at 8:07 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    The CIA has nothing on your intelligence operation.

    We have a tradition of reading aloud to each other in my family, and NEMOVILLE will be next after Gogol’s Dead Souls.

    Lupin: BTW, Dr. C, I understand from my LA office that someone with a name much like yours recently purchased an ebook copy of NEMOVILLE which includes the Vattel microcosmic story which I plugged here
12. donna says:

    January 25, 2013 at 9:32 am  donna(Quote)

    Obama’s birth certificate still an issue in Texas?

    When President Obama was sworn in Tuesday, he paused as he exited, commenting that he wanted one last look at the crowd on the Mall since he would never experience another Inauguration. After all, the twenty-second amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to two terms.

    But Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, apparently hasn’t given up concerns about Obama’s qualifications to be president, based on persistent rumors that his Hawaiian birth certificate was faked. Zedler has filed HB 650, which would authorize the Texas Secretary of State to “obtain a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate from the original issuing authority” before placing any presidential or vice-presidential candidate on a Texas ballot.

    The bill further stipulates that the name of a candidate for president or vice-president may only be placed on a Texas ballot only if “the party’s nominees’ possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law.”

    Last April, Obama released his official birth certificate after years of rampant rumors from the so-called “birther movement” that he was born in Kenya, saying at the time, “We are not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

    If Zedler’s bill gets a hearing, it won’t be the first time the Texas Legislature has been compared to a circus.

    http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2013/01/obamas-birth-certificate-still-an-issue-in-texas/

    PETITION: Stop the Texas Birther Bill (HB 650)

    http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-texas-birther
13. JD Reed says:

    January 25, 2013 at 10:34 am  JD Reed(Quote)

    Maybe the opposition to new gun laws and regulations will suck some of the oxygen away from the diehard birthers. Of late proposals to prevent federal officers from enforcing new laws and regs have been popping up like toadstools.
    The latest count I’m aware of is from an outfit that calls itself the Save America Foundation, which counted 12 states in which such initiatives are proposed. The headline they wrote is way premature, however:

    “Twelve States To Jail Feds Who Violate The 2nd Amendment Or Nullify Federal Gun Control Laws”
    http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2013/01/21/twelve-states-to-jail-feds-who-violate-the-2nd-amendment-or-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws/

    None of these proposals are even remotely close to being enacted. It’s so ironic that people who wrap themselves in the Constitution so blatantly ignore a key provision, the Supremacy Clause, which basically says that any constitutional federal law trumps any otherwise valid state constitutional provision or law. Marbury v. Madison says that the federal court gets to decide whether a law is constitutional, and McCulloch v. Maryland makes it plain that no state law can trump a valid federal law.
    Regarding gun laws, the two proposals that the gun lobby excoriates are the so-called assault rifle ban and the magazine capacity limitation. But since both survived constitutional challenges while they were in effect (1994-2004), enacting either would be presumptively constitutional. And the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, authored by Justice Scalia no less, makes it plain that while handguns can’t be constitutionally banned, reasonable regulations are OK, including on dangerous and unusual weapons.
14. AROD says:

    January 25, 2013 at 10:51 am  AROD(Quote)

    Can someone clarify exactly what the Supreme Court will be doing with Taitz’s conference? What is the purpose of the conference? Who will be there and what are the details?
15. The Magic M says:

    January 25, 2013 at 10:58 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    AROD: what the Supreme Court will be doing with Taitz’s conference?

    First, there is no “Taitz’ confererence”.

    Conference means SCOTUS will look at large number of current cases and decide whether to actually hear them or not. Since SCOTUS did not ask defendants for a statement in Taitz’ case, chances are 100% they will not hear it (as this always happens when SCOTUS already considers the case without merit).
16. The Magic M says:

    January 25, 2013 at 11:04 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    donna: commenting that he wanted one last look at the crowd on the Mall since he would never experience another Inauguration

    Birther translation: “in no more than 4 years, I will be the God Emperor anyways”…

    donna: Zedler has filed HB 650, which would authorize the Texas Secretary of State to “obtain a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate from the original issuing authority”

    I’m still hoping that such a bill passes (after all, it won’t affect Obama anyway) and causes the next GOP presidential candidate to be taken off the ballot (e.g. because the “original issuing authority” no longer exists).

    By another interpretation, this requires no more than a certified copy of a COLB from Hawaii (because the Hawaii DoH is the “original issuing authority”). I think only birthers would argue this means “copy of the original vault BC from the time of birth”.

    donna: The bill further stipulates that the name of a candidate for president or vice-president may only be placed on a Texas ballot only if “the party’s nominees’ possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law.”

    Which is sorta redundant, isn’t it? He might just as well propose a bill that people may only be put in jail for life if convicted by a court.
17. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 25, 2013 at 11:06 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    When someone applies for relief to the Supreme Court, they send their petition to one of the justices, who either denies it, or distributes it to the other justices to be considered at their weekly conference. In the case of a stay (which is what Orly’s application is), the justice could issue the stay without a conference.

    Typically when a justice denies a petition and the petition is submitted to a second justice, that justice will distribute it to the whole Court. That’s what has happened in the case of the Taitz petition in Noonan v. Bowen (denied by Justice Kennedy and distributed by Justice Roberts).

    It seems to be a rule that if the justice who distributes the case actually intends the case to go beyond a denial at the conference, then responses are requested from the other side, something that did not happen with the Taitz petition.

    The weekly conference is usually on Friday, and the Court publishes its list of cases accepted for consideration by the court (few), and those denied (many), on the following Monday (or in this case on Tuesday because of the President’s Day holiday on Monday). The Supreme Court Justices are present at the meeting, and I can only speculate that some support staff may be there. It is not public and it is not hearing; it is just a conference where the Justices look at a list of cases and decide which ones they will hear, and which ones they won’t. They may consider 100 cases or more at one conference. Since Taitz is asking for a stay against something that has already happened, it’s unlikely that the Court will have any interest in the case.

    If the Noonan case is rejected in conference, and it almost certainly will be, then all that will appear is the name of the case on a list under the title “Denied.” Here is an example of the most recent weekly orders list:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012213zor_1bo2.pdf

    AROD: Can someone clarify exactly what the Supreme Court will be doing with Taitz’s conference? What is the purpose of the conference? Who will be there and what are the details?
18. Crustacean says:

    January 25, 2013 at 11:33 am  Crustacean(Quote)

    The Magic M: gay Satanist Muslim Marxist NWO demon(s) from Hell”.

    I call dibs on that as the name for my garage band!!
19. Northland10 says:

    January 25, 2013 at 1:20 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    AROD:
    Can someone clarify exactly what the Supreme Court will be doing with Taitz’s conference? What is the purpose of the conference?Who will be there and what are the details?

    I am rather certain that her application will not even make it to the discuss list. Since those that make the discuss list are not made public, I would not know for sure.

    Despite what Orly may say or think, this is only an application to stay an event that has already happened. Any “merits” would be addressed only from the cert petition. Orly has not submitted one and the clock is ticking.
20. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 25, 2013 at 2:05 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Every time I listen to Rudy I say “he’s wound up too tight” and the next time I find that he’s wound up even tighter. I’m afraid the authorities may be visiting him again.

    ImWilson: Oh My God Rudy has lost his mind. Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4InCjfF_jW4
21. Rickey says:

    January 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    AROD:
    Can someone clarify exactly what the Supreme Court will be doing with Taitz’s conference? What is the purpose of the conference?Who will be there and what are the details?

    I don’t know the details, but they will deny Orly’s petition. You can bank on it. In fact, if you know any birthers who are willing to bet that SCOTUS will grant her petition, bet as much as you can that they will not. If you own a house, take out a second mortgage and bet everything.
22. Rickey says:

    January 25, 2013 at 2:47 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    Northland10:

    Despite what Orly may say or think, this is only an application to stay an event that has already happened.Any “merits” would be addressed only from the cert petition. Orly has not submitted one and the clock is ticking.

    I would wager that when her petition is denied Orly will drop the case and not file a cert petition. This is the fourth case she has appealed to SCOTUS, but the only one in which she actually filed for cert was Rhodes v. MacDonald, where the issue being appealed was the sanctions against her.
23. Majority Will says:

    January 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

    Crustacean: I call dibs on that as the name for my garage band!!

    But you’ll have to play polka music with 8th grade students who refuse to practice.
24. US Citizen says:

    January 25, 2013 at 3:11 pm  US Citizen(Quote)

    Rudy’s latest rant could be summed up with:
    Crazed man on racist birther rant angriliy drives car while endangering fellow citizens by often not holding steering wheel or paying attention to road.
    Said man suspects his own illegality doing this by watching out for police.

    Great citizen.. not.
25. gorefan says:

    January 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm  gorefan(Quote)

    US Citizen: Rudy’s latest rant could be summed up with:

    He does a pretty good Lewis Black impersonation – only not as funny.

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lewis-black-takes-apart-dishonest-campaign
26. AROD says:

    January 25, 2013 at 5:45 pm  AROD(Quote)

    Northland10: I am rather certain that her application will not even make it to the discuss list. Since those that make the discuss list are not made public, I would not know for sure.Despite what Orly may say or think, this is only an application to stay an event that has already happened. Any “merits” would be addressed only from the cert petition. Orly has not submitted one and the clock is ticking.

    Thanks to you and Dr. C for detailed reply. My follow up is why did this case even get this far? Why did Roberts “distribute” the case – what did he see as a SC issue?
27. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 25, 2013 at 5:58 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    The presumption, I think, is that if the petitioner is going to submit the case to a second justice after denial, that they will keep doing that with justice after justice. It is more efficient to deal with it once in conference rather separately by each justice. Here’s what the SC has to say on this topic:

    If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may renew the application to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application. In practice, renewed applications usually are referred to the full Court to avoid such a prolonged procedure.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

    AROD: Thanks to you and Dr. C for detailed reply. My follow up is why did this case even get this far? Why did Roberts “distribute” the case – what did he see as a SC issue?
28. Keith says:

    January 26, 2013 at 12:50 am  Keith(Quote)

    Comment from GooDog on Huffpo article “Romney Campaign Seeks Correction From Fact-Checker Of Jeep Ad, Fact-Checker Says, ‘No.’ “

    Jeepers are the new birthers of 2012. The next 4 years of opposition to Obama will be predicated on the premise that Barack Hussein Obama was not legitimately sworn in again as President of the United States of America, because Jeeps that would not have been built in America in the first place are being built in China.
29. JPotter says:

    January 26, 2013 at 1:12 am  JPotter(Quote)

    Keith: Jeepers

    Creepers.
30. ZixiOfIx says:

    January 26, 2013 at 1:30 am  ZixiOfIx(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Add George Washington and James Madison (France).

    I wasn’t aware of either Washington or Madison. Thank you for the information.

    I’m wondering how the birthers get around this?

    Also, I’ve often wondered how birthers deal with the various rights of return, offered by different nations. How is a preferential citizenship based on heritage different from President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship (which he allowed to lapse)?
31. Rickey says:

    January 26, 2013 at 1:41 am  Rickey(Quote)

    AROD: Thanks to you and Dr. C for detailed reply.My follow up is why did this case even get this far?Why did Roberts “distribute” the case – what did he see as a SC issue?

    There is a common misconception that it is difficult to get a case before the Supreme Court. In fact, anyone can get a case before the Supreme Court if that person is willing to do the appropriate paperwork and pay the fees. If you properly file an appeal with SCOTUS, you are entitled to a decision on whether your appeal will be considered.

    In the case of a petition for a temporary restraining order, the petition first goes to whichever justice handles the area where the original petition was filed. That justice can then grant the TRO or deny it. If it is denied, the person who filed it has the right to submit it to any of the other eight justices to see if that justice will grant it. The second justice can either grant the TRO or distribute the petition to the entire court. This is routine procedure. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the petition raises a “legitimate” issue.

    Disbarred attorney Montgomery Sibley has filed 51 appeals with the Supreme Court. He hasn’t won any of them, but he still files them. Each and every one of his appeals has gone through the same process as Orly’s. None of them had any merit.
32. misha marinsky says:

    January 26, 2013 at 1:45 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Keith: Jeepers

    JPotter: Creepers

    Where’d you get those peepers?
33. misha marinsky says:

    January 26, 2013 at 1:51 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Hayley Mills – Jeepers Creepers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5m2LZhOyps
34. aesthetocyst says:

    January 26, 2013 at 3:10 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

    ZixiOfIx: I’m wondering how the birthers get around this?

    They get a lot of mileage out of ignorance; should they accidentally learn something, their chief weapon is denial. Ignorance and denial! Their two, two chief weapons are …
35. Lupin says:

    January 26, 2013 at 3:13 am  Lupin(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The CIA has nothing on your intelligence operation.

    We have a tradition of reading aloud to each other in my family, and NEMOVILLE will be next after Gogol’s Dead Souls.

    Well, your name did jump to me — let’s face it, you are now famous!

    Brian Stableford and I are very grateful for the purchase. This series of anthologies of French proto-SF stories from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (six books so far) isn’t, as you can guess, a particularly strong seller, appealing mostly to scholars and like-minded folks. I hope you enjoy the book, and look forward to your appraisal.
36. Keith says:

    January 26, 2013 at 3:15 am  Keith(Quote)

    misha marinsky: Hayley Mills – Jeepers Creepers

    Ya beat me to it!
37. Northland10 says:

    January 26, 2013 at 9:51 am  Northland10(Quote)

    ZixiOfIx: I’m wondering how the birthers get around this?

    Ignore, Redirect, Return

    Ignore – They will ignore this was every even mentioned. There will be no response.

    Redirect – They will move on to another talking point that is, at most, only slightly connected to the original argument.

    Return – Eventually, they will come back and make their original claim again as if it was brand new and not already debated and debunked.

    For an example of this process, see Apuzzo.
38. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 26, 2013 at 9:56 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I’d wager that only a tiny percentage of birthers even know it. Also neither Washington nor Madison had to be natural born citizens anyway, since they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    ZixiOfIx: I wasn’t aware of either Washington or Madison. Thank you for the information.

    I’m wondering how the birthers get around this?
39. J.D. Sue says:

    January 26, 2013 at 1:51 pm  J.D. Sue(Quote)

    My favorites from Taitz’s newest post:

    “I believe that there is a need to investigate any and all transactions, deletions and modifications in the databases done by Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief actuary of the SSA at a time, as Obama also used Ballantyne’s mother’s SSA. Obama would not be that obnoxious, that arrogant in using the SSN of the mother of the Chief actuary of the SSA if Ballantyne would not have been complicit. I called Ballantyne and talked to him. His responses were highly suspect.”

    “[Bill] Ayers resided in NY, where Bounel resided for some time and in Chicago, where Obama resided in 1986. I need more info to fill in the blanks and connect the dots.”

    I’m beginning to wonder whether Taitz worked for the KGB and was fired for incompetence…
40. misha marinsky says:

    January 26, 2013 at 2:31 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    J.D. Sue: I’m beginning to wonder whether Taitz worked for the KGB and was fired for incompetence…

    Orly Taitz was a KGB agent:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post.html
41. J.D. Sue says:

    January 26, 2013 at 3:53 pm  J.D. Sue(Quote)

    misha marinsky: Orly Taitz was a KGB agent:http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post.html

    —-

    Aha! ID evidence on the Internet! Why is our lackey treasonous media conspiring not to report on this? Maybe there is one patriotic lawyer who loves our great country and will file an emergency motion to compel Putin and Taitz’s neighbors to appear in court to produce all records on the life and times of Agent Taitz… And maybe there is one honest judge that will rule that any failure to appear and produce records is proof positive they have all conspired to overthrow our sacred constitution since 1890…
42. US Citizen says:

    January 26, 2013 at 4:54 pm  US Citizen(Quote)

    I’m just wondering if Taitz will view a conference decision as the “say one, say all” type statement it’s meant to be.
    She might continue her quest on yet another chief justice hoping for different results.
43. misha marinsky says:

    January 26, 2013 at 5:01 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Readers here know I regularly tout Cory Booker for president.

    Here’s one more:

    Cory Booker Continues His Steady March Toward Canonization by Personally Saving a Stranded Dog from Freezing to Death

    Read on:
    http://gawker.com/5979103/cory-booker-continues-his-steady-march-toward-canonization-by-personally-saving-a-stranded-dog-from-freezing-to-death
44. Arthur says:

    January 27, 2013 at 9:31 am  Arthur(Quote)

    Good morning! Need a laugh? Read what Mike Zullo recently said when interviewed by Carl Gallups concerning “new evidence” he’s dangling in front of people foolish enough to trust him:

    “We are so convinced… let me go out on limb… I am going to put my reputation out there that we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt–the higher standard–beyond a reasonable doubt that this document is an utter forgery.”

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/01/team-arpaio-newly-found-obama-evidence.html#idc-container

    Surprisingly, some birthers have grown skeptical; e.g., Freedom First complains, “What are you waiting for Mr. Zullo & Sheriff Arpaio?. . . Your credibility is lost with your continued cryptic messages of truth being released in the future while calling for more money.”

    Perhaps birthers and Obots can find common ground — at least where money is concerned.
45. donna says:

    January 27, 2013 at 9:48 am  donna(Quote)

    Arthur:

    thanks for the link

    Zullo also says; “the evidence we have acquired, new found evidence that we have never made public at any point in time, and we are not going to make public until we have the right opportunity, will convince even the greatest skeptic that this document is 100% a forgery.”

    “the right opportunity”?

    obama’s third term?

    “I am going to put my reputation out there”?

    what reputation?

    HYSTERICAL
46. Majority Will says:

    January 27, 2013 at 9:51 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    Arthur:
    Good morning! Need a laugh? Read what Mike Zullo recently said when interviewed by Carl Gallups concerning “new evidence” he’s dangling in front of people foolish enough to trust him:

    “We are so convinced… let me go out on limb… I am going to put my reputation out there that we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt–the higher standard–beyonda reasonable doubt that this document is an utter forgery.”

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/01/team-arpaio-newly-found-obama-evidence.html#idc-container

    Surprisingly, some birthers have grown skeptical; e.g., Freedom First complains, “What are you waiting for Mr. Zullo & Sheriff Arpaio?. . . Your credibility is lost with your continued cryptic messages of truth being released in the future while calling for more money.”

    Perhaps birthers and Obots can find common ground — at least where money is concerned.

    Spoken like a true con artist.
47. Majority Will says:

    January 27, 2013 at 10:18 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    Majority Will: Spoken like a true con artist.

    Zullo, not Arthur. 😉
48. gorefan says:

    January 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm  gorefan(Quote)

    Arthur: “new evidence” he’s dangling in front of people foolish enough to trust him:

    “And the other thing I want your listeners to really walk away from today with, is understanding something. Don’t let people shape what you believe because you think they have a lot of letters after their names or they acquired how many different degrees. Alright, what’s missing in today’s society is good old fashion common sense and when you can take the certifying mechanisms, the register’s stamp and move it all around the document but you scan a document in it and you can’t move anything that tells most people something wrong.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GokuSaBbBAg&feature=player_embedded

    I guess he’s getting tired of real computer experts telling him he’s full of sh!t.
49. Arthur says:

    January 27, 2013 at 1:33 pm  Arthur(Quote)

    When Zullo argues, “Alright, what’s missing in today’s society is good old fashion common sense,” I reminded that Descartes observed, “Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.”
50. aesthetocyst says:

    January 27, 2013 at 1:56 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

    gorefan: Don’t let people shape what you believe because you think they have a lot of letters after their names or they acquired how many different degrees.

    LOL! Zullo said that? Les birfers need to get together on this whole makes an expert thing. One second they insist on being listened to, because of their (supposed) titles, and the next insist such are irrelevant.

    As with birth certificates, when it comes to argument, the information is all that counts. It doesn’t get any stronger with a prettier frame, or weaker if relegated to the trash can.
51. gorefan says:

    January 27, 2013 at 2:23 pm  gorefan(Quote)

    aesthetocyst: Zullo said that?

    Yeap, at about the 7:55 mark of the interview.
52. Dave B. says:

    January 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    I’ve been spending a lot of time lately with some of the Supreme Court decisions that come up in dealing with birthers, and since you’ll find one every so often that insists on bringing up Dred Scott, I’ve been taking a look at that.
    They’ll refer to Justice Daniel’s citation of Vattel as proof of their two-citizen-parent theory. Now if you look at that citation in its context, it illuminates (particularly when compared to Justice Curtis’s opinion in the same case) what “doubts” Chief Justice Waite was talking about in Minor when he said
    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
    From Justice Daniels:

    “By this same writer it is also said: ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.’ (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)
    From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow, that with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact; that one thus situated could be no party to, or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.
    But it has been insisted, in argument, that the emancipation of a slave, effected either by the direct act and assent of the master, or by causes operating in contravention of his will, produces a change in the status or capacities of the slave, such as will transform him from a mere subject of property, into a being possessing a social, civil, and political equality with a citizen. In other words, will make him a citizen of the State within which he was, previously to his emancipation, a slave.
    It is difficult to conceive by what magic the mere surcease or renunciation of an interest in a subject of property, by an individual possessing that interest, can alter the essential character of that property with respect to persons or communities unconnected with such renunciation. Can it be pretended that an individual in any State, by his single act, though voluntarily or designedly performed, yet without the co-operation or warrant of the Government, perhaps in opposition to its policy or its guaranties, can create a citizen of that State? Much more emphatically may it be asked, how such a result could be accomplished by means wholly extraneous, and entirely foreign to the Government of the State? The argument thus urged must lead to these extraordinary conclusions. It is regarded at once as wholly untenable, and as unsustained by the direct authority or by the analogies of history.”

    And now we each and all go take our long, hot showers. When the birthers bring up Minor, that’s the kind of “doubts” they’re trying to perpetuate.
    Those are the paragraphs enumerated 307-310 here:
    http://openjurist.org/60/us/393/dred-scott-v-john-f-a-sandford
53. Reality Check says:

    January 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm  Reality Check(Quote)

    I caught that also. He is probably pissed that John Woodman and I contacted the guy who essentially invented Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression and he said the claims of forgery were wrong and that there is nothing in the PDF file to suggest it was intentionally manipulated.

    gorefan: “And the other thing I want your listeners to really walk away from today with, is understanding something.Don’t let people shape what you believe because you think they have a lot of letters after their names or they acquired how many different degrees.Alright, what’s missing in today’s society is good old fashion common sense and when you can take the certifying mechanisms, the register’s stamp and move it all around the document but you scan a document in it and you can’t move anything that tells most people something wrong.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GokuSaBbBAg&feature=player_embedded

    I guess he’s getting tired of real computer experts telling him he’s full of sh!t.
54. Thinker says:

    January 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm  Thinker(Quote)

    Hahaha. Classic teabagger thinking. Don’t be fooled by people who know what they are talking about. Believe what buffoons and wannabes like Zullo tell you.

    gorefan: Don’t let people shape what you believe because you think they have a lot of letters after their names or they acquired how many different degrees.
55. Keith says:

    January 27, 2013 at 5:14 pm  Keith(Quote)

    I’m trying to find a link to the animated ‘deposition’ where a birther (Zullo?) is being deposed about the fraudlent birth certificate. Question after question about what exactly has been changed on the document that makes it a fraud.

    I can’t remember who produced it, can’t find it on YouTube, total blank.

    Can anyone help me out here?

    Thanks in advance.
56. Dave B. says:

    January 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    I don’t think Flo’s going to give him the Progressive Snapshot discount.

    ImWilson:
    Oh My God Rudy has lost his mind. Check it out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4InCjfF_jW4
57. Dave B. says:

    January 27, 2013 at 5:21 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    This one?

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/squeeky-deposes-deputy-zullo-video/

    Keith:
    I’m trying to find a link to the animated ‘deposition’ where a birther (Zullo?) is being deposed about the fraudlent birth certificate. Question after question about what exactly has been changed on the document that makes it a fraud.

    I can’t remember who produced it, can’t find it on YouTube, total blank.

    Can anyone help me out here?

    Thanks in advance.
58. Keith says:

    January 27, 2013 at 5:26 pm  Keith(Quote)

    Keith:
    I’m trying to find a link to the animated ‘deposition’ where a birther (Zullo?) is being deposed about the fraudlent birth certificate. Question after question about what exactly has been changed on the document that makes it a fraud.

    I can’t remember who produced it, can’t find it on YouTube, total blank.

    Can anyone help me out here?

    Thanks in advance.

    Maybe expectitus?
59. aarrgghh says:

    January 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm  aarrgghh(Quote)

    common sense is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
60. Keith says:

    January 27, 2013 at 6:16 pm  Keith(Quote)

    Dave B.:
    This one?

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/squeeky-deposes-deputy-zullo-video/

    Yeah! that one. My first thought was Squeeky but I just couldn’t see it. Thanks.

    It is a perfect response to the troll-hive that has been regurgitating the forged PDF bullmanure.
61. Northland10 says:

    January 27, 2013 at 6:19 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    aarrgghh:
    common sense is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Especially those who forgot their beloved common sense when it comes to research methodology (and the scientific method). The declared it a forgery while comparing it to nothing.
62. Reality Check says:

    January 27, 2013 at 6:51 pm  Reality Check(Quote)

    I am always amazed that people like Zullo who are probably regular church goers can lie like he does. Don’t they think that you will roast in Hell for lying like a sonofabitch?
63. brygenon says:

    January 27, 2013 at 7:13 pm  brygenon(Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo, an occasional contributor here, is still at it:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/01/barack-obama-de-facto-president-of.html

    A couple years ago I predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would deny Apuzzo’s petition for certiorari in Kerchner v. Obama, and then he would bow out of this nonsense. I expected that he would explain his birther blather as the zealous representation that an attorney owes his client. I was right about his results in court, as we all are all the time in birther cases, but beyond that my optimistic assessment of his legal acumen has proven spectacularly wrong.
64. Rickey says:

    January 27, 2013 at 7:49 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    J.D. Sue:

    “[Bill] Ayers resided in NY, where Bounel resided for some time and in Chicago, where Obama resided in 1986. I need more info to fill in the blanks and connect the dots.”

    Wow – Orly has discovered records of people who have lived in two of America’s largest cities! In Orly’s world, that can’t possibly be a coincidence.
65. Arthur says:

    January 27, 2013 at 7:57 pm  Arthur(Quote)

    Reality Check: I am always amazed that people like Zullo who are probably regular church goers can lie like he does. Don’t they think that you will roast in Hell for lying like a sonofabitch?

    I have the same reaction to creation “scientists” who blatantly misrepresent, distort, and lie about everything from geology to biology. Like birthers, they seem to believe that the end justifies the means.
66. misha marinsky says:

    January 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    aarrgghh: common sense is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. – Dr. Johnson
67. Arthur says:

    January 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm  Arthur(Quote)

    misha marinsky: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. – Dr. Johnson

    Prayer. The last refuge of a scoundrel. — Lisa Simpson
68. J.D. Sue says:

    January 27, 2013 at 11:54 pm  J.D. Sue(Quote)

    Doc: Have you seen that Taitz today filed a discovery subpoena on party-defendant Barack Obama, in Grinols? Too awful to catalogue all the problems with it, but here is a start: 1) Plaintiffs can’t start discovery until defendant has filed an answer to the complaint, 2) Parties can’t subpoena another party, 3) The documents she demands fly in the face of all the law set forth in Judge England’s TRO order re constitutional law and separation of powers.
69. The Magic M says:

    January 28, 2013 at 4:30 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Arthur: Like birthers, they seem to believe that the end justifies the means.

    Precisely. Once you’ve convinced yourself you’re on some kind of holy crusade to defeat the Antichrist, you’ve proactively allowed yourself to break any law, including the Ten Commandments, and absolved yourself of any sin you’ll commit in the process since whatever you want is obviously identical to “God’s will”.

    That has been the MO of every religious zealot and cult leader ever since religion was invented.
70. The Magic M says:

    January 28, 2013 at 4:35 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Arthur: Read what Mike Zullo recently said when interviewed by Carl Gallups concerning “new evidence” he’s dangling in front of people foolish enough to trust him:

    “We are so convinced… let me go out on limb… I am going to put my reputation out there that we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt–the higher standard–beyond a reasonable doubt that this document is an utter forgery.”

    As I said, their next OMG moment (after 2/15 with “Orly’s case being discussed by SCOTUS”) won’t invent itself. I suppose they’re preparing another presser for late March or mid-April to keep their 1.5-2 month rhythm going. If they don’t, the birther movement might crumble, after all, and then who is WND going to sell all their books to?
71. Dave B. says:

    January 28, 2013 at 12:32 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    Well it’s not like he bet his lunch money or anything worth holding onto.

    The Magic M: “We are so convinced… let me go out on limb… I am going to put my reputation out there that we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt–the higher standard–beyond a reasonable doubt that this document is an utter forgery.”
72. donna says:

    January 28, 2013 at 12:48 pm  donna(Quote)

    OFGS recently added to their nov 6th post (though the date is not updated)

    http://web.archive.org/web/20171030211444/https://www.ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=24711

    what happened to NBC?

    interesting statistics
73. donna says:

    January 28, 2013 at 2:32 pm  donna(Quote)

    will she have more supporters than the FEW on inauguration day(s)?

    Orly Taitz Plans To Lobby Congress

    Taitz announced on her website Monday morning that once in Washington, she plans to argue that Obama has used fake identification in his two successful campaigns for the presidency. She is timing the road trip for Obama’s Feb. 12 address to a joint session of Congress, and has sketched out a plan that she said would battle the “corrupt” officials who have blocked her quest to overturn Obama’s election.

    Taitz said that she wanted supporters to picket the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court and media outlets, as well as arrange meetings with members of Congress to push for a congressional investigation into the source of Obama’s Social Security number. She claims that 18,000 (??) people have signed an online petition in support of a congressional investigation.

    Taitz said she was trying to keep the trip affordable for her supporters:

    “We can stop at inexpensive places to eat, such as pizza places or MacDonalds, so the trip can be very affordable for anyone. Bottom line, I believe that our corrupt judges and corrupt Congressmen will continue committing treason and cover up of Obama’s forged IDs and his stolen SSN, if they do not see people rising against them. They are not any different from the faceless pupets of the Soviet Politbureau during the times of Stalin ot Breznev.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/orly-taitz-congress_n_2567464.html
74. misha marinsky says:

    January 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    donna: They are not any different from the faceless pupets of the Soviet Politbureau during the times of Stalin ot Breznev.

    Says the Romanian streetwalker, and refusenik poseur.
75. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 28, 2013 at 3:33 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    The number is 7,601, but I don’t see that there is any mechanism to prevent repeats, since you don’t have to use a valid name and email address to sign the petition.

    donna: She claims that 18,000 (??) people have signed an online petition in support of a congressional investigation.
76. Dave B. says:

    January 28, 2013 at 3:52 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    I finally broke down and signed the petition for costs.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The number is 7,601, but I don’t see that there is any mechanism to prevent repeats, since you don’t have to use a valid name and email address to sign the petition.
77. Rickey says:

    January 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    donna:

    Taitz said she was trying to keep the trip affordable for her supporters:

    “We can stop at inexpensive places to eat, such as pizza places or MacDonalds, so the trip can be very affordable for anyone.

    Because it is so inexpensive to take a few days off from work. travel to D.C., pay for lodging in D.C., etc. Next she’ll be asking people like John to send her McDonald’s coupons.
78. Northland10 says:

    January 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    The Magic M: Precisely. Once you’ve convinced yourself you’re on some kind of holy crusade to defeat the Antichrist, you’ve proactively allowed yourself to break any law, including the Ten Commandments, and absolved yourself of any sin you’ll commit in the process since whatever you want is obviously identical to “God’s will”.

    That has been the MO of every religious zealot and cult leader ever since religion was invented.

    The zealots and their followers also have a large blind spot for texts that say, what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his own soul. Constitution, Bible, Torah, or Koran, the zealot playbook is nearly always the same.
79. donna says:

    January 28, 2013 at 8:00 pm  donna(Quote)

    an interesting article about obtaining a new driver’s license in wisconsin

    Now “I” Have to Show My Birth Certificate

    I just received a notice on the renewal of my Drivers License in Wisconsin. I’ve had one since 1969. It now requires I bring a certified copy of my Birth Certificate with me when I renew along with multiple other documents. Not a copy, not something you might have on file, a “certified by the issuing authority” birth certificate. It’s an OMG moment for me and it will soon be for others.

    This year, it’s different. You need to bring several things with you:

    Certified copy of your Birth Certificate
    Social Security Card
    Drivers License (verifies your address and identity)

    And if you’ve had a name change since your birth, you also need

    Certified court order, Marriage Certifcate, Judgement of Divorce, or valid passport in your current name

    On top of all of that, you have to go on the internet to download and complete a form for your renewal. If you don’t (no computer, printer, or access), you can add standing in a separate line to get the form (and fill it out) to your visit to the DMV.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/28/1182794/-Now-I-Have-to-Show-My-Birth-Certificate-to-Renew

    seriously?
80. Northland10 says:

    January 28, 2013 at 9:26 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    donna: “We can stop at inexpensive places to eat, such as pizza places or MacDonalds,

    Hope she does not have any Catholic, and anglo-catholic, supporters (or at least those who can find chicken on the menu).
81. aesthetocyst says:

    January 28, 2013 at 11:53 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

    Let’s Give Up On The Constitution

    Catching up to my DVR, just got around to watching Sunday Morning. They aired a commentary from Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, which included this zinger (among many others):

    “Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what?”

    I trust all birfers are now boycotting CBS for life. No Super bowl for yewwwww! Muahahahaha.

    Oh, wait, all birfer lifetime boycotts expire, predictably, within 24 hours. Dang them birfers. They win again. 😉
82. The Magic M says:

    January 29, 2013 at 4:08 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    aesthetocyst: I trust all birfers are now boycotting CBS for life.

    A birther “threatening” to boycott the “mass media” is a bit like an alcoholic threatening to drink a beer, isn’t it?
83. The Magic M says:

    January 29, 2013 at 4:15 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Rickey: Because it is so inexpensive to take a few days off from work. travel to D.C., pay for lodging in D.C., etc.

    OTOH I love how birthers always invoke independence from Britain or the Civil War, yet constantly bring excuses like “I had to work” or “I couldn’t afford the trip” when asked to actually get off their behinds and keyboards to do something.
    (Hey, it’s not like they couldn’t hitch-hike for a weekend or sleep in their car, right? George Washington never slept in a car, either, so there!)

    Either they believe George Washington spent the entire 18th century sitting in his chair writing angry letters to the British King, or they are such cowards that they want others to stand in the front row. Either way, they are not the “patriots” they like to see themselves as.

    I always love to taunt birthers how they talk about “taking the country back”, yet can’t even be arsed to attend (or organize) a rally in their own home town.

    OTOH, that’s a good thing. The right-wing nutjobs in my country also keep waiting for things to resolve themselves on their own, usually also paired with “OMG moments” tied to historic dates, such as “60 years after …, the republic will (have to) officially dissolve anyway, then we can step in and reinstate the Reich”. This kind of behaviour – which is even beyond simple procrastination – is what saves us from their violence.
84. aesthetocyst says:

    January 29, 2013 at 10:45 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

    The Magic M: A birther “threatening” to boycott the “mass media” is a bit like an alcoholic threatening to drink a beer, isn’t it?

    Exactly, they always come back around. Remember the mass swearings-off of FAUX after they dumped the LFBC is a forgery story? Good times. I know of a birfer who’s addicted to CBS …. sort of …. he follows a blogger there who keeps reporting Fast & Furious. It’s pushes his happy button.
85. The Magic M says:

    January 29, 2013 at 10:54 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    aesthetocyst: Exactly, they always come back around.

    I was rather trying to point out the fact (and my analogy was obviously bad) that most of them claim to “not watch the MSM anymore”, so how do you boycott something you’re not watching anyway?
86. aesthetocyst says:

    January 29, 2013 at 1:38 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

    The Magic M: claim to “not watch the MSM anymore”, so how do you boycott something you’re not watching anyway?

    Ah, I see, the paradox of the disingenuous, how to get credit for throwing away the cake you supposedly already threw away? That’s pretty good!

    I think they are generally plugged into their echo chambers (TV, radio, and web), and barking on cue when their winger / birfer profit of choice tells them when to jump. They tell them who said what and what to think about it, and they do.

    The uncritical media consumption portion of The Unexamined Life. It gets’em every time.
87. Arthur says:

    January 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm  Arthur(Quote)

    “A Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system’s integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.

    “Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn’t and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.

    “Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. ‘This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed,’ she told the AP Thursday. ‘If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?’

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/roxanne-rubin_n_2566297.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
88. HKL (Keith away from home) says:

    January 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm  HKL (Keith away from home)(Quote)

    The Magic M: I was rather trying to point out the fact (and my analogy was obviously bad) that most of them claim to “not watch the MSM anymore”, so how do you boycott something you’re not watching anyway?

    I’m boycotting California lawyers, but then I’m in Australia. Maybe I’ll give up my boycott for Lent.
89. misha marinsky says:

    January 30, 2013 at 9:23 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Obama Popularity Rating Rises In Second Term, Poll Shows

    According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 60 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the president, while only 37 percent said they had an unfavorable view.

    This is the highest his favorability has been since 2009, the first year of his first term, when he received 79 percent positive responses in a similar poll. It’s also up from last year’s ratings, which found his popularity in the 50 percent range.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/obama-popularity-rating-second-term_n_2580796.html
90. The Magic M says:

    January 30, 2013 at 10:21 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Arthur: “Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature.

    Well, you gotta love it if a politician has to actually suffer consequences for making unsubstantiated claims. 🙂 Happens rarely enough.
91. Arthur says:

    January 30, 2013 at 10:42 am  Arthur(Quote)

    I learned some new words thanks to a post at ORYR: “treasonistic” and “usupering.” Here they are in context,

    “WE THE PEOPLE hereby declare that the current FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH of GOVERNMENT is illegal, treasonistic, and is usurpering the rights of the people. WE THE PEOPLE move to immediately VOID THE CURRENT FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVENMENT”
92. donna says:

    January 30, 2013 at 11:50 am  donna(Quote)

    misha marinsky: Obama Popularity Rating Rises In Second Term, Poll Shows
    as Obama Approval Hits 60%

    while Fox News Sinks to a 12 Year Low in Ratings

    i guess all of those bogus “mitt landslide” predictions hurt
93. donna says:

    January 30, 2013 at 1:37 pm  donna(Quote)

    Poll: 67 Percent Of Texas Republicans Favor Impeaching Obama

    The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed that 67 percent of Lone Star State Republicans would support an effort to impeace Obama. Only 18 percent of the state’s GOP voters said they are opposed to impeaching the President.

    Thirty-nine percent of Texas voters overall support impeaching Obama, compared with half who said they are opposed.

    i WISH there were follow-up questions like the definition of “impeachment”, grounds, convictions, etc

    these polls snap headlines but have no basis in reality

    how many would have voted to impeach bush? “minutes” before we fell off the cliff, we were being told the fundamentals of the economy were strong
94. Scientist says:

    January 30, 2013 at 2:07 pm  Scientist(Quote)

    donna: i WISH there were follow-up questions like the definition of “impeachment”, grounds, convictions, etc

    Grounds? We don’ need no steenkin; grounds.
95. aesthetocyst says:

    January 30, 2013 at 3:52 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

    donna: Poll: 67 Percent Of Texas Republicans Favor Impeaching Obama

    Read: Partisans Favor (Still) Partisanship.

    Well, duh. Even Washington had his critics.
96. Arthur says:

    January 30, 2013 at 7:37 pm  Arthur(Quote)

    Remember convicted felon and long-time presidential candidate, Lydon LaRouche? Well, he’s ninety now, and according to the website “Wreckless Faith: Christian News with Extreme Point of View,”

    “On January 25th, 2013 , Mr. Lyndon Larouche . . . recieved (sic) word from his sources within the United States government that President Barack Hussein Obama has been indicted by a Federal Court. Details of the indictment has been ommited by Larouche but he characterized them as probably the greatest indictment he has ever seen placed upon a standing president throughout history.”

    There’s a 70 minute video . . .

    http://www.wrecklessfaith.com/video-federal-court-indicts-president-obama-will-not-see-the-end-of-his-second-term/
97. J.D. Sue says:

    January 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm  J.D. Sue(Quote)

    Arthur: Details of the indictment has been ommited by Larouche but he characterized them as probably the greatest indictment he has ever seen placed upon a standing president throughout history.”

    —

    He has a lot of nerve calling it a indictment and impeachment, as if it involved some criminal matter. In fact, he was only referring to that awful D.C. Circuit case that came out last Friday striking the NLRB recess appointments President Obama made. (Recess appointments became very common under Reagan and all the Presidents thereafter; such appointments were upheld by the 11th Circuit in 2004, but this D.C. Circuit Court decided to just disagree with the 11th Circuit).
98. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 30, 2013 at 8:17 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I am happy to report that the Trendy Tours web site (which went away some years back) has been found in the Internet Archives. This Kenyan tour company offered tours to Obama-related sites in Kenya, and named the hospital where Obama was supposedly born. I fixed the link in my 2010 article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/kenyan-web-site-names-obama-birth-hospital/

    I was thrilled that I broke this story back in 2010, and again now that I can once-again present this startling evidence.
99. MattR says:

    January 30, 2013 at 8:18 pm  MattR(Quote)

    Arthur: Remember convicted felon and long-time presidential candidate, Lydon LaRouche? Well, he’s ninety now, and according to the website “Wreckless Faith: Christian News with Extreme Point of View,”

    If I am charitable, I would say that the guy from Wreckless Faith is an idiot who doesn’t know that there are multiple meanings for the word ‘indictment’. (The uncharitable, and more likely, explanation is that he fully understands but is willing to mischaracterize things to push his agenda). What LaRouche actually said was “There was some very interesting news that was given to me earlier today and that is that I never have seen in my life such a parade of implicit indictments of a president of the United States as has been reported to me today.”
100. J.D. Sue says:

     January 30, 2013 at 8:20 pm  J.D. Sue(Quote)

     BTW, based on that D.C. Circuit opinion re the NLRB recess appointments, Orly filed a motion for reconsideration with that Court, explaining that her forged ID case was more important than the case about minor appointments, and if the Court found in her favor it could strike all of the President’s appointments.
101. Arthur says:

     January 30, 2013 at 8:53 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     J.D. Sue: He has a lot of nerve calling it a indictment and impeachment, as if it involved some criminal matter. In fact, he was only referring to that awful D.C. Circuit case that came out last Friday striking the NLRB recess appointments President Obama made.

     Thanks for the clarification, Sue. Nevertheless, this announcement has some at ORYR licking their lips in anticipation of that Anydaynow Lasagna.
102. Rickey says:

     January 30, 2013 at 9:00 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     Arthur:

     “Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature.”

     Not quite as easy as she thought, apparently.
103. Arthur says:

     January 30, 2013 at 9:25 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Want to read an interesting story?

     For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of World War II

     Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html#ixzz2JW3PDgLl
     Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
104. Daniel says:

     January 31, 2013 at 10:59 pm  Daniel(Quote)

     Definately possibly forsure iffy recall effort in Arizona against our favorite Shurifff

     http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2013/01/joe_arpaio_recall_randy_parraz.php?utm_source=Newsletters&utm_medium=email&page=2
105. Paper says:

     February 1, 2013 at 12:56 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Here is a nice article (with Ted Weekend video) reviewing the principles of skepticism (and how we deceive ourselves) by Michael Shermer. Readers here will be familiar with many of these practices.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/what-is-skepticism-anyway_b_2581917.html
106. Paper says:

     February 1, 2013 at 1:22 pm  Paper(Quote)

     The video is a must see, and the ending is classic.
107. Arthur says:

     February 1, 2013 at 1:50 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Paper:
     The video is a must see, and the ending is classic.

     I enjoyed it; thanks for the link!
108. donna says:

     February 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm  donna(Quote)

     One Video Destroys the Republican Myth that Their Opposition to Obama Isn’t Racial

     In this video, the evangelical, Koch-backed, tea party Arkansas state senator Jason Rapert explains why minorities like President Obama don’t represent his America.

     While addressing a tea party rally in 2011, Rapert said, “I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don’t represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is not going to save us. We’re going to take this country back for the Lord. We’re going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!”

     Rapert is the perfect embodiment of the three forces that currently make up the base of the Republican Party. He is an evangelical who is backed by the Koch brothers, who is pushing the state’s extreme anti-abortion legislation, who also happens to be filled with anti-immigrant rhetoric.

     Republicans don’t just hate Obama because he is a Democrat. They hate him because he is a minority who represents the changing face of America.

     http://www.politicususa.com/video-destroys-republican-myth-opposition-obama-racial.html
109. Rickey says:

     February 1, 2013 at 6:32 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     A survivalist (and likely a sovereign citizen) at work in Alabama.

     http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/01/16806982-first-picture-emerges-of-man-believed-to-have-taken-5-year-old-hostage-in-alabama?lite
110. misha marinsky says:

     February 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

     Rickey: A survivalist (and likely a sovereign citizen) at work in Alabama.
     http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/01/16806982-first-picture-emerges-of-man-believed-to-have-taken-5-year-old-hostage-in-alabama?lite

     Standoff enters 4th day: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/us/alabama-child-hostage/
111. aesthetocyst says:

     February 2, 2013 at 12:29 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     In case you missed it ….

     Oh, The People Who Hate You!

     They do not like you, Barack Obama
     Whether on a train, a plane, or llama.

     They do not like you shooting skeet,
     They do not like you eating meat.
     They do not like you drinking beer,
     or even if you roped a steer.

     They won’t like you in a monster truck,
     Because, young man, they do not give a f___!

     They do not like you when you pray,
     They do not like you anti-gay!
     They do not like you cutting tax,
     and could not stand your mommie-slacks!

     You cannot reach across the aisle,
     As everything you do is vile.
     Then even complained when you killed Osama!

     So on a train, a plane, or llama,
     Rolling a 44 at Bowl-A-Rama,
     Despite your nice, white, Kansas momma,
     (comma)
     They do not like you, Barack Obama.

     As recited by Jon Stewart this week … my emphasis on the antibirther flourish at the end 😉
112. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:37 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Slick birther video:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFCs8vaZ2s4&feature=youtu.be

     Comments are disabled.
113. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 2:29 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Latest illiterate rant from Orly Taitz:

     The parasytes live a better life than people, whose blod they suck! It has to end, tell congress: replace wellfare with workfare.

     Yup, get those kiddies to the workhouses.
114. aesthetocyst says:

     February 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Latest illiterate rant from Orly Taitz:

     The parasytes live a better life than people, whose blod they suck! It has to end, tell congress: replace wellfare with workfare.

     Yup, get those kiddies to the workhouses.

     Wow, so parasytes (the poor) aren’t even people. Nice.

     Having seen the better life the parasytes are enjoying, I say they can keep it, and, as a people, I’m doing all I can to keep my inferior existence.
115. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 2:58 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     “Outputting stupid” is a matter of perspective.

     Some wonder and even have the gumption to comment on sites majority in particular opinion consider closed to further argument. I fully realize the matter of eligibility is settled in certain circles, “stupid” to question is matter of conviction based on the strength of argument. Some believe you have not conclusively and logically sealed the deal.

     I’m still stupid due your lack of ability to close a very selective doubt?

     Most of the “birther” arguments are garbage…those hold outs who wonder about a person born to a flagrant foreign national father with no intent to nationalize, contrary to the 14th challenge, is still important conversation.

     Orly is admittedly stupid, if not a menace…those that see things otherwise might not be beyond the pale.
116. Sef says:

     February 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm  Sef(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Most of the “birther” arguments are garbage…those hold outs who wonder about a person born to a flagrant foreign national father with no intent to nationalize, contrary to the 14th challenge, is still important conversation.

     All you need to do is ask yourself whether Barack Obama, Sr. could have gotten a parking ticket when he was in HI. If so, he was under U.S. jurisdiction and so was his son. Case closed.
117. American Mzungu says:

     February 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm  American Mzungu(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: “Outputting stupid” is a matter of perspective.
     Some wonder and even have the gumption to comment on sites majority in particular opinion consider closed to further argument. I fully realize the matter of eligibility is settled in certain circles, “stupid” to question is matter of conviction based on the strength of argument. Some believe you have not conclusively and logically sealed the deal.
     I’m still stupid due your lack of ability to close a very selective doubt?
     Most of the “birther” arguments are garbage…those hold outs who wonder about a person born to a flagrant foreign national father with no intent to nationalize, contrary to the 14th challenge, is still important conversation.
     Orly is admittedly stupid, if not a menace…those that see things otherwise might not be beyond the pale.

     Pieter, if you would translate that into standard English, it would be most helpful for those of us who are not fluent in “birther”. Thank you.
118. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 4:51 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Gumption and intelligence are irrelevant.

     Your selective doubt has been closed. Unless *you* or your fellows reopen it legitimately or demonstrate how you actually walk through the closed door, it will remain closed. That’s not about to happen, but *actual* open-mindedness here means allowing that *if* you could reopen it, then and only then would it be of any import. But *you* have not provided any avenue for such an opening. So you can opine about reasonableness and open-mindedness all you want, nothing changes. Your repeated concern about reasonableness is irrelevant.

     It does not matter what an unnamed “some” believe. The fact that “some” believe anything is irrelevant. “Some” believe in everything there is to believe.

     There is no doubt that *anyone* born here subject to our jurisdiction is eligible to be president (meaning almost everyone barring the exceptions you already have seen noted).

     The question becomes why do you continue to harp on meaningless concerns? It would be reasonable for you to wish for a different reality, however much anyone disagreed. But it is not anywhere near reasonable to continue to dispute the reality that is abundantly and simply clear.

     You don’t want children without such parents to be eligible? Fine. You want to argue that they aren’t eligible? Then, sorry something is wrong on your end. Stupidity is just the default and loose word people use. I personally believe any persistent birther has to be intelligent one way or another. But intelligence can be put into service to nonsense, and birthers demonstrate that regularly.

     That all aside, you tell us, what is your problem? I don’t think you’re stupid. So what is it? Why do you persist in clear and plain nonsense?

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Some wonder and even have the gumption to comment on sites majority in particular opinion consider closed to further argument. I fully realize the matter ofeligibility is settled in certain circles, “stupid” to question is matter of conviction based on the strength of argument. Some believe you have not conclusively and logically sealed the deal.

     I’m still stupid due your lack of ability to close a very selective doubt?

     Most of the “birther” arguments are garbage…those hold outs who wonder about a person born to a flagrant foreign national father with no intent to nationalize, contrary to the 14th challenge, is still important conversation.
119. GLaB says:

     February 2, 2013 at 5:20 pm  GLaB(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     …those hold outs who wonder about a person born to a flagrant foreign national father with no intent to nationalize, contrary to the 14th challenge, is still important conversation.

     “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

     – Chief Justice John Marshall, 1803 [John Marshall and John Edward Oster, The Political and Economic Doctrines of John Marshall (New York: Neale Publishing Co., 1914), pg. 307.)

     The Courts have been emphatic – and unequivocal – that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. What don’t you get?
120. misha marinsky says:

     February 2, 2013 at 5:30 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: flagrant foreign national father

     Translation: He had white girlfriends.
121. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Eat a form of the understood “commonly formed by the natural process of being alive and having to excrete”; Liberal speak for eat sh…
     .
     Some of you are afraid (which is a character deficiency) of those who find fault with the reasonable and populace unconverted.

     Feeling good about your self for disparaging Orly should not be solace for arguing whether Obama is eligible per the blatant weirdness of his father’s nationality.
122. scott e says:

     February 2, 2013 at 6:14 pm  scott e(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: Not necessarily, but almost certainly. Layers make compositing a snap. Random Factoid: Photoshop did not feature layers until v3.0 came out in the mid-90s. That was the first version I used. Photoshop w/o layers is pretty much just “Paint”.

     But, hey, why not ask the guys who made it?

     **

     did anyone ever find out the name of the person who put the bc pdf up at the whitehouse ?
123. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 6:25 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Hey, Doc, perhaps this is worthy of a new topic for post;

     “Handicapped Americans National today filed suit against the Pentagon to let wheelchair-bound recruits serve in infantry units, and a group named Blind But Not Broken has pressed for Braille heads-up-displays (HUD) to be installed in all F-22 fighter jets.”

     http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/01/pentagon-announces-plan-guaranteeing-disabled-americans-teenagers-right-to-military-service/

     Weird, weird, weird.

     I admittedly wear tinfoil in pursuit of a greater understanding of the republic, but this is beyond the pale even in my estimation.
124. MattR says:

     February 2, 2013 at 6:41 pm  MattR(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:

     The Duffel Blog is sometimes referred to as “The military version of The Onion”, but this is a popular misconception. The misnomer was cleared up in May 2012 when TDB staff successfully conducted an airborne assault on the offices of The Onion News Network so that others would know “The Onion was actually the civilian version of The Duffel Blog.”

     My first hint was the front page article with the title “Change Of Command Ceremony Dissolves Into Giant Orgy”
125. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 6:47 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Misha has hit upon the popular weakness of those who find political and/or eligibility fault with Obama…we are mental defects and racists? Ummm, if not that, it must be because whites are concerned with “white girlfriends” having sex with blacks?

     I’d prefer to be considered a racist than the aberrant sexist alluded by Misha.

     Actually, I’d rather be condemned for my hatred (intolerance) of certain cultures than any question of pigment. I’d like to consider myself a post-modern racist.
126. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 6:51 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: I admittedly wear tinfoil in pursuit of a greater understanding of the republic, but this is beyond the pale even in my estimation.

     Psst….psst…..Pieter. It’s satire. That means it’s not true……on either side of the pale.
127. Northland10 says:

     February 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Eat a form of the understood “commonly formed by the natural process of being alive and having to excrete”; Liberal speak for eat sh…
     .
     Some of you are afraid (which is a character deficiency) of those who find fault with the reasonable and populace unconverted.

     Feeling good about your self for disparaging Orly should not be solace for arguing whether Obama is eligible per the blatant weirdness of his father’s nationality.

     What in the world are you talking about?
128. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 7:06 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: I’d prefer to be considered a racist than the aberrant sexist alluded by Misha.

     Actually, I’d rather be condemned for my hatred (intolerance) of certain cultures than any question of pigment. I’d like to consider myself a post-modern racist.

     Okay. Done deal. You’re a racist. Happy now?
129. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 7:12 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Sorry, there should be any speak of eating shi….we, of course, should live and discuss in a world of higher discourse and understanding.

     Tell me more, Northland, of how you feel about “birthers”? They are what, again?

     Please don’t preach about civility…it appears hypocritical in the very least.

     While you rationalize your POV I stubbornly re-affix the tinfoil.
130. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 7:24 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     CarlO, thanks for the reply.

     You’re not a “racist”?

     Do you affirm those who uphold the second class citizenship of women (popular rap music, muslim understanding, etc)?

     Intolerance is not a bad thing. It is what makes our world a better place. Fascism, communism, and pigment racism have fallen due to the “intolerance” of some. Birtherism is stupid in many regards and worthy of condemnation and intolerance…It should be said that a select few that hold disagreement with the the president are not “racist”.

     I hate Orly, I hate fault with the president that are not of his power to change, I hate those that only want to find fault with Obama due his pigment…

     I am a “racist” in terms I allow. How about you?
131. AlCum says:

     February 2, 2013 at 7:52 pm  AlCum(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Eat a form of the understood “commonly formed by the natural process of being alive and having to excrete”; Liberal speak for eat sh…
     .
     Some of you are afraid (which is a character deficiency) of those who find fault with the reasonable and populace unconverted.

     Feeling good about your self for disparaging Orly should not be solace for arguing whether Obama is eligible per the blatant weirdness of his father’s nationality.

     But you have not found any fault. Q.E.D.
132. Keith says:

     February 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Do you affirm those who uphold the second class citizenship of women (popular rap music, muslim understanding, etc)?

     You left ‘Christianity’ out of your list of women hating sects.

     And no, I for one, can’t stand rap music. However, as poetry some of it is very good, some is very bad. Some of it is ironic, some of it is sarcastic, some of it is thoughtful, some of it is utter garbage.

     Are you claiming that lying about the law, refusing to acknowledge the straightforward meaning of words, sedition, and the threat of murder is ‘artistic license’?
133. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:00 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Al, sure I’ve found reasonable doubt with consequence. You have the solace in trusting in a comforting community of those that have no doubts…perhaps due to political expediency.

     Independent thinking is hard especially when known that others will find fault and rididule.

     Courage is hard. You can do it, I have faith.
134. AlCum says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:02 pm  AlCum(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Al, sure I’ve found reasonable doubt with consequence. You have the solace in trusting in a comforting community of those that have no doubts…perhaps due to political expediency.

     Independent thinking is hard especially when known that others will find fault and rididule.

     Courage is hard. You can do it, I have faith.

     No, Pete, you have not found doubt. Stating you did, while not having done so, is not doubt.
135. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:06 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Kieth, you hit upon great topics…Christian morality, meaning, and sedition. If you’re looking for my vote…I will shake your hand and support you if you believe in human moral constraint, that everything has meaning and consequence, and that those who actively conspire to undermine our nation are our enemies…well, you have my vote.
136. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:10 pm  Paper(Quote)

     And it provides no such solace, as there is no argument about the President’s eligibility viz. his father. You might as well say skeet shooting is a requirement to be eligible, and it isn’t. Either may factor into a citizen’s vote, but have no bearing on eligibility.

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Feeling good about your self for disparaging Orly should not be solace for arguing whether Obama is eligible per the blatant weirdness of his father’s nationality.
137. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:15 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Al, thanks for the reply.

     “Doubt” is an interesting human construct, no? Libs had reasonable doubt as to the efficacy of the Bush-Gore election, Iraq War, “waterboarding”, and climate change, yes?

     Well, some of us would agree with your grounds for disquiet. Perhaps you would reciprocate that not all birther memes were beyond the reasonability of discussion.

     It’s not like I want to discuss single moms and their effect on the national good.
138. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:18 pm  Paper(Quote)

     So why don’t you? You are the one who stalls by indulging the comments of others. You could just ignore them and get to matters of substance. What seems more likely is you Iike to pretend to a level of control by calling out others, which is all too easy and a distraction from the lack of argument in your favor.

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     …we, of course, should live and discuss in a world of higher discourse and understanding.
139. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:25 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: I am a “racist” in terms I allow. How about you?

     No thanks. In the world where I live being a racist is not a good thing.
140. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:25 pm  Paper(Quote)

     So name one.

     His father doesn’t count. That is beyond reasonability. Certainly after you spend more than five minutes on the subject.

     Anything? The President’s skeet shooting skills?

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Perhaps you would reciprocate that not all birther memes were beyond the reasonability of discussion.
141. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Well, some of us would agree with your grounds for disquiet. Perhaps you would reciprocate that not all birther memes were beyond the reasonability of discussion.

     Birther and reasonability are mutually exclusive.
142. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:27 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Paper, thanks very much for the reply.

     So why don’t I discuss matters in a context of higher discourse and understanding?

     Mostly because the SQ is of the opinion that the “matter” is closed and now only fit for ridicule regardless of those that wonder on very specific aspect of the general question.
143. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:36 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     CarlO, so would those of us who wonder if nuclear weapons made a difference in deciding the cold war, if the uniquely American concept of “fire power” was unfair to the Iraqis in 2003, and that social inequality is abhorrent to our constitution is coherent with our understanding?

     We have a Statue of Liberty. Let that fact sink in. No? Give it time, it will.

     I have wondered as to Mr. Obama’s father and been left nonplussed…is that beyond the pale of curiosity?
144. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:47 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: I have wondered as to Mr. Obama’s father and been left nonplussed…is that beyond the pale of curiosity?

     Obama’s father has no relation to Obama being eligible for the presidency considering the guy wasn’t a factor in Obama’s life. You’ve had your curiosity answered repeatedly over the last 4 years.
145. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:55 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Hey DocKN, sure you have an opinion…you’re here and educated.

     Obama’s father is not of consequence due what? The 14th? Well that is comfort for those born of illegal aliens…if you’re an American foreign born “Rogers v Bellei (1971)” citizen, not so much.

     McCain had to seek congressional non-binding resolution approval while Obama wasn’t given a rudimentary second nod. Sure, that makes perfect sense. A person born to a UK citizen that had no intention to nationalize is superior to one born of two American citizens.
146. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 8:58 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: We have a Statue of Liberty. Let that fact sink in. No? Give it time, it will.

     I don’t think I have enough time left on this earth (as opposed to others I have occupied or may occupy in a future life) for that to “sink in”.

     Pieter Nosworthy: I have wondered as to Mr. Obama’s father and been left nonplussed…is that beyond the pale of curiosity?

     Birtherism is not about “curiosity”.
147. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:08 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Well, the status of Obama’s father viz. his presidential eligibility is not an example of higher discourse and understanding. It falls more under the auspices of a FAQ.

     If you are not going to add anything new to the topic, long discussed here already and easily searchable in the archives, what value do you bring by lecturing others, snarkily or otherwise, on their manners? It is a meaningless, self-indulgent activity. If you have nothing of substance to add, it matters not what others are the opinion of. Otherwise, make a real point and force the truth despite the language of others. That is what is done in the face of ridicule when one has real matters to contribute. But that also requires understanding the work done before your “independent thinking” which has no value without a social context. The great thinkers, such as say Isaac Newton, well understood they gained their own insights by “standing upon the shoulders of giants.” If you merely wish to rehash your own thoughts (and insist on others listening to your undeveloped arguments) without accounting all that has been done already, that is simply immature thinking, not independent.

     You give no respect to others by such an attitude. And yet you spend your time lecturing others on such things?

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Paper, thanks very much for the reply.

     So why don’t I discuss matters in a context of higher discourse and understanding?

     Mostly because the SQ is of the opinion that the “matter” is closed and now only fit for ridicule regardless of those that wonder on very specific aspect of the general question.
148. Scientist says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:08 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Perhaps you would reciprocate that not all birther memes were beyond the reasonability of discussion

     They were discussed. And then discussed again. And then discussed again. Continuing to discuss the same thing over and over again is OCD. Not to mention deathly dull.

     Do you have anything new to discuss that you haven’t already chewed over countless times? Who do you like in the Super Bowl? Do you prefer deep dish or thin crust? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? All of these are as fresh as a spring morning compared to anyhing biirther related.
149. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Again, these are untruths. And yet you feel free to wonder why you get ridiculed when you persist in such untruths?

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     …if you’re an American foreign born “Rogers v Bellei (1971)” citizen, not so much.

     McCain had to seek congressional non-binding resolution approval while Obama wasn’t given a rudimentary second nod. Sure, that makes perfect sense. A person born to a UK citizen that had no intention to nationalize is superior to one born of two American citizens.
150. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:13 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Birtherism is absolutely about curiosity. Of course not all pursuits of curiosity are have merit in all aspects.

     Democrats tried to kill the end of slavery…some still considered matter worth further discussion. We all know, this particular course of action proved ugly in every aspect. Was it wrong? It was constitutional question that took a year into the most costly war in our history.

     I am of the opinion that most of you have not lost friends in a conflict…me, it has been going on for some time. Republican values have conceptualized the loss of my friends…the congress, the president, the people of the United States have willed that…

     President Obama is not eligible for his office…some of us have earned the right to question. We may be wrong, but the previous sacrifice and want to preserve the republic has given us a modicum of a say in the matter.
151. Scientist says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:13 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: We have a Statue of Liberty. Let that fact sink in.

     In “Planet of the Apes” it did sink in. Into New York Harbor.

     Pieter Nosworthy: I have wondered as to Mr. Obama’s father and been left nonplussed

     Did your father ever leave you nonplussed? Or did he leave you plussed?

     I have a question-why do you spell your name “Pieter” rather than” Peter”? Were you born in Holland or South Africa?
152. Scientist says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:18 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: President Obama is not eligible for his office

     He seems to be doing just fine regardless. I get letters that tell me I am eligible to win Publisher’s Clearinghouse, but I never have. So elgiibility doesn’t do much for me. I prefer cash.
153. Majority Will says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:19 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Hey DocKN, sure you have an opinion…you’re here and educated.

     Obama’s father is not of consequence due what? The 14th? Well that is comfort for those born of illegal aliens…if you’re an American foreign born “Rogers v Bellei (1971)” citizen, not so much.

     McCain had to seek congressional non-binding resolution approval while Obama wasn’t given a rudimentary second nod. Sure, that makes perfect sense. A person born to a UK citizen that had no intention to nationalize is superior to one born of two American citizens.

     Intentional misdirection and factually wrong drivel laced with an undercurrent of xenophobia and blatant bigotry.

     Today’s asinine award.
154. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:22 pm  Paper(Quote)

     That modicum is called your vote, and your ability to express your opinion, however untrue. It also means others can express otherwise. And the election has spoken as to what the say of the people at large is. You have your say, but on this matter it is untrue and powerless.

     Pieter Nosworthy:

     … given us a modicum of a say in the matter.
155. Majority Will says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

     “President Obama is not eligible for his office”

     “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
     – Judge Clay Land
156. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:25 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Majority, kudos on your ability to say absolutely nothing with great aplomb. I get it, you hate birthers regardless of their shared belief with you or their selective argument contrary to the popular meme.

     You are the consummate poster child for libs. Knows everything, cares for the oppressed minority, despite the reality of being ignorant only gives a damn for the little guy when convenient.
157. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:48 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Majority, congratulations on your ability to wonder. President Obama was born under a constitutional eligibility criteria that requires natural born citizenship…McCain required congressional review despite being born to two American parents, naturalized citizens are commonly understood ineligible, Obama born to a foreign national with no intent to naturalize, and yet…you have not shown curiosity in the matter. None?

     I would like to give you credit for the very human ability to reason and propensity for wonder. I get it, you’re scared to admit such for fear of ridicule in this forum.

     Coward. If not a coward, then you are deficient in intellect or, worse, are a stalwart brownshirt for the current administration.

     Even republicans had their vociferous doubts about Bush. Mission accomplished?
158. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: President Obama is not eligible for his office…some of us have earned the right to question. We may be wrong, but the previous sacrifice and want to preserve the republic has given us a modicum of a say in the matter.

     Frankly, Pieter, your effort to wrap your ignorance and bigotry in the flag and then accuse those offended by it of being Nazis is mind bogglingly offensive.
159. SluggoJD says:

     February 2, 2013 at 9:57 pm  SluggoJD(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Majority, congratulations on your ability to wonder. President Obama was born under a constitutional eligibility criteria that requires natural born citizenship…McCain required congressional review despite being born to two American parents, naturalized citizens are commonly understood ineligible, Obama born to a foreign national with no intent to naturalize, and yet…you have not shown curiosity in the matter. None?

     I would like to give you credit for the very human ability to reason and propensity for wonder. I get it, you’re scared to admit such for fear of ridicule in this forum.

     Coward. If not a coward, then you are deficient in intellect or, worse, are a stalwart brownshirt for the current administration.

     Even republicans had their vociferous doubts about Bush. Mission accomplished?

     Lonely tonight?

     You really are pathetic.
160. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:00 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     CarlO, offended? Good.

     Wrapping my self in the flag is habit. So is my tendency to frame government in laws and constitutional constraint.

     What is your habit, other than being offended by those that wake every morning wondering about the next rendezvous with destiny, after much coffee dressing themselves in the uniform of the US Army, and daily dedicate themselves to raise your children to fight our nation’s wars?

     Jesus, your sensibilities are laughable.
161. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:20 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Sluggo,

     Am I pathetic?…sure, I’ll cop to that. I would hazard that most of humanity lives the same condition.

     I’m here because of a selfish want to commune on a matter uncomfortable and unpopular. I enjoy the give and take. I would never state that I am right without question. I am fallible and reasonably subject to the mirror of my fellow citixen.

     You? I would guess that you are egotistically secure in your opinion…no doubt and no quarter for those contrary to your world view.

     Good for you.
162. Andy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:24 pm  Andy(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Birtherism is absolutely about curiosity. Of course not all pursuits of curiosity are have merit in all aspects.

     Democrats tried to kill the end of slavery…some still considered matter worth further discussion. We all know, this particular course of action proved ugly in every aspect. Was it wrong? It was constitutional question that took a year into the most costly war in our history.

     I am of the opinion that most of you have not lost friends in a conflict…me, it has been going on for some time. Republican values have conceptualized the loss of my friends…the congress, the president, the people of the United States have willed that…

     President Obama is not eligible for his office…some of us have earned the right to question. We may be wrong, but the previous sacrifice and want to preserve the republic has given us a modicum of a say in the matter.

     No, it’s not. The first birther didn’t say “I wonder if Obama is eligible.” They said, “He can’t be eligible! Now I need to find some proof!”

     I understand you may have questions, Pieter, but they’ve been answered. I’ll give a short recap:

     Pieter: I am curious. What does the Constitution say about someone born with a foreign national for a father.

     Answer: Nothing. Everyone born here is a citizen at birth.

     Pieter: But that’s not the same as a natural born citizen.

     Answer: Yes, yes it is, at least according to the highest court in the land.

     Pieter: But they didn’t say it specifically.

     Answer: Of course not. They’ve been given the chance to do that, but didn’t feel it necessary.

     Pieter: But I want them to!

     Answer: Too bad.
163. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm  Paper(Quote)

     General curiosity on this topic is short-lived if you actually research it, at which point you need no longer wonder. Your insistence on wondering just means you refuse to find out the facts, or accept reality. Plus, you persist in stating untruths.

     McCain did *not* require congressional review, nor did he actually receive a “review.” Congress, of their own unrequired desire to give a heads-up regarding an untypical situation, issued a non-binding resolution. If you want to use the word review, President Obama is the only one of the two who has actually received a review (twice), despite your claim otherwise.

     Do *you* have no curiosity about the meaning of actual facts? Are you so incurious to merely, endlessly repeat your false talking points?

     (As mentioned, I have answered this in the open thread rather than continuing to try to force it into a discussion of skeet.)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Majority, congratulations on your ability to wonder. President Obama was born under a constitutional eligibility criteria that requires natural born citizenship…McCain required congressional review despite being born to two American parents, naturalized citizens are commonly understood ineligible, Obama born to a foreign national with no intent to naturalize, and yet…you have not shown curiosity in the matter. None?

     I would like to give you credit for the very human ability to reason and propensity for wonder. I get it, you’re scared to admit such for fear of ridicule in this forum.

     Coward. If not a coward, then you are deficient in intellect or, worse, are a stalwart brownshirt for the current administration.

     Even republicans had their vociferous doubts about Bush. Mission accomplished?
164. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Hey DocKN, sure you have an opinion…you’re here and educated.

     Obama’s father is not of consequence due what? The 14th? Well that is comfort for those born of illegal aliens…if you’re an American foreign born “Rogers v Bellei (1971)” citizen, not so much.

     McCain had to seek congressional non-binding resolution approval while Obama wasn’t given a rudimentary second nod. Sure, that makes perfect sense. A person born to a UK citizen that had no intention to nationalize is superior to one born of two American citizens.

     Due to reality. The constitution mentions nothing about parental citizenship and so it was not an actual concern. Nevermind it’s been pointed out to you that there have been presidents with foreign parents as well as Vice Presidents with foreign parents. There have also been Presidents who had a parent die before they were even born. Rogers V Bellei has no application to Obama and the law which had been in effect during the time of Rogers V Bellei is no longer in effect and thus renders the case meaningless. Rogers V Bellei has no application today.

     No McCain didn’t have to seek congressional approval it was already understood he was eligible. They just further provided clarification. Besides the only reason is that McCain was born overseas, Obama was not. As has been explained to you its the birth on US Soil that matters.
165. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Well, let’s put a little perspective on this. Even before Leo Donofrio invented the two-citizen parent citizenship theory, it had already come up. On July 11, 2008, CNN aired this exchange involving CNN senior legal analyst Jeffry Toobin:

     BLITZER: What do the founding fathers mean when they inserted “naturally born” as a qualification to be president?

     TOOBIN: Well, what they — what they wanted was not someone who had been born in England. They wanted someone born within, at that point, the 13 colonies. And usually it’s a pretty straightforward issue of whether someone was born in this country or not. Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, not eligible. Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, born in Canada, not eligible.

     What makes McCain’s situation so interesting is that he was born in the canal zone, which was under American control, with military parents. That’s a situation that I think most people feel we should be sympathetic to.

     His parents were serving their country. They shouldn’t be penalized by having their offspring not being eligible for the presidency. And I think that’s the view that most scholars hold, notwithstanding this very interesting article.

     That was in the context of discussing objections by Prof. Chin later appearing in a September 2008 article in the Michigan Law review, in which he argued that McCain was not eligible. However, Chen said in that article:

     Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.

     Chin believed that McCain was not actually a US citizen at birth of any kind. No US President has ever been born outside of the United States, but US Presidents have had non-citizen fathers. That’s a clear difference between McCain and Obama.

     So months before anyone was talking about Obama not being eligible to be President because he had a non-citizen father, recognized authorities were already on record saying that was not what natural born citizen meant.

     When Donofrio came up with his 2-parent theory theory he said that he was making new law and that US v. Wong was “decided wrongly.” Of course he later scrubbed that and changed to saying that everybody always knew that two citizen parents were required.

     Remember Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation, clear written to keep Obama from being elected. Corsi, with a PhD from Harvard in Political Science not once suggests Obama is ineligible for a non-citizen father. Why? Because the theory hadn’t been invented yet.

     Those of us long in the game got to watch the sausage being made, and a legal theory appear ex nihilo. We watched people one day suddenly start remembering studying things in school which appear no Civics textbook. Anyone who knows the history should understand fully why no one takes such a view seriously. It was nonsense from the very start.

     Pieter Nosworthy: Majority, congratulations on your ability to wonder. President Obama was born under a constitutional eligibility criteria that requires natural born citizenship…McCain required congressional review despite being born to two American parents, naturalized citizens are commonly understood ineligible, Obama born to a foreign national with no intent to naturalize, and yet…you have not shown curiosity in the matter. None?
166. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:26 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Andy: No, it’s not.The first birther didn’t say “I wonder if Obama is eligible.”They said, “He can’t be eligible!Now I to create some proof!”

     I understand you may have questions, Pieter, but they’ve been answered.I’ll give a short recap:

     Pieter:I am curious.What does the Constitution say about someone born with a foreign national for a father.

     Answer:Nothing.Everyone born here is a citizen at birth.

     Pieter:But that’s not the same as a natural born citizen.

     Answer:Yes, yes it is, at least according to the highest court in the land.

     Pieter:But they didn’t say it specifically.

     Answer:Of course not.They’ve been given the chance to do that, but didn’t feel it necessary.

     Pieter:But I want them to!

     Answer:Too bad.

     Not just that Andy but Pieter is a dishonest troll. He asked these very same questions on Fogbow back in 2009 and was answered then. It’s not about curiosity anymore, but stupidity.
167. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:28 pm  Paper(Quote)

     I have started copying my responses to your comments to the Open thread, after a few pointless attempts to connect the dots to skeet. It is a bit ridiculous how much you talk of lack of respect, when you show very little of it.

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Skeet.
168. CarlOrcas says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:28 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     CarlO, offended? Good.

     Wrapping my self in the flag is habit. So is my tendency to frame government in laws and constitutional constraint.

     What is your habit, other than being offended by those that wake every morning wondering about the next rendezvous with destiny, after much coffee dressing themselves in the uniform of the US Army, and daily dedicate themselves to raise your children to fight our nation’s wars?

     Jesus, your sensibilities are laughable.

     Your posturing has become laughable.

     I particularly like the line about your “wak(ing) every morning wondering about the next rendezvous with destiny……………” you will face.

     Given that burden I’m surprised you spend your evening’s posting message after message on this site.
169. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:37 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     “The constitution mentions nothing about parental citizenship and so it was not an actual concern.”

     DocKN, you are trying to a make point which is appreciated. Unfortunately, it is nebulous. Yes, the constitution makes absolutely no point regarding specific reference to parents much in the same vein it make it makes no reference to what understood regarding income taxes, authority to manage education and labor and the environment…

     Look, I’d like a civil discussion regarding what might have been understood regarding NBC and that has occurred since those grandfathered to presidency.

     What is your point, exactly? Other than your hatred of “birthers” on a general compliant, can you argue RvB and MvH?
170. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:45 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     “The constitution mentions nothing about parental citizenship and so it was not an actual concern.”

     DocKN, you are trying to a make point which is appreciated. Unfortunately, it is nebulous. Yes, the constitution makes absolutely no point regarding specific reference to parents much in the same vein it make it makes no reference to what understood regarding income taxes, authority to manage education and labor and the environment…

     Look, I’d like a civil discussion regarding what might have been understood regarding NBC and that has occurred since those grandfathered to presidency.

     What is your point, exactly? Other than your hatred of “birthers” on a general compliant, can you argue RvB and MvH?

     It’s not nebulous at all. There is nothing in the constitution about the president needing citizen parents. Ummm sorry but there’s an amendment that covers income tax and there are parts about labor and education in the constitution. There is nothing about citizen parents there.

     You’re lying you’re not asking for a civil discussion otherwise you wouldn’t present yourself in such bad faith as you have.

     I don’t hate the birthers they continue to be a great source of entertainment.
171. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:47 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Incorrect. Again and again, do the research before you make meaningless assertions.

     Sixteenth Amendment:

     “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Yes, the constitution makes absolutely no point regarding specific reference to parents much in the same vein it make it makes no reference to what understand regarding income taxes…
172. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:49 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Posted your error about income taxes on the open thread…try doing some research…

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     …makes no reference to what understand regarding income taxes…
173. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:50 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     You are trying to sound reasonable, which is fine. But one thing troubles me about you and all those before you have asked the same questions as you. When presented with a well-formed argument, they never answer, but change the subject or pretend that substantive answers have not already been made, and made multiple times.

     I have written two articles on the topic here:

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/the-framers-on-foreign-influence/
     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/framer-v-farmer/

     and commenter Atticus Finch wrote this comment framed as a legal argument in direct reply to you:

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/the-return-of-the-birther-bill/#comment-241675

     See also:

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/the-return-of-the-birther-bill/#comment-241676
     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/the-return-of-the-birther-bill/#comment-241780

     I think it is disingenuous for you to continue to plead for an argument when we have gone to great lengths to provide one, only for you to pretend (so it seems) that these have not been done. You plead to allow the discussion to advance, when you yourself are the one in whose ball the court resides.

     Perhaps you would respond to these three arguments before you complain further about folks here not taking you seriously.

     Pieter Nosworthy: DocKN, you are trying to a make point which is appreciated. Unfortunately, it is nebulous. Yes, the constitution makes absolutely no point regarding specific reference to parents much in the same vein it make it makes no reference to what understand regarding income taxes, authority to manage education and labor and the environment…
174. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:54 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     DocKN, happy to be of entertainment.

     As for parents, RvB does reflect parents. Those born 14th citizens are defined…unfortunately so does those born abroad.

     “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

     http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

     Some of us can read, have the ability to reason, and wonder as to why those currently unquestioned in their eligibility are not subject to further scrutiny.

     I got it, you’re too smart to wonder when others’ smarter have determined the matter closed.
175. Rickey says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:55 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:

     Most of the “birther” arguments are garbage…those hold outs who wonder about a person born to a flagrant foreign national father with no intent to nationalize, contrary to the 14th challenge, is still important conversation.

     A “flagrant” foreign national father? Really? As opposed to what? The foreign nationals who only marry their own kind?
176. nbc says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:55 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Yes, the constitution makes absolutely no point regarding specific reference to parents much in the same vein it make it makes no reference to what understood regarding income taxes, authority to manage education and labor and the environment…

     Look, I’d like a civil discussion regarding what might have been understood regarding NBC and that has occurred since those grandfathered to presidency.

     The answer to this question has been addressed by the Courts, all the way up to the Supreme court where it was found that since the term natural born was left undefined in the Constitution, its meaning had to be found in Common Law which was found to define it as born on soil, subject to jurisdiction (excluding children born to invading military and foreign dignitaries, and in the US, Indians not paying taxes).

     The term was used and analyzed. And people still ignore this?… Fascinating
177. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:57 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     DocKN, happy to be of entertainment.

     As for parents, RvB does reflect parents. Those born 14th citizens are defined…unfortunately so does those born abroad.

     “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

     http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

     Some of us can read, have the ability to reason, and wonder as to why those currently unquestioned in their eligibility are not subject to further scrutiny.

     I got it, you’re too smart to wonder when others’ smarter have determined the matter closed.

     Yes and you just proved that you can’t read as the line mentioned acquisition of citizenship through birth abroad to american parents. This has nothing to do with Obama and the law which Rogers V Bellei operated under has since been repealed. It is closed you continue to quote stuff that you can’t even understand.
178. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 10:59 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Doc, do me a fav. Please state these the three incontrovertible arguments without link.

     I have been disingenuous…but also frank in many regards to include fallibility. Skeet.
179. nbc says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:01 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: I got it, you’re too smart to wonder when others’ smarter have determined the matter closed.

     A smart person would know when the issue has been resolved. Some…. Well, they insist on repeating the foolishness of their earlier days.
180. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:04 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     DocKN, the applicability of RvB is that those foreign born despite their parentage are ineligible for the presidency. Get it?

     Some of us wonder why no one blinks when some one akin to an anchor baby is eligible but it takes congressional review for those born abroad to two American parents.

     I’m drinking and trying not to be obtuse, you’re utterly failing.
181. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:07 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I most certainly will not.

     However, I tell you what I will do. I will prevent you from another mass thread hijacking like you did today by putting your in moderation.

     Pieter Nosworthy: Doc, do me a fav. Please state these the three incontrovertible arguments without link.

     I have been disingenuous…but also frank in many regards to include fallibility. Skeet.
182. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:11 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     DocKN, the applicability of RvB is that those foreign born despite their parentage are ineligible for the presidency. Get it?

     Some of us wonder why no one blinks when some one akin to an anchor baby is eligible but it takes congressional review for those born abroad to two American parents.

     I’m drinking and trying not to be obtuse, you’re utterly failing.

     He wasn’t foreign born and so it has no application to Obama also the statute by which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed in 1978 rendering the case entirely moot.

     He wasn’t akin to an anchor baby. I doubt you even know what that term even means. His mother was a US Citizen she was born here. At no time did she leave US soil before he was born. He was born on US soil. “Anchor babies” as they are termed are when both parents aren’t citizens, the mother is pregnant overseas and then has the baby here. The term anchor baby has its meaning as it is standing US policy not to deport families when children are US citizens and so the child keeps the family in the US.

     So you’re drunk as well as stupid.
183. Rickey says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:12 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     scott e: did anyone ever find out the name of the person who put the bc pdf up at the whitehouse ?

     Yes. His name is Joe Btfsplk. If you Google his name you will understand why he botched the job.
184. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:12 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Doc, roger.

     I’ll review your links and decipher the three points presumed. When I reply, if allowed, let me know if I guessed your point. Most reasonable discussions are based on guessing. Skeet.

     [Hint. If you want your comment about presidential eligibility, don’t post it on the Skeet birther thread. Doc]
185. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm  Paper(Quote)

     How about you? Do you get it? You are wrong. RvB does not have that applicability. You continually repeat falsehoods.

     It says such foreign born citizens are beholden to proper congressional action. That means Congress determines under what circumstances such children are born citizens. When according to Congress certain such individuals are not born citizens, then they obviously are not natural born citizens. When such individuals are born citizens according to Congress, then it is highly probable, as was the case with McCain, that they would also be considered natural born citizens. While that is not resolved definitively, RvB has no bearing.

     Get it?

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     DocKN, the applicability of RvB is that those foreign born despite their parentage are ineligible for the presidency. Get it?
186. Paper says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:19 pm  Paper(Quote)

     It’s called reading. R-e-a-d-I-n-g.

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Doc, roger.

     I’ll review your links and decipher the three points presumed. When I reply, if allowed, let me know if I guessed your point. Most reasonable discussions are based on guessing. Skeet.
187. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:46 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Doc, five links…three arguments?

     “The return of the birther bills X3”- um.
     “The Framers on “foreign influence”- er.
     “Framer v. Farmer”- eh.

     I’m really slow…please make your argument. I’ve tried to make the succinct point, right or wrong, regarding those born with dual citizenship without rationalization. Please reciprocate and make clear the THREE empirical points you think worth consideration.
188. SluggoJD says:

     February 2, 2013 at 11:56 pm  SluggoJD(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Sluggo,

     Am I pathetic?…sure, I’ll cop to that. I would hazard that most of humanity lives the same condition.

     I’m here because of a selfish want to commune on a matter uncomfortable and unpopular. I enjoy the give and take. I would never state that I am right without question. I am fallible and reasonably subject to the mirror of my fellow citixen.

     You? I would guess that you are egotistically secure in your opinion…no doubt and no quarter for those contrary to your world view.

     Good for you.

     No, you are here to irritate others and have a good laugh, which boosts your pathetic little ego.
189. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 12:06 am  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Sluggo, no argument provided and thus none required in retort. Bye.
190. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 12:27 am  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     DocKN,

     “So you’re drunk as well as stupid.”

     I try not to be both at the same time…but thanks for the hateful opinion.

     RvB is pertinent and interesting due the highest court review and concurrence on WKA. Specifically that the court reflected on the meaning of the 14th with consequence for those like McCain.

     Does it directly reflect upon your beloved king? No. The recognition of the case was not meant to deligitamize per se, it was given as a reflection that a 1970’s court saw definition in the 14th per WKA for those foreign born.

     I have qualms that Obama is unquestionably eligible while those like McCain are not per RvB.
191. Scientist says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:02 am  Scientist(Quote)

     Dr Kenneth Noisewater: “Anchor babies” as they are termed are when both parents aren’t citizens, the mother is pregnant overseas and then has the baby here. The term anchor baby has its meaning as it is standing US policy not to deport families when children are US citizens and so the child keeps the family in the US.

     That is not accurate. Having a US citiizen child does NOT protect the parents from deportation if they are here illegally. Many such have been deported. The citizen child can either accompany the parents to their home country (with, of course, the right to return to the US at any time) or stay in the US in custody of relatives who are here legally or in a foster situation. That child would not be eligible to sponsor their parents to come here until the child turned 21 and, even then, they would have to have an income sufficient to support their parents. So, it really is a misnomer term, since it provides a very weak anchor for the parents.

     Of course it does not apply to Obama, since his mother was a citizen.
192. Scientist says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:09 am  Scientist(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Some of us can read, have the ability to reason, and wonder as to why those currently unquestioned in their eligibility are not subject to further scrutiny.

     Who is “unquestioned in their eligibilty”? George Bush, for example So, I question his eligibility. I demand the Supreme Court rule (they never ruled him eligible, they just stopped the counting of the votes) . OK, what did that accomplish? He was still President, the Iraq war was still stupid, those who died are still dead and the bill still has to be paid. Next.
193. Reality Check says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:32 am  Reality Check(Quote)

     I always knew a 7 lb baby was too light to make a good anchor. (Please excuse the dark humor.)

     Scientist: Having a US citiizen child does NOT protect the parents from deportation if they are here illegally.
194. American Mzungu says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:40 am  American Mzungu(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: I’m drinking and trying not to be obtuse, you’re utterly failing.

     Posting while drinking is not a good idea. Drinking leads to impairment of judgment and decreases the ability to communicate.
195. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:45 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     The first three links are the points, the last two are references.

     If I were to summarize the points, you would could against the straw man of the summaries, instead of the actual arguments.

     If you are “slow”, and unable to read and understand the arguments in those articles and comments, then perhaps you should just defer to the courts who have already decided the question and not pretend competence to contend here.

     Pieter Nosworthy: I’m really slow…please make your argument. I’ve tried to make the succinct point, right or wrong, regarding those born with dual citizenship without rationalization. Please reciprocate and make clear the THREE empirical points you think worth consideration.
196. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:54 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     See, for example:

     Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (1983).

     http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=9500596911999938819&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=C5BaUI2-B4qorQGmlIHICA&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQgAMoADAA

     Salazar, an illegal immigrant, attempted to stay his deportation on the grounds of the extreme hardship of being separated from his natural born US citizen children. He lost.

     Scientist: That is not accurate. Having a US citiizen child does NOT protect the parents from deportation if they are here illegally.
197. Northland10 says:

     February 3, 2013 at 9:09 am  Northland10(Quote)

     American Mzungu: Posting while drinking is not a good idea.Drinking leads to impairment of judgment and decreases the ability to communicate.

     It does explain all of his nonsensical posts.
198. Paper says:

     February 3, 2013 at 9:12 am  Paper(Quote)

     What are your qualms? Do you recognize that there is no doubt that Obama is eligible and you just wish it wasn’t so? Or do you think it is wrong to say he is eligible and believe that he isn’t?

     In the first case, you need to start framing arguments for a constitutional amendment. In the second case, you are just in error. Your qualms at how such a thing could be true doesn’t change that it is.

     Regarding McCain, RvB does not make him ineligible. Indeed, if anything, RvB gives weight to his being eligible. Not directly, but in setting forth that such citizens are beholden to proper Congressional action. That action is the passing of laws guiding who becomes a citizen at birth outside our borders, which Congress has done since 1790. McCain fits those laws, created by proper Congressional action. That he fits such laws is a prerequisite to his being eligible.

     There remains some question of whether or not such citizens born outside the country are eligible for the presidency, which is not covered by RvB at all.

     In other words, your continued references to RvB are irrelevant.

     Pieter Nosworthy:

     I have qualms that Obama is unquestionably eligible while those like McCain are not per RvB.
199. Paper says:

     February 3, 2013 at 9:47 am  Paper(Quote)

     There, of course, are some subtleties to McCain’s specific case, involving his father’s military service and a law retroactively covering McCain.

     For a nice overview, see this review of the matter from 2008:

     http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp
200. Majority Will says:

     February 3, 2013 at 10:02 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     American Mzungu: Posting while drinking is not a good idea.Drinking leads to impairment of judgment and decreases the ability to communicate.

     Sober or not, there’s no point in trying to reason with an asinine, puerile and dishonest bigot intent on bullying.
201. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 3, 2013 at 11:23 am  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     DocKN,

     “So you’re drunk as well as stupid.”

     I try not to be both at the same time…but thanks for the hateful opinion.

     RvB is pertinent and interesting due the highest court review and concurrence on WKA. Specifically that the court reflected on the meaning of the 14th with consequence for those like McCain.

     Does it directly reflect upon your beloved king? No. The recognition of the case was not meant to deligitamize per se, it was given as a reflection that a 1970′s court saw definition in the 14th per WKA for those foreign born.

     I have qualms that Obama is unquestionably eligible while those like McCain are not per RvB.

     That’s funny because from your posts here last night its obvious you were being both at the same time. It wasn’t a hateful comment it was an accurate comment. You continue to troll and make stupid comments unrelated to reality.

     Rogers v bellei has no application to McCain either bellei was a naturalized citizen McCain was not. Never has anyone but your pathetic hateful side called Obama a king.

     Rogers v bellei has no application to anyone nowadays as the law that stripped bellei of his citizenship has been repealed for decades.

     Its funny how you have qualms about Obama but since you’ve been posting online about it for the past few years you’ve never presented a legitimate argument for why you believe such.
202. donna says:

     February 3, 2013 at 11:45 am  donna(Quote)

     from orly-stan:

     More information on the person threatening my children. I need to find the name and report to the police and FBI. It is one thing to threaten me, but it is quite different to threaten my children. I am wondering if the flower shop in Herndon, VA is somehow affiliated to flower shop in N. Carolina, which is owned by Bill Brian (Brian was forced to leave CA bar amidst multiple suspensions and complaints) , who runs the Fogbow blog together with Obama’s personal attorney Scott J. Tepper. This might be getting much closer to Obama

     IF people are threatening her children, why doesn’t SHE contact law enforcement/FBI?

     Press release! Taitz files a motion for reconsideration in the DC court of Appeals. If this court looked at constitutionality of a couple of minor appointments by Obama, they can’t commit treason and engage in the cover up of Obama’s forged IDs, which make each and every appointment by Obama unconstitutional. The court ordered the Department of Justice representing the Commissioner of SSA to respond by February 11, 2013
203. Reality Check says:

     February 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm  Reality Check(Quote)

     As someone on the Fogbow pointed out she is misreading the comment. I think what the person is saying is how would she like it if someone posted information about her children like she is dragging in innocent people into Al Hendershott’s stupid Harrison Bounel conspiracy.

     donna: IF people are threatening her children, why doesn’t SHE contact law enforcement/FBI?
204. American Mzungu says:

     February 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm  American Mzungu(Quote)

     Majority Will: Sober or not, there’s no point in trying to reason with an asinine, puerile and dishonest bigot intent on bullying.

     Several days ago I tried giving a civil answer to Pieter, and quickly discovered that beneath the scab of civility there is—as you put it so well—“an asinine, puerile and dishonest bigot intent on bullying.”

     Yesterday I noticed a decline in Pieter’s ability to string together words that clearly expressed his ideas. It got worse as the day went on, and I thought to myself, “I bet he’s drinking.” I was, however, surprised that he would admit so in a post. Drinking and posting is dumb, but admitting it is truly stupid. In any future post by Pieter how can we be assured he is sober rather than boozed up?
205. Thomas Brown says:

     February 3, 2013 at 1:13 pm  Thomas Brown(Quote)

     Reality Check:
     As someone on the Fogbow pointed out she is misreading the comment. I think what the person is saying is how would she like it if someone posted information about her children like she is dragging in innocent people into a stupid Harrison Bounel conspiracy.

     So I guess I should reconsider emailing Orly one of the recipes for children from Swift’s Modest Proposal huh?
206. AlCum says:

     February 3, 2013 at 1:37 pm  AlCum(Quote)

     Scientist: Who is “unquestioned in their eligibilty”? George Bush, for exampleSo, I question his eligibility.I demand the Supreme Court rule (they never ruled him eligible, they just stopped the counting of the votes) .OK, what did that accomplish?He was still President, the Iraq war was still stupid, those who died are still dead and the bill still has to be paid.Next.

     Pieter is imagining things if he thinks eligibility is always established. George Bush never submitted any proof that he was a natural born citizen. There is no procedure for establishing this. Nor did Clinton. Nor any president before them. Obama was the first presidential candidate in history to release a birth certificate to the public.
207. donna says:

     February 3, 2013 at 1:56 pm  donna(Quote)

     AlCum: Obama was the first presidential candidate in history to release a birth certificate to the public.

     TRUE and they accepted that VOID POS released by mitt:

     http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificate-idUSBRE84S1GF20120529
208. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 2:13 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Orly’s web site is down.
209. Majority Will says:

     February 3, 2013 at 4:02 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

     American Mzungu: Several days ago I tried giving a civil answer to Pieter, and quickly discovered that beneath the scab of civility there is—as you put it so well—”an asinine, puerile and dishonest bigot intent on bullying.”

     Yesterday I noticed a decline in Pieter’s ability to string together words that clearly expressed his ideas.It got worse as the day went on, and I thought to myself, “I bet he’s drinking.”I was, however, surprised that he would admit so in a post.Drinking and posting is dumb, but admitting it is truly stupid.In any future post by Pieter how can we be assured he is sober rather than boozed up?

     Based on the cumulative sum of his vacuous posts to date, would it matter?
210. misha marinsky says:

     February 3, 2013 at 4:55 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

     Majority Will: Based on the cumulative sum of his vacuous posts to date, would it matter?

     Who could tell a difference?
211. misha marinsky says:

     February 3, 2013 at 4:57 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

     donna: AlCum: Obama was the first presidential candidate in history to release a birth certificate to the public.

     TRUE and they accepted that VOID POS released by mitt:

     http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificate-idUSBRE84S1GF20120529

     No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.
212. misha marinsky says:

     February 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: Orly’s web site is down.

     It worked.
213. donna says:

     February 3, 2013 at 5:04 pm  donna(Quote)

     misha marinsky:

     let’s see if “brown” candidates like rubio, jindal & cruz are put under such scrutiny
214. Keith says:

     February 3, 2013 at 5:17 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Thomas Brown: So I guess I should reconsider emailing Orly one of the recipes for children from Swift’s Modest Proposal huh?

     I once rewrote A Modest Proposal for a High School essay exercise. I substituted Southern Arizona for Ireland and Latino Americans for the Irish. Best thing I ever wrote in High School (of course it was 95% Swift, not me); a pity I’ve lost the paper in one of my moves.
215. Northland10 says:

     February 3, 2013 at 7:15 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Orly’s web site is down.

     She is back up and has posted a possibly record breaking 98 word title. The total character count, with spaces, is 555 characters. Given the extra confusing nature of her last sentence and lack of a period, I wonder is she may have hit a limit on available size. If your title cannot fit in a twitter post, it’s too damn long.

     I was disappointed to hear that our dictatorial regime is not better than Iran, the Soviet Union or Germany in the 1030s. It’s like were being ruled by Conrad II all over again.
216. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:03 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     At least the WordPress database supports a 64K title. I don’t know if other limits are enforced. Omitting the final period in a multi-sentence title is typical for Orly.

     Northland10: She is back up and has posted a possibly record breaking 98 word title. The total character count, with spaces, is 555 characters. Given the extra confusing nature of her last sentence and lack of a period, I wonder is she may have hit a limit on available size. If your title cannot fit in a twitter post, it’s too damn long.
217. Paper says:

     February 3, 2013 at 8:57 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Is there no limit to the Obama administration’s corruption? You just know the President has money on the 49ers, and after that 109 yard return, he put out the word, cut the Ravens off, stop their momentum. And apparently the 49ers have had this happen before. Coincidence? I think not. The only question is who did it, the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security? This is what we get for ignoring forged birth certificates and letting dual citizens run the country.

     Check out the proof here:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
218. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 3, 2013 at 11:20 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I try to make all my titles fit on one line, and it’s unusual for one to be longer than that. A short title, carefully crafted, has more punch.

     The average length of a post title on this blog is 32.571 characters. The longest title ever was 110 characters: “Psychologists explain why people believe false stories about Obama’s birthplace, and what to do about it.”

     Northland10: If your title cannot fit in a twitter post, it’s too damn long.
219. Arthur says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:49 am  Arthur(Quote)

     I found this development in the Linda Jordan case quite interesting. A retired judge from the Washington state supreme court has agreed to represent Jordan as she fights sanctions levied for a frivolous appeal:

     “Statement from the Honorable Richard B. Sanders:

     “For the first time in 17 years, 15 of those sitting on the Washington Supreme Court, I have agreed to represent a private citizen. And I am pleased to lend Linda Jordan a helping hand.

     “In good faith Ms. Jordan commenced an action to question President Obama’s name on the ballot. She did the best she could with limited resources and no legal training. The government’s response was immediate and in some respects heavy handed. Having obtained a summary dismissal of her case, and then her appeal, the attorney general went further to demand the Secretary of State be reimbursed, claiming attorney fees amounting to almost $13,000. However what the attorney general did not tell the court is that the Secretary never actually paid this amount, nor was he billed this amount, nor probably anything close to it. The number is made up, pure fiction. The AG did not disclose the actual amount to the court probably because the objective is to get a punitive judgment for as much as he can without regard to actual expenditures which were much less.

     “My motion to modify and reduce the court clerk’s award of almost $13,000 will attempt to direct the court’s attention to the truth of the matter: that once again the government is hiding the ball to oppress a patriotic private citizen of modest means because she exercised her right to access the courts. This is not compensatory but punitive. It is not justice but oppression. Moreover $13,000 is truly an outlandish sum to obtain dismissal of an appeal the AG claimed was entirely lacking in merit. No wonder people mistrust the government, lawyers and the court system. It’s time to fight.

     “Richard B. Sanders
     Lawyer ”

     http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/02/ret-wa-supreme-court-judge-fights-obama-sanctions.html
220. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:57 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     YouTube video castigates Linda Jordan.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=INitqMTJcn8#!
221. Arthur says:

     February 4, 2013 at 9:11 am  Arthur(Quote)

     A little background about Richard Sanders.

     From Wikipedia:

     “. . . a former member of the Washington Supreme Court. He is a land use attorney and an advocate of property rights . . . His judicial philosophy is strongly libertarian and pro-life.” He also has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association.

     From Judgepedia:

     “In July 2006, the Washington Supreme Court determined in a 5 to 4 decision to uphold the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Of the six opinions issued, Sanders concurred with James Johnson in expressing that there exists, ‘a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage.'”

     So he’s a libertarian for property holders and gun enthusiasts, but when it comes to civil rights for homosexuals and reproductive rights for women, he’s a regular ol’ country-club Republican. Sounds like Ron Paul.
222. Rickey says:

     February 4, 2013 at 10:01 am  Rickey(Quote)

     Arthur:
     I found this development in the Linda Jordan case quite interesting. A retired judge from the Washington state supreme court has agreed to represent Jordan as she fights sanctions levied for a frivolous appeal:

     It’s interesting that Sanders does not appear to be arguing that Jordan should not have been sanctioned. He is filing a motion to modify and reduce the sanctions.
223. Scientist says:

     February 4, 2013 at 12:05 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     This story should get the birthers going. No only does Obama have one Oval Office, he may soon have 2 http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-obama-to-receive-second-oval-office
224. CarlOrcas says:

     February 4, 2013 at 12:25 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Scientist:
     This story should get the birthers going.No only does Obama have one Oval Office, he may soon have 2 http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-obama-to-receive-second-oval-office

     Give them a couple more days. They’ll get to it once they’re finished flogging the skeet shooting story.
225. aesthetocyst says:

     February 4, 2013 at 12:46 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Every time something is served up to them like room service, they never take note of it, that I have noticed. Not being able to anticipate the nutters’ nuttiness doesn’t bother me at all.
226. ASK Esq says:

     February 4, 2013 at 1:48 pm  ASK Esq(Quote)

     Don’t know if anyone else has posted this, but I got a good laugh out of Orly’s latest. She is asking her minions to contact the writers and producers of “That 70’s Show” (Well, technically, she refers to it as this 70’s show, perhaps she is unaware of the actual title of the show), because she got an email from someone who remembers an interview with one of the creators that said the show and the character Hyde were based on Bill Ayers. Apparently the character Fes (Fez?) was based on Obama.

     You can’t make this stuff up.
227. CarlOrcas says:

     February 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     ASK Esq: You can’t make this stuff up.

     I think Doc needs a permanent thread….something like “Orly’s Follies” with a flashing red light on it like Drudge uses for his big stories…..that goes on every time Orly does something outrageous.
228. Arthur says:

     February 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     ASK Esq: “That 70′s Show” (Well, technically, she refers to it as this 70′s show, perhaps she is unaware of the actual title of the show), because

     Apostrophe prick here: it’s “That ’70s Show.”
229. Arthur says:

     February 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Looks like the Annoying Orange (Donald Trump) is going ahead with his threat to sue Bill Maher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/donald-trump-sues-bill-maher-over-monkey-sex_n_2616096.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy
230. justlw says:

     February 4, 2013 at 3:07 pm  justlw(Quote)

     Arthur: Apostrophe prick here: it’s “That ’70s Show.”

     Unless you’re the New York Times. Stupid New York Times.
231. Thomas Brown says:

     February 4, 2013 at 3:26 pm  Thomas Brown(Quote)

     Scientist:
     This story should get the birthers going.No only does Obama have one Oval Office, he may soon have 2 http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-obama-to-receive-second-oval-office

     The second one is being prepared for Barry Soetoro, silly. The carpet, naturally, will be a Muslim prayer rug. Together, the two “Obamas” will bring America to its knees. 😉
232. aesthetocyst says:

     February 4, 2013 at 3:33 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     ASK Esq: Don’t know if anyone else has posted this, but I got a good laugh out of Orly’s latest. She is asking her minions to contact the writers and producers of “That 70′s Show”

     I posted about it yesterday, the fact that it was up—briefly!—but then went 404.

     I was speculating that maybe Orly realized, for once, that she was being punked (I mean, that was someone punking her, right? ….. right?)

     Is the story back up? I can’t see her site from her.
233. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:33 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Doc, three points and two references.

     Please make the points 1, 2, 3. Thanks for the clarity.

     Most of you consider me a troll…but I’m not. I am very much like you, I have a job (happy or not) and wonder at the future of my children and their inherited republic.

     If you don’t enjoy the repartee, why respond? Forgive if you would, if I have made a bad choice commenting on this site.

     Awaiting moderation.
234. ASK Esq says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:40 pm  ASK Esq(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: I posted about it yesterday, the fact that it was up—briefly!—but then went 404.I was speculating that maybe Orly realized, for once, that she was being punked (I mean, that was someone punking her, right? ….. right?)Is the story back up? I can’t see her site from her.

     I saw it on Beforeitsnews.com (The aggregator site that also lists stories on alternate science and UFOs, which Orly seems to think is a news site covering her). I don’t have the guts to visit Orly’s site.
235. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:42 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Doc, three points and two references.Please make the points 1, 2, 3. Thanks for the clarity. Most of you consider me a troll…but I’m not. I am very much like you, I have a job (happy or not) and wonder at the future of my children and their inherited republic.If you don’t enjoy the repartee, why respond? Forgive if you would, if I have made a bad choice commenting on this site.Awaiting moderation.

     You are a troll. You’ve been asking the same questions you’ve had answered repeatedly over the last 4 years even back when you were trolling on the fogbow you had the answers told to you. You still claim to have some concern which you can’t seem to prove.
236. ASK Esq says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm  ASK Esq(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy: Doc, three points and two references.Please make the points 1, 2, 3. Thanks for the clarity. Most of you consider me a troll…but I’m not. I am very much like you, I have a job (happy or not) and wonder at the future of my children and their inherited republic.If you don’t enjoy the repartee, why respond? Forgive if you would, if I have made a bad choice commenting on this site.Awaiting moderation.

     Unlike the birther sites, Doc allows both sides to post here. We enjoy trying to educate the birthers, or, failing that, having fun with them.
237. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:51 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     DocKN and ASK, got it…I’m worthy of ridicule and little else as a considered troll or worse.

     I pose to you if your incontrovertible truths may be subject to slight question…such as if WKA did answer MvH, why are those like McCain incontrovertibly ineligible? If WKA is accepted as precedent than so must be RvB…

     Some of us would like to think that WKA might not be applicable and such RvB. Maybe, just perhaps, MvH spoke of Art II and WKA may have reflected solely on the 14th. If such a perspective is worth discussion than Obama and McCain are not nailed in place by the politically expedient.
238. Paper says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:55 pm  Paper(Quote)

     But you are not engaging or providing repartee. You are demanding someone present information in the way you want it, because you simply refuse to read or spend the time to understand the articles he pointed you to.

     If you can’t understand those posts provided, how do you expect to engage in any repartee, much less discuss the matter? How do you even form an opinion worthy of the modicum of self-respect most people rely upon before posting their views, much less demanding repartee according to your prescription?

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Doc, three points and two references.

     Please make the points 1, 2, 3. Thanks for the clarity.

     Most of you consider me a troll…but I’m not. I am very much like you, I have a job (happy or not) and wonder at the future of my children and their inherited republic.

     If you don’t enjoy the repartee, why respond? Forgive if you would, if I have made a bad choice commenting on this site.

     Awaiting moderation.
239. Rickey says:

     February 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:

     Most of you consider me a troll…but I’m not. I am very much like you, I have a job (happy or not) and wonder at the future of my children and their inherited republic.

     If you don’t enjoy the repartee, why respond? Forgive if you would, if I have made a bad choice commenting on this site.

     Awaiting moderation.

     Let me give you an example. You repeatedly posted that John McCain was required to get Congressional approval before he could run for President in 2008.

     You have been told repeatedly that your statement is false. McCain was not required to do anything more than any other candidate has done over the years. The non-binding, bi-partisan resolution was done as a courtesy by his colleagues in the Senate because some people had raised questions due to the fact that McCain was not born in the United States.

     In fact, McCain himself did less than Obama to prove that he was eligible to be President. McCain never released his birth certificate. We know of just one reporter who has seen it, and he was not allowed to make a copy. Obama, on the other hand, released his Hawaii COLB in the summer of 2008, although nobody required him to do so.

     If I were running this site, I would ban you if you ever brought up the Senate resolution again. A troll is by definition someone who repeatedly raises the same thoroughly discredited arguments.
240. Pieter Nosworthy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm  Pieter Nosworthy(Quote)

     Paper, whether willful or intended…I’d appreciate the three points made clear and present. Have you not had to have the commonly known spelled out at one time or another? This is my moment. Don’t be hateful of someone who needs a little clarification.
241. Paper says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:02 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Points are simple. Anyone born here is natural born. Those born of American patents elsewhere depend upon Congressional laws for their citizenship. It is likely that even such fireign birn citizens are to be regarded as natural born. However, that has not been established 100%.

     If you want to understand how those points exist as truths, read the posts provided by Dr. C. If you won’t read what has already been posted here, why do you think you are worthy of demanding people repeat what they have already said just for you?

     If you want repartee or discussion as you have said, you need to bring something new to the table while dealing with what is already discussed/established/clear-as-daisies.

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Doc, three points and two references.

     Please make the points 1, 2, 3. Thanks for the clarity.

     Most of you consider me a troll…but I’m not. I am very much like you, I have a job (happy or not) and wonder at the future of my children and their inherited republic.

     If you don’t enjoy the repartee, why respond? Forgive if you would, if I have made a bad choice commenting on this site.

     Awaiting moderation.
242. Northland10 says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:11 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     CarlOrcas: Give them a couple more days. They’ll get to it once they’re finished flogging the skeet shooting story.

     Give them more credit on multitasking skills. They can believe six lies before breakfast.
243. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:14 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Eh? Who’s saying that McCain is “incontrovertibly ineligible?”

     See:

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen/

     Pieter Nosworthy: such as if WKA did answer MvH, why are those like McCain incontrovertibly ineligible?
244. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:18 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Mr. Nosworthy is cementing his reputation as a troll.

     Paper: If you want repartee or discussion as you have said, you need to bring something new to the table while dealing with what is already discussed/established/clear-as-daisies.
245. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:23 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     As I said in my earlier refusal to summarize the articles to which I asked Mr. Nosworthy to respond, I said that if I summarized them, then he would respond to the summaries, and not the articles. And here I am proved right.

     I think Mr. Nosworthy has proven that he’s just here to play and not discuss. Sorry, playground’s closed. (That means, I’m not going to approve your comments any more.)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     From Paper, points are simple:

     1. Anyone born here is natural born.

     2. Those born of American parents elsewhere depend upon Congressional laws for their citizenship.

     3. It is likely that even such foreign born citizens are to be regarded as natural born.

     Thanks, Paper. 1 and 3 are emphatic propositions (well, 1 is pretty emphatic), not sure if you mean statutory citizens are also to be considered natural born with #2.

     Thanks. At least, I have something to mull over and reply.
246. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:33 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     The Fogbow has a thread, Orly’s Greatest Poopies which now has over 31,000 messages.

     In my view, WordPress is really not set up to handle huge numbers of comments on one article, and that’s why all are set to close automatically in 2 weeks.

     It is possible to implement “paged comments” on the blog, that brings on another set of problems.

     CarlOrcas: I think Doc needs a permanent thread….something like “Orly’s Follies” with a flashing red light on it like Drudge uses for his big stories…..that goes on every time Orly does something outrageous.
247. Scientist says:

     February 4, 2013 at 6:38 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: Eh? Who’s saying that McCain is “incontrovertibly ineligible?”

     I think he is ineligible to be Prsident by reason of not having received enough votes. So, is Romney. In fact, only one guy is currently eligible to be President.
248. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     DocKN and ASK, got it…I’m worthy of ridicule and little else as a considered troll or worse.

     I pose to you if your incontrovertible truths may be subject to slight question…such as if WKA did answer MvH, why are those like McCain incontrovertibly ineligible? If WKA is accepted as precedent than so must be RvB…

     Some of us would like to think that WKA might not be applicable and such RvB. Maybe, just perhaps, MvH spoke of Art II and WKA may have reflected solely on the 14th. If such a perspective is worth discussion than Obama and McCain are not nailed in place by the politically expedient.

     Again you prove how much of a troll you are. You’ve been answered repeatedly that RvB has no application to Obama nor McCain and yet you continue to talk about it. RvB has no application whatsoever to the current time as the law that stripped Bellei of his citizenship was repealed in 1979. Minor V Happersett has no applicability either as it was a voting rights case about a woman and neither McCain nor Obama are women. Wong Kim Ark didn’t have to answer Minor as Minor wasn’t about citizenship and made a statement about how they weren’t going to talk about citizenship as it had no application to the case. You’ve known this since when you brought it up back on Fogbow and were already answered.
249. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Paper, whether willful or intended…I’d appreciate the three points made clear and present. Have you not had to have the commonly known spelled out at one time or another? This is my moment. Don’t be hateful of someone who needs a little clarification.

     You’ve had your clarification repeatedly on multiple sites you’ve trolled at over the past 4 years. You’re a dishonest troll.

     From your own website: http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/

     “Since the “second coming”, I have consoled my self with first taking a break and later engaging with those who find the matter interesting. Some are those that find fault with Obama for his politics and others that enjoy ridiculing those who continue to wear the tinfoil as “birthers”.

     I have enjoyed the give and take in both spheres. They are my fellow American, all important, and appreciated.

     It is good to be back. Thanks, IMAO and OCT. Great therapy.

     [UPDATE 4FEB13] OCT acting squirrelly, after numerous comments scrupulously moderated and amended to their ego benefit, I commented with;

     “Doc, per McCain…do you or do you not believe the the 1971 case of Rogers v Bellei applicable? If not why not? Everyone wants to state the USSC case WKA as conclusive for Obama and the argument that all those born 14th amendment citizens are indeed eligible for the presidency, but so McCain is also eligible?

     Please clarify as to which Supreme Court cases are worth ignoring when convenient?

     Again, awaiting moderation.”

     Deleted outright by the cowardly fuckheads (i.e. moderator Doctor Conspiracy) that be.”
250. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 4, 2013 at 7:08 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Doc all you need to know about this troll
     http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2013/02/healing.html

     His own website he talks about how he came here to troll
251. CarlOrcas says:

     February 4, 2013 at 7:15 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     The Fogbow has a thread, Orly’s Greatest Poopies which now has over 31,000 messages.

     In my view, WordPress is really not set up to handle huge numbers of comments on one article, and that’s why all are set to close automatically in 2 weeks.

     It is possible to implement “paged comments” on the blog, that brings on another set of problems.

     I was joking. I think you’re doing just fine without threads that redefine infinity.
252. justlw says:

     February 4, 2013 at 7:27 pm  justlw(Quote)

     Following the link to Pieter’s site took me eventually to a site selling “conservative humor” T-shirts. Funniest thing I found there:

     Availability:
     Size Status
     Small In Stock
     Medium In Stock
     Large In Stock
     XL In Stock
     2X In Stock
     3X Sold Out
253. Dave B. says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

     Bob Gard: another more modern brilliant researcher, Jerome Corsi

     “Brilliance” is that which is employed when one undertakes to dazzle. That which is employed when one undertakes to baffle is called something else.
254. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:22 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     The OC Weekly reports that someone using the name Orly Taitz posted a help wanted ad on Craigslist for a paralegal.

     http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/02/orly_taitz_paralegal_want_ad.php

     I am skeptical as to the authenticity of the listing.
255. Paper says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:23 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Just providing him that opportunity…

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Mr. Nosworthy is cementing his reputation as a troll.
256. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Once I put him in moderation, he started appending “Awaiting moderation” to all his posts. I assumed this was an attempt to call attention to himself, so after the first, I deleted that text (since once approved it was no longer “awaiting moderation” and then he complained about that (I don’t think I approved that comment). By then, and after his comment to Paper, I could see no way he could be allowed to participate here. Trolls hijack the forum to make it about them and not about what the forum is about. He was a very effective troll, eliciting many responses, but giving nothing in return but attempts to gain attention and elicit more responses. His self-deprecating remarks were disingenuous, and his requests to have other people do work for him typified the troll type.

     So he’s gone, and once someone is gone, they stay gone. I don’t even read their stuff before deleting it.

     Dr Kenneth Noisewater: His own website he talks about how he came here to troll
257. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

     February 4, 2013 at 8:36 pm  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Once I put him in moderation, he started appending “Awaiting moderation” to all his posts. I assumed this was an attempt to call attention to himself, so after the first, I deleted that text (since once approved it was no longer “awaiting moderation” and then he complained about that (I don’t think I approved that comment). By then, and after his comment to Paper, I could see no way he could be allowed to participate here. Trolls hijack the forum to make it about them and not about what the forum is about. He was a very effective troll, eliciting many responses, but giving nothing in return but attempts to gain attention and elicit more responses. His self-deprecating remarks were disingenuous, and his requests to have other people do work for him typified the troll type.

     So he’s gone, and once someone is gone, they stay gone. I don’t even read their stuff before deleting it.

     That’s pretty much what happened to him on politijab/fogbow. He’s been asking these same questions since 2009 which he has had answered. Eventually foggy created the troll group and placed him in it. He eventually went away
258. aesthetocyst says:

     February 4, 2013 at 9:43 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     101 editions of Vattel. Now what would 101 copies of a work that has reflects only a view alien to our legal tradition have over a single copy of said work? A cipher multiplied 101 times is …. the same nothing, no more, couldn’t be less.

     101 times … really? Amateurs picking ‘random” numbers (i.e., making stuff up) have the strangest ability to pick primes.

     Have you confused your books with your Dalmatians?

     At least he blundered into the open thread. Got to give him that much.
259. justlw says:

     February 4, 2013 at 10:06 pm  justlw(Quote)

     It’s interesting to have The Big Bang Theory on in the background while reading Bob Gard’s messages.

     *knock knock knock* “Vattel?” *knock knock knock* “Vattel?” *knock knock knock* “Vattel?”
260. Paper says:

     February 4, 2013 at 10:30 pm  Paper(Quote)

     I would have bet as much, but give a man some eggs and he can make a meal or smash them on his own forehead. His choice.

     Not that the “discussion” will be continuing, but Pieter, of course those points were emphatic. They were the conclusions! If you wanted the arguments that lead to the conclusions, or actually wanted to mull over something, you would have just read the posts Dr. C. suggested, or read any of the searches and info that I and others repeatedly provided.

     Dr. Conspiracy:

     As I said in my earlier refusal to summarize the articles to which I asked Mr. Nosworthy to respond, I said that if I summarized them, then he would respond to the summaries, and not the articles. And here I am proved right.

     I think Mr. Nosworthy has proven that he’s just here to play and not discuss. Sorry, playground’s closed. (That means, I’m not going to approve your comments any more.)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     From Paper, points are simple:

     1. Anyone born here is natural born.

     2. Those born of American parents elsewhere depend upon Congressional laws for their citizenship.

     3. It is likely that even such foreign born citizens are to be regarded as natural born.

     Thanks, Paper. 1 and 3 are emphatic propositions (well, 1 is pretty emphatic), not sure if you mean statutory citizens are also to be considered natural born with #2.

     Thanks. At least, I have something to mull over and reply.
261. AlCum says:

     February 4, 2013 at 10:30 pm  AlCum(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Paper, whether willful or intended…I’d appreciate the three points made clear and present. Have you not had to have the commonly known spelled out at one time or another? This is my moment. Don’t be hateful of someone who needs a little clarification.

     You are not someone who needs a little clarification.
262. AlCum says:

     February 4, 2013 at 10:33 pm  AlCum(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     DocKN and ASK, got it…I’m worthy of ridicule and little else as a considered troll or worse.

     I pose to you if your incontrovertible truths may be subject to slight question…such as if WKA did answer MvH, why are those like McCain incontrovertibly ineligible? If WKA is accepted as precedent than so must be RvB…

     Some of us would like to think that WKA might not be applicable and such RvB. Maybe, just perhaps, MvH spoke of Art II and WKA may have reflected solely on the 14th. If such a perspective is worth discussion than Obama and McCain are not nailed in place by the politically expedient.

     It is not worth discussion. It all has been long settled law. To say you “would like to think” WKA “might not be applicable” is akin to saying you would “like to think” water is not wet.
263. donna says:

     February 4, 2013 at 11:07 pm  donna(Quote)

     Press release: 4th district court of Appeal reinstated the appeal by Attorney and Senatorial candidate Orly Taitz against Senator Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama

     http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746

     taitz: the case deals with one and a half million invalid voter registrations in CA as well as lack of legitimacy of Presidential Candidate Barack Obama due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number.

     http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/02/press-release-4th-district-court-of-appeal-reinstated-the-appeal-by-attorney-and-senatorial-candidate-orly-taitz-against-senator-diane-feinstein-and-barack-obama-2454808.html
264. Reality Check says:

     February 4, 2013 at 11:08 pm  Reality Check(Quote)

     Pieter Nozworthy was a member of Politijab and the Fogbow and has made 716 posts there. I think Pieter was one of the reasons Foggy started “The Bither Cage” now known as “FEMA Camp 7-1/2” This is the only area of the forum where Birthers can post and any member can choose whether that forum is visible. It was a compromise that Foggy came up with vs. an outright ban for Birthers who post the same discredited assertions over and over.

     This was Pieter’s last post there on 8/23/2011:

     (In Topic A Return to the Land of Noz)

     Postby Pieter Nosworthy � Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:42 pm
     I appreciate the WKA decision in it depth and breath, but again some elements are confusing such as the Mr. Fish citation, “Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.” Good Lord, what would John Jay think as far as prohibiting the influence of foreigners in the presidency. I will read the WKA opinion, again (take notes, briefs, etc.) and get away from worshiping the dissent. I will try to see where the opinion regarding jus soli birth is in fact a rebuttal to MvH. All good points you made.

     Noz

     He has had 2+ years to read, take notes and understand Wong Kim Ark. Yet he asks the same questions.
265. Rickey says:

     February 5, 2013 at 12:49 am  Rickey(Quote)

     donna:
     Press release: 4th district court of Appeal reinstated the appeal by Attorney and Senatorial candidate Orly Taitz against Senator Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama

     So it appears that Orly finally filed her appeal properly. It only took her three tries!
266. Keith says:

     February 5, 2013 at 3:11 am  Keith(Quote)

     I wonder how long it will take for the news out of Scotland Yard to establish itself in the birtherverse.
267. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 5, 2013 at 9:53 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I AM MOVING THE BOB GARD COMMENTS TO A NEW ARTICLE JUST ON HIS BOOK. PLEASE POST THERE ON THIS TOPIC.

     I return you to your normal character case in progress.
268. Bob Gard says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:21 am  Bob Gard(Quote)

     Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Why would anyone want to read your shameless plug when we already have Corsi’s piece of trash?Ooo wow you have 4,000 footnotes to long debunked birther articles.Obama is a constitutional president and is currently serving.It’s going to be another hard 4 years for you

     I am not ashamed of my plug. Wouldn’t you like to have solid corroborative, correlational and circumstantial evidence to rail against? If you get the eBook, you could use the find function to find your favorite peeve and confront me about it. Show me something new like Stephen Tonchen did with Eelbeck, Spelman and Patsall.
269. Bob Gard says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:27 am  Bob Gard(Quote)

     Dave B.: “Brilliance” is that which is employed when one undertakes to dazzle.That which is employed when one undertakes to baffle is called something else.

     Fine. Please let me know where I can buy your brilliant treatise on the subject. Except for Corsi’s confusion on the issue of Vattel’s “natives or indigenes,” I found his book excellent.
270. scott e says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:29 am  scott e(Quote)

     i noticed some strange coincidences with the william woods and dahlin memos. some of the handwriting seems pretty similar, have a look and tell me what you think. i think the memos may be composites… cheers

     http://www.washingtonamerica.com/obama.php
271. Bob Gard says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:30 am  Bob Gard(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     I AM MOVING THE BOB GARD COMMENTS TO A NEW ARTICLE JUST ON HIS BOOK. PLEASE POST THERE ON THIS TOPIC.

     I return you to your normal character case in progress.

     Fine. Please let me know where I can buy your brilliant treatise on the subject. Except for Corsi’s confusion on the issue of Vattel’s “natives or indigenes,” I found his book excellent.
272. Bob Gard says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:34 am  Bob Gard(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     I AM MOVING THE BOB GARD COMMENTS TO A NEW ARTICLE JUST ON HIS BOOK. PLEASE POST THERE ON THIS TOPIC.

     I return you to your normal character case in progress.

     As you know, I am not an adept navigator of blogs as the last replay should amply prove. Actually, I meant to praise you for treating me decently. Thank you. How do I get to the new site?
273. Bob Gard says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:39 am  Bob Gard(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     I AM MOVING THE BOB GARD COMMENTS TO A NEW ARTICLE JUST ON HIS BOOK. PLEASE POST THERE ON THIS TOPIC.

     I return you to your normal character case in progress.

     Thanks, I found it.
274. justlw says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:52 am  justlw(Quote)

     Bob Gard: Thanks, I found it.

     Looking forward to your treatise on how you discovered its cleverly-hidden location.
275. donna says:

     February 5, 2013 at 10:57 am  donna(Quote)

     the court in Noel Canning v. NLRB found obama’s recess appointments unconstitutional

     however, the CRS ” found a total of 329 intrasession recess appointments — appointments that occurred when the Senate adjourned in the middle of a session — since 1981. By the terms of Noel Canning v. NLRB, all of those appointments would have been invalid.”

     “Preliminary research suggests, however, that many of the intersession recess appointments listed in this memorandum might have been precluded, had Noel Canning been decided prior to January 20, 1981,” the CRS concludes.

     http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/federal-court-would-have-invalidated-hundreds-of-recess-appointments.php?ref=fpb

     1/27/2013 Obama Picks Rejected as Court Casts Doubt on Recess Power

     http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/obama-nlrb-recess-appointments-unlawful-court-says.html
276. aesthetocyst says:

     February 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Between the kerfuffle over Gard’s Birflaw library and the dicussion of dirty hippie’s, I conclude it’s yet another slow in Brfistan.

     As antibirthin’ is, of necessity, a reactionary activity, I suggest the blog develop an ancillary topic. We;ll all hate to see this community go, there’s a good thing here.

     Start a new wing for more general debunking?

     I know, the topic of “what next” has come up before, particularly after the LFBC was released.

     I suppose I should, once again, take note of my favorite film’s lesson … “We’ll always have Paris”. The future is not obligated to the past; one of life’s key lessons is learning to let go. “And no ‘what then?’ ! ”

     … but what is the “Paris” of Birfistan? Where/what was its “good old days”? LOL!
277. Dave B. says:

     February 5, 2013 at 3:51 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

     Bob, I believe that says quite enough about your judgment.

     Bob Gard: Fine. Please let me know where I can buy your brilliant treatise on the subject. Except for Corsi’s confusion on the issue of Vattel’s “natives or indigenes,” I found his book excellent.
278. Rickey says:

     February 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     High school teacher suspended for ‘fat butt Michelle Obama’ remark.

     But they aren’t racists…

     http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/02/05/16852482-high-school-teacher-suspended-for-fat-butt-michelle-obama-remark?lite&lite=obnetwork
279. donna says:

     February 6, 2013 at 3:14 pm  donna(Quote)

     Sibley Injects Stuxnet-Like Motion Challenging Obama’s Ineligibility Into Federal Criminal Justice Network – 2/6/2013

     from the press release:

     To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama’s eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing” to dismiss every lawsuit. Accordingly, Sibley has released his Stuxnet-like Motion to Dismiss Indictment into the federal prison system. The Motion makes the simple argument that: (i) no federal law is valid under Article I, � 7, cl. 2, of the Constitution unless it is presented to the President, (ii) Obama is not a legitimate President and thus (iii) his signing of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) is void. Accordingly, every person charge and/or convicted under FERA is entitled to be released.

     To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama’s eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing” to dismiss every lawsuit. Accordingly, Sibley has released his Stuxnet-like Motion to Dismiss Indictment into the federal prison system. The Motion makes the simple argument that: (i) no federal law is valid under Article I, � 7, cl. 2, of the Constitution unless it is presented to the President, (ii) Obama is not a legitimate President and thus (iii) his signing of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) is void.

     Accordingly, every person charge and/or convicted under FERA is entitled to be released.

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/124206722/Sibley-Injects-Stuxnet-Like-Motion-Challenging-Obama-s-Ineligibility-Into-Federal-Criminal-Justice-Network-2-6-2013

     prisoners released = birther freedom
280. G says:

     February 6, 2013 at 7:27 pm  G(Quote)

     I would say that there are a number of underlying “issues” going on here beyond just that, including certain forms of envy and jealousy.

     It all comes down to “haters are going to hate” and that petty people can’t get beyond their own pathetic insecurities.

     Take the associated article for example: “Why Fat Conservatives Love Calling Michelle Obama Fat”

     http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/why-fat-conservatives-love-calling-michelle-obama-fat/46569/

     Honestly, all this disgusting behavior from these jerkwads only serves to reveal their own flaws and failings to the rest of us…

     Rickey:
     High school teacher suspended for ‘fat butt Michelle Obama’ remark.

     But they aren’t racists…

     http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/02/05/16852482-high-school-teacher-suspended-for-fat-butt-michelle-obama-remark?lite&lite=obnetwork
281. Dave says:

     February 6, 2013 at 7:39 pm  Dave(Quote)

     “Stuxnet-like.” Always with the delusions of grandeur.

     I wonder when Sibley will notice his Stuxnet-like motion is showing no signs of life.
282. gorefan says:

     February 6, 2013 at 10:25 pm  gorefan(Quote)

     Anyone here belong to “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project”

     http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52923?fb_action_ids=10200498448812650&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.URKxisSvJjo.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
283. G says:

     February 6, 2013 at 10:45 pm  G(Quote)

     *rolls eyes*

     …So this is the latest paranoid conspiracy fantasy-fic from RWNJ land, I see. *yawn*. But hey, there are tons of really gullible RWNJ losers out there that will buy whatever tall-tale is fed to them…

     …they should have thrown in some Reptilians or added something about a secret Yeti-Illuminati-Freemason robot mastermind behind world domination.

     At least that would have made it entertaining…

     gorefan:
     Anyone here belong to “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project”

     http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52923?fb_action_ids=10200498448812650&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.URKxisSvJjo.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
284. CarlOrcas says:

     February 6, 2013 at 11:02 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     G: At least that would have made it entertaining…

     The part I like was how the “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” keep all their info in a three ring binder.

     More info than they could fit on a 5.25 inch floppy, I guess.
285. JPotter says:

     February 6, 2013 at 11:30 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     gorefan: Anyone here belong to “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project”

     Wow! How did they manage to squeeze in so many specifics into only ….. three thousand, four hundred forty-six words?
286. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 7, 2013 at 1:35 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     That was pretty pathetic. The DHS insider didn’t even get Obama’s 501(c)(4) name right. It’s not “Organizing for Obama;” it’s “Organizing for Action.”

     ---

     gorefan: Anyone here belong to “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project”
287. aesthetocyst says:

     February 7, 2013 at 1:56 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     That was pretty pathetic. The DHS insider didn’t even get Obama’s 501(c)(4) name right. It’s not “Organizing for Obama;” it’s “Organizing for Action.”

     The Obama organization has attempted several “Organizing for …” efforts, and they have each in turn been belittled as ‘really’ being “Organizing for Obama”:

     http://en.wordpress.com/tag/organizing-for-obama/

     http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/is-organizing-for-america-reallyorganizing-for-obama/

     http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/11/organizing_for_1.html

     Part of the whole Obama-is-a-dictator-in-waiting,cultivating-his-personality-cult meme.
288. nbc says:

     February 7, 2013 at 2:50 am  nbc(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: Part of the whole Obama-is-a-dictator-in-waiting,cultivating-his-personality-cult meme.

     ROTFL… You know that some people really believe this nonsense…

     President Obama is an educated president… No wonder some people fear him, they have grown too used to people like Reagan or Bush.
289. Keith says:

     February 7, 2013 at 4:16 am  Keith(Quote)

     Pieter Nosworthy:
     Kieth, you hit upon great topics…Christian morality, meaning, and sedition. If you’re looking for my vote…I will shake your hand and support you if you believe in human moral constraint, that everything has meaning and consequence, and that those who actively conspire to undermine our nation are our enemies…well, you have my vote.

     Is that so?

     I do believe in human moral constraint, everything does have meaning and consequence, and that those who actively conspire to undermine our nation are our enemies.

     That is why I am adamantly opposed to organized religion, especially fundamentalists of any belief system (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever) involving themselves in politics and seeking to impose their morality on everyone else. Human morality is inclusive of all humans, and not the private property of one religious sect or another.

     I doubt you would have much success maintaining a behavior based on universal human morality under my duly elected dictatorship.

     Certainly each of your posts has meaning and consequences. Your meaning is clear: you don’t like Obama. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with his politics and there are a very few other choices that could explain it. So the consequences are that you are not treated with much respect by people who understand you.

     You should be aware that those who are actively conspiring to undermine our nation can be identified very easily. They are the people who put on the mask of patriotism, shout ‘we are going to save the Constitution’ by destroying the Constitution. And that dear Pieter is exactly what you are trying to do when you try to convince people that somehow everyone has got it wrong for 200 years and the Constitution means something completely different from what everyone else believes.

     When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism’” – An uncredited New York Times reporter covering Halford E. Luccock in an article published September 12, 1938.

     When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross

     Finally, you do understand that Barack Obama is far to the right of my social and economic position don’t you? But don’t worry, you won’t have to vote from me ever. I will not run for office, ever. I was a lousy Croquet Club President, I’d be hopeless at a job that actually meant something important.
290. misha marinsky says:

     February 7, 2013 at 4:31 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

     Attention Thrifty: Gail Collins has now mentioned the dog on the car roof ~70x:

     They plan to open a theme park that will focus on the positive side of the man known to history only as a politician who once attempted to drive to Canada with his dog strapped to the roof of his car.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/opinion/collins-my-kingdom-for-a-corpse.html
291. Arthur says:

     February 7, 2013 at 9:12 am  Arthur(Quote)

     Many may say, “Well, duh!”, but TPM reports on research that examines a possible connection between fearful attitudes and political conservatism.

     “According to a new study coauthored by Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, a fearful people are likely to have conservative attitudes to so-called ‘out-groups’. And that heavily affects attitudes on hot button issues like immigration, war, segregation, and racial and sexual difference.

     “The research indicates a strong correlation between social fear and anti-immigration, pro-segregation attitudes. While those individuals with higher levels of social fear exhibited the strongest negative out-group attitudes, even the lowest amount of social phobia was related to substantially less positive out-group attitudes.”

     http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/fear_and_conservatism.php?ref=fpblg
292. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     February 7, 2013 at 9:37 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     There is also a correlation between fear and finding false patterns in random data, a component of conspiracy theory belief.

     ---

     Arthur:
     Many may say, “Well, duh!”, but TPM reports on research that examines a possible connection between fearful attitudes and political conservatism.
293. Arthur says:

     February 7, 2013 at 9:45 am  Arthur(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: There is also a correlation between fear and finding false patterns in random data, a component of conspiracy theory belief.

     Speaking of fear and conservatism, may I present “Cathryna” posting at ORYR:

     “The problem is that BOTH PARTIES allow the ILLUMINATI/SATIN WORSHIPERS to control us. THE LAST HONEST PRESIDENT WAS JFK AND THE ILLUMINATI KILLED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS EXPOSING THEM AND JFK WAS GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE FEDRAL RESERVE TO STOP THEM FROM STEALING FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE OUR EYES OPEN AND WE WILL NO LONGER BE RIGHT OR LEFT, WE WILL BE ANTI-ILLUMINATI, THEY CAN’T KILL ALL OF GODS PEOPLE. GOD WILL ALWAYS WIN OVER SATIN. I PRAY FOR RON AND RAUD PAUL IN THEIR JOURNEY TO DESTROY EVIL. I WILL START TO STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-ILLUMINATI.”

     Is it possible that fear also impedes your ability to spell?
294. G says:

     February 7, 2013 at 10:45 am  G(Quote)

     Good article and everything I’ve seen seems to correlate well with that conclusion and both of your insights on this! The fear motivator angle is definitely a topic worthy of further discussion and reflection…

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     There is also a correlation between fear and finding false patterns in random data, a component of conspiracy theory belief.

     Arthur:
     Many may say, “Well, duh!”, but TPM reports on research that examines a possible connection between fearful attitudes and political conservatism.

     “According to a new study coauthored by Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, a fearful people are likely to have conservative attitudes to so-called ‘out-groups’. And that heavily affects attitudes on hot button issues like immigration, war, segregation, and racial and sexual difference.

     “The research indicates a strong correlation between social fear and anti-immigration, pro-segregation attitudes. While those individuals with higher levels of social fear exhibited the strongest negative out-group attitudes, even the lowest amount of social phobia was related to substantially less positive out-group attitudes.”

     http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/fear_and_conservatism.php?ref=fpblg
295. aesthetocyst says:

     February 7, 2013 at 10:56 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Arthur: Is it possible that fear also impedes your ability to spell?

     Frightened hands, they are a’shakin’, frightened minds think not clearly. A truly frightened person wouldn’t have time for niceties such as spelling or grammar. Their message is too urgent!

     I too pray for victory over Satin. I prefer soft cotton. 😉
296. Arthur says:

     February 7, 2013 at 11:49 am  Arthur(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: I too pray for victory over Satin.

     Satin sheets are the devil’s playground! . . . and boy, would I like to go down the slide.
297. justlw says:

     February 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm  justlw(Quote)

     Arthur: Satin sheets are the devil’s playground!

     It’s all part of the Muslin conspiracy.
298. Crustacean says:

     February 7, 2013 at 4:42 pm  Crustacean(Quote)

     justlw: Arthur: Satin sheets are the devil’s playground!

     It’s all part of the Muslin conspiracy.

     God darn you, Satin!!
299. Arthur says:

     February 7, 2013 at 5:12 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Crustacean: God darn you, Satin!!

     Oh, what wicked sheets the devil weaves.
300. donna says:

     February 7, 2013 at 9:34 pm  donna(Quote)

     orly’s newest:

     I need help in research. I do not find any use of any SSN by Obama prior to 1986

     […]

     My gut feeling is that he used Stanley Ann Dunham’s Social Security number until he got hold of Harry J. Bounel’s Social.

     […]

     So, here is my warning to people playing with records: we got your number, we are watching you, we have a recording of how databases look as of today, a year ago, 20years ago and beyond. If you tri to enter in the records some new garbage, we will catch you and sooner or later you will be prosecuted for forgery and complicity to commit treason. So, do not try anything stupid!

     http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=387477
301. aesthetocyst says:

     February 7, 2013 at 9:53 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     That’s weird …. I just went to WND for the first time in a while. Not an eligibility-related story in sight. Looks like Corsi is under wraps too. Still plenty of conspiratorial aspersions aimed his way, but not a whimper of concern re: eligibility.

     Surprise! Political ploy found no longer politically useful.
302. Keith says:

     February 7, 2013 at 10:17 pm  Keith(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: Surprise! Political ploy found no longer monetarily lucrative.

     FIFY
303. aesthetocyst says:

     February 7, 2013 at 10:21 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Keith: monetarily lucrative.

     Touché! But was it ever?

     Wouldn’t you just love a glance at their books? How does WND really make ends meet? 😉
304. aesthetocyst says:

     February 7, 2013 at 10:23 pm  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     donna: I do not find any use of any SSN by Obama prior to 1986

     It is well-documented that he work at Baskin-Robbins, well before 1986. Silly Taitz. Does she accuse the creamery of SS fraud?
305. donna says:

     February 7, 2013 at 10:51 pm  donna(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: That’s weird …. I just went to WND for the first time in a while. Not an eligibility-related story in sight………………

     i believe the GOP is suffering from the “which way to go/who to support” syndrome

     there are articles written about fox/ailes

     As GOP Splits, Whose Side Is Fox News On?

     http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/as-gop-splits-whose-side-is-fox-news-on/192566

     rove, the tea party, money and “nut cases”

     Karl Rove vs. tea party in big money fight for GOP’s future

     http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/rove-vs-tea-party-for-gops-future-87296.html

     Racial Resentment and Fox News

     http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/02/racial-resentment-and-fox-news

     The Persistence of Racial Resentment

     with stats on the “white vote”: “In other words, Obama’s track record with white voters is not very different from that of other Democratic candidates.”

     http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/the-persistence-of-racial-resentment/?smid=fb-share

     i dare say i am “kvelling”

     taitz mentions baskins: I do not see any addresses or Social security numbers for Obama until 1986, until his age of 25. He claimed to have worked in Baskin Robins in Honolulu at age 15, which would be 1976. For 10 years there is no address or corresponding SSN for Barack Obama.

     creamery-gate?
306. Rickey says:

     February 7, 2013 at 11:29 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     donna:
     orly’s newest:

     I need help in research. I do not find any use of any SSN by Obama prior to 1986

     Orly has no understanding of how those databases work. There is no way that a 16-year-old’s SSN is going to make it into a non-governmental database. Most of the data is aggregated from credit bureaus, and the credit bureaus have no record of anyone until that person applies for credit. Obama had student loans, but they would not have shown up on a credit report until sometime after he had to start repaying them.
307. Keith says:

     February 7, 2013 at 11:55 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Holy fornicating excrement: READ: Murder Suspect Chris Dorner’s Online Manifesto

     And yes there are birther references in there.
308. justlw says:

     February 8, 2013 at 2:31 am  justlw(Quote)

     Keith: Holy fornicating excrement

     Seconded. Did Quentin Tarentino make this guy up? He’s terrorizing Southern California, and giving his Golden Globe picks.
309. aesthetocyst says:

     February 8, 2013 at 2:47 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     donna: there are articles

     Donna, thanks for the reading material!

     donna: taitz mentions baskins:

     Ohhh, so that’s why she assets he was using his Mom’s, because she acknowledges he had a job, but can’t find that in publicly available databases? Oy vey. Sounds like she is assuming Obama was an illegal alien.

     Why doesn’t she try to subpoena B&Rs payroll records? 😛 I wish they still existed (35-yr old records of PT employees? Sure, coming right up!) just to see her head explode, and hear the inevitable exclamations of forgery!

     _____________________

     Over on WND, I did find yet another rehash of an oldy-but-a-goodie, paired with one of their classic polls!

     WHY IS GOVERNMENT STOCKPILING GUNS, AMMO?
     Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines Obama’s plan for ‘civilian national security force’
     http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/#4pQcrvbYWSAaWyrt.99

     This makes the rounds every year. Eventually they’ll tie it in with “Organizing for Obama”, and then they’ll starting hearing those black helicopters…. flash mobs! flash mobs!
310. aesthetocyst says:

     February 8, 2013 at 3:00 am  aesthetocyst(Quote)

     Keith: And yes there are birther references in there.

     Yes, but have you read the birfer spin?

     Obot Targets Cops In Killing Spree: Slams Those That Question Obama’s Birth Certificate

     Obot Targets Cops In Killing Spree: Slams Those That Question Kenyan Obama’s Birth Certificate

     Former Cop On A Murderous Rampage Is A Big Leftist Who Loves Michelle Obama’s Bangs

     News Media Scrub Cop Murderer’s Manifesto of Pro-Obama, Hillary, MSNBC, CNN, Gay, and Anti-Gun Comments
311. Majority Will says:

     February 8, 2013 at 3:15 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     aesthetocyst: Touché! But was it ever?

     Wouldn’t you just love a glance at their books? How does WND really make ends meet?

     By making clothing and sausage from endangered animals.
312. Keith says:

     February 8, 2013 at 3:51 am  Keith(Quote)

     justlw: Seconded. Did Quentin Tarentino make this guy up?He’s terrorizing Southern California, and giving his Golden Globe picks.

     Too much Rambo and not enough Will Kane?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.