The occasional open thread: panko-breaded edition

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Dr. Conspiracy

Post your Obama conspiracy comments here that are not related to the current articles. This thread will close in 2 weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

340 Responses to The occasional open thread: panko-breaded edition

  2. JPotter says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Alleged LA cop killer labeled Obot:

    Yep, they really are all in on it.

  3. scott e says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:28 pm  (Quote)

    Thomas Brown: Only because he can’t locate them.If they exist.

    they both surrendered their illinois licenses

  4. donna says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:22 pm  (Quote)

    from his manifesto

    I didn’t vote in this last election as my choice of candidate, John Huntsman, didn’t win the primary candidacy for his party.

    In my cache you will find several small arms. In the cache, Bushmaster firearms, Remington precision rifles, and AAC Suppressors (silencers). All of these small arms are manufactured by Cerberus/Freedom Group. The same company responsible for the Portland mall shooting, Webster , NY, and Sandy Hook massacre.

    Gov. Chris Christie. What can I say? You’re the only person I would like to see in the White House in 2016 other than Hillary. You’re America’s no s**t taking uncle. Do one thing for your wife, kids, and supporters. Start walking at night and eat a little less, not a lot less, just a little. We want to see you around for a long time. Your leadership is greatly needed.

    The honorable President George H.W. Bush, they never give you enough credit for your successful Presidency. You were always one of my favorite Presidents (2nd favorite). I hope your health improves greatly. You are the epitome of an American and service to country.

    Revoke the citizenship of Fareed Zakaria and deport him.

    Mr. Scarborough, we met at McGuire’s pub in P-cola in 2002 when I was stationed there. It was an honor conversing with you about politics, family, and life.

  5. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:56 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, the better article was the one posted in the last Open Thread, which shows the full manifesto (with only private citizen names and foul words redacted).

    Sadly, great injustice and corruption can push people too far…and now we have a broken and dangerous vigilante out there, who has given up hope and sees no other way out.

    The whole point of civilization and rule of law is to prevent vigilante justice…but a corrupt law system is itself a violation of that treaty towards protecting both civilization and the rule of law…

    I do not condone the vigilante actions this broken and bitter man is taking at all…

    I only hope that something good can come from all this bad and that the charges in his manifesto are investigated by outside agencies thoroughly, to see if they have merit and to help put some better checks and balances to reduce corruption and abuse within the LAPD and everywhere else that can also benefit.

    Sadly, there was a lot of things that made sense in his manifesto. If only it could have been released and become a focus of discussion, investigation and reflection without him having to take such extreme and reprehensible measures in the first place…killing is just not ok.

    Stories like this make me truly sad for our world and the inherent flaws of humanity…

    http://www.myfoxla.com/story/21019027/murder-suspect-chris-dorners-online-manifesto-about-slayings

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Alleged LA cop killer labeled Obot:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/02/anti-birther-targets-cops-in-killing-spree.html

  6. aesthetocyst says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:57 pm  (Quote)

    This isn’t vigilance, it’s a vendetta.

  7. G says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:09 am  (Quote)

    Good point. That is certainly a better term than vigilantism.

    Right now, he’s settling personal scores of perceived injustices in his own life in a deadly and illegal manner. That is clearly a vendetta, with names being named.

    …However, based on his suicide note manifesto, it is clear that he’s at his wits end with a whole host of injustices in the world, beyond just what has personally happened to him.

    …So if he really is as talented and dangerous as he claims to be and eludes capture for awhile, I would not put it past someone in his frame of mind to start going after whatever perceived “legitimate targets” cross his path.

    …which if that happens, then we’re dealing with The Punisher come to life…

    aesthetocyst:
    This isn’t vigilance, it’s a vendetta.

  8. Lupin says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:40 am  (Quote)

    To lighten the mood, and since I just posted the original mistranslation from CINDERELLA, I thought I’d post another case of bad/funny errors in translation, this time from English to French.

    The classic 1956 film INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS was released in France by someone who had obviously never seen the film, read the Finney novel, or even knew what it was all about, because they released it under the title L’INVASION DES PROFANATEURS DE SEPULTURES, i.e. INVASION OF THE GRAVE ROBBERS, obviously misconstruing the “body snatching” in question for the more ordinary crime of grave robbing.

    To this day, the film(s), etc. are all using the mistranslated title in France, as it has become too well known to change. But it is kind of silly.

  9. scott e says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:24 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If you talk to a birther, any rumor stays active forever. If you talk to the Illinois Bar it’s pretty clear:

    See also FactCheck.org:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

    he passed the bar the first time, she didn’t.
    there’s no point in using snopes or annenberg as a source as far as i go. it would be like wnd or american thinker to you guys.

  10. donna says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:34 am  (Quote)

    scott e: there’s no point in using snopes or annenberg as a source as far as i go. it would be like wnd or american thinker to you guys.

    how many times have “snopes or annenberg” (and their sources) been inaccurate as compared to “wnd or american thinker”?

    tia

  11. donna says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    scott e:

    attorneys represent 41% of congress – do you think their licenses are “acitive” and that they are paying dues, carrying malpractice insurance and taking the required CLE classes (if applicable)?

  12. justlw says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:47 am  (Quote)

    Bill Maher responds on the growing “Aper” movement.

    Now, I’m no Aper, but I think Maher raises some troubling questions. Donald could clear the whole thing up by simply releasing his LFBC, but instead he’s spending millions — millions — on lawyers.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=530406436979588

  13. scott e says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: You do know who Walter Annenberg was, right? Conservative zillionaire publisher, ambassador under NIxon and Reagan.Later decided to devote his life to philanthropy.Now, I know that’s a dirty word in some conservative circles, but if it makes you feel better, you can go back and bask in this bit of his newspaper’s journalistic excellence, from teh WP:

    But anyhoo.As of 2005, the Annenberg Foundation has awarded over five thousand grants.Two of those 5,000+ grants are:

    • The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Barack Obama headed from 1995-1999; and,

    • The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, established in 1993, which has as one of its projects Factcheck.org .

    The only common link to these two organizations, then, is that they were started by grant money from a foundation started by a conservative philanthropist, chaired at the time by a woman who was once chief of protocol to Ronald Reagan.

    Let’s say you currently have a mortgage with Wells Fargo, and I once did as well but no longer do. Any logic that says Barack Obama or other scary libruls somehow have any influence over factcheck.org because of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge would come to the conclusion that I own your house.

    The actual problem you are having with the Mikkelsons and Factcheck is due to, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, reality having a well-known liberal bias.

    any “challenge” board chaired by a terrorist can’t be all bad right ?

  14. scott e says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    scott e: there’s no point in using snopes or annenberg as a source as far as i go. it would be like wnd or american thinker to you guys.

    how many times have “snopes or annenberg” (and their sources) been inaccurate as compared to “wnd or american thinker”?

    tia

    i don’t know, i know they got the hospital wrong and they use jean claude tremblay and john woodman as experts (even today).

  15. scott e says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    At least she passed the bar, You pathetic birthers just keep making the same mistakes over and over, and telling lies over and over, and you never get anywhere. You’re been stuck in denial for 4 years.

    So what’s your source that the Obama’s surrendered their licenses? You don’t have one. Some birther just went to the web site and found them inactive and then launched into a flight of fancy.

    Hell, you’re too stupid to read the topic of the current thread.

    a little more than that, but you’re right i don’t know if it’s gospel. i don’t think it really matters. there are other things more telling in my opinion. like how michelle robinson grew up a few miles from me, her father engaged in democrat politics, and she had never heard of bill ayers or bernardine dorhn. and we’re about the same age too. don’t forget, this was chicago in the late sixties. but again, it’s just my opinion. i think she was the second mayor daley’s assistant. i don’t think i’m stupid crazy or racist, the biggest difference between us is you hope you’re right, and i hope i’m wrong.

    there seem to be arguments for both sides.

    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=hp&gs_mss=obama's%20surre&tok=Ja2qTlU7MTsJsbhj2sGdbA&cp=17&gs_id=1u&xhr=t&q=obama's+surrender+law+licenses&es_nrs=true&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=obama's+surrender&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.b2U&fp=f84c92a2923b7e0&biw=1429&bih=724

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-surrenders-law-license-in-2008-to.html

  16. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    “We’re just asking questions…”

    justlw:
    Bill Maher responds on the growing “Aper” movement.

  17. scott e says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:54 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    scott e:

    attorneys represent 41% of congress – do you think their licenses are “acitive” and that they are paying dues, carrying malpractice insurance and taking the required CLE classes (if applicable)?

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/first-thing-we-do-lets-elect-all-the-lawyers/

    even hard stats can be subjective. it depends who you source on a lot of these issues.

  18. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: Bill Maher responds on the growing “Aper” movement.

    And the video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/09/bill-maher-donald-trump-5-million-orangutan_n_2653232.html

  19. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: Maher raises some troubling questions. Donald could clear the whole thing up by simply releasing his LFBC, but instead he’s spending millions — millions — on lawyers.

    Considering that only one chromosome separates us from an orangutan, I think Trump has something to hide.

  20. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: like how michelle robinson grew up a few miles from me

    Another pathological liar. First, he lives in DC. Then he grew up in Vermont. Now he grew up in Chicago, near the First Lady.

  21. justlw says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: any “challenge” board chaired by a terrorist can’t be all bad right ?

    And again: the challenge board has what to do with factcheck.org? (Answer: nothing).

  22. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/first-thing-we-do-lets-elect-all-the-lawyers/even hard stats can be subjective. it depends who you source on a lot of these issues.

    The data you reference shows occupation, not education. Many in the “business” category have law degrees-Mitt Romney for one.

  23. Rickey says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: they both surrendered their illinois licenses

    Their official status per the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois:

    Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama
    Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
    Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989
    Registered Business Address: Not available online
    Registered Business Phone: Not available online
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law
    Malpractice Insurance (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on inactive status.
    Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

    Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
    Full Former name(s): None
    Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991
    Registered Business Address: Not available online
    Registered Business Phone: Not available online
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
    Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.)
    Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

    What part of “voluntarily” do you not understand?

    https://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp

  24. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: What part of “voluntarily” do you not understand?

    The Denialist part.

  25. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:34 pm  (Quote)

    (If another Bob Gard thread opens up, I’ll repost this there, but in the meantime…)

    Well, it’s a good thing we don’t have to listen to such conspiratorial scoundrels then, isn’t it? With their secret codes and not bothering to tell us what the words really meant. Since they didn’t bother to tell the ratifiers, we can just ignore them in turn. Good riddance to them. I would say it’s a shame they didn’t bother to pass down their secrets to anyone in government today, but really, it’s probably just as well that such undemocratic trickery didn’t survive. Too secret for their own good, I guess.

    And this is what you want to resurrect? Secret cabals? And you think such imagined secrets have any hold on us?

    If this were really the case, they might as well have been an imaginary King George in his parlor, laughing at how those Americans thought they were free of his rule. It was just his little secret that he didn’t tell them, that they were still his subjects. Ha ha ha, he fooled them.

    Yeah, our founders and framers sure fooled us. So much so that Congress just went right ahead and certified President Obama, not once but twice. Take that secret codes!

    Even were it true, good luck getting Americans to go for such a betrayal of the American project. You must remember what those early Americans told King George: No taxation without representation. You think Americans are ever going to go, oh! secret codes! why didn’t you tell us? We’ll get right on that then. When? How about two days after the end of the universe? We’d do it sooner, but you know, filibusters, what can you do, eh?

    Bob Gard: Never in the public light. If Jay had, we wouldn’t be debating. Like the “hope” and “change” of today, our politicians allowed the attendees of the ratification conventions to interpret natural-born citizens any way they wanted. Because of the secrecy code in the Constitutional Convention and the off-premise meetings in taverns, cafes and drawing parlors, where the term was described in private, they could keep the meaning secret and they did. The framers did not want to alienate a single person who wasn’t a true “natural-born citizen,” who might be put off by the “discrimination” against children born after the Constitution.

  26. Rickey says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:59 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:

    Well, it’s a good thing we don’t have to listen to such conspiratorial scoundrels then, isn’t it?With their secret codes and not bothering to tell us what the words really mean.

    Next Bob will be telling us that each member of the Constitutional Convention was issued a secret decoder ring. `

    He is a fraud, plain and simple.

    1. He wants us to believe that when he was 13 years old he debated his civics teacher about his “two citizen parent” requirement to be NBC.

    2. He want us to believe that he was a victim of affirmative action, even though affirmative action wasn’t a factor in college admissions until several years after he graduated high school.

    3. He wants us to believe that he lost out on a partial scholarship to attend Princeton to a female with a 1.8 GPA, even though Princeton didn’t accept female students until the 1969-1970 school year.

    4. He told the Terry Lakin Action Fund that he has a degree in political science and that he traveled throughout the world after he graduated college. However, the introduction to his 1974 piece on Equatorial Guinea says that he wrote his dissertation “in part to demonstrate that dissertations can be written without the preparation of the formal curriculum required of B.A. and Ph.D. students in American universities.” So does he have a degree or not? If so, where and when did he go to college?

    The fact that he has refused to answer straightforward questions about his credentials speaks volumes.

  27. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    The fact that he has refused to answer straightforward questions about his credentials speaks volumes.

    Come on…don’t you recognize “birther” credentials when you see them? We all know those are more important than a college education and training in those fields of study.

  28. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:19 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: He wants us to believe that he lost out on a partial scholarship to attend Princeton to a female with a 1.8 GPA, even though Princeton didn’t accept female students until the 1969-1970 school year

    I think he lost out on the scholarships because the recruiters figured out what a pompous jerk he was 2 minutes into the interview. Either Bob is lying about what they told him or they told him about the black women just to spare his feelings. Frankly, if I had to interview Bob, I would say just about anything in order to get the hell out of there.

    Paper: Since they didn’t bother to tell the ratifiers, we can just ignore them in turn.

    Exactly! By making that statement Bob blew up his own argument. If the framers pulled a fast one on the ratifiers, then no one is bound by the result. In fact, if Bob is right, then the natural born citizen clause may well be completely invalid.

  29. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    Ah, yes. the secret meaning of “natural born citizen” that was so secret, not even the ratifiers of the Constitution were supposed to know what it meant. 😆

    Bob’s argument has fallen apart in a whole bunch of places, not just one.

    From the site:

    Please do not expect a proverbial “smoking gun”. It is unreasonable to think there would be one. There is none. Certainly, none has been brought to light over the past few centuries.

    The thing I realized in the course of the conversation is that there actually is a smoking gun. Not just one, but a whole bunch of them. Once you start taking all the little bits and pieces and start putting them together, even using only sources close to the Founders and Framers and the Constitutional Convention, it’s all pretty clear.

  30. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:50 pm  (Quote)

    It’s so secret that it took Bob finding out that some guys had dinner years later, across the ocean, to decipher it. Who knows what other secrets Bob has uncovered, that are so secret to this day that he can’t even tell us?

    Publius: Ah, yes. the secret meaning of “natural born citizen” that was so secret, not even the ratifiers of the Constitution were supposed to know what it meant.

  31. dunstvangeet says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Because of the secrecy code in the Constitutional Convention and the off-premise meetings in taverns, cafes and drawing parlors, where the term was described in private, they could keep the meaning secret and they did.

    So, if it’s a secret meaning, doesn’t this mean that it’s not a “Plain English meaning”? Weren’t you claiming that you were spouting the “Plain English meaning” of what the phrase meant?

  32. Greenfinches says:
    February 10, 2013 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    Any clues as to where Mario has gone?

    It’s delightfully peaceful without him, and no gratuitous insults being flung about in default of an actual answer to an actual question……… Rational discussion returns!

  33. Reality Check says:
    February 10, 2013 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    Mario has retreated to his own blog where he converses with a small band of admirers like Michael N and Teobear. He still moderates all comments and lets few a few Obot ones get through as long as they do not point out his record of complete failure in the courts.

  34. aesthetocyst says:
    February 10, 2013 at 2:05 pm  (Quote)

    Greenfinches: Rational discussion returns!

    Seeing how the biggest traffic catalyst of the week has been Gard …. somehwat rational discussion of the completely irrational with massive helpings of sarcasm and hooting jest on the side.

  35. J.D. Sue says:
    February 10, 2013 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: they both surrendered their illinois licenses

    —

    Since I have an active Illinois license, I think I can speak to this. Unless a lawyer is actually practicing law in Illinois, there is absolutely no reason to maintain the license in active status and there are plenty of reasons not to. It is costly, requires meeting continuing education requirements set by the Illinois Supreme Court, and renders one always subject to the authority of the Illinois Supreme Court (because we are “Officers of the Court”). Moreover, anytime Barack or Michelle Obama want to return to practice law in Illinois, all they have to do is pay dues.

    As an aside, this is just one more example of why one rarely finds a competent lawyer willing to buy into the Obama conspiracy nonsense–it requires demonstrating too much ignorance about the law.

  36. donna says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:00 am  (Quote)

    a new conspiracy – why is the pope really resigning? hmmmm

  37. Arthur says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:35 am  (Quote)

    Birthers, conspiratorial-minded as they are, also tend to the paranoid. For example, ORYR has had a couple of recent articles about the Obama administration forming a “cyber army” that “target[s]anti-Obama sites.” It appears that scott e. is convinced that this cyber army exists.

    “scott erlandson 12 hours ago
    this seems pretty hot, and goes along with my experiences with online obots at forums. they appeared too slick, i spotted common writing syles, idioms etc. they are made up characters in obama’s sick play. i immeadiately spotted them as too professional. scott e.”

    Scott, just because someone expresses himself with a modicum of clarity and intelligence doesn’t mean he’s a professional Obot intent on making a fool of you. God knows, even an amateur can do that.

    Nevertheless, at least one reader agrees with Scott:

    “Serpico 11 hours ago
    I think their home base is ‘The Fogbow’. I believe the poster called ‘Wong Kim Ark’, HistorianDude and Epectitus are all the same guy.”

    Why is it always the Fobbow and never OCT!?

  38. Arthur says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:37 am  (Quote)

    donna:
    a new conspiracy – why is the pope really resigning? hmmmm

    Cue birthers saying it has something to do with Obama having billions in the Vatican bank in 3 . . . 2. . . 1–

  39. donna says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    Arthur

    or that obama got to the vatican too? taitz will now file supplemental brief II with newly discovered “evidence”: pope benedict about to issue a directive that obama is ineligible – the pope learned about obama’s ineligibility from his fellow hitler youth members

  40. Publius says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:47 am  (Quote)

    Well, he’s the first Pope in 600 years to resign, and the last one wasn’t for health reasons.

    Popes just don’t resign for health reasons. They just don’t.

    So obviously, he’s being forced out, in fear for his life. But by who?

    Hint: What does Obama have to gain by installation of a new Pope?

    Second hint: What part of the world do you think the next Pope is likely to come from? Could it be… Africa?

    Aside from that, what does this Pope know about Obama’s birth in Kenya? Hmm? Could it be that the Pope found out something he wasn’t supposed to know?

    I’ll bet it won’t take the kooks long to come up with something like the above.

  41. Arthur says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am  (Quote)

    The truth will out:

    “Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and several cardinals.”

    ‘Course, this is old news. But birthers are always ahead of the news curve (because they make stuff up).

    http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/bob-chapman-newsletter-jan-152011-slush-fund-of-top-politicians-found-at-vatican-bank-obama-clinton-roberts-legatus-split/

  42. Arthur says:
    February 11, 2013 at 10:04 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Second hint: What part of the world do you think the next Pope is likely to come from? Could it be… Africa?

    Three popes have come from Africa. If Obama appoints a Kenyan as pope that would be four. Four divided by three is less than two. Obama has served less than two terms. Two is greater than one, but one comes before two. Obama is often referred to as “the One.”

    Question: can a man be president and pope at the same time?

  43. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 10:41 am  (Quote)

    Is the Pope Catholic?

    Arthur: Question: can a man be president and pope at the same time?

  44. Paper says:
    February 11, 2013 at 10:41 am  (Quote)

    Come on, people! Do we have to tell everyone all our secrets?!

    Arthur: If Obama appoints a Kenyan as pope…

  45. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    I’ve been writing on the Internet and blogging for over 20 years. At some point, I got a little practiced at it. Even so, my writing isn’t nearly as tight and well-organized as a good professional writer.

    I have met a number of “Obots” in person, and had quite candid discussions with them. Nobody on the web sites we all know and love is betting paid to rebut the birthers.

    Arthur: “scott erlandson 12 hours ago
    this seems pretty hot, and goes along with my experiences with online obots at forums. they appeared too slick, i spotted common writing syles, idioms etc. they are made up characters in obama’s sick play. i immeadiately spotted them as too professional. scott e.”

  46. Scientist says:
    February 11, 2013 at 11:07 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: Question: can a man be president and pope at the same time?

    Legally, yes, but the commute is a killer.

  47. Reality Check says:
    February 11, 2013 at 11:10 am  (Quote)

    The article that Birther Reports quotes doesn’t even get the name of the organization correct in this phony story. It is “Organizing for America” and not “Organizing for Obama”. This appears to be nothing but fabricated claptrap from an “anonymous source in the DHS” similar to the Ulsterman nonsense articles that I am sure that SCOTT E has bought into hook line and sinker.

  48. Arthur says:
    February 11, 2013 at 11:24 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve been writing on the Internet and blogging for over 20 years. At some point, I got a little practiced at it. Even so, my writing isn’t nearly as tight and well-organized as a good professional writer.

    I have met a number of “Obots” in person, and had quite candid discussions with them. Nobody on the web sites we all know and love is betting paid to rebut the birthers.

    How very clever of you, professional Obot writer, to misspell “getting” as “betting.” If you think you’ll throw Scott E. off the scent with such parlor tricks, you’re death wong.

  49. justlw says:
    February 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    a new conspiracy – why is the pope really resigning? hmmmm

    To spend more time with his family.

  50. UNBELIEVABLE! says:
    February 11, 2013 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    [Moved to the Open Thread. Doc.]
    “AlCum February 11, 2013 at 8:30 am (Quote) #

    I saw it already and so did everyone else. In fact, Paula, Obama’s “documentation to be eligible for president” is the first and ONLY US president for whom you’ve seen any documentation at all as a candidate. No previous president in history had every released his birth certificate to the public prior to taking office.

    Why are you stating lies?”
    ___

    Another totally asinine comment made by what can be viewed as an Obot and a racist who voted color and not law… isn’t that a shame on him?

    A number of PHD con law professionals have made the analysis of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase, and have defined the phrase as requiring TWO citizen parents. If the “racist” Obots on this blog can’t understand the PHD con law professors, then they need to be sent to a re-education camp or be removed as officers in American courts, if the commenters on this blog are lawyers.

    The ‘illegal’ in the White House created the NBC challenge on his own and with the other co-conspirators who believed that they could ‘beat the man’ aka America’s governing principles.

    The illegal in the White House and/or his co-conspirators created the following:

    2 so called proofs of birth

    Fraudulent bar liscense application using a false name and denying that the ‘miscreat’ had any other name.

    Phony SSN number that belonged to someone else, and two relatives, an aunt and uncle who both have phony SSN numbers in Ma.

    Swearing to his lies under oath

    Mentors who mentored the illegal and who are noted criminals that are still wanted by the FBI. Frank Marshall Davies a commie, Bill Ayers a terrorist who escaped prosecution for killing a San Francisco policemane, Bernadine Dohrn an accomplice with Ayers and his Weatherman that blew up buildings in ameica.
    http://wp.me/P1a4Br-l0

    The Obot cries of birthers being racist which is an attempt of the Obot’s part to discredit the obvious facts that exist to prove that the illegal in the WH is a FRAUD.

    The racist who want proof that the person sitting in America’s house is an NBC citizen are also PHD skilled Americans.
    One them hates the White Guy illegally sitting in as a Commander In Chief and another is a democrat and a democratic office candidate…. and lawyer named Berg.
    http://wp.me/P1a4Br-jM

    The White House miscreant has something to hide… no doubt about it.. and he has expended millions to hide his FRAUD of collecting voter funds of 750 million or more while being ineligible for the office he now , illegally occupies.
    http://wp.me/P1a4Br-d4

    SO … THE OBOTS ARE JUST A RE-INCARNATION OF THE MOST DEVIOUS PROPAGANDIST THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN… Goebbels another CORRUPT and DEVIOUS PHD that lied to the German people in the same manner that the LIAR in the White House is LYING to the American people.

    Thei Obots who post here state that there isn’t a requirement to have any identifying documents to be a POTUS… What ‘crap’ that is! The society invented systems to be able to mange a nation but these DEVIOUS worthless comments made herein attempt to apply laws from 100’s of years ago to todays legal requirements in America

    The Obots say that American citizens don’t have any legal autority to see the ‘illegals’ eligibility proofs… and make every attempt to deny the IMPLIED right that they have to assure their government is functioning according to the SUPREME law.., the peoples law.
    The American citizens derive their IMPLIED rights from the EXPRESSED NBC requirement…

    Anyone who would accept the WH ‘miscreants’ story can’t be considered to be a true American.

  51. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    In normal English usage “PHD con law professors” refers to some number greater than one.

    The only law professor I know of who agrees with this crank theory is Herb Titus, who makes a religious argument (and a pretty weak one) based on the Bible, not the Constitution. Of course Titus is an official with an opposition political party.

    So who is the second one?

    Obots are not propagandists, they are debunkers. You are the bunk.

    UNBELIEVABLE!: A number of PHD con law professionals have made the analysis of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase, and have defined the phrase as requiring TWO citizen parents. If the “racist” Obots on this blog can’t understand the PHD con law professors, then they need to be sent to a re-education camp or be removed as officers in American courts, if the commenters on this blog are lawyers.

  52. JoZeppy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 3:18 pm  (Quote)

    UNBELIEVABLE!: A number of PHD con law professionals have made the analysis of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase, and have defined the phrase as requiring TWO citizen parents. If the “racist” Obots on this blog can’t understand the PHD con law professors, then they need to be sent to a re-education camp or be removed as officers in American courts, if the commenters on this blog are lawyers.

    First. Yes. I am a lawyer. I graduated from a T14 law school, in fact, unlike a certain mail order attorney we all love.

    Second. What exactly is a “PHD con law professional/professor”? No such thing. People don’t get PhDs in Con-law. There is a degree called a Doctor of Juridical Science, but those are exceedingly rare, even among academics. The vast majority of law school faculty have JDs…the same degree that every lawyer has coming out of law school in the US. Even most academics don’t bother getting the DJS. It really serves little purpose. I’m guessing you wouldn’t be able to name a single person with a DJS off the top of your head (I can’t), and certainly not a single one that agrees with your nut-bag theory.

    Third. If “a number” came up with this nutty theory, feel free to list them. I know of only one person remotely associated with academia that adopts that theory, and as mentioned before, that is Herb Titus…and well, to put it politely, his theories are anything but main stream. To put not-so-politely, everyone else considers him to be firmly in the crank catagory these days.

    And to find the universally accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen, I need to go no further than my handy-dandy Black’s Law Dictionary. And just for fun, I have both the 6th ed. (pub 1992) and the 9th ed. (pub. 2009). Neither has a requirement for 2 parent citizens.

    9th ed.: “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

    6th ed.: “Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e., in its teritorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. See Jus soli; naturalization clause”

  53. MichaelN says:
    February 11, 2013 at 3:48 pm  (Quote)

    Can anyone here show where in 17th century English common law it was held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

    I would like to know where the Framers would have found such a rule or holding.

  55. MichaelN says:
    February 11, 2013 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: The vast majority of law school faculty have JDs…the same degree that every lawyer has coming out of law school in the US. Even most academics don’t bother getting the DJS. It really serves little purpose. I’m guessing you wouldn’t be able to name a single person with a DJS off the top of your head (I can’t), and certainly not a single one that agrees with your nut-bag theory.

    Third. If “a number” came up with this nutty theory, feel free to list them. I know of only one person remotely associated with academia that adopts that theory, and as mentioned before, that is Herb Titus…and well, to put it politely, his theories are anything but main stream. To put not-so-politely, everyone else considers him to be firmly in the crank catagory these days.

    Seeing as you are a lawyer, it should be easy for you to show where in 17th century English common law it was held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

    Perhaps you can show where Black’s Law Dictionary might have found it?

    Here’s what I get from 17th century English common law…

    “Lord Coke – Calvin’s case…

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”

    Apparently 17th century English common law, required a native-born child to be born under the allegiance of a subject and expressly excluded native-born as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

    Can you explain that?

    Oh, and btw, truth is not found by what might be considered as main stream or by popular belief.

    Here, this might help ….

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

  56. gorefan says:
    February 11, 2013 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    MichaelN:
    Can anyone here show where in 17th century English common law it was held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

    I would like to know where the Framers would have found such a rule or holding.

    Are you saying Chief Justice Cockburn is wrong and you know the law better than him?

    “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” 1869 “Nationality: or, The law relating to subjects and aliens, considered with a view to future legislation”

  57. Keith says:
    February 11, 2013 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I’ll bet it won’t take the kooks long to come up with something like the above.

    Barack Hussein Obama Jr. the First

    By the Blessings of God and
    The Universal Allegiance of Mankind,
    Holy Roman Emperor

  58. donna says:
    February 11, 2013 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    Ted Nugent to be GOP lawmaker’s State of the Union guest

    Last year, “Cat Scratch Fever” rocker Ted Nugent made headlines when he branded President Barack Obama as “evil” and “America-hating,” and described him and Democrats as coyotes who should be shot. On Tuesday, Nugent will attend Obama’s State of the Union address as a guest of Republican Texas Rep. Steve Stockman.

    “I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama,” Stockman said in a statement. “After the address I’m sure Ted will have plenty to say.”

    Having plenty to say is what got The Nuge in hot water in April 2012 at a National Rifle Association convention. His controversial comments even rated the outspoken gun-rights advocate a visit from the Secret Service.

    At that gathering, Nugent had declared, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

    Nugent praised NRA members, but warned that if they did not “get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don’t even know what you’re made out of.”

    “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?”

    He added, “If the coyote’s in your living room, pissing on your couch, it’s not the coyote’s fault. It’s your fault for not shooting him.” And he denounced the administration as “criminals” and said a Democratic victory in November would mean “we’ll be a suburb of Indonesia next year”—an apparent reference to Obama’s boyhood time there.

  59. MichaelN says:
    February 11, 2013 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Are you saying Chief Justice Cockburn is wrong and you know the law better than him?

    Cockburn doesn’t disagree with Lord Coke, he simply says it a different way.

    I said…

    Can anyone here show where in 17th century English common law it was held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

    I would like to know where the Framers would have found such a rule or holding.

    You might notice that Cockburn failed to mention and make clear that all those who were included as parents, whose children were natural born subjects, were in fact themselves “SUBJECTS”, so that their children being born under their allegiance, could be natural born subjects.

    From Calvin’s case…

    “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parentsbe under the actual obedience of the king.
    2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
    And 3. the timeof his birth is chiefly to be considered;”

    Basically, the 17th century ECL held that if dad was not a subject (in England everyone in the realm was a subject except foreign diplomats, royalty and enemy invaders) then his children cannot be subjects, even if native-born, because they would not be born under the allegiance of a subject and would thus be alien-born.

    Native-birth was not the criteria for determining whether one was natural born subject.

    You cite to the ECL if you say otherwise.

    Quoting what others say about it proves nothing and only demonstrates variations of the same theme.

    Let’s here it straight from the horses mouth, straight from an ECL court ruling or decision.

    Can you do that?

    Here’s some more verbatim from the very same benchmark case ruling/holding which was cited by Justice Horace Gray in the WKA case showing that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject…

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    “The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.”

    “But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the king.”

    This next quote reiterates the rule that one can be native-born yet an alien-born.

    “An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance

  60. MichaelN says:
    February 11, 2013 at 5:11 pm  (Quote)

    Where precisely would the Framers have found a 17th century English common law ruling or holding that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

    Answer: NOWHERE ………… it’s not there………… English common law did NOT rule or hold that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, in fact Lord Coke emphasized on numerous occasions in Calvin’s case, that native-birth did not make a “subject born”.

    So what “common law” could it have been which the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett court relied on, where a US natural born citizen was one born in US to US citizen parents, yet held doubts as to whether a native-born child in the US, of alien parentage was even a citizen at all?

    What common law was that?

    And it was not one of the litigants who introduced the the mention of these doubts, it was the SCOTUS, and furthermore the SCOTUS saw merit in the doubts, by stating that the doubts had yet to be solved.

  61. Scientist says:
    February 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm  (Quote)

    MichaelN: the SCOTUS saw merit in the doubts, by stating that the doubts had yet to be solved.

    The voters resolved the doubts, as is their right. Doesn’t your country have a Prime Minister who was born in Wales? Nothing wrong with that.

  62. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    I thought I banned you. Well, no harm done–I have now.

    The answer is Calvin’s Case, and you were given free reign to argue this before, and all you proved was that you can’t read and you don’t listen.

    Go away.

    MichaelN: Can anyone here show where in 17th century English common law it was held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

  63. gorefan says:
    February 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm  (Quote)

    MichaelN: Native-birth was not the criteria for determining whether one was natural born subject.

    Justice Cockburn also said ,

    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth”

    MichaelN: Where precisely would the Framers have found a 17th century English common law ruling

    Where precisely would Chief Justice Swift have gotten that?

    “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, 1795,

    Could he be paraphrasing Blackstone? “THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such”

    Where precisely did Rawle get it?

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ 1825, “A View of the Constitution of the United States”

  64. UNBELIEVABLE! says:
    February 11, 2013 at 5:57 pm  (Quote)

    There are more PHDs than what is contained herein who have made their commitment to the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

    Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

    http://www.vlrc.org/authors/105.html
    Ph.D., J.D.
    October 29, 2008

    NewsWithViews.com
    http://is.gd/l2UYBn
    America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States
    ____

    Keyes… a Political Science Major, diplomat, ambassador etc.

    Many Generals, and other military personnel who hold PHD’s in various fields.

    The clause that presents the POTUS eligibility requirement was put there for a reason, otherwise the 14th amendment takes care of allowing any citizen to become the POTUS as they are able to become any other government official through ‘native birth’, naturalization, or other citizenship criteria.

    The American citizens can continue to fight over an interpretation of a clause in the constitution until SCOTUS renders and opinion on the matter.

    The OBOTS are far left and can’t prove their interpretation of the NBC clause

    The NBC discussion and its application is fully discussed here http://is.gd/qgRZcy where it says that McCain was a hundred yards short of qualifying to be a NBC of America.

  65. gorefan says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm  (Quote)

    UNBELIEVABLE!: Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

    Does Dr. Viera buy the two citizen parent theory? My impression from reading his 2008 article was that he was only concerned with place of birth, which has been settled.

    How do explain the following statement:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ William Rawle, 1825 “A View of the Constitution of the United States”.

    Rawle was a friend to Ben Franklin and was so well thought of by President Washington that Washington appointed him the United States District Attorney of Pennsylvania.

  66. J.D. Sue says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:28 pm  (Quote)

    MichaelN: Can anyone here show where in 17th century English common law it was held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?
    I would like to know where the Framers would have found such a rule or holding.

    —
    I assume you mean 18th century. Blackstone plainly states that native birth was sufficient.

    See Blackstone Commentaries, published in 1765: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

    Interestingly, Blackstone notes that in contrast to English common law, French law requires parents to be citizens. “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

  67. Scientist says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm  (Quote)

    UNBELIEVABLE!: The NBC discussion and its application is fully discussed here http://is.gd/qgRZcy where it says that McCain was a hundred yards short of qualifying to be a NBC of America.

    You ought to read that article by Gabriel Chin. He says the following:

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

    He also says:

    “A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen.’

    I have a PhD by the way.

  68. Dave B. says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm  (Quote)

    You appear to have somehow overlooked the fact that none of the references you link to support your particular claim.

    UNBELIEVABLE!: There are more PHDs than what is contained herein who have made their commitment to the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

  69. Rickey says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    Ted Nugent to be GOP lawmaker’s State of the Union guest

    I hope that the Secret Service frisks him before they let him in.

  70. RIDICULOUS! says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    This is RIDICULOUS and UNBELIEVABLE as it is taken out of context of the whole story. A story has a beginning, a middle, and an END. The end of the usurper story will be when he is JAILED for FRAUD.

    The USURPER story is one that will allow the BRAIN DEAD politicals to AMEND the Constitution without concurrence of 2/3 of Congress and 75% of the states… it’s the peoples RIGHT to AMEND the Constitution

    _______
    gorefan February 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm (Quote) #

    Does Dr. Viera buy the two citizen parent theory? My impression from reading his 2008 article was that he was only concerned with place of birth, which has been settled.

    How do explain the following statement:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ William Rawle, 1825 “A View of the Constitution of the United States”.

    Rawle was a friend to Ben Franklin and was so well thought of by President Washington that Washington appointed him the United States District Attorney of Pennsylvania.
    ________

    SPITTING contest…and a PHD with the ability to be incapable of what a ‘normal prudent person’ is capable of, shouldn’t be allowed in the jury box.

    No offense…. I’ve had good and bad experiences with PHD’s and some are better suited to be in a closet with their specialty, and when they are needed then the ‘normal prudent’ person can open the closet door to listen to what they have to say about their ‘specialty’.

    NOTE: the comment
    “is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution,” and it does not say the NONSENSE reading of the Constitution.

    The MAJOR problem with maintaining the CITIZENS right to AMEND the Constitution is that the BRAIN DEAD in Congress…. want other than NBC qualified citizens to be a POTUS. They are pushing Rubio, Jindal, and in the past wanted Schwarzenegger, but Schwarzenegger told them to AMEND the Constitution if they wanted him be a POTUS. Schwarzenegger isn’t a PHD either and he knew that he was born in Austria…. I believe.

    The ‘useful idiots’ (a la lenin) with degrees are content to allow the Congress to \take away their UNALIENABLE RIGHTS given to American citizens by the Creator …. that’s the story.

    This guy should be the American POTUS…

    Dr. Benjamin Carson Slams Obamacare At National Prayer Breakfast [Video]

    http://www.inquisitr.com/?p=516411

  71. Dave B. says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:06 pm  (Quote)

    Could anybody figure out what the heck that was about?

    RIDICULOUS!: This is RIDICULOUS and UNBELIEVABLE as it is taken out of context of the whole story. A story has a beginning, a middle, and an END. The end of the usurper story will be when he is JAILED for FRAUD.

  72. donna says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    Bill Maher on Donald Trump’s $5m lawsuit against him (funny video)

    This is the Republican party’s best and brightest. They file lawsuits over jokes about them being born to orangutan’s. I hope the judge forces Trump to pay Maher’s legal costs. Trump’s lawyers should be ashamed of themselves. As should the Republican party. Their embrace of crazy really needs to stop.

    video

    http://americablog.com/2013/02/bill-maher-on-donald-trumps-5m-lawsuit-against-him-very-funny-video.html

    it’s the BEST – watch til the end

  73. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    I was not aware that Alan Keyes had expressed an opinion on the issue.

    In the lawsuit he filed, Keyes v. Bowen, which was an Obama eligibility case, the parent requirement was not mentioned.

    In statements I found by Keyes, he made some remarks saying that “some part of the record” and “some people” thought that a 2-parent requirement existed, but that the courts hadn’t addressed the question head on. That is, he wants to create uncertainly without committing himself.

    So, do you know precisely where Keyes committed himself that the Constitutional requirement is 2-citizen parents, are you just lying birther-trash?

    UNBELIEVABLE!: Keyes… a Political Science Major, diplomat, ambassador etc.

  74. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Well, you will be sure to come by and gloat when that happens.

    I’ve been hearing “ANY DAY NOW” for 4 years now. I didn’t take it seriously 4 years ago, and I don’t take it seriously now.

    RIDICULOUS!: The end of the usurper story will be when he is JAILED for FRAUD.

  75. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    True to form, when the birther drive-by gets caught in lies, he changes the subject to policy.

    RIDICULOUS!: Dr. Benjamin Carson Slams Obamacare At National Prayer Breakfast [Video]

  76. justlw says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:18 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Could anybody figure out what the heck that was about?

    I don’t know. Something’s clearly wrong here, though, because the link refers to Obama attending his fifth National Prayer Breakfast, and we know from folks like Jason “we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!” Rapert that Obama has never attended one, being all Muslin-y and stuff.

  77. Dave B. says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:18 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, I do believe your legendary patience has been presented with more than the usual challenges lately.

    Dr. Conspiracy: So, do you know precisely where Keyes committed himself that the Constitutional requirement is 2-citizen parents, are you just lying birther-trash?

  78. Dave B. says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    I guess we can at least give RIDICULOUS! credit for truth in advertising. But then I’m a glass-half-full kind of guy.

    justlw: I don’t know. Something’s clearly wrong here, though, because the link refers to Obama attending his fifth National Prayer Breakfast, and we know from folks like Jason “we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!” Rapert that Obama has never attended one, being all Muslin-y and stuff.

  79. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    Federal prisoner Keith Judd threatens civil war if they take his assault rifles away.

    😯

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124524000/CA-Judd-APPEAL-12-57177-Judd-Notce-Re-Next-Civil-War

  80. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bemusement, Dave, bemusement. I practice bemusement.

    Dave B.: Doc, I do believe your legendary patience has been presented with more than the usual challenges lately.

  81. Dave B. says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:39 pm  (Quote)

    And I do like that word. It’s a useful practice you have there.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bemusement, Dave, bemusement. I practice bemusement.

  82. Thomas Brown says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:06 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: I hope that the Secret Service frisks him before they let him in.

    Heck, I just hope he’s wearing adult diapers and has had his rabies shots.

  83. Northland10 says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:49 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I thought I banned you. Well, no harm done–I have now.

    The answer is Calvin’s Case, and you were given free reign to argue this before, and all you proved was that you can’t read and you don’t listen.

    Go away.

    And I did not even have time to state “for if enemies should come into the realm…”

  84. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 11, 2013 at 9:21 pm  (Quote)

    Research note:

    Maine became a state in 1820 and it’s original constitution required Maine’s governor to be a natural born US Citizen.

    That requirement was dropped some time after that, I believe by Maine’s 79th Amendment in 1955.

  85. aesthetocyst says:
    February 12, 2013 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Federal prisoner Keith Judd threatens civil war if they take his assault rifles away.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124524000/CA-Judd-APPEAL-12-57177-Judd-Notce-Re-Next-Civil-War

    This is all business and he’s taking it very personally.
    Willing to watch the world burn if his toys are taken away? Jesus.

  87. Reality Check says:
    February 12, 2013 at 10:13 am  (Quote)

    Someone asked what Apuzzo had been up to lately. He apparently is still a reader of OCT. He left the following comment on the latest article at his blog last month:

    Dr. Conspiracy just wrote an article on his blog which includes the following passage:

    “Judge Bent in Vermont, commenting in his decision of Paige v. Obama about such arguments from attorney Mario Apuzzo said:

    ‘Mr. Apuzzo argues that originalist thinking as to the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” was consistent with an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt a jus sanguinis citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.’

    The Court in essence rejected an argument from primary sources in favor of precedent. The Court deferred to the expertise of the Supreme Court, rather than reading newspaper articles from 1787, historical cases about shipping disputes, or legal essays from Switzerland.”

    Judge Bent and Dr. Conspiracy find that my “natural born Citizen” “‘arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.’” As always, the devil is in the details. In addressing those details, we have to inquire just what does “such a decision” say? Is that not the question if we are to correctly apply the Wong Kim Ark holding to any given case? We also have to know what these “precedents” really say.

    Both Judge Bent and Dr. Conspiracy beg the question on what Wong Kim Ark really held, if anything, regarding what law and rule the Founders and Framers relied upon to define a “natural-born citizen,” rather than just a “citizen,” and what definition they gave to that specific clause. Dr. Conspiracy further begs the question by assuming that these “precedents” support a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that is contrary to mine.

    The issue is whether Wong Kim Ark held anything regarding that clause versus whether its holding is limited to a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. But without addressing my arguments, both Judge Bent and Dr. Conspiracy just state a conclusion which assumes that Wong Kim Ark relied on English common law and held Wong to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But on close analysis, we learn that Wong did no such thing. On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” and held that Wong, the son of domiciled and resident aliens born in the country, was just as much a “citizen” as the “natural-born citizen” child born in the country to citizen parents, and therefore, by virtue of being born in the country, a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” A close reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that the Court did not confound and conflate a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth with an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which is what Judge Bent did when reading and applying the decision and when using the phrase “model of citizenship,” which fails to distinguish between a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.”

    The issue is also what did these “precedents” really say? Neither Judge Bent nor Dr. Conspiracy tells us. Rather, they just assume without demonstration that these precedents support their position and not mine. But we should all know by now that just saying something is so does not make it so.

    Hence, my arguments are not “academic only” “in the face of such a decision,” for Judge Bent does not demonstrate what Wong Kim Ark held (not just stating what it held) nor did the decision hold what Judge Bent says it held. My argument is also not “academic” for allegedly being foreclosed by any “precedents,” for neither Judge Bent nor Dr. Conspiracy shows what those precedents said and how they support their position rather than mine.
    January 20, 2013 at 10:37 PM

    Apuzzo remains in deep denial that no judge or magistrate who has read his nonsense buys into it even a little bit. Real judges in real courts know that if there was any doubt about the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” it was settled in 1898. He pathetically writes on his blog as if someone who counts is actually going agree with him.

  88. Reality Check says:
    February 12, 2013 at 10:29 am  (Quote)

    Doc

    I noticed I copied more than four paragraphs but half of what was quoted was either your comment here or a quote from Judge Bent’s ruling. If you decide to trim the quote here is a link to Mario’s comment. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=1686948473330298334

  89. Sudoku says:
    February 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    I have a nominee for Quote of the Day. In response to a birther who bemoaned that almost all of the Obama eligibility cases have been dismissed due to lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction, Sophist replied with this jewel:

    “Not our fault you guys couldn’t organize a two car funeral procession if you were spotted the hearse.”

    http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Proven-Natural-Born-Citizen-part/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx2CAJ2C9LQPJBQ/220/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg220?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299

  90. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 12, 2013 at 8:41 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting paper on Presidential Eligibility:

    http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

  91. Whatever4 says:
    February 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Interesting paper on Presidential Eligibility:

    http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

    Very interesting, until the links at the end…

  92. aesthetocyst says:
    February 12, 2013 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Interesting paper on Presidential Eligibility:

    http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

    with a curious ending …. a list of links to proofs for Obama, and and list with no entries for McCain! Poor McCain. Considering the opening (below), that’s relatively throwing him under the bus.

    Had McCain won, there would have been a leftwing birfer movement, if he managed to make himself extremely unpopular, it might have picked up steam. The antiwar crowd would have had a field day calling him Bush3.

    Would so much material have been released about McCain as has been re: Obama? I don’t think so. He’s been a Senator for a loooooong time. If it isn’t out there now ….

    ________________

    “In the 2008 election both major parties nominated candidates whose eligibility is dubious. For Barack Obama the question was whether he was born in Hawaii, which is U.S. soil. For John McCain the question was whether the panama Canal Zone, where he was born, was U.S. soil. It is not, and being born of parents both of whom were U.S. citizens did not make him a “natural-born” citizen, although a statute was later adopted naturalizing such persons at birth.”

  93. donna says:
    February 12, 2013 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    The Annotated Zullo

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/116752480/The-Annotated-Zullo

    described as: Anti-Birther Writes 50 Page Hit Piece about Lt. Mike Zullo’s Investigation Into Obama’s Past

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2987850/posts

  94. SluggoJD says:
    February 12, 2013 at 9:21 pm  (Quote)

    Jon Roland, a right wing nutcase, probably owns constitution.org, and it’s sister sites.

    Here’s proof he’s a nutcase – the old Clinton garbage from the 90s – Waco, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc.

    http://www.constitution.org/abus/crime_high.htm

    And the “Bill Clinton” page which is the first link, goes to patriot.org.

  95. aesthetocyst says:
    February 12, 2013 at 9:22 pm  (Quote)

    donna: The Annotated Zullo

    LOL! Hard to believe someone took the time, but we all need hobbies. I love the table in Appendix A, but wish it were linked to the paragraphs, and that the paragraphs were linked to the table. Also, once linked, with a little embellishment, it would have made a fine ToC.

    I don’t know Frank, but if he wants to polish, and needs help, I’m willing.

  96. donna says:
    February 12, 2013 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    aesthetocyst

    i like this comment (p49):

    But here we are into a fifth year of birtherism, and not a single criminal case has been filed. Every birther lawyer without exception has instead chosen the civil route, and lost every time. Similarly, the MCCCP has now been sitting on at least some of their “evidence” for more than a year now, and has yet to even pump fake turning it over to any prosecutorial entity

  97. bovril says:
    February 13, 2013 at 2:27 am  (Quote)

    I particularly enjoy the dysfunctional squealing over at Freak Rethuglic where they take a fact based rebuttal of their insanity as “Obots panicking”…… yeah….. ANY DAY NOW… 😎

  98. Majority Will says:
    February 13, 2013 at 3:32 am  (Quote)

    Sudoku:
    I have a nominee for Quote of the Day.In response to a birther who bemoaned that almost all of the Obama eligibility cases have been dismissed due to lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction, Sophist replied with this jewel:

    “Not our fault you guys couldn’t organize a two car funeral procession if you were spotted the hearse.”

    http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Proven-Natural-Born-Citizen-part/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx2CAJ2C9LQPJBQ/220/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg220?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299

    That’s awesome.

  99. The Magic M says:
    February 13, 2013 at 3:52 am  (Quote)

    bovril: they take a fact based rebuttal of their insanity as “Obots panicking”

    Without their occasional dose of “OMG moments”, they would surely fall into a catatonic state. Like a drug addict, they need their regular fix.
    If I had a dollar for every time they said “Obots are in panic”, I could single-handedly reduce the national debt to zero.

    Whereas the typical run-of-the-mill RWNJ calls rebuttals and criticism “bullying” or “attempting to suppress freedom of speech”.

    If schools teach propagandist rhethoric, they just have to send the kids over to WND for daily examples in abundance.

  100. Arthur says:
    February 13, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    If you click on no other link today, let it be this one.

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/

    Haven’t heard much from Dean Haskin’s lately, have you? Ya’ know why? Dean’s gonna’ make a movie!* And the subject of the movie? Terry Lakin!

    “Commander Taffy Productions was formed to create feature-length motion pictures with poignant, uplifting messages. Stories that touch hearts and challenge minds are at the heart of the projects we intend to produce, bringing together some of the best talents in the industry as well as introducing up-and-coming stars to the viewing public.

    “Marco Ciavolino and Dean Haskins, our two principles, have landed on a touching story of heroism, patriotism, and faith in “Officer’s Oath: The Terry Lakin Story,” which will be our first major production. Currently, the screenplay is being crafted by accomplished writers Jack Cashill and David Mercaldo. This is a story that America needs to hear! It will challenge many preconceived notions, not only about Terry, but also about our country.

    “The first marks have been made on the whiteboard, and our team is now in full-swing enlisting the necessary investors, production team, and talent in a journey that promises to be monumental and life-changing.”

    Write to Dean and tell him your, “On Board, and Reporting for Duty!” Also, let him know who you think should play Terry Lakin. My first choice was Bernie Madoff, but he’s working on a prison picture . . .

    *Well, he says he’s going to make a movie. But first he needs lots and lots of birther bucks!

  101. Majority Will says:
    February 13, 2013 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur:
    If you click on no other link today, let it be this one.

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/

    Haven’t heard much from Dean Haskin’s lately, have you? Ya’ know why? Dean’s gonna’ make a movie!* And the subject of the movie? Terry Lakin!

    “Commander Taffy Productions was formed to create feature-length motion pictures with poignant, uplifting messages. Stories that touch hearts and challenge minds are at the heart of the projects we intend to produce, bringing together some of the best talents in the industry as well as introducing up-and-coming stars to the viewing public.

    “Marco Ciavolino and Dean Haskins, our two principles, have landed on a touching story of heroism, patriotism, and faith in “Officer’s Oath: The Terry Lakin Story,” which will be our first major production. Currently, the screenplay is being crafted by accomplished writers Jack Cashill and David Mercaldo. This is a story that America needs to hear! It will challenge many preconceived notions, not only about Terry, but also about our country.

    “The first marks have been made on the whiteboard, and our team is now in full-swing enlisting the necessary investors, production team, and talent in a journey that promises to be monumental and life-changing.”

    Write to Dean and tell him your, “On Board, and Reporting for Duty!” Also, let him know who you think should play Terry Lakin. My first choice was Bernie Madoff, but he’s working on a prison picture . . .

    *Well, he says he’s going to make a movie. But first he needs lots and lots of birther bucks!

    No doubt it will be historical revisionism at its birthery finest.

  102. gorefan says:
    February 13, 2013 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: If you click on no other link today, let it be this one.

    They should get together with Bob Gard and do a historical period film about John Jay’s dinner parties.

    I also noticed this:

    “We are looking for individuals and companies willing to contribute $25,000 as founding funds for the film. This provides the resources for us to seek full funding and production arrangements.”

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/

  103. Arthur says:
    February 13, 2013 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: “We are looking for individuals and companies willing to contribute $25,000 as founding funds for the film. This provides the resources for us to seek full funding and production arrangements.”

    Grifters gonna’ grift.

  104. aesthetocyst says:
    February 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm  (Quote)

    So that’s what Haskins is up to!

    A production company that has never produced anything. Sounds promising.

    “Commander Taffy Productions was formed to create feature-length motion pictures with poignant, uplifting messages.”

    Hmmm.

  105. justlw says:
    February 13, 2013 at 8:15 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: If you click on no other link today, let it be this one.

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/

    Marco Ciavolino and Dean Haskins, our two principles

    *Sigh* Dean, you fail at homophones.

  106. Majority Will says:
    February 13, 2013 at 8:15 pm  (Quote)

    “Commander Taffy” anagrams to “crafty of madmen”.

    Coincidence?

  107. justlw says:
    February 13, 2013 at 8:17 pm  (Quote)

    From the people that saw The Black Swan, a poignant, uplifting story: The Blue Falcon.

  108. Arthur says:
    February 13, 2013 at 8:25 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: No doubt it will be historical revisionism at its birthery finest.

    Here’s a summary of Act 1 from the Commander Taffy Production’s proposed screen play:

    “Over a hill in the stark, empty Afghan landscape two runners emerge dressed in military athletic gear. One is Terry Lakin. As they descend down the hill many more runners follow. Terry talks as he runs, ‘I know I shouldn’t say this but I love it here. I love the Army. I love being useful.’ We see that the runners are participating in a Marathon that Terry helped organize. Terry gets a call at Marathon’s end, reports to duty, treating wounded soldiers. Cut to the Pentagon five years later where Terry is treating still more patients. At the Pentagon he receives orders to re-deploy to Afghanistan as part of president’s ‘surge.’ He tells a colleague that although he would hate to leave his wife and children, he is happy to serve. He returns home, shares news with his Thai-American wife, Pili, and three kids. He is filling out forms to deploy when he sees where he has to provide five copies of his birth certificate. He turns to computer and reviews article after article, video after video, of president refusing to provide his birth certificate. He calls an officer friend, ‘What should I do?’ Friend says don’t make waves, but Terry reminds him, ‘We’ve sworn an officer’s oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'”

    There’s so much that’s wrong about this . . . but I’m too sick of birther b.s. to even begin.

  109. justlw says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    I haven’t checked any of the “bad/ugly” sites, so I’m wondering:

    Has there been any apocalyptic furor that in his State of the Union address, Obama announced he was putting election reform in the hands of Evil Birth Certificate Usurper Press Gaggle Lawyer Spokeman Guy Bob Bauer?

  110. The Magic M says:
    February 14, 2013 at 4:09 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: “Officer’s Oath: The Terry Lakin Story,” which will be our first major production

    No doubt they’ll include the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Orly’s RICO suit for not giving the movie every single Oscar ever made.
    Or they might set up their own award ceremony – hey, after creating their own private “citizen grand juries”, that’ll be a piece of cake!

  111. Majority Will says:
    February 14, 2013 at 4:18 am  (Quote)

    “Joe Arpaio hired a convicted child-sex criminal for armed school ‘posse'”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/joe_arpaio_hired_a_convicted_child_sex_criminal_for_armed_school_“posse”/

  112. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:39 am  (Quote)

    If that had to happen, it’s a shame it didn’t happen before the election.

    Majority Will: “Joe Arpaio hired a convicted child-sex criminal for armed school ‘posse’”

  113. roadburner says:
    February 14, 2013 at 8:15 am  (Quote)

    oh you couldn’t make this stuff up!

    seems pp simmons as given zullo a promotion!

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com.es/2013/02/sheriff-joe-investigator-new-obama-evidence.html#idc-container

    i didn’t know used car salesmen could rise in the ranks to leutenant!

    maybe he’s selling bigger cars now.

  114. roadburner says:
    February 14, 2013 at 8:18 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: They should get together with Bob Gard and do a historical period film about John Jay’s dinner parties.

    I also noticed this:

    “We are looking for individuals and companies willing to contribute $25,000 as founding funds for the film. This provides the resources for us to seek full funding and production arrangements.”

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/

    yep, spotted it

    so they can legitimately fleece the birfoons for over 25 grand, and then say `we tried but couldn’t get funding or backing for the film….this all went on expenses’, and then pocket the money.

    god i wish i’d leapt on the birfoon bandwagon years ago! i’d be rich by now

  115. Reality Check says:
    February 14, 2013 at 8:32 am  (Quote)

    Notice on the video where Gallups almost pleads with Zullo to say he was not an idiot for saying last fall that the CCP had something really big that the were going to release within a week or so. Zullo tap dances on cue for him and says “Oh yeah, we had something really big back around the holidays. We were really close but some things got in the way [like the truth!] and put a damper on it. I can’t really elaborate on that right now. [Sure you can’t “Lt.” Zullo because you pulled it out of your ass.]”

    roadburner: seems pp simmons as given zullo a promotion!

  116. katahdin says:
    February 14, 2013 at 8:40 am  (Quote)

    Maybe Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick can star in the movie about the scam?

    roadburner: they can legitimately fleece the birfoons for over 25 grand, and then say `we tried but couldn’t get funding or backing for the film….this all went on expenses’, and then pocket the money.

  117. justlw says:
    February 14, 2013 at 9:04 am  (Quote)

    roadburner: seems pp simmons as given zullo a promotion!

    “Sergeant Bradshaw…”

    “Lieutenant!”

  118. Bovril says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:24 am  (Quote)

    There is much moistness over at Freak Rethuglic on this blatant fraud

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2988244/posts

    I particularly enjoy BitterButts “lalalalalala I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!” along with the ever predictable “edge919” drooling bile and we even have Sven pushing his tale of Barry and The Pirates……

  119. Rickey says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    katahdin:
    Maybe Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick can star in the movie about the scam?

    We need a more catchy title than “Officer’s Oath” – something along the lines of “Birdman of Alcatraz.”

    My suggestion is “Yellow Dog of Leavenworth.”

  120. Arthur says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:53 am  (Quote)

    Bovril: There is much moistness over at Freak Rethuglic on this blatant fraud

    Boy, I’ll say. I haven’t been to that site in many months. I was taken aback by the hysterical Christianity:

    “Terry Lakin is a Christian man who strongly resembles his Lord – Christ, who also received not only whipping but mocking, spitting, and hissing from Satan and from the very people who were being saved from Satan by the sacrifices of the One they mocked.

    “Terry Lakin was not able to save this country, but it wasn’t because he failed to try. Though the rest of us haven’t given to the extent that he did, we have done what we could and been mocked and despised for it. The death of this country is not on our hands. One Day the truth will be known; some of us eagerly look forward to that Day.”

  121. The Magic M says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:57 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check (quoting Zullo): We were really close but some things got in the way […] and put a damper on it. I can’t really elaborate on that right now.

    Another hint this is anything but a proper law enforcement operation. A real investigator would have no problem stating something like “we had someone who appeared a credible witness to the crime but later found evidence he was lying”.
    A birfer “investigator” of course has to stay on the conspiracy party line “we are NEVER wrong”.

  122. Arthur says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:59 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: We need a more catchy title than “Officer’s Oath” – something along the lines of “Birdman of Alcatraz.”

    How about “Liar, Liar”? with Jim Carrey as Lakin.

  123. The Magic M says:
    February 14, 2013 at 11:00 am  (Quote)

    Arthur (quoting): One Day the truth will be known

    The birther anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRAMNWzfjcg

    Think about the stories that we could’ve told…

    (And yes, I’ve always thought the girl in the video looks like how Orly might’ve looked when she was young… ;))

  124. Keith says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: so they can legitimately fleece the birfoons for over 25 grand, and then say `we tried but couldn’t get funding or backing for the film….this all went on expenses’, and then pocket the money.

    god i wish i’d leapt on the birfoon bandwagon years ago! i’d be rich by now

    There was a play like that once upon a time… oh yeah… The Producers. They should be careful they don’t have an accidental hit.

  125. Keith says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    katahdin:
    Maybe Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick can star in the movie about the scam?

    Great minds think alike.

  126. sfjeff says:
    February 14, 2013 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    Has anyone ever seen “Waiting for Guffman’?

    I think Christopher Guest could do a great movie about Birthers.

  127. JD Reed says:
    February 14, 2013 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If that had to happen, it’s a shame it didn’t happen before the election. (concerning Arpaio’s hiring pracitces for his posse.)

    This reminds me of the most valuable course I ever took in college, Jurisprudence. The professor was an adjunct who practiced law by day and taught a couple of university courses by night.
    His signature saying was, when mentioning a matter of law that was too obvious to be debated, “You don’t hire a convicted sexual offender to hand out towels in the girls locker room.”
    Sounds like Sheriff Joe would have no problem doing just that!

  128. Rickey says:
    February 14, 2013 at 4:30 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    Has anyone ever seen “Waiting for Guffman’?

    I think Christopher Guest could do a great movie about Birthers.

    Several times. A very funny movie.

  129. Arthur says:
    February 14, 2013 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: I think Christopher Guest could do a great movie about Birthers.

    He’s a perfect choice!

  130. Arthur says:
    February 14, 2013 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    JD Reed: “You don’t hire a convicted sexual offender to hand out towels in the girls locker room.”

    You should you hire, and how do I apply?

  131. sfjeff says:
    February 14, 2013 at 6:41 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: Has anyone ever seen “Waiting for Guffman’?I think Christopher Guest could do a great movie about Birthers.

    Hah- i just remembered- Jane Lynch is one of Guest’s stable of go to actors- and she would do a great Orly.

  132. Dave B. says:
    February 14, 2013 at 6:52 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t know, I think Parker Posey could pull that one off better. She could look just like Orly in a blond wig, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. As a tribute to her art and all that.
    I could sure see Eugene Levy as Mario.

    sfjeff: Hah- i just remembered- Jane Lynch is one of Guest’s stable of go to actors- and she would do a great Orly.

  133. Dave B. says:
    February 14, 2013 at 6:54 pm  (Quote)

    See what I mean?
    http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,938088_783982,00.html
    (you’ll have to be sure to use the full address)

    Dave B.:
    I don’t know, I think Parker Posey could pull that one off better.She could look just like Orly in a blond wig, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.As a tribute to her art and all that.
    I could sure see Eugene Levy as Mario.

  134. J.D. Sue says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    Did anyone notice that, in Grinols, the U.S. Attorney filed a brief in opposition to Taitz’s motion to reconsider the TRO ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/124450752/EDCA-ECF-67-2013-02-07-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-Obama-Opp-to-Motion-to-Reconsider ), and that Taitz filed an incomprehensible First Amended Complaint(http://www.scribd.com/doc/125088328/EDCA-ECF-69-2013-02-11-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-First-Amended-Complaint-Part-1).

    Funny how the amended complaint purports, inter alia, to preserve her right to default President Obama on the original complaint. (Not the way things work, Orly!) Anyhow, it is also incomplete (cuts off after 20 pages), the paragraphs aren’t numbered, and she filed a blank summons form.

  135. J.D. Sue says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:48 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: Anyhow, it is also incomplete

    —

    BTW, she did add a part 2 to the amended complaint, but it is identical to part 1. She also added a couple of alias to Obama (e.g., aka Harry J. Bounel, aka S. A. Dunham) and she added 300 John/Jane Does (maybe for all the corrupt traitors she wants to add?).

  136. Rickey says:
    February 14, 2013 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue:
    Did anyone notice that, in Grinols, the U.S. Attorney filed a brief in opposition to Taitz’s motion to reconsider the TRO ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/124450752/EDCA-ECF-67-2013-02-07-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-Obama-Opp-to-Motion-to-Reconsider ), and that Taitz filed an incomprehensible First Amended Complaint(http://www.scribd.com/doc/125088328/EDCA-ECF-69-2013-02-11-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-First-Amended-Complaint-Part-1).

    Funny how the amended complaint purports, inter alia, to preserve her right to default President Obama on the original complaint.(Not the way things work, Orly!) Anyhow, it is also incomplete (cuts off after 20 pages), the paragraphs aren’t numbered, and she filed a blank summons form.

    And Judge England has cancelled the hearing scheduled for 2/21 and is going to rule on Orly’s motion without oral arguments. Does anyone have any doubts about how he is going to rule?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/125277246/EDCA-ECF-70-2013-02-12-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-MINUTE-ORDER-Re-Submission-of-Motion-for-Reconsideration-Without-Oral-Argument

  137. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 11:35 am  (Quote)

    Dear friends and associates of the Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new masterful and gripping report at the WOBIK blog!

    “Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).”

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section at the blog. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so!

  138. Reality Check says:
    February 15, 2013 at 11:58 am  (Quote)

    Lucas, wouldn’t your time be better spent providing copies of your passport stamps and travel documents to prove you were actually in Kenya when you claim to have purchased the POSFKBC?

    And no, I will not comment at your site so you can harvest my IP address.

  139. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 12:13 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    Lucas, wouldn’t your time be better spent providing copies of your passport stamps and travel documents to prove you were actually in Kenya when you claim to have purchased the POSFKBC?

    And no, I will not comment at your site so you can harvest my IP address.

    Why would I care about your IP address? Be careful, you are coming across like a paranoid conspiracy maniac.

    You can take the ‘Obot/Birther Challenge</b?' right here in this open thread. You don't specifically need to share your findings at my blog, you can list them right here on Dr Conspiracy's website.

  140. Reality Check says:
    February 15, 2013 at 12:52 pm  (Quote)

    First, I might surprise you but I do not agree with the person who wrote that analysis and sent it to Doc. The kerning of the “ny” on your fake certificate may or may not be there on a real document if an original exists. I think it is a weak argument and suffers from the same flaws as Paul Irey’s analysis. The “ny” is in an area that has curvature from the document not being flat on the scanner or other reasons. When you try to blow up letters from images and measure small distances pixelation and other effects from one or more scans can cause errors.

    The fundamental problems you have never addressed are still there and would cause any objective observer to dismiss the PSOFBC as a forgery without any further analysis. I will list them:

    – The document was supplied by you, a convicted forger who tried to sell it.
    – The name of the hospital administrator is misspelled.
    – The name of the hospital administrator is the wrong person.
    – There is no proof you were in Kenya when you said you were.
    – There is no proof Ann Dunham was in Kenya in August 1961
    – There is no proof father Barack Obama was in Kenya at the time of the birth and there is proof he was in Hawaii days before his son was born,
    – There is rock solid, indisputable proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. This proof includes both the short form and long form birth certificates, verification by Hawaii DOH officials, newspaper birth announcements, and recollections by persons still alive who remember accounts of the birth

  141. Thomas Brown says:
    February 15, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Why would I care about your IP address?

    After you lied about having a document from Kenya, why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say, ever? Liars never go straight. Once a liar, always a liar.

  142. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm  (Quote)

    Thomas Brown: Lucas D. Smith: Why would I care about your IP address? After you lied about having a document from Kenya, why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say, ever?Liars never go straight.Once a liar, always a liar.

    Thomas, did you write that while wearing a piece of headgear called a tin foil hat? Also, I’d like your opinion: When the grocery store clerk asks for your zip code…definitely something awry there isn’t there…harvesting zip codes for top secret high fructose corn syrup insemination?

  143. Dave B. says:
    February 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    Hey Doc, this one got past the spam filter:

    Lucas D. Smith: Dear friends and associates of the Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new masterful and gripping report at the WOBIK blog!

  144. Reality Check says:
    February 15, 2013 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    I could add to the list I presented earlier. For example,

    – There is no chain of custody for the POSFKBC. Even if you, Lucas Smith, could prove you really were in Kenya in 2009 and actually paid good money for the certificate the most likely explanation is that the scammer got scammed.
    – On the other hand the issuing authority for both the President’s Hawaiian SFBC and the LFBC have confirmed they did in fact issue the certificates.

  145. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: – There is no chain of custody for the POSFKBC.

    In typical obot fashion you create the facts as you go. There is an extensive, if not exhaustive, chain of custody for the birth certificate:

    1. 12.04.2010. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371653/12-04-2010-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    2. 02.21.2011. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371813/02-21-2011-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    3. 03.03.2011. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371960/03-03-2011-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    continued below in next comment…

  146. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 2:49 pm  (Quote)

    4. 09.14.2011. Attorney Mario Apuzzo letter to Lucas D. Smith.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65372189/09-14-2011-Attorney-Mario-Apuzzo-letter-to-Lucas-D-Smith

    5. 10.04.2011. USPS Proof of Delivery letter to Lucas Smith. Attorney Mario Apuzzo letter to Lucas Daniel Smith, delivered 09.16.2011.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/69007616/10-04-2011-USPS-Proof-of-Delivery-letter-to-Lucas-Smith-Attorney-Mario-Apuzzo-letter-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-delivered-09-16-2011

    6. 11.22.2011. Lucas Daniel Smith letter to Phyllis Vrettos

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100778336/11-22-2011-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-letter-to-Phyllis-Vrettos

    continued below in next comment…

  147. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 2:57 pm  (Quote)

    7. 05.27.2012. Dominican Mother’s Day Letter to Phyllis Vrettos from Lucas Daniel Smith

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100783111/05-27-2012-Dominican-Mother-s-Day-Letter-to-Phyllis-Vrettos-from-Lucas-Daniel-Smith

    8. 06.11.2012 USPS mail receipts. Lucas Daniel Smith, Phyllis Vrettos, Bruce Steadman.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100781904/06-11-2012-USPS-mail-receipts-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-Phyllis-Vrettos-Bruce-Steadman

    9. 06.15.2012. Phyllis Vrettos letter (and Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate) to Lucas Daniel Smith

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100783696/06-15-2012-Phyllis-Vrettos-letter-and-Obama-s-Kenyan-birth-certificate-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith

    continued below in next comment…

  148. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    10. 07.22.2012. USPS confirmation of delivery on 06.19.2012 for mail from Phyllis Vrettos to Lucas Daniel Smith

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100786950/07-22-2012-USPS-confirmation-of-delivery-on-06-19-2012-for-mail-from-Phyllis-Vrettos-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith

    11. undated 2011-2012 letter from Phyllis Vrettos to her son regarding Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100784142/undated-2011-2012-letter-from-Phyllis-Vrettos-to-her-son-regarding-Barack-Obama-s-Kenyan-birth-certificate

  149. Daniel says:
    February 15, 2013 at 3:01 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas:

    When are you going to get it through your head, no one with two brain cells is going to believe anything a convicted forger like you has to say?

  150. Daniel says:
    February 15, 2013 at 3:03 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: In typical obot fashion you create the facts as you go.

    You’re a convicted forger. Tell me that isn’t the very definition of “create facts as you go”?

  151. Reality Check says:
    February 15, 2013 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas, I actually believe you sent a copy of your forgery to Mario Apuzzo. Where is the letter from Kenya or the hospital similar to all the Hawaii verifications? You idea of “chain of custody” is laughable.

  152. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 3:35 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    Lucas, I actually believe you sent a copy of your forgery to Mario Apuzzo. Where is the letter from Kenya or the hospital similar to all the Hawaii verifications? You idea of “chain of custody” is laughable.

    It seems that you tend to believe things which are not true. I didn’t send a ‘copy’ of the 2009 certified copy of Barack Obama’s 1961 CPGH birth certificate. Why would I do that? A copy is available, via the internet, to all human inhabitants of planet earth granted that they have internet access.

    I sent Apuzzo, and other individuals, the tangible 2009 document, itself, (which you refer to as “your forgery”).

    I don’t have letters from “Kenya” which you seem to believe that I should have. Just what is a letter ‘from Kenya’? You sound like one of those poor degenerates in the penitentiary who go around suing names of government buildings.

    I’ll get Kenya on the horn real soon here and see if I can’t get a letter or two from ‘Kenya’ to supplement the chain of custody.

    Lastly, I do have documentation from the hospital in Kenya, I’m surprised you missed it:

    http://wasobamaborninkenya.com/1961%20Kenyan%20Birth%20Certificate%20of%20Barack%20Hussein%20Obama%20II,%20Copy.pdf

  153. Reality Check says:
    February 15, 2013 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    So you sent the real forgery to Mario? Whoop-dee-doo. 😆

  154. roadburner says:
    February 15, 2013 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    First, I might surprise you but I do not agree with the person who wrote that analysis and sent it to Doc. The kerning of the “ny” on your fake certificate may or may not be there on a real document if an original exists. I think it is a weak argument and suffers from the same flaws as Paul Irey’s analysis. The “ny” is in an area that has curvature from the document not being flat on the scanner or other reasons. When you try to blow up letters from images and measure small distances pixelation and other effects from one or more scans can cause errors.

    The fundamental problems you have never addressed are still there and would cause any objective observer to dismiss the PSOFBC as a forgery without any further analysis. I will list them:

    – The document was supplied by you, a convicted forger who tried to sell it.
    – The name of the hospital administrator is misspelled.
    – The name of the hospital administrator is the wrong person.
    – There is no proof you were in Kenya when you said you were.
    – There is no proof Ann Dunham was in Kenya in August 1961
    – There is no proof father Barack Obama was in Kenya at the time of the birth and there is proof he was in Hawaii days before his son was born,
    – There is rock solid, indisputable proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. This proof includes both the short form and long form birth certificates, verification by Hawaii DOH officials, newspaper birth announcements, and recollections by persons still alive who remember accounts of the birth

    don’t forget also that the date format was american, not english.

    oops! the biggest screw-up, eh lucas?

  155. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    Any one here every heard of university style debate? Please get a grip people, I’ve seen more disciplined attention spans within a school of goldfish.

    Read my report, take the Obot/Birther Challenge and please do try to answer objectively.

    You can place your answers here on the Dr.’s website if you are filled with paranoid and conspiratorial delusions that your IP addresses will be ‘harvested’ by the all powerful and nefarious, I, The, He, Lucas D. Smith.

    Thanks, pals.

  156. ASK Esq says:
    February 15, 2013 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: I don’t have letters from “Kenya” which you seem to believe that I should have. Just what is a letter ‘from Kenya’? You sound like one of those poor degenerates in the penitentiary who go around suing names of government buildings.
    I’ll get Kenya on the horn real soon here and see if I can’t get a letter or two from ‘Kenya’ to supplement the chain of custody.

    Can we assume you are being deliberately obtuse? You have no proof that the document you claim is Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, came from where you say it came from. That is chain of custody. For example, the State of Hawaii issued an official announcement regarding their providing two copies of President Obama’s LFBC to his attorney.

    You can’t show the document that you are claiming came from Kenya as proof that the document came from Kenya. Reality doesn’t work that way. Of course you will now simply say that, as you didn’t obtain it through official channels, no such documentation is available. But, of course, that is simply a means for you to cover your lies. Since you don’t have any document from any Kenyan official or the hospital you say you got it from, just show us your airplane tickets or boarding pass to show you were in Kenya at that time, or at least your passport stamp. You know, some sort of corroboration. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason anyone with at least reasonable intelligence would believe you.

  157. justlw says:
    February 15, 2013 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if hundreds of petitions suddenly cried out for consideration and were summarily denied. I conjecture something completely unsurprising has happened.

  158. Reality Check says:
    February 15, 2013 at 6:06 pm  (Quote)

    I am surprised that convicted forger, he, Lucas Smith in over three years has been unable to forge travel documents to prove he was in Kenya when he says he bought the POSFKBC, you know the one with the misspelled name of the chief administrator who wasn’t the chief administrator? Do you think this is a result of laziness, ineptness or both?

  159. justlw says:
    February 15, 2013 at 6:16 pm  (Quote)

    Why isn’t westernjournalism.com on the “ugly” list? Just a matter of “so many sites, so little room?”

    Supreme Court To Conference On Obama Eligibility Today
    February 15, 2013 By Suzanne Eovaldi

    Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court. She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who denied her petition originally. “But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference,” Taitz said.

    I seem to have missed this “Yes, Ma is a racist” element of this story until now. Is there some “ethnicity of Supreme Court clerks” web site out there?

  160. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    I am surprised that convicted forger, he, Lucas Smith in over three years has been unable to forge travel documents to prove he was in Kenya when he says he bought the POSFKBC, you know the one with the misspelled name of the chief administrator who wasn’t the chief administrator?Do you think this is a result of laziness, ineptness or both?

    Are you up to taking the Obot/Birther Challenge? Or are you just too lazy, inept or a bit of both?

  161. roadburner says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:10 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith:
    Any one here every heard of university style debate?Please get a grip people, I’ve seen more disciplined attention spans within a school of goldfish.

    Read my report, take the Obot/Birther Challenge and please do try to answer objectively.

    You can place your answers here on the Dr.’s website if you are filled with paranoid and conspiratorial delusions that your IP addresses will be ‘harvested’ by the all powerful and nefarious, I, The, He, Lucas D. Smith.

    Thanks, pals.

    ok lucas, why did you screw up so badly and use an american date format instead of an english one on your POSFKBC?

    i’m dying to know!

  162. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: Are you up to taking the Obot/Birther Challenge?

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  163. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Are you up to taking the Obot/Birther Challenge?Or are you just too lazy, inept or a bit of both?

    Why wouldn’t you let Jerome Corsi analyse your fake document?

  164. Majority Will says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Why wouldn’t you let Jerome Corsi analyse your fake document?

    Maybe he tried to forge and cash bad checks in Corsi’s name. How many convictions is this identity thief up to now?

  165. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Why wouldn’t you let Jerome Corsi analyse your fake document?

    You are making things up now.

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  166. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:23 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Maybe he tried to forge and cash bad checks in Corsi’s name. How many convictions is this identity thief up to now?

    Not once in my life have I stolen, or attempted to steal, someone’s identity. You are making things up.

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  167. American Mzungu says:
    February 15, 2013 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Why wouldn’t you let Jerome Corsi analyse your fake document?

    I would be interested in the evaluation of the Kenyan birth certificate by Misha. I have great confidence in his judgment about such matters. 🙂

  168. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 15, 2013 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    The way a document examiner works is to compare a questioned document (here the Smith certificate) to similar type of document which is not questioned. Given that no one seems to have an unquestioned birth certificate from the Coast General Hospital circa 1961, a copy of which was recently issued, there’s not going to be any forensic document analysis done of the Smith certificate.

    What would a forensic analysis say? Yes this is a photocopy. Yes it has a rubber stamp. Yes it has a raised seal. Any office supply store can provide those items.

    We can, and have, discussed the internal evidence from the document, which can be done from any clear copy and I think at this point that is all that can reasonably be done.

    Lucas D. Smith: I sent Apuzzo, and other individuals, the tangible 2009 document, itself, (which you refer to as “your forgery”).

  169. justlw says:
    February 15, 2013 at 8:47 pm  (Quote)

    In case anyone was on the edge of their seats waiting for this: orders from today’s conference have been published. Do I even have to say whether Noonan is in there?

  170. Majority Will says:
    February 15, 2013 at 8:50 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Not once in my life have I stolen, or attempted to steal, someone’s identity.You are making things up.

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    Who’s name did you sign on the checks you were convicted of forging?

    Using another person’s name is stealing an identity. Your rap sheet is long. Your credibility is non-existent. You’re a sloppy con artist with no conscience.

    You’re making things up for profit and evidently you suck at it.

  171. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The birther blogs are still making stuff up, but nothing particularly interesting…. The birthers will soon be folding up their tents and going home: any day now…The pond is shrinking…To take up the slack in my time due to the shrinking of the pond, I have started volunteering to record public domain audio books at LibriVox.org.

    How about you, Dr. Conspiracy? Are you going to participate in my Obama/Birther Challenge? According to your recent and relatively recent remarks no one in birtherland is doing much and birthers arr folding up their tents going home and times are so hard at your OCT website that you now spend time recording audio books?

    Your are the guy who started the ‘typography’ attack (what you did can hardly be called a debate). So are you going to finish it now or are you going to just pretend it never happened and keeping crying that theres nothing much to report these days in old birtherland other than hot mama Orly Taitz shaking her bottom around DC and your long winter nights recording audio books without stipend and cracking jokes on Russian people bout being leery of nation which they were at a cold-war with for 44 years.

  172. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Who’s name did you sign on the checks you were convicted of forging?

    Using another person’s name is stealing an identity. Your rap sheet is long. Your credibility is non-existent. You’re a sloppy con artist with no conscience.

    You’re making things up for profit and evidently you suck at it.

    Have a little integrity, and if you are going to accuse me of identity left then please cite the evidence.

    Now please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  173. Dave B. says:
    February 15, 2013 at 9:48 pm  (Quote)

    Poor Luke, still waitin’ on the Judgment Day. At least Double Naught Bob had some sort of novelty going for him. Luke just can’t get anybody interested in his ongoing goofiness.

  174. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Poor Luke, still waitin’ on the Judgment Day.At least Double Naught Bob had some sort of novelty going for him.Luke just can’t get anybody interested in his ongoing goofiness.

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  175. Dave B. says:
    February 15, 2013 at 9:54 pm  (Quote)

    Nope. Nobody cares, Luke.

    Lucas D. Smith: Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  176. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Nope.Nobody cares, Luke.

    Why do you keep talking to me then? Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  177. Arthur says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:05 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Poor Luke, still waitin’ on the Judgment Day.

    I don’t care what Miss Moses, says, Lucas ain’t gonna keep Annalee company all by his-self.

  178. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:08 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: I don’t care what Miss Moses, says, Lucas ain’t gonna keep Annalee company all by his-self.

    Hello Arthur you Iowa aficionado. Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  179. Arthur says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:17 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Hello Arthur you Iowa aficionado.

    Hey, Lucas. Is the Obot/Birther Challenge anything like the Cinnamon Challenge? Cuz that’s rough.

  180. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:26 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Hey, Lucas. Is the Obot/Birther Challenge anything like the Cinnamon Challenge? Cuz that’s rough.

    No, its not. Please read the report for yourself:

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  181. Arthur says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:35 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    Sounds complicated. I’ll wait for the Bob Gard graphic-novel version. He can make a fairy tale out of anything.

  182. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:42 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Sounds complicated. I’ll wait for the Bob Gard graphic-novel version. He can make a fairy tale out of anything.

    I’m confident that you can handle the report by yourself. If you have questions, please ask or if it is imperative you may call me at 319-804-0440.

  183. Arthur says:
    February 15, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: I’m confident that you can handle the report by yourself.

    Naw, I’m getting slow. The only challenge I’m interested in nowadays is the Martin Guitar vs. Taylor Guitar. I’m pretty partial to the Martin 00-15M. She’s an unassuming little thing, with no ornamentation, but she knows how to sing the blues.

  184. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 11:13 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Naw, I’m getting slow. The only challenge I’m interested in nowadays is the Martin Guitar vs. Taylor Guitar. I’mpretty partial to the Martin 00-15M. She’s an unassuming little thing, with no ornamentation, but she knows how to sing the blues.

    Very well then. Have fun with your stringed instruments. Perhaps some of your cohorts here at OCT will step up the plate and redeem themselves by taking the obot/birther challenge. Its a relatively easy challenge if one can humble oneself.

  185. misha marinsky says:
    February 15, 2013 at 11:19 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Your rap sheet is long. Your credibility is non-existent. You’re a sloppy con artist with no conscience.

    Lucas Smith is a convicted felon.

  186. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 15, 2013 at 11:24 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Lucas Smith is a convicted felon.

    Please read the report and the take the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  187. Keith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    I took the Pepsi Challenge once. Does that count?

  188. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:46 am  (Quote)

    Keith: I took the Pepsi Challenge once. Does that count?

    No, it doesn’t. You and your cohorts aren’t particularly skilled in university style debate, are you?

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

  189. Daniel says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:46 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Why do you keep talking to me then?

    The sight of your futile “fish out of water” flopping around amuses me.

    That, plus I get a great amount of joy from reminding people to whom you are attempting to portray your self as an honest researcher, that you are a convicted forger and a felon. You really have no idea how satisfying that is for me..

  190. Keith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    Daniel: The sight of your futile “fish out of water” flopping around amuses me.

    That, plus I get a great amount of joy from reminding people to whom you are attempting to portray your self as an honest researcher, that you are a convicted forger and a felon. You really have no idea how satisfying that is for me..

    A proudly self-admitted pedophile too, don’t forget that!

  191. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:57 am  (Quote)

    Daniel: The sight of your futile “fish out of water” flopping around amuses me.

    That, plus I get a great amount of joy from reminding people to whom you are attempting to portray your self as an honest researcher, that you are a convicted forger and a felon. You really have no idea how satisfying that is for me..

    You get a “great amount of joy” talking with me and watching, I, The, He, Lucas D. Smith, “flopping around” like a “fish” on a late Friday night on a website called Obama Conspiracy Theories?

    And on this late Friday night this is a so “satisfying” for you?

    What a life. Reminds of the guy in the movie, “The 40 Year Old Virgin”.

    If you can get me out of your head for just few minutes this lovely Friday night I hope you’ll take a few moment to read the report a participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  192. Daniel says:
    February 16, 2013 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    Lucas nobody around here is stupid enough to get into any kind of fake debate with a convicted forger. When are you going to get that through your head?

  193. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    Keith: A proudly self-admitted pedophile too, don’t forget that!

    If you can get me and your sexual diatribes out of your head on this late Friday night I hope and trust you’ll consider a bit of university style debate and review my report a participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  194. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 1:04 am  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    Lucas nobody around here is stupid enough to get into any kind of fake debate with a convicted forger. When are you going to get that through your head?

    You’re still think of me “flopping around” on this beautiful late Friday night? Have you no self-control?

    And if you won’t debate with me why are you still talking to me?

    A little discipline please. On to the debate:

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  195. Keith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 1:43 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: If you can get me and your sexual diatribes out of your head on this late Friday night I hope and trust you’ll consider a bit of university style debate and review my report a participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge

    Sorry, its late Saturday afternoon here and I’ve got to have a shower and jump in the car to go babysit a couple of alpacas, a couple of sheep, a couple of cats, a dog, and a guinea pig for a couple of weeks.

    I certainly do not have time to ‘debate’ with a rock spider.

  196. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 2:00 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Sorry, its late Saturday afternoon here and I’ve got to have a shower and jump in the car to go babysit a couple of alpacas, a couple of sheep, a couple of cats, a dog, and a guinea pig for a couple of weeks.

    I certainly do not have time to ‘debate’ with a rock spider.

    By virtue of your comment I am guessing you are an Australian and that you are a 40 year old virgin?

    If you get a moment away from animal planet please review my gripping report and take the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  197. Lupin says:
    February 16, 2013 at 2:32 am  (Quote)

    I admire our host’s forbearance and open-mindedness, but really, do we have to keep this forum open to convicted criminals esp. in their area of previous misfeasance? (I mean, I’d mind Lucas Smith less if the topic was Gregorian chants or Star Trek, but he should be banned for all matters pertaining to Obama.)

  199. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 2:55 am  (Quote)

    Lupin:
    I admire our host’s forbearance and open-mindedness, but really, do we have to keep this forum open to convicted criminals esp. in their area of previous misfeasance? (I mean, I’d mind Lucas Smith less if the topic was Gregorian chants or Star Trek, but he should be banned for all matters pertaining to Obama.)

    Have you had the time, and do you have the discipline, to read through the comments I’ve posted today and to review the replies from your cohorts?

    Nearly all replies, aside from a single semi-attempt (at least he made a half effort though the report seems to gone over his head) at university style debate made by your cohort “Reality Check”, have been ad hominem attacks, mocking remarks, sarcasm, sneering, sexual diatribes, name calling.

    It seems that you and your cohorts are not able to carry a out a serious university style debate.

    I read that you it is your opinion that I should not be permitted to participate here in the comments because of some background that you refer to. I believe that some very famous person once wrote something like, if you pay everyone what they deserve, would anyone ever escape a whipping?

    Now grow up and check your pseudo-erudite vernacular at the keyboard and please review my gripping report and take the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  200. Keith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 7:11 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: By virtue of your comment I am guessing you are an Australian and that you are a 40 year old virgin?

    Lucas D. Smith: By virtue of your comment I am guessing you are an Australian and that you are a 40 year old virgin?

    Wrong on both counts. I do, however, live in Australia.

    And, no, I am not going to go to your site.

  201. Arthur says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:11 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: I believe that some very famous person once wrote something like, if you pay everyone what they deserve, would anyone ever escape a whipping?

    Shakespeare. “Hamlet.” Gods bodykins, man, you must be reading No Fear Shakespeare.

  202. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:50 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy wrote, with the aid of a furtive and seemingly delusive and self-proclaimed pressman (calls himself “Sean” and has a friend named “Howling Coyote”) with a curriculum vitae supposedly dating to the 1950s, that Obama’s 1961 CPGH Kenyan certificate of birth is a forgery on grounds that the document contains, in their opinion, an example of kerning in which the descender (i.e., part of a letter that extends below the level of its base, e.g, the bottoms of g,j,y,q and p) of the letter y hangs under the letter n in the word Kenya.

    It is the position of Dr. Conspiracy, ‘Sean’ and ‘Howling Coyote’ that such kerning was not yet possible in 1961.

    I might have considered participating if your entire premise wasn’t based on the two lies bolded in the quote from your “challenge.” The good doctor merely reported what Sean wrote and offered it up for discussion. I was unable to find anywhere in the discussion that he actually took that position.

  203. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: You are making things up now.

    Please read the report and participate in the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    I’m not making things up you never let your fake document into the hands of even other birthers to have analyzed.

  204. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:09 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Please read the report and the take the Obot/Birther Challenge.Thank you.

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

    What is there to read? You’ve shown a penchant for dishonest research that has nothing to do with your forgery.

  205. American Mzungu says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    As Doc C pointed out in the “Big Fish” thread, the birther ponds are drying up. He, Lucas Smith, had a blog that was never more than a puddle, but it has nearly dried up. He’s tried various attacks on Doc C and the OTC participants to get some action on his site, but nothing has worked. He resorts to coming on this site and pimping his site, trying to lure people over there to participate in his “challenge.” When that fails he wants us to engage him in some sort of debate about his “challenge” here. It’s not working.

    I liked the image of Lucas as a fish flopping around out of water, but I like even more the image that Doc C invoked about chickens flopping around with their heads cut off.

  206. Scientist says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    I noticed the debate thread is closed, so I hope Doc will forgive me for responding here.
    Bob Gard asked: “How many of the presidents who served from the expiration of the grandfather clause in the presidential eligibility cause until now were unquestionably natural-born citizens defined as citizens born of two American citizens? My answer offhand is all except two. Was that coincidence? Did the Electoral College and later the people know instinctively? There were multitudes of native born citizens in those times with foreign parents or just one American citizen parent. In view of such high numbers, what was the probability of the occurrence of so many presidents with two-citizen parents being elected to office without some ulterior motive? Was it because our country did not have so many immigrants proportionally as now? Do our immigrants outwardly resist this definition of natural-born citizen because they desire to change our country in their own image? Or was it instinct as to the meaning of natural-born citizen?”

    There have been 37 Presidents since the grandfather clause and 2 did not have two citizen parents, which is 5.5%. The ratio of foreign born persons in the population has fluctuated over time between about 6% to as high as 15% in the late 19th century, so the representation of their children in the White House is not statistically different from their representation in the general population, given the small sample size. I also note that 2 Presidents had foreign born mothers, Wilson whose mother was British and Hoover whose mother was Canadian, and under today’s law they would not be automatically naturalized by their marriage. So perhaps we could count them also. Either way, the statistics do not support Bob’s conclusion.

    But the fatuity of Bob’s question, as with his entire argument, is shown by his ignoring several obvious confounding variables. First, the majority of post-1800 immigrants were non-Protestant, mostly Catholic, with some Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others. And it took until 1960 to have a non-Protestant President, because the Protestant majority was suspicious of Catholics and other non-Protestants, who would have had a hard time winning outside of a few places like New York. Second, most immigrants were poor and were unable to give their children the elite education that most Presidents received. They did not have the family connections like the Roosevelts, Tafts and others who rose to high office. Third, we have not yet had a woman President. Would Bob conclude from that that they are barred by the Constitution? I suspect Bob might, but I wonder what Mrs. Bob would have to say about that.

  207. justlw says:
    February 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: university style debate

    “University style debate” appears to mean filling this thread with “go look at my challenge!” over and over and over and over and over again.

    I looked at your challenge. It involves making fecal references to this site, which at the same time you are more than happy to use to shill for your own site, concerning a debate about freaking kerning, which is precisely as relevant to anything as freaking PDF layers, which is to say not relevant at all.

    Please stop filling this thread with nonsense.

  208. Rickey says:
    February 16, 2013 at 1:10 pm  (Quote)

    In other news, a disturbing report about Sheriff Joe and the Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomey:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/14/1187041/-Elderly-diabetic-Latino-held-in-Arpaio-s-jail-6-months-for-using-fake-SSN-He-was-innocent?showAll=yes

  209. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    In other news, a disturbing report about Sheriff Joe and the Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomey:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/14/1187041/-Elderly-diabetic-Latino-held-in-Arpaio-s-jail-6-months-for-using-fake-SSN-He-was-innocent?showAll=yes

    Yep read about that today why is this guy still in office?

  210. Arthur says:
    February 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Yep read about that today why is this guy still in office?

    I read that, too. I guess he’s still in office for a couple reasons: 1) he’s an elected official who reflects the values and ethics of the people who vote for him, and 2) there must not be a mandatory retirement age for sheriff.

  211. aesthetocyst says:
    February 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I noticed the debate thread is closed, so I hope Doc will forgive me for responding here.

    And a fine response it was.

    Gard rambles longer with each attempt, 5900+ words this time, and revealing more xenophobia with each round. His latest defense? Twisting history to back up a claim, and concluding, “That’s the way it’s always been, so that must be right, and so must it ever be!”

    The majority is always right. A classic Conservative sentiment.

    If the majority defines the right, what then for the higher principle gard was referencing in his last missive? So … there are eternal, unchanging truths, yet those truths are revealed in the crowdsourced actions of the majority? Can’t have it both ways.

    And his ludicrous supposition, that we have proportionally more immigrants now than in the past? Really? Good old nativism.

    Gard to this point, boiled down: “It’s God’s will that dirty foreigners and non-whites be kept in their place.”

  212. Majority Will says:
    February 16, 2013 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    aesthetocyst: And a fine response it was.

    Gard rambles longer with each attempt, 5900+ words this time, and revealing more xenophobia with each round. His latest defense? Twisting history to back up a claim, and concluding, “That’s the way it’s always been, so that must be right, and so must it ever be!”

    The majority is always right. A classic Conservative sentiment.

    If the majority defines the right, what then for the higher principle gard was referencing in his last missive? So … there are eternal, unchanging truths, yet those truths are revealed in the crowdsourced actions of the majority? Can’t have it both ways.

    And his ludicrous supposition, that we have proportionally more immigrants now than in the past? Really? Good old nativism.

    Gard to this point, boiled down: “It’s God’s will that dirty foreigners and non-whites be kept in their place.”

    “Boy the way Glen Miller played
    Songs that made the hit parade.
    Guys like us we had it made,
    Those were the days.

    And you knew who you were then,
    Girls were girls and men were men,
    Mister we could use a man
    Like Herbert Hoover again.

    Didn’t need no welfare state,
    Everybody pulled his weight.
    Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
    Those were the days.”

  213. Dave B. says:
    February 16, 2013 at 3:08 pm  (Quote)

    Another quote from Mr. McElwee’s paper, which 00Bob likes so well:

    “In Osborn v. Bank 22 US (9 Wheat) 238, l.c. 827, Chief Justice Marshall said:
    A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

    So the naturalized citizen is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. Which is…
    That’s right in the middle of page 15877.
    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/20829167?access_key=key-2j8q7bcno6g2d3yku2pn
    Here’s the case itself:
    http://openjurist.org/22/us/738/osborn-v-president-directors-and-company-of-the-bank-of-the-united-states
    Mr. McElwee quotes the enumerated paragraph 142.

  214. Rickey says:
    February 16, 2013 at 3:31 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Yep read about that today why is this guy still in office?

    I missed the fact that Lupin posted the link last night, but it deserves to be seen more than once.

    I lived in Maricopa County for a few years back in the late seventies. It certainly has changed, and not for the better.

  215. Dave B. says:
    February 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, I’m a little bit stuck on your “Appeal to the debate jury” right now:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/the-great-debatekibitzers-edition-part-2/#comment-249294
    Returning to the point to which your question:

    “Does ANYBODY here see any validity to Bob’s “House reasoning” claims on pages 15875 – 15880 in the House record? Is there ANYTHING whatever on those pages to indicate any consent by the House of Representatives to anything appeared there.”

    was directed– and putting aside for a moment the many, many ways Mr. McElwee’s paper contradicts 00Bob’s super-secret Vattel-to-Jay-to-Scott triple play definition of natural born citizen– Mr. Dowdy makes it plain that he’s merely offering an additional reference material:

    “As it is not otherwise available, and may be of interest to the Members of this Congress and others, I would incorporate in the Record as a part of my remarks, that it may be easily available for consideration with other dissertations on the subject, to shed whatever light it merits:”

    after which Mr. Dowdy submits Mr. McElwee’s paper. Mr. Dowdy doesn’t even endorse Mr. McElwee’s paper among those “other dissertations on the subject”.
    00Bob says “The record on page 15880 finished the House’s reasoning: “Mr. Romney was born an alien and was naturalized automatically by Act of Congress.” That’s not the “House’s reasoning” by any stretch of the imagination; it’s another quotation from Mr. McElwee’s paper.
    And if you look at the next column over, you’ll find Mr. McElwee says this:

    “To summarize, a natural born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. This does not include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States, and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States. Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War as a part of a hostile military force and, as a consequence, not present with the consent of the United States, and not subject to the laws of the United States. But, this does include children born to alien parents (may I point out the infamous plural –db) who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “in amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States and subject to its laws at the time of birth.”

    So if 00Bob’s so eager to swallow Mr. McElwee’s opinion, I say let him. If he doesn’t want George Romney to be President, I can live with that.

  216. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: “University style debate” appears to mean filling this thread with “go look at my challenge!” over and over and over and over and over again.

    I looked at your challenge. It involves making fecal references to this site, which at the same timeyou are more than happy to use to shill for your own site, concerning a debate about freaking kerning, which is precisely as relevant to anything as freaking PDF layers, which is to say not relevant at all.

    Please stop filling this thread with nonsense.

    “Freaking kerning”…”kerning, which is precisely as relevant to anything as freaking PDF layers”…”not relevant at all”…”nonsense”.

    Thats how you feel about Dr. Conspiracy’s work here at his very own website?

    Typography on the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/typography-on-the-lucas-smith-kenyan-birth-certificate/

    Typography on the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate – 2nd half

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/typography-on-the-lucas-smith-kenyan-birth-certificate-2nd-half/

    Grow up. Participate like an adult. Please review my report and take the Obot/Birther Challenge.

    Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  217. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I’m not making things up you never let your fake document into the hands of even other birthers to have analyzed.

    In you frail and enfeebled advanced age you must have overlooked these:

    1. 12.04.2010. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371653/12-04-2010-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    2. 02.21.2011. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371813/02-21-2011-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    3. 03.03.2011. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371960/03-03-2011-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    continued below in next comment…

  218. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:06 pm  (Quote)

    …

    4. 09.14.2011. Attorney Mario Apuzzo letter to Lucas D. Smith.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65372189/09-14-2011-Attorney-Mario-Apuzzo-letter-to-Lucas-D-Smith

    5. 10.04.2011. USPS Proof of Delivery letter to Lucas Smith. Attorney Mario Apuzzo letter to Lucas Daniel Smith, delivered 09.16.2011.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/69007616/10-04-2011-USPS-Proof-of-Delivery-letter-to-Lucas-Smith-Attorney-Mario-Apuzzo-letter-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-delivered-09-16-2011

    6. 11.22.2011. Lucas Daniel Smith letter to Phyllis Vrettos

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100778336/11-22-2011-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-letter-to-Phyllis-Vrettos

    continued in comment below…

  219. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    …

    7. 05.27.2012. Dominican Mother’s Day Letter to Phyllis Vrettos from Lucas Daniel Smith

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100783111/05-27-2012-Dominican-Mother-s-Day-Letter-to-Phyllis-Vrettos-from-Lucas-Daniel-Smith

    8. 06.11.2012 USPS mail receipts. Lucas Daniel Smith, Phyllis Vrettos, Bruce Steadman.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100781904/06-11-2012-USPS-mail-receipts-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-Phyllis-Vrettos-Bruce-Steadman

    9. 06.15.2012. Phyllis Vrettos letter (and Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate) to Lucas Daniel Smith

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100783696/06-15-2012-Phyllis-Vrettos-letter-and-Obama-s-Kenyan-birth-certificate-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith

    continued in comment below…

  220. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: In you frail and enfeebled advanced age you must have overlooked these:

    1. 12.04.2010. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371653/12-04-2010-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    2. 02.21.2011. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371813/02-21-2011-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    3. 03.03.2011. Lucas D. Smith letter to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65371960/03-03-2011-Lucas-D-Smith-letter-to-attorney-Mario-Apuzzo

    continued below in next comment…

    In reading your letter I see absolutely no proof you sent the forgery you created to Mario Apuzzo. You then show packing slips of something you sent to Bruce Steadman. Again another bait and switch by a convicted conman.

    I notice nothing other than you writing letters to each other and sending packages. No pictures of the said packages with the said forgery contained within. What happened to the lie detector test Putzy mentioned? For all your trying to prove things here with packages I notice you still haven’t presented proof you ever traveled to kenya

  221. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    …

    10. 07.22.2012. USPS confirmation of delivery on 06.19.2012 for mail from Phyllis Vrettos to Lucas Daniel Smith

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100786950/07-22-2012-USPS-confirmation-of-delivery-on-06-19-2012-for-mail-from-Phyllis-Vrettos-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith

    11. undated 2011-2012 letter from Phyllis Vrettos to her son regarding Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100784142/undated-2011-2012-letter-from-Phyllis-Vrettos-to-her-son-regarding-Barack-Obama-s-Kenyan-birth-certificate

  222. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: In reading your letter I see absolutely no proof you sent the forgery you created to Mario Apuzzo.You then show packing slips of something you sent to Bruce Steadman.Again another bait and switch by a convicted conman.

    It is your position that this letter, from Apuzzo to me, is a fake? Put the bottle down old man you sound like Glenn Beck.

    09.14.2011. Attorney Mario Apuzzo letter to Lucas D. Smith.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65372189/09-14-2011-Attorney-Mario-Apuzzo-letter-to-Lucas-D-Smith

  223. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:14 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: It is your position that this letter, from Apuzzo to me, is a fake?Put the bottle down old man you sound like Glenn Beck.

    09.14.2011. Attorney Mario Apuzzo letter to Lucas D. Smith.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65372189/09-14-2011-Attorney-Mario-Apuzzo-letter-to-Lucas-D-Smith

    Again how does his letter prove he ever had physical position of your forgery? I don’t see pictures of it in his possession. I don’t see any forensic work done on said forgery. Again you’re baiting and switching. How about proof you ever went to Kenya.

    Your con fell apart long ago Lucas

  224. Dave B. says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:17 pm  (Quote)

    Luke’s number 11 really cracks me up. If the rest of his “exhibits” are as hilarious as that one, I might read them after all.

  225. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Luke’s number 11 really cracks me up.If the rest of his “exhibits” are as hilarious as that one, I might read them after all.

    Yes they are always funny once a conman always a conman.

  226. Andy says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Very well then. Have fun with your stringed instruments. Perhaps some of your cohorts here at OCT will step up the plate and redeem themselves by taking the obot/birther challenge.Its a relatively easy challenge if one can humble oneself.

    Um, He, Lucas Smith, none of us need to redeem ourselves. We aren’t the convicted felons. You are.

    Go do some community service. It might clear your head a bit. Maybe get some of the fantasies out of it.

    (And no, I won’t take your challenge. Not because I’m scared, but because I don’t like you.)

  227. Steve says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:09 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Yep read about that today why is this guy still in office?

    He treats criminals like dirt (I’d use a stronger word, but it’s not allowed here). Since many people have never been in jail, they seem to think people in jail are a little too comfortable. Along comes a guy who treats criminals (and accused criminals) poorly and he becomes a folk hero because of that.

  228. justlw says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:21 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Thats how you feel about Dr. Conspiracy’s work here at his very own website?

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, then.

    The first post is his recounting of someone else’s claim, which he introduces with, “This doesn’t need to be discussed since there’s so much else wrong with the POSFKBC, but what the hey.”

    The second post ends with him saying, “Wow, a lot of people on both sides are bringing their confirmation bias to the game.”

    I stand by my claims: the kerning issue is nonsense and irrelevant, and you have made this thread completely unusable.

  229. Arthur says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    Steve: He treats criminals like dirt (I’d use a stronger word, but it’s not allowed here).

    The “criminal” profiled in the article noted above turned out to be innocent. Not all people held in jails are criminals, and even criminals are granted basic human rights.

  230. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:39 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, then.

    The first post is his recounting of someone else’s claim, which he introduces with, “This doesn’t need to be discussed since there’s so much else wrong with the POSFKBC, but what the hey.”

    The second post ends with him saying, “Wow, a lot of people on both sides are bringing their confirmation bias to the game.”

    I stand by my claims: the kerning issue is nonsense and irrelevant, and you have made this thread completely unusable.

    Are you feeling well today? Do you ever admit when you’ve made a mistake or do you just do the tunnel vision thing? And please stop calling my telephone number and leaving nasty vile messages. Control yourself.

  231. justlw says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Are you feeling well today? Do you ever admit when you’ve made a mistake or do you just do the tunnel vision thing? And please stop calling my telephone number and leaving nasty vile messages.Control yourself.

    Aren’t you going to invite me to take your challenge? I could be this close to saying yes!

  232. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:54 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: Aren’t you going to invite me to take your challenge? I could be this close to saying yes!

    Please review my gripping report and take the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    ‘Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).‘

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

    PS – Please stop calling my telephone number and leaving nasty vile messages. Control yourself.

  233. J.D. Sue says:
    February 16, 2013 at 6:31 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, Bob Gard repeatedly makes reference to Article III Section 2 language and commentary, without understanding–he is interpreting it wrong for the purpose of trying to show the Supreme Court should not be interpreting the Constitution (how ironic that Bob is purportedly qualified to interpret this “plain language” but lawyers and judges are not because we have some liberal agenda…).

    I have responded multiple times to his comments, but he does not reply–instead he just keeps repeating his false interpretation. I think this is an important area for lawyers to chime in on so that it can be properly fleshed out. I will offer some initial comments here.

    Here is the language at issue: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…”

    (1) Law and Equity: Bob makes a big deal about the terms “in law and equity”, and seems to claim that liberal lawyers improperly use these terms to justify interpreting the law found within the Constitution, and injecting some form of equity “in” the Constitution. I really don’t get where he gets this thesis–it simply is not what lawyers do.

    Originally, in England, the judiciary primarily considered only cases “in Law”, i.e., cases where a judge could decide legal questions and award damages to the winning party. Sometimes, “the law” was not sufficient to work justice, so a party would appeal to the King in his court of equity. As such and thereafter, there were separate courts for law and for equity–today, most of our courts handle both law and equity. Indeed, any single complaint filed in court can contain claims in law and/or in equity. (Examples of equity include injunctions, prohibiting against unjust enrichment, voiding unconscionable contracts, bankruptcy court).

    As such, when Article III refers to “all cases, in law and equity”, it is simply referring to what we all think of as the cases (judiciable disputes between parties) that end up in our courts everyday. All lawyers/judges understand this, so I don’t know what Bob thinks he’s talking about. He points out that Madison noted that our Constitution is unique in that it provides that cases in equity are part of the court’s jurisdiction–I suppose that is because we don’t have a king to appeal to. Anyhow, Bob seems to argue that we misunderstand Article III’s “law and equity” language, and that we wrongly use the language to justify judicial interpretation of the Constitution–including looking for unwritten equitable principles within the Constitution. This is nonsense.

    2) Arising Under v. Arising In: Bob Gard keeps saying that if the framers wanted the Court to interpret the Constitution, Article III would state “arising in this Constitution” and not “arising under this Constitution.” Again, he mistakenly makes assumptions based on his own interpretation of the language. In fact, all cases in law or equity arise “under” something, e.g., under the Constitution, under a statute, under the common law, under principles of equity, etc. (For example, if a local cop subjects me to a false arrest and I decide to sue him, my claims “arise under” the 4th Amendment, the 14th Amendment (which incorporates the bill of rights to state governments), and 42 U.S.C. 1983 (a statute which permits private lawsuits/damages against state government state actors for constitutional violations)–and the court would have to interpret these laws within the context of the facts at bar. It would make no sense if Article III referred to cases arising “in” the Constitution, since there are no cases “in” the Constitution. The phrase “arising under” is familiar to judges and lawyers, but of course it seems to mean something else entirely to Mr. Gard.

    As a final note, there can be no adjudication of any case without interpreting the law under which the case arises (or relying upon precedence that interpreted that language). Perhaps Bob thinks that an “interpretation” is the opposite of “reading plain language”. In fact, all humans are interpreting language all the time.

  234. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Again how does his letter prove he ever had physical position of your forgery? I don’t see pictures of it in his possession.I don’t see any forensic work done on said forgery.Again you’re baiting and switching.

    Whats all this about baiting and switching? You sound like one of those people who must registered with the local sheriff’s office each time they move to a new home/apartment.

    Are you serious when you say that need to see pictures of Mario Apuzzo holding the birth certificate? And how would attorney Apuzzo be returning the birth certificate to me if he never had it in his physical possession? Is it your position that he was lying?

    You need to seek some outside entertainment provided that that entertainment is not done is a school zone or near a school bus route.

    If you are on the bottle again, as you admitted were so frequently in the past, I’d recommend calling 1(800) 870-3795. While you are at you might also, just to be on the safe side, dial up 1 (800) 448-0440.

  235. justlw says:
    February 16, 2013 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: justlw: Aren’t you going to invite me to take your challenge? I could be this close to saying yes!

    Please review my gripping report and take the Obot/Birther Challenge. Thank you.

    No.

    I guess I wasn’t that close after all.

  236. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 7:23 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: No.

    I guess I wasn’t that close after all.

    If not, would you at least consider putting down your rotary phone and discontinuing any further calls to my telephone number, unless you are ready for university style debate, because I’m not here just to listen to your desperate pleas for mercy and your stories of being mishandled by others throughout life.

  237. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 7:39 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: If not, would you at least consider putting down your rotary phone and discontinuing any further calls to my telephone number, unless you are ready for university style debate, because I’m not here just to listen to your desperate pleas for mercy and your stories of being mishandled by others throughout life.

    What is a “university style” debate?

  238. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:01 pm  (Quote)

    Are we going to have a part 3 to the Great Debate – kibitzers’ edition or have we all had enough.

  239. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Whats all this about baiting and switching?You sound like one of those people who must registered with the local sheriff’s office each time they move to a new home/apartment.

    Are you serious when you say that need to see pictures of Mario Apuzzo holding the birth certificate?And how would attorney Apuzzo be returning the birth certificate to me if he never had it in his physical possession?Is it your position that he was lying?

    You need to seek some outside entertainment provided that that entertainment is not done is a school zone or near a school bus route.

    If you are on the bottle again, as you admitted were so frequently in the past, I’d recommend calling .While you are at you might also, just to be on the safe side, dial up .

    Lucas why do you project your own problems off onto other people? Only one of us here is a convicted scumbag felon and that’s you. Only one of us here has admitted to having sex with underaged girls and that’s you.

    Of course Mario is lying he does that quite often you’re both con artists. So again your attempt to establish credibility through a bait and switch isn’t convincing anyone.

    Hell you guys expect Obama to mail his long form hawaiian birth certificate to everyone in the US to prove he’s a born US Citizen. So you can’t even hold yourself to the same standard.

    Where did I ever say I was on the bottle? You must have me confused with Mario Apuzzo who is a heavy drunk.

    But hey all these personal insults you throw don’t change the fact that you keep refusing to prove you went to Kenya.

    You should perhaps move to Arizona I heard Sheriff Joe is hiring child molesters such as yourself.

  240. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:09 pm  (Quote)

    Ya sure.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/the-great-debatekibitzers-edition-part-3/

    Welsh Dragon: Are we going to have a part 3 to the Great Debate – kibitzers’ edition or have we all had enough.

  241. Reality Check says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:09 pm  (Quote)

    I think it is about a debate over a forgery when one of the participants is a convicted forger .. or something like that.

    CarlOrcas: What is a “university style” debate?

  242. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:13 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Lucas why do you project your own problems off onto other people?Only one of us here is a convicted scumbag felon and that’s you.Only one of us here has admitted to having sex with underaged girls and that’s you.

    Of course Mario is lying he does that quite often you’re both con artists.So again your attempt to establish credibility through a bait and switch isn’t convincing anyone.

    Hell you guys expect Obama to mail his long form hawaiian birth certificate to everyone in the US to prove he’s a born US Citizen.So you can’t even hold yourself to the same standard.

    Where did I ever say I was on the bottle?You must have me confused with Mario Apuzzo who is a heavy drunk.

    But hey all these personal insults you throw don’t change the fact that you keep refusing to prove you went to Kenya

    Don’t start back tracking now, you told me that were on the bottle, on and off, for a great number of years. I hope that you will get help. I wont pray for you though, because I’m not a Christian or a member any other cult.

    You also need some professional help with your head trips, I mean a little conspiratorial thinking might not be too dangerous but when you accuse attorney Maria Apuzzo of send me a letter lying about really sending me the birth certificate…even Dr Conspiracy is looking at you like you are Glenn Beck.

    I also recall that, in the past, Dr. Conspiracy has had to step in and set you straight when you crossed the line between fact and fiction/fantasy.

    Set your bottle of Miller down and lets get to some good old fashion university style debate already.

  243. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:19 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Don’t start back tracking now, you told me that were on the bottle, on and off, for a great number of years.I hope that you will get help. I wont pray for you though, because I’m not a Christian or a member any other cult.

    You also need some professional help with your head trips, I mean a little conspiratorial thinking might not be too dangerous but when you accuse attorney Maria Apuzzo of send me a letter lying about really sending me the birth certificate…even Dr Conspiracy is looking at you like you are Glenn Beck.

    I also recall that, in the past, Dr. Conspiracy has had to step in and set you straight when you crossed the line between fact and fiction/fantasy.

    Set your bottle of Miller down and lets get to some good old fashion university style debate already.

    Nothing to backtrack since I never said it. It’s funny how everytime you’re asked for proof of the scam you’re running you get off topic and jump straight to personal attacks. Just like a typical conman you get angry and pathetically vicious when people see through your con.

    Obviously all the time you had in the pokey did nothing to rehabilitate you. I have a feeling you’ll be back in the slammer within the next year or two because you’ve proven yourself to be a rather dumb criminal who consistently gets caught.

    I wish I could say I pitied you Lucas but I don’t. You’ll never have the ability of self-introspection to realize where you went wrong in your own life.

    In the end though I notice you still haven’t proven you went to Kenya or that you physically sent the forgery you created to Apuzzo or that he actually had it analyzed. Which is what I originally said that you wouldn’t send it to anyone to have it analyzed.

    You wouldn’t know what a university style debate is as shown by how you react everytime you’re put in a corner over your forgery.

  244. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:33 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Nothing to backtrack since I never said it.It’s funny how everytime you’re asked for proof of the scam you’re running you get off topic and jump straight to personal attacks.Just like a typical conman you get angry and pathetically vicious when people see through your con.

    Obviously all the time you had in the pokey did nothing to rehabilitate you.I have a feeling you’ll be back in the slammer within the next year or two because you’ve proven yourself to be a rather dumb criminal who consistently gets caught.

    I wish I could say I pitied you Lucas but I don’t.You’ll never have the ability of self-introspection to realize where you went wrong in your own life.

    In the end though I notice you still haven’t proven you went to Kenya or that you physically sent the forgery you created to Apuzzo or that he actually had it analyzed.Which is what I originally said that you wouldn’t send it to anyone to have it analyzed.

    You wouldn’t know what a university style debate is as shown by how you react everytime you’re put in a corner over your forgery.

    Please provide proof that you were never on the bottle. You’ve already admitted to it in the past.

    I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002, that is more than ten (10) years ago.

    Stop backtracking, it doesn’t look well on an advanced aged woman such as yourself. You said that I hadn’t sent the birth certificate to other ‘birthers’. Its evident that I did and now you switch up (you like that terminology, huh) and backtrack.

    Put the bottle down, its not Miller time just because your life partner is out for a night on the town.

    Get back to me when you’ve had time to review my report. I’d like some feminine input in this debate.

  245. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:49 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Please provide proof that you were never on the bottle. You’ve already admitted to it in the past.

    Really you talk about University Style debate then want me to go about proving a negative? You claimed I said I was “on the bottle”. I never made such a statement. But since you claim I did it should be easy for you to find that statement somewhere on this site. Good luck.

    Lucas D. Smith: I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002, that is more than ten (10) years ago.

    So when your buddy Bruce Steadman said the following back in 2011: “It is with great sadness, on this Wednesday morning, May 26, that I report the following news regarding Lucas Daniel Smith.

    Details are sketchy, but I will pass along to you what little information I have at present. Lucas was arrested and booked Friday, May 20 and is now incarcerated at the Pima County Jail in Tucson, AZ. … I learned of his unfortunate situation early Monday morning, May 23. A small group of individuals, with the potential of being able to help Lucas, were soon informed and have been working behind the scenes these last few days to provide assistance. … I have not had any contact with Lucas. … Word of his incarceration has now started to circulate on the Internet.

    Lucas is facing two charges, the first one requiring a $10,000 ‘secured’ bond, and the second one a $10,000 ‘Cash Only’ bond…. I have received an unconfirmed report that Lucas is being held, at least for partial reasons, as a ‘fugitive from justice from another state’, presumably, Iow”
    That was a lie by your buddy Bruce?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110702022059/http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pimacourt-540×1024.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110702022054/http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pimasherifforg201152499.jpg

    Lucas D. Smith: Stop backtracking, it doesn’t look well on an advanced aged woman such as yourself. You said that I hadn’t sent the birth certificate to other ‘birthers’. Its evident that I did and now you switch up (you like that terminology, huh) and backtrack.

    No it is not evident that you did since there is no pictures of the package with the forgery. All you have is tracking slips from a random package you claim contained your forgery. No proof that is what you sent, no proof it was ever analyzed by Apuzzo. No lie detector test you claimed you would take.

    Get back to me when you’re done lying like the little conman you are. Oh and with proof you ever went to kenya

  246. justlw says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:52 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: What is a “university style” debate?

    “Did you ever wonder if each molecule in your finger was a little tiny universe?”

    “Dude.”

  247. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:56 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Please provide proof that you were never on the bottle. You’ve already admitted to it in the past.

    He can’t prove a negative but you should be able to provide a source, a clear link, to back up your assertion about his admitted drinking.

    Lucas D. Smith: I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002, that is more than ten (10) years ago.

    What prison? What for?

  248. American Mzungu says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: I think this is an important area for lawyers to chime in on so that it can be properly fleshed out. I will offer some initial comments here.

    A well-written gem. One of many that have been contributed here during the “Great Debate.” I don’t know about others, but I’ve learned much. Thanks for your hard work.

  249. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Really you talk about University Style debate then want me to go about proving a negative?You claimed I said I was “on the bottle”.I never made such a statement.But since you claim I did it should be easy for you to find that statement somewhere on this site.Good luck.

    So when your buddy Bruce Steadman said the following back in 2011: “It is with great sadness, on this Wednesday morning, May 26, that I report the following news regarding Lucas Daniel Smith.

    Details are sketchy, but I will pass along to you what little information I have at present. Lucas was arrested and booked Friday, May 20 and is now incarcerated at the Pima County Jail in Tucson, AZ. … I learned of his unfortunate situation early Monday morning, May 23. A small group of individuals, with the potential of being able to help Lucas, were soon informed and have been working behind the scenes these last few days to provide assistance. … I have not had any contact with Lucas. … Word of his incarceration has now started to circulate on the Internet.

    I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002. You have to be convicted of a crime to go to prison. You are referring to jail (2011). If you need help understanding what the difference is between prison and jail, at least in the USA, you might ask any person who has at least a junior high school education.

    Again, I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002.

    I’m not going to pick up the shovel for you and try, to no avail, to prove that you were never on the bottle. If you want to backtrack and say that you were never a drunk then I suggest that you marshal the evidence and present your case.

    My advice would to be to lay off the cheap “tall-boy” ice beers. I read that that stuff will turn you into a toothless old woman, and real fast.

    Get some sleep and when you have the strength please review my report and stop making false accusations regarding attorney Apuzzo.

  250. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: You are referring to jail (2011). If you need help understanding what the difference is between prison and jail, at least in the USA, you might ask any person who has at least a junior high school education.

    Again, I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002.

    You’re really this stupid Lucas? Prison and Jail are synonymous terms
    http://thesaurus.com/browse/jail?s=t

    The fact is you lied again you were in the slammer in 2011 and were brought back to Iowa on theft charges as stated by your friend Bruce Steadman.

    Lucas D. Smith: I’m not going to pick up the shovel for you and try, to no avail, to prove that you were never on the bottle. If you want to backtrack and say that you were never a drunk then I suggest that you marshal the evidence and present your case.

    There was no backtracking since I’ve never said I was on the bottle. You made the claim you should be able to present some evidence of what you claim I said. Much like your forgery and your “trip to Kenya” you can’t provide anything to back up your claim

    As usual you ramble on like an idiot when asked for proof of your kenya trip

  252. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:22 pm  (Quote)

    Never seen one.

    CarlOrcas: What is a “university style” debate?

  253. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:22 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: You’re really this stupid Lucas?Prison and Jail are synonymous terms
    http://thesaurus.com/browse/jail?s=t

    The fact is you lied again you were in the slammer in 2011 and were brought back to Iowa on theft charges as stated by your friend Bruce Steadman.

    There was no backtracking since I’ve never said I was on the bottle.You made the claim you should be able to present some evidence of what you claim I said.Much like your forgery and your “trip to Kenya” you can’t provide anything to back up your claim

    As usual you ramble on like an idiot when asked for proof of your kenya trip

    How many times have you become physically violent with your life partner after you’d been drinking?

    I hope that you will consider getting help. How can you even attempt to debate here on OTC when you are inebriated?

    Again, if you want to pretend that you were never on the bottle (Miller and ice beers) I suggest that you begin marshaling your case and then present it already.

    Until then you are just a drunk with a keyboard (and not much else).

  254. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:28 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: How many times have you become physically violent with your life partner after you’d been drinking?

    Are you projecting your relationship with Bruce Steadman off on me now?

    Again Lucas proof you ever went to Kenya is whats being asked from you. This petty nonsense is unbecoming no wonder you were back in the slammer in 2011

  255. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:29 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: What is a “university style” debate?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Never seen one.

    Oxford Union Debate at Harvard University – 04/18/2012

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX5s5zt7SKA

  256. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:32 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Oxford Union Debate at Harvard University – 04/18/2012

    Notice when asked to prove their claims they don’t start personally attacking the other side. Which is why you couldn’t handle a university style debate.

  257. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:32 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Are you projecting your relationship with Bruce Steadman off on me now?

    Again Lucas proof you ever went to Kenya is whats being asked from you.This petty nonsense is unbecoming no wonder you were back in the slammer in 2011

    Do you realize what you are doing? Even you OCT cohorts are laughing at you.

    Again, please make your case if you want us to believe that you never said that you were on the bottle.

    You may want to start by saying, “My name is Mrs. Kenneth Noisewater and I am an alcoholic.

    Also, just for record here, do you prefer the bottle or the tall can?

  258. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Do you realize what you are doing? Even you OCT cohorts are laughing at you.

    Again, please make your case if you want us to believe that you never said that you were on the bottle.

    And again you make a fool of yourself by asking people to prove a negative. You made the statement that you claim I said it it is on you to prove it. I’ll take this as your concession that you’re a liar. Once a convicted felon scumbag always a convicted felon scumbag. You’ll never change Lucas. I expect you back in jail again like you were in 2011.

    Still waiting on proof you went to kenya

  259. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: And again you make a fool of yourself by asking people to prove a negative.You made the statement that you claim I said it it is on you to prove it.I’ll take this as your concession that you’re a liar.Once a convicted felon scumbag always a convicted felon scumbag.You’ll never change Lucas.I expect you back in jail again like you were in 2011.

    Still waiting on proof you went to kenya

    I thought you said I was in prison in 2011? Now you say jail?

    How many have you had tonight? One, two, three dozen? You do 12 packs or what?

    Are you partial to Milwaukee or Miller?

    Please marshal a defense if you want to convince your cohorts and I that you are now off of the bottle. Until then you previous statement to the effect that you are an alcoholic stand.

    If you can sober up I think we might be able to conduct a university style debate now that I have explained what one is to you, you cohorts and your host who seems to have never seen one (his words).

    Set the bottle down on its coaster and lets get to the debate my fair lady.

  260. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:55 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: I haven’t been in prison since Christmas Day, 2002. You have to be convicted of a crime to go to prison. You are referring to jail (2011). If you need help understanding what the difference is between prison and jail, at least in the USA, you might ask any person who has at least a junior high school education.

    You can also be sentenced to jail. In most states the line between jail and prison sentences is one year and/or misdemeanors versus felonies.

    With that in mind let’s clarify a couple things:

    When have you been held in or sentenced to any jail? Where and what for?

    When have you been sentenced to any prison? Where and what for?

    Thanks.

  261. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:57 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Never seen one.

    That makes two of us.

  262. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:59 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Oxford Union Debate at Harvard University – 04/18/2012

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX5s5zt7SKA

    That is a debate AT Oxford….though the cut line below the video clip does describe it as an Oxford style debate.

    So…..again…..what is a “university style” debate?

  263. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:01 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Do you realize what you are doing?Even you OCT cohorts are laughing at you.

    Again, please make your case if you want us to believe that you never said that you were on the bottle.

    You may want to start by saying, “My name is Mrs. Kenneth Noisewater and I am an alcoholic.

    Also, just for record here, do you prefer the bottle or the tall can?

    How about just answering the question? Where is your proof that you went to Kenya?

  264. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: I thought you said I was in prison in 2011? Now you say jail?

    Prison and jail are synonyms Lucas http://thesaurus.com/browse/jail?s=t

    I’d think with you being in and out of them so much you’d know that. Are you going to say “An Adult Correctional Facility or Detention Facility” is neither a jail or prison? They all mean the same thing.

    “My cohorts” as you call them are convinced you’re a rambling conman who lashes out against other people when he can’t defend his forgeries.

    I still see no proof you went to kenya. Chop chop Lucas

  265. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:07 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: That is a debate AT Oxford….though the cut line below the video clip does describe it as an Oxford style debate.

    So…..again…..what is a “university style” debate?

    Are you just pretending to be…dumb? Oxford is a university, hence ‘university style debate’. When you buy a hotdog do you go around ranting that really its not made of dog? Or do you do like rest of us and pretend that its not a tube made of left-over low quality fat and chicken, cow and turkey products such as the anus?

    Now grow up.

  266. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:11 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Set the bottle down on its coaster and lets get to the debate my fair lady.

    You don’t want to debate. You want to strut around spouting personal barbs and tough guy nonsense like a high school sophomore disrupting class and trying to impress the girls.

  267. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:13 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: You can also be sentenced to jail. In most states the line between jail and prison sentences is one year and/or misdemeanors versus felonies.

    With that in mind let’s clarify a couple things:

    When have you been held in or sentenced to any jail? Where and what for?

    When have you been sentenced to any prison?Where and what for?

    Thanks.

    Hello fresh fish…how does anything that you just mumbled change the fact that a person must be convicted of a crime to be sent to prison?

    What, did you just feel like doing your version of ‘Rain Man’ (Dustin Hoffman) tonight?

    PS- If you want my penal curriculum vitae…you must have been living on the moon for the last 4 years now. Why don’t you look it up for yourself.

  268. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:13 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Are you just pretending to be…dumb? Oxford is a university, hence ‘university style debate’

    As anyone who has been involved in debate knows that is an Oxford style debate because, you’re right, it’s at Oxford. But it is not the way debates are handled everywhere else.

    Hence the question remains unanswered.

  269. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Hello fresh fish…how does anything that you just mumbled change the fact that a person must be convicted of a crime to be sent to prison?

    What, did you just feel like doing your version of ‘Rain Man’ (Dustin Hoffman) tonight?

    PS- If you want my penal curriculum vitae…you must have been living on the moon for the last 4 years now. Why don’t you look it up for yourself.

    Lucas,

    Let’s start at the bottom and go to the beginning:

    I am familiar with your name from this blog and did look for your PCV (I like that; not bad.) and couldn’t find it. So……

    Back to the questions that you clumsily avoided:

    When have you been sentenced to any prison?Where and what for?

    When have you been held in or sentenced to any jail? Where and what for?

    Thanks…..again.

  270. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:26 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: You don’t want to debate. You want to strut around spouting personal barbs and tough guy nonsense like a high school sophomore disrupting class and trying to impress the girls.

    Have you had the time, and do you have the discipline, to read through the comments I’ve posted throughout the last couple of days on this thread and to review the replies from your cohorts?

    Nearly all replies, aside from a single semi-attempt (at least he made a half effort though the report seems to gone over his head) at university style debate made by your cohort “Reality Check”, have been ad hominem attacks, mocking remarks, sarcasm, sneering, sexual diatribes, name calling.

    It seems that you and your cohorts are not able to carry a out a serious university style debate.

    And please don’t try, not even in your best pseudo-erudite vernacular, to pretend that you’d ever even heard of an Oxford debate before I linked the video.

    If you are truly interested in debate, which you cohorts are not, then please review my report and reply with your thoughts regarding the challenge within.

    Typography, Act Three: ascenders and descenders. (Definitive proof that Dr. Conspiracy is full of ordure).

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-three-ascenders-and-descenders-definitive-proof-that-dr-conspiracy-is-full-of-ordure/

  271. Thomas Brown says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:34 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: If not, would you at least consider putting down your rotary phone and discontinuing any further calls to my telephone number, unless you are ready for university style debate, because I’m not here just to listen to your desperate pleas for mercy and your stories of being mishandled by others throughout life.

    Scholars don’t debate someone they have no respect for. And based on your words and deeds you deserve no respect and have earned nothing but contempt.

    You’re in the company of Scott Erlandson, who haughtily challenged RC to a debate on Blog Talk Radio, and then chickened out. That is, in the realm of academic discourse, despicable. And so now nobody takes him seriously, and rightly so.

    These are the consequences of poor life choices. And you are welcome to them.

  272. CarlOrcas says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:38 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: And please don’t try, not even in your best pseudo-erudite vernacular, pretend that you’d ever even heard of an Oxford debate before I linked the video.

    Lucas,

    I was involved in speech and debate before, I suspect, you were born.

    As far as your Obama birth certificate is concerned……what is there to debate? It’s nonsense……in the non-erudite vernacular the term is bullshit….dog poop.

    And that it will remain until you provide proof – other than posting it on the internet – that it’s what you say it is and you answer questions about it.

    The pooper scooper is in your yard, Lucas.

  273. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:54 pm  (Quote)

    Thomas Brown: Scholars don’t debate someone they have no respect for.And based on your words and deeds you deserve no respect and have earned nothing but contempt.

    You’re in the company of Scott Erlandson, who haughtily challenged RC to a debate on Blog Talk Radio, and then chickened out.That is, in the realm of academic discourse, despicable.And so now nobody takes him seriously, and rightly so.

    These are the consequences of poor life choices.And you are welcome to them.

    Would you mind checking, at the keyboard, your pseudo-erudite vernacular?

    Lastly, are you pretending to be a scholar? I guess contemporary scholars are hanging out at esoteric little conspiracy blogs these days (on a Saturday night, at that!)?

    I’m paid to conduct research. I’m no scholar, and I don’t pretend to be one. So why don’t you stop pretending and maybe find some sort of employment, eh?

  274. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 16, 2013 at 10:59 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: I’m paid to conduct research. I’m no scholar, and I don’t pretend to be one. So why don’t you stop pretending and maybe find some sort of employment, eh?

    Laughable. You pretend to be an “inspector”

  275. JD Reed says:
    February 16, 2013 at 11:34 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: If the framers pulled a fast one on the ratifiers, then no one is bound by the result. In fact, if Bob is right, then the natural born citizen clause may well be completely invalid.

    Precisely! BTW, that icon of the right, Justice Scalia,.said the constitution must mean what its terms were understood to mean when the constitution was framed, except for terms of art employed by a particular segement of society such as a trade. But for that, there would also have to be evidence, in Scalia’s view. So Bob loses, because an understanding that was not clearly understood by the general public, or to a specific segment of the public. has no validity, by Scalia’s originalist yardstick.
    To another poster, Lucas Smith: who pays you to do research? Just curious..

  276. Steve says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:27 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: The “criminal” profiled in the article noted above turned out to be innocent. Not all people held in jails are criminals, and even criminals are granted basic human rights.

    I never said I agreed with his methods. In fact, it really bothers me that some people do see him as a folk hero.
    I’ve often said anyone who thinks people have it good in prison have never been in prison.
    What those tough-on-crime morons fail to understand is that Arpaio is responsible for the safety of those in his custody.

  277. Daniel says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:47 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith:
    I’m paid to conduct research.I’m no scholar,

    Wow, someone actually pays you, a convicted forger, to conduct research? Isn’t that kind of like setting the fox to guard the chickens?

    I guess that just goes to show that there really are stupid people with money to throw away.

    Of course that’s assuming you’re tellig the truth when you say you’re paid to conduct research. Considering you’re a convicted forger and a felon….. it would be foolhardy to take your word for anything.

  278. Dave B. says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:35 am  (Quote)

    Seventy years ago today, my dad was trying to make his way off of Djebel Ksaira back to American lines with the rest of the 3rd Battalion of the 168th Infantry, 34th Division, after a few companies of the 168th had been left, surrounded and almost alone, to stand and fight the Afrika Korps. He ended up a prisoner of the Germans, except for nine days escaped in February 1945, for over two years. Major General Charles Ryder, Commanding Officer of the 34th Infantry Division, wrote to Colonel Thomas Drake of the 168th in May 1945:
    “Knowing the conditions, I can only marvel at the gallantry of the 168th Infantry and yourself in the face of overwhelming odds. You, and you alone were fighting the entire German armored force of General Rommel and the delay you caused saved the Allied Forces in Southern Tunisia from disaster. Both of you wrote a page in American history for which you can be well proud. The blame for your defeat can only be layed on the shoulders of those who completely failed to come to your support as had been planned.”
    Which doesn’t have anything to do with Obama Conspiracies of any kind, but I’m just damned proud of what he did there, and I always think of it on the 17th of February. It’s worthy of some consideration. And he did vote for President Obama, and it is the open thread, so I beg your kind indulgences.

  279. Lupin says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:37 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: I think it is about a debate over a forgery when one of the participants is a convicted forger .. or something like that.

    My point exactly. We might as well listen to Madoff about investing.

    There is absolutely no point talking to Lucas Smith about any matters pertaining to Obama.

  280. Lupin says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:39 am  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Have you had the time, and do you have the discipline, to read through the comments I’ve posted today and to review the replies from your cohorts?

    Nearly all replies, aside from a single semi-attempt (at least he made a half effort though the report seems to gone over his head) at university style debate made by your cohort “Reality Check”, have been ad hominem attacks, mocking remarks, sarcasm, sneering, sexual diatribes, name calling.

    It seems that you and your cohorts are not able to carry a out a serious university style debate.

    You seem extremely dense.

    As i said, I’ll gladly listen to you about anything else, where your opinion might have some value, but not the Obama-related matters where you have already been convicted of fraud and proved yourself to be a constant liar.

    Tell us which Captain of the Enterprise is the best, and I;m game. Otherwise go away.

  281. Daniel says:
    February 17, 2013 at 4:47 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Seventy years ago today, my dad was trying to make his way off of Djebel Ksaira back to American lines with the rest of the 3rd Battalion of the 168th Infantry, 34th Division, after a few companies of the 168th had been left, surrounded and almost alone, to stand and fight the Afrika Korps. He ended up a prisoner of the Germans, except for nine days escaped in February 1945, for over two years.Major General Charles Ryder, Commanding Officer of the 34th Infantry Division, wrote to Colonel Thomas Drake of the 168th in May 1945:
    “Knowing the conditions, I can only marvel at the gallantry of the 168th Infantry and yourself in the face of overwhelming odds.You, and you alone were fighting the entire German armored force of General Rommel and the delay you caused saved the Allied Forces in Southern Tunisia from disaster.Both of you wrote a page in American history for which you can be well proud.The blame for your defeat can only be layed on the shoulders of those who completely failed to come to your support as had been planned.”
    Which doesn’t have anything to do with Obama Conspiracies of any kind, but I’m just damned proud of what he did there, and I always think of it on the 17th of February.It’s worthy of some consideration.And he did vote for President Obama, and it is the open thread, so I beg your kind indulgences.

    Certainly better than anything Lucas the forger has had to say

  282. bovril says:
    February 17, 2013 at 6:28 am  (Quote)

    So, Lukeybabes, based on your truly sad and pathetic straw man argument when do we see the proof that you are not a paedophile?

    Oops not going to happen as you have already posted and boasted about your taste in underage girls.

    In that case lets see the proof you haven`t posted that you molest little boys and ruminants….

  283. American Mzungu says:
    February 17, 2013 at 7:55 am  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Still waiting on proof you went to kenya

    Everyone I know who’s been to Africa would jump at the chance to tell you all about it and give you more information than you want.

  284. john says:
    February 17, 2013 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    I was thinking about a new question about Obama’s long form birth certificate he posted on the White House website. Birthers claim there is no seal on that birth certificate and you can’t see it. However, Obots have been able to show it using photo software that the seal is actually on the birth certificate.

    Birthers claim that the White House BC is something electronic that was created from a computer and NOT scanned.

    If Obama’s Birth Certificate is in fact REAL and based on a REAL copy that was SCANNED in, the birth certificate would have FINGER PRINTS on it.

    I think is pretty obvious that you can’t see FINGER PRINTS on the BC like the seal but they are there.

    I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

    Anyway, that was my thought for the day about Obama’s White House Long Form Birth Certificate.

    Does Obama’s Long Form White House Birth Certificate have FINGER PRINTS on it proving it is actually a real copy?

  285. richCares says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:25 pm  (Quote)

    john, that was really stupid, have you considered getting a mental health specialist to help you with your delusions, I’m sure your family would appreciate that. It’s time for you to kick the ghosts out of your life. By the way, the fingerprints of that woman reporter should be there, Savannah Guthrie says she felt and touched it and she took a photo that shows a faint outline of a seal, Call her! Then call a mental health specialist!

  286. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    Dear readers and associates of the Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new (02.17.2013) captivating report at the WOBIK blog!

    ‘Typography, Act Four: The Life-Story of a Kenya Chief. (Dr. Conspiracy please stop throwing chess pieces at me).

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/typography-act-four-the-life-story-of-a-kenya-chief-dr-conspiracy-please-stop-throwing-chess-pieces-at-me/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section at the blog. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

  287. aesthetocyst says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:52 pm  (Quote)

    john: I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

    Off-topic and fantastically dense.

    Hey, john, go answer your own question. Go and research what it takes to reveal fingerprints left on paper.

    And then go ponder how one would so about revealing any such prints on an image of a given piece paper.

    Meanwhile, I’ll be in the corner laughing.

    You must think the people involved have some very dirty fingers.

    Have you tried using a purty pink eraser on your monitor? Perhaps some Wite-Out? It comes in so many forms, one of them has to work! Keep thinking, you’ll come up with some way to make that nasssty paperses stop telling you Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Oh, look, a “digital camera eraser” … I have no idea what that is, but it sounds promising. 😉

  288. aesthetocyst says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

    Thanks for reminding me to not do so. Such reminder was not needed, but still thoughtful. Thanks, Lukes!

  289. ObiWanCannoli says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm  (Quote)

    John,

    Do you have any problem with Rafael (Ted) Cruz running for president?

    Here are some indisputable facts about him:
    -His mother is an American citizen.
    -His father was a Cuban citizen (at the time of Cruz’s birth).
    -Ted Cruz was born in Alberta, Canada and moved to the United Sates when he was 4 years old.

    Do you have any problem with Piyush (Bobby) Jindal running for president?
    -Both of his parents were Indian citizens at the time of his birth.
    -His mother was already six months pregnant with him when she arrived in USA. If you believe life starts at the time of conception, then Bobby Jindal is an Indian citizen at birth(no?).

    I hope I am not violating the blog’s policy but since John is so obsessed with proving president Obama wasn’t born in USA and not eligible to be a president, I couldn’t resist asking him some questions relevant to his post.

  290. Joey says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm  (Quote)

    john:
    I was thinking about a new question about Obama’s long form birth certificate he posted on the White House website.Birthers claim there is no seal on that birth certificate and you can’t see it. However, Obots have been able to show it using photo software that the seal is actually on the birth certificate.

    Birthers claim that the White House BC is something electronic that was created from a computer and NOT scanned.

    If Obama’s Birth Certificate is in fact REAL and based on a REAL copy that was SCANNED in, the birth certificate would have FINGER PRINTS on it.

    I think is pretty obvious that you can’t see FINGER PRINTS on the BC like the seal but they are there.

    I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

    Anyway, that was my thought for the day about Obama’s White House Long Form Birth Certificate.

    Does Obama’s Long Form White House Birth Certificate have FINGER PRINTS on it proving it is actually a real copy?

    Fingerprint identification software is not as persuasive as eyewitness testimony:
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 27, 2011
    HAWAI‘I HEALTH DEPARTMENT GRANTS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF ‘LONG FORM’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE
    HONOLULU – The Hawai’i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.
    “We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.”
    On April 22, 2011, President Obama sent a letter to Director Fuddy, requesting two certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth. Also on that day, Judith Corley, the President‟s personal attorney, made the same request in writing on behalf of the President. (Letters from President Obama and Ms. Corley are attached).
    On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama‟s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.

  291. CarlOrcas says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith: Please take a few minutes to review my new (02.17.2013) captivating report at the WOBIK blog!

    Lucas,

    How do you know when the book you have was printed? On your website you assert it “was published and printed in the year 1958.”

    The image of the copyright page from the book that you provide on your site simply says “First Published 1958”. That would seem to indicate that this may be a reprint from a later date.

    If that is the case that would seem to render all the esoterica about kerning moot.

    In any case the book does nothing – with or without kerning – to establish the validity of your Obama birth certificate.

    And, oh yes, since it’s obvious you have a scanner, and know how to use it, how about some images of the tickets and other travel documents from your trip to Kenya to secure the birth certificate.

  292. CarlOrcas says:
    February 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    john: Anyway, that was my thought for the day about Obama’s White House Long Form Birth Certificate.

    Wow!

    So, for the sake of discussion on a slow Sunday before a holiday Monday, let’s say the certificate that reporters were shown (and Savannah Guthrie had her photographer shoot video of) has fingerprints on it what will that tell you, John?

  293. Northland10 says:
    February 17, 2013 at 4:03 pm  (Quote)

    john:
    I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

    Anyway, that was my thought for the day about Obama’s White House Long Form Birth Certificate.

    Does Obama’s Long Form White House Birth Certificate have FINGER PRINTS on it proving it is actually a real copy?

    Oh my! I looked at the BC while laying back on the couch and there were fingerprints all over it. Funny though, I cannot see them when I look on my laptop. What do you think that might be, John?

  294. Rickey says:
    February 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    john:
    I was thinking about a new question about Obama’s long form birth certificate he posted on the White House website.Birthers claim there is no seal on that birth certificate and you can’t see it. However, Obots have been able to show it using photo software that the seal is actually on the birth certificate.

    Birthers claim that the White House BC is something electronic that was created from a computer and NOT scanned.

    If Obama’s Birth Certificate is in fact REAL and based on a REAL copy that was SCANNED in, the birth certificate would have FINGER PRINTS on it.

    I think is pretty obvious that you can’t see FINGER PRINTS on the BC like the seal but they are there.

    I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

    Anyway, that was my thought for the day about Obama’s White House Long Form Birth Certificate.

    Does Obama’s Long Form White House Birth Certificate have FINGER PRINTS on it proving it is actually a real copy?

    Brilliant idea!

    I suggest that you forward your ideas to Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo ASAP.

  295. Reality Check says:
    February 17, 2013 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    It looks like the big debate at Lucas’ blog is over and we missed it.

    aesthetocyst: Thanks for reminding me to not do so. Such reminder was not needed, but still thoughtful. Thanks, Lukes!

  296. donna says:
    February 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    don’t know if people saw this: The Annotated Zullo

    page 49 But here we are into a fifth year of birtherism, and not a single criminal case has been filed. Every birtherlawyer without exception has instead chosen the civil route, and lost every time. Similarly, the MCCCPhas now been sitting on at least some of their “evidence” for more than a year now, and has yet to even pump fake turning it over to any prosecutorial entity.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/116752480/The-Annotated-Zullo

  297. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 17, 2013 at 6:47 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Brilliant idea!

    I suggest that you forward your ideas to Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo ASAP.

    Perhaps they should print out the PDF and run it under a black light

  298. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 17, 2013 at 6:48 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Oh my!I looked at the BC while laying back on the couch and there were fingerprints all over it.Funny though, I cannot see them when I look on my laptop.What do you think that might be, John?

    You might want to hold up a black light to the screen on your laptop

  299. Reality Check says:
    February 17, 2013 at 7:29 pm  (Quote)

    john

    I understand that a modern technique of lifting fingerprints uses Cyanoacrylate vapors to react with the oils in fingerprints to make them visible. Cyanoacrylate is SuperGlue. So what you need to do is open up the LFBC on your computer and get a tube of SuperGlue. Squeeze out a generous portion on a dish and place it in front of your monitor. Cover the monitor and the dish with a plastic bag to trap in the vapors. I guarantee that the fingerprints will now be permanently displayed on your monitor.

    Of course this will completely trash your monitor but isn’t that a small price to pay for getting the Usurper out of office?

    john: I think is pretty obvious that you can’t see FINGER PRINTS on the BC like the seal but they are there.

  300. aesthetocyst says:
    February 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm  (Quote)

    Everything on my tablet has tons of fingerprints—what are those people over at Kindle up to, anyway? Even weirder, all the fingerprints appear to be the same. Are all of their workers clones?

    So long as they keep wiping right off, I guess I won’t bother to complain.

  301. The Magic M says:
    February 18, 2013 at 4:39 am  (Quote)

    john: I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

    […]

    Does Obama’s Long Form White House Birth Certificate have FINGER PRINTS on it proving it is actually a real copy?

    I don’t get the point.

    If there are no fingerprints discernable on the PDF scan, it doesn’t prove there are none on the original. (Besides, given that the scan was made off a certified copy of the BC, it’s more likely any such fingerprints would come from the certified copy which was handled by several people, not from the original.)
    Therefore the lack of fingerprints would not suffice as even circumstantial evidence that “no original exists”.

    OTOH, if you could find fingerprints that made it through to the PDF scan and even if you could rule out these came from the certified copy instead of the original, for birthers this still wouldn’t prove an original exists as they would claim “they printed out the PDF (which was the original source) and re-scanned it” or whatnot.
    Or they would claim it doesn’t prove the original was actually created in 1961, or was not falsified during the copying or scanning process, or whatnot.

    Either way, fingerprints would not be any useful evidence for either side. Do you honestly believe there are birthers who go “I have doubts if there really is an original, but if somebody can show me the PDF has traces of fingerprints, those doubts will go away”? This would be the elusive “honest birther” that is harder to find than the Higgs boson. (Maybe we could build a birther accelerator that finds such a birther by accelerating other birthers to the speed of light and having them crash into one another? Nice idea…. ;))

  302. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    But what if the fingerprints were bloody? 😉

  303. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    I have found an unreality any birfer can love:

    In the virtual version of Hawaii depicted in Test Drive Unlimited 2*, there is a generic apartment building where Kapiolani Medical Center should be. Punahou Street is not where Google Maps would have you believe it is.

    And 6085 Kalanianaole Highway? Well, there is a house there, but nothing like what Obama’s people have told us to expect.

    The game is a ridiculous steaming pile, like Sims Racing for 10 year olds. Between the gameplay and the birfer-friendly municipal engineering, I highly recommend it to birfers everywhere!

  304. justlw says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    The Twitter feed is a great way to keep up on the latest Orlynews. She currently haz a proud on:

    “legalnews.findlaw.com, one of the 3 largest legal research engines is reporting on the latest development in my SCOTUS case” [link to a search result that finds her press release]

    That’s great. Google, the largest search engine in the world, is reporting that Nazis have a secret base in Antarctica.

  305. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    Dear readers and associates of The Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new effectively absorbing report at the WOBIK blog!

    “Letterpress kerning: Special edition for blockheads (e.g., Dr. Conspiracy) with diminished or reduced mental endowments.”

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/lucas-daniel-smith/letterpress-kerning-special-edition-for-blockheads-e-g-dr-conspiracy-with-diminished-or-reduced-mental-endowments/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

  306. JD Reed says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:43 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith:
    Dear readers and associates of The Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new effectively absorbing report at the WOBIK blog!

    “Letterpress kerning: Special edition for blockheads (e.g., Dr. Conspiracy) with diminished or reduced mental endowments.”

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/lucas-daniel-smith/letterpress-kerning-special-edition-for-blockheads-e-g-dr-conspiracy-with-diminished-or-reduced-mental-endowments/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

    You’re one to be calling people names, considering your background. I’d bet my life savings that Doc woould trounce you in an IQ and general kn owledge test, so you’re hardly one to call someone a blockhead.

  307. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm  (Quote)

    JD Reed: You’re one to be calling people names, considering your background. I’d bet my life savings that Doc woould trounce you in an IQ and general kn owledge test, so you’re hardly one to call someone a blockhead.

    I accept your IQ test challenge. Dr. and I can take the test live on your cohort’s radio show, RC Radio or Reality Check Radio or whatever it is called. My telephone number is 319-804-0440. I’m ready.

  308. CarlOrcas says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:01 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith:
    Dear readers and associates of The Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new effectively absorbing report at the WOBIK blog!

    “Letterpress kerning: Special edition for blockheads (e.g., Dr. Conspiracy) with diminished or reduced mental endowments.”

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/lucas-daniel-smith/letterpress-kerning-special-edition-for-blockheads-e-g-dr-conspiracy-with-diminished-or-reduced-mental-endowments/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

    Before I even consider talking about today’s missive from you how about you responding to yesterday’s messages? Let’s try this one to start with………………..

    CarlOrcas February 17, 2013 at 2:39 pm (Quote) #

    Lucas D. Smith: Please take a few minutes to review my new (02.17.2013) captivating report at the WOBIK blog!

    Lucas,

    How do you know when the book you have was printed? On your website you assert it “was published and printed in the year 1958.”

    The image of the copyright page from the book that you provide on your site simply says “First Published 1958″. That would seem to indicate that this may be a reprint from a later date.

    If that is the case that would seem to render all the esoterica about kerning moot.

    In any case the book does nothing – with or without kerning – to establish the validity of your Obama birth certificate.

    And, oh yes, since it’s obvious you have a scanner, and know how to use it, how about some images of the tickets and other travel documents from your trip to Kenya to secure the birth certificate.

  309. Northland10 says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:20 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith:
    Please take a few minutes to review my new effectively absorbing report at the WOBIK blog!

    More absorbing than Charmin?

  310. Reality Check says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:32 pm  (Quote)

    OK, I am game. I get to make up the test, right? Here is a sneak peak at question number one. It is a sort of a screening test. If you can’t answer this one then I do not see the point of continuing.

    Which of the the following stories of Obama’s birth is more probable?

    A. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because he has published two different certified copies of his birth certificate, two different Hawaii administrations have attested and verified their authenticity, there were contemporary newspaper accounts of the birth, and a state department investigator from the 1960’s investigated and found he was born in Hawaii.

    B. Barack Obama was born in Kenya because a convicted forger posted a certificate on the internet with fake looking footprints with no ridges and that showed he was born in Mombasa but it had a misspelled name for the hospital chief administrator who was actually not even the chief administrator at the time the birth certificate was dated. It also had the wrong date format. The convicted forger has had three years to provide proof he was in Kenya at the time but has failed to do so.

    So you and Doc can both post your answers. The ones with the correct answer will be invited on the show. Best of luck to you both!

    Lucas D. Smith: I accept your IQ test challenge.

  311. CarlOrcas says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:40 pm  (Quote)

    Lucas D. Smith:
    Dear readers and associates of The Obama Conspiracy Theories website,

    Please take a few minutes to review my new effectively absorbing report at the WOBIK blog!

    “Letterpress kerning: Special edition for blockheads (e.g., Dr. Conspiracy) with diminished or reduced mental endowments.”

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/lucas-daniel-smith/letterpress-kerning-special-edition-for-blockheads-e-g-dr-conspiracy-with-diminished-or-reduced-mental-endowments/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

    Once you have answered yesterday’s question which I just reposted I will discuss this one with you but in preparation I have one thought and one question:

    The thought: No one is going to engage you on your website where they have to provide you with information that can the misused.

    The question: What is the source, or the sources, of the pictures you posted of the various pieces of type?

    Thanks.

  312. Lucas D. Smith says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:47 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Before I even consider talking about today’s missive from you how about you responding to yesterday’s messages? Let’s try this one to start with………………..

    CarlOrcas February 17, 2013 at 2:39 pm(Quote) #

    Lucas D. Smith: Please take a few minutes to review my new (02.17.2013) captivating report at the WOBIK blog!

    Lucas,

    How do you know when the book you have was printed? On your website you assert it “was published and printed in the year 1958.”

    The image of the copyright page from the book that you provide on your site simply says “First Published 1958″. That would seem to indicate that this may be a reprint from a later date.

    If that is the case that would seem to render all the esoterica about kerning moot.

    In any case the book does nothing – with or without kerning – to establish the validity of your Obama birth certificate.

    And, oh yes, since it’s obvious you have a scanner, and know how to use it, how about some images of the tickets and other travel documents from your trip to Kenya to secure the birth certificate.

    “First Published” is the same things as saying “First Edition”. I’ve been collecting old books and paper antiques for since I was teenager.

    There are no other editions for the book (The Life-Story of a Kenya Chief).

    Furthemore, a guy like you doesn’t even know the difference between edition and printing.

    The “type” (typography and kerning) is not changed in “printings”. The “type” is only, changed, if ever, in different “editions”.

    And even then it doesn’t have to change, especially if a book is more than 50 years old (kind of gives it an antique feeling to read and old book with the old “type” (letterpress) even if it was published yesterday.

    I’m happy that you learned some things today and if you get a change please thank me. I was also once a high school teacher, Sociology.

    1. “Printings” and “Editions” are not the same thing. “Type” does not change in different “printings”.

    2. First Published means First Edition.

    3. There are no other editions for the book, “The Life-Story of a Kenya Chief”. There is only the 1958 edition.

  313. Majority Will says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:17 pm  (Quote)

    The Mary/Merry bullsh!t is too pathetic to resurrect. His birther targets may be fooled but that’s only out of desperation.

  314. Majority Will says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:50 pm  (Quote)

    bobj: Wow. The fantasy world this guy lives in must be awesome. I wonder if the sky is magenta.

    I’m not sure if this applies but doesn’t a true sociopath have no conscience?

  315. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 2:26 am  (Quote)

    I once took a standardized general knowledge test and I got all the questions right. The test administrator told me that I was the first person in all his years administering the test to get them all right. The last question was: who wrote Faust?

    However, if you threw in sports or pop culture, I’d be lost, and I am not smarter than a 5th grader.

    JD Reed: You’re one to be calling people names, considering your background. I’d bet my life savings that Doc woould trounce you in an IQ and general kn owledge test, so you’re hardly one to call someone a blockhead.

  316. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 2:33 am  (Quote)

    I’ve never heard of such a thing being done.

    john: I wonder if there is any photo software out there that could pick the finger prints on the birth certificate. It would have to be a pretty sensitive software.

  317. JPotter says:
    February 19, 2013 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve never heard of such a thing being done.

    The fingerprint john is looking for has been found.

    Click here for an extremely magnified detail view:

  318. RetiredLawyer says:
    February 19, 2013 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    Publias,

    While much of what you say is commonly asserted in the right wing blogosphere, much of it is just downright not true.

    1. On 9/12 the day after a bunch of Saudis flew planes into the Twin Towers and the pentagon, Bush was already planning to invade Iraq.

    2. Anyone who has actually lived in the middle east would have informed Bush that:
    A. Saddam lied about nearly everything, so don’t believe him.
    B. Saddam had no reason to actually use weapons against anyone except his own people and his traditional enemy, Iran.
    C. The Iraq army was the only entity in the entire country that actually worked somewhat, everything else didn’t work at all. (and firing everyone from the army was therefore a really, really bad idea.)
    D. The “honeymoon” after the Iraqi army was defeated would be around a month, and then everyone would start going after the Americans.
    E. Nearly everyone in Iraq was brought up to hate the US, Israel and the West, and almost none of them were going to change in a few days, weeks, or decades. Hasn’t happened yet. You know that Iraq still has not revoked its declaration of war against Israel, from 1947?

    F. Suitcase nukes? Even if Iraq had a weapons program they would not have been able to make a “suitcase” nuke. Maybe the US has one or two, but no one else does.

    G. Anthrax? Again, weaponizing anthrax is not easy, and why would someone fly over a city with it? Sending it through the mail works much better, as was shown by a US Government Employee.

    H. In overthrowing Saddam the US directly killed around 75,000 people, about half civilians. In badly managing the post invasion around 1,000,000 have been killed, several million displaced, and while the outcome is still not clear, it appears we will end up replacing one dictator with three dictators: one for the Kurds, one for Bagdad and the center, and one in the south.

    I. And, lastly, AND MOST IMPORTANT, the US gave up one of its cherished beliefs: that the US would never start a war.

    Publius: No. I note that other countries’ assessments concurred with our own.

    It’s our business if there is reason to believe that person may be plotting things like putting suitcase nukes in the harbors of our major coastal cities, or flying crop dusters with a few hundred pounds of anthrax over our major cities. You’d better believe it’s our business.

    Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I was actively following what was publicly known of Saddam’s mindset, capabilities and intentions towards America in the months prior to 9/11. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I was versed in what he might well be able to do to us with relatively small quantities of renegade nukes, anthrax, or weaponized smallpox.

    It was frankly a relief to me when the American bombs started falling on Iraq, and when US boots hit the ground.

    If your neighbor is a known homicidal nutjob who is confirmed to have slaughtered people by the thousands in the past, using weapons of mass destruction, and all the available information suggests that he has, or at least very well may have, plans to blow your house up, you don’t wait for the explosion to rip your family’s limbs from their bodies. You eliminate the threat.

    If the current US President ruled the United States as a dictator, and if he and his sons roamed the streets picking up women to rape at will, and randomly fed people into the plastic shredding machines for their own amusement, and oppressed the entire nation and caused us all to live in fear for our lives, and did things like saying, “I’m having a bad day,” and then lined up captured members of those who opposed him, and went through and personally took a pistol and slaughtered them by the dozens, and then said, “I feel better now,” you can bet that I would welcome whatever power came in and overthrew such a son of a b*tch.

    As did the Iraqi people, by the millions.

  319. CarlOrcas says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer: And, lastly, AND MOST IMPORTANT, the US gave up one of its cherished beliefs: that the US would never start a war.

    To our everlasting shame.

  320. JPotter says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer: the US gave up one of its cherished beliefs: that the US would never start a war.

    If only that had been the first time.

    C’mon now, that’s quite a white wash.

    Trumping up affronts into an excuse to make war is a grand ‘Merican™ tradition.

  321. donna says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer:

    not to mention the bush/blair memo from 2003

  322. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    Looks like I have fallen into a debate on natural born citizen over here:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/this-will-be-dealt-with/

  323. Scientist says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Looks like I have fallen into a debate on natural born citizen over here:http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/this-will-be-dealt-with/

    Just tell them there is no requirement that the President be a natural born citizen, since the clause was inserted into the Constitution by the fraudulent actions of John Jay, and is thus invalid. I believe that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

  324. JPotter says:
    February 19, 2013 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Looks like I have fallen into a debate on natural born citizen over here:

    Do you claim ownership of all comments posted here? If so, you could loan out all of Gard’s work to them. In its entirety of course.

    Jacobson is quite a self-important guy. Looked into this and that all alone, etc. Gimme a break.

    Good luck over there.

  325. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t claim ownership of comments except my own. Copyright is for authors, and I’m not the author.

    JPotter: Do you claim ownership of all comments posted here?

  326. Northland10 says:
    February 19, 2013 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t claim ownership of comments except my own. Copyright is for authors, and I’m not the author.

    I’m not sure I want to claim ownership of my comments. I would have to be responsible for what I said.

  328. J.D. Sue says:
    February 19, 2013 at 11:55 pm  (Quote)

    FYI, last Friday, the U.S. Attorney–on behalf of the federal defendants–filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in Grinols.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/126254966/EDCA-ECF-71-2013-02-15-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-Federal-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

    The U.S. Attorney, of course, is not representing the President since Taitz insists she is suing him in his individual capacity. I don’t think Taitz has managed to serve Obama with summons.

  329. The Magic M says:
    February 20, 2013 at 5:10 am  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer: Nearly everyone in Iraq was brought up to hate the US, Israel and the West, and almost none of them were going to change in a few days, weeks, or decades. Hasn’t happened yet.

    Indoctrination is a tough thing to overcome. My father grew up during the Third Reich and even 70 years later, he’s still an anti-Semite and regime apologist at heart.

  331. misha marinsky says:
    February 20, 2013 at 3:49 pm  (Quote)

    @Publius: religion + GOP = fascism

    God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

    “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq .” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.'”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

    Iraq was about oil. Idi Amin was 100x worse, and an international criminal. Ford did not send in the Marines, because there wasn’t any oil. Cheney orchestrated Iraq, for his Halliburton buddies.

    The neocons pushed all of W’s evangelical buttons. The perfect storm.

  332. misha marinsky says:
    February 21, 2013 at 2:34 pm  (Quote)

    Readers here know I have been saying Orly is driven because she believes Obama is bad for Israel, and she is a fascist in the actual meaning:

    Complete story:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/prominent-hagel-detractor-endorses-fascistic-vision-of-israel/273349/

    Prominent Hagel Detractor Endorses Fascistic Vision of Israel

    I bring this up to note the remarkable fact that Mr. Shapiro, who has positioned himself as a stalwart defender of Israel and of the Jewish people, has expressed views that place him squarely in the fascist camp.

    In a column published in 2003, Shapiro explicitly endorsed the idea of forcibly expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank. This was the position of the extremist Meir Kahane, who was banned by the Israeli Supreme Court from participating in Israeli politics because of his racist views. Here is an excerpt from one of Shapiro’s columns, entitled “Transfer is Not a Dirty Word,” which, to the best of my knowledge, he has never renounced, not that it would matter particularly much:

    The Jews don’t realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. There are no gas chambers here. It’s not genocide; it’s transfer. It’s not Hitler; it’s Churchill.

  333. Arthur says:
    February 21, 2013 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Readers here know I have been saying Orly is driven because she believes Obama is bad for Israel,

    I think your assertion makes sense. For your consideration, here is a David Solway, “a Canadian poet, educational theorist, travel writer and literary critic of Jewish descent,” who, in addition to his teaching and literary efforts, is known “for his polemical outspokenness, especially in defence of Zionism, George W. Bush and the war on terror.”1

    Solway also seems to have come out as a birther:

    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2418/David-Solway-The-Birth-Certificate-and-the-Conspiracy-of-Suppression-Pt-1.aspx

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Solway

  334. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 21, 2013 at 3:14 pm  (Quote)

    Orly has posted some correspondence with the state lawyers in Grinols. The state will be withdrawing its motion to dismiss scheduled for hearing in March, and filing a new motion to dismiss based on the amended complaint. Orly conveniently doesn’t mention the second part in her headline.

  335. Thomas Brown says:
    February 21, 2013 at 3:22 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.”

    So, George… does that mean the Big Guy has no problem with North Korea? Said nothing about those fellers, did he? You know… the ones now trying to gain intercontinental nuclear weapons, and who have sworn to accomplish the destruction of America?

  336. Arthur says:
    February 21, 2013 at 3:56 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Readers here know I have been saying Orly is driven because she believes Obama is bad for Israel, and she is a fascist in the actual meaning:

    And then there’s this:

    “Barack Obama to receive Israel’s presidential medal of distinction

    “A statement said that the honour recognised Obama’s ‘unique and significant contribution to strengthening the State of Israel and the security of its citizens.'”

  337. J.D. Sue says:
    February 21, 2013 at 5:49 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: misha marinsky: Readers here know I have been saying Orly is driven because she believes Obama is bad for Israel, and she is a fascist in the actual meaning:
    And then there’s this:
    “Barack Obama to receive Israel’s presidential medal of distinction
    “A statement said that the honour recognised Obama’s ‘unique and significant contribution to strengthening the State of Israel and the security of its citizens.’”

    —-

    I know many people in Israel, and people in the US who support Israel, who think President Obama has been great. Of course Israel, like the US, has its share of far right wing nut jobs who claim that only they are true patriots. Note that Taitz now calls Shimon Peres (Israel’s beloved President who has had a long, outstanding career in Israel’s founding, military, and government) a “decrepit old socialist” because he is recognizing President Obama’s security efforts. (Note that Israel has always been a socialist country, though the right wing nut jobs pretend otherwise).

  338. donna says:
    February 21, 2013 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    best roar of the day: taitz tried to fax 137 pages to shimon peres “advising him that he is about to give a medal of distinction to a criminal with forged and stolen IDs”

    the result from taitz: Interesting fact: when I tried to fax the letter to President of Israel Shimon Peres, there was a message in Hebrew from the phone company that the fax is blocked. Why would the state department of Israel post on their web site the fax number, which is blocked?

    can’t take a hint, orly?

  339. misha marinsky says:
    February 21, 2013 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Why would the state department of Israel post on their web site the fax number, which is blocked?

    Everything is being translated into Esperanto.

    True story: Esperanto was invented by a Jewish linguist.

  340. The Magic M says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:34 am  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: Note that Taitz now calls Shimon Peres (Israel’s beloved President who has had a long, outstanding career in Israel’s founding, military, and government) a “decrepit old socialist”

    She tends to speak/post before she thinks. First she calls Peres a “decrepit old socialist” for giving Obama a medal, *then* she thinks if she sends her pile of poo to the same “decrepit old socialist”, he will turn birther and go “thank you Orly, of course I will forget what you said about me and not give a medal to your evil ineligible President”… *facepalm*

    misha marinsky: Everything is being translated into Esperanto.

    I would’ve preferred Loglan. 😉
    I love languages and speak a few but never got around to learning one that doesn’t use roman letters (Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese, Chinese…) – would’ve loved to, but the learning curve is too steep.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.