What’s he hiding?
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for, ” says Obi Wan Kenobe, using a Jedi mind trick to cloud the mind of the Imperial Storm Troopers in Star Wars Episode IV.
Yesterday Zapem commented over at The Right Side of Life: “Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.”
Anybody who has spent any time here knows that this is a heavily researched web site. I presume Zapem’s comment is one of those Jedi mind tricks attempting to make folks think that facts they are looking for aren’t here. What’s Zapem trying to hide?
Dr. Conspiracy
Thinking back over the hundreds of hours spent on developing this web site, I acknowledge many contributors, both commenters on this web site, and researchers elsewhere. I was not the one who found the US State Department documents that exploded the travel ban to Pakistan myth. I was not the one that found the New York case, Lynch v. Clarke, that opined that citizen parents were not required to be president. I didn’t find Obama’s birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper and I didn’t find the full version of the grandmother tape. But when I did hear and read these things, I documented them every one before they appeared on this web site.
When no copy of A. P. Hinman’s book “How a British Subject became president of the United States” could be found in the Internet, I was the one who obtained a copy through inter library loan, scanned it, and put it there. I was the one who found the natural born citizenship language in the 1732 Georgia Charter. I found the truth about Sun Yat-Sen’s fraudulent birth certificate (that there were 2 sworn affidavits in addition to his own affidavit). I went through over 200 cases downloaded from Westlaw and published information about relevant natural born citizenship material in my Great Mother of all Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages (itself a major effort in digging out documentation and selecting links to the primary sources). I did the legwork to find the English-language version of Indonesian Law No. 62, misquoted by Phil Berg in Hollister v. Soetoro. I was the first one to publish the results of the case Essek v. Obama. I’ve been down to the library squinting at century-old microfilm copies of The New York Times, and bugging librarians from Kansas to Minnesota.
NObama web sites have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep me from commenting on their blogs. What are they hiding?
While I’m asking, “what’s he hiding”, let’s talk about censorship and banning. I visit various blogs that carry negative content on Obama’s eligibility to be president. What I post there is abbreviated versions of kinds of things I write about in articles here. I point out the incredible implausibility of some of the things I see. I guess it started on Orly’s old blog. They deleted what I said, but then turned around and incorporated it into one of their articles ridiculing it. The ridicule was OK, but they removed the attribution, so no one could link back to the source. They banned me over at FreeRepublic.com. Orly told me to “go away”.
NObama blogs shout about O-Bots, and paid Obama operatives (no one I know has any connection with Obama’s campaign or administration, nor is any one paid). But that’s OK too. It’s their blog. But the more reasonable and well-documented my comment, the more likely it is to be deleted. What are they trying to hide?
While not a scientific survery, I have observed that most nObama web sites censor comments. They don’t seem to feel that rational discussion with people who disagree with them serves their agenda. I am a firm believer that anyone who runs a web site has the right to control its content. There is no right that I have to post a message on someone else’s private web site. Nevertheless, I keep coming back to the question: what are they hiding?
Phil, over at the Right Side of Life spends a lot of time defending Orly the hate spreader. Orly’s latest delusions on her “meeting” with Justice Roberts are defended by Phil as “moving the birther” momentum forward. Both Orly and Phil need to invest in General Foods.(makers of Kool Aid)
They’re hiding the truth, that they are fuelled by hate & fear so any accusation is ok whether true or not. It was interesting seeing how they were trying to twist the story about those arrested at the C. information office last week, without reading to find out an investigation was on since march 08, they were already accusing Obama of being behind it. Now they’re quiet as its not as they want it to be !!!
Early reports from reputable news sources had a complete and accurate story.
Right wing blogs all gaga over Orly, “She did it”, “She Made a breakthrough”, “She got Roberts to promise to read the babblings of a psychotic “. They actually accepted Orly’s distorted version of her meeting with Roberts. The hate Obama so much that they believe her crap. You may recall her comments about Roberts just before SCOTUS denied her case.
Orly says Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress and the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.” Then Orly was given the “denied” , what a great comic relief.
This latest gaga may be another “full-throated challenge”, only a dentist would say “full-throated”!
In the news SCOTUS requesting additional trash cans to handle Orly’s case documentation.
Using the same “logic” that allows the birthers to claim that there is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, they can claim that some of the most extensively-researched writing simply does not exist.
Zapem should get an Ostrich award for being able to keep his head in the sand so well.
Or, if you prefer, he could win the “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you award.”
Denial: it’s not just a river in Egypt.
Was that post removed? I’d made a reply to it, pointing out that I doubted Orly’s story about the “Secret Service” since the Secret Service doesn’t provide protection for the judicial branch. That’s the US Marhsal Service that does that.
Just went over there to see if my comment had been approved, and now I can’t find the post.
k
It’s not “What are they hiding?” It’s “What are they afraid of?”
What they’re engaging in with all of the intolerance and censorship is nothing more than intellectual cowardice.
They’re cowards. It’s that simple. And they’re not hiding it at all. Their cowardice is brazen. They celebrate it. The wallow in it. They try to infect others with it.
There’s nothing being hidden here at all.
k
“I need info on Magic Plumbing aka Burlew Plumbing and the lean they had on the house of Kelly Mc Crum Robinson- Michelle Obama’s sister in law. I also need actual news paper articles about Magic Plumbing doing maintenance of sprinkler system in the World trade Center on 09.05.2001”
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/15/thank-you-and-lets-keep-working.aspx
Orly is trying link Obama to 9/11. Bingo!
Phil has announced that he’s going to take a more active approach to scrubbing overly sarcastic comments.
The path to censorship has begun.
I left the following comment over on RSOL. It’s still awaiting moderation. Not sure it will ever see the light of day over there though.
Donofrio will be afforded no such luxury in the DC District Court. If he is so incapable of defending his own arguments on a blog, to the point that he has to resort to censoring any comments which disagree with him, how on earth does he intend to defend his arguments in an actual court of law?
It seems rather obvious that what Donofrio lacks faith in isn’t the “tactics” of other attorneys, but rather his own arguments, which is why he has to resort to outright censorship in order to defend them.
And given his arguments, I can see why he wouldn’t have much faith in them.
He says himself:
That’s absolutely correct.
Article II, Section 4 specifically states:
Further, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment:
And Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments:
So to recap.
The Constitution of the United States expressly states that the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall only be removed from office upon impeachment and subsequent conviction.
The Constitution of the United States also expressly states that only the House of Representatives shall have the power of impeachment and only Senate shall have the power to try impeachments.
Donofrio’s argument that the Congress can delegate these exclusive Constitutional powers to another branch of government by way of simple legislation doesn’t even pass the giggle test, and makes a complete mockery of the principle of separation of powers which forms the very foundation of our Constitution.
It’s no wonder that Donofrio has to resort to the vulgarity of censorship.
k
Hey doc, where is the “Evidence” that was supposed to be in your mailbox?
Not long before he’s implicated in the Kennedy assassination as well. I hear was a remarkable marksman at age 2.
It will be here soon.
Can’t wait!
What’s the rush Heavy, you certainly have taken your time to support your assertions…
And there’s this…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/16/bill-posey-sponsors-presi_n_175277.html
To what assertions do you refer? I’ve only asked questions that have gone unaswered.
Statements such as
Sigh
Pingback: Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored
Well, between Ed Hale & Larry Wells, Bigfoot is already covered.
We know what they are hiding Dr. C, and believe me by now they know you and AXJ very well…just so happens we have become #1 on google and around the world.
AXJ-Kenya will be posting some interesting docs today via AXJ-Trinidad and Tobogo…don’t ask me if it is Lucas again, I just don’t know.