The occasional open thread 2.0

Posted on August 3, 2010 by Dr. Conspiracy

The old occasional open thread is sort of long now so…

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.

View all posts by Dr. Conspiracy →

This entry was posted in Open Mike. Bookmark the permalink.

475 Responses to The occasional open thread 2.0

Sean says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:35 pm Sean(Quote)

I’ll get this started right.

WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!
jamese777 says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:42 pm jamese777(Quote)

Sean: I’ll get this started right.WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!

I’ll answer this right: ITS AT THE HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH!
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:45 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Sean: I’ll get this started right.WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!

You can easily find it on the internet with a Google search. And don’t tell me:

a) He put a forged one on the internet when he had every right to a legal one from the state of Hawaii since they said they have seen his ORIGINAL birth information and that “it’s just a fact” that he was born in Hawaii.

b) He went to extra expense, time and trouble to have someone forge a birth certificate when he could have gotten a legal one with 15 bucks in 3 days from the state of Hawaii.

c) He got a legal one from the state of Hawaii and decided to alter it before putting it on the internet for the masses to see because he thought it would be funny.

d) The state of Hawaii has not prosecuted him for violating a state law that makes it a crime to forge a Hawaiian birth certificate because they are part of some massive conspiracy to cover something up.

e) The State of Hawaii went to all the trouble of passing a state law to disregard repeated requests for something that, according to you, doesn’t exist.
Sean says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:58 pm Sean(Quote)

I guess my subtle joke was lost on everyone. I apologize.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 4, 2010 at 12:03 am FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Sean: I guess my subtle joke was lost on everyone. I apologize.

I kind of thought it had a touch of sarcasm to it, Sean, but wasn’t sure.
Keith says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:22 am Keith(Quote)

Anybody interested in working on an “Index to Birther Claims”?

The idea would be similar to Index to Creationist Claims
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 6:11 am misha(Quote)

Keith: Anybody interested in working on an “Index to Birther Claims”?

Start with this: http://www.venganza.org/
Lupin says:

August 4, 2010 at 6:27 am Lupin(Quote)

Because I don’t want anyone to think that I somehow set France above or apart from the desperate GOP racist shenanigans you are all familiar with, I submit for your consideration this excellent DKos diary about our own similar problems:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/4/890124/-Sarkozy:-Evil-little-thug-

As a commenter wrote, “when the going get tough, the tough get racist.”

I am however pleased to note that this despicable attempt by president Sarkozy has created a virtual wildfire of vociferous opposition and may well backfire politically. We’ll see.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Keith: Anybody interested in working on an “Index to Birther Claims”?

We tried to get a Wiki going, but the participation was low. There is really a lot to do on the subject.
Black Lion says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:27 am Black Lion(Quote)

This is crazy….Tea party Comics….Of course they show the world how openminded the entire tea party movement is….You have to see it…Ridiculous….

Creator Of Racist ‘Tea Party Comix’ Speaks: I Do Hate Obama, But I’m No Racist

“The creator of the now-infamous “Tea Party Comix” has spoken. The response, sent to Comics With Problems’ Ethan Persoff last week, ends speculation by some that the black-and-white comics featuring a racist caricature of President Obama might be a liberal parody gone wrong (or just misunderstood). In the rambling email sent early Thursday morning, the unnamed creator of the comics (the name was withheld by Persoff) suggests that they were created out of anger at Obama, but — according to the creator — not out of any intention to make a racial statement.

“I do not understand the connection with ‘big ears’ and ‘racism’, and I do not understand how a ‘dark face’ implies racism,” the creator of the comics wrote to Persoff. “The accusation of ‘Hate’ is true, but it is the hate of an IDEOLGY [sic], not a of race of people….. I understand that the ideology has captured 80 or 90% of the race(s) in question, but it is STILL a AN IDEOLOGY and NOT a “race” that this comic book attacks.”

Despite the denial of any racist intent, the creator told Persoff the comics are just too hot to handle and are being removed from sale.

A number of tea party leaders disavowed the comic books last week, claiming that they’re an obvious plant by tea party opponents.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/tea_party_comix_creator_speaks_theyre_not_racist_t.php?ref=fpb

The actual site….

http://www.ep.tc/intro-archive065.html
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:33 am Majority Will(Quote)

Happy 49th birthday, Mr. President.
Black Lion says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:54 am Black Lion(Quote)

Glenn Beck…

UPDATE: Beck removes favorite Twitter posts including most recent from White Nationalist “forum”
August 04, 2010 1:01 am ET by Karl Frisch

Earlier this evening I noted that Glenn Beck had marked a Twitter post from a “White Nationalists” website as one of his favorites:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008040001
Lupin says:

August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm Lupin(Quote)

The “we hate the ideology not the race” is merely another canard. They hate the ideology AND the race. But as we have established, several Republican presidents had social economic policies to the left of Obama’s (Nixon and Bush-I to name but two) and the same people who claim to hate “only” the ideology never attacked them.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Black Lion: Glenn Beck…UPDATE: Beck removes favorite Twitter posts including most recent from White Nationalist “forum”August 04, 2010 1:01 am ET by Karl FrischEarlier this evening I noted that Glenn Beck had marked a Twitter post from a “White Nationalists” website as one of his favorites:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008040001

Well Beck was probably thinking “white culture” Obama hates I must like.
Black Lion says:

August 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Lupin: The “we hate the ideology not the race” is merely another canard. They hate the ideology AND the race. But as we have established, several Republican presidents had social economic policies to the left of Obama’s (Nixon and Bush-I to name but two) and the same people who claim to hate “only” the ideology never attacked them.

Lupin, agreed 100%….Everytime the tea partiers or the birthers are shown evidence of the racism in their ranks, instead of repudiating it they try and claim it was some sort of Obama plant to discredit them or that is just a small minority…Interesting….
Black Lion says:

August 4, 2010 at 12:32 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Well Beck was probably thinking “white culture” Obama hates I must like.

Beck will probably claim he was set up by the Obama conspiracy and the socialist/communist/facist/nazi liberals trying to silence him….
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm Majority Will(Quote)

CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.

Posted: August 4th, 2010 11:25 AM ET

Washington (CNN) – It’s surely not what the leader of the free world wants for his birthday. But, for a stubborn group of Americans, conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birthplace are the gifts that keep on giving.

The president celebrates his 49th birthday Wednesday. On the same day, a new national poll indicates some Americans continue to doubt the president was born in the United States. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more than a quarter of the public have doubts about Obama’s citizenship, with 11 percent saying Obama was definitely not born in the United States and another 16 percent saying the president was probably not born in the country.

Forty-two percent of those questioned say they have absolutely no doubts that the president was born in the U.S., while 29-percent say he “probably” was.

“Not surprisingly, there are big partisan differences, although a majority of Republicans thinks Obama was definitely or probably born here,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Eighty-five percent of Democrats say that Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., compared to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say he was probably not born here, and another 14 percent of Republicans say he was definitely not born in the U.S.”

The theory that the president was not born in the U.S. has nagged him since the 2008 presidential campaign. A group of true believers, known as “Birthers,” have pressed the idea that Obama was born in another country – some say in his father’s homeland of Kenya. By their claims, Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.

On the president’s birthday, some websites bent on advancing the theory are wishing Obama a “Happy Birther Day.” And some of the president’s staunchest critics are fanning the flames.

On Tuesday, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh quipped on his program, “They tell us August 4th is the birthday. We haven’t seen any proof of that!”

Yet there is ample evidence that defies Limbaugh’s statement and the beliefs of the 27-percent of Americans that, according to the poll, doubt the president’s birthplace. CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors.

Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a “certificate of live birth.” And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.

The White House has called doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii “fictional nonsense.”

But questions persist. So much that in May, Hawaii passed a law that allows state agencies to ignore repeated requests to view government records, including the president’s birth document. Hawaii’s Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed the legislation into law.

Around that time, Lingle – who campaigned for Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008 – criticized questions about the president’s birth.

In a WABC interview before signing the legislation, Lingle said, “…I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health.” Lingle added, ” … The president was in fact born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact.”

“It’s been established he was born here,” the governor continued. “I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a, you know, natural born American citizen … but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now.”

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted July 16-21, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

– CNN’s Alexander Mooney, Paul Steinhauser and Sam Feist contributed to this report

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/?fbid=CaBph5mecCU
Smokin Joe says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:50 pm Smokin Joe(Quote)

Majority Will: Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a “certificate of live birth.” And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.

Why does the media find a need to lie?

The document that appears on a number of websites (i.e. Daily Kos, Factcheck.org, & Fightthesmears.com) is not a “certificate of live birth”. It is a “certification of live birth”. It relies on an affirmation made by someone who is not a representative of the Hawaiian government. For Hawaii or anyone who was not a witness ot Obama’s birth to claim his birth in Hawaii to be a fact is ludicrous.

Why does the media find a need to claim that the hospitals placed birth announcements in 1961? That is contrary to previous claims that the DOH sent the birth information to the hospital. More importantly; why don’t Obama’s defenders have enough integrity to tell the media representatives that their statements are not true?
BatGuano says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:51 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Majority Will: CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.

CNN…… the evil propaganda wing of the marxist socialist islamic dictators.
Black Lion says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Might be a repost, but I don’t know what happened the first time I tried to post this….From the Post and Fail’s comedy page, the usual call for sedition….It is great to see such patriots like that…

(Aug. 3, 2010) — The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. The Obama regime and his Liberal/Marxist/Socialist partners in crime have taken over the government and are doing whatever they want. The mainstream media has been running cover for them and the Republicans are just sitting back watching the Constitution and the Country be destroyed. Now there are a few Republicans that may get a cheap shot in once in a while, but that is it.

Our current government has continued to go against the will of the People and has even stated that they can do pretty much whatever they want. This is Tyranny, plain and simple. So where are our so-called representatives? I don’t know about yours, but mine is either asleep in his office or worried about what he is going to have for lunch.

Every member of the House and Senate who has sworn an Oath to the Constitution should be up in arms over all of this, and it would be so simple. Mr. Obama is an illegal USURPER, and not because of where he was born but the issue of who his father was: A Kenyan national, and that alone makes Obama unconstitutional.

Anyone who remains silent on this is basically a Traitor. Now you can call me a Birther if you want; I’ll accept the title. But it also makes me a Patriot, and I would rather be either or both than a traitor.

I don’t need a bunch of dictator wanna-bes telling me I have to buy health care or what food I have to eat or what kind of car I should drive, because I am an American. Not an African-American or Asian-American or an Italian-American; I am an American, and this is my Country. I don’t want it changed into some failed European country or an annex of some Middle Eastern country with Shariah Law, and I definitely don’t need a closet Muslim in the Oval Office with his radical ideas destroying the Country I love.

God Bless America and God Save the Republic.

And in the comments…

George N. Crawford says:
Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Our Supreme Court needs to take a lesson from the tiny REPUBLIC of Honduras and order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to arrest and remove the miserable usurper from his office and place him in the stockade along with all of his czars and other criminal office holders. Remember how the White House was screaming that when the Honduran Military removed their Communist President by order of their Supreme Court, that it was a Coup? It was no such thing. It was well within the power of their Supreme Court according to their Constitution, which they READ and acted upon when the Republic of Honduras was threatened from within. Our gutless Supreme Court needs to act now, otherwise we may be lost forever.

jtx says:
Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 4:19 PM
It doesn’t actually have to be only a “person” who acts to force Obama to prove his eligibility.

The State of Arizona has a truly wonderful (and historic) opportunity to do so by filing in the Supreme Court a case of original jurisdiction (most likely under Rule 17) relating to their SB 1070 and insisting that SCOTUS puts forth a ruling – a mandate – that Obama prove his Presidential eligibility to the Court since he has not so far done so and is required to do so according to the Constitution.

Presidential power cannot vest in him unless he is legally eligible to hold the office and, if not, all he has done is null and void – including the childish acts against Arizona.

Let’s hope that AZ perks up its ears and takes up the challenge otherwise they will be enmeshed in the same sort of Judiciary that so far has sided with Obama and protected him and his acts.

It’s truly time to be “Raising Arizona” for real. Have at it Governor Brewer!!
BatGuano says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Smokin Joe: Why does the media find a need to lie?

what ever joe is smoking…….. i’d like to try a little bit over the weekend.
Sef says:

August 4, 2010 at 2:57 pm Sef(Quote)

Smokin Joe: It relies on an affirmation made by someone who is not a representative of the Hawaiian government.

By that argument every HI BC would be invalid & by extension every other state’s BCs, even yours.
BatGuano says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:00 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Smokin Joe: The document that appears on a number of websites (i.e. Daily Kos, Factcheck.org, & Fightthesmears.com) is not a “certificate of live birth”. It is a “certification of live birth”.

can you show us any variance between the the two terms in federal or state law or practices ? does the COLB shown not meet federal guidelines/standards for a vital record of birth ?
Rickey says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm Rickey(Quote)

Smokin Joe:
Why does the media find a need to lie?

You’re surprised that news organizations sometimes get their facts wrong? Yes, the document is called a “Certification of Live Birth” and the source of the newspaper announcements was the Hawaii DOH. So what?

It is a “certification of live birth”.

And how, exactly, does that differ from a “Certificate of Live Birth?”

It relies on an affirmation made by someone who is not a representative of the Hawaiian government.

As a rule, representatives of state governments are not present in the delivery room. So I guess this makes everyone’s birth certificate suspect, at least in your mind.
BatGuano says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:08 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Smokin Joe: Why does the media find a need to claim that the hospitals placed birth announcements in 1961?

where does the media ( in whatever form ) claim that the “hospitals” placed the announcements ? the papers that printed the announcements in 1961 claimed they received their information from the state vital records.
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm Majority Will(Quote)

“It relies on an affirmation made by someone who is not a representative of the Hawaiian government.”

That’s the dumbest, easiest to debunk birther drivel in a while which says a lot considering nc1 and Sven. The Director of Health must work for BP instead of the state of Hawaii.

Hmm, let’s check HAWAII.GOV real quick since birthers are puzzled by how to work the intarwebs:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/org_chart/directory.html

I’m more and more convinced that birthers have experienced some sort of mind numbing head trauma and that they hail from the super secret 51st state – the state of Mass Delusion.

And I would not be surprised to find out that “Joe” is a sock puppet.
Sef says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:11 pm Sef(Quote)

BatGuano:
can you show us any variance between the the two terms in federal or state law or practices ? does the COLB shown not meet federal guidelines/standards for a vital record of birth ?

I’m waiting for the following argument: The Hawaiian COLB only shows that someone was born on 8/4/61 in Honolulu, but how do we really, really know that it is the same person currently occupying the WH?

It’s a good thing Project Mohole was a failure or we would have these birthers digging rabbit holes all over the place.
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:11 pm Majority Will(Quote)

BatGuano:
can you show us any variance between the the two terms in federal or state law or practices ? does the COLB shown not meet federal guidelines/standards for a vital record of birth ?

It doesn’t meet birther standards. And if you look towards the end zone, you’ll see “Joe” grabbing the goalposts and running with them.
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:14 pm misha(Quote)

BatGuano: what ever joe is smoking…….. i’d like to try a little bit over the weekend.

Yeah, me too. Sounds like Bio-Diesel, with a hallucinogen.
JoZeppy says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:15 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Smokin Joe: Why does the media find a need to lie?The document that appears on a number of websites (i.e. Daily Kos, Factcheck.org, & Fightthesmears.com) is not a “certificate of live birth”. It is a “certification of live birth”. It relies on an affirmation made by someone who is not a representative of the Hawaiian government. For Hawaii or anyone who was not a witness ot Obama’s birth to claim his birth in Hawaii to be a fact is ludicrous.Why does the media find a need to claim that the hospitals placed birth announcements in 1961? That is contrary to previous claims that the DOH sent the birth information to the hospital. More importantly; why don’t Obama’s defenders have enough integrity to tell the media representatives that their statements are not true?

Because most of what you quibble about is really not all that important. Certificate of Live Birth, Certification of Live Birth, Birth Certificate…for all intents and purposes, are all the same thing. The State of Hawaii is stating that he was born in the state, and that the piece of paper they are issuing is prima facie evidence of that fact. And while we could play with whether it is ever “possible” to state something as a fact, is just a foolish game. Under every legal standard, assuming the document shown in the pictures is the same as the paper one, it is prima facie evidence of his birth. That means unless you have admissable evidence as to why the document should not be relied on, the question of his birth is proven, and considered a fact.

And actually, I would like it if CNN corrected the issue of DOH providing the information for the birth announcements. If something is the product of a government regulated process, that means it’s far more reliable than some private institution, doing something willie nilly, under some unknowable standards.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:38 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Lupin: The “we hate the ideology not the race” is merely another canard. They hate the ideology AND the race. But as we have established, several Republican presidents had social economic policies to the left of Obama’s (Nixon and Bush-I to name but two) and the same people who claim to hate “only” the ideology never attacked them.

Those who will hold on to the idea that President Obama is not a citizen the longest will be racists since their racist ideology will mitigate against them ever believing otherwise. People with varying degrees of rationality will eventually realize that there is absolutely nothing to this silly claim, and after two years of making this claim, most, if not all, of these people have realized that. Racists, rather than those who are just partisan or dumb, are the ones who will continue to promote this idea to the very end.
BatGuano says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:46 pm BatGuano(Quote)

has Mr Frazier left the building ?
Sean says:

August 4, 2010 at 3:58 pm Sean(Quote)

BatGuano: has Mr Frazier left the building ?

But I don’t know what to do with those tossed salad and scrambled eggs. She’s calling again.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Sean: But I don’t know what to do with those tossed salad and scrambled eggs. She’s calling again.

How about washing your hands first?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Black Lion: Might be a repost, but I don’t know what happened the first time I tried to post this

Both went in the spam filter because you used the name of a banned troll. I deleted the other one.
Black Lion says:

August 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: Both went in the spam filter because you used the name of a banned troll. I deleted the other one.

OK Doc, wasn’t sure….Thanks….
Bovril says:

August 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm Bovril(Quote)

Dear Smokie

I assume by Da Ebil Media your talking about those paragons of lies The Pest an Fail, American Grand Jury, Orly Taitz ESQ, Canada Free Press, WND etc…..?

They don’t feel a “need to lie” that have no other tactic other than to lie as those damn pesky facts and legal thuings keep getting in the way.

Oh and don’t forget the birth certificate, ’cause thats what it is, is legally recognized as full and sufficient for all associated purposes in all 50 states.

Now, the integrity of this data set is whole, unlike all of that of Birferstan

Thanks for playing and have a nice day
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 4, 2010 at 4:24 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Smokin Joe:
For Hawaii or anyone who was not a witness ot Obama’s birth to claim his birth in Hawaii to be a fact is ludicrous.Why does the media find a need to claim that the hospitals placed birth announcements in 1961? That is contrary to previous claims that the DOH sent the birth information to the hospital. More importantly; why don’t Obama’s defenders have enough integrity to tell the media representatives that their statements are not true?

And by your criteria, no one could ever prove they were an American citizen unless everyone was present at everyone else’s birth and following that person throughout their lives while living their own lives. Yours is a criteria that would render EVERY president we’ve ever had ineligible to be president.Who was present at George Bush’s birth and followed him around throughout his life to ensure that the person who was elected 43rd president was really the person who was born with the name “George W. Bush?” Who was the objective person who came forward when Bush was running for president and said, “I was present at George W. Bush’s birth and followed him throughout his whole life, and he is the person who was born on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a place.”? Your criteria is ridiculous and has never been met by any US president, yet you want it for this president.

With today’s technology, there is a way that wasn’t around in 1961 by which we could be more sure of who a person really is and what all their important information is, but I am sure that you would be totally against it, especially for white people, – A COMPUTER CHIP IMPLANTED AT BIRTH. Is that what you want? Because that would be the only way to achieve what you have stated. Actually, I believe that birthers would also find fault with that if it was done.
Sean says:

August 4, 2010 at 4:49 pm Sean(Quote)

I’m going to throw this out because I get such a passionate opposition when I dismiss it.

Is there a shed of legitimacy to the harlem “Grand Jury” trial of Barack Obama led by ATLAH and Pastor James David Manning?

Before you laugh, I just want to say I get people on blogs demanding there is some legal weight to this event, I want to be fair and ask the question. From a legal standpoint, is there anything real about this “trial?”
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 5:01 pm misha(Quote)

Sean: From a legal standpoint, is there anything real about this “trial?”

Yes. Here’s confirmation of it.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 5:07 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sean: Is there a shed of legitimacy to the Harlem “Grand Jury” trial of Barack Obama led by ATLAH and Pastor James David Manning?

No. The trial was not conducted under the auspices of any governmental entity. The jury was not representative of the community, nor randomly selected. The witnesses did not testify under penalty of perjury. The “defendant” was not there to confront his accusers. It was play acting. It was a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

If someone thinks it has legitimacy, what do they think that is?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 5:11 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Smokin Joe: Why does the media find a need to claim that the hospitals placed birth announcements in 1961? That is contrary to previous claims that the DOH sent the birth information to the hospital. More importantly; why don’t Obama’s defenders have enough integrity to tell the media representatives that their statements are not true?

If you tell me who said it, I will send them a correction. Birthers get their facts wrong far more often than their opponents but sometimes anti-Birther fumbles their facts too.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Smokin Joe: For Hawaii or anyone who was not a witness ot Obama’s birth to claim his birth in Hawaii to be a fact is ludicrous.

I’ll do you one better. I believe the moon landing was a fact too.

One of the problems I have in dealing with birthers is that they have a very rigid mindset. In normal conversation we deal with consensus views, but not absolutes. I’m assuming that Smokin Joe takes the old John McLaughlin phrase, “metaphysical certitude,” as his definition of “fact.” This is a very convenient definition for the birthers since nothing in the real world ever reaches a metaphysical ideal, and as a result birthers never have to admit that they are wrong, but can just continue to say that the evidence falls short of metaphysical certitude.

In the world of normal discourse facts are understood to be generally believed things that are well supported by evidence. So for normal folks, The Holocaust, the moon landing and Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii are facts. The Encyclopedia Britannica says, in its article on Obama, “born Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.” While it is theoretically possible for the Britannica to be wrong, what one finds there is generally accepted as factual unless there is proof to the contrary. It is certainly not ludicrous to call such things “facts.” The State of Hawaii, after examining its own records, is in a better position than anyone else in the world to say what the “facts” are.

I think Smokin Joe’s objection is what is ludicrous. [A scene from the movie Hot Shots comes to mind. “Are not;” “are too;” “are not;” “are too, too, too, too.”]
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm misha(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I’ll do you one better. I believe the moon landing was a fact too.

Even better: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Sean says:

August 4, 2010 at 5:53 pm Sean(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
No. The trial was not conducted under the auspices of any governmental entity. The jury was not representative of the community, nor randomly selected. The witnesses did not testify under penalty of perjury. The “defendant” was not there to confront his accusers. It was play acting. It was a publicity stunt, plain and simple.If someone thinks it has legitimacy, what do they think that is?

Well, it’s like talking to someone who believes you don’t legally have to pay taxes. They bring up some obscure law reference and go from this therefore that and cling to it because it’s what they want to believe.

I don’t quite understand how a Grand Jury works, but this seems to be the basis of the ATLAH trial. Manning deciples claim they can indeed create their own legal trial independent of any government.

I just wanted to know if there was ANY amount of truth no matter how twisted.
Sean says:

August 4, 2010 at 6:23 pm Sean(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
No. The trial was not conducted under the auspices of any governmental entity. The jury was not representative of the community, nor randomly selected. The witnesses did not testify under penalty of perjury. The “defendant” was not there to confront his accusers. It was play acting. It was a publicity stunt, plain and simple.If someone thinks it has legitimacy, what do they think that is?

I do want to be clear, that when I say truth, I mean the legitimacy of the trial itself, not the CIA Columbia U conspiracy theories contained within.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 4, 2010 at 7:02 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
No. The trial was not conducted under the auspices of any governmental entity. The jury was not representative of the community, nor randomly selected. The witnesses did not testify under penalty of perjury. The “defendant” was not there to confront his accusers. It was play acting. It was a publicity stunt, plain and simple.If someone thinks it has legitimacy, what do they think that is?

To sum it all up, Doc, it lacked the Constitutional requirement of due process of law.
Rickey says:

August 4, 2010 at 7:29 pm Rickey(Quote)

Sean:
I do want to be clear, that when I say truth, I mean the legitimacy of the trial itself, not the CIA Columbia U conspiracy theories contained within.

It was a kangaroo court. The “jurors” volunteered to be there. It became comical when the sham voir dire of the “jurors” was held, because Manning had trouble getting them to say that they would be impartial. Obama was never arrested, read his rights or arraigned. The entire thing was a farce, conducted by a convicted felon and with “testimony” by at least one convicted felon.
Rickey says:

August 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm Rickey(Quote)

Elsewhere, Orly finally got her SCOTUS application refiled with Scalia. The likely next step is that it will be distributed for conference (which will get Orly all hot and bothered), and then it will be denied without comment.

No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Aug 4 2010 Application (10A56) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 7:47 pm misha(Quote)

Sean: From a legal standpoint, is there anything real about this “trial?”

I’m sure Bishop Muthee would be pleased with the circus.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:04 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sean: I just wanted to know if there was ANY amount of truth no matter how twisted.

You might read up on vigilantes and on the Regulators of South Carolina. [Take the Wikipedia article with a grain of salt. The regulators became dictators in the end.] One might argue that the human being has an inherent right to protect himself against injustice and to protect himself, his family and his property. That discussion is complex, but I do not see that anything Pastor Manning’s so-called trial has legitimacy in any sense.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:16 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

misha: I’m sure Bishop Muthee would be pleased with the circus.

I’m a little confused by that Video. Was the Bishop successful in curing Sarah Palin from being a witch or not?
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
I’m a little confused by that Video. Was the Bishop successful in curing Sarah Palin from being a witch or not?

Hardly. She turned me into a newt.
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:44 pm misha(Quote)

Majority Will: Hardly. She turned me into a newt.

Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg and howlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

[this is the part I don’t like]

Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witch’s mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg’d i’ the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat and slips of yew
Sliver’d in the moon’s eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.
Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm Majority Will(Quote)

misha:
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg and howlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
[this is the part I don’t like]Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witch’s mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg’d i’ the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat and slips of yew
Sliver’d in the moon’s eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.
Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

I was going for the lighter line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she’s a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] … I got better.
Crowd: [shouts] Burn her anyway!
misha says:

August 4, 2010 at 10:09 pm misha(Quote)

Majority Will: I was going for the lighter line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she’s a witch?Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!Sir Bedevere: A newt?Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] … I got better.Crowd: [shouts] Burn her anyway!

Bridgekeeper: What… is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
King Arthur: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Majority Will says:

August 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm Majority Will(Quote)

misha: An African or European swallow?

Bridgekeeper: Huh? I… I don’t know that.
[he is thrown over]
Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh.
Sir Bedevere: How do know so much about swallows?
King Arthur: Well, you have to know these things when you’re a king, you know.

That makes Birferstan one giant pit of eternal peril.
sarina says:

August 4, 2010 at 11:30 pm sarina(Quote)

Today is the President’s birthday:

Happy birthday!!
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 5, 2010 at 12:12 am FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Rickey: Elsewhere, Orly finally got her SCOTUS application refiled with Scalia. The likely next step is that it will be distributed for conference (which will get Orly all hot and bothered), and then it will be denied without comment.No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct:United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.:(09-15418)~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~ProceedingsandOrders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Aug 4 2010 Application (10A56) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.

You really think they will have a conference about her paying her fine? I think they will just deny it again. They have more important things to do than waste time with her crapola
Expelliarmus says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:27 am Expelliarmus(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP: You really think they will have a conference about her paying her fine? I think they will just deny it again. They have more important things to do than waste time with her crapola

They don’t have a “conference”, i.e. discuss the case. It is normal practice when a lawyer makes a 2nd request for a stay to send it to the “conference” calendar so that it can be denied by the full court, thus preventing the lawyer from making 7 other successive requests to each of the other lawyers.

This is standard practice, explained in the rules of court and in the “how this court works” booklet they give to the media.

So, yes, Orly’s 2nd request will definitely be dealt with in the manner that SCOTUS thinks is the best way to permanently dispose of the matter.

As a practical matter, the Supreme Court justices do NOT discuss every case that shows up on their conference calendar. Their clerks prepare appropriate memoranda so that they know whether there is anything potentially meritorious coming up. I assume that they have an appropriate internal procedure for identifying which items on the calendar will be on the agenda for actual discussion or debate, and which will simply be disposed of (denied) in summary fashion, absent some sort of objection by one of the Justices.
Rickey says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:43 am Rickey(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP:
You really think they will have a conference about her paying her fine? I think they will just deny it again. They have more important things to do than waste time with her crapola

The usual protocol at SCOTUS is that if a petition is refiled, it gets distributed for a conference. This has nothing to do with its merits. It is done as a time saver, because if Scalia denies it Orly can keep re-filing it until all nine justices have denied it. It’s easier to distribute it for a conference and then dispose of it. The justices don’t actually conference all of the cases which are distributed, anyway. The cases are screened by their clerks, and of course the overwhelming majority of them are denied. The cases which are discussed by the justices are the ones which actually have some merit.
Rickey says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:45 am Rickey(Quote)

Expelliarmus:

So, yes, Orly’s 2nd request will definitely be dealt with in the manner that SCOTUS thinks is the best way to permanently dispose of the matter.

You beat me to the punch!
Rickey says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:53 am Rickey(Quote)

Speaking of SCOTUS conferences reminded me of this story from January, 2009:

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). Investigating Obama (I.O.) interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also addresses two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philip Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
dunstvangeet says:

August 5, 2010 at 3:47 am dunstvangeet(Quote)

Sean,

This may be taking the “trial” to a legal means…

However, do you believe that a the Ku Klux Klan can get a member of clan-members together, call themselves a “grand jury” and then try and convict every person of color in America on trumped up charges and made up charges, and then expect their verdict to have any sort of legal significance? That is the equivalent of what the Manning Trial was.
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 5:16 am nc1(Quote)

Rickey: You’re surprised that news organizations sometimes get their facts wrong? Yes, the document is called a “Certification of Live Birth” and the source of the newspaper announcements was the Hawaii DOH. So what?It is a “certification of live birth”.And how, exactly, does that differ from a “Certificate of Live Birth?” It relies on an affirmation made by someone who is not a representative of the Hawaiian government.As a rule, representatives of state governments are not present in the delivery room. So I guess this makes everyone’s birth certificate suspect, at least in your mind.

The long form certificate contains signatures of people who witnessed birth. That is an important difference between the original document and the short form (Certification).

After renaming the Certification to Certificate, what name does the Hawaii DoH use for the document containing signatures of people who witnessed birth?
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 5:43 am nc1(Quote)

Rickey: It was a kangaroo court. The “jurors” volunteered to be there. It became comical when the sham voir dire of the “jurors” was held, because Manning had trouble getting them to say that they would be impartial. Obama was never arrested, read his rights or arraigned. The entire thing was a farce, conducted by a convicted felon and with “testimony” by at least one convicted felon.

What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?
It happened in the Monroe County TN.
Mike says:

August 5, 2010 at 6:38 am Mike(Quote)

nc1: What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?It happened in the Monroe County TN.

No, it didn’t. The foreman served many years, but not in violation of the law, because multiple foremanships are not illegal.

Have you ever met a birther talking point you didn’t like, nc1?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:10 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: The long form certificate contains signatures of people who witnessed birth. That is an important difference between the original document and the short form (Certification).

You may consider it important, but the states nearly all of which either have or are in the process of moving to the same form of certificate as Hawaii, clearly do not.
Northland10 says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:33 am Northland10(Quote)

nc1: What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row,

“Legal”

Read the TN court cases regarding whether a foreman can serve more than once. All of them say, “yes”. The law you refer to guiding juror selection for Grand Juries in TN are for the regular jurors themselves and NOT a foreman. The good Doc and NBC have materials about this on their sites.
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:40 am Majority Will(Quote)

“What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?
It happened in the Monroe County TN.”

Is this birther once again mistaken or is she lying deliberately?
Paul Pieniezny says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:53 am Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

Northland10: nc1: What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row,
“Legal”

Unless he is black.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:55 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

nc1: The long form certificate contains signatures of people who witnessed birth. That is an important difference between the original document and the short form (Certification).After renaming the Certification to Certificate, what name does the Hawaii DoH use for the document containing signatures of people who witnessed birth?

What do the witness signatures matter to you if once you see them you’re just going to ask for those witnesses to come forward and if they do you’re going to claim they’re not really the people on the long form or the long form was forged.
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:43 am Black Lion(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): What do the witness signatures matter to you if once you see them you’re just going to ask for those witnesses to come forward and if they do you’re going to claim they’re not really the people on the long form or the long form was forged.

And if the individuals that “witnessed” the birth are dead, what then? And if it was a ling time ago, what if the person does not remember? Birthers miss the entire point. The reason the state issues a COLB is to affirm that the individual was born where the document says..Only the idiotic birthers are not requiring some additional certification…Basically implying that the word of the state is not enough….Their grasp on logic and common sense is hilarious….
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:49 am Black Lion(Quote)

Another example of Obama derangement….

The Secret Service is investigating a Hellertown amusement company’s use of a target-shooting game that challenged players to hit the heart and head of an image resembling President Barack Obama.
Irvin Good Jr., president of Goodtime Amusements, said Wednesday he didn’t imean to offend anyone by offering “Alien Attack” at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Big Time fair in Roseto. But the game sparked a complaint.
“I guess we made an error in judgment, and we apologize for that,” said Good, who has had the game for about six weeks. “I voted for the man. It wasn’t meant to be him. If they took it that way, we apologize.”
The game’s target is a painting of a black man in a suit who is holding a scroll labeled “Health Bill.” He sports a belt buckle fashioned after the presidential seal, antennae and a troll doll on his shoulder.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-president-obama-target-game-20100804,0,5344153.story
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:56 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Black Lion: And if the individuals that “witnessed” the birth are dead, what then? And if it was a ling time ago, what if the person does not remember? Birthers miss the entire point. The reason the state issues a COLB is to affirm that the individual was born where the document says..Only the idiotic birthers are not requiring some additional certification…Basically implying that the word of the state is not enough….Their grasp on logic and common sense is hilarious….

So once again they use the 10th amendment only when its convenient to them
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:20 am Majority Will(Quote)

Black Lion: Another example of Obama derangement….The Secret Service is investigating a Hellertown amusement company’s use of a target-shooting game that challenged players to hit the heart and head of an image resembling President Barack Obama.
Irvin Good Jr., president of Goodtime Amusements, said Wednesday he didn’t imean to offend anyone by offering “Alien Attack” at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Big Time fair in Roseto. But the game sparked a complaint.
“I guess we made an error in judgment, and we apologize for that,” said Good, who has had the game for about six weeks. “I voted for the man. It wasn’t meant to be him. If they took it that way, we apologize.”
The game’s target is a painting of a black man in a suit who is holding a scroll labeled “Health Bill.” He sports a belt buckle fashioned after the presidential seal, antennae and a troll doll on his shoulder.http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-president-obama-target-game-20100804,0,5344153.story

An error in judgment? It’s despicable, cowardly and probably motivated by greed. Isn’t “Our Lady of Mount Carmel” seen as a model of virtue as in the highest moral standards? Practice what you preach.
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:24 am Majority Will(Quote)

Black Lion: Another example of Obama derangement….The Secret Service is investigating a Hellertown amusement company’s use of a target-shooting game that challenged players to hit the heart and head of an image resembling President Barack Obama.
Irvin Good Jr., president of Goodtime Amusements, said Wednesday he didn’t imean to offend anyone by offering “Alien Attack” at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Big Time fair in Roseto. But the game sparked a complaint.
“I guess we made an error in judgment, and we apologize for that,” said Good, who has had the game for about six weeks. “I voted for the man. It wasn’t meant to be him. If they took it that way, we apologize.”
The game’s target is a painting of a black man in a suit who is holding a scroll labeled “Health Bill.” He sports a belt buckle fashioned after the presidential seal, antennae and a troll doll on his shoulder.http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-president-obama-target-game-20100804,0,5344153.story

Actually, that badly drawn cartoon image looks more like Michael Steele. But the Presidential Seal belt buckle and the rolled up health care bill makes it unmistakable as to their intent.
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:32 am Black Lion(Quote)

Over at the Free Republic, it seems like our old buddy, Ron Polland, aka Polarik and possibly other names when posting here is not too popular over in the FR world….Check out the Bad Fiction blog for more detail but when visiting FR, a couple of posters have really gone after Polarik…Funny stuff….

To: Polarik
Shame on you, polarik. This isn’t about Danae. It’s about YOU and your “skill” at detecting forgeries. If anybody here believes for one instant that I am a leftist, or a shill for obama because I am calling you out, then I pity them because You are one twisted dude.
My questions to YOU are reasonable and you should be able to answer them without the kinds of namecalling and threats you have posted here.
YOU are the one who came in from the left so your accusation will not fly no matter how many times you make it.
Don’t even dare to make this about anything other than what it is. I have asked you repeatedly what court vetted you? Where have you testified?
I am talking about document FORGERY, not people. For you to try and make this all about another PERSON is a straw man and has no purpose other than to redirect the subject off of yourself and on to yet another red herring. You are very good at that. Psychobabble and obfuscation and twisting the truth.
No professional I know or know OF would be so unwilling to back up their claims by attacking the questioner. It is a typical leftist tactic that has no place either on this forum or in jurisprudence.
In actuallity, the thing they stuck up on factcheck was a colb from HI about obama, and it is absolutely irrelevant to any darn thing. It sticks out there like sore thumb and in the entire scheme of things, it is completely useless as proof of anything. It might have been gotten illegitimately through fraud, (which I happen to believe,) and it does not prove that he was actually born in the USA from the jump.
The whole forgery thing is a red herring and I would really like an explanation as to why you keep promoting it as if it was the be all and end all to the whole spectrum of information that we have uncovered here.
And I would still like to know why you have directed anyone searching for the “old” polarik to come here as if you owned the place.

132 posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:06:48 PM by MestaMachine (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites- Don’t wish ill for your enemy; plan it)

To: Polarik
I’ve asked Danae to step in and tell MestaMachine to move on. Mesta has no business acting in her stead and restarting up something that Danae and I resolved over a year ago.
Ouch…
Well that didn’t turn out exactly as planned.
But I’ll be waiting for the next YouTube rendered PowerPoint presentation with boffo font effects and appropriately dramatic music explaining how “Good FReeper” Danae and “low-life libtard TROLL” Mesta Machine teamed up with Obots, RINO’S and traitors to besmirch the sterling reputation of the great and powerful Polarik. (Pay no attention to the man behind the PhotoShop.)
This one may end up being a 3-parter…I can’t wait!!

138 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:45:58 AM by Tex-Con-Man (Proud anti-Obama anti-birther)

To: Polarik; Danae
YOU FILTHY LIAR!!! I NEVER asked you to post anything on this thread that had anything to do with Danae and her personal information. I ASKED you if you ever apologized to her. YOU freaking threatened me, man. There is something seriously wrong with you.
WHY did you even try that? What in the world did you think would happen when you flat out posted a freaking lie like that and then ran to Danae and lied right in her face about a thread that is ongoing and wide open that she could see for herself???
So you TOLD HER that I INSISTED THAT YOU POST HER PERSONAL INFORMATION, BUT YOU WERE TOO quote HONORABLE unquote TO DO THAT??????????
What the hell do you know about honor? You skulk around behind everyone’s back and lie flat out and then come back on the thread and lie to everyone else flat out and for what? How in the L-rd’s Name did you EVER expect to get away with this???
I didn’t post YOUR personal imformation…and I could have, BIG TIME. All the way back to the 80s. Instead, I tried to be logical and post some common sense. I asked you to explain yourself. But you couldn’t, could you?
You know what? I flat out don’t care anymore what anybody thinks about me challenging you. If they choose to believe you and be pi$$ed off at me, then it isn’t worth it to try and keep them as friends. YOU have jumped the shark here, buddy.
I didn’t hit abuse when you threatened me. I didn’t hit abuse when you attacked me personally. I ain’t going to hit abuse now. You just stick around, dude. Enjoy your stay.

139 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:34:14 AM by MestaMachine (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites- Don’t wish ill for your enemy; plan it)

To: Polarik
YOU are just plain evil, man. That was so far out of context it isn’t even on this plane of existence. How low are you willing to go to smear innocent people? WHAT are you trying to prove exactly?
You won’t admit you were wrong. And you are as wrong now as you were then, but you would rather slander people than admit your own mistakes so what are we supposed to believe? That somehow you are a victim of obama? Or that anyone who questions you does so on his behalf when
YOU, and YOU ALONE, have done more to help him put this over than literally any hundred other people ever could have. It has taken us all this time to clear the mess you literally created out of whole cloth and get someone with a voice to actually begin questioning obama’s eligibility, and NOW that it is FINALLY catching fire, here you are AGAIN trying to make this scam the focus of attention. WHY???
WHY, POLARIK??? WHY?

148 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:13:13 PM by MestaMachine

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2562565/posts?page=116#116
Rickey says:

August 5, 2010 at 11:09 am Rickey(Quote)

nc1:
The long form certificate contains signatures of people who witnessed birth.

And if you saw the “long form” certificate with witness signatures, what then? How would you know that the signatures are authentic? Since everyone in Hawaii from the Republican governor to the Republican head of the Department of Health to Obama’s grandmother have been part of the conspiracy, why would they leave the hospital personnel out of the loop?

After renaming the Certification to Certificate

,I have two copies of my New York birth certificate. One was issued a week after I was born, the other is one which I ordered in 1988. They both are called “Certificate of Birth Registration.” No witness signatures. No name of a physician. They actually contain less information than Obama’s COLB. Yet, somehow they were sufficient for me to:

1. Obtain a driver’s license
2. Obtain a Social Security Number
3. Register to vote (in four different states over the years)
4. Enlist in the U.S. Navy (which gave me a Top Secret security clearance)
4. Obtain a U.S. passport

Is there a difference between a record player and a phonograph? No, and there is no difference between a “certificate” and a “certification.”

From Black’s Law Dictionary:

Certificate: A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality has been complied with.

Certification: The formal assertion in writing of some fact. The act of certifying or state of being certified. See Certificate.

Now tell me what the difference is between the two.
Rickey says:

August 5, 2010 at 11:15 am Rickey(Quote)

nc1:
What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?

Please cite the specific Tennessee law in question. Oh, wait, you can’t cite the law, because you have never researched it yourself. Instead you simply parrot birther talking points which you picked up from Walter Fitzpatrick or some other loon.

I am constantly amazed when people who call themselves skeptics turn out to be the most gullible of all.
Dave says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:32 pm Dave(Quote)

nc1:
What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?
It happened in the Monroe County TN.

I’m sure others have and will try to explain to you that TN law has no problem with a grand jury foreman serving for 20 years. But let me ask you a different question — why the heck do you care? Do you really think that if Monroe County replaced the grand jury foreman that would enable birthers to force the President out of the White House?
Ellid says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:38 pm Ellid(Quote)

nc1:
What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?
It happened in the Monroe County TN.

What do we call a Serbian war criminal fomenting sedition and refusing to answer questions?
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Our daily laugh courtsey of the Post and Fail….And interview with good ole boy Carl Swensson….

Some humorous parts….

“In addition, I will continue to speak out against the current leadership in DC and their collective acts of treason, support Walt Fitzpatrick as best I can in his endeavor to bring out, into the open, the very real Constitutional crisis manifest in the illegal POTUS by way of his proven ineligibility to hold that office because he is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and confirmed by the Senate in April of 2008 when they voted on Resolution 511, bestowing “natural born” status on John McCain by virtue of the citizenship status of both parents being U.S. citizens.

My work with the Georgia Citizens’ Grand Jury which I founded in March of 2009 has not ended since no one in the state of Georgia will respond to the presentments handed down by that jury other than the U.S. Attorneys who so graciously sent the Secret Service to visit me after having served them as well…

The way this started out, as for many of us, was the battle over eligibility, trying to figure out if the person in the White House is actually legally eligible to be there. We all know that Article II, Section 1, clause 5 clearly states that the president must be a “natural born Citizen.” Now there are plenty of people out there who will try to pervert the meaning of that by citing things within the 14th Amendment, where, by the way, the term “natural born” is not used. “Native born” is. However, we don’t care about “native born.” We’re talking about a president who is not “natural born” by his own admission. He’s already told us in his book that his father was Kenyan, a British subject, when he was born, giving him dual allegiance.”

And then of course comes the revisionist history….

“We also know without a doubt that Senate Resolution 511 back in April 2008 was passed in the Senate wherein they acknowledged John McCain as being “natural born,” and they did that based on the fact that both of his parents were U.S. citizens. Then, of course, they went a step farther and claimed that the military base in Panama was American soil, and there are still some serious misgivings about that interpretation.

The more important aspect is that they clearly recognized in a unanimous vote, in which Obama participated, to bestow that “natural born” citizenship upon him, and all communications concerning this, as you have probably read time and time again, indicate that the people who were defining “natural born” at the time had a much clearer understanding of it when they stated that to be “natural born,” both parents have to be U.S. citizens.”

MR. SWENSSON: He has never made any statement other than to say that he saw the Factcheck.org “birth certificate” and he’s satisfied that Obama is a natural born Citizen. I’ve never gotten anything more than that from Mr. Isakson; neither have any of the people with whom I am associated, one of whom is a member of the Clayton County GOP. (Ret) LTC Bob Holtzclaw is also very much aware of this and has been thwarted at every attempt at trying to get Senator Isaakson and Senator Chambliss, by the way, to come forward and find out if Obama actually is eligible.

So Bob came up with the motion to withdraw support for Isakson. Since we had no other candidate running for this Senate seat, we decided to shift our support over to the Libertarian candidate, Chuck Donovan. The meeting went well; the motion was put forth, and it carried. It was passed by a vote of 3-2 with several others abstaining at that point, not knowing which way to go on it. That’s history, true and correct history. But now enters the problem.

The first problem is that the Clayton County Committee Chairwoman, Della Ashley, decided that she wasn’t going to put down the true and correct Minutes because she didn’t know how to do it and not walk away with egg on her face. She knows it’s going to look bad for the Republicans of this county because one of the things that we’re fighting right now is a little clause in the rules for Republicans here, and that is that we blindly support any and all Republican candidates. We cannot support anybody other than a Republican candidate.

Now that’s all fine and well whenever you have people who are actually doing what their oath demands them to do, but when you don’t, and you have people voting in favor of things such as TARP, the Stimulus bill, and all of these other abominations, not the least of which is the Wall St. bailout and the takeover of part of the auto industry – these are not called for anywhere in the Constitution, and they know it.”

MRS. RONDEAU: I believe many people across the country are saying this: that every single member of the current Congress who did nothing about Obama’s eligibility needs to go.

MR. SWENSSON: That’s correct. Patriots’ Heart Network, a few other people and I went to DC last year. I printed off all of the presentments, all of the evidence, all of the supporting documentation and hand-delivered it to every member of Congress. Not one bothered to respond except for Saxby Chambliss’s office. While I was there, I got a call to come and talk. He was in a meeting at that time, so I got his chief of staff. I explained exactly what this was about and exactly what we expected Chambliss to do. After that, we got nothing. I have sent countless letters and emails to his offices, and I have warned him that his failure to act will result in the withdrawing of support and his absolute removal from office.

MRS. RONDEAU: It looks as if that’s happening now with the other senator from your state.

MR. SWENSSON: That is correct. We are going to continue this fight, and we are going to bring it to the light of day where it hasn’t been before. There are people I know at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution who want this story in the worst kind of way. I have chosen to give it to you because of the patriotic nature of The Post & Email, and I’ve always appreciated the way you put out your documents.

MR. SWENSSON: As you may know, I’m deeply involved in what’s going on with Cmdr. Fitzpatrick, who is fighting this battle because he and Lt. Col. Lakin have decided that they are going to stand up and stand proud. They are going to put themselves in harm’s way by upholding their oaths that they took. This is something that needs to see the light of day, because if they continue to strangle this message and to pervert what it actually is, which they are doing, then nobody will get the truth.

The truth is really quite simple: the man who is in the White House is there illegally. Walt is fighting that fight, and I’m on his side. Lakin is fighting the fight, and I’m on his side and the side of any other military person who has the intestinal fortitude to say, “I’m not taking this. I want action taken.” When they put their criminal complaints out there, they put their livelihoods and lives on the line. If they can still be recalled, then they can most definitely be court-martialed. So we have to support these people at every opportunity.

MRS. RONDEAU: How have you been supporting Fitzpatrick specifically?

MR. SWENSSON: Well, I was there on April 1 when he was arrested. The video evidence is there that there was no commotion. I’m really thrilled to hear that Attorney Stephen Pidgeon is going to be representing him. I know you have been putting Walt’s story in the paper, and I put it on my website.

And of course the insightful comments…..

A pen says:
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 10:35 PM
The crap that a Kenyan father and a US mother makes one natural born is just that, crap. These people that make that statement are dishonest at best and traitors at worst. They have all had plenty of time to educate themselves as to what is a natural born citizen so continuing on with a line of crap is not a mistake, it is treason. They intend to not uphold the law plain and simple. They won’t even go so far as to say lets get this to the supreme court to clear the air and that proves they are refusing to see justice done. Well, if that isn’t vigilantism I don’t know what might be. Just keep the list growing so we all know who is a worthless piece of trash on Nov. 2.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/04/republican-party-in-georgia-county-endorses-libertarian-for-u-s-senate-seat-over-incumbent-johnny-isakson/
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Black Lion: Our daily laugh courtsey of the Post and Fail….And interview with good ole boy Carl Swensson….Some humorous parts….“In addition, I will continue to speak out against the current leadership in DC and their collective acts of treason, support Walt Fitzpatrick as best I can in his endeavor . . .”

He can join him in prison. That’s a real pal.
sfjeff says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:04 pm sfjeff(Quote)

What do you call an old coot trying to perform citizen arrests in the middle of a Grand Jury proceeding?
Rickey says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm Rickey(Quote)

I’m sure that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is pining away because Swensson decided to peddle his delusions to the Post & Fail.
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm Black Lion(Quote)

sfjeff: What do you call an old coot trying to perform citizen arrests in the middle of a Grand Jury proceeding?

I’ll take “Court-Martialed former Navy Lt. Cmdr. Walt Fitzpatrick” for $100 Alex…
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:11 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Rickey: I’m sure that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is pining away because Swensson decided to peddle his delusions to the Post & Fail.

Somehow I bet that the Atlanta Journal Constitution had no clue about Carl and his fantasies….
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm Black Lion(Quote)

More crazy from the lunatic Pam Geller….

Throughout his life and his political career, Mr. Obama has been consistent – right up to and into his presidency. And today, his policies in Arizona and Israel – not connected or related to each other by any analyst on the scene – are two separate manifestations of the same anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-jihad core convictions that have guided his actions and associations since the beginning of his political career and even before.

It is all a result of how he was brought up, of what shaped his mind and heart. It is all a result of what drives him. And what drives him is not American. He said it himself: “I was a little Jakarta street kid” who found the Islamic call to prayer to be “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Now the little Jakarta street kid has grown up. And America hangs in the balance.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/4/borderline-obama/
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Rickey: I’m sure that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is pining away because Swensson decided to peddle his delusions to the Post & Fail.

Back in February, 2010, there was a brief mention in an AJC blog post:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/02/09/your-morning-jolt-jenny-sanford-vs-jon-stewart/

“A blog dedicated to disbelief in the birth records of President Barack Obama, called the Post and E-Mail, apparently had a correspondent at Saturday’s gathering of the Georgia Christian Alliance.

The reporter, identified as Republican Carl Swensson of Morrow, conducted this interview with U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, now posted on YouTube, explaining his December letter to Obama on the issue:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3O_6k8WT4&feature=player_embedded

Deal is a birther candidate in a Republican runoff for Georgia Governor who resigned from Congress while under investigation for ethics violations for reportedly intervening with Georgia officials to preserve a lucrative business agreement with the state. Resigning was a quick way off the hot seat. He’s the real deal for sure.

More on that:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/did_gop_rep_nathan_deal_resign_because_of_ethics_p.php
sfjeff says:

August 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm sfjeff(Quote)

Certainly I can see the connections with sueing Arizona and jihad. Its obvious.
Sef says:

August 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm Sef(Quote)

Just a heads-up, if anyone was planning on attending Lakin’s arraignment tomorrow. http://www.caaflog.com/2010/08/05/ltc-lakin-arraignment-moved-to-ft-belvoir/
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 3:15 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Conservative media figures openly discussing revolution…again
August 03, 2010 10:05 am ET by Ben Dimiero

Back in April, responding to Bill Clinton’s comments that media figures should be careful not to advocate violence, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York said that only the “fringes” of the tea party movement are “people who talk about revolution.” In order to make this blanket statement, York conveniently ignored Sarah Palin telling the Tea Party convention that “America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this” and Glenn Beck asserting that “the second American revolution is being played out right now.”

Since then, conservative media figures upset with the Obama administration over health care reform, possible immigration reform, and other legislative items they disagree with have apparently become more comfortable with talk of revolt, openly discussing potential “civil war” or a “Second American Revolution.”

Glenn Beck has only amped up his rhetoric, insinuating that the administration is intentionally trying to destroy the country and push us towards “civil war,” and has even stated outright that he thinks “we’re headed for a civil war.”

This week, conservative media figures are seizing on an Investor’s Business Daily editorial from the weekend that asked in its headline if “Washington’s Failures” will “Lead To Second American Revolution.” Limbaugh labeled the editorial “amazing” yesterday, adding: “I would not call it a revolution; I’d call it a restoration.”

Conservative blogger Bob “Confederate Yankee” Owens — who was recently hired by the Washington Examiner — also weighed in on the IBD editorial. In a post titled “A Nation on the Edge of Revolt,” Owens discusses how our current Congress has “won in a bloodless coup” and that nations collapse at this point unless “people reform or replace their governments.” Owens adds that “reform increasingly seems to be a fleeting option.”

While Owens states early in his post that he is not making these statements as “hyperbole,” or to “incite violence,” he later discusses how “revolution is a brutish nasty business,” in which “innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt”:

This is not the first time Owens has openly discussed armed revolution. After the passage of health care reform, Owens expressed”some hope” that the bill would be ruled unconstitutional and Democrats would be voted out of office so that Owens and “freshly-experienced combat veterans” would not be forced to resort to the “morally-required alternative.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008030007
Sean says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm Sean(Quote)

Has any birther tried to explain away the 1967 State Dept memo clearifying Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

For those that think he was born in Kenya, that memo means GAME OVER as far as I’m concerned.
G says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm G(Quote)

Black Lion: While Owens states early in his post that he is not making these statements as “hyperbole,” or to “incite violence,” he later discusses how “revolution is a brutish nasty business,” in which “innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt”:

This is the seditious stuff I’m the most sick of. Some of this has to be getting close to crossing the line where they can be charged with it. Just disgusting and offensive.
G says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:18 pm G(Quote)

Sean: Has any birther tried to explain away the 1967 State Dept memo clearifying Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

For those that think he was born in Kenya, that memo means GAME OVER as far as I’m concerned.

As with all actual evidence, it seems to fall into the birthers “blind spot”. They are allergic to the truth, because it destroys their little fantasies, so they completely ignore it or make up additional wacky stuff about how it is part of the “conspiracy and cover up”. These folks are beyond hope. They don’t care about facts or truth, so no amount of reality will ever make a difference to them and their sick fantasies.
Sef says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:21 pm Sef(Quote)

G:
This is the seditious stuff I’m the most sick of.Some of this has to be getting close to crossing the line where they can be charged with it.Just disgusting and offensive.

Maybe if a few got an all expenses paid vacation in the Graybar Hotel the rhetoric would calm down for awhile.
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:24 pm Black Lion(Quote)

The article below by Greg Sargent sums it up the best….This is what a lot of posters have been alluding to….

Birtherism, alive and well
The new CNN poll confirms what we all suspected — that efforts by traditional news orgs to debunk the “birther” nonsense have done little or nothing to counter the right wing narrative about the Manchurian Muslim who has infiltrated the White House:

Forty-two percent of those questioned say they have absolutely no doubts that the president was born in the U.S., while 29-percent say he “probably” was.

“Not surprisingly, there are big partisan differences, although a majority of Republicans thinks Obama was definitely or probably born here,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Eighty-five percent of Democrats say that Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., compared to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say he was probably not born here, and another 14 percent of Republicans say he was definitely not born in the U.S.”

That means some 41 percent of Republicans say Obama was probably or definitely not born in the United States.

It’s probably worth noting that this is vindication of a sort for Markos Moulitsas. When he launched his lawsuit against Research 2000, alleging fraudulent polls, the right went mad with the claim that this proved the earlier Research 2000 poll finding widespread birtherism was part of a plot to smear conservatives. But CNN finds birtherism is, in fact, alive and well.

Also: You have to give right wing media figures credit. They are really good at floating insinuations that their followers want to believe. People like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others, Republican elected officials included, skillfully “joke” about birtherism or “flirt” with it, allowing them to maintain the appearance of sanity, or a semblance of it, even as they keep the idea alive among those who are already inclined to believe it.

People don’t believe things unless they want to believe them, or unless the alternative is just too painful to contemplate. Those willing to say Obama just may have been born in another country find this notion easier to accept than the idea that an African American with a Muslim-sounding name was legitimately chosen by the American people to be the leader of the free world. What’s startling is the amount of people who find this scenario so difficult to swallow — so much so that they cling to birtherism like someone who’s afraid of drowning clings to driftwood.”

And there are some interesting comments….

2 words: white privilege…Obama is the first small crack in the massive wall of white privilege and Repubs are shamelessly feeding the covert campaign to delegitimize Obama as president so that what I call passive bigots (people that feel that they don’t “personally” discriminate (data suggests that discrimination in hiring, lending, and housing is still widespread), but are happy to ignore the pervasive white privilege in our society) can feel like they are fighting against the deep symbolism of this country being lead by a black person, without acknowledging the racial component of their opposition to Obama.

Republicans may or may not be racists, but they are definitely using racial dog whistles to partisan advantage, motivating many (maybe a majority of) white people to oppose Obama by feeding their fears of losing their privileged position in society. All of this talk about “reverse racism” (there is no such thing as racism is much more than simple discrimination based on race) is part and parcel of the republican dog whistle campaign, just like birtherism.

Posted by: srw3 | August 4, 2010 1:45 PM

And yet the very same people who keep demanding to see a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate, had no problem with the actual fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and at the time he was born, he was not considered to be an American Citizen.

Obama born in the USA. There was even a birth notice published in the local paper, of the birth. McCain born in a foreign land, and had to later on have a special law passed to retroactively make him a US citizen.

Compare and contrast; and you will soon see that what those Birthers are really driving at, is that Obama is foreign born, because he does not look white.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 1:59 PM
Black Lion says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:26 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Sef: Maybe if a few got an all expenses paid vacation in the Graybar Hotel the rhetoric would calm down for awhile.

G & Sef, I agree 100%. We here all of these calls to overthrow the government, which is treason and sedition. Especially in a time that this nation is involved in 2 wars. I seem to remember under GWB that not supporting the government in a time of war was unpatriotic….I guess that is only appropriate depending on who is President…
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:31 pm nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: You may consider it important, but the states nearly all of which either have or are in the process of moving to the same form of certificate as Hawaii, clearly do not.

How does Hawaii register births nowadays? Is it required to have the birth registration document signed by a witness or not? If it is still required, what is the name of the document used?
G says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm G(Quote)

Black Lion: People don’t believe things unless they want to believe them, or unless the alternative is just too painful to contemplate. Those willing to say Obama just may have been born in another country find this notion easier to accept than the idea that an African American with a Muslim-sounding name was legitimately chosen by the American people to be the leader of the free world. What’s startling is the amount of people who find this scenario so difficult to swallow — so much so that they cling to birtherism like someone who’s afraid of drowning clings to driftwood.”

That paragraph summed things up so well that it bears repeating.

I nominate this to eventually appear on Dr. C’s quote of the day.
G says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm G(Quote)

Black Lion: And there are some interesting comments….

2 words: white privilege…Obama is the first small crack in the massive wall of white privilege and Repubs are shamelessly feeding the covert campaign to delegitimize Obama as president so that what I call passive bigots (people that feel that they don’t “personally” discriminate (data suggests that discrimination in hiring, lending, and housing is still widespread), but are happy to ignore the pervasive white privilege in our society) can feel like they are fighting against the deep symbolism of this country being lead by a black person, without acknowledging the racial component of their opposition to Obama.

Republicans may or may not be racists, but they are definitely using racial dog whistles to partisan advantage, motivating many (maybe a majority of) white people to oppose Obama by feeding their fears of losing their privileged position in society. All of this talk about “reverse racism” (there is no such thing as racism is much more than simple discrimination based on race) is part and parcel of the republican dog whistle campaign, just like birtherism.

This comment also bears repeating – well stated and really addresses the racial component of the issues that are out there and the hollow protests of those that are “in denial” about the fairly obvious racist motivations driving a good portion of this nonsense.
misha says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:42 pm misha(Quote)

Sean: For those that think he was born in Kenya, that memo means GAME OVER as far as I’m concerned.

Unfortunately, it’s not. They have the backup argument that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. Plus, to them it just shows the extent of the conspiracy.
G says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:44 pm G(Quote)

Black Lion: Sef: Maybe if a few got an all expenses paid vacation in the Graybar Hotel the rhetoric would calm down for awhile.

G & Sef, I agree 100%. We here all of these calls to overthrow the government, which is treason and sedition. Especially in a time that this nation is involved in 2 wars. I seem to remember under GWB that not supporting the government in a time of war was unpatriotic….I guess that is only appropriate depending on who is President…

The time for dismissively shrugging off this dangerous and seditious powder-keg stuff is well past, if you ask me.

I personally think that such talk should always be denounced loudly and harshly criticized, and whenever possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law and at maximum penalty.

This unpatriotic vile nonsense needs to be nipped in the bud and it will not be stopped until folks start being seriously held accountable for their words and actions. Allowing this to fester has just caused it to worsen and it will only continue to do so, which is untenable in the long run and very bad for the country.
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm nc1(Quote)

Northland10: “Legal”Read the TN court cases regarding whether a foreman can serve more than once. All of them say, “yes”. The law you refer to guiding juror selection for Grand Juries in TN are for the regular jurors themselves and NOT a foreman. The good Doc and NBC have materials about this on their sites.

Help me out – my understanding is that a Grand Jury foreman is a member of a Grand Jury. First you select the Grand Jury members using the random list and then the foreman is supposed to be selected from that list. Is this how the system is supposed to work or does the judge appoint a Grand Jury forman independently from the Grand Jury member selection?
Sef says:

August 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm Sef(Quote)

nc1:
Help me out – my understanding is that a Grand Jury foreman is a member of a Grand Jury. First you select the Grand Jury members using the random list and then the foreman is supposed to be selected from that list. Is this how the system is supposed to work or does the judge appoint a Grand Jury forman independently from the Grand Jury member selection?

At least in TN, the foreman is a separate, distinct entity independent of the regular jury. The judge appoints him/her independently. Fitzy does not understand this, but it looks like there may be a chance that you will.
Bovril says:

August 5, 2010 at 5:16 pm Bovril(Quote)

Judge appoints the Foreman for a period of up to 2 years and can re-appoint him/her/it as often as the judge so pleases.

Apposite legal screed for you in the arraignment of that muppet Huff when he participated in the “citizens arrest” debacle

Page 9, words of the judge

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34155452/STATE-of-TENNESSEE-v-DARREN-WESLEY-HUFF-Arraignment-June-28-2010

I will also advise you, sir, the case law is crystal clear: it does not matter how many terms a Grand Jury foreman is appointed. He can be appointed for 50 years if the appointing judge so desires that. And that’s why I’m very much afraid that you have some very good intentions, but you’ve been led astray by a lot of falsehoods, by misrepresentations, and pulled into by forces that you probably had no control over.
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm nc1(Quote)

Dave: I’m sure others have and will try to explain to you that TN law has no problem with a grand jury foreman serving for 20 years. But let me ask you a different question — why the heck do you care? Do you really think that if Monroe County replaced the grand jury foreman that would enable birthers to force the President out of the White House?

A bigger question is whether citizens have the right to present the evidence of possible crimes to a Grand Jury.

It is quite possible that a different foreman (one not attached at the hip to a judge) would agree to present charges against Obama to a Grand Jury for consideration. Let them determine whether there is a probable cause that a crime have been committed.

Why are Obama supporters worried about such a possibility – if there is any investigation it will only confirm that Obama is eligible, right?
Dave says:

August 5, 2010 at 5:49 pm Dave(Quote)

nc1:
A bigger question is whether citizens have the right to present the evidence of possible crimes to a Grand Jury.It is quite possible that a different foreman (one not attached at the hip to a judge) would agree to present charges against Obama to a Grand Jury for consideration.Let them determine whether there is a probable cause that a crime have been committed.Why are Obama supporters worried about such a possibility – if there is any investigation it will only confirm that Obama is eligible, right?

I am baffled where you got the mistaken impression that any Obama supporter is the least bit worried about what the Monroe County grand jury might do with regard to the President. But that is the least of the things I’m baffled about. Let’s suppose a different foreman would lead to the charges being presented to the grand jury, though my understanding is that this is not the decision of the foreman. Nonetheless, let’s suppose it would get presented. There is of course no chance the grand jury would indict, but I’m sure you will insist they might — but please bear in mind that most of the charges jaghunter was presenting were violations of federal law, which a state grand jury can’t indict on. But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the grand jury indicts the President under some TN state law. Now what do you imagine will happen? Only Congress can try the President for crimes, and don’t need the indictment of a state grand jury to proceed, nor do they have to act on one. This grand jury has no effect on Congress one way or the other. So could you clarify a bit how a new grand jury foreman has any chance of forcing the President from office?
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 6:00 pm nc1(Quote)

Bovril: Judge appoints the Foreman for a period of up to 2 years and can re-appoint him/her/it as often as the judge so pleases.Apposite legal screed for you in the arraignment of that muppet Huff when he participated in the “citizens arrest” debaclePage 9, words of the judgehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34155452/STATE-of-TENNESSEE-v-DARREN-WESLEY-HUFF-Arraignment-June-28-2010I will also advise you, sir, the case law is crystal clear: it does not matter how many terms a Grand Jury foreman is appointed. He can be appointed for 50 years if the appointing judge so desires that. And that’s why I’m very much afraid that you have some very good intentions, but you’ve been led astray by a lot of falsehoods, by misrepresentations, and pulled into by forces that you probably had no control over.

Judge also said:
“…We are very, very proud in this county to have one of the first black Grand Jury foremen appointed in the state of Tennessee. He’s done us a good job….”

I am not clear what guidelines does the appointing judge must follow when it comes to Grand Jury foreman selection. Could the affirmative action be one of those criteria?
Bovril says:

August 5, 2010 at 6:10 pm Bovril(Quote)

Don’t know, don’t care, not relevant
Bovril says:

August 5, 2010 at 6:17 pm Bovril(Quote)

May I further suggest you partake of the Google and look into

What is a Grand Jury

What are the functions, roles and responsibilities of a Grand Jury

What are the functions, toles and responsibilities of a Foreman

How this differs by state

THEN make trenchant comments about what they should or shouldn’t be doing
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 6:30 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Bovril: Don’t know, don’t care, not relevant

She’s back to racism conspiracies but is obviously incapable of admitting to making a mistake which was more likely a deliberate lie.

Birther loves to move those goalposts . . . . farther and farther and farther away.

nc1: “What name should we use for a court that uses the same Grand Jury foreman for 20 years in a row, in direct violation of a law guiding the service on a Grand Jury?It happened in the Monroe County TN.”

Mike: “No, it didn’t. The foreman served many years, but not in violation of the law, because multiple foremanships are not illegal.”

Have you ever met a birther talking point you didn’t like, nc1?”

Northland10: “Read the TN court cases regarding whether a foreman can serve more than once. All of them say, “yes”. The law you refer to guiding juror selection for Grand Juries in TN are for the regular jurors themselves and NOT a foreman. The good Doc and NBC have materials about this on their sites.”

Rickey: “Please cite the specific Tennessee law in question. Oh, wait, you can’t cite the law, because you have never researched it yourself. Instead you simply parrot birther talking points which you picked up from Walter Fitzpatrick or some other loon.

I am constantly amazed when people who call themselves skeptics turn out to be the most gullible of all.”

Dave: “I’m sure others have and will try to explain to you that TN law has no problem with a grand jury foreman serving for 20 years. But let me ask you a different question — why the heck do you care? Do you really think that if Monroe County replaced the grand jury foreman that would enable birthers to force the President out of the White House?”

Bovril: “Judge appoints the Foreman for a period of up to 2 years and can re-appoint him/her/it as often as the judge so pleases.

Apposite legal screed for you in the arraignment of that muppet Huff when he participated in the “citizens arrest” debacle

Page 9, words of the judge

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34155452/STATE-of-TENNESSEE-v-DARREN-WESLEY-HUFF-Arraignment-June-28-2010

I will also advise you, sir, the case law is crystal clear: it does not matter how many terms a Grand Jury foreman is appointed. He can be appointed for 50 years if the appointing judge so desires that. And that’s why I’m very much afraid that you have some very good intentions, but you’ve been led astray by a lot of falsehoods, by misrepresentations, and pulled into by forces that you probably had no control over.”

Her reply?

Typical birther tactic . . . . change the subject and hope no one notices.
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 6:47 pm nc1(Quote)

Dave: I am baffled where you got the mistaken impression that any Obama supporter is the least bit worried about what the Monroe County grand jury might do with regard to the President. But that is the least of the things I’m baffled about. Let’s suppose a different foreman would lead to the charges being presented to the grand jury, though my understanding is that this is not the decision of the foreman. Nonetheless, let’s suppose it would get presented. There is of course no chance the grand jury would indict, but I’m sure you will insist they might — but please bear in mind that most of the charges jaghunter was presenting were violations of federal law, which a state grand jury can’t indict on. But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the grand jury indicts the President under some TN state law. Now what do you imagine will happen? Only Congress can try the President for crimes, and don’t need the indictment of a state grand jury to proceed, nor do they have to act on one. This grand jury has no effect on Congress one way or the other. So could you clarify a bit how a new grand jury foreman has any chance of forcing the President from office?

Obama supporters are worried – if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease the original documents. If you were not worried you would not be silently watching Gibbs refusing to answer the question about SSN number from Connecticut. He was asked whether Obama has ever had a residence in Connecticut and he answered that the birth certificate has been posted on the Internet.

If everything you said was correct and the state court could do nothing about a federal issue, several questions beg for an answer:

1. How is it possible that a state court in Indiana could make a ruling on the definition of the natural born citizen phrase, even though that was not the issue they were asked to rule on. Was it a violation of the law?

2. Why is it that officials in the Monroe county could not explain the law to Mr. Fitzpatrick but proceeded with trumped up charges against him trying to intimidate him into being silent about charges against Obama.
They could have advised him about proper way to proceed with his presentment.

What would be the proper way to charge a sitting president: if a citizen had an evidence that Bush had committed a crime before being elected to the White House, what would have been the proper legal venue to bring those charges?
ellid says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:26 pm ellid(Quote)

nc1: Ellid

It seems that NC still hasn’t learned that articles are not automatically used with nouns in English, nor that “the affirmative action” is substandard. Then again, NC still won’t admit that she’s been at this for over a year….
ellid says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:28 pm ellid(Quote)

nc1:
Obama supporters are worried – if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease the original documents.If you were not worried you would not be silently watching Gibbs refusing to answer the question about SSN number from Connecticut. He was asked whether Obama has ever had a residence in Connecticut and he answered that the birth certificate has been posted on the Internet.
If everything you said was correct and the state court could do nothing about a federal issue, several questions beg for an answer:1.How is it possible that a state court in Indiana could make a ruling on the definition of the natural born citizen phrase, even though that was not the issue they were asked to rule on. Was it a violation of the law?2. Why is it that officials in the Monroe county could not explain the law to Mr. Fitzpatrick but proceeded with trumped up charges against him trying to intimidate him into being silent about charges against Obama.
They could have advised him about proper way to proceed with his presentment.
What would be the proper way to charge a sitting president: if a citizen had an evidence that Bush had committed a crime before being elected to the White House, what would have been the proper legal venue to bring those charges?

You know very well that’s not true. Why do you persist in lying and distorting facts? And why do you hate America so much?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:48 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: Obama supporters are worried – if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease [sic] the original documents.

You have that backwards. If I were worried, then I would want to see further documentation.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:53 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: I am not clear what guidelines does the appointing judge must follow when it comes to Grand Jury foreman selection. Could the affirmative action be one of those criteria?

nc1 is hereby awarded the Obama Conspiracy Theories official racist stamp of disapproval.
JoZeppy says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:54 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

nc1: Obama supporters are worried – if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease the original documents. If you were not worried you would not be silently watching Gibbs refusing to answer the question about SSN number from Connecticut. He was asked whether Obama has ever had a residence in Connecticut and he answered that the birth certificate has been posted on the Internet.

I never understood the point of this argument. Because we don’t believe the president should be wasting his time responding to nutters with conspiracy theories means we’re afraid? It’s right up there with the “if you mock Palin, it means you’re afraid of her” line. It’s a silly school yard tactic of trying to build a position based on nothing. You have no argument, but since we refuse to cater to your demands based on a total lack of any facts, you now magically have an argument? Funny, I never recall President Bush answering questions about his involvement with the 9/11 attack…does that mean he was behind it? Perhaps it’s because the White House has better things than to stoop to answering baseless conspiracy theories?
Sef says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:59 pm Sef(Quote)

nc1: A bigger question is whether citizens have the right to present the evidence of possible crimes to a Grand Jury.

You do not have a very good understanding of the role of a grand jury. The primary role is for citizens (the grand jury) to be a buffer between the state’s police/prosecution power & its citizens. In other words, the state presents a criminal charge, the grand jury examines the evidence & determines if there is sufficient cause to go further with the case. The grand jury’s primary role is not as an investigative body, though there have been some instances where it does this. So, to answer your question, if the prosecutor deems it necessary to have a particular citizen’s input he will ask for it. It is not the citizen’s role to present the evidence. The proper avenue would be to present the evidence to the prosecutor who would then present it to a grand jury if he felt it useful.
obsolete says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:01 pm obsolete(Quote)

nc1- It looks like you are finally ready to admit that Fitzpatrick was WRONG in his charges related to Tennessee law & Grand Jury Foreman. Kudos to you.

The next step might be to get you to see that the other birther charges are as flimsy as that was, and also based on faulty imaginations of what they believe the law is, not what the law really says.

Look up the SS number crap here and on other sites. You will see how A: The databases themselves claim to have faulty data that cannot be taken as gospel without further research. & B: Obama could have gotten a SS number issued in CT without having lived there. No great conspiracy needed.

As for your question: ” Why is it that officials in the Monroe county could not explain the law to Mr. Fitzpatrick but proceeded with trumped up charges against him trying to intimidate him into being silent about charges against Obama.
They could have advised him about proper way to proceed with his presentment. ”

You can’t reason with a crazy man. Fitzpatrick charged in all fired up and arrestin’ folks and screaming about “the law” and they are supposed to calm him down, explain the error of his thinking and actions, and shake hands followed by a “no harm done” backslap and a coupon to Applebee’s? Personally, I would’ve tazed him.
You admit Fitzpatrick was wrong but you still think those were “trumped up charges against him trying to intimidate him into being silent”? Should they give him a freedom trophy instead?
sfjeff says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:01 pm sfjeff(Quote)

Oh NC1- you of many questions, but all our answers lead you to ask more questions, all in the fervent hope that somehow, somewhere there will be proof of what you blindly believe.

“Obama supporters are worried”

Ummm nope. Not all all.

“if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease the original documents.”

Already been explained to you dozens of times- not my fault if you either refuse to accept what we tell you or just have short term memory issues. I don’t think Obama should pay the slightest bit of attention to what you want. He doesn’t have to, and frankly, I think he shouldn’t.

” If you were not worried you would not be silently watching Gibbs refusing to answer the question about SSN number from Connecticut. He was asked whether Obama has ever had a residence in Connecticut and he answered that the birth certificate has been posted on the Internet. ”

Again- why would I care if Gibbs is asked irrelevant questions?

“1. How is it possible that a state court in Indiana could make a ruling on the definition of the natural born citizen phrase, even though that was not the issue they were asked to rule on. Was it a violation of the law?”

I will leave this one mostly to others, but I believe that the issue was germaine there. Different case, different circumstances. That court still couldn’t have taken any action to remove the President.

“2. Why is it that officials in the Monroe county could not explain the law to Mr. Fitzpatrick but proceeded with trumped up charges against him trying to intimidate him into being silent about charges against Obama.”

Show me any evidence of trumped up charges. From the painfully embaressing video I watched the officials were more than patient with Mr. Fitzpatricks rantings. Show me any evidence of intimidation to try to keep him silent- frankly I don’t think anything can keep Fitzpatrick silent about any of the myriad of wrongs he believes the government has done against him.

“They could have advised him about proper way to proceed with his presentment. ”

I don’t know that there is any legal way to present crap. And I say that politely. Seriously, I do not know that they could have advised him of anything other than to go home and stop being a kook.

“What would be the proper way to charge a sitting president: if a citizen had an evidence that Bush had committed a crime before being elected to the White House, what would have been the proper legal venue to bring those charges?”

If I had evidence of a crime committed by a sitting President, prior to his election, I would take the following steps:

a) I would notify the appropriate law enforcement agency- FBI, police etc.
b) I would simultaniously notify multiple news establishments
c) I would notify my congressman.

Now- if all of them basically told me that i was nuts, that my picture of the President strolling down the beach in his swim trunks is not evidence of Pedophilia- personally I would sit down and re-review the evidence and see if maybe I was wrong.

If I was personally absolutely convinced- and no law enforcement, no media, no Congress- nobody but a few very odd folks on the internet- agreed with me- I would be a birther.

So to continue- the proper law enforcement agency could investigate, and Congress could also initiate investigations. But only Congress could proceed and remove the President if Congress decided it was warrented.

But you did know that didn’t you?
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:05 pm nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: You have that backwards. If I were worried, then I would want to see furtger [sic] documentation.

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that Gibbs/Obama refuses to answer the Connecticut residency question!?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:13 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sean: Has any birther tried to explain away the 1967 State Dept memo clarifying Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

For those that think he was born in Kenya, that memo means GAME OVER as far as I’m concerned.

I think more than anything the State Department memo carries weight with birthers because of who uncovered it and that it was forced out of the government, not what it says. What the memo actually says is fully consistent with the fraudulent original registration myth. As a logical person, evaluating all the available evidence, I see the state department memo as a secondary source, just like the newspaper announcements. But then birthers are not logical persons.
JoZeppy says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

nc1: So you see nothing wrong with the fact that Gibbs/Obama refuses to answer the Connecticut residency question!?

Not a thing. The White House has better things to do than answer stupid, irrelevant questions. I also didn’t see anything wrong when Gengrich verbally beat down some MTV moron for asking the “briefs or boxers” question.
Sef says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:19 pm Sef(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: What the memo actually says is fully consistent with the fraudulent original registration myth.

Doc, would you care to rephrase that?
dunstvangeet says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:20 pm dunstvangeet(Quote)

How is it possible that a state court in Indiana could make a ruling on the definition of the natural born citizen phrase, even though that was not the issue they were asked to rule on. Was it a violation of the law?

Actually, it’s not. Judges do Obiter Dictum all the time in their rulings. They go off on tangents, talking about legal cases. The fact that it wasn’t neccessary to rule this does not make it a violation of the law to rule it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_Dictum

Now, can you show me where it is against the law for court opinions to hold Obiter Dictum in them?
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:22 pm nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: nc1 is hereby awarded the Obama Conspiracy Theories official racist stamp of disapproval.

It is the judge who mentioned the foreman’s race and how proud he was about it.

I am just asking a simple question (may not be a politically correct one) – does the appointing judge takes race into consideration when appointing a foreman to ten consecutive terms?
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:22 pm Majority Will(Quote)

JoZeppy:
I never understood the point of this argument.Because we don’t believe the president should be wasting his time responding to nutters with conspiracy theories means we’re afraid?It’s right up there with the “if you mock Palin, it means you’re afraid of her” line.It’s a silly school yard tactic of trying to build a position based on nothing. You have no argument, but since we refuse to cater to your demands based on a total lack of any facts, you now magically have an argument?Funny, I never recall President Bush answering questions about his involvement with the 9/11 attack…does that mean he was behind it?Perhaps it’s because the White House has better things than to stoop to answering baseless conspiracy theories?

Stop making sense!

“Perhaps it’s because the White House has better things than to stoop to answering baseless conspiracy theories?”

That is far too PAINFUL for her or any birther to contemplate. After all, THEY are the center of the universe.

She’s been asking the exact same questions over and over again for over a year (maybe longer) to sane people and obviously keeps expecting a different answer.

I guess that’s why most birthers stick to nutter sites where the responses are constantly monitored and dissension is strictly forbidden.
sfjeff says:

August 5, 2010 at 8:59 pm sfjeff(Quote)

Judge also said:
“…We are very, very proud in this county to have one of the first black Grand Jury foremen appointed in the state of Tennessee. He’s done us a good job….”

Actually the Judge also said:
I will state again I did not appoint the Grand Jury foreman in Monroe County, but it wouldn’t matter whether I did or not. We are very, very proud in this county to have one of the first black Grand Jury foremen appointed in the state of Tennessee. He’s done us a good job. I did not appoint him. I’d be glad to say so if I did. We’re very proud in this county, to try to resolve some of the race problems that other places in the, throughout the country haven’t been terribly concerned about; one of the reasons we did this many years ago when this Grand Jury foreman was appointed.

Now since you have clearly never been in the South, you may not understand why someone might be very proud of the fact of having the first black Grand Jury foreman in the state of Tennessee. But exactly again- what does his color have to do with Fitzpatricks case or Obama’s eligibility? Even if by the biggest stretch of imagination, he was originally appointed because he was black- how is this relevant? Other than the fact that the judge mentioned it?

And why would you quote that, but leave out nuggets like this:

“but you’ve been led astray by a lot of falsehoods, by misrepresentations,”

Myself- I think you leave out these statements either because you are a racist and this doesn’t further your point to make this a racial issue or because you don’t want to acknowledge that the judge is saying the defendents have been led astray.

I also like that Huff was willing to ask for the taxpayers to pay for his attorney, but the judge was having nothing to do with it.
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I think more than anything the State Department memo carries weight with birthers because of who uncovered it and that it was forced out of the government, not what it says. What the memo actually says is fully consistent with the fraudulent original registration myth. As a logical person, evaluating all the available evidence, I see the state department memo as a secondary source, just like the newspaper announcements. But then birthers are not logical persons.

That memo is not a secondary source. It still does not answer the question whether the original birth certificate is based on a fraudulent statement of unattended Hawaii birth. What you really need is the original document. If the official story were true – that document should look like the ones shown for Nordyke twins.

What does not make much sense is the claim that many documents between 1925 and 1968 were destroyed, including the Stanley Ann’s passport application (1965) yet they were able to find a document from 1967 where Stanley Ann applied for passport extension. According to the document destruction policy (from 1984) both should have been discarded.

We have no idea whether Stanley Ann had passport prior to 1965.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Can someone give me some info on this? World Nutjob Daily is reporting that Kagan represented President Obama on the following five cases at the Supreme Court. They are saying that these were eligibility cases, but they are not on the docket here, nor are they on the birther case list.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-10382.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-8145.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:01 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Can someone give me some info on this? World Nutjob Daily is reporting that Kagan represented President Obama on the following five cases at the Supreme Court. They are saying that these were eligibility cases, but they are not on the docket here, nor are they on the birther case list.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:02 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Continued

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-10382.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-8145.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm
Bovril says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:21 pm Bovril(Quote)

Errrr,

Kagan was Attorney General so when Da Ebil Gunmint is directly involved, the name of the AG is used even when the closest she ever got to the cases was probably a Monday morning “These are the weeks dockets”.

I remain continually amazed by the outright stupidty of Birfers and the mandacity (word of the day) by those that feed them.
Bovril says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:23 pm Bovril(Quote)

Poo,

Mendacity…….
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:24 pm nc1(Quote)

sfjeff: Judge also said:“…We are very, very proud in this county to have one of the first black Grand Jury foremen appointed in the state of Tennessee. He’s done us a good job….”Actually the Judge also said:I will state again I did not appoint the Grand Jury foreman in Monroe County, but it wouldn’t matter whether I did or not. We are very, very proud in this county to have one of the first black Grand Jury foremen appointed in the state of Tennessee. He’s done us a good job. I did not appoint him. I’d be glad to say so if I did. We’re very proud in this county, to try to resolve some of the race problems that other places in the, throughout the country haven’t been terribly concerned about; one of the reasons we did this many years ago when this Grand Jury foreman was appointed.Now since you have clearly never been in the South, you may not understand why someone might be very proud of the fact of having the first black Grand Jury foreman in the state of Tennessee. But exactly again- what does his color have to do with Fitzpatricks case or Obama’s eligibility? Even if by the biggest stretch of imagination, he was originally appointed because he was black- how is this relevant? Other than the fact that the judge mentioned it?And why would you quote that, but leave out nuggets like this:“but you’ve been led astray by a lot of falsehoods, by misrepresentations,”Myself- I think you leave out these statements either because you are a racist and this doesn’t further your point to make this a racial issue or because you don’t want to acknowledge that the judge is saying the defendents have been led astray.I also like that Huff was willing to ask for the taxpayers to pay for his attorney, but the judge was having nothing to do with it.

You need to ask the judge why did he find it necessary to even mention foreman’s race in the court proceedings.

I don’t have a problem with judge appointing a black person to be a Grand Jury foreman. I do have a problem when a judge appoints the same person for 10 consecutive terms (20 years). The whole point of a Grand Jury is to have an independent body determining whether there is a probable cause that a crime was committed. The perception of impartiality of a Grand Jury is essential for its function. Having the same person appointed as a foreman creates an image of judge’s puppet being reappointed.

In this case the law describing the length of the term for a Grand Jury foreman (2 years) is meaningless.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:25 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

I’m thinking that they are not even eligibility cases since they are not on the docket or the birther case list. It looks like the one with the long Middle Eastern name,
Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi, (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-8145.htm) has to do with being released from Guantanamo, but even after searching Scribd, I cannot find anything on the other ones.
BatGuano says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:28 pm BatGuano(Quote)

nc1: whether the original birth certificate is based on a fraudulent statement of unattended Hawaii birth. What you really need is the original document

what do you expect the original to say ? ” this is a fraudulent document ” ???

your contention has been that obama’s grandmother was able to fraudulently register a birth with no evidence of a baby even existing and no contact with the parents. to do this she would have needed the help of someone at the DoH and/or vital records. if this was the scenario then the birth would have been registered the same as all other births in the state, attended or not.
Joey says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:30 pm Joey(Quote)

“Can someone give me some info on this? World Nutjob Daily is reporting that Kagan represented President Obama on the following five cases at the Supreme Court. They are saying that these were eligibility cases, but they are not on the docket here, nor are they on the birther case list.”

The following is from an anti-birther who posts on FreeRepublic.com:
“And serious news consumers dismiss WND and Farah because their reporting is less than trustworthy. This article is a prime example of why, because the evidence underlying it is totally bogus.

Kovacs writes in this article “A simple search of the high court’s own website reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.” In one of the captions in the article, he writes “Searching the dockets at the U.S. Supreme Court’s website reveals Elena Kagan’s name coming up numerous times on cases challenging President Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office.” And of course the article’s title is “Elena Kagan tied to Obama’s birth certificate.”

Kovacs’ ONLY source for ANY of these claims is this link. So let’s look at what’s at that link.

First of all, there aren’t nine distinct cases there. There are only six different plaintiffs, with two of the plaintiffs having more than one case listing.

Louis Lutz is a fruitcake who sued Bush for $100 billion, and then appealed his way up to the Supreme Court.

Jerome Julius Brown and Gary William Holt are prisoners, and their cases appear to be civil rights claims.

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission was an FEC case about anti-Obama ads about abortion.

And Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi and Jamal Kiyemba were Guantanamo detainees who filed suit over their detention.

In other words, out of those “nine times” that Kovacs says Kagan was involved in eligibility cases, it appears that precisely ZERO of the cases he identifies actually involved Obama eligibility issues.

Nope, nothing about Obama’s eligibility in a single one of them. The article isn’t even based on an exaggerated number; it’s based on a completely false premise. Notice how Kovacs doesn’t bother to quote anything from any of the cases that shows they’re eligibility-related; he just says they are, and hopes that no one will check to see if he’s telling the truth or not. ”

155 posted on Thursday, August 05, 2010 2:43:44 PM by LorenC

And to Bovril, Elena Kagan was Solicitor General not Attorney General.
Dave says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:31 pm Dave(Quote)

Not sure what these five cases are, but I do notice that the first four the respondents waived their right to respond to the cert petition, which was then denied. That not a heck of a lot of representation.

The fifth one does not name the President as a party. The respondent is the FEC. So Kagan may have been representing the respondent, but she certainly wasn’t representing the President.

I do find it interesting that on the fourth one the petitioner is Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi. That is not a name I would expect for a birther. Googling indicates he is a Gitmo detainee. Still haven’t figured out what his Supreme Court case had to do with Presidential eligibility.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:35 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Thanks, Joey. What it appears they did was a search of “Obama” and “Kagan” on the Supreme Court’s website and, of course, these two names are going to come up together since she is the Solicitor General, but calling them “eligibility cases” is going too far since a simple search like they did would not give that information.
Joey says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:36 pm Joey(Quote)

BatGuano: what do you expect the original to say ? ” this is a fraudulent document ” ???your contention has been that obama’s grandmother was able to fraudulently register a birth with no evidence of a baby even existing and no contact with the parents. to do this she would have needed the help of someone at the DoH and/or vital records. if this was the scenario then the birth would have been registered the same as all other births in the state, attended or not.

And on top of all that, Governor Lingle says that the birth record lists “Kapi’olani Medical Center” as the birth hospital. It is obvious that Governor Lingle said that because when she sent Dr. Fukino to check on the birth certificate, Fukino reported back to the governor that the certificate names Kapi’olani.
Maybe some day, some birther will get to subpoena the original birth record and we’ll all know for certain.
There is a possiblity that tomorrow, Lt. Colonel Lakin will be granted the right to depose Dr. Fukino. Its possible, but not likely.
Joey says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:38 pm Joey(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP: Thanks, Joey. What it appears they did was a search of “Obama” and “Kagan” on the Supreme Court’s website and, of course, these two names are going to come up together since she is the Solicitor General, but calling them “eligibility cases” is going too far since a simple search like they did would not give that information.

Yep, you nailed it!
Joey says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:44 pm Joey(Quote)

Dave: Not sure what these five cases are, but I do notice that the first four the respondents waived their right to respond to the cert petition, which was then denied. That not a heck of a lot of representation.The fifth one does not name the President as a party. The respondent is the FEC. So Kagan may have been representing the respondent, but she certainly wasn’t representing the President.I do find it interesting that on the fourth one the petitioner is Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi. That is not a name I would expect for a birther. Googling indicates he is a Gitmo detainee. Still haven’t figured out what his Supreme Court case had to do with Presidential eligibility.

There have been eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached the Supreme Court for Justices; Cert conferences. It takes four justices to agree to “grant cert” and hear a case before the full court. All eight Obama eligibility appeals have been “denied cert” therefore there has been no representatition of the Solicitor General in any of them.
The eight SCOTUS-rejected Obama eligibility appeals are: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:47 pm Majority Will(Quote)

BatGuano:
what do you expect the original to say ? ” this is a fraudulent document ” ???

Coming from the guano psychotic? Of course.
Majority Will says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:58 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Just for Lakin, Huff and Fitzpatrick and probably soon enough, Swennson and a few other birther lunatics, let’s replace Whirled Nut Daily’s asinine birth certificate billboards with a better, more accurate message,

“Birther breaks the law?

Enjoy prison.”
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 9:58 pm nc1(Quote)

BatGuano: what do you expect the original to say ? ” this is a fraudulent document ” ???your contention has been that obama’s grandmother was able to fraudulently register a birth with no evidence of a baby even existing and no contact with the parents. to do this she would have needed the help of someone at the DoH and/or vital records. if this was the scenario then the birth would have been registered the same as all other births in the state, attended or not.

The original would tell us whether the official birthplace story (Kapiolani Hospital) is true or not. If Obama could produce a document similar to the one for Nordyke twins – that would be the end of the birthplace story debate.

An unattended birth registration would send a clear message: Obama lied about birth registration – further investigation needed to establish what the truth is.
jamese777 says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:04 pm jamese777(Quote)

nc1: The original would tell us whether the official birthplace story (Kapiolani Hospital) is true or not. If Obama could produce a document similar to the one for Nordyke twins – that would be the end of the birthplace story debate. An unattended birth registration would send a clear message: Obama lied about birth registration – further investigation needed to establish what the truth is.

When did Obama ever mention birth registration in order to lie about it?
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:05 pm nc1(Quote)

Joey: And on top of all that, Governor Lingle says that the birth record lists “Kapi’olani Medical Center” as the birth hospital. It is obvious that Governor Lingle said that because when she sent Dr. Fukino to check on the birth certificate, Fukino reported back to the governor that the certificate names Kapi’olani.Maybe some day, some birther will get to subpoena the original birth record and we’ll all know for certain.There is a possiblity that tomorrow, Lt. Colonel Lakin will be granted the right to depose Dr. Fukino. Its possible, but not likely.

That is not what Gov. Lingle said. She said that Dr. Fukino’s press-release mentioned Kapiolani Hospital as Obama’s birthplace. It is easy to demonstrate that no such press release was issued.
nc1 says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:08 pm nc1(Quote)

jamese777: When did Obama ever mention birth registration in order to lie about it?

If the original birth ceritificate indicated unattended birth, the letter Obama sent to the Kapiolani hospital claiming that he was born there would be a lie.
Northland10 says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm Northland10(Quote)

nc1: It is the judge who mentioned the foreman’s race and how proud he was about it.

I am just asking a simple question (may not be a politically correct one) – does the appointing judge takes race into consideration when appointing a foreman to ten consecutive terms?

Many years ago, I was the head of a board charged with deciding on who would be inducted as an adult leader. That year, the national organization had changed the rules and allowed women to be selected. One of the first nominations that came in was for a female. She had the highest qualifications and was the most deserving of all the nominations that we had received. We were quite eager to induct her.

Being young and idealistic at the time, we were extremely proud at how we had been one of the first groups to induct a female leader. However, that excitement was based on our knowledge that, male or female, she was an absolute best nomination we had and that her qualifications well surpassed everybody else.

So, in a state and country that has had a history of denying people based entirely on race or gender, there are many that take great pride that we can now select, upon their merits, a black man to be a Grand Jury Foremen, Secretary of State, Justice of the Supreme Court or the President of the United States (not to mention women to every position and black woman as, at minimum, as Secretary of State). The pride is in our overcoming the past prejudice and judging people on the merits.

Unfortunately, their are some that fear that this reduces their “white privilege.” Though it may take another 50-100 years, eventually, I have faith we will get beyond this fear and live in a society that need not be concerned on whether somebody was selected only for their race or gender. Centuries upon centuries of discrimination does not end overnight but it will end.
Dave says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:12 pm Dave(Quote)

nc1:
Obama supporters are worried – if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease the original documents.If you were not worried you would not be silently watching Gibbs refusing to answer the question about SSN number from Connecticut. He was asked whether Obama has ever had a residence in Connecticut and he answered that the birth certificate has been posted on the Internet.

I’m sorry, but I can’t understand your point. I am aware that birthers think things like the SSN are issues, but I still haven’t heard an understandable explanation of what the issue is, and that’s why I’m not asking the President for more information.

If everything you said was correct and the state court could do nothing about a federal issue, several questions beg for an answer:1.How is it possible that a state court in Indiana could make a ruling on the definition of the natural born citizen phrase, even though that was not the issue they were asked to rule on. Was it a violation of the law?

That judge was basically just mouthing off. The word “ruling” doesn’t really apply to his statements about what NBC means. Nobody can cite him as precedent, and it was not relevant to the case he was ruling on. It’s not illegal for him to do that, but (or because) his statement really has no impact. He’s not a federal judge, so on this topic his opinion is no more than just his opinion.

2. Why is it that officials in the Monroe county could not explain the law to Mr. Fitzpatrick but proceeded with trumped up charges against him trying to intimidate him into being silent about charges against Obama.
They could have advised him about proper way to proceed with his presentment.

I was under the impression that they did. And I believe he did start with the proper procedure. He was just unwilling to accept the results of the proper procedure. And your description of trumped up charges is a little hard to swallow when his own supporters took a video of him doing the things he’s charged with and proudly posted it to youtube.

What would be the proper way to charge a sitting president: if a citizen had an evidence that Bush had committed a crime before being elected to the White House, what would have been the proper legal venue to bring those charges?

This is an excellent question. The answer is in the Constitution: the proper legal venue is Congress.
bob says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:20 pm bob(Quote)

Dave: That judge was basically just mouthing off. The word “ruling” doesn’t really apply to his statements about what NBC means. Nobody can cite him as precedent, and it was not relevant to the case he was ruling on. It’s not illegal for him to do that, but (or because) his statement really has no impact. He’s not a federal judge, so on this topic his opinion is no more than just his opinion.

Those three judges were not just “mouthing off.” The presented a two-citizen parent argument, and the court demonstrated it was impossible for the plaintiffs to state a claim because there is no two-citizen-parent requirement.

The court’s decision is binding law in Indiana. Although not precedential elsewhere it is an excellent example of how real judges on a real court decided this real issue that was properly before them.
BatGuano says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:24 pm BatGuano(Quote)

nc1:
If the original birth ceritificate indicated unattended birth, the letter Obama sent to the Kapiolani hospital claiming that he was born there would be a lie.

that would be the letter he sent after he was elected president, correct ?
jamese777 says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:27 pm jamese777(Quote)

nc1: That is not what Gov. Lingle said. She said that Dr. Fukino’s press-release mentioned Kapiolani Hospital as Obama’s birthplace. It is easy to demonstrate that no such press release was issued.

True, but in a sworn deposition or in oral testimony, both Dr. Fukino and Governor Lingle would be able to clarify that statement and explain where the reference to Kapi’olani as the birthplace actually comes from.
The only constitutionally relevant birth information to establish natural born citizen status is place of birth and age. Obama has on file with the state of Hawaii a perfectly legal, certified document stating that he was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the State of Hawaii. Whether he was born in a hospital or not is irrelevant to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
And as one federal judge put it: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
“—US District Court Judge Clay D. Land in dismissing Captain Connie Rhodes v Colonel Thomas MacDonald et. al., September 16, 2009
jamese777 says:

August 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm jamese777(Quote)

bob: Those three judges were not just “mouthing off.” The presented a two-citizen parent argument, and the court demonstrated it was impossible for the plaintiffs to state a claim because there is no two-citizen-parent requirement.The court’s decision is binding law in Indiana. Although not precedential elsewhere it is an excellent example of how real judges on a real court decided this real issue that was properly before them.

I’m really glad that you wrote the above because I was also getting ready to reply to that “mouthing off” comment. The whole point of the plaintiff’s case was that Obama should be denied Indiana’s electoral college votes because he did not have two American citizen parents. There was no “mouthing off” in that decision. It was a state court case because US presidential elections are comprised of 50 state elections with an accumulation of the electoral college votes from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If Indiana had invalidated Obama’s electoral college votes, many other states would have followed suit.
Dave says:

August 5, 2010 at 11:16 pm Dave(Quote)

jamese777:
I’m really glad that you wrote the above because I was also getting ready to reply to that “mouthing off” comment. The whole point of the plaintiff’s case was that Obama should be denied Indiana’s electoral college votes because he did not have two American citizen parents. There was no “mouthing off” in that decision. It was a state court case because US presidential elections are comprised of 50 state elections with an accumulation of the electoral college votes from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If Indiana had invalidated Obama’s electoral college votes, many other states would have followed suit.

I suppose I can’t conclusively prove they were “mouthing off” since it’s a rather imprecise statement, but let me point out the following. The court’s decision says:

Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the
Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party’s nominee for the presidency.
The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument
stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the
candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the
reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was
not eligible to become President.

This is saying that the plaintiff’s case is already DOA, but anyhow they then spend about 14 pages on why they cannot say that Obama or McCain was not eligible.

I don’t know if the plaintiff’s ever tried to appeal this to federal court, but I can imagine if they did they’d run into trouble because, really, their case was dead before it ever got to this federal question.

You can state that this is now the law in Indiana, but in the extremely unlikely event that it ever mattered in any future case in Indiana that wasn’t DOA, the plaintiffs would have no trouble getting a federal court to review it. It seems certain that the federal court would agree with this ruling, but I can’t believe that anyone who disputed a state court’s interpretation of federal law couldn’t get a review from a federal court.
bob says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:06 am bob(Quote)

The court noted the plaintiffs failed to cite authority that the governor was required to determine eligibility. That’s not the same as saying there is no authority; rather, the court wasn’t inclined to say there wasn’t any simply because of the plaintiffs’ shortcomings.

You don’t “appeal” cases to federal court (other than SCOTUS), and, no, they did not even try to appeal to SCOTUS. State courts interpret federal law all the time; nothing special here.
Dave says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:23 am Dave(Quote)

bob: The court noted the plaintiffs failed to cite authority that the governor was required to determine eligibility.That’s not the same as saying there is no authority; rather, the court wasn’t inclined to say there wasn’t any simply because of the plaintiffs’ shortcomings.You don’t “appeal” cases to federal court (other than SCOTUS), and, no, they did not even try to appeal to SCOTUS.State courts interpret federal law all the time; nothing special here.

Bearing in mind that I’m not a lawyer — I do know that it is routine for state courts to interpret federal law when necessary. But I believe that, if a case turns on a point of federal law and a party believes the state court has interpreted federal law incorrectly, it is permissible to appeal that question to the local federal circuit. Am I wrong about that?

Also, you make it sound like the failure to cite any authority and make any legal argument is a small thing. But that alone is completely sufficient to justify the court ruling against them.
sfjeff says:

August 6, 2010 at 1:20 am sfjeff(Quote)

NC1: You need to ask the judge why did he find it necessary to even mention foreman’s race in the court proceedings.

Umm- no I don’t. I don’t care why he mentioned them, and the judge isn’t part of our discussion group. However, I am asking you why you- since you are part of our discussion- why you cited his comment and then asked whether the appointment was an affirmative action appointment?

Why did you ask whether it was an affirmative action appointment? Easy question- and I am not asking what Obama would say, or the judge or Orly- just you.

“I don’t have a problem with judge appointing a black person to be a Grand Jury foreman. I do have a problem when a judge appoints the same person for 10 consecutive terms (20 years). ”

I suggest then that you do an exhaustive survey of grand juries throughout the United States, starting in Tennessee. You really have no idea why this person has been appointed for 20 years, and neither do I. It could very well be for the best of reasons, or knowing how some local governments operate for not good reasons- nepotism, favoritism, who knows? It doesn’t change the fact that Fitz was performing an illegal action- not the Grand Jury foreman- Fitz was.

“The whole point of a Grand Jury is to have an independent body determining whether there is a probable cause that a crime was committed. The perception of impartiality of a Grand Jury is essential for its function. Having the same person appointed as a foreman creates an image of judge’s puppet being reappointed.”

I have to chuckle about this, after all the Birther Grand Juries that were self appointed with people who already were convinced Obama was illegible- for some reason dammit! I would suggest you go to Monroe County(I think thats where it was) and ask the citizens there. They elect the judge who appoints the grand jury foreman. Personally, i don’t waste too much time with the goings on of grand juries in Tennessee

“In this case the law describing the length of the term for a Grand Jury foreman (2 years) is meaningless.”

Probably that is something that the voters of Tennessee would be interested in, but frankly I am not concerned. Whoever the foreman was, the result would have been the same.
jamese777 says:

August 6, 2010 at 1:40 am jamese777(Quote)

Dave: I suppose I can’t conclusively prove they were “mouthing off” since it’s a rather imprecise statement, but let me point out the following. The court’s decision says:This is saying that the plaintiff’s case is already DOA, but anyhow they then spend about 14 pages on why they cannot say that Obama or McCain was not eligible.I don’t know if the plaintiff’s ever tried to appeal this to federal court, but I can imagine if they did they’d run into trouble because, really, their case was dead before it ever got to this federal question.You can state that this is now the law in Indiana, but in the extremely unlikely event that it ever mattered in any future case in Indiana that wasn’t DOA, the plaintiffs would have no trouble getting a federal court to review it. It seems certain that the federal court would agree with this ruling, but I can’t believe that anyone who disputed a state court’s interpretation of federal law couldn’t get a review from a federal court.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court. The appeal was denied a hearing.
G says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:02 am G(Quote)

nc1: That is not what Gov. Lingle said. She said that Dr. Fukino’s press-release mentioned Kapiolani Hospital as Obama’s birthplace. It is easy to demonstrate that no such press release was issued.

nc1: If the original birth ceritificate indicated unattended birth, the letter Obama sent to the Kapiolani hospital claiming that he was born there would be a lie.

*yawn*

This weak and immaterial nonsense again, NC1? Seriously?? You truly are a broken record of banality if there ever was one.

So what. Big deal. When all of your arguments boil down to nothing but whining about meaningless minutiae focused on minor mistakes or that someone mis-spoke, it just shows how vapid and hollow your arguments are. You’ve got nothing. You never have and you just boringly repeat the same whines over and over and over again, regardless of any answers you are given.

Who fricking cares what hospital he was or wasn’t born in. Maybe for some Jeopardy question or historical Trivial Pursuit game, that might be a “fun fact”, but that’s it.

“Supposedly”, all the birther arguments are about eligibility to be President….

On that regard, all that matters is eligibility as outlined in the Constitution. In terms of NBC, all reliable evidence gives us a clear and definitive answer: born in Honolulu, HI on 8/4/1961 .

HI is clearly a state of the US, therefore, his birth *anywhere* in that state makes him an NBC – period.

It doesn’t matter what hospital he was born in or whether a birth was attended or unattended – all that matters is that the birth occurred on US soil, which Honolulu, HI clearly is.

End of story. You have no meaningful way around this truth except to try to move the goalposts and argue about meaningless and inconsequential distractions.

It is quite clear that you are just a mere obsessed troll who can’t handle reality, so boo-hoo for you and tough cookies, but he’s president and there’s nothing you can do about it until at least 2012 at the ballot box and quite possibly just have to continue to deal with your disappointment until Jan of 2017.

Your comments over the past 24-hrs in regards to the TN Grand Jury foreman seem to betray what truly drives you – you come across as a racist with issues accepting black people in roles of authority. Quite frankly, it seems that this is “really” your issue and the issue of many of your birther ilk and this whole birther nonsense is nothing more than your expressions of your own insecurities and personal issues at having to live in a world where a black man can be president.
BatGuano says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:03 am BatGuano(Quote)

nc1:
If the original birth ceritificate indicated unattended birth, the letter Obama sent to the Kapiolani hospital claiming that he was born there would be a lie.

in your best case scenario, nc1, the magical original long form proclaims “unattended” birth. obama states “huh? i always thought i was born at kapiolani.” and that’s the end of it ! the long form still lists honolulu as the birthplace and there is no contrary evidence for impeachment. whether you believe him or if he is/isn’t telling the truth is a moot point.

your theory is that the original birth registry is fraudulent. you’ve said that you don’t know where obama was born but the only foreign country that obama’s parents have ANY connection to at this time is kenya. we’ve seen that parents and baby couldn’t have traveled from kenya to honolulu in the time between birth and when the birth was registered so, if obama’s grandmother had placed a fraudulent registry, then she would have needed the aid of one or more people with the DoH and/or vital records since there wouldn’t have been any child, or parents, to confirm an existence. now, outside of the conspirators, the birth registry would look and be considered absolutely legit. if obama was never told about his grandmother’s treachery ( and why would he be ? ) then he would have lead his entire life believing that was born in hawaii.

now if the original long form says “unattended” why would obama have sent the letter to kapiolani ? almost all of our presidents were born outside of a hospital, it wouldn’t have effected his eligibility.
richCares says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:12 am richCares(Quote)

G, your comments to nc1 are spot on, his posts usually publicize his low intelligence, and he appears proud of it. When his distortions are clearly shown he ignores them. Does he have a severe learning disability or just is so full of hate for Obama. Not a single fact seems to penetrate his tiny brain. He repeatedly states debunked birther talking points. He has become very tiring.
Rickey says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:55 am Rickey(Quote)

nc1:
It is quite possible that a different foreman (one not attached at the hip to a judge) would agree to present charges against Obama to a Grand Jury for consideration.

No, it is not possible. Fitzpatrick is alleging that Obama has committed treason. Treason is a FEDERAL OFFENSE. The state courts have no jurisdiction over charges of treason. Even if Fitzpatrick accused Benedict Arnold of treason, a state Grand Jury could not hand down an indictment.

This is basic stuff which a typical high school civics student would have no difficulty grasping.
G says:

August 6, 2010 at 3:56 am G(Quote)

richCares: G, your comments to nc1 are spot on, his posts usually publicize his low intelligence, and he appears proud of it. When his distortions are clearly shown he ignores them. Does he have a severe learning disability or just is so full of hate for Obama. Not a single fact seems to penetrate his tiny brain. He repeatedly states debunked birther talking points. He has become very tiring.

Thanks for the feedback, richCares.

Yeah, it has long been obvious that NC1 is a hopeless, hardcore birther and merely a troll.

Although the suspicion has been there, I think some of NC1s latest statements also clearly show that racism is a key factor driving her hate here.

Which reminds me, the only correction I have for you is that I’m fairly sure that NC1 is a “she” and others here who have dealt with her for even longer on other forums can validate that and can fill in more about her background.
nc1 says:

August 6, 2010 at 5:20 am nc1(Quote)

BatGuano: in your best case scenario, nc1, the magical original long form proclaims “unattended” birth. obama states “huh? i always thought i was born at kapiolani.” and that’s the end of it ! the long form still lists honolulu as the birthplace and there is no contrary evidence for impeachment. whether you believe him or if he is/isn’t telling the truth is a moot point.your theory is that the original birth registry is fraudulent. you’ve said that you don’t know where obama was born but the only foreign country that obama’s parents have ANY connection to at this time is kenya. we’ve seen that parents and baby couldn’t have traveled from kenya to honolulu in the time between birth and when the birth was registered so, if obama’s grandmother had placed a fraudulent registry, then she would have needed the aid of one or more people with the DoH and/or vital records since there wouldn’t have been any child, or parents, to confirm an existence. now, outside of the conspirators, the birth registry would look and be considered absolutely legit. if obama was never told about his grandmother’s treachery ( and why would he be ? ) then he would have lead his entire life believing that was born in hawaii. now if the original long form says “unattended” why would obama have sent the letter to kapiolani ? almost all of our presidents were born outside of a hospital, it wouldn’t have effected his eligibility.

Obama mentioned in his book that he had seen his old birth certificate – he would not be able to claim any surprise if the original birth certificate indicated unattended birth.
nc1 says:

August 6, 2010 at 5:33 am nc1(Quote)

richCares: G, your comments to nc1 are spot on, his posts usually publicize his low intelligence, and he appears proud of it. When his distortions are clearly shown he ignores them. Does he have a severe learning disability or just is so full of hate for Obama. Not a single fact seems to penetrate his tiny brain. He repeatedly states debunked birther talking points. He has become very tiring.

Show us your intelligence and explain Gibbs’ refusal to answer the Connecticut residency question?

Obama is using a SSN from CT. There is no information about Obama having a residence in CT. This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.
nc1 says:

August 6, 2010 at 5:49 am nc1(Quote)

Paul Pieniezny: Doc, please remove my earlier post with the question about the foreman’s race. I did not notice the later posts where nc1 made the racism argument herself. Self-fulfilling prophesy…

The attached-at-the-hip comment is related to the fact that the foreman has been selected for TEN consecutive terms which is contrary to the purpose of the Grand Jury. They are supposed to be a check against the corruption in courts.

In the Monroe County, TN they don’t care about maintaining the image of impartiality for their Grand Jury.
ellid says:

August 6, 2010 at 7:24 am ellid(Quote)

nc1:
Obama mentioned in his book that he had seen his old birth certificate – he would not be able to claim any surprise if the original birth certificate indicated unattended birth.

Asked and answered over a year ago. You’re still mainlining Orly’s mascara, aren’t you?
Northland10 says:

August 6, 2010 at 7:27 am Northland10(Quote)

nc1: The attached-at-the-hip comment is related to the fact that the foreman has been selected for TEN consecutive terms which is contrary to the purpose of the Grand Jury. They are supposed to be a check against the corruption in courts.

TN Rules of the Court Rule 6e:

(e) Duties of the Grand Jury. It is the duty of the grand jury to:

(1) inquire into, consider, and act on all criminal cases submitted to it by the district attorney general;

(2) inquire into any report of a criminal offense brought to its attention by a member of the grand jury;

(3) inquire into the condition and management of prisons and other county buildings and institutions within the county;

(4) inquire into the condition of the county treasury;

(5) inquire into the correctness and sufficiency of county officers’ bonds;

(6) inquire into any state or local officers’ abuse of office; and

(7) report the results of its actions to the court.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/rules/tnrulesofcourt/03crim.htm#6

In addition, if they impaneled by a court, how can their purpose be to be a check on corruption of the same court? They exist as a check against the government, most notably, the criminal prosecutions by the government.
Northland10 says:

August 6, 2010 at 7:42 am Northland10(Quote)

nc1: the foreman has been selected for TEN consecutive terms which is contrary to the purpose of the Grand Jury

And since you are wondering how the Foreman can be selected for multiple terms:

Rule 6 (a)(1):

(a) Formation of the Grand Jury.

(1) Formation at a Regular Term. On the first day of each term of court at which a grand jury is required to be impaneled, the judge of the court authorized by law to charge the grand jury and to receive its report shall direct the names of all the qualified jurors in attendance for the criminal courts of the county to be written on separate slips of paper and placed in a box or other suitable receptacle and drawn out by the judge in open court. The foreperson and the twelve qualified jurors whose names are first drawn constitute the grand jury for the term and shall attend the court until dismissed by the judge or until the next term.

The rules mention the 12 qualified whose name were drawn. The foreperson is seperate.

So how is the foreperson selected? I’m glad you asked.

Rule 6 (g)(1) and (2):

(g) Appointment, Qualifications, Term, Compensation, Vote, and Duties of Foreperson.

(1) Appointment of Foreperson. The judge of the court authorized by law to charge–and receive the report of–the grand jury shall appoint the grand jury foreperson. When concurrent grand juries are impaneled, the court shall appoint a foreperson for each grand jury.

(2) Qualifications of Foreperson. The foreperson shall possess all the qualifications of a juror.

(3) Duration of Appointment. The foreperson shall hold office and exercise powers for a term of two (2) years from appointment. In the discretion of the presiding judge, the foreperson may be removed, relieved, or excused from office for good cause at any time.

And now you are stating, but the foreperson has to have the qualifications of a juror. What are these qualifications?

Tennessee Code 22-1-101

…Every person eighteen (18) years of age, being a citizen of the United States, and a resident of this state, and of the county in which the person may be summoned for jury service for a period of twelve (12) months next preceding the date of the summons, is legally qualified to act as a grand or petit juror, if not otherwise incompetent under the express provisions of this title.
[Acts 2008, ch. 1159, § 1.]

The rules for foreperson states they must have the qualifications, which are above. Poor Fitz is confusing the rule of “qualification” with the method and rules of selection. The foreperson does is not selected in the same manner of the 12 jurors.

(BTW, duration of appointment says nothing about reappointment, thus, that which is not banned specifically, is allowed.)

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/rules/tnrulesofcourt/03crim.htm#6
http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 6, 2010 at 7:47 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: If the original birth ceritificate [sic] indicated unattended birth, the letter Obama sent to the Kapiolani hospital claiming that he was born there would be a lie.

If the original birth certificate indicates that Obama was born in a hospital, nc1 would be proven to be a liar of monumental proportions.
AnotherBird says:

August 6, 2010 at 8:21 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1:
Obama mentioned in his book that he had seen his old birth certificate – he would not be able to claim any surprise if the original birth certificate indicated unattended birth.

Stop parroting nonsense. It is obvious you didn’t even read the passage. The document 48 year old document is based on the original records held by the DoH, something that you have rejected.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 6, 2010 at 8:55 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

nc1: Obama mentioned in his book that he had seen his old birth certificate – he would not be able to claim any surprise if the original birth certificate indicated unattended birth.

Which book? Obama wrote 2 of them. Which page is it on? Are you going to pull a yguy and claim something is in his book but then admit you don’t know which one or have read either of them
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 9:35 am Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Which book?Obama wrote 2 of them.Which page is it on?Are you going to pull a yguy and claim something is in his book but then admit you don’t know which one or have read either of them

Birthers like her skim WND and then quote crap as if it was actually true. The freeper forums are overflowing with parrots.

Despicable.
Sean says:

August 6, 2010 at 10:32 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Obama mentioned in his book that he had seen his old birth certificate – he would not be able to claim any surprise if the original birth certificate indicated unattended birth.

If Obama’s birth was unattended, it wouldn’t be routine and therefore be delayed in registration. But vital statistics posted the birth announcement in the newspaper 4 days later. No delay.
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 10:34 am Majority Will(Quote)

Sean:
If Obama’s birth was unattended, it wouldn’t be routine and therefore be delayed in registration. But vital statistics posted the birth announcement in the newspaper 4 days later. No delay.

Don’t confuse her with common sense or logic!
Sean says:

August 6, 2010 at 10:38 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Show us your intelligence and explain Gibbs’ refusal to answer the Connecticut residency question?Obama is using a SSN from CT. There is no information about Obama having a residence in CT.This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.

Your conspiracy theory is incomplete. Obama has a CT issued SS#…….AND? Is this like Mad libs where you just fill in your own despicable reason for Obama’s CT SS# ?

This is what you nuts do. You find something that doesn’t make sense to you and rationalize that SINCE it doesn’t make sense to you, Obama must be a criminal.
Bovril says:

August 6, 2010 at 10:54 am Bovril(Quote)

Nancy

I repeat, before posting inane cack, use the Intertubes you are trolling via and wander over to the wide range of government sites that explain in itty bitty teeny weeny words that the issuance of a SSN has no relationship to the location of the applicant.

But you won’t as your racist hatred of the current legal occupant of the White House and holder of the Office of the President blinds you to sane discourse.
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:03 am Majority Will(Quote)

From an anonymous post on caaflog.com under the “LTC Lakin Arraignment Moved to Ft. Belvoir” posting:

“This post by ‘Christian Schultz’ on HuffPo I think says it all:

I’m in the Army currently deployed to Afghanistan on my 4th tour. Served in Iraq as well.

Lt. Col. Lakin, I think you are a traitor to the US, the Army, and the soldiers currently engaging the enemy that need you to provide good medical care.
You have violated every oath you have ever taken.
You are a traitor plain and simple. Your actions disgust me. You are the most vile of people ever to walk this planet.

If one soldier dies in Afghanistan because you were not available to provide medical care I want you charged with murder.

Funny how your immediate supervisor is the ONLY Medal of Honor recipient currently on active duty.
You should learn some things from him. Like honor, duty and service.

You think those of us on the ground could care less about Pres. Obama? I guarantee you he is the LAST think we would ever think about. Staying alive, keeping our buddies alive and doing are job to get back to our families. Not politics.

Disgusting. Simply disgusting. The rage we feel about your actions is unbelievable.”

http://www.caaflog.com/2010/08/05/ltc-lakin-arraignment-moved-to-ft-belvoir/
Sean says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:12 am Sean(Quote)

Majority Will: From an anonymous post on caaflog.com under the “LTC Lakin Arraignment Moved to Ft. Belvoir” posting:“This post by Christian Schultz’ on HuffPo I think says it all:I’m in the Army currently deployed to Afghanistan on my 4th tour. Served in Iraq as well.Lt. Col. Lakin, I think you are a traitor to the US, the Army, and the soldiers currently engaging the enemy that need you to provide good medical care.
You have violated every oath you have ever taken.
You are a traitor plain and simple. Your actions disgust me. You are the most vile of people ever to walk this planet.If one soldier dies in Afghanistan because you were not available to provide medical care I want you charged with murder.Funny how your immediate supervisor is the ONLY Medal of Honor recipient currently on active duty.
You should learn some things from him. Like honor, duty and service.You think those of us on the ground could care less about Pres. Obama? I guarantee you he is the LAST think we would ever think about. Staying alive, keeping our buddies alive and doing are job to get back to our families. Not politics.Disgusting. Simply disgusting. The rage we feel about your actions is unbelievable.”http://www.caaflog.com/2010/08/05/ltc-lakin-arraignment-moved-to-ft-belvoir/

When I was in the Air Force, there was a big emphasis put on something called “Service before Self.”
BatGuano says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:14 am BatGuano(Quote)

nc1:
Obama mentioned in his book that he had seen his old birth certificate – he would not be able to claim any surprise if the original birth certificate indicated unattended birth.

well…… i kind of was expecting you to toss this tid-bit up. a lot to be said for the consistency of birthers and broken clocks.

here is the quote from “dreams from my father” ( or what i believe it to be from brief research. i’ve never read the book. have you nc1 ? ) :

“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”

did he inspect/review his birth certificate ? was it truly an original long form birth certificate or simply a current COLB copy from the mid-70’s ? did he inspect the vaccination forms ? what was on those forms that he chose to conceal ? was the birth certificate in complete plain sight or was it also folded ? could it have been placed inside a manilla envelope marked ” baby barry’s fraudulent birth certificate, vaccination records and misc articles” ? hard to tell from the quote.

this is your evidence !!??!!!

again, lets take it from your best case scenario:
obama sees his birth certificate in high school, notices it’s marked “unattended” …….. then sends a letter to kapiolani hospital some 30+ years later acknowledging his birth there? a hospital that has the potential of still having on file if he was/wasn’t born there. does this sound like a logical thing to do or an expansion of a conspiracy theory ?
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:21 am Majority Will(Quote)

Sean:
When I was in the Air Force, there was a big emphasis put on something called “Service before Self.”

Noble words to live by. Lakin will have plenty of time to contemplate his cowardice after he’s convicted.
Sean says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:21 am Sean(Quote)

BatGuano:
well…… i kind of was expecting you to toss this tid-bit up. a lot to be said for the consistency of birthers and broken clocks.
here is the quote from “dreams from my father” ( or what i believe it to be from brief research. i’ve never read the book. have you nc1 ?) :“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”did he inspect/review his birth certificate ? was it truly an original long form birth certificate or simply a current COLB copy from the mid-70′s ? did he inspect the vaccination forms ? what was on those forms that he chose to conceal ? was the birth certificate in complete plain sight or was it also folded ? could it have been placed inside a manilla envelope marked ” baby barry’s fraudulent birth certificate, vaccination records and misc articles” ? hard to tell from the quote.
this is your evidence !!??!!!again, lets take it from your best case scenario:
obama sees his birth certificate in high school, notices it’s marked “unattended” …….. then sends a letter to kapiolani hospital some 30+ years later acknowledging his birth there? a hospital that has the potential of still having on file if he was/wasn’t born there. does this sound like a logical thing to do or an expansion of a conspiracy theory ?

The vaccination record raises a lot of red flags. What was he being vaccinated for? Was it for VDs? Answer me that Gibbs! What vinarial diseases did Obama have?

This is easy! You just need a good imagination.
Black Lion says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:24 am Black Lion(Quote)

Majority Will: From an anonymous post on caaflog.com under the “LTC Lakin Arraignment Moved to Ft. Belvoir” posting:“This post by Christian Schultz’ on HuffPo I think says it all:I’m in the Army currently deployed to Afghanistan on my 4th tour. Served in Iraq as well.Lt. Col. Lakin, I think you are a traitor to the US, the Army, and the soldiers currently engaging the enemy that need you to provide good medical care.You have violated every oath you have ever taken.You are a traitor plain and simple. Your actions disgust me. You are the most vile of people ever to walk this planet.If one soldier dies in Afghanistan because you were not available to provide medical care I want you charged with murder.Funny how your immediate supervisor is the ONLY Medal of Honor recipient currently on active duty.You should learn some things from him. Like honor, duty and service.You think those of us on the ground could care less about Pres. Obama? I guarantee you he is the LAST think we would ever think about. Staying alive, keeping our buddies alive and doing are job to get back to our families. Not politics.Disgusting. Simply disgusting. The rage we feel about your actions is unbelievable.”http://www.caaflog.com/2010/08/05/ltc-lakin-arraignment-moved-to-ft-belvoir/

Tremendous…that is a true hero….The writer has more guts and bravery than Lakin and his ilk could ever hope for….Lakin is a traitor and a “blue falcon” and deserves at least some time vacationing in Kansas….
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:42 am Majority Will(Quote)

Sean:
The vaccination record raises a lot of red flags. What was he being vaccinated for? Was it for VDs? Answer me that Gibbs! What venereal diseases did Obama have? This is easy! You just need a good imagination.

Andromeda strain. The CIA knows all about it.
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:46 am Majority Will(Quote)

Black Lion:
Tremendous…that is a true hero….The writer has more guts and bravery than Lakin and his ilk could ever hope for….Lakin is a traitor and a “blue falcon” and deserves at least some time vacationing in Kansas….

I hope the tiny window in his cell has a southwest view towards Wichita where Ann Dunham was born and raised.
Rickey says:

August 6, 2010 at 11:54 am Rickey(Quote)

nc1: nc1

Obama is using a SSN from CT. There is no information about Obama having a residence in CT. This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.

My ex-wife’s SSN starts with 210, a Pennsylvania number. She has never lived in Pennsylvania. She has no explanation for it. Does that make it an “inconvenient fact” for her? Or was it possibly the result of an error by some clerk in the Social Security Administration?

The Social Security Administration website says that no conclusions should be drawn from the state of issue, which of course doesn’t deter birthers such as you from fantasizing about Social Security fraud. You still haven’t explained how Obama could have gotten away with filing income tax returns with a fraudulent SSN for the past 30+ years without it coming to the attention of the authorities.

Are you not aware of the fact that the IRS now automatically rejects an income tax return if the name and SSN on the return do not match the Social Security Administration’s records?
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:03 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Rickey:
My ex-wife’s SSN starts with 210, a Pennsylvania number. She has never lived in Pennsylvania. She has no explanation for it. Does that make it an “inconvenient fact” for her? Or was it possibly the result of an error by some clerk in the Social Security Administration?The Social Security Administration website says that no conclusions should be drawn from the state of issue, which of course doesn’t deter birthers such as you from fantasizing about Social Security fraud. You still haven’t explained how Obama could have gotten away with filing income tax returns with a fraudulent SSN for the past 30+ years without it coming to the attention of the authorities.Are you not aware of the fact that the IRS now automatically rejects an income tax return if the name and SSN on the return do not match the Social Security Administration’s records?

Your ex-wife is obviously in on the conspiracy. That’s the only explanation!
misha says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:21 pm misha(Quote)

Rickey: My ex-wife’s SSN starts with 210, a Pennsylvania number. She has never lived in Pennsylvania.

How much is Obama paying her?
G says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm G(Quote)

nc1: Show us your intelligence and explain Gibbs’ refusal to answer the Connecticut residency question?

Obama is using a SSN from CT. There is no information about Obama having a residence in CT. This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.

Simple. He’s not going to waste time or dignify stupid questions. As to your not logically explain part, I beg to differ. You have been informed multiple times that there is no consistent one-to-one correlation between the SSN issued and where someone is born. All you are doing is tilting at windmills again.
G says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:43 pm G(Quote)

nc1: The attached-at-the-hip comment is related to the fact that the foreman has been selected for TEN consecutive terms which is contrary to the purpose of the Grand Jury. They are supposed to be a check against the corruption in courts.

In the Monroe County, TN they don’t care about maintaining the image of impartiality for their Grand Jury.

Show me where it says that in the TN law. Otherwise, you are just doing your usual make up BS to support your prejudices.

You’ve already been provided the info several times by others showing that TN does not have any requirement preventing the GJ Foreman from serving multiple terms.

If they feel he is doing a good job, they can continue to re-appoint him all they want.
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:45 pm Majority Will(Quote)

G:
Simple. He’s not going to waste time or dignify stupid questions.As to your not logically explain part, I beg to differ.You have been informed multiple times that there is no consistent one-to-one correlation between the SSN issued and where someone is born. All you are doing is tilting at windmills again.

Her arrogant sense of entitlement seems to be a fairly common birther trait but the motive is clear. It has absolutely nothing to do with upholding the law or eligibility which is a laughable ruse but rather a FUD and smear tactic. Birthers reek of desperation.
richCares says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm richCares(Quote)

nc1, if you don’t like Obama and his policies then find and support a candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. The birther nonsense is a waste of time, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s going nowhere. Hey, if you want to continue wasting time on this, go right ahead, but be sure to expect people to make fun of you.
Dave says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:53 pm Dave(Quote)

nc1:
The attached-at-the-hip comment is related to the fact that the foreman has been selected for TEN consecutive terms which is contrary to the purpose of the Grand Jury. They are supposed to be a check against the corruption in courts.

The grand jury is supposed to be a check against corruption, or overzealousness, in the prosecutor’s office.

I am still struggling to understand why are wasting your time worrying about the foreman of the grand jury of one county. Didn’t we go over this higher on the thread? Only Congress can remove the President, and they don’t need the grand jury of this or any other county to get started.
HORUS says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm HORUS(Quote)

Here is the WND page where they admit that his Birth Certificate is authentic.
I am surprised they have not removed it from their website since they have been contradicting themselves ever since.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
sfjeff says:

August 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm sfjeff(Quote)

Has anyone noticed that NC1 is really good at asking why other people don’t answer questions(Gibbs, the President) but is quite willing not to answer questions put forth to him/her as part of the dialogue on this forum?

Beyond that- do we really know that the CT SS# is really the one Obama uses? I am just vaguely curious since it is thrown around so much.
Sef says:

August 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm Sef(Quote)

HORUS: Here is the WND page where they admit that his Birth Certificate is authentic.
I am surprised they have not removed it from their website since they have been contradicting themselves ever since.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

You’re forgetting that a birther’s attention is about 1 day, so they don’t worry about old stuff. This also explains why they feel they need to continue to throw out the same old discredited c*ap.
AnotherBird says:

August 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm AnotherBird(Quote)

sfjeff: Has anyone noticed that NC1 is really good at asking why other people don’t answer questions(Gibbs, the President) but is quite willing not to answer questions put forth to him/her as part of the dialogue on this forum?
Beyond that- do we really know that the CT SS# is really the one Obama uses? I am just vaguely curious since it is thrown around so much.

If you can look at with a skeptical eye then it is false. Nothing has been produced that even suggest that the president has a CT SS#. It is just bither noise used to distract from the fact that they have absolutely nothing to support their disillusion.
HORUS says:

August 6, 2010 at 1:53 pm HORUS(Quote)

Sean: Is there a shed of legitimacy to the harlem “Grand Jury” trial of Barack Obama led by ATLAH and Pastor James David Manning?

Before you laugh, I just want to say I get people on blogs demanding there is some legal weight to this event, I want to be fair and ask the question. From a legal standpoint, is there anything real about this “trial?”

No, not a single legal thing about it!
There was no Defense for Obama.
It was not a legal Court, Jury or Judge.
Everyone involved was Partial to the case, not one thing about it was unbiased.
For all intents and purposes it was a Lynch Mob.
HORUS says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm HORUS(Quote)

nc1,
NO ONE, except Congress, can remove a sitting President!
Get that through your thick skull!
It does not matter how many trials and court cases you bring, it will NOT work, you are just wasting your time.
I’m sure you don’t like to hear that you are wasting your time, but you are.
I am sure it must be very frustrating to ALWAYS be WRONG!

ONLY CONGRESS CAN REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT!!!

CASE CLOSED!
sfjeff says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:10 pm sfjeff(Quote)

“ONLY CONGRESS CAN REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT!!!”

But you forget, Birther keep hoping that the military will remove the President, patriots that they are.
BatGuano says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:14 pm BatGuano(Quote)

sfjeff:
Beyond that- do we really know that the CT SS# is really the one Obama uses? I am just vaguely curious since it is thrown around so much.

i believe that there is an article on this site that does confirm that the prefix numbers for for obama’s SS# are the ones commonly used to associate CT. that being said…….. even the social security department has always maintained that the prefix numbers are not be considered evidence of residence or application at the time of issue.

here’s my question: if it is a fraudulent number…… then whose number is it ??? if this number, issued in the mid-late 70’s, belongs to Joe Schmohe, the assistant manager at the local ace hardware………… don’t you think there might have been a red flag or two at the IRS when 100s of thousands ( if not millions ) of dollars of income started coming thru associated with this number ?
HORUS says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:19 pm HORUS(Quote)

nc1: Obama supporters are worried – if you were not at least somebody would have publicly asked Obama to realease the original documents. If you were not worried you would not be silently watching Gibbs refusing to answer the question about SSN number from Connecticut. He was asked whether Obama has ever had a residence in Connecticut and he answered that the birth certificate has been posted on the Internet.

My SSN is from NY and I was born in Minnesota.
So what exactly is your point?
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:21 pm Majority Will(Quote)

BatGuano:
i believe that there is an article on this site that does confirm that the prefix numbers for for obama’s SS# are the ones commonly used to associate CT. that being said…….. even the social security department has always maintainedthat the prefix numbers are not be considered evidence of residence or application at the time of issue.here’s my question: if it is a fraudulent number…… then whose number is it ??? if this number, issued in the mid-late 70′s, belongs to Joe Schmohe, the assistant manager at the local ace hardware………… don’t you think there might have been a red flag or two at the IRS when 100s of thousands ( if not millions ) of dollars of income started coming thru associated with this number ?

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/
Sef says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:25 pm Sef(Quote)

sfjeff: “ONLY CONGRESS CAN REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT!!!”But you forget, Birther keep hoping that the military will remove the President, patriots that they are.

They’re all acting like pre-adolescents who think there is somebody big & powerful out there who can make mean old mommy & daddy stop making them clean their room.
misha says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:26 pm misha(Quote)

nc1: Obama is using a SSN from CT. There is no information about Obama having a residence in CT. This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.

I’m from NY, and my SSN indicates Mars.
Sef says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:29 pm Sef(Quote)

nc1: This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.

There have been many logical explanations, all of which you have conveniently ignored.
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:32 pm Majority Will(Quote)

misha:
I’m from NY, and my SSN indicates Mars.

Are you filled with nougat, almonds and caramel in a milk chocolate coating?
misha says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:42 pm misha(Quote)

Majority Will: Are you filled with nougat, almonds and caramel in a milk chocolate coating?

Yes, exactly.
Ellid says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:48 pm Ellid(Quote)

Majority Will:
Are you filled with nougat, almonds and caramel in a milk chocolate coating?

I think it means he’s green.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

AnotherBird: If you can look at with a skeptical eye then it is false. Nothing has been produced that even suggest that the president has a CT SS#. It is just birther noise used to distract from the fact that they have absolutely nothing to support their disillusion.

Actually, there is fairly strong support for this. A journalist typed in the putative Social Security number, Obama’s name, and date of birth into the Selective Service registration verification system, a public system that is used to verify that someone has registered with Selective Service. The result of the query was that Obama was registered, and this confirms the Social Security number. The Social Security administration publishes a list of SSN prefixes by state, a list that puts the prefix from the President’s SSN under Connecticut. There’s an article here that has the details and hyperlinks to the sources.

Of course there are some possible explanations for this quirk. The only explanations of the Connecticut SSN that I have seen from birthers are:

–He’s black
–He’s a Muslim
–He’s a Communist
–He’s a pathological liar

None of these are particularly satisfying.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 6, 2010 at 2:58 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

sfjeff:Beyond that- do we really know that the CT SS# is really the one Obama uses? I am just vaguely curious since it is thrown around so much.

Yes. It is confirmed.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/obama-connecticut-social-security-number-confirmed/
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Dave: I am still struggling to understand why [you’re (nc1)] wasting your time worrying about the foreman of the grand jury of one county.

nc1 is essentially a smearbot, someone who wants to degrade, smear, discredit and defame anyone and anything associated with any form of opposition to the birthers, and anything associated with or supportive of the President. I use the suffix “bot” to indicate a certain mindless consistency of activity. I think the term pretty much describes the birther web sites and the birthers who post here (with an occasional exception).
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 6, 2010 at 3:10 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Rickey: Are you not aware of the fact that the IRS now automatically rejects an income tax return if the name and SSN on the return do not match the Social Security Administration’s records?

I am painfully aware of this, trying to e-File my late father’s income tax return when the Social Security Administration had the wrong date of birth in one of their files.
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 3:36 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Ellid:
I think it means he’s green.

The Mars bar forgotten under the sofa cushions? Then he would also be quite fuzzy.
Black Lion says:

August 6, 2010 at 4:40 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Another disgusting display of race baiting by the leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh….

One Part French Revolution, One Part Race Baiting = Rush Limbaugh
August 06, 2010 4:20 pm ET by Oliver Willis

If you thought Rush Limbaugh would simply be content to just echo his fellow conservatives in a misguided and counterfactual attack on Michelle Obama by comparing her to and calling her “Marie Antoinette” you would be very wrong. Today, he added to that smear the racially charged rhetoric that he’s employed for years.

As he referred to her as “Michelle ‘Antoinette’ Obama,” Limbaugh also claimed that the allegedly insensitive actions of the Obama family were taking place because they “look at it as if they are owed” these luxuries because of past racial discrimination. He added that they are “flying all over the country while everyone else is tightening their belts, ’cause they deserve it. This is owed to them.”

At this point it’s worth noting that press secretary Robert Gibbs explicitly said that “It’s a private trip and is being paid for that way,” but even so I don’t think anyone expects that any member of any first family should or would travel without a security detail and the standard staffing commensurate with what is, after all, the family of the American president.

But the introduction of the racial component went even further over the rails, when Limbaugh later said that “the media” feels Mrs. Obama “deserves” the trip because of America’s “slave past,” adding “It’s only fair that people of color get their taste of the wealth of America, too.” This has nothing to do with what has happened so far and is even more disconnected from reality than the initial charges of so-called elitism. It’s just the injection of the most divisive issue for no good reason.

In other words, another day on the radio with Rush.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008060038
Black Lion says:

August 6, 2010 at 4:42 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Memo to the media: The Tea Party movement has collapsed
August 05, 2010 8:15 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Like rubberneckers on the misinformation highway, let’s slow down and gawk at the wreckage from last Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Philadelphia. Let’s look at the scattered debris and see what it says not only about the state of today’s Tea Party movement, but also what clues it provides for the political press corps in terms of how it should cover the anti-Obama rabble rousers.

The Saturday event was dubbed Uni-Tea, and was designed to feature mostly minority speakers as a way to send a message that not only isn’t the Tea Party movement racist, but that it seeks diversity amid its ranks.

Optimistic organizers, who boasted that their website had attracted 2 million hits during the run-up to the big rally, predicted a crowd of 3,000-4,000 people for the Philadelphia event. And they had every reason to be confident. After all, right-wing celebrity Andrew Breitbart, fresh off his Shirley Sherrod star turn, was scheduled to speak at the event, which was held on a gorgeous summer day in downtown Philadelphia on Independence Mall, where throngs of tourists would already be milling around. So it made sense, as Talking Points Memo reported, that organizers had 1,500 bottles of water on ice to hand out for the throngs who descended on the rally to cheer the Tea Party message.

But how many people actually showed up last Saturday for the national Tea Party rally? One local report put the number at 300. That’s right, 300, or less than one-tenth of the expected turnout. In fact, it’s possible more people showed up in Philadelphia last week to commemorate the opening of the new Apple computer store than showed up at the nationally promoted Tea Party rally featuring Andrew Breitbart.

Memo to the media: The Tea Party movement has collapsed.

And its collapse means it’s time for the press to rethink the way it covers the political equivalent of the Pet Rock, a fad that appears to be in its waning days of popularity.

I’d suggest that for more than a year the Beltway press has spent far too many man-hours obsessively chronicling the conservative Tea Partiers. Part of that overindulgence has been fueled by the bullying GOP Noise Machine, which has demanded around-the-clock Tea Party coverage as proof that journalists aren’t liberally biased. And part of it has simply been the media’s attraction to a political story that was new and rather unorthodox.

But it’s time to pull the plug, or at least it’s time for the press to tell the truth about the Tea Party’s rather sad state of affairs.

I don’t know why Tea Party events, like the one in Philadelphia, are now failures. Maybe people are turned off by the obvious and odious racial element that permeates parts of the movement. Or maybe people are disappointed at how little the Tea Party has been able to accomplish. Of course, it failed in stopping Obama’s health care reform, a legislative initiative that Tea Party leaders and supporters rallied against.

The Tea Party also failed in stopping Obama’s stimulus package, as well as the White House’s push to bail out Detroit automakers and to reform financial institutions. So maybe that’s why people now stay home instead of creating Obama-hating posters and marching around.

But the truth is for the Tea Party movement, rallies matters and have been important to the media story, because the Tea Party has so few other traditional measuring sticks that journalists use. For instance, there is national party per se, no universal platform, not official agenda or elected officials or easily traceable fundraising arm. So the press has often judged the movement’s vitality based on the Tea Party rallies and what kind of turnout fervent anti-Obama followers could generate.

The oversized significance of the rallies may be one reason why conservative commentators have routinely lied about attendance and simply manufactured crowd counts that had no relation to the truth. (They’ve also lied about “millions of Americans” having taken to the streets as part of the Tea Party phenomenon.) And yes, last weekend Philadelphia was no exception, with one Tea Party blogger declaring she was “amazed” by the big turnout and dubbed the Breitbart event a “resounding success.”

Talk about plenty of room down front! This looks like a crummy showing for a middle school fundraiser, let a lone a national event for the Tea Party. And by the way, the diversity angle was a total bust amid the predictably white Tea Party crowd. (You mean inviting Breitbart to speak at an event meant to attract black activists might have been a bad idea?)

The truth is media red flags should have gone up in late March when Tea Party heroine Sarah Palin headlined what sponsors modestly referred to as the “conservative Woodstock,” an all-day outdoor rally in Searchlight, Nevada, the home of Sen. Harry Reid. You’ll recall that at the actual Woodstock, approximately 500,000 attended the cultural (and political) milestone. But for the Searchlight “Woodstock,” just 8,000 people showed up. (Naturally, that didn’t stop Tea Party backers from concocting a far more pleasing tally for the event –20,000!)

Can you imagine if, during the height of the anti-war movement in the winter of 2003, Al Gore announced he was going to appear at the “Liberal Woodstock,” and then just 8,000 people showed up? How do you think the Beltway chattering class would have portrayed that event, as well as the movement Gore was trying to lead? For Palin though, very few reporters or pundits focused on the weak Nevada turnout.

The next month on Tax Day, April 15, movement superstar Palin headlined a widely hyped, outdoor Tea Party event on the Boston Common. And again the turnout was very soft for what’s supposed to be a grassroots phenomenon sweeping the country — just 5,000 people showed up to hear Palin and her Tea Party message in Boston. But once again, that didn’t stop supporters from fabricating a bigger and better crowd estimate — 16,000!

Whether journalists paid any attention to the phony crowd estimate that Tea Party backers pushed, I don’t know. But the small crowds last spring should have given reporters pause about assigning too much significance to the ad-hoc group of activists.

It’s true that high-profile GOP primary wins by candidates such as Sharron Angle in Nevada, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Marco Rubio in Florida filled the Tea Party’s sails, at least in the eyes of the press. But look again. According to local polling results, Angle, Paul, and Rubio have taken what should be easy wins for the GOP and turned them into toss-ups. Indeed, Democrats might hold onto control of the U.S. Senate only because of the Tea Party and its weak, inexperienced candidates.

Question for the press: If Angle, Paul and Rubio all find ways to lose in November (will Rubio even get 30 percent of the Florida vote?), can we officially — and finally — stop overindulging the Tea Party?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050003
dunstvangeet says:

August 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm dunstvangeet(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Yes. It is confirmed.http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/obama-connecticut-social-security-number-confirmed/

I’d seriously doubt that it’s the one that he uses anymore, for the very simple fact that Social Security Numbers, especially the ones of celebrities, when they’re published out in public, are often changed to protect identity theft.

My gut is that when the article was first written, it was used. However, it has probably been changed now, because of possible identity theft.
misha says:

August 6, 2010 at 4:54 pm misha(Quote)

Black Lion: let’s slow down and gawk at the wreckage from last Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Philadelphia. But how many people actually showed up last Saturday for the national Tea Party rally? One local report put the number at 300. That’s right, 300, or less than one-tenth of the expected turnout. In fact, it’s possible more people showed up in Philadelphia last week to commemorate the opening of the new Apple computer store…

I live a few blocks from Independence Mall. It wasn’t even 300; more like a handful. Most of the crowd were tourists gawking. When Obama spoke in the same place, while campaigning, the crowd was about 6,000. My wife and I were stunned, as we tried to walk around.

And the Apple store? About 1,000.
obsolete says:

August 6, 2010 at 6:20 pm obsolete(Quote)

I know the exact origin of the Tea Party. You see, the wealthy elite of this nation have delighted for years at their success in tricking the poor and downtrodden to take up their causes (tax cuts for the rich). Year after year, you find the people who would benefit the most from things such as universal health care take to the streets, inspired by Rush L. and others, and denounce those Dems by carrying signs saying “I don’t mind dying in the gutter as long as Paris Hilton’s inheritance tax remains pleasingly low”.

It was too easy for the wealthy elite to trick their puppets, and they got bored. However, at one meeting, a wealthy elite said “wouldn’t it be a blast if we can convince those poor slobs to protest against their best interests while also wearing silly costumes?”. Thus, the Tea Party was born.

I know this is true because I read it somewhere, on the internet. On this very site! (which I just wrote). Thus, is passes the birfer rules of evidence.
Imogene Obot says:

August 6, 2010 at 9:19 pm Imogene Obot(Quote)

Mike Huckabee will travel to Georgia this weekend to stump with Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Nathan Deal.

Deal has scored the support of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia native.

An InsiderAdvantage Poll released Friday underscored just how knotted up the race is — the two were deadlocked with 46 percent apiece, with 8 percent still undecided.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40769.html#ixzz0vsX6n13C
Majority Will says:

August 6, 2010 at 9:37 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Imogene Obot: Mike Huckabee will travel to Georgia this weekend to stump with Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Nathan Deal.Deal has scored the support of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia native.An InsiderAdvantage Poll released Friday underscored just how knotted up the race is — the two were deadlocked with 46 percent apiece, with 8 percent still undecided.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40769.html#ixzz0vsX6n13C

Let’s remind Huckabee and the voters of Georgia that Deal is a birther and resigned from Congress to avoid serious charges of ethics violations.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) listed Deal as one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress for trying to influence officials for personal gain.
misha says:

August 6, 2010 at 9:39 pm misha(Quote)

Imogene Obot: Mike Huckabee will travel to Georgia this weekend to stump with Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Nathan Deal.

The Andy and Opie show. They just need Barney Fife.
Majority Will says:

August 7, 2010 at 3:12 am Majority Will(Quote)

This must make the bigoted birther’s blood boil:

Michelle, Sasha Obama bask in attention at Spain’s seaside after sightseeing

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/08/07/michelle_sasha_obama_bask_in_attention_at_spains_seaside_after_sightseeing/
obsolete says:

August 7, 2010 at 3:29 am obsolete(Quote)

Let’s play a game called “Link to President’s Birth Certificates” I’ll get the game started.

President Obama – http://fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpg

Birthers can fill out the rest for us:
President G. W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton
President George H. W. Bush
President Reagan:
President Carter:
President Ford:
President Nixon:

There, that’s a good enough start, and it should be easy for birthers to furnish the remaining links.
Sean says:

August 7, 2010 at 3:38 am Sean(Quote)

Majority Will: This must make the bigoted birther’s blood boil:Michelle, Sasha Obama bask in attention at Spain’s seaside after sightseeinghttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/08/07/michelle_sasha_obama_bask_in_attention_at_spains_seaside_after_sightseeing/

Rush said Michelle’s trip to Spain was reparations for America’s history of slavery.

If a Black woman is allowed to go on vacation, it means White society is trying to pay off their guilt debt.
G says:

August 7, 2010 at 4:30 am G(Quote)

BL – thanks for keeping us informed as always. Just wanted to make a few quick comments on your latest 2 articles:

Black Lion: But the introduction of the racial component went even further over the rails, when Limbaugh later said that “the media” feels Mrs. Obama “deserves” the trip because of America’s “slave past,” adding “It’s only fair that people of color get their taste of the wealth of America, too.” This has nothing to do with what has happened so far and is even more disconnected from reality than the initial charges of so-called elitism. It’s just the injection of the most divisive issue for no good reason.

Ugh! Rush has a long history of demagoguery and making a number of vile bigoted remarks. He’s definitely a racist and a disgusting pig in my book.

Black Lion: I don’t know why Tea Party events, like the one in Philadelphia, are now failures. Maybe people are turned off by the obvious and odious racial element that permeates parts of the movement. Or maybe people are disappointed at how little the Tea Party has been able to accomplish.

Well, we know that all of the Tea Party events have been much smaller in attendance than any of their hype alludes to. However, the spectacular failure of “Uni-TEA” was definitely in EPIC FAIL territory. Many people don’t realize that the Tea Party had actually started planning and promoting this even way back in the later portion of last year, way before the recent Breitbart flaps drew even more hype and attention to it. In light of all that prep time and national attention with it being billed and promoted as a “national” Tea Party event, its attendance numbers are abysmal, even by any realistic Tea Party gathering standards.

I strongly suspect that the whole idea of a multi-racial “Uni-Tea” event ran counter to the “true” motivations of many “Tea Party” folks, and thus they had no desire to show up for those reasons….if you catch my drift.

So, I don’t think we can accurate say that the Tea Party is collapsing based on the pitiful attendance numbers of that event…

I’ll wait to see what numbers the upcoming Tea-Party & Glenn Beck groups get at their other national “events” billed over course the next month or so to get a more accurate gauge of their “movement” strength and whether it is ebbing or not.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 7, 2010 at 7:21 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

obsolete: Let’s play a game called “Link to President’s Birth Certificates” I’ll get the game started.

President Obama – http://fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpg

Birthers can fill out the rest for us:
President G. W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton
President George H. W. Bush
President Reagan:
President Carter:
President Ford:
President Nixon:

There, that’s a good enough start, and it should be easy for birthers to furnish the remaining links.

President George W. Bush http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072999.htm and http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40090/tsl-40090.html
President Nixon http://nixon.archives.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/finding_aids/tapesubjectlogs/oval837.pdf
President George H. W. Bush http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977899699
Sef says:

August 7, 2010 at 8:15 am Sef(Quote)

For an inside look at how virtually all the “news” pieces are produced today check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI
Majority Will says:

August 7, 2010 at 8:18 am Majority Will(Quote)

Sean: Rush said Michelle’s trip to Spain was reparations for America’s history of slavery.

If a Black woman is allowed to go on vacation, it means White society is trying to pay off their guilt debt.

Rush is an overpaid pig.
Majority Will says:

August 7, 2010 at 8:24 am Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
President George W. Bush http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072999.htm and http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40090/tsl-40090.html
President Nixon http://nixon.archives.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/finding_aids/tapesubjectlogs/oval837.pdf
President George H. W. Bush http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977899699

Millard Fillmore’s birth certificate.

Who witnessed his birth in that log cabin in Moravia?
obsolete says:

August 7, 2010 at 9:22 am obsolete(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
President George W. Bush http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072999.htm and http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40090/tsl-40090.html
President Nixon http://nixon.archives.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/finding_aids/tapesubjectlogs/oval837.pdf
President George H. W. Bush http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977899699

Cool info (I can read about Nixon much longer than I’m sure is healthy!)- but still no pics of an actual birth certificate. I’d like to see a picture of Reagan’s on display in his library, with the 1942 signature!
Black Lion says:

August 7, 2010 at 1:17 pm Black Lion(Quote)

G: BL – thanks for keeping us informed as always. Just wanted to make a few quick comments on your latest 2 articles:Ugh! Rush has a long history of demagoguery and making a number of vile bigoted remarks. He’s definitely a racist and a disgusting pig in my book.Well, we know that all of the Tea Party events have been much smaller in attendance than any of their hype alludes to. However, the spectacular failure of “Uni-TEA” was definitely in EPIC FAIL territory. Many people don’t realize that the Tea Party had actually started planning and promoting this even way back in the later portion of last year, way before the recent Breitbart flaps drew even more hype and attention to it. In light of all that prep time and national attention with it being billed and promoted as a “national” Tea Party event, its attendance numbers are abysmal, even by any realistic Tea Party gathering standards.I strongly suspect that the whole idea of a multi-racial “Uni-Tea” event ran counter to the “true” motivations of many “Tea Party” folks, and thus they had no desire to show up for those reasons….if you catch my drift. So, I don’t think we can accurate say that the Tea Party is collapsing based on the pitiful attendance numbers of that event…I’ll wait to see what numbers the upcoming Tea-Party & Glenn Beck groups get at their other national “events” billed over course the next month or so to get a more accurate gauge of their “movement” strength and whether it is ebbing or not.

G, as usual great analysis….I couldn’t agree with you more…The Rush Limbaugh commentary as usual is him at his racially devisive best….Of course his defenders will claim that he is being taken out of context but the bottom line is that he has a history of such comments and no real media is willing to expose him for what he is….What I found more depressing was that mainstream media was willing to even bring up the Obama trip as an issue….Whatever the right makes up instead of ignoring the media brings up and gives life to….
Sean says:

August 7, 2010 at 3:31 pm Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Show us your intelligence and explain Gibbs’ refusal to answer the Connecticut residency question?Obama is using a SSN from CT. There is no information about Obama having a residence in CT.This is one of several inconvenient facts that Obama supporters cannot logically explain.

Glenn Beck refuses to answer weather he raped and murdered a young girl in 1991.
misha says:

August 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm misha(Quote)

Sean: Glenn Beck refuses to answer weather he raped and murdered a young girl in 1991.

Excellent point. I go into depth here:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-glenn-beck-rape-and-murder-girl-in.html
Black Lion says:

August 7, 2010 at 3:57 pm Black Lion(Quote)

From BadFiction….

The Indonesian Citizenship Myth
One of the earliest myths in the birther belief system is the claim that Barack Obama is really “Barry Soetoro”, who lost his US citizenship upon adoption by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national.

This dates back to Philip Berg’s original lawsuit, when he claimed that both Barack Obama AND his mother lost their US citizenship upon her marriage, saying in his original complaint (� 31) that:

“Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.”

Berg cites the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). But let’s see what that says:

“From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.”

This section only applies towards marriages before 22 September 1922. Yet Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in 1967. This section simply doesn’t apply.

But what about the claim that Barack Obama lost his US citizenship. Again we can look to the very same act that Berg cited, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401:

“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:…..”

This section shows that even had Stanley Ann Dunham renounced her US citizenship, it wouldn’t have effected Barack Obama’s citizenship.

But could Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro renounced Barack Obama’s citizenship? Again, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 407:

“A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.”

So again we see that nothing that Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done would have affected Barack Obama’s US citizenship.

But what Berg doesn’t cover in his filings, and is usually ignored by the birthers, is that the 1940 law was amended in 1952 by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3. And that makes the citizenship status of Barack Obama even clearer. For example, we see section 349 (a), which says that:

“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”

As you can see here, anything Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done to renounce Barack Obama’s US citizenship simply would not have worked in the eyes of US law. Barack Obama himself would have had to do so after his 21st birthday, or after his 25th had he not returned to the United States by then and established a permanent residence.

And when did he return to the United States? In 1971, around his tenth birthday.

Furthermore, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355, says:

“A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”

So has we see here, there is no way under US law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship due to action of his own OR that of his mother before he was 21 years of age. Under US law, he maintained his birthright US citizenship with no loss or interruption, and no deed for “naturalization” or any “oaths of citizenship” because Natural-Born US citizens don’t require such.

So that’s on the US side. What about the Indonesian side of the claim?

Berg has it partly right in that Indonesia didn’t allow for dual-citizenship at the time. However, Indonesian citizenship law at the time states the ways that someone could become naturalized in that country and what they would have to do to lose said citizenship.

The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.

“Article 2.

(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.”

Note the age limit there – less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967. This would have made Obama either five or six – over the age limit according to Indonesian law. Furthermore, they didn’t move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.

Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.

I’d like to note at this time that there is no credible evidence to suppport an adoption claim in the first place. The main records that are used to cite such are Obama’s Indonesian School record and the Soetoro-Dunham Hawaiian divorce decree. Neither though say adoption anywhere in the paperwork.

Ironically enough, the Indonesian School record gives Obama’s birthplace as “Honolulu, USA”. Placing many birthers into claiming that the school record is a credible document to “prove” adoption, but ignoring that by that logic, it’s also a credible document to prove birthplace as well.

Also, according to Article 14 of 62/1958:

“(1)If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence.”

and Article 17 of 62/1958:

“e.being declared as lost by the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Cabinet Council on the request of the person concerned if the person has reached the age of 21, is domiciled abroad and does not become stateless at the declaration of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as being lost;”

“k.other than for state’s service, domiciling abroad during 5 consecutive years by not declaring one’s wish as to continue being a citizen before the period has lapsed and thereafter every two years; such a wish shall be declared to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at one’s residence.”

As we can see from all those, even IF Obama had been granted Indonesian citizenship, (which under Indonesian law he couldn’t due to being over age and unable to renounce the US citizenship), Obama would have lost the Indonesian citizenship after living outside of the country for five years.

So to recap:

Under US law as shown in Sections 317(b), 401, and 407 of the Nationality Act of 1940, and Sections 349 (a) and 355 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, neither Stanley Ann Dunham or Barack Obama would have lost US citizenship upon marriage to Lolo Soetoro. Neither could Barack Obama have lost US citizenship due to actions taken by his mother.

Under Indonesian Law 62/1958, Article 2, there was no way to grant Indonesian citizenship to Barack Obama due to being over the age limit as defined by Indonesian law. In addition, the inability to renounce Barack Obama’s US citizenship would have rendered him unable to be granted Indonesian citizenship until the age of 21, and he would have had to returned to Indonesia to live AFTER his mother divorced Lolo Soetoro to meet the guidelines in Article 5 of that law.

In short, there is no possible way under either United States OR Indonesian law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship and been granted Indonesian citizenship as a child.

This myth is busted.

http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/the-indonesian-citizenship-myth.html
Rickey says:

August 7, 2010 at 4:31 pm Rickey(Quote)

dunstvangeet:
I’d seriously doubt that it’s the one that he uses anymore, for the very simple fact that Social Security Numbers, especially the ones of celebrities, when they’re published out in public, are often changed to protect identity theft.My gut is that when the article was first written, it was used.However, it has probably been changed now, because of possible identity theft.

Several years ago a book about the Beach Boys was published in England. The book reproduced in their entirely dozens of musicians’ union documents about the recording sessions, documents which included the full names and Social Security Numbers of the Beach Boys and their backup musicians. The British publisher apparently had no idea about the significance of the Social Security Numbers, and thousands of copies were sold before the mistake was recognized. The SSNs were redacted in subsequent editions, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Brian Wilson now has a new SSN.
Rickey says:

August 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm Rickey(Quote)

Black Lion: From BadFiction….The Indonesian Citizenship Myth
Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967.

It doesn’t change the conclusions, but we now know that Stanley Ann and Lolo were married in 1965, when Obama was 3 1/2 years old.
SvenMagnussen says:

August 7, 2010 at 5:32 pm SvenMagnussen(Quote)

Black Lion: From BadFiction….The Indonesian Citizenship Myth
One of the earliest myths in the birther belief system is the claim that Barack Obama is really “Barry Soetoro”, who lost his US citizenship upon adoption by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national.
This dates back to Philip Berg’s original lawsuit, when he claimed that both Barack Obama AND his mother lost their US citizenship upon her marriage, saying in his original complaint (� 31) that:“Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.”Berg cites the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). But let’s see what that says:“From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.”This section only applies towards marriages before 22 September 1922. Yet Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in 1967. This section simply doesn’t apply.But what about the claim that Barack Obama lost his US citizenship. Again we can look to the very same act that Berg cited, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401:“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:…..”
This section shows that even had Stanley Ann Dunham renounced her US citizenship, it wouldn’t have effected Barack Obama’s citizenship.But could Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro renounced Barack Obama’s citizenship? Again, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 407:“A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.”So again we see that nothing that Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done would have affected Barack Obama’s US citizenship.But what Berg doesn’t cover in his filings, and is usually ignored by the birthers, is that the 1940 law was amended in 1952 by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3. And that makes the citizenship status of Barack Obama even clearer. For example, we see section 349 (a), which says that:“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”As you can see here, anything Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done to renounce Barack Obama’s US citizenship simply would not have worked in the eyes of US law. Barack Obama himself would have had to do so after his 21st birthday, or after his 25th had he not returned to the United States by then and established a permanent residence.And when did he return to the United States? In 1971, around his tenth birthday.Furthermore, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355, says:“A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”So has we see here, there is no way under US law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship due to action of his own OR that of his mother before he was 21 years of age. Under US law, he maintained his birthright US citizenship with no loss or interruption, and no deed for “naturalization” or any “oaths of citizenship” because Natural-Born US citizens don’t require such.So that’s on the US side. What about the Indonesian side of the claim?Berg has it partly right in that Indonesia didn’t allow for dual-citizenship at the time. However, Indonesian citizenship law at the time states the ways that someone could become naturalized in that country and what they would have to do to lose said citizenship.The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.“Article 2.(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.”Note the age limit there – less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967. This would have made Obama either five or six – over the age limit according to Indonesian law. Furthermore, they didn’t move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.I’d like to note at this time that there is no credible evidence to suppport an adoption claim in the first place. The main records that are used to cite such are Obama’s Indonesian School record and the Soetoro-Dunham Hawaiian divorce decree. Neither though say adoption anywhere in the paperwork.Ironically enough, the Indonesian School record gives Obama’s birthplace as “Honolulu, USA”. Placing many birthers into claiming that the school record is a credible document to “prove” adoption, but ignoring that by that logic, it’s also a credible document to prove birthplace as well.Also, according to Article 14 of 62/1958:“(1)If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence.”and Article 17 of 62/1958:“e.being declared as lost by the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Cabinet Council on the request of the person concerned if the person has reached the age of 21, is domiciled abroad and does not become stateless at the declaration of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as being lost;”“k.other than for state’s service, domiciling abroad during 5 consecutive years by not declaring one’s wish as to continue being a citizen before the period has lapsed and thereafter every two years; such a wish shall be declared to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at one’s residence.”As we can see from all those, even IF Obama had been granted Indonesian citizenship, (which under Indonesian law he couldn’t due to being over age and unable to renounce the US citizenship), Obama would have lost the Indonesian citizenship after living outside of the country for five years.So to recap:Under US law as shown in Sections 317(b), 401, and 407 of the Nationality Act of 1940, and Sections 349 (a) and 355 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, neither Stanley Ann Dunham or Barack Obama would have lost US citizenship upon marriage to Lolo Soetoro. Neither could Barack Obama have lost US citizenship due to actions taken by his mother.Under Indonesian Law 62/1958, Article 2, there was no way to grant Indonesian citizenship to Barack Obama due to being over the age limit as defined by Indonesian law. In addition, the inability to renounce Barack Obama’s US citizenship would have rendered him unable to be granted Indonesian citizenship until the age of 21, and he would have had to returned to Indonesia to live AFTER his mother divorced Lolo Soetoro to meet the guidelines in Article 5 of that law.In short, there is no possible way under either United States OR Indonesian law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship and been granted Indonesian citizenship as a child.This myth is busted.http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/the-indonesian-citizenship-myth.html

Anyone can renounce their US Citizenship, even a minor.

We know BHO II renounced because his American Refugee Sponsor filed his Soc Security Registration Form SS-5 on his behalf through his Connecticut return address.

Besides, BHO’s II mother relinquished her parental rights circa 1971 and Madelyn Dunham was named BHO’s II guardian. Why else would BHO II travel back to Hawaii as an Indonesian Refugee and then his mother follow on an expired passport?
Sean says:

August 7, 2010 at 5:44 pm Sean(Quote)

SvenMagnussen:
Anyone can renounce their US Citizenship, even a minor.We know BHO II renounced because his American Refugee Sponsor filed his Soc Security Registration Form SS-5 on his behalf through his Connecticut return address.Besides, BHO’s II mother relinquished her parental rights circa 1971 and Madelyn Dunham was named BHO’s II guardian. Why else would BHO II travel back to Hawaii as an Indonesian Refugee and then his mother follow on an expired passport?

This is a new one. Indulge us. Tell us more about this American Refugee Sponsor.
Rickey says:

August 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm Rickey(Quote)

SvenMagnussen:
Why else would BHO II travel back to Hawaii as an Indonesian Refugee and then his mother follow on an expired passport?

Sven forgets to take his meds again.
Sean says:

August 7, 2010 at 5:54 pm Sean(Quote)

SvenMagnussen:
Anyone can renounce their US Citizenship, even a minor.We know BHO II renounced because his American Refugee Sponsor filed his Soc Security Registration Form SS-5 on his behalf through his Connecticut return address.Besides, BHO’s II mother relinquished her parental rights circa 1971 and Madelyn Dunham was named BHO’s II guardian. Why else would BHO II travel back to Hawaii as an Indonesian Refugee and then his mother follow on an expired passport?

Here’s the law Sven:

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

Tell me with a straight face a 6-year old can convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation.

A 6-year old, Sven.
G says:

August 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm G(Quote)

SvenMagnussen: Anyone can renounce their US Citizenship, even a minor.

We know BHO II renounced because his American Refugee Sponsor filed his Soc Security Registration Form SS-5 on his behalf through his Connecticut return address.

Besides, BHO’s II mother relinquished her parental rights circa 1971 and Madelyn Dunham was named BHO’s II guardian. Why else would BHO II travel back to Hawaii as an Indonesian Refugee and then his mother follow on an expired passport?

As usual Sven, you are completely full of shiza and your statements are completely bizarro-universe opposite of reality.

You are so wrong that I seriously question that you must be mentally ill to take such positions contrary to the facts in front of you and cannot merely be just a willful con artist.

No sane person would willfully make the statements you do in the face of the evidence you’ve been given over and over again.

It truly is the same as arguing that the earth is flat after being confronted repeatedly with pictures of earth from all of the satellites that have been encircling it for decades.

Your behavior is truly and utterly pathological…
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

August 7, 2010 at 6:41 pm The Sheriff's A Ni-(Quote)

Barry and the Pirates Chapter 203: Down The Rabbit Hole, Through The Looking Glass, Over The Rainbow, And So Far Divorced From Reality Even The Hobbits Want To Know What World You’re Living In
Sef says:

August 7, 2010 at 7:16 pm Sef(Quote)

Sean:
Here’s the law Sven:F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDRENParents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.Tell me with a straight face a 6-year old can convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation.A 6-year old, Sven.

Maybe Stewie from Family Guy?.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 12:26 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

The Lake City Florida Reporter newspaper reports a WorldNetDaily “Where’s the birth certificate?” billboard on I-75. One reader said:

“I just don’t know what good it really does,” she said. “A lot of people aren’t going to know what it’s talking about. I guess it’s freedom of speech, but I just kind of feel like it’s kind of a waste.”

The paper has some interesting info about how much WND is spending on billboards.

http://www.lakecityreporter.com/articles/2010/08/07/news/doc4c5cdbe1869ca715063371.txt
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 2:30 am nc1(Quote)

Sean: Your conspiracy theory is incomplete. Obama has a CT issued SS#…….AND? Is this like Mad libs where you just fill in your own despicable reason for Obama’s CT SS# ?This is what you nuts do. You find something that doesn’t make sense to you and rationalize that SINCE it doesn’t make sense to you, Obama must be a criminal.

Does it makes sense to you that a US citizen and a resident of Hawaii has a SS# from CT? There is no known information that Obama has ever had residence in CT – it would be hard to believe that a high school student from Honolulu mainteined the residence in CT at the same time.

The SS# points to a fraud, which would not be necessary if the official story about his birthplace/citizenship were true.
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 2:35 am nc1(Quote)

HORUS: My SSN is from NY and I was born in Minnesota.So what exactly is your point?

Where did you apply for SSN? Where was your residence at the time?

Now apply your answers to Obama’s situation – at the time when the SSN was allegedly issued to him Obama was a high school student in Honolulu.
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 2:51 am nc1(Quote)

obsolete: Let’s play a game called “Link to President’s Birth Certificates” I’ll get the game started.President Obama – http://fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpgBirthers can fill out the rest for us:President G. W. Bush:President Bill ClintonPresident George H. W. BushPresident Reagan:President Carter:President Ford:President Nixon:There, that’s a good enough start, and it should be easy for birthers to furnish the remaining links.

1. As soon as you show us a link to a story about minister in a foreign government claiming that a President (from your list) was born in that country. While we are at it – there should also be easy for you to find a link to a statement by the ambassador of that country in USA saying the same thing.

2. Let’s look at the link you provided: Where is the state seal – it is not visible. Where is the registration number – blacked out. If you could read the botom of that image you would have learned that any modification invalidates the document. (I am being charitable here and treating an image posted on a private web page as a real document).
obsolete says:

August 8, 2010 at 2:56 am obsolete(Quote)

nc1:
Does it makes sense to you that a US citizen and a resident of Hawaii has a SS# from CT?There is no known information that Obama has ever had residence in CT – it would be hard to believe that a high school student from Honolulu mainteined the residence in CT at the same time.The SS# points to a fraud, which would not be necessary if the official story about his birthplace/citizenship were true.

GIVE IT UP! Multiple people have posted on here links the the Gov’s SS site where they themselves say that location codes are more of a guideline than anything set in stone.
I’ll post it again in the vain hope that you will read it & understand it:

“Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.”

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

Now, do you STILL think that his CT prefix proves fraud, or is it possible that a more benign explanation may be likely? You would be laughed out of any court with this. I think if you keep bringing this nonsense up (as you likely will in future threads and on other sites), it PROVES that you are a liar who has no interest in the truth and will use any smear you can.
obsolete says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:02 am obsolete(Quote)

nc1:
1.As soon as you show us a link to a story about minister in a foreign government claiming that a President (from your list) was born in that country.While we are at it – there should also be easy for you to find a link to a statement by the ambassador of that country in USA saying the same thing.2.Let’s look at the link you provided:Where is the state seal – it is not visible. Where is the registration number – blacked out.If you could read the botom of that image you would have learned that any modification invalidates the document. (I am being charitable here and treating an image posted on a private web page as a real document).

1- What does a “minister in a foreign government” have to do with pictures of our President’s birth certificates? Nothing. How does a quote from a “minister in a foreign government” explain why Obama is our only President whose birth certificate has been released and can be linked to? Nothing.

The factcheck links (which you and other birthers have been pointed to a million times yet still manage to ignore) have photographs which clearly show the raised seal and number. BZZZZzzzTTTt NEXT.
Sean says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:11 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Does it makes sense to you that a US citizen and a resident of Hawaii has a SS# from CT?There is no known information that Obama has ever had residence in CT – it would be hard to believe that a high school student from Honolulu mainteined the residence in CT at the same time.The SS# points to a fraud, which would not be necessary if the official story about his birthplace/citizenship were true.

But the Social Security Administration makes it clear that a SS# does NOT establish residency. In Obama’s case, it could have been several things. His Dad, for instance did live in CT. CT might have been a processing hub for SS#s.

Nothing sinister here.
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:12 am nc1(Quote)

obsolete: GIVE IT UP! Multiple people have posted on here links the the Gov’s SS site where they themselves say that location codes are more of a guideline than anything set in stone.I’ll post it again in the vain hope that you will read it & understand it:“Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.”http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.htmlNow, do you STILL think that his CT prefix proves fraud, or is it possible that a more benign explanation may be likely? You would be laughed out of any court with this. I think if you keep bringing this nonsense up (as you likely will in future threads and on other sites), it PROVES that you are a liar who has no interest in the truth and will use any smear you can.

SS numbers before and after Obama’s were issued to people in CT.

Are you saying that Obama maintained mailing address in CT while attending the high school in Honolulu?

Have you subscribed to Sven’s theory of a refugee agency in CT acting on behalf of Obama!?
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:16 am nc1(Quote)

Sean: But the Social Security Administration makes it clear that a SS# does NOT establish residency. In Obama’s case, it could have been several things. His Dad, for instance did live in CT. CT might have been a processing hub for SS#s.Nothing sinister here.

Please complete your thought – when did his father live in CT?

Where was his father between 1977 and 1979? (hint: Kenya).
Sean says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:26 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
1.As soon as you show us a link to a story about minister in a foreign government claiming that a President (from your list) was born in that country.While we are at it – there should also be easy for you to find a link to a statement by the ambassador of that country in USA saying the same thing.2.Let’s look at the link you provided:Where is the state seal – it is not visible. Where is the registration number – blacked out.If you could read the botom of that image you would have learned that any modification invalidates the document. (I am being charitable here and treating an image posted on a private web page as a real document).

The foreign minister story was debunked a while back, but let’s pretend it wasn’t. What does it mean? One person’s claim against so much hard evidence to the contrary?
Sean says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:31 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
1.As soon as you show us a link to a story about minister in a foreign government claiming that a President (from your list) was born in that country.While we are at it – there should also be easy for you to find a link to a statement by the ambassador of that country in USA saying the same thing.2.Let’s look at the link you provided:Where is the state seal – it is not visible. Where is the registration number – blacked out.If you could read the botom of that image you would have learned that any modification invalidates the document. (I am being charitable here and treating an image posted on a private web page as a real document).

Here’s the raised seal you wanted:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:48 am nc1(Quote)

obsolete: 1- What does a “minister in a foreign government” have to do with pictures of our President’s birth certificates? Nothing. How does a quote from a “minister in a foreign government” explain why Obama is our only President whose birth certificate has been released and can be linked to? Nothing.The factcheck links (which you and other birthers have been pointed to a million times yet still manage to ignore) have photographs which clearly show the raised seal and number. BZZZZzzzTTTt NEXT.

FactCheck images clearly show a seal – the question is which one? You cannot distinguish any letters, which is not the case with other COLB images posted on the web.

FactCheck image was posted TWO months after the initial COLB image (the one used in your link). The first day after the COLB was posted on Daily Kos web site there were several comments mentioning deficiencies in that image. It took Obama campaign TWO months to come up with a better version. If they had a legitimate document on hand they could have provided a good scan immediately after its authenticity has been challenged.

When a minister in Kenyan government mentioned that Obama was born there, it confirmed the earlier statement by their ambassador in the USA. That does not sound right and I am not aware that such thing has happened at any time in US history.

Obama could end the birthplace debate in an instant by releasing the original birth certificate consistent with the official story (Kapiolani hospital). Why did he feel the need to present two suspicious images of a COLB document while the original is sitting in the archive. His behavior does not make much sense.
obsolete says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:49 am obsolete(Quote)

nc1:
SS numbers before and after Obama’s were issued to people in CT.Are you saying that Obama maintained mailing address in CT while attending the high school in Honolulu?Have you subscribed to Sven’s theory of a refugee agency in CT acting on behalf of Obama!?

I am saying that I don’t know the exact reason Obama was issued a “CT” SS number, but there are many possibilities that are MUCH more likely than some nefarious plot stretching back 50 years. Obama was young when his SS was applied for. Did he have Marxist superpowers then? Was the “plot” active then? Did the KGB have a hand? This is all stupid.
Obama could have been issued a CT number for as simple a reason as a bug splattered on a paper led to a typo, or a pile of forms was mixed up after being dropped, or a clerk was hungover and/or dyslexic and switched digits somewhere when transcribing forms, or the numbers were randomly assigned for applicants under 14, or at least two million other possible reasons that are INFINITELY more likely than your laughable sinister fifty-year world-wide plot fantasies involving a future Usurper who was a skinny kid at the time.
Really, if this is what you are hanging your hopes on, I am starting to feel pity for you.

Do you know that the President’s tax returns are released every year? Don’t you think the IRS would have noticed by now if something was amiss all these years? Or was Obama that powerful of a super-villain when he was a pre-teen, that his scam was good enough to hold up until the present?
You know that you are screwed, aren’t you, if this is true? He was so powerful that the “plot” will never fail. If he was this good when working in an ice cream shop, imagine how much more he can hide now that he controls the world! You will never break through!

And as for Sven’s ideas, all the acid I did in the 80’s still isn’t enough for them to make any kind of sense.
dunstvangeet says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:56 am dunstvangeet(Quote)

NC1…

Show me exactly what is wrong with the document that is shown in these pictures:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

There are 9 photos of the birth certificate there. You can take the final number off of that file, and replace it with a 1-9.

So, as you can tell, there is the registration number, and the raised seal. In photos 7, 8, and 9, you can see the raised seal better, and show that there is a stamp and signature certifying that this is a “true copy or abstract”. That means in every document that Hawaii has on file, Honolulu, Hawaii is listed as Barack Obama’s birthplace.

Oh, and before you go into fraudelent registration, please note that you should have evidence before you accuse other people of committing crimes, especially people who are not around to defend themselves. Also remember that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and that the person who has shown this has shown all the proof that they need to prove their citizenship. If your suggesting that it was fraudently registered, then you had better prove this beyond a reasonable doubt (and no, idle speculation does not mount to beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to prove the crime.

Right now, birthers can’t even get to the point of Reasonable Suspecion.

If cops went arresting people with the same logic that birthers use to try to accuse Obama’s late mother and grandmother of a crime, they’d be fired from the police force, then the police force would be sued for unlawful detainment.
dunstvangeet says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:59 am dunstvangeet(Quote)

What I don’t get is that this world-wide conspiracy, in trying to get a Manchurian President, picked out a Black Kid with the middle name “Hussein” to be their standard bearer. Would you have a better chance with a white kid, alledgely born in Kansas, with the middle name of “Steven”?
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 4:01 am nc1(Quote)

Sean: Here’s the raised seal you wanted:http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg

Is it the official seal or a forged one? I can’t recognize any letters – can you?

Seals shown in images of scanned COLBs posted on the web are clear – you can read the text imbedded in the seal. Not the case with this one.

I find it strange that, TWO months after the issue of a missing seal in the COLB image was raised, Obama campaign could not come up with a good picture (no strange angle) of the seal presented on FactCheck.
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 4:47 am nc1(Quote)

dunstvangeet: NC1…Show me exactly what is wrong with the document that is shown in these pictures:http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpgThere are 9 photos of the birth certificate there. You can take the final number off of that file, and replace it with a 1-9.So, as you can tell, there is the registration number, and the raised seal. In photos 7, 8, and 9, you can see the raised seal better, and show that there is a stamp and signature certifying that this is a “true copy or abstract”. That means in every document that Hawaii has on file, Honolulu, Hawaii is listed as Barack Obama’s birthplace.Oh, and before you go into fraudelent registration, please note that you should have evidence before you accuse other people of committing crimes, especially people who are not around to defend themselves. Also remember that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and that the person who has shown this has shown all the proof that they need to prove their citizenship. If your suggesting that it was fraudently registered, then you had better prove this beyond a reasonable doubt (and no, idle speculation does not mount to beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to prove the crime.Right now, birthers can’t even get to the point of Reasonable Suspecion.If cops went arresting people with the same logic that birthers use to try to accuse Obama’s late mother and grandmother of a crime, they’d be fired from the police force, then the police force would be sued for unlawful detainment.

Let’s start with the registration number. According to the COLB it was filed on August 8 (Tuesday) yet the number was assigned very close to Nordyke twins documents (we know that their birth certificates were filed on August 11 – Friday).

We also know that Nordyke birth registrations came from the Kapiolani hospital.

We also know that Kapiolani was sending registrations to the DoH office weekly and according to available COLBs it happened on Fridays.

You have a problem here. If Obama was born on August 4 (Friday night) in the Kapiolani hospital his birth certificate should have been bundled up with all certificates from the following week (including Nordyke certificates) and filed next Friday August 11. In that case the number 10641 would look reasonable when compared to numbers for Nordyke twins (10637 and 10638).

The filing date August 8, 1961 does not make sense for a birth certificate that allegedly originated in the Kapiolani hospital. It is very likely that the birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani hospital.
I think that his birth was registered as unattended birth on August 8 which is different from the official story.

The state seal looks fuzzy – you can’t really see what it represents. Image #8 is a close-up of the seal and it raises more questions than it answers.

The DoH refused to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. If they issued it, there would be no reason to refuse the confirmation. Obama put the document for public inspection – there is no privacy to be protected any more, the DoH could confirm it without any fear that somebody would complain about it.

Your analogy to a police case is misleading. Police will not arrest a white collar criminal without an investigation. In this case Obama has prevented any investigation into his birthplace records.
Just think about it – which police investigation would take an image of a document posted on a private web site as a substitute for the original. They would want to see the physical copy and confirm it with the issuing agency.

There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that points out to a fraud committed by Obama campaign – it warrants an investigation.
obsolete says:

August 8, 2010 at 4:51 am obsolete(Quote)

nc1:
Is it the official seal or a forged one?I can’t recognize any letters – can you?

The burden of evidence is on the accuser. Do you have any evidence that the seal is forged? I thought not. Until you do, it will be considered to be authentic. See how that works in the real world where grown-ups live?

nc1: “Seals shown in images of scanned COLBs posted on the web are clear – you can read the text imbedded in the seal. Not the case with this one.”

Maybe because it is photographed, not scanned?

nc1: “I find it strange that, TWO months after the issue of a missing seal in the COLB image was raised, Obama campaign could not come up with a good picture (no strange angle) of the seal presented on FactCheck.”

Obama campaign considered the issue closed after they posted their image. It’s not their problem you are unhappy with the scan quality. And the seal is visible on the larger scan with some simple Photoshop enhancement filters. Other sites have given exact steps for how to see the seal using the scan downloaded from fightthesmears/DailyKos.
obsolete says:

August 8, 2010 at 5:04 am obsolete(Quote)

nc1: blah blah blah, (red herring) blah, blah blah, (birther myth), blah blah blah blah (birther lie), blah blah, (minor inconsistency only explainable by the most vast conspiracy in history), blah blah, (birther misunderstanding of law), blah blah (another birther zombie lie), blah blah, etc.

You have nothing but exactly what I have posted above. Come to us when you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE of a crime, not merely suspicions. Come to us when you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE of a cover-up, not merely minor inconsistencies.

Read something about the President from a source other than Fox/WND. Read about Occum’s Razor. Hey, did you know that Obama DID NOT sign an executive order sealing all his documents on his first day as President? You would know that if you ever ventured beyond the birther echo chambers.
obsolete says:

August 8, 2010 at 5:09 am obsolete(Quote)

Why didn’t any birthers go and see Obama’s birth certificate when it was available for viewing at his campaign headquarters? Why did no birther press go? Why did Dave Berg turn down the offer to have half his air paid to go?
They could have taken a bazillion pictures of it, from any angle.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:30 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: We also know that Kapiolani was sending registrations to the DoH office weekly

How do you know that?

nc1: In this case Obama has prevented any investigation into his birthplace records.

What part of Dr. Fukino verifying the record makes it not “any” investigation?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:34 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: find it strange that, TWO months after the issue of a missing seal in the COLB image was raised, Obama campaign could not come up with a good picture (no strange angle) of the seal presented on FactCheck.

And of course, a real forgery at such a high level would not have such obvious defects. So therefore, it is not a forgery.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:37 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: Obama could end the birthplace debate in an instant by releasing the original birth certificate consistent with the official story (Kapiolani hospital).

That is clearly the most wildly nutty thing you have sad in this blog.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:43 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

dunstvangeet: Show me exactly what is wrong with the document that is shown in these pictures

He’s black.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:45 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

@ nc1:

Exactly how do YOU explain the Connecticut Social Security number?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:54 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: The SS# points to a fraud, which would not be necessary if the official story about his birthplace/citizenship were true.

Birthers, and conspiracy theorists, deny the possibility of coincidence and error, and attribute every unexplained anomaly as evidence of the conspiracy. This is how birthers cheat. They themselves (with the notable exception of Sven) never put forth an alternate theory and attempt to maintain it in face of the kinds of criticism they dish out.

Sven’s scenarios are instructive in that they show how easily such things are torn apart, and indeed if other birthers actually put forward detailed scenarios to explain the historical curiosities we’ve found, then we would see the stark contrast between the official story and the crank story.

So nc1, let’s see your detailed explanation of the certificate number and the Social Security number, historically consistent. No vague “it must be fraud” but exactly who, what, when and how.
BatGuano says:

August 8, 2010 at 10:07 am BatGuano(Quote)

nc1: It took Obama campaign TWO months to come up with a better version. If they had a legitimate document on hand they could have provided a good scan immediately after its authenticity has been challenged.

……………

Obama could end the birthplace debate in an instant by releasing the original birth certificate consistent with the official story (Kapiolani hospital).

nc1, get the point ?
Sean says:

August 8, 2010 at 10:14 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Is it the official seal or a forged one?I can’t recognize any letters – can you?Seals shown in images of scanned COLBs posted on the web are clear – you can read the text imbedded in the seal. Not the case with this one.I find it strange that, TWO months after the issue of a missing seal in the COLB image was raised, Obama campaign could not come up with a good picture (no strange angle) of the seal presented on FactCheck.

I find it strange you don’t know that a seal is 3D. It was never meant to be scanned or photographed. This is the nature of Birthers. What evidence you don’t ignore isn’t good enough.

Chris Rock actually predicted this when Obama was running. He said if Obama got more votes, they’d just say, well sorry, we don’t count votes any more. We count bacon.
Sean says:

August 8, 2010 at 10:34 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Let’s start with the registration number.According to the COLB it was filed on August 8 (Tuesday) yet the number was assigned very close to Nordyke twins documents (we know that their birth certificates were filed on August 11 – Friday).We also know that Nordyke birth registrations came from the Kapiolani hospital.We also know that Kapiolani was sending registrations to the DoH office weekly and according to available COLBs it happened on Fridays.You have a problem here. If Obama was born on August 4 (Friday night) in the Kapiolani hospital his birth certificate should have been bundled up with all certificates from the following week (including Nordyke certificates) and filed next Friday August 11.In that case the number 10641 would look reasonable when compared to numbers for Nordyke twins (10637 and 10638).The filing date August 8, 1961 does not make sense for a birth certificate that allegedly originated in the Kapiolani hospital. It is very likely that the birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani hospital.
I think that his birth was registered as unattended birth on August 8 which is different from the official story.

The Nordyke twins registration #s are 3 #s off Obama’s. That’s pretty good evidence he was born in Kapiolani hospital.

His birth was registered 4 days after his birth (a weekend being two of those days). That’s prompt. Unattended births tend to be delayed.
Sef says:

August 8, 2010 at 11:25 am Sef(Quote)

Sean:
The Nordyke twins registration #s are 3 #s off Obama’s. That’s pretty good evidence he was born in Kapiolani hospital.His birth was registered 4 days after his birth (a weekend being two of those days). That’s prompt. Unattended births tend to be delayed.

This registration # pseudo-fiasco cannot be properly sorted out until we see the results of the following SQL query (or similar) of the Hawaiian birth records:

“Select REGNO, DATEBIRTH, DATEFILED, LEFT(LASTNAME,1) from LIVEBIRTHS where REGNO between 10000 and 11000 and where BIRTHYEAR=1961 order by REGNO;”

This would be enough to indicate how many times an out-of-sequence registration number occurred in 1961 & whether the child’s name was important in the sequencing. If it is a common occurrence then it is meaningless to discuss it in terms of Obama. Currently, we have no way of knowing whether Obama’s or the twins number is out of order.

I have absolutely no interest in pursuing this, but some birther should do so in order to put this issue to bed. I would think this would fall under the “index data” classification & not expose personal data, but what do I know.
sfjeff says:

August 8, 2010 at 2:53 pm sfjeff(Quote)

I know that NC1 has been asked this before, but I will try once again:

What would be the purpose or intent of frauduantly registering President Obama’s SS# in CT?

I frankly cannot think of any purpose that could not have been achieved by registering it in Hawaii? You say it is suspicious- but suspicious of what? People don’t commit crimes without motivation or purpose- what was it?
Majority Will says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:00 pm Majority Will(Quote)

sfjeff: I know that NC1 has been asked this before, but I will try once again:What would be the purpose or intent of frauduantly registering President Obama’s SS# in CT?
I frankly cannot think of any purpose that could not have been achieved by registering it in Hawaii? You say it is suspicious- but suspicious of what? People don’t commit crimes without motivation or purpose- what was it?

Logic and reason matters to a deranged birther?

Why does the Porridge Bird lay his eggs in the air?
Rickey says:

August 8, 2010 at 3:14 pm Rickey(Quote)

nc1:
SS numbers before and after Obama’s were issued to people in CT.

How do you know that? Do you have the names of those people? Have you confirmed that they lived in Connecticut when they were issued their SSNs?

Please respond with details and links.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 4:18 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sef: This registration # pseudo-fiasco cannot be properly sorted out until we see the results of the following SQL query (or similar) of the Hawaiian birth records:

“Select REGNO, DATEBIRTH, DATEFILED, LEFT(LASTNAME,1) from LIVEBIRTHS where REGNO between 10000 and 11000 and where BIRTHYEAR=1961 order by REGNO;”

This would be enough to indicate how many times an out-of-sequence registration number occurred in 1961 & whether the child’s name was important in the sequencing. If it is a common occurrence then it is meaningless to discuss it in terms of Obama. Currently, we have no way of knowing whether Obama’s or the twins number is out of order.

I’m impressed.
dunstvangeet says:

August 8, 2010 at 5:20 pm dunstvangeet(Quote)

nc1:
Let’s start with the registration number. According to the COLB it was filed on August 8 (Tuesday) yet the number was assigned very close to Nordyke twins documents (we know that their birth certificates were filed on August 11 – Friday).

You’re making an assumption that 1. The number was assigned before the Nordyke’s, and 2. That numbers were assigned in order. You have provided no proof of either of these assumptions to be true. There’s scenarios that explain both the date (paper was delivered to the central DOH on Tuesday the 8th, but wasn’t sorted and organized until Friday the 11th and they were alphabetized, instead of being Chronologically ordered). You don’t have evidence of anything wrong. In fact, they could have waited until the full month was gone (August) before assigning numbers. Nordyke is right before Obama that it probably happened. The reason the Nordykes certificates were not sent until the 11th is that was when they got the paperwork for them done (mother was busy giving birth to twins).

We also know that Nordyke birth registrations came from the Kapiolani hospital.We also know that Kapiolani was sending registrations to the DoH office weekly and according to available COLBs it happened on Fridays.

Mind showing me where it said that it was happening weekly. I have evidence that it happened by-weekly, on Tuesdays and Fridays. The weekly is another assumption that you made that hasn’t actually been mentioned in reality.

You have a problem here. If Obama was born on August 4 (Friday night) in the Kapiolani hospital his birth certificate should have been bundled up with all certificates from the following week (including Nordyke certificates) and filed next Friday August 11.

No, we don’t have a problem here. I’ve provided reasonable explainations here that both satisfy the date, and the number. Nothing nefarious unless you consider minor filing deadlines “descrepencies”.

In that case the number 10641 would look reasonable when compared to numbers for Nordyke twins (10637 and 10638).The filing date August 8, 1961 does not make sense for a birth certificate that allegedly originated in the Kapiolani hospital. It is very likely that the birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani hospital.
I think that his birth was registered as unattended birth on August 8 which is different from the official story.

It makes perfect sense. You’ve just concocted a story in your head of what happened, and you will refuse all evidence to the contrary.

The state seal looks fuzzy – you can’t really see what it represents. Image #8 is a close-up of the seal and it raises more questions than it answers.

I can see it perfectly. It is the same seal as what is on the top of the document. I can read “Department of Health” on it

The DoH refused to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

They don’t need to confirm the confirmation. Next, you’ll ask them to confirm the confirmation of the confirmation. It’s just an additional step that you’re stating that should have been done. In reality, I’ve heard of no official governmental agency calling up any Department of Health and stating, “Did you issue a birth certificate on this paticular date.”

If they issued it, there would be no reason to refuse the confirmation.

There is also no reason to confirm it. The Hawaii Department of Health issued the confirmation of Obama’s birth on June 7, 2007. That is the confirmation that matters.

Obama put the document for public inspection – there is no privacy to be protected any more, the DoH could confirm it without any fear that somebody would complain about it.

And they have more important things to do than answer the questions of people who do not know what a birth certificate even is, and further start their letter off with the premise that Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t actually prove anything.

Your analogy to a police case is misleading.Police will not arrest a white collar criminal without an investigation.In this case Obama has prevented any investigation into his birthplace records.

Actually, no, I’m not. I’m not putting the burden of proof on you guys. The law is. Read it. Anytime you have someone disputing and stating that something backed by official government record didn’t happen, the burden of proof is on them. For instance, take a look at 8 USC 1481(b). They state that the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. You’re making the accusation that Obama forged this birth certificate. Therefore, you’re the one that has to prove that. You’re making the accusation that Obama’s grandmother fraudently registered him. Therefore, you’re the one that has to prove that accusation. You’re the one that is saying that Obama is not a citizen. Therefore, you’re the one that has to prove that accusation. Obama has met his burden of proof. It’s the birthers that haven’t.

Just think about it – which police investigation would take an image of a document posted on a private web site as a substitute for the original.

Which police investigation would go, “You’re guilty. Now, prove to me that you’re innocent” without a single shred of proof anywhere? You’re the one accusing multiple people of crimes. Therefore, you should be the one that proves it. And this just gets back to you wanting Obama to spend 1 billion dollars to give a copy to every potential voter.

They would want to see the physical copy and confirm it with the issuing agency.

Actually, they wouldn’t need to, just as the judge wouldn’t need to. The document (the exact one that Factcheck photographed) is self-authenticating. That means that if it ever got into a court of law, Obama’s lawyers would be able to offer this exact document to the court of law without any further authentication. Read the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically 902 (Self-Authenicating Documents)

There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that points out to a fraud committed by Obama campaign – it warrants an investigation.

You have absolutely no evidence. None of this would be admitted into a court of law. In fact, the only thing that would be admitted into a court of law would be the COLB, which would prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, want to try again?
Majority Will says:

August 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm Majority Will(Quote)

dunstvangeet:
You’re making an assumption that 1. The number was assigned before the Nordyke’s, and 2. That numbers were assigned in order.You have provided no proof of either of these assumptions to be true.There’s scenarios that explain both the date (paper was delivered to the central DOH on Tuesday the 8th, but wasn’t sorted and organized until Friday the 11th and they were alphabetized, instead of being Chronologically ordered).You don’t have evidence of anything wrong.In fact, they could have waited until the full month was gone (August) before assigning numbers.Nordyke is right before Obama that it probably happened.The reason the Nordykes certificates were not sent until the 11th is that was when they got the paperwork for them done (mother was busy giving birth to twins).
Mind showing me where it said that it was happening weekly.I have evidence that it happened by-weekly, on Tuesdays and Fridays.The weekly is another assumption that you made that hasn’t actually been mentioned in reality.
No, we don’t have a problem here.I’ve provided reasonable explainations here that both satisfy the date, and the number.Nothing nefarious unless you consider minor filing deadlines “descrepencies”.It makes perfect sense.You’ve just concocted a story in your head of what happened, and you will refuse all evidence to the contrary.
I can see it perfectly.It is the same seal as what is on the top of the document.I can read “Department of Health” on it
They don’t need to confirm the confirmation.Next, you’ll ask them to confirm the confirmation of the confirmation.It’s just an additional step that you’re stating that should have been done.In reality, I’ve heard of no official governmental agency calling up any Department of Health and stating, “Did you issue a birth certificate on this paticular date.”
There is also no reason to confirm it.The Hawaii Department of Health issued the confirmation of Obama’s birth on June 7, 2007.That is the confirmation that matters.
And they have more important things to do than answer the questions of people who do not know what a birth certificate even is, and further start their letter off with the premise that Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t actually prove anything.
Actually, no, I’m not.I’m not putting the burden of proof on you guys.The law is.Read it.Anytime you have someone disputing and stating that something backed by official government record didn’t happen, the burden of proof is on them.For instance, take a look at 8 USC 1481(b).They state that the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.You’re making the accusation that Obama forged this birth certificate.Therefore, you’re the one that has to prove that.You’re making the accusation that Obama’s grandmother fraudently registered him.Therefore, you’re the one that has to prove that accusation.You’re the one that is saying that Obama is not a citizen.Therefore, you’re the one that has to prove that accusation.Obama has met his burden of proof.It’s the birthers that haven’t.
Which police investigation would go, “You’re guilty.Now, prove to me that you’re innocent” without a single shred of proof anywhere?You’re the one accusing multiple people of crimes.Therefore, you should be the one that proves it.And this just gets back to you wanting Obama to spend 1 billion dollars to give a copy to every potential voter.
Actually, they wouldn’t need to, just as the judge wouldn’t need to.The document (the exact one that Factcheck photographed) is self-authenticating.That means that if it ever got into a court of law, Obama’s lawyers would be able to offer this exact document to the court of law without any further authentication.Read the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically 902 (Self-Authenicating Documents)
You have absolutely no evidence.None of this would be admitted into a court of law.In fact, the only thing that would be admitted into a court of law would be the COLB, which would prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.So, want to try again?

Well done.
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

August 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm The Sheriff's A Ni-(Quote)

dunstvangeet: You have absolutely no evidence. None of this would be admitted into a court of law. In fact, the only thing that would be admitted into a court of law would be the COLB, which would prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Lionel Hutz and merry-go-rounds galore, welcome to yet another nc1 thread.
Majority Will says:

August 8, 2010 at 6:39 pm Majority Will(Quote)

The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Lionel Hutz and merry-go-rounds galore, welcome to yet another nc1 thread.

Judge: Mr. Hutz, do you know you’re not wearing any pants?
Lionel Hutz: What? AAH! I move for a bad court thingy.
Judge: You mean a mistrial?
Lionel Hutz: Yeah… that’s why you’re the judge, and I’m the law… talkin’… guy.
Majority Will says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:04 pm Majority Will(Quote)

The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Lionel Hutz and merry-go-rounds galore, welcome to yet another nc1 thread.

Mario Apuzzo is Italian for Lionel Hutz.
Eugene says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:13 pm Eugene(Quote)

Oh , it looks like I am now in moderation because I once gave opinions on homosexuality that you disagreed with. You are not only a hypocrite Dr., but a shmuck.
Black Lion says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm Black Lion(Quote)

More FOX…

“In his Talking Points Memo Thursday (8/5/10), Bill O’Reilly purported to explain the huge disparity in support for President Obama between blacks and whites. I believe O’Reilly was making what he thought was a fair and balanced explanation about the differences in blacks’ and whites’ attitudes toward government. But just like when O’Reilly gushed over the surprisingly pleasant behavior of the patrons at a Harlem restaurant, his comments were a Freudian slip that amounted to, as Rachel Maddow later put it, a conclusion that “black people want white people’s money.” Actually, it was worse than that. (H/T reader John M.)

O’Reilly began with his take on white America:

“According to the polls, most white Americans don’t like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It’s simple. White Americans fear government control. They don’t want the feds telling them what to do and they don’t want a bankrupt nation.”

O’Reilly went on to “explain” the black perspective: “Black America has a totally different view. For decades, African Americans have supported a bigger federal government… so it can impose social justice. The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts and to provide better education and healthcare at government (read: white) expense. So the African American voter generally loves what President Obama is doing.”

O’Reilly later noted that the “social justice” component also exists among Hispanic voters.

“There are now two Americas,” O’Reilly continued, “The minority community continues to believe that society is not completely fair to them and they want a huge government apparatus to change that. And while the white community may sympathize with the minority situation, they apparently believe that more harm than good is being done to the country with the cost of social justice programs.”

O’Reilly’s statements, highlighted above, are very telling don’t you think? By saying “The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts,” O’Reilly is not just saying African Americans want white people’s money but he’s suggesting that whites are the only source of money – or at least the only source of money blacks are interested in – and that all black supporters of Obama are poor. I’d wager that poor black people who support higher taxes for the wealthy believe that wealthy African Americans should pay just as much as wealthy white people and that federal assistance should go to poor whites as much as poor blacks.

In any event, my analysis is at least as valid as O’Reilly’s. He offered absolutely no evidence for his conclusions and yet he presented them as though he had some unique insight into each group.

Oh, and one other thing O’Reilly implicitly suggested: That Obama shares or at least caters to that “take it from whitey” mentality that, in O’Reilly’s world, is universally held by African Americans.”

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/07/bill_oreilly_explains_why_he_thinks_black_people_want_white_peoples_money.php#more
Black Lion says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:19 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Some more FOX….For some reason I am begining to think that the people that run FOX don’t like the President….I wonder where one would get such an idea….See the link….

“What a surprise – not! Fox Nation posted about an amusement company pulling a shooting game because of complaints that the target looked like President Barack Obama and a slew of readers openly expressed desire for the real thing. Well, that and killing illegal immigrants. Either Fox Nation moderators – you know, those folks devoted to a civil, tolerant online community – were the only ones in tthe world who could not have seen that coming or they endorse that kind of discussion. I report, you decide! (H/T Seth G)”

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/07/fox_nation_readers_discuss_shooting_obama.php#more
Eugene says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:19 pm Eugene(Quote)

“(O.D.S.) In the first decade of the 21st Century there were some folks on the left side of the political spectrum who suffered from “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” (B.D.S.) Today, it is more likely to be conservatives suffering from O.D.S.”

except the left weren’t HYPOCHONDRIACS during the bush years. terrible comparison man.
Black Lion says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm Black Lion(Quote)

I originally posted this on November 4, 2009. I feel this is a good time (Sunday evening) to re-post the article. Undoubtedly a few new ones have popped up but they’ll be included in a later post.

The Huffington Post, as usual scores again with this:

In honor of Obama’s November 4th anniversary, we’ve pulled together for you the most paranoid trips down the Obama conspiracy rabbit hole. Birthers, fake thesis, satanic messages, we’ve got it covered. Some of the theories here have faded since their conception, but some are still giving off that iridescent glow of insanity and total inaccuracy. Now vote to let us know which one you think is the craziest:

1. Obama Is Not An American Citizen

One of the most popular Obama conspiracy theories (aka the Birther Movement), endorsed (or not denied) by the likes of Tom Delay, Lou Dobbs, Chuck Norris and Liz Cheney, it claims that Obama is not an American citizen, thus rendering his presidency illegitimate, or something. The theory hinges on the false claim that his birth certificate is fake. Birther queen Orly Taitz (a lawyer and dentist from California) continues to lead the march, despite her lawsuit getting thrown out and a $20,000 fine.

2. Obama Wants “Re-Education Camps For Young People

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), a proponent of many bizarre and outlandish critiques of President Obama, declared in April that the White House was trying to install youth re-education camps.

3. Larry Sinclair’s Rabbit Hole Of Insanity

This one is a doozy. Larry Sinclair, a petty criminal specializing in forgery, spread wild accusations via YouTube involving gay sex, drugs and possible murder committed by Barack Obama. At one point reporters apparently took Sinclair seriously enough to attend a press conference he gave, most remarkable for his lawyer’s appearance in a kilt, which he explained was intended to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs: “Those at the other end of the spectrum find [pants] quite confining.”

4. The Case Of The Fake Thesis

5. Bill Ayers Wrote ‘Dreams From My Father”

6. Obama As Antichrist

7. Tells America In His Acceptance Speech To “Serve Satan”

8. Hugo Chavez Funded The Obama Campaign

9. Michelle Banished Barack’s Girlfriend To The Caribbean

10. Malcom X is Obama’s father

http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/11-most-paranoid-obama-co_n_343771.html
Sean says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:38 pm Sean(Quote)

Majority Will:
Judge: Mr. Hutz, do you know you’re not wearing any pants?
Lionel Hutz: What? AAH! I move for a bad court thingy.
Judge: You mean a mistrial?
Lionel Hutz: Yeah… that’s why you’re the judge, and I’m the law… talkin’… guy.

I like Lionel Hutz, but I also like the blue chicken lawyer from Futurama.

Your honor, I would like to move to have me disbarred for presenting evidence that would convict my own client.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:40 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Eugene: Oh , it looks like I am now in moderation because I once gave opinions on homosexuality that you disagreed with. You are not only a hypocrite Dr., but a shmuck.

I put people in moderation because I have concerns that they will disrupt the good order of the discussion, usually by inciting or obscene language, personal attacks (a lot of good that did me) or frequent posting. I really don’t remember why I put you in moderation, or what you said about homosexuality. All I will say about homosexuality is that it’s not an Obama conspiracy that I know of, and therefore not a topic for this web site.

Your penchant for name calling suggests that I did the right thing.
Eugene says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:47 pm Eugene(Quote)

“Your penchant for name calling suggests that I did the right thing.”

Well you better ban all the birthers who call non-birthers names and visa-versa if you have such a hard on for doing the right thing. But then again, you wouldn’t have any activity on the site if you did that, now would you.
Keith says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:49 pm Keith(Quote)

Sef: This registration # pseudo-fiasco cannot be properly sorted out until we see the results of the following SQL query (or similar) of the Hawaiian birth records:

“psuedo-fiasco” is way too hyperbolic to call this issue. Obama FOLLOWS Nordyke when the submitted forms are sorted in alphabetical order.

This was 1961; everything was done manually. Alphabetizing early in the workflow made processing easier all along the way, from dividing the workload between different clerks to locating a particular document when something out of the ordinary comes up, to preparing work for sending to the secure archive facility, to manually filing the documents in their ultimate archive location.

Since the registration number was the LAST thing in the workflow before the actual archive process, there were many steps where anyone processing them may have alphabetized them even if it wasn’t part of the ‘official’ workflow. But I suspect that at the very least, the data gathered to send to the Feds was required to be alphabetical and that therefore the alphabetizing would have been done very early in the process, maybe even by the Hospital before it got to the DOH..
Black Lion says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:51 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Mark Williams Is Back In The Tea Party

“Well, that didn’t take long. Less than three weeks after resigning from the Tea Party Express “to free the tea party movement from any more distraction based on my personal comments or blogs,” Mark Williams is back at the helm of a tea party group.

As former TPMer Zachary Roth reports, Williams is a leader of the newly-founded “Citizens for Constitutional Liberty,” a PAC “that plans to support conservative candidates and promote grassroots activism among Tea Partiers.”

Williams, of course, is one of the few tea party leaders to come under direct criticism from other tea partiers. His blog posts and public statements, which tea partiers have endeavored to separate themselves from of late, led to his public grilling for a week following the “satirical” blog post about the NAACP that led to his resignation.

Williams isn’t talking about his new tea party venture, according to Roth. But his partners are, and they say Williams’ past is nothing to worry about.

“This latest flap is garbage,” one group founder told Roth. “They want to throw the word racism out there these days. It’s overused.”

But another member of the team behind Citizens for Constitutional Liberty addressed the Williams situation on the group’s blog in a way that suggests Williams’ new tea party home is trying to keep his rhetoric at the same arm’s length that the Tea Party Express did.

“While I find many of his comments distasteful and do not condone those sorts of messages, it is not my right to take away his Free Speech guaranteed by our First Amendment,” writes Mandy Morello, one of the group’s founders. “After all The Tea Party is not to pick and choose one’s interpretation of these Amendments to suit ones personal opinion.”

Morello writes that Williams is “not a racist,” but she says she has started the new group with her eyes open about what working with Williams might mean down the road. Morello writes that no matter what Williams might say in the future, she does not have “the right to apologize for his actions or have the authority to ‘kick him out’ for any other reason than something that is illegal.”

Still, it’s clear that the new leaders hope to make it clear that what Williams does is his business — not the new tea party group he’s a leader of.

“I am not under the illusion that Mark will stop being Mark just because we are partners in this fight,” she writes.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/mark_williams_is_back_in_the_tea_party.php
Eugene says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:55 pm Eugene(Quote)

“All I will say about homosexuality is that it’s not an Obama conspiracy that I know of, and therefore not a topic for this web site.”

The hell it isn’t! . Birthers say Obama is a muslim homosexual infiltrator and that Obama is Reggie Love’s sugar daddy. It most certainly is part of the obama conspiracy – you must not keep track of birtherstan if you didn’t know this ..
Black Lion says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:58 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Good Article over at Think progress….

REPORT: The GOP’s Agenda To Change The Constitution

Since President Obama took office, Republicans have shrouded their agenda of opposition by wrapping it in the flag and the Constitution. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) even went so far as to label her radical anti-government views “constitutional conservatism.” Yet, for all of their constitutional pablum, the GOP’s agenda is nothing less than a direct assault on America’s founding document. Time and time again, Republicans have called for basic constitutional freedoms and fundamental aspects of our constitutional government to be repealed either by amendment or by activist judges:

REPEALING CITIZENSHIP: Numerous GOP lawmakers, including their Senate leader and the most-recent Republican candidate for president, are lining up behind a “review” of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to virtually all persons born within the United States. Such a proposal literally revives the vision of citizenship articulated by the Supreme Court’s infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. It has no place in the twenty-first century.

REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY: The Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” gives national leaders broad authority to regulate the national economy, but much of the GOP has embraced “tentherism,” the belief that this power is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. The most famous example of tentherism is the ubiquitous frivolous lawsuits claiming that health reform is unconstitutional, but these lawsuits are part of a much greater effort. In his brief challenging health reform, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress is allowed to regulate “commerce on one hand” but not “manufacturing or agriculture.” Cuccinelli’s discredited vision of the Constitution was actually implemented in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it would strike down everything from child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters.

REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO SPEND MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” a broad grant of authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), however, recently called upon the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution’s clear language and repeal parts of the budget he doesn’t like. A Texas GOP official even went so far as to claim that the federal highway system is unconstitutional. Should this GOP vision of the Constitution ever be adopted, it could eliminate not just Social Security, but also Medicare, Medicaid, federal education spending and countless other cherished programs.

REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO RAISE MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress broad authority to decide how to distribute the tax burden. Thus, for example, Congress is allowed to create a tax incentive for people to buy houses by giving a tax break to people with mortgages, and it is allowed to create a similar incentive for people to buy health insurance by taxing people who have health insurance slightly less than people who do not. Nevertheless, the frivolous assaults on health reform would eliminate this Constitutional power. Many Tea Party Republicans go even further, calling for a full repeal of the 16th Amendment, the amendment which enables the income tax. Paying taxes is never popular, but it would be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to pay our armed forces, among other things.

REPEALING EQUALITY: The Constitution entitles all persons to “equal protection of the laws,” a provision that formed the basis of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision yesterday that California cannot treat gay couples as if they are somehow inferior. Immediately after this decision was announced, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) called upon Congress to “act immediately” to overturn it — something that it could only do through a constitutional amendment. Of course, Newt’s proposal does nothing more than revive President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment repealing the parts of the Constitution that protect marriage equality.

REPEALING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: As Judge Walker also held, marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The GOP’s anti-gay amendment would repeal this constitutional protection as well.

REPEALING ELECTION OF SENATORS: Finally, a number of GOP candidates have come out in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires direct election of senators, although many of these candidates also backed off their “Seventeenther” stand after it proved embarrassing. It is simply baffling how anyone could take one look at the U.S. Senate, and decide that what it really needs is even less democracy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/05/gop-v-constitution/

The following poster stated things the best….

Chuck Feney says:

——————————————————————————–

So, when the wingnuts say they want to take back the country, they mean they want to take it back to the failed Articles of Confederation.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Majority Will says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:58 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Sean:
I like Lionel Hutz, but I also like the blue chicken lawyer from Futurama.Your honor, I would like to move to have me disbarred for presenting evidence that would convict my own client.

http://theinfosphere.org/Hyper-Chicken

A simple Hyper-chicken from a backwoods asteroid, is the most frequently seen lawyer in Futurama. He is a father and has often defended and accused members of Planet Express crew. Despite being incompetent, he often manages to win his cases and if he doesn’t, he usually tells his clients to plead insanity. He seems to be a successful lawyer and handles large cases such as the destruction of DOOP’s headquarters.

The Hyper-Chicken is modelled on Jimmy Stewart’s Academy Award-nominated portrayal of lawyer Paul Biegler in Anatomy of a Murder. Trying a murder case in a small town, Biegler wins over the sceptical jury by repeatedly comparing himself, “a simple country lawyer”, to the high-powered prosecutor, Claude Dancer (George C. Scott). The “simple country lawyer” became a model for many following portrayals, notably the entire show Matlock.

The Hyper-Chicken advertises on buses, the ads simply read “ACCIDENTES! (800)λλλ-λλλλ”.

In a deleted scene on Into the Wild Green Yonder, Zapp Brannigan calls him ‘Matcluck’.

Hyper-Chicken: “Now I may be just be a simple Hyper-Chicken, but I know when we’re finger licked.”
Majority Will says:

August 8, 2010 at 9:03 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
All I will say about homosexuality is that it’s not an Obama conspiracy that I know of, and therefore not a topic for this web site.

Tell that to the birther followers of Larry Sinclair!
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 8, 2010 at 9:26 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

dunstvangeet (to nc1): You’re making an assumption that 1. The number was assigned before the Nordyke’s, and 2. That numbers were assigned in order. You have provided no proof of either of these assumptions to be true. There’s scenarios that explain both the date (paper was delivered to the central DOH on Tuesday the 8th, but wasn’t sorted and organized until Friday the 11th and they were alphabetized, instead of being Chronologically ordered).

Just looking at sample birth certificates from the era, and my conversations with “old timers” in vital statistics, I am pretty confident in saying that all certificates were serially numbered by one numbering machine that automatically incremented with each use. I personally think the idea of alphabetization is a long shot simply because I don’t see the business process that requires it. It’s not as if they were collating multiple documents. For live births, there would only be the certificate.

However, just as I don’t see the case for alphabetization, I don’t see the case for any attempt at processing the records in any other particular order. That is, records arrive in piles, piles or parts of piles are assigned to various workers in piles or parts of piles. When work is finished, the record gets stamped by the stamping machine, possibly logged in an index, and bound in volumes BY NUMBER.

There’s no evidence that certificates should numbered strictly in order by date.
Keith says:

August 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm Keith(Quote)

Black Lion: The following poster stated things the best….

Chuck Feney says:

——————————————————————————–

So, when the wingnuts say they want to take back the country, they mean they want to take it back to the failed Articles of Confederation.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

That is absolutely, 100% the ‘plan’, no question.

I would relate again the gist of an argument I had with a ‘sovereignist’ on another site some time back. He would go on and on about protecting the constitution and then say something that didn’t have anything to do with the constitution.

I would cut-and-paste the constitutions clause that proved him 100% bass-ackwards wrong and he would go on to some other point in his disinformation campaign. He was mixing up amendments with legislation (somehow an Amendment is unconstitutional in his world and he didn’t understand that Congress doesn’t ‘enact’ an amendment). Finally after about the 5th time I suggested he should actually read the Constitution before making a further fool of himself, he faked insult and crawled away.

And that was a pity because as soon as he did, I realized he was really talking about the Articles of Confederation, calling THAT the Constitution, and insisting that it was ‘illegally overthrown’ by Abraham Lincoln, or some such rot, and was really, really deserving of a butt-burning.

I was really disappointed when he wouldn’t come back to play.

More learned essays on the Tea Party and the Reactionary Right agenda to destroy the Constitution while claiming to want to ‘restore’ it can be found at the Constitutional Accountability Center’s “Text and History Blog” especially in their “Strange Brew” series. Search for “Strange Brew” on that Text and History blog page to find the articles relating to the Tea Party’s (and fellow travellers) strange brew of ideas about the Constitution. (there are 10 as of this writing).
Keith says:

August 8, 2010 at 9:46 pm Keith(Quote)

Sorry I was going to give a snippit or two from Strange Brew:

From Strange Brew: The Tea Party’s Constitution Features Less Democracy, More Corruption

by Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

Somewhat surprisingly, even in the curious world of the Tea Party, several Tea Party Senate candidates have been asking people to vote for them precisely because they want to take away the people’s right to vote for them. In other words, they are running on a platform that includes a call to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which shifted the selection of U.S. Senators from the state legislatures to direct election by voters. Such a repeal proposal is foolhardy—and not just because it banks on the rather ridiculous proposition that voters will turn out to vote to support taking away their right to vote….

From Strange Brew: The Tea Party and Federalism, Nullification and Secession

by Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

As we noted in last week’s post taking on the Tea Party’s constitutional challenges to the “individual mandate,” the greatest rallying point for Tea Party opposition to federal government power is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the historic health care reform law enacted earlier this year. The Tea Partiers’ heated rhetoric is reaching a boiling point with the upcoming elections. Republican Rep. Zach Wamp, running for governor in Tennessee, suggested over the weekend that states should think about seceding from the Union because of the health care law, echoing a similar, earlier call from Texas Governor Rick Perry. Several state attorneys general and governors have filed lawsuits challenging the Act — including one filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and another by a group of state officials led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum — alleging that the Act exceeds Congress’s powers and infringes upon state sovereignty. Virginia and Idaho have passed, and other states are considering, “nullification” laws that attempt to block implementation of the Act outright, a tactic not seriously pursued since a handful of states tried to block implementation of federal civil rights laws in the 1950s and ’60s….

From Strange Brew: The Tea Party Mocks The Founders’ Stance on Armed Rebellion

by Doug Kendall, President & Founder, Constitutional Accountability Center

Perhaps the single most disturbing thing about the rise of the Tea Party as a growing force in American politics is the frequency with which the movement’s most notable figures have rallied the faithful with talk of armed rebellion or revolution, often invoking the Framers in support of this call to political violence:…

And most on-topic for this site:

From Strange Brew: Immigration and the Tea Party’s Efforts to Deny the Constitution’s Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship

by Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

Though the legal battle over Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is only just heating up, state legislators affiliated with the Arizona Tea Party are reportedly working on yet another piece of tough legislation aimed at stemming illegal immigration, this one intended to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from obtaining “birthright citizenship.” Buoyed by anti-immigrant sentiment and general frustration in the state, these Arizona legislators are undeterred by the fact that such citizenship is guaranteed by our Constitution, in the strikingly clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment that reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Some, like State Senator Russell Pearce in Arizona, refuse to accept that this language covers children of undocumented immigrants. Other prominent Tea Party allies – including Rand Paul (of Kentucky) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (of San Diego) – have called for an outright repeal of this portion of the Fourteenth Amendment…
Expelliarmus says:

August 8, 2010 at 10:38 pm Expelliarmus(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: There’s no evidence that certificates should numbered strictly in order by date.

Actually, wouldn’t an attempt to preserve date-order have compounded the process and made it unworkable? Would it have been date received by the health department, or date of birth? If ordered by date of birth, if the process ordinarily allowed for 30 days to register a birth…. would they have had to hold all the records for 30 days before numbering them, carefully preserving the order of receipt, taking note of the day and hour of birth on each one? And if it was ordered by date of receipt, would they have to maintained some sort of central repository to carefully preserve the order? What about birth records from outlying islands — is it the receipt by the local office or the central office that governs? What if someone discovered an error in a document — let’s say, hypothetically, that some certificate was inadvertently submitted to the health department with a problem, such as lack of signature of the parent — or some piece of data illegible — would the whole series of subsequently submitted documents have to be held back while the clerk arranged for correction of the problem document? And how would documents be tracked while all this was going on? You’d need a separate indexing and tracking system to keep track of the yet-to-be-numbered submissions.

It’s a lot more likely that the docs were stacked in an in-box, dealt with on a regular basis by whoever had the job of processing what was in the in box, and that documents submitted earlier would tend to be at the bottom of the stack, whereas later received documents would be at the top of the stack. So then you would get exactly what we see here — little batches where the numbers were all close in range, but within that batch, where the later submitted documents tend to have lower numbers than the earlier submitted documents.
Keith says:

August 8, 2010 at 11:14 pm Keith(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I personally think the idea of alphabetization is a long shot simply because I don’t see the business process that requires it.

You may well be right. But when I worked for a City Government in the late 1970’s, on the cusp of computerizing everything they could, every single manual system we investigated sorted the incoming batches as the very first step in the workflow after receipt. If it was, say, Parking Tickets, the batches were sorted on the preprinted citation number (this was eliminated by using an automated OCR/magnetic ink combo reader that could read the citation and the check); if it was a business license, the batches were sorted by business name.

These guys were big on sorting. Stuff had to be divied up among the processing clerks, found if there was some reason to interrupt the workflow and, in the end, filed.

Many manual systems just grew over time. There wasn’t necessarily a business need to do something a particular way, it was often just “the way it was always done”.

At a community college I worked at, 5 years after we converted to a computerized enrollment system, the admin department tried to move the budget for the ‘next lot of 20 filing cabinets and storage space” to the IT department. When we asked why, it “was to store the pink copy of the student enrollment forms”. When we asked what they use the pink forms for and why should IT pay for the storage, they said “we don’t use them at all, but ever since the computerized enrollment came in we get the “pink copy is for admin” and we are tired of paying for it”. Old habits die hard, and the admin manager in charge during cut over didn’t want to lose site of the source data.

Instead of buying more filing cabinets, we eliminated the pink copy, and the green copy for student records as well as I recall. Save a lot of bucks: paid for 10 new terminals I think.
nc1 says:

August 8, 2010 at 11:57 pm nc1(Quote)

obsolete: Why didn’t any birthers go and see Obama’s birth certificate when it was available for viewing at his campaign headquarters? Why did no birther press go? Why did Dave Berg turn down the offer to have half his air paid to go?They could have taken a bazillion pictures of it, from any angle.

The COLB document was never available for public inspection. The White House correspondent for WND has asked Gibbs several times about the birth certificate and he never responded with an invitation to inspect the document.

Who is Dave Berg?
G says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:00 am G(Quote)

Eugene: Eugene

Do you have anything of value to contribute here, in any way connected to the conversation threads occurring?

Or are you just here to be a flame thrower and trolling?

You’ve made 3-4 posts so far and I’ve seen none of the former and a pattern of the latter. Just an observation.
misha says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:09 am misha(Quote)

nc1: The COLB document was never available for public inspection.

Yes it was, and I personally travelled to Obama’s Chicago headquarters to look at it.

Here are my photographs of it.
misha says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:22 am misha(Quote)

nc1: Who is Dave Berg?

Dave Berg is explained here.
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:22 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: How do you know that?What part of Dr. Fukino verifying the record makes it not “any” investigation?

Dr Fukino refuses to confirm that the registration number 10641 belongs to Obama; she refused to confirm that COLB was issued on June 6, 2007. If she is not willing to discuss trivial things why should we trust her word?

Another suspicious thing is the fact that Obama’s lawyers referenced the FactCheck images in court papers and mentioned that FactCheck verified its authenticity.
Are you kidding me? When did FactCheck become official verifier of documents used in courts? They should have submitted the actual document to the court – why reference the image on a private web site if you had the real thing in your hand?
misha says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:25 am misha(Quote)

nc1: Dr Fukino refuses to confirm that the registration number 10641 belongs to Obama; she refused to confirm that COLB was issued on June 6, 2007. If she is not willing to discuss trivial things why should we trust her word? Another suspicious thing…

Thank heaven I don’t share a home with you.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:36 am FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

nc1:
Dr Fukino refuses to confirm that the registration number 10641 belongs to Obama; she refused to confirm that COLB was issued on June 6, 2007. If she is not willing to discuss trivial things why should we trust her word?Another suspicious thing is the fact that Obama’s lawyers referenced the FactCheck images in court papers and mentioned that FactCheck verified its authenticity.

Cripes, if she did confirm it, you would still find something else wrong. What next? She must be lying if she doesn’t know the exact hour, minute, and second that it was issued? Sheesh.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:51 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP:
Cripes, if she did confirm it, you would still find something else wrong. What next? She must be lying if she doesn’t know the exact hour, minute, and second that it was issued? Sheesh.

Exactly NC has shown a clear disdain for the truth. Why does the certificate number even matter? Even upon further confirmation NC will still be complaining
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:54 am FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

They have two standardized answers when they are given proof, Dr.

1. It’s fake

2. He/she/they is/are lying.
G says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:59 am G(Quote)

nc1: Dr Fukino refuses to confirm that the registration number 10641 belongs to Obama; she refused to confirm that COLB was issued on June 6, 2007. If she is not willing to discuss trivial things why should we trust her word?

Another suspicious thing is the fact that Obama’s lawyers referenced the FactCheck images in court papers and mentioned that FactCheck verified its authenticity.
Are you kidding me? When did FactCheck become official verifier of documents used in courts? They should have submitted the actual document to the court – why reference the image on a private web site if you had the real thing in your hand?

Blah, blah, blah. You know, you’ve been doing nothing but obsessing over all this irrelevant minutia and making the same complaints over and over again. Many people have wasted the time responding to many of your points in the past, but you seem to just pop back up later with the exact same arguments as if their earlier conversations with you never happened.

Let’s cut to the chase. I challenge you to provide any *actual* evidence that is solid enough to refute the COLB and the default position that he was born in HONOLULU, HI.

Until you can do that, you have absolutely no argument at all – just meaningless distractions.

The burden of proof is on you as the accuser. You waste your time trying to make something out of nothing by focusing on minor details that in no way deal with the only aspect that matters: his being born in HI -period- automatically satisfies the NBC requirement.

You have nothing that can get around that and you darn well know it, so you merely attempt to dodge and distract.

End of Story.
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:23 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: And of course, a real forgery at such a high level would not have such obvious defects. So therefore, it is not a forgery.

Why is the seal not recognizable? The image #8 on FactCheck has better quality than images of scanned COLBs posted on the web, yet we can recognize letters in those images but not on FactCheck one.

If one knew how the seal for 2007 looked like it wouldn’t be difficult to duplicate it.

Perhaps the forger did not know how the seal for 2007 was supposed to look like – in such case the best approach would be to make it look fuzzy so that it could not be compared to an official document (issued in 2007) in case it surfaced on the web.

That is my theory about the fuzzy seal – do you have a better one?
misha says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:28 am misha(Quote)

nc1: That is my theory about the fuzzy seal – do you have a better one?

Thorazine.
AnotherBird says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:29 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1: The White House correspondent for WND has asked Gibbs several times about the birth certificate …

And you believe everything that you read on WND.
BatGuano says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:31 am BatGuano(Quote)

nc1: Perhaps the forger did not know how the seal for 2007 was supposed to look like

you believe the DoH is in on the conspiracy but don’t know what the seal looks like ?
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:47 am nc1(Quote)

G: Blah, blah, blah. You know, you’ve been doing nothing but obsessing over all this irrelevant minutia and making the same complaints over and over again. Many people have wasted the time responding to many of your points in the past, but you seem to just pop back up later with the exact same arguments as if their earlier conversations with you never happened.Let’s cut to the chase. I challenge you to provide any *actual* evidence that is solid enough to refute the COLB and the default position that he was born in HONOLULU, HI.Until you can do that, you have absolutely no argument at all – just meaningless distractions.The burden of proof is on you as the accuser. You waste your time trying to make something out of nothing by focusing on minor details that in no way deal with the only aspect that matters: his being born in HI -period- automatically satisfies the NBC requirement.You have nothing that can get around that and you darn well know it, so you merely attempt to dodge and distract.End of Story.

According to your standard – most criminal cases that police deals with could not be solved because detectives would have been prevented from performing an investigation. Only if they caught a person during commitment of a crime, they would have the evidence needed for prosecution.

If you had any confidence that Obama told the truth about his birthplace you would have no problem supporting the request that he releases the original birth certificate.
G says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:14 am G(Quote)

nc1: According to your standard – most criminal cases that police deals with could not be solved because detectives would have been prevented from performing an investigation. Only if they caught a person during commitment of a crime, they would have the evidence needed for prosecution.

If you had any confidence that Obama told the truth about his birthplace you would have no problem supporting the request that he releases the original birth certificate.

No. You’re analogy is all wrong and doesn’t come close to this situation at all…why am I not surprised?

If your neighbor doesn’t like you, they can’t just call the police and tell them to arrest you and accuse you of murder or something like that. The first thing the police will ask you before even investigating your claim is for what your evidence is that the crime occurred. If you come back with meaningless speculation that can’t be tied to your neighbor nor to a crime, your call or police report might not even warrant a followup if they don’t find you remotely credible. Heck, you might even get yourself in trouble for filing a false report.

Why don’t you try calling 911 sometime and make a speculative claim on a hunch without any solid evidence and see what happens to you…

Your second argument is false as well – merely a tired trope for a fishing expedition that never works.

I have full confidence in the birth certificate he’s provided and especially in light of all evidence and statements from actual official sources which just backs it up, I have not a single iota of doubt about it.

I am utterly against pandering to nuts and wasting time on frivolous claims. I support the rule of law. Therefore I totally support that folks like you have no right to anyone’s private information and have no right to make accusations that you can’t back up. Unless you can come up with solid credible evidence that would contradict the existing body of evidence, I fully think you and your fellow nutters should be completely ignored and shown the door whenever you show up.
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:34 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: Birthers, and conspiracy theorists, deny the possibility of coincidence and error, and attribute every unexplained anomaly as evidence of the conspiracy. This is how birthers cheat. They themselves (with the notable exception of Sven) never put forth an alternate theory and attempt to maintain it in face of the kinds of criticism they dish out.Sven’s scenarios are instructive in that they show how easily such things are torn apart, and indeed if other birthers actually put forward detailed scenarios to explain the historical curiosities we’ve found, then we would see the stark contrast between the official story and the crank story.So nc1, let’s see your detailed explanation of the certificate number and the Social Security number, historically consistent. No vague “it must be fraud” but exactly who, what, when and how.

Your questions cannot be properly answered without an official investigation.

I know that filing date and registration number shown on the COLB do not make sense for a document that allegedly came from the Kapiolani hospital.

CT SS# does not make sense for a person who never maintained a mailing address in CT.

We also know that requests for information from DoH using the UIPA law were handled in such manner that suggests fraud. There is no logical reason to exclude the registration number as part of the birth index data. There is no reason for refusing to confirm that DoH issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:51 am nc1(Quote)

BatGuano: nc1: It took Obama campaign TWO months to come up with a better version. If they had a legitimate document on hand they could have provided a good scan immediately after its authenticity has been challenged.
……………
Obama could end the birthplace debate in an instant by releasing the original birth certificate consistent with the official story (Kapiolani hospital).
nc1, get the point ?

———————————————————————————————
I am not sure what is it that confuses you!?

The first quote is my comment on events that took place two years ago. If Obama campaign had a legitimate COLB (issued by the DoH) at hand, they could have posted a better copy of that document immediately after the initial image was criticized for missing details. There was no reason to WAIT two months before providing an improved version of COLB image. It is the timing that casts a shadow on legitimacy of the FactCheck image.

Obviously it would be much more persuasive if Obama authorized the DoH to release the original birth certificate (the one from 1961).
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 3:11 am nc1(Quote)

Rickey: How do you know that? Do you have the names of those people? Have you confirmed that they lived in Connecticut when they were issued their SSNs?Please respond with details and links.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21193106/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-86-1-Attachments-1-Affidavit-Expanded-affidavit-by-Susan-Daniels-use-of-ss-number-of-the-deceased-by-Barack-Obama-Tait
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 3:30 am nc1(Quote)

sfjeff: I know that NC1 has been asked this before, but I will try once again:What would be the purpose or intent of frauduantly registering President Obama’s SS# in CT? I frankly cannot think of any purpose that could not have been achieved by registering it in Hawaii? You say it is suspicious- but suspicious of what? People don’t commit crimes without motivation or purpose- what was it?

That is a good question.

If we assume that a person was a US citizen and resident of Hawaii, it would be logical that his SS# reflect the mailing address (HI).

Now assume that a person is not a US citizen and needs a SS# – if the number was obtained illegally – can such person be choosy about the State that allegedly issued it?
We don’t know for sure that this is what happened in Obama’s case but it should raise enough eyebrows to warrant an investigation into possible fraud.
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 3:41 am nc1(Quote)

BatGuano: you believe the DoH is in on the conspiracy but don’t know what the seal looks like ?

I never said that any person working for DoH participated in document forgery.
If the document was forged I have no idea who did it.

Having a fuzzy seal makes it almost impossible to compare with a legitimate 2007 DoH seal. One could attribute fuzziness to digital image processing. It gives wiggle room to Obama apologists.
nc1 says:

August 9, 2010 at 4:40 am nc1(Quote)

Sef: This registration # pseudo-fiasco cannot be properly sorted out until we see the results of the following SQL query (or similar) of the Hawaiian birth records:“Select REGNO, DATEBIRTH, DATEFILED, LEFT(LASTNAME,1) from LIVEBIRTHS where REGNO between 10000 and 11000 and where BIRTHYEAR=1961 order by REGNO;”This would be enough to indicate how many times an out-of-sequence registration number occurred in 1961 & whether the child’s name was important in the sequencing. If it is a common occurrence then it is meaningless to discuss it in terms of Obama. Currently, we have no way of knowing whether Obama’s or the twins number is out of order.I have absolutely no interest in pursuing this, but some birther should do so in order to put this issue to bed. I would think this would fall under the “index data” classification & not expose personal data, but what do I know.

===============================================

Your SQL statement could be considered a Holy Grail of birth index data. It would prove that registration number and date of birth are part of the index data.

Unfortunately the DoH defines birth index data rather narrowly.

Instead of LIVEBIRTH table their behavior indicates a LIVEBIRTH_VIEW that has only few fields.

The only request for index data that was successful looked like this:

select * from LIVEBIRTHS_VIEW where LASTNAME like ‘%Obama%’ and FIRSTNAME like ‘%Barack%’;

The result was: Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male.

The following, rather simple request failed to get any data from DoH:

select REGNO, LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME from LIVEBIRTHS_VIEW where REGNO = 10641 and LASTNAME like ‘%Obama%’ and FIRSTNAME like ‘%Barack%’;

The DoH response was: Please specify only the First Name and Last Name in your request.

When I had a discussion with Obama supporters about birth index data I asked how could anyone verify birth index data for common name “Joe Smith” if index data only consisted of First and Last name.

Let’s try that query:
select * from LIVEBIRTHS_VIEW where LASTNAME = ‘Smith’ and FIRSTNAME=’Joe’ order by LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, MIDDLENAME;

The result would look like this:
…
Smith, Joe, Alan, Male
…
Smith, Joe, Robert, Male
Smith, Joe, Robert, Male
Smith, Joe, Robert, Male
…
Smith, Joe, William, Male
…

Without a registration number as a key the birth index data makes no sense – yet this is exactly what Hawaii DoH claims: They have an alphabetic list of names in their index data.

According to the latest AP article Okubo offered to sell this list for 1961 to anyone willing to pay $98.

What she said in that article contradicts the earlier response from DoH. She admitted that birth year is part of the index data. Why did they provide index data without the birth year in their original response? What other part(s) of birth index data have they refused to release to public?
Keith says:

August 9, 2010 at 4:44 am Keith(Quote)

nc1:
… – if the number was obtained illegally – can such person be choosy about the State that allegedly issued it?

It wasn’t issued by a state. The State of Connecticut does not have anything to do with issuing SSID’s.

SSID’s are issued by the FEDS. Not the State. Stop with the State issuing the SSID stuff already.

Either the office that processed Obama’s just happened to be in Connecticut and assigned a number they were set up to assign (apparently not what happened), or the zip code was misread by whatever office handled it and thought the address was in Connecticut (the simplest explanation). The Hawai’in SS Office could have issued the so-called ‘Connecticutt’ SSID if the zip code was unclear or misread or mis-keyed into a computer terminal. It really is irrelevant how he got the number.

The question remains, what would be the point of a kid getting a fake SSID when it is so simple to get a legitimate one?

I got mine in 1962 when I was 11. Pretty darned simple.
AnotherBird says:

August 9, 2010 at 4:56 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1: If one knew how the seal for 2007 looked like it wouldn’t be difficult to duplicate it.
…
to make it look fuzzy so that it could not be compared to an official document …

And you write this while rejecting that the State of Hawaii has confirmed the fact of his birth. That is what you are trying to dismiss and you continue to fail.
AnotherBird says:

August 9, 2010 at 5:10 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1: When I had a discussion with Obama supporters about birth index data I asked how could anyone verify birth index data for common name “Joe Smith” if index data only consisted of First and Last name.

Fail. Barack H. Obama isn’t a common name. There is additional information that can be used to make an individual distinct. You continue to walk in circles, ignoring the important points. The most important is that information is entered in a database. Why don’t you step outside of your narrow view just once? Could you be that you will have to accept that you how much time you have wasted in being wrong?
Sean says:

August 9, 2010 at 6:26 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Your questions cannot be properly answered without an official investigation.I know that filing date and registration number shown on the COLB do not make sense for a document that allegedly came from the Kapiolani hospital.
CT SS# does not make sense for a person who never maintained a mailing address in CT.
We also know that requests for information from DoH using the UIPA law were handled in such manner that suggests fraud. There is no logical reason to exclude the registration number as part of the birth index data.There is no reason for refusing to confirm that DoH issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

Making sense to you is not required. Filing dates and SS#s do make sense to the people issuing and processing them. There’s no indication of fraud here.

BTW, did you see the State Dept memo in Lolo Soetoro’s file that clarifies Obama’s citizenship status? It states date and place of birth (Honolulu).
The evidence shows he was indeed born in Hawaii.
Sean says:

August 9, 2010 at 6:30 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
That is a good question.
If we assume that a person was a US citizen and resident of Hawaii, it would be logical that his SS# reflect the mailing address (HI).Now assume that a person is not a US citizen and needs a SS# – if the number was obtained illegally – can such person be choosy about the State that allegedly issued it?
We don’t know for sure that this is what happened in Obama’s case but it should raise enough eyebrows to warrant an investigation into possible fraud.

Except that the evidence clearly shows he was born in Hawaii.
Sean says:

August 9, 2010 at 6:37 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
Your questions cannot be properly answered without an official investigation.I know that filing date and registration number shown on the COLB do not make sense for a document that allegedly came from the Kapiolani hospital.
CT SS# does not make sense for a person who never maintained a mailing address in CT.

But the SSA makes it clear that the SS# prefex does not establish birthplace or residency, just the state it was processed.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:28 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: Now assume that a person is not a US citizen and needs a SS# – if the number was obtained illegally – can such person be choosy about the State that allegedly issued it?

OK, you are claiming that a teen-age Obama obtained a Social Security number that belongs to someone else because Obama couldn’t get a real social number because he is not a US citizen.

Objections:
1. The State of Hawaii says Obama was born there; hence he is citizen.
2. If the Social Security number belongs to a living person, that person may well notice that their Social Security report doesn’t make sense and the fraudulent use would be exposed. This did not happen.
3. If the Social Security number belongs to a deceased person, it would be in the Social Security death index. It is not. I checked.
4. Social Security numbers are validated by the government against last name for W2 forms and against name and date of birth for Income Tax filings.
5. Employers validate Social Security numbers against name.

If you can overcome all 5 of these objections, you may proceed with your theory that Obama uses a SSN of another person (from Connecticut).
misha says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:36 am misha(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: If you can overcome all 5 of these objections, you may proceed with your theory that Obama uses a SSN of another person (from Connecticut).

You are being rational – doesn’t work with that crowd. They thrive on conspiracies.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:38 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: The first quote is my comment on events that took place two years ago. If Obama campaign had a legitimate COLB (issued by the DoH) at hand, they could have posted a better copy of that document immediately after the initial image was criticized for missing details. There was no reason to WAIT two months before providing an improved version of COLB image. It is the timing that casts a shadow on legitimacy of the FactCheck image.

You have your context wrong. The Obama campaign didn’t “wait two months” and then release a better version. Two months after the campaign released the original image FactCheck.org approached the campaign and asked to look at it and photograph it, and the campaign agreed.

Despite your protestations, the original image shows a seal too. The fact that the seal is not immediately visible, but shows under photo enhancement either indicates a real document or one with an incredible sophistication in forgery (which would rule our your clumsy missing seal claim). One, of course, also would have to explain a motivation for such a forgery in the first place in the face of the fact that according to the Governor of Hawaii Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
AnotherBird says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:40 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1:
According to your standard – most criminal cases that police deals with could not be solved because detectives would have been prevented from performing an investigation. Only if they caught a person during commitment of a crime, they would have the evidence needed for prosecution. If you had any confidence that Obama told the truth about his birthplace you would have no problem supporting the request that he releases the original birth certificate.

According your standard, just the belief that someone committed a crime is enough to send them to jail. Forget about the trail or any evidence. Also, you would ignore any witness statements that supports a version of the facts that you dislike.

You wrote: “If you had any confidence that Obama told the truth about his birthplace you would have no problem supporting the request that he releases the original birth certificate.” You just don’t see the hypocrisy in your statement. If I am satisfied with a person’s explanation then there is nothing more to see.

Yes, satisfied means confident/confidence in the context that you attempt to use it. However, you seem to want to present confidence in the context as there is some doubt on my behalf. I have already explicitly stated that I accept the birth certificate as factual (for various reasons). Also, that the statements by the State of Hawaii only re-enforces my acceptance that Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a natural born citizen.

It is you who doubts the facts and who wants extra-ordinary information. However, instead of expressing this you demand that we agree with you. This is a fallacy.

The question I have for you is. Who confirms the authenticity of your citizenship?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:50 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: According to your standard – most criminal cases that police deals with could not be solved because detectives would have been prevented from performing an investigation. Only if they caught a person during commitment of a crime, they would have the evidence needed for prosecution.

Police don’t investigate crimes until there is some evidence that a crime has been committed. To investigate someone just to find out if they are guilty of something is harassment. This is something Nixon did, much to his disgrace.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:54 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: Your questions cannot be properly answered without an official investigation.

So you admit that you cannot come up with any plausible scenario of fraud that fits the facts? I can come up with a plausible scenario with no fraud that fits the facts.

I guess that means that I’m intellectually honest, and you’re not.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 8:05 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: If one knew how the seal for 2007 looked like it wouldn’t be difficult to duplicate it.

Perhaps the forger did not know how the seal for 2007 was supposed to look like – in such case the best approach would be to make it look fuzzy so that it could not be compared to an official document (issued in 2007) in case it surfaced on the web.

That is my theory about the fuzzy seal – do you have a better one?

It’s hardly credible if (in your story) that the Obama campaign could produce a perfect reproduction of the front of a 2007 Hawaiian birth certificate without having a Hawaiian birth certificate to start with. So your theory that they didn’t know what the back of the document looked like is ridiculous.

Having experimented with scans of my own sealed birth certificate, I know exactly why the image is nearly invisible. It’s NORMAL for scanned seals.

I don’t know why I bother responding to you. It’s a waste of electrons.
AnotherBird says:

August 9, 2010 at 8:11 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1: When I had a discussion … about birth index data I asked how could anyone verify birth index data for common name “Joe Smith” if index data only consisted of First and Last name.

It seems another hypocrisy was missed. You and other birthers have been consistently arguing on the exist of multiple SS number for Obama, …. HaHaHa ….

Why bother undermine your arguments.

HaHaHa ….

Thankfully for Obama the State of Hawaii has verified and confirmed his citizen status.

HaHaHa….
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 9, 2010 at 8:56 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

nc1: ===============================================Your SQL statement could be considered a Holy Grail of birth index data. It would prove that registration number and date of birth are part of the index data.Unfortunately the DoH defines birth index data rather narrowly. Instead of LIVEBIRTH table their behavior indicates a LIVEBIRTH_VIEW that has only few fields.The only request for index data that was successful looked like this:select * from LIVEBIRTHS_VIEW where LASTNAME like ‘%Obama%’ and FIRSTNAME like ‘%Barack%’;The result was: Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male. The following, rather simple request failed to get any data from DoH:select REGNO, LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME from LIVEBIRTHS_VIEW where REGNO = 10641 and LASTNAME like ‘%Obama%’ and FIRSTNAME like ‘%Barack%’;The DoH response was: Please specify only the First Name and Last Name in your request. When I had a discussion with Obama supporters about birth index data I asked how could anyone verify birth index data for common name “Joe Smith” if index data only consisted of First and Last name. Let’s try that query:select * from LIVEBIRTHS_VIEW where LASTNAME = Smith’ and FIRSTNAME=’Joe’ order by LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, MIDDLENAME;The result would look like this:…Smith, Joe, Alan, Male…Smith, Joe, Robert, MaleSmith, Joe, Robert, MaleSmith, Joe, Robert, Male…Smith, Joe, William, Male…Without a registration number as a key the birth index data makes no sense – yet this is exactly what Hawaii DoH claims: They have an alphabetic list of names in their index data.According to the latest AP article Okubo offered to sell this list for 1961 to anyone willing to pay $98.What she said in that article contradicts the earlier response from DoH. She admitted that birth year is part of the index data. Why did they provide index data without the birth year in their original response? What other part(s) of birth index data have they refused to release to public?

Once again you fail. Last time you brought this up I asked you just how many Barack Hussein Obama’s do you think have been born in Hawaii to which you claimed it wasn’t relevant. It is entirely relevant considering you’re asking how do you distinguish common names on the index. Obama’s name isn’t common in fact he’s probably the only Barack H Obama born in Hawaii in the last 40 or so years. One name would probably only appear on the index. So your focus on certificate numbers is rather pointless.
Sef says:

August 9, 2010 at 9:09 am Sef(Quote)

nc1: Instead of LIVEBIRTH table their behavior indicates a LIVEBIRTH_VIEW that has only few fields.

Do you understand the difference between a table & a view?
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:27 am Black Lion(Quote)

It is amusing how the right made the so called Spain trip an issue for President Obama. No matter what he does or where he goes the right, with their enablers at FOX as well as the other conservative sites make everything into big event……From the pompus windbag Rush Limbaugh, which reminds us that they don’t even attempt to get their facts correct….

Limbaugh falsely claims taxpayers funding 60 luxury hotel rooms for Michelle Obama’s vacation

Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that Michelle Obama took “40 of her best friends and leas[ed] 60 rooms in a 5 star hotel — paid by you.” In fact, the White House has said the Obamas are paying for personal expenses on the trip, including their lodging.

Limbaugh falsely asserted that “60 rooms in a 5 star hotel” are being “paid for by you”
Limbaugh: Obama is “taking 40 of her best friends and leasing 60 rooms in a 5 star hotel – paid for by you.” On the August 6 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh asserted: “Michelle has a beach closed down in Spain after taking 40 of her best friends and leasing 60 rooms in a 5 star hotel – paid for by you, because they deserve it — but you have to pay, you have to pay up.” He went on to say that “the Obamas have not done a days worth of work in their lives to generate this kind of lifestyle for themselves. They are living off of you, and every one of us.”

White House: Obamas paying personal expenses on trip, including rooms
LA Times: White House says “personal expenses, such as hotel rooms and meals, were being paid for by the Obamas.” Los Angeles Times reported on August 5 that the Obamas are paying for their hotel rooms:

But one White House official said Obama had a “small” group of friends and “minimal” staff on the trip, and said personal expenses, such as hotel rooms and meals, were being paid for by the Obamas.

“Any additional footprint, including rooms needed for security support and transportation, falls under the same rules as have applied to any previous first family travel,” the official said. That is, private expenses are paid for privately and government expenses are picked up by Uncle Sam.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008060046

So if you listed to Limbaugh, Drudge, FOX, and the other idiotic rightwingers, you would think this is some huge issue and that no other first lady ever went on vacation, and that the First Lady is taking this trip to “stick it to white people”…As it has been said many times, hating Obama does cause brain damage….Either way below is the actual reason the trip was taken….

Michelle Obama’s Spain trip: The inside story why she went
By Lynn Sweeton August 9, 2010 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WASHINGTON–Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha returned from Spain on Sunday, a vacation at a lavish hotel on the Mediterranean coast that triggered her first controversy since becoming first lady. I’m told she made the trip because she promised one of her closest friends, a longtime Chicago pal who just lost her father, she would spend time with her.

Mrs. Obama is the most popular figure in the Obama orbit — and turned around her image from the 2008 presidential campaign by adamantly staying away from any kind of controversy, focusing on safe issues: combatting childhood obesity and helping military families.

The Spain trip generated coverage on the networks and cable news shows and other national outlets — including columns and posts I wrote — raising questions about public perception and taxpayer costs.

A ritzy vacation in Spain while the U.S. faces tough economic times was off-message — as was highlighting the beaches in Spain after urging Americans to head to Florida’s Gulf Coast to help out the tourism industry impacted by the BP oil spill. (The first family flies to Florida this weekend.)

But the reason Mrs. Obama made the trip — and other facts, not rumors about the travel — are important in knowing the whole story and understanding why she made the call to go.

First, some numbers. Mrs. Obama did not travel with 40 friends, a number used by some news outlets.

She vacationed with two women, one of them a longtime Chicago pal, Anita Blanchard, who is the obstetrician who delivered Sasha and Malia. Blanchard is married to Marty Nesbitt — President Obama’s buddy and the treasurer of Obama’s presidential campaign fund.

There was one other woman. Total: four daughters among the three women. They paid for their hotel rooms and other personal and travel expenses.

The trip involved six White House advance staffers and two East Wing staffers, deputy Chief of Staff Melissa Winter and Mrs. Obama’s personal assistant, Kristen Jarvis, according to Mrs. Obama’s spokeswoman Catherine McCormick Lelyveld.

Mrs. Obama does travel with significant security — and in a trip like this, three shifts of uniformed and plain-clothes agents and military personnel flew with her on a big Air Force 757. No matter where she goes — domestic or international — any first lady gets protection and she does not decide how many agents are needed.

So why did Mrs. Obama go to Spain at this time? She’s not tone-deaf politically. What was behind the “mother-daughter” vacation?

A White House source told me that Blanchard’s father passed away and Mrs. Obama was not able to make the funeral at the beginning of July. Blanchard had promised her daughter she would take her to Spain for her birthday. She asked Mrs. Obama and Sasha to come with. (Malia is at overnight camp.)

“She felt it was important as a dear friend to do this,” I was told.

How did they end up at the five star Villa Padierna, part of the Ritz-Carlton chain? Because of security concerns, there were just some places they could not go. Agents were able to secure Villa Padierna and the nearby beach area.

Totally not true, though reported by some big-league outlets: Mrs. Obama did not attend a charity ball at their hotel hosted by Antonio Banderas and Eva Longoria on Saturday night. Mrs. Obama went out to dinner with her pals.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked at a Wednesday briefing if there was any concern about “the appearance” of Mrs. Obama’s Spain trip.

“The first lady is on a private trip. She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. And I think I’d leave it at that,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs is wrong. Mrs. Obama oversees a major Obama domestic initiative, the child health campaign. In April, she flew to Mexico to launch her “international agenda” of youth engagement. And she supervises an East Wing staff that is responsible for every special event in the White House, from bill signings to state dinners. Mrs. Obama is a public figure and it is reasonable to ask how she spends taxpayer resources.

FOOTNOTE: Before returning to Washington, Mrs. Obama and Sasha on Sunday flew to the island of Majorca to lunch with Spain’s King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia at their summer palace.

The AP, quoting a menu released by the palace, said lunch “was Andalusian-style chilled gazpacho soup, char-grilled turbot, veal escalopes with mustard, Oriental rice with sauteed mushrooms, a Mallorca-style vegetable ratatouille and sliced fruit with ice cream, accompanied by wines from the northern regions of Rueda and Rioja.”
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:50 am Black Lion(Quote)

Great article regarding Simple Sarah and her divorced from reality she really is….

Palin’s Homer Moment: Celebrity Sarah Confronted by Citizen

I’m really proud of my home town. When I say, “I’m just a girl from Homer” on my blog, radio or television show, I like to think it’s not so much self-deprecation as it is a friendly warning. When Palin signed off on her Facebook blog bashing Obama on Friday with “Sarah Palin in Homer, Alaska”, I laughed. Lady, if you think I give you a hard time, hang on.

Palin posted:

And here I am, thousands of miles away from DC out on a commercial fishing boat, working my butt off for my own business, merely asking the Democrat politicos and their liberal friends in the media: “What’s the plan, man?”, and they seem to feel threatened by my question. So, I’ll go back to setting my hooks and watching the halibut take the bait, and when I come back into the boat’s cabin in a few hours…

Strange. The Palin’s fishing business doesn’t include IFQ’s (Individual Fishing Quotas) necessary for commercially harvesting halibut. Her baiting hooks and keeping a manicure is laughable. Halibut are on the bottom of the ocean, hard to watch them “take the bait”. I hope she’s got a crew license. (Shrug).

Sarah Palin & company spent several days in Homer filming her “Sarah Palin’s Uh-laska” show. (Eyes rolled).

On the public dock, private security patted down private citizens. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure from their government. Private security searching private citizens in a public place, doesn’t fall under that category. It’s a bit more hinky.

Whether it was TLC or the Palins who contracted security, under what authority did they operate in a public location? Were they looking for weapons? Well, now there’s a Second Amendment issue.

This is Alaska, we carry guns. You can open-carry or acquire a concealed weapons permit from the state. If you are a law abiding citizen, you don’t even need a permit. Sarah Palin recently endorsed Alaska Tea Party Candidate Joe Miller for US Senate. His supporters carried assault rifles in last month’s Golden Days Parade in Fairbanks. If weapons are good enough for a public parade, weapons should be fine at a public dock.

Maybe it wasn’t about guns. Maybe it was about cameras. In that case, it’s a First Amendment issue. Whether Palin had a problem with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, she contradicted her entourage’s actions at the Homer dock.

Risking accusations of being all “Wee-Wee’d Up”, one Homer woman made a sign in her shed. She then took the 30-foot-by-3-foot banner out to the boat harbor. It said “WORST GOVERNOR EVER”. Kathleen Gustafson is a teacher married to a local commercial fisherman. She felt like Sarah Palin had let the state down by becoming a dollar-chasing celebrity and ignoring the oath of office she’d sworn on a Bible.

Kathleen was motivated by the fact Palin was using the very place where her family makes a living to fortify the Palin personality cult — pretending to do the very thing they worked so hard to sustain. Initially, Kathleen just wanted to waste a little of the camera crew’s time, since Palin wasted so much of her time purporting to represent Alaska’s interests.

She didn’t imagine Palin would be so easy to draw out.

Saturday morning, Billy Sullivan helped Kathleen tape the banner up on his place of business at the top of the boat ramp. Then here she came. Sarah.

She couldn’t just walk by. Only a few fishermen and tourists would have seen the banner, but Sarah had to stop and protest. I spoke with Kathleen. She said she wanted Palin to know how she felt, but never dreamed she’d get the chance to say to her face, “You’re not a leader, you’re a climber!” Early in the conversation, Sarah actually winked at Kathleen in what seemed to be a case of eyelid Tourette’s Syndrome.

At one point, a Palin daughter chanted, “You’re just jealous”. Kathleen told Sarah she was disappointed that she dropped her responsibility to the state to became a celebrity. Palin said incredulously, “I’m honored. No, she thinks I’m a celebrity!” Really? So the camera crew wasn’t an indicator? How many times do you have to be on magazine covers to gain celebrity status? Something about camping with Kate Plus Eight in rain slickers seems, well, a little celebrity.

Billy Sullivan caught much of the interchange on his cell phone camera. The back of her security guard’s head and Todd Palin attempted to block Billy’s view, continually rotating like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. What were they afraid of? I guess that’s what happens when you’re filming a “celebrity”. He was even told by one of the Palin daughters, “You’re an A-hole”. Charming family values.

I asked both Billy and Kathleen which Palin daughter said what. Neither knew. They don’t have televisions and aren’t interested in Palin’s personal life and dramas.

In what has become typical tragic irony, Sarah initially claimed to support Kathleen’s First Amendment Rights. But as soon as Billy Sullivan walked toward the dock, one of Palin’s entourage tore down the sign to great applause from her group.

Todd Palin approached Billy (who owns a business called Dockside Fish and buys halibut on that dock) and asked him to get out of the Discovery crew’s shot. “You just can’t get enough of her, can you?” he asked. An Alaska State Trooper told Billy he should call the Homer Police Department and report the trespassing and destruction of property.

What the Palin folks don’t seem to understand is simple; if Fred Phelps gets to hold his hateful signs up at military funerals, Billy should be able to put Kathleen’s “WORST GOVERNOR EVER” banner on his building and not have a Palin goon tear it down.

The First Amendment only matters when you say or write something someone else doesn’t like.

For someone who doesn’t hold elected office and denies being a celebrity, Sarah Palin may want to get a “Constitutional Handler”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/sarah-palins-homer-moment_b_675198.html
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm Black Lion(Quote)

The article below is an example of blatent hypocrisy, “white fear” pandering, and getting ones’ disinformation from FOX….This is why no matter what information is released there will be people that will never accept the fact that Obama is the President of the United States….Amazing bit of fearmongering by the Post and Fail….

(Aug. 9, 2010) — Since the earliest beginnings of the United States of America, our country again has the clearest voting choice in its history. In November 2010, we can begin to vote for bondage and slavery or freedom and liberty. We can choose to elect slave masters and overseers or partners in the restoration of our Republic. We can vote for choices and options or give up our decision- making to others. We can choose religious freedom or bow to the power elite forcing atheism, Islam or a combination of the two upon us. On 2 November, we will vote for the Marxist and Maoist totalitarians or Americans. But, in November even our prior free and unencumbered voting in the United States may be a patent challenge.

We-the-People now have an actively race-biased Department of Justice and a DOJ that seems bent upon suppressing as many “non-minority” (aka “white”) and US Military votes as possible in the upcoming general election. Political Correctness and an overt bias in favor of Marxist Democrat totalitarian leaders keep the ObamaMedia (ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.) from reporting on anything negative about The Obama. Although a few members of these media are now placing their little toes in the water and offering “tee-ninesy” (that’s VERY little, folks) criticisms of the American Stalin, most still refuse to report the truth about anything–let alone their revered dictator-in-chief. But, as ugly as some find it, the truth MUST be reported.

In 2008, as an apparent test case, the New Black Panthers “patrolled” outside a Philadelphia polling place in order to intimidate white voters. These Black Panther members are reported to have said, “We’re tired of white supremacy!” On another video, Philadelphia NBP leader King Samir Shabazz is shown and heard loudly shouting: “I hate white people…all of em” and “white cracker dirty whores” and “you want freedom you’re gonna have to kill some crackers. You gonna have to kill their babies!” Despite having gained a conviction against the New Black Panthers‘obvious voter intimidation, while awaiting sentencing the Obama DOJ effectively overturned the convictions and threw the case out. Protecting their own and moving against the (white) man? You betcha. Uncomfortable or not, this is the raw and unvarnished truth. Under the Obama regime, this is what out Department of Justice has devolved into–a third-world country form of pretend “social justice” (NOT blind constitutional justice) and a “justice” or lack thereof which pits one race against another. This is more of what Obama–an already unconstitutional US leader–has brought to the table. Look for more violent intimidation during the upcoming 2010 midterms. And remember who is fomenting, supporting and encouraging it.

The intent of the Obama regime is, apparently, also to heavily suppress the US Military vote in the 2010 elections. In 2008, former DOJ employee J. Christian Adams reports, over 17,000 US Military votes went uncounted and were thrown away. This year, many ballots are simply not even being sent out to military members. So, it strongly–if not irrevocably–seems that the planned disenfranchisement of the US military is now afoot and is being perpetrated by Obama & Co. And there is increasing evidence surfacing that Obama & Co stole the Democrat presidential primary election from then-candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note: “Crime Inc.” barely begins to describe the Obama regime.

I think we can be fairly certain that the 2010 midterm elections are going to be fraught with Marxist fraud, intimidation and an increasingly chilling disenfranchisement of voters. The Obama has so ruled. Please ensure that–in your own polling stations–for each and every ObamaThug present, there is a corresponding member from We-the-People to monitor them. Only we US citizen-voters can correct the problems of a slave-state totalitarian government and its respective perpetrators that have been festering for decades. It has now come into a toxic disease-bloom mode and only We-the-People can destroy this virus that threatens our very existence.

We must also stop the clearly Nero-like excesses being blatantly displayed and thrown into our faces by The Obama and his putative First Lady. As The Obama and his Marxist Democrat minions (aka “the power elite”) steal from We-the-People and take away our ability to provide for ourselves, they use our stolen money to party all day and all night.

In November of this year, we will make a choice between Marxism and an on-its-way-to-restoration American Republic. We must stop the destruction of our country. And once we have thrown out the American Stalin’s power base, we must begin coming for him. If–or when–we are successful, we must remember that never again can we allow our Republic to be in such dire jeopardy. Never again.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/09/midterm-elections-2010-marxists-vs-americans/
Sef says:

August 9, 2010 at 12:36 pm Sef(Quote)

Black Lion: The First Amendment only matters when you say or write something someone else doesn’t like.

The 1st Amendment only comes into play when the government is doing the suppression. Sister Sarah has no official association with any government. This comes under trespassing & destruction of private property.
sfjeff says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm sfjeff(Quote)

“That is a good question.”

I thought so- lets examine your answer

“If we assume that a person was a US citizen and resident of Hawaii, it would be logical that his SS# reflect the mailing address (HI).”

Non responsive. If we assume that Barrack Obama is a citizen of the US and was a resident of Hawaii, then we have to ask what would be the fraudulant intent of filing for his SS# in CT? If you cannot come up with an answer to this, then you must be assuming that:
a) President Obama is not a citizen and
b) Has no proof of citizenship.

But aren’t you the same person that claims that the Hawaii BC must show an unattended birth? If that is the case, Obama would have all the proof he needed to show he was a citizen.

So we have to move to the other possibility- that the BC shows a place of birth other than Hawaii. In order for that to work then we must assume that Fukino is not merely incompatent but that she is complicit in a criminal conspiracy by stating her in official capacity that he was born in Hawaii even though she knows he wasn’t.

“Now assume that a person is not a US citizen and needs a SS# – if the number was obtained illegally – can such person be choosy about the State that allegedly issued it?”

You ask questions again but have no answers. Again, give a plausible explanation of how this happened? Are you saying that Barrack Obama assumed the SS of some other Barrack Obama? Again- I fail to see any explanation on your part as to what fraudulant purpose Obama would have to obtain a SS# in CT

“We don’t know for sure that this is what happened in Obama’s case but it should raise enough eyebrows to warrant an investigation into possible fraud.”

Exactly what fraud? You haven’t even explained how or why someone would get a CT SS# instead of a Hawaii SS#.
sfjeff says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm sfjeff(Quote)

“The COLB document was never available for public inspection.”

Prove it. Factcheck asked for, and was able to examine it. There is no evidence that any other newsagency or birther ever asked to inspect it and was refused.

“The White House correspondent for WND has asked Gibbs several times about the birth certificate and he never responded with an invitation to inspect the document.”

Thats because a) it was after the election and b) WND is a joke, and should be ignored.
sfjeff says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:52 pm sfjeff(Quote)

NC1: According to your standard – most criminal cases that police deals with could not be solved because detectives would have been prevented from performing an investigation

You really aren’t from the U.S. are you?

In the United States, police(legally at least) cannot come to my door and ask to search my apartment based upon an internet rumor that I committed fraud. Police also cannot request a search warrent based simply upon my refusal to let them comb through my apartment looking for some evidence of a vague crime.
dunstvangeet says:

August 9, 2010 at 1:53 pm dunstvangeet(Quote)

What I don’t get about NC1’s theory about a fraudelent birth certificate is:

Why would Obama register for the draft with this social security number, knowing that it was fraudently obtained? Wouldn’t that be a way for the government to catch this? When he registered for the Selective Service, wouidn’t the government check the number and say, “Hey, this doesn’t belong to Barack Hussein Obama II. This belongs to Joe Smith of Wasilla Alaska. There’s a fraud going on here.”
Sef says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm Sef(Quote)

dunstvangeet: What I don’t get about NC1′s theory about a fraudelent birth certificate is:Why would Obama register for the draft with this social security number, knowing that it was fraudently obtained?Wouldn’t that be a way for the government to catch this?When he registered for the Selective Service, wouidn’t the government check the number and say, “Hey, this doesn’t belong to Barack Hussein Obama II.This belongs to Joe Smith of Wasilla Alaska.There’s a fraud going on here.”

You’re falling into the same trap that all Obots do, using logic. Stop it!
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:11 pm Black Lion(Quote)

“Pop” Poplawski, the high-def hucksters, and the downward cycle of violence
August 09, 2010 12:50 pm ET by Will Bunch

This is not good news.

Richard “Pop” Poplawski has fans now.

You probably remember Poplawski, or if you don’t it won’t take much to refresh your memory. He’s the aimless, unemployed 22-year-old man, living in a red-brick working class neighborhood of Pittsburgh, who went off on the morning of April 4, 2009, the 41st anniversary of the shooting of Martin Luther King Jr. When he was done firing his extensive arsenal including an AK-47 style semi-automatic, he’d fatally gunned down three Pittsburgh police officers who came to his house, initially, over a domestic dispute with his mom. There was a brief stir — perhaps too brief, in hindsight — when a friend told TV reporters that Poplawski feared that with Barack Obama in the White House the government would confiscate his guns.

Last week, I got an email alert that a man from just a few miles down the Allegheny River from where Poplawski carried out his murderous rampage was going to jail for violating his probabtion by stockpiling 10 firearms and a cache of ammunition. Federal authorities contacted local police after they learned online that 32-year-old Hardy Lloyd was a big fan of Poplawski:

In April 2009, the FBI started investigating Lloyd’s website because he posted a message praising Richard Poplawski….

The investigation turned up a blog entry in which Lloyd talked about his shotgun. During a search of Lloyd’s home, agents found 10 firearms as well as white supremacist literature and Nazi propaganda booklets.

This is how hate talk is increasingly viral in America in 2010. At the bottom of the chain, a cop-killer like Richard Poplawski becomes a hero to a clearly deranged man like Hardy Lloyd. But who were Richard “Pop” Poplawski’s heroes?

Glenn Beck…to begin with. Also a host of foul-mouthed shock jocks including non-political ones like Opie and Anthony, and also the community on the white-supremacist websites like Stormfront.org, which is basically the Facebook of neo-Nazism and has remained popular in a time of despair. The role of Big Media and hate talk or whacked-out conspiracy theories is particularly disturbing. While individuals like Poplawski are ultimately responsible for their warped action, what is the responsibility of media millionaires, “high-def hucksters” who now jack up their ratings not just by being provocative but by speaking of violence or irrational conspiracies — especially when the evidence mounts every day that these ill-conceived words broadcast from coast-to-coast are motivating America’s most unglued?

This January, I spent several days in Pittsburgh investigating the Poplawski case and seeking to learn more about what really motivated him to kill three police officers. The research was for a chapter in my book, The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama, which comes out at the end of the month. I learned quite a bit — including a couple of new details about the shooting and Poplawski’s past that will be revealed when the book is published. But the main thing was that Poplawski’s fears about the “Obama gun confiscation” was the proverbial tip of the iceberg when it came to his increasingly paranoid ideas that he seemed to glean largely from talk radio and from Beck.

“Rich, like myself, loved Glenn Beck,” Poplawski’s best friend Eddie Perkovic told me during a long interview in his narrow rowhouse on the steep hill running down to the Allegheny. (Perkovic had a lot of time — he was wearing an ankle bracelet for house arrest because of an unrelated case.) Perkovic and his mom — who also had a close relationship with the accused cop-killer, still awaiting trial — told me that for months Poplawski had been obsessed with an idea — frequently discussed by Beck, including in ads for his sponsor Food Insurance — of the need to stockpile food and even toilet paper for a societal breakdown. Poplawski was also convinced that paper money would become worthless — another claim given credence by the Fox News Channel host, particularly in close connection with his frequent shilling for the now-under-investigation gold-coin peddler Goldline International.

And there was another idea that not only worried Poplawski but which Perkovic and his mom still swore by in January 2010 — despite widespread debunkings in the mainstream media — that the government had established a gulag of what Perkovic called “Guantanamo camps” here in the United States, for the purpose of arresting and detaining law-abiding Americans. This was the idea that Beck famously declared on FNC on March 3, 2009, or one month and one day before the shootings, that “I can’t debunk.” Poplawski downloaded to the Web a video of Beck glibly discussing the possibility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, abusing its powers with a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul of Texas. Poplawski’s mother later said in a swown statement that her son “liked police when they were not curtailing his constitutional rights.” By then, Officers Eric Guy Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo II were already dead.

If would be easy to blow off the Poplawski case — horrible as it is — if it just a one-time thing. The evidence is mounting that this is far from the case, sadly. In recent days, we’ve learned about the incident involving an ex-convict named Byron Williams who loaded up a truck with weapons and — saying he was on his way to an obscure outfit called The Tides Organization to launch a revolution — wounded two officers near Oakland, Calif., before he was arrested. Research showed that no other media figure had discussed the Tides Foundation…except for Glenn Beck.

In fact, the notion that America is on the brink of a violent right-wing uprising is becoming such common currency that some outbreaks don’t even leap to the national news, even when murder is involved. I would not even have learned of this alarming story had a friend not emailed it to me last week:

A Pennsylvania prison guard charged with murdering a man at a shooting range and stealing his semi-automatic rifle told police that he was stockpiling guns as part of a plan to overthrow the federal government, according to a police affidavit reviewed by Salon…

“Peake said he has been stealing guns for the purpose of aiding an organization that Peake refused to name. Peake said the organization is collecting guns for the purpose of overthrowing the federal government. Peake said he and Tuso together are members of this organization. Peake [said] that he would kill to defend his country and he was stealing weapons to defend his country.”

When these stories begin to become routine, this nation is in big, big trouble. Not long ago, Bill Clinton gave a moving speech to mark the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, in which he spoke the connection between increasingly conspiratorial and angry talk on the radio and even TV networks like Fox and the incitement to violence. He said their words “fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.”

The unhinged will always be with us. But highly paid media stars — and their allies in Congress and elsewhere — with followings in the millions floating bizarre theories and obsessing on violent remedies, are a new and most alarming phenominon.

These high-def hucksters can tone down this madness, starting right now. So why don’t they?

Tags: Glenn Beck

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008090022
Rickey says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:13 pm Rickey(Quote)

dunstvangeet: Why would Obama register for the draft with this social security number, knowing that it was fraudently obtained?Wouldn’t that be a way for the government to catch this?When he registered for the Selective Service, wouidn’t the government check the number and say, “Hey, this doesn’t belong to Barack Hussein Obama II.This belongs to Joe Smith of Wasilla Alaska.There’s a fraud going on here.”

And, as has been pointed out before, Obama also has to use his SSN when filing his income tax returns. We know that the Obamas filed a joint income tax return for 2009, and it would have been rejected if the SSNs shown on the return did not match the SSA records for Barack Obama and Michelle Obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president-obama-2010-complete-return.pdf

They also released their 2008 return:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/president_federal1040.pdf

The very fact they have filed Federal tax returns is proof that both the President and the First Lady have valid SSNs.
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 2:55 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of “foreigners”?

Right-wing media have claimed that Sen. Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, said that it would not apply to the children of “foreigners.” However, scholars dispute this interpretation of Howard’s remarks; and the Supreme Court noted in 1898 that the white children of European foreigners “have always been considered and treated as citizens.”

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008090027

Right-wing media cite Howard’s statement to claim 14th Amendment wasn’t intended for “the children of aliens”

Coulter: “The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens.” From Coulter’s August 9 column:

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

…

Supreme Court rejected claim that child born in the U.S. to foreigners was not a citizen. As CRS noted, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that “where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court’s opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law.”

The Court stated that long before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, “all white persons” born in the U.S., including children of “foreigners,” were considered native-born citizens (provided that they were not “children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government”), and that “[t]o hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.” The Court further stated:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

[…]

It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 3:10 pm Black Lion(Quote)

From the Post and Fail’s usual nonsense….

“I arose early this morning to start some work I had planned when I stumbled onto a new video on YouTube showing my congressman, Brian Bilbray (CA-50), asserting that “natural born Citizen” does not mean “born in the country.”

I was so outraged that I immediately wrote an email to some friends on this subject.”

That is actually not the most humorous part of the article…For me that comes when the author writes the following paragraph….

If the Constitutional term “natural born Citizen” does not mean “born in the United States,” and it does not mean “born of parents who are both United States citizens,” what DOES it mean?

I am shocked, stunned, dumbfounded and totally dismayed that a person serving in the U.S. House of Representatives could say such a thing.

As we all know, Attorneys Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio have conducted an enormous amount of new research on the natural born Citizen issue. Each of them has established, independently and conclusively, that the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II of the United States Constitution clearly has its origins in the work of the political philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, who defined “natural born Citizen” as meaning “born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

I mean quoting Mario and Leo as legal experts, and implying that their “research” is worth anything more that the paper we use in the bathroom after taking care of business….Are they kidding us? Not satisfied the author cites this “research” in more detail….

“Attorney Mario Apuzzo expressed it well here.

It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of natural born Citizen’ and Citizen of the United States.’ There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.’ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175 (1803).

Use of different language in different parts of a statute suggests that the words used have a different meaning (e.g., Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997)). Hence, every clause in the Constitution must be given its own independent meaning. The Framers were very specific in including both these terms into the Constitution. The unambiguous text and structure of the Constitution show that the terms each describe a different type of citizen and each are ascribed to different political offices.”

And then he goes and makes the claim that the “Law of nations” was some sort of literary masterpiece….Really?

“It has been well-documented that Vattel’s masterpiece “The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” was a principal reference work used by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia in the summer of 1787; that this book was observed on the desk of George Washington by a visitor to his private office during the convention; and that the natural born Citizen requirement in the Constitution was specifically urged on General Washington, who was then serving as president of the Continental Congress, by John Jay, who was later to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney Jay even underlined the word “born” in his letter to General Washington, which has been preserved and is easily found on the internet.”

“Can there be any doubt as to the meaning of “natural born citizen” as it is used in the United States Constitution? I would submit that there is no doubt whatever on this point. The historical context surrounding the creation of this magnificent document unequivocally supports the interpretation described above, as do a long list of historical documents which appeared following the establishment of this nation.

Any person who claims a different interpretation of this constitutional provision is obligated to provide the basis, as well as the associated proofs, of such a bizarre notion. I am not aware of any such attempt, including the multiple filings by the president’s attorneys in a long list of court cases raising this very issue. Instead, Obama’s attorneys have focused all of their efforts on secondary issues related to their insistence that U.S. citizens have no “standing” to demand that Barack Obama (if that is his real name) demonstrate his eligibility to serve in the office of president”

The article goes on in more detail….You can read it if you want…I just find the fact that these people bury their heads in the sand and believe in debunked and discredited legal theories because it allows them to feel like their is a legal reason to hate the current President of the US just incredible…Obama Derangement Syndrome at its finest….

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/07/california-congressman-says-birth-in-u-s-not-necessary-to-be-president/
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 3:19 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Some of the comments regarding the article above are interesting….

Like this one from good old Bob….he is a delusional fellow and a hardcore birther…

Robert Laity says:
Monday, August 9, 2010 at 2:10 AM
Bilbray has violated his oath by denigrating the Constitution. Schwarzenegger IS NOT eligible to run for POTUS. The Congress and courts are “evading’ the issue. Obama wants to be dictator. Schwarzenegger is a Nazi. Islamists like Obama and Nazis like Schwarzenegger have been strange bedfellows for a LONG TIME:

Or this long screed that blames anyone that does not belive that Obama is a “usurper”…

David F LaRocque says:
Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 11:02 PM
To 12th Generation American –

I am not sure that your observation is true in the case of Congressman Bilbray. He ran as a conservative Republican after having been previously defeated by a Democrat in an earlier period of service in the same seat.

As far as I knew, he was what he claimed to be. I met with him personally in May and I had met previously with his District Director. I had no idea that he held such disrespectful views regarding the Constitution. I believed that since he was trained as a lawyer, and since he had sworn the oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, his loyalty and respect for the Constitution was unquestioned and could be taken for granted.

How wrong I was! To see Congressman Bilbray in that video repudiating the Constitution was shocking. I could not imagine a member of Congress making such an outrageously false statement concerning one of the most fundamental requirements of the Constitution.

When I was in school, every American child learned that in order to be qualified to serve as president one must be born in the United States. That is one of the most well-known provisions of the Constitution. How could somebody claim otherwise?

I can only compare the feeling I now have about Congressman Bilbray to the feeling I would have had if one of my Navy squadron-mates had been discovered spying for the enemy. I would have felt truly betrayed, and I feel truly betrayed by Congressman Bilbray. As far as I am concerned, what he has done is unforgivable.

I am reluctant to use this word, but is he not a traitor if he is willing to repudiate the Constitution? And if he is willing to sell out on his oath to defend the Constitution, what else is he willing to sell out on?

We are all dismayed at what is happening to our country, and we struggle to understand how it could have happened. Well folks – this incident is a clear demonstration of what has been going on in Washington. Congressman Bilbray is not the only Republican who has sold out the Constitution. There are surely many others or we would not be where we are.

Why has not one single Republican stood up on the floor of the House or the Senate and demanded answers to the multitude of questions surrounding the fake president now residing in our White House? How could all of our elected officials who claim to be conservative and patriotic Americans allow our government to be taken over by a bunch of radicals and Marxists?

What the H–l is going on in Washington?

What the H–l is going on in our courts?

I attended two hearings in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California in Santa Ana, CA late last year. In the first hearing I heard Judge David O. Carter, a decorated combat U.S. Marine officer in Vietnam, announce to the packed courtroom that the case he was hearing, Barnett et al v. Obama, would not be dismissed on a technicality and that the American people deserved answers to the legitimate questions raised in the case. Then a month later, this same judge was a changed man. He was brusque and dismissive in the second hearing, with no mention of his previous commitment to hear the case on its merits. Several weeks later he dismissed the case for lack of “standing” (shortly after taking on a new clerk from the same law firm that had represented Obama).

I am so angry about this I can’t sleep at night. I did not fight for my country in Vietnam to see it destroyed in front of my eyes while my elected representatives refuse to talk about it.

Aren’t you people angry? What are you going to do about it?

DL

Or this gem from a poster who responded to someone who questioned McCain’s birth status in Panama…Note how they are willing to believe in a Panamanian birth announcement for McCain but not the Hawaiian (US) one for Obama….

TexomaEd says:
Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 11:51 PM
David, McCain was born on a Naval base in the Canal Zone. Check out the link below, which shows the birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

I don’t know what authority birthers think they have to investigate a claim that there are already existing government agencies that are responsible for doing those investigations. If you think someone is illegally using a Social Security number, report it to the Social Security Administration and the internal Revenue Service. They will investigate the claim and take action if necessary. As someone else pointed out, President Obama has used the same Social Security number when filing his income tax returns every year. The problem for birthers is that they know they will not like the results these agencies come up with, and that will put them in the position of having to create another conspiracy theory to explain why the results are not in their favor. Either that, or they would have to just drop the issue, and we all know that when faced with a decision to either drop an issue regarding the president or developing a conspiracy theory to explain results they don’t like, they always opt for the latter.
Black Lion says:

August 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm Black Lion(Quote)

Interesting blather over at Mario’s site regarding the 14th amendment….

“Watch carefully how these key but sneaky Republican leaders (RINOs) such as Senator Lindsey Graham will try to cleverly game this new initiative of theirs to make it look like on the surface that it appears they are trying to work on the very real “anchor baby” problem in the USA. But while they overtly say they are trying to correctly define who is a “born a Citizen of the United States” per the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to solve this “anchor baby” problem, they covertly in the process will also be trying to confuse the 14th Amendment part of the Constitution with another part of the Constitution, i.e., who is a “natural born Citizenship of the United States” as required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the Presidential eligibility clause. Watch them speak and how they switch Citizenship terms in mid-sentence and use them interchangeably. These two terms and parts of the Constitution have nothing to do with each other and are in the Constitution for two different purposes. The “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II was added by John Jay and George Washington as a national security protection clause required for eligibility to serve in the singular most powerful office in our new form of government, President and Commander of the Military. It was added as a higher level of qualification standards to the existing proposed eligibility clause proposed by Hamilton to provide a “strong check” against foreign influence on any future President after the founders were gone in order that the person in that office would have no “foreign influence” claims on them via birth. They wanted all future Presidents and Commanders of the Military of the United States to have sole allegiance at birth to only the USA. Only a natural law “natural born Citizen” meets that requirement. The “natural born Citizens”, as defined by natural law, are people born in the country to two citizen parents of the country, and they are by far the most populous sub-group of those who are “Citizens by birth” of a country. The remainder who are not “natural born Citizens” were made “Citizens by birth” per Statutory Laws passed by Congress such as Title 8 Section 1401, the 14th Amendment, and U.S. court decisions interpreting those laws and amendments, not always correctly. To learn more on the difference between “Citizen by birth” and being a “natural born Citizen by birth” see the historic and scholarly legal treatise by Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This legal treatise was used by the founders of our nation and framers of the U.S. Constitution to write our founding documents The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.”

As usual there is a lot of misinformation and legal conclusions from the delusional Kerchner and the legally overmatched Apuzzo….There is a lot more stuff if someone wants a verbal root canal and desires to read it…

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Also interesting is this comment by our old friend Christopher Strunk….

Chris Strunk said…
The “anchor baby” issue in raised in my DC Circuit appeal in regards to the 2010 Census allotment of House seats to New York with 2 USC 2a denying substantive due process and equal protection as guaranteed under 14th section 2, see:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34386539/Strunk-Declaration-in-Opposition-to-Appellees-Motion-DCC-Appeal-Case-10-5082-071510
obsolete says:

August 9, 2010 at 5:35 pm obsolete(Quote)

nc1: The COLB document was never available for public inspection.

Yes, it was available to the press, if not the public specifically, and a Politijabber offered to pay half of Berg’s airfare to go see it, which he declined.

And please, don’t plead ignorance on Berg or Politijab. You know who they are.

Here is a question- Are you willing to put your name on the line and file a complaint about Obama’s SS number “issues”? Will you sign an actual crime report with the proper authorities, and swear out a complaint of fraud against Obama? If so, I will get the process rolling for you and put you in touch with the proper authorities. But you will sign it, (not me) and you will be subject to perjury & filing a false report if your evidence is found to be lacking by the authorities. Will you sign the dotted line? As David Bois recently said, perjury, in a court of law, is a lonely place.

I’m saying it- put up or shut up. Which will it be?
Sean says:

August 9, 2010 at 6:50 pm Sean(Quote)

I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.

I’ll start. My settled down in Oxnard California in the 50’s. They had 8 children. All these kids were born in the same Oxnard hospital except one. He was born over 50 mile away in Santa Monica. What were my parents trying to hide?

My wife and I went to Germany in 1999. We also wanted to visit Paris, so we took a train. If you check our passports, you won’t find a stamp for France. How did we get into France without having to show our Passports.

And these are just the things you know about.
Looks like I have a questionable past.
sfjeff says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm sfjeff(Quote)

Oh fun.

I worked in a Communist country for 2 months in 1982 for a quasi-government agency at that- that alone is enough I think.

The only witness still alive from my birth is my mother, and she was on heavy drugs- can we really trust her testimony?

The BC I used to obtain my first passport doesn’t show what hospital I was born in or who my doctor was.

If a Birther searches for my elementary school by name, it will not be found.
Majority Will says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm Majority Will(Quote)

sfjeff: Oh fun.I worked in a Communist country for 2 months in 1982 for a quasi-government agency at that- that alone is enough I think.
The only witness still alive from my birth is my mother, and she was on heavy drugs- can we really trust her testimony?
The BC I used to obtain my first passport doesn’t show what hospital I was born in or who my doctor was.
If a Birther searches for my elementary school by name, it will not be found.

My mom’s maiden name was the same as her first married name and no, they were not related.

Over the years, I’ve had govt. workers think I didn’t understand what they meant by mother’s maiden name on forms.
Sean says:

August 9, 2010 at 7:12 pm Sean(Quote)

sfjeff: Oh fun.I worked in a Communist country for 2 months in 1982 for a quasi-government agency at that- that alone is enough I think.
The only witness still alive from my birth is my mother, and she was on heavy drugs- can we really trust her testimony?
The BC I used to obtain my first passport doesn’t show what hospital I was born in or who my doctor was.
If a Birther searches for my elementary school by name, it will not be found.

I just remembered this. My dorm roommate in Air Force tech school is the great grandson of Hitler’s maid.

Tell me THAT wouldn’t be used against me!
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 8:24 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Majority Will: Over the years, I’ve had govt. workers think I didn’t understand what they meant by mother’s maiden name on forms.

I have almost 4 decades in public health IT, and I could tell you stories… Mother’s Maiden name is widely misunderstood.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 8:26 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.

I’m clearly doomed. My father didn’t have a birth certificate until he went into the Army, and it was documented by nothing more than the statement his mother.
Rickey says:

August 9, 2010 at 8:58 pm Rickey(Quote)

The Feds are slapping a lien on Orly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35620065/RHODES-v-MACDONALD-Abstract-of-Judgment-Sanctions-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-42-0
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 9, 2010 at 9:49 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Rickey: The Feds are slapping a lien on Orly.http://www.scribd.com/doc/35620065/RHODES-v-MACDONALD-Abstract-of-Judgment-Sanctions-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-42-0

I can see where this is going. Another Ruby Ridge in the making….starring Orly Taitz
Arthur says:

August 9, 2010 at 9:52 pm Arthur(Quote)

Thanks for update of the lien against Orly, Rickey. I’d say it’s about time.
Arthur says:

August 9, 2010 at 9:55 pm Arthur(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP:
I can see where this is going. Another Ruby Ridge in the making….starring Orly Taitz

Actually, it would be o.k. with me if, rather than pay the fine, she’d just futtheshuckup.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:04 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Rickey: The Feds are slapping a lien on Orly.

Thanks for the link.
Arthur says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:26 pm Arthur(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.

Three months after 9/11 I was detained and questioned by Canadian customs for trying to secretly bring illegal weapons through the Calgary airport.

The “illegal” weapons were swords used to train actors in stage combat. I was transporting them in one of those large plastic shells you use to ship golf bags (hence the “secretly” charge). Also, I was traveling without a passport!

I was to be an instructor at an international stage combat workshop held at the Banff Centre for the Arts. The Canadian government was actually paying my salary. I didn’t have a passport because in late 2001, you could still enter Canada from the U.S. without one. After calls to the Centre and after demonstrating that the swords had neither sharpened edges nor sharpened points, and were really just pretend weapons, I was allowed to go. Of course, unfortunately, I had to wait a couple of hours in the Calgary airport for the next bus to Banff and the airline lost the suitcase that held my clothing.
Keith says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:30 pm Keith(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.

My Mother is my dad’s second wife. According to Dad, he eloped with his childhood sweetheart and her dad chased them down and had the marriage annulled. This would have been late 20’s or more likely the early 30’s, I suppose.

Lots of people have heard that story, and it may well have happened often in the 20’s and 30’s, I don’t know. But in my Dad’s case, many of you may have even seen the movie because the bride’s father was the State Governor, and the eloping couple were chased down by the Highway Patrol before they could get to the state line.

Now I doubt my dad’s case was the specific template for the almost trite movie theme, and it could be that Dad was dressing the story up a bit. But he told me this story on his death bed and I honestly never knew him to tell a lie, even ‘a little white lie’ to me in his life. He could joke and embellish, but not lie. He was totally incapable of it.
Keith says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:34 pm Keith(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.

We must not forget Sarah Palin’s two year stay in Moscow. What was she doing there and who paid for it? Is she hiding the details of any medals or honors her ‘sponsor’ may have awarded her?
G says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:39 pm G(Quote)

Rickey: The Feds are slapping a lien on Orly.http://www.scribd.com/doc/35620065/RHODES-v-MACDONALD-Abstract-of-Judgment-Sanctions-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-42-0

Thanks for sharing that. About time!!!
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:40 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Arthur:
Actually, it would be o.k. with me if, rather than pay the fine, she’d just futtheshuckup.

Yeah, and if the rest of the idiots would follow suit, it would be okay with me too
Bovril says:

August 9, 2010 at 10:53 pm Bovril(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President

3rd generation expat brat
3rd generation expat brat in the Middle East
3rd generation expat brat in the Middle East in an Ebil Moooslem Country
Uncle who is Mauritian and makes Samuel L Jackson look like an albino
Lived in 42 different countries (based on continuous residence of 2 weeks or greater)
Thinks evangelical Christians are delusional f*kwits
Broke the kneecaps of a Christian Brother

As a “redeeming” grace big Second Amendment supporter……8=)
Sef says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:07 pm Sef(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.

A relative married a descendant of a soldier Cornwallis left behind.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:24 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Sean: I have a challenge for you all. Examine yourself with Birther glasses and name some things about your family and past that “wouldn’t make sense” to someone who hated you and didn’t want to see you President.I’ll start. My settled down in Oxnard California in the 50′s. They had 8 children. All these kids were born in the same Oxnard hospital except one. He was born over 50 mile away in Santa Monica. What were my parents trying to hide?My wife and I went to Germany in 1999. We also wanted to visit Paris, so we took a train. If you check our passports, you won’t find a stamp for France. How did we get into France without having to show our Passports.And these are just the things you know about.
Looks like I have a questionable past.

Hmm I’ll have to think about this:
My great grandfather immigrated from spain after getting into a bar fight with a local constable whom he thought he killed. He fled. Ended up in Hawaii after getting into an argument with the ship’s captain about how he was treating the passengers. My grandfather and his siblings for a time shared the same social so they could work. My grandmother worked for bootleggers and had close ties with the mafia and J Edgar Hoover go figure. My brother went into the army and served in Germany and came back a communist. My wife is foreign. I went to public school. I’m sure I could think of more
Sean says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:25 pm Sean(Quote)

Bovril:
3rd generation expat brat
3rd generation expat brat in the Middle East
3rd generation expat brat in the Middle East in an Ebil Moooslem Country
Uncle who is Mauritian and makes Samuel L Jackson look like an albino
Lived in 42 different countries (based on continuous residence of 2 weeks or greater)
Thinks evangelical Christians are delusional f*kwits
Broke the kneecaps of a Christian BrotherAs a “redeeming” grace big Second Amendment supporter……8=)

If you were a White Christian Texan, you’d just be a Good ‘ol boy just having some fun.
misha says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:33 pm misha(Quote)

Rickey: The Feds are slapping a lien on Orly.

Keep us updated. What happens next? Do they seize her bank accounts, car and dental practice?

FUTTHESHUCKUP: I can see where this is going. Another Ruby Ridge in the making….starring Orly Taitz

That’s what I think about, too. I’m afraid she and her hard core coterie will open fire. There’s nothing worse than a crazy refusenik, or settler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
Keith says:

August 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm Keith(Quote)

Oh yeah:
– even though I’m a Gentile, I married a Jewish woman: that’s suspicious
– divorced her (or her me, whatever): that’s really suspicious,
– met an Australian lady who had used a tenuous connection to a New Mexico Senator to get an extra quick Green card: that’s suspicious again,
– she moved back to Australia and I followed her and married her: that’s suspicious
– It is rumored that a Chinese submarine kidnapped an Australian Prime Minister (Harold Holt and that the CIA engineered the sacking of an Australian Prime Minister (Geogh Whitlam). I wasn’t in Australia when either of those events occured, that is darned suspicious!

What could I be hiding with all these swings and round-a-bouts?
nc1 says:

August 10, 2010 at 4:23 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: So you admit that you cannot come up with any plausible scenario of fraud that fits the facts? I can come up with a plausible scenario with no fraud that fits the facts.I guess that means that I’m intellectually honest, and you’re not.

You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT. You have to assume things.

I’d rather hear explanation from Obama – too bad he refused to say anything about it.
An intellectually honest person will accept Obama’s silence as a proof that no fraud took place, right?
Dick Whitman says:

August 10, 2010 at 4:57 am Dick Whitman(Quote)

Soebarkah Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen!

Strunk Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35612613/Declaration-and-MOL-of-Plaintiff-in-Opposition-to-Summary-Judgment-DCD-08-Cv-2234-080910
nc1 says:

August 10, 2010 at 5:35 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: OK, you are claiming that a teen-age Obama obtained a Social Security number that belongs to someone else because Obama couldn’t get a real social number because he is not a US citizen.Objections:1. The State of Hawaii says Obama was born there; hence he is citizen.2. If the Social Security number belongs to a living person, that person may well notice that their Social Security report doesn’t make sense and the fraudulent use would be exposed. This did not happen.3. If the Social Security number belongs to a deceased person, it would be in the Social Security death index. It is not. I checked.4. Social Security numbers are validated by the government against last name for W2 forms and against name and date of birth for Income Tax filings.5. Employers validate Social Security numbers against name.If you can overcome all 5 of these objections, you may proceed with your theory that Obama uses a SSN of another person (from Connecticut).

I am not claiming anything – just speculating about it. I don’t think that Obama got that number as a teenager – I think that he got it later on. We know that Daniels’ report mentions his first use of this number in 1986. It would be interesting to see his college documents. If my speculation is correct the SS number on application forms, if any, would be different from the Connecticut number.

I wonder if his SS# application, if any exists, could be obtained using a FOIA request?

Are you suggesting that Obama applied as a teenager in Hawaii, the SS Administration issued him a number reserved for applicants from CT and entered the wrong year of birth?
Sean says:

August 10, 2010 at 5:52 am Sean(Quote)

nc1:
You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT.You have to assume things.I’d rather hear explanation from Obama – too bad he refused to say anything about it.
An intellectually honest person will accept Obama’s silence as a proof that no fraud took place, right?

You’re the one making the accusations. The burden of proof is on you. If you have to step into the Twilight Zone to make your case, it’s not a very good one.

Investigate and build a good case (air-tight) against Obama, then come back.

Read some of the posts about the suspicious backgrounds of the people on this blog, including me. This might give some perspective, rather than looking at Obama through bullshit colored glasses.
nc1 says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:00 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Once again you fail. Last time you brought this up I asked you just how many Barack Hussein Obama’s do you think have been born in Hawaii to which you claimed it wasn’t relevant. It is entirely relevant considering you’re asking how do you distinguish common names on the index. Obama’s name isn’t common in fact he’s probably the only Barack H Obama born in Hawaii in the last 40 or so years. One name would probably only appear on the index. So your focus on certificate numbers is rather pointless.

You are just too slow to understand that the SAME rules for birth index data must make sense for both common names and unique ones.

I gave you an example where the birth index (as initially presented by the Hawaii DoH) does NOT make sense for common names, – therefore they lied when they said that index data consists only of name, gender and vital event.

The latest AP article, mentioning Okubo’s offer to sell index data for year 1961, proves it. Suddenly the year of birth is part of the index data.

The registration number is part of the index data – it is a unique identifier. It actually makes more sense, from protection of privacy viewpoint, to hide the year of birth rather than registration number.
Sean says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:09 am Sean(Quote)

Dick Whitman: Soebarkah Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen!Strunk Opposition to Motion to Dismisshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35612613/Declaration-and-MOL-of-Plaintiff-in-Opposition-to-Summary-Judgment-DCD-08-Cv-2234-080910

That is one amazing document! It has a reference to Indiana Jones, and it treats Obama’s Grandma’s refusal for media interviews as a crime.
nc1 says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:13 am nc1(Quote)

dunstvangeet: What I don’t get about NC1′s theory about a fraudelent birth certificate is:Why would Obama register for the draft with this social security number, knowing that it was fraudently obtained? Wouldn’t that be a way for the government to catch this? When he registered for the Selective Service, wouidn’t the government check the number and say, “Hey, this doesn’t belong to Barack Hussein Obama II. This belongs to Joe Smith of Wasilla Alaska. There’s a fraud going on here.”

Which Selective Service registration are you talking about? Do you have a link?
Dick Whitman says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:30 am Dick Whitman(Quote)

Sean:
That is one amazing document! It has a reference to Indiana Jones, and it treats Obama’s Grandma’s refusal for media interviews as a crime.

A Knockout Punch …

Strunk declaration in MTD:

That the matter of Defendants’ allegation that the GSA had destroyed unimportant records before 1967 rings absolutely hollow and false, not only because of the obvious contradiction with the release of documents of similar years shown by Mr. Jacobsen; but because the background of the entire Dunham family is anything but unimportant and that documents are of high value not only to be preserved but used in ongoing investigations back then and into the present.

As such Plaintiff summarizes reasons that the records were to be preserved and that at best DOS is being disingenuous with the Court in bad faith.

The State Dept needs to tap out.
AnotherBird says:

August 10, 2010 at 7:42 am AnotherBird(Quote)

nc1:
You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT.You have to assume things.I’d rather hear explanation from Obama – too bad he refused to say anything about it.
An intellectually honest person will accept Obama’s silence as a proof that no fraud took place, right?

You seem to be under the false belief that others have to explain to you your arguments. People shouldn’t be doing the your own research. Your attempt to present yourself as being an intellectually honest person is fraud.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

“Area Number

The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.

Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.”
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:02 am Majority Will(Quote)

Rehashing the same birther tripe is pointless. And the troll has repeatedly been given links in the past to a conservative site’s confirmation of the President’s Selective Service registration.

This is just another one of her rabbit’s hole while she darts back and forth from the Pest & eFail’s birther dictatorship for a dose of confirmation bias.

Accusing anyone of fraud made up entirely of baseless speculation is nothing more than paranoid and deliberately disingenuous.
JoZeppy says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:06 am JoZeppy(Quote)

nc1: You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT. You have to assume things.

And you have no evidence of fraud. You have to assume things. The point is, there are plausible scenarios where President Obama could get the ssn# he has, where there is no wrong doing. So unless you have actual evidence pointing to something wrong, you’re just wasting everyone’s time with conjecture, and conspiracy theories.

nc1: I’d rather hear explanation from Obama – too bad he refused to say anything about it.
An intellectually honest person will accept Obama’s silence as a proof that no fraud took place, right?

An intellectually honest person takes is silence as evidence of nothing. It is a lack of evidence. Obama is under no legal duty to answer our questions, and as has been stated over and over, there are very good reasons to ignore the nutters on the extremes, screaming wholly unsupported accusations. So that leaves you just where you started, with no evidence of any wrong doing. Just baseless accusations.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:18 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1:I am not claiming anything – just speculating about it. I don’t think that Obama got that number as a teenager – I think that he got it later on. We know that Daniels’ report mentions his first use of this number in 1986. It would be interesting to see his college documents. If my speculation is correct the SS number on application forms, if any, would be different from the Connecticut number.

I wonder if his SS# application, if any exists, could be obtained using a FOIA request?

Are you suggesting that Obama applied as a teenager in Hawaii, the SS Administration issued him a number reserved for applicants from CT and entered the wrong year of birth?

Well if it’s just speculation, then there’s no grounds for an official investigation.

Daniels in no way, shape or form showed that Obama “first used the number in 1986”, only that the first appearance of the number in public records (usually a real estate transaction) in the databases he searched was in 1986. Use of a SSN for employment purposes would not appear in any public record Daniels had access to. We can reasonably say that Obama had a social security number around 1977 because he worked at a Baskin-Robbins in Hawaii, and they would have required one. If he had a number in 1977, why would he get another one? No remotely plausible reason comes to mind.

No, a SS# application cannot be obtained by FOIA on a living person. I couldn’t even get the date of birth for my father from SSA with a birth certificate and a power of attorney signed by him in my hand, nor could I even verify Orly Taitz’s foundation EIN. That is one tight-lipped bunch.

So I am suggesting that Obama got a SS number from the Connecticut series, the best explanation for which presented so far is through clerical error, and that it was issued to him around 1976-77 when he went to work for Baskin-Robbins.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:31 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

nc1: Which Selective Service registration are you talking about? Do you have a link?

Obama’s Selective Service registration was obtained by FOIA. The classic debunking of the Selective Service story was published by Pajamas Media in 2008.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-did-obama-actually-register-for-selective-service/
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:52 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

nc1: You are just too slow to understand that the SAME rules for birth index data must make sense for both common names and unique ones. I gave you an example where the birth index (as initially presented by the Hawaii DoH) does NOT make sense for common names, – therefore they lied when they said that index data consists only of name, gender and vital event.The latest AP article, mentioning Okubo’s offer to sell index data for year 1961, proves it. Suddenly the year of birth is part of the index data.The registration number is part of the index data – it is a unique identifier. It actually makes more sense, from protection of privacy viewpoint, to hide the year of birth rather than registration number.

I’m too slow? I’m not the one coming back here daily posting the same specious claims after people have explained everything to you. Now you’re just going off on a random tangent. How does this relate to Obama? Your thesis was you couldn’t be sure it was Obama that is president who was listed.
This shows your inherent dishonesty. Any honest person would look at the birth index see Barack Obama’s name in there and conclude that its probably the same guy in the white house and the same guy with a COLB from Hawaii. Once again how many Barack Obama’s do you think were born in Hawaii or the entire US for that matter for you to think you need some kind of clarification?
Bovril says:

August 10, 2010 at 9:45 am Bovril(Quote)

Sean: Broke the kneecaps of a Christian BrotherAs a “redeeming” grace big Second Amendment supporter……8=)
If you were a White Christian Texan, you’d just be a Good ol boy just having some fun

Nope,

For reasons that eluded me I once had to spend a looooooong 3 month term at a Christian Brothers run boarding school in the wilds of Ballykissmybutnowehere in Eire…..as the sole Protty.

On the first day of term at morning assembly there was the usual annoucemnets “Sean X is now captain of the Hurling team, Patrick Y is now head boy, we welcome 10 news boys to our community….oh and “Bovril”……a short term boarder over from England and a Protestant……..” You could almost hear the “AND HE’S GOING TO HELL”….8-)

One the senior Christian Brothers had a bad case of the sh1ts about me and also suffered badly from Short Arse Syndrome. Like all bullies he had a coterie of like minded souls who ran a little regime of terror under the guise of “firm leadership”

Being the evil, nasty minded, stubborn soul I am I decided enougfh was enough, taunted him and his crew of muppets, had them try and chase me down, round the corner to a convenienty located length of 2×2 . He came round the corner to a high kinetric energy transfer moment to the kneecaps.

His buddies gave me a sound kicking but strangely enough all avoided me like the plague for the rest of term……
Sean says:

August 10, 2010 at 10:24 am Sean(Quote)

Dick Whitman:
A Knockout Punch …Strunk declaration in MTD:
The State Dept needs to tap out.

Do you seriously think Strunk has a case?
gorefan says:

August 10, 2010 at 10:30 am gorefan(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: So I am suggesting that Obama got a SS number from the Connecticut series, the best explanation for which presented so far is through clerical error, and that it was issued to him around 1976-77 when he went to work for Baskin-Robbins.

The zip code for Honolulu is 96801 and the zip code for Bethel, Connecticut is 06801.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 10, 2010 at 10:44 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Bovril:
Nope,For reasons that eluded me I once had to spend a looooooong 3 month term at a Christian Brothers run boarding school in the wilds of Ballykissmybutnowehere in Eire…..as the sole Protty.On the first day of term at morning assembly there was the usual annoucemnets “Sean X is now captain of the Hurling team, Patrick Y is now head boy, we welcome 10 news boys to our community….oh and “Bovril”……a short term boarder over from England and a Protestant……..” You could almost hear the “AND HE’S GOING TO HELL”….8-)One the senior Christian Brothers had a bad case of the sh1ts about me and also suffered badly from Short Arse Syndrome. Like all bullies he had a coterie of like minded souls who ran a little regime of terror under the guise of “firm leadership”Being the evil, nasty minded, stubborn soul I am I decided enougfh was enough, taunted him and his crew of muppets, had them try and chase me down, round the corner to a convenienty located length of 2�—2 . He came round the corner to a high kinetric energytransfer moment to the kneecaps.His buddies gave me a sound kicking but strangely enough all avoided me like the plague for the rest of term……

Any relation to Tonya Harding?
BatGuano says:

August 10, 2010 at 11:04 am BatGuano(Quote)

nc1:
You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT.You have to assume things.I’d rather hear explanation from Obama – too bad he refused to say anything about it.
An intellectually honest person will accept Obama’s silence as a proof that no fraud took place, right?
Sef says:

August 10, 2010 at 11:17 am Sef(Quote)

nc1: You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT. You have to assume things.

YOU must ASSUME several things for this conspiracy to have any legs: 1) that the published SSN is really Obama’s, 2) that there always is an absolute 1-1 correlation between a person’s SSN & where they lived when they got their SSN, 3) that a lack of this correlation is evidence of fraud, 4) that a teenager would be complicit in such a fraud, 5) that the several plausible scenarios explaining the mismatch have no validity, 6) that anyone in the real world gives a flying f**ck about this. There are probably several more that others might add
BatGuano says:

August 10, 2010 at 11:25 am BatGuano(Quote)

nc1:
You cannot explain exact scenario how Obama got the SS# from CT.You have to assume things.I’d rather hear explanation from Obama – too bad he refused to say anything about it.
An intellectually honest person will accept Obama’s silence as a proof that no fraud took place, right?

good morning nc1. i like this quote. lets break it down:

scenario A): obama registered for a ss# in the normal way and that is the number he received. he would have no knowledge why his number contained a prefix normally associated ( not reserved ) for applications from CT. there is nothing he could say ( outside of ” i sent the application from CT” ) that would give us anymore insight.

scenario B): obama has used a fake ss# for 25-35 years. this was done to either hide his foreign birth ( which we have no proof of ), hide his renunciation of citizenship ( which we’ve seen would have been impossible to do ), hide the fact that he is a marxist muslim manchurian usurper ( subjective term ) or just for spits and giggles. any of these possibilities i doubt that he’d openly discuss.
BatGuano says:

August 10, 2010 at 11:49 am BatGuano(Quote)

Sef: 4) that a teenager would be complicit in such a fraud,……

yep……. and has been filing tax returns for the last 30+ plus years with this number. millions of dollars worth of taxable income on a number that is already attached to someone else. possibly in CT.

go figure.
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 11:51 am Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
I’m too slow?I’m not the one coming back here daily posting the same specious claims after people have explained everything to you.Now you’re just going off on a random tangent.How does this relate to Obama?Your thesis was you couldn’t be sure it was Obama that is president who was listed.
This shows your inherent dishonesty.Any honest person would look at the birth index see Barack Obama’s name in there and conclude that its probably the same guy in the white house and the same guy with a COLB from Hawaii.Once again how many Barack Obama’s do you think were born in Hawaii or the entire US for that matter for you to think you need some kind of clarification?

A birther’s Occam’s razor is as sharp as Jell-O.
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm Majority Will(Quote)

gorefan:
The zip code for Honolulu is 96801 and the zip code for Bethel, Connecticut is 06801.

The Doc needs a script for your reply above to trigger any time “Obama” and “SSN” or some variant is posted.

And yes I’m kidding but once again Occam’s razor rules. Great work!
BatGuano says:

August 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Majority Will: ….but once again Occam’s razor rules

it’s not wise to let birthers and small children play with sharp objects.
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 12:37 pm Majority Will(Quote)

BatGuano:
it’s not wise to let birthers and small children play with sharp objects.

Touché and stay on your guard!
Bovril says:

August 10, 2010 at 12:40 pm Bovril(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Any relation to Tonya Harding?

Who Sir…?, Me Sir…?, No Sir….! No video evidence Sir….

In my defense my actions led to a major downgrading in institutional violence at least for that term. Violence may not have be THE answer but it sure was AN answer…..>8-)
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 12:55 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Bovril: He came round the corner to a high kinetric energytransfer moment to the kneecaps.His buddies gave me a sound kicking but strangely enough all avoided me like the plague for the rest of term……

Sometimes the best way to express yourself is in ALL CAPS.
sfjeff says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm sfjeff(Quote)

One of the points raised by someone else made me think- Obama wouldn’t have any idea if the social security number he was issued was issued from CT or Hawaii. I still have no idea if my SS# was issued in CA or not- I have never bothered to look it up because i don’t care.

If Obama even bothered to listened to the inane ramblings about his SS# he could just answer like I would- ‘no idea, don’t care, none of your business”

As usual for NC1 and birthers, they deal in nits. A number out of sequence is in their minds circumstantial evidence of fraud. Certifiicate vs Certification. Original Documents instead of document.

All they claim to want is every little niggling doubt that they have explained to each of their satisfactions, but as we see from these discussions, even when given the answers they just flail around for more nits to pick.

Unfortunately for them, the President is, well the President, and is not obligated to respond to wierd fringe questions, any more than the mayor of my city is obligated to respond to the guy carrying the sign downtown accusing him of conspiring with space aliens.
Rickey says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:13 pm Rickey(Quote)

Dick Whitman Strunk declaration in MTD:
That the matter of Defendants’ allegation that the GSA had destroyed unimportant records before 1967 rings absolutely hollow

Strunk, as usual, gets it wrong. Nobody has claimed that the GSA destroyed any records. The records were destroyed by the State Department at the urging of the GSA. It was part of the Reagan administration’s push to eliminate so-called waste in the government.

the background of the entire Dunham family is anything but unimportant and that documents are of high value not only to be preserved but used in ongoing investigations back then and into the present.

Nonsense. The background of the entire Dunham family was of no significance to anyone but the Dunham family when the records were being purged in the mid-eighties by the Reagan administration.

The individual who made the sworn declaration, Alex Galovich, has been a State Department employee since 1974 and he has personal knowledge about the records purge project. Are you calling Mr. Galovich a perjurer?
Rickey says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm Rickey(Quote)

Dick Whitman: Soebarkah Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen!Strunk Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Christopher Strunk is a crank. He has filed approximately two dozen lawsuits in New York State courts alone in the past thirteen years, and he has not won any of them.

You birthers apparently love to hitch your wagons to losers.
gorefan says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm gorefan(Quote)

Majority Will: The Doc needs a script for your reply above to trigger any time “Obama” and “SSN” or some variant is posted.
And yes I’m kidding but once again Occam’s razor rules. Great work!

The SSA did a review to determine the accuracy of their numident files.

“we estimate that approximately 17.8 million (4.1%) Numident records contain discrepancies that may result in incorrect Basic Pilot ”

http://www.ssa.gov/oig/communications/eyeonoig/eyeoig03072007.htm

These are the type of discrepancies that would cause an employer to get a Social Security Mismatch Letter. Errors like the type that might have occurred in the President’s case would not even be detected.
Resign_Soebarkah_Resign says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:34 pm Resign_Soebarkah_Resign(Quote)

Birther Congressman takes Lead in GA Republican Primary

A final Landmark Communications poll in Georgia shows Nathan Deal (R) with a small lead over Karen Handel (R) in the Republican gubernatorial run off.

The race has possible implications for the 2012 presidential race as Mike Huckabee has endorsed Deal, while Sarah Palin has backed Handel.

Polls close tonight at 7 pm ET.
BatGuano says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:47 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Resign_Soebarkah_Resign: The race has possible implications for the 2012 presidential race as Mike Huckabee has endorsed Deal, while Sarah Palin has backed Handel.

so what you’re saying is that yet another palin endorsement has gone over like a fart in church.

bummer.
Rickey says:

August 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm Rickey(Quote)

nc1:
I am not claiming anything – just speculating about it.I don’t think that Obama got that number as a teenager – I think that he got it later on.We know that Daniels’ report mentions his first use of this number in 1986.

Daniels has no idea when Obama first used his SSN. She got her information from LexisNexis, which gets its information from header records that are maintained by the three major credit bureaus. The header records typically do not go back much more than twenty years. Those records are generated by credit applications. Unless Obama applied for a credit card when he was 16, only his first employer, the SSA and the IRS would have a record of when Obama first “used” his SSN. And even if he did apply for credit when he was 16, the credit bureaus would no longer have a record of it.

I received my SSN in 1966. I just ran my SSN through LexisNexis, and if Daniels looked at my results she would assume that I first “used” my SSN in 1987. That is nonsense, of course. It only means that the credit bureaus no longer have any record of my activity prior to 1987, even though I had mortgages on houses in California and Arizona prior to 1987.

I wonder ifhis SS# application, if any exists,could be obtained using a FOIA request?

The answer is no, but feel free to give it a try.

Are you suggesting that Obama applied as a teenager in Hawaii, the SS Administration issued him a number reserved for applicants from CT and entered the wrong year of birth?

Wrong year of birth? Are you talking about Orly’s fantasy that Obama’s SSN was issued to someone who was born in 1890?
BatGuano says:

August 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm BatGuano(Quote)

Rickey: Wrong year of birth? Are you talking about Orly’s fantasy that Obama’s SSN was issued to someone who was born in 1890?

what ever happened to neil sankey, the semi-retired PI who got orly the ss# info?
Dave says:

August 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm Dave(Quote)

Resign_Soebarkah_Resign: The race has possible implications for the 2012 presidential race as Mike Huckabee has endorsed Deal, while Sarah Palin has backed Handel.

Once again, Palin won’t give the time of day to the birthers, but the birthers love her anyway.
Rickey says:

August 10, 2010 at 2:44 pm Rickey(Quote)

BatGuano:
what ever happened to neil sankey, the semi-retired PI who got orly the ss# info?

Sankey has been backpedaling recently and now admits that his SSN research doesn’t prove anything. Plus he is busy defending himself in the Berg/Liberi lawsuit.

By the way, I may have solved the mystery of the 1890 birth date. The LexisNexis records usually come back with an approximate age, and in some instances they provide a year of birth which often is off by a few years.

I found a record of a woman who was born in 1888 and who was issued a SSN with the prefix 042 sometime between 1972 and 1977. She died in 1982, and the middle two digits of her SSN are one digit off from the SSN which reportedly was issued to Obama. The four digit suffix of her SSN is identical to Obama’s.

Conclusion: the 1890 birthdate associated with Obama’s SSN is the result of a typo.
SluggoJD says:

August 10, 2010 at 3:51 pm SluggoJD(Quote)

Resign_Soebarkah_Resign: Birther Congressman takes Lead in GA Republican PrimaryA final Landmark Communications poll in Georgia shows Nathan Deal (R) with a small lead over Karen Handel (R) in the Republican gubernatorial run off.The race has possible implications for the 2012 presidential race as Mike Huckabee has endorsed Deal, while Sarah Palin has backed Handel.Polls close tonight at 7 pm ET.

Wow, what an impressive screenname for a sockpuppet. We are all impressed that you could type so many letters!

In the future, perhaps you should try one of these equally-applicable screennames:

“ImanidiotbutatleastIamhonest”
“SHOW_ME_YOUR_DEATH_CERTIFICATE_RONNIE_REAGAN!”
“AN_HONEST_GUY_WHO_HATES_BLACK_PEOPLE”
misha says:

August 10, 2010 at 3:51 pm misha(Quote)

Rickey: Conclusion: the 1890 birthdate associated with Obama’s SSN is the result of a typo.

Obama is paying you.
Sean says:

August 10, 2010 at 3:55 pm Sean(Quote)

misha:
Obama is paying you.

The KKK is paying you.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Dick Whitman: Soebarkah Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen!Strunk Opposition to Motion to Dismisshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35612613/Declaration-and-MOL-of-Plaintiff-in-Opposition-to-Summary-Judgment-DCD-08-Cv-2234-080910

lmao. Here we go again with another birther “here’s my nutty conspiracy theory, and if you can’t disprove it, it must be true” legal argument. Stuff happens to records that have been kept around for a long time, and just because they have been lost or destroyed is not evidence that your delusion is true. The summer of 1947 communications records for Roswell Army Airfield were also destroyed or lost; that’s not proof of anything either. If you loons are going to make these loony claims in court, it’s not up to anyone to disprove your loony claims, IT’S UP TO THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THEM.
Rickey says:

August 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm Rickey(Quote)

misha:
Obama is paying you.

Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag. Do I have to report it to the IRS?
Sean says:

August 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm Sean(Quote)

Look at the first 3 minutes of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/27/_5ka-D5UMr0

It might shed some perspective on the evidence about Obama conspiracies.
obsolete says:

August 10, 2010 at 5:49 pm obsolete(Quote)

gorefan:
The zip code for Honolulu is 96801 and the zip code for Bethel, Connecticut is 06801.

nc1 has been quiet since this one- I can almost sense the brain working hard to come up with a rational for why a 50 year old world-wide conspiracy (benefiting a skinny teenager at Baskin-Robins) is more plausible than a 1 digit typo.
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:23 pm Majority Will(Quote)

obsolete: (benefiting a skinny teenager at Baskin-Robins)

That’s quite a scoop. Some birthers are split but they’ll just milk something else. It shows you the future President knew it could be a Rocky Road but still kept his Good Humor.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sef: YOU must ASSUME several things for this conspiracy to have any legs: 1) that the published SSN is really Obama’s

It is. It has been confirmed by (at least) two reporters using the Selective Service registration verification service, where you type in an SSN, Name and Data of Birth to see if someone is registered with the Selective Service.
Sef says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:36 pm Sef(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
It is. It has been confirmed by (at least) two reporters using the Selective Service registration verification service, where you type in an SSN, Name and Data of Birth to see if someone is registered with the Selective Service.

It’s probably an open question whether it is his current one.
Majority Will says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:43 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Sef:
It’s probably an open question whether it is his current one.

The cool part is that he just turned 120 but looks 49.
Sef says:

August 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm Sef(Quote)

Majority Will:
The cool part is that he just turned 120 but looks 49.

I didn’t look that good when I turned 120.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Sef: It’s probably an open question whether it is [Obama’s] current [Social Security number].

Given that this one has been broadcast across the Internet, a replacement SSN is certainly something the President is entitled to apply for.
gorefan says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:22 pm gorefan(Quote)

obsolete: nc1 has been quiet since this one- I can almost sense the brain working hard to come up with a rational for why a 50 year old world-wide conspiracy (benefiting a skinny teenager at Baskin-Robins) is more plausible than a 1 digit typo.

Refining it alittle – from Stanley Ann’s passport renewal application, the zip code for her parents house is 86814 and the zip code for Danbury, Connecticut is 06814.
Sef says:

August 10, 2010 at 8:44 pm Sef(Quote)

gorefan: 86814

See how easy it is to do a typo!
Gorefan says:

August 10, 2010 at 9:25 pm Gorefan(Quote)

Ain’t that’s the truth:

Refining it alittle – from Stanley Ann’s passport renewal application, the zip code for her parents house is 96814 and the zip code for Danbury, Connecticut is 06814.
myson says:

August 11, 2010 at 5:13 am myson(Quote)

Sean:
The KKK is paying you.

Sean u miss the sarcasm in misha’s comment
AnotherBird says:

August 11, 2010 at 6:42 am AnotherBird(Quote)

Sef:
See how easy it is to do a typo!

gorefan: Refining it alittle – from Stanley Ann’s passport renewal application, the zip code for her parents house is 86814 and the zip code for Danbury, Connecticut is 06814.

It could be just a clerical error. At some point in the processing an 8 was mistake for a 0, and never corrected. It takes a lot of time to track down those types of errors while processing data. Many of you could attest to situations where you have encountered such errors.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 11, 2010 at 7:20 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

gorefan: Refining it alittle – from Stanley Ann’s passport renewal application, the zip code for her parents house is 86814 and the zip code for Danbury, Connecticut is 06814.

The zipcode for Honolulu would be in {“96801”, “96802”, “96803”, “96804”, “96805”, “96806”, “96807”, “96808”, “96809”, “96810”, “96811”, “96812”, “96813”, “96814”, “96815”, “96816”, “96817”, “96818”, “96819”, “96820”, “96821”, “96822”, “96823”, “96824”, “96825”, “96826”, “96827”, “96828”, “96830”, “96836”, “96837”, “96838”, “96839”, “96840”, “96841”, “96843”, “96844”, “96846”, “96847”, “96848”, “96849”, “96850”}
Rickey says:

August 11, 2010 at 10:54 am Rickey(Quote)

And the Zip Codes for Connecticut range from 06801 to 06897.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 11, 2010 at 11:30 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Rickey: And the Zip Codes for Connecticut range from 06801 to 06897.

Actually Rickey they go higher than 06897. I live in CT my zip is 06903. I think it goes to 06928
Rickey says:

August 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm Rickey(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Actually Rickey they go higher than 06897.I live in CT my zip is 06903.I think it goes to 06928.

I didn’t include those because I was focusing on the ones which are just one digit off from the Honolulu Zip Codes.

I assume that the process works like this. SSA receives the application, it is reviewed to make sure that the proper and necessary documentation is included. Nowadays they probably run a check to see if the applicant already has a Social Security Number. When it comes time to request a number for the applicant, a clerk enters the applicant’s Zip Code and a computer assigns a number based upon the Zip Code which has been entered. I’m sure that it was less automated in 1977, but the same principal applies. All it took for Obama to set a SSN with a Connecticut prefix was for someone to type 068XX when it should have been 968XX.
Gorefan says:

August 11, 2010 at 3:53 pm Gorefan(Quote)

AnotherBird: It could be just a clerical error. At some point in the processing an 8 was mistake for a 0, and never corrected. It takes a lot of time to track down those types of errors while processing data. Many of you could attest to situations where you have encountered such errors.

Dr. Conspiracy: The zipcode for Honolulu would be in

Mine was the typo that Sef was referring to. I wrote 86814 when I meant to write 96814.

I remember that back in the 1970’s the application for a SSN was a postcard size form. It’s possible that someone misread the 9 as a 0 or typed it that way.

I’m not sure but I don’t think keypunch keyboards handled numbers in the same way that typewriter keypads did.
Majority Will says:

August 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Rickey:
I didn’t include those because I was focusing on the ones which are just one digit off from the Honolulu Zip Codes.I assume that the process works like this. SSA receives the application, it is reviewed to make sure that the proper and necessary documentation is included. Nowadays they probably run a check to see if the applicant already has a Social Security Number. When it comes time to request a number for the applicant, a clerk enters the applicant’s Zip Code and a computer assigns a number based upon the Zip Code which has been entered. I’m sure that it was less automated in 1977, but the same principal applies. All it took for Obama to set a SSN with a Connecticut prefix was for someone to type 068XX when it should have been 968XX.

That won’t work. It totally blows the deranged birthers’ fantasies of fraud and identity theft. Ooooh. Ooooh. Ooooh. Did you see that? I just saw goalposts flying by again.
Rickey says:

August 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm Rickey(Quote)

As expected, Justice Scalia has referred Orly’s petition to the entire court. Orly will probably trumpet this as a victory, but we all know where it leading to.

No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Aug 4 2010 Application (10A56) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Aug 10 2010 Application (10A56) referred to the Court.
nc1 says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:05 am nc1(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I’m too slow? I’m not the one coming back here daily posting the same specious claims after people have explained everything to you. Now you’re just going off on a random tangent. How does this relate to Obama? Your thesis was you couldn’t be sure it was Obama that is president who was listed.This shows your inherent dishonesty. Any honest person would look at the birth index see Barack Obama’s name in there and conclude that its probably the same guy in the white house and the same guy with a COLB from Hawaii. Once again how many Barack Obama’s do you think were born in Hawaii or the entire US for that matter for you to think you need some kind of clarification?

You didn’t get the importance of verifying the certification number, did you?
The registration number would tell us whether the number was assigned to him on August 11 or possibly later, if his real number is higher than 10641 (unattended birth registration that was completed only after his mother returned from abroad).

What is your take on Okubo’s dishonesty in handling birth index data?
Why is it that after almost a year of saying one thing she now admits that birth year is part of the birth index data? Why did she lie about it initially?

How does it fit into Obama supporters’ narrative that DoH cannot release anything more than name, gender and vital event as part of the birth index data because they have to protect privacy. Okubo offered for sale birth index for 1961, isn’t she concerned for privacy protection of all those people on the list?
nc1 says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:13 am nc1(Quote)

Rickey: Sankey has been backpedaling recently and now admits that his SSN research doesn’t prove anything. Plus he is busy defending himself in the Berg/Liberi lawsuit.By the way, I may have solved the mystery of the 1890 birth date. The LexisNexis records usually come back with an approximate age, and in some instances they provide a year of birth which often is off by a few years. I found a record of a woman who was born in 1888 and who was issued a SSN with the prefix 042 sometime between 1972 and 1977. She died in 1982, and the middle two digits of her SSN are one digit off from the SSN which reportedly was issued to Obama. The four digit suffix of her SSN is identical to Obama’s.Conclusion: the 1890 birthdate associated with Obama’s SSN is the result of a typo.

Your scenario requires not one but TWO typos:
1890 vs. 1888
one digit difference in SS#
AnotherBird says:

August 12, 2010 at 6:04 am AnotherBird(Quote)

Gorefan: Mine was the typo that Sef was referring to.I wrote 86814 when I meant to write 96814.I remember that back in the 1970′s the application for a SSN was a postcard size form.It’s possible that someone misread the 9 as a 0 or typed it that way.
I’m not sure but I don’t think keypunch keyboards handled numbers in the same way that typewriter keypads did.

See how easy it was to enter an error Gorefan. The error could have been entered at any point from when the applicant fill the application and when the SSN was created.

By just referring to the SSN it is not possible to determine where the error was entered.

With keypunch is also sensitive, we all remember the 2000 election debacle in Florida.

Computers do exactly what they are told to do, even if it results in an unrecoverable error.
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 8:47 am Majority Will(Quote)

AnotherBird:
See how easy it was to enter an error Gorefan. The error could have been entered at any point from when the applicant fill the application and when the SSN was created.
By just referring to the SSN it is not possible to determine where the error was entered.With keypunch is also sensitive, we all remember the 2000 election debacle in Florida.Computers do exactly what they are told to do, even if it results in an unrecoverable error.

GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Sef says:

August 12, 2010 at 8:56 am Sef(Quote)

AnotherBird:
See how easy it was to enter an error Gorefan. The error could have been entered at any point from when the applicant fill the application and when the SSN was created.
By just referring to the SSN it is not possible to determine where the error was entered.With keypunch is also sensitive, we all remember the 2000 election debacle in Florida.Computers do exactly what they are told to do, even if it results in an unrecoverable error.

None of these numbers we are talking about have check characters. If ISBN had been invented prior to 1935 SSNs would probably have an extra character.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 12, 2010 at 8:59 am Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

nc1: You didn’t get the importance of verifying the certification number, did you?The registration number would tell us whether the number was assigned to him on August 11 or possibly later, if his real number is higher than 10641 (unattended birth registration that was completed only after his mother returned from abroad).What is your take on Okubo’s dishonesty in handling birth index data?Why is it that after almost a year of saying one thing she now admits that birth year is part of the birth index data? Why did she lie about it initially?How does it fit into Obama supporters’ narrative that DoH cannot release anything more than name, gender and vital event as part of the birth index data because they have to protect privacy. Okubo offered for sale birth index for 1961, isn’t she concerned for privacy protection of all those people on the list?

There is no importance in verifying the certificate number. You would have no idea what date the number was assigned to him. You would then be asking for the confirmation of the date, then you’d be asking for several other numbers in the sequence. Okubo hasn’t been dishonest you’ve only shown you have no understanding of how anything works.

Where did she offer to sell it? Once again you act as if there is no way to verify that Obama is the same Obama in the birth index.
AnotherBird says:

August 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm AnotherBird(Quote)

Sef:
None of these numbers we are talking about have check characters.If ISBN had been invented prior to 1935 SSNs would probably have an extra character.

With geological information it is quite difficult to verify data. How areas are subdivided differs between various service providers. I have had to force a company to correct my information and with extra-ordinary information.

Birther get wound up over trivial matters. They find a number on the internet and then instantly believe something is suspicious about it. They don’t investigate.
Sef says:

August 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm Sef(Quote)

AnotherBird:
With geological information it is quite difficult to verify data. How areas are subdivided differs between various service providers. I have had to force a company to correct my information and with extra-ordinary information.
Birther get wound up over trivial matters. They find a number on the internet and then instantly believe something is suspicious about it. They don’t investigate.

The purpose of the check character is not to determine if an association to a geographical area is correct, but to determine if there has been a typo in entering the number. It’s similar to a CRC or a parity bit. Credit card numbers have them, too.
Rickey says:

August 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm Rickey(Quote)

nc1:
Your scenario requires not one but TWO typos:
1890 vs. 1888
one digit difference in SS#

1890 v. 1888 is an error, but not necessarily a typographical error. If you had read my entire note carefully, you would see that I stated that LexisNexis reports often include an approximate year of birth, and those approximations are frequently off the mark by several years.

I have a LexisNexis account and work with LexisNexis reports nearly every day. What is your level of experience in such matters? None? I thought so.
Rickey says:

August 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm Rickey(Quote)

Orly has filed her appeal brief in the Barnett case. She has tossed in everything but the kitchen sink – we have Vattel, multiple SSNs, Sankey, Lines, Daniels, the Kenyan Minister of Lands, and allegations that Judge Carter was intimidated by Obama. A new wrinkle: she has submitted “affidavits” from her minions who claim that they saw a suspicious change in Judge Carter’s demeanor.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35752919/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-9th-CIRCUIT-APPEAL-Appellants-Opening-Brief-No-Attachments-Transport-Room
Sean says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:21 pm Sean(Quote)

Rickey: Orly has filed her appeal brief in the Barnett case. She has tossed in everything but the kitchen sink – we have Vattel, multiple SSNs, Sankey, Lines, Daniels, the Kenyan Minister of Lands, and allegations that Judge Carter was intimidated by Obama. A new wrinkle: she has submitted “affidavits” from her minions who claim that they saw a suspicious change in Judge Carter’s demeanor.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35752919/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-9th-CIRCUIT-APPEAL-Appellants-Opening-Brief-No-Attachments-Transport-Room

I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know a lot about briefs. Is it common to include personal opinions and suspicions in a legal brief? The reason I ask is what does she expect the judge to do?
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:24 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Rickey: Orly has filed her appeal brief in the Barnett case. She has tossed in everything but the kitchen sink – we have Vattel, multiple SSNs, Sankey, Lines, Daniels, the Kenyan Minister of Lands, and allegations that Judge Carter was intimidated by Obama. A new wrinkle: she has submitted “affidavits” from her minions who claim that they saw a suspicious change in Judge Carter’s demeanor.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35752919/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-9th-CIRCUIT-APPEAL-Appellants-Opening-Brief-No-Attachments-Transport-Room

How Many Social Security Numbers Do You Have?

Published: Thursday, 12 Aug 2010 | 3:02 PM ET
By: Christina Cheddar Berk
News Editor

So how many Social Security numbers do you have?

That may seem like a ridiculous question, but a recent study found more than 20 million Americans have multiple Social Security numbers associated with their name in commercial records.

The research was conducted by ID Analytics, a San Diego-based company that provides services to both detect identity fraud and to assess consumer identity risk and creditworthiness.

The study also found that rather than serving as a unique identifier, more than 40 million SSNs were associated with multiple people.

“Our research shows that Social Security numbers, contrary to popular perception, do not uniquely identify an individual,” said Stephen Coggeshall, chief technology officer at ID Analytics.

Many of the duplicate numbers were the result of data entry errors as opposed to deliberate falsification, but the fact that these multiple numbers exist shows that it may be difficult for an organization to rely solely on the SSN to verify an individual’s identity.

Telling consumers to be protective of their SSN, while sound advice, may inadvertently reinforce the idea that the SSN is an effective means of identification, according to Tom Oscherwitz, chief privacy officer at ID Analytics.

“Using the SSN as the sole means of identification and verification is a risky proposition,” Oscherwitz said.

The study also found:

More than 100,000 Americans have five or more SSNs associated with their name.
More than 15 percent of SSNs are associated with two or more people.
More than 140,000 SSNs are associated with five or more people.
More than 27,000 SSNs are associated with 10 or more people.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753

E-mail this to the Moldovan surgeon of dental torture and amateur attorney.
jamese777 says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm jamese777(Quote)

Sean: I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know a lot about briefs. Is it common to include personal opinions and suspicions in a legal brief? The reason I ask is what does she expect the judge to do?

The appeal is being heard in a different court with different judges.
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm Majority Will(Quote)

jamese777:
The appeal is being heard in a different court with different judges.

But at this point it can’t be with a straight or without an eye roll.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Rickey: Orly has filed her appeal brief in the Barnett case. She has tossed in everything but the kitchen sink – we have Vattel, multiple SSNs, Sankey, Lines, Daniels, the Kenyan Minister of Lands, and allegations that Judge Carter was intimidated by Obama. A new wrinkle: she has submitted “affidavits” from her minions who claim that they saw a suspicious change in Judge Carter’s demeanor. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35752919/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-9th-CIRCUIT-APPEAL-Appellants-Opening-Brief-No-Attachments-Transport-Room

Did she again include the information about her car being “sabotaged”
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:35 pm Majority Will(Quote)

jamese777:
The appeal is being heard in a different court with different judges.

But at this point it can’t be with a straight face or without an eye roll.

Sanctions just seem to encourage this nut ball.
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:47 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Did she again include the information about her car being “sabotaged”

I didn’t see anything about her car but the usual bad grammar and bad spelling including de Vattel and the whole thing is a steaming pile of crazy with a LOT of very serious accusations towards Judge Carter including this:

“Shortly after Judge Carter completely changed his tune, Taitz came to the court house, brought some pleadings and heard the Marine march playing. Judge Carter, a former Marine was celebrating the Marine Corps day. There was a huge teddy bear sitting in the midst of the hallway, it had a shirt with the Marine insignia, the band was playing, clerk Sidharth Velamoor was there, all the other clerks and employees were there. Everyone was waiting for Judge Carter and the cake. Taitz started choking and trying to gather some strength to hold back tears. The only ones, who were missing, were Marines. The same Marines, whomCarter named cowardsfor standing up for the Constitution of this country, Marines, who sacrificed their carriers, earnings, who risked retaliation were called cowards. Taitz turned around and left, and the Marine March kept playing on and on, on and on…”

They sacrificed their “carriers.” That’s difficult to do.
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 4:54 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Did she again include the information about her car being “sabotaged”

She sent copies to the U.S. attorneys, DOJ (Public Integrity Section), U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the U.N. and several international offices for the Hague.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 12, 2010 at 5:09 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

A couple of days ago, someone asked what can be done about the misguided exploits of Orly Taitz. The following link is to a complaint form that can be filled out and sent to the California Bar.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=W1oAF-Qlxts%3d&tabid=200

This lunatic presents a danger to the President with all of her whacked out, fallacious accusations, and it’s only a matter of time before she and her minions influence some loosely wrapped nutjob to at least attempt an assassination of this president. If you want to stop her, fill out the form and send it to the California Bar association and encourage others who are tired of her loony rhetoric to do the same.
misha says:

August 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm misha(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP: This lunatic presents a danger to the President with all of her whacked out, fallacious accusations, and it’s only a matter of time before she and her minions influence some loosely wrapped nutjob to at least attempt an assassination of this president.

That is EXACTLY what she, Beck and their coterie are trying to do. That’s why she goes to gunshows, and tolerates anti-semites.
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm Majority Will(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP: A couple of days ago, someone asked what can be done about the misguided exploits of Orly Taitz. The following link is to a complaint form that can be filled out and sent to the California Bar.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=W1oAF-Qlxts%3d&tabid=200This lunatic presents a danger to the President with all of her whacked out, fallacious accusations, and it’s only a matter of time before she and her minions influence some loosely wrapped nutjob to at least attempt an assassination of this president. If you want to stop her, fill out the form and send it to the California Bar association and encourage others who are tired of her loony rhetoric to do the same.

The link to Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act are 404 not found, dead links/

Here are the correct links:

http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules.aspx

http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/SelectedLegalAuthority/TheStateBarAct.aspx
Sean says:

August 12, 2010 at 6:17 pm Sean(Quote)

misha:
That is EXACTLY what she, Beck and their coterie are trying to do. That’s why she goes to gunshows, and tolerates anti-semites.

That’s a point I’ve always made. The same people that call the President a Nazi, are same ones that have no problem with the Neo Nazi booth at their local gun show.

Speaking of Beck, we all remember the confused armed woman in New York looking for the FEMA camps.
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

August 12, 2010 at 7:18 pm The Sheriff's A Ni-(Quote)

Majority Will: They sacrificed their “carriers.” That’s difficult to do.

Who knew Admiral Ozawa was a birther!
Majority Will says:

August 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm Majority Will(Quote)

The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Who knew Admiral Ozawa was a birther!

Then again she might have thought that they abruptly switched to Verizon. The horror.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 12, 2010 at 7:58 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

FUTTHESHUCKUP: If you want to stop her, fill out the form and send it to the California Bar association and encourage others who are tired of her loony rhetoric to do the same.

A fairly comprehensive complaint was filed with the California Bar in April of 2009. Along with her sanctions in Georgia went a letter from the federal court to the California Bar. Orly cited questions addressed to her from the Bar in one of her filings.

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=440&sid=98066353dea19687f21ae2f1df6e42d5
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 12, 2010 at 8:04 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Did she again include the information about her car being “sabotaged”

It appears not.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
A fairly comprehensive complaint was filed with the California Bar in April of 2009. Along with her sanctions in Georgia went a letter from the federal court to the California Bar. Orly cited questions addressed to her from the Bar in one of her filings.http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=440&sid=98066353dea19687f21ae2f1df6e42d5

That is complete, Doc; very specific with dates and all too.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Cute Cartoon (Tea Party)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/09/98841_a99036/cartoons-for-the-week-of-8-august.html
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

August 12, 2010 at 11:38 pm FUTTHESHUCKUP(Quote)

Good cartoon. 🙂 If I had drawn it though, I would have had each with one hand hiding a knife behind their backs.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The occasional open thread 2.0

About Dr. Conspiracy

475 Responses to The occasional open thread 2.0

Leave a Reply

Welcome

Conspiracies

Recent Comments

Donate

Recommended books

Quick Reference

Archives

Quick Reference