So what’s on YOUR mind?
Welcome
Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your destination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argument with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Use the Search box below or check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 250,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment visit the Open Thread.
Also check out The debunker's guide to Obama conspiracy theoriesConspiracies
Recent Comments
View the site's Comment feed.Donate
Recommended books
- 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America's Moral Integrity
- A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America
- Arpaio De Facto Lawman
- Barack Obama: The Story
- Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World
- Bullspotting: Finding Facts in the Age of Misinformation
- Chasing Phantoms: Reality, Imagination, and Homeland Security Since 9/11
- Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America
- Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture
- Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, The New World Order, and many, many more
- Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
- Is Barack Obama's Birth Certificate a Fraud?
- One Electorate Under God?: A Dialogue on Religion and American Politics (Pew Forum Dialogues on Religion & Public Life)
- Our Friend Barry: Classmates' Recollections of Barack Obama and Punahou School
- Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement
- The Authoritarians
- The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
- The Citizenship Debates: A Reader
- The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870
- The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right
- The Paranoid Style in American Politics
- The Scapegoat
- The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory
- Them: Adventures with Extremists
Quick Reference
- Birther aggregator
- Congressional Research Service report on presidential eligibility
- Donald, You're FIred! – FactCheck.org
- Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ
- Hawaii verification of birth certificate
- Jack Ryan document collection on Scribd
- Made in the U.S.A. – FactCheck.org
- Nordyke twins birth certificate
- Obama Certificate of Live Birth – Gurhrie Photo
- Obama Certificate of Live Birth – Press
- Obama Certificate of Live Birth – White House
- Obama Certification of Live Birth
- Obama presidential library
- Obama White House archive site
- Politifact Birth Certificate articles
- Recent court rulings on presidential eligibility
- The debunker's guide to Obama conspiracy theories
- The Great Mother of all Natural Born Citizenship Quotation Pages
Archives
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- Mastodon
My Other Blogs
I’ve been wondering why we don’t use the precedent argument more when countering birthers. They keep pointing out that he was a dual citizen at birth, and that he made no secret of this fact. Rather than this being evidence that Congress failed in their duty when they certified the Electoral vote, it should be used as further proof that he is a NBC. Having never been faced with an elected President who was an acknowledged dual citizen at birth, and with no Supreme Court decisions to say for sure whether or not such people are NBCs, it is an easy point to make that Congress, by certifying him, confirmed that he was eligible. Even of a case somehow gets heard by any court on the merits, it seems unlikely that the court would reverse Congress’ actions without contradictory precedent.
they couldn’t. even if the SCOTUS declared today that obama was ineligible it’s still cogress’ responsibility for impeachment.
the part that amazes me is that birthers overlook the fact that obama campaigned for 2years and in that time not a single expert on the constitution declared him ineligible.
And yet they still claim that everyone was taught their Vattelist interpretation of the NBC clause in school. Apparently the president’s ineligibility was a secret… that everyone knew. I guess this is what necessitates the frequent birther strawman that obots dismiss the president’s ineligibility (that everyone is supposedly aware of) because it doesn’t matter/there would be riots/etc. –
Hear it straight from Neal Puckett:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/attorney-neal-puckett-call-army.html
Basically, Lakin is toast, but Puckett is very sympathetic toward his client. You can come to your own conclusions, but he really hit on the issue of the alleged failure of Lakin’s chain of command. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that in addition to ineffective counsel at sentencing. He never said that Lakin’s defense was legitimately taken away and that Judge Lind was correct but merely noted that there is no defense. Also, he met Lakin at a political fundraiser.
As if ORYR, an anonymous, amateur blog, is a source of anything other than complete birther derangement and hated driven stupidity. Bad cite.
See THE UGLY list at the bottom of this page.
Will,
The page she linked had video of Mr. Puckett talking (and the usual blather you’d expect – my favorite:
Personally, I expect that Puckett, like any good attorney, is saying what he believes is in the best interest of his client – attorneys don’t tend to be forthcoming with their personal opinions when speaking for their clients…). You might want to take a look at the link before jumping on Charo… (just some friendly advice – you would have been right about something on ORYR 99% of the time but you should still set a good example for the birthers and do your due diligence).
Charo,
Good cite, thanks. 😉
Slart,
That’s not the point. I’m not going to consider a cite from ORYR for any reason anymore than I would a cite from puzo1 or The Post & E-Mail regardless of the accuracy.
It sets a dangerous precedent of temporarily trusting a wolf in a sheep’s clothing.
It’s my opinion and my prerogative.
I’ll find another source.
I wouldn’t ever recommend any of the sites in THE UGLY list to anyone other than to witness birther stupidity firsthand.
In other LTC Birther news:
LTC Lakin to plead not guilty, says counsel
By Christopher Mathews, December 6, 2010
We now have confirmation from LTC Lakin’s counsel, Neal Puckett, that the accused will plead not guilty when his court-martial convenes next week. Mr. Puckett revealed the intended plea in an interview with Denver talk show host Peter Boyles, which can be found on YouTube here. Mr. Puckett offers some other thoughts about the Lakin case that may foreshadow the defense strategy at trial.
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/06/ltc-lakin-to-plead-not-guilty-says-counsel/
I should have tried to find the link elsewhere. I have done that a couple of times, linking to something just for the information, but failing to foresee the controversy that would ensue over the source of the information. I don’t read ORYR; I just saw the link somewhere and wanted to hear the interview.
Amended: “I wouldn’t ever recommend any of the sites in THE BAD or THE UGLY list (or any other fright wing, birther site for that matter) to anyone other than to witness birther stupidity firsthand.
Will,
Your position on ORYR is fine, but Charo posted a link with embedded video of the attorney talking and represented it fairly – she has no obligation to provide you with a link more to your liking. Your post with an alternate link to the information was a much better response that picking on Charo when she didn’t (in my opinion) do anything inappropriate.
First, I’m under no pretense that “charo” owes me anything. I was merely pointing out that citing ORYR is disturbing under any circumstances. But thank you for your approval of my opinion of ORYR.
Second, I wasn’t picking on “charo” as I know “charo” is not thin-skinned as this poster has mentioned of others on occasion. I also have no doubt that “charo” can provide a self defense if it was thought necessary. I was simply offering my opinion on why one shouldn’t cite ORYR.
Third, your gallantry and chivalry above and beyond the call of duty is duly noted. Since this is an open thread, now may be a good time for you to trade recipes or recommend your favorite audiobooks to each other.
Fourth, this isn’t worth further discussion in my opinion. So, have at it.
Why are some people here so concerned about us picking on others? A month ago, I was accused by Daniel of “picking on Canadians” because I brought up the Canadian birth certificate that was signed by Dudley Doright that Berg used to claim that President Obama was born in Canada.
I find it kind of disturbing that, on a recent thread here, some, Arthur for one, expressed their concern that liberals do not fight back against conservatives’ dirty tactics, yet when someone does fight back against them, liberals are the first ones to side with the conservatives against the liberals who are doing just what they complain that liberals don’t do. They complain when we don’t fight back against conservatives, but when we fight back, they complain that we fight back. I just don’t get it.
How about this?
Christmas Carols for the Psychologically Challenged
1) Schizophrenia – Do You Hear What I Hear, the Voices, the Voices?
2) Amnesia – I Don’t Remember If I’ll Be Home for Christmas
3) Narcissistic – Hark the Herald Angels Sing About Me
4) Manic – Deck The Halls and Walls and House and Lawn and Streets and
Stores and Office and Town and Cars and Buses and Trucks and Trees and
Fire Hydrants and………..
5) Multiple Personality Disorder – We Three Queens Disoriented Are
6) Paranoid – Santa Claus Is Coming to Get Us
7) Borderline Personality Disorder – You Better Watch Out, You Better
Not Shout, I’m Gonna Cry, and I’ll Not Tell You Why
8) Full Personality Disorder – Thoughts of Roasting You On an Open Fire
9) Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle
Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle
Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells
10) Agoraphobia – I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day But Wouldn’t Leave
My House
11) Senile Dementia – Walking In a Winter Wonderland Miles from My House
in My Slippers and Robe
12) Oppositional Defiant Disorder – I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus So I
Burned Down the House
13) Social Anxiety Disorder – Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas
While I Sit Here and Hyperventilate
14) Attention Deficit Disorder – We Wish You……Hey Look!! It’s
Snowing!!!
Why did the 8 turn into an icon?
Or this?
To My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best
wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible,
low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter
solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of
the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of
your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion
and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice
religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally
successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated
recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year
2010 , but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of
other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make
America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than
any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere .
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color,
age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.
To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas
The number 8 followed by ) is the text version of the emoticon for “cool smiley” – the eight is the cool sunglasses and the paren is the smile. hence when I put them together, they will be translated to the graphic for the emoticon on this site as follows: 8 + ) = 8)
Similar to how a colon : followed by the right paren ) is the standard smiley 🙂
and the comma followed by right paren is the winking smiley 😉
It looked like I was especially psyched about roasting people.
Charo – BTW,
both of your posts (Christmas Carols for the Psychologically Challenged) and the “Christmas Letter” were ROTFLOL hilarious!!! Thanks! 🙂
ROTFLOL again!!! 😉
If you’re intimating that Puckett is saying that the chain of command should have taken up the birther flag, I think you’re sadly mistaken. What I get out of Puckett’s statement is that the chain of command could have nipped it in the bud by sitting him down and explaining the facts of life to him, instead of allowing him to languish in his delusions and seek the advice of charlatan dog-bite birther lawyers.
I didn’t hint any such thing. Mr. Puckett was vague. I wouldn’t put words in his mouth. He did specifically mention the chain of command.
“He did specifically mention the chain of command.”
Yes he did, and I agree with him in that. Somebody in the chain of comm and should have put the fear of God and country into Lakin, rather than allow him to self-immolate.
I would have, as an officer, for any of my troops. Maybe things were different in the infantry. I’m not sure.
Just trying to lighten things up given my propensity for fire…
I guess it isn’t too nice to put psychological issues in farcical lyrics, though.
Not that I made them up. Okay, I think I have said enough for one day.
LMAO ! ! 8)
Hysterical! Thanks!
I think I have now officially started hallucinating, but I’ll say it anyways… You’re welcome!
You’re welcome
How did two welcomes appear? I must really be losing it.
If memory serves correctly, I believe Lakin *did* bring the issue to the attention of his superiors on several occasions and every single time it was explained to him that there was nothing they could do, no requirement that the president show his BC to the armed forces and that he was CLEARY warned on several occasions and in writing that he HAD to go to his deployment or he would face the consequences.
Therefore, he was clearly and repeatedly warned and willingly took actions that have led to his own court-martial, simply because he didn’t like the answers he was given. No sympathy for him. Lakin brought this on himself and he deserves no leniency for the showboating circus act he has brought to the military.
Birthers are very quick to point out that the Chester A. Arthur scandal was only recently discovered by Leo Donofrio. STOP THE PRESSES!
That’s one hell of a coverup – or maybe people back then just didn’t understand the Constitution as well as the birthers do…
I like it. I’ve stolen it. Too late.
Charo,
My best wishes to you and your family in the waning days before the winter solstice and in the new year beyond. 😉
I was going to write lyrics for “We Wish You……Hey Look!! It’s Snowing!!!” but I got distracted by something shiny…
Yeah, the MSM back then was even more tricky , they buried any discussion of the ‘controversy’ right up on their front pages (IIRC previous discussion of this topic).
Where is everybody?
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/org_chart/directory.html
Probably in preparation for change at the top.
No press release? Everybody out? I know there is usually turnover when an administration changes. To this degree, I don’t know. Losing jobs before Christmas? Maybe someone has information as to when the turnovers usually occur.
Ah, but can you rewrite these to conform with the forthcoming DSM-V?
Let me point to another powerful bit of precedent
In 1862, Charles Evans Hughes was born to an English subject residing in New York. (Actually, neither of his parents had naturalized yet.) He practiced law from 1884 to 1907, with a brief stint to teach law at Columbia. In 1906, after investigating corruption in public utilities and insurance, he was elected governor of New York. In 1908, Taft offered him the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. In 1910, Taft appointed Hughes to the Supreme Court.
In 1916, he resigned from the Supreme Court to run for the Presidency against Woodrow Wilson. He was only narrowly defeated (23 electoral votes and 594,000 popular votes separated the two).
After his defeat, he returned to private life, but interrupted his law practice to be our nation’s Secretary of State. In 1928, he was approached to run for President again.
In 1930, he was appointed to the Supreme Court, again, this time as Chief Justice. (His son had been appointed to be solicitor general the year before.)
So, to recap:
1. 2 non-citizen parents.
2. Taft thought he was enough of a citizen to approach him to be VP.
3. He was so confident of his status that he stepped down from the Supreme Court to run for President.
4. The doubts of Hughes’ citizenship, raised by Breckenridge Long in the legal newspaper, “Chicago Legal News,” were of so little consequence that conservatives attempted to get Hughes to run again in 1928.
5. Despite running for President with what birthers would have us believe is a huge Constitutional misinterpretation, Hughes was appointed again to the Supreme Court!
The inauguration of Governor Abercrombie occurred yesterday so I guess he has his own people in mind for the various positions. None of those gone must have curried any favor.
I’m having some fun looking through historical newspapers.
Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1896, p 8:
At least they had the common sense to know when they didn’t know.
Funny how the western position is based out of xenophobia and its the position many birthers are taking
> Despite running for President with what birthers would have us believe is a huge Constitutional misinterpretation, Hughes was appointed again to the Supreme Court!
Of course. Isn’t it settled that birthers have no problem with a white Charles Evans Hughes, only with a black Barack Hussein Obama or a Hispanic Fidel Ahmed Pinochet or an Asian Mao Jong-Il Rahman?
It looks like NBC was discussed with respect to Governor McClellan (born in Saxony, England) in 1904 and 1908. Charles Frederick Crisp around 1904 (Sheffield England). Franklin K. Lane in 1916 (speculating about the 1920 election – born around Prince Edward Island in Canada). No newspaper talked about Charles Evans Hughes’ supposed ineligibility, as far as I can tell.
By 1918, the answer was clear and well-understood, as the Kansas City Times wrote in June 14, 1918:
[[Greg: I’m having some fun looking through historical newspapers.
Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1896, p 8]]
This was a reasonable position to take in 1896. Remember, the Supreme Court raised the question in dicta in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1874). But 2 years after this article was written, the Supreme Court resolved the issue for all intents and purposes in Wong Kim Ark (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)). Of course, there are apparently people who have been missing in action for the last 110 years and are still raising the legal question.
Have you seen this one?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=990CE0DC153BE233A25751C1A96F9C946496D6CF&scp=2&sq=%22wong+kim+ark%22&st=p
More birther nonsense…
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/the-meaning-of-offenses-against-the-law-of-nations-very-educational
The meaning of “Offenses against the Law of Nations”
by Jon Roland, Constitution Society
1998
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations”. It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art “law of nations”, and not confuse it with “international law”. They are not the same thing. The phrase “law of nations” is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the “laws”, that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise “international law”. The distinction goes back to Roman Law.
Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1789 included the following general elements, and prosecution of those who might violate them:
(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.
(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.
(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.
(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.
(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one’s territory or are found on the high seas.
And, although it was not yet firmly established with all nations in 1789,
(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.
No subsequent additions to the “law of nations” could have the effect of expanding the delegated powers under the Constitution. Ratification froze those powers at the moment of ratification. Only the amendment procedures provided under the Constitution can add to, subtract from, or modify them.
Some confusion on whether a treaty could confer additional powers on government was introduced by the opinion in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), which held that a migratory bird treaty with Canada enabled the national government to regulate the protection and harvesting of migratory birds within the United States, even though without the treaty the national government would not have the power to do so. This contradicts the ancient Law of Agency whereunder an agent, in this case federal officials, may not acquire new powers from the exercise of a power, but only by delegation from the principal. However, the opinion may also be read to say that it is only state governments that are required by a treaty to exercise their already delegated powers, and that federal courts have appellate jurisdiction over cases of state compliance with federal treaties.
The case law was further muddied by the opinion in the case of United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937), which held that executive agreements are entitled to the same constitutional authority as treaties in the relation between the states and the federal government, and that the supremacy clause makes both treaties and executive agreements supreme over state power as to the subjects covered by them. This decision has given rise to alarm by civil libertarians, because there is no congressional approval required for executive agreements, much less the two-thirds vote of the Senate required for treaties, or the ratification by three-fourths of the states required for constitutional amendments. By this reasoning, the president acting in collusion with any foreign government could effectively eliminate states except as voting districts.
Based on these precedents, then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles promulgated what some call the “Dulles Doctrine” that treaties, executive agreements, and votes in the United Nations, could effectively amend the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government without limit.
However, this misunderstanding about whether the constitution could be amended through the making of treaties was denied in the case of Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):
“This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty” [Reid, at p. 17].
“… when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null.” [Reid, supra, citing Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 238, at p. 267]
“No agreement with a foreign nation (no exec. orders, no Pres. directives, no “accords” etc.) can confer power on Congress or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the constitution” [Reid, supra].
Despite the decision in Reid v. Covert, however, the dominant faction in the federal government continues to maintain the Dulles Doctrine, arguing that Reid only applied to infringements on rights recognized in the Constitution, and did not prevent expansion of federal powers through treaty, even though one of the fundamental rights recognized in the Tenth Amendment was the right not to have government exercise powers not delegated to it.
I was going to take down this analysis in detail, but I think the Southern Poverty Law Center’s biography of Roland tells me all I need to know:
Even more interesting is how the list of “documents” keeps changing…
From GW…
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/hillbuzz-asks-why-doesnt-wikileaks-release-obamas-hidden-records/page/3?replies=63
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/12/03/question-why-cant-wikileaks-release-obamas-many-missing-documents/
Can WikiLeaks find and release:
(1) Obama’s birth certificate clearly showing his current actual name, the race of his father and mother, and his father’s actual name.
(2) Obama’s college transcripts — which are believed to be those of a D and F student who used affirmative action and an exotic pedigree to get Ivy League degrees without having a GPA high enough for any honors societies like Phi Beta Kappa
(3) Obama’s 1980s passport documents explaining how he was able to go to Pakistan with his male lover when US citizens were forbidden from going there
(4) Obama’s 2008 correspondence and quid pro quo deals with South Carolina black leaders pre-Super Tuesday in which he promised Black Reparations in the form of the Pigford Settlement in exchange for black support in the primary…and racial attacks against the Clintons to guarantee Obama the Democrat nomination
(5) A valid explanation for why the Obamas’ law licenses were taken away from them
(6) Documentation pertaining to Obama’s pay-to-play $10,000 bribe from Yesse Yehudah in Chicago back in 1998, where he got Yehudah a $75,000 grant from the state in exchange for Yehudah giving him $10,000 as a kickback from that pot
(7) Obama’s connections to the mysterious deaths of gay black men at Trinity United Church of Christ while Jeremiah Wright was the pastor there
(8) A list of anyone — ANYONE — who was friends with Obama at any time in his life
(9) The names of any women — ANY WOMEN — whom Obama dated before marrying Michelle Antoinette
(10) The exact amount of money Michelle Antoinette spends as First Spouse on all of her lavish parties, trips, and other misadventures
Ahhhh, that would be “joachims’ list for which I just awarded him the
“Big Turd Award for the longest list of fact free whiney sh*t in a thread”
The terms of political appointees expire when the term of the person that appointed them expires.
This is standard protocol at all levels of Government. New office holder gets to pick their own term.
Sorry.
New office holders get to pick their own TEAM.
Somebody did some research on the actions of past governors of Hawaii and found that there has not been this much of a shake-up before. I myself did not confirm the research.
Wouldn’t that be interesting 🙂
Well shame on you!
All I know is that newly elected Linda Lingle in Hawaii appointed Dr. Fukino.
You are assuming that decisions have been made. It might simply be a matter of standard procedure that when a new governor comes in, the old political positions are automatically considered “vacant” pending either re-appointment or appointment of new people, and the web site changed accordingly.
In other words, the same people may be at their desks doing the same work, but they are essentially in limbo pending the next step. Don’t assume that a web site is 100% accurate as to actual employment status during a transitional period.
That could be except for Fukino’s position, where an interim director has been named (unless they are sharing the same desk) 🙂
All I want to know is whether they are going to get a new actor to play the HI Gov on Five-O.
Agreed….The list of documents that the birthers are demanding is always growing and changing….Those idiots can never make up their mind….I usually catch them by asking where was info Sarah Palin released since she was running for VP and the job has the same requirements as the President….
I didn’t mean to make a categorical statement about all positions. My point is that the terms of the political appointees expired on a certain date, and it may be that the web site protocol is to remove all names of all political appointees as that time.
In the meantime new appointments are or will be made; possibly some people from the old administration will get re-appointed because they happen to be very good at specialized jobs, but likely there will also be new appointments for most political positions; and at some time in the future the web site will be updated.
My guess is that the updating will come when appointments become official.
I think you’ve confused lack of information on a web site with fact — that is, if there is no name on the web site, there must be nobody there — whereas I see lack of information as simply being part of the vagaries of web site administration. I wouldn’t expect instantaneous posting — it’s not a news site, its just the web site for the agency — so it’s pretty typical to see a lag time of many days to weeks before things are updated on those types of sites.
Charo,
I am a Democrat and a practicing Evangelical. I say “Have a blessed Christmas” not merry because the world is blessed by His birth. Merry, for me has nothing to do with it. I see this kind of lunitic writing from both the left and the right. It is the “let’s put everyone in a box” syndrome. We have two political opposites at war with each other and they are in the process of pulling this country apart. Neither has a corner on morality,civility or common sense. But both possess a good chunk of stupidity. To quote my dad, “Ignorance is inborn and tolerable. Stupidity is learned and is not.”
“None of those gone must have curried any favor.”
In all agencies of the government, local, state, federal, there are the appointed positions and the career positions. The people in appointed positions at the Hawaiian DOH are not likely in limbo. They know they will most likely be replaced when someone new takes office. It has nothing to do with their job performance or currying favor. The guy who wins gets to pick his team. Some might be asked to stay on to help with transition, or continue under the new leader, for example Sec of Defense Gates agreed to stay on in Pres Obama’s cabinet. This is not something new or nefarious where people are being treating unfairly.
Hilarious commentary over at the Post and Fail by the infamous banned commenter here at OCT…
“That exchange of course brought me to the title for this commentary. Just as in the Silver Blaze story when the Scotland Yard detective interjected his comment, it was abundantly clear that in the recent case of Kerchner et al v. Obama et al that the Supreme Court Justices also did nothing. The real question, then, becomes WHY??
If you studied the legal submissions of Attorney Apuzzo in the case, you would see that not only were the sham objections and legal fictions of “standing,” etc. created out of whole cloth by the Justice Department well overcome by the submissions, but the Court even ignored the words of Chief Justice John Marshall (called “The Great Justice” for good reason) when in Cohens v. Virginia (1821) it was concluded in a unanimous decision that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were “absolutely void.”
… and yet the Justices (or at least six of them) took it upon themselves, like Holmes’ dog in the night, to remain silent, and by doing so committed “… treason to the Constitution …” as Marshall mentioned. Even the two Obama-appointed Justices chose to NOT recuse themselves although they had ample financial, political, and professional standing reasons for doing so. Most people would recognize – at the very least – the appearance of partiality or bias by Sotomayor and Kagan as being beholden to the person who appointed them if not their multimillion-dollar financial windfall that such a lifetime appointment entails (say, 35 years at $150,000 per year, or about $5.25 million apiece).
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/12/07/the-curious-incident-of-the-justices-who-did-not-bark/
There is nothing more pathetic than this mindless diatribe by our “flying monkey” friend. He has attacked the honor of 2 SCOTUS justices with nothing but his and the birthers own hatred for the President. Amazing how Obama Derangement syndrome affects people….
From GW…
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/obama-eligibility-case-makes-it-to-california-supreme-court?replies=11
Alan Keyes/Drake/Robinson v. Obama/Biden/Bowen et al. Goes to Calif. Supreme Court: Court Asked to Enforce Constitution on Eligibility
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/keyesdrakerobinson-v-obamabidenbowen-et.html
[full petition embedded below] Via WND; – Court asked to enforce Constitution on eligibility – No ‘other option’ for making sure candidates qualified – By Bob Unruh
The California Supreme Court is being asked to make sure state officials check the eligibility of candidates for president in a case that argues there’s no other procedure to do that and if there is to be a Constitution, its provisions cannot be voided by a vote of the people.
The arguments come in a request for the state’s highest court to hear arguments in a case in which a lower appellate court suggested that a judicial review of a president’s eligibility is a possibility.
That suggestion came in a ruling that affirmed a state district court’s dismissal of a challenge to the procedures under which
California’s electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
The case was pursued on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson. It alleged that both the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state’s electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible.
Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44879826/Keyes-Drake-Robinson-v-Obama-Biden-Bowen-et-al-Petition-for-Review-Calif-Supreme-Court-12-2010
Well now the Obama birth conspiracy has been blown WIDE open! Orioles outfielder Luke Scott has made the determination that President Obama was not born in this country. And of course when Luke Scott speaks, people listen!
http://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/luke_scott_is_no_regular_nut_hes_a_birther_nut_with_a_gun/3753418
Scott is a marginal player who was obviously dropped on his head a couple of times…Plus if he is a Nugent followers, it explains it. Nugent is way out there also….Next thing you know Scott will profess to love Pat Boone…
From Orly’s site:
“the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Major General Vallely calls the department of justice Court Martial system corrupt, calls to relive military judge Denise Lind of her duties as a judge and have her court martialed, ”
So let me get this straight…. no really….
So you purport that the “Court Martial system” is corrupt…….. and so you want to have Lind relieved… and then Court Martialed… by the same system you say is so corrupt…. and somehow this all makes sense to you?
Just how did this moron ever manage to make MGen?
The illness must have happened post retirement.
Probably soon after his son was killed in combat. Vallely is losing it. Sad, really.
I think his son was killed in a training accident in North Carolina, but the loss of a child under any circumstances can have a devastating effect on a parent. So it is especially sad if that is the catalyst for Gen. Vallely’s extreme views.
At CAAFlong great speculation of what will happen with Lakin…
LTC Lakin to plead not guilty, says counsel
By Christopher Mathews, December 6, 2010
We now have confirmation from LTC Lakin’s counsel, Neal Puckett, that the accused will plead not guilty when his court-martial convenes next week. Mr. Puckett revealed the intended plea in an interview with Denver talk show host Peter Boyles, which can be found on YouTube here. Mr. Puckett offers some other thoughts about the Lakin case that may foreshadow the defense strategy at trial.
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/06/ltc-lakin-to-plead-not-guilty-says-counsel/#comment-21547
It is said that you are known by the company you keep. It’s amazing that anyone flirting with birtherism would look at its prominent supporters, like Orly, Luke Scott, Nugent, Manning, Keyes, Boone, etc. and decide that these are the people whose side they would like to stand next to.
from the “Borowitz Report”:
In his latest effort to find common ground with Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama said today that he was willing to agree that he is a Muslim.
Differences over his religious orientation have been a sore point between the President and his Republican foes for the past two years, but in agreeing that he is a Muslim Mr. Obama is sending a clear signal that he is trying to find consensus.
.
“The American people do not want to see us fighting in Washington,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House. “They want to see us working together to improve their lives, and Allah willing, we will.”
.
link to full story
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/12/07/in-latest-compromise-with-gop-obama-agrees-he-is-a-muslim/
Interesting article ….
“One need only look at the extraordinary cast of Black characters who are fully invested in creating dire drama for President Obama.
Number one on the list is a former 2008 presidential candidate himself, arch-conservative Alan Keyes.
”Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear,” Keyes, who lost to Obama in a contentious 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, told Nebraska TV station KHAS-TV two weeks ago. “That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true.”
Then Keyes, who also has at least four failed runs for the White House under his own belt, issued this dire prediction on-camera, ”He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
Keyes, who is party to a lawsuit alleging that President Obama assumed the office illegally because he has not proven to Keyes that he is a natural-born citizen (the state of Hawaii, which has Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate locked away, confirms the president’s citizenship), alleges even further constitutional calamity for the nation.
”I’m not sure he’s even president of the United States,” Keyes, who refuses to address Obama as “president” continued, ”and neither are many of our military people…who are now going to court to ask the question, ‘Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?”
Apparently the TV reporter off-camera openly displayed mocking disbelief of Keyes’ pointed charges, causing the Black conservative to say, “We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don’t stop laughing about it and deal with it, we’re going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war.”
To say that Keyes, who once served in the Reagan Administration, is obsessed with Pres. Obama is an understatement.
On his website, “Loyal to Liberty,” Keyes not only calls Obama a “coward,” “tyrant” and “communist,” but even suggests that the president may “threaten” Keyes’ very life and liberty with counter legal action because of the Black conservative’s efforts to remove him from office.
“To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction,” Keyes writes, later adding, “To tell you the truth, I expected Obama’s ruthlessness, as I expect that it will escalate until his threats extend to liberty and even life itself. Tyrants are like that.”
When Irving Joyner, associate professor of law at North Carolina Central University’s School of Law in Durham, saw Keyes’ KHAS-TV interview online, he couldn’t believe it.
“Alan Keyes is the worst example of radical right-wing politics even as he clothes himself in Black skin,” Prof. Joyner told The Carolinian. “It is certainly tragic that Keyes is able to obtain undeserved and unwarranted press attention by being a lead ”attack dog” for interests and sentiments which are in direct opposition to the best interests of the vast majority of African-Americans.”
Joyner continued, “It also demonstrates how desperate Keyes has become, and the unmitigated gall which he exhibits when he goes to any [length] to obtain some attention and public exposure, especially when it is done at the expense of the most successful African-American political leader in American history…President Obama’s political success and leadership paint a vivid picture of the scope of Keyes’ failures and the pitiful depths to which he has sunk.”
George Curry, veteran journalist and former editor of Emerge Magazine, was blunt.
“People such as Alan Keyes and [conservative commentator] Larry Elders have zero credibility in our community. Therefore, I never think about what they think or if they think at all,” Curry said.
Stella Adams, newly elected First Vice Chair of the NC Democratic Party, agrees.
“As an African-American who fully embraces the agenda that has been set by our President Barack Obama, I am perplexed and dismayed by the remarks of Alan Keyes and others who have made outlandish and very close to seditious statements against our President, she told The Carolinian.
“I find it hard to believe that men like Alan Keyes, Larry Elder and others are sincere in their demagoguery but rather they understand that their outlandish positions will extend their 15 minutes of fame,” Adams continued. “Unfortunately, the media believes that it must put forward the opinions of any Black pundit who speaks in opposition to President Obama regardless of its relevance, I guess it is no different from the coverage that Ann Coulter receives.”
As both Adams and Prof. Joyner indicated, Keyes heads a long list of Black conservatives who have worked overtime trying to claim Obama’s rhetoric head for their mantle.
Black conservative Ken Blackwell, the Republican former Ohio secretary of state who failed in his bid recently to become the new chairman of the Republican National Committee is another who relentlessly branded Obama a “socialist” and questioned his patriotism based on Obama’s “questionable” association with controversial figures like is former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and 60’s Weatherman radical Prof. William Ayers.
“I want to make sure we protect the integrity of our democracy,” Blackwell told conservative commentator Glen Beck last year when asked why he opposed Obama.”
http://www.blackpressusa.com/news/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=National+News&NewsID=18013
Isn’t it ironic that the people most likely to appeal to “our Democracy” and “our Constitution” in their empty political rhetoric, are also the ones who are actively seeking to undermine the democratic process, and abrogate the Constitution?
The most important voluntary thing that every citizen can do is to vote, which Blackwell actively tried to limit.
Professed Constitutional loyalist Joe Miller wasn’t too keen on this franchise thing either when it didn’t work in his favor.
Some people (cough*birthers*cough) may not know that Borowitz is a comedian who writes satire.
Wealthiest .0000001% Hail Tax Deal
Billionaires Praise Obama Move
GENEVA (The Borowitz Report) – President Obama’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich drew rave reviews today from the wealthiest .0000001% of Americans, who pronounced the deal “a total home run.”
“When we first heard about the deal, we were like, this is too good to be true,” said multibillionaire Thurston Howell IV, a spokesman for the richest .0000001%. “But when our butlers read the plan aloud to us during the cocktail hour, we were incredibly stoked.”
The 29 plutocrats who make up the nation’s wealthiest .0000001% were at their annual meeting at Mr. Howell’s villa in Geneva, Switzerland when news of the President’s deal was first released.
“Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were the first to hear about it, and then the news just kind of trickled down, if I may use a favorite phrase of ours,” Mr. Howell said.
“The President deserves credit for recognizing what the wealthiest .0000001% have known for years,” he added. “Our cost of living has soared astronomically, especially when you consider how expensive it’s gotten to control the outcome of elections.”
In response to critics who have said that Mr. Obama’s decision to extend the tax cuts represents a change in his position, Mr. Howell said, “If I may coin a phrase, that’s change I can believe in.”
Elsewhere, to commemorate Pearl Harbor, Republicans attacked someone from Hawaii and won.
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/12/08/wealthiest-0000001-hail-new-tax-deal/
Greta shut down the forum. She got tired of hearing the right wankers emailing her complaining about those whose opinions differ from theirs.
FYI: “Orly’s sanctions lawsuit, Rhodes v MacDonald has been distributed for conference at the Supreme Court for January 7th.
HQ are not going to be happy with this, Gretawire was an excellent tag and bag zone to identify “volunteers” for FEMA camp relocation.. 😎
lmao. indeed it was, bovril. Now we’ll have to try to find ways to get around the software-based moderation to call the idiots names. 🙂
FYI, I’ve found that “ass” is blocked. However, sh*t is not. Haven’t tested the f-word yet.
Can’t post links there either, bovril.
Well in consolation for losing a happy hunting ground I managed to REALLLLLLY annoy Mario the Putz when I posted a little skit over at CAAFLOG about what would happen if he ever got to the SC. Over there I post as Trevor
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/
Justice Alito: Mr Apuzzo, I woul….
Mario: Esquire
Justice Alito: I beg your pardon
Mario: It’s Mr Appuzzo Esquire, I’m a lawyer you know.
Justice Alito: I am fully aware you are a lawyer Mr Apuzzo, you’re here arguing a case.
Mario: It’s important to get the terminology right, I paid good money for the Esq.
Justice Scalia: OK already, we get it, the Esq is given lets move on.
Justice Alito: Thanks Tony, moving on, Mr Apuzzo, your case is one that seeks…..
Mario: I object
Justice Alito: What ! What do you mean you object, I’m trying to describe your case how can you object to that?
Mario: They are here !!!
Justice Scalia: What, what are you talking about, who is here..?
Mario: Them, those two, over there in the black robes
Justice Thomas: We all wear black robes, that’s all I’m saying and it’s not dicta.
Justice Roberts: Sammy, what’s he saying, look can we hurry up, she who must be obeyed has a long Honey-Do list for me for Christmas
Justice Alito: Mr Apuzzo, just WHAT or WHO are you objecting to?
Mario: Those two there, (points wildly)
Justice Alito: From your frenetic semaphore I take it you mean Justices Sotomayer and Kagan
Mario: Yeah, them two…shouldn’t be here
Justice Kagan: I got this Sammy, OY, paisan, what’s your problem with me, ’cause I’m a woman, ’cause I use Jewish words or ’cause I’m from Noo Yawk. Well, spit it out, don’t keep me waiting.
Mario: You didn’t recuse yourselves that’s why AND YOU KNOW WHY !!!
Justice Kagan: No Joisey, I don’t “know why” why don’t you enlighten Sonia, me and the boys
Mario: You were nominated by the Usurper so you’re tainted, begone by the power of Vattel vested in me.
Justice Sotomayer: Vatell…Vattel, what’s he babbbling about…anyone..?
Justice Kennedy: I seem to remember something from ….no not that…is it ..no…Don’t they make childrens toys? Is this a consumer safety case? I thought it was an electoral issue?
Mario: NO Vattel…Vattel he is the most significant contributor to the Constitution and defined Natural Born Citizen, its’ all in my briefs
Justice Ginsburg: I remember, part of a pop quiz back in ‘56 at Harvard, “Who was cited the LEAST in the Federalist Papers but had a minor input on international relation definitions in the Constitution”… no one got it, we couldn’t even agree how his name was spelled or his nationality. Nasty ideas but a creature of his time.
Justice Breyer: Oh no…Johnny, he’s a bloody Birther, what in the name of Beelzebubs left nut are we doing with this. We had this chat over 2 years ago
Justice Kagan: A Birfer…A Joisy Birfer..A Joisy Birfer who things he can tell ME to recuse myself? Sammy, did you set this up?
Justice Alito: I’m sorry, a friend asked if I could have a look, I owed him a favor, what can I say. Maybe when I saw all the clerks sending his brief around as a punk’d email I should have looked a little closer.
Mario: I demand they recuse themselves it’s a plot by Soros.
Justice Scalia: Shut it…Sammy, I get it, I understand but really, Birfoons in the court, we had this out when that Mad Cow Orly was around, no Birfoons except at the Christmas party for light entertainment.
Justice Alito: Sorry all, I’ll make it up for everyone in the Christmas present
Mario: But..
Justice Roberts: Can it “esquire”, frivolous case, inherently valeless, a waste of this courts time, what say you…? Show of hands..OK done
Mario: But my case..it’s a Konstitutional Krisis.!!
Justice Roberts: Can it or the sanctions here will make Orly swoon. Bailiff, escort “esquire” from the courts and if he gives you any trouble….
Mario: (voice receding) Let me FEEEENISH
Hilarious…I guess she got tired of some of the posters there like “Mr. NaturalBorn” and his ilk…I wonder what those idiots will do now to perpetuate their hatred of President Obama….
Bovril:
LOVED IT!
OH Lookit!!! Obots engaged in an intellectual discussion:
FUTTHESHUCKUP: lmao. indeed it was, bovril. Now we’ll have to try to find ways to get around the software-based moderation to call the idiots names. FYI, I’ve found that “ass” is blocked. However, sh*t is not. Haven’t tested the f-word yet.
Hilarious…I guess she got tired of some of the posters there like “Mr. NaturalBorn” and his ilk…I wonder what those idiots will do now to perpetuate their hatred of President Obama….
Hmmm. Maybe Fut, you can figure out how to stinky toot smells over the Internet, too!!! This is all probably a mental workout for you Obots. How to say naughty words on the Internet!!!
Oh well, maybe the rest of the QUESTIONERS (Birthers) will end up at MY forum:
http://squeeky.smfforfree.com/index.php
It is brand new and there are already TWO People registered on it besides me!!! But I think one of them is a Obot named Moe Bott.
Anyway, Black Lion, Fut, and Bovilexia, don’t let me stop you from your brainy pursuits.
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And there has been no call for a response, meaning that her petition has been dead filed and the denial of cert will be announced on January 10.
Of course, Orly doesn’t realize this yet because she doesn’t understand how SCOTUS works.
wow a whole two people. So how many actual people registered there? We’re not talking about sock puppets you made to make you feel good about yourself.
Yes!!! And I’m telling on all of you for trying to do dirty words at gretawire!!!
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Don’t feed the troll, and it will go away again”
.
it’s evident that she feeds herself (i.e. a self troller)
Ah, Electra the Freak has returned, we now wait with bated breath for her to return to her newly vomitted up meme that all Obot’s are in fact Nazi’s.
Totally off topic but I read this today and was astounded by the genius of Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/07/thedc-investigation-what-i-was-able-to-buy-with-my-food-stamps/#ixzz17Xt0sN00
Apparently they found out you could use food stamps to buy food. Anyway the audacity of these BS “investigations” so a college kid lies about his income, gets food stamps and then blows it in one day. So because of that we should do away with the food stamp program? Is that their logic?
Tucker Carlson is a tool and so is the writer of the article. He reminds me of a low rent James O’Keefe. In regards to the article, a poster at the site summed it up best…
This “investigative report” is worthy of the finest high-school or college newspaper.
A couple comments…
1. As many readers point out, your frivolous use of food stamps is probably not the same as someone trying to feed their family. Commenters’ anecdotal evidence to the contrary of this statement doesn’t count either, because let’s face it, if you’re saying you’ve seen the young bucks buying t-bones with the food stamps, you’re lying.
2. “The loot filled two shopping bags, but the cashier didn’t flinch. He seemed like he’d seen it before.” Perhaps you could enlighten us — to your knowledge, is it part of the cashier’s responsibility to ensure compliance with what you think the law should be? Also, your observation that “he seemed like he’d seen it before” wants the reader to believe that it must be SO WIDESPREAD that the poor cashier doesn’t even GET OUTRAGED anymore at the SHOCK of seeing people abuse food stamps. Here’s a more plausible observation: maybe the cashier didn’t give a sh*t. See how unreliable speculation is?
3. To the brain surgeons posting stuff like “I can’t believe they’re doing this with MY MONEY”: I always love it when y’all get all hot and bothered about that 1/100th of a cent (or whatever miniscule amount it is) that you pay as an individual into the food stamp program and then act all pissy that you don’t have veto power over food stamp recipients’ purchasing decisions. Such is the price of representative democracy, and if you don’t like it, I hear there’s lots of factory job openings in the Northern Mariana Islands.
4. For the record, the trend seems to be towards restrictions of the kinds of food purchases one can make with food stamps. As a previous commenter pointed out, Colorado already does this, and Bloomberg was recently in the news asking for a ban on soft drink purchases with food stamps: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nyc-food-stamp-users-soda/story?id=11825037 Not that it matters, I get the feeling that most of the anti-food-stampers won’t be happy until the only “free” food one is able to get from the government is moldy bread and dirty water.
Bovilexia:
I will do some more Nazi German stuff at the new forum, because that is exactly what you are when you say soldiers should obey orders no matter what!!!
What your problem is, is that the shoe hurts!!!
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I might add, the Bloomberg proposal was greeted with utter outrage by the RWNJ’s as gubmint interference in peoples right to eat what they want.
This usually quickly spiralled into conspiracy theories about food additives, vaccines, “chem-trails” and vicious nastiness about the First Ladies involvement in trying to get wholesome food into childrens meals…..
I also remember “culling” the population, NWO, Soros and LIEberal DEMONrats were usually thrown in.
WTF??? Where did he say that? I think you are just imagining things or making up interpretations that don’t fit reality.
Huh??? Where did he say that? I think you are just imagining things or making up interpretations that don’t fit reality.
That you can’t tell the difference between wondering whether Obama is a real, natural-born citizen, and an order to gas Jews, says more about you than about Obama.
Lakin: “Hmm. My orders are to deploy to Afghanistan. That’s okay, but they come from someone (indirectly, if you follow the chain of command up to the top, and then squint so you can’t see Congressional involvement) who might be ineligible for the job he’s doing. I won’t follow it!”
Hans: “Hmm. My orders are to murder 1,000 Jews. That doesn’t seem right, but I’ll follow it anyway.”
You really can’t tell the difference between these two things, Squeeky? Maybe if you removed your head from the sand (or wherever it is you’ve placed it).
You’re changing your party registration to the nazis? We figured as much
She just wants to be like her hero, Charles Manson….remember he had a fascination with the Nazis, even going as far as to carve a swastika on his forehead….So Squeeky’s Nazi comparisons are just her way to give support to what she really believes. She also thinks that anyone that obey’s an order from their superiors without questioning it, like every person right now in the military except for Lakin, are Nazi’s because they are not committing treason like Lakin is….
I call Godwin’s Law on Squeeky!!!!
Nazis murdered my family. You are making fun of the decimation of my family and millions of Jewish people.
For that reason alone you should be permanently banned as a troll with nothing but despicable hatred and puerile delusions as your excuse for discourse.
You are a pathetic and vile birther. Perhaps you need to experience a few hours in a packed train car with panicked and frightened men, women and children on their way to certain death as my relatives did.
You are a disgusting human worthy of derision.
Unfortunately for Electra the Freaky, she persists in failing to differentiate between
LEGAL orders
ILLEGAL orders
And how one set you follow or else and the others you CAN question at your own risk.
Illegal orders
“Soldier, go and shoot that bunch of unarmed civilians over their, their aspect offends me”
Legal orders
“Soldier, take that position and shoot at the enemy combatants”
Illegal order
“Lakin, go and experiment on those prisoners, use your dullest scalpels”
Legal Order
“Lakin, as your commanding officer I am orderimg you to deploy to yout next duty station”
My grandmother’s brothers and sisters are buried in a mass grave near the Auschwitz death camp. They were gassed to death by Nazis.
Should I lighten up? Have your immediate family members been tortured and murdered?
When Mario Apuzzo says I use too many Jewish words I remember that anyone can be an evil fool.
No i think her problem is telling the difference between reality and the land of make believe.
Will now that’s not fair I’m sure her family have been tortured by having to put up with her
So Squeeky essentially says that
(a) if the USA were under attack right now, all soldiers would be obliged to surrender since an order to fight back, if coming (indirectly) from President Obama, would be illegal and, furthermore,
(b) any soldier obeying such an order to fight an attacking enemy force, if coming (indirectly) from President Obama, is no better than the Nazi goons who worked in Auschwitz.
My brain can’t find the words for a proper opinion on that reasoning…
Squeeky is a surrender monkey is what she’s saying
Basically yes. She won’t admit it and will ignore the question, but she was the one that originated the insane nazi comparisons when I pointed out to her that every other soldier in the Army is following orders without questioning them like Lakin….
This idiot is neither a she or a birther.
That surprises you?
Remember she is the same person who claims the President’s Birth Certificate is invalid, unless the President himself drives out to her house and presents it to her personally.
I know that in the past (1980s) at the US Military Academy there were situations where cadets would be drilled explicitly on illegal orders. Basically, from time to time without warning you would be given an order that would not be lawful to carry out, the test being that the cadet should recognize this and act accordingly.
Do they not drill this way any more? My information comes from a friend who had gone to the military academy, and that detail about being drilled on questioning illegal orders really stuck with me, as did the very lucid descriptions about the training they give you for being taken hostage.
My brain can! STUPID! Because what you are saying is just out of nowhere!
Matters of conscience for people is a individual thing for them. For example, some soldiers who are drafted don’t believe in killing people, even commies, so the Army lets them be medics where they can save lives. I think even some people who don’t believe in killing people don’t have to get drafted when there is a draft.
Why oh why do you Obots just invent stuff and then just march right behind each other like lemmings right off the Cliffs of Sanity???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
(OH plus, now I have like 14 members!!!)
I laughed a lot. If he had to carry that experiment for a month, he would starve.
You’re a despicable pig, GFY.
Several things wrong with this. First off they let them be medics based on skill not on them not wanting to kill people. Second lemmings don’t march off cliffs this was a disney invention. Have you ever seen a real lemming? Also I notice you didn’t address what people said to you.
Majority Will:
Decide what kind of country you want to live in:
a) A country where people can question things.
b) A country where people just do what they are told without question
Very simple. Col. Lakin is questioning stuff, and whether you agree with his questions or not, you should at least respect him for questioning. Unless you like choice b).
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
There’s just one problem with that. When Lakin joined the military he signed an agreement to follow the rules and regulations of the military. This includes following all facially valid orders including deployment orders. He broke his side of the contract. He was allowed to question and when several of his superiors explained that what he was doing wasn’t valid that should have been the end of it. Lakin wanted to push it further, he wanted the court martial.
It’s not whether or not Lakin questioned anything, it’s his actions (or lack thereof) when he didn’t like the answers he got from his superiors.
Dear Electra the Freak
Until you serve in the military or
grasp the concept of being in service or
grasp the concept of being under orders or
grasp the concept of illegal v legal orders or
grasp the concept of a chain of command
Until then your opinions aren’t worth the cack hanging off a monkeys ass
Now take yourself, your daddy issues, your narcissistic demands for attention, your stupidity, ignorance and desperation and piss off.
I think I covered everything folks, anyone care to add anything before we actively ostracise The Freak
I wonder if freaky has ever held a job. Does she call her boss anazi when he tells her to do something
Screw you, assmunch. You’re a vile troll who glorifies Nazis. You made this personal.
Let’s rock.
Sef, Squeeky will continue to ignore the facts of the case because she wants to continue to play the “concern troll” and ignore the fact that she compared the US Military and the fact that you are required to obey orders to Nazi Germany. She cannot understand that the military is not the civillian world. And no matter how many times she is reminded of that fact, she pretends not to know that. In the military you are taught to follow orders, but you are also taught to recognize what is a lawful order and what is not. Lakin was told to deploy with his unit. He decided to disobey that order. Please enlighten us on how not deploying with your unit is an unlawful order? And then explain to us the rest of his unit, who obeyed the order to deploy, what about them? Your comparisons make no sense because he was allowed to question the order and was told that they were valid. So how do you explain that fact? Squeeky, give up on this one. It makes you look like a nazi loving traitor….
Dr Ken Noisewater:
Go here, and lookit at 1-5c.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf
I can’t cut and paste it, but there is “non combatant stuff” you can do, which is being a medic!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Majority Will
I am not glorifying Nazis and you know it! This is just a argument you can make so you don’t have to deal with the real argument which is embarrassing to you. That you have been acting like Nazis when you get all over Col. Lakin not because you disagree with his interpretation, but the fact that he is DARING to question something.
You went out on that limb, and I whacked it off behind you, and now you are just SPINNING LIKE A TOP trying to distract the argument.
But I have had Debate and I will not fall for that kind of silliness!
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Typical stupidity from The Freak when she posts a link to a document regarding CO status for Selective Service Inductees, NOT serving soldiers.
Relevance, bugger all as usual
Black Lion:
You said:”In the military you are taught to follow orders, but you are also taught to recognize what is a lawful order and what is not. ”
Soooo, Lakin is questioning what is a lawful order and what is not. Oh GEE WHIZ, he might have made a legal mistake. But if he did, then he will pay a price for it. That is pretty simple.
But you Obots are so high and mighty that everybody who disagrees with you is just TOTALLY STUPID, that you have to go too far. Lakin is NOT just somebody who made a legal boo-boo, OH NO, he is a traitor etc. etc. etc. for just questioning his orders, and there you go just making post after post about somebody who might be wrong as a legal thing, but that is not enough for you, You Obots have to trash him personally, too.
It is you Obots who are VILE!!! You Obots have just gone crazy over this stuff. Like I have said before, I almost feel sorry for Obama who has you on his side.
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I challenge military members to demand a birth certificate from their superiors before they deploy. I’ve served in the Armed Forces. It just isn’t done.
Typical stupidity from The Freak again…
You get to question, at your own risk, ILLEGAL orders, not LEGAL orders.
Additionally and AGAIN you brain dead little idiot, Lakin is NOT beimg treated as a traitor, just an ignorant deadbeat who doesn’t want to follow LEGAL orders.
Lakin was told on at least 3 occassions that his whining was bullshit, had no basis in law and all his orders were legal.
I note you conveniently neglect to mention that the only time Lakin suddenly had this little epiphany on orders from the President was AFTER he was told he would be being deployed to Afghanistan.
Coincidental…..?
Well, Birfoons like you don’t believe in coincidence, it’s all part of some nefarious plan.
Lakin is not someone who mistakenly walked out of a store with a piece of candy in his pocket w/o paying for it. His actions have serious consequences, not just for him & his family, but his unit, the person who had to replace him, that person’s family, etc., etc.
Sef:
True. And Col. Lakin will have to go to court and see what happens, which is probably that he is going to jail. But here is what bothers me about you Obots. It is one thing to think that Col. Lakin made a really bad choice, and another thing to just jump all over him as a person, and call him “Traitor” and “Chicken” and “Un-Patriotic” and stuff like that.
Because when you do that, you are really attacking the right a person has to question stuff and authority which is like Nazi Germans believed. That you should just do what you are told without question.
Sooo, to me you could think Col. Lakin was pretty dumb as a legal thingy, and yet still respect him for at least standing up for what he believes, which is whatever, that Obama should prove he is legal or something.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You’re glorifying the nazis. You’re giving them authority over the US Military by trying to compare the two when there is no comparison. What is embarrassing is that people like you walk around this world without a brain and its a complete scientific miracle. It is unpatriotic that he randomly questions orders that have nothing to do with the president because he is ordered to deploy.
But it’s not to Lakin that President Obama has to prove a G-D thing. That chore is given to Congress.
The problem is Lakin hasn’t accepted that mistake that he made and is instead still trying to fight it. There’s no way he got to being a Lt Col without knowing the difference between a lawful and unlawful order. You would basically be admitting that Lakin is as dumb as you are. Sorry I have little respect for anyone who sends others to fight in his stead, who didn’t bother caring about what his wife would think about him being drummed out without pension. He had little regard for his own family and instead made this about his own ego
There is a lady from Berkeley, California on Megyn Kelly right now, who says that Pvt. Bradley Manning is a hero for telling secrets to wikileak.
But, he is in Army Jail right now. He has done what he thinks is right. I bet a lot of you think that Manning is a hero, and Lakin isn’t.
OH, There is nothing so blind as a Obot that won’t see things!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yeah because we all know how much of a mindreader you are freaky. Manning is going to get in trouble and rightfully so.
Again documented demonstration by The Freak that it should not be allowed to have access to anything sharper than PlayDoh
Precisely what has one to do with the other, other than they are both in the military.
It is precisely the same style of foul conflation as yours of the US military as Nazi’s for following orders.
In general a rational mind would grasp the fundamental idea that when you’ve dug a hole so deep for yourself that you hit the water table, it would be sane to stop digging.
Actually, no I do not believe that Manning is a hero. I believe that he was a guy trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. Manning did not leak the information for any paticular rhyme or reason other than to just leak the information, just as Wikileaks didn’t really have any rhyme or reason to publish the information. Manning also, by leaking the information, made it significantly harder for us to do diplomacy and significantly harder for us to get help under the table from our allies such as Pakistan, who need some cover to actually help us and pass us information under the table.
For instance, one the the diplomatic cables it basically said that we’d provide cover for Pakistan going after these people. We’d publicly say that they were our bombs, rather than have the blowback fall on Pakistan who still has to deal with factions within their government. We did it so that Pakistan can work with us in the future. With this leak, will Pakistan truly trust us to keep their involvement in an operation quiet? And if they don’t trust us, will they give us the support we request next time? Will they allow us to go after terrorists hiding in Pakistan next time, if they do not trust us to keep their involvement not public?
I don’t consider Manning a hero. I actually think he made it significantly harder for us to do diplomacy and to win the war on terror.
Squeeky,
In order for a order to be unlawful, it has to be on it’s face, invalid. It basically has to order you to commit a war crime, in order for the order to be invalid. If the order was truly invalid, it wouldn’t matter who ordered it. It wouldn’t matter whether or not Obama was ineligible to be President. It would basically be something akin to, “Here. Take these 50 prisoners of war, line them up, and shoot them.”
The fact that Lakin acknowledges that his order was valid if Obama was eligible to be President basically is Lakin admitting that his order was facially valid.
I don’t understand how you draw such ludicrous conclusions.
For one, the two cases don’t have anything to do with each other – other than involving two different military personnel who each violated clear rules and orders and will be properly tried and punished for their actions.
So who cares what this idiot lady from Berkeley thinks.
More importantly, what Manning did is a clear violation of his duties and abuse of his access to government documents. He committed a very clear crime and deserves a harsh penalty for it. I have no doubt that he will be properly tried and punished for his actions.
Lakin’s personal beliefs and opinions don’t entitle him to violate orders or miss a deployment. One has nothing to do with the other. Those are clear violations and he has no excuse for his actions. He too deserves a harsh penalty for his foolishness and he only has himself to blame.
G:
You and the Obots keep saying legal stuff, and that is fine. Col. Lakin will go to court, and probably lose. But you are missing the point. You Obots are going WAY BEYOND the simple legal stuff into personal attackes on somebody who has been in the Army for 18 years, and has been to Afghanistan all because he dares question the Almighty Obama where he was born???
You call Col. Lakin all the bad names because he is QUESTIONING his orders, when you should be respecting him for questioning stuff, UNLESS YOU ARE SECRETLY A NAZI GERMAN who just thinks everybody should obey without question!!!
OH, you get so upset when the Tea Party person PLAY-ACTED a Nazi German, and dressed up like one, but OH you sure don’t mind acting like Nazi Germans for real!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, you should really Google “Eddie Slovik”.
There are plenty of people that have given the same or more service to our country. That doesn’t excuse his actions. If he doesn’t want to deploy, resign. The Military isn’t going to entertain Lakin’s delusions.
Lakin is a fool.
Things you don’t seem to understand qualify as “legal stuff” to you. No Lakin seemed perfectly alright with Obama being president and collecting his paychecks up until he refused to deploy. If he thought he was right he would have refused pay, not followed any orders after January 20th 2009. This just means Lakin picks and chooses what he wants to question. No freaky you are overtly a “nazi german”.
This SqueekyFromm person seems to be getting to a lot of us. Remember, this is a troll. He or she could be an alQeada operative or a 12 year girl doing this instead of cutting her wrists in order to get emotional responses. We just don’t know.
We do know that the more you respond, the more outrageous SF gets. We also know that this person has limited education, no rhetorical skills, has never been in the service, and seems to have an affinity for mass murderers if the handle is any indication.
I suggest moving on to more adult trolls.
Vote for ostracising and shunning..?
No further responses to The Freak from me, may I suggest the most appropos statement is
Never wrestle with a pig-you both get dirty but only the pig likes it
mikeyes:
I am getting to people because it is just the TRUTH that I am saying. And don’t PATRONIZE me. The people here have not yet addressed my arguments about personalizing the attacks on poor Col. Lakin beyond just legal opinions.
You haven’t either. It is easy to just say a person is dumb or whatever, but smart people ARTICULATE their idea, not just say it and sit around while other people agree.
And if you want to see some “12 year old” people, just scrolly back up this thread and read:
” FUTTHESHUCKUP: lmao. indeed it was, bovril. Now we’ll have to try to find ways to get around the software-based moderation to call the idiots names. FYI, I’ve found that “ass” is blocked. However, sh*t is not. Haven’t tested the f-word yet.
Hilarious…I guess she got tired of some of the posters there like “Mr. NaturalBorn” and his ilk…I wonder what those idiots will do now to perpetuate their hatred of President Obama….”
Hmmmm. I bet you suddenly go blank over this, huh???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Again, can you not see the difference between these two things:
1. Order from Obama: Go to Afghanistan
2. Order from Hitler: Murder Jews.
I can tell the difference, Squeeky, and I expect my military to follow the first one, regardless of who is President, and disobey the second one, regardless of who gives it. I will condemn anyone who disobeys the first, and condemn anyone who follows the second. I will laud anyone who disobeys the second, and honor those who follow the first.
Our military is a military, not a debate society. If Lakin wanted to question the legitimacy of Obama, he could start a debate society. He cannot disobey orders. Well, he can, and face the consequences.
Enough of the histrionics already. Have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law? As soon as someone starts making ludicrous Nazi comparisons, the conversation is pretty much over. You might be having your little tit-for-tat naming calling fight with others here, where you go back & forth calling each other Nazi…but I think that’s just stupid and immature.
I’ve not made such statements, so I’m not going to pay attention to your puerile taunts, because they have no more meaning than some three year old calling another one a “poopy-head” on the payground. Grow up already, Girl Reporter. If others here are being similarly foolish in their replies to you…than what does that say about you that you so easily stoop to doing the exact same thing you don’t like others doing to you. Just makes you an immature hypocrite.
Back to the actual topic. You seem to have lots of trouble distinguishing what people criticize about Lakin and why.
Do many of us here think he’s deluded and foolish for holding birther beliefs – absolutely. We consider those to be deluded and foolish notions with no basis in evidence nor reality. We are fully entitled to express that opinion.
But that is not really why Lakin has been criticized with harsher terms than that. The military has a term for people that don’t show up for a deployment – which results in someone else having to suddenly uproot their life to take that person’s place in the field. It is called a “Blue Falcon” within the military. Yes, it is a strong and harsh term of derision – but one that is earned because basically the person who refuses deployment has violated the tenets of what they are supposed to represent in the military and screwed over somebody else as well their unit by their actions.
The military rules can be quite harsh and strict – as they should be – because discipline and the ability to promptly follow orders is essential to functioning properly as a cohesive unit. History is full of cases where people who have refused legitimate and direct orders have been severely punished or considered traitors, including execution.
So spare us the sanctimoniousness and concern trolling on Lakin’s behalf. Harsh views and punishments against someone who disobeys orders like he did is fairly standard. His personal beliefs or reasons don’t come into the picture. His actions are what he is being judged on and held to account on. Political motivations are explicitly excluded from conscientious objector status, so don’t try to pull that irrelevant canard again either.
“Hilarious…I guess she got tired of some of the posters there like “Mr. NaturalBorn” and his ilk…I wonder what those idiots will do now to perpetuate their hatred of President Obama….”
That was my comment. I will admit it. So what? When a poster cuts and pastes comments regarding someone being an half breed and a muslim, then that person deserves ridicule. And it was all about hatred of the President for no legitimate reason. And regarding calling Lakin names, what about it? Ask anyone that served what they think of a person that deserted his unit by refusing to deploy? I believe the term “blue falcon” comes to mind. You can contnue to think that somehow you “got over” on the posters here. That is your perrogative. However you neglect to realize that Lakin made the choice to commit a seditious act. Look up what the term sedition means. He refused an order, deserted his unit, the Army, and his country. If that is not a traitor, then you and I have different definitions.
Lakin doesn’t have a right to question the legitimacy of the president, nutjob, and neither do you. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT CONGRESS IS THE ONE ENTITY THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT AND NO ONE ELSE.
She will ignore that astute observation because it doesn’t fit in with her narcissistic world view, dunstvangeet
Black Lion:
He didn’t “desert”. He just failed to show up, AFTER questioning the order, and everybody knew he wasn’t going to show up because he already had a lawyer for him to not show up!
Sooo, if Col. Lakin is in LEGAL trouble, I understand that. What is the BIG DEAL??? He will go to court, and he will pay the price, which is probably jail. END OF STORY.
BUT, you Obots have to take it further, which none of you have bothered to address yet, to where you call him all kinds of names for doing something as a matter of conscience. Which has nothing to do with the legal stuff. Because even if you think he is stupid legally, you should still be able to respect his courage in doing what he thinks is right,
Sooo, I call you names too, like Nazi Germans, for not understanding this and your little Obot panties all get in a wad. I guess you can dish it out, but you just can not take it!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Lakin will be found guilty next week of disobeying a legitimate order, and Squeeky the Clown and the rest of the birther buffoonsâ„¢ will be wrong again.
He should just plead insanity because he’s just another nutjob birther who bought into all the birther buffoonâ„¢ lies and propaganda. There’s the connection between calling him names and his “legal troubles.”
I guess the wrist cutting thing must have struck a chord.
(no pun intended.)
Poor Fut:
I understand the legal stuff. I am not TOTALLY STUPID!!! And once again, how many FEWER Birthers will there be when Col. Lakin goes to jail???
I can just see you at the Little Big Horn Battle:
Fut: General Custer, I fully agree with your strategy today! These Indian Buffoons are sooo ILLOGICAL!!! Those Indians are soooo stupid and we are soooo smart!!!We will surely win!!!
But the really bad part is, even after there are 90 arrows stuck in you, and somebody is hanging your scalp on his belt, you will still believe the same way!!!
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Its not a matter of conscience he disobeyed a valid order. He was told by his chain of command it was a valid order and he disobeyed it anyway. He consulted several lawyers who all told him it was a valid order. Then he went to a dog bite lawyer who said he could challenge it because of Obama’s eligibility. The dog bite lawyer was wrong and has been dropped from the case. Where was Lakin’s conscience when someone else got sent in his stead? Where was his conscience when his family will likely be affected?
That wasn’t courage otherwise he would have done it from day one and not after he was ordered to deploy. We can take your false attacks Freaky we’re not the ones with low self esteem. Everywhere you go you feel the need to try to validate yourself.
Poor Squeeky. She never got much past the 2nd grade. She got an A+ in mud pie making, but then she ate them
Squeeky the Clown is so smart, she even reads “Edward (sic) Allan Poe.” lmao
Hindsight is 20/20. Custer didn’t know he was going to be outnumbered. Anyone who deserted back then would have been shot on the spot. Custer and his army thought he was going to gather up small gatherings of the remaining free native americans. He did not anticipate that all the tribes would unite at little big horn. Custer had only around 500 under his command while the native americans, depending on the observer had about 3500 men making Custer outnumbered 7 to 1
Also Squeeky I find it funny that you know so little about history. You do know the native Americans had guns by that time right?
Dr Bob Ross:
There was just a movie on about it last night called Sitting Bull on the THIS Channel, and all the Indians had bows and arrows and spears. Guns are just details, because the Indians in the movie killed them all anyway except the Army guy who showed Sitting Bull and the Indians how to escape and was about to get shot until his girl friend showed up with Sitting Bull at the fort and President Grant pardoned him.
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The indians were picking guns up from the people they killed and returning fire back on the troops. As the battle went on more and more gunfire was being shot back at the army. What was the “Army Guy’s” name?
Squeeky the Clown is exposing more of her ignorance. She thinks she can become a history expert by watching a movie and a psychologist by reading Wikipedia. lmao.
The movie thingy says his name was Major Robert “Bob” Parrish in the movie. It was the actor Dale Robertson who played him.
Sooo, I guess he was a “Bob” just like you!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Please someone explain to Squeeky that there is no real difference between deserting your unit and not showing up for deployment….Technically you are not there to be with your fellow soldiers, and that is the problem. And he is called names because he BETRAYED HIS OATH, HIS UNIT, THE ARMY, AND HIS COUNTRY. I am not going to respect anyone that pisses in the face of every other brave soldier that is following orders right now. Basically you are saying to us that you don’t respect the soldiers right now obeying orders and deploying with their units and that these brave men and women don’t have any courage because unlike Lakin they are doing what they are told. Because in defending Lakin, you are spitting in the face of every soldier that has ever followed orders and deployed when they had to. It is amazing how much you hate your country that you are questioning the courage of our soldiers and implying that they lack courage. And that disgusting. But not surprising since you have chosen to honor a criminal like Charles Manson. You have shown us how little respect you have for America….
You do know that Major Parrish was a character created for the movie right? And that movie was from 1954 made during a time where historical movies were filled with major distortions.
These are officers of the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn:
Commanding Officer: Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer killed
Maj. Marcus Reno
Adjutant: 1st Lt. William W. Cooke killed
Assistant Surgeon George Edwin Lord, killed
Acting Assistant Surgeon James Madison DeWolf, killed
Acting Assistant Surgeon Henry Rinaldo Porter
Chief of Scouts: 2nd Lt. Charles Varnum (detached from A Company) wounded
2nd in command of Scouts: 2nd Lt. Luther Hare (detached from K Company)
Pack Train commander: 1st Lt. Edward Gustave Mathey (detached from M Company)
A Company: Capt. Myles Moylan, 1st Lt. Charles DeRudio[103]
B Company: Capt. Thomas McDougall, 2nd Lt. Benjamin Hodgson killed
C Company: Capt. Thomas Custer killed, 2nd Lt. Henry Moore Harrington killed
D Company: Capt. Thomas Weir, 2nd Lt. Winfield Edgerly * E Company: 1st Lt. Algernon Smith killed, 2nd Lt. James G. Sturgis killed[104]
F Company: Capt. George Yates killed, 2nd Lt. William Reily killed
G Company: 1st Lt. Donald McIntosh killed, 2nd Lt. George Wallace
H Company: Capt. Frederick Benteen, 1st Lt. Francis Gibson
I Company: Capt. Myles Keogh killed, 1st Lt. James Porter killed
K Company: 1st Lt. Edward Settle Godfrey
L Company: 1st Lt. James Calhoun killed, 2nd Lt. John J. Crittenden[105] killed
M Company: Capt. Thomas French
Do you see a Major Bob Parrish in there?
Dr. Bob Ross:
They probably had to change his name to protect people or something. It is just a movie after all, so don’t hyper-ventilate or anything. The point isn’t to do a analysis of the whole war, just to point out how Poor Fut is missing the point, too.
Plus, to Black Lion:
As I said before, and you CONVENIENTLY overlooked, choice about conscience things are INDIVIDUAL choices so I don’t care if the other soldiers believe Obama. That is their personal business.
Soooo, your little trick to try to make me say something else, that you put in my mouth in the first place, just isn’t going to work!
You keep forgetting that I have been in Debate, and can just see right through your little feeble attempts to distract from reality!!!
OH, I bet that just makes you sooo mad!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You really are reaching. The character was made up. It was a movie not a documentary. Fut hasn’t missed a point. You are just as bad a historian as you are a psychologist. Once again freaky if it was about Conscience he would have stopped doing everything the moment Obama became president. He would have refused to collect Paychecks. It’s obvious he didn’t at this point. If it was about conscience he wouldn’t have allowed someone else to be sent in his stead.
Squeeky the Clown thinks that if she ignores points it doesn’t mean she’s “missing them.” lmao. She has totally ignored the points that Bob, Black Lion, and myself have thrown at her, and I guess that means, to her, she’s not missing them. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding since the president’s name is still Barack Obama.
As of yesterday, Squeeky the Clown is a unique case of an idiot missing its village rather than the other way around.
Poor Fut:
Why has no Obot said they respect Col. Lakin’s courage in questioning his orders??? (I haven’t missed this, have I ???) Because usually when a soldier questions his orders, at least some people think this is a good thing, even if the soldier is wrong.
I am beginning to think that George Soros really is paying people to do this, because there sure seems to be a lot of agreement on this side of stuff. Us Birthers fight about things all over the place, but not you Obots. It is like you are just one collective brain thing you see on movies.
And yes, this whole thing is just over Poor Fut’s head. Lookit Obama now after the mid-terms, and you think that we haven’t neutered Obama??? While you were busy piddling around in court???
Now, even baseball people are openly questioning where Obama was born. There is a big word which says what us Birthers are: ubiquitous!!!
(I had to look it up when it was on a Dead Can Dance CD!)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Black Lion has already answered your question above. Get your dictionary out and read it.
Once again, Squeeky the Clown, your ignorance proves that you are the one “missing the point(s).” That’s why you keep asking the same dumb questions over and over again. Ignoring the information just because you choose to be ignorant does not make the facts go away
Due to Soros’ largess, I have been able to decrease my reliance on my trust fund.
As a combat soldier, I can tell you that cowardice does not deserve repsect.
It didn’t take any couragfe at all for Lakin to refuse to go to war. It took courage for the person who had to go in his stead.
Daniel:
Well, that is a good reason for YOU. You are following YOUR conscience. But there are other soldiers, like General Somebody, and some others who are majors I think, who think what Col. Lakin is doing is right.
And, there are also a gazillion other Obots besides you, and some of them are very liberal Obama supporters who are anti-military to boot. Even from them you don’t hear anything good about Col. Lakin.
Soooo, it looks like a lot of people on both sides are just seeing what they want to see in this, but the thing that is for sure,is that Lakin is questioning his orders, and it is very weird that no Obots I have heard say anything good about. Plus, and this is not just to hurt people’s feelings, but really that is one of the things I thought we taught the Nazi Germans after the war by hanging them by the neck until they were dead, that you can’t just follow orders without asking questions. Which means it is OK to question your orders, and then everybody has to decide whether you are right or not in court.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Are you saying that Lakin will not have his day in court?
Squeeky said:”Why has no Obot said they respect Col. Lakin’s courage in questioning his orders?”
Because the only order he disobeyed was to deploy to a war zone?
Every other order given since Obama was inaugurated to his disobeying his order to report was followed.
Every order since disobeying his order to report has been followed.
He is a coward and a stupid one at that.
Charles Manson was also “following his conscience” when he murdered the people he did, so I guess you would that people should respect him for that. Hitler was “following his conscience” by exterminating 6 million Jews, so I guess you would think that’s okay too. Osama bin Laden and 19 hijackers were “following their conscience” when they attacked us on 9/11/01, so I guess you would say they were right too. Just because someone claims that they are “following their conscience” doesn’t make it morally or legal right.
Yes it is good to think about your orders, and question them if they are questionable, and refuse them if they are not legal.
None of which applies to Lakin.
His orders weren’t questionable. Every soldier gets orders to deploy. Lakin himself deployed previously.
His orders weren’t illegal. Even if Obama was inel;igible, his orders were still not illegal. That was explained to him time and again, and it has been explained to you time and again.
Lakin isn’t a hero, or a man of courage, for setting about a fool’s errand that ended up putting others in harm’s way. He wasn’t courageous in “questioning” orders which were probably the least questionable you ever get in the military, the orders to move from one place to another. He could even have continued being a birther, if that’;s what he wnated, while still obeying his orders, because the military doesn’t care how much of a looney you are as long as you do your job.
Lakin isn’t courageo0us for “standing his ground” either. He thought he had a home run; a guaranteed win on his hands. When it became clear he was going to lose, and lose big time. He didn’t stand his ground. He wimped out. He fired his birther lawyer and hired a lawyer who wasn’t interested in birther crap, but could manage to get him the lightest sentence possible. That’s not courage, it’s just bad judgement followed by covering your ass.
And your lame fallacy of appeal to popularity, by mentioning some other officers who agree with him as birthers….. really? IN a military consisting of hundreds of thousands of people you are bound to find a few loonies. That doesn’t grant you any veracity at all. I know of one retired air force colonel who, of all things, buys intpo the chemtrails delusion. As I’ve said before, the military dosn’t mind you being a looney, so long as you do your job, so your appeal to other loser birther retired officers fails as well.
Poor Fut:
I see how your mind “works.” Mention people who follow their conscience, and you think of:
(And I am quoting you, not putting works in your mouth!)
Charles Manson
Adolf Hitler
Osama Bin Laden
9/11 Hijackers.
OK. I am sure the other Obots agree with you!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You are the one who attempts to excuse Lakin’s illegal acts with the claim that people should respect it because he was “following his conscience’, not me. That’s how YOUR mind acts. I merely pointed out how stupid and foolish your statement was since anyone could use that same dumb premise to excuse the acts anyone who violates the law, nitwit.
I wonder if Lakin’s “conscience” went as far as refusing his pay, until Obama showed him the mythincal “long form”?
After all, pay is also done by executinve order in the military. If Obama wasn’t eligible, and birther fallacies regarding the chain of command are correct, then pay orders are also invalid.
Did LAkin refuse his pay from the moment he started to “Question”, Squeeky? Or did his “courage” not quite extens to his wallet?
I do not excuse Lakin or anyone else for their violations of the law simply because some nutjob claims they are “following their conscience.” YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THAT!
Daniel:
First, you just keep saying over and over that Col. Lakin is in legal trouble. OK. I got that months ago!
We are talking about something else. How you Obots keep going beyond the legal stuff to trashing him for having his conscience about this stuff.
Why is it that you don’t have the same things to say about Obama, then??? That even though it offends him to cough up his birth certificate into PUBLIC, that as a president he ought to do what he needs to do, not what he wants???
Is it that Obama is following his conscience to you??? And that when the stuff he did in July 2008 didn’t work, him and you just think as a matter of conscience you shouldn’t have to do anything else??? That it just isn’t fair!!! Even if it costs elections???
Col. Lakin is going to pay a price for not following his orders. Obama has already paid a price for not coughing up stuff he should have. And Obama will keep paying a price.
But you will notice with KISS, I give Obama some leeway on why he hasn’t coughed up anything. Wonder why you Obots don’t give Lakin some leeway???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Plus, I did a short Internet Article about the Lakin pay thing, and it is just another argumentative distraction that Obot#1 says, and Obots#2 through Obot Infinity keep repeating:
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/stupid-obots-obama-isnt-paying-col-lakin-us-taxpayers-are/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Martin Luther followed his conscience.
Martin Luther King Jr. followed his conscience.
John Brown followed his conscience.
Pol Pot followed his conscience.
Since not everyone who follows their conscience is worthy of honor it is silly to think we’d honor Lakin simply because he followed his conscience.
If you can figure out that Lakin’s paycheck doesn’t come from Obama how are not getting that his orders didn’t either?
Greg:
Yes. I am NOT surprised that Obots would put asking someone to cough up their birth certificate right up there with serial killers, genicidal maniacs, terrorists, and whatever Mr. Pot was.
All the whining you do about coughing up a birth certificate, and you have the nerve to call other people cowards and stuff???
OH Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Greg:
Maybe you are right??? Maybe Col. Lakin’s orders came from Timothy Geithner!!!
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Wonder why you Obots don’t give Lakin some leeway???”
He has shown no remorse for his actions. He’s shown no remorse for the colleague who had to deploy in his place (or perhaps remain in Afghanistan beyond their expected term of duty), nor for that person’s family.
He never had the courage of his convictions. He said he was going to disobey all orders, but he only disobeyed those relating to deployment.
People may well respect his former 18 years of honourable service. I’m sure they do, but all those years service have been subsumed by the stupid choices he has made this year.
What’s going to happen to him isn’t any Obot’s fault. It’s not Obama’s fault. It’s Lakin’s and those who decided – in use someone else’s memorable phrase – to ride him like an old horse to the glue factory.
Obama HAS coughed up his BC. You just refuse to see it.
I’m giving Lakin exactly the same leeway I wouold give Obama. If Obama had done something illegal, I’d expect him to have to pay, and I wouldn’t praise him for it.
Nooooooooo………
Please stop talking for just a moment, and pay attention, instead.
I keep saying Lakin is not courageous, but rather a coward.
Did you get that this time?
Would it help if I typed slower, and used smaller words?
Daniel:
Maybe you would understand it better. I don’t mind if you try!
But seriously, you are entitled to your opinion. Which I can’t help but notice is coincidentally the same opinion as every other Obot in the universe.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Funny how that happens when everyone bases their opinion on the facts, the Constitution, and the law and how when everyone picks and chooses from a series of inaccurate, misleading, and made-up claims, vets them via their confirmation bias alone and attempts to support their arguments by any means possible you get the pointless garbage that is the birther case – I wonder why that is…
To Slart:
You said:”Funny how that happens when everyone bases their opinion on the facts, the Constitution, and the law. . .”
Yes. I have often noticed how the United States Supreme Court always decides things
9 to 0.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
Lakin isn’t in Afghanistan right now. That makes him a coward. But you’re the one with the false equivalences here, not me. You think that just because Lakin is following his conscience he’s admirable, like a conscientious objector. And the falsest of false equivalences-because we don’t like Lakin, we’re like Hitler, who didn’t like Lakin, or something. When I point out that not everyone who follows their conscience is admirable, that’s the OPPOSITE of saying that he’s the same as bad people who follow their conscience!
Knowing that Lakin followed his conscience tells us diddly-squat about whether he’s someone to be admired. The fact that he shirked his duty on a hunch that someone above him was ineligible for his office.
Oh, and if you’d been paying attention, you’d know his orders came from his superior officers, not Obama.
I wonder if Squeeky and DJ Dolce are the same person.
http://www.wnd.com/?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104165&EmbedC=10f1a77c-d469-4380-b4d0-94d567dbbca8
I wonder if Squeeky and Sponge Bob Squarepants are the same “person.”
You do realize that the reason that the court doesn’t tend to vote 9-0 is because they don’t hear cases that are as baseless and poorly argued as all of the birther cases are, don’t you? You know, the birthers must be really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you’re the best they can come up with…
That’s the trouble of holding an opinion based on reason and objective evidence, and listening to experts instead of blogger wannabees. because of that I hold an opinion that pretty much everyone, aside from a fringe mionority of whack jobs, holds.
I also hold the opinion that the earth is a nominal sphere. The flatearthers call me a spherebot, and point out that it just happens to be the same opinion as other spherebots.
Go figure.
Yet again another thread and discussion ruined by the fake, name-hijacking troll Squeeky Fromm.
Tee Hee!
Bumpy!
Tee Hee!
Girl Reporter
Do you guys like reading that crap over and over again? Don’t respond!
It is a name-stealing troll, NOT the original PUMA fat-ass. It comes here to push your buttons and you let it.
Has any discussion with Squeeky brought anything worthwhile to the table?
Is any discussion with squeeky enjoyable or enlightening?
DON’T RESPOND AND IT WILL GO AWAY!!!
Some points for you to ponder, Ms. Fromm:
The nature of military service is that you follow orders. You follow orders every day. Your life, and the lives of others, depends on that. When I received an order from some faceless air traffic controller or from some newly minted colonel who thought he knew best, I said, “Yes, Sir,” and did what I was told. One can’t fly fighter planes over enemy positions and engage in a debate with the mission commander. Each time I was ordered to Iraq and Afghanistan, I went. When I was ordered to Iraq for the second Iraq War, I did not say, “Gee, President Bush is not really President because he really lost Florida.” I said “Yes, Sir.” And I went. I didn’t say in 2005, “Gee, President Bush cheated in Ohio, and stole the election.” I went where I was told. If you are not happy with that, you leave the service.
Now those folks who have a problem with some order or law are free to follow their conscience. But they must be prepared to face the consequences. Ghandi led the salt march in India, in the express hope of filling Indian jails to overflowing with people who violated British law with regard to salt. Thoreau went to jail over the Civil War draft. Martin Luther King went to jail for tresspassing. Rev. King made clear in his letters from Birningham jail the need to show respect for the law and serve your sentence for violating it.
Dr. Lakin has violated his duty as a soldier. Someone else is in harm’s way tonight because he has challenged the authority of the armed services to order him to deploy. As some judges have noted, if he really had a problem, he should have refused to go to his post on January 21.
And before you attack me as some Obot, I voted for Sen. McCain. That was the first election I voted in. Prior to that time, following tradition in my famly and among many officers, we did not vote so that we would not get involved in domestic politics. That’s not the job of our military service. I served 18 years following graduation from the academy. And at no point did I decide there was some order I was going to disobey because I had some problem with civilian authority. If you are not happy with President Obama, you are free in our system to vote for someone else. But he is my President, even though I did not vote for him, and if called back to service (despite the injury that ended my career), I would say, “Yes, Sir.”
Excellent post, John Riley, and thank you very much for your loyal service. The problem is that you can’t tell Squeeky anything. She knows it all because she watches movies and reads Wikipedia.
To John Riley:
Just like with whoever else it was above, you are entitled to your OPINION. Because a lot of what you say is also what my father who was in the Air Force says. BUT, as a soldier, there will maybe be a time when you are not sure what you are doing is right or legal.
It would be a little late to say “Wait, I am not sure I am here legally!” when somebody is shooting a gun at you and your friends somewhere like Iran.
Soooo, Col Lakin, who has also been over there somewhere, asked the question and did not agree with the answer he got. You all are probably right that he is going to jail, but I think you are very wrong to call him names for doing what he thinks is right.
Plus, there are a lot of Obots who did not vote for McCain, and don’t even like the military but all of a sudden when a military person questions authority, then OH are they ever against him!!!
There are a whole lot of Obots, who if Lakin said NO because “the war is wrong and we shouldn’t kill the terrorists who are just people too”, then these same Obots would be slapping Lakin on the back and saying what a hero he was for being so brave to say “No!”
And you know this is true!!!
But, because it is Obama he doesn’t like, not war, then he is just a TOTAL BUM!!!
Isn’t this true???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Now Squeeky, if you would just stick to commentary such as this, you would not always be getting yourself such ridicule. What you have stated in the portions above is both an acknowledgement of someone else’s opinion, which you disagree with as well as clear language of what your OPINION is. Good for you on that. Nobody is denying your right to have an opinion – nor should you deny other that right. However, when you present an opinion, people are just as free to provide their own, which may disagree with yours…and you both can simply agree to disagree and accept that your statements are all in the realm of opinion.
For the record, I don’t see things the way you do at all on this issue and therefore don’t share nor support your opinion, but I support your right to have it and to state it and to simply say, that you are fully entitled to think we’re wrong for calling him names but will have to simply accept that we beg to differ and just simply acknowledge that many of us have clearly stated our reasons why we hold a very low opinion of Lakin. You don’t have to share our views, but you can’t begrudge us our right to our opinions either.
G
I have to just beat the Obots over the head with a stick to get them to listen to anything!!! Then after I propose a TOTALLY REASONABLE alternative view to them, it is like talking to BRICKS!!! They just hem and haw around like they don’t understand simple stuff, and ask the same question 50 times that you already answered.
You must just be new to this and don’t yet realize all this yet. But just watch.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – now, it is stuff like this that gets you into trouble. What you have stated above does not fall in the realm of you simply having an opinion.
The problem here is you are trying to portray the situation of “legally” in a way that is clearly contrary to how the military and laws on legal orders work. So you are now creating false premises and false equivalencies and irrelevant fictional straw man arguments. You deserve to be criticized and shot down when you try to pull crud like this.
You have no excuse for still making this claim as the difference has been repeatedly explained to you. The courts themselves as well as military rules and procedures also make this point clear.
For the last time, he failed to follow a direct lawful order of his chain of command to deploy. His feelings on Obama’s legitimacy to hold office are completely irrelevant to the lawfulness of that order. So stop playing dumb on this. No matter what fictional fantasy scenario you would like to believe on the President, the De Facto Doctrine alone makes any issue of this simple deployment order both lawful and legit.
That is why Lakin has simply screwed the pooch for himself here. He has no valid legal excuse for his intentional missing of the movement.
There is absolutely no issues of legality to his deployment, so your scenario above is completely false and irrelevant to the case at hand.
Yeah, we need Squeeky the Clown’s movie and Wikipedia education here since our college educations just can’t compete. lmao
G
But I think it was OK to say that. Poor Lakin is getting slammed because he said No to deploying, but he sure couldn’t wait until he was there to say No, could he???
I mean the TOTALLY REASONABLE time to object is BEFORE you get there, not AFTER.
Plus, you are going back into the legal stuff, and I already think he is in trouble legally. Just like I think Dr. Taitz and Mr. Apuzzo were not going very far LEGALLY.
The issue I have is that people shouldn’t slam him as a chicken, coward, and unpatriotic just because he is probably legally screwed. I mean you want soldiers to be able to questions stuff at some level, and you don’t always know that the question is going to be a legally smart one, do you???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Fut:
Don’t make me embarrass you in front of your Obot friends with “Omnis quaestio totidem responsiones”!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The only one you’re embarrassing, nutjob, is yourself. Maybe you should go watch a movie or read Wikipedia again. lmao
No, not really in the way you are trying to portray things just so you can create boogeyman enemies in your own mind.
Look, we live in a very diverse country with over 300 million people. The world is not black and white. There are LOTS of diverse views on issues all across the spectrum and simplistic boxes of right and left or liberal and conservative are way too simplistic to just lump people and make such generalized caricature assumptions on what people believe or stand for. You only make yourself look bad and bigoted by doing so.
Take for instance your lame use of the term “Obot”. You Birthers seem to use it to imply that everyone who doesn’t buy into your birther BS is an Obama supporter. Yet that is a clear fallacy. When confronted by a direct reply from John Reilly – a conservative and McCain supporter, you seem to be in total denial and immediately reverting back to trying to make silly conclusions that everyone who isn’t a birther is some stereotypical “hippy”.
Sorry, but you Birthers are a very small minority clique who base all your info on internet rumors to support your pre-concluded personal biases. The majority of the population doesn’t buy into that nonsense – whether democrat, republican, or independent. Yes, lots of people who voted for Obama think birthers are nuts. But so do the majority of folks who didn’t vote for him and who don’t share or care for his views or policies. They just chose to do so based on reality and not needing to make up ways to demonize and dehumanize someone they disagree with.
Similarly, your irrelevant painting of non-birthers as being anti-military is just nonsense. Do some people say such things or hold such views – yes. And those that do are not all “liberals” either. Take Ron Paul for instance. The whole Conscientious Objector status is often based on religious reasons. The people holding these religious personal beliefs might be liberal or they might be conservative or they might be somewhere in-between. The military is comprised of people who serve who hold all sorts of beliefs and political positions – liberals and conservatives alike. Democrats and Republicans.
If someone makes a direct statement of their views on the matter, then by all means feel free to directly respond to that individual – but don’t try to lump everyone into one individual’s view on things.
So stop making up meaningless generalized straw-man arguments as baseless attacks. It is clear that you simply do this as a weak tactic of trying to dodge and change the subject when you are confronted with facts that you don’t like.
G
I never said all Obots were anti-military. I just find it amazing that none who are can manage a kind word for Lakin.
Likewise, all Obots are NOT alike. But sadly, most of the Obots here think all Birthers are. We have already had that fight.
And, far from being in the minority, about 58% of Americans have some degree of doubt where Obama was born. Another fight where amazingly no Obots can quite admit it, even though there is a CNN poll, and Chris Matthews, who just hates us, admits.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The big problem I have with Lakin is that as an Officer he knows that keeping good order and discipline is essential in the military, if he did not like the president or believe he is qualified to serve as president. Lakin has every right as an officer to resign his commision and not serve under him. Instead he took a stand that if every military member did likewise the entire defense of our nation would be vulnerable and put us all at the mercy of our enemies and over haearsay at that.. That is selfish and irresponsible, Definitely not a trait of faithful and honorable service.
if Lakin was to have said I know the presidentis illegal and therefore I refuse order sI could almost respect that but to do what he has on questions not fact is heinous.
LOL! Sorry…not new to this. I’ve been around here since 2008. I usually observe and read and only chime in when I feel there is something of value to add that hasn’t already been said.
Sadly, you only cause your own problems here. Confrontation occurs in your dialogs because you often cause it and bring about a lot of hostility with your tone and silliness.
Being honest, you do fit all the definitions of a troll and a concern troll because you seem to intentionally court controversy and cause responses from others that tend to become hostile and sometimes devolve to sinking to your level of silly and offensive name calling.
Your whole “beat others over the head” attitude is part of your problem. You simply can’t accept that not everyone sees the world as you do and you can’t handle that others might disagree with your opinions, so you wrongly think that if you just shout louder… well, sorry, but that just leads to the predictable result of people turning you out more and disliking you even more for being obnoxious.
You said, “then after I propose a TOTALLY REASONABLE alternative view to them” … well, the problem is I have yet to see you propose anything of the sort.
“Totally reasonable” would require being based on RELEVANT facts and evidence… not on wild suppositions, false information, irrelevant “what if” scenarios and making bold statements that are often full of very apparent holes that just displays either total ignorance or intentional misleading on your behalf.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to ask in a questioning manner on stuff you are unsure about or don’t fully understand instead of make bold proclamations or try to portray mere opinions as facts.
You are often asked questions multiple times because you DIDN’T answer the question the person actually asked…but instead dodged or went off on some unrelated rant.
That is why you have no credibility. If you have any sense of self-esteem whatsoever at all, you would think you would try to clean up your act and learn how to carry on an intelligent adult conversation. Start acting like an adult if you wish to be treated as such…
I find it very unbelievable that you can be that obtuse and lacking in ability to socially interact with others…unless you openly admit that all you are trying to do is intentionally be a troll.
Ms. Fromm:
You might learn to spell my name correctly.
Col. Lakin did not just ask a question. He asked a question and got an answer. He did not like the answer. His choice was to resign his commission or to disobey the order and plead guilty. Honor requires that. If he read Thoreau, Ghandi or King, he would understand that.
What I stated above is not an opinion. It is how the armed forces have worked for decades. An effective military runs on people following orders. If you, or Col. Lakin, wish to be somewhere where you can question orders, there are a number of nice communes to which you can move. However, in the real world, the security of this country, including the folks who live in communes, depends upon soldiers following orders. Col. Lakin was simply ordered to deploy to another post. There is nothing extraordinary about that order. You cannot posit a military that operates on allowing soldiers to question whatever they want, and bringing the whole unit or army to a halt until the question is resolved.
Col. Lakin is entitled to his opinion, whether it is that Pres. Obama is not a natural born citizen or that the earth is flat. What is he not entitled to do without serious consequences, is to disobey an order. If any person under my command disobyed a direct order, he or she would, at a minimum, be on report.
I have not called you or anyone else names. You should retract your accusation that I did so.
*sigh* You just don’t get it, do you? Look, he’s entitled to not like the president and he can “believe” whatever he wants…but he doesn’t have the right as a member of the military to REFUSE clearly legal and lawful orders just because he doesn’t “believe” that the president is who he says he is. So, YES he should have deployed and served.
Look, there are many people I know that are now back (at least for the time being), having served multiple tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Some of those folks vehemently disagree on a personal level that we should be fighting in those places… some of them quite adamantly believe that Bush was not lawfully elected in 2000.
But they all understood that they took an oath when they joined the military and that they had a duty to serve when called up and every time they were called – they knew they had to go and they served and tried to perform the best they could to carry out their missions and their duties time and time again – because that is what they HAD to do, despite their personal feelings or misgivings about the situation. Anything else would have been dishonorable and a betrayal of their oath to this country and to their fellow servicemen.
It is that simple.
So, who specifically is this anti-military Obot you are referring to? Where is your example to prove this? I haven’t seen this here on this site.
I think you are making things up. Where is your evidence to back up your claims?
Not quite true. That debate has been had on here many times too. Yes, there are a few anti-birther posters that tend to also over-generalize about all Birthers motives being the same. I’ve had that disagreement with them several times.
However, because birthers are such a smaller segment of the population and because there is no actual evidence in reality that backs up birther positions, there ARE some legitimate generalizations that can be assumed to apply to NEARLY all birthers – which is different than trying to make similar generalizations about non-birthers (which you like to call “Obots”).
For instance, it is quite obvious that not all non-birthers voted for Obama, agree with his policies or even like him.
However, I have yet to meet a birther who actually voted for Obama. I think it is quite evident that birthers are people who never liked Obama and would never vote for him under almost any circumstance.
It is also fairly clear that birthers drive their beliefs off of pre-conceived biases and conclusions and then do everything they can to twist information to try to fit their preconceptions and ignore most actual evidence that blows holes in their notions.
Until I see any evidence to the contrary, those are generalizations I am comfortable making about birthers.
Where do you get this 58% number? I don’t believe you. I’ve been up on this and seen lots of polls and nothing comes close to the claim you are making.
Again, you have no credibility because you just make up numbers and don’t provide any evidence to support your wild claims.
Give a link to this poll…otherwise this is just another example of where you are being dishonest here and making stuff up.
Well said !
Seek elsewhere. My father was in the (French) army; my two grandfathers, my uncle and my godfather in the (French) navy; I come from a long and proud military family — and I think your LTC Lakin is lucky to not be summarily put against a wall and shot. At the very least I hope he serves a long time in whatever penitentiary system you have for deserters.
You obviously have no idea whatsoever what the military is, and how it runs. You are the shame of your cause.
To G, John Reilly, and Ron-
Respectfully, in regards to Squeeky, you are responding to an idiot. Worse, this idiot is a name-stealing troll, and NOT the original “Squeeky” who posted on PUMA sites (who was known for weight and daddy issues).
Your posts are well-thought and intelligently expressed, but the only response you will get is “Tee-Hee!”. You are not reasoning with a real person, but someone who is only here to yank your chain. Why do you think “Squeeky” ignores my accusations of name-stealing? Because my claims are true it has found someone who will respond to it anyway, wasting their precious time.
The “Squeeky” you are responding to is not a birther, but has adopted the identity of one in parody.
Repeat- “squeeky” is not real, and whoever it is is just f*cking around with you to get a rise out of you.
Once more, so it will sink in.
There was a PUMA two years ago who went by the name “Squeeky Fromm”. She was ridiculous, and her posts were widely mocked. She eventually went dark on the internet.
The “Squeeky Fromm” that posts here is somebody who saw her posts, had a good laugh, and decided to prank everybody by taking on that persona. Think Abbey Hoffman or other pranksters. They will get bored of this game if nobody responds to them. Until then, you are only providing them cheap amusement, and you may as well be responding to a simple computer script which repeats the same 20 responses over and over again.
“Squeeky” isn’t a birther- they are a prankster having a laugh at you.
Oh, and mis-spelling your name? That is part of the “Squeeky” routine. Just like calling Ms. Fukino by the name of “Frujinko” constantly.
Obsolete – I appreciate your posts and advice.
I realize that I’m dealing with someone who has continuously demonstrated clear trollish behavior. Sometimes, I feel that troll or not, there is a purpose to refuting points with logic…even if the other person is incapable of being reached or even has no intentions for serious dialogue. I think more harm can be done by allowing silliness or nonsense to stand without refute.
My posts have so far remained grounded in correcting erroneous claims, not in getting emotionally pulled into a trolls taunts. The choice to respond is my own and it is my right to chose to waste my time doing so, if I so desire.
Finally, I have been around here and on other sites since early 2008 – before PUMAs and birthers were really getting started… so I’m very familiar with a lot of the history and the players and know all about the original J4H if you get the reference.
My only question to you is on one area that I’m not totally convinced (and maybe I’ve just missed the evidence being revealed) – how do you know for sure that this is a different person from that original Texas PUMA, “Squeeky”…?
Better yet….Squeeky is an idiot savant minus the savant….
Author Of SB-1070 Russell Pearce: Obama May Not Be Visiting Arizona Because We Require Papers’
Today, a right-wing organization called Judicial Watch hosted a panel discussion on the “current and upcoming fights over immigration enforcement” featuring Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R). Pearce, the author of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, railed against the Obama administration for “siding with a foreign government” against the state of Arizona. However, looking on the bright side, Pearce joked that Obama may not want to come to Arizona as they will require him to show his papers:
A little levity is okay, I hope cause I like to [inaudible] at most things. But I can tell you that the best thing about [SB]-1070 is that Obama may not be visiting Arizona because we actually require papers now.
Pearce may have been joking, but it’s not the first time he has indicated that Obama isn’t fit for office. Back in November, Pearce accused Obama of waging jihad against the state of Arizona and stated that it was an impeachable offense. “When you talk about jihad, that is exactly what Obama has against America,” said Pearce. “It’s outrageous and it’s impeachable.” At a tea party rally in August, Pearce similarly stated, “I think it’s treasonous, in my opinion.”
Shortly after SB-1070 was approved by the Arizona legislature, the state House of Representatives approved a so-called “birther bill,” which would require the Arizona Secretary of State to verify the citizenship of U.S. presidential candidates. However, it didn’t have enough Republican support in the state senate to pass a vote. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories,” White House spokesman Bill Burton responded.
During the panel discussion, Pearce also suggested that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) should run for “presidente” of Mexico.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/08/russell-pearce-obama-birther/
AZ has really become an embarrassment to the Union.
It’s like talking to a brick.
Is an order to go to Afghanistan completely illegal on its face? No. It is completely legal on its face. You have to go behind the order to figure out the validity of the issuer (or, in this case, the issuer’s boss’s boss’s boss’s validity) to come to the conclusion that it’s invalid.
I had no sympathy for the military men and women who refused to go to Iraq because they believed we were their illegally.
No soldier will be prosecuted for participating in a war that was illegal started.
Jus ad bellum – the right to wage war
Jus in bello – the rules of war
Soldiers are required to follow the rules of war. They can be prosecuted and punished for violating the rules of war.
Leaders are punished for violating the Jus ad bellum, the right to wage war. Soldiers are not.
We want soldiers to question, but not in all circumstances. We need to teach them to distinguish between these two types of orders:
1. Go to Afghanistan.
2. Destroy this village and everyone in it.
The first is illegal only if it violates the right to wage war. The second is a violation of the rules of war.
That there are other people who are just as misinformed is sad, but is no reason to excuse or laud Lakin.
Did you not learn about fallacies when you were in debate?
I never understood why they made SB1070 without putting it on a ballot. The law was passed a few weeks before an election. A law like that should have been put to the voters. It would never have passed, not even in Maricopa County.
That’s probably exactly why they never put it to a ballot.
Not so sure about that. First of all, I thought they passed that law back in the summer. Second, there are a lot of misinformed voters out there who only hear about something *finally* being done about the issue and view it as a good thing and don’t comprehend the dangerous gray areas in the bill’s language that opens the door to blatant discrimination against minorities – legal or otherwise.
“Plus, there are a lot of Obots who did not vote for McCain, and don’t even like the military but all of a sudden when a military person questions authority, then OH are they ever against him!!!”
I didn’t vote for McCain but I really, really respect the 2000 and 2004 McCain. The 2008 McCain I think lost his direction somewhat. However, I could have voted for McCain in the right circumstances.
And I- a San Francisco liberal- am a big admirer of the American military members. They have volunteered to be put in harms way, regardless of what they personally believe. I believe the military should be paid more, and treated better. I think we should spend less on hardware and more on software(people).
There are a whole lot of Obots, who if Lakin said NO because “the war is wrong and we shouldn’t kill the terrorists who are just people too”, then these same Obots would be slapping Lakin on the back and saying what a hero he was for being so brave to say “No!”
And you know this is true!!! ”
Are there people who would react that way? Sure. Some hardcore anti-war hypocrits from my city and Berkeley for sure. But anyone with more than a passing interest in the military knows how vital it is that personnel follow orders.
Personally, I think it is unconstitutional for our troops to be sent to war without a Congressional Declaration of War. Regardless, I would react the same way if a soldier challenged this like Lakin did. I do not want a U.S. city to be hit by an attack because some soldier refuses to carry out an order that he personally disagrees with.
I really don’t understand why Birthers are willing to sacrifice the safety of our country, and endanger the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan just to further their agenda of deposing of the President. It makes me think that Birthers are so obsessed with their conspiracy theories that they are willing to sacrifice anything- the Constitution, our safety, our laws, our legal system- anything- to overthrow our President.
Well said!
Don’t get me wrong — I understand the legislative mechanisms. But I think the scope of the law is sufficient that it should require an amendment to the state constitution. We have voted on constitutional amendments for things of far lesser weight.
I agree with your points.
Byron York needs to give the dopey Obama hate a rest
December 10, 2010 10:21 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Obama Derangement Syndrome has a sort of death grip on the Washington Examiner writer, which means he now produces pointless, creepy gotchas like this on a regular basis:
Obama honors Nobel winner with statement about himself
In case you don’t follow along with chronic Obama hate at home, this is part of the never-ending tale about how Obama is arrogant and can’t stop talking about himself. (Ego much?) How do `wingers know that? Because, on occasion, Obama will make references to himself and that proves he’s arrogant and can’t stop talking about himself.
The specifics in the case that York highlights today are almost irrelevant. Or at least they’re irrelevant to the Obama-hating bloggers who will obediently link to York’s insipid attack. But for the record, York’s gotcha is based on the fact that when honoring a recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama made reference to the the fact that, last year, he was honored with a Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, Obama stressed that he was not nearly as deserving of the honor as this year’s recipient. But the mere fact that Obama briefly mentioned the connection between himself and this year’s honoree proved (are you following along?) that he’s arrogant and can’t stop talking about himself.
Like I said, York really needs to chill on the dopey Obama hate. It’s embarrassing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012100009
LEAKED EMAIL: Fox boss caught slanting news reporting
December 09, 2010 7:31 am ET by Ben Dimiero
At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News’ controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network’s journalists not to use the phrase “public option.”
Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox’s reporters should use “government option” and similar phrases — wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats’ reform efforts.
Journalists on the network’s flagship news program, Special Report with Bret Baier, appear to have followed Sammon’s directive in reporting on health care reform that evening.
Sources familiar with the situation in Fox’s Washington bureau have told Media Matters that Sammon uses his position as managing editor to “slant” Fox’s supposedly neutral news coverage to the right. Sammon’s “government option” email is the clearest evidence yet that Sammon is aggressively pushing Fox’s reporting to the right — in this case by issuing written orders to his staff.
As far back as March 2009, Fox personalities had sporadically referred to the “government option.”
Two months prior to Sammon’s 2009 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity’s August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the “public option” and encouraged Hannity to use “government option” instead.
Luntz argued that “if you call it a ‘public option,’ the American people are split,” but that “if you call it the ‘government option,’ the public is overwhelmingly against it.” Luntz explained that the program would be “sponsored by the government” and falsely claimed that it would also be “paid for by the government.”
“You know what,” Hannity replied, “it’s a great point, and from now on, I’m going to call it the government option.”
On October 26, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the inclusion of a public insurance option that states could opt out of in the Senate’s health care bill.
That night, Special Report used “public” and “government” interchangeably when describing the public option provision.
Anchor Bret Baier referred to “a so-called public option”; the “public option”; “government-provided insurance coverage”; “this government-run insurance option”; the “healthcare public option”; and “the government-run option, the public option.” Correspondent Shannon Bream referred to “a government-run public option”; “a public option”; “a government-run option”; and “the public option.”
The next morning, October 27, Sammon sent an email to the staffs of Special Report, Fox News Sunday, and FoxNews.com, as well as to other reporters and producers at the network. The subject line read: “friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the ‘public option.’ ”
Sammon instructed staff to refer on air to “government-run health insurance,” the “government option,” “the public option, which is the government-run plan,” or — when “necessary” — “the so-called public option”:
From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the “public option”
1) Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.
2) When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”
3) Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”
4) When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.
Fox’s senior vice president for news, Michael Clemente, soon replied. He thanked Sammon for his email and said that he preferred Fox staffers use Sammon’s third phrasing: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”
From: Clemente, Michael
To: Sammon, Bill; 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Sent: Tue Oct 27 08:45:29 2009
Subject: RE: friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the “public option”
Thank you Bill
#3 on your list is the preferred way to say it, write it, use it.
Michael Clemente
SVP-News
212.XXX.XXXX
Sammon’s email appears to have had an impact. On the October 27 Special Report — unlike on the previous night’s broadcast — Fox journalists made no references to the “public option” without using versions of the pre-approved qualifiers outlined in Sammon’s and Clemente’s emails.
Reporting on health care reform that night, Baier referenced the public option three times. In each instance, he referred to it as “government-run health insurance” or a “government-run health insurance option” — precisely echoing the first wording choice laid out by Sammon.
On the same show, correspondent Jim Angle referred to “a government insurance plan, the so-called public option”; “a government insurance option”; and “a government insurance plan.”
The wording of Sammon’s email — a “friendly reminder” not to “slip back into calling it the ‘public option’ ” — suggests that someone in the Fox News chain of command had previously issued similar instructions.
And indeed, the issue had surfaced before in Fox’s newscasts.
On the September 3, 2009, Special Report — three weeks after Luntz told Hannity to call it the “government option” — Baier discussed the potential inclusion of a public option during the show’s nightly commentary segment.
During the segment — after Baier himself had referred to a “public option” — NPR’s Mara Liasson also referred several times to the “public option,” prompting Baier to interrupt her to clarify that it is the “government-run option of health insurance.”
As the conversation continued, The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer and The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes both used “public option.” When Liasson mentioned a “triggered public option,” Baier again interrupted, asking, “Should we say ‘government option,’ by the way?”
“Government option, OK,” replied Liasson.
“Everybody gets it,” Baier explained.
On-screen text during the segment also used “Government Option.”
Watch:
Fox executives regularly defend the network by claiming that the right-wing propaganda on Hannity and its other opinion shows is entirely separate from its news programming, which they insist is objective. But Sammon’s email gives credence to allegations that news from Fox’s Washington bureau is being deliberately distorted to benefit conservatives and the Republican Party.
In October, Media Matters reported that sources with knowledge of the situation had raised concerns about the direction of Fox’s Washington bureau under Sammon, who took over as managing editor in February 2009:
“[There is] more pressure from Sammon to slant news to the right or to tell people how to report news, doing it in a more brutish way,” one source with knowledge of the situation said. “A lot of the reporters are conservative and are glad to pick up news. But there is a point at which it is no longer reporting, but distorting things.”
“[Former Fox News Washington managing editor] Brit Hume was also encouraging people to look at things with other points of view. Brit was smart to see that a lot of mainstream media ignore certain points of view,” the source added. “That was a smart and effective way to build the Fox brand.
“But if you come in to say, ‘ignore points of view and ignore facts,’ then you are straying away from being a legitimate news reporter.”
Asked about the first source’s allegation, a second source with knowledge of the situation said, “I wouldn’t disagree with it from this standpoint: Brit was the 800-pound gorilla who could pick up the phone and say he will not do that. Bill Sammon is no 800-pound gorilla within the organization. He doesn’t have that much sway.”
The second source also said of Sammon, “He is not going to buck the bosses in New York. The D.C. bureau chief [Brian Boughton] and managing editor in D.C. [Sammon] are not as powerful as they once were. They are not going to raise objections and fight hard. They will just pass on the message.”
Since then, a Fox source has told Media Matters:
“People are allowed to have opinions when they espouse opinions. But when news is being tampered with, you have to worry. I keep hearing things from staffers about Sammon.”
“I think Sammon comes up with this himself. It takes a conservative slant; it is his news judgment. If things are being classed as news that aren’t, that is a problem.”
Media Matters contacted Sammon, Clemente, and two Fox spokespeople for comment and we have not received a response.
Update:
Sammon spoke to The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz about the leaked email and reportedly told him:
Sammon said in an interview that the term “public option” “is a vague, bland, undescriptive phrase,” and that after all, “who would be against a public park?” The phrase “government-run plan,” he said, is “a more neutral term,” and was used just last week by a New York Times columnist.
“I have no idea what the Republicans were pushing or not. It’s simply an accurate, fair, objective term.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003
FOX News has been nothing more than a biased propaganda outlet masquerading as a news station for quite some time now. They are definitely part of the problem out there and their reach has succeeded in brainwashing a lot of gullible and receptive folks.
I think we can say that ODS has a death grip on FOX News as well.
G
I can give you the poll. I can give you the video. It won’t make any difference. You and the other Obots will just ignore it and run around in circles trying to confirm your bias. We have already fought over it here, and all the Obots are just not going to admit that it says what it says, or that Chris Matthews and me have a valid interpretation.
There is no independent though among Obots. Which is sad in one way as a human being, but good for us as QUESTIONERS (Birthers).
Like I have said a hundred times, with Obots as friends, Obama doesn’t need any enemies.
Plus, I am too Squeeky, and I will say HI! to you on my very own website!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
She’ll give you the poll and then lie about what she thinks the poll says. Like before she’s going to claim that those who say Obama was probably born in the US count as those having doubts. So she adds that number to those who say he probably wasn’t and that he wasn’t. I notice that she doesn’t pull the trick she uses with those who say he probably wasn’t as in her logic that would mean that they have doubts about having doubts and should be added to the number of those who say he was born here. She has to lie to get to the number she says.
What utter nonsense you spout!
Sorry, confirmation bias is what you birthers do…not the other way around. We deal with facts and evidence here.
You *claim* you can provide the poll and the video – then DO IT. Either put up or shut up.
Why didn’t you just do that in the first place…what are you hiding? I suspect you didn’t and are just spouting off because you’re caught making up nonsense and can’t back up your words.
G we’ve been through this before she’s going to lie about what the poll says and try to spin what the numbers are
G
Thank God!!! I was able to save my Internet Articles at gretawire to my wordpress blog or they could have been POOF! just lost to history forever!!!
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/chris-matthews-the-birthers-are-beating-us-with-logic-video/
Here is the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697//vp/38565232#38565232
Plus, here is the poll, if you want to read it:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/04/rel10k1a.pdf
Plus, if you want to learn some good stuff, there are over 60 of my Internet Articles there, plus there are different ones at my website which is linked to my blue namey thingy here.
AND, OH YES G!!! Obots are very much into confirming their biases, too. They just don’t want to admit it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Just in case y’all hadn’t heard or had any real question concerning the outcome
Orly Taitz Shot Down In Court Again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/orly-taitz-birther-lawsuit_n_794662.html
Poor Fut:
You win IN COURT, and yet four states are doing Birther Bills!
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Which won’t accomplish anything. All Obama has to do is turn over the COLB he scanned and that would be it. What would you guys complain about then?
Poor Squeeky the Clown. None of those states have passed that law, and even if they did, President Obama would pass it. Moreover, four or five other states “considered” that law already, and none of them passed it. lmao. Get your facts straight and stop counting your chickens before they hatch.
Not only that, but if we were back in ’08 with those laws in effect, there would be a legitimate question about McCain passing the test.
Dr. Bob Ross:
I could handle that. I have positioned the Birthers as QUESTIONERS and with the KISS analysis, life goes on! OH, Plus, here is a Internet Article I just re-read. I was soooo busy Sunday moving all these to safety, that I didn’t have time to re-read all of them:
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/obama-and-palin-square-off-in-an-intelligence-debate/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You wouldn’t be able to handle it. Remember you want Obama and the DOH you don’t trust to send out copies to everyone who wants to see it. I’m sorry I have no interest in a fictional debate you made up. You see how Palin again flubbed up on the what do you read question when Barbara Walters asked it?
Dr. Bob Ross:
I just don’t think you like Women. You don’t like Dr. Taitz. You don’t like Sarah Palin. You don’t even like me.
So there!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Nice theory but I did marry a woman and she’s definitely much smarter than the people you seem to worship. Orly Taitz is an idiot, Palin flubs easy questions because she is uninformed and is not intellectually curious. We know you only wanted Hillary to win because she is a woman and not because of her platform.
Bob, that means she’s out of ammo.
Kind of hard for her to load anyway when she’s holding a rubby ducky and thinks it will fire when she rubs her thumb over its backside
🙂
I am never out of amoo!!! Plus, how do you make it do the little faces???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter 🙂
What good is having ammo if you misfire all the time freaky? You haven’t said anything accurate thus far
I know you’re never out of a moo
MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LMAO
Fut:
!!!!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter :.
Thank you for finally providing some links. I have reviewed all three of your links.
Well, your phrasing in that statement in bold above is technically correct, as per the poll and the only number on it that Chris Matthews reported, only 42% of all Americans said he is DEFINITELY born in the U.S.
So kudos, your numbers were correct on that.
However, the problem is that you’ve taken that number and Chris Matthews reporting on the matter out of context to IMPLY things that he did not and for yourself to imply greater conclusions and linkage with the birthers than the poll shows.
Let’s start with the actual poll:
You are getting all excited by only focusing on the”Definitely” number.
However, when you add the Probably born in the U.S. results to it, that gives a combined total of 71% believing he was born here.
Birthers views are likely mainly represented amongst the two answers saying Probably or Defintely born in another country, which is 16% and 11% for a grand total of 27%.
Not that different from the percent of the population that vote GOP and stood by Bush no matter what. So, nothing really surprising in what people on the phone are telling pollsters and a much different overall picture than what you try to take it as.
Furthermore, your own article describing Chris Matthew’s reporting and commentary on this number leaves a lot of incorrect statements to make me think that you didn’t watch more than the first 5 seconds of the video where he displays the 42% number and just closed your eyes and ears to block out the rest of what he said.
For one thing, you title your article: “Chris Matthews – The Birthers Are Beating Us (WITH LOGIC !) Video!” and then go on to state:
One can also focus on the “definitely” number in the opposite direction, G. In other words, 89% didn’t say that he was definitely born in another country, so that means that 89% have doubt that he was born in another country.
*sigh* How totally meaningless and a cheap attempt to try to drive traffic to your site. That was no article about an actual debate. That was a completely lame fictional made up dialog by you.
I find that to be both disingenuous and deceitful of you to try to pass off that link as being some article you found. What a cheap con artist you are.
A birther being disingenuous and deceitful? Surely you jest G
Exactly. That is why people get themselves into such trouble focusing on one single data point without looking at what the full question and all the responses were.
That 89% number is JUST as valid of a contextual argument as the 42%….when one focuses on just the margin data point, then the interpretation becomes spin instead of a more meaningful total picture.
From CAAFlog from Ballantine…Good synopsis….
WONG KIM ARK FOR DUMMIES
Here is Justice Gray’s opinion in Q&A form for those who have not read or understood it:
.
Question: What does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean?
Justice Gray: It “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.”
Question: How do you know that?
Justice Gray: Well, “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”
Question: Why would they adopt an Amendment that meant the same thing as existing law under the original Constitution?
Justice Gray: “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Question: So in order to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment, we need to first define the existing law under the original Constitution?
Justice Gray: Yes, that is what declaratory means.
Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?
Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words citizen of the United States,’ and natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “[i]t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Question: So how were these terms defined under the English common law?
Justice Gray: The English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such rule was “in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”
Justice Gray: “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
Question: So generally, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?
Justice Gray: Yes, the natural born citizenship clause “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?
Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comment-21846
G
Thank you for reading the stuff. Not very many Obots ever read my stuff.
You are right that I am correct. But not just technically, unless the 71% is just technically, too. We have already had this fight here, and I can see how to say 71% and that is a acceptable interpretation. But so is mine.There isn’t any right or wrong way to look at this.Chris Matthews agrees with me, and he certainly isn’t a Birther.
But lookit what the Obots say above here. OH NO, it is 71% and any other way to look at it is just plain wrong. Well, it isn’t. There isn’t a right or wrong way. Both are valid. Sooo, when you just don’t want to see the other side, then guess what??? You are just confirming your own bias, which is what I tried to tell these Obots.
The reason why this is important is that I say if Obama was really a American, he has every reason to cough up something bumpy into PUBLIC, not just to some group. My goodness, a whole lot of people don’t think he is from here anyway you look at it.
Plus, there is another poll about how giving information makes stuff better if people are wrong. Sooo, this week the baseball person comes out and says the common sense thing which is, Obama hasn’t shown anything. Agree or not with that, there is definitely a problem. Which isn’t being addressed.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
G
I don’t care about driving people to my website. I could care less. I sent you there so that you could see the argument better. Who cares if it is fictional. I found out a whole lot of people are Free Market people because of a dead Russian atheist’s FICTIONAL novel about trains for goodness sake.
The point of my Internet Article is to make you THINK! But if you think that is just being a conperson, then go over to wherever and tinkle on Johnathan Swift’s grave, too about the Irish babies.
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No because reading it your way would require a lapse in logic. You state the number must be 58% because 1. you add those who said he was probably born in America to those who actually say he wasn’t. You also add those who had no opinion or didn’t care. This doesn’t count as people who had doubts but rather people who probably just didn’t care to answer.
So now if we used your logic that the word probably means doubt then you would have to apply this reasoning equally and throw the people who say he probably was born in another country to mean that they had doubts that he was born elsewhere. You would have to add this number to the 42% which would mean 58% expressed he was born in the country while the lower number 40% being those who have doubts.
If you’re going to pull that trick with the meaning of the word probably, you have to apply this equally
Actually the point of your article is to prove how brainless you are that you can’t even get the personalities correct in your fake debate
Dr. Bob Ross:
I usually just say “have doubt to some degree” or “have some degree of doubt” to cover that.
If not, you would have to write a whole analysis every time you quoted the poll.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No because you don’t apply that “degree of doubt” equally in your attempt to pad the numbers.
Dr Bob Ross:
Here are the numbers:
Definitely born in U.S. 42% 64% 37% 23%
Probably born in the U.S. 29% 21% 31% 34%
Probably born in another country 16% 7% 17% 27%
Definitely born in another country 11% 8% 12% 14%
No opinion 2% 1% 2% 3%
I think it is more sneaky to add the 42 to the 29. If you just ask how many people are definitely sure he was born here, the answer is 42%. That leaves 58% who have some degree of doubt.
This isn’t hard. There aren’t any fractions to mess with.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Incorrect. 2% have no opinion and didn’t care to answer. This has nothing to do with if they have doubts. No its more sneaky to add someone who says Obama was born in America to those who think he wasn’t. If you’re going to qualify the word probably as a doubt then you have to qualify it in both cases. That means that those who think he probably wasn’t born in another country must mean in your head that they doubt he was born elsewhere. So you would have to add the 16% to the 42 which makes 58% who believe he wasn’t born in another country.
Dr. Bob Ross:
Let’s see. You want to add these two things:
Definitely born in U.S. 42% 64% 37% 23%
Plus
Probably born in another country 16% 7% 17% 27%
————————————————-
Equals 58% who think he wasn’t born overseas
I have to admit your “logic” is far beyond me!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
The validity of any statistical analysis depends on three things:
1) The accuracy of your data
2) The size of your sample
3) The integrity of your methodology
Since you didn’t collect the data, we’ll assume that it is reasonably correct, however, by considering one value that is the sum of three data points, you have reduced the size of your sample by a factor of 20 and you have done so with a blatantly biased methodology (hence the people here accusing you (accurately) of ‘spin’). You are correct in saying that it is one possible interpretation of the data, but I and the other posters here are equally correct in saying that it is a fundamentally flawed interpretation based on an egregiously biased method applied in a manner completely devoid of integrity to a fraction of an already small data set. Statistical analysis can produce useful insights when used properly, but all we get from you and your ilk are lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Slart:
Let me translate what you said:
“Blah Blah Blah, this poll means what we want it to, to confirm our bias. And if the poll says something else, well then it is a BAD POLL, because we really want to confirm our bias.”
And before you fuss and say OH NO!!!, I mean this is really pretty simple.
Definitely born in U.S. 42% 64% 37% 23%
Probably born in the U.S. 29% 21% 31% 34%
Probably born in another country 16% 7% 17% 27%
Definitely born in another country 11% 8% 12% 14%
No opinion 2% 1% 2% 3%
42% of Americans think Obama was definitely born in America. 58% (100 minus 42) have some degree of doubt.
OR
71% (42+29) think Obama was probably born in the U.S. 29% think he probably wasn’t born here.
I think me and Chris Matthews have a better view. (Opinion)
You think you have a better view.(Opinion)
See how simple things are when you quit trying to spin stuff and WIN AT ANY COST. This really isn’t about me or you. It is about the TRUTH!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well, if you are going to try to mislead me with anymore links to what you claim are actual “articles” that turn out to be nothing more than made up fantasy dialog…I won’t waste my time.
Trust and respect are things that need to be earned, Squeeky. Trying to play tricks will just cause me to end up tuning you out.
Yes, “technically” would apply to any of those numbers, taken within their own context and out of the full picture of the whole.
Anyone who is able to acknowledge that there is multiple ways of interpreting the numbers is being honest. I cut your statement off here, so I could give credit to you for making an honest assessment and acknowledgement.
Right and wrong comes into play when one tries to cherry pick and point out only the number they want to use to support a certain interpretation and not acknowledge the full set of data points.
You actually did this in your initial post because you had a goal of trying to imply a certain POV. Only when I discussed the full context of the report are you being more reasonable and honest. But at least you are now, so I’ll point it out as a positive development to encourage you to try to be more forthright upfront in the future.
Careful Squeeky…now you are being dishonest again. What Chris Matthews *did* do is mention ONLY the 42% number, as did you initially (well, sort of…you inverted it to 58% and tried to include “no opinion” by doing so)
He most certainly isn’t a Birther – especially by the harsh diatribe he unleashed in that segment AGAINST birthers.
So you *are wrong* about the middle part of your statement that CM “agrees” with you…as you were completely off-base in how you characterized his video in your article (including the title you used). The way you’ve tried to “spin” what his video meant and claim he is in agreement with you is woefully dishonest.
*sigh* Again Squeeky…you seem to have a habit of pure projectionism. I think you are so mired in your pre-conceived notions that you might not even realize that you constantly do this.
Note the portion of your statement I put in BOLD. Now re-read the comments the rest of us have made in regards to the numbers.
NOWHERE do I see where anybody has stated that “any other way to look at it is just plain wrong”. You are seeing things because YOU are the one trapped by your own confirmation biases and want to see them that way.
The points that all the rest of us made with showing the full numbers and the other interpretations is fully inline with the part where you just said “Well, it isn’t. There isn’t a right or wrong way. Both are valid”
Sadly, you seem to need to view the world as “enemies” and because you always leap to that conclusion before you even begin to speak, your own words often cause self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
I point this out as a favor to you, from one human being to another; not to attack you but to try to be helpful and hold out some hope that there is more to you as a person than how you often come across (like an intentional troll)
False. There is no requirement anywhere for the President or candidate to need to show ANY of the public his private information. People and reporters have the right, out of curiosity, to ask personal questions during a campaign. And he, as a citizen and individual has every right to ignore or turn down any requests for private information.
No other candidate ever put forth their birth certificate to the public at all. He did that on his website, as that is the easiest way for anyone to see it…and all he did is get attacked by people who already disliked him and are looking for excuses to smear him anyways. From that POV, you birthers are nothing but a bunch of ingrates who have created unique and excessive demands that no other candidate has ever been held to in the past. That is quite unfair and biased, if you ask me.
1. So, all that points out is that there are a lot of uninformed people out there who either are simply ignorant of the facts, gullible enough to allow themselves to be misled by mere rumors and gossip or just looking for an excuse to use smears to dehumanize an individual they either don’t agree with or fear for whatever reason.
2. The rest of your stuff goes back to the issue of confirmation bias, which Birthers suffer from. No matter how much actual evidence and information has come out, which ALL supports the same conclusion that he was born in HI just as he said he was, most remaining Birthers just keep moving the goal posts as you are too invested in your hate to accept any other conclusion that what you desperately wish were true.
squeeks, lets follow the “degree of doubt” argument further. are you 100% certain of where you were born? you have no recollection of the event so how can you be 100% sure? so, according to your logic, there is almost 100% “degree of doubt” to where squeeky was born.
Squeeky – Unfortunately, my detailed reply is currently stuck in moderation. I have reviewed it and I have not sad anything offensive, so I’m not sure what weird word or punctuation tripped the trigger this time.
Therefore, there is no point in me trying to retype everything and we will just have to wait for Dr. C to come around and get it to post.
BatG
If I run for president in 9 years, and 100% of the people have some degree of doubt where I was born, I will cough up my bumpy birth certificate into PUBLIC. I will do it if like even 1% or 2% do, because that is a pretty easy thing to prove.
Soooo, if you vote for Squeeky in 2020, I promise to be a smart candidate and not be too stupid to handle a $10 document problem!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I hate it when that stuff happens. Sometimes it is just the linky stuff that does it. But I wasn’t trying to drive you to my website. But there really is some good stuff there, like how to play When I’m Small on guitar, and poems, and movies, and Economy stuff. Plus, you can learn how to think better about the Obama birth stuff.
That website was just going to be Economy stuff when I finished reading the Econned book, but when gretawire forum shut down, it was like type all day to move my articles there. I have to re-date them so they aren’t all crammed on just one day.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The original, right? Not some copy that you get from your state’s department of health? And you will provide that original document to anyone who requests it? The original, paper document that is the property of your state’s vital records office, not some copy, and certainly not some photograph of the document, right?
How are you going to accomplish this?
how will you physically show it to 300million+ people? and how can they be 100% certain that it’s not a talented forgery?
James, and My Fellow Americans,
I promise you that I will get 100 copies of my bumpy Birth Certificate and hand some of them out to reporters, and to libraries and to people who doubt where I was born. Plus, I promise to do a Power of Attorney to the DOH of the State of Texas which waives all privacy rights I have in my birth certificate, so that any American who wants a copy can order one at their own expense!!!
Plus, I promise to raise taxes on rich people and move jobs back here from China and Mexico!!!
Soooo, A Vote for Squeeky is a Vote for Smart Stuff!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
how can we be 100% sure those public officials aren’t corrupt and are handing out falsified documents?
Yeah, she can just pay them off to say that she was born in a given state like President Obama did…fake bumpy seal and all. lmao
That was sarcasm by the way, BatGuano
You realize, of course, that with that document anyone could assume your identity. I am not sure why anyone would want to do that, but still…
Really that kind of “logic” is beyond you? Its the same “logic” you use to try to change people say he was probably born in America to people saying he wasn’t born in America. You had to change the meaning of the word probably so if you’re going to do that you have to do it equally on both instances of the word probably
BatG:
There are some people you can never convince of anything. That is life. Just look at how all you Obots are running, ducking, and dodging the little poll thingy I posted for you.
BUT, and this is important, so listen, you can do something more than just nothing. Sooo, unlike Obama who has sat around like a bump on a Kenyan pickle for almost 2 1/2 years (since July 13, 2008) a person has the option of trying to address problems.
Sooo, if your one little run at an answer doesn’t work, you try something else. Because if your answer to a “Where were you born?” problem is over your head, then how in the world are you going to accomplish anything else???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dr. Bob Ross:
Definitely born in U.S. 42%
Plus
Probably born in another country 16%
————————————————-
Equals 58% who think he wasn’t born overseasI
Yes. Your reasoning here is way over my head. I have to admit that I am unable to follow your logic. Perhaps if I have a few drinks. . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It’s very simple for birther clowns really. They say they will accept what they don’t have, but if and when they get it, they will always say that it’s not enough and that they want more. They just use what they don’t have as an excuse to ask for it, but if and when they get it, they have another excuse ready as to why it’s not sufficient. To these clowns, any possible doubt is a reasonable doubt, and it’s possible to doubt anything and everything anyone could possibly offer to prove their place of birth.
Some of us are researchers and statisticians, and it would be irresponsible for us to give your “little poll thingy” much regard.
The answer appears to be over your head. President Obama was born in Hawaii. Birth in Hawaii after statehood makes one a natural born citizen. Is there some part of this that you do not understand?
Number of people who can prove that President Obama was born outside the United States: Zero.
Copies? Copies are acceptable now?
By her own standards, Squeeky the Clown could not prove to me she was born in the USA. Any document she would show me, I would say it’s fake. Any state official who said she was born there I would say is lying. And if asked why I would think that someone would fake a birth certificate or lie, I would just say she paid someone off.
Because I used to read the original Squeeky- and these quotes could only be from someone doing a poor parody:
” I promise you that I will get 100 copies of my bumpy Birth Certificate and hand some of them out to reporters”
“Soooo, A Vote for Squeeky is a Vote for Smart Stuff!!!”
“Soooo, if you vote for Squeeky in 2020, I promise to be a smart candidate”
“So There!!!Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter ”
“Fut:
!!!!!!”
“I am never out of amoo!!! Plus, how do you make it do the little faces???Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter”
“Tee Hee! Tee Hee!”
“Plus, I am too Squeeky, and I will say HI! to you on my very own website!!!”
Those are the quotes of someone just f*ucking with you- not from a real person.
Again, I don’t even think the fake “Squeeky” is a birther- merely a prankster having a laugh at people who reply to it and try to engage it in serious debate.
Fut:
As far as I know, there has just been one thing that Obama coughed up. ONE THING. He gave that to some group who put a PICTURE on the Internet. Maybe you are right, and maybe that should have been enough.
BUT, it wasn’t. Sooo, since then what has he coughed up??? Nothing that I know of. So it isn’t exactly like Obama has just been working his tail off to solve this. In fact, for over 2 1/2 years almost he has done nothing.
There hasn’t been anything from him for us to reject, except for one thingy he didn’t even give to us.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
These clowns think they are fooling someone with their sophomoric tactics, but the only ones they are fooling are the dumb, the gullible, and the delusional
apparently.
So, what you are saying, obsolete, is that Squeeks is a test of the Turing Test.
Obsolete:
Oh yes! I am really a stupid Obot!!! Oh, Tee Hee! Thank you for saying how smart you think I am!!! But seriously, there are Obots who impersonate me, but I have only seen them at Mr. Ed Hales, and out at Spencer Kornhabers where they were just crawling out of the woodwork all the time. Once or twice they did it at gretawire.
But, I have my own websites, sooo I could fight them out there. I said hi to you on my website today which if you just hit my blue namey thingy you will see!!!
And the drinking is helping too! I have figured out Dr. Bob Ross’s math!!!
42 dogs
+ 16 cats
____________
equals 58 potatoes!!!
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
this statement makes absolutely no sense. if my answer is over my head ???
Hmmmm.
58% with doubts to some degree!!!
Shellacking in the midterms.
4 Birther Bills.
Baseball guy who doubts where Obama was born
Oh, just keep on underestimating us!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
He posted it on the internet. That wasn’t sufficient.
Dick Cheney and Congress certified the vote. That wasn’t sufficient.
John Roberts swore him in. That wasn’t sufficient.
WND examined what he posted on the internet and said it was authentic. That wasn’t sufficient.
Factcheck.org examined his original birth certificate and said it was authentic. That wasn’t sufficient.
Governor Lingle and Dr. Fukino said they they have seen his original birth information and that “it’s just a fact” that he was born there. That wasn’t sufficient.
Dr. Fukino testified that he posted a copy of their birth certificates on his campaign website. That wasn’t sufficient.
Every court has thrown out every one of these cases. That’s not sufficient.
Congress and the Republicans in Congress have done nothing about this “Constitutional crisis.” That’s not sufficient.
And the totality of all of these things taken together is not sufficient.
Nothing is ever sufficient for these clowns. Whatever they get, they will say it’s not sufficient and want more, more, more.
89% HAVE DOUBT TO SOME DEGREE THAT HE WAS BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!
If the solution to a question of where one was born, is beyond solution for the aforesaid one, then the aforesaid one is probably a idiot, who can’t solve nothing else either!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
i don’t think it’s possible to underestimate the birthers.
Fut
Yes. You can say it that way!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Should be “his certified birth certificate issued by Hawaii.”
Fut:
You are really ON the ball tonight!!! Yes. It wasn’t sufficient, sooo now he should do something sufficient.
IF he doesn’t then KISS, we are back to WHY he hasn’t done anything sufficient:
1. KENYA. He is born in Kenya.
2. IGNORANT. Obama is too ignorant to think of the simple answer.
3. SNOBBY. Obama thinks Americans are too stupid to believe the REAL THING!
4. SLIMY. Obama thinks it is OK to make some Americans look crazy if it gets him votes.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
🙂
If you have evidence of this, then the dialogue can begin.
James M:
It is one of a list of possibilities. One piece of evidence would be that his wife, Michelle Obama, said Kenya was his homeland or something like that.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
What do you claim that to be evidence of, exactly? Are you suggesting that Michelle Obama is an eyewitness to the President’s birth?
How about evidence, such as something that could suggest that Ann Dunham ever left the United States before August 1961?
It occurs to me that your standards of evidence might differ somewhat from the standards of evidence needed to prosecute a federal case, or to persuade the House of Representatives to consider impeachment.
I am certain that your personal standards of evidence are relevant only to yourself, and fully confident that President Obama’s position is secure from any threat that you personally represent.
Believe what you want.
James M:
Actually, I am happy with a range of possible answers. I used to be like 100% sure he was a Kenyan Commie Marxist Muslim. Now, I am maybe 40% Kenyan and 30% Ignorant and 30% Slimy.
Plus, I don’t think he is a Commie anymore because the more I read, the more he looks like a corporatist who is like a Fascist person. But I am not sure of that yet, and have to finish the Economy book. But I mean he hired Rubin and Summers who are like Wall Street people DELUXE!!! No wonder the economy is all screwed up, because Karl Denninger and other people say they were just hired to protect Wall Street. I don’t think a Commie would want to protect Wall Street, unless it was just to screw us over.
I am still reading about this stuff.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I have consistently underestimated the birthers. They are far more resistant to facts and evidence that I ever dreamed.
Dr. C:
Thank you!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
On the apparent connection between racism and birtherism, Chrisopher Hitchens, writing in the current issue of “Vanity Fair,” observes,
“Most epochs are defined by one or another anxiety. More important, though, is the form which that anxiety takes. Millions of Americans are currently worried about two things that are, in their minds, emotionally related. The first of these is the prospect that white people will no longer be the majority in this country, and the second is that the United States will be just one among many world powers. This is by no means purely a “racial” matter. (In my experience, black Americans are quite concerned that “Hispanic” immigration will relegate them, too.) Having an honest and open discussion about all this is not just a high priority. It’s more like a matter of social and political survival. But the Beck-Skousen faction want to make such a debate impossible.1 They need and want to sublimate the anxiety into hysteria and paranoia. The president is a Kenyan. The president is a secret Muslim. The president (why not?—after all, every little bit helps) is the unacknowledged love child of Malcolm X. And this is their response to the election of an extremely moderate half-African American candidate, who speaks better English than most and who has a model family. Revolted by this development, huge numbers of white people choose to demonstrate their independence and superiority by putting themselves eagerly at the disposal of a tear-stained semi-literate shock jock, and by repeating his list of lies and defamations. But, of course, there’s nothing racial in their attitude …”
1. The late W. Cleon Skousen, (d. 2006) was a conspiracy-minded author and speaker. Skousen, an ultra-conservative Mormon, was also a rabid anti-communist, and avid supporter of the John Birch Society. Glenn Beck embraced Skousen’s faith-based political philosophy and penned a foreward to the 2010 edition of Skousen’s 1981 book on the Constitution, “The Five Thousand Year Leap,”
Glenn Beck is not a birther. This particular connection therefore fails.
That wasn’t a compliment
You’re dumb enough to think marxism and communism is the same concept. Nor are fascism and communism on the same side of the spectrum. Now you’re just ranting like a crazy person.
Probably born in another country? That means according to your logic they have doubts that he was born in another country so you would add that to the people who say he was definitely born in America. I’m using your logic you tried changing the word probably to mean something else when they said he was probably born in America
Arthur wasn’t contending that Beck was a birther. Beck is an anti-anythingobamanomatterwhatbecausefearsells… which is a prime example of the type of racist hysteria that also nourishes the birthermovement.
Beck lies consistently about Obama (and anything he views as “liberal” or “democrat” for that matter) and uses fear and hysteria in order to whip up support for his show, and therfore generate more ad revenue, and more money into his pocket.
Orly, Apuzzo, Rondeau, World Nut Daily, et al do exactly the same, although with the poassible exception of WND they just don’t have Beck’s money making skills.
Dr. C:
You said: “I have consistently underestimated the birthers. They are far more resistant to facts and evidence that I ever dreamed.” And that this was NOT a compliment.
But maybe it just depends on how you take it. Because a lot of stuff people tell you are “facts” and “evidence” really aren’t. Sooo, maybe sometimes having QUESTIONS is a lot more important.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Arthur quoted Christopher Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens was wrong. Birthers are mad at Beck.
Keep
Ignoring
Sanity,
Squeeky.
BatGuano:
LOL!
Kontinue
Imitating
Smart
Squeeky
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I have a friend who is a big Beck fan (I know, I’ve told this story before). He says Beck is never wrong and that nobody has been able to pick apart what he said he prove that he was wrong or lying.
I did just that and somehow my friend was able to use some sort of jiu jitsu move to take the same evidence I showed him to prove my point to prove his.
It takes skill, I admit, but I don’t know how he does it.
Thank you Daniel. I think you summed up Hitchen’s remarks pretty well. As you point out, Hitchens doesn’t claim Beck is a birther; he argues that Beck’s fear mongering energizes people who are predisposed to oppose Obama for any number of reasons.
Charo, I take no offense with your dismissal of Hitchen’s analysis, nor am I interested in defending it, but I do think you missed Hitchen’s point. In posting his commentary I was hoping we might move the conversation away from whatever nonsense the pig from Texas happened to be squealing about .
I have a question: was Glenn Beck’s car in the same state at the time that poor girl was raped and murdered, in 1990?
For more: http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirl.blogspot.com/
What’s the point of asking questions when you don’t accept the answers?
Christopher Hitchens hates every person who publicly declares some kind of faith. He hated Mother Therese and absolutely tried to destroy her name because of his vile hatred. He gave her worse treatment that GB gibes Obama. No one can hate like Christopher Hitchens.
Mother Theresa (my daughter’s name is Therese)
Try Sarah Palin’s church. I tried living in Anchorage, and lasted three months. A minister in Palin’s church demanded I let him baptize me. When I refused, he bellowed “Auschwitz was divine retribution because you people have refused to accept god’s only son.”
Palin believes it too, but she’s smart enough not to say it in public. She and her crowd only support Israel, so their lord comes back.
I read his “God Is Not Great – How Religion Poisons Everything.”
Every time some Christian tells me the West Bank was promised to us, I say “I haven’t gotten an offer letter in the mail yet. When will it arrive?”
Evangelicals egg on settlers to violently attack Arabs, trying to spark Armageddon. If their lord comes back, it’s not so good for the Jews. Evangelicals love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture.
Huckabee: “”I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards…”
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/few-words-from-mike-huckabee.html
More at: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/jewish-pogrom.html
Although I doubt that to be the case, I could un derstand it if it was.
Although not an athesit myself, I’ve seen, over the years, how most fundamentalist Christians treat atheists, and I find it deplorable. If there ever was a group that had a justifiable reason to hate their oppressors, it’s Atheists.
Hitchens also did not claim that Beck was a birther. perhaps you should read more carefully before declaring someone elses points a failure?
Christians viciously harrassed non-Christians in Colorado Springs, forcing at least 10 people to sell their homes, and move away:
http://jeffsharlet.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/soldiers_of_christ.pdf
Palin’s church, among others, funds Jews For Jesus. They are nothing more than latter day concentration camp capos. They preach that terror against Israel is deserved, because we don’t accept their lord.
I actually said we should assume that it is a good poll. I gave no interpretation of the poll myself, I just pointed out the problems (in my opinion) in how you arrived at your interpretation. Any reasonable (unbiased) person would look at those numbers and say things like 57% of Republicans are pretty sure that President Obama was born in Hawaii or 15% of Democrats don’t think he was born in the US. That would be accurately representing what the poll said. Using your statistic of ‘58% have doubts he was born in the US’ (really 56% because 2% are sure that they don’t want to answer…) or the opposite figure of 87% have doubts about him being born overseas is an attempt to spin the results to fit a preconceived narrative – one of the many ways you are being intellectually dishonest.
I guess you have to use every dishonest trick you can think of – adding the 2% that did not respond to one of your asymmetric statistics but not the other, in my opinion, shows that you are so thoroughly biased that you will exploit any lie, no matter how small, in an effort to support your point or you are completely ignorant of how to interpret statistics. If it’s the former then you are displaying the intellectual dishonesty that has become the hallmark of the birther movement (along with legal incompetence ;-)) and if it’s the latter, you’re welcome to sit at the poker table with me anytime…
No, from what you’ve said, I know that I have a much better understanding of what the poll means than you do. I doubt you ever considered the question of what the poll meant – I’m guessing you just asked yourself if there was any way the poll could be twisted to support your baseless and pointless arguments.
I’m not trying to win at any cost – the birther movement will destroy itself if it doesn’t just atrophy into irrelevancy. Those four bills moving through state legislatures are time bombs – once a secretary of state or a court accepts a certified copy of the COLB as proof that President Obama is a natural born citizen (and they will be accepted under any Constitutional law or by any court of law in the country) it’s game over for the birthers and even if all of the bills peter out, there’s still the crack birther legal corps – in the run up to the 2012 election Berg or Apuzzo or someone will find a client with standing and get a case heard ‘on the merits’ (actually standing IS one of the merits of a case – one more little bit of ignorance or deceit from the birthers…) and then they will quickly find out that they have talked themselves into a court opinion (which I’m guessing will look remarkably similar to the one in Ankeny) that removes any doubt that the president is eligible for his office. Even if none of that happens, there is the birther weapon of mass destruction – Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. Even if the rest of the birther movement fades into the dustbin of history without so much as a whimper, I can’t imagine Orly will let her 15 minutes of fame expire until she’s tried everything she possibly can to get someone to let her feeeeeenish… Frankly, the only reason that I continue to pay attention to the birthers at all (besides the daily amusement value of people like you making fools of themselves with their bigoted intellectual dishonesty) is in anticipation of how utterly hilarious it will be when the birther movement is finally hoist on its own petard and self-immolates – if it just fades into oblivion instead, I’ll be very disappointed…
Martin Luther invented modern anti-semitism:
“On the Jews and Their Lies” is a 65,000-word treatise written by German Reformation leader Martin Luther in 1543.
In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.” Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,” and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut”. He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also advocates their murder, writing …”we are at fault in not slaying them.”
The prevailing scholarly view since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany’s attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed “On the Jews and Their Lies” during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper “Der Stürmer.”
Squeeky – first of all, Dr. C finally approved my previous response to you. See Dec 10 @ 5:47pm, please.
Second, on your post here, unfortunately you have completely misapplied the principle of KISS. Under the premise of Keeping It Simple, the most straightforward, obvious and least convoluted idea is considered the most likely – unless there is direct evidence that contradicts it.
So, the #1 item on the list would be the simplest and most straightforward explanation:
1. The president is who he says he is and was born in HI, just as he claimed.
It is simple, straightforward and all evidence to date has backed up this premise, as have any officials who have any say in the matter. Furthermore, we are 2 years past the election and he has been sworn in and serving as President without any actual controversy on his status, other than from the Birtherverse…which has lost every curt challenge and attempt to make an issue out of it.
Your remaining issues completely FAIL this KISS test.
KENYA for one – requires a whole host of implausible and very difficult scenarios just to make this one happen (no records exist to support such a notion, very unlikely that a poor pregnant college woman would be able to make the trip, requires a whole baffling complex conspiracy theory of cover ups, forgeries and a plot that was 47 years in the making…let alone the fact that any foreign birth recorded in HI would HAVE to list the place of birth AS that foreign country – NOT as Honolulu, HI as his states).
Therefore, KENYA could never even qualify for the KISS test. It almost has to be at the bottom of any list of possibilities.
Your remaining three are just personal biased value judgment attacks defaming a person’s character and don’t really present an objective scenario to evaluate.
The closest to a scenario that would “cover” your three remaining “points” and fit criteria for the KISS test is to simply state that the president has no interest in responding further or providing any further proof at this stage of the game. That is an objective statement. Any value judgment criteria applied is subjective and inapplicable to applying the KISS test.
In evaluating whether the president has no interest in providing this information – the evaluation criteria that can be used are statements from him or his staff regarding the matter when questioned further on it – which would seem to confirm that they feel that the COLB they posted was more than sufficient and that they don’t have any intention of addressing the issue further. The second part of the test would be to see if there are any requirements for a candidate to provide this information to the public. And the answer is a simple one – there is not. A third objective evaluation critera would to be comparative to what other such candidates have done in the past. The results here also show that no prior candidate has provided this information either and that very few such BC documents can be found for any past president.
You may personally feel that the president’s inattention to your personal curiosity and demands is “ignorant”, “snobby” or “slimy” – but those are merely your frustrated opinions based on your personal bias towards the issue, and not objective criterion of either positing a scenario nor testing it whatsoever. It is merely a subjective emotional response by yourself to how you feel about the issue.
Well, at least this shows that you are capable to some extent of eventually applying new knowledge you gain to understanding and evaluating issues. I encourage you to continue to educate yourself from actual credible sources and not just biased propaganda websites.
Yes, the whole notion of calling him a communist is both highly perplexing and laughable to anyone who has even a basic grasp of what communism actually means and its relation to economic markets. It is one thing for some people to “fear” he might have “communist” viewpoints prior to his taking office. (that merely merits only a rolling of eyes), but it is quite another to look at the past two years of an actual administration in action – both in terms of the people appointed on staff and the decisions that have been made and to still try to make any such claims. At this point, such notions have been proven completely unfounded and are ludicrous.
As you are starting to realize, his polices so far have been very favorable to Wall Street and large corporate interests. Of course, that is never enough for the unquenchable greed of Wall Street and other Big Money interests…if they could have it their way, they would not have to pay ANY taxes at all, would charge as much as they want, pollute as much as they want and would pay out as little in wages and benefits as they could get away with and keep all of the profit in the pockets of the top execs, not care about “ethics” whatsoever and monopolize entire markets to their hearts desire. Their sole true motivation is to make profit and as much of it as possible with as little effort as possible.
So, they whine when any rules or laws are applied to them in the slightest and are like spoiled children with an over-developed sense of entitlement that complain loudly even on legislation, bail-outs and policies that strongly are in their favor…because anything less than an unfettered ability to do whatever they want and not have to do anything for it is not fully satisfying to them.
So yeah, feel free to make accusations that Obama (or just about most members of our congress for that matter) are beholden to corporate and special interest groups instead of to the general welfare of the American people. Those opinions, you can at least justify with examples that back them up. Crazy slurs of “communism” and “marxism” and “fascism”… sorry, there’s just nothing in the actual record to support that.
Hate is an awfully strong word. He may very well “hate” certain individuals or groups…only he knows in his heart. Or he may simply hold some level of disdain or contempt for certain notions and individuals.
Saying that “no one can hate like Christopher Hitchens” or that he hates *every” person who declares some kind of faith is a bit over the top as a declarative statement.
In reality, this is merely your opinion of how you perceive his statements and views as a direct assault on people of strong religious convictions, such as yourself and nothing more than that.
To say things like “no one can hate like so-and-so” just invites others to provide their own examples of people they feel are the worst hate-mongers out there…and I’m sure that there is a huge list of them, so its rather unwise to make such bold declarations like that and end up in meaningless comparative debates of “who hates the most”…you’ll end up with Godwin’s Law being invoked and comparisons of didn’t Hitler hate the jews even more and other such examples in no time.
Bottom line, I felt it was a poor choice of words and unnecessary statements of excessive passing of judgment on what is within someone’s heart.
EXACTLY
I rest my case.
The phrase “The Turing Test” is also sometimes used to refer to certain kinds of purely behavioral allegedly logically sufficient conditions for the presence of mind, or thought, or intelligence, in putatively minded entities. So, for example, Ned Block’s “Blockhead” thought experiment is often said to be a (putative) knockdown objection to The Turing Test. (Block (1981) contains a direct discussion of The Turing Test in this context.) Here, what a proponent of this view has in mind is the idea that it is logically possible for an entity to pass the kinds of tests that Descartes and (at least allegedly) Turing have in mind—to use words (and, perhaps, to act) in just the kind of way that human beings do—and yet to be entirely lacking in intelligence, not possessed of a mind, etc.
———The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That last sentence, especially, “(and perhaps, to act) in just the kind of way that human beings do–and yet to be entirely lacking in intelligence, not possessed of a mind, etc.” vividly characterizes the squealing pig from Texas. Thank you Sef for the the original reference.
I have found that many birthers (and tea parties) want to take us back to that mythical time before heavy immigration and emancipation (or at least the 14th amendment). Many of them follow up with wanting to do away with all of those evil communist-socialist-one world order creations of the federal reserve, direct election of senators, direct taxation, and all of the FDR “commie” programs.
Yet, if we were to back up to clocks to before these changes, we would find that, at that time, we were not a world power. Our current “super power” status did not occur until after the 14th amendment, after heavy immigration at the turn of the century, after the Federal Reserve, and after the New Deal (and solidified even more, after later civil rights).
Are the birthers hatred of the President so high that they would return us to second class status in the world? (Okay, rhetorical question there).
There was also a Numb3rs episode which had a computer explicitly programmed to pass the Turing Test. It initially fooled Charlie. Interesting.
Not so rhetorical. That is indeed what the right wing is trying to do. Destroy the middle class through the destruction of the education system and the unions. Repeal the 17th amendment so vested interests don’t have to mess with uncertainty of elections to get their fully owned Senators in place. Repeal the 14th amendment so troublesome civil rights issues don’t get in the way of what ever they want to do. Oh yeah, the 14th also extends the Bill of Rights protections to the States, so with out that they’ll be able to pretty much do anything they want to do at the State level and the Feds can go jump.
There is a lot of ‘they’ in there, and that is pretty amorphous, but you get the idea.
I leave further examples as an exercise, but they are endless. I’m particularly amused by the folks seeking to repeal all this so-called socialist stuff because it is leading us step by step to a NWO one world government and what we really need is good old-fashioned American Capitalism. In fact, the repeal of all this so-called socialist stuff will render government pointless, good old-fashioned American Capitalism no longer exists, and the end result will be an NWO one world government owned by multi-national cartels.
LOL! That is so true. What these fooling Tea Party folks don’t realize is that if they got their way, all that would be left is unfettered corporate fiefdoms where they would be reduced to nothing but powerless serfs with barely any rights at all.
I will look up Turing Tests to see if I can pass it. Monkey Boy had a test of stuff that I passed where you fill in words one place where the letters go off to a quote thingy, too. It was a lot of fun, and even Monkey Boy had to say I was smart, because I was the only person on gretawire to do it!!!
So There!!!
Plus, I even have Economy stuff on my forum and Logia says:
FORUM SQUEEKITIS ETERNUS EST!
http://squeeky.smfforfree.com/index.php/board,1.0.html
Soooo, DOUBLE So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If you want to study up in advance, check out this page:
http://www.suite101.com/content/joseph-weizenbaums-doctor-computer-program-a74130
Thank you, Squeeky, for showing us that you believe that Obama has met the burden of proof and is a Citizen of the United States. It’s also great that you, if you were a part of a civil court jury, would be forced to vote in Obama’s direction that he is the President of the United States.
In a civil trial, the burden of proof would be a preponderance of the evidence, or “is it more likely than not”. By stating that you think that there’s only a 40% chance that Obama was born in Kenya, you’re also stating that you believe that there is a 60% chance that he was born in Hawaii. Therefore, in your own mind, Obama has met the burden of proof that he was born in the United States, and is eligible to be the President of the United States.
I expect you to now say that Obama has met the burden of proof for you, and is the legitimate President of the United States.
Luther did not invent nor did he support “modern anti-semitism”. Antisemitism has been endemic in Christianity since the 4th century. Anti-Jewish tracts circulated for centuries before Luther. Luther was not antisemitic; he was anti-Jewish. Modern antisemitism, as proclaimed by the Nazis is a race-based ideology bent on the extermination of the Jews as an inferior race. Luther did not want the Jews dead; he wanted them to convert to Christianity.
As for “On the Jews and their Lies”, it is a companion piece to another work “On the Sacred Name” (“Von Schem Hamphoras”) both of which were written in angry response to some rather nasty Jewish insults (not necessarily authentic).
One has to be careful of a particular strain in Jewish thought that I call the “anti-missionary movement” that includes twisting of what Luther said and statements out of context as bad as anything we see from Joseph Farah about Obama. It’s important to consult not only the primary sources, but the historical context.
One should not whitewash Luther, nor deny the use that his writings were put to by the Nazis so justify their extermination of Jews, but Luther should not be demonized either.
He must have had a funny way of converting, historically and contextually speaking
“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham’.” Martin Luther.
Here’s a few other gems from Mr. Luther that seems to indicate his wish to convert Jews.
“They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everybody who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog!”
“We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them.”
“The blind Jews are truly stupid fools”
“they are nothing but thieves and robbers”
“Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews”
“We are at fault for not slaying them.”
“I shall give you my sincere advice: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
…Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs”
I’m having trouble thinking that the rather vivid descriptions given by Luther of how he would kill them and destroy them pretty much have to indicate other than a “missionary zeal”.
“KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!!!” pretty much indicates, to me at least, that someone wants them dead.
You might have a point if that were an authentic quotation from Martin Luther, but it is not. As homework, please look up this quote, and report to us the authentic and unedited version. [Hint: Luther’s Table Talk # 356.]
I am offended that someone on this blog would expect to get away with snips of ANYTHING out of context like this, much less the fabricated example I picked out.
Luther also said: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord”. (Luther’s Works, Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).
You see, I have read everything Luther wrote about the Jews, both favorable and unfavorable. Your citation of selective quotes does not prove your point, but rather your bias.
This topic is beyond the scope of this blog except to note that the techniques of rational investigation and critical thinking apply to everyone and to all questions.
Dana Rohrabacher Finally, Openly Appeals to His Skinhead Constituents in Attacking DREAM Act
Huntington Beach Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Supported Taliban) has never been a fan of illegal immigration and has particularly hated the DREAM Act, which would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented college students and those illegals that, unlike Dana, served their country in the Armed Forces. But the passage of the DREAM Act in the House of Representatives earlier this week has finally pushed Dana into the realm of coded politics uttered specifically to appeal to angry gabachos–and specifically those gabachos who hate ‘dem minorities supposedly ruining their lives..
As Clockwork Coker noted earlier this week, Dana referred to the DREAM Act on the House floor as the “Affirmative Action Amnesty Act,” a not-so-coded reference to the affirmative-action wars of the 1980s and 1990s, when (mostly) Republicans played up the fears of white people that minorities (then, painted as African-Americans) were taking the slots of much-more-qualified “Americans” due to race. If Dana didn’t drive home the point further that he thinks the DREAM Act will screw over white people (because he can’t outright say that lest a storm of controversy he couldn’t possibly weather would oust him), Rohrabacher went on in his ramble to claim the bill would “give foreigners who are here illegally preference over non-minority citizens.”
Let’s see…African-Americans are still a minority, as are Asians and Latinos and Native Americans and Arabs and Indians and…why, that means Dana’s saying that illegals are getting preference over WHITE people! Yeah, because the system is TOTALLY stacked against gabachos and illegals just get a walk in the parque.
But Rohrabacher didn’t stop there. Over the weekend, Dana has been firing off tweets of increasingly belligerent, bizarre statements. “Libs put racist preferences into law. Illegals’ status normalized=preferences apply to them=betrayal of Americans by racist libs,” he wrote in one tweet. Racist? The DREAM Act could only be racist if it applied to one group at the expense of another. Is “illegal” now a race vis-a-vis “American,” Dana–or, are you saying the DREAM Act only helps Latinos at the expense of whites, therefore ignoring those Latinos you claim support you?
And the funniest tweet? Just this weekend: “Indians lost their country to foreigners. I’m not letting that happen to us w/out a fight. Which side are you & your friends on?” Americans are the new Indians; Mexicans, the new colonists. Reminds me of when your good friend Lupe Moreno once called Americans the Jews and Mexican immigrants the new Nazis…hey, Dana? I hear the American TP Party is looking for candidates…
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/12/dana_rohrabacher_finally_openl.php
Here’s an absolutely priceless quote from our best bud Mario over @ CAAFlog:
Sounds like this is what Mario has been doing all along. It doesn’t look good for his future.
Well, I thought I’d put my two cents into this discussion about Luther, Jews, and Christian v. Modern Anti-Semitism.
Misha raised the issue when he wrote, “Martin Luther invented modern anti-Semitism: On the Jews and Their Lies’ is a 65,000-word treatise written by German Reformation leader Martin Luther in 1543.In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”
Dr. C. response was to argue that Luther’s anti-Semitism was faith-based, and that modern anti-Semitism (as promulgated by the Nazis, though not invented by them) was based on pseudo scientific notions of race and blood. Dr. C. argued that one of the differences between Luther and modern anti-Semites, is that Luther thought the Jews could be redeemed by being Christianized, while the Nazis believed Jews were essentially evil and unredeemable.
With all respect to Dr. C., the research I’ve done suggests you are making Luther’s anti-Semitism less vicious than it was, and less influential to modern anti-Semitism than it was.
From the tracts that he published, Martin Luther’s attitudes about the Jews are well known, and over time, one sees Luther become increasingly hostile in his attitudes toward Jews. Early in his career, and writing as reformer, Luther’s tract “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” (1523) took a generally positive tone towards the Jews, with Luther arguing that the they could most certainly be converted to Christianity—once they had the opportunity to hear preached the true Gospel, i.e., Luther’s interpretation of it. However, historian Steven Rowan, writing in “The Sixteenth Century Journal” explains that Luther’s hope for the conversion of the Jews “does not mean that Luther was fond of the Jews of his own day or harbored any respect for their contemporary practice . . .” Rowan writes that “Luther had a profoundly negative perception of contemporary Judaism,” and he, criticized Judaism “as an empty observance of ceremonial form and ritual purity at the expense of any true spiritual life” (88).
By late 1530s, Luther’s attitude towards Jews hardened, especially when he heard reports of Christian radicals in Moravia who were introducing Jewish practices into worship services, and rumors of Jews trying to convert Christians. Luther’s new antipathy towards the Jews was expressed in two notable tracts, “Against the Sabbatarians” (1538) and then “On the Jews and Their Lies” (1543). According to Rowan, “both were written in a state of rising irritation and verbal savagery” which characterize “the sort of polemic hatred which became a feature of all of Luther’s last books.” In “On the Jews” Luther argues for “the futility of the Jewish faith as a religion” and condemns Jews for their “their refusal to recognize that the Messiah had already come.” The tract suggests, among other things, that Jews be forced into hard labor and finally expelled. (88). Both these ideas were adopted by modern anti-Semites.
As for Luther’s influence on modern anti-Semitism, it is well known that the Nazi’s incorporated any and all anti-Semetic writing into their propaganda, whether it came from racial “scientists” or from religious, artistic, or political figures. This connection has been so well documented that it scarcely needs mentioning, but Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” and “The German Propaganda Archive (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm ) out of Calvin College are two good sources to start. Wikipedia also has an persuasive and fully cited section on the influence of Luther on the Nazis.
This just in – Lakin pleads guilty to one count, the court-martial is proceeding on another (AP report):
FORT MEADE, Md. — An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions President Barack Obama’s citizenship has pleaded guilty to one of two charges against him.
At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to a charge that included not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not reporting to duty at Fort Campbell.
Lakin faces up to 18 months in prison and dismissal from the Army.
He pleaded not guilty to a second charge of missing a flight he was required to be on. His court-martial at Fort Meade is continuing on that count.
Hawaiian officials say they have records proving Obama was born there and is therefore eligible to be president. But so-called birthers challenge that.
From the Associated Press via CAAFlog:
Associated Press reports Lakin entered a guilty plea on at least one specification under Charge II. If this is correct, it means the accused has abandoned the birther claim that no military orders issued while President Obama is commander-in-chief are lawful. AP confirms Colonel Sullivan’s earlier reporting that the defense will litigate the missing movement charge.
For those unfamiliar with the court-martial process: to plead guilty, a military accused must enter into a colloquy with the military judge in which the judge explains the elements of each offense and the legal definitions that accompany it. See United States v. Care, 40 C.M.R. 247 (C.M.A. 1969). The accused has an opportunity to discuss the elements and the definitions with the judge, who must be satisfied that the accused understands them before accepting his plea. The accused must also describe under oath the acts he committed that give rise to his plea, so that the judge is satisfied that he is, in fact, guilty. If the accused makes statements or offers evidence inconsistent with his plea, it cannot be accepted, and the military judge must reopen the discussion with the accused (formally referred to as a “providency inquiry” or more often and informally known as a ”Care inquiry”) to resolve the inconsistency; or, if it cannot be resolved, reject the plea and enter a not guilty plea on his behalf. UCMJ Article 45(a).
Per press reports, it appears LTC Lakin entered guilty pleas to three of the specifications of Charge II. For those pleas to be accepted, he would have to explicitly admit that the orders he received were lawful orders which he had a duty to obey.
Lakin pleading guilty is really going to upset the birthers.
Experience tells us that birthers will quickly invent a reason that explains Lakin’s guilty plea, and which also allows them to maintain his innocence. My guess is that birthers will say he was forced to plead guilty after agents of the President threatened Lakin and his family with violence. Rather than becoming an object of scorn, Lakin will become a martyr.
Or they will blame it on Soros, the NWO and the Reptilians…. or claim it somehow translates to one of the seals breaking in the Book of Revelations. LOL!
Like Butterdezillion (the school teacher):
“I have never in my life had to struggle so much with the temptation to hate, as I am struggling right now. I keep telling myself it’s the sin. It’s the sin I hate. The sin is as stinking as a rotting corpse. I want so badly to say, “God, damn Obama. God, damn Puckett. God, damn Lind.”
God, damn sin and everyone who refuses to repent of it. This is what You died for. This is why You had to suffer hell, because there is real, rotten, stinking sin that has control over this world and has infected every one of us in this world. Sin that clings to us and would ruin Heaven if it was allowed to enter There. I want to hit Obama, Puckett, and Lind. I want to sear them with burning acid until the smirk on their damned faces burns into oblivion. I want them to get what they deserve for what they are doing to Lakin, to this country, and to all of us who love both Lakin and this country.
Remind me, Lord, that this sin – this mockery of justice, these lies, and the trollish laughter at all this is good and right – these sins, in the election and since, in this court-martial, and here at FR – these sins were smeared on You. The Father threw You out of His presence in disgust at THESE SINS that You willingly bore, that You willingly confessed as Your own even though You knew they were not. The Father has already burned You with acid for these sins.
God, I can’t stand it. Lakin is standing before a corrupt Pilate and being told to lie, to convince Pilate of a lie. To love country enough to lie for her. God, I can’t stand it. Hold Lakin and his family in the middle of this darkness. Hold me in the middle of this darkness. Hold all of us who can see this for what it is. And send the Hound of Heaven after those who can’t, that they would be brought to repentance. Remind us all that there will be a Day when what is hidden will be revealed and those who have loved the truth will be vindicated. In the meantime, hold us close and make us wise and effective. In Jesus’ name. Amen.”
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2642492/posts?page=63#63
Didn’t more than one commenter here say that Butterdezillion may be a nutty birther but at least argued rationally?
Really?
I do recall that some did. As we can see a “rational birther” like a pink unicorn does not exist here in the real world….As predicted the birthers instead of accepting the facts that Lakin was guilty and him admitting his guilt is proof of said guilt, instead have concocted a narrative that allows them to continue their delusions. So of course Obama, along with the evil Judge Lind, Congress, and Lakin’s attorney have forced an innocent man like Lakin to plead guilty. This is not surprising. If you read the blog posts written by such nut bags like Dr Kate and Lame cherry, we should have seen this coming…
Will,
I don’t think that any birther could be said to ‘argue rationally’ since their position is based on a flat denial of the reasonable conclusion that President Obama is eligible – that being said, I always recall thinking of Butterdezillion as being pretty out there… Although at times she may seem rational at first glance, upon further inspection the crazy starts shining through. Also, having read some of her exchanges at FR, she seems to think that she is rational and logical.
That’s one of the reasons that Mickey Weinstein and the MRFF filed suit against the Air Force Academy: the school’s faculty and staff are riddled with fundamentalists, many connected with the worst sort of theocrats, and non-evangelical students and faculty underwent severe harassment. A Lutheran chaplain was basically forced to resign when she tried to blow the whistle on what was going on, and there were reports of things like Jewish students being told that they would go to hell if they didn’t convert and join a suitably conservative church.
It’s scary stuff, considering that this is where the Air Force trains its officers. Colorado Springs is also where NORAD is or was based. Wanna bet that a theoretical President Palin would have no problems bringin’ back Jesus with a nuclear strike in the Holy Land to force Armageddon?
I’ve never called her rational. If anything, my statements to her and about her pretty much call her out as one of the most irrational logic deficient people on the planet. She’s completely beholden to just about every kooky NWO / “black helicopters are out to get us” conspiracy theory out there.
I’ve felt sorry for her, because she’s obviously has some mental problems and she seems to continue to breakdown further and further over time.
But mostly I feel sorry for any kids that have had her as a teacher.
Well, if the birthers remain true to form, somehow they’ll “spin” his court martial conviction into a “win” for Orly & Mario. LOL!
Unfortunately, you are probably right. The sad thing is she’s not the only zealot out there with beliefs like that. Quite a few of the neo-con hawks would like nothing better than to instigate some sort of scenario for that purpose too.
I can only hope we can get through the next few years without any of these End Times desiring nut-jobs finding a way to foster and instigate WW3 in the Mid-East.
Speaking of nutjobs how about old buddy Robert Laity….This guy needs some serious help….
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/madisonville-tn/TS5SO0Q8TJ2QMMA6I/p2
Robert Laity wrote:
“CI#10002896 COTPD-Obama”
Perhaps,Bush DID “orchestrate…attacks “.
Gainsaying does not cancel out the facts about Obama.He was born a Brit. That is a fact.
Obama is therefore NOT the bona fides POTUS.
A simple deduction that everyone should be able to understand,including YOU!
TN Reader wrote:
“Well, clearly everyone does NOT agree with this. If there was any merit to this claim at all, the GOP, who intensely dislike President Obama, would be ALL OVER this as an excuse to have him removed from office. They aren’t doing that though are they? That’s because they know that there is no credible proof of this claim (that Obama is not a natural US citizen) what so ever, and that claiming otherwise in the absence of factual proof would first of all, fail, and second of all damage their credibility by making them look like crack pot, conspiracy theorist idiots.
AMPLE proof of President Obama’s citizenship has been provided already. It was certainly credible enough to satisfy state Supreme Court judges and government officials in the GOP. I’ve actually SEEN a scanned copy of the birth certificate myself, and the same document has been accepted and verified by the governor of Hawaii.
The thing about people that get obsessed with conspiracy theories (such as yourself) is that no matter how much evidence is presented contrary to what you “believe,” you will never accept it, because at the end of the day you simply refuse to accept reality.
Let me give you a little reality check. Barack Obama won the election and lawfully became President of the United States. He WILL continue to be President of the United States at least until the next election. You can rant, rave, foam at the mouth, or whatever, but no matter how hard you cling to your little conspiracy theory, nothing is going to change that fact. You may intensely dislike President Obama, and think his policies are ruinous for the country, but at the end of the day he is still the elected President, and nothing is going to change that.
Move on.”
Robert Laity wrote:
Obama wishes that I would “Move on”. NO Chance. My life mission is to bring the Traitor Obama to justice.
butterdezillion’s become a sad example of how hard the lakin case has gotten for birfers. today was by no means their first bad day, but it was indeed the worst come-to-jebus moment for them in this silly saga.
in previous court battles birfers could always find themselves some space where they could pretend that they had a chance of winning. they could always find some twisted reasoning that could allow them to self-righteously puff themselves up on the threshold of victory (seemingly just for the effort of getting into a courtroom) in preparation for the usurper’s comeuppance, reasoning which could allow them ignore their previous losses and boast and spin and dive feet-first from the saddle of their imaginary high-horse down the throat of any “obot” rude enough to contradict them.
but not today. there was not one drop of victory that could be salvaged from today. lakin was stripped of any and all avenues that didn’t lead to a guilty plea, and his fellow birfers, with no cover to jump for, careened off the cliff they’d so cleverly scaled with him, to plummet unceremoniously onto the bare rock floor of reality.
but the trial is not yet over and birfers have proven themselves to be resilient; in a few days we’ll know if they’ve found any winnings to be milked from this debacle.
Hi Obots!!!
I just did my very first Economy Issue Internet Article!!! How Rich People Are Like Mattresses!!!
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/how-rich-people-are-like-mattresses/
Plus, the Col. Lakin thing isn’t going to hurt us any.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Is Lakin a citizen? See for yourself:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/lakin-undocumented-worker_26.html
and
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-lakin-citizen.html
Squeeky – I read your Economy Issue article.
I want to give you appropriate kudos and congrats. You are learning and it shows that you are able to express what you have learned. Overall, that was actually a very good writeup that explained basic economic principles and points out the problem with why giving additional tax cuts to the rich just aggravates the problem and doesn’t help it.
For me, there was nothing I didn’t already know in the material you wrote, as it is simply an explanation of basic economic principles, of which I already knew. I sometimes lose sight of the fact that most people, unfortunately lack even that basic understanding…and thus, why they are so easily manipulated into voting and rallying against their own interests.
Therefore, I think you article does a great service to explain the situation and these basic principles in a way that hopefully, they can understand. If only you could reach the “Tea Party” audience with your article…maybe that would open some of their eyes to what is good policy, what is bad policy and what is necessary for the health of this country and the middle class.
I only wish you had left out derogatory statements such as having to call people “malebeasts”. Making such sexist attacks only detract from the otherwise educational message you put together and can cause you to lose some of the audience that should read this.
Re: Lakin not going to “hurt” you folks… not sure what that means. You’ll have to explain. He definitely isn’t “helping” the birther cause either. As it always has been, the court martial is about his disobeying orders, so his personal feeling about Obama are and have always been irrelevant to the charges.
Hi Misha!!!
Did you like my Economy Internet Article??? Was it good??? You can put it on your website if you want to! I tried to keep it simple and didn’t talk about Lipsey Lancaster and stuff like that even though I am now kind of a expert on it. People are afraid of Economy stuff if it gets too hard which is one reason why there is sooo much stupid stuff out there about tax cuts for the rich and stuff like that. The news people have to keep it simple for all the Free Market Extremists.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Of course it’s not going to hurt you at all….YOU’RE NOT THE ONE GOING TO JAIL!! lmao. They’re already starting to throw Lieutenant Coward Lakin under the bus.
Squeeky, are you willing to admit that Obama has satisfied the civil legal proof of Preponderance of the Evidence, and that it’s more likely than not that Obama was born in Hawaii?
You said earlier that it was only 40% likely that Obama was born in Kenya (which must mean that you believe that it’s 60% likely that Obama was born in Hawaii.) This must mean that you believe that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States, since he’s satisfied the legal proof in any civil suit that is brought. I just want to hear you confirm it.
WND whitewashes Orly again in her Taitz v. MacDonald
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=240913
Of course, they forgot to mention that Rhodes fired Taitz and that this case is only about the fine.
Well, I suppose she does have standing in regards to the fine but not the eligibility issue (especially since she misplaced her plaintiff). Of course, the government waived the right to respond and SCOTUS has not required a response, so, that’s about it.
The amount Obama spent appears to be going through a “deflationary” episode.
Is there any word what happened Friday in Orly’s suit in which she was supposed to have a conference? I have seen nothing on her site about it. She’s probably hiding her head in the sand like all the birthers.
I believe the conference is scheduled for 1/7/11, Sef, so it won’t be long after that that we will find out they denied it.
According to http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/medical-dental-development-llc-v-pierson/ it was this past Friday. Was it rescheduled?
I think they has it wrong as usual. This is from the SCOTUS docket.
No. 10-541
Title:
Orly Taitz, Petitioner
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, et al.
Docketed: October 25, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)
Decision Date: March 15, 2010
Rehearing Denied: May 14, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 12 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 24, 2010)
Nov 24 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/10-541.htm
Unless we’re talking about two different cases, but I think this is the only case she has there. Judge Lamberth recently threw out her motion for reconsideration of the DC case, but I don’t remember the date.
Yup, should be “have it wrong.” And here’s a better link
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-541.htm
The case I referenced was in California State Court, not SCOTUS.
As Northland10 says, it’s a done deal. Orly’s petition was “dead filed” when none of the justices requested a response from the government. The denial of cert is a mere formality at this point.
Of course, Orly and WND don’t seem to know this, so it would be a good opportunity to lay down some bets, if you can find anyone willing to be on Orly.
Oh, I don’t go to their links, Sef, so you’ll have to be a little more specific; it makes me feel dirty to click on their links. If you’re referring to the DC case, here’s the order denying it.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0151-38
I don’t think she has a case in CA court. She refiled that case in DC although it originated in Santa Ana. Keyes v. Bowen, a CA case, was dismissed back in October.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/appellate-court-dismisses-birther-lawsuit/
She did post this on her facebook wall (the spelling is all hers):
Ahh… Orly being Orly…
No. This was the case where she was suing the tenants of her building who left without finishing their lease. It is not a birther case. The referenced link has some info.
Yeah, I thought you meant a birther case.
Like I said, I won’t go to their websites any more than I would go to a website that espoused the virtues of Osama bin Laden. There’s just something wrong about it.
The website I referenced is NBC’s. What problem do you have with it???????
Like I said, I didn’t go to it! I don’t know whose it is.
I was asking you for the information. Is that okay??????????
Ooooo Kaaayyyy!
I often write “(WBUH)” after Orly Taitz’ name. Referring to the Muslin phrase “(PBUH)”, but with “whoever” replacing “peace”.
Of course, it may prove more difficult to find someone willing to bet on Orly Taitz (WBUH) than someone willing to sit in her dental chair, like CEL3.
[bada-bing]
Intrade doesn’t have anything up on Orly. Maybe someone could create one & then we could watch the action.
Liberi v Taitz – Hearing on Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for TRO
When: Mon, December 20, 1pm – 1pm
Where: Philadelphia, Pa – Eastern District PA Federal Court (map)
Description:
12/14/2010 157 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TRO IS SCHEDULED FOR 12/20/2010 AT 2:00 PM IN COURTROOM 11A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE ANY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR A TRO BY 12/17/2010 AT 5:00 PM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT GIVE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANTS ARE PRO SE AND DO NOT HAVE EMAIL ADDRESSES LISTED ON THE DOCKET, PLAINTIFF SHALL SERVE ALL DEFEDANTS BY OVERNIGHT COURIER AT THEIR LAST KNOWN ADDRESS IDENTIFIED ON THE DOCKET. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 12/13/2010. 12/14/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE DENDANTS AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
How did it go? Did the Orly win, or what?
Don’t know yet. If anyone knows, please post an update.
I haven’t found this mentioned here before — appears that Steven Lee Craig has filed a new birther lawsuit. I haven’t found the complaint, or what exactly it’s about, but Craig’s forum discussing it is here.
Interesting find. We’ll have to wait until the actual filing can be found to see what his claims are. From the comment, he claims he has some new secret “stealth” argument for claiming “standing” for himself on the NBC issue.
Personally, I find that very hard to believe.
If this is the lawsuit I believe it is, he requested that he be issued a Certificate of Citizenship and specifically asked that it certify that he is a natural born citizen. His request for certification of NBC status apparently was denied, so now he believes that his lawsuit can eventually get to SCOTUS and force the court to define NBC.
I don’t see how he can show an injury in fact. It seems to me that the only way to get standing would be for him to run for President and be denied ballot access on the grounds that he is not a NBC.
> It seems to me that the only way to get standing would be for him to run for President and be denied ballot access on the grounds that he is not a NBC.
Even then I doubt he could show standing. Two wrongs don’t make it right. If I’m not allowed to enter a bar because I’m too young, I can’t show “standing” because other minors were (illegally) allowed in.
If I am not an NBC and am denied ballot access, it doesn’t help me if another person who is allegely not an NBC was not denied. So no injury.
In my country, we call this “no equality in injustice”, maybe you have a similar saying.
Coverage of Craig’s earlier lawsuit on this blog:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/craig-us-complaint.pdf
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/craig-order.pdf
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/craig-v-us-appeal-denied-by-district-court/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/craig-denied/
Thanks for the recap & the links, Dr. C!
The Craig case is so stupid and merit-less on its face that it had completely slipped my memory. I can’t believe that crank is still flogging his “chances” of pursuing this angle, after the previous trouncings it received in court.
If Orly & Mario have accomplished anything it is to show to other birthers that they never need to take “no” for an answer. They just change a word or two & refile.
Merry Christmas Obots!!!
I wrote a Christmas Carol for you. (Am I not just soooo talented???):
What Child is This???
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
What child is this, nobody knows
Tho’ Long Forms we are demanding.
It’s such a crime, each and every time,
When Courts hold that we lack standing!
Chorus:
Barack, Barack! I bet you will
Try to dodge the Birther Bill.
Twenty twelve – a new campaign.
Oh Hail! The Texas Primary!
Why does his Social Security
Number come from Connecticut?
While sweet Michelle, to hear her tell
Obama was born in a Kenyan hut?
Chorus:
Warrants bring and subpoenas, too!
Ferret out everyone who knew!
Haste, haste there’s lots to do,
While we wait for the Texas Primary
But still he sits in the Oval O.
While Lakin’s going to Leavenworth.
OH! What a mess, while most express
Doubts about his place of birth?
Chorus:
Help! Help! Raise a fuss!
Obama flipped a bird at us!
Hid! Hid! Documents he did!
Oh pray for the Texas Primary!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hawaii’s Governor Takes On Birthers’
HONOLULU — Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who befriended President Obama’s parents when they were university students here, has been in office for less than three weeks. But he is so incensed over the “birthers” — conspiracy theorists who assert Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and challenge his right to be president — that he is already seeking ways to change Hawaiian law or regulation to allow him to release additional proof that the president was born in a hospital here in 1961.
“It’s an insult to his mother and to his father, and I knew his mother and father — they were my friends, and I have an emotional interest in that,” Gov. Abercrombie said in a telephone interview late Thursday night. “It’s an emotional insult, it is disrespectful to the president, it is disrespectful to the office.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/us/25hawaii.html?src=mv&ref=us
Yes the answer to that question is “not”
Daniel:
Well, Merry Christmas to you anyway!!! But I thought I did pretty good! Plus other people like it!!! One person said I should be famous!!!
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I wonder if Gov. Abercrombie realizes that the birther movement long ago moved away from theories about the birthplace, and are much more dedicated to a very different dialogue about things like citizen parents, dual citizenship, specific “issues” with the dual citizenship being British in particular and the notion that the Founding Fathers would specifically not have allowed a British subject to assume the Presidency… I won’t even address theories like Jedi Pauly (“only the father confers natural citizenship”).
Releasing documents will not help him confront these arguments, and focusing on the idea that the birthers are claiming that President Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii shows some (no disrespect) ignorance of the nature of the issue he is trying to address.
“Born in Kenya” is NOT the predominate theory in Birthistan, by a long shot.
Addressing the idea of foreign birth has been a losing proposition from the start! Remember the early birthers, and how they managed to support both Berg and Donofrio? Berg, who claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, and Donofrio who claimed that Obama was born in Hawaii? I asked every one I could reach about how they managed to support both claims, but never got an answer.
The Honorable Governor , well-intentioned as he may be, is opening a door to bizarro world by even acknowledging this stuff. If he does something to prove (yet again) that Obama was born in Hawaii, he will also further prove that Obama was born a native citizen of the United States and a subject of the United Kingdom, not only that, of a non-resident alien (and certainly not a US citizen) father…
Anyway it never stops, and the Governor sounds wholly unprpepared for the result of his plan.
Yes, that is their fallback position, James, but there are still many who believe that he was born in Kenya and are still trying to advance that theory. Only about two months ago, Lucas Smith sent a fake Kenyan birth certificate to members of Congress. It’s not a dead theory by any means.
James:
I think the governor is pretty smart to do this, since it is what I gave been calling for. It will convince those of us who are not Vattle Birthers or British Citizen Birthers. I am just sooo curious why he is getting heard from now, when the Texas Birther Bill is about to happen??? plus, why hasn’t he just called Obama??? He is supposed to be a family friend so what gives???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I don’t know enough about Craig to know if he was born in the U.S. My point is that there is no situation other than candidate for President/Vice-President which requires someone to be a natural born citizen. So if Homeland Security or DOS or whatever agency declines to certify Craig as a natural born citizen, I don’t see how he can show any injury in fact because of that refusal.
I
I know you count the voices in your head as multiple people but they still only count as one.
Hi Dr. C!!! Merry Christmas!!!
OH NO, I am FIRMLY grounded in reality most of the time! Here is what one very famous person said about my Christmas Poem, and I quote:
“This poem should become famous! I love it!”
And it wasn’t me!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
We celebrate Yule, actually, but thank you anyways.
Dr. Bob Ross: Merry Christmas!!!
Ooops! I have been dringing Irish Coffee and I can’t read stuff real good I guess. It was Dr. Bob Ross, not Dr. C who my letter should have been sent to. Plus, it isn’t a poem but a Christmas carol that sounds just like What Child Is This the Christmas carol, but you use my words. If I could do D and B stuff I could play a lot of it on my guitar except for the G which you can do just two little fingers on instead of three but it doesn’t sound the same if you hit the little teeny weeny stringy thingy. Which rhymes, too!
Plus to Daniel:
I don’t even know who Yulers are??? Are they like Jewish people who do the candle stuff??? Or what??? Anyway, Merry Yule!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Never has anyone more richly deserved the title of poetaster. And so you are.
And what child is this is based off Greensleeves. The point was that you shouldn’t count the voices in your head saying you did good work as multiple people. They should only be counted once..
The answer is simple, Squeeky. He just got elected as Gov of HI. This is something he said he plans to address once he is in office.
Re: any Birther Bills in TX or any other state: None of them would be able to stop Obama from being on that state’s ballot. The COLB is backed by the full faith and credit of the US and has to be accepted by every state of the union. All he has to do if any state passes such a law is show the actual document (the same one as was scanned and posted) and he’s golden. Nothing they can do about it.
G:
I know. I don’t have a problem with a REAL COLB. My issues are WHY has Obama not addressed this for OVER two years??? This is what KISS is all about. WHY more than WHERE.
This is what my Birther White Paper “New Horizons in Birtherism” was about. I would tell you that it is at my website but SOME PEOPLE here would just complain I am tying to drive traffic there!!! It is really hard to be academic about this stuff when people don’t even read your scholarly papers and stuff. Anyway, I have a NEW Birther White Paper coming out called “Birther 2.0.”
Plus, Merry Christmas!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Why have you never told us about the articles you’ve written, in all the time you’ve been here?
Merry Christmas Dr. Bob Ross!!!
I am soooo sorry I mixed up doctors but I have been drinking a lot today, and I just woke up about midnight (ON CHRISTMAS EVE!!!) from where I fell asleep. Boy, it is really hard to fall asleep drinking coffee with liquor in it, but I sure did!!! So Yes World! It can be done!!!
Oh, I know about Greensleeves. Isn’t it a pretty song? It is very old and I like to think that back in the days when there really were Knights in Armor some nice knight sang it to his lady and really meant it and wasn’t just being a grunty little malebeast!
Plus, Merry Christmas!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I have but all of you just tease me and stuff. You can go to the website where my blue name is, or there is also a SqueekyFromm Girl Reporter one on wordpress. Plus I have a purple website on posterous. I am starting to do “Squeekonomic” stuff too, and will have a new blog for Economy stuff since I am now a expert. Or I may just do it on the wordpress one, I am not sure yet. Right now, my head is kind of sore from maybe drinking too much so I don’t want to overwork it a whole lot. I should drink some more coffee but I have had like maybe 2 or 3 pots already with stuff in it, soooo if I drink any more coffee I bet I won’t sleep until New Year’s day.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, again…
Earlier on this blog you said that you thought that the theory that Obama was born in Kenya was 40% likely. This must also mean that you think it is 60% likely that Obama was born in Hawaii…
This means that you believe that Obama has met the burden of proof for a civil case that he’s eligible for the Presidency of the United States.
Now, if you could just admit that, it’ll go along way to establishing what little credibility you actually have. I await to see that you admit that.
Nope. You havn’t said one word about any articles or written work you’ve done. Nor have you mentioned your website. It’s been quite a long tiome that you’ve been around here, why havn’t you mentioned them?
“stuff in it” being Old Bushmill’s apparently.
Merry Christmas again Obots!!! OH, I am awake! It is cold outside!!!
Let’s see:
Duns: Yes, 100 minus 40 is 60. So it is either Hawaii or Conneticut.Because the two of them aren’t even close to each other, so if he is a American, maybe his real father is somebody else who lived in Conneticut??? Oh the mystery just deepens, doesn’t it???
James: No it was creme de menthe stuff and Irish Cream Liquor stuff. I might have put a teen weeny bit of Jack Daniels Old No. 7, but I don’t drink whiskey very often.
Daniel: if you look above somebody was fussing at me for “driving traffic to my website” because I said something about the Obama and Sarah Palin Intelligence Debate. Plus I have even put a linky thingy here about Obama’s First Grade papers which I am the ONLY person in the whole world to have copies of. I am not sure whether they are real or not. Plus I even did a Internet Article about the people I met here the first time I came here called Obot Meltdown. I hope you like my Internet Articles. Not all of them are QUESTIONER (Birther) things.
OH, I am getting into the Christmas cookies now!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Again, I want you to admit that Obama has met the legal requirement of Preponderance of the Evidence, which is the legal standard that would be required in any case. I want you to say that President Obama, as far as you’re concerned, has met the legal requirement for being President.
Duns:
How could Obama meet the Preponderance of Evidence of anything if he hasn’t been to Court yet???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No kiss is about keeping in simple stupid. Your distortion of kiss relies on some complete fantasy interpretation. If the COLB says he’s born in Hawaii and the Department of Health verifies it, Kiss dictates that he was born in Hawaii. Once again Freakers stop trying to pimp your website on Doc’s site. Over and over again you’ve made this about you and that needs to stop.
I’m sorry Squeeky, but you’re fibbing again. You’ve never mentioned your articles and websites in this forum. You can’t show me one place where you have. It’s patently dishonest of you to claim you’ve shown us when clearly you havn’t.
How could you meet the Preponderance of sanity when you haven’t lived in the realm of reality for a long time?
You’ve already agreed that it’s more likely than not that Obama was born inside the United States, Squeeky. That is the definition of Preponderance of the Evidence. Now, say it with me…
Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President…
Now, was that so hard?
Duns:
How could Obama meet the Preponderance of Evidence of anything if he hasn’t been to Court yet???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
First of all, see how my name is in “blue” but some people are just in black??? That means I have a website. Plus I have another one at:
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/
This is where i put most of my gretawire Internet Articles before it went POOF! Thank God I was able to save them for Internet History.
Plus, I even put you in one of my Internet Articles:
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/
There was another thread thingy here about somebody saying bad things about a Woman judge on Col. Lakin which is the only other thread that I have been on here because it just seems to drive you Obots crazy whenever I say stuff that makes you think about things for a change so I usually don’t say stuff here so you can have your very own happy place to go to, because even if that is kind of Avoidant Personality Disorder stuff, it is still your right as Americans to have Freedom of Association with other Obots where you see what the other Obots (Lemmings??? LOL!) are doing and saying about things so I just try to respect your right to do so, even though it is fun to just come here and beat you with logic.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
OH Plus, if you find that other thread you will see that I told you all about my website, and her too above when whoever is accusing me of driving traffic to my website.
Plus again, I even have my own forum I told you about where you all teased me and said nobody would go, too.
Daniel:
I can’t fix the other reply, but the real linky thing for where you are is here:
http://squeeky-squeek.blogspot.com/2010/10/meltdown-obots-discover-birthers-can.html#comments
Because I know I told you all about it. Plus have you read any of my Internet Articles yet??? Did you like them??? Were they good???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How could I have read them if you’ve never mentioned them before just now? Do you expect me to have read your mind? If you had wanted me to read something you should have mentioned it to me before this. Maybe you should have made a post here mentioning it. Some indication that you had written articles before this date would have been nice.
I’m a reasonable person, but you can’t expect me to read something when you’d never even bothered to tell us you’d written anything at all, to any blog. You’ve never even bothered to mention you were a “girl reporter”!
Easy, Squeeky. You’ve agreed that it’s more likely than not that Obama was born in the United States. You’ve agreed that he meets the legal standard of Preponderance of the Evidence, by agreeing that it’s more likely than not that he was born in the United States.
So, say it with me…
Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President…
Now, was that so hard?
Duns:
OH, you mean the REVISED U.S Constitution:
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the REVISED Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must PROBABLY meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:
* PROBABLY be a natural born citizen of the United States;[27]
* PROBABLY be at least thirty-five years old;
* PROBABLY have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Probability is all any of us have, Squeeks. Can you prove with absolute, 100% certainty that you are the same person who thinks she has your birth certificate? Can you prove with absolute, 100% certainty who your parents are/were? How would you go about proving with absolute, 100% certainty that if you posted a scan of your b/c on line that it is for the person who you think you are? By absolute I do not mean 10 nines certainty, I mean the uncertainty is the integer zero.
There are no reasonable doubts that Obama meets the original constitutional requirements.
Michael, who commented on your blog is either ignorant or a liar. His comments are blatantly false to anyone who has read the history or studied the cases.
I have closed comments on the December Open Thread due to software issues with the large number of comments. You may continue the discussion on the new Occasional open thread article.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/12/the-occasional-open-thread-december-2010/#comment-81931
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/12/the-occasional-open-thread-december-2010/#comment-81212
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/12/the-occasional-open-thread-december-2010/#comment-81202
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/12/the-occasional-open-thread-december-2010/#comment-81061
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/12/the-occasional-open-thread-december-2010/#comment-80807
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/the-birther-nonsense-will-be-put-to-rest/#comment-76534
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/the-birther-nonsense-will-be-put-to-rest/#comment-76506
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/the-birther-nonsense-will-be-put-to-rest/#comment-76150
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/the-birther-nonsense-will-be-put-to-rest/#comment-76124
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/the-birther-nonsense-will-be-put-to-rest/#comment-76121