The occasional open thread – waiting for spring edition

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Dr. Conspiracy

What’s up, Doc?

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

153 Responses to The occasional open thread – waiting for spring edition

  1. Joey says:
    March 2, 2011 at 9:14 pm  (Quote)

    I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for the Supreme Court’s Justices’s cert conference number two on Hollister v Soetoro.
    Is it Friday yet?
    Birthers think that this could be THE ONE! Why else would they hold a second conference?
    Kagan and Sotomayor are going to recuse themselves and so Alito, Scalia and Thomas will operate under the “Rule of Three,” and Hollister WILL be heard and Obama WILL be removed from office by Easter.
    Or not.

  2. Sean says:
    March 2, 2011 at 9:47 pm  (Quote)

    Mike Huckabee said his comments on Obama growing up in Kenya is the same as Obama saying he visited all 57 states.

    He seemed to know a lot about Obama’s Grandfather, but didn’t know Obama spent no part of his youth in Kenya.

    Selectively stupid?

  3. Joey says:
    March 2, 2011 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    Sean:
    Mike Huckabee said his comments on Obama growing up in Kenya is the same as Obama saying he visited all 57 states.

    He seemed to know a lot about Obama’s Grandfather, but didn’t know Obama spent no part of his youth in Kenya.

    Selectively stupid?

    I see a big difference. Saying “57 states” is a slip of the tongue. Huckabee went into considerable elaboration about the Mau-Mau uprising and Obama hating Winston Churchill in his remarks.

  4. Sean says:
    March 2, 2011 at 11:26 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: I see a big difference. Saying “57 states” is a slip of the tongue. Huckabee went into considerable elaboration about the Mau-Mau uprising and Obama hating Winston Churchill in his remarks.

    Seems a little too well thought out to be a tongue slip.

  5. US Citizen says:
    March 3, 2011 at 4:01 am  (Quote)

    Joey: and Obama WILL be removed from office by Easter.
    Or not.

    That’s a pretty confident prediction: He’ll be out.. or not.
    Such insight!

  6. Northland10 says:
    March 3, 2011 at 7:55 am  (Quote)

    Joey: I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for the Supreme Court’s Justices’s cert conference number two on Hollister v Soetoro.
    Is it Friday yet?
    Birthers think that this could be THE ONE! Why else would they hold a second conference?

    And, of course, we know they are going to rule for Hollister because they requested a response from the government. Oh, never mind.

  7. Sean says:
    March 3, 2011 at 8:35 am  (Quote)

    Was any of the crazy crap removed from Hollister v Soetoro?

    If not, how on Earth did it get to the Supreme Court?

  8. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 11:29 am  (Quote)

    Newsmax Perpetuates Churchill Bust Falsehood
    Topic: Newsmax

    A March 2 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers perpetuates a falsehood about President Obama and a bust of Winston Churchill that was in the Oval Office of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

    Discussing the controversy over Mike Huckabee’s remarks on Steve Malzberg’s radio show, Meyers writes:

    Malzberg noted that Huckabee was referring to a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift to the White House from Britain, that Obama ordered returned after he took office.

    “The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British,” Huckabee continued.

    “But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.”

    In fact, Obama did not order the Churchill bust to be returned. The British Embassy confirmed that the bust was “uniquely lent” to Bush, and was scheduled to be returned at the end of Bush’s term. According to the Associated Press, the bust is now in the White House residence — in other words, it hasn’t been returned at all.

    Why would Meyers embrace such an obvious falsehood? Perhaps because Newsmax is where the falsehood got started. As we detailed, a March 2009 Newsmax column by James Humes purported to quote Obama saying of the bust, “Get that goddam thing out of here.” But there is no evidence whatsoever to back up Humes’ claim that Obama said anything like this. Rather than retract the column and apologize, Humes merely edited his column to state that the claim “was never fully substantiated, despite frequent repetition on radio talk shows.” But that’s a lie too; Humes never identified any talk show host who made the claim, or where specifically he picked it up from.

    Humes even concocted the Mau-Mau theory to back up his illegimate claim: “Perhaps Obama, who grew up in Kenya, took umbrage at Prime Minister Churchill’s actions in 1953 of wiping out the Mau-Mau, the Kenyan terrorists who made a specialty of slitting throats of sleeping white and Black Kenyans.”

    Humes, as far as we know, was never punished for his falsehood. To the contrary: Newsmax rewarded it by giving him a speaking slot on one of its cruises.

    No wonder Meyers thinks the Churchill bust story is true — his employer let the perpetrator of the falsehood get away with it.

  9. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 11:35 am  (Quote)

    New chain email going around regarding the President….Of course in other words another way to scam money from the idiots that respond to the dog and whistle of anytime you mention President Obama is the blame for something….

    Fellow Conservative,

    The Pray in Jesus’ Name Project is committed to defending religious freedom, and their local and national ad campaigns have consistently upheld the power of prayer across the nation.

    Right now they need your help in order to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in 1996.

    Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have stated that they will no longer defend this law in court. It seems they believe that marriage should no longer be defined between one man and one woman. It seems they have decided that the process to overturn a law no longer needs to be followed.

    Obama and Holder cannot decide which laws are constitutional based solely on political opinion. They certainly cannot decide which laws to uphold without taking the proper legal steps to overturn that law.

    The Pray in Jesus’ Name Project is working tirelessly to stop this from happening by submitting an urgent petition demanding that Congress follow the law and stop endorsing homosexual marriage. Please take a moment to read this important message about how you can sign the petition and help ensure that marriage stays defined between a man and a woman.

    Sincerely,

    Tony Adkins
    Conservative Action Alerts

    NEW PETITION! Defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Marriage between One Man One Woman. Select, sign, WE WILL FAX your petition to 535 Congressmen/Senators now! We’ve already delivered 32,000 fax petitions. Can you help us reach 50,000?

    ZERO Congressmen step up to Defend Traditional Marriage. Take Action.

    Yahoo news reports not one single Congressman has yet stepped forward to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in a Connecticut case where two lesbians are demanding a $363,053 tax refund (i.e. homosexual “bonus pay”) from the federal government. The two lesbian lovers were reportedly “married” in Canada but not America, and when one died, the other could no longer evade paying estate taxes, so the surviving lesbian hired the ACLU to sue the United States to recognize homosexual “marriage,” and collect their six figure tax-rebate check. Then last week President Obama directed Attorney General Holder to stop defending the case, essentially conceding your tax dollars must now pay the lesbian couples taxes, and pay their ACLU lawyers, and recognize homosexual “marriage” as lawful, not only in Connecticut, but in all 50 states nationwide.

    The report concludes: “The Justice Department will also drop its defense in a similar case in Connecticut federal court with seven plaintiffs. Each plaintiff in the Connecticut case is a surviving same-sex partner who is being denied benefits because the federal government doesn’t recognize the marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder has informed House Speaker John Boehner that he or other members of Congress may defend the law if they choose. No one has officially stepped forward yet to take on the defense.”

    Did I read that correctly? Not one single Congressman is yet willing to defend the 1996 DOMA law that defines marriage between one man and one woman? Not even Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who has collected tens of thousands of petitions to defend DOMA? Why aren’t they sending lawyers to court? I don’t understand their delay. Let’s take action, by calling 202-224-3121 to demand YOUR Congressman defend the lawsuit, and defend traditional marriage as only sacred between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. You could even call the same phone number 535 times to ask ALL Senators and Congressmen why they don’t care to defend traditional marriage in court, as Holder has invited them to do. Don’t have time to make 535 phone calls? Please sign our petition, and we’ll auto-fax all 535 Members with YOUR NAME on each page.

    Please select here to SIGN NEW, URGENT PETITION to DEFEND MARRIAGE AND DOMA IN COURT, and STOP ENDORSING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 535 Senators and Congressmen (saving you much time!)

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told students at Harvard on Thursday, “Congress is mulling its options,” after President Obama ordered his administration to stop defending the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.

    The Virginia Republican said he was “a little taken aback” after the administration said Wednesday that it would no longer fight legal challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

    Cantor then rebuked Obama for lawlessness. “I’ve never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books and to me it is contrary to the sense that we are a nation of laws,” he said. “There is a process by which this country reviews its laws.”

    Cantor said, “There are some options available to us legislatively that we’re looking at,” he said. Several lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of the 15-year-old law.
    ……

    Friends, our nation will soon endorse homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states, if your Congressman doesn’t take a stand to defend DOMA in court, since Obama won’t. Let’s take a stand today, and demand Congress defend the 1996 DOMA law in court.

    God Bless you, in Jesus’ name,

    Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

    P.S. Time is urgent! Court cases in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and elsewhere are already failing because Obama and AG Holder refuse to defend the law. Please sign our petition today! Prefer to donate by mail? Please mail paper check or money orders to: The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO 80970

  10. Joey says:
    March 3, 2011 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    US Citizen: That’s a pretty confident prediction: He’ll be out.. or not.
    Such insight!

    Well, you know the birthers. They are firmly rooted in their beliefs, or not. When one belief is shot down by the facts, they change to a new belief…….. or they don’t!

  11. Sef says:
    March 3, 2011 at 11:44 am  (Quote)

    I probably won’t see the answer to this, but why can’t I see any comments posted after Feb 28? All these newer threads say “No comments yet”. What’s up, Doc?

  12. Sef says:
    March 3, 2011 at 11:46 am  (Quote)

    Interesting. After I posted something I can see stuff. Strange.

  13. ASK Esq says:
    March 3, 2011 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    I was looking for a good laugh the other day, so I stopped by Mario’s site. He has an essay from February 14, still on the front page. He explicitly states that 43 people have served as President, not counting Obama. Of course, Obama IS President #44, but anyone who paid attention in high school US history knows that Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, so only 42 others have held the office. Woud it be too much to ask birthers to get at least basic facts right?

  14. Slartibartfast says:
    March 3, 2011 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Newsmax Perpetuates Churchill Bust Falsehood

    Thanks – I remember the birthers raving (or was it ‘raging’?) about this, but I had never heard the rest of the story…

  15. Thrifty says:
    March 3, 2011 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    What exactly does this mean that the Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act? Does anyone who goes to court challenge it just win by default? The plantiffs show up, but the defendant’s side is empty? I’m confused.

  16. Greg says:
    March 3, 2011 at 2:06 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    What exactly does this mean that the Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act?Does anyone who goes to court challenge it just win by default?The plantiffs show up, but the defendant’s side is empty?I’m confused.

    The DOJ has invited Congress to defend the Act. In the few times in the past when the executive has declined to defend a statute, Congress has stepped in to defend it. John Boehner has said that Congress will intervene and to expect an announcement on the matter by Friday.

  17. Thrifty says:
    March 3, 2011 at 2:23 pm  (Quote)

    Lemme ask another question. A friend and I were discussing this on Sunday, as a thought experiment.

    Suppose a sitting president committed a clear and egregious felony. Suppose President Obama whipped out a gun and shot John Boehner dead during the State of the Union address. Serious felony, millions of witnesses. Could he be immediately prosecuted, or would he *have* to be removed from office first? Is a sitting president immune from criminal prosecution?

  18. Rickey says:
    March 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    What exactly does this mean that the Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act?Does anyone who goes to court challenge it just win by default?The plantiffs show up, but the defendant’s side is empty?I’m confused.

    It’s happened before.

    During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134132526/u-s-defends-doma-despite-dropping-support

  19. Greg says:
    March 3, 2011 at 2:32 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: Could he be immediately prosecuted, or would he *have* to be removed from office first? Is a sitting president immune from criminal prosecution?

    The Office of Legal Counsel looked at this issue in 1972 and again in 2000 and concluded that the indictment or prosecution of a sitting President would violate the separation of powers.

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

  20. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    Another great article by Bill Bowman…

    More ominous rumblings in Birthistan

    There have been some interesting ramblings in Birthistan over the past few days, and they don’t bode well.

    We’ve already covered some cryptic comments over at Dr. Kate’s view; you remember the commenter who wrote, in part:

    I’M NO FAN OF RIOTS, FIGHTING, BUT SOMEONE HAS TO START THIS, GETTING OBAMA OUT..NOW WHO IN THE U.S.A. HAS BALLS TO BRING THE SUBJECT UP? CITIZENS FEAR THE GOVERNMENT. THAT IS ONE THING WE SHOULD NOT FEAR..THE HIGHEST JUDGES WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS? SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH HAVING A WAR WITHIN, PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR LESS, IF IT COMES TO THAT, ”SO BE IT”

    And then Dr. Kate’s answer:

    This is exactly where I am going, SusanM. Remember who died for us? Game ON

    All sorts of mysterious/creepy, huh?

    Now, there’s another person who shares Dr. Kate’s … shall we say — zealousness — for change in our federal government … who goes by the name of Sher Zieve.

    I usually run across the writings of this Zieve person on the Birther Booster site, The Post & Email.

    Today, Zieve has a piece entitled, “Obama: The Rights of the Many Denied by the Tyranny of the Few.”

    Stirring, no?

    Anyway, in it Zieve purports to lay out its (I say “its” because I don’t know if Zieve is an innie or an outtie, if ya know what I mean) argument that unions are bad, or something. Oh, and Obama is really not the president and must go.

    I’ll get to some details in a minute, but I wanted to direct your attention to the last few paragraphs of this … piece, in light of what Dr. Kate wrote the other day (I’m going to cut some stuff out:

    But, we’re not ready to be defeated. In fact, we plan to win this war against us begun by you and your cronies … We have protested peacefully, thus far. However, as you and your minions carry on your increase of destruction, dictatorial dominance and stranglehold over us and our country–and then vilify and demean us when we balk at our bondage–we become less peaceful every day. Sir, you are neither our king nor our master and it is becoming clearer every day that you may not even be our legitimate president … We have reached the tipping point, folks. This current lunacy of oppression can no longer be tolerated. It’s time. Soon we will hear from our own mouths and all of our communities “Let’s roll!”

    “Let’s roll,” is, of course, the now-legendary phrase used by United Airlines Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer just before he and others subverted plans by the plane’s hijackers on Sept. 11. 2001.

    But do you see the undertone in Zieve’s and Dr. Kate’s pieces? They both (badly) hint that something is afoot; something big and bold and … well, you know.

    Are they just blowing smoke? Who knows. But, based on prior efforts by Birthistanis to bring out the masses, this is probably going to be another epic fail.

    But there’s so much more in Zieve’s article. Let’s take a look, shall we?

    Zieve seems to have a grumpy about Pres. Obama sticking up for unionized workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere who are being targeted by the Right. It claims that by doing that, Obama has “chosen sides against us.” Really.

    Then there’s this:

    … in mid-February, Obama first came out against recently elected Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and We-the-People who elected him in favor of the unions who helped place Obama into the power over us all he enjoys today.

    Hate to tell ya, Zieve, but the Wisconsin chapter of We the People agree with Obama: 52 percent of voters recently said that if they could vote again, they’d vote for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s opponent, while 45 percent said they’d vote for Walker. Also, 49 percent of respondents said they have a favorable view of unions.

    Zieve goes on:

    When did you Unions obtain the “rights” to steal from us in the first place and what “rights” do they have to now steal even more? We are being forced to finance those government-school “teachers” who are now openly indoctrinating our children in both Marxism and Islam! And we’re done with it and you.

    Steal? People who generally work very hard and are honest are “stealing” because they are in a union? Really?

    But wait, here comes the funny:

    Mr. Obama, we know you were trained by your masters to destroy us and our country, in order for the ruling elite to rise up, rule over and squash us.

    Ya “know” that, do ya, Zieve? I’m almost afraid to ask what else you “know.”

    See, Zieve calls him “Mr.” because The Post & Email, whose self-appointed mission is to “uphold the Constitution,” does not recognize Obama as the democratically and legally elected president he is, and will allow no references to him as such. Wait a minute, that is the United States’ constitution you’re upholding, right, P&E?

    Just checking.

    Zieve ends with a cite to a Rasmussen Reports poll which, Zieve states, shows that:

    polling for Obama’s leadership capabilities are at an all time low of 37%…which more than likely means it’s even lower than that.

    Well, actually, no. Rasmussen’s political proclivities are well-known, so it’s more likely that number is higher.

    And let’s take a look at that number: Rasmussen says that his poll shows:

    … just 37% of Likely U.S. Voters now say the president is doing a good or excellent job as a leader. Forty percent (40%) rate his performance as poor.

    But when you look at the question’s wording, you see that respondents were asked to rate the president’s leadership ability as excellent, good, fair or poor.

    Rasmussen only mentions “excellent” or “good,” he doesn’t mention who rated the president’s leadership ability as “fair.”

    Would that make a difference? We don’t know, because we weren’t given the information, and, therefore, those numbers should not be used in a serious discussion about the president.

    But then again, look where this … piece …was published.

    Keep the faith.

    http://turningthescale.net/

  21. sarina says:
    March 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm  (Quote)

    Remember the proposal to sell copies of President Obama? Well this is an article on the Star Advertiser, Feb. 18, 2011:

    A proposal to sell copies of President Barack Obama’s birth records to anyone for $100 is going nowhere in the Hawaii Legislature.

    The bill died when it didn’t get a hearing before today’s deadline for bills to advance to their final committees.

    House Health Committee Chairman Ryan Yamane said yesterday he will not consider the legislation because he does not think it is appropriate to sell private information to the public — even if it is the president’s birth documentation.

    Wait and see for another conspiracy around this.

  22. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    Theresa Cao makes an appearance over at the Post and Fail…And she is as crazy as a loon…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/02/warning-from-the-front-lines-in-washington-d-c-by-theresa-“tcdc”-cao/

    “History is speaking loud and clear. As of today, less than two months since my shout-out “Except Obama, Except Obama, Help Us Jesus, My Name is Theresa…” to defend God, Country and the Constitution of the United States, on January 6, 2011 [during the first historic reading of the Constitution of the U.S. at the U.S. Capitol House of Representatives], the world as we know it has changed drastically.

    Did you ask yourself why, now? It is the planned chaos and fear-inducing “terror-ism” strategy and the warp speed pace to enforce the “New World Order”[that are right now messing with my computer system as I write this note] including Barack Hussein Obama, George Soros, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Code Pink, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Saudi Arabia with the special assistance of BHO, Jimmy Carter, et al. These “New World Order” thugs hell-bent on destroying Israel, America and the whole world want to establish the Muslim Caliphate, Sharia Law, now!

    This is diversionary, a smokescreen, to take the focus off of Barack Hussein Obama’s unconstitutional takeover of the United States of America! The “NWO” thugs have been threatened by the God of Israel, through using me in exposing BHO’s illegitimate presidency to the whole world. Now, the “NWO” thugs are running scared, so they want to clamp down on the “free world” fast.”
    ……………..

    “Here are more current headlines which demonstrate the American Bar Association’s brazen contempt against the American people and the Constitution of the U.S.A.:

    The American Bar Association is fighting for Sharia law in the US.

    The original article by Pamela Geller, published in the American Thinker, states:

    The American Bar Association (ABA) has decided to undertake the fight for Sharia law. The ABA’s Executive Counsel “has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming — in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced.”

  23. misha says:
    March 3, 2011 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: Saying “57 states” is a slip of the tongue.

    Sean: Seems a little too well thought out to be a tongue slip.

    There are 57 primaries. Sorry, Sean. It was a mistake, probably because campaigns are physically grueling.

    How about this one: The Niger uranium forgeries are forged documents initially revealed by Italian Military intelligence. In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” This single sentence is known now as “Sixteen Words”. The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, “These sixteen words should never have been included.”

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

  24. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 4:04 pm  (Quote)

    The insane Leo Haffey makes an appearance over at the Post and Fail to legally explain to us how President Obama can be indicited for some bizzare criminal cover up….

    “Justice Lewis Powell ruled: “Such an (Grand Jury) investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors… or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors.”

    Mark Levin: “The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.”

    Rush Limbaugh: “Obama can’t complain if we go Egypt on him because he said that’s how democracy works, that’s what he said on Friday. This is the way real democracy works, so he can’t complain if it happens to him, and it will.”

    On August 9, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency rather than face impeachment and indictment for his involvement in the Watergate burglary cover-up. President Nixon’s alleged crimes pale in comparison to the myriad crimes committed by Barack Hussein Obama, but like President Nixon, Obama will be undone not by his crimes but by his incompetent attempt to cover up crimes.

    Obama has been implicated in many crimes committed by his regime: Murders and False Imprisonment of Opponents of the BHO regime, TSA Sexual Assaults and Illegal Searches, Election Fraud, Voter Fraud, Identity Theft, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions, Aiding and Abetting of Muslim Terrorists, Poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, Theft of Private Property, Embezzlement of Government funds, WikiLeaks etc. However, the crime with the clearest proof of Obama’s culpability is his cover-up of his birth document fraud.

    For over two years, Barack Hussein Obama and Robert Gibbs openly committed fraud. Obama committed fraud when he had his forged COLB posted on the Internet and falsely alleged that his Long Form Birth Certificate was on file in Hawaii. By posting Obama’s forged COLB on the World Wide Web, Obama and Gibbs perpetrated a fraud on every citizen in every County in every State in the United States of America.

    Gibbs repeatedly admitted in a series of White House press conferences that he had posted Obama’s forged COLB on the World Wide Web (see the YouTube videos below). Thus, he openly admitted that he committed fraud for Obama. These admissions alone are more than enough evidence for the indictment of Obama and Gibbs for fraud citizen in every County in every State in the United States of America.

    Imagine if a fake unregistered corporation falsely advertised a worthless investment on the internet and got thousands of people in all fifty States to purchase it. Then the fake corporate swindlers admitted in a series of television interviews that they had created and posted the false advertisements on the World Wide Web to induce people in all fifty States to purchase their bogus investments. Would State Attorneys General ignore these crimes and allow the fraudsters to continue robbing their people? Of course they wouldn’t.

    Yet, not a single County District Attorney has had the courage to bring fraud charges against Obama and Gibbs. Thus, it is up to We the People to use the power of the 4th Branch of our Government, the Grand Jury, to indict Obama and Gibbs for their crimes against the people.

    Concerned citizens in all fifty States should contact your Congressman, Senators, County Sheriff, District Attorney, State Legislators, Governor, and County Grand Jury Foreman and demand that they indict and prosecute BHO and all his local co-conspirators for any and all of the crimes committed by Barack Hussein Obama and his co-conspirators in your State.

    If your local public officials will not do their duty and indict BHO, then citizens should form their own Grand Juries as provided by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Then citizens should exercise their 1st Amendment Rights, as recently discussed by Rush Limbaugh, and march on the White House with thousands of Indictments of BHO and his co-conspirators in hand. Then it will be impossible for the mainstream media to ignore the crimes of Barack Hussein Obama.

    As Rush Limbaugh said, “Obama can’t complain if we go Egypt on him because he said that’s how democracy works, that’s what he said on Friday. This is the way real democracy works, so he can’t complain if it happens to him, and it will.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/how-to-indict-bho-for-criminal-cover-up/

  25. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    Miss Tickly has posted on her blog an bizzare “theory” regarding the state of HI and the President’s COLB. She has a full blown case of Obama derangement. Doc, you might want to review and possibly write an article on her “analysis….

    http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/proof-it-was-in-front-of-our-faces/

    “The information we have today from the Hawaii Department of Health, points to Obama having filed the paper work for a “Late Certificate of Birth.” This paper work is how a person, that did not get an original birth certificate filed at the time of their birth, can get one later by providing sufficient evidence that they were born in Hawaii. The person will get a birth certificate “accepted by the state registrar” once sufficient evidence has been presented and accepted. At this point, the HDOH only admits, through Obama’s COLB and through public statements, that this paper work is on file, but it has not yet been accepted by the state. Therefore, Obama does not yet have a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. That is what the HDOH has said if you analyze their statements and documents close enough. They’ve done a good job of trying to give the impression that the state has issued a birth certificate to Obama, but they were very careful not to say that, since that would be untrue. Obama’s application for a birth certificate is still incomplete and has not been accepted by the state; it’s only on file by the registrar awaiting further processing (and, most likely, further evidence).

    This explains why Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Governor, failed to find an Obama original birth certificate and why Tim Adams, Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk, says that one does not exist.”

  26. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 4:15 pm  (Quote)

    And not to be outdone old buddy BZ opines and shows her general lack of knowledge…

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/03/

    Amendment Confirmation for Dummies
    March 3, 2011

    HDOH Confirmation of Obama’s BC Amendment For Dummies

    AKA The Summary for People too Smart to Get Bogged Down in Details. =)

    This is the more understandable summary of how we know that the Hawaii Department of Health indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate was amended in 2006 and is thus not legally valid:

    After a lot of hassle, sorting out, and back-and-forth between her and attorneys at Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices (OIP), requester (Terri K) requested from the Hawaii Department of Health copies of the receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate. The OIP attorney twice told Terri K that she could ask for those records but there might not be any if Obama didn’t amend his birth certificate, in which case the Department of Health should tell her so. The first step an agency is required to do when answering these requests for records is to see whether they HAVE the requested records. If they don’t have them, they say so right away and the processing of the request ends there. The HI law governing disclosures (Uniform Information Practices Act, or UIPA) only applies to records that exist, so if the records don’t exist, there is no reason to sort out whether UIPA allows disclosure.”
    ……….

    “The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that they have no LEGALLY VALID birth certificate for Obama. And none of the announcements by now-former-DOH Director, Chiyome Fukino, ever claimed that the records she saw were LEGALLY VALID.”

  27. Wile E. says:
    March 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    Are any of you kind folks familiar with R. Laity, the writer of this err….um….”editorial”….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-is-no-president-obama/

    ….and his supposed complaint filed against President Obama in New York State?

    “””Based on the Social Security issue, I filed a formal charge with ICE against Obama as an illegal alien. I approached no less then (15) Judges and Justices about Obama (all 9 SCOTUS Justices,Five USDC,Western District of NY Magistrates, and Chief Judge Richard Arcara,WDNY,along with Ms.Kathleen Mehltretter,US Attorney,WDNY and Ronald Machen,USDC,District of DC). I was informed by one Magistrate that I must first contact law enforcement. I did so. I filed with my local police after the FBI,Secret Service and DOJ passed the proverbial buck. My local police sent my complaints to the INS and the FBI through their system. See City Of Tonawanda Police,Criminal Information against Barack Obama,#10-002896,filed March,2010.”””

    What’s the scoop on this guy….just another strange piece of cheese?

  28. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    March 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion:
    Miss Tickly has posted on her blog an bizzare “theory” regarding the state of HI and the President’s COLB.She has a full blown case of Obama derangement.Doc, you might want to review and possibly write an article on her “analysis….

    This explains why Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Governor, failed to find an Obama original birth certificate and why Tim Adams, Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk, says that one does not exist.”

    Oh no, not the Adams thing again. Did she read his sworn statement? The one where he swears that someone TOLD HIM that no long form exists yet never names who told him this? The one where he never swears that he looked at any of Hawaii’s records on President Obama?

  29. charo says:
    March 3, 2011 at 5:59 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Doc, you might want to review and possibly write an article on her “analysis….

    I would also like to see Doc’s review.

  30. Sean says:
    March 3, 2011 at 6:35 pm  (Quote)

    misha:
    There are 57 primaries. Sorry, Sean. It was a mistake, probably because campaigns are physically grueling.

    So sorry Misha, I didn’t make myself clear again. I was referring to Huckabee’s statements about Obama, his Grandfather and growing up in Kenya. That is what I meant to say was not a slip of the tongue. too detailed.

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

  31. Sean says:
    March 3, 2011 at 6:35 pm  (Quote)

    misha:
    There are 57 primaries. Sorry, Sean. It was a mistake, probably because campaigns are physically grueling.

    So sorry Misha, I didn’t make myself clear again. I was referring to Huckabee’s statements about Obama, his Grandfather and growing up in Kenya. That is what I meant to say was not a slip of the tongue. too detailed.

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

  32. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 3, 2011 at 6:48 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: Interesting. After I posted something I can see stuff. Strange.

    Hmm. It may be a cache setting. People that post comments get more recently updated pages than those that don’t. A new version of the caching plug-in was installed sometime over the past couple of weeks and I think settings were reset to default values. I thought I had everything set right, but perhaps not. I’ll check.

  33. Slartibartfast says:
    March 3, 2011 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    charo: I would also like to see Doc’s review.

    Charo,

    You’ve been following this for quite a while – I’d like to know what you think about it. What do you think Doc C will say? Do you think that the analysis is credible? What do you think it means?

  34. The Magic M says:
    March 3, 2011 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    > I filed a formal charge with ICE against Obama as an illegal alien

    Actually, the P and E has now taken the final step and published an article by a proponent of the other meaning of “illegal alien”:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/whos-behind-the-mask-of-obama

    The links in the sentence

    “We already have the photographic and scientific evidence that proves the fraud, photos from his childhood and even the images produced today.”

    point to a site that, using two photographs of Obama, one as a child and a current one, to “prove” that the Obamas are actually… wait for it… the lizard people!

    There you have it. Even the last rubbles of sanity have now gone. Birtherland is open to complete and utter madness.

    OTOH, this will probably ruin any chance of their movement ever to catch on with the masses. Then again, I wonder when we will see the first states requiring presidential candidates to provide DNA testing to ascertain their humanity for placement on the ballot – and probably, as “V” has taught us, retesting whenever said person was alone for just a minute, lest there be any switcheroo.

  35. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 3, 2011 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Miss Tickly has posted on her blog an bizzare “theory” regarding the state of HI and the President’s COLB. She has a full blown case of Obama derangement. Doc, you might want to review and possibly write an article on her “analysis….

    This is just a cleaned up version of her old stuff. This was discussed a year ago in the comments attached to this article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/green-flags-in-hawaii/

    Removing quite a bit of detail, the argument goes something like:

    She asked for copies of receipts where Barack Obama amended his birth certificate in 2006. The state says, you’re not entitled to that kind of information. Conclusion: the State admitted that the record was amended in 2006 BECAUSE when records exist that the state doesn’t want to disclose, the State should have said: “if the records exist you are not entitled to that kind of information.”

    Now I’m sure that Miss Tickly is dead serious and believes her reasoning is iron clad and rock solid, but in reality, she is just playing word games.

  36. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Mark Levin: “The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.”

    The prevailing legal opinion is that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted for a crime. They have to wait until his term is over or he is impeached.

  37. charo says:
    March 3, 2011 at 8:03 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is just a cleaned up version of her old stuff. This was discussed a year ago in the comments attached to this article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/green-flags-in-hawaii/

    Removing quite a bit of detail, the argument goes something like:

    She asked for copies of receipts where Barack Obama amended his birth certificate in 2006. The state says, you’re not entitled to that kind of information. Conclusion: the State admitted that the record was amended in 2006 BECAUSE when records exist that the state doesn’t want to disclose, the State should have said: “if the records exist you are not entitled to that kind of information.”

    Now I’msure that Miss Tickly is dead serious and believes her reasoning is iron clad and rock solid, but in reality, she is just playing word games.

    That is not Miss Tickley’s blog discussion but Butterdezillion that you site.

  38. charo says:
    March 3, 2011 at 8:57 pm  (Quote)

    Concerning Butterdezillion’s post, I just found this form from the UIPA Manuel:

    (this is the form to be used after a request)

    NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU THAT YOUR REQUEST:
    Will be granted in its entirety. (has a box to be checked))

    Cannot be granted because (has a box)
    (has a box) Agency does not maintain the records. Agency believed to maintain records: ____________
    Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. Please contact the
    agency and provide the following information:_________________________________
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Request requires agency to create a summary or compilation from records not readily retrievable.

    (has a box) Is denied in its entirety Will be granted only as to certain parts
    based upon the following exemption provided in HRS § 92F-13 and/or § 92F-22 and other laws cited below
    (portions of records that agency will not disclose should be described in general terms).
    RECORDS OR APPLICABLE AGENCY
    INFORMATION WITHHELD STATUTES JUSTIFICATION

    http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf

    These are the choices. If a request was made for records, the answer cannot be combined with it is personal and may or may not exist. There is a choice for it does not exist or it cannot be disclosed because it is personal. If the response was that it can’t be disclosed (the justification
    given), then the record does exist or the choice would have been it doesn’t exist. This is assuming that the choices given on the form in the manual are indeed followed.

    Also, I found that the Director can use a balancing test to determine if the public interest outweighs the privacy interest if disclosing records:

    Exception 1 – The Privacy Exception (§92F-13(1))
    An agency may withhold access to a record if disclosure of the
    record would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of
    personal privacy[.]” To withhold a record under this exception,
    an agency must be able to show that:
    (1) An individual has a significant privacy interest
    in the information contained in the record; and
    (2) The significant privacy interest is not outweighed
    by the public interest in disclosure.

    …

    Illustration: Balancing of Interests
    A former University President had a
    significant privacy interest in the Board of
    Regents’ evaluation of his job performance.
    The public had a strong interest in
    scrutinizing the work of the Board of Regents
    as well as the President’s performance as a
    high level government official. Although the
    two rights were closely balanced, OIP found
    that the public interest outweighed the
    employee’s privacy interest.
    ************

    What Miss Tickley did in one of her recent posts was to show how that balancing test was applied in favor of disclosing a record because of a person of less importance than the President (and she uses heavy sarcasm).

  39. charo says:
    March 3, 2011 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    The form is on page 43 of the link. It is much easier to read there than in my comment.

  40. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    March 3, 2011 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    OMG, they’re passing around the old WND Elena Kagan lie again on the gretawire replacement forum. Where’s Black Lion?

  41. misha says:
    March 3, 2011 at 9:45 pm  (Quote)

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: OMG, they’re passing around the old WND Elena Kagan lie again on the gretawire replacement forum. Where’s Black Lion?

    Have a link?

  42. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    March 3, 2011 at 9:47 pm  (Quote)
  43. Black Lion says:
    March 3, 2011 at 11:08 pm  (Quote)

    More nonsense being sent around to solicit donations off the severe Obama derangement….

    1st call for impeachment by member of Congress
    Written by CAA Politics on March 03, 2011, 02:15 PM
    BOB UNRUH

    U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz
    A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

    Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: “I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don’t reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?” Keyes asked.

    Franks replied: “If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts.”

    Keyes was referring to the announcement by Holder and Obama that they no longer would fulfill their official duties to defend the law of the United States when it came to the Defense of Marriage Act.

    “While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable,” Holder explained in a statement announcing the conclusion he reached with Obama.

    Holder said he and the president believe the law is unconstitutional.

    “The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional,” Holder said.

    Keyes had asked, “What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don’t reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?”

    Franks responded, “That’s probably the strongest leverage that we have.”

    In a followup question from Keyes, Franks said he would support “in a moment” a move to defund the agency.

    Think Progress describes itself as a “nonpartisan organization” tied to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It boasts of being named the “Best Liberal Blog” in 2006.

    http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2147

  44. Rickey says:
    March 4, 2011 at 1:12 am  (Quote)

    De-fund the Department of Justice? Is there some requirement that Congressional Republicans have to attend Lunatic School?

  45. Greg says:
    March 4, 2011 at 1:53 am  (Quote)

    (this is the form to be used after a request)

    And, what do you make of the fact that NO form was used?

    Do you think it might be an optional form. And that the OIP was signalling that the form was optional when it said:

    OIP has created an “Acknowledgment to Requester” form that the agency may use.

    Also, I found that the Director can use a balancing test to determine if the public interest outweighs the privacy interest if disclosing records:

    And you are certain that vital information like this is not covered by any OTHER state or federal law. The link you gave tells of times when no discretion is allowed in the release of information:

    In certain instances, the agency must withhold records, such as where the record is made confidential by state or federal law or is information protected by the individual’s right to privacy under the state or federal constitutions.

    Do you understand the difference between “may” and “must?” They both start with “m,” but they are significantly different words when we’re talking about legal interpretation.

    Okay, let’s do a hypothetical. Let’s pretend that the Director of Health wants to release Obama’s birth records. He’s decided that public interest outweighs Obama’s privacy interest under UIPA. Is the decision-making process done at this point?

    Here, why don’t we go to the link again:

    Where an agency wants to disclose a record that could be withheld, the agency should consult with its attorney as to whether the record should or must be withheld because of another law or the state or federal constitutions.

    There are OTHER laws that prevent the release of information. So, even if the Director wants to release Obama’s birth certificate, he has to check with his attorneys to see if there’s another law that might prevent it.

    A Federal Law, like HIPAA. That forbids the release of personally identifiable medical information unless conditions like a search warrant are met. Is a birth certificate a personally identifiable bit of information covered by HIPAA? What about the birth index number?

    When you birthers start practicing privacy law, I mean, anti-privacy law, and have paying clients whose interests you defend in court (“Your honor, we shouldn’t have to pay the $250,000 per incident fine because birth index number isn’t covered by HIPAA.”) then I might start listening to your interpretations of Hawaiian privacy law!

  46. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 2:23 am  (Quote)

    Greg: And, what do you make of the fact that NO form was used?

    The form was based upon what must be required.

    pages 38-39

    (2) Where agency is denying access to all or part
    of a record, the notice must identify:
    (a) The specific record or part that will
    not be disclosed; and
    (b) The §92F-13 exception that allows
    withholding (and any other applicable
    laws) and a brief explanation (a few
    words) of why the agency cited that
    exception.
    (3) Where agency is unable to disclose the
    record or part of the record, the notice must
    state that:

    (a) The agency does not maintain the
    record;
    (b) The agency requires a further
    description or clarification of the
    requested record to identify and search
    for the record; or
    (c) The request requires the agency to
    create a summary or compile
    information not readily retrievable.

    Greg: There are OTHER laws that prevent the release of information.

    I assumed that must be the case also. It seemed an easy answer for the records request and one that would seem to be a standard. Records denied under HIPAA.

    Greg: then I might start listening to your interpretations of Hawaiian privacy law!

    I wasn’t interpreting Hawaii law. My personal opinion is that there was much misleading in the whole matter concerning the UIPA. I saw the FOIA records from the State Department that showed a Hawaii birth when they were released quite a few months ago. That doesn’t mean I can’t question the process that occurred (and is occurring).

    I fail to see the purpose of this website anymore except as a social club for angry people to vent.

  47. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 2:57 am  (Quote)

    III. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SUBJECT TO HIPAA

    A.

    Standards for Determining What Must be Disclosed

    1.

    Privacy Exception to UIPA Disclosure

    The UIPA’s privacy exception typically applies to protect medical
    records from public disclosure. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 92F-13(1), 14(b)(1) (Supp.
    2002). The privacy exception, as applied to medical information, is the

    Ms. Andrea Armitage
    April 11, 2003
    Page 4

    UIPA’s parallel to the HIPAA rules’ protection of medical privacy; however,
    the extent of that protection may not be identical from the HIPAA rules to
    the UIPA. For instance, under the UIPA, the privacy exception does not
    apply when there is a public interest strong enough to outweigh an
    individual’s privacy interests. Haw. Rev. Stat.§ 92F-14(a) (Supp. 2002). The
    likelihood of such a strong public interest in medical records may be remote,
    but it remains a possible limitation on privacy under the UIPA that has no
    parallel in the HIPAA rules.

    – The UIPA has a public interest exception that HIPAA does not. Although rare, it can be used. This is probably the reason why HIPAA was not used as a standard answer in denying the requests by Tickley although that doesn’t mean it would never be invoked. But I am just an idiot.

  48. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 2:59 am  (Quote)

    http://www.state.hi.us/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2003-05.pdf

    I am so stupid that I can’t even remember to put the link.

  49. Expelliarmus says:
    March 4, 2011 at 2:59 am  (Quote)

    charo: The form was based upon what must be required

    You seem to be attaching undue significance to a piece of paper. Forms don’t define the law — they are merely created by administrative agencies for the convenience of their employees or the people they serve.

    But it makes no sense at all to try to conclude anything from the presence or absence of any field or pre-printed statement on a given form. All it means is that a circumstance arose that the designer of the form either didn’t anticipate or didn’t think was common enough to merit a spot on the form.

  50. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 3:32 am  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: You seem to be attaching undue significance to a piece of paper.Forms don’t define the law — they are merely created by administrative agencies for the convenience of their employees or the people they serve.

    But it makes no sense at all to try to conclude anything from the presence or absence of any field or pre-printed statement on a given form. All it means is that a circumstance arose that the designer of the form either didn’t anticipate or didn’t think was common enough to merit a spot on the form.

    See pages 38-39 of link: (whether the form is used or not, this is right from the text of the manual)

    http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf

    pages 38-39

    (2) Where agency is denying access to all or part
    of a record, the notice must identify:
    (a) The specific record or part that will
    not be disclosed; and
    (b) The §92F-13 exception that allows
    withholding (and any other applicable
    laws) and a brief explanation (a few
    words) of why the agency cited that
    exception.
    (3) Where agency is unable to disclose the
    record or part of the record, the notice must
    state that:

    (a) The agency does not maintain the
    record;
    (b) The agency requires a further
    description or clarification of the
    requested record to identify and search
    for the record; or
    (c) The request requires the agency to
    create a summary or compile
    information not readily retrievable.

  51. US Citizen says:
    March 4, 2011 at 3:59 am  (Quote)

    A new plan…

    1. Research when and where the most likely locations and times are for electrical storms.
    2.. Invite as many tin-foil hat nutjobs to free rallies at these locations.
    Provide free tin-foil hats, beer and aluminum step ladders.
    3. Hope.

    With luck it’ll just take one lightning bolt, because it would then branch out sideways from one tin-foil hat to the next.
    A perfect long exposure photo op for shutterbugs too!

    Btw, I’m currently soliciting funds to build the largest tesla coil ever disguised as huge oak tree.
    This is just for a “liberal arts project.”
    It has nothing whatsoever to do with this idea above.

  52. Loren says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:21 am  (Quote)

    Open thread, eh?

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Birther’ bill won’t pass muster

  53. Thrifty says:
    March 4, 2011 at 10:13 am  (Quote)

    sarina: Remember the proposal to sell copies of President Obama?

    That sounds like a very bad idea. If nothing else, having more than one President Obama could lead to some power struggles.

  54. Black Lion says:
    March 4, 2011 at 10:13 am  (Quote)

    Loren: Open thread, eh?Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Birther’ bill won’t pass muster

    Loren, great article….

  55. Black Lion says:
    March 4, 2011 at 10:15 am  (Quote)

    Another good article by Bill Bowman….

    The Post and E-Mail – Constitution Defender or supermarket tabloid?

    There used to be a notorious supermarket tabloid called “The Weekly World News.” In its pages, readers learned of the latest visits from aliens, gigantic, odd-shaped vegetables and the latest visits from aliens.

    It was a guilty pleasure for many as they stood in the checkout line in food stores across the country. I don’t know how many people actually believed the tripe that was printed, but it was certainly entertaining. At least it beat standing on line, looking at the bald spot on the guy in front of you.

    The WWN went under in 2007, but it is now a Web site, complete with its franchise stories about … aliens.

    The thing about the WWN was, you never knew when it was serious and when it was publishing something as a joke.

    I bring that up because there’s a story published in The Post & Email on March 3 headlined, “Who’s Behind the Mask of Obama?” written by Heather Gabriel that reminds me of something the WWN would publish. In reading it, you don’t know if the publisher is pulling our leg and seeing how much her readers will unquestionably swallow, or if this is serious. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that it is a serious article.

    Here’s why I qualify this: One of the points Gabriel seems to be trying to make in this … piece … is that President Obama is a reptile. Seriously. I’m not kidding. She even has art.

    We already have the photographic and scientific evidence that proves the fraud, photos from his childhood and even the images produced today. Where are the investigations? They just pretend there’s nothing wrong, as if the evidence doesn’t speak for itself.

    As proof, Gabriel offers links to a site called Educate-Yourself and, more specifically, an article entitled, “Photographic Evidence that Barack Obama is a Human/Reptilian Hybrid Part 1.”
    I really couldn’t read the entire article — I mean, seriously. Anyway, the “author” as some childhood pictures of the president. When he blows them up and looks closely:
    When I enlarge and crop these areas in the photos seen below, you will see very distinct images of etheric entities: some alien-looking, some human-like, and and others animal-like. The “bumpiness” of his hands, when enlarged, reveal the tell-tale reptilian feature of scale-like appearance to the skin. And within that scaly skin appearance are images of reptilian entities.

    And this author knows of what he writes:

    I first discovered these etheric bleed-through images when I was working on a photo of George Bush Sr., another human/reptilian hybrid masquerading as a human being, standing on the deck of a US aircraft carrier on September 1, 1944 posing with two other Navy airmen.

    Gabriel provides another link to the site, this one showing pictures of President and Michelle Obama, complete with reptile eyes and scaly skin.

    There’s also a link to a YouTube video, in which a woman talks about alien beings. I’m not going to put the link in here, because she’s obviously mentally unstable, and there’s no real need to embarrass her further.

    They’re brave to risk showing their own faces, knowing what they’re risking by speaking the truth. Why aren’t more people listening, and why isn’t the press reporting about these modern-day Deep Throats? It’s because they’re under the same control as the government.

    Yeah. It’s called sanity.

    Gabriel then posts a video of an Obama appearance on The View, in which he talks about using “the reptilian side of the brain.” This, of course, is taken as a “slip of the tongue” and further proof that he is, indeed, a reptile.

    Those of us in the reality based world understand that the phrase, “reptilian brain” refers to the primitive part of the human brain. But let’s not spoil their delusion.

    And to put a bow on it, Gabriel writes:
    It’s because he’s a slippery and slimy politician that he’s gotten away with it so far, and we know that’s more than skin-deep. He may try to look the part of the nice and hopeful hero, but underneath that fake shell Obama is a cold-blooded snake who has only the most superficial similarities to any of us.

    I used to think The Post & Email was the propaganda arm of the Birther movement. But now, with the publication of this … piece … I see that it’s really the supermarket tabloid of the Birther movement, meant only for some quick entertainment while its readers are waiting to do something else.

    Reptile people. Oh, that’s a good one!

    Keep the faith.

    http://turningthescale.net/

  56. Black Lion says:
    March 4, 2011 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Hilarious comments from the Post and Fail….I guess when you write about the President being a “Lizard person” all of the cranks come out of the woodwork…

    Jesse says:
    Friday, March 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    Now that we now have some true Conservative Constitutional Scholars like Professor Rice and Leo Patrick Haffey gaining nationwide attention and giving Patriots I just KNOW that this nightmare will soon be over!
    I hope and pray that Mr Haffey and Professor Rice will work together and inspire other Notable Conservative Constitutional Scholars to UNITE and work on the practical aspects of accomplishing the final embarrassment’ of the Resident’, his lackeys, minions, CZARS, and the nullification of all their foul works.
    With men of this caliber leading the charge’, I feel new strength and resolve coursing thru my entire being!

    And to Ms Rondeau – they couldn’t do it without you. This newspaper is like a beacon! A place full of truth and Real American Christian Values. God Bless You!

    Donna says:
    Friday, March 4, 2011 at 6:47 AM

    I’ve said ,time and again on here that i remember the news in 1961 pertaining to obama’s (supposeded birth in Hawaii)-There has to be more people that remember seeing interviews with Ann Dunham on tv. I wish these people would speak out. (see Hawaii The fake state) . My Mom’s words in “61‘ was: Even IF he WAS born in Hawaii thats one kid that will never be president because Hawaii Still is not a state. There are news reels with her interviews out there some where as she was about to leave the US to marry obama Sr. My moms words then were” She’s going over the water to marry her black prince”.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/whos-behind-the-mask-of-obama/#comments

  57. Expelliarmus says:
    March 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    Loren:

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Birther’ bill won’t pass muster

    Great job, Loren!

  58. JoZeppy says:
    March 4, 2011 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Hilarious comments from the Post and Fail…

    My personal fav is from everyone’s favorite discraced lawyer Leo Patrick Haffey:

    “Yes, I studied Constitutional Law in Law School; and I have researched these issues at Vanderbilt Law Library, the Nashville School of Law Library and various online law libraries like Cornell Law School etc. However much of my best information comes from the same excellent sources that many of you are using: The Post and Email, Stand Up America and The Steady Drip.

    I have endeavored to write my articles so that they are understandable without having to refer to Legal Dictionaries or other Legal Reference Books.”

    No kidding???? He studied Constitutional Law in law school. Ummmmm…that’s because every lawyer did. Doesn’t make anyone of us an expert of scholar on the subject….but hey, he’s a birther…considering the rest of their brain trust, they have to glom on to something….and better yet…a couple of law schools let him in their law libraries!!!! And he even used the online resouces of another reputable school….funny he never mentions what school he went to in his desperate attempt to name drop a couple of schools. But hey, even then, he relies on Pest & Fail more. Considering his article, why am I not suprised?

    And judging by the quality of what he wrote, I think it’s not that he writes so you don’t need to refer to legal dictionaries or other legal references….he just writes without the need of consulting them, or even being bound by a knowledge of the law contained in them.

  59. Expelliarmus says:
    March 4, 2011 at 5:05 pm  (Quote)

    charo: See pages 38-39 of link: (whether the form is used or not, this is right from the text of the manual)

    The Manual isn’t the source of the law either. It is a document that was produced in attempted compliance with the law… but it cannot override or limit the statutes on which it was based.

    So if you are trying to understand the law, as a lay person, it makes sense to start with the manual — but if you are going to argue or question what the agency can and cannot do… you can’t rely on the manual, because the manual could have mistakes or omissions.

    There are 3 sources of law that you can rely on:

    * Statutory Law (the laws passed by the legislatures)
    * Decisional Law (the interpretation, explanation, and limitations on the law based on judicial opinions)
    * Administrative regulations: the specific rules promulgated by agencies charged with enforcing the laws, but these cannot stand if they are in conflict with the statutory or decisional law.

    Forms, manuals, etc. are obviously helpful in getting a sense of things, but again… you can’t argue that agency A. can or can’t do X because of the manual — you have to go back to the statute, administrative regs, and any relevant court decisions.

  60. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 5:38 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: The Manual isn’t the source of the law either.It is a document that was produced in attempted compliance with the law… but it cannot override or limit the statutes on which it was based.

    So if you are trying to understand the law, as a lay person, it makes sense to start with the manual — but if you are going to argue or question what the agency can and cannot do… you can’t rely on the manual, because the manual could have mistakes or omissions.

    There are 3 sources of law that you can rely on:

    * Statutory Law(the laws passed by the legislatures)
    * Decisional Law(the interpretation, explanation, and limitations on the law based on judicial opinions)
    * Administrative regulations: the specific rules promulgated by agencies charged with enforcing the laws, but these cannot stand if they are in conflict with the statutory or decisional law.

    Forms, manuals, etc. are obviously helpful in getting a sense of things, but again… you can’t argue that agency A. can or can’t do X because of the manual — you have to go back to the statute, administrative regs, and any relevant court decisions.

    I assumed the manual was based on the law. If the information is not based on the law, then of course it does not need to be followed. Between the two of us, I am sure we can find the applicable statute, which if it is clear on its face, probably wouldn’t generate any cases on that basis.

  61. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 5:56 pm  (Quote)

    §92F-26 Rules. The office of information practices shall adopt rules, under chapter 91, establishing procedures necessary to implement or administer this part, which the agencies shall adopt, insofar as practicable, in order to ensure uniformity among state and county agencies. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §7] **** The Manual****

    §92F-14 Significant privacy interest; examples. (a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.

  62. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 5:59 pm  (Quote)

    The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“UIPA”), is Hawaii’s public records law. The Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) was created by the Legislature in 1988 to administer the UIPA.

    CHAPTER 92F

    UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT (MODIFIED)

  63. Expelliarmus says:
    March 4, 2011 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    charo: I assumed the manual was based on the law.

    In theory, yes — but that doesn’t make it infallible. Since the goal of the manual is to try to translate legal requirements into lay terms, a lot can be lost in translation.

    Between the two of us, I am sure we can find the applicable statute, which if it is clear on its face, probably wouldn’t generate any cases on that basis.

    I don’t have any intention of wasting my time looking up the statutes and regs. I’m just pointing out that you are looking in the wrong place to find out what the law is, if you want to get into the details and minutia. The manual is designed to address the broad outlines. I mean — you wouldn’t expect the manual that comes with a new appliance to tell you everything you need to know on how to fix the thing if it breaks down — you would assume that it has basic information about troubleshooting, and if you try everything suggested and the thing still doesn’t work, you wouldn’t conclude that your appliance can’t really be broken or that there’s something wrong with the manual — you’d figure it was an unusual problem and get a qualified repair person to take a look.

    The law may or may not be clear on its face. To the extent it isn’t clear, the Dept of Health has the legal authority to interpret it however they want, until either the courts or legislature tells them otherwise. And if you want to debate about what they can and cannot do, you have to go to the original sources (the statutes, regs, decisional law), not the secondary sources.

  64. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: In theory, yes — but that doesn’t make it infallible. Since the goal of the manual is to try to translate legal requirements into lay terms, a lot can be lost in translation.

    I don’t have any intention of wasting my time looking up the statutes and regs. I’m just pointing out that you are looking in the wrong place to find out what the law is, if you want to get into the details and minutia. The manual is designed to address the broad outlines. I mean — you wouldn’t expect the manual that comes with a new appliance to tell you everything you need to know on how to fix the thing if it breaks down — you would assume that it has basic information about troubleshooting, and if you try everything suggested and the thing still doesn’t work, you wouldn’t conclude that your appliance can’t really be broken or that there’s something wrong with the manual — you’d figure it was an unusual problem and get a qualified repair person to take a look.

    The law may or may not be clear on its face.To the extent it isn’t clear, the Dept of Health has the legal authority to interpret it however they want, until either the courts or legislature tells them otherwise.And if you want to debate about what they can and cannot do, you have to go to the original sources (the statutes, regs, decisional law), not the secondary sources.

    The law gives The Office of Information Practices the authority to promulgate its own rules: the Manual. I highly doubt that the regulations I pointed out from the manual have been controversial.

  65. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 6:08 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t mean the public versus private interest (which would be controversial), but the manner of communicating the results of a request.

  66. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:03 pm  (Quote)

    Why are no comments visible on this thread?

  67. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:04 pm  (Quote)

    Wow, that’s weird; now they are there.

  68. Expelliarmus says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    charo: The law gives The Office of Information Practices the authority to promulgate its own rules: the Manual.

    No, the Manual are not the “rules” — the manual is a brochure about the rules. The “rules” are the administrative rules contained in Title 2, subtitle 7, chapter 71 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) — a fact which is clearly explained in the manual. .

  69. charo says:
    March 4, 2011 at 11:38 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: No, the Manual are not the “rules” — the manual is a brochure about the rules.The “rules” are the administrative rules contained in Title 2, subtitle 7, chapter 71 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”)— a fact which is clearly explained in the manual. .

    The manual was developed by the OIP, which is charged with implementing the law in chapter 71. It mirrors UIPA Manual mirrors Title 2, subtitle 7, chapter 71 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”)

    §2-71-14 Agency’s notice.

    (a) When the agency intends to disclose a record in response to a formal request, the agency’s written notice to the requester shall state:

    (1) The location where the record will be made available to the requester in accordance with section 2-71-18;

    (2) The following information about fees, if applicable:

    (A) A good faith estimate of all fees that will be charged to the requester under section 2-71-19;

    (B) Whether a requested waiver has been granted under section 2-71-32; and

    (C) The amount of prepayment required, if any.

    (3) Instructions, if any, regarding any additional arrangements that the requester must make with the agency to inspect or copy the records;

    (4) When the agency will make the record available to the requester under section 2-71-13; and

    (5) A description of extenuating circumstances, if any, under section 2-71-15, and, if it is the case, the agency’s intent to disclose the records incrementally.

    (b) When the agency intends to deny access to all or part of the information in the requested record, the agency’s notice to the requester shall state:

    (1) The specific record or parts of the record that will not be disclosed; and

    (2) The specific legal authorities under which the request for access is denied under section 92F-13, HRS, or other laws.

    (c) When an agency is unable to disclose a record, the agency’s notice shall state that the agency is unable to disclose the requested record, or part thereof, because:

    (1) The agency does not maintain the record, and the agency may provide the name and address of another agency that, as the agency reasonably believes, may maintain the requested record;

    (2) The agency requires a further description or clarification of the requested record in order to identify and search for the record; or

    (3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.

    Expelliarmus: You seem to be attaching undue significance to a piece of paper. Forms don’t define the law — they are merely created by administrative agencies for the convenience of their employees or the people they serve.

    But it makes no sense at all to try to conclude anything from the presence or absence of any field or pre-printed statement on a given form. All it means is that a circumstance arose that the designer of the form either didn’t anticipate or didn’t think was common enough to merit a spot on the form.

    That was your initial comment. As you can see, the designer is the OIP, which itself was created by statute. It is a reliable source, even if not the original source of The Rules.

  70. obsolete says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    oops! wrong thread!

  71. Greg says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    Like that stops Michael. Why don’t you go find a thread that’s been moribund for 2 or 3 months and try to revive it by repeating the same stuff there. Be sure to pretend that it’s pertinent to the last conversation that was held in that thread. And petulantly point out that you’re having a conversation to anyone who objects.

  72. Sean says:
    March 5, 2011 at 9:34 am  (Quote)

    Any word on Hollister v. Soetoro from the Supreme Court?

  73. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 5, 2011 at 9:36 am  (Quote)

    Sean:
    Any word on Hollister v. Soetoro from the Supreme Court?

    I think they publish on Monday. But is there any doubt?

  74. charo says:
    March 5, 2011 at 11:43 am  (Quote)

    Concerning mIss Tickley’s issue of “filed” and “accepted,” here is commenter Danae’s explanation:

    To: epicurious

    This is how it was explained to me, oh and yes you are correct Epi. Hawaii is made up of several islands separated by a significant span of water. Before air travel was common between islands, everything went by boat. Each island is a county in the state. Each county has a registrar who can accept birth registrations. However, only in Oahu county, in Honolulu can the birth document be given it’s final official registration number (which it already has) and then be FILLED into the state archives. There had to be. Means by which the birth could be officially recognized between when the child was born and whent he document reached Honolulu. It could take some time to ger there you see. Now in Honolulu and Oahu county itself, those two terms meant pretty much the same thing, and Hawaii isn’t well known for dotting all the i’s and crossing the t’s. Today they have a computer network, and even in the 70’s air mail meant documents got to Honolulu much faster, but they never clarified or changed the process/procedure.

    That’s Hawaii for ya. I have discussed this with ms tickley but she doesn’t want to hear it. She still thinks I was working WITH Polarik. Yea right ….. NOT!!!!!!!! so she continues on this tangent to no point. Filed and accepted in the Honolulu office could have and likely were used interchangeably. It really only made a difference on the outer islands, where it gave temporary status to records intransit to Honolulu. I got my information from clerks working in the HDOH with regard to my own documents.

    55 posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 10:22:55 AM by Danae

  75. gorefan says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    test

  76. gorefan says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Why are no comments visible on this thread?

    I had the same problem – everything was dated Feb 28th. But as soon as I posted the “test” comment everything updated.

  77. charo says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:20 pm  (Quote)

    Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information

    11. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;

    (b) the individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship;

    (c) exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen or when the individual was a minor;

    (d) use of a foreign passport is approved by the cognizant security authority;

    (e) the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security authority, or otherwise invalidated;

    (f) the vote in a foreign election was encouraged by the United States Government.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/guidelines.html

  78. Sean says:
    March 5, 2011 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think they publish on Monday. But is there any doubt?

    Well, I’m just curious if it gets thrown out or what exactly is said on the matter.

  79. Reality Check says:
    March 5, 2011 at 1:31 pm  (Quote)

    Sean:
    Any word on Hollister v. Soetoro from the Supreme Court?

    There were no cases that made the Cert list that was published from conference yesterday. It will be denied on the orders list tomorrow. Check the SCOTUS web page after 10:00 AM. This case is not even close to fitting the criteria for a rehearing. I am amazed Hemenway forked over the filing fee to even bother with a petition for rehearing.

  80. Slartibartfast says:
    March 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think they publish on Monday. But is there any doubt?

    Even Dr. Kate thinks they will deny cert without comment (although she sees it as a treasonous act in her hate-filled, backwards, little mind…).

  81. Slartibartfast says:
    March 5, 2011 at 2:01 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: There were no cases that made the Cert list that was published from conference yesterday. It will be denied on the orders list tomorrow. Check the SCOTUS web page after 10:00 AM. This case is not even close to fitting the criteria for a rehearing. I am amazed Hemenway forked over the filing fee to even bother with a petition for rehearing.

    Ask yourself which is bigger – the filing fee or the paypal donations resutling from being denied cert by the SCOTUS. I’m guessing that it is easily the latter…

  82. Reality Check says:
    March 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: Ask yourself which is bigger – the filing fee or the paypal donations resutling from being denied cert by the SCOTUS. I’m guessing that it is easily the latter…

    Good point! The filing rated a huge story on World Nut Daily about how in a “stunning reversal” that SCOTUS was going to reconsider the POS. I will eagerly await the followup story in WND about how Obama got to the court yet once again and coerced them to refuse to hear the case once again.

  83. Slartibartfast says:
    March 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Ms. Tickly on Dr. K(h)ate’s blog:

    The Story of the Century

    Most of us learned a few years back that there’s little value anymore to the content put out by the MSM and even the secondary media. And most journalists only care about being liked and popular, so if reporting the truth gets in the way of that…well, it’s dispensable stuff. That’s why we visit Dr. Kate’s blog, and so many others, thirsty for more and deserving of better – particularly if we are hoping for any truth when it comes to the Obama eligibility issue.

    So, when Dr. Kate asked if she could cross-post my March 3 blog entry and asked that I write an intro for it, I thought this was a great opportunity to just highlight to people who care, the point that this particular blog entry is a testament to our media’s failure. Worse, it points to how the media conspired against the public and took the side of the politicians, leaving us completely screwed. They pushed their candidate. They pushed their bias. They took sides. They took bullying to a new level. And it’s just one of too many perfect examples of why our media cannot be trusted to report, they can only be trusted to spin and distort and in the process, they somehow managed to take a statement from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) that said one thing, and convinced millions of people that it meant the exact opposite. And they propped up their personal opinions with that spin as if it were fact.

    Our incompetent, complicit media took a statement from the former HDOH Director, Dr. Fukino, which effectively meant that while there had been numerous requests for Barrack Obama’s “official” original birth certificate, the Hawaii State Registrar didn’t have one. Instead, the person handling Obama’s application for an “original birth certificate” had it and was processing it in accordance with state policy. The HDOH actually verified that five days before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, Obama’s “original birth certificate” was not in the custody of the Hawaii State Registrar, in accordance to the laws of the State and the regulations of the Hawaii Department of Health, and they could not verify that it, or the birth facts within, were valid.

    So, thank you to Dr. Kate for being one of those few with a voice who manages to be popular, well liked, and committed to truth.

    If you want to read Ms. Tickly’s article (which has been linked here before) you can find it here:

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-story-of-the-century/

  84. Northland10 says:
    March 5, 2011 at 8:55 pm  (Quote)

    Sean: Well, I’m just curious if it gets thrown out or what exactly is said on the matter.

    Mar 7 2011 Rehearing DENIED.

  85. Northland10 says:
    March 5, 2011 at 9:00 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: Good point! The filing rated a huge story on World Nut Daily about how in a “stunning reversal” that SCOTUS was going to reconsider the POS. I will eagerly await the followup story in WND about how Obama got to the court yet once again and coerced them to refuse to hear the case once again.

    Since the rehearing rules (44) are quite specific about not granting Cert for a rehearing without a requesting a response, it shows you the level of independent thought WND expects from its readers. If you don’t want to get the rules from an ebil guvment intertube, you could always get it from another site such as American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/supreme_courts_embarrassing_er.html). How nice of them to reprint the rules for rehearings.

  86. Rickey says:
    March 5, 2011 at 9:31 pm  (Quote)

    I have written several e-mail to Bob Unruh at WND, explaining how the Supreme Court works. He has never acknowledged them. WND doesn’t care about the truth, obviously.

  87. Keith says:
    March 6, 2011 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)


    Proposed Texas immigration law contains convenient loophole for the help’

    That is a link to the full article. The following is a quote from that article:

    Texas has long been a hotbed of controversy on immigration issues. And a proposed immigration bill in the Texas state House is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows. The bill would make hiring an “unauthorized alien” a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine, unless that is, they are hired to do household chores.

    Yes, under the House Bill 2012 introduced by a tea party favorite state Rep. Debbie Riddle — who’s been saying for some time that she’d like to see Texas institute an Arizona-style immigration law — hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, “a large segment of the Texas population” would wind up in prison if the bill became law.

    “When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers,” Pena told the news giant. “It is so common it is overlooked.”

    So it is not OK to employ an undocumented worker in a job that might give some semblance of security, advancement, education, and economic reason to be law abiding and an upstanding ‘non-citizen’, but it is OK to hire an undocumented worker to pick cotton and be mammy to your kids and learn to live in fear and hate you and all you stand for.

    Slavery raises its ugly head in Texas again.

  88. G says:
    March 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: So it is not OK to employ an undocumented worker in a job that might give some semblance of security, advancement, education, and economic reason to be law abiding and an upstanding non-citizen’, but it is OK to hire an undocumented worker to pick cotton and be mammy to your kids and learn to live in fear and hate you and all you stand for.
    Slavery raises its ugly head in Texas again.

    Yep. The old “rules only apply to others…not to us” type of thinking… The rich want to make themselves above the law and have their servants cheap…

  89. G says:
    March 7, 2011 at 10:45 am  (Quote)

    To no sane person’s surprise, but for the official record:

    Hollister v. Soetoro: SCOTUS–Rehearing DENIED

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16968

    See bottom of pg 10 and pg 11 of the actual report there.

    The reconsideration was given the level of detail such frivolous nonsense deserves:

    A mere mention on a long list of denied rehearings….

    Another chapter of birther stupidity ends not with a bang, but the inevitable whimper….

  90. Bovril says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    BUT BUT BUT Freeperville said it was a done deal and evrything….he musta gotten to them again….damn that USURPER…..H’mm wonder if the Pest or Dr K(H)ates have gotten the glad tidings yet… 😎

  91. Black Lion says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    Bovril: BUT BUT BUT Freeperville said it was a done deal and evrything….he musta gotten to them again….damn that USURPER…..H’mm wonder if the Pest or Dr K(H)ates have gotten the glad tidings yet…

    ON on of her threads on her site one of her minions did report it….Of course it is the power of the evil usurper Obama and the cowardice of the SCOTUS why it was denied….

    thinkwell
    March 7, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Breaking: Hollister v. Soetoro denied, no comment, no recusals.

    How sad, how disgraceful.

    RacerJim
    March 7, 2011 at 9:14 am
    January 20, 2009 — The Day America Died

    thinkwell:

    Sad indeed but it’s been plenty apparent since the Kerchner case in DCOTUS that the Thired Branch is really just in line with the other two and they are all just an Oligarchy.

    Jane
    March 7, 2011 at 9:03 am
    Sad?
    How about dangerous?

    Evil prevails once again

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/supremes-to-conference-on-obama-eligibility/

  92. SueDB says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:23 am  (Quote)

    So far the only thing that has left the White House is the Winston’s piece – it was moved to another building…

    snicker…guffaw or 2 or 3

    Birthtards batting .000

  93. Black Lion says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:28 am  (Quote)

    And over at the Post and Fail the crazy Theresa Cao speaks….Some excerpts below…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/05/speaker-of-the-house-theresa-tcdc-cao-provides-an-update-on-her-court-case/

    “Ms. Cao was handcuffed, arrested and charged with Unlawful Conduct (Disruption of Congress). She was assigned an initial court date of January 19. She told WorldNetDaily in a report dated January 6, “It’s all about defending God, country and the Constitution…I understood that I as an American [needed] to do my part to defend God’s country and the Constitution, that when and if America does become a nation that is going to be really not just socialist, fascist or communist, but really controlled by a dictator, if I, TC from DC, personally did not do something to change’ what was going on for the good and to bring true ‘hope,’ I would have failed.”

    Following the January 6, 2011 incident, Cao obtained representation from The Rutherford Institute, whose stated purpose is “to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.”
    …………….

    MS. CAO: WorldNetDaily had covered my story through January 19 but is no longer reporting on it. I believe that their coverage ended because of my break with the Rutherford Institute, which I dropped from representing me. There have been some erroneous reports on the developments since then.

    Rutherford had said that they were going to defend me on my First Amendment rights. John Garza, the DC representative for Rutherford; John Whitehead, Rutherford’s founder, and Douglas McKusick, his staffer, all treated me with disrespect and contempt. I filed official attorney grievance documents to the Virginia, DC and Maryland Bar Associations the day before my hearing on the 8th of February. I officially sent them on February 7. I have my letters to Rutherford, their response to me, and my letters to the Bar and their response.

    John Garza withheld the prosecution documents for discovery from me, and by the time I got into his office on February 4, which was the Thursday before the hearing, I went in stating that I wanted copies of my documents “because you are not telling me anything as to what’s happening.” That was only the beginning.

    When I got there, I confronted him, saying, “What’s up with this?” I said it nicely, but I asked, “Why are you withholding the information from me?” So he got quite rude and upset because I questioned him, and he became very angry, and that’s when he said that he would no longer represent me. Can you imagine? That was four days before my hearing.

    The next day, I received an official note from Rutherford in which they said that “because Mr. Garza is no longer covering your case, please be advised to look for another attorney.” But by that point, I had fired them from representing me.

    [Editor’s Note: In its report in a section entitled “Crimesider,” CBS News referred to the U.S. Constitution as a “venerable document,” but characterized the Article II eligibility requirements as “a U.S. citizen’s eligibility to be president.” A blogger referred to Ms. Cao as “a certified birther lunatic,” and MSNBC labeled her a “birther yeller.”

    However, it was MSNBC’s Chris Mathews who originally suggested that Obama was born in a foreign country. The available evidence shows that Obama was born with British citizenship, which brings into question whether or not he qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Polls from August 2010 show that a minority of Americans believe Obama’s birth story, including high-profile personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and former candidates for state legislatures and Congress.]

    MS. CAO: I called the police officer. It was quite unfortunate, but I had no witnesses. Nobody came to my hearing.

    MRS. RONDEAU: You’re kidding!

    MS. CAO: Zero; not a single human being. Not a single soul. So I had no witness. That’s the whole point; I wanted people to be there to witness what was going on. There are local patriots, but not a soul showed up. That’s why I didn’t want to talk to anyone for a while. It had been just over a month since the sixth of January, but you can see how easily people forget. I felt I was compelled by God to do what I did and that it had no bearing on me individually, but that it was really for America. It was in defense of God, country and the Constitution. It was overwhelming; it was shocking that no one came.
    ……………….

    MRS. RONDEAU: What was the name of the judge?

    MS. CAO: Judge Marisa Demeo.

    MRS. RONDEAU: What was the response to your complaints about Rutherford?

    MS. CAO: Bot VA and DC outright refused to bring charges or to even pursue an investigation. The Bar Associations of VA, DC and Maryland said that they were not going to pursue it. They didn’t deal with the issue that I had brought up. I have in my hand here an article entitled “American Bar Association Fighting for Sharia Law in the United States.”
    ……………

    MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think the New World Order system installed Obama?

    MS. CAO: Oh, absolutely, without a doubt. How else can he be enslaved if it wasn’t for the New World Order thugs and their agenda? In the midst of this storm all around us, there is still such an uncanny calm before the storm.

    MRS. RONDEAU: What are the latest developments in your court case?

    MS. CAO: I was able to get a public defender. I did that within 24 hours. Her name is April Downs, and she was assigned to me by the judge, who is an Obama appointee.

    MRS. RONDEAU: Was the case heard on February 8, or was it continued because you didn’t have an attorney?

    MS. CAO: It wasn’t heard at all because I got a new attorney. So the next court date is March 15.

  94. Bovril says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    I particularly enjoyed the lines….

    MS. CAO: I called the police officer. It was quite unfortunate, but I had no witnesses. Nobody came to my hearing.

    MRS. RONDEAU: You’re kidding!

    MS. CAO: Zero; not a single human being. Not a single soul.

    Seems the Birferstani were too busy clipping coupons or drawing their socialist commie social security etc to support here……

  95. Black Lion says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    Is this another call for sedition by the Post and Fail in the following “editorial”?

    “Now, as during the Vietnam war, it seems that the most dangerous enemy we have is our very own Government. When I was in Vietnam, I didn’t have the assistance that was required to fulfill my mission due to incompetent leaders. But now we will not be taking orders from untruthful, untrained, unqualified, and unscrupulous leaders.”
    ………..

    We are being backed up against a wall because the Federal Government refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books. We have an illegal immigration problem that has become a national nightmare. On top of that, we have an illegal Muslim immigrant occupying the presidency. And then we have an Attorney General who called the New Black Panthers “My people.”

    Okay, I can play that game too. All of the Vietnam Vets, and everyone else who is willing to stand with me to defend the Constitution, are my people and my people are mighty upset with the Joint Chiefs of Staff for allowing LTC Lakin to be carted off to jail, as if he were a common criminal, for lawfully asking to see the putative President’s long- form birth certificate, for which every Secretary of State should have asked in 2008.

    The bugles are sounding. Time to muster. Front and center. Present arm!

    These are our targets.

    1.Mainstream media. Remove existing personnel and replace with people who are not afraid to tell the truth.
    2.All politicians and people of influence who have demonstrated their hate for America. All who have refused to vet Obama via proper credentials (such as a valid birth certificate). All judges. Here’s the clue: EVERY citizen has equal standing to know if their de facto president is qualified to hold the office; there are no ruling or special classes in America.
    3.Those who are in the military, law enforcement, and any other government department who would follow illegal orders, which would be ANY order from the Obama regime.
    4.Everyone who supports the overthrow of the Constitution, which would be all of those who identify themselves with Obama and his band of thieves.
    5.All Muslims, Socialists, Fascists, Communists.
    ……………

    And in the comments…

    George N. Crawford says:
    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 8:07 AM
    From one PO’D Vietnam Vet to another. LET’S ROLL BROTHER! I will take the point.

    Troy says:
    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 8:30 PM
    Time to storm DC and leave it trampled underfoot!

    George W. Starch says:
    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 5:50 PM
    Hey, I’m ready to sign up all over again. Did my AAF thing in WW duce and now have a total of 32 years with Uncle, but we’ve gotta get it in gear. I’m ready to get with it and I’m a far cry from being alone. We’ve got the numbers, the interest, and the sincerity and are fed up with the way DC isn’t doing their job.

    TonkinVet says:
    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 3:20 PM
    Duffel bag is packed. Just need to shine my buckle.

    Miki Booth says:
    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM
    See you on the battlefield!
    In liberty,
    Miki Booth

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/06/call-to-arms/

    And in other crazy news….

    Barbi Dee says:
    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 7:11 PM
    On March 19th, Col. Harry Reilly is having an Egypt style march on Washington to remove Obama from power! More information available on google. Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret., and here are a couple of links… http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

  96. gorefan says:
    March 7, 2011 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    As expected:

    REHEARINGS DENIED

    10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.

  97. The Magic M says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:30 pm  (Quote)

    > an Egypt style march on Washington to remove Obama from power

    Actually, it would probably be more fun if the 69 million Obama voters showed up and showed the 50-60 birther idiots the meaning of numbers. 😉

  98. Daniel says:
    March 7, 2011 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: On March 19th, Col. Harry Reilly is having an Egypt style march on Washington to remove Obama from power! More information available on google. Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret., and here are a couple of links… http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

    I think it would be a nice gesture if we made sure those patriots, each and every one of them, marching on DC had fresh, hot coffee every morning for their protest occupation of the mall. It would go a long way to let them know that while we disagree with thier ridiculous position, we support their right to blather on about it.

    So I’ll start and pre-order the coffee now to make sure we have it ready. What do you think…. 5 cups black, and maybe a dozen cream and sugar? That should be plenty.

  99. misha says:
    March 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: The bugles are sounding. Time to muster. Front and center. Present arm!

    Armchair warriors.

  100. Black Lion says:
    March 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: I think it would be a nice gesture if we made sure those patriots, each and every one of them, marching on DC had fresh, hot coffee every morning for their protest occupation of the mall. It would go a long way to let them know that while we disagree with thier ridiculous position, we support their right to blather on about it.So I’ll start and pre-order the coffee now to make sure we have it ready. What do you think…. 5 cups black, and maybe a dozen cream and sugar? That should be plenty.

    With that amount we would have some coffee left over….Those fools couldn’t muster 10 people to march anywhere….They all live in a basement somewhere estranged from their families pretending that somehow they are important and that they are the only ones that can save American while watching reruns of “Capricorn One” and “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”…

  101. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion:
    George N. Crawford says:
    Troy says:
    George W. Starch says:
    TonkinVet says:
    Miki Booth says:

    I wonder how many distinct commenters that represents?

  102. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 7, 2011 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: RacerJim
    March 7, 2011 at 9:14 am
    January 20, 2009 — The Day America Died

    I prefer The Night the Constitution Changed.

  103. The Magic M says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:48 am  (Quote)

    > On March 19th, Col. Harry Reilly is having an Egypt style march on Washington

    Well doesn’t it strike you that this issue is not on the front page of the usual suspects (P-and-E, WND, Dr Kate’s, …) in 48-point letters?
    I think they’re already preparing for the ‘splainin’ they’ll have to do if, again, only about 50-100 people show up. After the last rally, they claimed “no-one knew about it because the mass media won’t report about it”. But they didn’t even bang their own drum loud enough to convince me they actually *meant* to try for their “million man march”.
    Con artists and fraudsters, aided by some delusional fools, that’s all they are.

    If you ran WND or P-and-E, wouldn’t you write “big anti-Obama rally on … in … – come all!” in the largest possible font on the front page, glued to the top position for at least a month? Sure you would. But they don’t.

  104. Lupin says:
    March 8, 2011 at 7:05 am  (Quote)

    Interestingly enough, I do believe that the rule of law is in a terrible shape in your country — and I’m not the only one:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2287029/pagenum/all/#p2

    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/social-studies-50th-anniversary-symposium-is-there-hope-for-the-rule-of-law-in-america.html

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/07/national/main7125873.shtml

    Nixon must be having the last laugh — and the idiot birthers are only there to accelerate the transition towards a Putin-style of “democracy”.

  106. Black Lion says:
    March 8, 2011 at 9:32 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I wonder how many distinct commenters that represents?

    I would guess about 2. Even more hilarious is that Mikki Booth is commenting…We all know she is full of it….Remember when she claimed that she could get a long form for her kids from HI and that never materialized?

  107. Black Lion says:
    March 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm  (Quote)

    ‘Birther’ bill is fringe of the fringe
    Posted: Sunday, March 6, 2011 11:59 pm

    The “birthers” who insist that President Barack Obama does not meet the citizenship requirement to be president represent a fringe of public opinion.

    Then there are some whose views represent only a fringe of the fringe.

    That’s where the bill proposed by Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial comes from.

    The charge that Obama failed to meet the requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” of our great country was dismissed as invalid long ago.

    The director of the Hawaiian state agency that handles birth certificates issued the following statement: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    Various attempts to challenge Obama’s citizenship have failed in court. The U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions has let stand lower court rulings that Obama met the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the president be a “natural born citizen.”

    Yet the “birthers” keep the myth alive.

    What makes Christensen’s bill an oddity even by “birther” standards is that not only would it require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide a certified long-form copy of their birth certificates to Nebraska’s secretary of state, it also would require candidates to provide copies of their parent’s long-form birth certificates.

    Furthermore, in order for a person to qualify to be a presidential candidate in Nebraska, the bill, LB654, would require an affidavit in which the candidate swears, “On the day I was born both my birth father and my birth mother were citizens of the United States of America.”

    Christensen has told reporters that he “absolutely” believes Obama is a U.S. citizen, but it’s worth noting that a faction of “birthers” believes that to be a “natural born citizen” a person must be the child of two U.S. citizens. Christensen already had a reputation for introducing peculiar bills. His unsuccessful effort two years ago to regulate sexually oriented businesses provoked more jokes than serious discussion. His proposal this year to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons drew a chorus of opposition from Nebraska educators.

    But this time, Christensen has outdone himself. His “birther” bill is one of the most outlandish pieces of legislation that has been introduced this year.

    The bill has been scheduled for a public hearing Thursday. It promises to be entertaining. It possibly might attract kooks from all across the country.

    But entertainment is the only possible value anyone could find in this 14-page bill. It’s a joke. The less time the Legislature wastes on it, the better.

    http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_896f2493-dd7d-5ed6-9261-8e36ef8e6fa5.html

  108. Black Lion says:
    March 8, 2011 at 2:55 pm  (Quote)

    Interview with the crazy Phil Berg…He is still pushing the fake story that the President was born in Kenya, became a citizen of Indonesia, and that his grandmother was at his birth….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkJkEbmWW24&feature=player_embedded

  109. Black Lion says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm  (Quote)

    Great article about Dr. Kate by Bill Bowman….

    ATLAH visits Revolution Radio’

    So I was curious about this Blog Talk Radio program called “Revolution Radio,” hosted by the virulent anti-Obamaian “Dr. Kate.”
    Kate seems to always have had a grumpy for Obama, but it’s been kicked into overdrive since she lost her hydrologist’s job, which she blames on the president.

    I was even more interested in Monday’s program, because Kate had on as her guest The Honorable Pastor Dr. James David Manning of the ATLAH World Ministry in ATLAH, N.Y.

    ATLAH!! HOO-RAH!!! SIS-BOOM-BAH!!

    Sorry. Got a little carried away there.

    Anyway, the interview was quite … revealing. I learned that Dr. Kate and The Honorable Pastor Dr. James David Manning both agree that the government is spewing “chem trails” with airliners, and that Usurper in the White House has to be overthrown.

    Golly.

    What effect will the chem trails have on us, according to his Honorableness? “We will probably die by it.”

    But Dr. Kate has the answer: She said later in the program that she will be selling special water filters to filter out the nasty chemicals that, she claims, are robbing us of our outrage. Remember, she’s a hydrologist, so she knows about that water stuff.

    Too bad she’s all wet about Obama. But I digest.

    The interview only touched on a couple of subjects, and Dr. Kate once again hinted at some mysterious plan she’s cooking up:

    I’ve got things I would just love to tell you what I’m working on now.

    She keeps teasing like that. Makes one wonder, no?

    Anyway, the main course was, of course, that usurpin’ mofo in the OUR White House, the Long Legged Mack Daddy. And more specifically, when will the masses rise up and remove him?

    “I’m still convinced Obama can be overthrown. He’s extremely vulnerable,” The Honorable Pastor Dr. James David Manning said. “The problem is we don’t have the backbone, we don’t have the outrage that should be in our Supreme Court, that should be in our congresspersons, that should be all across America.”

    Well, poop.

    But just wait, once Dr. Kate gets those water filters going, hellz gonna be a-poppin’!

    Dr. Kate also opined that she “favors overthrow as well.”

    They’re talking about overthrowing the democratically elected president of the United States of America. There’s a word for that, right?

    Kate also blames Speaker of the House Boehner (who she called “idiotic”), the Department of State and the judiciary for keeping Obama in place.

    She asked The Honorable Felon if he thought 2 million people massing at the White House would do it.

    “We’re going to need a catalyst,” he said. “Something is going to happen that will inspire the American people.”

    Something such as … oh! Sharia Law!

    “Or it may be that people will look up and see that Sharia Law is breathing down their neck. That his nation in a matter of a couple of years has become so Islamic that you can’t find an American flag or a Christian Bible,” he said.

    You know, I wondered what was happening to all those American flags and Christian Bibles. Bastard Muslims.

    In the meantime, The Honorable Pastor Dr. James David Manning said, he’s biding his time:

    I’m keeping my powder dry. I know the day is gonna come. I sense militias forming all over America. At some point in time, spontaneously, that’s how it’s gonna happen. It might be 20 million people …

    That seemed to tickle Dr. Kate’s yahoo a little:

    Oh, what a wonderful vision.

    Just to be clear, that’s revolution they’re talking about.

    ATLAH Man said the next 60 to 90 days will bring us rising prices and escalating misery, and then sometime after that – he didn’t know how long – the 20 million or more Americans will rise up and remove the Usurper!

    Dr. Kate: What a wonderful, wonderful vision. I hear it from you and I believe it.

    Yeah, I’m sure you do.

    Later on, after the interview concluded, Dr. Kate opined as how even though there will be 20 million people storming the White House, they will be “fired upon” until “forces loyal to the Constitution work.”

    I’ve got news for you, sister; it’s the forces loyal to the Constitution who will be firing upon you if you try to storm the White House.

    She had to go take a break after that because she was “choked up.”

    Upon returning, Dr. Kate told her listeners to remember how many people “died for us” – a theme she has been repeating recently – and that “this is the time, folks.”

    She also talked a bit about how she is adapting since being canned (her word) from her hydrologist’s job. She said it was because of her activities in advocating for the overthrow of the duly elected U.S. government (my words). Sure. You’re that much of a threat.

    … I know why I was canned and I’m doing something about that, not in a legal sense, but in ways that our opposition won’t know until they’re caught red-handed doing what we know they’re doing with Indian country, the Chinese, the debt, the purposeful squeeze that we’re getting in.

    Yeah. Me neither.

    She said she’s dedicating the rest of her life to selling “information” on a Web site, and to being one of the 20 million that frog-march that usurpin’ mofo off to jail.

    You know, you have to love a country that allows people to talk about overthrowing its government without fear of soldiers bashing in their front door and disappearing them. What kills me about people such as Dr. Kate and The Honorable Pastor Dr. James David Manning is that they continually claim to be upholding the Constitution, when everything they do is contrary to that stated goal. Like the parent who beats their child “for your own good.”

    Our First Amendment even covers anti-American speech, and I guess that’s a good thing.

    Like Sun-Tzu said, “know your enemy.”

    Keep the faith.

    http://turningthescale.net/?p=85

  110. Benji Franklin says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm  (Quote)

    Does anyone here ever read the WND Obama Eligibility forum? There seem to be fewer
    than 10 regular posters there, but it’s surprisingly uncensored. Daneman seems to be one of them posting as su359115. He gets periodically blown away by a lawyer posting as Atticus Finch, and regularly tormented with refuting posts from a PhoxarRed. A touch of the twi-light zone is regularly added by a ch2222 who appears to be Steve aka nobarack08. His posts are an equal mix of incoherent ramblings and abuse of the English Language, disguised as a fact-obscuring orgy of name-calling. He seems pretty sure he’ll be the key witness at Obama’s lynching. Steve L Craig and Key Eligibility Questions drop in periodically to flesh out the snicker’s bar.

    BenjiFranklin

  111. Slartibartfast says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm  (Quote)

    The Magic M:
    > On March 19th, Col. Harry Reilly is having an Egypt style march on Washington

    Well doesn’t it strike you that this issue is not on the front page of the usual suspects (P-and-E, WND, Dr Kate’s, …) in 48-point letters?
    I think they’re already preparing for the splainin’ they’ll have to do if, again, only about 50-100 people show up. After the last rally, they claimed “no-one knew about it because the mass media won’t report about it”. But they didn’t even bang their own drum loud enough to convince me they actually *meant* to try for their “million man march”.
    Con artists and fraudsters, aided by some delusional fools, that’s all they are.

    If you ran WND or P-and-E, wouldn’t you write “big anti-Obama rally on … in … – come all!” in the largest possible font on the front page, glued to the top position for at least a month? Sure you would. But they don’t.

    I think the birthers are getting more paranoid about Obots watching them – probably due to the stress put on their confirmation biases by their unbroken streak of perfect FAILs… I’m sure they’re passing the word via the birther underground – which can almost certainly turn out many tens of people (would you believe a couple? How about one ten of people?)

  112. Black Lion says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin: Does anyone here ever read the WND Obama Eligibility forum? There seem to be fewerthan 10 regular posters there, but it’s surprisingly uncensored. Daneman seems to be one of them posting as su359115. He gets periodically blown away by a lawyer posting as Atticus Finch, and regularly tormented with refuting posts from a PhoxarRed. A touch of the twi-light zone is regularly added by a ch2222 who appears to be Steve aka nobarack08. His posts are an equal mix of incoherent ramblings and abuse of the English Language, disguised as a fact-obscuring orgy of name-calling. He seems pretty sure he’ll be the key witness at Obama’s lynching. Steve L Craig and Key Eligibility Questions drop in periodically to flesh out the snicker’s bar.BenjiFranklin

    Never been there…Sounds interesting if they do not censor posts that are supportive of the President’s eligibility….

  113. Slartibartfast says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin:
    Does anyone here ever read the WND Obama Eligibility forum?There seem to be fewer
    than 10 regular posters there, but it’s surprisingly uncensored.Daneman seems to be one of them posting as su359115.He gets periodically blown away by a lawyer posting as Atticus Finch, and regularly tormented with refuting posts from a PhoxarRed.A touch of the twi-light zone is regularly added by a ch2222 who appears to be Steve aka nobarack08. His posts are an equal mix of incoherent ramblings and abuse of the English Language, disguised as a fact-obscuring orgy of name-calling. He seems pretty sure he’ll be the key witness at Obama’s lynching.Steve L Craig and Key Eligibility Questions drop in periodically to flesh out the snicker’s bar.

    BenjiFranklin

    Can you provide a link?

  114. Benji Franklin says:
    March 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, Starty heres the link to WND’s Obama Eligibility Forum – they are approaching 10,000 posts.

    http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235

    Benji Franklin

  115. JoZeppy says:
    March 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin: Does anyone here ever read the WND Obama Eligibility forum? There seem to be fewerthan 10 regular posters there, but it’s surprisingly uncensored. Daneman seems to be one of them posting as su359115. He gets periodically blown away by a lawyer posting as Atticus Finch, and regularly tormented with refuting posts from a PhoxarRed. A touch of the twi-light zone is regularly added by a ch2222 who appears to be Steve aka nobarack08. His posts are an equal mix of incoherent ramblings and abuse of the English Language, disguised as a fact-obscuring orgy of name-calling. He seems pretty sure he’ll be the key witness at Obama’s lynching. Steve L Craig and Key Eligibility Questions drop in periodically to flesh out the snicker’s bar.BenjiFranklin

    I read it for a while. It was far too silly for me to take very long. Actually it was quite pathetic. I find Daneman and his weak attempts to pass himself off as some sort of a legal expert rather tedious. OK…that and his never changing excuses why he didn’t attend law school….or get an undergrad degree for that matter…and the fact that he loved using legal terms of art which he didn’t really know the meaning of….but I digress. To see his handful of birther minions treating his spews as if they carrier some authority (I mean c’mon…he’s a former wannabe paralegal), over the statements of people who actually knew what they were talking about was truely theatre of the absurd.

  116. Expelliarmus says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: I read it for a while. It was far too silly for me to take very long.

    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E

  117. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    Barak Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya.

    His mother was driven to a hospital there, from the airport in Nairobi, Kenya, by an American missionary. This missionary woman was assassinated in January of 2007, right in front of her husband.

    16 posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 6:51:49 AM by SatinDoll

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2684016/posts?page=16#16

    And from OFGS, this so called claim is examined….

    Is This The Stupidest Birther Claim Ever?

    What do you think?

    Barak Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya.
    His mother was driven to a hospital there, from the airport in Nairobi, Kenya, by an American missionary. This missionary woman was assassinated in January of 2007, right in front of her husband.

    It was posted on Free Republic by SatinDoll.

    The murdered lady missionary is a bit more than I have time to look into today. But, really? In 1961? A Sunday drive from Nairobi, almost 300 miles or so, as the crow flies, probably twice that on meandering dirt tracks with no gas stations at hand–flat tires, broken axles, overheated radiators, collisions with goats–maybe 24 hours, where even today a train can take 15 hours and driving on since improved roads maybe 10 hours–with a woman whose water is about to break. Oh, sure.

    Bypassing a modern hospital in the capital, Nairobi, a city built by British colonialists for British colonists, to go to a trading port then governed by Zanzibar, after a flight from Hawaii to Africa, taking God only knows how long in those days, all to give birth to a future President of the United States, who can’t be that without natural born citizenship. A status his mother would have made certain by giving birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, where she was already due to give birth. Sure, sure.

    For what?

    To attain Kenyan citizenship for her child, a status he would be automatically inheriting from his father covering his years as a minor, anyhow, so he would not be a natural born American citizen when the time came, and could never be the President of the United States. Stanley Ann Dunham knew then that the Birther movement would be fabricating a two-parent citizen theory and wanted to thwart her son’s 21st century ambitions (which he told her of from the womb). Sure, sure, sure.

    Another diabolical plan by Stanley Ann Dunham to foil her son’s future for which she worked so hard to have him prepared. And she was awfully snuggley with missionaries for a commie atheist, no? Oh noes! Don’t tell me she was a God-fearing Christian, after all!

    Birther logic, always a hoot.

  118. misha says:
    March 9, 2011 at 11:52 am  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Barak Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya.

    Whenever someone claims Kenya, I post this:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

  120. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    From today’s Post and Fail, Pammy Barnett returns to the news…

    Eligibility Case Inexplicably Reassigned to Obama

    BUT IS THE JUDGE DE FACTO OR DE JURE? WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?

    In December 2008, Capt. Pamela Barnett (U.S. Army-Ret.) filed a complaint with the office of California Secretary of State Debra Bowen prior to the meeting of the Electors of the Electoral College. In the complaint, Barnett asked Bowen to delay the vote of the Electors pending an investigation of the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States. She also asked that the online “Certification of Live Birth” bearing Obama’s name be investigated for authenticity.

    Capt. Barnett hand-delivered her complaint to the office of the secretary of state and personally observed the clerk stamp the document “Received.”

    Barnett told The Post & Email that according to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Bowen’s office should have provided a response to her complaint within 60 days. However, she received nothing, and 14 months later filed a second complaint requesting an explanation for why she had received no response.

    This time, she received a reply which stated that the Secretary of State was not responsible for vetting candidates and which Barnett reported did not address any of the fraud allegations regarding the Certification of Live Birth. It was the same response she gave to the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit.

    Capt. Barnett became a plaintiff along with a number of state representatives, retired military, and several California electors in Barnett v. Obama, filed in July 2009, which named Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as de facto president and requested a Quo Warranto action to determine his eligibility to serve. A complete list of the case motions can be found here. The case was docketed for a hearing with federal judge David O. Carter, a former Marine.

    Barnett told The Post & Email that “Obama’s presidency isn’t legal according to the Supreme Court and other federal rulings and historical definitions which define a natural born Citizen as a person born to two American citizens. Obama’s father was British and Obama has publicly stated that he was born British.”

    Originally Judge Carter had stated that Obama’s constitutional eligibility needed to be determined and that there “would be no dismissals on procedural issues,” Carter later reversed himself and dismissed Barnett v. Obama on October 29, 2009. At the beginning of that month, he had hired a clerk from the law firm which had represented Obama in other lawsuits filed against him alleging his ineligibility.

    As The Post & Email reported previously, on May 10, 2010, Barnett filed an entirely new lawsuit against Secretary of State Debra Bowen for allowing Damon Dunn’s name on the 2010 ballot for Secretary of State when he was not “legally qualified.” The lawsuit also alleged that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth was forged and again asked for an investigation. Page 5 of Barnett’s pro se complaint alleged that “Defendant Dunn had not been registered and enrolled/affiliated with the Republican Party of California, any State, and or National Republican Party affiliation for 12 months as of November 13, 2010,” which she claimed violated California state law.

    In response to the lawsuit Keyes v. Bowen, Judge Michael P. Kenny stated, “Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the Secretary of State to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from Presidential candidates” (page 8). Judge Kenny dismissed the case in May 2009. It was appealed in March 2010.

    Of that opinion, Barnett stated, “I totally disagree with it, because it’s against the law, and Debra Bowen swore an oath to defend the Constitution of California as a state officer.” However, Barnett reported that it was “pretty much the response” she had expected and that she noticed a pattern developing. “I knew that she wasn’t going to do anything unless she was forced to,” said Barnett.

    According to Wikipedia, in 1968, Eldridge Cleaver ran for President on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket, but “was technically not eligible to run since he was only 34 years old at the time.” Therefore, California’s then-secretary of state refused to place Cleaver’s name on the ballot, even after Cleaver filed a lawsuit which went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    ………..

    An opinion piece from the Orange County Weekly reported that Orly Taitz had not checked the facts about Dunn’s voter registration, stating that Dunn had been registered as a Democrat when he lived in Florida and had subsequently allowed his voter registration to lapse. However, Barnett told The Post & Email that also at issue was whether or not Dunn had been truthful when he answered the question, “Have you ever registered to vote before?” as “No.” Capt. Barnett stated, “He had lied on his voter registration saying that he had never registered to vote before. I complained to the Secretary of State’s office, which said they wouldn’t do anything about it because it wasn’t proven that he did it maliciously.’” Barnett stated that she notified the California Attorney General’s office about the falsified voter registration form but that they did not respond at all.
    ……………

    Of the impact of judges rendering decisions as a result of having been appointed by an ineligible de facto president, Barnett stated, “There have been 62 Obama judicial nominations confirmed including Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. It is unfathomable how far-reaching the consequences of an unlawful presidency would be. Federal judges hear hundreds of cases per year.” She added, “Lawsuits can cost millions of dollars. Imagine that you had won a case under an Obama appointed judge, and then later on it was overturned or reviewed because the judge was found not to be legally appointed. Wouldn’t this open up the federal government to being sued? Every party to a lawsuit including criminal cases would have standing for a rehearing and re-trial with the federal government paying the costs because they denied all of these people their right to due process.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/07/eligibility-case-inexplicably-reassigned-to-obama-appointee/

  121. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 12:41 pm  (Quote)

    And in the comments….

    bill says:
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 7:54 AM
    The most interesting thing about this thread is the statement that “Eligibility Case Inexplicably Reassigned to Obama Appointee.” I can’t put one shred of credence in this because there is no one in government that has the authority to appoint anyone to anything. In fact ,this man that goes by Barack Obama who is squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. doesn’t have the moral or legal authority to have his dog take a walk on the White House lawn. Why so many Americans keep calling this smooth-talking street hustler “President” is totally beyond me. Cheers.
    ————————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email has never called him “president,” which is stated on our “About” page: http://www.thepostemail.com/about/ We have rejected many submissions simply because they do refer to Obama as the president. Since many authors refuse to change it in accordance with our stated policy, we do not accept their submissions. Nevertheless, Obama did appoint the judge, whether or not he had the right to do so. That is the question that must be decided.

    Bob1939 says:
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM
    Lets see where we are now, and lets just get serious for a lousy minute, while we talk about “THE ONE”… the one who has many false SS numbers… the one who has falsified a birth certificate, while hiding his Kenya BC… the one who hides all his historical data from the American people… the one who is trying to demolish the USA by way of Jihad… the one who supports Muslim Terrorists at every opportunity… the one who is trying to introduce Sharia Law into the USA… the one who is intentionally and viciously bankrupting America… the one from ACORN – you know the “Community Organizer”… the one who lost his law license, but hides the reason from us… the one whose Modus Operandi (MO), is via RICO – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations… the one who admires, and follows Alinsky, Wright, Ahres, Soros, Chavez, Mao, Ahmadinejad, and other such ilk…the one who was born in Kenya, and pretends to be America’s President… the one who practices taqiyya, because we know he’s really a Muslim… the one who practices dhimmitude on us, because he believes that he has accomplished Jihad victory over us … the very one who doesn’t believe in God, because he thinks he is God.

    Bob1943 says:
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM
    None of the states have actually passed a “Barry” bill to force candidates to prove their eligibility before being placed on the ballot, and, according to what I have heard, at least three states, Arizona, Montana and Oklahoma have already dropped or “tabled” their Barry bills. Arizona’s failed to get out of committee when 3 Republicans, one of whom was a sponsor of the bill, refused to vote for it.

    I have a feeling there is some strong, “persuation”, going on in every state that is considering a meaningful bill to force candidates to prove their eligibility to drop their efforts.

    Every state should be monitored very closely to insure this time that they actually follow the laws and rules they already have on the books. I believe in some cases this would have prevented Barry from getting on the ballot in 2008. I am not certain of that though, because I don’t know what the various state laws and rules currently are.

    We cannot depend on new eligibility laws to prevent Barry from usurping a second term though I. of course, hope some states will follow through and sign their Barry bills into law.

  122. G says:
    March 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion -quoting the nuts over at the PandE: We cannot depend on new eligibility laws to prevent Barry from usurping a second term though I. of course, hope some states will follow through and sign their Barry bills into law.

    Well, that statement is a very telling and tacit admission that these Birther bills are purely directed specifically against Obama.

  123. Wile E. says:
    March 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion:
    And in the comments….

    Every state should be monitored very closely to insure this time that they actually follow the laws and rules they already have on the books. I believe in some cases this would have prevented Barry from getting on the ballot in 2008. I am not certain of that though, because I don’t know what the various state laws and rules currently are.

    In other words, he believes rules were broken….but he can’t be certain because he doesn’t know what the rules are.

    It really is a sickness, isn’t it?

  124. G says:
    March 9, 2011 at 1:26 pm  (Quote)

    Well, it looks like Obama directly confronted the dumb birthers today, telling them he was born in HI:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-i-was-born-in-hawaii–i-cant-change-those-facts/1

  125. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 2:20 pm  (Quote)

    G: Well, that statement is a very telling and tacit admission that these Birther bills are purely directed specifically against Obama.

    G, I thought so too….Which is why I laugh when they claim that these bills have nothing to do with Obama….

  126. Stanislaw says:
    March 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm  (Quote)

    Wile E.: In other words, he believes rules were broken….but he can’t be certain because he doesn’t know what the rules are.

    It really is a sickness, isn’t it?

    You mean blatant stupidity? Well, I guess that it could be considered a mental illness. Then again, that’s what straight jackets and padded rooms are for…

  127. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    More insanity by the Pee and E….

    “Ms. Theresa Cao, an update of whose case was reported on March 5, 2011, has told The Post & Email that shortly before a scheduled meeting with her defense attorney this morning, the attorney received a call from the government prosecutor handling the case offering a deal which would result in a plea of “not guilty.”

    The deal, intended for first-time offenders and thereby dubbed “FTO,” would stipulate 40 hours of community service and 6-9 months’ probation but carry a plea of “not guilty.” All charges would be dismissed. If Cao accepts the arrangement, she would not be able to present the evidence she has been compiling for her defense.”
    …………..

    “We asked Ms. Downs if she had been aware of the questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility for office before taking on Ms. Cao’s case, and she replied, “Yes.” However, she stated that that constitutes a political viewpoint which is not part of the case. We asked if others who have previously verbalized some type of protest from the House or Senate gallery have been prosecuted, and she said, “Yes. Some of them have been convicted. Cindy Sheehan was arrested and convicted.” Ms. Downs stated that any defense would not focus on the specific words that were uttered by Cao, but rather, on Ms. Cao’s First Amendment right to say it.”
    ……….

    Ms. Cao said the defense exhibits she has been preparing include background information contained in the Magna Carta, Emerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and evidence from the trial of Lt. Col. Lakin. She stated that “There has been a disconnect between LTC’s case and mine. It’s all about ‘We the People’ and the U.S Constitution versus the government.”

    And in the comments…

    lana says:
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 10:34 AM
    I think i’ts a trap and I hope she does’nt fall for it. I have a feeling that the hole lawyer mess and the new obot lawyer and the plee deal are traps. I bet the community service would be somewhere where obots would see her and laugh at her. Go to court Theresa. Wear your wings like the angel you are and stand up to the corrupt regime.

    Larry Brian Radka says:
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 2:35 AM
    I totally agree with tru patriot. Don’t let us down Theresa. You do indeed have a unique opportunity to speak for all American patriots, including LTC Lakin who has been silenced since his ordeal. It’s a chance of a lifetime, regardless of the minor consequences you might have to endure. Don’t let the serpentine usurper get away with another one. We won’t forget you or those perverts who attack your rights, and the Truth might just win this one?

    Even if the Truth doesn’t win this time, you will have kept the pressure up on Obama and his bunch of Washington gangsters, and kept them on the run for a while longer. How such an evil man can sleep at night is beyond me. He must have no soul! One should no longer listen to his forked tongue but look into his empty eyes instead.

    tru_patriot says:
    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM
    Oh please, please, Theresa, don’t fall for it! It’s an Obama trap! They know you have the goods on them, and they want to shut you up offering this uncanny deal!

    But you’re too smart for them, you can see right through their scheme. You MUST present your evidence! You MUST show the Usurper for who he is! This is your day, Theresa Cao! This is your day to save America! Please do the courageous thing, and FIGHT!

    Rev. David P. McAfee says:
    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 7:08 PM
    Unfortunately, the judge in Ms. Cao’s trial would more than likely not allow any evidence related to the eligibility issue. Most of our judges are as corrupt as the legislature and the acting president. I’ve reconciled myself to the fact that no one with integrity will be able to present a case against Obama and this massive fraud. The only hope seems to be in the states passing legislation that will require full proof of elibility.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/07/prosecutor-offers-woman-exclaiming-except-obama-except-obama-plea-deal/

  128. JoZeppy says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: More insanity by the Pee and E….
    “Ms. Theresa Cao, an update of whose case was reported on March 5, 2011

    Love how the birthers are willing to send someone up the river for no apparent reason. At least one of them had enough sense to realize that her “evidence” wouldn’t admitted. Now if we could just convince them that it’s because it’s irrelevant rather than the supposed “corrupt legal system” we’d really be getting somewhere.

  129. Rickey says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion (quoting “lana”):
    I bet the community service would be somewhere where obots would see her and laugh at her.

    If we want to see her and laugh at her, all we have to do is hang around outside the White House.

  130. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    March 9, 2011 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    Hey doc new entry idea
    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date/

    The inconclusive birther investigation of the birth index which doesn’t really prove conclusively what the author says.

  131. G says:
    March 9, 2011 at 9:28 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Hey doc new entry ideahttp://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date/The inconclusive birther investigation of the birth index which doesn’t really prove conclusively what the author says.

    Wow…so that’s their latest lame tidbit of meaningless minutae to hang their conspiracy hat on, eh?

    So let me get this straight – they CONFIRM his name appears in the HI Birth Index files, just as it should…

    …but manufacture outrage because every page of the file does not have the same header as the file cover?

    Seriously???? THAT is their complaint? Wow, these folks are desperately scraping the barrel of irrelevancy here…

  132. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    March 9, 2011 at 9:53 pm  (Quote)

    G: Wow…so that’s their latest lame tidbit of meaningless minutae to hang their conspiracy hat on, eh?

    So let me get this straight – they CONFIRM his name appears in the HI Birth Index files, just as it should…

    …but manufacture outrage because every page of the file does not have the same header as the file cover?

    Seriously????THAT is their complaint?Wow, these folks are desperately scraping the barrel of irrelevancy here…

    Yeah I got in a discussion with someone about it. They have shown no correlation especially since they randomly picked the D and Ss in the 1955-1959 index why not the Os?

  133. G says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:20 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Yeah I got in a discussion with someone about it. They have shown no correlation especially since they randomly picked the D and Ss in the 1955-1959 index why not the Os?

    Because they have a pathological desperate need to search out and cling to the most minor pathetic thing that can help provide support to their confirmation bias delusions and blindly ignore everything else…

  134. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:51 pm  (Quote)

    From the so called Conservative alert newsletter…

    NPR Exec Caught on Camera Slamming Tea Party, Republicans
    Written by CAA National on March 09, 2011, 02:08 PM
    FOX NEWS

    An NPR executive was caught on camera lambasting the Tea Party as “seriously racist” and claiming that liberals might be, as a whole, more educated than conservatives.

    The comments from Ron Schiller, a senior executive at NPR and president of the NPR Foundation, were made during a meeting with two people posing as members of a fictitious Muslim organization. The two activists, who recorded the February meeting on hidden camera, were trying to convince NPR executives of accepting a $5 million donation — money NPR apparently refused.

    Schiller has since announced he is leaving NPR to join the Aspen Institute in Colorado, though NPR said there is “no connection” between the video of his comments and his departure.

    During the secretly recorded meeting, Schiller lamented how the Republican Party had been “hijacked” by the Tea Party.

    “The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved with people’s personal lives,” he said.

    Schiller described that movement as “white, middle America, gun-toting,” and added: “They’re seriously racist people.”

    Schiller went on to lament what he called an “anti-intellectual” component of the Republican Party.

    “Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives,” he said.

    After the video was released, NPR put out a statement condemning the comments, while noting that Schiller is leaving the company.

    http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2182

  135. Black Lion says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:58 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: Love how the birthers are willing to send someone up the river for no apparent reason. At least one of them had enough sense to realize that her “evidence” wouldn’t admitted. Now if we could just convince them that it’s because it’s irrelevant rather than the supposed “corrupt legal system” we’d really be getting somewhere.

    Agreed…What is even more hilarious is how the birthers are willing to let someone else “do the time”…Kind of like Lakin…The birthers are a bunch of armchair warriors….They claim a bunch of stuff but when push comes to shove they seem to be willing to have someone else to take the fall….

  136. dunstvangeet says:
    March 10, 2011 at 3:24 am  (Quote)

    They didn’t “randomly” pick D and S…

    The “D” page is where Dunham is suppose to show up.

    The “S” page is where Soetoro is suppose to show up.

  137. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    March 10, 2011 at 9:23 am  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: They didn’t “randomly” pick D and S…The “D” page is where Dunham is suppose to show up.The “S” page is where Soetoro is suppose to show up.

    Whats the point of doing that in the 1955-1959 index?

  138. misha says:
    March 10, 2011 at 10:17 am  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet:
    The “D” page is where Dunham is suppose to show up.
    The “S” page is where Soetoro is suppose to show up.

    The “G” page is where Godot is supposed to show up.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  139. Black Lion says:
    March 10, 2011 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    My favorite line from above is the comment from Rondeau regarding the President…”Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email has never called him “president,” which is stated on our “About” page: We have rejected many submissions simply because they do refer to Obama as the president.” So in their crazy deranged world, they feel if they refuse to address Barack Obama as President he is not really the President….it goes to show you how far some are willing to take their derangement….

  140. The Magic M says:
    March 10, 2011 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    > Whats the point of doing that in the 1955-1959 index?

    Because if Obama showed up to be born in Hawaii in that timeframe (another birther meme is that he is older than he claims to be), the birthers would still consider him ineligible because Hawaii wasn’t a state back then.

    So that’s another of their many dream solutions why Obama may not be eligible – even if he was born in Hawaii and even if their Vattelist crap turns out to not hold water anywhere and even if there was no different father or adoption or whatnot, they still think there might be a “smoking gun” somewhere else. I just wonder what they’ll come up with next. I think the “the person in the White House isn’t even Barack Obama but an identity thief from Saudi Arabia” meme is way overdue. Cue in the wingnuts in 3… 2… 1…

  141. G says:
    March 10, 2011 at 11:58 am  (Quote)

    misha: The “G” page is where Godot is supposed to show up.Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

    LMAO! Good one.

  142. Black Lion says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:05 pm  (Quote)

    The hateful Wayne Allan Root makes a comeback….

    Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch
    Topic: Newsmax

    Like a true socialist, Obama believes government has the solution to every problem, and that solution is more government and higher taxes, combined with a prescription of social justice and affirmative action.

    Based on his lifetime body of work, here is how I predict Obama will settle the NFL labor crisis:

    Like cap and trade, Obama will produce scientists to declare that football is a dangerous sport threatening the health and welfare of the players. He’ll then pass “helmet and trade” legislation putting government in control of football setting salaries for players, prices for fans, and giving new powers to the NFL players union.
    Never letting a serious crisis go to waste, Obama will then pass legislation called “NFLCare” that demands that the NFL pay for the lifetime pension and healthcare of the players, paid for with massive new taxes on the NFL and its fans. The doctors who treat the NFL players will have caps placed on their fees. Of course this will lead to shortages of doctors and rationing, so eventually NFL “limb panels” will be set up to decide who gets a new knee, or shoulder, or hip. These decisions will be based on years of player life expectancy remaining, or the size of contributions to the Obama campaign.
    He’ll then decide what income is “fair” and what is “greedy,” placing wage controls on players. Obama will say, “There is no longer a need for million dollar salaries. After all, just like government union employees, I’m going to guarantee NFL players, even the failed ones, pensions of $100,000 per year for life and free healthcare. We’ll call it NFL tenure. It’s like a government job — guaranteed for life, without any performance necessary.
    Like American businesses, players will react to lower wages and higher taxes by leaving the United States to play football in Canada and Europe, destroying the NFL.

    Then, Obama will state proudly, “We’ve got to spread the wealth around” and pass ”NFL financial reform,” requiring 95 percent of revenues be redistributed to employees, vendors, peanut salesmen, ticket takers, security, and parking lot attendants.

    — Wayne Allyn Root, March 8 Newsmax column

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  143. G says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:09 pm  (Quote)

    Black Lion: The hateful Wayne Allan Root makes a comeback….
    Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch
    Topic: Newsmax

    Wow…it is so sad when these RWNJ buy into their own myth BS and use it as a basis to come up with even more bogeyman nonsense utterly detatched from reality. Just sad and pathetic.

    When someone starts to talk like he does, that pretty much ends the ability to take anything they say seriously.

  144. Slartibartfast says:
    March 10, 2011 at 2:13 pm  (Quote)

    OFGS has an article about an upcoming book about Dr. Dunham:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16959

    My main takeaway from the whole birther fiasco is that Dr. Dunham was a remarkable woman – I can’t wait to read the book…

  145. dunstvangeet says:
    March 10, 2011 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Whats the point of doing that in the 1955-1959 index?

    I really have no clue. But check the names if you don’t believe me…

  146. Northland10 says:
    March 11, 2011 at 8:33 pm  (Quote)

    From the DC Federal Court, the defendant’s motion for Summary Judgement in Strunk V. Department of State was granted in part today. In the matter of the DOS, the motion was granted since, according to the court, they had demonstrated they had made a thorough search. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) did not demonstrate their search methods were adequate and this part of the motion was denied, without prejudice (it appears the court has invited them to better make demonstrate their methods).

    The motion was granted for the DOS partially because the court felt, “No agency is required to produce records that it does not possess.” Yet birthers can’t figure this out.

    Opinion
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2234-47

    Memorandum opinion:
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2234-47

  148. G says:
    March 11, 2011 at 9:08 pm  (Quote)

    Breaking news:

    That nutter, Butterdezillion has outed herself as Nellie in Nebraska in relation to the Nebraska Birther Bill.

    Patrick over at Bad Fiction breaks the story:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2011/03/dispatches-from-birtherstan-11-march-2011.html#more

  149. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    March 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10:
    From the DC Federal Court, the defendant’s motion for Summary Judgement in Strunk V. Department of State was granted in part today.In the matter of the DOS, the motion was granted since, according to the court, they had demonstrated they had made a thorough search.The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) did not demonstrate their search methods were adequate and this part of the motion was denied, without prejudice (it appears the court has invited them to better make demonstrate their methods).

    The motion was granted for the DOS partially because the court felt, “No agency is required to produce records that it does not possess.”Yet birthers can’t figure this out.

    Opinion
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2234-47

    Memorandum opinion:
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2234-48

    Here’s the best part:

    “Plaintiff’s speculation as to the existence of additional records and collusion or bad faith among government officials to wrongfully withhold or destroy responsive records is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith accorded to DOS’s supporting declaration.” (italics mine)

    What part of “proof” doesn’t the birther klan get?

  150. Dave says:
    March 11, 2011 at 11:37 pm  (Quote)

    I noticed on the handy “Birther Bills” page that the AZ bill HB 2544 has a status of passage likely. Back in Feb the Senate version of the bill, SB1526, was voted down in committee. So perhaps the status should be changed to “Senate version rejected in committee, passage unlikely.”

  151. Slartibartfast says:
    March 11, 2011 at 11:44 pm  (Quote)

    Apparently Dr. K(h)ate picked the wrong week to stop huffing glue…

    Continuing to thwart the United States Constitution and the people’s will, the Obama-Jarret administration appears to be bribing the states considering eligibility legislation. Already Georgia* and New Hampshire’s eligibility bills will be postponed to 2013, clearly to protect Obama. And although there are signs of improvement in the language of the Arizona bill, what do you want to bet that will be postponed too?

    The way the bribe is being set up only reinforces our own research that Congress is engaged in the cover up of the usurpation.

    The goal is to reduce or threaten federal funding for key infrastructure projects in those states that have eligibility bills. But in order to hide the extortion, the reductions in funding must appear to come from Congress, specifically the republicans in Congress. Whatever loophole is left the democrat-controlled Senate will fix.

    This is the federal government extracting behavior out of the states by leveraging our tax dollars. It is power the Founders never wanted our federal government to have.

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/is-obama-bribing-the-states-on-eligibility/

    That’s Dr. K(h)ate – telling it like it is… in the demented fantasy world inside of her head!

  152. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2011 at 8:19 am  (Quote)

    Dave: I noticed on the handy “Birther Bills” page that the AZ bill HB 2544 has a status of passage likely. Back in Feb the Senate version of the bill, SB1526, was voted down in committee. So perhaps the status should be changed to “Senate version rejected in committee, passage unlikely.”

    Thanks, Dave. I have updated the status. I also now have links to the text of ALL of the birther bills except New Hampshire.

    The Oklahoma bill is interesting in that it is the only one that allows for a certificate of birth abroad. This bill requires citizenship documentation for all candidates, not just those running for President and Vice President.

  153. Northland10 says:
    March 12, 2011 at 8:29 am  (Quote)

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: “Plaintiff’s speculation as to the existence of additional records and collusion or bad faith among government officials to wrongfully withhold or destroy responsive records is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith accorded to DOS’s supporting declaration.” (italics mine)

    This rather sums up the entire birther method. They have decided what happened, without proof, and then demand the government provide that proof, even though it does not exist. If the government does not tell them exactly what they want to hear, then the government is lying/hiding/etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.