The occasional open thread: Searching for Mr. Goodbirther

Posted on May 28, 2011 by Dr. Conspiracy


Leave your comments here for general Obama Conspiracy topics not covered by the articles.

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.

236 Responses to The occasional open thread: Searching for Mr. Goodbirther

  1. marshal says:
    May 28, 2011 at 9:36 am  (Quote)

    I suppose this will get deleted too…I dont see much of a point to this blog…It seems to be just a partisan group defending Obama,, to make sure he isnt damaged too much from rumors. so he can have a free hand implementing a certain agenda. If he or his groupies were more secure, rumors would be ignored.

    The omission of Wayne Madsen’s reporting on the Obama families probable ties to the CIA is noted. Here we have the equivalent of a dinner with rolls, greens, potatoes- but the meat is missing.
    Obama’s mom was an anthropologist who worked for the East West Center, The Ford Foundation, was inside the US embassy , she probably worked for the right wing junta in Indonesia, and Barack worked for IBC in 1982, Later, he was a much- distrusted “community organizer” in Chicago (El Rukn thought he was ‘too smooth’) and on and on.

    So your great leader drives to overthrow Gadhafi, a man who 4 months ago was one of our allies in the so called ‘war on terror’..we were receiving decent intelligence from Gadhafi on terror suspects……Libya, where the socialist revolution brought universal health care and free university education to the people- all this is being destroyed by Obama, (Russian satellites show that the civilian massacre never happened, which was a main pretext for our involvement. The rebels are just bandits and terrorists)….. All the while Obama cheerfully signs into law an extension of the unconstitutional Patriot Act.

    Keep defending the banker puppet if you want, but this either -or mentality will ruin the nation quite soon, and you are assisting in this vile endeavor.

    The plea that you are just interested in ‘accuracy’ rings false.

    [Since I already told you that I wasn’t going to let you hijack threads by posting off topic comments on them, I suppose you just thought I would delete the comment and you could play the censorship victim. No such luck. I’m moving your comment to the open thread where it belongs, and the community can give it the full consideration it deserves. Doc.]

  2. richCares says:
    May 28, 2011 at 10:20 am  (Quote)

    Marshal offers more proof that hating Obama causes brain damage, poor guy so consumed with hate, what a miserable life to live. You need a therapist.

  3. Suranis says:
    May 28, 2011 at 11:05 am  (Quote)

    marshal: I’m moving your comment to the open thread where it belongs, and the community can give it the full consideration it deserves. Doc.]

    Thanks Doc. I was running low on loo paper in the office.

  4. richCares says:
    May 28, 2011 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    ABC News states that a Palin/Bachman ticket would be the best to unseat Obama in 2012. If that ticket came to pass Obama would fall off his chair laughing.

  5. Scientist says:
    May 28, 2011 at 12:43 pm  (Quote)

    An (I hope) intersting note:

    I just started to read “The Panic Virus” by Seth Mnookin, a book about the made-up link between vaccines and autism. Having worked on vaccines for many years, I’m quite familiar with the subject and am glad to see a good writer tackle it from the lay perspective.

    Lo and behold, right in the Introduction, whom does he discuss, but our friend Orly Taitz and more particularly the amount of attention that the media has lavished on her. Mnookin makes a few points which I fully agree with.

    First, the media covers such stories because they are cheap; You can put Orly (unpaid) on and she and the host can yell at each other for 3 minutes. No reporters traveling to exotic locales, no wining and dining of sources and nothing that will upset the big corporations that buy advertising. In fact, no media undertook the actual work to debunk the birthers until CNN did in April. But anyone could have from the beginning.

    Second, it provides “fairness” or, more accurately, the appearance thereof. We’re covering both sides. Yeah, right. Let’s give Holocaust deniers and Holocaust survivors equal time too while we’re at it. Giving equal time to lies and truth is not “fairness'”. In fact, it’s the epitome of unfairness.

    Third, it’s a reflection of the “everyone’s an expert on the internet” way of the modern world. In the days of Cronkite if a question arose, real honest-to-God experts were called in. But now all opinions are equal. Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson count the same as Mario Apuzzo or Leo Donofrio. Why spend your life studying and writing on a topic, only to be told that the “opinions” of a DWI lawyer and a poker player are just as valid as yours?

    Of course, the parallel between the birthers and the vaccine-autism folks is pretty clear. The vaccine-autism true believes have elevated Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist with little knowledge of immunology, whose work has been exposed as a complete fraud, to the status of a hero and imputed membership in a vast conspiracy to anyone who doubts. Even the exposure of gross ethical violations on Wakefield’s part did nothing to dissuade the “vaccine birthers”.

    Doc, I recommend the book for the reading list at the Institute for Advanced Conspiracy Studies.

  6. obsolete says:
    May 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm  (Quote)

    marshal: Obama’s mom was an anthropologist who worked for the East West Center, The Ford Foundation, was inside the US embassy , she probably worked for the right wing junta in Indonesia

    Wait- I thought that Obama’s Mom was a Extreme Communist and gave Che sponge baths… Can you guys keep your lies straight?

  7. Joey says:
    May 28, 2011 at 1:40 pm  (Quote)

    Marshall seems to think that only those who oppose Barack Obama’s eligibility should be allowed to have blogs. I am not surprised that Marshall exhibits fascist tendancies.

    Marshall isn’t intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that ALL of NATO and ALL of the European Union is supporting the removal of the Libyan dictator Gadhafi and just yesterday, the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev backed President Obama’s postion on Libya 100% and stated that Gadhafi must go. Russia is offering to assist in his removal and relocation.

    President Obama is in very good diplomatic company with NATO, the EU and Russia supporting his positions on Libya.

  8. Joey says:
    May 28, 2011 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    richCares:
    ABC News states that a Palin/Bachman ticket would be the best to unseat Obama in 2012.If that ticket came to pass Obama would fall off his chair laughing.

    Oh please, oh please let that be the Republican ticket!!!!

  9. BatGuano says:
    May 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm  (Quote)

    marshal:
    ….the Obama families probable ties to …

    i always love the birther opinion on what is probable. one legged men exist, my bath tub exists, bank robberies happen and those ill gotten gains need to be hidden. therefor it is probable that a one legged bank robber will hide his booty in my bathtub.

  10. Arthur says:
    May 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    I enjoyed your review of “The Panic Virus.” You pointed out three similarities between the the birther movement and the vaccines/autism hoax, but I think there’s at least one more commonality–the role of celebrity endorsement. Just as Jenny McCarthy gathered great attention by promoting the notion of “contaminated” vaccines, so Donald Trump got got lots of publicity by promoting Obama’s “missing” birth certificate. Likewise, both were shown to be embarrassingly misinformed.

  11. J. Edward Tremlett says:
    May 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm  (Quote)

    So here’s a question – any news on finding out more about Mr. Corsi’s mysterious Hawaiian PI, Takeyuki Irei ?

  12. richCares says:
    May 28, 2011 at 2:28 pm  (Quote)

    One of my favorites making the rounds in BirfirStan is Obama signing the Westminister Abby Guest Book with 24 MAy 2008. They show a photo of the guest book, it has the date written way too low below Obama’s signature, date in European format which Obama appears never to have used, Capital “A” in May and a “y” unlike any Obama has ever written. Hey, it makes the happy!

  13. Greg says:
    May 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    Hey, Marshal, if you disagree with obama’s policies there’s an election in a little more than a year. Disagreeing with Obama doesn’t make him ineligible. Just vote against him. It’s amusing that you are finding common cause with the folks who think he’s an unreformed socialist. But, this is a blog about Obama’s eligibility, not about his ties to the CIA.

  14. Reality Check says:
    May 28, 2011 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    So here’s a question – any news on finding out more about Mr. Corsi’s mysterious Hawaiian PI, Takeyuki Irei ?

    Mr. Corsi promised to produce a copy of his license on but has not done so.

  15. richCares says:
    May 28, 2011 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    Hawaiian PI, Takeyuki Irei ?
    there is a 57 year old retired clerk (camera store) with that name, could find any other.
    also WND distanced themselves from him, soemthing about he wants too much money

  16. Paul Pieniezny says:
    May 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: and just yesterday, the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev backed President Obama’s postion on Libya 100% and stated that Gadhafi must go. Russia is offering to assist in his removal and relocation.

    Considering that Orly has become irrelevant, perhaps Medvedev could put her to sleep again? May not be so easy, I agree.

  17. Obsolete says:
    May 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm  (Quote)

    Quote:
    “President Obama is in very good diplomatic company with NATO, the EU and Russia supporting his positions on Libya”
    Remember, Trump was letting Ghadaffy stay on his property (so they must be buddies). The birthers support Ghadaffy over Obama.

  18. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm  (Quote)

    marshal: So your great leader drives to overthrow Gadhafi, a man who 4 months ago was one of our allies in the so called war on terror’..we were receiving decent intelligence from Gadhafi on terror suspects

    I deleted your subsequent remark on this topic.

    Obama’s foreign policy and how well he is doing as President are off topic for this blog and discussions on these broad topics will not be sustained here.

  19. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:36 pm  (Quote)

    I apologize if any of your comments are deleted by accident. There have been around 500 spam comments posted in the past 24 hours. The spam filter is amazingly effective, but it does on occasion block a legitimate comment. Because of the volume, I can only hastily scan those flagged as spam to see if there any names I recognize, and approve those comments.

  20. Head Researcher says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:43 pm  (Quote)

    “There have been around 500 spam comments posted in the past 24 hours. ”

    I bet many of those 500 were probably Japanese, who can recognize good Haiku, attempting to vote for the very good entry submitted on behalf on my Principal.

    The Head Researcher, as Agent.

  21. Marshal says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    Your notice of deletion shows that you were aware of the content, then you say it might have been deleted by accident via spam filter?

  22. nbc says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm  (Quote)

    The attempts by Madsen to link Ann Dunham and the CIA are poorly documented innuendo at best.
    Shocking…

  23. Marshal says:
    May 28, 2011 at 9:41 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.t-room.us/2011/03/by-wayne-madsen-obamas-cia-mommy-dearest-%E2%80%94-identifying-indonesians-for-assassination/

    Is he still President smoke- but- no fire?

    [This one actually was caught in the spam filter. Doc.]

  24. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 29, 2011 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    Marshal: Your notice of deletion shows that you were aware of the content, then you say it might have been deleted by accident via spam filter?

    The two comments are unrelated.

  25. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    May 29, 2011 at 1:20 am  (Quote)

    Marshal:
    http://www.t-room.us/2011/03/by-wayne-madsen-obamas-cia-mommy-dearest-%E2%80%94-identifying-indonesians-for-assassination/

    Is he still President smoke- but- no fire?

    [This one actually was caught in the spam filter. Doc.]

    No Marshal smoke = someone blowing smoke.

    [Yours got caught in the spam filter too. It must be that URL that Marshal used. Doc.]

  26. Rickey says:
    May 29, 2011 at 1:59 am  (Quote)

    An update on Keyes v. Bowen: the respondents have waived their right to file a response to Kreep’s petition. If, as expected, the case goes to conference without a justice asking for a response, it means that cert is going to be denied.

  27. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 29, 2011 at 2:22 am  (Quote)

    Head Researcher: I bet many of those 500 were probably Japanese, who can recognize good Haiku, attempting to vote for the very good entry submitted on behalf on my Principal.

    Humorous comment.

    The flood of spam (186 MORE since my comment) seems largely related to medical conditions and credit repair scams.

  28. AdrianInEngland says:
    May 29, 2011 at 3:32 am  (Quote)

    Hey, Marshall, when he wasn’t busting unions, killing wages, selling arms to the Iranians, or tanking the personal income of the average American (non-millionaire), Ronnie Raygun tried to go John Wayne on Ghadaffi, as well. I guess that was ok, though, as long as it’s a Neo-con that’s bombing another nation

  29. Suranis says:
    May 29, 2011 at 8:49 am  (Quote)

    Marshal:
    Is he still President smoke- but- no fire?

    You know this is great. Somehow His parents were Communists but they also worked for the CIA rounding up communists. Helen tries desperately to square those two lies in the comments. AND Obama is a Muslim terrorist plant but somehow has been more successful against terrorism than All hail Bush. And He is bad for bombing Gaddafi (who is Muslim) but Gaddafi used to make speeches in front of his house that was bombed by Reagan.

    Really, liars like Marshal must live in a terrible world, where any lie is true only at the time it is said, and the only truth is that Obama MUST be bad, and anything is true as long as it makes Obama look bad. Remember, Gods punishment for liars is that they wind up believing their own lies, and they cannot tell truth from lies anymore.

    So yeah, theres a lot of smoke generators but no fire here Marshal. Sorry.

  30. Suranis says:
    May 29, 2011 at 8:58 am  (Quote)

    Oh yeah Marshal. Just specifically on the article. It says that Obamas mother and father participated in this massacre against Communits in Indonesia, but the only facts presented to support that are that Lolo Soerto arrived back in Indecision when the massacre was already over and was away from the country while it was in full swing. So they have to say that he had a large part in the cleanup despite having just arrived back in the country. In other words, its total bull that tried to force Lolo into the whole thing just because he happened to be the stepfather of the future President of the United States. They made it up to try to fit the narrative to the facts and provided no sources to prove anything. And they still tried to claim Ann Dunham was a communist despite saying she worked for the CIA killing communists!

    Its a nice work of fiction.

  31. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 29, 2011 at 9:17 am  (Quote)

    Suranis: So yeah, theres a lot of smoke generators but no fire here Marshal. Sorry.

    I’m deleting Marshal’s follow-ups on this Libya topic so it will die out. Foreign policy is off topic here, and he’s not going to slip it in the back door by claiming that it goes to Obama’s credibility.

  32. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 29, 2011 at 9:20 am  (Quote)

    Suranis: And they still tried to claim Ann Dunham was a communist despite saying she worked for the CIA killing communists!

    Clearly they can’t have it both ways. But it’s all made up in the first place. Even if it were true, they have no reason to think so.

  33. marshal says:
    May 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis has no clue. ‘They’ aren’t trying to have it both way. Stanley Dunham and Barack posed as leftists. This should be obvious.

    And Doc, if you cant see how Obama’s imperial adventurism overseas ties in to his character and thus the rumors, then you are as blind as the others here.

    You never believed in the 1st amendment did you? At least give me back my followup post,

  34. J. Edward Tremlett says:
    May 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm  (Quote)

    richCares:
    Hawaiian PI, Takeyuki Irei ?
    there is a 57 year old retired clerk(camera store) with that name, could find any other.
    also WND distanced themselves from him, soemthing about he wants too much money

    Oh? Is there a source on the backing away from? 🙂 I’d be interested.

  35. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 29, 2011 at 2:58 pm  (Quote)

    marshal:Suranis has no clue. They’ aren’t trying to have it both way. Stanley Dunham and Barack posed as leftists. This should be obvious.

    And Doc, if you cant see how Obama’s imperial adventurism overseas ties in to his character and thus the rumors, then you are as blind as the others here.

    You never believed in the 1st amendment did you? At least give me back my followup post,
    .

    I am not going to open the blog to general discussions about Barack Obama; that is too large and open-ended and would dilute the content and the purpose of this site. If you don’t like it, then exercise your first amendment rights on your own blog.

  36. richCares says:
    May 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm  (Quote)

    “Oh? Is there a source on the backing away from? I’d be interested.”
    reasonable conjecture as the story slipped away from focus without any new information including the Detective License. So Corsi had nothing!

  37. Suranis says:
    May 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    marshal:
    Suranis has no clue. They’ aren’t trying to have it both way. Stanley Dunham and Barack posed as leftists. This should be obvious.

    “Posed” as leftists? That means you are saying they were NOT leftists but pretended to be. And yet you also call them communists and say that Barack was raised by communists in a communist environment, in order to cast doubt on the man’s intentions.

    YOU are now trying to have it both ways. You want both things to be true, just like Helen in that article. See how your world view actually makes not one lick of sense once you take out the central ingredient of hating Obama?

  38. Suranis says:
    May 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    You know, I’m feeling a little like the Professor in “The Loin, The Witch and the Wardrobe” who lamented that children were not taught logic in school. The sad thing is, I actually did study logic in college. I never realized how much of an effect that had on my worldview till now.

  39. Scientist says:
    May 29, 2011 at 3:40 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis: You know, I’m feeling a little like the Professor in “The Loin, The Witch and the Wardrobe” who lamented that children were not taught logic in school.

    The Loin???

  40. Majority Will says:
    May 29, 2011 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    “You never believed in the 1st amendment did you?”

    This is from someone who makes it embarrassingly obvious that the poster doesn’t understand the meaning of First Amendment rights.

    Complete lack of respect and understanding of the Constitution and our laws is a pathetic birther constant.

    Being clueless is no excuse.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  41. Judge Mental says:
    May 29, 2011 at 4:34 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The Loin???

    Yep. The Loin, The Witch and The Wardrobe. It’s a soft porn movie. The witch turns a guy into a one-legged carpenter and he knocks up a talboy.

  42. Judge Mental says:
    May 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm  (Quote)

    ……and to be fair LOIN is much closer to how an Irishman like Suranis pronounces LION than LION is.

  43. marshal says:
    May 29, 2011 at 6:09 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis, I never said Obama or his mom were commies. How did you get that? He’s a banker puppet.

  44. marshal says:
    May 29, 2011 at 6:11 pm  (Quote)

    The Doc just deletes the stuff that destroys the ilusion [sic] that Obama is a liberal nice guy, which he aint.

    [That’s right. I delete anything that I believe will lead to an extended discussion of that question. This is not a general political discussion forum. I don’t think you quite comprehend that yet. Doc.]

  45. Suranis says:
    May 29, 2011 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    I’ll have you know, don;’t have an accent. YOU do! 😀

  46. Scientist says:
    May 29, 2011 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    marshal: You are a very negative fellow and I can’t figure out where you are coming from. I know this isn’t the place for a debate, so if you try being positive and just tell us 3 things or people that you like, I will just listen and not respond. At least that wiil give us some idea of what your perspective is, because it generally takes more thought to say what you are for than what you are against.

  47. Daniel says:
    May 30, 2011 at 12:07 am  (Quote)

    marshal: The Doc just deletes the stuff that destroys the ilusion [sic] that Obama is a liberal nice guy, which he aint.

    Have you tried saying something un-birtherish on one of the birther boards lately? Don’t whine to us about censorship until you birthers manage to clean your own house of nor freedom of speech.

  48. Rickey says:
    May 30, 2011 at 12:18 am  (Quote)

    marshal:
    The Doc just deletes the stuff that destroys the ilusion [sic] that Obama is a liberal nice guy, which he aint.

    We don’t frequent this blog to discuss Obama’s politics (although comments pro and con occasional slip into the discussions). We are her to discuss (and mostly debunk) the conspiracy theories about his eligibility to be President.

    We are not here to discuss if he is liberal, progressive, a Chicago thug, a tool of Wall Street, or a messiah. There are plenty of other blogs where you can find a willing audience for those topics. If his family’s supposed ties to the CIA had anything to do with his eligibility, it would be relevant. But they don’t and it isn’t.

  49. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    May 30, 2011 at 12:46 am  (Quote)

    marshal:
    Suranis has no clue. They’ aren’t trying to have it both way.Stanley Dunham and Barackposed as leftists. This should be obvious.

    And Doc, if you cant see how Obama’s imperial adventurism overseas ties in to his character and thus the rumors, then you are as blind as the others here.

    You never believed in the 1st amendment did you? At least give me back my followup post,

    Any supposed issue of imperial adverturism (new word?) has no place in this blog. Doc has made this clear. Marshal I find it funny how you complain about the 1st amendment, Doc isn’t the government or congress and you have an agreement to abide by the rules when you post on this blog. Do you feel the same way about the birther blogs out there that automatically ban people for contrary views? Doc has given you a greater platform than befits a liar like yourself.

  50. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 9:56 am  (Quote)

    has it ever been commented by any of the Obama people
    why they use that dismissing+ridiculing strategy
    instead of discussing it directly ?

  51. Majority Will says:
    May 30, 2011 at 10:04 am  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    has it ever been commented by any of the Obama people
    why they use that dismissing+ridiculing strategy
    instead of discussing it directly ?

    What is “it”?

    Why did you ignore direct, civil responses to your previous post?

    What are you hiding?

  52. Bovril says:
    May 30, 2011 at 10:25 am  (Quote)

    “foreigner”

    Why does every single Birfoon blog and site exercise Stalinesque censoring of all opinions that do not conform to Birfoon FAIL think.

    The use of the word FAIL is not ridiculing but a simple statement of fact, you and your ilk, including have as yet to suceed at a single solitarey task yuu have set yourself

    Lets see….”Out in 30 days”……………FAIL
    70+ lawsuits…..All shitcanned………..FAIL
    “Best and Brightest”…Taitz, Puzzo, Kerchner, Rondeau etc…….FAIL
    The new majority will impeach Da Usurper……FAIL
    Donny T will run and be Prez……..FAIL
    Etc
    Etc

    Sucks to be a Birfoon

  53. Black Lion says:
    May 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting article posted by the Post and Fail….

    Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now

    “(May 30, 2011) — Sherlock Holmes once noted that the perfect crime is the one that is never detected. Those who are now finally discovering the unsolved mystery of Barack Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution as a “natural born Citizen” should read more Sherlock Holmes.

    In reality, there is no mystery. Day-by-day, week-by-week and revelation by revelation, the empirical evidence accumulates that the man now occupying the White House may very well be plainly ineligible to do so. It only remains for the truth to finally catch up to him, as the truth always does. And yet legions of his supporters and sycophants are doing all they can to delay and postpone that day of reckoning.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/

    And the CRS memo…

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/56619589/Scan-0003

    She neglects to post page 2…I wonder why?

  54. richCares says:
    May 30, 2011 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    We get trolls like “foreigner” dropping in time to time with silly debunked stories as if they found something new. The birther issue was started as a means to prevent/remove Obama from office. That has been a complete failure with only a fringe group still on the issue. They have formed no political opposition to Obama, so what is it that they do. Instead of doing something constructive they whine and whine and whine and push paypal buttons. Or like Corsi, they scam people and shout “Any Day Now”. The lesson of the day is that no movement can be sustained based on hate, it will never work!

  55. AnotherBird says:
    May 30, 2011 at 1:05 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    has it ever been commented by any of the Obama people why they use that dismissing+ridiculing strategy instead of discussing it directly ?

    There was a time when some form of evidence would have been helpful in supporting your position. Instead all we have heard and seen is that Obama was born in America. Everything that supports Obama birth has been discussed directly, with references.

    Anyways, you are looking at the issue backwards.

  56. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    I haven’t examined the original photos from Savannah Guthrie(yet) , I’m not using photoshop or what it was.
    are there layers in it , did the critics examine and address it ?
    I remember a paper by Douglas Vogt, was it mentioned here

  57. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    AnotherBird, apparantly you were not so successfull to convince people ?!?

  58. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2011 at 7:51 pm #
    > Retired Intelligence Officer:
    >> Well why can’t Obama just post a real picture
    >> of his original from Kapi-olani?
    > Why can’t you stop beating a dead horse?
    > Seriously, why can’t accept the evidence and stop pestering decent people?
    > Folks like you have been making ridiculous demands for almost three years now.
    > Well you got more than you deserved with the long form, but your 15 minutes
    > are over. Maybe in a decade or so you can get on some documentary on
    > cranks of the early 21st century.

    well, why can’t they let Taitz or such examine the original in Hawaii ?
    well, why did they spend so much effort to dismiss and delay the thing ?

  59. Scientist says:
    May 30, 2011 at 2:13 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: well, why can’t they let Taitz or such examine the original in Hawaii ?

    Why? She has no official position; no one elected her or appointed her to anything.. If Congress wants to they would probably have the right. They don’t. Perhaps they know something you don’t….

  60. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 2:22 pm  (Quote)

    why not ?
    she/(he/they) pays the journey, it doesn’t cost much and gives Obama the opportunity
    to easily settle this and “move to more important things”

  61. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    OK, now I found the seal on the picture here:
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama-bc-seal-contradicts-factcheck.pdf

    hmm, why doesn’t Dr.Conspiracy discuss with Butterdezillion directly

    and the White House should make a FAQ about all these issues and link to it

  62. Scientist says:
    May 30, 2011 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: why not ?

    If I typed 1 reason/minute for the rest of my life I would die with the task unfinished.

    foreigner: it doesn’t cost much and gives Obama the opportunity
    to easily settle this and “move to more important things

    It’s settled and in case you haven’t noticed, he has moved on too other things. did you miss the bin Laden news? The G-8? Joplin? You really should keep up better.

  63. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 3:45 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: hmm, why doesn’t Dr.Conspiracy discuss with Butterdezillion directly

    The Hawaii Department of Health seal does appear to have changed between 2002 and the present. However, that’s hardly interesting. The fact is that you can go to the Hawaii Department of Health website and read that they provided the White House document read the Director’s testimony to the Hawaii Legislature that what the Obama campaign displayed is his birth certificate, so they are the ones that sealed it. If the Hawaii Department of Health did it, then that is the seal, and no amount of speculation or bit fiddling can change that.

  64. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 3:51 pm  (Quote)

    OK, I wrote that before reading more comments over there.

    merge the blogs
    cooperate
    figure out the truth
    make a common FAQ
    wouldn’t one forum be better than 2 blogs ? (or however many others there are

  65. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 3:52 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: well, why can’t they let Taitz or such examine the original in Hawaii ?
    well, why did they spend so much effort to dismiss and delay the thing ?

    You have answered your own question. Your first question proves that in your mind (and the minds of all remaining birthers) the release of the birth certificate settles nothing. So if the release settled nothing (and everybody predicted it wouldn’t) then why should have Obama been in any hurry to release it? Anyway, Obama did not expend any effort to delay anything; he just did. That is like saying I expend effort in delaying painting my front door. The effort (not a big one) was in the release.

  66. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: merge the blogs
    cooperate
    figure out the truth
    make a common FAQ
    wouldn’t one forum be better than 2 blogs ? (or however many others there are

    Gee, that’s like saying that there should be only one TV news program.

    I couldn’t begin to tell you how many birther blogs there are, probably > 100 (not to mention right-wing news sites) and I don’t know precisely how many anti-birther web sites there are (10 ish?).

    There is simply no way birthers and anti-birthers could share a FAQ in anything but the most obscure points because we don’t agree on authorities. I would cite a major news organization or a recognized scientists that birthers would just say are in the pay of Obama. Birthers would cite what I would consider a crank, and would reject.

    We both accuse the other of extreme bias (we’re right).

    There is a wiki at:

    http://wiki.birtherdebunkers.net/

  67. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:04 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: well, why can’t they let Taitz or such examine the original in Hawaii ?

    I do not believe that there is a person on the planet who could examine the document in Hawaii, proclaim it genuine, and be believed by the hold-out birthers. So why bother?

    Birthers:

    We want to see the birth certificate (Obama publishes birth certificate)
    We want to see the long-form birth certificate (Obama publishes long form birth certificate)
    We want to go into the vault and touch the original.

    Fooled me once, shame on you.
    Fooled me twice, shame on me.
    Fooled me three times; ain’t gonna happen.

  68. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)

    it’s a good start – now settle the details

    everytime you ask : why would Obama …
    I may ask : why not ?

    and don’t say he has more important things to do. That’s silly IMO.
    (Obama repeatedly said this !)
    He has his men for that, it’s not much work. Just a signature

    Obama finally admitted that it became an issue.
    That was not so hard to predict and could have been avoided.
    They failed to (easily) settle this in time.
    They spent _much_ effort on dismissing movements
    but won’t say why

    like you would never seriously try to answer my why nots

  69. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    http://wiki.birtherdebunkers.net
    is antibirthers = biased ?
    (I only had a very brief look so far)

    how about wikipedia

    so many birthers and antibirthers (often just ridiculing birthers)
    so few open minded, neutral observers.

    How often do birthers convert to antibirtherism or vice versa ?

  70. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    > I do not believe that there is a person on the planet who could examine the document
    > in Hawaii, proclaim it genuine, and be believed by the hold-out birthers.

    I disagree. Let them determine one.
    Let them elect their trusted spokesperson. The elected president,CEO,
    chief,boss of the birther movement.

    > So why bother?

    why not ?

  71. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)
  72. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: http://wiki.birtherdebunkers.net
    is antibirthers = biased ?
    (I only had a very brief look so far)

    how about wikipedia

    so many birthers and antibirthers (often just ridiculing birthers)
    so few open minded, neutral observers.

    How often do birthers convert to antibirtherism or vice versa ?

    The Wikipedia does have an article about Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories, but it is too long already and the Wikipedia is really not a debate forum. The criteria for inclusion of information in the Wikipedia is referenceability, and birthers generally don’t have referenceable sources that would be recognized by the Wikipedia community.

    You might say that the Wiki I linked to is biased. However, I would not say that there are “two right sides” to every question, and the birthers are not right. I would expect an unbiased source to arrive at the right answer, and that is that the birthers are wrong.

    I started out to be unbiased when I approached the Obama Conspiracy topic, but one side just didn’t pan out, so I gave up on it.

    It appears that about 1/3 of the birthers became non-birthers after the release of Obama’s long form, leaving a core that I doubt could be convinced to change their mind.

  73. Scientist says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: why not ?

    Did you read my primer on science? Experiments need a control. Simply looking at one birth certificate allows no conclusions. You would need to compare it to a set of other birth certificates from the same agency around the same time. And those are confidential and cannot be disclosed. They can’t be shown to Orly Taitz, reporters, the FBI or the President. After all, those folks shouldn’t lose their legally protected privacy simply because they were born in Hawaii at the same time as the President.

    And who would certify that THOSE records are coorrect? The only ones who could are the Hawaii DOH. And if their certification of those other records is correct, then, ergo, their certification of Obama’s is too. And if their certification of Obama’s is false,, so would be their certification of the others.

    You have proposed an experiment that can’t be done. Those do arise in science from time to time. When they do, we move on…

  74. Tarrant says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    >I do not believe that there is a person on the planet who could examine the document> in Hawaii, proclaim it genuine, and be believed by the hold-out birthers.

    I disagree. Let them determine one.
    Let them elect their trusted spokesperson. The elected president,CEO,
    chief,boss of the birther movement.

    > So why bother?

    why not ?

    And they can do just that, in November 2012. If said spokesperson gets more votes than Obama, then the birthers will win their goal of getting Obama out of office.

    Before then, there is no point. No one “elected” by birthers will believe anything that could be offered to them – The long form Obama showed has a more solid chain of custody attached to it than almost any currently existing document in the world. Both Republican and Democratic administrations from the state say he was born there. The Constitution says that if the State says he was born there, EVERY OTHER STATE MUST ACCEPT what they say. No ifs, ands, or buts. They would say it is forged just like they claim this one is – Corsi already claims that even if an original record is present it must be a forgery. Butterdezillion claims that Obama’s “goons” went to every library in the WORLD that had microfiche of Hawaii newspapers to put in fake birth announcements. Among people like this, there is no convincing – they have already made up their minds, as you have.

    And now I will stop feeding the troll.

  75. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    I assume that other certificates could be released
    and sighted by the birther-delegation, if those certificate-persons would allow it

  76. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: do you think they are independent, unbiased ?

    Yes, I do think that the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories is unbiased and maintained by independent individuals. I have maybe a dozen words in the article myself.

  77. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: why not ?

    Are you willing to pay for it? I’m not.

  78. Obsolete says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:15 pm  (Quote)

    If Orly had the chance to examine the vault certificate, she would, with a 100% certainty, claim it is fake.
    Her livelihood ( and ego) depends on it.

  79. Scientist says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: I assume that other certificates could be released
    and sighted by the birther-delegation, if those certificate-persons would allow it

    Show me the consent forms.

    Here is what any granting agency would require BEFORE fuding your project:

    1. What methods of analysis would you perform? How have they been validated?
    2. What would be the possible outcomes indicated by various findings? How would you go oon to prove thoose?
    3. What is the expertise of your investigators? Have they ever analyzed original girth certificates beffore? With what results?
    4. What is your working hypothesis/
    5. You would need consent forms from a good sample of folks born in Hawaii in 1961 before you submitted the proposal. No consent forms, no funds.. Sorry, but that’s life in the world of science. They don’t fund experiments that you MGHT be ablle to do. They fund experiments that you can convince them CAN be done and done well by you.

    So far, you haven’t even scratched the surface of even a single point 1-5.

  80. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    the whole process would cost less than a million $, agreed ?
    that’s 0.3 cents per US-citizen taxes. Compare with the
    trouble that this already caused – isn’t it worth it ?
    How many expected “converted” birthers …

    provided there is nothing to hide, which I doubt – too strange Obama’s behaviour.
    But I don’t think it’s about his birthplace, they _must_ have checked this.
    Presumably some (minor) embarrassing thing that may cost him some votes

  81. Scientist says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: Did you read my advice? Write a specific proposal. No one is going to fund a study without well-defined goals and a validated methodology. Not for $1,26, never mind $1 million,, You won’t get a penny unless you describe in detail every step of what you plan to do.

    I have decades of experience with this. You seem to lack even 15 minutes experience. Sorry, but that is how you come off..

  82. Critical Thinker says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    >Let them elect their trusted spokesperson. The elected president,CEO,
    chief,boss of the birther movement.

    Hahaha. The birther movement could never agree on a single person to represent them. They are all deeply suspicious of each other. Those who want to overthrow Obama are secret Obots who are trying to make birthers look like fringe seditionists and those who want to get Obama merely charged with crimes are secret Obots trying to protect Obama. Not even Donald Trump and Jerome Corsi are true birthers–the former is an Obama plant and the latter is the controlled opposition, per the different factions of the birther movement. Hahaha–a birther CEO. Hahaha.

  83. Daniel says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: He has his men for that, it’s not much work. Just a signature

    Why would you want to waste taxpayer money chasing a non-issue that was settled with the release of the original COLB?

    Especially when it has become readily apparent over two years that nothing, no official document, no certification by any authority, no common sense, nothing will ever change the birther mind.

    If the birthers would not believe a certified Birth Certificate (COLB), or a certified copy of the vault record, or the sworn statement of multiple authorities, or 70 plus court decisions…..

    Well how much more taxpayer money are you “fiscal conservatives” willing to waste on chasing rabbits?

  84. Daniel says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: trouble that this already caused – isn’t it worth it ?

    Correction…

    Trouble that BIRTHERS have caused.

    Birthers have created a non-issue, and wasted millions of tax dollars on it.

    There is no issue. The proof is in and it’s good.

    Any money spent on your proposal would be more money wasted, because thre simply is no way that birthers will accept any evidence that disagrees with what they need to be true.

  85. foreigner says:
    May 30, 2011 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    just a birther delegation that confirms the process of copying
    (and takes own pictures)
    some pages from that book including Obama’s and some
    others who did allow it.
    Let them pay for it, if you think money is an issue

  86. Daniel says:
    May 30, 2011 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    just a birther delegation that confirms the process of copying
    (and takes own pictures)
    some pages from that book including Obama’s and some
    others who did allow it.
    Let them pay for it, if you think money is an issue

    Why?

    Why should birthers get special privileges that aren’t afforded to the rest of us?

    Why should government pander to a fringe group who have shown that no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient?

    Why should anyone go above and beyond what is legally, morally, or reasonably required just to satisfy a group with no basis in reality for demanding anything?

  87. Daniel says:
    May 30, 2011 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    addendum

    Why would Obama bother to go out of his way, and beyond the requirements of his office, to pander to a group who would never vote for him anyways

  88. Tarrant says:
    May 30, 2011 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    addendum

    Why would Obama bother to go out of his way, and beyond the requirements of his office, to pander to a group who would never vote for him anyways

    And this is of course a good point. No one ever says “I’d vote for him if only he was eligible”. They say “That socialist Muslim Marxist fascist communist usurper ob0z0 stole the Presidency because he’s ineligible and is destroying America!” (I have always liked how birthers will tend to try and put every “negative in their mind” word in there when describing Obama, even when some of them are mutually exclusive).

    So not only would they not accept anything he’d provide, even if the birther issue died tomorrow they wouldn’t vote for him. News flash – politicians for better or worse are very good at ignoring people who won’t vote for them no matter what they do (unfortunately, they also tend to take for granted the people they think WILL vote for them no matter what, forgetting that those peopleay simply choose not to vote at all…).

  89. Scientist says:
    May 30, 2011 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    I have reconsidered and I now think doubters of all things should be sent to explore their doubts and report back. Personally I think there is a grand conspiracy to oversell the virtues of the grand cru wines of Burgundy. I feel that I need to take a delegation of fellow doubters on a tour of the Cote d’Or to sample the best vintages. Two weeks of staying in chateaux and visiting the vineyards and drinkng sufficient quantities of the wines, accompanied by three star cuisine, of course, because you can’t really judge a wine without the proper accompaniment, ought to be sufficient.

    Foreigner, you will of course receive a complete report upon my return. I wiil forward my bank routing number and account so that you can wire payment.

    As you like to say, Why not???

  90. Majority Will says:
    May 30, 2011 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Have they ever analyzed original girth certificates beffore?

    That’s Jenny Craig. 😉

  91. Obsolete says:
    May 30, 2011 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    If the items you want to examine are in Hawaii’s vaults, chances are prettty great that they are authentic. Has any one ever heard of a case where someone has not only gotten a fake birth certificate, but also managed to place a copy into a state’s record vaults? Has a single case of this this ever been documented in U.S. History?

    Sorry, foreigner but I think the black man has already shown his papers enough. You don’t get to ask one more time.

    If you don’t like it, don’t vote for him and move on to some important conspiracy, such as proving we never sent men to Mars.

  92. Suranis says:
    May 30, 2011 at 8:44 pm  (Quote)

    Obsolete: If you don’t like it, don’t vote for him and move on to some important conspiracy, such as proving we never sent men to Mars.

    You know, for years the “we never went to the moon” guys were saying “hey if they went to the moon why don’t they spin the hubble around and take pics of the landing sites. It wouldn’t take much and would prove it once and for all. The fact they wont do that is proof that…”

    Then a couple of years ago Nasa had had enough and said “Fine” and actually took photos of the landing sites and published them.

    What did they Conspiritors do? They declared the photos faked and kept on asking.

    Now for 3 years we listened to “if the BC is real why wont he release the long form. It wouldn’t cost much. The fact he wont is proof that…” and finally The President releases the long form and what happens? The Birthers declare it fake and keep asking.

    There is no issue here. The guy was born in hawai’i. There is no evidence that would persuade Birthers that he was. Get the flip over it.

    Oh and John McCain refused to release his birth certificate. No-one cared.

  93. marshal says:
    May 30, 2011 at 8:47 pm  (Quote)

    Why not examine Obama’s papers as they relate to the CFR? Or when he and Hillary were rushed semi secretly to the Bilderberg meeting in Va just as the primaries were starting? Does Obama get naked like all the other members of Bohemian Grove?

    Yes, I think the American people deserve better, they deserve answers.. Instead, we get insults, we get TSA goons hands down our childrens pants (Obama could end this with one call) and Obama is much harsher on whistle-blowers than Bush was…, and FOIA requests are being denied at a rate that Bush only dream of….

    Neo-Con job Obama signs the Patriot Act and he lets firms continue to ship jobs overseas, we are becoming a third world backwater, by design, and you assist. Blood is on your hands, you are a dream killer.

    You better wake to reality, soon it will be too late.

  94. marshal says:
    May 30, 2011 at 9:30 pm  (Quote)

    Why not explore the rumor that he is a CIA agent , or a CIA asset ( two different things, in case that’s not clear)..

    Oh that’s right, you already said its all lies…..so you are just flat out wrong. His mom did work for East West Center, the Ford Foundation, he did work for BIC, etc. so Doc , you have reality problems- You said above that its ‘all lies’ But its not.

    How about the rumor (rumor?) that Obama is being blackmailed six ways to Sunday…by the Mossad, by some Chinese Generals, a certain Latin American drug-lord, and a peculiar financier in Europe, and maybe more…

    You will say its “all lies” but you were demonstrably wrong then, and you would be wrong now.

    Do you know why he spent his last birthday far away from his family, he packed them up and sent them to Spain? Hmm?

  95. Majority Will says:
    May 30, 2011 at 11:53 pm  (Quote)

    marshal: Neo-Con job Obama signs the Patriot Act a

    Not really. An autopen signed the bill into law.

    (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen#Autopen_users)

    Did you check all of your locks?

  96. foreigner says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:23 am  (Quote)

    > why ?

    to increase trust in the president and USA in general.
    Would you want to make business with a (possible) hider and cheater and liar ?
    What would we expect from him in 1962-Cuba-like crisis ?

    why not ? it’s easy
    —————————————————————-

    some will always keep on asking and require more proof,
    but their numer will be getting smaller.
    the number of “birthers” decreased a lot by the recent release of
    the long form BC. Wasn’t that worth it ?

    ———————————————————————

  97. Daniel says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:38 am  (Quote)

    marshal: Yes, I think the American people deserve better, they deserve answers..

    The American people got answers. In fact they got more answers from day 1 than for any other President in history.

    The majority of Americans are well satisfied with the extremely well documented answers.

    There is a fringe minority, of which you are a member, that isn’t satisfied with the objective, substantive proofs provided, and those people will never be satisfied no matter what is offered, because proof is not what they are after.

    When all you have to offer is whatifs, whatabouts, rumors, and woulda/shoulda/couldas, especially after every actual expert, the entire Congress of the United States, All three branches of Government, every relevant certifying authority, and most of every average joe and jane are smart enough to see what you refuse to look at……

    Well it kind of makes you look pretty pathetic.

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

  98. foreigner says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:47 am  (Quote)

    this blog is full of “why-ers”. It’s a phenomenon. Someone should
    blog about the whyers and wikipedia should start an article

  99. Daniel says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:48 am  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    > why ?

    to increase trust in the president and USA in general.
    Would you want to make business with a (possible) hider and cheater and liar ?

    Bullshit.

    By your criteria Washington was a (possible) hider and cheater and liar, so was Eisenhower, and Reagan, and Lincoln, etc.

    You don’t have any evidence that Obama is a liar, just like you don’t have any evidence of any of the others I just mentioned, except for the fact that we know more details about Obama’s private life than votersdid for any of those other Presidents, or indeed for any President in history.

    If what you’re really worried about is some nebulous “possibility”, then why didn’t you subject any other President to this kind of harassment and slander?

    And if the Constitution is what you are truly concerned about (it’s not, but let’s just say), then what happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to due process? What happened to freedom from unlawful search and seizure.

    You want to proclaim Obama guilty for all intents and purposes, unless he surrenders things which are, quite frankly, none of your damn business. And even when you do get that which is none of your damn business, despite the fact that it’s completely and utterly certifiable and certified, you make up the excuse that “it’s fake” and Obama is guilty all over again.

    So don’t pretend that you’re “concerned for the people of the US. The people of the US are just fine without your ilk stinking up the place. At least be honest enough to admit that you just plain hate Obama and there’s no way you’ll never accept him as President no matter what.

    It’s not like you’re fooling anyone anyways with the concern troll act.

  100. Daniel says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:52 am  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    this blog is full of “why-ers”. It’s a phenomenon. Someone should
    blog about the whyers and wikipedia should start an article

    You don’t think it’s reasonable to ask “why” when someone is making outlandish claims and ridiculous demands?

    Or is it just you we should trust implicitly with not a shred of evidence to back you up?

  101. dunstvangeet says:
    May 31, 2011 at 2:16 am  (Quote)

    Foreigner, what you’re basically doing is coming up with an outlandish story, not offering one shred of evidence to back it up, and then demanding that Obama prove that it’s wrong.

    Another way of me putting this…

    Why not investigate the rumor that Obama is secretly a lizard-person from the planet of Cobra-La, and he’s here to actually prepare the way for the invasion fleet coming in 2016…

    That’s logically the equivilant of what you’re saying. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama was ever in the CIA. In fact, most of the claims of Madsen have absolutely no support behind them, and severly violate Occum’s Razor.

  102. foreigner says:
    May 31, 2011 at 2:57 am  (Quote)

    It’s not just me who “came up” with that story.
    See the polls, see the statitics.
    Politicians,parties seek for voters.
    That’s why Obama after 3 years finally gave
    up his “why” and decided to order the certificate, pay the fee ($10?)
    and sent a delegation to Hawaii to bring it to DC ($10K?),
    make a press-conference and a ridiculing show ($100K?)
    (before he had spent >$1M in dismissing efforts)
    Of course, this all must be somehow embedded in an environment
    to make him look good and the “birthers” ridiculous so the
    birther-ridiculing movement had to be created first to build
    the suitable environment.

    Other conspiracy theories should be addressed as soon as they
    gain in importance,supporters. I don’t yet see that with the Cobra-La story.

  103. obsolete says:
    May 31, 2011 at 3:16 am  (Quote)

    This is from foreigner’s favorite fiction writer Wayne Madson’s site:

    February 28, 2011 — Obama’s CIA “Mommy Dearest” — identifying Indonesians for assassination

    Obama is the first president who had a mother who would qualify as a war criminal by today’s standards.

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110227_1

    Foreigner- Do you often have trouble telling fact from fiction? Do you have trouble distinguishing between movies and newscasts? Do you believe every single batsh*t theory anybody tells you? Do you know that not everything on the internet is true? Do you believe the “Youtubes are infallible”?

    Loss of ability to discern fiction from reality can be the sign of many neurological diseases…

  104. foreigner says:
    May 31, 2011 at 3:19 am  (Quote)

    that picture from Savannah Guthrie of one of the two original copies, is it available
    in better resolution ? Can they please put it on the White House webpage next to the
    processed picture ? (why not ?)

  105. Expelliarmus says:
    May 31, 2011 at 4:31 am  (Quote)

    foreigner: and sent a delegation to Hawaii to bring it to DC ($10K?),
    make a press-conference and a ridiculing show ($100K?)
    (before he had spent >$1M in dismissing efforts

    Obama did NOT spend $1 Million, ever, on birth certificate nonsense. That’s just one more stupid claim that birthers have made without any logical support.

    He did not spend money on holding a press conference at the white house. Holding an occasional press conference is just part of the job of being President.

    He did not spend any money out of the ordinary in order to go to the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. It is a longstanding tradition for Presidents to attend that dinner.

    You are not going to get anywhere on this forum spouting nonsense.

  106. Expelliarmus says:
    May 31, 2011 at 4:34 am  (Quote)

    foreigner: that picture from Savannah Guthrie of one of the two original copies, is it available
    in better resolution ? Can they please put it on the White House webpage next to the
    processed picture ? (why not ?)

    Because no one who has at least the intelligence of a chicken needs to see it.

    There is a high resolution PDF posted already. Savannah Guthrie is a journalist who chose to take her own snapshot and share it online.

  107. Bovril says:
    May 31, 2011 at 5:53 am  (Quote)

    For Gods sake people stop feeding the f’ing Troll.

  108. Scientist says:
    May 31, 2011 at 6:17 am  (Quote)

    foreigner: that picture from Savannah Guthrie of one of the two original copies, is it available
    in better resolution ? Can they please put it on the White House webpage next to the
    processed picture ? (why not ?)

    As usual, there is a very good reason why not. Ever heard of copyright? That picture is the property of Guthrie’s employer, NBC, and not free for anyone to use. NBC, like most commercial organisations, doesn’t like to share their property, but would prefer to use it to drive traffic to their website, rather than the White House’s.

  109. foreigner says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:44 am  (Quote)

    of course the WH could make their own pictures
    they should be aware by now that there problems
    with the layers

  110. Scientist says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:48 am  (Quote)

    foreigner: of course the WH could make their own pictures
    they should be aware by now that there problems
    with the layers

    There are no problems wiith layers.. None. Zero. Why don’t you try honesty??? Why not???

  111. Majority Wil says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:53 am  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    of course the WH could make their own pictures
    they should be aware by now that there problems
    with the layers

    What is the provenance of the President’s certified long form copy of his birth certificate?

    It’s a simple question.

  112. Rickey says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:14 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    That’s why Obama after 3 years finally gave
    up his “why” and decided to order the certificate, pay the fee ($10?)
    and sent a delegation to Hawaii to bring it to DC ($10K?),

    You would have more credibility if you bothered to get your facts straight before making claims. Obama didn’t send “a delegation” to Hawaii to pick up the birth certificate. He sent one person, his personal attorney, Judith Corley, and the cost of the trip was not funded by taxpayers.

    Last Friday, the president himself wrote Loretta J. Fuddy, the director of health at the State of Hawaii, requesting “two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth.” Fuddy complied. Shortly thereafter, the president’s counsel, Judith Corley of the firm Perkins Coie, flew to Hawaii to pick up two copies of the form. The trip was not taxpayer funded but, rather, paid out of the president’s personal account.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_854248.html?utm_campaign=042711&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory

  113. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:25 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: (before he had spent >$1M in dismissing efforts)

    Please refer to the Debunking Guide entry on this topic.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

  114. Suranis says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:30 pm  (Quote)

    Foreigner, why are you cutting and pasting from an Email?

    You see the way you are typing is the same as I have seen when I cut and paste from yahoo mail. That website separates emails into lines and places carriage returns at the end of lines to give it the appearance of word wrap, when in fact it does not wrap words at all.

    I’m seeing the same here. Which means all you are doing is cutting and pasting from an email or messenger service. You are not actually typing anything new here at all. its just copy and paste from somewhere else.

    So why don’t you drop the act, MMM’kay?

    Serious.y all these trolls are doing is plopping down accusations, and expecting US to disprove them, when they provide no evidence for what their saying at all. And when we give evidence they ignore it. And when we just call them on their bullshit they claim we are running away from the problem and we have no proof and run off to their echo chambers claiming they beat the obots.

    Its really easy being a troll.

  115. Suranis says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    Ok I have a comment in moderation which didn’t have any swear words doc, FYI.

  116. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis: Ok I have a comment in moderation which didn’t have any swear words doc, FYI.

    Well, it sorta does.

  117. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:41 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting bit from a source that is not on the ugly list, surprisingly. It concerns the name Soebarkah. The name, according to the source, is to be seen as Soe bar kah

    Soetoro in the name, in the prefix of SOE links the name to Javanese roots and not Indonesian alone. Why this matters is that Indonesian names reflect region, family and often religion. It is quite obvious or should have been by now in no one has noted it, that the name Soebarkah is a combination and not one word.

    Soetoro signifies the adoptive father as Lolo Soetoro. Bar is obvious in Barack, but also links to the Islamic Aramic in bar means SON. So we have confirmation of this is the Son of Soetoro.

    The Kah is interesting in Indonesian, KAH translates as WAS. In names, KAH is added as a suffix to form a question of “Who?”

    Soe Bar Kah means literally Who is this, but the son of Soetoro.

    ***

    The biblical examples of Barabbas and Jesus’ addressing of Peter as Simon Bar Jonah had not occurred to me prior to now.

    -kah : adding this suffix indicates that the expression is a question. The suffix -kah is added to the word in the sentence that is the main focus of the question.

    examples: siapakah {siapa+kah} = who?
    bolehkah {boleh+kah} = may I?
    http://indodic.com/affixeng.html

  118. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis: Its really easy being a troll.

    Perhaps harder if nobody feeds them.

  119. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Except for the part about the biblical references, the above is not my own speculation. It comes from LC. (don;t know if the name is forbidden)

  120. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:49 pm  (Quote)

    charo: Soe Bar Kah means literally Who is this, but the son of Soetoro.

    No, it would be “Who’s son is Soe?”

    Only what you wrote (with spaces between words) is not what is on the document. What’s really there is being CHANGED to fit an interpretation and then you including parts of words that aren’t there.

    The fact of the matter is that Soebarkah is a common Indonesian surname.

    Your source is crap.

  121. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:52 pm  (Quote)

    charo: The biblical examples of Barabbas and Jesus’ addressing of Peter as Simon Bar Jonah had not occurred to me prior to now.

    So “3-D bar graph” is “3-D, son of graph?” Crank etymology can make anything out of anything.

  122. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: So bar graph is “son of graph?”

    I guess Simon is not the son of Judah then.

  123. foreigner says:
    May 31, 2011 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    lots of legal fees for the dismissing judgements (“cannot stand”) AFAIK

    Berg in 2008 and others Lakin ?

  124. Daniel says:
    May 31, 2011 at 1:10 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner:
    lots of legal fees for the dismissing judgements (“cannot stand”) AFAIK

    Berg in 2008 and othersLakin ?

    Obama had no involvement in Lakin (if you’re going to cite a case in a lame attempt to gain credibility, at least get the name right).

    As far as the other cases go……. you’ve got to be kidding.

    Are you seriously suggesting that when some nutcase brings a ridiculous case against a person, and screws it up so incredibly badly that he gets it thrown out for unmitigated incompetence, that somehow the responsibility for the cost to the taxpayer for the courts to have to deal with screwball conspiracy crap should rest with the defendant?

    Are you really suggesting that?

  125. Daniel says:
    May 31, 2011 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    OK the birther conspiracy is officially last week. There’s a new conspiracy that’s taking over and it promises to be even hotter and more popular, and it has just as much objective evidence to support it.

    Head over to the link and learn about the hidden message in Rebecca Black’s “Friday”(of terror)

  126. JoZeppy says:
    May 31, 2011 at 2:22 pm  (Quote)

    foreigner: lots of legal fees for the dismissing judgements (“cannot stand”) AFAIKBerg in 2008 and others Lakin ?

    First off, there were no judgments to dismiss. You see, a judgment would imply the birthers actually won once. They were motions to dismiss the complaint.

    Secondly, a motion to dismiss is the cheapest way to kill a claim. You see you if you file a motion to dismiss, it’s usually the first thing you do, even before filing an answer, and certainly before engaging in discovery. It’s even cheaper when people sue you with the exact same frivolous claim, and you can refile the same motion over and over again. So even if you’re using a biglaw law firm, you’re only spending a couple thousand dollars per dismissal. As all but one or two of these have been represented by the DOJ, who don’t pay they attorneys what a private law firm does, and the fact that they’re paid the same whether they’re filing the same boilerplate motions or surfing the internet, the actual costs were probably considerably lower.

    As for Lakin….he doesn’t even enter into the equation. He violated the UCJM, and had to answer for his crimes. The President had nothing to do with it.

  127. Thrifty says:
    May 31, 2011 at 2:27 pm  (Quote)

    marshal: You never believed in the 1st amendment did you? At least give me back my followup post,

    First amendment means that the government can’t censor you. Private parties, such as Dr. Conspiracy, may censor you as much as they please. One of my favorite sayings is “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for my right to tell you to sit down and shut up.”

  128. Thrifty says:
    May 31, 2011 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    Something has been happening among sane, non-birther Republicans, that has been driving me crazy. They hate the Birthers for making Republicans look bad (I can sympathize), but then go on to include a hatred of President Obama for allowing the conspiracy theory to grow. It’s ridiculous “blame the victim” garbage that pisses me off.

  129. G says:
    May 31, 2011 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: Something has been happening among sane, non-birther Republicans, that has been driving me crazy. They hate the Birthers for making Republicans look bad (I can sympathize), but then go on to include a hatred of President Obama for allowing the conspiracy theory to grow. It’s ridiculous “blame the victim” garbage that pisses me off.

    Agreed. When they refuse to clean up their own house and even worse, encourage or defend such craziness and bad behavior, they have done nothing but wilfully contributed to the problem themselves.

    For a party that likes to make wild “guilt by association” accusations, many GOP leadership and voters sure do associate and prop up the guilty. Therefore, much of their rants come across as nothing more than hollow and hypocritical projection.

    Sadly, they are all only contributing to the damage and decline of their GOP brand and creating long-term problems for themselves that become increasingly difficult to recover from.

  130. Head Researcher says:
    May 31, 2011 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    Perhaps BOTH parties need to check their enthusiasm. Google Meghan Daum and the LA Times story. Then read this Sonnet For Romantic Obotski:

    I Am Thy Fool
    by Squeeky Fromm

    How do I worship thy One-derfulness?
    Shall I measure slobber by the barrel,
    Or celebrate thy Blessed Birth in carol
    Circulated free by the Main Stream Press?

    Or shall I be discreet, and not confess
    Nor speak of fascination so feral?
    Hiding away Love’s risque’ apparel
    As if it were but some blue stain-ed dress.

    Yet, when every momentary stutter
    Or pregnant pause is cause for happiness,
    Must I draw the shades and close the shutter?

    There, in Dark, lest thrill’d legs and lips a-drool
    Proclaim, in involuntary mutter
    For all the world to know. . . I am thy Fool.

    The Head Researcher, as Agent

  131. Greg says:
    May 31, 2011 at 5:11 pm  (Quote)

    Head Researcher: Meghan Daum and the LA Times story.

    As a columnist for the LA Times, Meghan Daum has a number of LA Times stories. Care to be more specific?

  133. Greg says:
    May 31, 2011 at 6:42 pm  (Quote)

    Head Researcher: http://floppingaces.net/2011/05/28/la-times-compares-obama-iq-to-characters-portayed-in-woody-allen-films/The Head Researcher, as Agent

    Tell me again how someone stupid graduates Harvard Law summa cum laude after being the Editor in Chief of their law review?

  134. Expelliarmus says:
    May 31, 2011 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    Just to set the record straight, I believe Obama graduated magna cum laude. See http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/harvard-law-school-confirms-obamas-magna-cum-laudie.html

    That would indicate that his grades were in the top 10% of his class.

    Apparently summa cum laude from Harvard is extremely rare, close to impossible. According to current academic standards, it requires a GPA of 4.75… on a 4 point scale.. (I can’t figure out from the description of the grading scale how anyone could possibly get a grade higher than 4.0 in any given class) See:
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/2010-2011-requirements-for-the-j.d.-degree-.html#L.GraduationwithHonors

  135. G says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:08 pm  (Quote)

    Head Researcher: Perhaps BOTH parties need to check their enthusiasm. Google Meghan Daum and the LA Times story. Then read this Sonnet For Romantic Obotski:

    Too bad the Obama worship only exists in your own head, Head Researcher.

    The only folks that I’ve ever heard refer to him as “The One” or any other similar silliness are those that oppose him. I think you folks sadly project your own personal failings onto others way too much. We’re dealing with facts here and you folks deal with fantasy and emotional idol worship. That’s how your minds apparently work.

    The rest of us. Not so much.

  136. FUTTHESHUCKUP says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:20 pm  (Quote)

    I believe it’s 3.75 GPA or higher for summa cum laude. When I graduated on my 2nd BA, which was 30 credits (10 classes of 3 credits each), my grades were all 4.0 except for one 3.0. I started taking graduate level courses and in 3 classes got all 3.0. When I got my final grades for the last semester before receiving my 2nd BA, it said that I graduated on my 2nd BA magna cum laude, but that was because they included my graduate level courses in with the undergraduate classes in determining that. If they had just considered the undergrad classes for the 2nd BA, I would have graduated summa cum laude. Don’t know why they included the graduate courses in my 2nd BA though in determining that.

  137. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:20 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: Just to set the record straight, I believe Obama graduated magna cum laude. See http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/harvard-law-school-confirms-obamas-magna-cum-laudie.html

    It doesn’t matter to me whether Obama graduated magna cum laude or not; I don’t question his intelligence. I do question your source, though. How does your link provide any kind of proof other than someone saying it is so? The link within the link didn’t work for me either. if someone other than him knows his grades, then he had to have made them public. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

  138. Scientist says:
    May 31, 2011 at 8:32 pm  (Quote)

    The Harvard Crimson says he graduated magna cum laude

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/1/19/obama-left-mark-on-hls-days/

    While specific grades are not public, the fact that you graduated and honors earned typically are. I believe at Harvard it means you were in the top 10% of your class.

  139. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    Background of Law Review admission when President Obama was at Harvard:

    Until the 1970’s the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

    That system came under attack in the 1970’s and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

    At the end of his first year, Obama joined the Law Review. He nearly missed the deadline to apply when his 1984 Toyota Tercel broke down, and beg ged Fisher for a ride and sweet – talk ed his way to the front of a line at the post office to have his envelope postmarked before noon.

    “That’s the one modest contribution I’ve made to his success,” Fisher, now a Washington lawyer, said in a recent interview.

    Obama won a slot on the review.

    http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

    It would seem to me that President Obama was “applying” to join the Law Review by the writing competition, not as a grade on. That doesn’t mean his grades were “terrible,” and I don’t have any idea what the cut off point was for the GPA. Two more years of school with focus can boost one’s GPA. He was apparently popular with his peers on LR to have been elected President.

  140. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Your source is crap.

    I often find the source offensive and way off base. Occasionally, the source has some weird tangent having nothing to do with politics, just ramblings that sometimes are intriguing (farming, and other benign topics). I left out all of the “crap” and left in what I found interesting: the three distinct parts of the name. I was actually late for a picnic and didn’t finish the thought. Because Soebarkah was crossed out, I thought maybe there was an assumption he was the son and when the mistake was realized, it was crossed out.

    Dr. Conspiracy: The fact of the matter is that Soebarkah is a common Indonesian surname.

    Common names abound worldwide. They still have the purpose of identification.

  141. Expelliarmus says:
    May 31, 2011 at 9:49 pm  (Quote)

    charo: It doesn’t matter to me whether Obama graduated magna cum laude or not; I don’t question his intelligence.I do question your source, though.How does your link provide any kind of proof other than someone saying it is so? The link within the link didn’t work for me either.if someone other than him knows his grades, then he had to have made them public.But that doesn’t appear to be the case

    Charo, it is well known that Obama was on law review at Harvard.

    Maybe you don’t know this, but only the very top students in a class at law school are selected for law review. So the fact that he was on law review — and was elected President of the law review, in and of itself is proof to anyone who understands how law schools work that he was a top student.

    The fact that he graduated magna cum laude is well known and can easily be documented from many different sources. To get that designation he has to be in the top 10% of his class.

    I’m getting rather disgusted with your concern trolling. This really isn’t anything that would be hard to find out. If you didn’t understand the law review selection process, you could do a simple Google search along the lines of “qualifications for Harvard law review”, That would immediately lead you to sites such as this one:

    After 1L year studying legal theory, around 40 of the best students are appointed to Harvard Law Review based on their first year grades and writing. Law Reviews are highly competitive student run scholarly journals considered mandatory by many for high-end legal careers. For the 7% that make it on to Law Review, 2L year is more legal theory plus highly detailed editing of emerging legal scholarship pending publication in the journal. At the end of 2L year, one member of Law Review is elected to be the next year’s Editor-in-Chief by the existing members. The Editor-in-Chief then runs the process of producing the next year’s editions of the journal. Since 1887, 121 people have been appointed Editor-in-Chief of Harvard Law Review

    http://blog.robwebb2k.com/2008/08/29/the-statistics-behind-being-editor-in-chief-of-harvard-law-review/

    I suppose it would be theoretically possible for someone to get onto law review and then manage to blow off all of their law school courses senior year, so that even though they were a top student the first 2 years, their GPA plummets and they aren’t able to graduate with honors. But it would probably be a pretty rare occurrence. For one thing, the 3d year of law school is the easiest –the toughest years are the first two. So barring some personal crisis, students who have good grades the first two years would tend to perform consistently the final year.

    Obama had a job at law school doing research for Lawrence Tribe, as a first year student. Tribe has said in interviews that he never, or hardly ever, hired first year students to clerk for him, and that Obama is about the smartest student he ever had. (“the most impressive and talented of the thousands of students I have been privileged to teach in nearly 40 years on the Harvard faculty” “I had met Barack Obama and hired him as my research assistant while he was still just a first-year Harvard law student. His stunning combination of analytical brilliance and personal charisma, openness and maturity, vision and pragmatism, was unmistakable from my very first encounter “)

  142. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 9:55 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: Maybe you don’t know this, but only the very top students in a class at law school are selected for law review.

    Please read the above comment at 9:20 (which is sourced) and rethink your comments to me. I am not questioning President Obama’s intelligence or law school abilities.

  143. charo says:
    May 31, 2011 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    What do you think of other law school journals, such as international law or environmental law? Are those student editors “worthy” in the same way?

  145. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 1, 2011 at 7:48 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Hi Doc. – thought you might find this interesting:

    http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/31/6757204-is-someone-snooping-your-health-records-new-rule-will-tell-you-who

    I implemented this feature in our electronic health record software back in the late 1990’s.

  146. Rickey says:
    June 1, 2011 at 10:07 am  (Quote)

    charo:
    What do you think of other law school journals, such as international law or environmental law?Are those student editors “worthy” in the same way?

    I’m not sure what your question has to do with this discussion, but at the Cornell International Law Journal “Members are selected based on academic performance and writing ability.”

    http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/About-the-ILJ.cfm

    It is safe to assume that membership in all law journals is highly competitive. No law journal wants to have editors who are mediocre.

  147. ballantine says:
    June 1, 2011 at 10:24 am  (Quote)

    International law or environmental law journals can also be competitive at a good school but the people on such journals are the ones who didn’t make the regular law journal. The regular law journal is the one with the most prestige at any school and the one everyone wants to be on. Even the top students need to engage in the writing competition as membership is based upon both grades and their writing. Hence, generally only the top students make law review. Charo’s post is about picking editors, not becoming a member of law review to begin with. So no, you don’t necessarly become President of a law review basedon grades alone, but one wouldn’t even be on the law review if they were not one of the top students.

    It is silly to suggest Obama didn’t make it on his grades as he graduated magna cum laude which meant he was near the top of his class. You don’t have bad grades your first year of a three year program and wind up at the top of the class. Four current Supreme Court justices didn’t graduate magna cum laude. Four others graduated from Harvard with the same honors. I would say that is pretty impressive.

  148. Greg says:
    June 1, 2011 at 12:45 pm  (Quote)

    Neither the Boston Globe, nor the New York Times articles said that the process for FIRST YEAR editors was write-on only. Reading comprehension’s not strong in this one!

  149. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 1, 2011 at 3:32 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: Anyone who actually has attended school and worried about their GPA knows that would be very difficult for a person to graduate magna cum laude (top 10%) from a 3-year program without strong grades throughout.

    I’m a good example of that with a 4.0 my last two years, but only graduating with honors.

  150. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 3:45 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: But, the suggestion that he needs to prove he belonged at Harvard or on the law review when he graduated at the top of the class is quite offensive.

    There was never an implication on my part that he did not deserve to be at Harvard or on LR. I don’t like demagogery. He “won” a spot on LR. “So what” is right. Why inflate facts? So what if he wrote on IS the point. What separated some of those who “graded on” versus “wrote on” (a different process may be in effect now) was probably very little regarding academic ability.

  151. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 3:51 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: Apparently math isn’t your strong point, either.

    How close someone is to the cutoff point makes the difference in the mathematical argument. I believe it was also in the Boston paper that it was said Obama became more serious that year (of LR acceptance). I think that may have even been when he met Michelle.

  152. Greg says:
    June 1, 2011 at 3:54 pm  (Quote)

    Well, the simple fact of the matter is that you cannot conclude from either article that he graded on or wrote on. He “won” a spot? So did the guy who ended the first year with the top possible grades!

  153. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:00 pm  (Quote)

    In your demagogery, you can see it that way, racing to the post office at the last minute to decide that he wanted to accept the honor of having graded on. Maybe the reporter or friend was lying about the details also. If it is that important to you, then who am I?

  154. Greg says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    Everyone at my law school who wanted to be on any law review wrote regardless of grades. Finals finished on a Friday and the essay was due the next Friday. Grades came out several months later. Do you have any evidence that Harvard was different? That they got grades done in days?

    Put it forward, then, because neither article gives ANY EVIDENCE that Obama wrote anything or that some people didn’t write!

    The Globe article says “application!” Not essay!

  155. Expelliarmus says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:15 pm  (Quote)

    charo: There was never an implication on my part that he did not deserve to be at Harvard or on LR.

    You certainly give the impression of someone trying to malign Obama’s credentials.

    No one makes it onto Harvard Law Review without being a top student. No one.

    If by any chance someone did get on who didn’t belong there, that student wouldn’t stand a chance of being elected to the position of president of the law review by his peers. It just wouldn’t happen.

    You have to keep in mind the prestige that goes with the position and its impact on future employment prospects, plus the highly competitive nature of the Harvard student body. Whoever gets elected needs to first earn the respect of his peers.

  156. Greg says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    Obama first made history at HLS

    In the spring of his first year at law school, Obama stopped by the office of Professor Laurence Tribe ’66 inquiring about becoming a research assistant.

    Tribe rarely hired first-year students but recalls being struck by Obama’s unusual combination of intelligence, curiosity and maturity. He was so impressed in fact, that he hired Obama on the spot—and wrote his name and phone number on his calendar that day—March 31, 1989—for posterity.

    Obama helped research a complicated article Tribe wrote making connections between physics and constitutional law as well as a book about abortion. The following year, Obama enrolled in Tribe’s constitutional law course.

    Tribe likes to say he had taught about 4,000 students before Obama and another 4,000 since, yet none has impressed him more.

  157. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    I am going by an article that wrote favorably about then student Obama about how one got on Law Review, the date February 1990. I certainly did not go to a top law school, but I was a student within reasonably the same time frame at a school that was following the protocol of law journal acceptance. There were those who “graded on” and those who had to “write on.” Those who wrote on were still outstanding students. but because of the competitive grading system in place, only the very top earned the privilege of getting on automatically.

  158. Expelliarmus says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    charo: . I believe it was also in the Boston paper that it was said Obama became more serious that year (of LR acceptance).

    You’ve misread the article — it specifically said that Obama was “growing more serious in his personal life” at the time he met Michelle. They’re talking about his sex life, not his academic life in that sentence.

    His academic life was already quite serious when he was in Harvard. No one survives their first semester at Harvard law, much less earns strong grades, without being extremely serious. As I’ve noted, the fact that he managed to hold down a research position with Tribe on top of his studies is an indication that he was intensely focused on his studies.

  159. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm  (Quote)

    Tribe was impressed and hired then student Obama. He wrote his name and number on his calendar as contact information, not for posterity. Give me a break, Tribe. (IIRCD, wasn’t John Roberts a student of his also?) President Obama clearly posses charisma, charm, etc. He is not Zeus.

  160. Expelliarmus says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    charo: . I certainly did not go to a top law school, .

    Then you may not really get how intensely difficult and competitive Harvard Law is. I’m not saying that your school was easy, but it’s somewhat along the lines of the analogy I drew earlier to olympic athletes. It is an extremely demanding environment with intensely high expectations of all students.

  161. ballantine says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    Greg: Everyone at my law school who wanted to be on any law review wrote regardless of grades. Finals finished on a Friday and the essay was due the next Friday. Grades came out several months later. Do you have any evidence that Harvard was different?

    My law school as well. Even if you were first in your class you had to write. Of course, the people with the top grades had to write poorly to not get on. This is the general practice in law schools. Again, since we know Obama had superior grades, why would anyone think he got on just from writing? And since we know he had supreior grades, what is the point of this whole discussion?

  162. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:39 pm  (Quote)

    I would disagree that only schools like Harvard have that kind of intensity. Law school is expensive. I am just trying to deflect the demagogery, but this is turning into an endless loop that is being deleted by Doc I think.

  163. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: My law school as well.Even if you were first in your class you had to write.Of course, the people with the top grades had to write poorly to not get on.This is the general practice in law schools.Again, since we know Obama had superior grades, why would anyone think he got on just from writing?And since we know he had supreior grades, what is the point of this whole discussion?

    Ballentine,

    A contemporaneous article explained the process at the time for Harvard. There was an anecdotal story of Obama racing to the post office to get in his “application” timely. I went to school in the same time frame as Obama and people with the top grades did not have to write. Maybe they do now, but they didn’t then.

  164. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    Ballantine (sorry I misspelled your screen name)

  165. ballantine says:
    June 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    charo: Ballentine,A contemporaneous article explained the process at the time for Harvard. There was an anecdotal story of Obama racing to the post office to get in his “application” timely. I went to school in the same time frame as Obama and people with the top grades did not have to write. Maybe they do now, but they didn’t then.

    No. The NYT article talked about the process of becoming editor, not making the law review. The Boston.com article doesn’t say what he submitted and doesn’t say one could not make law review without writing. Just because top students at your school didn’t have to write doesn’t mean such was the case at othe schools. In my school, everyone had to write even if you were first in your class. Again, since we know he finished near the top of his class at the end of the day, what is the point of this whole conversation other than to put forth another unverified smear?

  166. Scientist says:
    June 1, 2011 at 5:01 pm  (Quote)

    charo: A contemporaneous article explained the process at the time for Harvard. There was an anecdotal story of Obama racing to the post office to get in his “application” timely. I went to school in the same time frame as Obama and people with the top grades did not have to write. Maybe they do now, but they didn’t then.

    How do you know what was in the application? It could have simply been a tran script of grades and an indication that he was interested in being on the review.

    I don’t understand the need to run down some one simply because you disagree with them. Why would it be so hard for you to say that President Obama is a very bright accomplished person of good character who is eligible for the Presidency, but with whom you disagree on a number of issues? Would you say that? Yes or no?

  167. Greg says:
    June 1, 2011 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    It’s like Trump’s smear that Obama wasn’t a good student at Columbia (and thus needed affirmative action to get into HLS). Seems to me that if Trump’s assertion is true, that is proof that affirmative action works. Obama graduated in the top 10% of his class. Whether he was a mediocre student at COlumbia or in his first year (unlikely) is irrelevant to te fact that he succeedednay HLS in a way that most practicing lawyers would be jealous of!

  168. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 5:09 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Why would it be so hard for you to say that President Obama is a very bright accomplished person of good character who is eligible for the Presidency, but with whom you disagree on a number of issues? Would you say that? Yes or no?

    I ahve no difficulty in saying that Obama is a bright accomplished person with whom I disagree on a number of issues. Good character implies something that I won’t judge. Also, if I may joke with you, when you made the comment to me something to the effect of “And you are arguing with people who went to law school?” you thought it irrefutable that I did not go to law school and thus violated one of your core scientific principles!

    My son has a lacrosse game. Bye…

  169. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 1, 2011 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    charo: I ahve no difficulty in saying that Obama is a bright accomplished person with whom I disagree on a number of issues.

    Well I have a problem with your saying that because this whole discussion is inappropriate for a blog about Obama conspiracy theories.

  170. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 1, 2011 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    charo: but this is turning into an endless loop that is being deleted by Doc I think.

    I started deleting, but changed my mind. It’s good information for posterity perhaps, but it is definitely off topic.

  171. Scientist says:
    June 1, 2011 at 5:39 pm  (Quote)

    charo: I never said it was irrefutable that you hadn’t been to law school I noticed you ducked the “eligible”. If that was inadvertent, then I will consider you to have refuted the “not been to law school” postulate. On the other hand, if after all the discussion here, you continue to ascribe any merit to the cockamamie birther “theories” then I will say you have failed to refute the postulate and will have to show an actual diploma. If you do, I will call the law school and if they confirm you graduated, I will demand that they confirm their confirmation. I will then ask to see diplomas from the rest of your graduating class so I can compare yours to the others. If yours has even a milligram more or less wax in the seal then anyone else’s I will call it a forgery. If it passes the test, I will claim you can’t be a lawyer unless both your parents were lawyers.

  172. JoZeppy says:
    June 1, 2011 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    charo: Ballentine,A contemporaneous article explained the process at the time for Harvard. There was an anecdotal story of Obama racing to the post office to get in his “application” timely. I went to school in the same time frame as Obama and people with the top grades did not have to write. Maybe they do now, but they didn’t then.

    No, the article explained the process to become an editor. As I mentioned, and you should know, the two are very different. And my school, everyone had to write on to a journal. It was up to the journal how much to weigh transcripts versus writing, but everyone had to write on. By your own admission, you didn’t go to a top law school, and you’re going to make the sweeping generalization that just because your school let people grade on to journal, a school that is always in the top 3 since they began rating schools is going to follow the same practice?

  173. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: charo: I never said it was irrefutable that you hadn’t been to law school I noticed you ducked the “eligible”.

    I didn’t see the word. I was pushing time to make it to a game.. Unless a court determines otherwise, he meets the Constitutional requirements.

  174. charo says:
    June 1, 2011 at 8:16 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I started deleting, but changed my mind. It’s good information for posterity perhaps, but it is definitely off topic.

    My whole part in the discussion initiated with someone quoting a source as proof when the source was not proof. If this is acceptable proof for you, then I have nothing else to say.

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/harvard-law-school-confirms-obamas-magna-cum-laudie.html

    The discussion went on from there. Your policy:

    12. Misinformation and Disinformation about Barack Obama, his family and his administration are the subject of this web site, and such allegations are permitted.

    (I don’t believe I provided “mis” or “dis” information, but even if you felt I diddid, your Editorial Policy permits it. The topic of the thread was very general as well.)

    Also, I respectfully ask that you interpret this part of your policy that a visitor can request deletion of a comment(s) and ask for the deletion of all of mine from this thread.

    5. Visitor comments will not be altered except in rare cases to correct obvious typographical errors or by their request.

  175. Expelliarmus says:
    June 1, 2011 at 10:05 pm  (Quote)

    charo: My whole part in the discussion initiated with someone quoting a source as proof when the source was not proof

    Charo, I am the one who posted that link and I did not post that as “proof” of a matter in controversy. Someone wrote that Obama had graduated “summa” cum laude, and I am aware that it is a well know fac that he graduated “magna” cum laude, not “summa” — so I ran quick google check and posted the first link I found, in order to correct what was obviously a failure of recollection by another poster.

    There was no issue. No “proof” to be had. You are the one who seems to have a very big problem with the fact that Barack Obama has an Ivy League education, and distinguished himself as exceptionally able while in law school.

    Obviously, I could have as easily cited to probably hundreds of other sources for the well known fact that Obama graduated magna cum laude from law school. I usually don’t worry about the quality of “proof” for noncontroversial facts. For example, if I wanted to find out the population of Mombasa, I wouldn’t hesitate to rely on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit or change wikipedia, so it is notoriously unreliable for matters of controversy, but it is a pretty good source of information on those things for which there is no controversy.

    It’s kind of like the type of thing that is properly the subject of judicial notice vs. the type of thing that needs to be proven in court.

  176. Marshal says:
    June 2, 2011 at 12:34 am  (Quote)

    Im sorry guy, but the curvature aint the way you say..’.sex’ is more more curved up than ‘male’, and it doesn’t matter why, like you tried to pretend.

  177. Scientist says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:04 am  (Quote)

    Marshal: ’.sex’ is more more curved up than male’, and it doesn’t matter why, like you tried to pretend

    When it comes to sex, females are definitely more curved than males. Personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way. How about you, marshal??? Hmm….

  178. Daniel says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    Marshal:
    Im sorry guy, but the curvature aint the way you say..’.sex’ is more more curved up than male’, and it doesn’tmatter why, like you tried to pretend.

    Not sure if you’re in the wrong thread…. or simply on the wrong planet….

    There once was a birther named Marshical

    Whose conjectures would border on farcical

    He wandered at random

    Into threads with abandon

    Believing himself commonsensical

  179. Sef says:
    June 2, 2011 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    I go away for a month and come back to the same cr*p. Doc, you should rename this site to be “Deja vu, all over again”

  180. Suranis says:
    June 2, 2011 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    Marshal:
    Im sorry guy, but the curvature aint the way you say..’.sex’ is more more curved up than male’, and it doesn’tmatter why, like you tried to pretend.

    As with a lot of things, the words closer to the top are more curved than those towards the bottom. That means there was more pressure placed at the bottom that the top.

    For further examples of this, see your porn collection. [/snark]

  181. Marshal says:
    June 2, 2011 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    so no one is able /willing to refute, , I win

    [No. You just failed the troll test and are banned from the site. You lose. Bye. Doc.]

  182. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 2, 2011 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    Marshal: so no one is able /willing to refute, , I win

    It’s purely a coincidence that I recently developed the Troll Test, a checklist of things to look for in a Troll just before I started reading The Psychopath Test, a book about a check list of things to look for in a psychopath.

    The comment above, which matches characteristic 5 (Focusing on winning rather than conversation) finished the picture. Basically what Marshal is saying is that he will not accept that others choose to ignore him. Such an attitude makes for a very irritating person.

    It might be interesting to cross-reference the Troll Test with the Psychopath Test.

  183. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    News Flash:

    Paul Revere rode through the streets of Boston ringing bells to warn the British that they couldn’t take away our guns — or so says Sarah Palin.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

  184. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 4, 2011 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    I got my Obama campaign long form “Made in the USA” t-shirt today and I can confirm that the shirt is — made in the USA. I suppose the birthers will say the label is a fake.

  185. Majority Will says:
    June 4, 2011 at 6:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    News Flash:

    Paul Revere rode through the streets of Boston ringing bells to warn the British that they couldn’t take away our guns — or so says Sarah Palin.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

    “ringin’ bells” She can’t pronounce the final g. You betcha! [wink]

  186. Majority Will says:
    June 4, 2011 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I got my Obama campaign long form “Made in the USA” t-shirt today and I can confirm that the shirt is — made in the USA. I suppose the birthers will say the label is a fake.

    Why won’t they just release the long label? What are they hiding?

  187. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 4, 2011 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    I removed the smiley thing. It was adding about 10 seconds to every page load.

  188. Keith says:
    June 5, 2011 at 3:12 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: “ringin’ bells” She can’t pronounce the final g. You betcha! [wink]

    As much as I dislike the Sarah, making fun of her accent/speech pattern, is in my opinion a cheap shot.

    Kennedy called the island country to the south east of Florida ‘Cuber’ and Johnson called us all his “fellah ‘Merkins”.

    If Johnson didn’t get abused for calling us all pubic area toupees, why should the Sarah be mocked for dropping her gees?

  189. Majority Will says:
    June 5, 2011 at 8:56 am  (Quote)

    Keith: As much as I dislike the Sarah, making fun of her accent/speech pattern, is in my opinion a cheap shot.

    Kennedy called the island country to the south east of Florida Cuber’ and Johnson called us all his “fellah ‘Merkins”.

    If Johnson didn’t get abused for calling us all pubic area toupees, why should the Sarah be mocked for dropping her gees?

    Well, in my opinion her speech patterns sound like a well-practiced, phony act to sound folksy especially in context with the winking, you betchas, refudiates, reloads, mavericks, gosh darn its, doggone its and the premise of just being a common, small town girl with a pioneer and plain folk background. Her exaggerated affectations are part of a deliberately crafted character facade for the primary purpose of targeted manipulation. It’s a fake folksy farce. That’s the difference. Let’s see her long form personality. I think your examples are a false equivalence.

    “Shoot, I must have lived such a doggoned sheltered life as a normal, independent American up there in the Last Frontier, schooled with only public education and a lowly state university degree, because obviously I haven’t learned enough to dismiss common sense.” — Sarah Palin, on opposition to offshore oil drilling, Facebook note, June 13, 2010

    “We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. …We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.” –Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in Greensoboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 2008

  190. Majority Will says:
    June 5, 2011 at 9:04 am  (Quote)

    P.S. Her statements like “Shoot, I must have lived such a doggoned sheltered life as a normal, independent American up there in the Last Frontier . . .” also serve the purpose of making what she is painting as her fellow common, simple people look like victims of elitists who must be out of touch with them and don’t speak their common folk language. She makes her fluency in that language an integral part of almost everything she says publicly.

  191. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 5, 2011 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    Politico.com reports various measures in state legislatures to change the way electoral votes are allocated. This in addition to the “birther bills.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56264.html

  192. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    I call your attention to this article in the Taipei Times about Sun Yat-Sen’s fake Hawaiian birth certificate.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/07/2003505154

    The revolution ran into difficulties and Sun was faced with the prospect of being arrested in China, Shao said.

    With the US Chinese Exclusion Act severely limiting Chinese immigration, Sun had difficulty entering the US and was even detained by US authorities at one point, Shao said.

    Sun’s detention prompted an overseas Chinese to say that if Sun wanted to promote a Chinese -revolution on US soil, it would be best if he had US citizenship, Shao said.

    Sun’s friends in San Francisco set in motion plans for him to obtain US citizenship by faking a birth certificate showing that he was born in Honolulu, Shao said.

    Sun asked for a birth certificate from Hawaii because he had lived and studied there in his early teens, Shao said, adding that the date on the birth certificate — Nov. 24, 1870 — was chosen to reflect the founding date of the Hsing Chung Hui to establish a connection with his revolutionary activities.

    We scour the world for you !

  193. Greg says:
    June 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    An armchair astronomer has discovered life on Mars:
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/article/9586806/have-we-found-life-on-mars/

    Or, he has found an imaging anomaly and read into it meaning in the same way birthers find forgery!

  194. Sef says:
    June 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm  (Quote)

    Greg:
    An armchair astronomer has discovered life on Mars:
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/article/9586806/have-we-found-life-on-mars/

    Or, he has found an imaging anomaly and read into it meaning in the same way birthers find forgery!

    It’s obvious that FEMA is experimenting with places on other worlds to send the malcontents.

  195. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 6, 2011 at 7:58 pm  (Quote)

    Greg: An armchair astronomer has discovered life on Mars:
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/article/9586806/have-we-found-life-on-mars/

    Or, he has found an imaging anomaly and read into it meaning in the same way birthers find forgery!

    “It looks like a linear streak artifact produced by a cosmic ray,” said Alfred McEwen, a planetary geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at the University of Arizona and the director of the Planetary Imaging Research Laboratory. McEwen is the principal investigator of the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE), a powerful telescope currently orbiting Mars.

  196. gorefan says:
    June 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Alfred McEwen, a planetary geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at the University of Arizona

    Is he CIA or NSA?

  197. Keith says:
    June 6, 2011 at 11:45 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Well, in my opinion her speech patterns sound like a well-practiced, phony act to sound folksy especially in context with the winking, you betchas, refudiates, reloads, mavericks, gosh darn its, doggone its and the premise of just being a common, small town girl with a pioneer and plain folk background.

    Point taken.

  198. Keith says:
    June 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Is he CIA or NSA?

    Neither. He’s UofA!. Go Wildcats! Beardown!

    My brother used to work at the LPL. They got one of the first moon rocks from Apollo 11.

  199. obsolete says:
    June 7, 2011 at 1:33 am  (Quote)

    Keith: My brother used to work at the LPL. They got one of the first moon rocks from Apollo 11.

    He still believes in the moon?

  200. gorefan says:
    June 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    Legal questions.

    In Taitz v. Astrue, Judge Lamberth directed Orly to redact the SSNs and refile her complaint in 14 days from June 1st. Orly apparently filed or is going to file a Motion for Clarification to find out what is a SSN.

    1) Does Orly’s motion for clarification stop the 15 day clock? I’m guessing no.

    2) Can Judge Lamberth ignore the motion for clarification until the 15 days are up and then dismiss the whole kit and caboodle? Or is he required to answer that motion in a timely way? Could he do both simultaneously on June 16th? Or does the defense have to make a motion to dismiss based on her missing the 15 day deadline?

  201. JoZeppy says:
    June 7, 2011 at 5:49 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Legal questions.In Taitz v. Astrue, Judge Lamberth directed Orly to redact the SSNs and refile her complaint in 14 days from June 1st. Orly apparently filed or is going to file a Motion for Clarification to find out what is a SSN.1) Does Orly’s motion for clarification stop the 15 day clock? I’m guessing no.2) Can Judge Lamberth ignore the motion for clarification until the 15 days are up and then dismiss the whole kit and caboodle? Or is he required to answer that motion in a timely way? Could he do both simultaneously on June 16th? Or does the defense have to make a motion to dismiss based on her missing the 15 day deadline?

    He’s a judge. He has great discretion in what he does. He can sanction her for being a wise ass. He could deny her motion before the defendant has a chance to respond. He could dimss her case, which I’m guessing he’s waiting to do since he wants dispostive motions within 30 days (my guess he probably wants to dismiss on a motion to dismiss rather than a failure to comply with the rules, since I’m guessing dismissal for failure to comply with the rules would be without prejudice to refile, where dismissal on a SJ motion would be with prejudice). Either way, the defense has the option of waiting to see what the judge does when the 14 days run. The order gave Orly 14 days from the date of the order to file redacted versions (June 15). She mailed her motion on the 6th. Defendants gets 17 days to oppose her mortion (June 23). The defense could also oppose, and ask for a show cause order, as to why she should be sanctioned for such a genuinely stupid motion.

    This is just typical Orly thinking she’s more clever than she really is. It’s an invitation for sanctions.

  202. LM says:
    June 7, 2011 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Well, in my opinion her speech patterns sound like a well-practiced, phony act to sound folksy

    You know what really, really bugs me? Of course you don’t, and you don’t care either, but I’m going to tell you anyway.

    I spent a good bit of time up in Alaska a few years ago, and in all the time I was there, I never heard one person speaking with an accent like hers. The first time I ever heard her speak, I’m like, but that’s not what people in Alaska sound like! So where is that coming from? It’s been bugging the H**L out of me for the last three years.

    Just thought I’d share.

  203. Daniel says:
    June 7, 2011 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    I’m sure it’s bugging the hell out of people in Alaska too, especially after she bailed on them.

  204. LM says:
    June 7, 2011 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    Sometimes I think, well after all, Alaska is a big state, so maybe it’s a regional thing. But Wasilla isn’t somewhere way far out of the way or anything, it’s just one of the towns around Anchorage. Or, you know, a lot of the people I met there were actually not from there originally, they moved there from somewhere else. So maybe it’s more of a born Alaska thing. But not everyone I knew there was from somewhere else. Surely I would have heard a hint of it somewhere …… It just *bugs* me.

  205. Rickey says:
    June 7, 2011 at 9:29 pm  (Quote)

    I found a YouTube video of a Palin ad from when she was running for governor in 2006. No folksy accent, no “you betcha.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDcFS7vj_Mg

  206. G says:
    June 7, 2011 at 10:19 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    I found a YouTube video of a Palin ad from when she was running for governor in 2006. No folksy accent, no “you betcha.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDcFS7vj_Mg

    Wow. She speaks totally different and comes across normal in that video. Then again, those were just small, carefully edited and scripted clips, so maybe she can come across regular and polished with effort in small doses…

    …But then again, I go back to all of her more recent conversations and the much different pitch and tone of her voice (not to mention the overdone folksy constant word-salad)… and that older video still seems like a completely different person…. what they heck happened to her is all I can say…

  207. Majority Will says:
    June 7, 2011 at 10:26 pm  (Quote)

    LM: You know what really, really bugs me? Of course you don’t, and you don’t care either, but I’m going to tell you anyway.

    I spent a good bit of time up in Alaska a few years ago, and in all the time I was there, I never heard one person speaking with an accent like hers. The first time I ever heard her speak, I’m like, but that’s not what people in Alaska sound like! So where is that coming from? It’s been bugging the H**L out of me for the last three years.

    Just thought I’d share.

    Thanks. She set off my b.s. detector right after McCain unleashed her onto the world stage with her cutesy, folksy, gosh darn its and incessant winking. It made me nauseated.

    (And actually I do care what bugs you in this regard. :-D)

  208. Majority Will says:
    June 7, 2011 at 10:27 pm  (Quote)

    G: what they heck happened to her is all I can say…

    I think she was coached but I have no evidence.

  209. gorefan says:
    June 7, 2011 at 11:20 pm  (Quote)

    WND has a new “expert”, this one is a typography and typeface “expert”. According to him, the LFBC was made up of individual letters of different typeface. Seriously, he really thinks the the BC was put together like a ransom note.

    What a bunch of morons.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397

  210. G says:
    June 8, 2011 at 12:22 am  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    WND has a new “expert”, this one is a typography and typeface “expert”.According to him, the LFBC was made up of individual letters of different typeface.Seriously, he really thinks the the BC was put together like a ransom note.

    What a bunch of morons.

    *facepalm*

  211. Keith says:
    June 8, 2011 at 1:51 am  (Quote)

    obsolete: He still believes in the moon?

    Just checking… you aren’t mistaking the guy from the LPL who attempted to debunk the secret Mars base story with the ‘amateur’ guy who claimed to have found it, are you?

  212. Keith says:
    June 8, 2011 at 1:55 am  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    WND has a new “expert”, this one is a typography and typeface “expert”.According to him, the LFBC was made up of individual letters of different typeface.Seriously, he really thinks the the BC was put together like a ransom note.

    To what end?

  213. aarrgghh says:
    June 8, 2011 at 2:14 am  (Quote)

    Keith: To what end?

    because paypal buttons in china are starving?

  214. gorefan says:
    June 8, 2011 at 9:41 am  (Quote)

    Keith: To what end?

    Well, the “expert” has made up a t-shirt with his analysis.

  215. Rickey says:
    June 8, 2011 at 10:29 am  (Quote)

    Another old Palin video, this time her being interviewed by a local reporter in 1998. No folksy affectations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IoCyqUAoA

  216. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    Another old Palin video, this time her being interviewed by a local reporter in 1998. No folksy affectations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IoCyqUAoA

    Great find.

    Ironically, I think that more natural delivery from her comes across as far more sincere and might have had a wider and more effective appeal on the national political stage. It certainly seems a whole lot more credible than the folksy hick act, you betcha, wink. Dagnabbit.

    Seeing more evidence like that also makes me wonder more if at some point she was coached or encourage either by family, associates or advisors to practice a peasant patois and provincial persona.

  217. LM says:
    June 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: (And actually I do care what bugs you in this regard. 😀 )

    Heh. Thanks. Actually it felt kind of good to get it off my chest. The thing is that I’ve never heard or seen anyone else have any question about the accent, so I was starting to think maybe it was just my imagination, or bad memory or something. But I’m telling you–people in Alaska just don’t sound like that. Not that I can recall.

    The videos also made me feel a bit better. Anyway, I agree with you that the folksiness always sounded way forced. Even just assuming it was really a natural accent, I was always sure there was no way she wasn’t exaggerating it. It comes across as fake to me.

    I still wonder where the accent comes from. You can still sort of hear it a little, especially in the second video, just not exaggerated the way it usually is.And it has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it? She didn’t just make it up out of whole cloth, she at least had a model for it. To me it sounds a lot more like the upper Midwest–North or South Dakota, maybe? Wisconsin? somewhere like that–than anywhere Alaskan. But who knows, maybe there is somewhere in Alaska with that accent. It still bugs me.

  218. LM says:
    June 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)

    Since I’m on the subject, I did a little Googling. It seems there was some discussion about the accent back in 2008, and either I missed it or I forgot. The best discussion I found so far was this linguistics blog: http://mr-verb.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palins-accent.html. Just in case anyone else is interested.

    Opinions differ. Some say, like me, that it doesn’t sound like anything you’d actually hear in Alaska. But there are reports that this is an accent found in the Mat-Su Valley, where Wasilla is, and which was settled by people from the upper midwest. So I guess I’ll go along with that.

    She’s still totally playing it up, though.

  219. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    LM: Heh. Thanks. Actually it felt kind of good to get it off my chest. The thing is that I’ve never heard or seen anyone else have any question about the accent, so I was starting to think maybe it was just my imagination, or bad memory or something. But I’m telling you–people in Alaska just don’t sound like that. Not that I can recall.

    The videos also made me feel a bit better. Anyway, I agree with you that the folksiness always sounded way forced. Even just assuming it was really a natural accent, I was always sure there was no way she wasn’t exaggerating it. It comes across as fake to me.

    I still wonder where the accent comes from. You can still sort of hear it a little, especially in the second video, just not exaggerated the way it usually is.And it has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it? She didn’t just make it up out of whole cloth, she at least had a model for it. To me it sounds a lot more like the upper Midwest–North or South Dakota, maybe? Wisconsin? somewhere like that–than anywhere Alaskan. But who knows, maybe there is somewhere in Alaska with that accent. It still bugs me.

    Native Canuck? 😉

  220. Sef says:
    June 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Native Canuck?

    How does she pronounce “about”?

  221. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: How does she pronounce “about”?

    Hmmm. Excellent question, eh?

  222. Daniel says:
    June 8, 2011 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    A couple of things I’ve learned about Canadians from working up here in Canada…

    1) They don’t live in Igloos and wear parkas all year ’round. Where I work in Canada they grow palm trees.

    2) They don’t say “aboot”. Well OK some do, but Canadians have a huge variety of different regional accents, just like we do.

    3) They rarely say “eh”…. but they often say “ummm”

    4) They laugh a lot at the ridiculous things we Americans think about them.

    http://youtu.be/BhTZ_tgMUdo

  223. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    A couple of things I’ve learned about Canadians from working up here in Canada…

    1) They don’t live in Igloos and wear parkas all year ’round. Where I work in Canada they grow palm trees.

    2) They don’t say “aboot”. Well OK some do, but Canadians have a huge variety of different regional accents, just like we do.

    3) They rarely say “eh”…. but they often say “ummm”

    4) They laugh a lot at the ridiculous things we Americans think about them.

    http://youtu.be/BhTZ_tgMUdo

    Good points and yes, I was generalizing in jest, ummm.

    But why don’t we have Canadian restaurants?

  224. Sef says:
    June 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: But why don’t we have Canadian restaurants?

    Tim Horton’s doesn’t count?

  225. Scientist says:
    June 8, 2011 at 7:26 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: But why don’t we have Canadian restaurants?

    There is a deli in Brooklyn, called “Mile End” after the very trendy neighborhood in Montreal. They serve Montreal-style bagels and smoked meat (to NY bagels and pastrami as foie gras is to liverwurst). They even serve poutine (french fries topped with gravy and melted curd cheese). Ask your cardiologist if it’s right for you..

    http://www.foodiebuddha.com/2011/05/26/mile-end-delicatessen-restaurant-review-brooklyn-ny-out-of-town/

  226. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 8, 2011 at 7:39 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: 2) They don’t say “aboot”. Well OK some do, but Canadians have a huge variety of different regional accents, just like we do.

    I grew up listening to Ian McFarland on Radio Canada International and he definitely said “aboot.”

  227. Daniel says:
    June 8, 2011 at 7:57 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I grew up listening to Ian McFarland on Radio Canada International and he definitely said “aboot.”

    And all we Americans express surprise by saying “Oh Lawdy”

    😉

  228. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 10:10 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: And all we Americans express surprise by saying “Oh Lawdy”

    “Youse guys” might! 😀

  229. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 10:14 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: Tim Horton’s doesn’t count?

    I suppose it does. But do people say “doughnuts and coffee” when you ask them to name their favorite Canadian food?

  230. Majority Will says:
    June 8, 2011 at 10:20 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: There is a deli in Brooklyn, called “Mile End” after the very trendy neighborhood in Montreal.They serve Montreal-style bagels and smoked meat (to NY bagels and pastrami as foie gras is to liverwurst).They even serve poutine (french fries topped with gravy and melted curd cheese).Ask your cardiologist if it’s right for you..

    http://www.foodiebuddha.com/2011/05/26/mile-end-delicatessen-restaurant-review-brooklyn-ny-out-of-town/

    I’m familiar with poutine which is definitely Canadian. As are butter tarts and Maple syrup and I suppose Canadian beer which is an acquired taste to say the most.

    Mile End sounds like a great place.

  231. Daniel says:
    June 8, 2011 at 10:43 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Canadian beer which is an acquired taste to say the most.

    Yes it was hard to get used to Canadian beer, but I’m proud to say that, as a result of considerable effort on my part, I’ve managed to achieve it.

  232. Northland10 says:
    June 8, 2011 at 11:02 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: A couple of things I’ve learned about Canadians from working up here in Canada…

    It appears we have slid off topic agayn.

    Being from the Midwest, I never ended up with any accent. We don’t got them here. I never picked up a Missoura one from my father. Nor did I come acrosst one in Southwest Michigan. When I moved further north, the people just north of me would say, Yah, we’d never had da accent neither, eh.

    Its all thems other places that talks funny.

  233. Keith says:
    June 9, 2011 at 4:13 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: It appears we have slid off topic agayn.

    How can one be off-topic in an open topic thread?

  234. The Magic M says:
    June 9, 2011 at 6:25 am  (Quote)

    Can I nominate a new “craziest birther of the year”?

    From WND comments section:

    > Best way to defeat Obama right now is reveal that the Illinois Lottery drew 666 the day of his election.

  235. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    June 10, 2011 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    I was down at the bookstore today, and happened upon a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary. Naturally I looked up “Natural Born Citizen clause”. The definition, paraphrased, was: a clause in Section II of the Constitution that requires that the President be born in the US. Not a word about parents.

  236. Daniel says:
    June 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I was down at the bookstore today, and happened upon a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary. Naturally I looked up “Natural Born Citizen clause”. The definition, paraphrased, was: a clause in Section II of the Constitution that requires that the President be born in the US. Not a word about parents.

    What a surprise…..

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.