I mentioned The Steady Drip blog in a previous article about a possible appeal of the Georgia ballot challenge loss from Carl Swensson: Carl Swensson: Appeal ready on Monday. (Nothing today, Monday, on the appeal that I’ve been able to find, by the way.)
Since my article, there has been some activity at The Steady Drip to the Swensson article including the addition of a “comment” by conservative birther document analysis debunker, and author John Woodman. I put “comment” in quotation marks because this is not a comment in the usual sense of the term, but text added to the article. In this form, one cannot tell whether the comment is what Woodman actually said, or if it is all that he said.
In any case, the published Woodman “comment” didn’t go into any detail, but referred readers to his blog for an argument saying Minor v. Happersett wasn’t a “binding precedent” and that the birthers were mistaken to dismiss US v. Wong.
What followed was a rebuttal by, in turn, by Carl Swensson, Mario Apuzzo, Carl Swensson (again), Charles (I presume Kerchner) and Douglas Vogt. I won’t go into detail except to say that they were the typical things those folks say and that it’s pretty much bunk.
At the conclusion of those comments is:
There is a lesson for you here John. Don’t attempt to get inaccurate, sloppily vetted material posted on The Steady Drip. It will backfire on you just like Obama’s Karma is creeping up on him.
In fact, John didn’t post any material of any substance except a link to his blog.
Any time I write an article about the definition of natural born citizen, I always get a lot of comments. My recent article Donofrio’s “dirty little secret” on that topic has 155 responses after 2 days. The Steady Drip has zero actual comments (the others are part of the article). Is that because no one has left comments? No, I left two myself that haven’t appeared.
John, the lesson to be learned here is not to post on blogs with heavily censored content. They will dump all manner of garbage on you, and then muzzle you when you try to respond.
Indeed. The censorship from the birther blogs is heavy. Charles Kerchner is the only person I know who doesn’t allow comments even on his scribd account. I didn’t even know you could turn off commenting on scribd. What’s the old goat afraid of?
Pigmentation.
The steady drip is the tears of the birthers as they lose all their cases, see Obama rise in the polls and see the unemployment rate fall as the Republicans flounder amidst a mess of lousy candidates and unpopular policies.
I didn’t want to believe it of them, but it appears their ideological fixation on Obama has finally* caused them to take leave of their intellectual honesty.
* 😉
I noticed the Natural Born Citizen drfinition is the mother of heated talk in this blog, but it’s curious to see on this last article that lots of the 155 comments are some sort of excused absence memos explaining why attorneys would not post at Leo’s blog. it’s like they’re interested, but they’re not really interested, go figure.
You mistakingly think that some egotistical crank on the internet who only has a record of miserable failure when he attempts to “dabble” at law, is worth taking seriously outside of Birther Cult circles…
Sorry. He’s not.
Why would anyone interested in honest debate go to Leo’s blog?
by the way Dr, I did not mean to say “drfinition”, which it can be taken as derogatory, it was a typo.
JoeZappy, why should i answer if youre not going to participate?
“JoeZappy, why should i answer if youre not going to participate?”
.
looks like we can have some good luck, if we don’t participate maybe uytube will go away
This desperate troll needs the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique.
This particular article is an exact and forceful explanation of why such lawyers aren’t really interested in posting at Donofrio’s blog.
As has been observed: Birther blogs tend to be very heavily controlled. Dr. Conspiracy says he posted two comments at the article mentioned. Have they shown up? No.
Nor do I doubt Dr. Conspiracy when he makes the claim, because I myself have had the experience of having thoughtful, well-written, factual comments fail to show upat every birther blog I have ever attempted. Birther Report and Apuzzo’s blog have been much better than most. I have personally experienced censorship even at Birther Report. So far, no actual censorship at Mario’s blog — but I’m pretty sure it’s coming.
One other blog owner removed my reasonable answer to items under discussion and replaced it with false allegations regarding me personally.
And it’s NOT for any form of name calling or use of improper language. It is for posting facts and reasonable arguments that run contrary to the dogma presented at the site.
That being the case, two things are clear:
1) Most birther blogs are not in the LEAST interested in the objective truth. I have learned this by personal experience. They are interested ONLY in the “Truth”[TM]– that is, they are ONLY interested in that which promotes their propaganda. And yes, I am now prepared, as a result of my past nine months of experience, to say that it’s exactly that — propaganda. No more, no less.
2) That being the case, it’s kind of pointless to try and make a reasonable argument on most of the birther blogs. They simply won’t let any message through, ultimately, that disconfirms their teaching of how things are.
The only point, really, in attempting to comment on birther blogs — again, with rare exception — is to highlight the two facts above.
Doc,
Thanks for posting this. I actually wouldn’t have even noticed it except for your post. 🙂
There are things in the comments by others that — when you read it all carefully and understand all of the background info — are downright funny.
Nothing they post (and nothing they hide) can change the fact that none of their claims — not on the forgery side, and not on the “natural born citizen” side — have enough merit to prevail in the court system. That being the case, I guess they’re now playing for how many gullible rubes and inattentive folks lack the time or interest to check things out for themselves, that they can find to buy their nonsense.
Stil John, there are so many attorneys interested in this subject right here, it amazes me. 155 responses in 2 days? And not one of those attorneys are known to the public? If they would only post on YouTube or speak in public just like Titus, I’ll be their biggest fan cause I’ll know, they’re all for the truth, until then, they’re just traffic, really
I’m honestly not sure there’s any real appeal.
I came out quite openly to point out, simply as a computer professional, that a lot of the claims people were making on the technical side just weren’t correct.
I’ve been ignored, insulted, libeled, accused of being on Obama’s payroll (when I don’t even like the guy politically — personally I can’t say, as I’ve never met him), publicly called a liar, a hypocrite, a pervert, and a bunch of other things I can’t even print here.
If I had the whole thing to do over again, I’m not at all sure I would do it. The only thing I’ve gotten out of it is the satisfaction of having written some things, including a book, that were true, that were well thought-out, that were honest, that were accurate, and that were in support of the Constitution and the laws — not what I imagined the Constitution and the laws to be, but what they actually are.
Yutube : Apuzzo :: Grima : Saruman ?
Yutube seems to be investing an inordinate amount of time trying to coax people over to Leo’s site. What’s the connection? Is there a bounty involved?
And to reveal their identity and open themselves up to harassment by birthers…
John, men of transparent conviction are ought to be admired. I dont know you well. But, when you see a guy, specially a lawyer, who puts his reputation and be ridiculed and he goes to offer a public challenge with other lawyers who he disagree with, whether he is right or wrong, win or lose at the end, it takes courage to do that because it shows real transparency and true motive. But those who cover themselves behind the curtain of safe heaven in online blogs and pretend to be lawyers, i say pretend because they do not show their creds, are nothing but anonymous hypocrites.
So “yutube”, whats your real name and address then..? I mean surely you want to be admirably transparent…?
John Woodman
“If I had the whole thing to do over again, I’m not at all sure I would do it. The only thing I’ve gotten out of it is the satisfaction of having written some things, including a book, that were true, that were well thought-out, that were honest, that were accurate, and that were in support of the Constitution and the laws — not what I imagined the Constitution and the laws to be, but what they actually are.”
You sell yourself short, John. You have contributed something uniquely valuable to the discussion, and I for one am extremely glad that you did; you have my deepest sympathy for the insults with which you have been plagued at the hands of your clueless detractors.
To wit: you have proven that one need not be a Democrat nor any stripe of Obama Fan to perceive the truth about his eligibility. At the same time, by being accused of being such, you have lanced the boil of Birther Madness, the belief that anyone who declares Mr. Obama eligible for his office must be partisan, corrupt, disloyal, stupid, or all of the above, which you are most palpably and definitely not.
I cannot commend you enough for your accomplishment and contribution. It saddens me to see you even momentarily disheartened.
You like Donofrio because every now and then he shows he is a disastrous lawyer.
Unfortunately, for anyone except the birfers, Donofrio lost all semblance since this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54529543/OLD-CARCO-LLC-APPEAL-2nd-CIRCUIT-108-MOTION-for-costs-on-behalf-of-Appellee-Old-Carco-LLC-TransportRoom-108-0
Orly may have been sanctioned in Georgia, but in that case Leo is down for damages.
Oops, I meant “all semblance of credibility”.
I think you fail to understand the point of interest. It’s the interest one has in a freak show. It’s like reading the tripe tax protesters post. It’s so rediculous it doesn’t even merit real discussion. It’s on par with a scientist entering a debate with someone trying to argue the earth is flat. And youTube? Sorry, but Youtube is not a serious forum. On the same token, I would argue that if Leo was serious about his B.S., he would publish in a real law journal. Why is Leo lurking in the his self-controled environment rather than coming forward, publishing his theories, and presenting them before his peers. Could it be because Leo knows its utter garbage? There was a symposium on the meaning of NBC by the U Michigan Law school back in 08….funny, Leo didn’t present. Even more interesting, not one even considered a two parent rule. Could it be because the two parent rule is a complete joke?
Leo has no reputation in the legal community. As far as I know, he litigated one case his entire career, and that was peddling his two parent rule, which creature of his own making.
As for not sharing my identity with the birthiverse….my clients come first. Birthers have a well established track record of harassing everyone whose name they discover, and anyone connected to them. I have an obligation to my clients, and my firm to protect them from this unneccessary abuse. It’s much easier when you never were an actual attorney like Leo, and don’t have to worry about nutters like birthers harrassing you at work, harrassing the fellow members of your firm, or your clients.
I don’t need to know, nor am I very interested in, the biographies of people who write or comment on the birther movement. I’m primary interested in people’s ideas, and whether they make rational claims and support their claims with accurate evidence and ethical arguments. For example, I’ve never cared to learn anything about Dr. Conspiracy, but I’ve found that he writes honestly and informatively on birtherism, and he’s proven himself to be a trustworthy and authoritative source. As for someone like Mario or Leo I think John Woodman said it best when he observed,
“1) Most birther blogs are not in the LEAST interested in the objective truth. I have learned this by personal experience. They are interested ONLY in the “Truth”[TM]– that is, they are ONLY interested in that which promotes their propaganda. And yes, I am now prepared, as a result of my past nine months of experience, to say that it’s exactly that — propaganda. No more, no less.”
You need to stop trying to write Edwardian. You’re not very good at pretending to write like an educated intellectual.
Just write simply and plainly, using ordinary English. You’ll look less foolish that way.
BTW, it’s safe “haven”, not “heaven”.
I wouldn’t worry about pointless little details Daniel.
Daniel, just so you know, he’s talking about himself.
You are absolutely correct John. Don’t beat yourself up for taking so long to accept that grim realization. Many of us have simply been following this closely for a lot longer than you have. Trust me, most of us also wanted to have better faith in humanity and what was going on here too. The natural desire is to want to find a rational and sincere explanation for why these people think this way and say what they say.
It has taken most of us awhile to realize that most of this has been nothing but thinly disguised, intentionally shameless propaganda all along.
Like any Cult, are there a number of gullible “true believers” who actually buy into what their cynical machivellian pushers sell? Yes.
Like any lie oft repeated by egotistical manipulators, are some of these con artists starting to buy into their own BS? Quite likely.
But it all remains an intentional slimy stew of myths and smears and a fevered attempt to spread such falsehoods.
Nothing but complete agreement from me.
I am absolutely convinced that the ulterior motive is to try to soften up the electorate over the anchor baby issue. If they can get enough people querying the ‘settled law’ of jus soli, then maybe they can parley that into a full out attack on the 14th Amendment without it sounding quite so much as the blatant racism that it is..
Hmmm. Quoting problem of some sort. That first quote is from John Woodman, not Majority Will.
Sorry about that. I am sure the fault is mine somehow.
While I do suspect that nearly all the Birthers would support stripping NBC status from “anchor babies”, I suspect that only a few of them had such far reaching implications from the get-go.
Again, their problem here is still in going about it the wrong way – propaganda is not going to get them anywhere. In order to strip away citizenship rights, they would have to go through the legislature and get a Constitutional Amendment. Neither the courts nor public opinion is going to get them anywhere.
Quite true. But it only took only a few of them with such far reaching implications to get the ball rolling.
Public opinion has to be supportive of such action in order to elect a Congress that will consider it and enough State Legislatures to ratify it.
Remember the 18th and 22nd Amendments.
Very well put. Trust me, I fully realize the implications and lessons from history here.
Realistically however, such a radical sway of public opinion, to make it all the way through the high bar of steps required for such a restrictive Amendment to come to pass, is an extremely tall order, indeed.
Despite the high amount of xenophobia out there, I seriously do not believe it could spread far enough beyond its existing “base” of support to lead to such an outcome. The rest of this country is simply too multicultural to allow such dire ramifications to come to pass.
I agree. However, you and I, do not think like birthers, racists, Murdochs, Kochs, and border state militias.
Thank goodness.
Indeed!
Thankfully, such forces are simply not as numerous as they are vocal.
…Now, in the specific case of the Murdochs, Kochs, etc. – if only they had less money, power and media influence … what a better world it would be!
A public challenge to debate him at a place of his choosing, where he can likewise choose whether or not your arguments and responses see the light of day, is no public challenge at all. It is not a brave act, it is a cowardly one. It is the act of someone who is scared to have his arguments addressed point by point.
The fact that he uses his actual name to do it doesn’t mean anything when his actions – refusing to let anything through moderation that refutes any of his claims – show he doesn’t want the debate he claims to savor.
If he believes so strongly in his legal prowess, there are a lot of birthers out there looking for representation for their ballot challenges. Leo can suit up and head to court.
A real attorney has to be concerned about how their actions affect their reputation and how it might reflect on their real clients.
Leo Donofrio doesn’t have any real clients. He plays poker for a living. Leo Apuzzo represents a birther and Orly Taitz doesn’t actually practice law except as an offshoot of her birtherism. Van Irion and Gary Kreep are lawyers for right wing causes, so birther stuff gives them creds among their limited pool of potential clients.
Whenever I see his blog, I invariably think Post-nasal drip.
right wing causes? what does that mean, exactly? What about Mark Hatfield? constiutional issues are right wing causes?was John Mccain’s and George Romney’s questions right wing causes?
Ok, a correction – RWNJ causes.
Stuff that is simply based on myth driven from the right.
The Constitution belongs to everyone. Sane folks of all political stripes can learn to understand it and adhere to it. RWNJ myth however, has little basis in the real Consitution and is nothing more than attempts at fantasy-based revisionism.
Again, the only actual challenges I saw to John McCain’s NBC status also came from the right, not the left. That seems to be the only direction for any of this modern myth challenging NBC status and citizenship.