The occasional open thread: Long Play edition

405 Responses to The occasional open thread: Long Play edition

1. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

   March 16, 2012 at 11:17 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

   My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, said to first define “fabricated evidence”:

   Fabricated Evidence is fictitious testimony or documents offered to a court or jury in order to mislead them. Fabricating evidence involves arranging or manufacturing circumstances or indica, after the act is committed with the intention to use them as evidence and make it appear accidental. Such evidence may be wholly forged and artificial, or it may consist in so warping and distorting real facts to create an impression in the minds of those who observe them as true and genuine.

   She said by this standard the Sheriff and the Cold Case Posse are not yet in jeopardy on this charge, because the “evidence” has not yet gone to a court or jury to mislead them.

   However, she said there may be a conspiracy charge which applies to this uncompleted act. She said such a charge could include any personnel from WND or other persons acting in concert to accomplish this goal. But she said she is not going to look up the possibilities to see what the elements might be, or how far along the plan would have to be for liability to attach.

   She hates all this Birther stuff.

   Squeeky Fromm
   Girl Reporter
2. NBC says:

   March 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm  NBC(Quote)

   Al mentioned that there was a person of interest identified. No details were given and none will be forthcoming. You are being played Al by people who are manipulating you into believing that there is a real investigation happening.

   No indictments, no investigation, nothing… There is just nothing there.

   Even if the birth certificate was somehow altered electronically, there is NO evidence of any fraud. In fact, the document shows all indications of the usual compression which creates the layers you observed.

   Furthermore all the details have been verified and certified and we have Savannah Guthrie’s photograph showing us the actual document.

   Sorry Al, may I call you Al, but there is just nothing there.

   Sorry..
3. NBC says:

   March 16, 2012 at 11:26 pm  NBC(Quote)

   Al: These are serious charges, shouldn’t they be vigorously investigated to ascertain who and what someone has done to discredit Obama and his Office and Aides, much less if it is a Hoax by Arpio, this must be investigated as we were until Obama came along a Nation under the Rule of Law.

   There were no serious charges made. Arpaio made sure to use weasel words, the investigation was never an official one, but rather one organized by birthers to attempt to get the media in a frenzy.

   They failed. That’s enough punishment ROTFL.

   Nobody is really taking them seriously… Nobody…
4. Dr. Conspiracy says:

   March 16, 2012 at 11:35 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

   Hey, remember when Jerome Corsi said that he figured out that the forger was named “Mike?” Maybe Mike is their person of interest.

   http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/corsi-names-the-name-mike/

   NBC: There were no serious charges made.
5. J. Potter says:

   March 17, 2012 at 12:02 am  J. Potter(Quote)

   I’ve always wanted to know how the basic presumption of the Oath Keepers, an expectation that the issuance of illegal orders is a question of when not if, squares with the Oath of Enlistment:

   “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

   There are already allowances and mechanisms in place by which service personnel can question, resist, and refuse illegal orders. Such is a determination of individual conscience.

   The formation of a paramilitary* organization to make such determinations on behalf of individuals, to communicate those decisions to them (quite similar to issuing orders, idn’t it?), is an attempt to undo what the group purports to protect, by subverting the chain of command. To usurp the principle of civilian control of the military. To put in place mechanism to set up the military as an independent entity, beholden to neither the gov’t nor the people. In other words, to lay the ground work for coup attempt(s), which will result in civil war.

   These are drastic concepts to act on. Where is the need for such dire planning? On what is this dark assumption based?

   The same paranoia that birthed “sovereign citizens” and The Turner Diaries, Ruby Ridge and the OKC bombing, birthed the Oath Keepers.

   (Which is a non-profit, BTW 😉 )

   Here’s hoping you grow out of it. If Al really is tied up in this, all acting on this nuttery will accomplish is producing a mess for someone else to clean up. And jail cells or early graves for the participants.

   It’s springtime! Go fly a kite. Plant something. Fall in love. Sing songs. Barbecue. It’s a world too wonderful to waste time in!

   __________

   * used here in the literal sense.
6. J. Potter says:

   March 17, 2012 at 12:03 am  J. Potter(Quote)

   Dr. Conspiracy: Hey, remember when Jerome Corsi said that he figured out that the forger was named “Mike?”

   Yeah, he hasn’t make a mistake like that since!
7. Dr. Conspiracy says:

   March 17, 2012 at 12:11 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

   Loved this comment from Joh de Vos:

   “The right embraces Romney like vegans picking off a truck-stop menu.”
8. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

   March 17, 2012 at 12:26 am  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

   Deputy Zullo’s first name is Mike. Just sayin’. Maybe this is one of Jerome “Jerry” Corsi’s famous traps???

   Squeeky Fromm
   Girl Reporter
9. richCares says:

   March 17, 2012 at 1:59 am  richCares(Quote)

   Orly introduced some of the Sheriff Joe’s garbage in her Mississippi ballot challenge, yes, the one that already had their ballot done. They think Sheriff Joe’s garbage will will cause a non-certification of the count. Don’t they ever get tired of losing? That’s a whole bunch of hate.
10. DivideByZero says:

    March 17, 2012 at 2:34 am  DivideByZero(Quote)

    [This comment is intentionally left blank. You are more than welcome to comment my blank comment]
11. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 3:01 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    It was right in front of me all this time! Palm – forehead!

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Deputy Zullo’s first name is Mike. Just sayin’. Maybe this is one of Jerome “Jerry” Corsi’s famous traps???
12. Majority Will says:

    March 17, 2012 at 3:53 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    DivideByZero:
    [This comment is intentionally left blank.You are more than welcome to comment my blank comment]

    There is no spoon.
13. dunstvangeet says:

    March 17, 2012 at 4:47 am  dunstvangeet(Quote)

    Majority Will: There is no spoon.

    Only Zuul!
14. Majority Will says:

    March 17, 2012 at 5:08 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    dunstvangeet: Only Zuul!

    Interesting mashup.

    It’s a trap!
15. Adrien Nash says:

    March 17, 2012 at 6:26 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

    I have a question I challenge inquiring minds to answer; Was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 backed by any constitutional authority as was the 14th Amendment? Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything in relationship to citizenship other than to pass a Uniform Naturalization Act to deal with immigrants and their children? If “uniform” means what it means then the only authority Congress had was to find a way to obtain uniformity in the various criteria used by individual states for bestowing citizenship to immigrants and their children.
    The 14th Amendments speaks of being citizens of the state in which one was born, -indicating that citizenship was not strictly a federal matter when it came to immigrants and freed slaves, but was a state matter also. Clearly, in time the states ceded jurisdiction to Washington and the INS but was that by law or convenience?

    So again, did Congress legitimately have authority to arbitrarily declare criteria by which one is recognized as a citizen? Or was that an authority they usurped from the states? The 14th Amendment didn’t need constitutional authority because it was ratified by The People and didn’t rest solely on the limited authority of Congress.
    Question: where can one order a copy of their federal birth certificate? That’s right, they don’t exist and neither does any connection between birth certificates and presidential eligibility, -unless the certificate indicates that one doesn’t meet the qualifications to be President or it’s counterfeited?
16. Keith says:

    March 17, 2012 at 7:02 am  Keith(Quote)

    Adrien Nash: I have a question I challenge inquiring minds to answer; Was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 backed by any constitutional authority as was the 14th Amendment?

    Not really.

    CRA1866 was an attempt to override the SCOTUS decisions in Dred Scott and Barron v Baltimore.

    Realizing that a such an Act could not override a Supreme Court decision on Constitutional law, no matter how much in error it appeared to be, Congress sought to amend the Constitution. The 14th Amendment is the result, and CRA1866 is moot

    Adrien Nash: Question: where can one order a copy of their federal birth certificate? That’s right, they don’t exist

    What a silly question. There is no Constitutional mandate for the Federal Government to manage vital statistics so the 10th Amendment pretty much comes into play. There is no particular mandate for anyone to collect vital statistics, but these days all States do. Birth Certificates didn’t exist in the United States until sometime around 1900 or so if I recall correctly.

    and neither does any connection between birth certificates and presidential eligibility,

    Well, since birth certificates document the date and place of birth, they contain specific information that relates to two of the Constitutional eligibility requirements. Furthermore, since they are “public records” of the States, and since Congress has, by general laws, prescribed the manner in which such records shall “be proved”, Article IV section 1 of the Constitution mandates that all States and by extension, the Federal Government, must give full faith and credit to that record.

    Therefore, the Birth Certificate does have a very definite connection to Presidential eligibility.

    -unless the certificate indicates that one doesn’t meet the qualifications to be President or it’s counterfeited?

    Are you saying that if a Birth Certificate shows a person is ineligible, it is OK, but if it shows a person is eligible, that it is, by definition, a counterfeit?

    Most of what you say is just wrong, but I wouldn’t have thought that you were as totally unthinkingly dense as that comment implies.
17. Northland10 says:

    March 17, 2012 at 7:08 am  Northland10(Quote)

    Adrien Nash: I have a question I challenge inquiring minds to answer; Was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 backed by any constitutional authority as was the 14th Amendment? Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything in relationship to citizenship other than to pass a Uniform Naturalization Act to deal with immigrants and their children?

    Quite simple.. The 14th Amendment was created, in part, for just such a reason. As best as I can tell, there was concern the Supreme Court could declare the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional so they fixed the flaw by incorporating it into the Constitution. Now, this amendment was not making new citizens but stating who had already been a citizen. If it was making new citizens, the former slave Congressmen and Senators would not have been citizens long enough, especially in the states they were representing (i.e. southern).

    There is no need for a federal birth certificate since, by way of the 14th amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, a person born (and thus a citizen) of one state is automatically a US Citizen. Thus, in 1869, a black male born to former slaves in Illinois would be a US citizen and entitled to all of the rights of a US citizen in South Carolina.

    It is naturally that simple.
18. Paul Pieniezny says:

    March 17, 2012 at 7:09 am  Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

    Adrien Nash: Question: where can one order a copy of their federal birth certificate? That’s right, they don’t exist

    You do not get it. There never was a need for federal birth certificates, because of article 4, section 1, of the Constitution: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. By the way, you are NOT going to get out of your problem by saying since the 14th amendment was illegally ratified blah blah blah, because that same clause was in the Articles of Confederation.

    While the FFC clause does NOT force a state to execute the judgements of other states jurisdiction it deems unjust or incorrect because of its own public policy, there is no doubt that (birth) certificates MUST be accepted.

    There are federal rules to ensure birth certificates meet some standards.

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

    Note the controversy over adoptions by gay couples. While states have to accept adoption certificates from other states, it is not clear wheteher they can be forced to change the birth certificates of the adopted children, if their public policy is not to accept same-sex marriages.

    So, there are no federal BCs, because there is no need for them.

    Oh, and a little logic here: no administration can counterfeit their own official documents. That is why birfery is full of horse manure.
19. ballantine says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:04 am  ballantine(Quote)

    Adrien Nash:
    I have a question I challenge inquiring minds to answer; Was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 backed by any constitutional authority as was the 14th Amendment?Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything in relationship to citizenship other than to pass a Uniform Naturalization Act to deal with immigrants and their children?If “uniform” means what it means then the only authority Congress had was to find a way to obtain uniformity in the various criteria used by individual states for bestowing citizenship to immigrants and their children.The 14th Amendments speaks of being citizens of the state in which one was born, -indicating that citizenship was not strictly a federal matter when it came to immigrants and freed slaves, but was a state matter also.Clearly, in time the states ceded jurisdiction to Washington and the INS but was that by law or convenience?

    So again, did Congress legitimately have authority to arbitrarily declare criteria by which one is recognized as a citizen?Or was that an authority they usurped from the states?The 14th Amendment didn’t need constitutional authority because it was ratified by The People and didn’t rest solely on the limited authority of Congress. Question:where can one order a copy of their federal birth certificate?That’s right, they don’t exist and neither does any connection between birth certificates and presidential eligibility, -unless the certificate indicates that one doesn’t meet the qualifications to be President or it’s counterfeited?

    You should really try to study history. There were numerous members of the 39th Congress that thought they didn’t have the authority to make native born blacks citizens by statute as the supreme court had said that only the foreign born can be naturalized. There was debate on this but the final consenus was that the Act was simply declaratory of the common law rule that was already incorporated into the original Constitution. Some members insisted an Amendment was needed which, of course, came to pass. In US v. Rhodes, Justice Swayne agreed that Congress could not naturalize native born blacks as naturalization only applied to the foreign born. Swayne didicated the law was declaratory of the common law but was neverless permitted under the 13th Amendment’s enforcement clause. There were some members of Congress that thought states should control citizenship, but they obviously lost the debate as both the Civil Rights Act and the Amendment embraced the idea of a federal citizenship that has nothing to do with state citizenship. And, of course, numerous members of such Congress said natural and universal law made citizens of anyone born in a country.
20. Scientist says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:22 am  Scientist(Quote)

    ballantine: There were numerous members of the 39th Congress that thought they didn’t have the authority to make native born blacks citizens by statute as the supreme court had said that only the foreign born can be naturalized

    That would be an interesting challenge for Mr Nash. Over the entire history of the United States there have been many millions of children born in the US to one or more non-citizen parent. Where are the naturalization records for them? Can Mr Nash cite any cases of people born in the US who naturalized (barring a few children of diplomats)?

    It’s amazing the gyrations these birther types go through when there is an election coming in a few months anyway. They must really think Obama has been a terrific President, since they seem to believe that they can’t beat him on the issues. I’m sure that he takes the continued existence of birtherism as a tribute to his record and thanks the birthers for their support.

    By the way, Mr Nash, I notice that you do include citations in your posts and I commend you for that. Unfortunately, all of them are to yourself. It’s a quaint custom, perhaps, but it’s generaly considered good form to cite the work of others.
21. RuhRoh says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:41 am  RuhRoh(Quote)

    J. Potter: I’ve always wanted to know how the basic presumption of the Oath Keepers, an expectation that the issuance of illegal orders is a question of when not if, squares with the Oath of Enlistment:

    I’m not surprised that Al is caught up in this nonsense as Arpaio, new Birther hero, is up to his eyeballs in it. Arpaio co-founded the Constitutional Sherriffs and Peace Officers Association with Richard Mack. The CSPOA works hand in glove with the Oath Keepers, and, as you pointed out, both of these organizations are tied to SovCit beliefs.

    The so-called Constitutionalists’ ignorance of the document continues to amaze the sane.
22. Paper says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:04 am  Paper(Quote)

    Of course a birth certificate is not necessary to be president. Just think of those presidents born without birth certificates, particularly before bc’s existed. I seem to remember Birthers being the ones demanding to see the President’s birth certificate, particularly his LFBC. Glad to see someone from that camp recognizing there’s no connection (requirement) for bc’s to be eligible for president.

    The “unless” part of your rumination is mere truism. Newspaper announcements have no connection/applicability unless they indicate a reason why someone would be disqualified. Baptismal records, as well. Testimony of others, too. There is no stated specific requirement of proof for presidential eligibility in the constitution. But if anything provided a real reason a person is ineligible, it would be of note for that final arbiter of eligibility, Congress. Interesting how Congress certified Obama as president, then.

    The Birthers I know don’t accept that a bc is not required (nevermind that they don’t seem concerned that Ron Paul et al haven’t provided theirs), and they keep insisting a bc is required, so again glad to see someone recognize that’s incorrect.

    [On a side note, why does the iPad insist on capitalizing Birthers?]

    Adrien Nash:
    … neither does any connection between birth certificates and presidential eligibility, -unless the certificate indicates that one doesn’t meet the qualifications to be President or it’s counterfeited?
23. Thomas Brown says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:23 am  Thomas Brown(Quote)

    Upon further reading, I now believe that the only solution to the Oath Keepers phenomenon will be when loyal patriots (police or active military, not vigilantes) are forced, in self-defence and under color of law, to put them 6 feet under. America should not coddle traitors. And refusing to accept the jurisdiction of their homeland, dereliction of duty, and taking up arms against her lawful rule, is treason. They are nothing but despicable vermin and should be treated like vermin.
24. Paper says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:24 am  Paper(Quote)

    I keep waiting for my birthers to adopt two-citizen-parent birtherism, but they don’t, not yet, and I should be grateful I suppose (for small favors) that they just think President Obama was born in Kenya, birth certicate PDF forged, AND that fake birth records were planted in Hawaii. They at least fully embrace the big conspiracy explanation: New World Order pawn put in place and threatened with exposure to keep him in place. I mean they think Bush was part of the same conspiracy (truther/birther hybrids). Romney, too. Everyone but Ron Paul, apparently.
25. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:25 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I’ve been spending more time thinking about the capitalization of “Birther” than the question deserves. I pretty much capitalize it, but I’m about to decide that they don’t deserve the extra keystroke.

    Paper: [On a side note, why does the iPad insist on capitalizing Birthers?]
26. Paper says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:39 am  Paper(Quote)

    With all your government connections as an Obot operative, can you get Apple to cease and desist while you’re at it?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve been spending more time thinking about the capitalization of “Birther” than the question deserves. I pretty much capitalize it, but I’m about to decide that they don’t deserve theextra keystroke.
27. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:40 am  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Arizona is once again in the news with a new proposal being made in the in the Secretary of State Office to have presidential candidates swear they are eligible to be Constitutionally qualified as natural born citizens per Article II Sec. 1 requirements of the Constitution.

    “PHOENIX – Arizona officials have jumped back into the debunked birther controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility to hold office, endorsing a proposal that requires presidential candidates to swear that they meet the qualifications of the nation’s highest office.

    A legislative committee on Wednesday endorsed the proposal and the Arizona secretary of state is expected in the coming days to call for candidates to complete a new form asking eligibility questions, including whether they are natural-born U.S. citizens.”

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/15/ariz-officials-revisit-obamas-birth-certificate/?test=latestnews

    And so it begins, it will be a rough and bumpy ride for all as we move towards November.
28. Loren says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:52 am  Loren(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve been spending more time thinking about the capitalization of “Birther” than the question deserves. I pretty much capitalize it, but I’m about to decide that they don’t deserve theextra keystroke.

    FWIW, the same issue continues to plague the word ‘Truther’. Kay capitalized it in his book, and many others use a capital T (it’s what I usually do), but equally as many seem to spell it with a lower-case t.
29. richCares says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:57 am  richCares(Quote)

    On March 1st birthers were so excited, white spots formed on their bathroom walls, frog pricing hit the roof, what a great time it was, birthers Heaven. Here it is 17 days later and diddley squat effect, nada, zilch. Another OMG moment hits the trash can of silly ideas. All birthers are scrambling to find their next OMG moment, maybe Orly will help them, she inserted Sheriff Joes video in her Mississippi ballot challenge case. We’ll have to take out the trash again.
    (edited B to b)
30. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:01 am  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Plenty of ammunition in this video for abuse being heaped upon birthers, however it is a great anthology and synopsis on how this whole issue has transpired; agree or disagree it is why many still have lingering doubts. I had forgotten Hillary’s contribution to this controversy as one of the original Birthers, now she just looks complicit, oh well that’s politics, isn’t it.

    Link to video;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qArOArGs5dI
31. Majority Will says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:07 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    Paper:
    With all your government connections as an Obot operative, can you get Apple to cease and desist while you’re at it?

    iDon’t see a problem.
32. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:10 am  Al Halbert(Quote)

    richCares:
    On March 1st birthers were so excited, white spots formed on their bathroom walls, frog pricing hit the roof, what a great time it was, birthers Heaven. Here it is 17 days later and diddley squat effect, nada, zilch. Another OMG moment hits the trash can of silly ideas. All birthers are scrambling to find their next OMG moment, maybe Orly will help them, she inserted Sheriff Joes video in herMississippi ballot challenge case. We’ll have to take out the trash again.
    (edited B to b)

    This site has captured all the efforts being made to keep this issue going, they keep a running tabulation on the various stories by news agencies and efforts to keep the issue alive by bloggers, pundits and commentators. It’s not for faint of heart as it is the “Obama-Fraud Archives.” It is filled with the Good, Bad and Ugly pro and con, though gives the full depth on this issue that refuses to die.

    http://www.carlgallups.com/obama.html
33. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:11 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    That video is a hoot. “I remember the secret meeting Obama had with 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices.” How was it a secret meeting when it was in the newspapers? And saying that Hillary Clinton was the “first birther” is a lie too.

    So “birthers are liars”, and you now have proof of abuse being heaped on them — well-deserved abuse.

    Al Halbert: Plenty of ammunition in this video for abuse being heaped upon birthers,
34. Bob says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:18 am  Bob(Quote)

    Birthers seem to think that YouTube is a credible news source now. The guy sitting to Orly’s right at the Georgia hearing (during the break) said something like “All the proof you need can be found on YouTube.”
35. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:26 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Just look at the list of radio interviewees he lists on that page: all birthers. The guy is a liar, plain and simple. Anybody who believes him is [Violation of site policy against personal attacks deleted. Doc].

    Al Halbert: This site has captured all the efforts being made to keep this issue going, they keep a running tabulation on the various stories by news agencies and efforts to keep the issue alive by bloggers, pundits and commentators. It’s not for faint of heart as it is the “Obama-Fraud Archives.” It is filled with the Good, Bad and Ugly pro and con, though gives the full depth on this issue that refuses to die.

    http://www.carlgallups.com/obama.html
36. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:27 am  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That video is a hoot. “I remember the secret meeting Obama had with 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices.” How was it a secret meeting when it was in the newspapers? And saying that Hillary Clinton was the “first birther” is a lie too.

    So “birthers are liars”, and you now have proof of abuse being heaped on them — well-deserved abuse.

    Maybe so, however the first real Birther was a Democrat, Philip J. Berg and staunch Hillary supporter that brought suit in federal court. So this phenomenon crosses political lines. I also remember noise from the Hillary Campaign during the primary fight between her and Obama, they kissed and made up as she walked away with the Secretary of State job, to give herself foreign policy cred for a possible future presidential run? However the fact remains that much of the original controversy did in fact come from Hillary supporters, it was anything but peaceful in the Democrats henhouse during the 2008 primaries.

    Link on Berg;
    http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/lawyer-of-the-day-philip-berg/
37. Scientist says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:28 am  Scientist(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: And saying that Hillary Clinton was the “first birther” is a lie too.

    Hillary’s opposition research people looked into the rumors that Obama was born in Kenya, as did the Republicans. They found there was nothing to them and moved on, as professionals do. Only amateurs like Corsi, Zullo and Arpaio are unable to accept facts. .

    There is no tie whatsoever between the birthers and Hillary. Phil Berg never had any position with her campaign. He is simply someone that voted for her in the primaries, rather than Obama, along with 17 million other people.
38. Thomas Brown says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:29 am  Thomas Brown(Quote)

    Bob:
    Birthers seem to think that YouTube is a credible news source now.The guy sitting to Orly’s right at the Georgia hearing (during the break) said something like “All the proof you need can be found on YouTube.”

    They should be reminded of what the great vaudeville-era stage magicians were able to convince people they were seeing “before their very eyes” without so much as a projector, much less video-editing equipment.
39. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:31 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    It might be a good time to refer back to the New York Times special piece on the psychology of the birthers, published in April of 2011.

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/21/barack-obama-and-the-psychology-of-the-birther-myth
40. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:45 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I wouldn’t agree that Berg was the first real birther. His lawsuit against Obama was pretty much all stuff he found on the Internet. His importance was as a publicist through his lawsuit (and of course the “grandmother tape” was released through him). Mara Zebest, the cold-case-posse graphics “expert” was a Clinton supporter who was writing nasty things about Obama on the Internet in mid 2008 is another example.

    However, Clinton supporter/birthers like TexasDarlin basically quit being birthers when confronted with evidence (in this case the Honolulu newspaper birth announcements).

    But your point is right about birtherism crossing political lines. The vast majority of birthers are conservative, but not 100% Some Clinton supporters were early birthers, but that video out an out lies when it calls Clinton herself “the first birther.” She NEVER expressed so much as a hint of doubt about Obama’s eligibility.

    Al Halbert: Maybe so, however the first real Birther was a Democrat, Philip J. Berg and staunch Hillary supporter that brought suit in federal court. So this phenomenon crosses political lines
41. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:45 am  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

    Bob:
    Birthers seem to think that YouTube is a credible news source now.The guy sitting to Orly’s right at the Georgia hearing (during the break) said something like “All the proof you need can be found on YouTube.”

    You mean youtube isn’t??? Well then how does that affect this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AQwolz6c50

    Because I would sure like to know what law we are REALLY under and not come up an inch short or something.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
42. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:48 am  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That video is a hoot. “I remember the secret meeting Obama had with 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices.” How was it a secret meeting when it was in the newspapers? And saying that Hillary Clinton was the “first birther” is a lie too.

    So “birthers are liars”, and you now have proof of abuse being heaped on them — well-deserved abuse.

    President-Elect Obama and Biden according to CBS News did in fact meet with SCOTUS;

    “President-elect Barack Obama will visit the Supreme Court tomorrow, according to his transition office, reports CBS News correspondent Steve Chaggaris.

    At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503703_162-4720001.html

    The secret part was due to no press not being present and nothing was revealed as to their 45 minute discussion, a stretch though not unprecedented to their meeting. Clinton and Gore had a similar meeting in 1992, however the difference was that there was no issues pending review by the Court for their eligibility like Obama.

    However some questioned this action as there were cases pending review by the Court as to Obama’s eligibility question was before SCOTUS, some plaintiffs were rightfully or wrongly concerned as it could be taken as possible ex-parte communication.

    Not unlike Kagan who has not recused herself from the Obama Care case being heard on the 26th, 27th and 28th of this month, she was after all the Solicitor General of the United States before seated on the bench as an Associate Justice. Questions linger when their is possible doubt on the integrity of our system and always will.
43. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:48 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Doesn’t it bother you , even just a little bit, that sources you quote are lying? Doesn’t it bother you that people are lying TO YOU? Does the concept of “untrustworthy” enter into where you get the facts that form your opinions?

    Al Halbert: Maybe so,
44. Jim says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:49 am  Jim(Quote)

    Al Halbert: This site has captured all the efforts being made to keep this issue going, they keep a running tabulation on the various stories by news agencies and efforts to keep the issue alive by bloggers, pundits and commentators.It’s not for faint of heart as it is the “Obama-Fraud Archives.”It is filled with the Good, Bad and Ugly pro and con, though gives the full depth on this issue that refuses to die.

    http://www.carlgallups.com/obama.html

    It’s not really a case of the issue refusing to die, it’s dead. It’s more a case of how much more money WND, Orly, et al. can get the suckers to keep on giving. As you can see, the courts, congress, and the American people don’t really see a problem…just a few folks who dislike Obama. The rest of the country just sees it as entertainment.
45. Majority Will says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:54 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    Al Halbert: This site has captured all the efforts

    Does Carl not understand “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”?

    There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

    Proverbs 6:16–19
46. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:55 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    WorldNetDaily reported that Kagan, as Solicitor General, defended Obama on eligibility cases and should recuse herself on the Supreme Court rulings on the subject. It is one of the few lies that WND actually admitted and corrected.

    Al Halbert: Not unlike Kagan who has not recused herself from the Obama Care case being heard on the 26th, 27th and 28th of this month, she was after all the Solicitor General of the United States before seated on the bench as an Associate Justice. Questions linger when their is possible doubt on the integrity of our system and always will.
47. Bob says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:57 am  Bob(Quote)

    I doubt Al Halbert cares that his sources are incredibly silly if not blatant liars. Most Birthers don’t REALLY believe that Obama isn’t eligible. They’re just pretending. It’s play acting. They pretend they are private detectives and go on YouTube to do their “research” and lo-and-behold find “evidence” that Obama isn’t eligible. It makes them feel good for a few moments.
48. Scientist says:

    March 17, 2012 at 11:06 am  Scientist(Quote)

    Al Halbert: Not unlike Kagan who has not recused herself from the Obama Care case being heard on the 26th, 27th and 28th of this month, she was after all the Solicitor General of the United States before seated on the bench as an Associate Justice. Questions linger when their is possible doubt on the integrity of our system and always will

    She did not participate in any cases involving the ACA as Solicitor General. The idea that a Supreme Court Justice has to recuse themselves from any case that somehow iimpacts the President who appointed them is ludicrous and not all in line with the historical record.

    Obama’s meeting with the Court was traditional for incoming Presidents. The “matters before the court” were absurd ab initio. End of story.
49. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 11:21 am  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Doesn’t it bother you , even just a little bit, that sources you quote are lying? Doesn’t it bother you that people are lying TO YOU? Does the concept of “untrustworthy” enter into where you get the facts that form your opinions?

    Doc.

    Let me be frank, you say tomato, I say to-mato; I want the truth to be made known. We do this in this Nation by essentially two means. One is that the Media investigates the issue and lays it out to the American people, Watergate comes to mind as a seminal moment in history. The other is official means with Congressional Hearings and the use of the Courts. You believe what you believe and all I want is a complete airing of the FACTS by both methods, let the chips fall where they may.

    I do not trust politicians whether they are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists or Independents. As a general rule they will lie when the truth would sound better. So until the FACTS are no longer in dispute by using both methods I do not know who is telling the truth!

    Too many questions remain, a complicit media and administration that massage the economic numbers or eliminates the reporting of statistics for independent verification by the public. A legislature that has not produced an approved budget for 1000 plus days and is spending us into bankruptcy with continuing resolutions.

    A president that refuses to work with the House of Representatives and has stated so in his last SOTU address. Summary execution of American citizens by Secret Panels without 5th Amendment Due Process of Law guarantees, not to mention the abolishing of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus with the last NDAA, both Constitutional guarantees.

    I am deeply concerned that we are passing from a Nation that has been a champion of the Rule of Law to one of Rule of Man, which will bring about the destruction of the republic. So I do not know who or what to believe; as I would have never believed that these things could come to pass in this Nation, you are free to believe whatever you wish, as I am. I question any statements from our government and politicians, as it is my duty as a Citizen to ascertain the kernel of any issue, before deciding the matter. When someone stonewalls, well I am naturally curious as to why!
50. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 11:35 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I didn’t ask you about things that are open to dispute. I am talking about things that part of the public record. The Senate did not hold hearings on John McCain’s eligibility. Hillary Clinton was never a birther. The video lies about several historical facts. If you are going to tolerate things like this, then you might as well forget any claim to be searching for truth because if your history is fake, your conclusions will be too.

    Or put another way, if you don’t care a rats ass for the truth in the sources you cite, then don’t come here and pretend that you are after truth. You forfeited any right to such a claim.

    Al Halbert: Let me be frank, you say tomato, I say to-mato; … So until the FACTS are no longer in dispute by using both methods I do not know who is telling the truth!
51. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:26 pm  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I didn’t ask you about things that are open to dispute. I am talking about things that part of the public record. The Senate did not hold hearings on John McCain’s eligibility. Hillary Clinton was never a birther. The video lies about several historical facts. If you are going to tolerate things like this, then you might as well forget any claim to be searching for truth because if your history is fake, your conclusions will be too.

    Or put another way, if you don’t care a rats ass for the truth in the sources you cite, then don’t come here and pretend that you are after truth. You forfeited any right to such a claim.

    If it makes you feel better just chalk it up to all the above; I fail to see that you have a monopoly on truth then dismiss my concerns out of hand, that is just disingenuous. All that I talked about above is FACT, the Congress has spent without budgets, public record as well as the NDAA, Secret Panels, all FACTS and in the Public Record! Please don’t try to buffalo me into a corner with a straw man argument, then deny me my right to dissent.

    I only showed the video as an illustration on why this debate is not settled, when the press and others will not open debate on these many FACTS that are in the Public Record, it is my opinion our nation is on the wrong tack you are free to to disagree, however to declare I HAVE no right to seek what I find is the truth to these matters and FACTS is interesting. Then you would just as stridently deny my right to the 1st Amendment rights in a heartbeat, just as many others have done when a peon says something they do not like.

    Yesterday I cited Federal Statues and asked the question why no one is investigating this matter, as either Obama’s LFBC is a fake or it is not, if it is then someone has violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. If Arpio manufactured and fabricated evidence then they have violated Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141, and misused their LEO duties under the Color of Law.

    So the question remains why is the MEDIA not going after someone this should be RED Meat for them, it was certainly the case for Nixon and Watergate, has the Nation changed so much that we are no longer interested in how our government operates and they are free to do as they please? You are free to do so, and believe what you wish, your mind is made up. I refuse to accept such degradation of my Constitutional rights and government shenanigans (wanted to use an Irish word for my Grandfather as it is St. Patrick’s day).

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

    http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html

    And like everything else the origin of the word shenanigan is open to dispute as well, however I like the argument for the Irish origin.

    http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-she1.htm
52. gorefan says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:27 pm  gorefan(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mara Zebest, the cold-case-posse graphics “expert” was a Clinton supporter who was writing nasty things about Obama on the Internet in mid 2008 is another example.

    The best one is,

    #424 mzebest on 07.25.08 at 5:16 pm
    #396 Firebelle Puma

    LOL! It’s what I live for… my goal to make him a mockery of the very crowd he seeks for adulation.

    http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/07/25/cupcake-or-turnips/

    So her entire “expert” report could be just another attempt to make a mockery of President Obama.
53. Lupin says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:34 pm  Lupin(Quote)

    Another piece of evidence:

    http://www.thegrio.com/politics/picture-of-anti–obama-campaign-bumper-sticker-goes-viral.php
54. richCares says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm  richCares(Quote)

    “pretend that you are after truth”
    Spouting right wing talking points in a disjointed and dishonest way is not seeking the truth now is it?
55. Lupin says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:44 pm  Lupin(Quote)

    Al Halbert: Doc.

    Let me be frank, you say tomato, I say to-mato; I want the truth to be made known.We do this in this Nation by essentially two means.One is that the Media investigates the issue and lays it out to the American people, Watergate comes to mind as a seminal moment in history.The other is official means with Congressional Hearings and the use of the Courts.You believe what you believe and all I want is a complete airing of the FACTS by both methods, let the chips fall where they may.

    I do not trust politicians whether they are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists or Independents.As a general rule they will lie when the truth would sound better.So until the FACTS are no longer in dispute by using both methods I do not know who is telling the truth!

    Too many questions remain, a complicit media and administration that massage the economic numbers or eliminates the reporting of statistics for independent verification by the public.A legislature that has not produced an approved budget for 1000 plus days and is spending us into bankruptcy with continuing resolutions.

    A president that refuses to work with the House of Representatives and has stated so in his last SOTU address.Summary execution of American citizens by Secret Panels without 5th Amendment Due Process of Law guarantees, not to mention the abolishing of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus with the last NDAA, both Constitutional guarantees.

    I am deeply concerned that we are passing from a Nation that has been a champion of the Rule of Law to one of Rule of Man, which will bring about the destruction of the republic.So I do not know who or what to believe; as I would have never believed that these things could come to pass in this Nation, you are free to believe whatever you wish, as I am.I question any statements from our government and politicians, as it is my duty as a Citizen to ascertain the kernel of any issue, before deciding the matter.When someone stonewalls, well I am naturally curious as to why!

    To put it bluntly: I don’t believe you. I think you’re a liar doing concern trolling.

    Your objection to Obama has nothing to do with any of the above; it has to do either with his race, or because you’re so blindly loyal to your “tribe” of right-wing lunatics that anyone from another tribe is automatically perceived as the enemy, even when they do exactly the same thing than a member of your own tribe, or are clearly innocent of what they;re accused.

    If you’d like to disprove me, in which case I will humbly apologize publicly here, please direct me to any public postings by you on a yahoo list, a forum, etc. made during the 8 years of the Bush Administration in which you publicly opposed any of their nefarious, anti constitutional, corrupt, country-bankrupting policies.

    If you can show me proof of your principled opposition to them for the same reasons you outlined above, then I will declare you a man of integrity and principles and will apologize most sincerely.

    If not, I will proclaim you’re a racist, a bigot and a hypocrite.

    I can think of many posters of the notorious right-wing-but-principled LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS blog, for instance, who would pass that test with flying colors. It’s just that in your case, I don’t believe you. But perhaps I’m wrong.

    Your call.
56. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:47 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    This is the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog, not the Obama ignores the Constitution blog. Your other concerns are not appropriate for discussion here.

    As just one individual, I don’t have the resources to handle a general discussion web site and so I have tried from the beginning to narrow the scope of the issues I write about and the issues discussed.

    I’m sure there are plenty of web sites where you can rant about whatever you want to your heart’s content. This is not one of them.

    Al Halbert: If it makes you feel better just chalk it up to all the above; I fail to see that you have a monopoly on truth then dismiss my concerns out of hand, that is just disingenuous. All that I talked about above is FACT, the Congress has spent without budgets, public record as well as the NDAA, Secret Panels, all FACTS and in the Public Record! Please don’t try to buffalo me into a corner with a straw man argument, then deny me my right to dissent.
57. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:57 pm  Al Halbert(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    This is the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog, not the Obama ignores the Constitution blog. Your other concerns are not appropriate for discussion here.

    As just one individual, I don’t have the resources to handle a general discussion web site and so I have tried from the beginning to narrow the scope of the issues I write about and the issues discussed.

    I’m sure there are plenty of web sites where you can rant about whatever you want to your heart’s content. This is not one of them.

    Al Halbert: If it makes you feel better just chalk it up to all the above; I fail to see that you have a monopoly on truth then dismiss my concerns out of hand, that is just disingenuous. All that I talked about above is FACT, the Congress has spent without budgets, public record as well as the NDAA, Secret Panels, all FACTS and in the Public Record! Please don’t try to buffalo me into a corner with a straw man argument, then deny me my right to dissent.

    All of my posts this morning were completely on topic until you asked me about;

    “Doesn’t it bother you , even just a little bit, that sources you quote are lying? Doesn’t it bother you that people are lying TO YOU? Does the concept of “untrustworthy” enter into where you get the facts that form your opinions?”

    You asked I simply answered!
58. sfjeff says:

    March 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm  sfjeff(Quote)

    So after Doc points out that the Youtube Video that Al so proudly asks us to review contains several blatant lies and challenges Al as to whether he cares about the lies….

    Al spouts off about all of his complaints about the President.

    Al- do you care or not that what you posted here was full of lies?

    Simple question.

    Before you go off on everything else you object to- do you care about the lies you posted here?
59. Al Halbert says:

    March 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm  Al Halbert(Quote)

    sfjeff:
    So after Doc points out that the Youtube Video that Al so proudly asks us to review contains several blatant lies and challenges Al as to whether he cares about the lies….

    Al spouts off about all of his complaints about the President.

    Al- do you care or not that what you posted here was full of lies?

    Simple question.

    Before you go off on everything else you object to- do you care about the lies you posted here?

    In the grand scheme of things one man’s ceiling can be another mans floor.
60. Majority Will says:

    March 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

    Al Halbert: You asked I simply answered!

    No, you didn’t. You bluster and dance badly and flail but you didn’t “simply answer”.
61. Rickey says:

    March 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    Al Halbert:

    The secret part was due to no press not being present and nothing was revealed as to their 45 minute discussion, a stretch though not unprecedented to their meeting.Clinton and Gore had a similar meeting in 1992, however the difference was that there was no issues pending review by the Court for their eligibility like Obama.

    However some questioned this action as there were cases pending review by the Court as to Obama’s eligibility question was before SCOTUS, some plaintiffs were rightfully or wrongly concerned as it could be taken as possible ex-parte communication.

    The meeting took place on January 14, 2009. All of the “pending” eligibility cases before SCOTUS had already either actually or effectively been denied BEFORE the meeting took place.

    To understand this, you have to know how SCOTUS functions. A petition is filed with the court. In the vast majority of cases, the initial petition is denied by a single Justice. The applicant can then re-file. A re-filed application automatically is referred to the full court. At this point the Respondent is given an opportunity to file a response. The Respondent typically will waive its right to file a response if it feels that the petition has no merit. At that point, if a single Justice is interested in hearing the case, he or she will call for a response from the Respondent. If no Justice is interested, there is no call for a response. The case will still be distributed for a conference, but in effect the petition has already been denied.

    Now let’s look at the eligibility cases which were filed with SCOTUS prior to the inauguration.

    1. Donofrio v. Wells was filed on 11/3/08. There was no response from Wells, and no response was called for. The petition was distributed for a conference on 12/5/08 and was denied on 12/8/08, more than a month before the meeting.

    2. Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz was filed on 11/25/08. There was no response and none was called for. It was distributed for conference on 12/8/08 and was denied on 12/15/08, a month before the meeting.

    3. Berg v. Obama was filed on 10/30/08. Berg actually made two initial filings, a petition for a writ of certiorari and an application for an injunction. He then filed a second application for an injunction on 12/8/08. The respondents waived their right to respond, and not a single Justice called for a response. The original petition and application were distributed for conference on 1/9/09 and they were denied on 1/12/09, two days BEFORE the meeting with Obama and Biden. Berg’s second application was distributed for a conference on 1/16/09, but that was a mere formality because the underlying petition had already been denied, making the second application moot.

    4. Lightfoot v. Bowen was Orly’s case, filed on 12/8/08. The respondents did not file a response and no response was called for. On 1/7/09 the application was distributed for a conference to be held on 1/23/09. While that conference took place after the 1/14/09 meeting, the application had effectively been decided on 1/7/09 when it was distributed without a single Justice calling for a response. In any event, this was merely an application for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, a petition which Orly never filed.

    As you can see, there were no eligibility cases actually pending before SCOTUS when Obama and Biden met with the eight Justices.

    You’re welcome.
62. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    No, you changed the subject. I don’t see where you ever answer the question whether it bothers you that you rely on sources that lie.

    say

    No, as long as they say other things I like, it doesn’t bother me that they lie.
    or
    Yes, it bothers me that they lie, but I trust them on everything else
    or
    Yes, it bothers me that they lie and it hurts their credibility on other things and I should be really careful about stuff they say.

    The Internet is full of voices vying for attention. Since you have no reputation for accuracy or integrity, I have no reason to spend any effort following up on any off-topic claim you make. You are a banging screen door or a weed in the neighbor’s yard as far as your value as an information source.

    Al Halbert: You asked I simply answered!
63. Northland10 says:

    March 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    Al and many other Birthers have displayed such hatred for the President, beyond just eligibility issues, that they so easily accept anything that plays into that hatred. They really do make themselves a giant billboard of a target for every grifter or con man looking for an angle to play the gullible. It is really quite sad. They end up being just an object to be used by some con.

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, you changed the subject. I don’t see where you ever answer the question whether it bothers you that you rely on sources that lie.
64. nbc says:

    March 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm  nbc(Quote)

    Al Halbert: I only showed the video as an illustration on why this debate is not settled, when the press and others will not open debate on these many FACTS that are in the Public Record, it is my opinion our nation is on the wrong tack you are free to to disagree,

    The problem is that you let your dislikes for Obama’s policies, or at least your perception of them, cause you to adopt lies about him, his birth certificate.

    Such an abandonment of responsibility, morality and logic inevitably points to but a single source for evil.

    Does it not bother you that you are doing its biddings?
65. Reality Check says:

    March 17, 2012 at 3:15 pm  Reality Check(Quote)

    It is extremely likely that not one of these cases actually made it through review by the pool of clerks that filters the cases. It would be a good bet that not one justice ever read a word of these nonsense filings.

    Rickey: As you can see, there were no eligibility cases actually pending before SCOTUS when Obama and Biden met with the eight Justices.
66. CarlOrcas says:

    March 17, 2012 at 3:42 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

    Al Halbert: In the grand scheme of things one man’s ceiling can be another mans floor.

    In other words…..you are willing to stake your reputation on another man’s lies. Sad.
67. Thrifty says:

    March 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

    I never could muster up the dislike for Bush that my liberal friends did. But then, ideologically, I’m not a liberal. I consider myself more of a moderate Democrat. Conservatives at their worst are like Al Halbert; hateful and willfully ignorant, and often bigoted. Liberals at their worst I usually find to be at least better informed, but I find them to be melodramatic, overly sensitive, and humorless. I used to follow the comments on a liberal blog, and the regulars would chew you out if you used words like “crazy” or “retarded” to describe a person or an idea. I don’t find much of that bad liberal behavior here, but maybe that’s because we don’t discuss politics.

    I’m probably more of a fiscal conservative, but I’m not sure. Being too hardline about it would be hypocritical, because my sole source of income right now is unemployment compensation. I could never understand the seething, roiling hatred for the poor that conservative hardliners seem to have. Yet I worry about the climbing national debt and worry about America ending up like Greece, and that’s why I part with liberals.

    Obama I like because he seems like the kind of guy who came from humble beginnings, worked his butt off and is earnestly trying to use government to do what he thinks is best for the poor and middle class. Bush seemed like one of those “caretaker” presidents; the kind who never did anything remarkable and was just kind of there for 8 years. He’s like Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, or John Tyler. I wonder if in 100 or 200 years, people will say “George W. Bush? He was president?” But maybe not. I’ll be dead too soon to know.
68. nbc says:

    March 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm  nbc(Quote)

    The main difference I see between liberals and republicans is that liberals tend to want to extend the same laws, benefits to all, while the republicans are intent on taking away rights, benefits from specific groups of people.

    One is inclusive in nature, the other one exclusive.

    High level generalization which helps understand why Republicans want to prevent people from voting as an informed voter is not in their interest.
69. Rickey says:

    March 17, 2012 at 5:30 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    Reality Check:
    It is extremely likely that not one of these cases actually made it through review by the pool of clerks that filters the cases. It would be a good bet that not one justice ever read a word of these nonsense filings.

    No doubt you are correct about that.

    I recall that many birthers believed that all cases are actually discussed in conference. I once calculated that if every case in a given week were discussed, the Justices would have an average of only three minutes for each case, and that is assuming that they worked for eight hours straight without a break.
70. Thrifty says:

    March 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

    Thing is, to become an informed voter, you have to want the information. You have to be interested enough in the issues to go out and pursue knowledge of them. Then you add in the constant pressure to vote. Most people I know aren’t interested in politics. So now they have two choices.

    1) Be an uninformed voter or worse…
    2) Don’t vote.

    Politicians try to make understanding of the issues accessible to these less interested swing voters with advertisements, but are criticized for doing so.

    And I don’t agree with your criticism that Republicans try to restrict information to stop people from being informed voters.

    nbc: High level generalization which helps understand why Republicans want to prevent people from voting as an informed voter is not in their interest.
71. Northland10 says:

    March 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    Thrifty: Conservatives at their worst are like Al Halbert; hateful and willfully ignorant, and often bigoted.

    I am at a point where I have difficulty calling those like Al Halbert conservatives. Maybe I have met to many conservatives who display the values they espouse such as honor, responsibility, honesty and caring. There are many in the current crop, of which Birthers display the worst traits, who see conservative as a term to be tossed about, much like their use of liberal, socialist, etc. as an insult to be used on those you disagree. To them, their goal is not true conservative values but a will to power. Their singular focus is not to build the nation but to rule the nation.

    I suspect there are many who strenuously disagreed with Reagan but could well admit that some of what we see is not what Reagan wanted.
72. G says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm  G(Quote)

    I second that.

    Al has already revealed through his prior posts that he’s not concerned about real truth and is just playing Concern Troll due to his extreme ODS. He’s repeatedly made statements showing that Birtherism isn’t what this is really about for him at all.

    Lupin: To put it bluntly: I don’t believe you. I think you’re a liar doing concern trolling.

    Your objection to Obama has nothing to do with any of the above; it has to do either with his race, or because you’re so blindly loyal to your “tribe” of right-wing lunatics that anyone from another tribe is automatically perceived as the enemy, even when they do exactly the same thing than a member of your own tribe, or are clearly innocent of what they;re accused.
73. G says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm  G(Quote)

    No you didn’t. All you did is pull a typical weasel move to attempt to distract by shifting the conversation off-topic to completely irrelevant matters.

    You’ve never addressed the DIRECT question about why you openly and willfully tout liars and spread clear lies.

    You are simply a dishonest person who is here with nothing but insincere and ill intentions.

    What drives you here is that you are very alarmed at how badly WND’s latest “Swift Boating” propaganda attempt crashed and burned and therefore you are desperate to try to push the same discredited nonsense in a failing attempt to create a broader conversation about nonsense issues. You and your foolish ilk simply think you can sway an election if only you can get your made up smears to penetrate.

    Well, that has proved to be nothing but a flawed strategy and a failed effort. All you can do is preach to your own choir of already existing ODS sufferers. No one else cares and therefore, you have ZERO impact on the vote equation at all. People who weren’t going to vote for Obama regardless are wasting time coming up with excuses to cover why they won’t vote for him. Their votes against him are already factored in and he never needed them in the first place.

    Therefore, your entire propaganda game is impotent from the get go.

    Al Halbert: You asked I simply answered!
74. Sef says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:36 pm  Sef(Quote)

    Interesting:
    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Report-Says-Bin-Laden-was-Actively-Plotting-Obamas-Assassination-143039096.html
75. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:05 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

    Well, here is an open thread question. I bought a new laptop and it has Norton antivirus stuff installed free for 30 days. I don’t want to know if it is the best program or not because everybody has their own opinion, and the Internet is full of discussions. On my last one I had free stuff like Malwarebytes and I think maybe one called AVG or something.

    But what I do want to know is if the Norton stuff will screw up my computer if I go ahead and buy it??? Because I have read a lot of stuff about these programs causing all kinds of bugs and stuff not working right and I just do NOT have the patience for that kind of stuff.

    Sooo, is like Norton a totally stupid choice or anything, or is it a reasonably decent program???

    Thank you to anybody who helps.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
76. misha says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:17 pm  misha(Quote)

    Al Halbert: In the grand scheme of things one man’s ceiling can be another mans floor.

    Usually, I avoid clichés like the plague.

    Birthers are making a mountain out of a molehill. Normally, a friend of yours is a friend of mine, but in your case I’ll make an exception. From your comments here, if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    I’m not surprised to hear you are an Oath Keeper, because birds of a feather flock together.

    Orly Taitz is a jack of all trades, master of none. She and the other birthers prove a fool and his money are soon parted. For Orly, getting a judge to listen is like pulling teeth. For Orly, it is better to be quiet and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt. When people gather to hear Orly speak, it’s time to send in the clowns. People who donate to her and the others forget that a penny saved, is a penny earned. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

    I know that you win some, and you lose some, but what goes up must come down. Birthers’ claims don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, even if they keep this up until the cows come home. Birthers will prevail when pigs fly. Wild horses couldn’t drag me away from this sideshow; it’s the cat’s meow. You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

    Sheriff Joe and his merry band of grifters, believe the end justifies the means.

    Remember, that no matter how much birthers scream about liberals, the two things in life you can’t escape, are death & taxes.
77. CarlOrcas says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:19 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Sooo, is like Norton a totally stupid choice or anything, or is it a reasonably decent program???

    I have used Norton’s products on our personal and business machines for years before we retired..

    I currently use Norton 360 on our home machines and it does a nice job of protecting against viruses and intrusions and helps manage your machine by regularly downloading updates and checking for other problems.

    I recommend it.
78. Northland10 says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:35 pm  Northland10(Quote)

    I have been generally happy with Norton, going back to the old Norton Utilities. It was becoming quite resource hog (Norton 360) on my old machine but it is behaving nicely on my new one (Internet Security, Backup, etc., love the backup BTW).

    When it caught MS Blaster from the get go when so many others were hit by that, I was a happy camper.

    I am told AVG is quite good (even in the free version).

    CarlOrcas: I have used Norton’s products on our personal and business machines for years before we retired..

    I currently use Norton 360 on our home machines and it does a nice job of protecting against viruses and intrusions and helps manage your machine by regularly downloading updates and checking for other problems.

    I recommend it.
79. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    March 17, 2012 at 9:51 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    As you say, everybody has their own opinion. Here’s a product review of the 2012 products:

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372364,00.asp

    I used Norton for years, as well as McAfee and AVG. They all basically work.

    What I didn’t like was having to pay what I consider an exorbitant annual fee for updates every year, and having to have a separate anti-virus and anti-malware program.

    I looked into Microsoft Security Essentials. Security Essentials is a free download from Microsoft that combines anti-virus and anti-malware capability. It doesn’t seen to use excessive resources, it doesn’t nag me unnecessarily, it updates automatically and generally does its job quietly and effectively. I have put it on all my machines.

    See review on CNET:

    http://download.cnet.com/Microsoft-Security-Essentials/3000-2239_4-10969260.html

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Sooo, is like Norton a totally stupid choice or anything, or is it a reasonably decent program???
80. Rickey says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:08 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:

    Sooo, is like Norton a totally stupid choice or anything, or is it a reasonably decent program???

    I can tell you from personal experience that Norton has an excellent firewall and it will protect you from viruses. I don’t believe that it does a great job on spyware, however.

    The only problem I have had with Norton is that it has a file called ccSvcHst.exe which occasionally is a memory hog. When that happens a re-boot may be necessary. However, this may not be an issue with the latest versions of Norton.

    I have also seen some complaints about the newest version of Norton being incompatible with some popular programs such as Spyware Doctor.
81. Majority Will says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:31 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

    misha: Usually, I avoid clichés like the plague.

    Birthers are making a mountain out of a molehill. Normally, a friend of yours is a friend of mine, but in your case I’ll make an exception. From your comments here, if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    I’m not surprised to hear you are an Oath Keeper, because birds of a feather flock together.

    Orly Taitz is a jack of all trades, master of none. She and the other birthers prove a fool and his money are soon parted. For Orly, getting a judge to listen is like pulling teeth. For Orly, it is better to be quiet and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt. When people gather to hear Orly speak, it’s time to send in the clowns. People who donate to her and the others forget that a penny saved, is a penny earned. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

    I know that you win some, and you lose some, but what goes up must come down. Birthers’ claims don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, even if they keep this up until the cows come home. Birthers will prevail when pigs fly. Wild horses couldn’t drag me away from this sideshow; it’s the cat’s meow. You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

    Sheriff Joe and his merry band of grifters, believe the end justifies the means.

    Remember, that no matter how much birthers scream about liberals, the two things in life you can’t escape, are death & taxes.

    Well done.

    At the end of the day, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
82. Keith says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:41 pm  Keith(Quote)

    Northland10: To them, their goal is not true conservative values but a will to power. Their singular focus is not to build the nation but to rule the nation.

    And there is a word for that.
83. CarlOrcas says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:45 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: What I didn’t like was having to pay what I consider an exorbitant annual fee for updates every year, and having to have a separate anti-virus and anti-malware program.

    I believe Norton 360 covers everything. Last time I renewed was for two years (expires in three months) for $115 but I find the 2012 version on Amazon for about $50 for 1 user/3 computers. I assume that’s for one year.

    I’m running an Intel 2.4ghz Core 2 with 8Gb of memory and Windows 7 64 bit and haven’t had any compatability problems with Norton and I’ve never had anything get through.
84. Keith says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:49 pm  Keith(Quote)

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:
    Well, here is an open thread question. I bought a new laptop and it has Norton antivirus stuff installed free for 30 days. I don’t want to know if it is the best program or not because everybody has their own opinion, and the Internet is full of discussions. On my last one I had free stuff like Malwarebytes and I think maybe one called AVG or something.

    But what I do want to know is if the Norton stuff will screw up my computer if I go ahead and buy it??? Because I have read a lot of stuff about these programs causing all kinds of bugs and stuff not working right and I just do NOT have the patience for that kind of stuff.

    Sooo, is like Norton a totally stupid choice or anything, or is it a reasonably decent program???

    Thank you to anybody who helps.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    My experience with Norton is that it is a resource hog. It is purposely positioned towards the corporate user market. It is really much too heavy for a private or SOHO environment.

    It is great for corporates who who run servers and need tight intigration between the desktop/remote security and server security and can dedicate people to ensure it is running smoothly and getting individuals out of trouble.

    It is difficult to remove from your computer should you decide to switch to another solution in the future.

    It is also my experience that AVG is an excellent solution for personal and SOHO use. The paid subscription is better, but the free version is more than adequate for most needs. I currently use the free AVG.

    As Doc says, Microsoft Essentials also has a good reputation. As does BitDefender and Trend Micro. I used to use BitDefender, but their support for Windows 7 wasn’t very good at the time I installed it so I switched to AVG.
85. Thomas Brown says:

    March 17, 2012 at 10:58 pm  Thomas Brown(Quote)

    misha: Usually, I avoid clichés like the plague.

    …

    Joe and his merry band of grifters, believe the end justifies the means.

    Remember, that no matter how much birthers scream about liberals, the two things in life you can’t escape, are death & taxes.

    Misha, that was superb.
86. CarlOrcas says:

    March 17, 2012 at 11:05 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

    Keith: My experience with Norton is that it is a resource hog. It is purposely positioned towards the corporate user market. It is really much too heavy for a private or SOHO environment.

    Norton 360 is specifically designed for the single user, small (very small) office or home situation. I’ve used the server based Norton products and 360 isn’t them.
87. DivideByZero says:

    March 17, 2012 at 11:20 pm  DivideByZero(Quote)

    It’s beyond me why anyone would consider buying a third party antimalware and firewall programs like Norton when Microsoft offers its security essentials and the native windows firewall for free. Third party tools usually have high memory footprint and may even screw up your PC’s functionality. You have tools right from the horse’s mouth. Why use someone else’s product! Obviously none of the antivirus/firewall programs can protect your system 100% of the time. If your PC is hosed, download the combofix, malwarebytes, and spybot search and destroy. These three tools should fix the problem in 99% of the time. If they can’t, then you are REALLY hosed. Time to take out the install CD and reinstall the OS. A much better solution is to open the browser in a sandbox and go online.
88. richCares says:

    March 18, 2012 at 12:31 am  richCares(Quote)

    My wife and I are out of town on a mini vacation, we called our daughter who lives close by to ask her to check our mail, then she told us of a big ruckus, some time ago our neighbors took in their teenage granddaughter because of the birther father. Today is the kids birthday and the father showed up and was making a big fuss, he was screaming how Sheriff Joe vindicated him and was demanding to see the teen (she wasn’t home) None of the neighbors knew who Sheriff Joe is and wondering who let this guy out of the ward. How embarrassing for this family. Sheriff Joe had no effect on Obama but he did effect this family. I wonder how many more. Actually this was the factor that led me to find Doc C’s site.
89. Keith says:

    March 18, 2012 at 12:43 am  Keith(Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Norton 360 is specifically designed for the single user, small (very small) office or home situation. I’ve used the server based Norton products and 360 isn’t them.

    OK. Thank you for re-educating me. I am just no much of a fan of Symantec, I guess. AVG does at least as good a job if not better so I haven’t had a reason to reinvestigate.

    Top Ten Review: Anti-virus Software
90. John Woodman says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:30 am  John Woodman(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Hey, remember when Jerome Corsi said that he figured out that the forger was named “Mike?” Maybe Mike is their person of interest.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/corsi-names-the-name-mike/

    I’m still waiting for Corsi to show us where the “M” and the “I” are. Should I send him an email?
91. John Woodman says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:32 am  John Woodman(Quote)

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:
    Deputy Zullo’s first name is Mike. Just sayin’. Maybe this is one of Jerome “Jerry” Corsi’s famous traps???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    Wuh-oh. Do you realize the implications of this are HUGE?
92. Thrifty says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:37 am  Thrifty(Quote)

    MIND BLOWN!!!!!!

    John Woodman: Wuh-oh. Do you realize the implications of this are HUGE?
93. John Woodman says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:43 am  John Woodman(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: So “birthers are liars”, and you now have proof of abuse being heaped on them — well-deserved abuse.

    I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that the rule “birthers are liars” is merely declaratory of the common law.
94. John Woodman says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:46 am  John Woodman(Quote)

    Squeeky, I’m not a big fan of Norton. Recent versions are better than earlier ones. It won’t generally hurt your computer, and will probably do a decent enough job as an antivirus, but Symantec is one of the few companies that produce software just to remove their software.

    I mean, it’s your call, but personally I’d go with a paid version of Avast! over Norton.
95. John Woodman says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:49 am  John Woodman(Quote)

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: traps

    I’m trying to figure out how this works. You mean Corsi lured Zullo into a close working relationship, including the book deal, just so he can later blow Zullo’s cover as the guy who forged Obama’s birth certificate?

    Ingenious.
96. misha says:

    March 18, 2012 at 2:11 am  misha(Quote)

    I just thought everyone should know Philly is never dull:

    Naked family prays outside Philadelphia-area school
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/naked-family-prays-philadelphia-area-school-article-1.1041428
97. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

    March 18, 2012 at 2:34 am  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

    John Woodman: I’m trying to figure out how this works. You mean Corsi lured Zullo into a close working relationship, including the book deal, just so he can later blow Zullo’s cover as the guy who forged Obama’s birth certificate?

    Ingenious.

    Yes!!! Just like Corsi trapped Obama into releasing his long form by writing a whole book about Where’s The Birth Certificate and then printing up a bunch of them. Then, Obama fell right in and released it. Because there is just no limit to how far Jerome “Jerry” Corsi will go to trap somebody. I am waiting for Corsi’s “AHA!”.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
98. G says:

    March 18, 2012 at 2:53 am  G(Quote)

    Wow…that was certainly odd…

    misha: I just thought everyone should know Philly is never dull:Naked family prays outside Philadelphia-area schoolhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/naked-family-prays-philadelphia-area-school-article-1.1041428
99. Lupin says:

    March 18, 2012 at 3:48 am  Lupin(Quote)

    Al, even if what you said was true (another argument entirely), you never cared before a black man was elected President.

    Since it’s now clear you never expressed any of your stated concerns BEFORE Obama got elected, I hereby brand you as a liar, a hypocrite, and a bigot.
100. Keith says:

     March 18, 2012 at 6:14 am  Keith(Quote)

     While we are on the topic of fact checking: A Propos Mike Daisey: Ode to Fact-Checking

     What? We aren’t on the topic of fact checking? We must be, why else would I bring it up?
101. Adrien Nash says:

     March 18, 2012 at 7:46 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:
     Well, here is an open thread question. I bought a new laptop and it has Norton antivirus stuff installed free for 30 days. I don’t want to know if it is the best program or not because everybody has their own opinion, and the Internet is full of discussions. On my last one I had free stuff like Malwarebytes and I think maybe one called AVG or something.

     But what I do want to know is if the Norton stuff will screw up my computer if I go ahead and buy it??? Because I have read a lot of stuff about these programs causing all kinds of bugs and stuff not working right and I just do NOT have the patience for that kind of stuff.

     Sooo, is like Norton a totally stupid choice or anything, or is it a reasonably decent program???

     Thank you to anybody who helps.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter

     The stories you’ve heard are related I believe to problems that arose with the Vista operating system in its initial verson. I have no info about how Norton works with Windows 7 or Apple but I thought you might like to know that AVG is one of the most respected and widely used protection systems available though I don’t know how it rates in comparisons. I once read somewhere, perhaps in a computer magazine, a comparison between all the systems but that was years ago. Today I can inform you that I’ve been using AVG for almost a decade, beginning with its free version, and have never had a problem with it. It has evolved enormously over that time to a full suite of functions but the price hasn’t changed much, it’s still about $39.00 a year, I think. Your best bet is to start by comparing pricing. If its all over the map then you may want to make your choice by avoiding the overly costly systems and going with one that is reasonable.
102. Adrien Nash says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:31 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Keith:

     “Therefore, the Birth Certificate does have a very definite connection to Presidential eligibility.

     Are you saying that if a Birth Certificate shows a person is ineligible, it is OK, but if it shows a person is eligible, that it is, by definition, a counterfeit?

     Most of what you say is just wrong, but I wouldn’t have thought that you were as totally unthinkingly dense as that comment implies.”

     There’s a problem with your grasp of semantics. Birth certificates are not information, they are paper documents. Those documents are not required for presidential eligibility. The facts shown on a BC are what’s relevant. If a fact of birth to a foreign father is revealed then that is evidence of ineligibility. If the document is a counterfeit, then that is evidence that the original probably contains facts that would reveal a candidate to be ineligible.
103. Majority Will says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:39 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: If a fact of birth to a foreign father is revealed then that is evidence of ineligibility.

     By the fact of his birth in the U.S., the President is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office of President by fulfilling the requirements in the Constitution.

     “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

     Birther bigot fantasies are irrelevant.
104. Arthur says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:47 am  Arthur(Quote)

     Keith: While we are on the topic of fact checking: A Propos Mike Daisey: Ode to Fact-Checking
     What? We aren’t on the topic of fact checking? We must be, why else would I bring it up?

     I was listening to “This American Life” as I drove into Chicago on Saturday. (Damn you, St. Patrick’s Day!@!) and got to listen to their investigation of the Mike Daisey fraud. It was fascinating. I was thinking about the ethical dimensions of presenting fiction as fact for dramatic purposes for a long time. Of course, I also thought about birthers . . .
105. Adrien Nash says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:54 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Northland10: .Now, this amendment was not making new citizens but stating who had already been a citizen.If it was making new citizens, the former slave Congressmen and Senators would not have been citizens long enough, especially in the states they were representing (i.e. southern).

     Your making a logic error to presume that both cannot be true. The 14th Amendment was declaring the natural citizenship of freed slaves and the granted citizenship of those who had no natural right to U.S. citizenship, namely children of foreigners. The former slaves were either Americans or they were something that no one could logically define. Based on the unwritten law of natural membership they were native members of America society and citizens by birth unless they were born abroad and were once freemen in Africa. Their previous status as slaves was based on the bastardized logic that considered them sub-human property. And property cannot be a citizen. That logic was finally demolished with the surrender of the Confederacy and the freeing of all slaves. Then their rightful status as human beings could be acknowledged and their natural citizenship also. So they became citizens not via mass-naturalization but via the recognition that they rightfully were citizens from birth.
106. Scientist says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:56 am  Scientist(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Would you be so kind as to tell us why your opinions matter? Thank you…..
107. Majority Will says:

     March 18, 2012 at 9:40 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Scientist:
     Adrien Nash:Would you be so kind as to tell us why your opinions matter?Thank you…..

     An honest response is doubtful but it would be entertaining.
108. Majority Will says:

     March 18, 2012 at 11:15 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Scientist:
     Adrien Nash:Would you be so kind as to tell us why your opinions matter?Thank you…..

     Make that any response is doubtful but might be entertaining.
109. Mitch says:

     March 18, 2012 at 11:20 am  Mitch(Quote)

     Scientist:
     Adrien Nash:Would you be so kind as to tell us why your opinions matter?Thank you…..

     They’re not “opinions”; they’re “delusions”
110. Majority Will says:

     March 18, 2012 at 11:36 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Mitch: They’re not “opinions”; they’re “delusions”

     And there are excellent reasons why Nash’s cesspool of a blog is listed under The Bad below. After a few minutes there, the madness and bigotry oozes off the pages. It’s a truly nauseating and delusional crap pile.
111. y_p_w says:

     March 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm  y_p_w(Quote)

     Paul Pieniezny: You do not get it. There never was a need for federal birth certificates, because of article 4, section 1, of the Constitution: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. By the way, you are NOT going to get out of your problem by saying since the 14th amendment was illegally ratified blah blah blah, because that same clause was in the Articles of Confederation.

     There are some federal birth certificates. I do mean real birth certificates and not secondary documents like a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

     The US Dept of Homeland Security currently issues birth certificates for American Samoa and Swains Island births. Pretty cheap to at only $5 a copy. The Feds might have issued birth certificates in other US territories – especially before they had stable territorial governments. The State Dept issues birth certificates for the Panama Canal Zone for births before the 1979 handover to Panama. I remember reading that someone tried getting a copy of McCain’s birth certificate during the last Presidential campaign but was denied on privacy grounds (where have I heard that before?). It’s $50 for each copy, just like any other citizenship document from the State Dept.

     http://travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_5055.html

     I’ve never seen a sample of a federal birth certificate. I’m just curious what they look like. I’m guessing that they’re probably some sort of printout like the current Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
112. misha says:

     March 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm  misha(Quote)

     IMAGE OF MITT ROMNEY AND SATAN SHAKING HANDS ON PIECE OF TOAST on eBay – http://www.ebay.com/itm/220978411783
113. Keith says:

     March 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: There’s a problem with your grasp of semantics. Birth certificates are not information, they are paper documents.

     Thank you for your concern. I have no problem with semantics, at least not in this regard, though many on ‘your’ side of the discussion seem to do so. Perhaps you could concentrate your re-education efforts on those folks who seem to be convinced that a PDF file is the Birth Certificate.

     Anyway, you are half right here. Birth certificate are paper documents. They are special paper documents that carry a certification from the authorized agency that the information printed on them is accurate. And they have security tokens, both obvious (a raised seal, photocopy obvious security paper) and not so obvious to guard against forgery.

     Those documents are not required for presidential eligibility. The facts shown on a BC are what’s relevant.

     I congratulate you on your insight.

     If a fact of birth to a foreign father is revealed then that is evidence of ineligibility.

     Sigh. Off the rails again. And you were just beginning to show so much promise.

     If the document is a counterfeit, then that is evidence that the original probably contains facts that would reveal a candidate to be ineligible.

     The birth certificate lists the details about the birth event. The official certification attests to the accuracy of those details. The seal and other security features guard against forgery. This is how we ensure those facts are correct.

     You are correct in the sense that the birth certificate are not absolutely necessary to prove eligibility. Birth certificates didn’t exist in the United States until the late 1800’s and many Presidents didn’t have one even into the late 20th century. The United States survived pretty well without seeing Zachary Taylor’s birth certificate.

     But you are wrong when you claim that birth certificates don’t contribute to proving eligibility. Since they contain the birth date and the birth location they provide direct proof of two of the Constitutional eligibility criteria: age and NBC.

     And you are absolutely completely wrong about the two parent theory. The citizenship status of the parents is completely irrelevant to the citizenship status of a child born on U.S. Soil under the jurisdiction of the U.S (and your understanding of jurisdiction is wrong too, unless we have managed to convince you otherwise).
114. Keith says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:34 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Your making a logic error to presume that both cannot be true.

     You take a lot of words to not say much, except to agree with what Northland said while denying that you are doing so.

     The Dred Scott Decision (Scott v Sandford) said that no African, not just freed slaves, could ever be a citizen, let alone a ‘natural born citizen’. This was the status of the law at the end of the Civil War; freed slaves were not citizens, but nobody knew what they were. The Civil War did not negate the Dred Scott decision, but it did expose the absurdity of it, and made it imperative to find a solution to the problem.

     Dred Scott was recognized, even at the time, as possibly the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean that is was an incorrect interpretation (though my opinion is that it was), but only that even if it was a correct interpretation of the Constitution, it isn’t what “We The People” intended for the operation of our “more perfect Union”.

     Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in an attempt to patch over the damage of Dred Scott and other decisions that were deemed to be likewise incompatible with “a more perfect union”. Before the CRA1866 was challenged in court, Congress realized that such a law could be challenged, probably successfully, or overridden by a new law in a future Congress (like maybe in 2012 controlled by a Tea-Party faction hell bent on disenfranchising as many voters as it can). The solution was to propose a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the provisions of CRA1866 and make it more difficult to overthrow.

     It is important to understand that the amendment doesn’t make any new citizens or open up any new paths to becoming a citizen. It just put the intentions of “We the People” into writing: that anyone born in America is a citizen and no law can be passed to discriminate between citizens, whether born or naturalized..

     If the 14th Amendment somehow make and new class of citizens, then the first such ‘new’ citizens were the ex-slaves, who according to the Dred Scott decision could never be citizens at all. This would mean that the black Senators and Congressmen that Northland mentioned would not have satisfied the length of citizenship eligibility requirements. But they did, so they must have been citizens all along, the 14th Amendment didn’t change that.

     All the 14th amendment did was put into writing, in the Constitution, what was always the understanding and intention of “We the People” about the way our “more perfect union operated”. Nothing more, nothing less.
115. Keith says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:35 pm  Keith(Quote)

     sorry. didn’t clean up the grammer and extraneous gumph at the end of that before I hit enter.
116. Keith says:

     March 18, 2012 at 8:42 pm  Keith(Quote)

     We had a discussion of scams the other day.

     This report on the latest Australian statistics may interest you: Scam reports double for second year

     or it might not.
117. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 18, 2012 at 9:32 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     That’s not correct. Dred Scott recognized that Congress had the power to naturalize an African immigrant, and thereafter that person’s descendents would be natural born citizens. What the Court said that Congress could not do was to naturalize anyone who was born in the United States, and so the Congress could not make the freed slaves citizens. Further Dred Scott said that the descendents of the slaves, born free in the United States, were nonetheless non-citizens because their parents were not citizens. Dred Scott strove to create a perpetual class of non-citizen residents of the United States.

     Keith: The Dred Scott Decision (Scott v Sandford) said that no African, not just freed slaves, could ever be a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen’.
118. John Woodman says:

     March 18, 2012 at 10:08 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: thereafter that person’s descendents would be natural born citizens.

     Practically speaking, though, pretty difficult in the America of Dred Scott. I don’t know whether there were any actual African immigrants coming the US in the mid-1850s and being made naturalized citizens. The African continent being a dirt-poor place, it really wasn’t even a source of immigrants in any significant number that I know of.

     As for descendants of any such persons, it seems to me that Court didn’t address that. It was downright illegal in a great many places for black people and white people to marry, or for any person to officiate over such a wedding.

     Under those circumstances, who would a free black African-origin American citizen marry? A black American whose ancestors had been slaves — one of the class of people who could never become citizens.

     And if the rule were that It was impossible for black Americans to be citizens, it would have also been widely presumed that any black person was not and could not be a citizen — even if that person had technically been naturalized.

     So there really wasn’t much wiggle room, as far as I see, under the Dred Scott Court’s ruling for black people in America — even if they or their parents had in fact been naturalized African immigrants.

     As another side note: The Court in Dred Scott seemed very clear on their position that people of the African race were inherently inferior to white people. Yes, it’s offensive to hear, and wrong. But that was their claim back in 1857.
119. John Woodman says:

     March 18, 2012 at 10:11 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     By the way, it wasn’t just black people who were considered “inferior.” It was Indians, Asians… in short, anybody and everybody on the planet who wasn’t of white European ancestry.
120. G says:

     March 18, 2012 at 11:21 pm  G(Quote)

     Bravo! Well said.

     Keith: All the 14th amendment did was put into writing, in the Constitution, what was always the understanding and intention of “We the People” about the way our “more perfect union operated”. Nothing more, nothing less.
121. Keith says:

     March 19, 2012 at 2:14 am  Keith(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     That’s not correct. Dred Scott recognized that Congress had the power to naturalize an African immigrant, and thereafter that person’s descendents would be natural born citizens. What the Court said that Congress could not do was to naturalize anyone who was born in the United States, and so the Congress could not make the freed slaves citizens. Further Dred Scott said that the descendents of the slaves, born free in the United States, were nonetheless non-citizens because their parents were not citizens. Dred Scott strove to create a perpetual class of non-citizen residents of the United States.

     Sorry. You are correct. I misrepresented that bit.

     No African slave, or former slave. Not no African ever. Dred Scott was a freedman and was suing for his rights as a citizen. The decision said that as a former slave he and his descendants born in America could not be citizens, ever.
122. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 7:58 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Majority Will: By the fact of his birth in the U.S., the President is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office of President by fulfilling the requirements in the Constitution.

     “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

     Birther bigot fantasies are irrelevant.

     Why do you bother wasting you breath (words) just spewing a baseless opinion? Where is the evidence that is not dependent on opinions, such as yours? It doesn’t exist and that is why you can’t present it.
123. Majority Will says:

     March 19, 2012 at 8:13 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Why do you bother wasting you breath (words) just spewing a baseless opinion?Where is the evidence that is not dependent on opinions, such as yours?It doesn’t exist and that is why you can’t present it.

     Your projection is obvious.

     My opinion is the same as the relevant authorities in the U.S. based on our legal history.

     You cite yourself as authority. That’s lunacy, ridiculous, laughable and pathetic.

     All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.
     – US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

     P.S. The archives of this blog is filled with evidence for those bright enough and not blinded by bigotry.
124. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 8:25 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     John Woodman:
     By the way, it wasn’t just black people who were considered “inferior.” It was Indians, Asians… in short, anybody and everybody on the planet who wasn’t of white European ancestry.

     Not having read the Dred Scott ruling, I’d like to say nevertheless that from the comments given here, that the Court must have realized that their job wasn’t to do what was best nor what was right but what was constitutional. And the constitution gives Congress no authority to impact the citizenship of anyone other than foreigners and their children. Hence the legal limbo that freed slaves found themselves in, until the 14th Amendment was ratified. When the Constitution was written, there was no federal means for a foreigner’s children to become citizens other than for him to become a citizen via naturalization. Otherwise they had to wait until adulthood and become naturalized themselves. So the 14th Amendment was needed to change that tradition constitutionally since Congress lacked the authority to do so. But they tried, unconstitutionally, by passing the Civil Rights Act.

     I find it curious how some make it seem as if the issue was purely one of the citizenship of freed slave with no mention of the children of foreigners, -which is the focus of this blog and the reason for its existence. I have to wonder if there is some avoidance of that issue because if one Barack Obama owes his citizenship to the 14th Amendment then he is not a natural citizen and is therefore an ineligible President.
125. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 8:36 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Majority Will: Your projection is obvious.

     My opinion is the same as the relevant authorities in the U.S. based on our legal history.
     You cite yourself as authority. That’s lunacy, ridiculous, laughable and pathetic.

     P.S. The archives of this blog is filled with evidence for those bright enough and not blinded by bigotry.

     Your opinion? Who cares about your opinion? I want facts and you don’t have any. That’s why you are incapable of presenting any. Please explain a couple things for one not bright enough to comprehend; how in the world can one cite oneself as an authority when they haven’t claimed that status?, nor cited themself? But more importantly, please explain on what basis you slap the dreadful, scary label of bigot on me? If you can’t back that accusation with something real then you should put up or shut up. You talk about ridiculous, and laughable? Your juvenile attempt at the bullying of mockery and accusation is pathetic. There’s a part of your character that needs to grow up.
126. Scientist says:

     March 19, 2012 at 8:42 am  Scientist(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: When the Constitution was written, there was no federal means for a foreigner’s children to become citizens other than for him to become a citizen via naturalization. Otherwise they had to wait until adulthood and become naturalized themselves.

     Please cite examples of any US-born persons who naturalized as US citiizens, whether before or after the 14th amendment. Let’s stop beating around the bush here and get specific. Names, birthplaces in the US, date naturalized. Should be easy
     no?

     Doc, I really think you should require Mr Nash to go away and do some actual research before you allow him to continue to clutter up this board with his generalizations.
127. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 8:52 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     A Man Called “Horse” and A Man Called “President” (an excerpt)

     Almost everyone in this world is a member of a family/ group/ and nation. There are only two paths to becoming a member. One is the obvious means of becoming a member of a family, -one is born into it, but that also applies to nearly all groups and nations. Since time immemorial, groups/ societies have populated their group with their children. Their children are born as members because their parents are members. It is their natural inheritance. Their membership in the group is a natural membership via blood connection. No laws exist that declare that to be the case because it is self-evident and is a natural human right. So it is with citizenship. There is no law by which natural American citizens have citizenship in the United States of America because no such law was ever needed. Laws were needed for those who were not born to group members (citizens), and those laws reflect the second means by which one can become a member of a clan/tribe/society/ and nation.

     When outsiders wish to attach themselves to a group into which they were not born, there are certain pre-determined means by which to accomplish that. One could be via a payment, another via marriage into the group, another via an initiation process that must be successfully completed. All such means require that either rules/laws be fulfilled, or permission be obtained from the group leader(s).
     One example of that was depicted in a movie released in the 1970’s titled: “A Man Called Horse”. In it, Richard Harris played an English nobleman who spent time living among a Sioux tribe and fell in love with a Sioux maiden who he wished to marry.
     Permission could not be granted unless he became a member of the tribe (via naturalization). To accomplish that he had to pass a number of tests or exercises, culminating in the most grueling test of all, -the Sun Vow initiation. It involved having long curved claws shoved/hooked through his pectoral muscles and then being pulled up off the ground via ropes attached to the hooks. He had to hang there for a torturous period of time, and after enduring all of that he was deemed to be a full member of the tribe.
     Such a process high-lights the seriousness of ones commitment to their adopted group.

     continues here: http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/a-man-called-president.pdf

     The principle of natural membership is the 800 pound gorilla that none of you are willing to talk about because you know that it is true and that it nullifies the assumption that Barack Obama is a natural citizen of the United States. There is no answer to this natural fact and that’s why no one has ever attempted to give one. All of the blather spewed forth so far has been an attempt to obfuscate the truth of the nature of his citizenship by shining the spotlight on me instead of on the subject at hand, -the ineligible presidential candidate who got elected in violation of the Constitution.

     Words have meaning, including the word “natural”, which modifies the term “born citizen”, which refers to one who is a citizen at birth via permission of the society and its government, or it refers to one who is a citizen by birth and is in need of no one’s permission to be a citizen and whose citizenship is not dependent on any law, and no law exists to grant such a normal person citizenship. No one who is a citizen via law is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief, nor even allowed to work around the President. In fact, the President couldn’t possibly pass the background check needed to guard him. No son of a foreigner could ever pass a Yankee White background check, so that means that Obama wouldn’t be qualified to work around himself. No son of a foreigner would ever be entrusted with the keys and codes to launch nuclear missiles. And it’s for darn sure that no son of a foreigner was ever constitutionally eligible to be Commander-in-Chief. But his children are.
     If someone believes otherwise, please prove me wrong. Good luck trying.
128. Lupin says:

     March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am  Lupin(Quote)

     Scientist: Doc, I really think you should require Mr Nash to go away and do some actual research before you allow him to continue to clutter up this board with his generalizations.

     I have to agree with this.

     Adrien Nash is clearly a nutcase. Half of what he writes (and I’m being generous) is pure nonsense. The other half is xenophobic in the extreme.

     In fact, I can’t tell if his latest ramblings about White Yankees and sons of foreigners are satire or serious, but if serious, they’re nauseating.

     Like Al Halpert, Nash has no record of having expounded ant of his weird fantasies before Obama became president — which I consider a crucial criterion when it comes to separating those who hold eccentric but principled views, and the racists whose delusions were triggered by the election of black man.
129. Scientist says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:06 am  Scientist(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: No one who is a citizen via law is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief, nor even allowed to work around the President. In fact, the President couldn’t possibly pass the background check needed to guard him. No son of a foreigner could ever pass a Yankee White background check, so that means that Obama wouldn’t be qualified to work around himself.

     Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright were two Secretaries of State who were not only the children of foreigners, but born outside the US.

     Adrien Nash: If someone believes otherwise, please prove me wrong. Good luck trying.

     Done, Goodbye.

     Doc, every reader here is aware of how to find Mr Nash’s website if they wish to read his blatherings. As an agnostic I must ask you for the love of God to do something…..
130. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:06 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Just ignore him and don’t read his stuff if you think it’s not worth reading. Counter him with the dreaded Empty Chair ®.

     Lupin: Scientist: Doc, I really think you should require Mr Nash to go away and do some actual research before you allow him to continue to clutter up this board with his generalizations.

     I have to agree with this.
131. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:08 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Why should I do something when all you have to do is click or scroll to the next message?

     Scientist: Doc, every reader here is aware of how to find Mr Nash’s website if they wish to read his blatherings. As an agnostic I must ask you for the love of God to do something
132. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:16 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I don’t usually read your posts because they are long, there are too many of them, and in what I have read I find no value. However, this one is short, so I read it.

     People have a right to ignore you, and the fact that they chose to ignore you is not any admission on anyone’s part that they cannot refute what you are saying. It just means that they don’t care to.

     Let me be very clear here. If you make an argument that attempts to goad others into answering you and assert that silence means anything other than silence, I will brand you a troll and ban you from the site. I would also suggest that you post fewer comments as you are becoming a nuisance.

     Adrien Nash: Why do you bother wasting you breath (words) just spewing a baseless opinion? Where is the evidence that is not dependent on opinions, such as yours? It doesn’t exist and that is why you can’t present it.
133. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:18 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I am off to fulfill my civic duty. Back later.
134. Lupin says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:55 am  Lupin(Quote)

     It’s not only in the South:

     Public Policy Polling. March 17-18. Illinois likely Republican primary voters. �4.4%.

     Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?
     Christian: 24
     Muslim: 39
     Not sure: 37

     Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
     Was born in U.S.: 36
     Not born in U.S.: 36
     Not sure: 28

     Do you believe in evolution, or not?
     Believe in evolution: 41
     Do not: 43
     Not sure: 16
135. Thomas Brown says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:56 am  Thomas Brown(Quote)

     Adrian and Al provide a valuable service: COMEDY. I tune in regularly for a good laugh. They’re like the lunatic standing on the corner with underwear made of Butterball turkey wrappers and fishing floats holding a billboard that says “Everything you know is wrong!”

     They tell us not to waste our time…. what a hoot, considering their obsessive Quixotic blathering will make no difference whatsoever in the end…. when every single Birther action is sent packing by the sane world.

     Hilarious. Especially the fact that they are helping BHO get re-elected in trying to do the opposite.
136. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:04 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I have done my civil duty. Back.
137. JPotter says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:21 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve been spending more time thinking about the capitalization of “Birther” than the question deserves. I pretty much capitalize it, but I’m about to decide that they don’t deserve the extra keystroke.

     I was out of town over the weekend (venturing into Deep Red territory …. I saw 1 Obama bumper sticker … on an out-of-state car …. I assumke they had teh good sense not to stop) and thus missed this gem!

     All of my equipment (no apples allowed) insist that any variation of “birther” and truther” is a typo. Damn right.

     That said, I have finally begun an accounting position for a non-profit that runs all Apples iMacs, no less …. at a non-profit?). I have begun playing around with Preview. Will report anything interesting.

     Paper: [On a side note, why does the iPad insist on capitalizing Birthers?]

     i don’t care. 😉
138. Arthur says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:24 am  Arthur(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: Counter him with the dreaded Empty Chair �.

     Dr. C. is perhaps referring to a style of self defense developed by 18th century Zen Buddhists called “Mokumoku Pen” (Quiet Pen). However, after WWII, Japanese martial artists adapted this traditional style for the modern age, calling it, “Kara-isu” or “Empty Chair Technique.” While its name sounds similar to the fighting art of “kara-te” (empty hand), Kara-isu is fundamentally different, for it consists of only one move–smacking your opponent over the head with an empty chair. Depending on the size of the chair and the thickness of your opponent’s skull, it can be an effective attack.

     In the video below, you will see some British masters of a Chinese style of boxing known as Zui Quan (Drunken Fist) who end a match by resorting to Kara-isu with devastating results.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATXa_rutQDw&feature=related
139. JPotter says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:26 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Lupin: Illinois likely Republican

     That’s the key word! Yes, the stupid is everywhere. The fun chicken-and-egg part that will really get your funny bone is, do they vote Red because they’re superstitious*, or superstitious because they vote Red?

     ________________

     * This overly generous word choice brought-to-you’d by my bleeding liberal pinko-commie heart.
140. JPotter says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:30 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Arthur: In the video below, you will see some British masters of a Chinese style of boxing known as Zui Quan (Drunken Fist) who end a match by resorting to Kara-isu with devastating results.

     and in a “lovely” English garden!

     Pansy wore some cover. Must be in training.

     (Thanks for the humor, Arthur!)
141. Paper says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:40 am  Paper(Quote)

     Hmmm, despite his heresy, Apostate Nash has stumbled into something that may clarify a related but different question. He says, above, that Congress only has power to impact the citizenship of foreigners. (I am excluding his heresy about children.) I am thinking of Congress’ constitutional power of naturalization.

     We know anyone born on American soil has always been considered American, and that the 14th Amendment was corrective not generative. It corrected a wrong view of natural membership. It was not a gift or an expansion. It was a declaration of truth, not creating a new form of citizen, but rejecting a heretical view of citizenship.

     (Please pardon my overwrought language. I am speaking somewhat in my official capacity of/to a fallen brother, in his own natural language.)

     Anyhoo…on the question of citizens born abroad, one of the side discussions, in part between Keith and myself, was about their standing. Are they natural born citizens, or naturalized at birth? See the Charting Citizenship article by Doc.

     Here’s the thing. Congress has constitutional authority to naturalize. But naturalize who? Foreigners. But every boundary gets fuzzy when examined. Fuzziness is irrelevant in most cases. Until that moment it becomes relevant. Then you need a decision.

     So Congress can naturalize but when they get to fuzzy borderline cases, they need to first decide if someone is already citizen at birth, or a foreigner. Somebody has to decide, and the Constitution is mainly not about such intricacies. As such, this topic is just one example if how power plays out in our system of government.

     Historically, Congress has decided those fuzzy cases from the beginning of our country. Congress has adjusted the laws throughout the years to deal with whether or not this or that child born abroad is a citizen at birth, or a foreigner at birth. Thus, Congress decides whether or not such people need to be naturalized at all in the first place.

     The constitution does not state who gets to decide borderline fuzzy cases. Endless what-ifs. Even new unimagined what-ifs that the founders would never have considered, such as American same-sex couples having children while living abroad, using foreign surrogates or foreign sperm donors. Just wait until that kid runs for president!

     So if there ever is a Supreme Court case about whether or not US citizens born abroad are naturalized or natural born, I would offer the argument that there are inherent situations where somebody has to decide whether or not a person needs to be naturalized in the first place. The natural body for such a decision would seem to be Congress, with such decisions seeming to be included ultimately in their power to naturalize. I also just wonder, given the first naturalization laws, if this isn’t how they thought of it at the time.

     This is all to the side right now of course, its only immediate bearing being on the imaginary, fake scenario where Obama was born in Kenya.
142. Lupin says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:48 am  Lupin(Quote)

     JPotter: That’s the key word! Yes, the stupid is everywhere. The fun chicken-and-egg part that will really get your funny bone is, do they vote Red because they’re superstitious*, or superstitious because they vote Red?

     And of course I think “Muslim” is Republican key word for “n*gg*r”.
143. Lupin says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:49 am  Lupin(Quote)

     Thomas Brown: Hilarious. Especially the fact that they are helping BHO get re-elected in trying to do the opposite.

     I don’t find them very funny myself, but I certainly agree with you on the second part.
144. JPotter says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:01 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Lupin: And of course I think “Muslim” is Republican key word for “n*gg*r”.

     You mean there’s white ones too?!? Oh noes!!!! Get me Rinse Precious*, stat! The infection has crossed over! The end is nigh! …. wail….woe….gnash…gnash.

     __________

     * Whatever the RNC chair’s name is. Why doesn’t he have a good American name anyway?
145. Sef says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:03 am  Sef(Quote)

     Lupin:
     It’s not only in the South:

     Public Policy Polling. March 17-18. Illinois likely Republican primary voters. �4.4%.

     Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure? Christian: 24 Muslim: 39 Not sure: 37

     Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not? Was born in U.S.: 36 Not born in U.S.: 36 Not sure: 28

     Do you believe in evolution, or not? Believe in evolution: 41 Do not: 43 Not sure: 16

     The tendency among people with short attention spans is to accept the last option heard. Can this be an explanation?
146. Arthur says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:15 am  Arthur(Quote)

     JPotter: Pansy wore some cover. Must be in training.

     Yes, he needs to develop more head ki.
147. Whatever4 says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:19 am  Whatever4(Quote)

     John Woodman: I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that the rule “birthers are liars” is merely declaratory of the common law.

     Brilliant!
148. Arthur says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Who are the birthers? Or put another way, who are the people, so dim-witted, that they would accept birther claims as true and then reiterate on? The answer is here:

     http://www.kontraband.com/videos/30726/Blonde-Speed-Limit/#show
149. John Woodman says:

     March 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     Doc, I appreciate your approach to the running of this blog. Unlike the birther blogs, persons of viewpoint different from the owner are not censored or heavily moderated (unless of course they become obnoxious trolls). They are allowed to speak. Others are free to answer their points or ignore them.

     Here is open freedom of discussion. That’s one of the key distinctives that makes this site a credible source of information, as opposed to Donofrio’s blog. As opposed to BirtherReport.com, where your comment may or may not appear. As opposed to Apuzzo’s blog, where it will probably appear… someday. As opposed to the Post and Email and many other blogs, where if it ain’t birther, it won’t appear at all.

     I personally have mostly tuned out Adrien Nash’s posts as they seem to carry a high noise-to-signal ratio.
150. Linda says:

     March 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm  Linda(Quote)

     Adrien Nash:
     No one who is a citizen via law is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief, nor even allowed to work around the President.In fact, the President couldn’t possibly pass the background check needed to guard him.No son of a foreigner could ever pass a Yankee White background check, so that means that Obama wouldn’t be qualified to work around himself. No son of a foreigner would ever be entrusted with the keys and codes to launch nuclear missiles.And it’s for darn sure that no son of a foreigner was ever constitutionally eligible to be Commander-in-Chief.But his children are.
     If someone believes otherwise, please prove me wrong.Good luck trying.

     Wrong, wrong and wrong. SCOTUS has ruled, repeatedly, that there are two and only two ways to obtain US citizenship and they are by birth, “natural born citizens”, or by naturalization, and that both are treated equally with the only exception being presidential eligibility. Check the string cites listed here.

     http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

     Also, in addition to Kissinger and Albright, who were born aboard to foreign parents and (gasp!) allowed to work around the president, you can add Polish-born John Shalikashvili, 4star General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Clinton.
151. John Woodman says:

     March 19, 2012 at 1:52 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     That one paragraph is the perfect illustration of why I simply skip over Adrien’s posts.
152. Arthur says:

     March 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Adrien Nash–Liar

     Here are the citizenship restrictions that are a part of the Single Scope Background Investigation (a.k.a. “Yankee White” background check):

     Citizenship. Subject must be a U.S. citizen. Independent verification of citizenship received directly from appropriate registration authority. For foreign-born immediate family members, verification of citizenship or legal status is also required.

     And below is what “Ardrien Nash–Liar” said were the citizenship restrictions for an SSBI:

     Adrien Nash: In fact, the President couldn’t possibly pass the background check needed to guard him. No son of a foreigner could ever pass a Yankee White background check, so that means that Obama wouldn’t be qualified to work around himself. No son of a foreigner would ever be entrusted with the keys and codes to launch nuclear missiles.

     Adrien Nash–Since 2009 a synonym for liar, fraud, phony, fake, and birfoon.
153. G says:

     March 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm  G(Quote)

     Again, utter nonsense. You keep claiming that “no one has attempted to refute you”..

     Yet I see numerous posts from others who have repeatedly done just that. Whenever they do, you seem to just completely and I suspect intentionally IGNORE their line of questioning back to you and dodge to focus on some other point instead of address the refutation. Personally, I consider that to be nothing but a demonstration of cowardly denialism by you.

     As others have repeatedly asked you, PROVIDE evidence of anyone born in the U.S. who has some sort of “citizenship” documentation. Without such evidence, all your screeds amount to nothing more than your own personal made-up fantasy.

     YOU can’t. Because there is NO such thing, as such are citizens by birth here alone. In other words, American NBCs.

     The ONLY types of citizens who have ANY documentation addressing their citizenship are Naturalized Citizens.

     Such documentation *is* the “ritual” process for “becoming” that you blather on with in your whole “A Man Called “Horse…” screed.

     Just as adoption papers are the “ritual” process for making someone part of one’s family.

     So yes, you’ve been refuted endlessly. You are simply too craven and arrogant to admit it or address it.

     Adrien Nash: The principle of natural membership is the 800 pound gorilla that none of you are willing to talk about because you know that it is true and that it nullifies the assumption that Barack Obama is a natural citizen of the United States. There is no answer to this natural fact and that’s why no one has ever attempted to give one. All of the blather spewed forth so far has been an attempt to obfuscate the truth of the nature of his citizenship by shining the spotlight on me instead of on the subject at hand, -the ineligible presidential candidate who got elected in violation of the Constitution.
154. Northland10 says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:32 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     Zbigniew Brzezinski – former National Security Advisor

     John M. Deutch – former CIA Director (and this one was news to me)

     Colin Powell was born to immigrants who I assume naturalized before he was born (don’t know for sure though). He probably wouldn’t count in Nash’s rules.

     Now I am going to have to take offense at the yoopers for referring to me as a troll (or former troll since I am in Illinois now, which makes me a FIP, I think). For those who do not show where you live or grew up by pointing at your hand, trolls are the people below the bridge.

     Linda: Wrong, wrong and wrong.SCOTUS has ruled, repeatedly, that there are two and only two ways to obtain US citizenship and they are by birth, “natural born citizens”, or by naturalization, and that both are treated equally with the only exception being presidential eligibility.Check the string cites listed here.

     http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

     Also, in addition to Kissinger and Albright, who were born aboard to foreign parents and (gasp!) allowed to work around the president, you can add Polish-born John Shalikashvili, 4star General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Clinton.
155. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:44 pm  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Scientist: Please cite examples of any US-born persons who naturalized as US citiizens, whether before or after the 14th amendment.Let’s stop beating around the bush here and get specific.Names, birthplaces in the US, date naturalized.Should be easy
     no?

     No one is ever naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Citizens don’t need naturalization. But US-born children of immigrants do in order to be naturalized into US citizenship. As for naming an example, gee, that’s a tough one,…I’ll have to go all the way to….my dear grandmother and her brothers. Born of French immigrants, naturalized via the 14th Amendment if her father was not naturalized already when she was born.

     Understand this, if you are not a natural American citizen then whatever means is employed to make you a citizen is a form of naturalizaton, even if it’s a constitutional amendment. It’s still law, but natural citizenship requires no law and none exists for natural citizens. No one can name such a law because it’s a law that was never written. YOU ARE NOT A “LEGAL” CITIZEN, NOR AM I
156. Northland10 says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:52 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Citizens don’t need naturalization. But US-born children of immigrants do in order to be naturalized into US citizenship.

     Please provide one example where somebody born in the United States (excluding children of diplomats) was naturalized. You need to be specific with actual naturalization dates and evidence. You have made a claim so now you need to prove it.
157. Linda says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:56 pm  Linda(Quote)

     Northland10:

     Colin Powell was born to immigrants who I assume naturalized before he was born (don’t know for sure though).He probably wouldn’t count in Nash’s rules.

     Yes, there seemed to be many whose parents were immigrants, but didn’t show their naturalization date. I guess it is just that important. : )
158. y_p_w says:

     March 19, 2012 at 9:57 pm  y_p_w(Quote)

     Arthur: Adrien Nash–LiarHere are the citizenship restrictions that are a part of the Single Scope Background Investigation (a.k.a. “Yankee White” background check):Citizenship. Subject must be a U.S. citizen. Independent verification of citizenship received directly from appropriate registration authority. For foreign-born immediate family members, verification of citizenship or legal status is also required.And below is what “Ardrien Nash–Liar” said were the citizenship restrictions for an SSBI: Adrien Nash–Since 2009 a synonym for liar, fraud, phony, fake, and birfoon.

     I’m wondering how those foreign-born White House chefs and their personnel managed to do it. The current WH executive chef is from the Phillipines. A couple were born in France. I’m not even sure if they were naturalized US citizens.
159. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Scientist: Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright were two Secretaries of State who were not only the children of foreigners, but born outside the US.

     Are you incapable of differentiating between a presidentially appointed and Senate approved Cabinet Officer and an employee? Sad. I can’t say I even know that such persons even need a background check. I’d be surprised if they did since the President is pretty much responsible for vetting them.
160. Linda says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:02 pm  Linda(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: No one can name such a law because it’s a law that was never written.YOU ARE NOT A “LEGAL” CITIZEN, NOR AM I

     Swing and a miss!

     Try this law, for example.
     http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9679.html

     It starts out like this:

     “Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

     (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ”
161. Northland10 says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Are you incapable of differentiating between a presidentially appointed and Senate approved Cabinet Officer and an employee?

     Are you incapable of differentiating between an Electoral College elected, Congress certified Federal Officer and an employee?
162. Arthur says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:15 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: I am incapable of differentiating between reality and my own tortured rants. Isn’t that sad? I’m also still a liar. Sad.

     Adrien Nash. Still not listening. Still not making sense. And still a liar.
163. misha says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:23 pm  misha(Quote)

     Northland10: Are you incapable of differentiating between an Electoral College

     Are you incapable of differentiating between the Electoral College and the University of Phoenix?
164. Arthur says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:37 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Run for cover, everyone! Jerome Corsi is dropping a new bombshell!

     “Did the parents of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers help finance Barack Obama’s Harvard education?

     “Did Ayers’ mother believe Obama was a foreign student?

     “And was the young Obama convinced at the time – long before he even entered politics – that he was going to become president of the United States?

     “A retired U.S. Postal Service carrier who delivered mail to Tom and Mary Ayers in a Chicago suburb in the late 1980s and early 1990s and claims to have met Obama in front of the Ayers home emphatically says yes to all three questions.”

     A retired letter carrier. Wow. Now that’s credibility! Who’s next? Will a Milk Man claim he delivered a bottle of cream and the infant Obama to the Ayer’s front door?
165. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 10:53 pm  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Keith wrote: “But you are wrong when you claim that birth certificates don’t contribute to proving eligibility. Since they contain the birth date and the birth location…”
     I believe that what I said was that a BC is not essential to actually being eligible, since one is or isn’t eligible regardless of proof.

     As for jurisdiction, what your perspective holds is that the kind of jurisdiction that you suppose is referred to is a blanket jurisdiction which applies to all humans except those with diplomatic immunity but I believe that if that was what was meant then it would have said that, saying something like “except those born to servants of foreign governments.” I believe that it’s totally reasonable to conclude that no non-immigrant alien is subject to the political authority of Washington, but my vast ignorance of U.S. law doesn’t provide me with any means to provide proof either way other than to invoke the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to explain the jurisdiction requirement. Foreign tourists and visitors and students are under subjection to foreign powers and therefore can’t be viewed as also being under subjection to U.S. political authority since that would produce an untenable conflict meaning foreign tourists could be drafted into the U.S. Marine Corp.

     But it doesn’t remove the fact that the 14th Amendment was unknown and unwritten in 1789 and the facts about who is a natural citizen is derived from that era and not the 14th Amendment which is a form of naturalization for children of immigrants.

     “The birth certificate lists the details about the birth event. The official certification attests to the accuracy of those details.”
     That isn’t correct. The certification does not attest to the information shown on a birth certificate, -it merely attests to the fact that the *copy* is a TRUE COPY (or an ABSTRACT COPY). Hawaii now, in the digital age, only issues abstract copies, and so their certification stamp states a falsehood by claiming that it is either a True Copy or an Abstract, when in fact they are never True copies, -they are only abstracts, and there is no such thing as an abstract True copy because that would require there to be a True Abstract original and that is an oxymoron. Abstracts are computer generated images which are then printed and you know how easy it is to alter a file on a computer, but altering an image from an original birth certificate micro-film photo is a whole other ball game.
     That takes a whole different set of skills, skills which I developed over years and years of photo editing and manipulating in multiple layers (digital photo-art See many of my fabulous original images at http://dncwow.com and http://photobucket.com/hdr_image (High Dynamic Range Imaging group it’s on the first or second page of featured groups at Photobucket. It’s up to 50,000 views as of yesterday). All my photo websites have racked up over 8 million hits as of many years ago. My experience in image editing led me to discover things about the quack White House PDF that the software “experts” were incapable of noticing. I’ve revealed what I’ve uncovered in this gallery: http://photobucket.com/obama_bc -the images appear after the first page which is mostly text files as jpg images.
166. Keith says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:03 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: I believe that what I said was that a BC is not essential to actually being eligible, since one is or isn’t eligible regardless of proof.

     For f’s sake. I said they contribute to proving eligibility. That means they are evidence. And that is what Hawai’ian certificates say: they are prima facie evidence in any court of law or proceding. They are evidence man, evidence of eligibility.
167. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     John Woodman:
     By the way, it wasn’t just black people who were considered “inferior.” It was Indians, Asians… in short, anybody and everybody on the planet who wasn’t of white European ancestry.

     I believe that you should correct the mis-impression that the views of aliens was strictly racially based. It was mostly culturally based since people from “inferior cultures” were viewed as carrying that inferiority due to their foreign up-bringing. Racism would only be at the forefront if one’s views were not attenuated when someone of a foreign “inferior culture” who was raised and educated in the Western World was discriminated against nevertheless. Ethno-centrism should not be confused with racism even though both may be combined. Think of the Jews of Europe who were culturally identical to their German brain-washed countrymen. They were the same race, but the Nazi mind-set created a profound certainty of ethnic inferiority and wickedness contrasted with their own superiority. Using “racism” as a blanket explanation is simply an oversimplification of a more complex dynamic.
168. Keith says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:23 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: As for jurisdiction, what your perspective holds is that the kind of jurisdiction that you suppose is referred to is a blanket jurisdiction which applies to all humans except those with diplomatic immunity

     My perspective doesn’t enter into it. The meaning of the word is what it is.

     From Mirriam – Webster online dictionary.

     ju�ris�dic�tion
     noun \ˌju̇r-əs-ˈdik-shən\
     Definition of JURISDICTION
     1
     : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
     2
     a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
     3
     : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

     A foreigner who is physically in the United States is subject to the “power, right, or authority” of American law (unless they are a diplomat or invading army).

     A foreigner who is physically in the United States is subject to the “authority of the sovereign power to govern” of the United States Congress and the legal system (unless they are a diplomat or invading army).

     A foreigner who is physically in the United States is within the limits or territory where the authority of the Congress and the legal system may be exercised (regardless of whether they are a diplomat or invading army).

     Perspective has no bearing, there is no other viewpoint, only fact. Your opinion is not fact, my opinion is not fact. Only what is is what is, and the word ‘jurisdiction’ means what is means.

     I know, there are other conditions where the word ‘jurisdiction’ prefixed with various adjectives to draw nuanced distinctions between supposedly different kinds of jurisdictions. But in all cases, the word still means having authority with in “limits or territory” (which may be physical or conceptual).

     In the case of the 14th amendment, the wording makes it abundantly clear what that area of jurisdiction is. It says “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which defines a physical, geographical area.

     End of story.
169. Keith says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:31 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: “The birth certificate lists the details about the birth event. The official certification attests to the accuracy of those details.”

     That isn’t correct. The certification does not attest to the information shown on a birth certificate, -it merely attests to the fact that the *copy* is a TRUE COPY (or an ABSTRACT COPY).

     Yes. It is an official certification attesting to the fact that the information on that document is a TRUE COPY of the information that is found on the archived record preserved in the vault.

     Which is exactly what I said: it is attesting to the accuracy (i.e. TRUE COPY) of the details (i.e. information) that are reported on the document.

     Your futile attempts to torture the English language to prove that black is white, up is down, and wet is dry, while vaguely amusing for a couple of minutes, are hopelessly childish in the long run.
170. misha says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:51 pm  misha(Quote)

     To Lupin and other readers:

     10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts:
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html
171. Adrien Nash says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     y_p_w: I’m wondering how those foreign-born White House chefs and their personnel managed to do it.The current WH executive chef is from the Phillipines.A couple were born in France.I’m not even sure if they were naturalized US citizens.

     Well facts are facts and those facts clearly disprove the impression that I got from what I had read on the subject. Perhaps I read into it what seemed to be clearly true about those entrusted with the nuclear missiles. And also, perhaps stringent standards have been relaxed in recent years. Either way my claim appears to not be true currently, if it ever was. But one should note that there is a difference between those who are civilians and those who carry loaded guns. They are in the military and the Secret Service, and they may still employ the “all-American” requirement for working around the President. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t -with the example of Indira Gandhi being slain by her own Secret Service agent who was of an ethnic background of people who hated her party or ethnic group, don’t know which.

     BTW, I knew nothing of Obama’s presidential eligibility issue until a year ago this month when I received an email about the subject. So proclaiming I’ve been a birther since 2009 is purely the invention of a fevered mind
172. Suranis says:

     March 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm  Suranis(Quote)

     Northland10: Please provide one example where somebody born in the United States (excluding children of diplomats) was naturalized.

     What, you havent seen the naturalisation office thats in every maternity hospital?
173. Linda says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:01 am  Linda(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Foreign tourists and visitors and students are under subjection to foreign powers and therefore can’t be viewed as also being under subjection to U.S. political authority since that would produce an untenable conflict meaning foreign tourists could be drafted into the U.S. Marine Corp.

     You are on a roll now. Do you think Amanda Knox if she was subject to Italian jurisdiction or the Underwear Bomber was subject to US jurisdiction?

     You don’t have to take my word for it. The SCOTUS did a nice job in US v Wong Kim Ark. Here are some highlights:

     “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

     “…But, as already observed, it is impossible to attribute to the words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” that is to say, of the United States, at the beginning a less comprehensive meaning than to the words “within its jurisdiction,” that is, of the State, at the end of the same section; or to hold that persons, who are indisputably “within the jurisdiction” of the State, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Nation.”

     “The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.”
     http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
174. Keith says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:06 am  Keith(Quote)

     misha:
     To Lupin and other readers:

     10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts:
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html

     Great article.
175. John Reilly says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:13 am  John Reilly(Quote)

     I note that Mr. Nash has avoided explaining how we ever let Polish immigrant John Shalkiashvili work his way up through the ranks to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and, presumably, in charge of some weapons.
176. bob j says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:13 am  bob j(Quote)

     Stepping away from the Adrien Nash linguistic gymnastic supershow for a moment;

     What is so historic about Dr.Taitz’s losses in Georgia, and New Hampshire ? Is she now the leading birther lawyer in failed legal actions? Why would anyone sell a DVD, or 2, of a loss?

     Am I missing something? Are there hilarious outtakes on the DVD’s that the general public did not see?

     My biggest question is; who shot the footage?
177. J. Potter says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:21 am  J. Potter(Quote)

     bob j: My biggest question is; who shot the footage?

     That is a good question, considering the Haskins / Taitz tiff. Is she ripping Haskins off, or was someone else shooting too?

     These birther nuts don’t see these as fails, but as valiant attempts to Fight the System. Attempts to put the Darkie Djinni back in the Bottle. They are proud of this. A video record of a corrupt regime oppressing the Few, the Proud, the Birther Crusaders!

     If only they would let her feeeeenesssh. 😉
178. y_p_w says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:27 am  y_p_w(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Well facts are facts and those facts clearly disprove the impression that I got from what I had read on the subject. Perhaps I read into it what seemed to be clearly true about those entrusted with the nuclear missiles. And also, perhaps stringent standards have been relaxed in recent years. Either way my claim appears to not be true currently, if it ever was. But one should note that there is a difference between those who are civilians and those who carry loaded guns. They are in the military and the Secret Service, and they may still employ the “all-American” requirement for working around the President. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t -with the example of Indira Gandhi being slain by her own Secret Service agent who was of an ethnic background of people who hated her party or ethnic group, don’t know which.BTW, I knew nothing of Obama’s presidential eligibility issue until a year ago this month when I received an email about the subject. So proclaiming I’ve been a birther since 2009 is purely the invention of a fevered mind

     Uh. The White House executive chef prepares the food for the President and prepares the meals for state dinners. We’re talking someone who could spike the President’s food if so inclined.

     There was René Verdon. He was born in France and Jackie Kennedy brought him in as the first White House executive chef in 1961.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/05verdon.html?ref=obituaries

     Then there was Pierre Chambrin – also from France.

     http://www.stlclub.com/private-dining/

     Hans Raffert was from Germany.

     http://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/white-house-executive-chef-hans-raffert-shows-off-a-news-photo/89964205

     http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/05verdon.html?_r=1&ref=obituaries

     And of course the current executive chef – born in the Phillipines.

     http://immigration.about.com/od/successfulimmigrants/p/Comerford_Pro.htm
179. Adrien Nash says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:31 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     John Woodman:
     Here is open freedom of discussion. That’s one of the key distinctives that makes this site a credible source of information, as opposed to Donofrio’s blog. As opposed to BirtherReport.com, where your comment may or may not appear. As opposed to Apuzzo’s blog, where it will probably appear… someday.

     I personally have mostly tuned out Adrien Nash’s posts as they seem to carry a high noise-to-signal ratio.

     No one exposed the fallacy of Donofrio’s and Apuzo’s NBC “definition” more strongly nor clearly that myself. I expended much time and verbiage to explain to him the error of his logic. I never heard a word in response, but I might have gotten through because he is abandoning his legal license. Here’s his final communication on his blog. Clearly he’s a guy with lots of feeling and imagination, but that’s not a good thing when it comes to flawless legal reasoning.

     After long consideration and discussion with my family, I am saying goodbye to this blog and the law. I am retiring my law license and will be concentrating on making films, and writing music.

     There is no lawyer, politician or judge who will change the world into what God intended it to be – one family, one love. Angels are real. It’s gonna be a full on landing soon.

     Some are in the video at the following link.

     “BLOOD BROTHERS”

     ONE LOVE.

     Leo Donofrio

     I did the same and then some at the Apuzo blog. Having just revisted it for the first time in more than a month I found that the final posts were mine (Stranger) including this opening sentence from the second-to-last one; “Today I was inspired to write what may be the final word on natural citizenship: A Dissection of the “Definition” of Natural Born Citizen” I dissect the logic errors that clouds the issue.

     The last I heard from him was to inform his blog followers that he was working on a response but the last post by me was on Fed 10th. I assume no response is forth-coming because there is no counter to the debunking I did of his false logic. Or perhaps he’s been “too busy”.

     http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5867093233794772942
180. y_p_w says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:39 am  y_p_w(Quote)

     John Reilly: I note that Mr. Nash has avoided explaining how we ever let Polish immigrant John Shalkiashvili work his way up through the ranks to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and, presumably, in charge of some weapons.

     This guy was born in Japan although I’m guessing to American parents.

     http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=136

     Or this guy born in China (once commander of a carrier group with nuclear capabilities):

     http://www.history.navy.mil/special%20highlights/asian/ChangM.htm

     I got his name from here:

     http://www.history.navy.mil/special%20Highlights/asian/API-12Apr11.pdf

     This one is pretty interesting:

     Rear Admiral Eleanor “Connie” Mariano, Born in the Phillipines. Familiy emigrated to the US where dad became a senior enlisted Navy man. Was White House Physician to two Presidents.
181. Suranis says:

     March 20, 2012 at 12:48 am  Suranis(Quote)

     And of course Admiral Nimitz, who was raised by his grandfather, a former member of the German merchant Marine, after his father died before his was born.

     Oh what was that about grandparents again?
182. Adrien Nash says:

     March 20, 2012 at 1:22 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     G: The principle of natural membership is the 800 pound gorilla that none of you are willing to talk about because you know that it is true and that it nullifies the assumption that Barack Obama is a natural citizen of the United States. There is no answer to this natural fact and that’s why no one has ever attempted to give one.

     G:
     “Again, utter nonsense.You keep claiming that “no one has attempted to refute you”..
     Yet I see numerous posts from others who have repeatedly done just that.Whenever they do, you seem to just completely and I suspect intentionally IGNORE their line of questioning back to you”

     I don’t know what you’re referring to. Please cite one example of an issue that I’ve ignored. I know of none unless they were too juvenile to respond to. Also, I don’t think I challenged anyone to “refute me”. I challenge everyone to refute the facts I stated. In particular the principle of natural membership. No one will touch it. It’s like plutonium to the obot cause because it explains the principle of natural citizenship.

     As others have repeatedly asked you, [others? when, -where?] provide evidence of anyone born in the U.S. who has some sort of “citizenship” documentation.

     YOU can’t.Because there is NO such thing, as such are citizens by birth here alone. In other words, American NBCs.

     The ONLY types of citizens who have ANY documentation addressing their citizenship are Naturalized Citizens.”

     I’m clueless as to your request since your statements are pure fact. I agree with you completely. Who wouldn’t? I suspect that you might be thinking that my statements about automatic naturalization would come with some sort of certificate, but of course it doesn’t. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship at birth does not involve a process and a certificate issued for completion. Its naturalization is automatic , just like the automatic naturalization of children of immigrants who become naturalized. Also, for a long time foreign brides were automatically naturalized by marriage to an American groom. Their proof of citizenship was via showing their husband’s birth certificate and their marriage license. Instant citizenship recognition.
     Is that an answer to your concern?
183. John Reilly says:

     March 20, 2012 at 1:29 am  John Reilly(Quote)

     Mr. Nash has been back but has yet to explain why Gen. Shalikashvili got to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I guess facts are inconvenient.
184. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 1:59 am  G(Quote)

     Well, technically, you’re correct on that part. The actual birth itself is the event that determines one’s eligibility. But how else do you prove that event without some sort of documentation for that event? That is the whole point of the document – verification of place of birth, date/time of birth, and parentage. Sorry, but people don’t remember their own birth and those that remember it can easily die off… Hence, the value and purpose of documentation. So you’re entire reasoning here is a point without a purpose.

     Adrien Nash:
     Keith wrote: “But you are wrong when you claim that birth certificates don’t contribute to proving eligibility. Since they contain the birth date and the birth location…”I believe that what I said was that a BC is not essential to actually being eligible, since one is or isn’t eligible regardless of proof.

     Now you are just proving more silly talk. The meaning of jurisdiction and the actual clear exceptions to it have been repeatedly explained to you, as has the very simple and logical reason for those specific exceptions.

     Adrien Nash:
     As for jurisdiction, what your perspective holds is that the kind of jurisdiction that you suppose is referred to is a blanket jurisdiction which applies to all humans except those with diplomatic immunity but I believe that if that was what was meant then it would have said that, saying something like “except those born to servants of foreign governments.”

     That is why you shouldn’t be wasting so much of your obsessive time bloviating on matters you don’t understand. An ignorant person who rants and raves on matters he doesn’t even bother to understand is nothing but a pointlessly pontificating fool. The rest of your argument is just more intentionally obtuse idiocy that has already been addressed in the many, many replies to you that explain jurisdiction. It is not our fault that you are simply intentionally ignoring paying attention to any information that tells you something different than what you wish to hear. The only one locking you into your pretend world and keeping yourself ignorant is yourself.

     Adrien Nash:

     I believe that it’s totally reasonable to conclude that no non-immigrant alien is subject to the political authority of Washington, but my vast ignorance of U.S. law doesn’t provide me with any means to provide proof either way other than to invoke the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to explain the jurisdiction requirement. Foreign tourists and visitors and students are under subjection to foreign powers and therefore can’t be viewed as also being under subjection to U.S. political authority since that would produce an untenable conflict meaning foreign tourists could be drafted into the U.S. Marine Corp.

     What an entirely senseless argument! Why don’t you read up on Article V Section 1 of The Constitution some time. It clearly explains *how* the Constitution works and spells out the whole purpose and effect of the Amendment process. HINT: The Constitution was DESIGNED to be revised and updated. That is the process to do that. Per the very words spelled out in that Article V Section 1, those Amendments BECOME part of that Supreme Law of the Land we call The Constitution.

     You are really wasting time making pointless arguments about “original intent”, etc. The Constitution wasn’t designed to be stuck in the past and this is not the 18th Century. This is 2012 and ALL Amendments and laws in effect TODAY are what are relevant. Everything else is just a desperate dodge by folks like you who can’t deal with reality and how the modern world ACTUALLY works.

     Adrien Nash:
     But it doesn’t remove the fact that the 14th Amendment was unknown and unwritten in 1789 and the facts about who is a natural citizen is derived from that era and not the 14th Amendment which is a form of naturalization for children of immigrants.

     Do you not even read your own BS that you write? What part of OR do you not understand? Do you not grasp the basic meaning of that simple conjunction in the English language?

     The rest of your argument is just pointless and bogus and nothing more that a whiny sore loser excuse to pretend to yourself that you can deny the reality of the actual HI BC, because you “don’t like” what it reveals. Sorry, but ALL documentation of any form (whether written or digital) amounts to is just a collection of data.

     The whole bogus conspiracy argument of “altering” is just plain silly. That is the whole point of having any official agency issuing a document in the first place and authenticating it with their signatures and seals. Which is what EVERY certified COLB from HI is. HINT: That includes Obama’s (both COLB & LFBC). You can twist in the wind all you want to pretend otherwise, but THE OFFICIAL agency responsible for his birth certificate has CONSISTENTLY stood by and vouched for it. Claiming that “they are all in on it” is simply pure madness and a sign of extreme paranoid delusions that exceed any reasonable bounds of credulity.

     Adrien Nash:
     “The birth certificate lists the details about the birth event. The official certification attests to the accuracy of those details.”That isn’t correct. The certification does not attest to the information shown on a birth certificate, -it merely attests to the fact that the *copy* is a TRUE COPY (or an ABSTRACT COPY ). Hawaii now, in the digital age, only issues abstract copies, and so their certification stamp states a falsehood by claiming that it is either a True Copy or an Abstract, when in fact they are never True copies, -they are only abstracts, and there is no such thing as an abstract True copy because that would require there to be a True Abstract original and that is an oxymoron. Abstracts are computer generated images which are then printed and you know how easy it is to alter a file on a computer, but altering an image from an original birth certificate micro-film photo is a whole other ball game.That takes a whole different set of skills, skills which I developed over years and years of photo editing and manipulating in multiple layers (digital photo-art See many of my fabulous original images at http://dncwow.com and http://photobucket.com/hdr_image (High Dynamic Range Imaging group it’s on the first or second page of featured groups at Photobucket. It’s up to 50,000 views as of yesterday). All my photo websites have racked up over 8 million hits as of many years ago. My experience in image editing led me to discover things about the quack White House PDF that the software “experts” were incapable of noticing. I’ve revealed what I’ve uncovered in this gallery: http://photobucket.com/obama_bc -the images appear after the first page which is mostly text files as jpg images.
185. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:06 am  G(Quote)

     It is still BIGOTRY. And really…. you tout “ethnocentricism” as your belief model and then point to how N@zi Germany applied “ethnocentricism”….

     wow…just…sickening.

     You are only hurting your own argument more. While one can make simple evaluations about the techological capabilities or economic power of various cultures and nations, that is completely different from the utter BIGOTRY BUNK that is the assumption of “cultural” superiority as applied to the actual people within a culture… that is simply another flavor and type of cultural racism and utter reprehrensible dreck.

     Adrien Nash: Ethno-centrism should not be confused with racism even though both may be combined. Think of the Jews of Europe who were culturally identical to their German brain-washed countrymen. They were the same race, but the N@zi mind-set created a profound certainty of ethnic inferiority and wickedness contrasted with their own superiority. Using “racism” as a blanket explanation is simply an oversimplification of a more complex dynamic.
186. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:13 am  G(Quote)

     *head smack*

     Again, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT create ANY types of citizenship. It MERELY CLARIFIES that there are ONLY TWO – BORN & NATURALIZED.

     Both of these forms already existed. The 14th Amendment does NOT “naturalize” anyone who is BORN here.

     Adrien Nash: The 14th Amendment’s citizenship at birth does not involve a process and a certificate issued for completion. Its naturalization is automatic , just like the automatic naturalization of children of immigrants who become naturalized. Also, for a long time foreign brides were automatically naturalized by marriage to an American groom. Their proof of citizenship was via showing their husband’s birth certificate and their marriage license. Instant citizenship recognition.
     Is that an answer to your concern?
187. Adrien Nash says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:35 am  Adrien Nash(Quote)

     Linda: Swing and a miss!

     Try this law, for example.
     http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9679.html

     It starts out like this:

     “Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United dates at birth:

     (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ”

     Now that’s a respectable response. It calls for a respectable answer, so let’s delve into the subleties of a comprehensive explanation. First, on my part, when I say none was ever written, I was thinking in a time frame of the historical past, not the era of my own lifetime. Now lets go back a few years to before this section of the code was written. What law existed back then? I assume there was nothing. But whether there was or not, what is important is the nature of that section of U.S. code. It’s a section that deals with the policy and law of the U.S. regarding citizenship that’s connected to foreign parentage. It’s a section of the naturalization law (301). It’s only reference to Americans who are foreign-born to American parents (natural citizens) in included there because there is no other logical place to put it.

     But it does not indicate that citizenship is being granted to such children. The only authority Congress possesses is to declare the recognition of the citizenship that automatically exists via the blood connection of foreign-born children and their American parents. All the other clauses are under the authority to regulate the citizenship of persons who have descent from, or are, foreign nationals or indigenes tribes.

     The first clause about those born in the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is not new law because it is nothing more than a statement of the 14th Amendment and it was passed in 1868 solely for freed slaves and children of immigrants. It recognized the African-American population, in effect, as being U.S. citizens by birth, and the immigrant children as being naturalized U.S. citizens from birth. That was its effect. The 14th Amendment does not confer natural born citizenship status on those naturalized by it because they are not natural citizens (unless you recognize them as natural citizens of their father’s foreign homeland.)
188. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 3:11 am  G(Quote)

     Mr. Nash,

     You continue to be wrongheaded on this issue. NONE of the existing US laws on the books today exclude NBC citizenship to those born on US Soil. NADA.

     Think about it for a minute – the whole issue of “anchor babies” would NOT be an issue at all, if not for the REAL FACT that MERE BIRTH on US SOIL automatically grants them US Citizenship. Parentage has NOTHING to do with it. Not in terms of our laws. Therefore, the Citizenship of the parents is IRRELEVANT.

     Many of these children may be born with dual citizenship, because those other nations may ALSO view them as citizens, due to heritage issues. However, that does NOT supercede the supreme authority of US Law and Citizenship over those born here within OUR nations jurisdiction.

     Other nation’s claims over OUR citizens are irrelevant to those within our territory. It is also not easy to lose BORN citizenship in the US. One has to be legally competent to do so (age and mentality) and go through quite a process to lose it.

     Adrien Nash: But it does not indicate that citizenship is being granted to such children. The only authority Congress possesses is to declare the recognition of the citizenship that automatically exists via the blood connection of foreign-born children and their American parents. All the other clauses are under the authority to regulate the citizenship of persons who have descent from, or are, foreign nationals or indigenes tribes.
     The first clause about those born in the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is not new law because it is nothing more than a statement of the 14th Amendment and it was passed in 1868 solely for freed slaves and children of immigrants. It recognized the African-American population, in effect, as being U.S. citizens by birth, and the immigrant children as being naturalized U.S. citizens from birth. That was its effect. The 14th Amendment does not confer natural born citizenship status on those naturalized by it because they are not natural citizens (unless you recognize them as natural citizens of their father’s foreign homeland.)
189. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 3:17 am  G(Quote)

     While the 1868 law inspired the 14th Amendment, it was NOT restricted to that precedent.

     The language of the 14th Amendment is much broader and applies to ALL U.S. Citizens, regardless of race, creed, religion or national origin. It is not simply for freed slaves and children of immigrants.

     As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the 14th Amendment does NOT grant any new type of citizenship or categories of citizenry here whatsoever at all. It merely codifies and clarifies that the US simply has ONLY TWO types of citizenship – PERIOD: Born & Naturalized.

     Adrien Nash: The first clause about those born in the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is not new law because it is nothing more than a statement of the 14th Amendment and it was passed in 1868 solely for freed slaves and children of immigrants. It recognized the African-American population, in effect, as being U.S. citizens by birth, and the immigrant children as being naturalized U.S. citizens from birth. That was its effect. The 14th Amendment does not confer natural born citizenship status on those naturalized by it because they are not natural citizens (unless you recognize them as natural citizens of their father’s foreign homeland.)
190. Majority Will says:

     March 20, 2012 at 3:26 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: so let’s delve into the subleties of a comprehensive explanation

     Absurd.

     You’ve admitted you know nothing about law but feel obsessively compelled to bloviate incoherently on a subject of which you are obviously clueless.

     I imagine one of those really awful paintings of a sad clown every time you post your steaming fecal piles of nonsense.

     “I assume there was nothing.”

     Brilliant.
191. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 3:46 am  G(Quote)

     Utter nonsense!

     For one thing, you have only provided endless personal philosophy. NOTHING that constitutes as a real evidentiary “FACT” in support of your delusions. Therefore, you haven’t even provided anything tangibly viable to refute in the first place.

     What you have claimed in your screeds is no more worthy of debate than arguing over whether the stars are held in the sky by “quintessence”. There simply is no need to debunk philosophical clap-trap hypothesis that lack any actual substance or proof in the first place. In other words, you’ve never made any more of a case than any fiction writer claiming his imaginary world is real.

     Regardless of your lack of evidentiary support for your “Natural Law” notions, you *HAVE* received multiple rebuttals and challenges to this very notion:

     Scientist has repeatedly pointed out that there is no “natural law” in terms of man-made issues of citizenship or even national territorial boundaries, with his moose example. An example which you’ve NEVER really addressed and seem determined to continue to dodge to this very point in time.

     Others have pointed out that the only “laws of nature” really boil down to nothing more than eat, defecate, procreate, reproduce and die. I’m paraphrasing how they stated it, but yeah, it really comes down to just that.

     When we talk of the “self-evident” rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, such things are simply talking about the basic dignities that a self-aware and consciously feeling life form deserves. These are still principles that have to be enshrined into man-made laws and man-made societal constructs in order to be preserved. The Golden Rule is good philosophy and boils down these principles even further.

     However, there is nothing in nature that guarantees or protects those rights and dignities. Only man-made societal agreements codified into law.

     The same is true with issues of nationality, citizenship, etc. This even includes the stuff you rant on about “blood rights”, such as inheritance and property rights. All man-made societal constructs, which can very depending on the values and needs of the society. The only “natural” inheritance one gets is from DNA.

     Religious beliefs may shape a culture’s values and laws, but the religion is still a matter of personal belief and philosophy; while laws and are always a man-made construct. There simply is no “magical” reinforcement of any of these principles, without man-made intervention to define and enforce them. Not even in a true “theocracy”. No magical stone tables where Aslan’s body can be ressurected. No fairy dust to wish them into reality. No lightning bolts from the sky to punish those that violate them.

     So yeah, EVERY time folks have pointed out to the terms of ACTUAL law and how the real world works HAS been a direct attempt to try to explain these things to you. Hence they are ALL refutations of your personal “Natural Law” philosophy.

     It may be something that you’ve come up with and deeply support and wish for in your heart. However, your personal philosophical wishes have ZERO tether to how these concepts are actually enshrined, applied and enforced in US law.

     I really don’t know how many times these things can be said to you before they start to sink in…. *sheesh*

     Adrien Nash: I don’t know what you’re referring to. Please cite one example of an issue that I’ve ignored. I know of none unless they were too juvenile to respond to. Also, I don’t think I challenged anyone to “refute me”. I challenge everyone to refute the facts I stated. In particular the principle of natural membership. No one will touch it. It’s like plutonium to the obot cause because it explains the principle of natural citizenship.
192. Keith says:

     March 20, 2012 at 4:16 am  Keith(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Just look at the list of radio interviewees he lists on that page: all birthers. The guy is a liar, plain and simple. Anybody who believes him is [Violation of site policy against personal attacks deleted. Doc].

     Let it out Doc.

     Self censorship is soul destroying.
193. Arthur says:

     March 20, 2012 at 5:13 am  Arthur(Quote)

     Liars don’t get respect, Adrien. You’re a liar.

     Adrien Nash: Now that’s a respectable response. It calls for a respectable answer
194. Lupin says:

     March 20, 2012 at 5:36 am  Lupin(Quote)

     G deserves a gold medal for having the patience to argue with the loonie.

     Common sense and reason soak into Nash like water into a stone.
195. The Magic M says:

     March 20, 2012 at 5:37 am  The Magic M(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: so their certification stamp states a falsehood by claiming that it is either a True Copy or an Abstract, when in fact they are never True copies, -they are only abstracts

     Somehow birfers always have a problem with elementary logic.

     Even if they are “never true copies” but “only abstracts”, the statement that they are “true copies or abstracts” is logically still true, just like the statement “1 = 0 OR 0 = 0” is always true although the first clause is never true. *duh*

     Apart from the elementary fact – that has already been stated numerous times – that “true copy” and “abstract” refer to the data, not the physical appearance of the document (because, elementarily, a black-and-white photocopy could never be a “true copy” in the sense you seem to espouse because it will at least remove all colour from the original).

     [This entire line of argument reminds me of cranks in my country who grasp for straws trying to ignore court rulings against them by claiming they were never properly served a legally correct copy of the ruling but only a certified transcript which, among other things, does not contain the original signature(s) of the judge(s), nor a photocopy of them, but only the typewritten certification “signed, Judge Smith”. Of course the law explicitly disagrees with them, but that reminds us again of the birthers, doesn’t it?]
196. Northland10 says:

     March 20, 2012 at 5:54 am  Northland10(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: Please cite one example of an issue that I’ve ignored.

     1. Please provide one example where somebody born in the United States (excluding children of diplomats) was naturalized. You need to be specific with actual naturalization dates and evidence. You have made a claim so now you need to prove it. I asked this above.

     2. You said those with foreign ties/parents could not work near the President but gave not proof after we gave examples of naturalized citizens working in national security.

     3. You have never used one natural law writer to defend your opinion of natural law even after we asked (and yes, I specifically mentioned Locke).

     Adrien Nash: I believe that it’s totally reasonable to conclude that no non-immigrant alien is subject to the political authority of Washington, but my vast ignorance of U.S. law doesn’t provide me with any means to provide proof either way other than to invoke the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to explain the jurisdiction requirement. Foreign tourists and visitors and students are under subjection to foreign powers and therefore can’t be viewed as also being under subjection to U.S. political authority

     Again… Yick Wo V. Hopkins:

     The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

     “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

     These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

     Unless they are he to do the official, diplomatic work of a foreign government, they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, period. It is that simple. Your opinion may be otherwise but your opinion does not overrule US Law.
197. misha says:

     March 20, 2012 at 6:29 am  misha(Quote)

     Lupin and other readers:

     First, there was this: 10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html

     Now this: Tennessee Abortion Bill Would Make Abortion Providers’ Names Public
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/tennessee-abortion-bill_n_1363410.html

     First, it’s a violation of HIPAA –
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act

     Second, it’s an incitement for violence.
     Anti-abortion violence – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
198. misha says:

     March 20, 2012 at 6:37 am  misha(Quote)

     Then there’s this gem:
     Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Non-Christians And Liberals To Get Out

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/dennis-terry-rick-santorum_n_1364414.html
199. Scientist says:

     March 20, 2012 at 6:51 am  Scientist(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: As for naming an example, gee, that’s a tough one,…I’ll have to go all the way to….my dear grandmother and her brothers. Born of French immigrants, naturalized via the 14th Amendment if her father was not naturalized already when she was born.

     If your grandmother and her brothers were born in the US they were natiral born citizens, regardless of when or if their parents naturalized. If they were born in France then they may have been naturalized with their parents (as the laws provided back then) or individually as adults. In neither case were they naturalized by the 14th Amendment, nor did it really have an effect on their citiizenship, unless they had been slaves.

     Again, I ask for the names and dates of naturalization for anyone born in the US, other than children of diplomats. Show me proof. If you wish to use your grandmother show me a paper that lists a birthplace in the US and a date of naturalization..

     Thank you

     You can also, while you’re at it answer me whether a moose needs a passport to cross from the pine forests of New Brunswick to the pine forests of Maine
200. Paper says:

     March 20, 2012 at 7:17 am  Paper(Quote)

     Adrien, the main point is the government doesn’t work the way you discuss. The laws do not reflect your understanding, and never have. So it doesn’t even matter if “natural membership” works in principle as you say it does, because no one cares.

     Every child born on American soil is considered a natural born citizen. Minus very few exceptions, which have nothing to do with any concept of natural membership. They are not considered to be naturalized at birth by the government. Just you think that, and whatever few people who may agree with you.

     The entire government refutes your notion of natural membership as having any value to its citizenship. Anyone born here is a natural born citizen, and the government doesn’t recognize your categories of citizenship.

     As for your *principle* of natural membership itself, it is just a system of categorization. Calling it a principle is excessive. It isn’t even linked to nature and is not in any way an eternal principle. Nature does not care about citizenship (as Scientist has made clear).

     That you can create categories is not the same as discovering principles. That just means you can sort a database by different parameters. Your emphasis of the categories you think are critical is just that, your emphasis.

     All you are doing is drawing a circle around a group of people, and saying refute that! Refute what? That you can draw a circle? You’re just gerrymandering, not discovering.
201. Northland10 says:

     March 20, 2012 at 8:13 am  Northland10(Quote)

     Paper: All you are doing is drawing a circle around a group of people, and saying refute that! Refute what? That you can draw a circle? You’re just gerrymandering, not discovering.

     Excellent.
202. Tarrant says:

     March 20, 2012 at 8:22 am  Tarrant(Quote)

     To Mr. Nash, asking for some evidence that the child of a foreigner is actually eligible for the Presidency, I offer these tidbits:

     1. Vice President Dick Cheney oversees counting of electoral votes and certifies the final tally, naming Barack Obama the next President, on January 8th, 2009.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4

     2. President George W. Bush exits the White House after his two terms, giving the keys to the nation to incoming President Barack Obama.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrasRkyE7p8

     3. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts swears in Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knVOAr4U8l0

     Now you can gnash your teeth and swear up and down that no son of a foreigner is eligible to be President, but the people above know a lot more about the law and eligibility than you do, and despite the fact that all three of them likely voted for John McCain, and the first two openly supported him, they were fine with transferring power to the candidate chosen by the American people, and the American people were fine with voting for said candidate despite it being widely known his father was not a citizen.
203. Majority Will says:

     March 20, 2012 at 8:28 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Tarrant: but the people above know a lot more about the law and eligibility than you do

     I know a toddler with more knowledge about the law and eligibility than this birther bigot.

     Inanimate objects edge Nash out slightly.
204. Thomas Brown says:

     March 20, 2012 at 9:13 am  Thomas Brown(Quote)

     G:
     Mr. Nash,

     You continue to be wrongheaded on this issue.

     Think about it for a minute –

     You could have stopped right there, where you reached the insurmountable issue.
205. Suranis says:

     March 20, 2012 at 9:44 am  Suranis(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: That takes a whole different set of skills, skills which I developed over years and years of photo editing and manipulating in multiple layers (digital photo-art See many of my fabulous original images at http://dncwow.com and http://photobucket.com/hdr_image

     Ok this guy is a completly deluded liar. Not only is he passing off other peoples photographic work as his own (no adrian Nash on the websites) he’s now claiming to be a photoshop expert like Polarik.

     So tell us mr expert, how come they went through days of extrereamly tedious work to create 2 images, one that was shown at the press conferance, the high resolution version as photoed by Savanah Guthrie and others, and the other which was placed at the white house website? How come the faker put “Stanly Ann D” on the background layer and put the “unham” on another layer? How come Part of the date was “faked” and the rest left alone. Now come they put part of the BC number on one layer but the last 1 oddly was on the background layer and Left untouched? How come 2 of the layers are meaningless dots? Why int he name of sanity would someone paint a null mask around the bits they faked and leave the rest alone as that would take hours and leave no benefit other than making it look fake?

     In short why would a faker do things that no human in their right mind would do when they had a far more convincing image on hand, as seen in the photos from the press conferance?

     I’m looking forward to your multi-page drivel, or you ignoring this with your years of experiance. LOL
206. By whatever name says:

     March 20, 2012 at 9:57 am  By whatever name(Quote)

     FYI – On the first link (dncwow.com), if you scroll down on the left, you can find an a.r. nash 2007 on one of the photos. Looks like a postcard with the moniker: Sentinel of the North West Sea.

     Suranis:

     at http://dncwow.com and http://photobucket.com/hdr_image

     Not only is he passing off other peoples photographic work as his own (no adrian Nash on the websites)
207. Thomas Brown says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:01 am  Thomas Brown(Quote)

     OK. Look. Since we can’t adequately react to Mr. Nash the way he deserves because of Doc’s “no personal attacks” policy (noting that Nash is so aggravating that Doc once had to impose the policy on HIMSELF) . . .

     I propose we follow Doc’s previous “Don’t Feed the Trolls” advice and respond to Nash with what he deserves:

     SILENCE.

     I, for one, hereby renounce responding to the deranged liar (is that an ad hominem attack, or a clinically accurate description? Doc will have to decide), permanently.

     A. Nash is dead to me. He is officially beneath my notice.
208. Suranis says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:07 am  Suranis(Quote)

     By whatever name:
     FYI – On the first link (dncwow.com), if you scroll down on the left, you can find an a.r. nash 2007 on one of the photos.Looks like a postcard with the moniker: Sentinel of the North West Sea.

     Ahh, found it. Mea Culpa. Thanks for the heads up.
209. Linda says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:21 am  Linda(Quote)

     Adrien Nash: But it does not indicate that citizenship is being granted to such children.

     There is a difference between ignorance, which we all have indiffering levels, in various subjects, and a willful disregard/refusal to accept facts/information contrary to your existing beliefs. The 14th Amendment did not add a new category of citizenship, it merely codified what had always been for whites, while eliminating any racial exceptions. There are now, as it was at the time of the writing of the Constitution, only two ways to obtain citizenship in the US, by birth (natural born citizenship) or by naturalization.

     Read the law I linked to above, which states who is a citizen at birth, or a natural-born citizen. ” (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States…”

     How could that be, that a person with only one citizen parent is natural-born if born outside the US, but it takes two citizen parents if you are born in the US?

     You may have initially been duped, but you now are willfully spreading lies/misinformation.
210. Linda says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:28 am  Linda(Quote)

     Thomas Brown: I propose we follow Doc’s previous “Don’t Feed the Trolls” advice and respond to Nash with what he deserves:

     SILENCE.

     Good advice is hard to follow, but I agree and will let him wallow in his uncouthness. Thanks for the much needed wake-up call.
211. Reality Check says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:38 am  Reality Check(Quote)

     My guest on the Tuesday March 20th Reality Check Radio program will be Arthur Goldwag, author of a several of popular books on conspiracy theories. His latest work, published by Pantheon books, is The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right.

     9 PM EDT/6 PM PDT
212. Who You Know says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:43 am  Who You Know(Quote)

     Personally, I will sometimes be silent and sometimes respond. To Nash, and others. I don’t actually think of my responses, or responses by others such as G’s detailed ones, as being for Nash’s benefit. I find them useful, when I respond, to clarify my own thinking in relationship to such nonsense. I personally find that useful because I have to deal with real live birthers. I also find it useful to read the responses of others.

     Sometimes I may be better off not responding, to not get involved in nonsense, but on that level, I would be better off to avoid this entire website too, as good as it is. I can dismiss birthers, as many of us can, in just a few steps, one two three, finished. I don’t need to spend time here. But I do.

     I find it useful. I cannot escape the trolls. (I am not willing to annihilate family relationships.) I can only make them useful to my purposes, to better grow and understand all sorts of things, political, historical, personal and social.
213. Paper says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:53 am  Paper(Quote)

     I might be better served to let this go, and not point it out myself, but I know some people here don’t like multiple identities, and I just slipped, so that the discerning reader might guess anyway. “Who You Know” is “Paper.” I was adding an extra layer between my real identity, as I really don’t want birthers I know stumbling on me online and connecting actual details. But I was undone by auto-fill. ;-} C’est la vie.
214. Arthur says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:00 am  Arthur(Quote)

     Have you seen this? “Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Non-Christians And Liberals To Get Out”

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/dennis-terry-rick-santorum_n_1364414.html
215. misha says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:03 am  misha(Quote)

     Lupin and other readers: The Colbert Report does a parody of a Santorum town hall meeting:

     http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406797/january-24-2012/indecision-2012—rick-santorum-s-senior-pandering
216. Paper says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:06 am  Paper(Quote)

     The irony is he is saying he himself should get out. I do not respect such sentiments. I find the idea of “get out” itself to be un-American. But he is the one saying if someone doesn’t like the way “we” do things, get out. So, when is he leaving?

     I mean, most of “us” believe in the first amendment. It is first, and all.

     Arthur:
     Have you seen this? “Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Non-Christians And Liberals To Get Out”

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/dennis-terry-rick-santorum_n_1364414.html
217. JPotter says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:15 am  JPotter(Quote)

     The Santorum campaign is Poe’s Law in motion. I hear he has promised to eliminate porn now. Constitution be damned! Forbes (firmly in the Romney tank) had a field day with that one.

     His attempt to parallel health and auto insurance was shockingly medieval, stupid, and shortsighted. “Insurance rates shouldn’t pay for your general maintenance any more than they should pay for the general maintenance of your car” …. blowing any attemtpt o get healthcare costs under control through prevention right out of the water!

     The man is a pandering idiot, he deserves all the ridicule he has received over the years, and his fans identify with him because they, too, are shortsighted, fundy idiots.

     That said, thanks for all the popcorn, I hope he goes the distance. 😀
218. misha says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:20 am  misha(Quote)

     Arthur: Have you seen this? “Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Non-Christians And Liberals To Get Out”

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/dennis-terry-rick-santorum_n_1364414.html

     Hi Arthur: I mentioned it on another thread; I can’t find which one. I’m crafting an e-mail to the good pastor. My Borscht Belt sarcasm will reverberate through cyberspace.

     The man is a combination of Elmer Gantry and Sinclair Lewis’ “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
219. bob j says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:25 am  bob j(Quote)

     Looking around the various, and hilarious, birther sites; there is the obvious abandonment of common sense. For the discerning eye it was never there, but the narrative seemed almost coherent. Kinda like the first Die Hard movie. Almost/sorta Hollywood plausible. Now the birther excuses/story is just ridiculous; like Die Hard 4 ( seriously; sliding down a jet onto a broken highway!).

     And as I look at these sites, and some of the lunatics who come here ( A. Nash, James Durwood, veratis, Al H, Rambo Icky, john, bernadine aka scott, anyone with the name patriot, et al, ad nauseum), the shtick is not even that clever anymore.

     Is there a list of the birthers who have actually come to admit they were wrong?

     I didn’t come here until September/ Oct of 2011, so I will assume Squeeky is one who changed, but are there any others?

     Maybe birtherism will some day be in the DSM, because it really has all the hallmarks of a mental disease. Maybe the Sheriff Joe report jumped the shark, because the whole debate has been sad since then.

     It is a forgery, but we aren’t saying anybody did anything wrong. Buy the book.

     Here is my 50th court loss in a row. Buy it for $50, and as a bonus, you get loss number 48.

     Birther may be uninformed and racist, but how many can maintain the fleecing they receive.

     I think Speaker Boehner, and many other public officials, are partially responsible.

     Telling people to, basically, believe a lie is horrible.

     Birthers need help. If their ideological bretheren can’t provide; who can? Who should?

     Awww, screw it. who cares.

     I feel a bit of shame, because a part of me wants the President to be re-elected only to see the crazy’s totally lose it. Not in a lone wolf way, but in a scream in the middle of the mall way.

     Sorry, Open thread rant. On my last one I cursed. { Sorry Doc.} Hopefully this makes it through.
220. Arthur says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:32 am  Arthur(Quote)

     misha: Lupin and other readers: The Colbert Report does a parody of a Santorum town hall meeting: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406797/january-24-2012/indecision-2012—rick-santorum-s-senior-pandering

     Thanks for the link–hilarious!
221. Suranis says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm  Suranis(Quote)

     bob j: I didn’t come here until September/ Oct of 2011, so I will assume Squeeky is one who changed, but are there any others?

     Yeah, MommaE, who ran a birther radio show whos name I cant quite recall, but who eventually broke with berg and is a througraghly nice woman. She hasnt been well at all though, but posts on fogbow sometimes.
222. donna says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm  donna(Quote)

     Klayman Files Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Placement on Florida Presidential Ballot

     Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/20/4351640/klayman-files-lawsuit-challenging.html#storylink=cpy
223. donna says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm  donna(Quote)

     klayman Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Case No.: 2012CA00467)
224. Sef says:

     March 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm  Sef(Quote)

     Here’s a funny for you. If you go to the street view of Pamela Barnett’s house http://maps.google.com/maps?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&q=2541+Warrego+Way,+95826&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x809adb4250c410d7:0x9a016af224ca4a79,2541+Warrego+Way,+Sacramento,+CA+95826&gl=us&ei=JshoT_yeO6no0QGt6OCICQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA (arrived at by the DNS lookup of ConstitutionActionFund.org referenced on TFB) you will see on the street in front of her neighbor’s house that someone (neighbor??) has written arrows (in chalk?) indicating that Pammy is not in USA. Funnee!
225. JoZeppy says:

     March 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm  JoZeppy(Quote)

     Taking things a different route…Terry Fair, a/k/a KBOA, filed an amended complaint in Fair v. Obama. Haven’t seen it on the internets yet (and sorry, I’m not driving to Carroll county to get it), but interesting note gleaned from the docket sheet. She’s added a second plaintiff. Mary Mltenberger. I’m assuming it’s the same Mary Miltenberger who is the President of the Allegany County Conservative Caucus, as well as an International Body Talk Practitioner, Essential Oils Therapist….and here’s a kicker, was on the Board of Education for Allegany County! And I thought the level of education was pretty bad in Prince George’s County.
226. Thrifty says:

     March 20, 2012 at 9:44 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

     There was a fairly big earthquake in Mexico today. Malia Obama was there, but she wasn’t hurt and neither was the rest of her school group.

     It’s described in this article, which is a fairly “meh” puff piece to most people. I can only imagine that out there in Birtherstan, there are Birthers going “Too bad she wasn’t hurt.”
227. Arthur says:

     March 20, 2012 at 9:53 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Listening to Rich Santorum tonight, following the primary vote in Illinois. The doofus just denied global climate change and mocked the idea that human activity has affected climate change.
228. Scientist says:

     March 20, 2012 at 9:55 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Thrifty: There was a fairly big earthquake in Mexico today. Malia Obama was there, but she wasn’t hurt and neither was the rest of her school group

     And moronic Rick Sanctorum decided this was an opportunity to criticize the President for sending his daughter there when the State Department has warnings regarding Mexico (note to Mario Apuzzo: Even schoolkids can visit countries despite State Department warnings). Here’s the thing-the warnings are for specific areas, mostly along the US border where drug gang violence is a severe problem. Many areas of Mexico are as safe as the US. Where Malia’s school went, Oaxaca, is a gorgeous and fascinating city (I was there many years ago) and perfectly safe. Earthquakes are of course a risk in many places, including in the US.
229. Thrifty says:

     March 20, 2012 at 10:05 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

     Also, unsafe places are generally a whole lot safer when you have Secret Service bodyguards with you at all time.

     I’m betting Santorum’s statement got a lot of thumbs up from the “we’re totally not racist at all!” crowd who think Mexico is a giant anarchy covered dystopia.

     Scientist: And moronic Rick Sanctorum decided this was an opportunity to criticize the President for sending his daughter there when the State Department has warnings regarding Mexico (note to Mario Apuzzo: Even schoolkids can visit countries despite State Department warnings).Here’s the thing-the warnings are for specific areas, mostly along the US border where drug gang violence is a severe problem.Many areas of Mexico are as safe as the US. Where Malia’s school went, Oaxaca, is a gorgeous and fascinating city (I was there many years ago) and perfectly safe.Earthquakes are of course a risk in many places, including in the US.
230. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:07 pm  G(Quote)

     No, Santorum isn’t pandering. He sincerely believes what he is professing. He’s simply an extreme RW theocrat. That is who he is.

     JPotter: The man is a pandering idiot, he deserves all the ridicule he has received over the years, and his fans identify with him because they, too, are shortsighted, fundy idiots.
231. J. Potter says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:24 pm  J. Potter(Quote)

     G: No, Santorum isn’t pandering.

     Yes, he is. Now we have a disagreement! As with trolls, whether or not its intentional, the effect is the same. The weasel makes his hay telling people what he thinks they should want to hear. And he’s really bad (read: unsophisticated) at it. Completely disingenuous. I would go so far as to call him evil.
232. J. Potter says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:24 pm  J. Potter(Quote)

     Oh, and 😉
233. Majority Will says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:27 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

     G:
     No, Santorum isn’t pandering.He sincerely believes what he is professing.He’s simply an extreme RW theocrat.That is who he is.

     “Rick Santorum is so conservative he won’t even use weed whacker. That’s how conservative. … Rick Santorum is so conservative that after his last colonoscopy he went to confession. That’s how bad. … He’s so conservative he won’t even go to Home Depot to get wood. That’s how bad. … He is so conservative he won’t even acknowledge the planet Uranus. That’s how bad.” –Jay Leno
234. G says:

     March 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm  G(Quote)

     Actually, I see it as the opposite. All politicians do some level of actual pandering to audiences. Not all pandering is bad. The type that bothers me is when it is truly disingenuous (Romney) or inciteful (Newt).

     If anything, Rick is probably “too open” about what he really feels. He isn’t just telling a very conservative and religious audience what they want to hear and only pretending to mean it. No, he has always been one of them and of that particular extremely conservative mindset. So, when it comes to those sets of “social” issues, I don’t see him pandering. On the rest of the GOP false memes and talking points, yes, he panders by pushing those, just as nearly every member of that party does.

     That is what really scares the GOP Establishment types about Santorum. They usually just give pandering lipservice to this particular fundamentalist segment of the conservative base…and are much more careful with their words, in order to not scare the rest of the sane world by revealing how regressively oppresive the true intentions of the fundamentalist theocratic RWNJ really are. But Santorum – he is a “true believer” and would love to instill a “Christian” based version of the Taliban here if he could.

     Although there are many elements within the GOP Establishment that hold similar “desires” to Santorum, they prefer to chip around at the edges and use stealth to try to implement their regressive policies. They don’t like that Rick is a bit more blunt about openly spelling out where they really want to go… So, on those “cultural” issues, I would say that Rick is actually being more truthful with his audience about his true intentions that most other politicians.

     J. Potter: Yes, he is. Now we have a disagreement! As with trolls, whether or not its intentional, the effect is the same. The weasel makes his hay telling people what he thinks they should want to hear. And he’s really bad (read: unsophisticated) at it. Completely disingenuous. I would go so far as to call him evil.

     J. Potter: Oh, and
235. Majority Will says:

     March 21, 2012 at 12:22 am  Majority Will(Quote)

     Obama Jabs ‘Birthers’ With Irish Certificate

     Ireland’s Prime Minister Presents President With Document

     By CNN Political Unit
     POSTED: 9:30 pm EDT March 20, 2012
     UPDATED: 10:14 pm EDT March 20, 2012

     (excerpt) While receiving a formal certificate of Irish heritage at a St. Patrick’s Day celebration on Tuesday, President Barack Obama didn’t miss a beat in taking a jab at the so-called “birther” movement.

     “This will have a special place of honor alongside my birth certificate,” he joked, to great laughter.

     http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/30726626/detail.html
236. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 12:27 am  misha(Quote)

     G: No, Santorum isn’t pandering. He sincerely believes what he is professing.

     J. Potter: Yes, he is.

     Santorum believes what he says, and he is pandering to the LCD. He’s a rabble rouser, which makes him evil and dangerous. As I wrote before, he practices the politics of resentment which puts him at the same level as Adolf Schicklgruber.

     Remember his anti-education speech, which was cheered.
237. G says:

     March 21, 2012 at 1:55 am  G(Quote)

     Hilarious! Good for him!

     Majority Will: Obama Jabs Birthers’ With Irish CertificateIreland’s Prime Minister Presents President With DocumentBy CNN Political UnitPOSTED: 9:30 pm EDT March 20, 2012UPDATED: 10:14 pm EDT March 20, 2012(excerpt) While receiving a formal certificate of Irish heritage at a St. Patrick’s Day celebration on Tuesday, President Barack Obama didn’t miss a beat in taking a jab at the so-called “birther” movement.“This will have a special place of honor alongside my birth certificate,” he joked, to great laughter.http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/30726626/detail.html
238. G says:

     March 21, 2012 at 1:59 am  G(Quote)

     LCD = Lowest Common Denominator…

     Took me awhile to figure that one out. Yes, if that is what you meant with the acronym, I agree that he IS pandering in that direction.

     misha: Santorum believes what he says, and he is pandering to the LCD. He’s a rabble rouser, which makes him evil and dangerous. As I wrote before, he practices the politics of resentment which puts him at the same level as Adolf Schicklgruber.Remember his anti-education speech, which was cheered.
239. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 2:01 am  misha(Quote)

     Lupin and other readers: Conservatives are France bashing. I don’t know if this is true, but I read the GOP’s tag line, to cause anger about health care reform, is going to be ‘Freedom Not France.’

     In the meantime, watch these and be very, very frightened:

     Bill Maher on France: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ
     and
     Mitt Romney Isn’t the Only Candidate Who Dabbles in the Wicked French Tongue:
     http://gawker.com/5875865/mitt-romney-isnt-the-only-candidate-who-dabbles-in-the-wicked-french-tongue
240. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 2:18 am  misha(Quote)

     G: LCD = Lowest Common Denominator…Took me awhile to figure that one out. Yes, if that is what you meant with the acronym

     After I clicked ‘submit comment,’ I realized some people may think it stands for liquid crystal display.

     Thanks for the comment.
241. gorefan says:

     March 21, 2012 at 3:38 am  gorefan(Quote)

     G: Hilarious! Good for him!

     Majority Will: Obama Jabs Birthers’ With Irish Certificate

     Here is the video

     http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/20/obama_cracks_birth_certificate_joke_when_presented_with_irish_heritage_doc.html
242. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 21, 2012 at 3:57 am  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Larry Klayman, Esq. just got into the Florida Fray officially I guess. I did a Internet Article on it plus I jabbed Sam “Mr. Mensa” Sewell pretty hard:

     http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/florida-birthers-roll-out-the-big-legal-gun-or-sam-sewell-cant-count-to-2/

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
243. G says:

     March 21, 2012 at 6:02 am  G(Quote)

     Loved the article, Squeeky! As always, the title, choice of pic & easter egg were superb!

     Also loved the pics & cute little rhyme with the lady bugs!!! I won’t spoil any of those reveals for the rest of the folks here… they will just have to check your source link to see what all the fun is about!

     Oh, and as you pointed out, the REAL TELL of what the Birtheristani are up to was in this revealing statement from Sam Sewell:

     The task at hand is to compel court proof, official acknowledgment and removal from the ballot, as well as present the damning facts about Obama to the court of public opinion.”

     As your article correctly notes, Klayman’s legal case is already DOA, as it simply pushes the same fatal flaw that has been smacked down by Ankeny, etc. repeatedly. It doesn’t offer anything new, so it has nowhere to go but down the same FAIL path as all the ones before it.

     Therefore, other than another grift to separate the gullible Birther’s from their coin and also line Klayman’s pockets in the process, this whole thing is just another shiny object dog & pony show attempt to break through with PROPAGANDA SMEARS.

     They really are desperate to come up with some sort of way to influence the election with slime and smears, aren’t they? Silly little Birthers…when will they learn that they have no receptive audience beyond their own existing Cult Choir…

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Larry Klayman, Esq. just got into the Florida Fray officially I guess. I did a Internet Article on it plus I jabbed Sam “Mr. Mensa” Sewell pretty hard:http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/florida-birthers-roll-out-the-big-legal-gun-or-sam-sewell-cant-count-to-2/Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter
244. Keith says:

     March 21, 2012 at 7:03 am  Keith(Quote)

     JPotter: His attempt to parallel health and auto insurance was shockingly medieval, stupid, and shortsighted. “Insurance rates shouldn’t pay for your general maintenance any more than they should pay for the general maintenance of your car” …. blowing any attemtpt o get healthcare costs under control through prevention right out of the water!

     Your auto insurance money pays for the insurance company to pressure the local governments to do things like fix pot holes and accident hot spots – things that cost them money when people claim for damages caused by such things.

     Your fire insurance money pays for the insurance company to pressure the local governments to do things like buy appliances that can handle fires in the buildings that exist in the area. I can specifically remember in the late 60’s early 70’s insurance rates going down all across Tucson when the Fire Department took possession of an appliance that could deal with fires on the 25th story (or some such). There was a big deal made out of it in the local paper. EVERYBODY in town benefited.
245. Keith says:

     March 21, 2012 at 7:05 am  Keith(Quote)

     Suranis: Yeah, MommaE, who ran a birther radio show whos name I cant quite recall, but who eventually broke with berg and is a througraghly nice woman. She hasnt been well at all though, but posts on fogbow sometimes.

     Really? I remember her as particularly vile. I am happy to see she found reason.
246. Keith says:

     March 21, 2012 at 7:10 am  Keith(Quote)

     Arthur:
     Listening to Rich Santorum tonight, following the primary vote in Illinois. The doofus just denied global climate change and mocked the idea that human activity has affected climate change.

     Water is wet. Film at 11.
247. Keith says:

     March 21, 2012 at 7:13 am  Keith(Quote)

     Majority Will: He’s so conservative he won’t even go to Home Depot to get wood. That’s how bad. …

     Wait. I thought the founder of Home Depot was so far to the right he made Genghis Kahn look like Che Guevara.
248. Arthur says:

     March 21, 2012 at 8:01 am  Arthur(Quote)

     I came across an interesting article in Salon, “The Ugly Delusions of the Educated Conservative: Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama’s a Muslim. Here’s why”

     A few choice paragraphs to whet your appetite:

     “For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.”

     The next two paragraphs describe the emotional response that many people on this site have to birtherism:

     “Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.”

     Particularly in this paragraph, the author seems to be personally describing folks like G., Scientist, and Dr. C

     “And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.”

     Uncanny, huh? Here’s the article: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/
249. John Woodman says:

     March 21, 2012 at 8:33 am  John Woodman(Quote)

     Arthur: I came across an interesting article in Salon, “The Ugly Delusions of the Educated Conservative: Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama’s a Muslim. Here’s why”

     People typically imagine that their side — whatever it is — is the right one, and the other guys are necessarily dummies. That’s just life.

     Obviously, the key paragraphs would describe a lot of folks here who don’t care for misinformation. That would include me as well… an educated, conservative Republican.
250. Arthur says:

     March 21, 2012 at 8:50 am  Arthur(Quote)

     John Woodman: Obviously, the key paragraphs would describe a lot of folks here who don’t care for misinformation. That would include me as well… an educated, conservative Republican.

     I’m grateful to be reminded that generalizations don’t always hold true. Conservative, Republican, and a fighter against lies–you’re ok in my book. Now the big question is–what’s your take on Peyton Manning going to Denver??
251. JPotter says:

     March 21, 2012 at 9:58 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Arthur: “The Ugly Delusions of the Educated Conservative: Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama’s a Muslim. Here’s why”

     Absolutely, it’s not an education problem, but a critical thinking / reationality / honesty problem. Will a person accept and adapt to objective reality, or seek to deny it, spin it? Magic/superstition or science/reason? Accept and welcome change as a challenge, or resist and deny?

     Education can but does not necessarily change these traits; rather the increase in information can enable one to dig in deeper, build mental walls higher and thicker. Particularly depending on the nature of the education. Here in Tulsa, we have two universities, the University of Tulsa and Oral Roberts University. They offer many degree programs with the same names. Ironically, both are historically tied to churches. The similarities end there.

     I am highly biased toward reason, and went to the ‘right’ university (haha). However, I do believe you need to understand both mindsets, and the spectrum in between.

     Lastly, conservatism does not necessarily = magic-sniffer. On another thread, I expressed a need for a rational, visionary conservative. Someone to kick that party into the 20th century (21st is asking too much, let’em up slow). It certainly isn’t me! It will happen eventually. After we hit bottom. I say we, because the two parties are permanent, they are part of America, all but literally codified into law at the state level. No matter how regressive the Reds become before rebooting, they won’t shrink into oblivion.
252. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 11:50 am  misha(Quote)

     Hey everyone – this is a ‘must see’: Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE
253. JPotter says:

     March 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     Arthur: Now the big question is–what’s your take on Peyton Manning going to Denver??

     http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/138/2012/03/20/108518_600.jpg

     That and Tebow’s prayers have been answered. The Broncos will make it to the Super Bowl next year. 😉
254. donna says:

     March 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm  donna(Quote)

     MORE hilarity from the ditz:

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/86226685/2012-03-16-TAITZ-v-RUEMMLER-APPEAL-USDC-DC-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Summary-Affirmance-Tfb
255. Arthur says:

     March 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     misha: Hey everyone – this is a must see’: Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

     Excellent . . . amazing editing; I don’t know how they do it.
256. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm  misha(Quote)

     Here’s more fun with Willard Mitt:

     “So it may not have been particularly helpful when one of his top advisers on Wednesday suggested that Mr. Romney’s campaign views the Republican race as an Etch a Sketch toy that can be shaken up and redrawn from scratch.

     “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said on CNN. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

     You can’t make this stuff up:
     http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/romney-aide-cites-etch-a-sketch-pivot/
257. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm  misha(Quote)

     Arthur: Excellent . . . amazing editing; I don’t know how they do it.

     Apple Final Cut Pro. I’ve used it, and it is breathtaking.
258. G says:

     March 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm  G(Quote)

     Fascinating article, thanks!

     Looks like the author’s new book (coming out next month), about the Republican brain, should also be a fascinating read.

     Arthur: Particularly in this paragraph, the author seems to be personally describing folks like G., Scientist, and Dr. C
     “And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.”
     Uncanny, huh? Here’s the article: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/
259. John Woodman says:

     March 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     Arthur: Now the big question is–what’s your take on Peyton Manning going to Denver??

     Oh, gosh. Sorry. I have a lot of different interests. But I just don’t follow basketball.

     😉
260. G says:

     March 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm  G(Quote)

     Excellent post! I fully agree.

     I would add, from my personal experiences, that the issue of some highly intelligent people simply becoming further entrenched in irrational positions seems to also have direct connections to either strong emotion (activism) and even more common, excessive hubris.

     For the activist (on any part of the political spectrum), the strong emotional attatchment seems to just reinforce their own confirmation bias filters.

     For highly intelligent people, there is always a danger of becoming too smug in one’s own intellectual abilities and allowing that to develop into rigid arrogance. These folks (and that includes some scientists I know personally), will simply do everything they can to avoid evidence that contradicts their pet theories, as they basically equate such as a threat to their own prideful ego and sense of superiority. What this really comes across to me is simply being too insecure to remain open-minded and that their excessive ego’s and rigidly expressive arrogance have simply developed as personal defense mechanisms to make them feel good about themselves.

     JPotter: Absolutely, it’s not an education problem, but a critical thinking / reationality / honesty problem. Will a person accept and adapt to objective reality, or seek to deny it, spin it? Magic/superstition or science/reason? Accept and welcome change as a challenge, or resist and deny?
     Education can but does not necessarily change these traits; rather the increase in information can enable one to dig in deeper, build mental walls higher and thicker. Particularly depending on the nature of the education. Here in Tulsa, we have two universities, the University of Tulsa and Oral Roberts University. They offer many degree programs with the same names. Ironically, both are historically tied to churches. The similarities end there.
     I am highly biased toward reason, and went to the right’ university (haha). However, I do believe you need to understand both mindsets, and the spectrum in between.
261. misha says:

     March 21, 2012 at 5:44 pm  misha(Quote)

     John Woodman: Oh, gosh. Sorry. I have a lot of different interests. But I just don’t follow basketball.

     Being the jokester I am, here’s from the Iditarod. We were following the mushers, and wanted to keep track of their progress. As each musher went by, someone in my group would shout “what’s your number?”

     There was a lull, and a musher came towards us. As she passed, I shouted “What’s your favorite color?” Everyone was laughing so hard, they never got her number.
262. G says:

     March 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm  G(Quote)

     Yeah, I find that astoundingly inept of his OWN campaign to introduce that theme.

     I’ve actually made a number of Etch-A-Sketch analogies about Romney in conversations with others since at least last summer. Of course, mine were always using that analogy to scathingly point out how the man seems to have ZERO core principles and simply is the ultimate hollow panderer out there.

     Which *IS* really what that analogy represents here, no matter how someone tries to spin it, after all. It is such an EPIC FAIL for Romney’s own campaign to put that imagery out there (it truly is an “Emperor has no clothes” moment), that ALL of Romney’s true opponents (Newt, Santorum and YES, the Democratic Party) wasted no time in picking up on it and running with attacking Romney with the Etch-A-Sketch meme…

     (Side Note: The only Romney “opponent” who has not seized on this is Ron Paul. Then again, there have been numerous surprising political articles over the past few months about how “cozy” the Ron Paul campaign and the Romney campaign have been towards each other behind the scenes…even to the extent of numerous believable examples of where they appear to be intentionally propping each other up and coordinating their attacks on Newt & Santorum. It certainly is an odd pairing of principle and I can’t see how Ron Paul’s devoted followers don’t view such actions as a complete sell-out of everything they profess to stand for…)

     misha: Here’s more fun with Willard Mitt:“So it may not have been particularly helpful when one of his top advisers on Wednesday suggested that Mr. Romney’s campaign views the Republican race as an Etch a Sketch toy that can be shaken up and redrawn from scratch.“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said on CNN. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.” You can’t make this stuff up:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/romney-aide-cites-etch-a-sketch-pivot/
263. Suranis says:

     March 21, 2012 at 6:24 pm  Suranis(Quote)

     Its ok if you are Ron.
264. donna says:

     March 21, 2012 at 7:13 pm  donna(Quote)

     “Side Note: The only Romney “opponent” who has not seized on this is Ron Paul.”

     the new term for the 2 of them is “BRO-MANCE”
265. Suranis says:

     March 21, 2012 at 7:21 pm  Suranis(Quote)

     RAND AND ROMNEY – RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING YOUR WAY TO A BRIGHT FUTURE!
266. Arthur says:

     March 21, 2012 at 10:27 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     More Sheriff Joe hi-jinks . . . ORYR leads a new article with this headline:

     Sheriff Joe Arpaio Gives U.S. Selective Service Director Larry Romo 30 Days to Investigate and Release Obama’s Original Selective Service Form
     for Forensic Document Examiners to Analyze
267. Majority Will says:

     March 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

     Arthur:
     More Sheriff Joe hi-jinks . . . ORYR leads a new article with this headline:

     Sheriff Joe Arpaio Gives U.S. Selective Service Director Larry Romo 30 Days to Investigate and Release Obama’s Original Selective Service Form
     for Forensic Document Examiners to Analyze

     Or else?

     What a buffoon.
268. Arthur says:

     March 21, 2012 at 10:57 pm  Arthur(Quote)

     Majority Will: Or else?What a buffoon.

     I expect that Arpaio doesn’t expect or want a reply. That way he can accuse the Selective Service of malfesiance and so generate more anti-Obama noise.
269. CarlOrcas says:

     March 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Majority Will: Or else?

     He will personally fly to Selective Service headquarters and make them put on his pink underwear. If they’re lucky he may bring along a few green bologna sandwiches.

     Majority Will: What a buffoon.

     Amen.
270. Keith says:

     March 22, 2012 at 3:35 am  Keith(Quote)

     This from the now closed PIKA post. J. Potter is responding to my question about why Tulsa gas prices seem to be more volatile that Tucson’s:

     Market forces, of course :p …. Tulsa is a larger market, and dominated by QuikTrip, which, due to insane volumes, is able to change price twice/daily at all locations. Also have a refinery in town, and is close to the massive pipeline hub in Cushing, OK.

     The problem with that answer is that Tucson is a larger market than Tulsa, though they are close enough to be equivalent.

     From Wikipedia in reference to Tulsa:

     Tulsa (play /ˈtʌlsə/) is the second-largest city in the state of Oklahoma and 46th-largest city in the United States. With a population of 391,906 as of the 2010 census,[3] it is the principal municipality of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, a region with 937,478 (2010) residents in the MSA and 988,454 (2010) in the CSA.

     From Wikipedia in reference to Tucson:

     Tucson (play /ˈtuːsɒn/ TOO-son) is the county seat of Pima County, Arizona, United States and is the home of the state’s first university, The University of Arizona. The 2010 United States Census puts the city’s population at 520,116 [1] while the entire Tucson metropolitan area’s population is 1,020,200.

     Tulsa has a refinery, while Tucson is on the major east/west pipeline and a major intermediary storage depot between Texas and California. I don’t think either of these attributes explains the volatility of the local price in Tulsa v Tucson.

     I have no idea what Quiktrip is. Perhaps if they produce twice as many data points that would explain it.

     When I was first driving (late ’60’s), you could set your calendar by the gas prices in Tucson. At the end of the month it would be 19 cents a gallon, then it would rise to a peak of maybe 27 cents a gallon during the mid to 3rd quarter of the month.

     The reason was the pipeline shipment schedule. Tucson would benefit from the ‘plug gas’ near the end of the various shipment contracts. ‘Plug gas’ is the gas near the end of the shipment that contains a bit of containment (heavy oil or radioactive marker) that would separate one shipment from the other. The plugs were stored up during the month and released to the cut rate gas stations during the last week of the month.

     I just related that anecdote so you could all have wet dreams about 19 cents a gallon gas.
271. Arthur says:

     March 22, 2012 at 8:28 am  Arthur(Quote)

     I don’t know exactly how the birther movement is funded, but after reading this article, I wouldn’t be suprised if 80 year old Harold Simmon, a “reclusive, super-wealthy Republican donor,” who “despises and fears President Obama” might be throwing a few bucks their way.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/harold-simmons-obama_n_1371642.html

     “Any of these Republicans would make a better president than that socialist, Obama,” Simmons told the Journal (subscription required), in what is the piece’s most provocative quote. “Obama is the most dangerous American alive … because he would eliminate free enterprise in this country.”
272. donna says:

     March 22, 2012 at 8:51 am  donna(Quote)

     ca challenge – dummett v bowen

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/86281437/Dummett-v-Bowen-Petition-Mar20-12
273. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 22, 2012 at 9:21 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     This one makes no sense. It’s a writ of mandamus to require Secretary of State Bowen to verify candidate eligibility. The California courts have already rules that the Secretary of State has no such duty. I skimmed the document and didn’t see where attorney Kreep cites the earlier cases.

     This one would seem to be DOA.

     donna: ca challenge – dummett v bowen

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/86281437/Dummett-v-Bowen-Petition-Mar20-12
274. JPotter says:

     March 22, 2012 at 9:41 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Keith: This from the now closed PIKA post. J. Potter

     Keith, your question about Tulsa/Tucson was interesting, as I had worked for QuikTrip, 2004-09, and tehy had plans to expand to Tucson. They are already in Phoenix (does Shurriff Joe shop there? Dumdumdum). It’s a convenience store chain started in in the ’50s, dominates the market, selling 55% of all the gas in Tulsa. If it were logistically possible, it would be 90%. But yes, they, and the in-town refinery, result on a flood of data and crazy price sensitivity. State law says a filling station can only change price after a delivery of fuel. All QTs get fuel once/day, most twice! And price is managed by neighborhoods and tied directly to gas futures.

     19�/gallon. Aww, pre-embargo. I recall a Farnkie Avalon flick in volving a nuclear attack on LA … on the way out of town, the family is shocked to discover a station price-gouging, charging $3 / gallon!

     Obama is coming to Cushing today. Looking to sell a pipeline. The Reds won’t say no to a pipeline, will they?
275. y_p_w says:

     March 22, 2012 at 11:02 am  y_p_w(Quote)

     I started thinking about the “wrong zip code” theory as to Obama’s Social Security number. Of course the fat finger or bad handwriting error where a 0 replaces a 9 is probably the most plausible, but how does it get there?

     I’ve found from experience that a wrongly addressed zip code can still be delivered. Often it’s a postal worker pulling out an undeliverable pile of mail and then correcting the zip manually. I remember big phone book sized zip code lookup manuals for zip codes that would be in the lobbies of post offices.

     However, I think there could be another possibility. Suppose it was undeliverable because of an improper address. It would just be resent to the sender (SSA). So they get it back and then manually correct the address. Would they even both to reassign a different SSN because the zip code suddenly changes? Probably not. The geographic correlation isn’t critical.
276. Sef says:

     March 22, 2012 at 11:28 am  Sef(Quote)

     y_p_w: but how does it get there?

     I have never understood why people need to assume that the substitution of a 0 for a 9 in the ZipCode had to occur in the envelope sent back to young Obama. The only time this switch is needed is when the SSA clerk chooses which set of SSNs to use. Most probably, once a number has been selected, even wrongly, it can’t be put back. Plus, the SSA has said that the number is not state-specific, so if the clerk noticed her mistake she probably did not think that correction was needed.
277. y_p_w says:

     March 22, 2012 at 11:42 am  y_p_w(Quote)

     Sef: I have never understood why people need to assume that the substitution of a 0 for a 9 in the ZipCode had to occur in the envelope sent back to young Obama. The only time this switch is needed is when the SSA clerk chooses which set of SSNs to use. Most probably, once a number has been selected, even wrongly, it can’t be put back. Plus, the SSA has said that the number is not state-specific, so if the clerk noticed her mistake she probably did not think that correction was needed.

     I would think it was likely because the SSA has always said that the correlation was with the provided mailing zip code. However, I could imagine a process where the keystrokes to enter the zip for number assignment was performed separately of the actual mailing address entry. Or perhaps the SSN was manually keyed in by an operator. Who knows what the workflow is.

     Really though, I’m thinking of all the clowns who claim there is no way Obama could have gotten his SSN card delivered with an incorrect zip code. I’ve heard unsubstantiated claims that government mail isn’t allowed to be sent to the wrong zip code.
278. justlw says:

     March 23, 2012 at 7:21 pm  justlw(Quote)

     My MiL’s visiting. She opened the paper this morning, and moaned, “Oh, the birthers are at it again.” (New California case I haven’t seen mentioned here: Dummett v. Bowen)

     We’d never discussed birferism before. I got to tell her some stories. She was astonished, making several comments about head thickness and brick walls as I went on. “No, wait: it gets better“.

     It was a fun morning. 🙂
279. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 23, 2012 at 7:39 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     I just finished my legal Internet Article on whether the CCP and friends have crossed any legal lines.

     http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/did-corsi-and-the-cold-case-posse-cross-the-line/

     It is pretty long, but I quoted from legal cases and Federal jury instructions. I think Obama has a legal case against them if he wanted to pursue it under 18 U.S.C. 241.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
280. G says:

     March 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm  G(Quote)

     I enjoyed your article as always. It will be interesting to see how the legal minds at your site and here weigh in on your findings.

     From my perspective, I take the same position which you stated towards the end of your article:

     It is unlikely that Obama would ever make the complaint against the Cold Case Posse and any accomplices, because at this point in the game, it is probably politically expedient to let them run around in hysterics . But I think I have shown that a viable legal option exists. A violation of the conspiracy statute seems easier to prove. No actual harm is required, nor any overt act. The whole thing is going nowhere, so there will probably never be a violation of Section 242.

     We’ve seen numerous examples in life where folks don’t bother pursuing legal recourses, because their opponents are simply NOT worth the effort and attention. The Birthers are a national joke and certainly fall in this category.

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: I just finished my legal Internet Article on whether the CCP and friends have crossed any legal lines. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/did-corsi-and-the-cold-case-posse-cross-the-line/It is pretty long, but I quoted from legal cases and Federal jury instructions. I think Obama has a legal case against them if he wanted to pursue it under 18 U.S.C. 241.Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter
281. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 23, 2012 at 10:45 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Thank you G!!! That was a very hard Internet Article to write, because on any legal stuff you can end up talking about apples when the law is about oranges before you know it. Then you just have egg all over your face.

     My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, told me once that you could always use jury instructions to lay out your case because that you would not miss any elements. That is why i went that route. Oh well, sometimes you just have to roll the dice.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
282. justlw says:

     March 24, 2012 at 2:44 am  justlw(Quote)

     “Why apples?”

     “I was on my way to lunch.”
283. The Magic M says:

     March 24, 2012 at 7:02 am  The Magic M(Quote)

     This is gonna be good:

     http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Executive-Committee-Motion-in-Limine-3-22-121.pdf

     Seems someone is finally fed up with Orly and her antics. I’ll be stacking up on popcorn. 🙂
284. Vic says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm  Vic(Quote)

     All (2) of the samples which show race of father indicate “Caucasian”. By birtherstan rules, no children were ever born (or can ever be born) in Hawaii with “African” fathers.
285. veritas says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm  veritas(Quote)

     the race for a child born in the early 60s would be “negro” not african right?
286. J. Potter says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm  J. Potter(Quote)

     veritas:
     the race for a child born in the early 60s would be “negro” not african right?

     Response A:

     All children born in the early 60s belonged to the same racial group? Awesome! A world beyond race. So, what went wrong after the 60s?

     Response B:

     “Race of Child” is not an entry on these certificates. Nor is it on mine. Now, why is that, veritas?
287. veritas says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm  veritas(Quote)

     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.
288. richCares says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm  richCares(Quote)

     “he race for a child born in the early 60s would be “negro” not african right”
     .
     no, not for an African, the term “Negro” is an American term, no African would ever use it.
     take a look at this Kenyan cenus form, note item 5:
     “5. race – Write European, Arab, Somali or African”
     you are being mislead, you might find it helpful to go only to reputable sites for information, unless you enjoy being mislead
289. richCares says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm  richCares(Quote)

     link for Kenyan cenus form
     http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf
     .
     After you check item 5, do us a favor, drop this Negro vs African talking point OK?
290. Scientist says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     veritas: you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro

     Be careful, Harvard might sue you for using their motto in furtherance of idiocy. Of course they might also have to ask Corsi tto give his degree back.
291. gorefan says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm  gorefan(Quote)

     veritas:
     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.

     Not true. The DOH has already said they write down whatever the parents put down. Barrack Obama Sr. wrote down African. Which was the term used in Kenya for its 1962 Census.

     http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

     Look at the instructions for Column 5. Race.
292. sactosintolerant says:

     March 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm  sactosintolerant(Quote)

     veritas:
     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.

     So you can prove Hawaii would not have allowed a BC with “African” on it to be filed right? Cuz you WOULD need that to make this claim right?
293. richCares says:

     March 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm  richCares(Quote)

     “Sorry for duplicate post”
     no problem, but it is kind of funny that this silly talking point keeps coming back, even from those birthers that know it’s false. It rises from the dead heap of birther ignorance. What say you veritas, do you give up on this one? probably not, they need every talking point.
294. richCares says:

     March 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm  richCares(Quote)

     just a little side note, my daughter was born in Kapio’lani in 1965, the fathers race listed as “Polish”, the mothers race listed as “Japanese”. veritas would say “neither is a race, your BC must be a forgery” You can’t fool a birther, now can you!
295. gorefan says:

     March 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm  gorefan(Quote)

     richCares: it is kind of funny that this silly talking point

     The other ones that have started to show up again are the name of the Hospital and of Kenya not existing in 1961.
296. richCares says:

     March 24, 2012 at 4:16 pm  richCares(Quote)

     “name of the Hospital”
     what’s funny about that is that WND showed the Nordyke twins BC which was 1961 and showed the “Kapio’lani” name as same on Obama’s, plus at least 5 other BC’s. You just can’t underestimate the intelligence of a birther.
297. nbc says:

     March 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm  nbc(Quote)

     veritas: you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.

     It is self reported and then ‘translated’ into a set of categories for reporting. In Kenya, African was indeed the preferred description of race as observed in a census report from those days.
298. Stephen says:

     March 24, 2012 at 5:32 pm  Stephen(Quote)

     veritas:
     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.

     The correct term in the south was probably “nigger” but since it was a self-reported field I doubt that any of the fathers in the south would have self-reported as “nigger”. So I don’t know who decides what the ‘correct’ term is.
299. Northland10 says:

     March 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     A little obsessed with playing the race card, are we?

     veritas:
     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.
300. J. Potter says:

     March 24, 2012 at 6:55 pm  J. Potter(Quote)

     richCares:
     “name of the Hospital”
     what’s funny about that is that WND showed the Nordyke twins BC which was 1961 and showed the “Kapio’lani” name as same on Obama’s, plus at least 5 other BC’s. You just can’t underestimate the intelligence of a birther.

     Connecting the dots can be hard! They must love magic shows, or more likely magicians must love them. So easily misdirected!
301. Majority Will says:

     March 24, 2012 at 7:04 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

     veritas:
     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.

     You are wrong.
302. John Woodman says:

     March 24, 2012 at 7:10 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     veritas:
     you are right its the race of the father, but my point is that african was not the correct term then it would be negro.

     Debunked about a zillion times, including in my book.

     For someone who had grown up his entire life in Africa, who had been told his entire life that his race was “African,” the correct term would have been “African.”

     For a white girl in 1961 the “correct” term would not have been “Negro,” either, because given the state of the racial situation in those days — Martin Luther King’s great speech in Washington was still 2 years away — I kind of doubt that an 18-year-old white girl would have particulary preferred to state publicly that she was married to a “Negro.” Most likely, she would much rather acknowledge that her husband was an African — which, after all, is what he was.

     The hospital, and the vital records folks, accepted as race whatever the parents told them.

     This is conclusively shown in an article published by none other than WorldNetDaily, which shows an unquestioned birth certificate that appears to give the race of one of the parents as “HAWAIIAN/CHINESE/KOREAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH/PORTUGUESE.”
303. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 24, 2012 at 8:52 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Over 1,000 spam comments today.
304. John Woodman says:

     March 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     What anti-spam software are you using? I’m using Growmap.
305. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 25, 2012 at 12:54 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     I use Akismet. It’s hugely effective at grabbing all the spam, but I still have to look it over for the occasional legitimate comment. I also wrote some software that connects to the MySQL database directly from my desktop that lets me view and delete a spam in less than half a second.

     John Woodman: What anti-spam software are you using? I’m using Growmap.
306. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 25, 2012 at 12:56 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     This is technically the 2,000th article on the site; however, I’m going to skip the 47 open threads in naming the official bi-millennial article.
307. John Woodman says:

     March 25, 2012 at 1:17 am  John Woodman(Quote)

     So how much time are you investing per day in deleting spam? I wonder whether Growmap and Akismet are compatible and whether it might be useful for you to consider using both?
308. Keith says:

     March 25, 2012 at 4:07 am  Keith(Quote)

     Conspiracy Theories are springing up in Australia!

     Clive Palmer, a billionaire mining tycoon fighting against the Government’s mining windfall profits tax is accusing the Australian Greens Party and Greenpeace of conspiring with the CIA to ‘hobble’ the Australian coal industry to further the American coal industry.

     From the teaser to the Radio National Sunday Extra “Opinionista” podcast:

     The unravelling, when it comes, can be fast and furious. Just one loose thread, and suddenly the whole sweater’s just a pile of wool on the ground. If you’re Clive Palmer, that’s a big pile. Enough sheep involved there to put you to sleep for a week. Clive had been going great guns in recent weeks: larger than life, one of Wayne Swan’s three mining amigos, scourge of Australian soccer… he dominated the agenda. Then came his CIA comments, suggesting the Australian coal mining industry was being undermined by foreign intelligence agencies. Debate (and derision) ensued.

     Truthers and Birthers get a (derisive) mention. The segment is about 5 minutes long.

     You don’t really need to know who the other folks mentioned are to get the drift, but Wayne Swan is the Federal Treasurer (responsible for ‘selling’ the new tax). Andrew Bolt is Murdoch’s lap dog columnist in the Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper. Bolt is a climate change denier, an Aborigine rights denier, a Liberal Government brown noser, a Labor Government decrier, and was recently found guilty of racial vilification in a series of articles in the Herald Sun. And finally, in Australia, the “Liberal Party” is actually the conservative party, while the Labor Party is much closer to the Rockefeller Republicans than the Democrats.
309. Arthur says:

     March 25, 2012 at 9:32 am  Arthur(Quote)

     I came across this list of predictions made by James Dobson in the fall of 2008 that described what America would be like if the dreaded Barack Obama would be elected.

     “* Six liberal justices sit on the Supreme Court after the immediate resignation of John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the later resignations of Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

     * Homosexual marriage has been ruled a constitutional right that must be respected by all 50 states.

     * The Boy Scouts have disbanded rather than obey a decision forcing them to allow homosexual scoutmasters. (The Scouts already had been kicked out of public facilities because of an expansion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover people who engage in homosexual behavior.)

     * Elementary schools have compulsory training in varieties of gender identity. Courts rule parents cannot opt out their children, because the training is deemed essential to psychological health.

     * Evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies cease to exist after the Supreme Court rules they must agree to place children with homosexuals or lose their licenses.

     * Church buildings are now considered a “public accommodation” by the United States Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples.

     * High schools are no longer free to allow “see you at the pole” meetings where students pray together or any student Bible studies even before or after school.

     * The Supreme Court barred public schools in all 50 states from allowing churches to rent their facilities, even on Sundays, when school was not in session.

     * Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, as he promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, nullifying hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.

     * The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and TV broadcasts, and television programs at all hours of the day now contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.

     * As a result of a reversal of its 5-4 decision in the D.C. gun-ownership case, it is now illegal for private citizens to own guns for self-defense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships

     * Parents’ freedom to teach their children at home has been severely restricted nationwide after the Supreme Court followed the legal reasoning of a Feb. 28, 2008, ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal in California.”

     http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com/2008/10/letter-from-wingnut-2012.html

     And now comes this ad from Rick Santorum predicting what life will be like in 2014 if that monster Obama is reelected. Santorum placed it on Youtube, but it’s not readily available, since you need a link to see it.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DApjHZq9o7M
310. G says:

     March 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm  G(Quote)

     No surprise that his bogeyman scaremongering is batting ZERO on the prediction score…

     Arthur: I came across this list of predictions made by James Dobson in the fall of 2008 that described what America would be like if the dreaded Barack Obama would be elected.
311. G says:

     March 25, 2012 at 12:57 pm  G(Quote)

     The NRA (National Rifle Association) is just as bad in its bogeyman scaremongering predictions that don’t come true. I have a very liberal Democrat friend who is also a strong NRA supporter. He’s an extremely intelligent guy, but he’s constantly riled up about these NRA reports he receives about warnings of “impending legislation” that the Democratic Party is going to impose to restrict guns. In his mind, his justification for why the GOP can get away with such crazy behavior and still have public support is because they are a necessary barrier to keep the 2nd Amendment from being destroyed. I’m sick of having conversations with him about phantom legislation that no one is actually trying to pass.

     Arthur: And now comes this ad from Rick Santorum predicting what life will be like in 2014 if that monster Obama is reelected. Santorum placed it on Youtube, but it’s not readily available, since you need a link to see it.
     bhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DApjHZq9o7M

     G: No surprise that his bogeyman scaremongering is batting ZERO on the prediction score…
     Arthur: I came across this list of predictions made by James Dobson in the fall of 2008 that described what America would be like if the dreaded Barack Obama would be elected.
312. Northland10 says:

     March 25, 2012 at 7:42 pm  Northland10(Quote)

     I remember, years ago, when the NRA was considered more for their gun safety and responsibility, but now, have gone all political, into the conspiracy zone. Before I was following the birthers continuously, I remember the conspiracies that Obama was coming after all of the guns. The conspiracies then, and now, seem to border on less truth then the birthers. Some of the favorites:

     1. He will start taking all of the guns before the end of the year (that was in 2009).

     2. There is a shortage of ammunition (caused by the run on ammo by the paranoid).

     3. Surplus military ammo, that used to be available is being halted (this was early 2009 and due to some bureaucratic decision during the Bush administration, which, I believe, not even Bush would have known).

     What I do not like is how the NRA and others group are pushing or protecting gun rights by upping the paranoia of those who have a gun obsession and low level of responsiblity. This is not a good combination.

     The style is much similar to the one used by the birther grifters though, potentially more dangerous.

     G: The NRA (National Rifle Association) is just as bad in its bogeyman scaremongering predictions that don’t come true.
313. Thrifty says:

     March 25, 2012 at 7:51 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

     Isn’t that one kinda true, provided the marriage was done in a state that allows same sex marriage? Doesn’t the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage, since it’s a legal contract?

     Arthur: * Homosexual marriage has been ruled a constitutional right that must be respected by all 50 states.
314. RetiredLawyer says:

     March 25, 2012 at 8:08 pm  RetiredLawyer(Quote)

     Thrifty:
     Isn’t that one kinda true, provided the marriage was done in a state that allows same sex marriage?Doesn’t the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage, since it’s a legal contract?

     Thrifty,

     No. For reasons buried in history and arcane law, while all states are required to give “full faith and credit” to decrees etc. of other states, there is and has been since 1789 an exception for marital status.

     Up until Loving v Texas(?) [Virginia] an interracial couple could get legally married in State A, move to State B and be prosecuted under State B’s laws. Or, first cousins can, today, legally marry in State C and move to State D where that is within that state’s incest laws and be prosecuted. Back when, it was also common that some states would not recognize a divorce decree from another state, if the grounds were not compatible with that state’s, even if both spouses had gone to the other state for the divorce.
315. misha says:

     March 25, 2012 at 8:50 pm  misha(Quote)

     RetiredLawyer: Up until Loving v Texas(?)

     No, it was Loving v. Virginia, 1967: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
316. John Reilly says:

     March 25, 2012 at 9:23 pm  John Reilly(Quote)

     I think “retired lawyer” is wrong.

     The Constitution requires full faith and credit recognition of marriage, divorce, etc. The Defense of Marriage Act (which the Obama administration thinks is unconstitutional) allows states to ignore homosexual marriages from other states. However, If I get married in Indiana, and then move to Illinois, I’m still married.
317. Scientist says:

     March 25, 2012 at 9:42 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     John Reilly: However, If I get marrued in Indiana, and then move to Illinois, I’m still married.

     That is a matter of Illinois policy, not a constitutional requirement. Illinois would also recognize a foreign marriage, though the Constitution doesn’t oblige them to give full faith and credit to tthe acts of foreign jurisdictions.
318. justlw says:

     March 25, 2012 at 10:23 pm  justlw(Quote)

     Arthur: And now comes this ad from Rick Santorum predicting what life will be like in 2014 if that monster Obama is reelected. Santorum placed it on Youtube, but it’s not readily available, since you need a link to see it.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M [took “embedded” out of the link – lw]

     876 likes, 11,271 dislikes . It’s a real shame Ricky won’t be getting the nomination.
319. Thrifty says:

     March 25, 2012 at 10:36 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

     I heard some people talking about the Rick Santorum video. They say it’s pretty disgusting. I don’t have the heart to watch it.

     Arthur: And now comes this ad from Rick Santorum predicting what life will be like in 2014 if that monster Obama is reelected. Santorum placed it on Youtube, but it’s not readily available, since you need a link to see it.

     bhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DApjHZq9o7M
320. Thrifty says:

     March 25, 2012 at 10:37 pm  Thrifty(Quote)

     That ratio of likes to dislikes on the Santorum video warms my heart a bit. It reaffirms my belief that jerks like him and his supporters are a loud and obnoxious minority and that the average American is decent.

     justlw: 876 likes, 11,271 dislikes . It’s a real shame Ricky won’t be getting the nomination.
321. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 25, 2012 at 11:19 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     http://www.samefacts.com/2012/03/watching-conservatives/yellow-brick-road-dept/
322. misha says:

     March 26, 2012 at 2:05 am  misha(Quote)

     Arthur: And now comes this ad from Rick Santorum predicting what life will be like in 2014 if that monster Obama is reelected. Santorum placed it on Youtube, but it’s not readily available, since you need a link to see it.

     justlw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M [took “embedded” out of the link – lw]

     Gawker has a story on it:
     http://gawker.com/5896221/let-rick-santorum-try-to-scare-the-shit-out-of-you
323. RetiredLawyer says:

     March 26, 2012 at 2:16 am  RetiredLawyer(Quote)

     misha: No, it was Loving v. Virginia, 1967:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

     Thanks for the correction. I was just too lazy to look it up, and thought that just citing “Loving” would mislead people.
324. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 26, 2012 at 10:30 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     For folks interested in scanning to PDF, and who have not already read this, I call your attention to my article:

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/the-doc-got-layers/

     It gives a real-world example of what happens when you scan a birth certificate and what the layers look like. You will note, for example that a signature on the form is spit across two layers, just as the signatures are on Obama’s certificate.
325. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 26, 2012 at 10:47 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Perhaps the Santorum campaign put this video with limited availability to gauge public reaction to it. I saved a copy on my hard drive, in case they remove it.

     justlw: 876 likes, 11,271 dislikes . It’s a real shame Ricky won’t be getting the nomination.
326. JPotter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 11:15 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: Perhaps the Santorum campaign put this video with limited availability to gauge public reaction to it. I saved a copy on my hard drive, in case they remove it.

     Probably so. Using YouTube this way, a lazy attempt at secure distribution, is naive, and foolish, or an attempt at dumping it into the public pool while maintaining deniability.

     It is in the open, out of the bag, out of the bottle now!

     Lame. Pretty short on the skeery. I’m sure we can expect a deluge of the same all summer long. If you still watch live TV, I’d suggest finding other options for October.
327. The Magic M says:

     March 26, 2012 at 11:48 am  The Magic M(Quote)

     I don’t think the video is particularly bad, maybe because I’m used to worse in my country.

     [Our most controversial election video came from an ultra right wing party that showed images of people of foreign descent to the harmonica music of “Once Upon a Time in the West”. It was widely criticized for being racist and xenophobic, especially since the German title of said movie retranslates to “Play the Song of Death for me”.

     But around here it’s the law that the major networks have to air these videos coming from any party participating in the elections, free of charge.

     And we had several elections where one party accused another of desiring a “different republic” in the sense of “a socialist country”.]

     I also noticed the Santorum video has a shot of someone reading a “Termination Notice” that was 100% “lorem ipsum”. 😉
328. G says:

     March 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm  G(Quote)

     From the reporting I’ve seen, his campaign plans to make a whole series of these scare videos:

     Rick Santorum is out with an eerie new ad attacking President Obama: “Imagine a small, American town two years from now if Obama is reelected.”

     It’s the first of an eight part series from the Santorum campaign.

     http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/03/25/welcome_to_obamaville.html

     Dr. Conspiracy: Perhaps the Santorum campaign put this video with limited availability to gauge public reaction to it. I saved a copy on my hard drive, in case they remove it.
329. JPotter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     G: It’s the first of an eight part series from the Santorum campaign.

     Ah, of course, that explains the shallow skeery. Setting up a drip feed for maximum effect. Gradual indoctrination. Cause, you know, frontloading all the skeery might have been too obvious *cough, cough, harrrumph* 😉
330. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Here it is, how to do a Birther Lawsuit that will actually work:

     http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/the-quest-for-the-holy-grail-of-birtherdom-or-the-lak-ness-monster-lawsuit/

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
331. bovril says:

     March 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm  bovril(Quote)

     Sorry Squeeks, no injury in fact, no demonstrable passing off, no intent to defraud, sure as hell no possibility of standing.

     The mug is a mug, at most the seller could be on the hook for a refund.
332. G says:

     March 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm  G(Quote)

     I agree with Bovril, even though IANAL. Although I found your angle to be clever, Squeeky, I do not see any real legal possibility of pursuing this avenue for the Birthers.

     A mug is just a keepsake, after all. All it has to do is match the public image that the White House has put forth, nothing more. Nobody purchasing a mug or t-shirt could claim it as something they would use for identification purposes, even if it had their own BC on it, let alone someone else’s.

     There simply is NO injury in fact to claim. Without that, there is no case. As Bovril pointed out, the most any consumer could hope to argue is for a possible refund; not for access to Obama’s actual BC documents.

     bovril: Sorry Squeeks, no injury in fact, no demonstrable passing off, no intent to defraud, sure as hell no possibility of standing.The mug is a mug, at most the seller could be on the hook for a refund.

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Here it is, how to do a Birther Lawsuit that will actually work:http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/the-quest-for-the-holy-grail-of-birtherdom-or-the-lak-ness-monster-lawsuit/Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter
333. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Bovril and G:

     Whichever, but I bet somewhere out in Birther Land, people like Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo are thinking to themselves, “Hmmm. You know, this could work!!!”

     Plus, if they lose they get to keep the coffee cup. That is more than they have ever walked away with before.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
334. G says:

     March 26, 2012 at 5:01 pm  G(Quote)

     Except that there is one other major flaw with that plan… look at how the Birthers react every time Obama makes a Birther joke or his campaign pimps the mugs & t-shirts – they implicitly flinch and recoil and howl as if they are suffering intolerable pain.

     If any analogy is apt, then the Obama BC mugs & t-shirts are like garlic to vampires…

     So the hardest part of your whole plot would be to get one of them to “bear” buying one in the first place….

     …And then to put the notion in the heads of Apuzzo and Kerchener that they might get stuck with the cup if they lose…. that would be the most unbearable outcome to them of all…! 😉

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Bovril and G:Whichever, but I bet somewhere out in Birther Land, people like Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo are thinking to themselves, “Hmmm. You know, this could work!!!” Plus, if they lose they get to keep the coffee cup. That is more than they have ever walked away with before.Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter
335. Jim says:

     March 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm  Jim(Quote)

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:
     Bovril and G:

     Whichever, but I bet somewhere out in Birther Land, people like Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo are thinking to themselves, “Hmmm. You know, this could work!!!”

     Plus, if they lose they get to keep the coffee cup. That is more than they have ever walked away with before.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter

     I would think it would be up to the plaintiff to prove what was on the mug was inaccurate. And as we’ve seen, they’ve had no luck with that. But, I could see them try it…advertise to buy mugs on WND, Orly’s site, et al. It would fit their idiocracy to donate to the President’s re-election while trying to get him out.
336. misha says:

     March 26, 2012 at 7:46 pm  misha(Quote)

     G: the Obama BC mugs & t-shirts are like garlic to vampires

     Dracula: “I Have HIV” – http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i9982
337. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 8:04 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Misha:

     LOL!!! that was very good!!!

     Squeek Fromm
     Girl Reporter
338. Scientist says:

     March 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Sorry Squeeky, but the mug is satirical in intent. I’ve seen $3 bills with Nixon on them-the producers aren’t guilty of counterfeiting. The mugs are useful for the purpose sold anyway-they will hold your coffee. Besides, when you are unhappy with a product you are supposed to contact the vendor and ask for a refund/replacement before suing. Courts are not at all sympathetic to people who sue without making an effort to resolve the issue with the seller. Otherwise, courts would be jammed with everybody who bought a pair of shoes they don’t like.
339. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Scientist:

     But the law has something called the “Reasonable Birther” test. (Which they will probably have to re-name.) Anyway, what would a “RB” think he was getting??? A copy of the long form. Then, when the RB compares it to the CCP copy, LO AND BEHOLD, it is the same as the “Forgery”.

     That is the way they would have to approach it, that they ordered a mug with a bona fide long form bc and instead got a mug with a forgery. If they do it right, it would be like.ordering leather boots and getting plastic ones. Each state has a different law, sooo the Birther would have to get some Birther legal help.

     But I bet a fine legal mind like Apuzzo, or Van Irion, or Orly Taitz could set it up. What a shame Donofrio is retired. I could probably whip it up myself, and I am just a part-time legal assistant. But, the Birthers are studying it if view counts are any indication.

     Like G noted, the real hurdle is getting one of them to order and pay for the mug. Without having a stroke.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
340. Scientist says:

     March 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Squeeky-Your idea is a perfect example of why the US should have a “loser pays” rule in lawsuits. Anyway, the DNC doesn’t advertise the mug as ACTUALLY being a real co[y of the bc. They simply advertise it as good for a laugh. And again, someone would have to show they asked for a refund and were refused, so the DNC could kill all the lawsuits by refunding the birthers who bought mugs their money.
341. J. Potter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 8:57 pm  J. Potter(Quote)

     Don’t read this one over dinner:

     Floyd and Mary Beth Brown (yes, those Browns)
     Mar 26, 2012
     ForgeryGate’ Is Provoking Us To Outrage

     It’s a great peek inside of a well-insulated pair of minds. One heck of a martyr complex at play. Oh, the faux insult and concern! They play sweetly innocent, breezily mentioning their interest dates back to writing a campaign bio of Obama (Title? Obama Unmasked! … see at Amazon and judge for yourself), and allege that Obama and his machine are intentionally mocking them and setting out to make them look like fools.

     A birther at Amazon gives the book a 1-star for not addressing birther concens … the book was published only a month after the COLB was released!
342. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Scientist:

     If you had a “loser pays” rule, common people could never risk suing banks and insurance companies. I think most courts have the ability to award damages against people who file frivolous and silly, worthless lawsuits.

     Like the Mississippi Democrats are asking from Orly Taitz.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
343. Scientist says:

     March 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: I think most courts have the ability to award damages against people who file frivolous and silly, worthless lawsuits.

     You mean like one over a coffee mug?
344. J. Potter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm  J. Potter(Quote)

     I was just perusing a classic, long-lived rant against Adobe … (something I check in on since discovering in 2010 while up to my neck in PDFs) ….

     I hate Adobe Acrobat (even more now!)

     … and came across this:

     re: I hate Adobe Acrobat (even more now!)
     by Tom the Tom November 18, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
     Stupid lawyers sending stupid PDFs. I’m going to cry if I have to convert another PDF.

     Just tickled my funny bone. Completely out of context, it sounds like the wail of a court clerk in a jurisdiction under birther assault.
345. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 26, 2012 at 10:43 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     Scientist: You mean like one over a coffee mug?

     Well, all the Birther lawsuits should be subject to penalty, with jail time for lying about Minor Happersett. But wouldn’t it be fun to read this from CDR Kerchner instead of his standard dribble:

     Affidavit of CDR Kerchner

     Hi!!! My name is CDR Kerchner, and I used to be in the Navy!!! One thing that an Old Salt like me can tell you is that us Navy guys love a good cup of grog. It really gets the old blood to flowing on those cold North Atlantic mornings.

     Well, I decided to buy a brand new coffee cup to drink my grog out of, and I decided to get the one with our beloved President’s long form birth certificate on it. I wrote out a check, attached hereto as Exhibit I, and sent it in. A few days later my cup came in, and I rushed off to the kitchen to mix up some grog (I like mine with a bumbo base) and I sat down to pour it in my cup, and LO AND BEHOLD! the birth certificate looked funny to me.

     Sooo, I got online and discovered that a bonified law enforcement agency has discovered that the image, which was the same one that was on my brand new cup, was a FORGERY!!!

     Well, you could have just knocked me over with a feather, because I swear that I never imagined that our Commander in Chief would let people put out a coffee cup with his picture on one side, and a forged birth certificate on the other. I broke out in tears and suffered severe emotional distress over this. To think that this President, who I have always loved and respected, would do such a thing to me, a retired Navy Commander, who has always been a good citizen and patriot.

     I went to see a doctor who told me to double the amount of grog I drank every day. He also set me up with therapy, and now I see him once a week and go to group grief counseling twice a week.

     I am not a litigious person, and can truthfully swear that I have never successfully sued anybody before. But this act of coffee cup forgery has left me a shattered and broken man.

     Therefore, I looked in the phone book, and found a lawyer named Mario Apuzzo, Esq. who said I should sue the President and the coffee cup sellers for Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Loss of Consortium, Breach of Contract, Sale of Dangerous Products, Mis-Imagery, and Senior Abuse.

     Plus, we want to see his long form birth certificate.

     Further, Affiant sweareth not.

     /CDR Kerchner

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
346. G says:

     March 26, 2012 at 11:32 pm  G(Quote)

     LMAO! And those whiney losers don’t get much sympathy in the comments section either.

     It seems that nothing upsets the Birthers more than the fact that Obama is not bothered by them and can easily crack jokes about their little hate-rage fest against him.

     I’m glad it sticks in their craw! Most of the country has collectively given the Birthers a well-deserved middle-finger. Yes Birthers, we are all laughing AT you and not with you…and you only brought it upon yourselves…

     J. Potter: Don’t read this one over dinner:Floyd and Mary Beth Brown (yes, those Browns)Mar 26, 2012ForgeryGate’ Is Provoking Us To OutrageIt’s a great peek inside of a well-insulated pair of minds. One heck of a martyr complex at play. Oh, the faux insult and concern! They play sweetly innocent, breezily mentioning their interest dates back to writing a campaign bio of Obama (Title? Obama Unmasked! … see at Amazon and judge for yourself), and allege that Obama and his machine are intentionally mocking them and setting out to make them look like fools. A birther at Amazon gives the book a 1-star for not addressing birther concens … the book was published only a month after the COLB was released!
347. Keith says:

     March 27, 2012 at 12:27 am  Keith(Quote)

     Arthur: I’m grateful to be reminded that generalizations don’t always hold true. Conservative, Republican, and a fighter against lies–you’re ok in my book. Now the big question is–what’s your take on Peyton Manning going to Denver??

     Nick Foles will make a great backup to him. But I’d rather see Foles in New England.
348. The Magic M says:

     March 27, 2012 at 4:09 am  The Magic M(Quote)

     More proof that birthers draw false conclusions based on their own incompetence:

     Quoting Sharon Rondeau from the Pest & eFail:

     “Update: Where are the Photos of Obama at the Korea Nuclear Summit?
     ANOTHER MEDIA BLACKOUT? by Sharon Rondeau (Mar. 26, 2012) — A search for “Obama Korea Summit 2012‘ photos using the Yahoo! search engine brings up photos from a 2010 summit held in Washington, DC in 2010 and a 2012 Obama campaign poster. ”

     Well, if I enter “Obama Korea Summit 2012” (without the quotes!) in Google, I get tons of pictures of Obama at the Korea summit 2012.

     It never ceases to amaze me how sheer stupidity gives birth to conspiracy theories.
349. Keith says:

     March 27, 2012 at 9:48 am  Keith(Quote)

     The Magic M: It never ceases to amaze me how sheer stupidity gives birth to conspiracy theories.

     I don’t know about in the USA, but he was all over the Australian MSM today for the Korean summit.
350. misha says:

     March 27, 2012 at 10:05 am  misha(Quote)

     Here is a wonderful cartoon about the GOP candidates:
     http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-potty-mouth-20120326,0,7857488.story
351. JPotter says:

     March 27, 2012 at 11:40 am  JPotter(Quote)

     The Magic M: Well, if I enter “Obama Korea Summit 2012‘ (without the quotes!) in Google, I get tons of pictures of Obama at the Korea summit 2012.

     You mean it wasn’t called the Obama Korea Summit 2012?

     That was hilarious. Did anyone email her Yahoo!’s help file?

     Doc wrote a great article on search engines awhile back.

     Another birther contrib to the Annals of Search Engine Abuse.

     The everpresent assumption …. it isn’t operator error, it’s a massive coverup! is it hubris, or stupidity? Or intentional misrepresentation to the gullible.

     I’d make a terrible conman. I alsways start with the assumption that I have screwed something up. And I have too much pride to intentionally pass off stupid for fear of being called on it.
352. The Magic M says:

     March 27, 2012 at 12:34 pm  The Magic M(Quote)

     Keith: I don’t know about in the USA, but he was all over the Australian MSM today for the Korean summit.

     Germany, too. Since our media don’t delve too deeply into US interior politics (except close to elections or during big events as last year’s looming default), they take every opportunity to show Obama attending international meetings.

     JPotter: The everpresent assumption …. it isn’t operator error, it’s a massive coverup!

     Happens in the real world, too. We had a user who participated in one of our paid online surveys and whose browser crashed on the final confirmation page. He dropped us an email, not just asking if he still had been counted as finisher, but also assuring us he had two witnesses for the event and we shouldn’t dare defrauding him of his payment.
     He basically accused us of deliberately crashing his browser in order not to have to pay him. And that guy was a specialized physician, not some loon living in his mother’s basement.
353. JPotter says:

     March 27, 2012 at 12:48 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     The Magic M: And that guy was a specialized physician, not some loon living in his mother’s basement.

     Well, that’s the best part about loons … they walk among us. 🙁 Generally normal people can be completely irrational on certain topics, and in certain situations. And people who interact everyday in harmony may be in fact polar opposites in a different environment. Thinking about that too much may lead to paranoia!
354. Keith says:

     March 28, 2012 at 10:00 am  Keith(Quote)

     Yet another black eye for Rupert and News…

     The Fin steps up as Chenoweth detonates Murdoch bomb

     FYI: Fairfax Media is the major competitor to News Ltd. in Australia. They publish the Melbourne Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian Financial Review (the Fin or AFR), and magazine Business Review Weekly (BRW) among others.

     The Fin’s article on Pay TV piracy hits News

     The BBC Panorama program Murdoch’s TV Pirates
355. misha says:

     March 28, 2012 at 10:27 am  misha(Quote)

     Keith: Yet another black eye for Rupert and News…

     You mean to say conservatives are hypocrites, and really don’t believe in free markets? Say it ain’t so…
356. Lupin says:

     March 28, 2012 at 11:51 am  Lupin(Quote)

     The Magic M: Germany, too. Since our media don’t delve too deeply into US interior politics (except close to elections or during big events as last year’s looming default), they take every opportunity to show Obama attending international meetings.

     Same here; but I mostly watch international channels through sky-tv. Today we were treated to Pat Robertson claiming homosexuality is somehow related to demonic possession.

     These days following US news is like watching THE HILLS HAVE EYES, but less entertaining.
357. JPotter says:

     March 28, 2012 at 12:01 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     Lupin: Today we were treated to Pat Robertson claiming homosexuality is somehow related to demonic possession.

     Aye-yi-yi. Is he still on that? I hope you at least had good snacks. Hard to believe he ran for President in ’88 ….. well, no it isn’t really, would have been one of several possible extensions (or rejections!) of the reagan Presidency.

     The parallels between Pat and Rick continue to mount!
358. misha says:

     March 28, 2012 at 1:23 pm  misha(Quote)

     Lupin: Today we were treated to Pat Robertson claiming homosexuality is somehow related to demonic possession.

     Remember, when Piyush Howdy Doody Bobby Jindal was in college, he helped perform an exorcism, and smelled sulfur. That poor woman was having a breakdown, and instead of taking her to the ER to see a psychiatrist, they stood around her and shouted mumbo jumbo claptrap.

     As a Catholic professor told our class, ‘When someone says they are possesed, they should see a Jewish psychiatrist.’

     Remember, the current governor of Virginia was going to sign into a law, a measure only meant to humiliate women, and is medically unnecessary. Small government, and getting government off the backs of people – hypocrites. Conservatives are screaming about mandatory health insurance, but a woman’s uterus is property of the state.
359. misha says:

     March 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm  misha(Quote)

     Lupin: These days following US news is like watching THE HILLS HAVE EYES, but less entertaining.

     JPotter: The parallels between Pat and Rick continue to mount!

     As I wrote before, the US is having a contest with Austria and Germany, over who can produce the most crackpots. I miss Bachmann and Palin, with their Fractured Fairy Tales™. Aplologies to Rocky, Bullwinkle and Mr. Peabody.

     Remember, Virginia’s governor is a graduate of Regent University, Pat Robertson’s fourth tier diploma mill. A diploma from there is so much toilet paper.
360. Sef says:

     March 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm  Sef(Quote)

     Lupin: Today we were treated to Pat Robertson claiming homosexuality is somehow related to demonic possession.

     I don’t know about French TVs, but when I was in Amsterdam last year the TV in our hotel had both an ON/OFF button and a way to change the channel. Maybe you should look into getting one of those.

     Studies show that the most used button on a TV remote is the mute button.
361. JPotter says:

     March 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     misha: As I wrote before, the US is having a contest with Austria and Germany, over who can produce the most crackpots.

     Misha, is this an all-time contest, as in crackpots throughout history, or a contest to see which can produce the most contemporaneous crackpots? The Germany/Austria reference makes me think you meant the former. The US would win the latter, unless we can stipulate a per capita basis, in which case the Low Countries might pull ahead.

     When the next fascist horde to plague Europe rolls out of Belgium, I hope the rest of the world can stifle the laughter long enough to stop them.
362. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     misha:
     As I wrote before, the US is having a contest with Austria and Germany, over who can produce the most crackpots. I miss Bachmann and Palin, with their Fractured Fairy Tales™. Aplologies to Rocky, Bullwinkle and Mr. Peabody.

     I was thinking Dr. Strangelove, what with all the P.O.E. stuff (proof of eligibility):

     http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/p-o-e-proof-of-eligibility-or-the-strange-love-of-the-birthers/

     OH plus, I have thought of a REALLY GOOD response to all the “Media Blackout” Internet Articles:

     http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/brer-kuhner-says-take-my-scoop-please/

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
363. G says:

     March 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm  G(Quote)

     Loved your nuclear sub example to illustrate the real seriousness of your conclusion:

     Frankly, having stupid, delusional, paranoid, conspiracy theorist-type people around big things that go KERBOOM is never a good idea. Mental hospitals routinely keep such people away from sharp objects, baseball bats, and heavy machinery. Even a strongly pro-2nd Amendment population thinks there is nothing wrong with keeping maniacs away from guns.

     Sooo, even if the military is purging the Birthers from service, is that a bad thing???

     You’ve sold me on that argument! 😉

     Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:

     I was thinking Dr. Strangelove, what with all the P.O.E. stuff (proof of eligibility):http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/p-o-e-proof-of-eligibility-or-the-strange-love-of-the-birthers/

     Squeeky – You know I always enjoy your images, easter eggs, clever word play and your attentive caring to footnote and explain your references. I love your footnotes. Quite a few of your references I already knew, but I still usually learn even more about them from your helpful and educational footnotes. Plus, you always weave in a lot of new references that I wasn’t even aware of at all… So your footnote features is one of my favorite signature parts to your writing style. I love coming away from an article, knowing I’ve not just been entertained, but also learned something new…

     …So, I just wanted to suggest that you add a second footnote for your image, to help educate viewers on the rest of your clever wordplay reference that goes with the image – your tweak of the famous “hamburger today” line, which comes from Popeye’s friend, Wimpy.

     As that character’s famous catchphrase (“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”) symbolized fiscal irresponsibility, it was a very apt choice to re-weave into your phrasing and imagery to represent the moral hazard irresponsibility of allowing those with severely damaged critical thinking skills to have access to weapons…

     OH plus, I have thought of a REALLY GOOD response to all the “Media Blackout” Internet Articles:http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/brer-kuhner-says-take-my-scoop-please/Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter
364. G says:

     March 28, 2012 at 8:03 pm  G(Quote)

     Thought I would share this here:

     The US is not alone in having crazy people in political office.

     This guy in the UK seriously believes he is the Biblical Adam reincarnated…except it gets better – he’s also the child of a 9 foot tall alien praying mantis…

     http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9612257.Labour_councillor___My_real_mother_is_a_green_alien_/

     http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/03/28/politician_claims_his_mother_is_an_alien.html#disqus_thread

     An hour long video of him talking about his delusions is included in the 2nd link…
365. John Woodman says:

     March 28, 2012 at 8:36 pm  John Woodman(Quote)

     That’s just stupid.

     Everyone knows the preying mantis aliens never reach more than 7 feet, absolute tops.
366. JPotter says:

     March 28, 2012 at 9:18 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     G: This guy in the UK seriously believes he is the Biblical Adam reincarnated…except it gets better – he’s also the child of a 9 foot tall alien praying mantis…

     These things happen in a land of endless rain, bland food, tiny yards, and endless indoor time. Have to pass the time. How do you think all them kids gets lost in wardrobes and such?

     Lots of alien nutters in the UK. Too much fascination with all things American? Including the UFO craze? Any evidence of a native alien obsession? Oh, right the cornfields. Stonehenge. Still, witness Paul.

     Anyway, big diff between silly crazy, and malignant crazy.
367. G says:

     March 28, 2012 at 10:03 pm  G(Quote)

     I saw Paul in the theaters. I found it to be quite entertaining. 🙂

     JPotter: Still, witness Paul.
368. Arthur says:

     March 29, 2012 at 12:17 am  Arthur(Quote)

     “The Selective Service System has declined Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s request to see the original copy of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration form.”

     Obama Release Your Records
369. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 12:50 am  G(Quote)

     From the report:

     A three-sentence March 22 letter written on behalf of Selective Service Director Lawrence G. Romo, however, dismissed the request.

     “This Agency has no evidence that President Obama’s 1980 registration is not authentic,” wrote Richard S. Flahavan, associate director of public & intergovernmental affairs

     Apparently refusing to take seriously Arpaio’s investigation, Flahavan referred the sheriff to the FBI.

     “However, if you have any credible evidence to the contrary and believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we suggest that it be turned over immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue,” Flahavan said.

     In response, Arpaio yesterday sent a second letter to Romo, requesting clarification.

     “If your office has the original, authentic Selective Service registration form for Barack Obama from July 29, 1980, please indicate whether or not you are in possession of this document,” Arpaio wrote.

     “If the document is in your possession, please make it available for inspection by my Sheriff’s Office investigators. We will travel to your facility to analyze it.”

     Apraio gave Romo 10 days to respond.

     “Given the clarity and brevity of these requests, we would appreciate your direct response within ten business days of your receipt of this letter, since we are continuing our investigation,” Arpaio said.

     Arthur: “The Selective Service System has declined Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s request to see the original copy of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration form.”Obama Release Your Records
370. JPotter says:

     March 29, 2012 at 12:57 am  JPotter(Quote)

     G: Apraio gave Romo 10 days to respond.

     Are they having trouble securing a court order? 😉

     Seriously, this Arpaio has gone Orly-esque, if he thinks he can simply demand documents from an agency by fiat. As Orly has found, the default policy at gov’t agencies to bluster is “beat it!”

     Arpaiorly? Joey Taitz? Maybe just, “Arpily” or the even shorter, “Arly”!
371. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:04 am  G(Quote)

     Agreed. I think it is easy to predict that they simply receive another very short reply that basically just says 2 things:

     1. Yes, they confirm that they are in possession of the original document.

     2. No, Joe cannot access or have it. He simply does not have jurisdictional authority nor just cause.

     JPotter: Are they having trouble securing a court order? Seriously, this Arpaio has gone Orly-esque, if he thinks he can simply demand documents from an agency by fiat. As Orly has found, the default policy at gov’t agencies to bluster is “beat it!”Arpaiorly? Joey Taitz? Maybe just, “Arpily” or the even shorter, “Arly”!
372. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:33 am  Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote)

     G:

     Thank you for the advice. I added a footnote.

     Squeeky Fromm
     Girl Reporter
373. Lupin says:

     March 29, 2012 at 3:29 am  Lupin(Quote)

     JPotter: These things happen in a land of endless rain, bland food, tiny yards, and endless indoor time. Have to pass the time. How do you think all them kids gets lost in wardrobes and such?

     I watch a lot of Brit TV through sky, and there is so much programming there about France, the French and their daily lives, and the Brits who live in France, that sometimes I get the feeling that we’re like the pretty girl next door sunbathing in her garden and British TV is like the perv with his binoculars stalking her.
374. Lupin says:

     March 29, 2012 at 3:30 am  Lupin(Quote)

     G: This guy in the UK seriously believes he is the Biblical Adam reincarnated…except it gets better – he’s also the child of a 9 foot tall alien praying mantis…

     I, for one, welcome our preying mantis overlords.
375. bovril says:

     March 29, 2012 at 8:31 am  bovril(Quote)

     Now Lupin,

     It’s not all one way….when Marks and Spencer re-opened their store in the Champs Elysee, Parisians did the one thing I thought would NEVER happen…They actually formed an orderly queue !!!!!!!

     When I used to have to work at our old office off Boulevard Hausmann, the M&S store was the most profitable sandwich and snack store in the entire M&S chain worldwide and at one stage to keep up with demand they used to send the food over from England on the Eurostar each night.

     There is a very strong (outside of politics) thread of Anglophilia, even in France Profonde you’ll see the rot with increasing Franglais in use…. 😎 Le week-end anyone

     Even the Académie française and the Conseil supérieur de la langue française know they’re on a hiding to nothing trying to stem that one…..

     And don’t get me started on the Rugger-Buggers, even here we have infiltrated with French teams singing English rugby songs…. 😎
376. Lupin says:

     March 29, 2012 at 9:42 am  Lupin(Quote)

     bovril:
     Now Lupin,

     It’s not all one way….when Marks and Spencer re-opened their store in the Champs Elysee, Parisians did the one thing I thought would NEVER happen…They actually formed an orderly queue !!!!!!!

     When I used to have to work at our old office off Boulevard Hausmann, the M&S store was the most profitable sandwich and snack store in the entire M&S chain worldwide and at one stage to keep up with demand they used to send the food over from England on the Eurostar each night.

     There is a very strong (outside of politics) thread of Anglophilia, even in France Profonde you’ll see the rot with increasing Franglais in use…. Le week-end anyone

     Even theAcadémie française and the Conseil supérieur de la langue française know they’re on a hiding to nothing trying to stem that one…..

     And don’t get me started on the Rugger-Buggers, even here we have infiltrated with French teams singing English rugby songs….

     All true — but can you imagine French TV programs about how the Brits live, the adventures of French expats in London, racing through England to get to Manchester first, French celebrities vacationing in England, French people buying property in Wales, and I’m not even mentioning the commercials!

     We, the pretty girl next door, are indeed friendly to you, and wave at you when we go by, but all in good neighborly sort of way.

     But you, you’re definitely stalking us. 🙂
377. bovril says:

     March 29, 2012 at 10:36 am  bovril(Quote)

     Careful now, the choice is the SangFroid’s or everyone favorite to your North East….8-)

     I always laugh when, as always happens, England and France get into one of the perrenial spats we have had for the last 1,000 years and the Boche want to try and play….Never ends well…

     The Anglo-Franco game is theirs and theirs alone and like a bickering long married couple, as soon as an outsider tries to horn in, all solidarity and shoulder to shoulder….
378. Arthur says:

     March 29, 2012 at 10:56 am  Arthur(Quote)

     First it was Ted Nugent, not it’s Dave Mustaine. Mustaine is a guitarist/singer for the thrash metal band, Megadeth. According to a story on TalkingPointsMemo, “Mustaine said in an interview with a Canadian television show ‘The Hour’ that he ‘has a lot of questions about him [President Obama], but certainly not where he was born. I know he was born somewhere else than America.’

     http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/dave-mustaine-birther.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

     From Wikipedia: “Dave Mustaine was originally a member of Metallica upon their formation in 1981, but was fired from the band due to drinking, drug use, violent behavior and personality conflicts with James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, and original Metallica bassist Ron McGovney. Two months after being fired, Mustaine and bassist Dave Ellefson formed Megadeth in Los Angeles. Mustaine later said, ‘After getting fired from Metallica, all I remember is that I wanted blood. Theirs. I wanted to be faster and heavier than them.'”

     Charming.
379. bovril says:

     March 29, 2012 at 11:12 am  bovril(Quote)

     How the HELL does drug taking, drinking and violent behaviour get you canned from a heavy metal band, I thought those were mandatory work requiremnets…..
380. JPotter says:

     March 29, 2012 at 11:12 am  JPotter(Quote)

     Arthur: Mustaine later said, After getting fired from Metallica, all I remember is that I wanted blood. Theirs. I wanted to be faster and heavier than them.’”

     Yes and that has worked well. He’s the only constant member of Megadeth. Metallica has had a stable lineup for decades and outsold those other guys 5 to 1, in album sales alone. Total revenues … who knows.

     Money talks. Megadeth (Mustaine) sux.

     As Nixon said, hate will lead you to destroy yourself. Take it from one who knows!
381. JPotter says:

     March 29, 2012 at 11:14 am  JPotter(Quote)

     bovril: How the HELL does drug taking, drinking and violent behaviour get you canned from a heavy metal band, I thought those were mandatory work requiremnets…..

     Only works in the beginning. If a band is to last, they have to get over that stage. Rockers that last are very mellow. The nuts burn out and blow up. Or limit themselves by constantly driving everyone away.
382. Greenfinches says:

     March 29, 2012 at 11:25 am  Greenfinches(Quote)

     G: The US is not alone in having crazy people in political office.

     This guy in the UK seriously believes he is the Biblical Adam reincarnated…except it gets better – he’s also the child of a 9 foot tall alien praying mantis…

     http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

     fortunately he is just in local government – in Whitby, which you may recall from Bram Stoker’s Dracula? A beautiful town.

     I never thought vampires were insects, but now I may want to rethink!
383. Greenfinches says:

     March 29, 2012 at 11:29 am  Greenfinches(Quote)

     Lupin: I watch a lot of Brit TV through sky, and there is so much programming there about France, the French and their daily lives, and the Brits who live in France, that sometimes I get the feeling that we’re like the pretty girl next door sunbathing in her garden and British TV is like the perv with his binoculars stalking her.

     hey don’t judge us thru Murdoch’s eyes!!!

     I tend to see our TV as too full of sport, and US programming.
384. Paul Pieniezny says:

     March 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm  Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

     JPotter: When the next fascist horde to plague Europe rolls out of Belgium, I hope the rest of the world can stifle the laughter long enough to stop them.

     I think you might be confusing the two main lower countries.

     Bart De Wever is a RWNJ on many accounts (citizenship, the economy, the environment), but he is not a fascist and Rick Santorum would start crossing himself at record speed listening to Bart explaining how he feels about abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage. He is not a racist either.

     Unlike Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the one with the Orly Taitz hair.
385. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm  G(Quote)

     Doc C –

     You said:

     Nevertheless, his legacy lives on in the minds of millions of Americans

     I strongly doubt the number of folks who are squawking this “2 citizen parent” nonsense is anwhere near “millions”. I suspect that the real number of folks who’ve even heard this theory, much less now by into it is easily a factor or two below that.

     Therefore, I criticize putting such an unsubstantiatable and highly dubious numeric figure out there.

     Doing so is no less irresponsible than Birthers who constantly squawk about Obama spending “millions” defending these Birther lawsuits.

     Neither are verifiable or reliable claims and in both situations lend an air of almost instant discredibility to anything said in association. It reeks of dubious overinflated exaggeration and is very sloppily below the usual standard of honest scholarship you work so hard to present here.

     I strongly recommend that you replace “millions” with something that is a bit more accurate or representative of what we can conclude.

     I don’t think terms such as “many” or “a small number” would be good replacements either…as both are still subjective and misleading.

     Therefore, I suggest one of the following replacement sentences or something along a similar manner:

     Nevertheless, his legacy lives on in the minds of a number of Americans

     Nevertheless, his legacy lives on in the minds of certain Americans

     Nevertheless, his legacy lives on in the minds of a segment of the American polulation
386. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:10 pm  G(Quote)

     Oops, the last word was meant to be “population”. ..Gotta stop typing so fast and hitting submit right away…
387. Vic says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:36 pm  Vic(Quote)

     G –

     Polutation: don’t apologize, own it!

     Polutation n. Pollutant + Population. People who pollute the web with false claims that President Obama’s is not a natural-born citizen. (first published usage, 2012, G, at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org)
388. jayHG says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:37 pm  jayHG(Quote)

     G wrote:

     “Nevertheless, his legacy lives on in the minds of certain Americans

     Nevertheless, his legacy lives on in the minds of a segment of the American polulation.”

     I like either one of these because I agree that I don’t think that the number of actuall birthers are that high. I think that the number of people who won’t vote for President Obama is in the millions, obviously, but of those folks, I don’t believe that even one million of them are birthers.

     I mean, I haven’t done a head count and all, but still……..
389. Scientist says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:42 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     jayHG: I like either one of these because I agree that I don’t think that the number of actuall birthers are that high. I think that the number of people who won’t vote for President Obama is in the millions, obviously, but of those folks, I don’t believe that even one million of them are birthers.

     Yes, the “eligibility issue” is the gravest crisis in the history of the universe for about 150 people. To the rest, it’s a big who cares…Obama will not lose a single vote over it, because none of those 150 would vote for him anyway.
390. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:44 pm  G(Quote)

     Actually, I’ve enjoyed a lot of Megadeth’s music. Metallica as well.

     Mustaine’s problem (at least the one that seems to have led to recent RWNJ conversion…and sadly now to Birtherism as well) is that he’s one of those extremely and severely damaged people who has a “Born Again” personal conversion, simply BECAUSE he is such an extremely and severely damanged person.

     I look at this whole sad farce scenario as not much different from how an obnoxious morning show disc jockey drunkard became the Glenn Beck we all know and loathe today…

     These folks simply use the “Born Again” angle as a desperate personal straightjacket, as they are too damanged and fragile to control their own bad impulses. Sadly, such extreme attempts at self-control usually just remanifest in becoming ardently unhinged in other ways…

     JPotter: Yes and that has worked well. He’s the only constant member of Megadeth. Metallica has had a stable lineup for decades and outsold those other guys 5 to 1, in album sales alone. Total revenues … who knows.Money talks. Megadeth (Mustaine) sux.As Nixon said, hate will lead you to destroy yourself. Take it from one who knows!
391. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm  G(Quote)

     😉 8)

     Vic: G – Polutation: don’t apologize, own it!Polutation n. Pollutant + Population. People who pollute the web with false claims that President Obama’s is not a natural-born citizen. (first published usage, 2012, G, at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org)
392. misha says:

     March 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm  misha(Quote)

     Greenfinches: I never thought vampires were insects

     Did someone say vampires? http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i9982

     Arthur: Which Of My Daughters Hates Me The Most?
     http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s4i10025
393. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm  G(Quote)

     In all seriousness, because there are so many hard-core birthers that seem to just endlessly sockpuppet, it truly is hard to gauge the size of their real population…

     Also, with so many of the Birthers demonstrating that they are not really “true believers”, but just intentionally being cynical smear peddlers, it becomes increasingly hard to gauge how many of their population even means what it says and how many are simply saying outrageous things that even they don’t believe at all, merely for the sake of doing so.

     No, the Birther echo-chamber is nowhere near as sizeable as they pretend… nor even as sizeable as their mere boisterousness would make one believe.

     In public gatherings, just about every other special interest group out there (including ones that have barely had time to organize) can still command getting thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people to show up.

     Birthers however have never managed more than amounts counted in the dozens. Heck, they’ve had some events that didn’t even achieve a single handful.

     Yes, I realize that a lot of Birthers are really old, so there may be a lot of health and mobility issues there (or at least we hear tha all the time t in their online excuses to their buddies on why they didn’t bother to show up). But then again, the overall Tea Party movement has that same demographic problem and still had many events that commanded thousands and tens of thousands fairly easily….

     It is logical to assume that the activists of any movement are a smaller (just louder) segment of its full population. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that for whatever we see in physical attendance, that is just a fraction of an online presence, which is just some fraction of an overall total population out there.

     So who knows what their total population is out there…and of the total sum that can be lumped under the Birther umbrella – how many of them are just saying things they don’t even believe themselves – merely because they believe in the justification of lying and smearing for the sake of pushing a cynical agenda?

     …And as not all Birthers believe [or merely PUSH] the same strands of their spaghetti mythology, how many of those are actual “2-citizen parent” Birthers…and of those, how many are truly brainwashed and have come to really believe that instead of just say it?

     So in all seriousness, Scientist throwing 150 as a number out there makes a VERY valid point here: It is absolutely possible that the true size of “true-believing 2-citizen parent Birthers” could even be THAT small…or at least somewhere still in the actual 3-digit range. Even if it is at the upper end of the 3-digit range, that is still quite possible and still extremely small as a segment of the total population.

     Obviously, when you add in all their mere cynical propaganda pushers into the Birther umbrella, the numbers will increase significantly. Based on observation and interaction of this phenomenon since its inception, I’ve become increasingly convinced that this “cult movement” has a much smaller proportion of “true believers” than what amounts to as nothing more than the “cynical propaganda pusher” segment.

     Still, with ALL that being lumped together, it appears we are still dealing with a movement whose entire true size is somewhere in the range of only a FOUR to SIX DIGIT figure range….where just the “true believer” faction is probably a factor in size smaller than that….

     Scientist: Yes, the “eligibility issue” is the gravest crisis in the history of the universe for about 150 people. To the rest, it’s a big who cares…Obama will not lose a single vote over it, because none of those 150 would vote for him anyway.
394. misha says:

     March 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm  misha(Quote)

     An Argument Against Healthcare
     From the National Alliance of Funeral Directors
     Read on:
     http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/03/29/an-argument-against-healthcare/
395. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Not the take-away I had hoped with this article.

     G: I strongly doubt the number of folks who are squawking this “2 citizen parent” nonsense is anwhere [sic] near “millions”.
396. JPotter says:

     March 29, 2012 at 3:40 pm  JPotter(Quote)

     Paul Pieniezny: I think you might be confusing the two main lower countries.

     I have to admit, Paul, that Belgium just sounded better, and, having served as the highway into France a few times, more ironic.

     Extremism is a sign of a free society, and I hope it remains contained to that for all of the Lowlands.
397. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm  G(Quote)

     Indeed. And that is the danger and lesson of how careless numerical descriptions can distract and derail from the intent of an article and cause the overall message to get lost.

     I like how you corrected the phrasing. That distraction is now gone and newer readers should be able to walk away from reading it, with the impact of your intent on the forefront of their minds.

     Thanks for listening.

     Dr. Conspiracy: Not the take-away I had hoped with this article.
398. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 4:14 pm  G(Quote)

     Kaboom! Wow, that was one of Borowicz most stingingly witty zingers yet!

     I thought he was packing some particulary powerful satire punches in the middle of his article:

     Let’s take a look, if you will, at the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects every American’s right to shoot another American. It says nothing about giving the person who is shot health insurance to prevent him from dying. This cherished constitutional right to shoot people and make them dead is currently recognized in all fifty states, most recently Florida.

     In commenting on the Affordable Care Act this week, Justice Samuel Alito compared the Obama healthcare plan to burial insurance. Coincidentally, burial insurance is the Republican healthcare plan, and one that we enthusiastically support

     If ever I’ve seen a KO in satire comedy…I’d say that one delivered! Heck, that was a KO punch, followed by a full body slam of the unconsious bloody body on the floor!

     misha: An Argument Against HealthcareFrom the National Alliance of Funeral DirectorsRead on:http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/03/29/an-argument-against-healthcare/
399. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     March 29, 2012 at 4:14 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Changing the article was done for the purpose of removing an irrelevant point of argument, not because I agree in any way that the statement was wrong. The latest poll number I have is something like 5% hold this view and that is sufficient to justify “millions.” Your beliefs, speculation and intuition are not evidence, whether you say it simply or run on for a long time.

     G: I like how you corrected the phrasing. That distraction is now gone and newer readers should be able to walk away from reading it, with the impact of your intent on the forefront of their minds.
400. G says:

     March 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm  G(Quote)

     I never said they were evidence or anything more than speculation. In fact, I was quite clear that I have always only been speculating on population size of Birthers and that was the entire point – any numerical designation is nothing more than a dangerous and misleading distraction. I am ok there being very real differences in either of our perceptions on the matter. It is simply an unknown quantity and not definable beyond mere speculation.

     As I said, I appreciate that you’ve listened and were open and willing to make a change for the mere fact that it removes the distraction. I agree with you on that and the reasoning you just stated. This is your blog you are always free to do with it as you wish. I just appreciate being able to come here and enjoy your posts as well as the community commentary and to be able to contribute my opinions. I’m sorry that my bad habit of feeling the need to over-explain online leads to over-lengthy posts and offends you.

     You seem to be misconstruing my intent and that I simply felt that if I was going to suggest an improvement that I had better give you a good justification and argument as to why. I was just trying to be helpful and I apologize if that came off as pushy. Keep up the good work!

     Dr. Conspiracy: Changing the article was done for the purpose of removing an irrelevant point of argument, not because I agree in any way that the statement was wrong. The latest poll number I have is something like 5% hold this view and that is sufficient to justify “millions.” Your beliefs, speculation and intuition are not evidence, whether you say it simply or run on for a long time.
401. Rickey says:

     March 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     G:
     Agreed.I think it is easy to predict that they simply receive another very short reply that basically just says 2 things:

     1. Yes, they confirm that they are in possession of the original document.

     2.No, Joe cannot access or have it.He simply does not have jurisdictional authority nor just cause.

     That is the likely scenario. If the Selective Service registration was forged, it is a Federal offense and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Arizona.

     Sheriff Joe should turn his “investigation” over to the FBI. Then we can form a betting poll on how long it takes to hit the circular file.
402. misha says:

     March 29, 2012 at 5:18 pm  misha(Quote)

     Glenn Beck Accidentally Not Put Down:
     http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/glenn-beck-accidentally-not-put-down.html

     Separated At Birth?:
     http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/separated-at-birth.html
403. Scientist says:

     March 29, 2012 at 6:17 pm  Scientist(Quote)

     Rickey: That is the likely scenario. If the Selective Service registration was forged, it is a Federal offense and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Arizona.
     Sheriff Joe should turn his “investigation” over to the FBI. Then we can form a betting poll on how long it takes to hit the circular file

     That’s what Selective Service told him to do
     http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/selective-services-calling-arpaios-bluff/
404. Sef says:

     March 29, 2012 at 7:13 pm  Sef(Quote)

     Part of email from John Kerry:

     “Bob Perry, the deep-pocketed funder of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” just gave $3 million to Mitt Romney’s Super PAC.”
405. Keith says:

     March 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Lupin: All true — but can you imagine French TV programs about how the Brits live, the adventures of French expats in London, racing through England to get to Manchester first, French celebrities vacationing in England, French people buying property in Wales, and I’m not even mentioning the commercials!

     We, the pretty girl next door, are indeed friendly to you, and wave at you when we go by, but all in good neighborly sort of way.

     But you, you’re definitely stalking us.

     Sounds like the French version of AbFab.