The Occasional Open Thread: Slow news day edition

Posted on July 26, 2011 by Dr. Conspiracy

Place your Obama conspiracy comments here that don’t relate to the current articles.

BirtherWatch

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

157 Responses to The Occasional Open Thread: Slow news day edition

  1. Lupin says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:15 am  (Quote)

    In the eyes of some, not only an African-American cannot possibly be President, but he 9or in this case she) cannot even be a valedictorian:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/25/38410.htm

  2. The Magic M says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:25 am  (Quote)

    In an addendum to “The Doc Got Layers”, I’ve made my own attempt to recreate the “anomalies” birthers claim to be in the PDF version of the Obama BC:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60943246/Obama-LFBC-Printed-Then-Rescanned

    (read the notes.)

    I will post more of this in the future, including an attempt to recreate the WH PDF as closely as possible (likely by copying a printout of the black-on-white Hi-Res image to mock security paper).

    Not that any of this will shut the birthers up, but hey, gotta have a hobby. 😉

  3. Pastor Charmley says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:25 am  (Quote)

    Dear Birthers. Make your minds up. Either say that Obama is ineligible because he was born in Kenya, OR say that he is ineligible because his father was not a US citizen. Do not switch between the two when defending the claim he was born in Kenya gets too difficult.

    Of course, we’ve known about Obama’s father since day one, so if having a non-citizen father disqualifies one from being president, why didn’t you discover this until after Obama was elected?

  4. G says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:48 am  (Quote)

    Wow. That is just a disgraceful act of discrimination. Sounds like that particular school has a history of trying to limit achievement for black people. I hope the mother wins her court case and that the courts heavily penalizes that school so that it learns its lesson. It is so sad to see stuff like this happening in 2011.

    Lupin: In the eyes of some, not only an African-American cannot possibly be President, but he 9or in this case she) cannot even be a valedictorian:http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/25/38410.htm

  5. JD Reed says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:22 am  (Quote)

    I’m less concerned with punishing the school district — which would necessarily punish the taxpayers, at least some who are innocent of approving this travesty — and more interested in punishing the officIals responsible. If the above is an accurate portrayal of the situation, there’s no justifiable way these officials can plead sovereign immunity. Their actions per se violate civil rights law, which should leave them legally defenseless.

  6. G says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Good points.

    JD Reed: I’m less concerned with punishing the school district — which would necessarily punish the taxpayers, at least some who are innocent of approving this travesty — and more interested in punishing the officIals responsible. If the above is an accurate portrayal of the situation, there’s no justifiable way these officials can plead sovereign immunity. Their actions per se violate civil rights law, which should leave them legally defenseless.

  7. Lupin says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm  (Quote)

    If I read other articles on the topic correctly, I think they’re also “punishing” the young woman because she is a mother.

    How dare she excel above her “betters”.

    Kudos to her teachers for not having lowered her grades. It kind of gives some hope about the situation.

  8. Joey says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:21 pm  (Quote)

    A birther that I encountered online today is saying that Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is in his cousin’s (Raila Odinga’s) safe and that numerous sources have confirmed this fact..

    I personally hadn’t heard that one before.

  9. Sef says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    Joey:
    A birtherthat I encountered online today is saying that Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is in his cousin’s (Raila Odinga’s) safe and that numerous sources have confirmed this fact..

    I personally hadn’t heard that one before.

    Sounds like a job for the “Mission Impossible” team.

  11. Daniel says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:42 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: A birther that I encountered online today is saying that Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is in his cousin’s (Raila Odinga’s) safe and that numerous sources have confirmed this fact..

    Funny that Obama’s cousin wouldn’t have thought to close and lock that safe, rather than leaving it open for these “numerous sources” to just rifle through.

    The nutbaggery comes through when one examines the details

  12. AnotherBird says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    Joey:
    A birtherthat I encountered online today is saying that Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is in his cousin’s (Raila Odinga’s) safe and that numerous sources have confirmed this fact..

    I personally hadn’t heard that one before.

    ….”that his cousin’s (Raila Odinga) has a safe.” Pick a random name, with the hope that it is authentic. Make up a random fact. Insert a birth certificate.

    The closest I have heard about that is in Unnamed person says anonymous source says Obama born in Kenya. Lucas D. Smith would be jealous.

    However, we all know that the president was born in Hawaii.

  13. Northland10 says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:49 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: A birther that I encountered online today is saying that Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is in his cousin’s (Raila Odinga’s) safe and that numerous sources have confirmed this fact..

    The absolute certainty the birthers and on conspiracy theory folk have on the theory has baffled me. Being involved in volunteer groups for some years, including in many leadership roles, have provided many opportunities to here various conspiracy theories about why certain decisions were made. It is with absolute certainty, to these various volunteers, that a certain decision/action was made due to a conspiracy by various other volunteers. Yet, the same decision/action was made by a board I sat on, or even led but the conspiracy theory apparently did not involve me. I listen with bemusement as they go on about why such and such was done, even though I was fully involved in the decision and process, as part of being in charge of that group. There was no conspiracy by others but a group, meeting as a normal course of affairs and discussing and deciding upon an action.

    In short, I am being told a story about a conspiracy regarding a decision that was from a group I lead (and I supported it), yet, apparently I am not in the conspiracy. To ensure the full oddity of the situation, they tell the story with the greatest certainty, yet, you would think they would remember that the decision came during my term. We tend to blame some of this on forgetful, crotchety old leaders.

  14. Joey says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It was reported here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/unnamed-person-says-anonymous-source-says-obama-born-in-kenya/

    Wow, thanks Doc. We count on you to be on top of all things birther!
    Somebody else tried to explain to the birther that it would make no sense to keep a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama when one little match would get rid of it forever. A third world country in 1961 probabaly didn’t make many (if any) copies of documents.

  16. obsolete says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:43 am  (Quote)

    I think this might be the worst WND “expert” yet…

  17. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 27, 2011 at 9:07 am  (Quote)

    This tidbit from Aljazeera:

    After the report, the US witnessed a dramatic spike in Islamophobia and the growth of the “birther movement” and the Tea Party. The latter is identified by Breivik [the Norwegian terrorist] in his manifesto as “one of the first physical, political manifestations which indicate that there is a great storm coming.”

    The point of the article is that the West focuses on Islamic terrorism, and ignores home grown terrorism.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011726861255428.html

  18. Scientist says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm  (Quote)

    2 Tea Party leaders from South Carolina (sorry doc) who have called Obama’s birth certiificate “phony” have been arrested for selling pirated software on EBay. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/sc_tea_party_leaders_arrested_for_selling_pirated.php

    I am willing to bet that if one investigated the birthers diligently enough, one would find that virtually every one is a scam artist of one variety or another.

  19. G says:
    July 27, 2011 at 1:45 pm  (Quote)

    …Or a mental patient…or both.

    Scientist: I am willing to bet that if one investigated the birthers diligently enough, one would find that virtually every one is a scam artist of one variety or another.

  20. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    July 27, 2011 at 1:51 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Another WND computer expert has a report.http://www.scribd.com/doc/61010393/Full-Analysis-30-Year-Software-and-Graphic-Designer-Provides-More-Proof-Obama-s-Birth-Document-is-a-ForgeryMore use of Adobe Illistrator.

    Nothing compares to the youtube video a birther trotted out on amazon about a month ago. I actually took the time to google the name of the person who made the video. Come to find out it was a high schooler with no qualifications.

  21. Sunshine49 says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:32 am  (Quote)

    Off topic, but an interesting ad that a lot of you will probably get a good laugh out of.

    http://2012-survival-guide.com/?vsa=y

  22. Majority Will says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:57 am  (Quote)

    “Off topic, but an interesting ad that a lot of you will probably get a good laugh out of.

    http://2012-survival-guide.com/?vsa=y”

    WARNING: Idiotic 12/21/12 doomsday sales pitch scam.

  23. J. Potter says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:39 am  (Quote)

    Nice find Scientist! The “Grand Stand Tea Party” is quite a hoot. I like how on their “Friends & Foes” page (is this a secret club for 9-year olds or what?) they list “The Communist Goals” as a “Foe” …. and it’s a link to a 50-year old document sourced to Cleon Skousen, author of the The 5000 Year Leap, a birther favorite. Many self-fulfilling prophecies.

    http://grandstrandteaparty.com/documents.htm

    Always short on surprises these guys are. I wonder what the commies’ current goals are?

    Scientist:
    2 Tea Party leaders from South Carolina (sorry doc) who have called Obama’s birth certiificate “phony”have been arrested for selling pirated software on EBay. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/sc_tea_party_leaders_arrested_for_selling_pirated.php

    I am willing to bet that if one investigated the birthers diligently enough, one would find that virtually every one is a scam artist of one variety or another.

  24. Rickey says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:09 am  (Quote)

    J. Potter:
    it’s a link to a 50-year old document sourced to Cleon Skousen, author of the The 5000 Year Leap, a birther favorite.

    Ironically, Cleon Skousen is the author of the home-schooling textbook “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution,” which says that the President must be a “native-born” citizen. Tell that to birthers and watch their heads explode.

  25. Majority Will says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:21 am  (Quote)

    J. Potter: I wonder what the commies’ current goals are?

    They sure are enjoying the free publicity from the “red” states! 😛

  26. Rickey says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:22 am  (Quote)

    Joey:
    Somebody else tried to explain to the birther that it would make no sense to keep a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama when one little match would get rid of it forever. A third world country in 1961 probabaly didn’t make many (if any) copies of documents.

    An enterprising birther would probably claim that Odinga is keeping it so he can blackmail Obama. BTW, Odinga is not related to Obama, although he has claimed to be Obama’s cousin.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp

  27. Sunshine49 says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:57 am  (Quote)

    Pastor Charmley: Dear Birthers. Make your minds up. Either say that Obama is ineligible because he was born in Kenya, OR say that he is ineligible because his father was not a US citizen. Do not switch between the two when defending the claim he was born in Kenya gets too difficult. Of course, we’ve known about Obama’s father since day one, so if having a non-citizen father disqualifies one from being president, why didn’t you discover this until after Obama was elected?

    I keep hearing that same remark about his eligibility being question AFTER he was elected. The FACT is that the lawsuits were started BEFORE he was elected by a “Democrat” lawyer who backed Hillary in the campaign.

    I didn’t vote for him because I didn’t like the undefined “change”, the fundamental transformation of America, the redistribution of wealth (which is what we do with the socialist “democracy” we have already), the necessary sky-rocketing of our electric bills and ending world poverty on our money! ALL the wealth in America wouldn’t even put a dent in world poverty.

    The problem has been that the trillions in bailouts have already gone to the “rich” who backed Obama in 2008. The majority of Americans are becoming poor because of it!

    We are already past the point of no return with the $14 trillion of national debt and trillions more in unfunded mandates like social security. The Fed has devalued the dollar with all the trillions they keep printing up, which is causing inflation. Soon. many people won’t be able to afford to buy food.

    Because of far left progressive policies, this country is in a lot worse shape then most people are willing to admit. We are nowhere near the “Republic” that the Founders envisioned and through Obama’s policies this country will lose any freedoms we have left.

    I would be willing to bet that if this country was split in half with one side as Constitutionalists and the other side with all the rules, regulations and taxes of the progressives — soon, the majority of people would be in the Constitutional side. Socialism does NOT promote wealth and “freedom” for the people!

    If you like working hard your whole life to have the government “take” what you’ve earned and redistribute it to whoever “they” see as deserving — more power to you! I would rather have my own money to help my friends, family and neighbors. Sometimes all we have is our time and experience to help others, but we can’t help others if we are too busy just trying to survive ourselves because the government is taking so much of what we earn and screwing up our ability to earn more with regulations!

    As a pastor, you should understand more than others that man’s rule is NOT God’s rule! The Constitution was written to give people in this country the “freedom” to be the best they can be and to pass their benefits on to others like God intended. It is NOT the government’s JOB to redistribute the wealth! Their JOB is to protect our FREEDOM so that WE can do God’s work on OUR OWN!

    Obama’s far left progressive policies go against everything I believe America is meant to be. I think that most “birthers” feel the same way. They find it hard to believe that Obama can be an American and do so many things that are hurting other Americans.

    If people would study our history, they would realize that this has been going on since the Constitution was written and didn’t start with Obama. He is just the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

    This is an enemy from within that most people don’t know how to fight. A view that people need to be “controlled” or “saved” by the government that goes against everything our Republic and Constitution stand for. All in the name of “social justice”! It’s not just Obama that people are fighting — they’re fighting for the very survival of this country’s freedom against government control!

    I just wonder who will be crowned “king” when the Republic is gone?

  28. gorefan says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: Because of far left progressive policies, this country is in a lot worse shape then most people are willing to admit.

    Which far left policies? President Obama is closer to President Reagan then President Roosevelt.

  29. Sef says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Which far left policies?President Obama is closer to President Reagan then President Roosevelt.

    According to the Anti-Obamaites any policy that has not gone totally off the cliff on the right is “far left”.

  30. Rickey says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: I keep hearing that same remark about his eligibility being question AFTER he was elected. The FACT is that the lawsuits were started BEFORE he was elected by a “Democrat” lawyer who backed Hillary in the campaign.

    Everyone here knows that the first eligibility lawsuits were filed before the election. However, those lawsuits all alleged that Obama was ineligible because he supposedly was not born in the United States.

    The point is that the “two-citizen parent” argument did not arise until Leo Donofrio filed his lawsuit in New Jersey on 10/27/08, notwithstanding the fact that prior to that it was common knowledge that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. Jerome Corsi published an entire book about Obama in the summer of 2008 and never once mentioned that his father’s citizenship was an issue. The fact of the matter is that no one had ever heard of the “two-citizen parent requirement” until Donofrio dreamed it up.

  31. Bovril says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    Now Sunny,

    If 14 TRILLION is such a scarey wicked number…..who should we blame…?

    Would that be the president who racked up 10% of it…that would bet the current President by the way, or the Republicans who generated the rest whe they were at the helm?

    As for “Scary Socilaism” would that be the “Scary Socialism” practiced in coutries like, Germany and Norway for example which are doing very very well than you very much?

    Naturally you eschew ALL “Scary Socialist”programmes here in the US such as

    Medicare
    Medicaid
    Social Security
    The VA
    Tricare
    The Military
    The Police
    The Fire Department
    Libraries
    The Interstate Road system
    The Post Office

    Well?

  32. gorefan says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:45 am  (Quote)

    Sef: According to the Anti-Obamaites any policy that has not gone totally off the cliff on the right is “far left”.

    It’s always interesting to see what people, like Sunny, consider to be socialist policies.

  33. BatGuano says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:54 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: I keep hearing that same remark about his eligibility being question AFTER he was elected. The FACT is that the lawsuits were started BEFORE he was elected by a “Democrat” lawyer who backed Hillary in the campaign.

    yes, that would be phil berg. berg’s case contended that obama had become an indonesian citizen and therefor was ineligible. if you have any questions on that front i suggest googling “indonesian citizenship requirements” and “minor renouncing US citizenship”. berg’s case had absolutely nothing to do with the “2parent” theory.

    as has been stated before, obama’s father’s citizenship and british law were far from secret preceding the election. if you can find any mention of a “2parent” argument before donofrio we’d love to see it.

    the rest of your lengthy post is about policy and, correct or not, has zero to do with eligibility.

  34. J.Potter says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    @ Sunshine ….

    Once again all I hear is: “I, me, me, mine.”

  35. Scientist says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: I just wonder who will be crowned “king” when the Republic is gone?

    I stand ready to assume the crown.

  36. J.Potter says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm  (Quote)

    A throwback to the days of pre-internet nuttery …. an online archive of new age newsletters!

    Contains references to many classic standbys, such as HAARP.

    http://www.cosmicchannelings.com/blog/k_crop-circle_1

    Sadly, xeroxed and mimeographed newsletters and pamphlets will eventually rot. Thanks to the internet, the ongoing accumulation of lunacy has a chance to live forever. Including birtherism, as it melds overtime with the Great Collective Nutwad. Here’s another quality resource, a lengthy compilation of birther rambles:

    http://catchkevin.com/51-facts/

  37. BatGuano says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    BatGuano: yes, that would be phil berg. berg’s case contended that obama had become an indonesian citizen….

    my mistake. altho berg has claimed that obama is an indonesian citizen, the case he filed on aug 21, 2008 contended that the president was born in kenya.

    still, it had zero to do with the “2parent” theory.

  38. Sef says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm  (Quote)

    J.Potter:
    A throwback to the days of pre-internet nuttery …. an online archive of new age newsletters!

    Contains references to many classic standbys, such as HAARP.

    http://www.cosmicchannelings.com/blog/k_crop-circle_1

    Sadly, xeroxed and mimeographed newsletters and pamphlets will eventually rot. Thanks to the internet, the ongoing accumulation of lunacy has a chance to live forever. Including birtherism, as it melds overtime with the Great Collective Nutwad. Here’s another quality resource, a lengthy compilation of birther rambles:

    http://catchkevin.com/51-facts/

    Think of the poor IT guy/gal who has to sit in a chilled, humidified machine room changing tapes to back all this stuff up day after day after day …

  39. Majority Will says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    J.Potter: Here’s another quality resource, a lengthy compilation of birther rambles . . .

    What a disgusting cesspool of birther lies.

  40. J.Potter says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    A classic comment on one of the main contributors to birtherism … just as relevant as it was 20 years ago.

    http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1991/91worries.gif

  41. Keith says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:51 pm  (Quote)

    Hey Misha!

    Glen Beck is on ‘your side’!

    Me? I’m a duck.

  42. AnotherBird says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:23 pm  (Quote)

    I was watching a trailer for one of the latest horror movies, and it got me thinking about the birther. Specifically, their thought process. I was wondering why our brains are hard wired to imaging seeing things.

    Every fact lets us know that what we perceive is not there. However, using a narrative of something allow us to it describe without it being there.

    I am dismayed by the number of people who believe this birtherism stuff. There is absolutely nothing there.

  43. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm  (Quote)

    BTW, I was on Reality Check Radio tonight, and didn’t tell anybody. Sorry about that. I didn’t say anything that I’ve not already said here. The big highlight of the show was an appearance by JimBot.

    There should be a transcript of the show up real soon.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr

  44. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm  (Quote)

    To avoid predators.

    AnotherBird: I was wondering why our brains are hard wired to imaging seeing things.

  45. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:44 pm  (Quote)

    The tape machines are all robots now.

    Sef: Think of the poor IT guy/gal who has to sit in a chilled, humidified machine room changing tapes to back all this stuff up day after day after day

  46. Sef says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The tape machines are all robots now.

    I know. I was just reminiscing.

  47. AnotherBird says:
    July 29, 2011 at 12:16 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    To avoid predators.

    I knew I should have corrected that to read “I know why our brains are hard wired to imaging seeing things.”

  48. J. Potter says:
    July 29, 2011 at 8:21 am  (Quote)

    Our IT guy wishes that were true.
    What he gets for working for such a shady outfit …

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The tape machines are all robots now.

  49. J.Potter says:
    July 29, 2011 at 9:59 am  (Quote)

    It only gets better! Nuttier! Better!

    WND says Taitz, Irey, and Vogt are heading to Hawaii to follow up on her subpoena on Aug 8th. They’s got Dorothy, Tin Man, and the Scarecrow covered …. looks like the Cowardly Corsican Lion is staying home.

    Read their “plan” here for additional yuk-yuks:

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=327373#ixzz1TUMzm0hv

  50. obsolete says:
    July 29, 2011 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: the necessary sky-rocketing of our electric bills

    When I lived in California in 2001, my monthly electric bill jumped from $95 a month to almost $1500 a month. I had to move.
    I can tell you, Obama & the “socialists” had nothing to do with that. It was pure Enron, Cheney, and the twin Republican mantra of “deregulate” & “screw grandma”.

  51. Majority Will says:
    July 29, 2011 at 1:25 pm  (Quote)

    obsolete: When I lived in California in 2001, my monthly electric bill jumped from $95 a month to almost $1500 a month. I had to move.
    I can tell you, Obama & the “socialists” had nothing to do with that. It was pure Enron, Cheney, and the twin Republican mantra of “deregulate” & “screw grandma”.

    Here’s a fun read for Mr. Sunshine if he can handle fairly simple math:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

    But why let the truth get in the way of paranoia, racism and deep seated bitterness and bigotry?

  52. J.Potter says:
    July 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm  (Quote)

    I do love a good use of infographics. Thanks for that on, MW!

  54. Northland10 says:
    July 29, 2011 at 8:25 pm  (Quote)

    Sunshine49:

    It is quite obvious that the eligibility of Obama was never your interest. You dislike him and his policies and that is your right. However, just because you dislike what you think his policies are, does not make him ineligible. Quite simply, to use an flimsy eligibility excuse to try and remove a President you do not like is, in itself, an affront to the Constitution. You cannot protect freedom and liberty of this nation by destroying the very free and open election system that is at the very heart of our Constitution.

    Since you chose to insult the Pastor by telling him/her what your think he should know, as a Christian, I would highly recommend you read the entire Bible, and not just the part that tell you what you want to hear (you could start with Matthew, Mark and Luke). While your at it, you might want to try to read the Constitution (that’s the document that mentions “Promoting the General Welfare”).

  55. Sunshine49 says:
    July 30, 2011 at 6:45 am  (Quote)

    Another of the great things that Obama is doing for the American people.

    Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

    http://www.truth-out.org/obama-deregulates-gmo-crops-despite-supreme-court injunction/1307023149

  56. Majority Will says:
    July 30, 2011 at 7:12 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49:
    Another of the great things that Obama is doing for the American people.

    Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

    http://www.truth-out.org/obama-deregulates-gmo-crops-despite-supreme-court injunction/1307023149

    Here’s a fun link for the bigot troll, Mr. Ray of Sunshine:

    http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

  57. Sunshine49 says:
    July 30, 2011 at 7:53 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: Since you chose to insult the Pastor by telling him/her what your think he should know, as a Christian

    I didn’t tell him what “I” think he should “know”. I said that as a pastor he would understand more than most of us that man’s rule is not God’s rule. Is that an insult in your book?

    Also, I didn’t make ANY reference to Obama’s eligibility except to the fact that the lawsuits started BEFORE he was elected — not after, like so many here try to claim.

    Another misconception is that the two citizen parents thing is something far right nut cases made up to get rid of Obama AFTER he was elected. If that’s the case, then WHY did the Supreme Court define natural born as two citizen parents in Minor vs Happersett (1875) or Bingham say in 1866 that natural born meant parents with NO foreign allegiances (like Obama’s father)?

    You tell me I should read the Constitution. Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence and the reason we declared independence in the first place! The Founders chose NOT to be a socialist “democracy” like we have now. Tyranny by the government is the same as tyranny by a king — just the “rulers” have changed. Because I don’t believe the “general welfare” of the people is dependent on the government redistributing the wealth, doesn’t mean I haven’t read the Constitution.

    You must be one of those people who doesn’t believe that the people should be responsible for themselves at all. We should all be under a nanny state because we aren’t capable of running our own lives. BULL!

    It is in the government’s best interest to keep the people warring with each other. Then we are too busy to pay attention to what they are doing behind our backs. The left is STILL using Bush as a scapegoat for what they are doing NOW! He was just a puppet just like Obama is now, so nothing is going to “change”!

  58. Northland10 says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:32 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: You tell me I should read the Constitution. Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence and the reason we declared independence in the first place! The Founders chose NOT to be a socialist “democracy” like we have now.

    You’ve got to be kidding. The concept of modern socialism did not come together until the early 19th century. This was well after the Declaration of Independence. The founders, chose to break from England due to the lack of Parliament or the King to allow the colonists to govern themselves. They also had no seat in Parliament so all tax rules were and Laws (when the King would follow them) were dictated to the colonists. Our government is still a Republic and you still have representation. You are woefully misinformed on U.S. history.

    As for your eligibility statements, others far more versed in the legal precedents than I, have attempted to explain to you where you are misinformed. You have chosen to ignore them. Given your lack of interest in learning the truth of our laws, I see no reason to try further.

  59. Northland10 says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:38 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

    You scream about government socialism and then are mad when you think the government under Obama removes regulations. Are you trying to convince me that your only issue is that you hate the different looking guy in the White House?

  60. Majority Will says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:27 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: You’ve got to be kidding.The concept of modern socialism did not come together until the early 19th century.This was well after the Declaration of Independence.The founders, chose to break from England due to the lack of Parliament or the King to allow the colonists to govern themselves.They also had no seat in Parliament so all tax rules were and Laws (when the King would follow them) were dictated to the colonists.Our government is still a Republic and you still have representation.You are woefully misinformed on U.S. history.

    As for your eligibility statements, others far more versed in the legal precedents than I, have attempted to explain to you where you are misinformed.You have chosen to ignore them.Given your lack of interest in learning the truth of our laws, I see no reason to try further.

    Evidently, some trolling,hypocritical, paranoid bigots are burdened with the attention span and reading comprehension level of the common fruit fly.

    They are not bright.

  61. J. Potter says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:41 am  (Quote)

    Hey, MW, glad you came to the same conclusion! Recalling a study I read as a kid that alleged that houseflies literally can’t learn and act only on instinct, I quickly began making the same comparison after encountering the residents of birtherville.

    Seems most simple life forms probably operate with the same limitations, but that the house fly is one of the higher order examples that we encounter in everyday life.

    Majority Will: Evidently, some trolling,hypocritical, paranoid bigots are burdened with the attention span and reading comprehension level of the common fruit fly.

    They are not bright.

  62. J. Potter says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    As an addendum, I would also note that much higher life forms, such as housecats, also remind me of birthers, in that they seem to pick and choose what they wish to learn, and repeated consequences have no impact on their learning bias.

  63. Majority Will says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:49 am  (Quote)

    J. Potter:
    As an addendum, I would also note that much higher life forms, such as housecats, also remind me of birthers, in that they seem to pick and choose what they wish to learn, and repeated consequences have no impact on their learning bias.

    But at least, a domestic cat can be litter box trained.

  64. Sef says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Evidently, some trolling,hypocritical, paranoid bigots are burdened with the attention span and reading comprehension level of the common fruit fly.

    But at least, Drosophila melanogaster have value is genetics studies. I doubt the same can be said for birthers.

  65. J. Potter says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    True, as opposed to soiling at random all over the interwebs, but I think the comparison stands. Litter boxes just happen to fit a cat’s instincts. And I further note that if your place a litterbox in the garage, and also have landscaping materials in the garage, such as, say, 5-gallon buckets of sand a/o gravel, the cat will start to spread its goodness around. Subsequent admonishments and beratings will have no effect. The only way to keep the internet–er, material safe, is to remove the cat or the material, or place a barrier of some sort between the two.

    Not that I would advocate censorship. *ahem*

  66. J. Potter says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:59 am  (Quote)

    Every time I think of that old fat cat humped over a bucket of sand … man, you have got to be kidding me!

  67. Majority Will says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:12 am  (Quote)

    Sef: But at least, Drosophila melanogaster have value is genetics studies. I doubt the same can be said for birthers.

    Tru dat. 😀

  68. Northland10 says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:17 am  (Quote)

    Sef: But at least, Drosophila melanogaster have value is genetics studies.

    To the annoyance of other teachers down the hall from the biology lab:

    Teacher: You playing the wrong note
    Student: But there is a grace note right there.
    Teacher: That’s not a grace note, it’s a fruit fly.

  69. J. Potter says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    (In case my analogy wasn’t clear)…

    Every time I see a birther trolling birther favorites … man, you have got to be kidding me!

    Yes, repetitive birther expressions remind me of feline excretions. Can throw cats out of the house, but can’t throw birthers out of the web. 🙁

  70. dunstvangeet says:
    July 30, 2011 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: Also, I didn’t make ANY reference to Obama’s eligibility except to the fact that the lawsuits started BEFORE he was elected — not after, like so many here try to claim.

    Actually, Sunshine, what was specifically referenced was the fact that the two parent theory of Natural Born Citizenship was made up after the election. Those early lawsuits that you reference (specifically Phil Berg’s) made absolutely no reference to the two-parent theory, and Phil Berg was on record significantly after it that he did not believe that two-parent theory. The earliest reference to the two-parent theory that I could actually find came in December of 2008.

    Another misconception is that the two citizen parents thing is something far right nut cases made up to get rid of Obama AFTER he was elected. If that’s the case, then WHY did the Supreme Court define natural born as two citizen parents in Minor vs Happersett (1875) or Bingham say in 1866 that natural born meant parents with NO foreign allegiances (like Obama’s father)?

    Because people quote-mined those cases in order to find something that they could use. Minor v. Happersett specifically said that they would not define citizenship, because it was not material to the case, since Minor met both definitions of citizenship. “It is not neccessary to resolve these doubts for the purposes of this case.” The Supreme Court later directly said that the term came from the English Common Law (and actually used Minor v. Happersett to advance that argument). English Common Law actually states that Natural Born = Born within the jurisdiction of the Country. It actually goes against your thing.

    You tell me I should read the Constitution. Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence and the reason we declared independence in the first place! The Founders chose NOT to be a socialist “democracy” like we have now. Tyranny by the government is the same as tyranny by a king — just the “rulers” have changed. Because I don’t believe the “general welfare” of the people is dependent on the government redistributing the wealth, doesn’t mean I haven’t read the Constitution.

    Apparently, you haven’t, and you don’t know the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has said multiple times that any term not defined in the Constitution, the definition is in English Common Law. What you actually believe is that the Founders took a term-of-art from English Common Law with 400+ years of history, redefined it, and then didn’t put the redefinition in the Constitution, while they put the redefinition of Treason in the Constitution.

    We’ve gone over this multiple times. Minor v. Happersett doesn’t say what you actually think it says. Furthermore, even if it did say that, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark directly overturned that part of Minor v. Happersett.

    Furthermore, you do realize that Minor v. Happersett was the case that said that women did not have a constitutional right to vote? Isn’t it amusing that the birthers can only find quotes from cases that denied people the same rights that a White Man had? So far, their two big cases are 1: Scott v. Sanford (basically said that blacks could never be considered citizens of the United States), and 2: Minor v. Happersett (said that States could deny women the right to vote).

  71. Obsolete says:
    July 30, 2011 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    I wonder how many birthers would be OK with the courts deciding that females did not have the right to vote if the same decision also made Obama ineligible.
    How much would they give up to make the scary black man go away?

  72. G says:
    July 30, 2011 at 3:49 pm  (Quote)

    Sadly, I suspect quite a few of the birthers would be just fine with that… these are very regressive mindsets we’re dealing with.

    Obsolete: I wonder how many birthers would be OK with the courts deciding that females did not have the right to vote if the same decision also made Obama ineligible.How much would they give up to make the scary black man go away?

  73. G says:
    July 30, 2011 at 3:53 pm  (Quote)

    Sorry, there is absolutely NOTHING in either the Declaration of Independence NOR the Constitution that has anything to say about socialism… that concept in the way you are referring to it didn’t even exist at the time those documents were written. Like just about everything you say, you only make yourself look foolish and not at all credible by making made up crazy claims that are so easily disprovable. You claim you’ve read those documents, but either you are lying or have no ability to comprehend the basics of what you read, as there is a complete disconnect from what you claim when you reference those documents and anything they actually say. So you are either just full of sh*t or stupid, which is it?

    Sunshine49: You tell me I should read the Constitution. Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence and the reason we declared independence in the first place! The Founders chose NOT to be a socialist “democracy” like we have now.

  74. G says:
    July 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    Ah, more fictitious straw-man arguments you often hear from uneducated dupes on the right claiming about anyone to the “left” of them…

    …yet funny how I’ve never actually encountered anyone who advocates for any of the made-up nonsense you folks claim that these leftists want…

    You seem to have to make up fake scenarios to be angry against, because you have no useful, pragmatic ideas of your own and your crazy arguments only seem even partially plausible if you can trick people into contrasting them with some untrue bogeyman scenario that never existed in the first place.

    That means at best, you are just another gullible dupe, capable of nothing but spouting the same brainwashed fictitious nonsense that you’ve heard through the unreliable “grapevine” or you intentionally seek to deceive people with false bogeymen stories (in other words a manipulative l-i-a-r). Which is it?

    Sunshine49: You must be one of those people who doesn’t believe that the people should be responsible for themselves at all. We should all be under a nanny state because we aren’t capable of running our own lives. BULL!
    It is in the government’s best interest to keep the people warring with each other. Then we are too busy to pay attention to what they are doing behind our backs. The left is STILL using Bush as a scapegoat for what they are doing NOW! He was just a puppet just like Obama is now, so nothing is going to “change”!

  75. Keith says:
    July 31, 2011 at 5:13 am  (Quote)

    J. Potter:
    True, as opposed to soiling at random all over the interwebs, but I think the comparison stands. Litter boxes just happen to fit a cat’s instincts. And I further note that if your place a litterbox in the garage, and also have landscaping materials in the garage, such as, say, 5-gallon buckets of sand a/o gravel, the cat will start to spread its goodness around. Subsequent admonishments and beratings will have no effect. The only way to keep the internet–er, material safe, is to remove the cat or the material, or place a barrier of some sort between the two.

    Not that I would advocate censorship. *ahem*

    Cats can be taught to use a human’s flush toilet.

  76. Northland10 says:
    July 31, 2011 at 7:44 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: You must be one of those people who doesn’t believe that the people should be responsible for themselves at all.

    G: …yet funny how I’ve never actually encountered anyone who advocates for any of the made-up nonsense you folks claim that these leftists want…

    The lack of personal responsibility is, in my feeling, much of the cause of our current issues. However, that lack is showing as much on the super rich as it is on the homeless. Our poster hear even shows their own lack of personal responsibility by repeating talking points instead of educating themselves on the actual issues. And educating themselves does not mean agreeing with “leftists” (or us silly centrists), for there are many smart and educating conservatives.

  77. J. Potter says:
    July 31, 2011 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Yep, cats win. More easily eliminated, and a modicum of potential if tolerated. Not much, only a modicum, but more than a typical birther.

    Keith: Cats can be taught to use a human’s flush toilet.

  78. Rickey says:
    July 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: The earliest reference to the two-parent theory that I could actually find came in December of 2008.

    Leo Donofrio first raised the two-citizen parent theory in his lawsuit filed in New Jersey, Donofrio v. Wells. I can’t find his Complaint online, but his SCOTUS petition indicates that he filed the lawsuit in late October, shortly before Election Day.

    Cort Wrotnowski filed Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz in Connecticut on October 31, but I believe that originally he only claimed that Obama’s COLB was not legitimate. Wrotnowski then (with Donofrio’s assistance) raised the two-citizen parent theory in his SCOTUS appeal.

    I cannot find any reference to the two-citizen parent theory prior to Donofrio’s lawsuit, either in lawsuits or on blogs.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/15/supreme-court-rejects-another-appeal-questioning-obamas-us-citizenship/

    Note the comment by famed Supreme Court attorney Thomas Goldstein:

    “The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you’re a natural born citizen.”

  79. J. Potter says:
    July 31, 2011 at 7:18 pm  (Quote)

    “What about our five dollar birth certificates?”

    Beavis
    Somewhere in the mid-1990s

  80. Sunshine49 says:
    July 31, 2011 at 11:39 pm  (Quote)

    Bovril: Naturally you eschew ALL “Scary Socialist”programmes here in the US such as
    Medicare
    Medicaid
    Social Security
    The VA
    Tricare
    The Military
    The Police
    The Fire Department
    Libraries
    The Interstate Road system
    The Post Office

    Social security and Medicare were set up like an old age insurance and originally the funds were supposed to be kept separate from the general funds to collect interest. I also think we owe it to our veterans to take care of them — especially when they were drafted!

    It was Johnson and his Great (welfare) Society who started spending the funds on his “war on poverty” that has been losing for the past 50 years that really started the “socialist” programs to buy votes.

    Your list, from the military on down were supposed to be taken care of BY THE STATES when the “people” decided they needed them and would be taxed accordingly. This whole “direct” income tax on the people didn’t start until 1913 when the government and the elites decided that the “people” were becoming too rich! It’s called “control” through money and that’s what you get with a “socialist democracy” — not a free Republic. I think that lobbyist also started back during Wilson’s reign when the government took control of the income taxes rather than the States. Our dollar is now worth three cents of what it was worth in 1913 and the middle class has become poorer because of “redistribution of wealth” through socialist programs.

    You can blame it on Republicans all you want, but it has always been under a Dem Congress and President that these programs have been started that has stripped the money and freedom from the “people”!

    Because of all the thousands of pages of rules and regulations on the American people, we are now ninth in the world for “freedoms”! I’ve even had Code Enforcement people tell me that we will really be “regulated” once Obamacare takes over.

    Maybe you don’t care that your losing YOUR freedoms — but I do!

  81. Sunshine49 says:
    August 1, 2011 at 12:14 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: They also had no seat in Parliament so all tax rules were and Laws (when the King would follow them) were dictated to the colonists. Our government is still a Republic and you still have representation. You are woefully misinformed on U.S. history.

    When was the last time YOU got to vote on Congress raising your taxes? The only taxes I’ve ever been allowed to vote on have been local sales tax increases to fund something or another.

    Once the politicians hit Washington, they don’t represent the “people” anymore. Isn’t that one of the big complaints of the left — that the Republicans have sold out the people to big business? What do you consider billions in bailouts to the banks and big corporations that Obama did? I also don’t consider working the first five months of the year just to give it to the government as a “republican” form of government!

    So what do you think of our government selling off our infrastructure and parks to foreign investors. The “people” paid for these things in one way or another, but the government acts like it’s THEIRS to do with as they please. You only “think” the politicians represent you when they DON’T!

    Maybe you need to learn the difference between a “Republic” like our Founders meant and a “democracy” like we have now.

  82. BatGuano says:
    August 1, 2011 at 1:25 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: When was the last time YOU…..

    we’ve kinda left the eligibility debate. did you still want to discuss any mention of the ” 2 citizen parent ” argument prior to the election?

  83. gorefan says:
    August 1, 2011 at 1:40 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: What do you consider billions in bailouts to the banks and big corporations that Obama did?

    Really, TARP funds were handed over to the banks by – President Bush (a Republican), President Bush gave 12 billion to Chrysler and GM. Goldman Sachs, AIG occurred with Bush in office. In fact, if you look at the history of bailouts in the US, they usually occur under Republican Presidents. Remember Nixon and the Penn Central or Ford and the bailout of New York City.

    Did you also know that President Reagan raised taxes 7 times in his Presidency?

    By the way do you know what was the first bailout that occurred in the United States? It was when President Washington and Congress assumed all the Revolutionary War debt from the 13 states. Alexander Hamilton was the brains behind the idea. The State of Virginia Legislature drafted a resolution opposed to the law. Their reasons were that they didn’t want Virgina Citizens to have to pay off the debt of the other states through higher taxes.

  84. G says:
    August 1, 2011 at 1:51 am  (Quote)

    You are living in the past. Many of the early problems and loopholes with politicians (yes, from both sides) “raiding” the SS fund were addressed a few decades ago. Back in 1983, it was amended with a provision that did exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget a provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993. The issue today is more about dealing with the fact that people now live longer and the baby boomers are set to retire.

    I find it pretty twisted and backwards that you blame the Democrats, considering that they were the party that created Social Security and really are the only party that truly supports it. GOP support is merely begrudging lip-service, as the program has become quite popular and depended upon by our seniors. How sad that you consider taking actions to provide for the greater good and benefit our society as nothing more than “buying votes”. Yeah, I’d rather vote for a government that invests in my well being instead of one that screws me and only looks out for the richest 1-5% of society, which can afford to invest more into their campaigns. But hey, you seem to support legalized bribery by the ultra-rich.

    Spare us your “socialism” bogeyman nonsense. You seem to have little actual understanding of what that term means. We’ve always had a mixed-market economy. The same is pretty much true for most of the developed world.

    Sunshine49:
    Social security and Medicare were set up like an old age insurance and originally the funds were supposed to be kept separate from the general funds to collect interest. I also think we owe it to our veterans to take care of them — especially when they were drafted!

    It was Johnson and his Great (welfare) Society who started spending the funds on his “war on poverty” that has been losing for the past 50 years that really started the “socialist” programs to buy votes.

    Taxes for the benefits we need are still coming out of your pocket, regardless of where you pass the buck to. Look around you at the “states” you so wish to put the burden on. When they cut their budgets, all they are doing is passing the buck back down to the local level, creating an enormous burden on local communities. If you want the most cost-efficient solution, you follow the model that every insurance company is based on – spread of risk. The greater the population pool, the lower the averaged cost across. Therefore, it actually makes more sense to have any benefit programs that could apply universally across the population, regardless of location to be handled at the top (federal taxes) instead of at the bottom (local taxes).

    The rest of your rant is just more of your typical backwards and partisan hack nonsense. Outside of concerns of lobbyist influence (which is not limited to one party over another) and some freedom restrictions that are a direct result of The Patriot Act (passed under GWB, still in place under Obama), our freedoms are just as intact as they ever were.

    Sunshine49:

    P>Your list, from the military on down were supposed to be taken care of BY THE STATES when the “people” decided they needed them and would be taxed accordingly. This whole “direct” income tax on the people didn’t start until 1913 when the government and the elites decided that the “people” were becoming too rich! It’s called “control” through money and that’s what you get with a “socialist democracy” — not a free Republic. I think that lobbyist also started back during Wilson’s reign when the government took control of the income taxes rather than the States.

    Wow. Backwards again. Try correlating the tax rate to when the middle class was the strongest. Funny how the middle class was doing just fine under higher tax rates for years and has been completely stagnant or in decline over the past few decades of constant tax cuts. I think there were some legitimate arguments during the early 80’s to lower taxes…and that was done. There becomes a point where things are lowered to a reasonable amount and then beyond that, you are just hurting the economy. Taxes exist for a reason. They are the revenue engine that allows us to have a modern and functioning government. If anything, many of our current problems are acerbated because tax revenues are too low for what we need to do and what we owe. Your partisan hack points are just not supported by statistical reality.

    Sunshine49:
    Our dollar is now worth three cents of what it was worth in 1913 and the middle class has become poorer because of “redistribution of wealth” through socialist programs.You can blame it on Republicans all you want, but it has always been under a Dem Congress and President that these programs have been started that has stripped the money and freedom from the “people”!

    Any evidence of this so-called “Freedom” index ranking? Sounds like more bunk you’ve pulled out of your behind.

    In regards to all international rankings I’ve seen for other important areas, such as education, longevity, health, social well-being, etc: We used to be #1 in just about all of those areas. It is true that there has been a disturbing and steady decline in America’s rankings in many areas. However, your underlying premise for cause/effect blame doesn’t hold up, since pretty much all of the countries that outrank us on various measures have higher tax base structures and would be considered much more “socialist” in their policies that anything in the US.

    Sunshine49:
    Because of all the thousands of pages of rules and regulations on the American people, we are now ninth in the world for “freedoms”!

    Yeah, right. Too bad there is nothing in the actual law passed that comes anywhere close to the nonsense you make up. Of course I care about losing my freedoms. But I don’t live in fear of imaginary false scenarios that don’t actually exist in the real world.

    Sunshine49:
    I’ve even had Code Enforcement people tell me that we will really be “regulated” once Obamacare takes over.Maybe you don’t care that your losing YOUR freedoms — but I do!

  85. G says:
    August 1, 2011 at 1:55 am  (Quote)

    Yet you seem to support and vote for those people that most want to sell off our infrastructure, jobs, etc. Sounds like you are part of the problem. You get mad about issues and then vote for the very people that are likely to cause the problems you are complaining about and whose policies will make that even worse. Then you blame everyone else. The way I see it, we’re in many of the messes we are in because of people who think and act like you.

    Sunshine49: When was the last time YOU got to vote on Congress raising your taxes? The only taxes I’ve ever been allowed to vote on have been local sales tax increases to fund something or another.Once the politicians hit Washington, they don’t represent the “people” anymore. Isn’t that one of the big complaints of the left — that the Republicans have sold out the people to big business? What do you consider billions in bailouts to the banks and big corporations that Obama did? I also don’t consider working the first five months of the year just to give it to the government as a “republican” form of government!So what do you think of our government selling off our infrastructure and parks to foreign investors. The “people” paid for these things in one way or another, but the government acts like it’s THEIRS to do with as they please. You only “think” the politicians represent you when they DON’T!Maybe you need to learn the difference between a “Republic” like our Founders meant and a “democracy” like we have now.

  86. Majority Will says:
    August 1, 2011 at 7:04 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Really, TARP funds were handed over to the banks by – President Bush (a Republican), President Bush gave 12 billion to Chrysler and GM.Goldman Sachs*, AIG occurred with Bush in office.In fact, if you look at the history of bailouts in the US, they usually occur under Republican Presidents. Remember Nixon and the Penn Central or Ford and the bailout of New York City.

    Did you also know that President Reagan raised taxes 7 times in his Presidency?

    By the way do you know what was the first bailout that occurred in the United States?It was when President Washington and Congress assumed all the Revolutionary War debt from the 13 states.Alexander Hamilton was the brains behind the idea.The State of Virginia Legislature drafted a resolution opposed to the law.Their reasons were that they didn’t want Virgina Citizens to have to pay off the debt of the other states through higher taxes.

    *President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson engineered and led the U.S. government economic bailout of 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson#Credit_Crisis_of_2007.E2.80.932009).

    Paulson previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs.

    And one example of a corporate bailout of the U.S. :

    In the mid-1890s, with the U.S. economy still recovering from the financial panic of 1893, the U.S. Treasury was in danger of going bankrupt as worried investors clamored to collect what they were owed from U.S. gold reserves. With few options left, President Cleveland met with New York financier J.P. Morgan, who pledged a whopping $60 million in gold. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $1.5 billion today.

    “The fact that Morgan had become a cosigner on the federal debt was what impressed the markets,” historian H.W. Brands wrote in his account “The Upside-Down Bailout.” “Within days the Treasury’s condition stabilized; within weeks the dollar’s danger had passed.”

    (excerpt: “Could Apple pull a J.P. Morgan and bail out the U.S. government?”,
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/07/could-apple-pull-a-jp-morgan-and-bail-out-the-us-government-.html)

  87. roadburner says:
    August 1, 2011 at 8:42 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: You can blame it on Republicans all you want, but it has always been under a Dem Congress and President that these programs have been started that has stripped the money and freedom from the “people”!Because of all the thousands of pages of rules and regulations on the American people, we are now ninth in the world for “freedoms”! I’ve even had Code Enforcement people tell me that we will really be “regulated” once Obamacare takes over.Maybe you don’t care that your losing YOUR freedoms — but I do!

    tell me, what `freedoms´ have you lost under this administration?

    now tell me what `patriot act´ means to you, and under who´s watch that one came in.

  88. Sunshine49 says:
    August 1, 2011 at 8:49 am  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: Because people quote-mined those cases in order to find something that they could use. Minor v. Happersett specifically said that they would not define citizenship, because it was not material to the case, since Minor met both definitions of citizenship. “It is not necessary to resolve these doubts for the purposes of this case.”

    The exact words they said were: The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners . Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts . It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    For the purpose of the case it was not necessary to solve the DOUBTS about citizenship of children with foreign parents because the women was a “natural-born” citizen with TWO CITIZEN PARENTS! DUH! It couldn’t be stated any plainer than that! They did NOT say anything about the “natural-born” citizenship of children with foreign parents. ONLY CITIZENSHIP. They belonged to a different class other than “natural-born”! It seems that all Dems seem to have a reading comprehension problem with this Supreme Court ruling.

    Bingham was a Senator who worked on the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. He made his statements during the debates in Congress about who would be allowed citizenship. Your statement makes it sound like he ruled on a Supreme Court case.

    Did you know that people were allowed a CHOICE when we became a Republic IF they wanted to become citizens or not. Just because they were born on U.S. soil, they did NOT automatically become U.S. citizens when the war for independence was over. A lot of people went back to England or up into Canada rather than swear “allegiance” to the new government!

    I know — I was just reading over some of this blog’s arguments about Minor vs Happersett back in March. Part of the problem seems to be that so many people assume that we just adopted English Common Law as our laws, which we didn’t. We do NOT have natural-born “subjects” who are like slaves to a master. To become a “naturalized” citizen in the U.S. OUR LAWS require that someone give up any “allegiances” to any other country. It is NOT assumed that someone has “allegiance” to this country just because they are here on U.S. soil or that their children born on U.S. soil have automatic allegiance to the U.S. ONLY, which is REQUIRED to become a citizen under our laws!

    Two people can read the very same thing and come up with two different interpretations. The framers of the 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act said what they meant in the debates in Congress, but SCOTUS in Wong said they were NOT using the debates to define the meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment. WHY? Because the debates did not agree with their decision to give Wong citizenship by English Common law.

    The children of English “subjects” are born English “subjects” no matter what country they are born in — including America. England didn’t “change” their laws until the 1980s. Obama’s father was an English “subject” under their laws and his children were also English “subjects”. Just like children born of American parents while they are working or visiting overseas are STILL American citizens. The “allegiance” of the children follows the “allegiance” of the parents.

    From everything I’ve read, the Founders and the ones who wrote the 14th Amendment did not recognize “dual” citizenship. You either chose to be a U.S. citizen or you were born one from citizen parents. I think that the framers of the 14th Amendment realized that people that came to this country to live permanently, gave their allegiance to the U.S. even if the didn’t take the time to go through naturalization. According to the debates in Congress over the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the framers considered foreigners who were NOT just passing through as citizens. As citizens, their children were natural-born! Even in the Wong decision, SCOTUS made the statement that the parents of Wong were citizens as much as they were “allowed” to be because of OUR LAWS and the treaty with China.

    In the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1866, one of the Senators made the remark that the Act would have the effect of “naturalizing” the children at birth of foreigners like the Chinese and Gypsies.

    In that other debate in March, Dr. Conspiracy made the comment that he didn’t know of anyone that had made an argument against the Wong decision, but in 2005 a law professor did just that for the Supreme Court in deciding if the terrorist who had been born on U.S. soil of Saudi parents just “passing through” should be tried as a U.S. citizen.

    My whole point here is that the Wong decision has been in contention for years by law professors and Constitutional scholars. Not over Obama, but over illegals having “anchor babies” on U.S. soil because they are here without our permission and against our laws. There is NO “allegiance” to the U.S. to grant citizenship.

    Obama’s “allegiance” at birth would have been to England because his father was an English “subject”, which would have made Obama an English “subject” — NOT a “natural-born” American with allegiance ONLY to the U.S.

    That was the purpose of the natural-born clause in the Constitution in the first place. That the President of the United States would have “allegiance” to the U.S. ONLY! NOT to any other foreign country through the parents. That’s why it takes “citizen” parents to be a “natural-born” citizen.

    Anyone should realize that if they took time to “think” about it.

  89. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    So Senator Graham, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and the Indiana court of appeals just didn’t take the time to “think” about it?

    Vice-chancellor Sandford of the Chancery Court of New York (1844) who wrote a sweeping historical survey in his decision in Lynch v. Clarke, didn’t take time to “think” about it?

    Your main error, among many, is substituting your own personal notions of “allegiance” for the legal usage of the term. Allegiance means “subject to the jurisdiction” not free from the arbitrary claims of a third party.

    You’d be funny if you weren’t so pathetic.

    Sunshine49Anyone should realize that if they took time to “think” about it.

  90. Majority Will says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:17 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: That’s why it takes “citizen” parents to be a “natural-born” citizen.

    You’re wrong.

  91. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:19 am  (Quote)

    I think you are misrepresenting me. I don’t what you are specifically referring to but of course there are folks who disagree with Wong. I’ve cited articles arguing that Wong should be overturned — but it hasn’t. It’s long-settled law.

    Sunshine49: In that other debate in March, Dr. Conspiracy made the comment that he didn’t know of anyone that had made an argument against the Wong decision, but in 2005 a law professor did just that for the Supreme Court in deciding if the terrorist who had been born on U.S. soil of Saudi parents just “passing through” should be tried as a U.S. citizen.

  92. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:23 am  (Quote)

    So you are arguing that when Thomas Jefferson accepted French citizenship, he gave up his US citizenship and when he served as President he wasn’t a US Citizen?

    I think you need to read some more.

    Sunshine49: From everything I’ve read, the Founders and the ones who wrote the 14th Amendment did not recognize “dual” citizenship. You either chose to be a U.S. citizen or you were born one from citizen parents

  93. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:33 am  (Quote)

    People are entitled to their opinions, but what the Supreme Court says is what the law is.

    US v Wong was a 14th amendment case, and the 14th amendment says “jurisdiction,” not “allegiance,” something that you conveniently keep forgetting to say. If an illegal alien commits a crime, is he immune from prosecution? He is not, and therefore he is under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Sunshine49: My whole point here is that the Wong decision has been in contention for years by law professors and Constitutional scholars. Not over Obama, but over illegals having “anchor babies” on U.S. soil because they are here without our permission and against our laws. There is NO “allegiance” to the U.S. to grant citizenship.

  94. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:53 am  (Quote)

    The US Supreme Court in Smith v Alabama said that the terms used in the Constitution should be interpreted according to the English Common Law.

    South Carolina in its 1776 Constitution, for example, stated that unless subsequently altered, the previous acts of the colonial legislature remained in force and that included one that incorporated the English Common Law as the law of the Colony.

    You can assert all you like, but that doesn’t make your superficial analysis true.

    Sunshine49: I know — I was just reading over some of this blog’s arguments about Minor vs Happersett back in March. Part of the problem seems to be that so many people assume that we just adopted English Common Law as our laws, which we didn’t.

  95. John Reilly says:
    August 1, 2011 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    Sunshine49 used to argue that if the English just thought about it, they would realize that their King had to be English. Once a number of us pointed out that English (or, more precisely, UK citizenship) is not a requirement of English law to be King, that argument was dropped. Now he’s arguing that English common law was not adopted in this country. Maybe it wasn’t in Louisiana, but in the rest of the country, including the Federal system, that is the starting point of analysis for many questions; it’s been adopted. Try reading Justice Scalia’s opinions.

    If you do not like the idea that an anchor baby can become President, propose a Constitutional amendment to make that the law. Otherwise, stop making things up.

  96. Ballantine says:
    August 1, 2011 at 10:53 am  (Quote)

    P>In that other debate in March, Dr. Conspiracy made the comment that he didn’t know of anyone that had made an argument against the Wong decision, but in 2005 a law professor did just that for the Supreme Court in deciding if the terrorist who had been born on U.S. soil of Saudi parents just “passing through” should be tried as a U.S. citizen.My whole point here is that the Wong decision has been in contention for years by law professors and Constitutional scholars. Not over Obama, but over illegals having “anchor babies” on U.S. soil because they are here without our permission and against our laws. There is NO “allegiance” to the U.S. to grant citizenship.Obama’s “allegiance” at birth would have been to England because his father was an English “subject”, which would have made Obama an English “subject” — NOT a “natural-born” American with allegiance ONLY to the U.S.That was the purpose of the natural-born clause in the Constitution in the first place. That the President of the United States would have “allegiance” to the U.S. ONLY! NOT to any other foreign country through the parents. That’s why it takes “citizen” parents to be a “natural-born” citizen.Anyone should realize that if they took time to “think” about it.

    Yes, there is a political fringe who can’t stand anchor babies that attack Wong. There are people who attack every Supreme court precedent for political purposes. No court has taken the attacks on Wong seriously. People like Eastman are not taken seriously as he is a professor of law where? Chapman law? Eastman’s arguments are not only frivolous, they are dishonest. He wants to re-write the plain meaning of the Amendment by cherry-picking a couple quotes out of context without telling you the same people he quotes repeatedly said that children of aliens were citizens, that the English rule was the universal rule, that allegiance was defined by place of birth and that the president must be a native born citizen. By my count, 10 members of such Congress, including the both authors of the citizenship clauses, said the president must be a native born citizen or that children of aliens were natural born citizens and at least 8 members of such Congress said the English rule was the universal rule. Why would someone born on US soil owe a foreign allegiance if the English rule was universal? Duhh. Sorry, Wong is the law and 100 year old precedent doesn’t get overturned as no one give Eastman and his crowd the time of day

    You really don’t understand what allegiance meant in the 19th century. Cite one person who would have thought a child of English parents born on our soil owed allegiance to England. England never claimed such persons owed allegiance to England refused to offer protection to such persons unless they moved to England. Those are historical facts. From an Royal Commission on the subject in 1869:

    “no attempt has ever been made on the part of the British Government, (unless in Eastern countries where special jurisdiction is conceded by treaty) to enforce claims upon, or to assert rights in respect of, persons born abroad, as against the country of their birth whilst they were resident therein, and when by its law they were invested with its nationality…..It is competent to any country to confer by general or special legislation the privileges of nationality upon those who are born out of its on territory; but it cannot confer such privileges upon such persons as against the country of their birth, when they voluntarily return to and reside therein. Those born in the territory of a nation are (as a general principle) liable when actually therein to the obligations incident to their status by birth. Great Britain considers and treats such persons as natural-born subjects, and cannot therefore deny the right of other nations to do the same. But Great Britain cannot permit the nationality of the children of foreign parents born within her territory to be questioned.”

  97. Lupin says:
    August 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm  (Quote)

    @Sunshine 49:

    By your “logic” how do you categorize the child of two Jewish-American citizens, Italian-American citizens, Greek-American citizens who has also the potential of inheriting another citizenship?

    I’m looking forward to the day when your little cabal of bigots is going to explain to all the Jews, Italians, Greeks, etc. born and living in America that they and their children are still second-class citizens.

    Go ahead; make my day.

  98. dunstvangeet says:
    August 1, 2011 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    Sunshine49.

    1. John Bingham did not write the 14th Amendment. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was written by Sen Jacob Howard (R-MI).

    2. The Legislative Record does not support your view. For instance, during the debate of the 14th Amendment, it was stated by Sen. Jacob Howard that the 14th Amendment didn’t actually change anything, but was simply declaratory of what the law already was. It’s main purpose was to prevent other people from trying to mess with the law to exclude people such as blacks. This is brought painfully clear when it’s brought up that the language would include the children of Gypsies in Pennsylvania, and Chinese in California. Sen. John Corness (R-CA) directly said that this is what it would do, and this was not a bad thing either. “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . .”

    3.

  99. Judge Mental says:
    August 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: @Sunshine 49:By your “logic” how do you categorize the child of two Jewish-American citizens, Italian-American citizens, Greek-American citizens who has also the potential of inheriting another citizenship?I’m looking forward to the day when your little cabal of bigots is going to explain to all the Jews, Italians, Greeks, etc. born and living in America that they and their children are still second-class citizens.Go ahead; make my day.

    Jewish is not a nationality and in itself has no relevance to citizenship. Someone described as a Jewish-American might have origins in any one of several different countries. In the context of your post did you perhaps mean Israeli-American?

  100. dunstvangeet says:
    August 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm  (Quote)

    Continuing my previous post…

    3. Nobody has truly seriously suggested that it required 2 citizens before this point in history. In fact, if you look at the constructs of language, you’ll see that even though it does say “parents”, the fact that the previous noun (those born here) is plural, means that the next noun is usually plural. For instance, let me set up a scenario that will illistrate my point.

    Let’s say I’m a divorced father. I have sole custody of my children, but am a single father. Now, I’ve done pretty well for myself, and am able to join a country club in my neighborhood. This country club has a pool.

    Now, the country-club has a big sign outside the pool that says “Children of members may use the pool.” Now, I’m a member, but my divorced wife is not. In fact, my wife lives clear on the other side of the country. Now, according to your warped logic, I must get my wife to pay dues to a country club that she will never use in order for my children to use the pool at the country club. After all, it says “members” not “member”.

  101. Ballantine says:
    August 1, 2011 at 2:25 pm  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: Sunshine49.1. John Bingham did not write the 14th Amendment. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was written by Sen Jacob Howard (R-MI).2. The Legislative Record does not support your view. For instance, during the debate of the 14th Amendment, it was stated by Sen. Jacob Howard that the 14th Amendment didn’t actually change anything, but was simply declaratory of what the law already was. It’s main purpose was to prevent other people from trying to mess with the law to exclude people such as blacks. This is brought painfully clear when it’s brought up that the language would include the children of Gypsies in Pennsylvania, and Chinese in California. Sen. John Corness (R-CA) directly said that this is what it would do, and this was not a bad thing either. “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . .”3.

    What is funny is that not only didn’t Bingham have anything to do with the citizenship clause and didn’t even contribute to the debate other than one ambiguous statement in the Ciivl Rights Act debate, but the birthers are unaware that some of the most famous law review articles of the 20th century basically pointed out that Bingham had nutty views. One should look at Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary, pg. 1445 (1978); Alexander M. Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 5 n. 13 (1955). BTW, Berger and Bickel are the godfathers of the modern conservative originalist movement and the intellectual forefathers of Bork and Scalia. To make this point clearer, Bingham was all over the map on the citizenship issue. For example:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

    “Who, sir, are citizens of the United States? First, all free persons born and domiciled within the United States – not all free withe persons, but all free persons….The fact is notorious that, at the formation of the Constitution, but few of the states made color the basis of sufferage; and all of them, by the words or construction of their constitutions, affirmed the fact that all native free persons were citizens.” Congressional Globe, 2nd Session 1859, pp 984-85

    Now, rather than looking at someone who didn’t contribute to the dabate on citizenship, you can look at what the people involved in drafting the amendment said. The language of the Amendment was drafted by Sen. Howard. He said:

    “Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

    “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws….. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    “They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    Not very hard. What about the author of the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act:

    “The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency?” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

    “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

    “And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).

    “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

    “How is it that every person born in these United States owes allegiance to the Government?” William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 255 (1868)

    Why does anyone opine on this subject when they have obviously not read what the framers of the Amendment said? For some, it is all about hatred of illegal aliens where such hatred makes it impossible for them to consider the historical meaning of the Constitution. They cannot understand that Madison himself thought deportation of aliens we were not at war with to be illegal under the Constitution and th law of nations. They simply cannot imagine that the founding fathers didn’t share their hatred.

  102. Sef says:
    August 1, 2011 at 2:47 pm  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: Let’s say I’m a divorced father. I have sole custody of my children, but am a single father. Now, I’ve done pretty well for myself, and am able to join a country club in my neighborhood. This country club has a pool.

    Now, the country-club has a big sign outside the pool that says “Children of members may use the pool.” Now, I’m a member, but my divorced wife is not. In fact, my wife lives clear on the other side of the country. Now, according to your warped logic, I must get my wife to pay dues to a country club that she will never use in order for my children to use the pool at the country club. After all, it says “members” not “member”.

    And if you only had one child (s)he could not use the pool because it says children.

  103. Expelliarmus says:
    August 1, 2011 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    Judge Mental: Jewish is not a nationality and in itself has no relevance to citizenship. Someone described as a Jewish-American might have origins in any one of several different countries. In the context of your post did you perhaps mean Israeli-American?

    Under the Israeli law of return, all Jews have the right to emigrate to Israel an to automatic Israeli citizenship. So every American Jew is potentially a dual citizen.

    That is not the same as an Israeli-American, as no prior connection with Israel is required. Keep in mind that Israel as a nation did not exist prior to 1948, and that the country has a vested interest in encouraging Jewish immigration.

  104. Judge Mental says:
    August 1, 2011 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus: Under the Israeli law of return, all Jews have the right to emigrate to Israel an to automatic Israeli citizenship. So every American Jew is potentially a dual citizen. That is not the same as an Israeli-American, as no prior connection with Israel is required. Keep in mind that Israel as a nation did not exist prior to 1948, and that the country has a vested interest in encouraging Jewish immigration.

    Good point. I should not have said ‘no’ relevance. Being jewish can have clear relevance to citizenship in that sense.

    Paul was talking in terms of ‘inheriting’ a potential right to another citizenship. My mind was in the same vein during my reply. Religion can’t be inherited from your parents in quite the same way that nationality is.

    A child born to jewish parents can choose not consider himself jewish or to follow the jewish religion in any way, even choose to adopt another religion altogether, thus presumably then not being entitled the right to Israeli citizenship. You can’t choose what the nationality of your parents is and any citizenship entitlement that comes with that parentage is beyond your control.

  105. Rickey says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:03 pm  (Quote)

    No birther has yet been able to provide a satisfactory answer to my hypothetical. In fact, none have even tried to answer it, so let’s see if Sunshine49 wants to take a crack at it.

    I was born in New York State. Both of my parents were born in New York State and were citizens at the time of my birth. Even Sunshine49 would agree that I am a natural-born citizen and am eligible to be President.

    However, my maternal grandmother was born in Ireland, which makes me eligible to become an Irish citizen.

    If I become an Irish citizen, and do not renounce my U.S. citizenship, am I still eligible to be President? If Sunshine49’s answer is “no,” I would like to see some case law citations which support his position.

  106. J.Potter says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    Another good line of questions to ask is:

    “Do you have children?”

    “(When you had your children were you/When you have children do you expect to be) asked to provide documentation of your citizenship status at any time during before or after the birth or when completing/filing the birth certificate?”

    If the nutcase say yes, please ask for examples. Ask for a BC from any state that includes any notation of parent citizenship/immigration status. If parents’ citizenship was important in anyway, it seems like it would come in play at point of birth. If not, wouldn’t the FEC have opened a genealogy branched along time ago to accomodate would be candidates’ needs to document their “lineage”?

  107. Ballantine says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:20 pm  (Quote)

    The historical facts are that the United States never recognized the claims of foreign countries on our citizens. One needs to read the debates of the expatriation act in 1868 where Congress formally declared that we would finally protect our naturalized citizens from claims of foreign allegiance to the same extent we had always done with respect to our native born citizens. Everybody understood that it has always been our policy not to recognize claims of foreign allegiance on our native born and even England recognized such persons owed allegiance to us, not England. The state department, however, needed to resolve conflicts of law with other nations and in certain situations determined that electing a foreign citizenship and living overseas meant one had chosen a foreign citizenship. This was a murky body of law for many years as the state department was not a court and was driven by political consideration as well as consideration of international relations. As far as I am aware, the state department never ruled against a dual citizen unless they had moved oversees and hence was deemed to have chosen foreign citizenship.

  108. Judge Mental says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: No birther has yet been able to provide a satisfactory answer to my hypothetical. In fact, none have even tried to answer it, so let’s see if Sunshine49 wants to take a crack at it.I was born in New York State. Both of my parents were born in New York State and were citizens at the time of my birth. Even Sunshine49 would agree that I am a natural-born citizen and am eligible to be President.However, my maternal grandmother was born in Ireland, which makes me eligible to become an Irish citizen.If I become an Irish citizen, and do not renounce my U.S. citizenship, am I still eligible to be President? If Sunshine49′s answer is “no,” I would like to see some case law citations which support his position.

    If wishing to maintan consistency the only possible answer he can give you is that you are not eligible. Can’t really understand why no other previous birther who shares sunshine49’s belief hasn’t already been willing to at least give you that kind of bare bones unexpanded answer. I can think of several I’ve came across who would readily give you that bare answer. They’re the same folks who would also readily opine that Rubio and Jindal are not eligible.

    Easy to understand why none would be able to give you the relevant/satisfactory supporting case citation as there are none.

  109. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve worked with a lot of vital statistics data over the years, and I don’t recall parents’ citizenship ever being in the data set. Parents’ place of birth is recorded.

    The FEC is not responsible for vetting the eligibility of presidential candidates, so they wouldn’t do genealogy even if it mattered.

    J.Potter: Ask for a BC from any state that includes any notation of parent citizenship/immigration status. If parents’ citizenship was important in anyway, it seems like it would come in play at point of birth. If not, wouldn’t the FEC have opened a genealogy branched along time ago to accommodate would be candidates’ needs to document their “lineage”?

  110. G says:
    August 1, 2011 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    You have really captured a very important point on this crazy argument. If citizenship status of the parents at the time of one’s birth had *ANY* significance at all in regards to that baby’s own “natural born citizen” status, then such data would be important to collect and record on the birth certificate. As you’ve pointed out, it is NOT, which is just further evidence of how silly this whole 3-year old 2-citizen parent myth is.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve worked with a lot of vital statistics data over the years, and I don’t recall parents’ citizenship ever being in the data set. Parents’ place of birth is recorded.The FEC is not responsible for vetting the eligibility of presidential candidates, so they wouldn’t do genealogy even if it mattered.

  111. dunstvangeet says:
    August 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    The actual case law goes directly against their saying no, Ricky. Take a look at Perkins v. Elg.

    these people actually believe that someone who is born to 1 foreign parent who naturalizes 1 day after they are born actually has more foreign influence than someone who was taken to a foreign country 1 day after they were born, naturalizes there (Perkins v. Elg prevents the renouncing of citizenship status by minors) and then returns to the United States right before their 21st birthday, and then spends the next 14 years in the United States, running for President when they are 35 years old.

    Rickey:
    No birther has yet been able to provide a satisfactory answer to my hypothetical. In fact, none have even tried to answer it, so let’s see if Sunshine49 wants to take a crack at it.

    I was born in New York State. Both of my parents were born in New York State and were citizens at the time of my birth. Even Sunshine49 would agree that I am a natural-born citizen and am eligible to be President.

    However, my maternal grandmother was born in Ireland, which makes me eligible to become an Irish citizen.

    If I become an Irish citizen, and do not renounce my U.S. citizenship, am I still eligible to be President? If Sunshine49′s answer is “no,” I would like to see some case law citations which support his position.

  112. J.Potter says:
    August 1, 2011 at 6:15 pm  (Quote)

    I only noted the FEC in jest, because, if a birther were to double down with, “it isn’t recorded because it’s only important if the child ever runs for president” (which is pretty dubious thinking) …. then some organization would be responsible for vetting. Or so it seems to me. If the 2parent theory was real, but it wasn’t recorded at birth, then surely we’d have genealogical affidavits on file for past candidates, right? Unless we were just taking all the white guys’ word for it?

    Parent’s place of birth is always(?) noted, but not much help in satisfying a birther, degreee of uselessness depending on what flavor of invented citizenship the birther decides to require of the parents. If only a 2parent NBC can beget a 2parent NBC, look out. I’ve made that point before.

    If only more birthers could be encouraged to think through the (im)practicalities of an idea, they might realize just how ethereal and stupid the idea being sold to them are.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve worked with a lot of vital statistics data over the years, and I don’t recall parents’ citizenship ever being in the data set. Parents’ place of birth is recorded.

    The FEC is not responsible for vetting the eligibility of presidential candidates, so they wouldn’t do genealogy even if it mattered.

  113. Majority Will says:
    August 1, 2011 at 8:50 pm  (Quote)

    J.Potter: If only more birthers could be encouraged to think . . .

    That would be a start right there.

  114. Keith says:
    August 1, 2011 at 11:56 pm  (Quote)

    Sunshine49: When was the last time YOU got to vote on Congress raising your taxes?

    Last time I read the Constitution it seemed to be defining a “Democratic Republic” not a “Pure Democracy”. So yeah, you got a point there. Are you advocating a Constitutional Amendment that replaces the House of Representatives with 30 million or so ‘town hall’ meetings each meeting about 200 times per year?

  115. J. Potter says:
    August 2, 2011 at 1:15 am  (Quote)

    BIRTHER PARTY!

    Mark Gillar popped up today, promoting his latest greatest accomplishment, so great it needed its own site:

    Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz, Susan Daniels, Ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, Albert Renshaw, Tom
    Harrison, and Joseph Newcomer. Show Hosted by Mark Gillar.

    http://www.birtherspecial.com

    He promises the gang rambled on about the LFBC PDF for THREE HOURS. I haven’t subjected myself to it. Who has the time? It just might be the thing to finish off your birthernalia collection.

  116. G says:
    August 2, 2011 at 1:17 am  (Quote)

    Patrick over at Bad FIction did a good rundown of this event today:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2011/08/dispatches-from-birtherstan-29-july-1-august-2011.html

    J. Potter: BIRTHER PARTY!Mark Gillar popped up today, promoting his latest greatest accomplishment, so great it needed its own site:Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz, Susan Daniels, Ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, Albert Renshaw, TomHarrison, and Joseph Newcomer. Show Hosted by Mark Gillar.http://www.birtherspecial.com He promises the gang rambled on about the LFBC PDF for THREE HOURS. I haven’t subjected myself to it. Who has the time? It just might be the thing to finish off your birthernalia collection.

  117. J. Potter says:
    August 2, 2011 at 1:40 am  (Quote)

    Thanks, G, important to note the write up is way down at the bottom. After a lot of other birther silliness. I hadn’t heard about the Renshaw Trinity before …. it all goes deeper and deeper. Truly, the abyss is bottomless.

    Ever feel like you in that crazy boat with Willy Wonka?

  118. G says:
    August 2, 2011 at 1:43 am  (Quote)

    LOL! Except I’d actually want to ride in Wonka’s crazy boat… 😉

    J. Potter: Thanks, G, important to note the write up is way down at the bottom. After a lot of other birther silliness. I hadn’t heard about the Renshaw Trinity before …. it all goes deeper and deeper. Truly, the abyss is bottomless.Ever feel like you in that crazy boat with Willy Wonka?

  119. J. Potter says:
    August 2, 2011 at 3:16 am  (Quote)

    VEGAS FAILS TO GO BIRTHER!

    President Obama ( -300 ) is still a heavy favorite, Romney ( +450 ) and Perry ( +600 ) distant runners-up. Both have glaring blackmarks in the eyes of the Red voting base. Can the Reds get over themselves long enough to back one candidate into a cohesive challenge? Sure! With groupthink all things are possible!

  121. Sunshine49 says:
    August 3, 2011 at 7:57 am  (Quote)

    Instead of watching the stock market, I watch what gold and silver are doing.

    After silver went up to $50 and then dropped to $35 for a while — it’s going back up again. Today it’s at $41. That shows me that people are still scared the economy will collapse in spite of the debt ceiling increase.

    What worries me more is stuff like this:
    Fed May Weigh More Stimulus if Growth Slows
    http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/Fed-Stimulus-Recovery economy/2011/08/02/id/405744

    Nobody is reigning in the Fed and what they are doing. As long as they are printing up more dollars — the dollar is decreasing in value and the price of everything is going to go up. For millions of people on fixed incomes, it’s going to make it harder to make ends meet. More people will have to default on their mortgages and we are right back where we were at the end of 2008. The banks will need to be bailed out again and the people will be forgotten.

    Of course Obama will still blame it on Bush!

  122. Sunshine49 says:
    August 3, 2011 at 8:13 am  (Quote)

    I don’t think the link work the first time so here it is again
    http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/Fed-Stimulus-Recovery-economy/2011/08/02/id/405744

  123. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 3, 2011 at 9:23 am  (Quote)

    Perhaps they’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    I got a new radio yesterday and I was testing it out. I came across Rush’s show and he was saying (of the wealth of America and our standard of living) “it isn’t real.” He basically said that everything will collapse and that folks will all lose their pensions. He kept on and on saying “it isn’t real” until I tuned away.

    Sunshine49: That shows me that people are still scared the economy will collapse in spite of the debt ceiling increase.

  124. Majority Will says:
    August 3, 2011 at 9:41 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Perhaps they’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    I got a new radio yesterday and I was testing it out. I came across Rush’s show and he was saying (of the wealth of America and our standard of living) “it isn’t real.” He basically said that everything will collapse and that folks will all lose their pensions. He kept on and on saying “it isn’t real” until I tuned away.

    Hence the term fright wing politics.

    The very wealthy Rush and other highly paid hypocrites in the talk radio entertainment business thrive on fear mongering for ratings and mesmerizing their faithful with daily portents of doom.

  125. G says:
    August 3, 2011 at 10:13 am  (Quote)

    And of course we know that all you do in return is bumper-sticker slogan blame Obama.

    Bottom line, both our economy and the global economy have some deep and serious issues to address. Heck, there were a number of serious long-term problems on the horizon well before the housing & stock market crash of 2008. What is remarkable is that so far, for as messed up and precarious as the situation is, that the economic fallout hasn’t been much greater.

    Of course GWB doesn’t deserve all the blame, but if you are whining about the debt ceiling, then yes, his administration bears the brunt of irresponsibility on that front. The Tea Party folks astound me with their simplistic thinking. Of course the concept of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” sounds good as a concept on paper, but in reality, it would be a hamstringing disaster that would do nothing but create way worse financial crisis and hardship for the US in practice than the foolish current artificial dept ceiling limit rules.

    A country really isn’t the same as a household at all, particularly not when that country holds a unique position as the primary currency and in many ways, economic engine for the entire world. More importantly,iIn order for a nation to be able to protect and defend its citizens, it must have the ability to quickly react to unforseen disasters and crisis – whether that means wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, disease outbreaks, etc. Of course long-term high amounts of debt are a concern and require a long-term solution to ease and reduce those amounts, but debt also is sometimes very necessary to take on short-term in order to react quickly to a crisis and without being bogged down by being forced to make poor reactionary choices in cutting valuable and essential serivces or actual overburdensome taxation in order to take the slightest action beyond an anticipated budget.

    Neither “bigger government” nor “smaller government” is the right way to view these things and that is the problem of the bumper-sticker slogan mentality out there. Efficient and effective government is what we really need. Taxes are a necessary and vital part of that in order to pay for services designed to benefit all as well as a proper level of regulation in order to both ensure safety and sustainability of our people and lands as well as allow for fair opportunity of innovation, work and ability to pursue the American dream.

    What that should be about is looking at each of these areas and finding ways to simplify the process, remove loopholes and redundancies and address abuses and corruption in the process in order for these services to be more cost effective as well as serve the people better. Taxes need to remain at a sufficient level in order to provide these services and in a rational world, there would be both times to increase or decrease taxes to actually match to needs of spending or address long-term emergency cost burdens that we’ve taken on.

    You simply can’t get around the fact that the majority of today’s US debt burden came as a result of several actions from GWB’s administration – 2 long-term wars that were never paid for (yes, taxes should have actually increased for the reality of “shared sacrifice” that wars require), the Bush tax-cuts (might have had value as a very short-term fix, but have become nothing but a self-manufactured problem by being extended beyond just a few years) and Medicare Part D. Those are the biggies.

    Yet you want to blindly only worry about the cutting serivces side of the equation – something which history bears out as harmful to economic recovery and which is actually contrary to creating jobs. If anything, the Obama administration and congress can be criticized for allowing the upper-income brackets of the Bush tax cuts to continue and by not being bold enough with the Stimulus by not putting even MORE into it to deal with critical infrastructure repair needs across our nation (not just roads and bridges but even more essential the power grid and sanitation infrastrure). Such a bold effort is long past due and will only become an even more expensive undertaking the longer we neglect it. More importantly, you simply fail to understand that yes, such government programs are huge job creators and that much of government funding goes beyond just government employees. Much of those government programs and incentives go directly to contracts and work for the private business sector and are a major engine of small business growth and private sector job growth. The myth that additional tax cuts for the rich lead to job growth is simply not born out by the data nor history.

    Sunshine49: Instead of watching the stock market, I watch what gold and silver are doing. After silver went up to $50 and then dropped to $35 for a while — it’s going back up again. Today it’s at $41. That shows me that people are still scared the economy will collapse in spite of the debt ceiling increase.What worries me more is stuff like this:Fed May Weigh More Stimulus if Growth Slowshttp://www.moneynews.com/Headline/Fed-Stimulus-Recovery economy/2011/08/02/id/405744Nobody is reigning in the Fed and what they are doing. As long as they are printing up more dollars — the dollar is decreasing in value and the price of everything is going to go up. For millions of people on fixed incomes, it’s going to make it harder to make ends meet. More people will have to default on their mortgages and we are right back where we were at the end of 2008. The banks will need to be bailed out again and the people will be forgotten.Of course Obama will still blame it on Bush!

  126. joyeagle says:
    August 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Come now, MW. Admit that fear-led politicking is not a one-party monopoly. 😉

    Majority Will: Hence the term fright wing politics.The very wealthy Rush and other highly paid hypocrites in the talk radio entertainment business thrive on fear mongering for ratings and mesmerizing their faithful with daily portents of doom.

  127. Majority Will says:
    August 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm  (Quote)

    joyeagle:
    Come now, MW.Admit that fear-led politicking is not a one-party monopoly.

    No, it’s not one sided but from my anecdotal viewpoint, one side does seem to have the monopoly in the arena of media.

  128. J.Potter says:
    August 3, 2011 at 5:30 pm  (Quote)

    The other day I had cause to pull up the White House Correspondents Dinner on YouTube. If you recall, President Obama’s remarks were preceded with a video montage set to “I am a Real American”. The chorus featured a thumpin’ image of the LFBC. Hard to be certain from Youtube, but it doesn’t appear to be a raster of the LFBC PDF, but rather a clean color scan, no “layers”, no “enhancement”. Hmmm …. where did that image come from? It’s like the White House has a hard copy at their disposal.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E

    Anyone know if this clip is available in broadcast resolution? Any chance of a rerun on C-SPAN? 😛

  129. gorefan says:
    August 3, 2011 at 6:13 pm  (Quote)

    J.Potter: Anyone know if this clip is available in broadcast resolution? Any chance of a rerun on C-SPAN

    Maybe yes to both questions but as time goes by less likely to be rebroadcast. Try contacting c-span directly.

  130. Sef says:
    August 3, 2011 at 8:07 pm  (Quote)

    J.Potter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E

    Why do I remember a lot more knife twisting in The Donald’s viscera when this was originally broadcast? Wishful thinking? Recent events?

  131. J. Potter says:
    August 3, 2011 at 8:51 pm  (Quote)

    CSPAN’s own site hosts the same version of the clip….argh.

    gorefan: Maybe yes to both questions but as time goes by less likely to be rebroadcast.Try contacting c-span directly.

  132. gorefan says:
    August 3, 2011 at 10:41 pm  (Quote)

    J. Potter: CSPAN’s own site hosts the same version of the clip….argh

    “DVDs of selected WHCA dinner videos may be purchased online at CSPAN.ORG.”

    http://whca.net/dinner.htm

  133. J. Potter says:
    August 4, 2011 at 12:17 am  (Quote)

    …… and they are only offering up to 2010. D’oh! They do offer a $4.99 download tho, that’s sweet. Where the BluRay with collectors’ edition, Obama-head shell packaging?

    gorefan: “DVDs of selected WHCA dinner videos may be purchased online at CSPAN.ORG.”

    http://whca.net/dinner.htm

  134. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 4, 2011 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    After my Facebook account was raided by you know who a while back, I shut down public access to my profile mainly to protect my innocent friends from the dirty claws of the birthers.

    I get a fair number of Facebook friend requests, but I don’t approve anyone unless I know who it is. Frankly, I don’t always pay attention to names online and I may know folks that I don’t know that I know (if that makes sense). I’ve added several of my high school classmates and I hope none of them are birthers.

  135. Rickey says:
    August 4, 2011 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    Judge Mental:

    Easy to understand why none would be able to give you the relevant/satisfactory supporting case citation as there are none.

    Unsurprisingly, Sunshine49 has not accepted my challenge.

    I would also see how the “natural law” birthers would answer about what happens to a natural-born citizen who later obtains dual citizenship. Their position seems to be that natural law trumps man-made law, so their answer should be “once a natural-born citizen, always a natural-born citizen.”

  136. Daniel says:
    August 4, 2011 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve added several of my high school classmates and I hope none of them are birthers.

    Can a person actually attain a high school diploma and still be a birther?

  137. Daniel says:
    August 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    Filed under “Just when you thought it couldn’t get any crazier”….

    Orly is now taking credit for finding DB Cooper.

    “before my May 2 hearing they found Bin Laden, now a few days before scheduled inspection of Obama’s BC they find DB Cooper”

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=24432
    (warning, site may have malware)

  138. joyeagle says:
    August 4, 2011 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    Sure, all the leaders of the pack have high degrees. I had already attained BS and MS when I delved into birtherism. I think the good Doc pointed out the intelligence correlation to a conspiracy is not necessarily negative in an earlier article.
    see http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/what-didnt-he-know-and-when-didnt-he-know-it/ and others.

    Daniel: Can a person actually attain a high school diploma and still be a birther?

  139. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 4, 2011 at 6:22 pm  (Quote)

    Have you never heard of cheating?

    Daniel: Can a person actually attain a high school diploma and still be a birther?

  140. Daniel says:
    August 4, 2011 at 6:36 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Have you never heard of cheating?

    What is this “cheating”, of which you speak?

  141. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 4, 2011 at 6:41 pm  (Quote)

    A humorous suggestion of how a birther could graduate high school. Only this and nothing more.

    Daniel: What is this “cheating”, of which you speak?

  142. Judge Mental says:
    August 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm  (Quote)

    I have just returned from a brief time travel journey (by economy tardis) to the 9th August. If anyone is interested to know the WND headline story for that day, I have a copy right here.

    It is going to trumpet that Ms Taitz and her band of experts were snubbed by the Hawaii DOH during their visit to their offices. They were basically told to sod off, thus “proving” beyond any remaining doubt that the lfbc image on the WH website is that of a forgery and further “proving” that there is in fact no original lfbc in the Hawaii files.

    Unfortunately in my excitement I forgot to collect a copy of a 9th August newspaper containing this coming weekends horse racing results therefore I may have to carry on working for a while.

  143. Northland10 says:
    August 4, 2011 at 9:21 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: so their answer should be “once a natural-born citizen, always a natural-born citizen.”

    Except when their not.

    (I have been having fun receiving the instructions, the data is all available except the data that is not available, I figure the statement works well for birthers. “once a natural-born, always a natural-born, except when they no longer natural-born”).

  144. Northland10 says:
    August 4, 2011 at 9:24 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: A humorous suggestion of how a birther could graduate high school. Only this and nothing more.

    Who let that darn bird in…

  145. J. Potter says:
    August 4, 2011 at 11:09 pm  (Quote)

    “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be naturally born again, he cannot see the Office that is Oval.”

    Northland10: Except when their not.

    (I have been having fun receiving the instructions, the data is all available except the data that is not available, I figure the statement works well for birthers.“once a natural-born, always a natural-born, except when they no longer natural-born”).

  146. J.Potter says:
    August 5, 2011 at 10:46 am  (Quote)

    If you haven’t read Idiot America, I highly recommend it. The opening of Chapter 2 is particularly relevant, not only to birtherism, but crankery in America in general.

  147. Rickey says:
    August 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Speaking of cranks, a guy in Ohio had his home raided by the Feds after he posted threatening comments on the White House website.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-death-threats-987654

    Note that he told The Smoking Gun that he has “been on disability for a long time.” Gee, I wonder if he might be collecting socialist government disability benefits?

  148. J. Potter says:
    August 6, 2011 at 10:31 am  (Quote)

    Justice Delayed:

    WND posts that Esquire has filed for an extension on the satire suit:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=330425

    Of course this is spun there as an admission of guilt, but I presume they are polishing their response to get the door slammed thoroughly the first time and/or have better things to do.

  149. Daniel says:
    August 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm  (Quote)

    This just in from the “really grasping at the small straws now” department. Found this comment over at the World Nut Daily website (bless Farah for being lazy and letting facebook handle his commenting).

    “Anyone who says they’ve seen the original or an certified copy can come testify in court when this thing gets there….now that the Supremes have ruled on Bond v US…it appears they’ve opened the door to get rid of this argument about “standing”.”

    Apparently birthers are somehow under the impression that this ruling is going to remove the requirement for “standing” in court cases…..

    Wow….. just, wow…

  150. Northland10 says:
    August 6, 2011 at 2:26 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: “Anyone who says they’ve seen the original or an certified copy can come testify in court when this thing gets there….now that the Supremes have ruled on Bond v US…it appears they’ve opened the door to get rid of this argument about “standing”.”

    Apparently birthers are somehow under the impression that this ruling is going to remove the requirement for “standing” in court cases

    NBC noted that Purpura and Laster are now stating they have standing due to Bond v. US. Of course, they forget to notice that Bond had suffered particular injury being the defendant in a criminal case where the law in question was used. I suspect that the birthers saw that SCOTUS found a person had standing and got all excited, but they did not bother to read any further.

  151. Rickey says:
    August 6, 2011 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:

    “Anyone who says they’ve seen the original or an certified copy can come testify in court when this thing gets there….now that the Supremes have ruled on Bond v US…it appears they’ve opened the door to get rid of this argument about “standing”.”

    Apparently birthers are somehow under the impression that this ruling is going to remove the requirement for “standing” in court cases…..

    Wow….. just, wow…

    The birthers have proven time and again that they don’t know how to read a Supreme Court decision. Bond alleged a particularized injury – namely, that the government overreached its authority when she was charged with violating an international chemical weapons treaty. In fact, the SCOTUS decision in Bond v. United States reaffirms the requirement for standing:

    One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain the relief requested, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), and, in addition, an “ongoing interest in the dispute” on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish “concrete adverseness.” The decision goes on to affirm that Bond had properly pled that she had sustained a concrete injury.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

  152. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm  (Quote)

    Obama birthday makes Letterman’s “top ten list”

    “Top 10 Ways Barack Obama Celebrated His Birthday”

    1. Forged a Kenyan birth certificate to get him out of this miserable job.

    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/TV/2011/08/05/Obamas-birthday-the-subject-of-Late-Show-Top-10/UPI-52561312568423/

  153. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 7, 2011 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    Comment I left at WND on article about the $250,000,000 lawsuit against Esquire Magazine, where WND is asking for reader contributions to fund the lawsuit:

    “Hey, if we contribute to fund the WND lawsuit against Esquire, do we get a cut of the $250,000,000 judgment? I mean, those Nigerian petroleum executives trying to smuggle money out of the country are offering 10%!”

  154. J.Potter says:
    August 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    Birthers attempt to buy Colin Powell?
    http://www.birthersummit.org/challenge

    What the?

    Is this as random as it appears to be?

    Listen to this setup:

    “We suggest that such a meeting take place at an undisclosed location near Washington, DC, and that a small group of our experts attend the meeting, as well as a handful of carefully selected reporters who would attend to observe the meeting. We will arrange such a meeting place in an area of your choosing, and we ask that you allot us a three-hour time frame for the meeting.

    “During this meeting, our experts will do most of the talking, so you needn’t prepare a speech. We will, however, ask only one thing of you: after our evidence is presented, you will either affirm that the evidence we present is sufficient for Congress to launch an immediate, non-partisan investigation into this matter (to include independent testimony and discovery), or you will refute our evidence. It must be understood that refutation of our evidence must be done with evidence, and cannot be anecdotal or rhetorical in nature.”

    In other words, you’re not allowed to say it’s crap. Please walk into our carefully prepared ambush. We assure you the check is good, LOL

  155. obsolete says:
    August 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm  (Quote)

    J.Potter: It must be understood that refutation of our evidence must be done with evidence, and cannot be anecdotal or rhetorical in nature.”

    How funny, since “anecdotal or rhetorical in nature” are actually all the birthers have.
    Well, that and cooties.

  156. J.Potter says:
    August 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    I brought this shameless ploy up on Amazon. Haskins emerged to defend it. Somewhat. Hope he returns and offers more detail into the though process behind this.

    obsolete: How funny, since “anecdotal or rhetorical in nature” are actually all the birthers have.
    Well, that and cooties.

Leave a Reply

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

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