The occasional open thread: “Sweet land of liberty” edition

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Dr. Conspiracy

Sing or say your Obama conspiracy comments here that are not related to the current articles. This thread will close in 2 weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

211 Responses to The occasional open thread: “Sweet land of liberty” edition

  1. richCares says:
    March 22, 2013 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    Many birthers (especially Orly) say Obama hates Israel, so it must have been a shocker to see all those Israelis cheering Obama today.

  2. The Magic M says:
    March 22, 2013 at 4:53 am  (Quote)

    Orly’s newest madness is a “motion to recuse” defendant’s counsel. IANAL, but does such a thing really exist? In my view, only a party can tell the court who represents it.
    The plaintiff can complain until the cows come how, but unless Congress says “the DOJ is not authorized to represent us” (and no, Orly, single Congress members saying “I didn’t know about this lawsuit” is not the same), her requests are going nowhere.
    I wonder if her latest mess is another attempt at provoking sanctions.

    “MOTION Motion to recuse the Department of Justice as a counsel for the U.S. Congress, as U.S. Congress retained a different Counsel. Motion to recuse the Department of Justice as a counsel for the U.,S. Electoral college, Barack Obama. Ex Parte application to expedite under the local rule 144 (FRCP 6)”

    Oh noes, she did it again! *lol*

    “Exhibit 1, Petition with 48,000 signatures to the U.S. Congress to investigate Obama’s forged IDs”

    Can somebody inform defendant’s counsel that she provably has been told multiple times that “letters and emails sent” is not the same as “petition signed” and therefore this representation is clear-cut perjury?

    (It’s about time at least her open lies have consequences – just like the WND vs. Esquire case where plaintiffs have just been caught falsifying evidence and Corsi perjuring himself.)

  3. The Magic M says:
    March 22, 2013 at 6:07 am  (Quote)

    ORYR: to mail 435 certified letters to every member of the House of Representatives

    That makes me laugh every time I see it on a birther site. They are going to send 189,225 letters? 😉

  4. ScottRS says:
    March 22, 2013 at 7:56 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M:
    Orly’s newest madness is a “motion to recuse” defendant’s counsel. IANAL, but does such a thing really exist?

    IANAL, either (though I have been a legal secretary and circuit court clerk) – yes, there is a process in some circumstances to “disqualify” (not recuse) opposing counsel, but the usual circumstance of this sort of thing would be where one side believes opposing counsel has an unwaivable conflict of interest – say, a divorce matter, where opposing counsel once represented the then-married couple.

    That said, there is no conceivable circumstance where this would be true in Orly’s case.

  5. American Mzungu says:
    March 22, 2013 at 7:57 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: That makes me laugh every time I see it on a birther site. They are going to send 189,225 letters?

    Although many trees would die needlessly, the Post Office needs the business.

  6. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 22, 2013 at 8:58 am  (Quote)

    I think the Post Office should be funded by a tax on unsolicited commercial email.

    American Mzungu: Although many trees would die needlessly, the Post Office needs the business.

  7. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    Somewhere in some attic, there is a painting of Orly getting smarter and more successful.

  8. Scientist says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:14 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think the Post Office should be funded by a tax on unsolicited commercial email.

    The Post Office is a victim of yet another manufactured crisis by the Republicans in Washington. Under a law passed in 2006, when the Republicans last controlled both the House and the Senate, the Post Office is forced to pre-fund pensions for the next 75 years (covering employees not yet hired or even born in some cases). This is something no private business is required to do, and something that would leave most of them bankrupt if they were. Without that requirement, the Postal Service is at break-even and could continue to operate just fine, since the revenues from parcel shipments offsets the losses from mail delivery.

  9. SueDB says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:33 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think the Post Office should be funded by a tax on unsolicited commercial email.

    Doc, I think you will find that the commercial mailers pay for each flyer etc that is sent through the mail. They have been one of the biggest boosters to the USPS. I complained about “spam mail” one day at my local PO. My Postmistress (gawd I love that phrase) promptly reminded me that this type of mail has been the bread/butter of the Post Office. Since they pay for the privilege of having their stuff go into my mail box day in and day out, I have to quit bitching as this is a “good” thing. If the PO closed, who would deliver those flyers?
    Commercial mailers also get a discount as they use automated equipment to presort etc.

    It isn’t like my e-mail where I pay for the internet service etc.

  10. John Reilly says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:37 am  (Quote)

    I am generally in favor of dealing with public employee pensions by forcing governments to pay for future promises now. That keeps politiciams from kicking the can down the road. Having said that, the effect of cutbacks in the Post Office because of the requirement that the pension system be fully funded falls disproportionally on older and more rural Americans, people who trend Republican, who are going to be pretty well annoyed. Folks in Wyoming don’t seem to realize that every single letter and parcel they get is through a service subsidized by residents of dense, urban communities.

  11. John Reilly says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:42 am  (Quote)

    If I read Dr. Taitz’s latest missive, she sued Congress, as a whole, and whether she served Congress or not, she did not serve each individual member, and certainly did not file a proof of service on each individual member. Now she is complaining that the U S Attorney did not do her job for her by contacting each member and saying, do you want me to represent you. And, she says, that Congress may only have one attorney, and since the general counsel replied to her subpoenas, that is a binary choice that forces out the U S Attorney. Last, her evidence of all this appears to be her own affidavit which to me, IANAL, is full of hearsay. And don’t you have to swear somewhere that what you said was true?

    My guess is that Judge England will decide the motion to dismiss and determine that the other motions are moot. Dr. Taitz will not be happy.

  12. donna says:
    March 22, 2013 at 10:07 am  (Quote)

    richCares: Many birthers (especially Orly) say Obama hates Israel, so it must have been a shocker to see all those Israelis cheering Obama today.

    some didn’t see it

    while obama was in israel, cnn & msnbc were carrying live obama receiving a medal at a state dinner in israel while fox was talking about repealing obamacare

    at exactly 2:24:14 PM as the israeli president was saying to obama “i know you will never stop striving for a better world” as seen LIVE on msnbc & cnn, fox was running an ad for a fox special on obama as an enemy of israel: “israel’s enemies gaining strength? with a friend like obama, are israel’s enemies gaining strength? sean gets expert insight on a special hannity”

    the video with the screenshot

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/egbertowillies/8578221947/

    how DESPICABLE

  13. Scientist says:
    March 22, 2013 at 10:09 am  (Quote)

    John Reilly: I am generally in favor of dealing with public employee pensions by forcing governments to pay for future promises now. That keeps politiciams from kicking the can down the road

    Funding current employee pensions is fine, but the 2006 law is requiring the Postal Service (and no other institution, public or private) to fund 75 years worth, or out to 2081. Someone collecting a pension in 2081 may not even be born yet. Starving current service to pay pensions for the not-yet-born would be like a family with a preschool child scrimping to fund not their kid’s college education, but that of grand kids who won’t even be born for 25 years, if ever,

    By the way, John, was “politiciams” an intentional misspelling or an unintentional Freudian one?

  14. US Citizen says:
    March 22, 2013 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Somewhere in some attic, there is a painting of Orly getting smarter and more successful.

    A portrait of Dorlyian Gray?

  15. James M says:
    March 22, 2013 at 1:07 pm  (Quote)

    SueDB: , I have to quit bitching as this is a “good” thing.

    How about a legal requirement that bulk mail be printed on domestically produced hemp paper and soy based ink?

  16. Majority Will says:
    March 22, 2013 at 1:24 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen: A portrait of Dorlyian Gray?

    Ftw.

  17. AROD says:
    March 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm  (Quote)

    An ORYR article stated that the clown posse sheriff thingy is tax deductable as they are quailifed – can that be true? If yes, well there is one tax loop that should be closed!

  18. Keith says:
    March 22, 2013 at 6:35 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think the Post Office should be funded by a tax on unsolicited commercial email.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    I wonder what the ratio of unsolicited ‘true’ commercial email is to spam email though. If we could figure out how to tax spam we could probably finance the entire government, let alone the Post Office.

  19. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 22, 2013 at 6:41 pm  (Quote)

    @arod

    Yes, the Cold case posse is an educational charity.

  20. Sef says:
    March 22, 2013 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: I wholeheartedly agree.

    I wonder what the ratio of unsolicited ‘true’ commercial email is to spam email though. If we could figure out how to tax spam we could probably finance the entire government, let alone the Post Office.

    Except then we would be overrun with forests which aren’t chopped down to make all the unwanted paper. And what would we do for raw material for recycled paper. And pity the poor people employed by landfills. Ya gotta think these things through.

  21. donna says:
    March 22, 2013 at 7:04 pm  (Quote)

    from soda head: Is Marco Rubio Eligible For The Presidency?

    The Government of Cuba does not recognize the U.S. nationality of U.S. Citizens
    who are Cuban-born or are the children of Cuban parents. These individuals
    will be treated solely as Cuban citizens and may be subject to a range of
    restrictions and obligations, including military service.

    (i.e. – Should Rubio travel to any Cuba Ally Nation, he may be
    detained and returned to Cuba to complete his obligations
    and compulsory Military Service.)

    The US Adjudicator’s Field Manual (the AFM) states a person who was born outside
    of Cuba to Cuban parents derives Cuban citizenship jus sanguinis and should
    document his Cuban nationality by obtaining a Certificate of Cuban Nationality from
    the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. – Rubio has not done this.

    page 2 http://www.uscis.gov/err/A2%20-%20Certification%20of%20Cuban%20Adjustment/Decisions_Issued_in_2006/AUG282006_02A2caa.pdf

  22. misha marinsky says:
    March 22, 2013 at 11:03 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Somewhere in some attic, there is a painting of Orly getting smarter and more successful.

    It’s true. Here’s the picture:

    http://content.vcommerce.com/products/198/91890198/fullsize.jpg?-593152487

  23. justlw says:
    March 22, 2013 at 11:57 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    @arod

    Yes, the Cold case posse is an educational charity.

    So what exactly is the status of the CCP as a “law enforcement agency”? It sounds like other Maricopa County posses comitatus get to carry guns and be trained by Steven Seagal and stuff, and none of them appear to be registered charities.

    The CCP seems to be their weak sister in several respects. Even the MCSO web site seems to take great pains to describe them as being “real helpful!” to their General Investigation Division, much the same way I would have described my then-3-year-old-son as being “real helpful” in carrying in the groceries.

  24. bobj says:
    March 23, 2013 at 2:50 am  (Quote)

    If the amendment to give legal rights upon fertilization passes in North Dakota, would it have any effect on Natural Born Citizenship? Is there any way someone like Bobby Jindal would be left off the ballot in a state where this is law is? What is the difference between personhood and citizen?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-dakota-lawmakers-move-outlaw-abortions-personhood-amendment-210736627–politics.html

  25. J.D. Sue says:
    March 23, 2013 at 4:54 am  (Quote)

    bobj: If the amendment to give legal rights upon fertilization passes in North Dakota, would it have any effect on Natural Born Citizenship?

    —

    I don’t see how it would effect “natural born citizenship”, because there will still be no question of what the word “born” means. However, as a broader question, giving citizenship rights before birth will certainly turn all other legal issues throughout our whole legal system completely upside down. The repercussions would be devastating.

  26. Bonk says:
    March 23, 2013 at 5:14 am  (Quote)

    Sorry for the excessive number of ises in the penultimate question.

  27. ZixiOfIx says:
    March 23, 2013 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    I wanted to share an article in the Washington Post, titled The birther lie: Whites hated it, too, by Jonathan Capehart.

    It quotes a man from California who, like myself, left the Republican Party at least in part because of the deeply embedded Birther Movement, and it’s overall affect on the integrity of the Party.

    The man wrote to respond to a previous article by Mr. Capehart, titled Shining a light on two major GOP problems.

    One of the two problems outlined in the original article is the effect birtherism has had on potential African American voters. African Americans are (rightly) disgusted and angry at Republicans for the endless harping on the Birther issue, and the encouragement or at best lukewarm response by the GOP.

    The man quoted in the follow-up wrote to say that it wasn’t only black people who were and are disgusted by birtherism, it was and is white people as well.

    He goes onto say that (like me, and others) he had had a number of issues with the GOP for a long time, but that the last election tipped the scales and he left.

    He touches on how people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich flirted with Birtherism (along with the Romney family on at least two occasions during the last election), only to have those same people criticize the president when he finally responded to the endless yammering. The writer, like myself and many others, found that off-putting.

    I know from conversations with other (recently departed) Republicans that the Birther issue weighted heavily on them when they decided to quit the GOP. I doubt that anyone in GOP leadership would admit as much, though.

    And that’s the third problem. The GOP won’t admit that there is a problem from the get-go.

  28. Steve says:
    March 23, 2013 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    As best I can tell, the GOP’s position on the birther issue is “They may be whackjobs but we need their votes.”
    Does that sum it up pretty well?

  29. donna says:
    March 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: The repercussions would be devastating.

    i AGREE!!!!!

    if i’m pregnant on 12/31, do i get to deduct the dependent “person” even though i miscarried on 1/3?

    what about inheritance, child support, survivor benefits, etc?

    do i get to drive, vote, drink, enter the military, collect social security, marry, etc earlier?

    are punitive and compensatory damages calculated from the date of conception?

    will miscarriages be criminally scrutinized?

    i have a family member who learned she was pregnant on march 6th – she conceived in january while in rome, italy where she drank wine – what are the ramifications? is that “person” italian? can an adverse affect of the wine be blamed on her? can that “person” sue? what about the sperm donor who gave her the wine? aiding and abetting?

    is a “person” conceived here, by a foreigner on vacation, guaranteed every constitutional right?

    what about the sellers of cigarettes and alcohol? are they liable for the sale of their products that adversely affected that “person”?

    “person” is mentioned how many times in the constitution? 49 times?

    these laws are ridiculous – a personhood amendment failed in bible thumping mississippi 59/41 –

    “persons” who sponsor, support and vote for these bills never connect the dots

  30. richCares says:
    March 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm  (Quote)

    I need a list of birther emails so I can send them following emaail
    Thank You
    *******************************************************************
    We wish to inform you of your 2013 Outstanding Compensation payment of $2,811,041.00 USD from the United Nations Human Settlements Programme with identification number UPS/UNHSP/285/013. This compensation is being made for losses/damages as a result of accident or illness.For more information, contact the UPS Dispatch Officer with your Name, Resident Address and Telephone Number for the delivery of your cashier check.

    United Parcel Service (UPS)
    Contact Name: Robert Ayo
    Tel: +2347039278107
    E-mail: robertayo-upsdi@dgoh.org

    Please take note that you will pay a shipping/handling fee of $95.00 USD to UPS.

    Kwateng Mary.
    Programme Manager
    United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

  31. donna says:
    March 23, 2013 at 12:46 pm  (Quote)

    now orly is TEACHING law

    what could go wrong?

    Question and answer: what is the difference between a complaint brought by a private attorney and a complaint brought by a sheriff.

    People are asking me, why there is a need for Sheriff Arpaio to file a criminal complaint against Obama?

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=406248

  32. Rickey says:
    March 23, 2013 at 2:32 pm  (Quote)

    ZixiOfIx:

    The man quoted in the follow-up wrote to say that it wasn’t only black people who were and are disgusted by birtherism, it was and is white people as well.

    Those are interesting articles. Thanks for the link.

    It occurs to me that I have never thought about the racial makeup of the Obots who have frequented this blog for the past 4+ years. I know that Doc is white because I’ve seen photos of him, but I have no idea what anyone else looks like. Not that it matter, because all of us are united in debunking lies and standing up for the truth.

  33. Scientist says:
    March 23, 2013 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: I know that Doc is white because I’ve seen photos of him, but I have no idea what anyone else looks like.

    Here are some photos of yours truly http://www.askmen.com/women/galleries/men/george-clooney/picture-2.html

  34. J.D. Sue says:
    March 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    donna: “persons” who sponsor, support and vote for these bills never connect the dots

    —

    Hey Donna, nice preliminary list!

  35. donna says:
    March 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue:

    thanks – from YOU quite a compliment

    does that “person” get a court ordered law guardian?

  36. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 23, 2013 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    Slow day in Birtherstan. I swept the usual sites and found very little in the way of new material to laugh at.

  37. Kate1230 says:
    March 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm  (Quote)

    Coming from a family that’s approximately 50%Democratic and 50% Independent (formerly Republicans), I can easily say that all of us were disgusted by birthers from day one. We’re Caucasian with a couple interracial marriages among us but race never had anything to do with why ALL of us voted for Obama. It had to do with his policies and for the former Republicans among us, the obviously ridiculous choice McCain made when he picked Palin as a V.P. That sealed his fate with every single one of us, a man I could have voted for in 2000. I never wanted to jump on the “racist” bandwagon but it was too damn obvious in this case to overlook. If it hadn’t been, birthers would have pursued McCain until election day and demanded to see his birth certificate. Many of them still claim to this day that he produced it! When Senator Obama produced a copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii to alleviate the rumors of his middle name being Mohammad, it wasn’t enough for these whack jobs. They continually moved the goalposts and have pursued the most ridiculous stories as if they were gospel truth.

    I was no fan of Bush but if these same type of stories had been circulated about him, I wouldn’t have wanted him to dignify them with a response, either. I remember how the GOP spoke of the “Presidency” with respect during a time of war and to do otherwise was unpatriotic and in their opinion, treasonous. That idea went out the window when President Obama was elected along with other notions of treating the office of the President with respect, even if you didn’t agree with the occupant. They can scream all they want that they aren’t racist but I can’t imagine anyone attacking a previous President’s deceased parents and grandparents in the manner we’ve had to tolerate in Obama’s case. It’s disgusting and made even more so when the primary leader of the birthers is an attention whore and immigrant who never speaks of any love for our country, only hatred for the man in the White House.

    Can anyone imagine the outcry if a left-wing group was led by an immigrant who was as hateful and ignorant as Taitz? While a great many of them never speak of her, they ignore her too easily when they should be speaking out against her lies and innuendo. If someone like her had appeared and went after Bush, the RWNJ’s would have demanded she be arrested for treason. Now, they’re either silent or they agree with the crazies.

  38. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    An attorney can file a civil complaint initiating a civil lawsuit, but only a public prosecutor can file a criminal complaint. That is because an attorney represents a client, but only a public official can represent the public, and crimes are against the public.

    Arpaio, so far I as I know, cannot file a criminal complaint either. In some states prosecution requires a grand jury indictment.

    donna: Question and answer: what is the difference between a complaint brought by a private attorney and a complaint brought by a sheriff.

  39. J.D. Sue says:
    March 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm  (Quote)

    donna: does that “person” get a court ordered law guardian?

    —
    I guess that “person” would need one, at least where the parents can’t represent him/her because they are the defendants. And can you imagine what will become of the probate courts!? I am also trying to imagine how we’ll go about getting conception certificates, and how much taxes we should raise to handle all the new guardians, county coroner investigations and inquests, etc. I guess we’ll need new laws to ensure that no one is having a smoke after sex… And it will be interesting to see how they handle census taking… Hmm, I wonder if a pregnant woman is jailed, can the fetus bring a habeas corpus action?

    You note how many times “person” is mentioned in the constitution. Just consider how many times “person” is mentioned in just about every paragraph of every statute and ordinance throughout the country…. It boggles the mind.

  40. J.D. Sue says:
    March 23, 2013 at 6:14 pm  (Quote)

    donna: how DESPICABLE

    —
    And when I consider that Fox is the only American broadcast shown in Israel, it makes me want to cry.

  41. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    Anecdotally there seems to have been a series of these issues that were too much for less-extreme conservatives to stomach. Birtherism was one. I think Sarah Palin’s selection to run for Vice President was a good bit more significant. Reproductive health was one tied to junk science that “shut that whole thing down.”

    ZixiOfIx: I know from conversations with other (recently departed) Republicans that the Birther issue weighted heavily on them when they decided to quit the GOP. I doubt that anyone in GOP leadership would admit as much, though.

  42. donna says:
    March 23, 2013 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue:

    someone should draft a memorandum of law as to how a federal “personhood” law would impact society – these people need some edge-you-ma-ka-shun

    in this congress, paul ryan co-sponsored the the Sanctity of Human Life Act introduced by rep broun who sits on the house science committee, votes according to the bible and said: Evolution is a lie ‘from the pit of hell’

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/07/nation/la-na-nn-paul-broun-evolution-hell-20121007

    Paul Ryan’s Personhood Amendment Threatens the Constitutional Rights of Women Across America

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/23534/paul-ryan-s-personhood-amendment-threatens-the-constitutional-rights-of-women-across-america

    and the catholic church when it might cost them money?

    Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person

    Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.

    A fetus is not legally a person until it is born, the hospital’s lawyers have claimed in its defense. And now it may be up to the state’s Supreme Court to decide.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit

    these people would have been happy in communist romania under Ceaușescu – my dental hygienist is from romania and i am fascinated, shocked & appalled listening to her first hand accounts – or perhaps they should move to a theocracy like iran

  43. gorefan says:
    March 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    The coming storm:

    Over a Mario’s they have found an 1817 legal text – “A Digest of Select British Statutes:”

    By Samuel Roberts a judge of the Pennsylvania Courts.

    Page 26 – “The children of aliens, born within the United States are aliens: they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of the parents.”

    The footnote for this section reads: “In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=8340AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Of course, the argument could be made that he cites no authorities or actual laws, so it is one guys opinion. I don’t think it is particularly surprising that there are conflicting ideas on this. The James McClure article shows that depending on who you asked you could get a different response to what was the law. The fact that he acknowledges that this is a change from the way the English law worked, means that for him to be right there would need to be a clear announcement of the change in the US law. So far that has not been found.

  44. Scientist says:
    March 23, 2013 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: The children of aliens, born within the United States are aliens: they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of the parents.

    If we take from Mario’s reading of Vattel that “citizen parents” means BOTH parents must be citizens, then we would have to conclude that the above sentence only refers to the case where BOTH parents are aliens. So it wouldn’t apply to Obama. He is not the child of aliens, he is the child of one citizen and one alien.

  45. gorefan says:
    March 23, 2013 at 8:37 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: where BOTH parents are aliens.

    Good point. Of Senator Rubio and Governor Jindal won’t like it.

  46. Scientist says:
    March 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Good point. Of Senator Rubio and Governor Jindal won’t like it.

    They can take it up with Mario.

  47. ZixiOfIx says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:08 am  (Quote)

    Steve:
    As best I can tell, the GOP’s position on the birther issue is “They may be whackjobs but we need their votes.”
    Does that sum it up pretty well?

    Basically, yes. The problem with birtherism is that if you take a good look at it, it’s clear that it’s garbage, but it’s also clear that much of it is centered in racism, which runs counter to the sense of fair play and decency on all sides of the political spectrum. Racism is indefensible. Over on Orly’s site, we have a prediction of God’s wrath due to “interracial marriage”. Over on Free Republic, there are birthers who argue that what they term “14th Amendment” citizens (people whose ancestors would have gained citizenship from the passage of the 14th Amendment, aka people of African descent) are not eligible to be president.

    These are indefensible positions.

    But it isn’t just birtherism. While birtherism is terrible, the GOP finds themselves on the wrong side of a number of key issues because they can’t find the intestinal fortitude to tell the crazies to go fly a kite.

    This includes issues like marriage equality, immigration, and women’s rights.

    They think that they’ve got the immigration issue solved even if they don’t act on it, because they believe that putting people like Ted Cruise and Marco Rubio in the spotlight fixes things with Latinos. This is wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which that Cubans all Latinos.

    They can’t reach women in part because of the increasingly heated, nasty anti-choice stances, especially at the local level, and for a host of other reasons.

    The GOP can’t reach the LBGT community because of the Religious Right.

    The whole structure has been leaning, ready to fall over for a long time now. Birtherism is just the last blow.

  48. G says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:17 am  (Quote)

    AGREED!!! What is happening to our USPS is a national travesty…and tantamount to being intentional sabotage, IMHO.

    Scientist: The Post Office is a victim of yet another manufactured crisis by the Republicans in Washington. Under a law passed in 2006, when the Republicans last controlled both the House and the Senate, the Post Office is forced to pre-fund pensions for the next 75 years (covering employees not yet hired or even born in some cases).This is something no private business is required to do, and something that would leave most of them bankrupt if they were.Without that requirement, the Postal Service is at break-even and could continue to operate just fine, since the revenues from parcel shipments offsets the losses from mail delivery.

  49. Deborah says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    In the end, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a child’s parents- white Christian heterosexual control-freaks or otherwise. The President, indeed all of us, are ultimately individuals. We have choices. As an American, in theory, Obama could have chosen African citizenship or American citizenship. Some countries do not permit dual citizenship. America is not one of them. Dual citizenship is not illegal here. The freedom to choose, rather than be dictated to, is just one of the many things that make President Obama a free born American,

  50. G says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:47 am  (Quote)

    Agreed. I have many similar such anecdotes from the people I’ve interacted with in my life (family, associates, friends, etc.) since 2008 as well. The continued extremist trend of the GOP, especially on anti-woman, anti-minority, and anti-science issues, along with their ever increasingly clear “establishment” focus on only the ultra-rich, is only continuing to cause my rational “conservative” friends to slowly abandon the GOP.

    Sarah Palin in 2008 was certainly one of the most talked about key factors for many to not vote for McCain in 2008…but many of those I knew had planned to “come back” to voting GOP in 2012, when they were sure a more “serious” ticket would be proffered. The clown car 2011-2012 GOP primaries, coupled with the disastrously dishonest campaign of Romney/Ryan was more than enough to keep them from returning to the GOP fold this last cycle as well…

    I myself was registered as a Republican for a number of years, until 2008 (something I am loathe to admit). I had voted for many folks of all different parties over the years, until recently. After 2008…and especially as the 2010 “Tea Party” madness took hold, my wife and I no longer view either the national or state GOP party as either sane nor reasonable (and most importantly, we see their intended actions as HARMFUL) and therefore now steadfastly refuse to vote for anyone under that ticket at those levels. As there are rarely other serious alternatives for those positions, the Democratic ticket option is often the only viable choice we are left with. At the county and city level, there are still a few good “sane” folks who are GOP in party affiliation, but who aren’t all tied into the “marching orders” and group think nonsense, propaganda and platform pitfalls of the state and national GOP. So, there are a few that we still vote for at the local level, but only because they are actually qualified and they avoid most associations with the “crazy”.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Anecdotally there seems to have been a series of these issues that were too much for less-extreme conservatives to stomach. Birtherism was one. I think Sarah Palin’s selection to run for Vice President was a good bit more significant. Reproductive health was one tied to junk science that “shut that whole thing down.”

  51. G says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:51 am  (Quote)

    AGREED. Well said on all points!

    ZixiOfIx: These are indefensible positions.

    But it isn’t just birtherism. While birtherism is terrible, the GOP finds themselves on the wrong side of a number of key issues because they can’t find the intestinal fortitude to tell the crazies to go fly a kite.

    This includes issues like marriage equality, immigration, and women’s rights.

    They think that they’ve got the immigration issue solved even if they don’t act on it, because they believe that putting people like Ted Cruise and Marco Rubio in the spotlight fixes things with Latinos. This is wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which that Cubans all Latinos. </i<

    They can’t reach women in part because of the increasingly heated, nasty anti-choice stances, especially at the local level, and for a host of other reasons.

    The GOP can’t reach the LBGT community because of the Religious Right.

    The whole structure has been leaning, ready to fall over for a long time now. Birtherism is just the last blow.

  52. G says:
    March 24, 2013 at 1:13 am  (Quote)

    Fortunately (for now), all that will happen is that this will be put up as a ballot initiative in that state in the fall. Hopefully, the voters will prove sensible enough to defeat it.

    Even if they don’t, this crazy “personhood” idea will never go into effect as law. It will just suck that state into having to defend a costly string of legal battles and any such crazy law will end up being stopped from going into effect until those are resolved.

    Then again, that probably was always the true intention of the crazy activists that pushed this insane idea in the first place – they wish to challenge and overturn Roe v. Wade and are looking for any angle to take things to the SC, while they still cling to hope that a conservative majority might rule in their favor…

    …But these “personhood” laws are just so over-the-top “nutso” in their potential ramifications, that I seriously doubt the SC, even with its current composition, would rule in their favor. In fact, putting such extreme “social engineering” legislation to such a high challenge, could very well backfire painfully for these ideologues and just end up reinforcing Roe v. Wade even more…

    bobj:
    If the amendment to give legal rights upon fertilization passes in North Dakota, would it have any effect on Natural Born Citizenship? Is there any way someone like Bobby Jindal would be left off the ballot in a state where this is law is? What is the difference between personhood and citizen?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-dakota-lawmakers-move-outlaw-abortions-personhood-amendment-210736627–politics.html

  53. G says:
    March 24, 2013 at 1:16 am  (Quote)

    You left out the link to the excellent original source article “The GOP Still Won’t Own Up to Its Real Problem With Voters”, so I’m providing it here as additional recommended reading:

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-20/the-gop-still-wont-own-up-to-its-real-problem-with-voters

    ZixiOfIx: I wanted to share an article in the Washington Post, titled The birther lie: Whites hated it, too, by Jonathan Capehart.

    It quotes a man from California who, like myself, left the Republican Party at least in part because of the deeply embedded Birther Movement, and it’s overall affect on the integrity of the Party.

    The man wrote to respond to a previous article by Mr. Capehart, titled Shining a light on two major GOP problems.

    One of the two problems outlined in the original article is the effect birtherism has had on potential African American voters. African Americans are (rightly) disgusted and angry at Republicans for the endless harping on the Birther issue, and the encouragement or at best lukewarm response by the GOP.

    The man quoted in the follow-up wrote to say that it wasn’t only black people who were and are disgusted by birtherism, it was and is white people as well.

  54. CarlOrcas says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: So what exactly is the status of the CCP as a “law enforcement agency”? I

    None of the posses have any law enforcement authority because the members are not certified by Arizona’ POST (Peace Officers Standards and Training).

  55. CarlOrcas says:
    March 24, 2013 at 12:47 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Arpaio, so far I as I know, cannot file a criminal complaint either. In some states prosecution requires a grand jury indictment.

    In Arizona peace officers can arrest on probable cause but to prosecute for a felony (infractions and misdemeanors are different) the county attorney must either file a complaint on information or take the case to the grand jury and request an indictment.

    Bottom line: Arpaio can’t prosecute anyone on his own say so.

  56. Kiwiwriter says:
    March 24, 2013 at 2:01 pm  (Quote)

    richCares:
    I need a list of birther emails so I can send them following emaail
    Thank You
    *******************************************************************
    We wish to inform you of your 2013 Outstanding Compensation payment of $2,811,041.00 USD from the United Nations Human Settlements Programme with identification number UPS/UNHSP/285/013. This compensation is being made for losses/damages as a result of accident or illness.For more information, contact the UPS Dispatch Officer with your Name, Resident Address and Telephone Number for the delivery of your cashier check.

    United Parcel Service (UPS)
    Contact Name: Robert Ayo
    Tel: +2347039278107
    E-mail: robertayo-upsdi@dgoh.org

    Please take note that you will pay a shipping/handling fee of $95.00 USD to UPS.

    Kwateng Mary.
    Programme Manager
    United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

    An interesting idea…I wonder what the birthers would think of such e-mails.

    I get them occasionally, not as many as I used to, thank goodness, but my two favorites:

    1. A man who said the government was threatening him with “levity.” They had doubtless surrounded his house with stand-up comedians.

    2. A man who identified himself as a US Army Captain in the opening paragraph and in his signature block as a US Marine Colonel. Couldn’t remember his branch of service or rank. I guess that combat fatigue was settling in.

  57. Kiwiwriter says:
    March 24, 2013 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    The coming storm:

    Over a Mario’s they have found an 1817 legal text – “A Digest of Select British Statutes:”

    By Samuel Roberts a judge of the Pennsylvania Courts.

    Page 26 – “The children of aliens, born within the United States are aliens: they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of the parents.”

    The footnote for this section reads:“In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=8340AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Of course, the argument could be made that he cites no authorities or actual laws, so it is one guys opinion. I don’t think it is particularly surprising that there are conflicting ideas on this.The James McClure article shows that depending on who you asked you could get a different response to what was the law.The fact that he acknowledges that this is a change from the way the English law worked, means that for him to be right there would need to be a clear announcement of the change in the US law.So far that has not been found.

    Well, this is going to make for an interesting debate on various web pages…

  58. US Citizen says:
    March 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will:

    US Citizen: A portrait of Dorlyian Gray?

    Ftw.

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

  59. Sef says:
    March 24, 2013 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Of course, the argument could be made that he cites no authorities or actual laws, so it is one guys opinion.

    There’s also the little fact that 1817 preceded 1898 (WKA) by just a bit.

  60. Majority Will says:
    March 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray

    Yes, and ftw (for the win). You win the thread. Kudos!

  61. gorefan says:
    March 24, 2013 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter: Well, this is going to make for an interesting debate on various web pages…

    What is funny about it is that the argument the birthers use against William Rawle (not a Framer, cites no authorities, it’s just his opinion, etc.) holds true for Roberts. At least Rawle is recognized as an authority by the Supreme Court.

    So far all I can find on Roberts is that he was born in Philadelphia in 1761 and he died in 1820. And that he was appointed to be the President Judge of the Fifth District of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas by the Governor of Pennsylvania Thomas McKean (McKean signed the D. of I. and the Art. of Confed.) .

    I think it highlights the fact that there was not unanimity of opinion on some of these concepts.

  62. Deborah says:
    March 24, 2013 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s a live video of Obama’s birth in Kenya (graphic- viewer discretion advised) in rare Vimeo video footage reserved in the 1960’s for future presidents. The secret source who turned over this video purports to be in the cotton import/export business.

    …er, um… then again it just may be a plot by Vimeo to trump You Tube.

    http://www.vice.com/read/is-this-obamas-kenyan-birth-video

  63. Deborah says:
    March 24, 2013 at 5:27 pm  (Quote)

    Is there nothing sacred anymore?

  64. American Mzungu says:
    March 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah: Here’s a live video of Obama’s birth in Kenya

    I hope you didn’t pay much on ebay for this performance art video that we deconstructed months ago.

  65. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 24, 2013 at 7:40 pm  (Quote)

    The video of the making of that video is more interesting. I did a series of articles on it.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/peter-rehnquist/

    Deborah: Here’s a live video of Obama’s birth in Kenya (graphic- viewer discretion advised) in rare Vimeo video footage reserved in the 1960′s for future presidents. The secret source who turned over this video purports to be in the cotton import/export business.

  67. American Mzungu says:
    March 24, 2013 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The video of the making of that video is more interesting. I did a series of articles on it.
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/peter-rehnquist/

    Thanks for the link to the articles. I thought your detective work on this was outstanding, and some of the detective work by others here was also great.

  68. The Magic M says:
    March 25, 2013 at 6:07 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: If we take from Mario’s reading of Vattel that “citizen parents” means BOTH parents must be citizens, then we would have to conclude that the above sentence only refers to the case where BOTH parents are aliens. So it wouldn’t apply to Obama. He is not the child of aliens, he is the child of one citizen and one alien.

    Exactly. Though I wouldn’t put it past Mario to try to have the cake and eat it, or, in legalese, venire contra factum proprium.

  69. donna says:
    March 25, 2013 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: If we take from Mario’s reading of Vattel that “citizen parents” means BOTH parents must be citizens, then we would have to conclude that the above sentence only refers to the case where BOTH parents are aliens. So it wouldn’t apply to Obama. He is not the child of aliens, he is the child of one citizen and one alien.

    but then it would apply to rubio and jindal

  70. donna says:
    March 25, 2013 at 10:19 am  (Quote)

    Supreme Court Justices Discuss Possibility Of Puerto Rico-Born U.S. President

    Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer seemed to indicate Thursday they’d consider a U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico “natural-born” and eligible to run for president. Their comments, directed at Puerto Rican-born Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.), came during a House Appropriations Committee hearing on the Supreme Court’s budget.

    “We’re waiting for your case on the Puerto Rican presidency to come to us, but you also have to be 35 years old, don’t you? Have you met that requirement?” Kennedy joked. “It’s Article II Section I.”

    “I may double that soon,” Serrano replied. “It may come up some day, you might have someone born over there running. But thank you for your semi-opinion.”

    Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, but residents do not get to vote for president. They do elect a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives.

    “I know many possible people from Puerto Rico … who could be elected,” Breyer said. “Modestly, in this room, I will not say exactly who.”

    Serrano said he was “pretty sure, confident” that a Puerto Rican-born citizen could become president, a view he said Kennedy and Breyer’s statements supported.

    “No, I have not given an opinion, sir,” Breyer said in response.

    “I understand, I understand. You have not given an opinion, and nobody here would write that, but let me just say my exploratory committee is coming together in the next half hour,” Serrano joked.

    Kennedy noted that the “likely explanation” for the natural-born citizen clause of the constitution was that the founding fathers were trying to prevent European royalty from occupying the White House.

    “That’s the probable reason,” Kennedy said. “I wasn’t there at the time.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/puerto-rico-president_n_2875757.html

  71. gorefan says:
    March 25, 2013 at 11:00 am  (Quote)

    donna: Supreme Court Justices Discuss Possibility Of Puerto Rico-Born U.S. President

    ORYR has an audio of the exchange:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cc6aNuFLFDQ

  72. Sef says:
    March 25, 2013 at 11:55 am  (Quote)

    donna: Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, but residents do not get to vote for president. They do elect a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives.

    Isn’t it also true that a woman would have been eligible to be President prior to the ratification of the XIX Amendment? Even though she could not vote, she would still be considered a citizen. (However, getting her to admit to being 35 could have been a problem.)

  73. Rickey says:
    March 25, 2013 at 12:07 pm  (Quote)

    Another Orly fail. She attempted to intervene in an Indiana case where Judicial Watch (formerly Klayman’s organization) is suing because Indiana supposedly has failed to purge its voter rolls of ineligible voters.

    As usual, she failed to follow the rules and she did not even cite the correct rule regarding intervention. And then she failed to respond when the parties objected to her request.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/131858009/Judicial-Watch-v-King-SD-Ind-Order-Denying-Taitz-Motion-to-Intevene

  74. The Magic M says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: Isn’t it also true that a woman would have been eligible to be President prior to the ratification of the XIX Amendment? Even though she could not vote, she would still be considered a citizen.

    Yup, by any interpretation of the Constitution. If the Founders would’ve wanted to limit the presidency to males, they would’ve said so. You can’t infer that because women had no political rights back then, the Founders were “implying” they were not eligible. As I wrote on another thread, the law is what the law says, not what the lawmakers were (secretly) intending or assuming to “go without saying”.

    The German Constitution specifically makes such distinctions, codifying some rights for “everyone” (as in freedom of speech, Art. 5) and others for “all Germans” (right to peacefully assemble, Art. 8).

  75. Dave B. says:
    March 25, 2013 at 2:43 pm  (Quote)

    You mean everybody else doesn’t look like the little picture next to their name? Other than not being anywhere near hairy enough, mine’s a dead ringer.

    Scientist: I know that Doc is white because I’ve seen photos of him, but I have no idea what anyone else looks like.

    Here are some photos of yours truly

  76. Dave B. says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm  (Quote)

    A tiny bit of information on Samuel Roberts:
    http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/e/m/Pat-Pemble/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0049.html

    gorefan: Over a Mario’s they have found an 1817 legal text – “A Digest of Select British Statutes:”

    By Samuel Roberts a judge of the Pennsylvania Courts.

  77. Dave B. says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:16 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s a picture of Judge Roberts, on page 48, followed by a more extensive biography:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=wOEzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=judge+samuel+roberts+pennsylvania&source=bl&ots=uJGftc_Fg7&sig=3VN6G1UvX5E2T8jCyqRacBQVxdU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9KBQUeG4Baic2QWbl4GgAw&sqi=2&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=judge%20samuel%20roberts%20pennsylvania&f=true
    which utterly exhausts my further interest in Judge Roberts.

    Dave B.: A tiny bit of information on Samuel Roberts:

  78. G says:
    March 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    Well, here’s a new type of Birther to emerge: The Bathroom Birther.

    Seriously, a new RWNJ legal attempt that stupidly merges demand for birth certificate documentation with fear of “da gay” to try to prevent the “wrong people” from using the wrong bathroom…

    ROTFLMAO…just when you thought inanity couldn’t provide more insanity… we’re way past the point in the RWNJ world where Poe’s Law is completely trumped by the actual dumb ideas out there…

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/03/bathroom_birther_lawmaker_want.php

  79. donna says:
    March 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    from the chicago tribune, a chuckle for those who don’t have to check under their beds before turning in

    this one regarding obama’s NCAA tournament bracket

    Bert Rockman, a presidential scholar at Purdue University: “Obama is probably the biggest basketball fan that’s been in the White House, so of course he does a bracket,” Rockman said. “And everybody does. It’s kind of a national pastime. This is another big to-do about nothing. Presidents do this sort of thing.”

    Obviously, Obama and his socialist goons had already gotten to Rockman.

    So there had to be more to this NCAA bracket.

    I decided to take a closer look.

    First off, having the president fill out the bracket is a transparent example of big government picking winners and losers. Add to that the fact that he picked only five upsets in the first round, and it’s clear we’re dealing with a man who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism.

    But it’s in the later rounds that things get truly nefarious.

    Obama’s Final Four teams are Florida, Ohio State, Indiana and Louisville. Put those first letters together and you get: FOIL. As in, “he’s trying to foil America’s chances of remaining a great nation.”

    Still not convinced? It goes deeper.

    The two teams he picks to go to the championship game are from the Midwest bracket and the East bracket. MIDwest and EAST. MID-EAST. MIDDLE EAST? Our president is obviously a secret Muslim.

    And that’s not all.

    An anagram of “Indiana Louisville,” the two teams he picked to make the final game, is: Nailed Via Illusion. Obama’s presidency is an illusion — and we’re getting nailed.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-24/news/ct-met-huppke-column-obama-brackets-20130324_1_obama-s-ncaa-ncaa-bracket-obama-s-final-four

  80. Keith says:
    March 25, 2013 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Obama’s Final Four teams are Florida, Ohio State, Indiana and Louisville.

    Well, he’s got at least one of those wrong, because Arizona is going to beat Ohio State.

    I don’t like Louisville’s chances against Duke, but I hope the President is right on that one.

  81. misha marinsky says:
    March 25, 2013 at 6:39 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah: The fact that she attempted to draw Israel into the issue causes me to believe she has additional motives besides Judd. This is feeding into the religious fantasies of Christians in America, and it is not good for our country.

    The Settlers are basically running a protection racket, aimed at evangelicals.

    Orly Taitz is so inflamed against Obama, because she thinks he is bad for Israel – so bad she is willing to make an alliance with white supremacists.

    When your only friends are the English Defence League and John Hagee, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

    I’ll repeat this for you: Several years ago, I was working for an optometrist in NY. His number was 212-***-*666. One day I was fitting a woman with glasses; she lowered her voice and said “You should change your number.” I asked why; she looked around furtively and said, “Those are the numbers of the devil.” She explained – I had never heard that before. When I told my mother, she laughed.

    Ted Haggard: “Pastor Ted hadn’t come to Colorado Springs for his health; he had come to wage “spiritual war.”

    He moved the church to a strip mall. There was a bar, a liquor store, New Life Church, a massage parlor. His congregation spilled out and blocked the other businesses. He set up chairs in the alley. He strung up a banner: SIEGE THIS CITY FOR ME, signed JESUS. He assigned everyone in the church names from the phone book they were to pray for. He sent teams to pray in front of the homes of supposed witches—in one month, ten out of fifteen of his targets put their houses on the market. His congregation “prayer-walked” nearly every street of the city.

    Population boomed, crime dipped; Pastor Ted believes to this day that New Life helped chase the bad out of town.”

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund196.html

    It is not a coincidence that Churches made an alliance with Fascists, before and during WWII.

  82. Deborah says:
    March 25, 2013 at 7:00 pm  (Quote)

    Sef keeps throwing pebbles at me. He likes me. I am going to ignore him. 🙂 His infatuation is causing him to miss the points.

  83. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 25, 2013 at 7:04 pm  (Quote)

    The company I worked for most of my adult life also had a phone number ending in 666.

    misha marinsky: I’ll repeat this for you: Several years ago, I was working for an optometrist in NY. His number was 212-***-*666.

  84. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 25, 2013 at 7:06 pm  (Quote)

    Some did not.

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

    This off-topic stuff is being moved to the open thread.

    misha marinsky: It is not a coincidence that Churches made an alliance with Fascists, before and during WWII.

  85. The Magic M says:
    March 26, 2013 at 4:59 am  (Quote)

    donna: I decided to take a closer look.

    Great stuff. If you hadn’t said it first, I guess the guy on WND with this “thought print decoding” would’ve said the same. 😉

  86. Kiwiwriter says:
    March 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The company I worked for most of my adult life also had a phone number ending in 666.

    My father worked at 666 5th Avenue…we had a lot of laughs about that.

    And the plotline of the novel “Angel Heart” involved devil worshippers who would sneak into the closed 18th Street Station of the New York Subway’s Lexington Avenue line, to conduct satanic rituals, sacrificing chickens. 18 being 6 + 6 + 6, you see.

    That line is now the “No. 6” train, which added to my hilarity over the situation, and proved my point that the subway was run like hell and going to the devil.

    The only question I have is: Does the chicken have to pay full fare or half?

    “Drop that chicken and make him pay his fare!”

  87. G says:
    March 26, 2013 at 3:18 pm  (Quote)

    One of my prior companies had a 216-666-**** exchange on some of our biz cell phones. It did seem to trouble a few customers, so I eventually switched to taking the monthly reimbursement offered for using my own cell phone for business and traded in that number. I was hesitant for a long time, because I liked to keep my private and business numbers separate, but it was nice to only have to carry around 1 cell phone.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The company I worked for most of my adult life also had a phone number ending in 666.

  88. Daniel says:
    March 26, 2013 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    Canadian Forces Base Jericho Beach is in the 666 exchange in Canada. I was stationed there as a liason officer for a while back in my Army days

  89. Paul Pieniezny says:
    March 26, 2013 at 5:33 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Some did not.

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

    This off-topic stuff is being moved to the open thread.

    It is true, however, that in Germany. Lutherans and very rigid Evangelicals (those who believed in predestination) were in the beginning rather sympathetic to the nazi movement. Before 1933, and just after the Reichstag fire, any priests openly professing their opposition to the nazi movement were either Roman Catholic or Reformed Protestants. Interestingly, Hitler himself probably planned for an eventual Gleichschaltung of all believing Germans into the Lutheran church. The speed with which the Lutherans and the hierarchy of the other Protestant churches changed their mind is remarkable and borders almost on heroic.

    Of course, the Roman Catholic hierarchy actually got fully reconciled with Hitler before the war. In view of the fact that some Roman Catholic priests got sent to concentration camps in 1933 and 1934, the different evolution is astonishing. I read somewhere that British (and later also American) pilots shot down over Germany were told to seek refuge at a Protestant church, and to avoid the Roman Catholic ones.

    I wonder what Merkel’s father thought about the Barmen Declaration.

  90. misha marinsky says:
    March 26, 2013 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: donna:how DESPICABLE
    —
    And when I consider that Fox is the only American broadcast shown in Israel, it makes me want to cry.

    Why Do the Jews Hate Sarah Palin So Much?

    http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-much

  91. Majority Will says:
    March 26, 2013 at 8:14 pm  (Quote)

    Baffle the bullies and the bigots:

    http://www.adl.org/imagine/

  92. misha marinsky says:
    March 26, 2013 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    Why I am suspicious, and make snide comments:

    Lindsey advocated a respect not just for Israel but also for the Jewish people, who were, after all, chosen of God. For many old-guard Protestants, who grew up hearing Jews described as “Christ-killers,” this shift was disorienting. It’s hard to overstate the traditional distrust, separatism and anti-Semitism that marked American fundamentalism until then.

    Following a 1972 prayer breakfast, Richard Nixon concluded a conversation with Billy Graham by calling Jews an “irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards.” Graham, a mainline evangelical leader widely considered to be reasonable and moderate, spoke of a “synagogue of Satan” and denounced the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/magazine/oy-vey-christian-soldiers.html

  93. Deborah says:
    March 26, 2013 at 11:18 pm  (Quote)

    American Jews can’t really be called “Israel” in the Biblical sense, I don’t think. And I find that fortunate. I’ve been doing a little bit of research on Israel’s propaganda to bring American Jews “home” and some of these Jews are offended by these efforts- such as videos depicting an American pony-tailed dufus trying to court a Jewish daughter. Here is one American Jewish couple’s story.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/84891/mixed-marriage

  94. Paper says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:01 am  (Quote)

    I’m not so sure about that. Akhil Amar makes a point of how the Constitution in Article II explicitly says “he” in reference to the presidency. He uses that point as leverage for his description of the unwritten constitution that supports the written text. He notes that the nineteenth amendment must mean women can be president, even though it doesn’t say so explicitly and nothing in the constitution explicitly says so, and as mentioned Article II says “he.”

    As further support for his speaking of an unwritten constitution (comprised of external texts and understandings, and not the same as a “living” constitution), he references the ninth amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    And where does one find these unwritten rights? Amar asks.

    So while he clearly supports the idea that we go by what is written in the Constitution, not just whatever we feel like in any given era, he also notes that we cannot only rely upon what is explicitly written in that one document.

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

    http://www.amazon.com/Akhil-Reed-Amar/e/B001IYZLQ0

    The Magic M: Yup, by any interpretation of the Constitution. If the Founders would’ve wanted to limit the presidency to males, they would’ve said so. You can’t infer that because women had no political rights back then, the Founders were “implying” they were not eligible. As I wrote on another thread, the law is what the law says, not what the lawmakers were (secretly) intending or assuming to “go without saying”.

    The German Constitution specifically makes such distinctions, codifying some rights for “everyone” (as in freedom of speech, Art. 5) and others for “all Germans” (right to peacefully assemble, Art. 8).

  95. The Magic M says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:52 am  (Quote)

    Paper: Akhil Amar makes a point of how the Constitution in Article II explicitly says “he” in reference to the presidency. He uses that point as leverage

    I’m not sure how things were in 1787, but I’ve learned that “he” is used as neutral descriptor in English as well as as male descriptor. It’s of course possible this usage has only developed later on, but are there *any* legal texts between 1787 and today that use “he/she” or anything like that?

    And even without that claim, I don’t see how this argument flies. Again, if the Founders had wanted to exclude women (or include only men), they would’ve said so. For the same reason, today nobody can argue that when lawmakers use “he”, they wanted to include men and women but not transgendered people.

    Paper: He notes that the nineteenth amendment must mean women can be president

    As I said, the text of the Constitution does not limit the Presidency gender-wise, so women don’t need the 19th to be eligible.

    Voting rights (the motivation for the 19th) are something different because the Constitution does not give voting rights to anyone, therefore obviously leaving that issue to the states, and the 19th was needed to limit state rights w.r.t. limiting voting rights.

    Paper: And where does one find these unwritten rights? Amar asks.

    I think there is a difference between arguing that people have more rights than enumerated in the Constitution (“extra-constitutional rights”) and arguing that the interpretation of explicit constitutional issues (rights, terms etc.) is to be assisted by things outside it.

    For example, the Constitution explicitly defines treason for use within the scope of the Constitution to avoid possible conflicts by later changes to its definition in the criminal code. This shows the Founders knew where and how to clearly express the scope of constitutional terms as meant by them. Therefore any claim that constitutional terms/limits can be interpreted by looking at implicit meanings (“he” = men only, “natural born” = what some Swiss dude said or what the dictionary says about “natural”) is flawed from the get-go.

  96. Majority Will says:
    March 27, 2013 at 9:40 am  (Quote)

    Deborah: American Jews can’t really be called “Israel” in the Biblical sense, I don’t think.

    That depends on who you ask.
    – an American Jew

  97. Paper says:
    March 27, 2013 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    Well, the argument would be, they did, by saying “he.”

    The neutral descriptor aspect of “he” is more about the history of ignoring women as existing in terms of power. Not really a good example.

    I don’t think we can assume or even argue that the founders were trying to be gender neutral.

    “He” is not an implicit term; it is explicit.

    That aside, I am not arguing for Vattel, and Amar certainly is not. This is not an argument for such things.

    Have to go to work…more later.l.

    The Magic M: I’m not sure how things were in 1787, but I’ve learned that “he” is used as neutral descriptor in English as well as as male descriptor. It’s of course possible this usage has only developed later on, but are there *any* legal texts between 1787 and today that use “he/she” or anything like that?

    And even without that claim, I don’t see how this argument flies. Again, if the Founders had wanted to exclude women (or include only men), they would’ve said so. For the same reason, today nobody can argue that when lawmakers use “he”, they wanted to include men and women but not transgendered people.

    As I said, the text of the Constitution does not limit the Presidency gender-wise, so women don’t need the 19th to be eligible.

    Voting rights (the motivation for the 19th) are something different because the Constitution does not give voting rights to anyone, therefore obviously leaving that issue to the states, and the 19th was needed to limit state rights w.r.t. limiting voting rights.

    I think there is a difference between arguing that people have more rights than enumerated in the Constitution (“extra-constitutional rights”) and arguing that the interpretation of explicit constitutional issues (rights, terms etc.) is to be assisted by things outside it.

    For example, the Constitution explicitly defines treason for use within the scope of the Constitution to avoid possible conflicts by later changes to its definition in the criminal code. This shows the Founders knew where and how to clearly express the scope of constitutional terms as meant by them. Therefore any claim that constitutional terms/limits can be interpreted by looking at implicit meanings (“he” = men only, “natural born” = what some Swiss dude said or what the dictionary says about “natural”) is flawed from the get-go.

  98. donna says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:13 am  (Quote)

    yesterday, taitz’s broom took her to CT

    Today I traveled to the Social security office in Stamford, CT where the SSN fraudulently used by Obama, was issued. I recorded all the information received from them and they forwarded to Washington DC all the evidence of fraud provided by me.

    Donations to cover travel expenses are greatly appreciated (my $3 bill is en route)

    she demands a “criminal investigation and ruling”?

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=408014

  99. The Magic M says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    Paper: “He” is not an implicit term; it is explicit.

    No, because the Founders said “no person…”, not “no male person”. As I said, when the Founders defined inclusions or exclusions, they were explicit.

    Specifically, they are enumerating all eligibility requirements in a single paragraph. You really want to argue that we have to (and they wanted the people to) deduct additional requirements from their use of pronouns in other paragraphs?

    If you are willing to argue that, then why can women be President now? The 19th clearly deals with voting rights, not rights to hold an office. By your logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives women a right to hold office.
    That argument comes dangerously close to Jedi Pauly and his “no wimmin can hold office”.

  100. Rickey says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:35 am  (Quote)

    donna:
    yesterday, taitz’s broom took her to CT

    Today I traveled to the Social security office in Stamford, CT where the SSN fraudulently used by Obama, was issued. I recorded all the information received from them and they forwarded to Washington DC all the evidence of fraud provided by me.

    Donations to cover travel expenses are greatly appreciated (my $3 bill is en route)

    she demands a “criminal investigation and ruling”?

    That should work out well for her. The Social Security Administration has a procedure for reporting claims of fraud, but once again Orly can’t be constrained by rules.

    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/48/~/reporting-social-security-fraud

  101. J.D. Sue says:
    March 27, 2013 at 12:31 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah: American Jews can’t really be called “Israel” in the Biblical sense, I don’t think.

    —-

    Huh? That’s a new one on me, and completely incorrect. In the Biblical sense, American Jews are Israel just like any Jew on the planet. We are Israelites (in the biblical sense), though not Israelis (a term that pertains to modern state citizenship) except in the case of people with dual citizenship.

  102. J.D. Sue says:
    March 27, 2013 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, but residents do not get to vote for president. They do elect a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives.

    —-
    FYI, Puerto Rican residents don’t vote for President because PR does not have members in the electoral college. However, if a Puerto Rican moves to a state, that individual has the right to register to vote for President in that state.

  103. J.D. Sue says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah: I’ve been doing a little bit of research on Israel’s propaganda to bring American Jews “home” and some of these Jews are offended by these efforts- such as videos depicting an American pony-tailed dufus trying to court a Jewish daughter. Here is one American Jewish couple’s story.

    —–

    The article you cite is different than your description of the article. It is not aimed at bringing American Jews home to Israel, it is aimed at bringing Israeli citizens home to Israel. Sheesh!

  104. J.D. Sue says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:13 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Why Do the Jews Hate Sarah Palin So Much?

    http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-much

    —-

    Re Palin: How do I dislike her? Let me count the ways! Oh well, I lost count. What’s to like? Sounds like that Commentary article was awful; as a former full time waitress and hotel maid for many years, I found it quite offensive.

  105. Greenfinches says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:16 pm  (Quote)

    donna – I think quoting a certain dentist from California: where the SSN fraudulently used by Obama, was issued.

    surely all SS numbers emerge from some federal building in Baltimore?

  106. G says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:22 pm  (Quote)

    That is a good clarification of the distinction between those terms. I think Deborah, like so many others, accidentally conflated the two as meaning the same thing.

    J.D. Sue: —-

    Huh?That’s a new one on me, and completely incorrect.In the Biblical sense, American Jews are Israel just like any Jew on the planet. We are Israelites (in the biblical sense), though not Israelis (a term that pertains to modern state citizenship) except in the case of people with dual citizenship.

  107. donna says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    G:

    J.D. Sue is the BEST – i am a fan

    Greenfinches:

    yes, i was quoting from taitz’s “press release” – i wish i had known sooner – i live 20 minutes from stamford, ct and would have loved to record this “historic” event – while taitz ordinarily loves media attention, there is nothing in the local stamford news about her visit –

  108. misha marinsky says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    I just want everyone to know that all my jokes this week are כשר ל’פסח.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  109. Majority Will says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    I just want everyone to know that all my jokes this week are כשר ל’פסח.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

    So they’ll be flat like matzoh?

    Dayenu!

    (And Chag Sameach!)

  110. misha marinsky says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:50 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: So they’ll be flat like matzoh?

    bada-bing

  111. Sef says:
    March 27, 2013 at 1:53 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: I just want everyone to know that all my jokes this week are כשר ל’פסח.

    What, no corn?

  112. Paper says:
    March 27, 2013 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    I will have to come back to this layer, but it is -not- this simple. There is much to say about this, and related reading if the constitution, but no time right now, and I’m not sure I can do full justice to the topic in brief in comments. I will try to broach it later. But I do recommend Amar’s books for a father good discussion of the matter.

    The Magic M: No, because the Founders said “no person…”, not “no male person”. As I said, when the Founders defined inclusions or exclusions, they were explicit.

    Specifically, they are enumerating all eligibility requirements in a single paragraph. You really want to argue that we have to (and they wanted the people to) deduct additional requirements from their use of pronouns in other paragraphs?

    If you are willing to argue that, then why can women be President now? The 19th clearly deals with voting rights, not rights to hold an office. By your logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives women a right to hold office.
    That argument comes dangerously close to Jedi Pauly and his “no wimmin can hold office”.

  113. Paper says:
    March 27, 2013 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Briefly as one example women were by and large prohibited from participating in the state ratifications if the Constitution itself. Section 2 of the 14th amendment later does use the word male, and as a result h eloped foster the push toward the 19th. The 14th itself does a lot, but not all and not fully.

    Women were not allowed to serve on juries either. And the 19th while not explicitly saying they can, implicitly includes jury voting. I believe elsewhere here we have discussed how women also had their citizenship affected by their husbands once upon a time.

    Part of the power of the 19th is it says this is an essential right, that should have always been acknowledged, but was not.

    Another word for it is consequences. The consequences of the 19th are far reaching.

    Really have no time though…layer…

    The Magic M: No, because the Founders said “no person…”, not “no male person”. As I said, when the Founders defined inclusions or exclusions, they were explicit.

    Specifically, they are enumerating all eligibility requirements in a single paragraph. You really want to argue that we have to (and they wanted the people to) deduct additional requirements from their use of pronouns in other paragraphs?

    If you are willing to argue that, then why can women be President now? The 19th clearly deals with voting rights, not rights to hold an office. By your logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives women a right to hold office.
    That argument comes dangerously close to Jedi Pauly and his “no wimmin can hold office”.

  114. saynomorejoe says:
    March 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    Oh, how easy it is to say that the Constitution is no longer relevent when there is part of it that we think should not have enforced.

    Why is that? Because we know what is best for the country? Or we don’t want a particular section enforced?

    1 Amendment, 2 amendment, and all the rest should be ignored because we don’t think our particular desires or wants can be accomplished because of these old restrictions.

    Fire away, mates, fire away, let us eliminate those restrictions on our freedom , after all we are the chosen and can determine what is right for the rest of the citizens.

  115. Keith says:
    March 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    The Magic M: If you are willing to argue that, then why can women be President now? The 19th clearly deals with voting rights, not rights to hold an office. By your logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives women a right to hold office.

    Hmmm… carrying that further, most states require a person to be a voter in order to run for office, do they not? Is that not an unconstitutional requirement on Federal offices?

    On second thought, maybe its just ‘eligible’ to be a voter, I guess.

  116. Keith says:
    March 27, 2013 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: —-

    Huh?That’s a new one on me, and completely incorrect.In the Biblical sense, American Jews are Israel just like any Jew on the planet.We are Israelites (in the biblical sense), though not Israelis (a term that pertains to modern state citizenship) except in the case of people with dual citizenship.

    That’s the Evangelical view, don’cha know. The Hebrews gave up their right to be the ‘chosen people’ when they refused to accept Christ as their Saviour. When that happened God named the Europeans as the new ‘Israelites’, and then the title passed onto the Americans.

    Don’cha know.

  117. Keith says:
    March 27, 2013 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: What, no corn?

    Plenty of corn but no maize.

  118. Daniel says:
    March 27, 2013 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    saynomorejoe:
    Oh, how easy it is to say that the Constitution is no longer relevent when there is part of it that we think should not have enforced.

    Why is that? Because we know what is best for the country? Or we don’t want a particular section enforced?

    1 Amendment, 2 amendment, and all the rest should be ignored because we don’t think our particular desires or wants can be accomplished because of these old restrictions.

    Fire away, mates, fire away, let us eliminate those restrictions on our freedom , after all we are the chosen and can determine what is right for the rest of the citizens.

    I agree, which is exactly why we need to oppose the birthers who would pi$$ on our Constitution and try to change it to suit their prejudices

  119. Scientist says:
    March 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm  (Quote)

    saynomorejoe: 1 Amendment, 2 amendment, and all the rest should be ignored because we don’t think our particular desires or wants can be accomplished because of these old restrictions.

    Those that are fundamental rights do not require the Constitution to exist. Nor is having a President who is an NBC any kind of fundamental right. But you have one who is anyway. Sometimes you get things even though you don’t have a right to them. Love is like that, for one.

  120. Scientist says:
    March 27, 2013 at 6:45 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Hmmm… carrying that further, most states require a person to be a voter in order to run for office, do they not? Is that not an unconstitutional requirement on Federal offices?

    On second thought, maybe its just ‘eligible’ to be a voter, I guess.

    Felons can’t vote in many states, yet they can run for office. I believe one of Orly’s clients is a guy who ran for President while in jail. So, he couldn’t vote for himself, but he could run.

  121. misha marinsky says:
    March 27, 2013 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    Color Photographs of Life in Dachau, The First Nazi Concentration Camp, 1933

    http://www.vintag.es/2013/03/color-photographs-of-life-in-first-nazi.html

  122. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:36 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not advocating not enforcing the Constitution.

    saynomorejoe: Oh, how easy it is to say that the Constitution is no longer relevent (sic) when there is part of it that we think should not have enforced.

  123. Rickey says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:49 pm  (Quote)

    donna:

    yes, i was quoting from taitz’s “press release” – i wish i had known sooner – i live 20 minutes from stamford, ct and would have loved to record this “historic” event – while taitz ordinarily loves media attention, there is nothing in the local stamford news about her visit –

    Then you’re probably familiar with my old stomping grounds. I grew up in Katonah, in northern Westchester.

  124. Rickey says:
    March 27, 2013 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    saynomorejoe:
    Oh, how easy it is to say that the Constitution is no longer relevent when there is part of it that we think should not have enforced.

    Who suggested that there are parts of the Constitution which should not be enforced?

  125. donna says:
    March 27, 2013 at 9:29 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Then you’re probably familiar with my old stomping grounds.

    if i spit, i could almost hit the blue dolphin

  126. Pieter Nosworthy says:
    March 27, 2013 at 10:49 pm  (Quote)

    Doc C,

    Just checking the waters of tolerance…

    Am I still persona non grata?

    [Yup. Doc.]

    Last I checked, liberals were the halberds of unpopular liberty and free voice. Is this not still true?

  127. Keith says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:05 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    Color Photographs of Life in Dachau, The First Nazi Concentration Camp, 1933

    http://www.vintag.es/2013/03/color-photographs-of-life-in-first-nazi.html

    I’ve always been struck by those photos (and others like them) how much a difference the clothes the subjects are wearing make.

    In general, the folks wearing regular ‘civvies’ look ‘normal’, intelligent, dapper and upbeat even.

    The ones wearing stripes look rather… less.

    That assessment is of course 99.44% my brain’s wiring that is doing that, but it is interesting that it is almost impossible to intellectualize it away.

  128. Rickey says:
    March 28, 2013 at 12:25 am  (Quote)

    donna:
    Rickey: Then you’re probably familiar with my old stomping grounds.

    if i spit, i could almost hit the blue dolphin

    I lived on Valley Road, next to St. Mary’s Church. My younger brother is a member of the Fire Department. It’s a remarkable village because in appearance very little has changed over the years.

  130. The Magic M says:
    March 28, 2013 at 5:57 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I have to share this one with you guys:

    Next up on WND: “Tennessee spends $16 million for Muslim wash tubs?”.
    (Y’know, never a real WND headline if it isn’t a non-question followed by a question mark.)
    I mean, that’s how a RWNJ speed-reads that article. And that’s so sad I won’t put a smiley face here.

    Really, the sad part isn’t that there are people who think like this but that these people are elected lawmakers. I fully expect them to introduce a bill banning all carpets from official buildings, lest a Muslim dare pray there…

  131. The Magic M says:
    March 28, 2013 at 6:06 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Color Photographs of Life in Dachau, The First Nazi Concentration Camp, 1933

    I hope those (and more) will be shown in schools. Part of the reason why the Holocaust seems to “far away” to most young people today is that they consider black-and-white material like coming from another reality.

  132. bovril says:
    March 28, 2013 at 7:48 am  (Quote)

    Ahhhh, sweet, sweet Birfoon delusion, thy name is Butterdezillion…..copied over from The FogBow

    And the delusion continues with Ole Nelly…….

    She has, over the last couple of weeks been PROVING, via the patented, PFBA process (Pulled From Butters Arse) how the presidents BC is ebil/forged/created by Sauron etc…… in fact it is…….

    A forgery AND copied from someone else’s BC AND used someone elses BC number AND was altered AND was inserted illegally into the HDoH archives AND has “red flags” from the forger/s AND all the contemporaneous BC’s are forgeries AND was created from whole cloth via either an adoption OR a law enforcement request…….

    The fact that here arguments are self circular and self defeating doesn’t affect her KNOWLEDGE or the adulation of the dwindling number of Freaker Birfoons

    The bestest part however that PROVES that all her stuff is magically confirmed (indirectly but in a legally binding manner natch) is this little gem

    =============================

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3001493/posts?page=4#4

    So far there has not been a peep from either Fogbow or Dr. Conspiracy regarding the “Putting-it-all-together” series I’ve been posting this week. That is the same response I’ve gotten from them regarding the documented HDOH falsification of the 1960-64 birth index. The tactic is to let the tree fall in the forest since you can’t stop it, but just make sure nobody hears the tree fall. If nobody hears it, it may as well have never happened.

    So we need to let these facts be heard. They can’t refute them so they will ignore them. Let’s go on the offensive, most importantly with the genuine conservatives who have shown a willingness to lead.

    =============================

    So, by ignoring BitterDelusional, we are INDIRECTLY confirming she is right, whilst if we mock or refute we DIRECTLY confirm she is right…..

    Wonderous world she inhabits

  133. aarrgghh says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:08 am  (Quote)

    bovril: So, by ignoring BitterDelusional, we are INDIRECTLY confirming she is right, whilst if we mock or refute we DIRECTLY confirm she is right…..

    as i’ve said elsewhere, everything utternutter believes just has be true so that she can stand nobly twixt everything in the shire that’s good and holy and its destruction under the blood-drenched boots of the brown hordes of dark lord soros and his puppet usurper.

    because if that weren’t true, she’d just be another nutty housewife on the internet.

  135. Paul Pieniezny says:
    March 28, 2013 at 10:19 am  (Quote)

    US Citizen: A portrait of Dorlyian Gray?

    An album:

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/109692669774484687963/albums/5860396345601433489?hl=en

    (I hope this works, never done it before)

    How Orly sees herself (Dorliyan Gray), how others see her, how Moldovans remember her and how she really looks,

  136. Majority Will says:
    March 28, 2013 at 10:32 am  (Quote)

    bovril:
    Ahhhh, sweet, sweet Birfoon delusion, thy name is Butterdezillion…..copied over from The FogBow

    And the delusion continues with Ole Nelly…….

    She has, over the last couple of weeks been PROVING, via the patented, PFBA process (Pulled From Butters Arse) how the presidents BC is ebil/forged/created by Sauron etc…… in fact it is…….

    A forgery AND copied from someone else’s BC AND used someone elses BC number AND was altered AND was inserted illegally into the HDoH archives AND has “red flags” from the forger/s AND all the contemporaneous BC’s are forgeries AND was created from whole cloth via either an adoption OR a law enforcement request…….

    The fact that here arguments are self circular and self defeating doesn’t affect her KNOWLEDGE or the adulation of the dwindling number of Freaker Birfoons

    The bestest part however that PROVES that all her stuff is magically confirmed (indirectly but in a legally binding manner natch) is this little gem

    =============================

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3001493/posts?page=4#4

    So far there has not been a peep from either Fogbow or Dr. Conspiracy regarding the “Putting-it-all-together” series I’ve been posting this week. That is the same response I’ve gotten from them regarding the documented HDOH falsification of the 1960-64 birth index. The tactic is to let the tree fall in the forest since you can’t stop it, but just make sure nobody hears the tree fall. If nobody hears it, it may as well have never happened.

    So we need to let these facts be heard. They can’t refute them so they will ignore them. Let’s go on the offensive, most importantly with the genuine conservatives who have shown a willingness to lead.

    =============================

    So, by ignoring BitterDelusional, we are INDIRECTLY confirming she is right, whilst if we mock or refute we DIRECTLY confirm she is right…..

    Wonderous world she inhabits

    Olanzapine.

  137. Paper says:
    March 28, 2013 at 12:49 pm  (Quote)

    Before engaging the broader points, the answer to your question, at least in part, is: 1) the 14th amendment, though problematically and incompletely, 2) the 19th amendment, and 3) society has completely changed. (And, it still is working out some of the consequences of this change: note that in 2000 the Supreme Court was still limiting the right of Congress to legislate women’s rights by way of the VAWA.)

    I am not saying women are excluded from office by the Constitution. I am saying it was worse than that. Past tense. Women were excluded by and large from the ratification of the very constitution itself. That is a bit worse than being excluded from one office, however powerful. They were excluded from the very foundation of our democratic republic, whereby the authority of the republic was given by the people in ratifying the constitution. That was a radical development at the time, and the women were not included. They did not have a say. They also had no vote to influence the laws under which they lived.

    This is why the 19th is so far reaching, and not merely some tiny technical fix. It is more foundational and profound than even presidential eligibility.

    Before the 19th, states could keep women from voting for presidential electors, serving as electors and appearing on the ballot as presidential candidates. Afterwards, they could not. The 19th doesn’t say explicitly that states can’t keep women off the presidential ballot, but that was one of its consequences.

    I have no desire to say we are tied to the repeated use of the word “he” in Article II. I am not a strict textual constructionist, after all. Nor am I a living constitution type. I personally like Amar’s use of the word “faithful” in these matters. But I am saying the founders had no intentions to prepare for a cultural sea-change where women would be included.

    When I read Article II, I see a situation where women were not even considered important or powerful enough to be explicitly excluded, where it was unthought that anyone but a man, a “he,” would be president. Naturally that is not how we now apply the Constitution, but we don’t get to women being able to be president merely through narrowing our focus to the word “person” in the sentences pertaining to presidential requirements. That word never helped before.

    There is no way a woman was going to be president when the constitution so unthinkingly used the word “he.” You can argue, and especially in a broader context I favor the argument, that women were not explicitly excluded. But they also were not included; they were implicitly excluded.

    Not only that, but later after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, of all amendments (!), goes on to introduce the word “male” in a key matter, making the exclusion of women explicit, no longer implicit. That very fact helped motivate the suffrage movement in response, but there it is in plain type in the constitution, the prejudice toward the male. Made worse, not better. Worse in this respect than even for former male slaves.

    In reviewing the Constitution from our appreciation of women’s rights, yes, we indeed can latch onto such words as “person.” But it is the strict textual approach that produces the very confusion and conflict you note: when speaking of eligibility, the Constitution says “person” but throughout the rest of that Article, before and after that sentence, the Constitution repeatedly says “he,” and we cannot imagine they were simply using “he” as a gender neutral pronoun. Not in that day and age. If we are going to be strict constructionists or originalists, we are in trouble (and not only in this matter). It is the strict textualism that causes the problem. A strict constructionist can’t very well ignore the word “he,” and cannot retrofit an interpretation of gender neutrality on that word. Ignore the problem is the best a *strict* constructionist can do, I think. I also think this example destroys or makes untenable the strict constructionist position at large. Not being a strict constructionist, I don’t have that conflict.

    In bringing up the word “he,” I was not arguing for it. I was in part demonstrating one way in which the literal text of the Constitution is not enough by itself. As we also know, natural born citizen is undefined. We there reference common law, for one thing. The 9th amendment points us to rights beyond those explicitly in the text (I was using this as just one example of the larger point). The phrase “cruel and unusual” demands we reference our cultural standards at any given time. And so forth…

    I personally would find it handy to have an Equal Rights Amendment; that would make things simpler. But otherwise, it is simple enough to see that the woman’s suffrage movement changed not only the explicit text of the constitution through amendment but also how we prospectively and retroactively apply the constitution, and our laws, as a whole.

    Amendments have consequences not only strictly limited to their wording but also shape the very way we apply the constitution. This matter of the presidency is just one element.

    Now we say “person” is more important than “he,” but where in the text itself does it say that? It doesn’t. We have to decide using external sources and realities, our own sense of how matters stand (which is not how they used to stand). You can note that women were not explicitly excluded in the paragraph pertaining to eligibility. Great. I am happy women were not so explicitly excluded. I am glad we didn’t go that far in our chauvinism (at least until the 14th amendment, that is). But women were implicitly excluded. (Again, the larger point is that *strict* textualism is a non-starter.) The word “person” was irrelevant, buried as it were in a bunch of “he’s.” We raise it up, dust it off, and salvage it.

    I would have agreed with Belva Lockwood that she could run for president despite not being able to vote, but she was a pioneer in the process of changing the system, and I tend to favor such things. I agree women should always have had the vote and should always have been able to run for and be president. But that was not the case. She was making an argument in the face of a different reality that did not agree with her, but was starting to change.

    The 19th is one of those amendments with a profound effect by the very fact that it prevents women from being denied the vote. By its very existence, it destroys the idea that men appropriately represented women’s interest in the passing of laws, including previously passed laws, as well as the ratification of the Constitution itself. Now, we are not going to toss out the entire Constitution for that reason, nor totally rewrite it from scratch as if women had been involved in its construction, but neither can we merely say the 19th represents a clear line of demarcation separating before from after. The consequences ripple backwards in how we apply the Constitution now. The 19th doesn’t only mean women can now vote; it also means it was wrong to exclude them, not just from the franchise but from the fundamental power structure whereby the people invest authority in the republic. We see that in the consequences of the 19th, not just in its text. By no longer being denied the vote, women manifest their power in an unavoidable way.

    No one is going to stand in the way of a female president because women now have power (enough in this obvious matter, but arguably not enough in others). But it is their power (as released by the 19th) that now as a consequence has made the idea of standing in the way so laughable, not the founder’s intentions.

    The Magic M:

    You really want to argue that we have to (and they wanted the people to) deduct additional requirements from their use of pronouns in other paragraphs?

    If you are willing to argue that, then why can women be President now? The 19th clearly deals with voting rights, not rights to hold an office. By your logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives women a right to hold office.
    That argument comes dangerously close to Jedi Pauly and his “no wimmin can hold office”.

  138. Paper says:
    March 28, 2013 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    They did, and they also knew how to leave things undefined. Natural born citizen jumps to mind. Not to mention “cruel and unusual.”

    But looking at implicit meanings, as part of the whole, is necessary. One example of the necessity of implicit meanings is inherent in this question: may the Vice-President preside over his or her own impeachment?

    (This has nothing to do with some Swiss dude, does not even go there. It may have something to do with some English dude named Blackstone, though. The fact that the meaning of natural born citizenship has nothing to do with a Swiss dude is not about implicit meanings. It’s about fantasy vs. actuality. Returning to Blackstone, he for one notes the necessity of the implicit. )

    Re: explicit/implicit readings of the Constitution: the balance is what makes the thing genius.

    The Magic M:

    For example, the Constitution explicitly defines treason for use within the scope of the Constitution to avoid possible conflicts by later changes to its definition in the criminal code. This shows the Founders knew where and how to clearly express the scope of constitutional terms as meant by them. Therefore any claim that constitutional terms/limits can be interpreted by looking at implicit meanings (“he” = men only, “natural born” = what some Swiss dude said or what the dictionary says about “natural”) is flawed from the get-go.

  139. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    Had a really weird dream last night. What I can remember I was searching in some area and I found box after box half-filled with dry, crusty dirt. Then I started finding boxes of long-metal cranks. They were about 3/4″ tubular steel, three feet long, and painted olive green.

  140. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:21 pm  (Quote)

    Loving the very telling response from ORYR’s inmates to Sarah Palin NOT going birther.
    Its a ghost town in that article’s comments section. One of the few who did post literally had a “She..she…she didn’t go birfer for us!” moment.
    I love it when the people that birthers pin their hopes and dreams on leaves them hanging.

  141. donna says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:50 pm  (Quote)

    Media Bias Against Birther Coverage?

    birther peter boyles had a conversation with State Sen. Greg Brophy who said “that media corporations ‘shut down’ the debate about Obama’s Social Security number because such a debate might be ‘toooo disruptive’ and cause the media companies to make less money.”

    boyles let the accusation slide without a follow-up as to whether obama’s (fake) SSN is a legitimate issue

    so Jason Salzman followed-up and asked Brophy whether he thought the SSN was fake

    “Call Boyles and ask him,” he responded. “He did extensive work on it.” Questioned further, Brophy wrote: “Peter makes a great case, and I have not heard a rebuttal. Do you have a good one?”

    Salzman: I referred Brophy to Snopes and media fact checkers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-salzman/media-bias-birther-coverage_b_2735649.html

  142. Deborah says:
    March 28, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C- Here is an article that says Obama’s green jobs are a pipe dream.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/23/morning-bell-obamas-green-jobs-pipe-dream/

    Or maybe you are dreaming of Plato’s myth of the metals, in which case your dream suggests copper (rather than bronze, gold or silver).

  143. Keith says:
    March 28, 2013 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    May everyone have a good weekend feasting in honor of the Goddess of the Dawn, Ēostre.

  144. gorefan says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:10 am  (Quote)

    Meanwhile over in Alabama, the Supreme Court has received an appellant brief for one of the ballot challenges.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/132864547/SCOAL-2013-03-26-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Brief-of-Appellant

    They make a strong argument for lack of mootness. And I could see the Court agreeing to entertain the idea that in future elections the SoS should, in the face of credible evidence, ask for something from a Presidential candidate.

    Of course the entire brief goes off the tracks when it gets into the Arpaio/Zullo/Corsi stuff. But then kind of rights itself later.

    But in the end it will be a failure.

  145. Suranis says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:20 am  (Quote)

    Keith:
    May everyone have a good weekend feasting in honor of the Goddess of the Dawn, Ēostre.

    There’s actually no evidence that Eostre ever existed as a goddess. All we have is one mention in a rather obscure 8th century manuscript by Bede with zero supporting evidence. The name Easter may have arisen from the designation of Easter Week in Latin as in albis.

    Whats certain is that there’s no such thing as an Easter Bunny. It reality is was the Easter Hare or March Hare, which does not roll off the tongue as well 😀

  146. Keith says:
    March 29, 2013 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    Suranis: There’s actually no evidence that Eostre ever existed as a goddess. All we have is one mention in a rather obscure 8th century manuscript by Bede with zero supporting evidence.

    True, Bede quotes no evidence, but Jacob Grimm (one of the Brothers Grimm) finds quite a lot of evidence, and 20th Century scholarship finds even more evidence in recent archaeological findings. However, I agree that the jury is still out.

    No matter. If its good enough for the Venerable Bede, its good enough for me. 😎

  147. Greenfinches says:
    March 29, 2013 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Read my two comments.

    why so formal over there, Michael???

  148. donna says:
    March 29, 2013 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    taitz:

    There is not a shred of evidence to show that one single word by Linda Joy Adams is true. Obama regime might have created her story to give Obama an American birth

    I am wondering if Obama regime created this personality, Linda Joy Adams, in order to create a story of Obama’s birth in KS or the woman has a mental problem. This woman called me several times. She posted a lot on the net. So far she did not provide one shred of evidence to confirm anything stated by her. I, also, noted that the web browsers, which believed to be collaborrating with Obama regime, are heavily promoting her, which is a giveaway in itself.

    I recommend just ignoring her.

  149. Kiwiwriter says:
    March 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    taitz:

    There is not a shred of evidence to show that one single word by Linda Joy Adams is true. Obama regime might have created her story to give Obama an American birth

    I am wondering if Obama regime created this personality, Linda Joy Adams, in order to create a story of Obama’s birth in KS or the woman has a mental problem. This woman called me several times. She posted a lot on the net. So far she did not provide one shred of evidence to confirm anything stated by her. I, also, noted that the web browsers, which believed to be collaborrating with Obama regime, are heavily promoting her, which is a giveaway in itself.

    I recommend just ignoring her.

    Wow, there is no honor among birthers, either.

  150. Deborah says:
    March 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    The Oracle at Orly might be getting a glimpse into her own future when investigating Linda Joy- a little like looking into the mirror.

  151. donna says:
    March 29, 2013 at 5:23 pm  (Quote)

    businessweek: The GOP Still Won’t Own Up to Its Real Problem With Voters

    “Implicit in the suggestion is that African Americans don’t feel respected or cared about by the GOP. While that is, on the one hand, head-smackingly obvious, it strikes me as the height of cynicism that the report doesn’t delve a little deeper into why this might be so. There are pages and pages of recommendations about hiring minority outreach directors, having a presence in black churches, rolling out black surrogates, and on and on. But the report says nothing—at least nothing that I saw—about the two biggest reasons why African Americans (and members of any minority group) might feel disrespected.

    The first is the systematic effort by Republicans across the country to impose voter-identification laws that would mainly serve to disenfranchise minority voters. (Anyone interested in learning more about this problem should read the symposium on voting rights in the latest issue of the journal Democracy.)

    The second is what many people regarded as the thinly veiled racism that lay at the root of the “birther” attacks claiming President Obama is a Muslim born outside the United States. At one point, public opinion polls showed that more than half of Republicans believed these absurd and insulting claims—claims that were difficult to imagine being lodged against a white president. (UPDATE: I stand corrected — white president Chester A. Arthur weathered a birther controversy over whether he was born in Canada.)

    What’s key about both these issues is that Republican elites were every bit as complicit in pushing them as were the activists, evangelicals, talk radio hosts and assorted other riffraff that the report seems to fault for the party’s predicament. Indeed, Republican elected officials took the lead in pushing voter ID laws. And while birtherism may have originated at the lunatic fringe, it would never have gained such prominence without the active participation and encouragement of Republican elites—some of whom embraced the claim that Obama wasn’t a U.S. citizen, while others simply hinted at it in coded phases, saying they “didn’t have any information to prove otherwise” or “took the president at his word.”

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-20/the-gop-still-wont-own-up-to-its-real-problem-with-voters

  152. Majority Will says:
    March 29, 2013 at 7:23 pm  (Quote)

    When the new Pope kissed a Muslim woman’s feet did Pamela Gellar’s head explode?

  153. Rickey says:
    March 29, 2013 at 7:25 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    businessweek: The GOP Still Won’t Own Up to Its Real Problem With Voters

    Now the GOP has its latest hero, Ben Carson, go on Hannity and compare gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.

    Then there is representative Don Young (R-Alaska), who referred to Hispanics as “wetbacks” during an interview.

    And they wonder why minorities won’t vote for them.

  154. donna says:
    March 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:

    and Dave Agema, a Republican National Committeeman in Michigan, who posted an article Wednesday on Facebook that denounced the lifestyle of homosexuals as “filthy.”

    some “outreach” – perhaps after their “autopsy”, performed on dead things, they should have then opted for cremation

  155. misha marinsky says:
    March 30, 2013 at 6:08 pm  (Quote)

    Tomas Young: Dying veteran takes parting shot at Bush

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21952852

    An Iraq war veteran who lost the use of his legs in the conflict has decided to end his life. Tomas Young has also written a letter to former President George W Bush and ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney, accusing them of being responsible for what happened to him and others injured and killed in Iraq.

    Mr Young says he wrote to Mr Bush and Mr Cheney on behalf of the wounded veterans and relatives of those killed and injured in Iraq.

    “On every level – moral, strategic, military and economic – Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr Bush and Mr Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

  158. misha marinsky says:
    March 30, 2013 at 9:58 pm  (Quote)

    Passover is ending, so it’s time for my religion rant:

    Were Jews ever really slaves in Egypt, or is Passover a myth? A myth, says Haaretz:

    Here’s a question for you: what do actor Charlton Heston, DreamWorks animation studios and Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin all have in common? Well, they’ve all, at one time or another, perpetuated the myth that the Jews built the pyramids. And it is a myth, make no mistake. Even if we take the earliest possible date for Jewish slavery that the Bible suggests, the Jews were enslaved in Egypt a good three hundred years after the 1750 B.C. completion date of the pyramids. That is, of course, if they were ever slaves in Egypt at all.

    Read on: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844

    Right now, my wife is watching Charlton Heston play Moses. What was cut out of the soundtrack is “If the Jews had guns, they would never have been held in captivity. Join the NRA.”

  159. misha marinsky says:
    March 30, 2013 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: When the new Pope kissed a Muslim woman’s feet did Pamela Gellar’s head explode?

    I hope so. That shonde is vile. Gellar and Orly – a real pair of spark plugs, I’m telling you.

  160. J.D. Sue says:
    March 30, 2013 at 10:29 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Passover is ending

    —

    Come on, Misha, there are still 3 days to go…

  161. misha marinsky says:
    March 30, 2013 at 10:52 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: Come on, Misha, there are still 3 days to go…

    It’s the 72-hour blowout sale. The stores are already having their Passover groceries clearance sale.

  162. misha marinsky says:
    March 30, 2013 at 11:19 pm  (Quote)

    A Jewish member of the British Parliament is being knighted. He kneels, and as the Queen taps him on each shoulder with her sword, he forgets the Latin phrase. So he says “…מה שתה, הלילה הזה”

    When he stops, she says to her advisor “Why is this knight different from all other knights?”

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  163. gorefan says:
    March 31, 2013 at 12:42 am  (Quote)

    Mario’s going to court (sort of).

    “I am currently assisting the pro se H. Brooke Paige in his Obama eligibility challenge in Vermont which was filed in the Vermont Superior Court Washington Unit on August 27, 2012. There was also an attempt in Vermont to prevent me from assisting Mr. Paige. The attempt failed. I have prepared at his request his briefs in the lower court and in the Supreme Court. The lower court, as other courts that have reached the merits have done, placed its complete reliance upon Wong Kim Ark. The case is currently pending in the Vermont Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Paige will be conducting the oral argument in his pro se capacity. ”

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=2111932174402297120

    Mario will be speaking through Brooke Paige.

  164. misha marinsky says:
    March 31, 2013 at 12:55 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Mario will be speaking through Brooke Paige.

    Spooky – or ventriloquist?

  165. misha marinsky says:
    March 31, 2013 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    Greenfinches: why so formal over there, Michael???

    Why not?

  166. gorefan says:
    March 31, 2013 at 1:08 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Spooky – or ventriloquist?

    channeling

  167. gorefan says:
    March 31, 2013 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    From the Vermont Supreme Court website:

    2. TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013 at 9:30 AM (30 min. hearing)
    Justice Robinson disqualified.

    2012-439

    H. BROOKE PAIGE* (pro se) v. STATE OF VERMONT, JIM CONDOS, SECRETARY OF STATE and BARACK OBAMA (Daloz, Todd, Esq.)

    http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterDocument/supremecrtcalendar-apr13term.pdf

  168. misha marinsky says:
    March 31, 2013 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: 2. TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013 at 9:30 AM (30 min. hearing) – Justice Robinson disqualified.

    I read the pdf. Anyone know why Robinson was disqualified?

  169. Arthur says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Mario’s going to court (sort of).

    Here’s H. Brook Paige’s original complaint:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/106189586/2012-08-27-Complaint

    It’s nothing more than long debunked “two citizen parents” junk, and ridiculous claims about Vattel being the father of the natural-born citizen clause in the Constitution.

    Yawn.

  170. Arthur says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: I read the pdf. Anyone know why Robinson was disqualified?

    I believe it’s a medical condition–he’s allergic to bullsh*t.

  171. Dave B. says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:10 pm  (Quote)

    He’s a her.

    Arthur: I believe it’s a medical condition–he’s allergic to bullsh*t.

  172. donna says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    Beth Robinson, Vermont’s First Openly Gay Supreme Court Justice, Sworn In

    Beth Robinson replaces Justice Denise Johnson, who is retiring, according to a press release. Robinson, 46, is a widely respected civil rights advocate who helped represent three couples in a landmark 1999 state Supreme Court decision that prompted the Legislature in 2000 to make Vermont the first state to offer marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, the Associated Press reports. In addition, she worked actively to promote Vermont’s marriage equality law, which passed in 2009.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/beth-robinson-vermont-supreme-court-justice-_n_1118772.html

  173. gorefan says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Beth Robinson, Vermont’s First Openly Gay Supreme Court Justice

    That wouldn’t explain her being disqualified for this ballot challenge.

    Arthur: It’s nothing more than long debunked “two citizen parents” junk, and ridiculous claims about Vattel being the father of the natural-born citizen clause in the Constitution.
    Yawn.

    Paige tried to get Mario Apuzzo as his attorney but was not able to get him pro hac vice status. Mario submitted an amicus brief to the lower court. In his opinion, Judge Bent called the brief scholarly but academic as Wong Kim Ark is the precedent.

    Here is Judge bent’s opinion:

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9w3awDuyAUd2FGeDk3MVVsWW8/edit?pli=1

  174. ASK Esq says:
    March 31, 2013 at 4:14 pm  (Quote)

    I just found out something about Orly that came as no surprise. She is upset with Media Matters asking people to contact their members of Congress about Global Warming. Of course she thinks that people should instead be contacting Congress about her made up Obama scandals. But she also noted that global warming has, in her words, been debunked. I suppose if the overwhelming majority of people who know what they’re talking about disagree with Orly, that means her position is right.

    I would love to hear her positions on evolution and 9/11. Maybe the moon landing, too.

  175. Arthur says:
    March 31, 2013 at 5:03 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Here is Judge bent’s opinion:

    Thanks. I enjoyed reading it.

  176. Arthur says:
    March 31, 2013 at 5:04 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: He’s a her.

    Oopsie.

  177. misha marinsky says:
    March 31, 2013 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    Speaking of Passover, Moses was the world’s first travel agent.

    The logistics were a real headache, I’m telling you.

  178. Kris says:
    April 1, 2013 at 12:17 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    Speaking of Passover, Moses was the world’s first travel agent.

    The logistics were a real headache, I’m telling you.

    Speaking of Moses, do you realize that he’s the reason the Jews spent forty years wandering in the desert. Yup, all because, like every other man, he woukdn’t stop and ask for directions.

  179. justlw says:
    April 1, 2013 at 12:36 am  (Quote)

    This is fun; no mention of birtherism, but more than a few of its proponents will find a home somewhere on here (I’m looking at you, Doug Vogt):

    The Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense

  180. misha marinsky says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:58 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: they refused to accept Christ as their Saviour

    Remember, Jesus saves but Moses invests.

  181. donna says:
    April 1, 2013 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    Trump Drops $5 Mil Monkey Suit Against Bill Maher

    (For Now – i guess until we have a blizzard in NY in august)

    Now, we’ve learned Trump filed documents in L.A. County Superior Court on March 29 to dismiss the case … but a rep for “The Apprentice” star says it doesn’t mean the war is over.

    “The lawsuit was temporarily withdrawn to be amended and refiled at a later date,” says Michael Cohen (Trump’s Executive Vice President and Special Counsel).

    http://www.tmz.com/2013/04/01/donald-trump-bill-maher-orangutan-monkey-lawsuit-dismissed/#ixzz2PFWxI1wu

  182. misha marinsky says:
    April 1, 2013 at 7:16 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Trump Drops $5 Mil Monkey Suit Against Bill Maher

    Trump is just monkeying around.

  183. misha marinsky says:
    April 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    Kris: Yup, all because, like every other man, he woukdn’t stop and ask for directions.

    bada-bing

  184. bovril says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:06 am  (Quote)

    So, Donny the (poorly) shaven monkey needs some more of the sweet sweet air of vacuous publicity…..

    Surely nothing to do with

    “On NBC, Celebrity Apprentice garnered a season low 1.4 adults 18-49 rating down 13 percent from last week’s 1.6 adults 18-49 rating.”

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/04/01/tv-ratings-sunday-revenge-red-widow-celebrity-apprentice-fall-as-the-ncaa-basketball-champsionship-wins-night/175646/

  185. The Magic M says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:55 am  (Quote)

    donna: “The lawsuit was temporarily withdrawn to be amended and refiled at a later date,”

    What does he have to hide? Why is his original long long long form BC still sealed at the archives of the NYC zoo? Why did NYC zoo registrar Alvin Chipmunk and former NYC zoo director Neil Aardvarkcamel say they cannot find Trump’s records in their archives?

    Obviously The Donald is scared to expose his BC to court scrutiny. I must conclude that The Donald’s BC is therefore forged to hide his half-ape ancestry and he knows it. This must be what his “Hawaiian investigators” of 2011 “cannot believe what they’re finding”.

  186. donna says:
    April 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm  (Quote)

    ANOTHER of trump’s publicity stunts failed – if you keep track, he rears his ugly hair right before another season of the apprentice is about to begin

    early on he said he could get he could get his birth records from his birth hospital – however, a spokesman from the hospital said they only keep those records until the person turns 21

  187. misha marinsky says:
    April 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm  (Quote)

    The Magic M: This must be what his “Hawaiian investigators” of 2011 “cannot believe what they’re finding”.

    I can’t believe it’s not butter.

  188. Arthur says:
    April 2, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    He’s not just a birther! Alan Keyes has come out against gay marriage:

    “Alan Keyes, the former diplomat and perennial candidate for office, argued that gay marriage ‘is the archetype of all crimes against humanity,’ and that an ‘entire elite faction is committed’ to that crime.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/alan_keyes_gay_marriage_is_the_archetype_of_all_crimes_against_humanity/

  189. mimi says:
    April 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm  (Quote)

    H. Brooke Paige is back. This time Mario is helping.

    Doc’s post from Sept 2012 is here:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/its-raining-ballot-challenges/

    Report at fogbow shows appeal is on calendar for TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013 at 9:30 AM (30 min. hearing).

    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=8278&p=491564#p491527

  190. mimi says:
    April 2, 2013 at 5:43 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur:
    He’s not just a birther! Alan Keyes has come out against gay marriage:

    “Alan Keyes, the former diplomat and perennial candidate for office, argued that gay marriage ‘is the archetype of all crimes against humanity,’ and that an ‘entire elite faction is committed’ to that crime.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/alan_keyes_gay_marriage_is_the_archetype_of_all_crimes_against_humanity/

    No surprise. He kicked his daughter out of the house and refused to pay her tuition when he found out she was gay.

    That was years ago.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20005-2005Feb12.html

    Not all people are capable of evolving.

  191. ggorefan says:
    April 2, 2013 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    mimi:
    H. Brooke Paige is back.This time Mario.

    Actually Mario was involved from the get go. Paige’s original brief was written by Mario. they tried to get Mario pro hac vice status but failed, IIRC they couldn’t get a sponsoring attorney.

    The question I have is did they file new briefs or are they working of the ones submitted to the lower court?

    The link to the Vermont Supreme Court schedule is in the thread above.

    I think that eventually the VSC website will post the audio of the oral argument hearing.

  192. gorefan says:
    April 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    Butterdezillion’s “statistical” analysis is now being touted by ORYR. Every Hawaiian BC on the internet is forged.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/hdoh-gave-obama-stigs-birth-certificate-number.html

  193. gorefan says:
    April 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    mimi:
    H. Brooke Paige is back.This time Mario is helping.

    Mario wrote the original brief for Paige.

  194. justlw says:
    April 3, 2013 at 1:15 am  (Quote)

    Okay, have I missed hearing about this before, or is this truly hot-off-the-presses new?

    Brooklyn judge slams birther lawsuit as ‘fanciful, delusional and irrational’ and orders theorist to pay $177G

    Judge Arthur Schack wrote the case brought by Christopher Earl [Strunk] claiming President Barack Obama was not truly born in Hawaii and therefore disqualified as a presidential a possible movie script entitled ‘The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da VInci Code.’

  195. justlw says:
    April 3, 2013 at 1:36 am  (Quote)

    …that is to say, I’d heard about the pending sanctions, but it looks like now the hammer has fallen.

  196. The Magic M says:
    April 3, 2013 at 4:54 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Every Hawaiian BC on the internet is forged.

    Except for the Nordykes’, how convenient.

    Birthers still reject the “alphabetically by the end of the month” sort order because it shoots down their precious theory. But it’s interesting that even die-hard birthers have now accepted that the Ah-Nee BC (the one where WND deliberately hid the BC number) refutes their “numbered in chronological order” claim and, in true conspiracy fashion, therefore must be forged, too.

    Butterdezillion is one of the most typical examples of a die-hard conspiracy believer as anything that refutes her theories is declared a forgery.

  197. misha marinsky says:
    April 3, 2013 at 8:31 am  (Quote)

    Attention Lupin:

    Drones Delivering Newspapers In Auvergne, France

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/drones-delivering-newspapers-france_n_2992372.html

  198. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    April 3, 2013 at 8:33 am  (Quote)

    It’s new. Strunk had to turn in his reply brief on the order to show cause on March 8, about a month ago, and the dollar amount of sanctions was not then known. This would be about the right amount of time for the order to be issued.

  199. Lupin says:
    April 3, 2013 at 11:06 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    Attention Lupin:

    Drones Delivering Newspapers In Auvergne, France

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/drones-delivering-newspapers-france_n_2992372.html

    That was a rather original April Fool’s joke, I thought. A change from the spaghetti harvest.

  200. donna says:
    April 3, 2013 at 4:03 pm  (Quote)

    Richard Cebull, Federal Judge Who Sent Racist Obama Email, Retires

    U.S. District Judge Richard F. Cebull, the federal judge in Montana who sent an email last year suggesting that President Barack Obama’s mother had sex with a dog, has retired following an investigation into his conduct.

    In the email forwarded by Cebull, a young Obama asks his mother why he’s black and she is white. “Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!” his mother replies. Cebull told recipients of his email that he hoped it “touches your heart like it did mine.”

    Cebull, nominated by President George W. Bush, stepped down as chief U.S. district judge in October and took a reduced caseload. He apologized for sending the letter back in the spring.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/richard-cebull-retires_n_3006753.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

  201. J.D. Sue says:
    April 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Richard Cebull, Federal Judge Who Sent Racist Obama Email, Retires

    —

    Good riddance. If I practiced in his district, I would have moved for a substitution of judge or recusal in any/every case. So, I wonder how much we are paying this pig in retirement…

  202. donna says:
    April 3, 2013 at 6:11 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue:

    do you think judge roy moore will recuse himself?

    he defended lakin

    this one seems like birthers in paradise – Klayman, Virgil Goode, Hugh McInnish, Roy Moore and citing Arpaio’s investigation

    “We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/birthers-hope-roy-moore-will-be-their-savior

    according to ORYR, “He (Judge Moore) also understands the importance of recognizing America’s Christian foundation and the principles of law based upon the Bible.”

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/judge-roy-moore-to-preside-over-obama-case.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29

  203. J.D. Sue says:
    April 3, 2013 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    donna: do you think judge roy moore will recuse himself?

    —
    I don’t know. From what I can see of his history, he doesn’t let binding judicial precedence and ethics interfere with his decision-making… He may welcome the opportunity to cause a real ruckus (i.e., order the SOS to demand production of a birth certificate and decertify the election results (mootness notwithstanding) if he isn’t satisfied with what the Court receives). Also, since the plaintiffs sort of raised a Vattelesque question (albeit they didn’t actually argue/brief the issue), he may want to pontificate in dicta on the definition of nbc. He’s a real grandstander, who was willing to be thrown off the Court before. So my bet is that he will not recuse himself.

  204. Crustacean says:
    April 3, 2013 at 7:18 pm  (Quote)

    donna: do you think judge roy moore will recuse himself?

    There’s gotta be a good “Judge Roy Bean” themed wisecrack to be made here, but I’m coming up empty. Help, Misha!! Justlw? Calling all wisecrackers!!

    (wisecrackers… that’s not racist, is it?)

  205. donna says:
    April 3, 2013 at 7:54 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: he may want to pontificate in dicta on the definition of nbc. He’s a real grandstander, who was willing to be thrown off the Court before. So my bet is that he will not recuse himself.

    Thanks

    Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.

    Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.” (that worked out well)

    Klayman asked for oral arguments

    i ordered an extra supply of caramel corn

  206. Daniel says:
    April 3, 2013 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: —
    I don’t know.From what I can see of his history, he doesn’t let binding judicial precedence and ethics interfere with his decision-making…He may welcome the opportunity to cause a real ruckus (i.e., order the SOS to demand production of a birth certificate and decertify the election results (mootness notwithstanding) if he isn’t satisfied with what the Court receives).Also, since the plaintiffs sort of raised a Vattelesque question (albeit they didn’t actually argue/brief the issue), he may want to pontificate in dicta on the definition of nbc.He’s a real grandstander, who was willing to be thrown off the Court before.So my bet is that he will not recuse himself.

    I suspect something quite different. Last time he banked on the disciplinary board not being able to throw him out, and he lost, big time. I doubt he’ll take the chance on grandstanding what is clearly out of jurisdiction and against all precedence, to champion something that’s not his first love. Only a minority of voters in Alabama are hard core birthers, while a large majority want to see the 10 Cs back in schools and court rooms (as long as they don’t actually have to follow them, of course).

  207. J.D. Sue says:
    April 3, 2013 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: I suspect something quite different. Last time he banked on the disciplinary board not being able to throw him out, and he lost, big time. . . .

    —-

    Sounds like you may understand him and his constituency better than I do. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

  208. gorefan says:
    April 3, 2013 at 10:32 pm  (Quote)

    Don’t the other justices on the court have a say in this? Wouldn’t he need a majority of the court to agree with him?

  209. The Magic M says:
    April 4, 2013 at 5:02 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Wouldn’t he need a majority of the court to agree with him?

    If they get Moore to write a dissenting opinion effectively endorsing birtherism, birthers will tout this a huge victory (“we finally found one honest judge but the other bought judges suppressed him”).
    And if Moore actually is a birther and knows his opinion is the minority anyway, he’d have no reason to hold back. He’d give the birthers what they want without compromising the reputation of his court.

  210. Keith says:
    April 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    OMG! Logic sighting in WDC!

    Former Official Said A Bunch Of Stuff That Actually Made A Lot Of Sense

    In a landmark event that went largely unremarked upon by cable news providers and newspaper front pages, someone in Washington, D.C., spent time yesterday saying things to reporters that actually made sense.
    …
    So that’s two people who were in Washington yesterday, saying things that were not, objectively speaking, a hot sack of horse leavings. Sorry. I buried the lede. I am not used to observing these activities in nature.

    What are the implications of having people in Washington saying things that are actually sensible, aloud in public, where just anyone can hear them and write them down? I suppose there is a chance now that this is the start of a trend that might catch on, but, haha, not really.

    And it isn’t even an Aprils Fool’s Joke!

    (read the link to find out what was talked about… do I have to do everything for you?)

  211. donna says:
    April 4, 2013 at 10:29 pm  (Quote)

    Martin Short in response to a question about dual citizenship: “i have 4 passports – my father was born in northern ireland, my grandfather was born in the republic of ireland, canada and the US”

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.