The occasional open thread: press any key to continue

Posted on July 29, 2014 by Dr. Conspiracy

Place your Obama Conspiracy comments not related to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

image

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.

135 Responses to The occasional open thread: press any key to continue

  1. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    July 29, 2014 at 11:19 am  (Quote)

    My Grandma, God rest her soul, never fell for the “press any key”, bit, because she was using desktop terminals back in the 1960s, for the Chicago Oak Leaves newspaper, and knew that no such key existed.

  2. DaveH says:
    July 29, 2014 at 11:54 am  (Quote)

    When I used to do computer support, there were a few people that called me to find out where the “any” key was.

    This reminds me of a story I heard way back in the late 80’s about a support technician that took a call from a customer.

    The customer’s complaint was that when he was editing a word processing document that the “words disappeared” from his screen and he couldn’t get them back. The technician tried to help based on this information thinking that perhaps the application had crashed but as he asked more and more questions, he finally realized that the computer had no power. It was then that the customer told him that the power had gone out in the building. With everything the technician had done in his quest to help this person, he apparently got irritated with what the customer told him when he said “Oh, I know what the problem is. You need to box that computer up right away and send it back.” The customer then says “It’s that bad, huh? What do you think the problem is?” and the technician replied “You’re too stupid to own a computer”.

    As I wrote, that’s just a story I heard. I don’t know if it was true or not but it sounds plausible with some of the customers I’ve dealt with in the past.

  3. ellen says:
    July 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    It may be useful to you to know that Reed Hayes is answering questions about his opinion on Obama’s birth certificate. I called him and he answered some questions though not on what basis he considers Obama’s birth certificate to be forged. That, he says, is part of the report that belongs to his client and he cannot discuss it.

    However, I certainly believe that Doc or others who want to ask him questions should not call but instead send a list of e-mail questions to which Hayes might reply (and if he doesn’t, then call).

    In any case, I called him yesterday and asked him about his opinion. He sticks with the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. But, interestingly, HE BELIEVES THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, so he thinks that it is possible–perhaps even likely—that the forged long form was forged by an enemy of Obama’s in order to attack Obama.

    What I did not ask him, and what I certainly should have (duh, sorry) is whether he went to the White House site himself and got the pdf there or whether he was sent a copy or a link by his client (who we presume was the Cold Case Posse). IF he did not go to the White House site himself and was sent a copy or a link by the CCP, the the possibility that they forged it or selected a forged BC arises. In fact, it would be likely.

    I also asked Reed Hayes whether he had reviewed the findings on the Xerox WorkCenter. He had not, though he was pressed for time and did not explain why not.

    In any case there are three facts that should be confirmed:

    (1) Whether or not he continues to believe the BC he saw was forged

    (2) Whether or not he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii

    And there is one missing fact that should be checked, whether or not he went to the White House site himself and got the birth certificate image or got it from his client.

    Reed Hayes, BTW, asserts that in addition to his expertise in analyzing physical documents, he is ALSO qualified as an examiner of digital documents. I did not press him for the details of that background—perhaps I should have.

    Finally, there is the issue of the birth certificate original that is in the files in Hawaii. Reed Hayes continues to believe that releasing that would be the ideal step towards authenticating, or not authenticating, Obama’s birth certificate.

    I suggested however that since originals are not released by states, that what he should be looking at is the official physical copy of the long form, the one that is on security paper. I asked him whether he has asked the White House to see one of those copies. He said that he had not, that his client had told him that getting one of those copies was not possible.

    But I do not believe that the Cold Case Posse has ever said that it asked to see one of the physical copies—-so that could be an example of the Cold Case Posse misleading Reed Hayes. That perhaps should be looked into too.

    In any case, Reed Hayes believes that Obama was born in HAWAII, and Reed Hayes is answering questions, and I’d think that the best way to confirm what i believe that he said in the telephone interview would be to send him questions on an e-mail.

    If you are interested in doing that, please do it and post the result because I don’t want to give out my home e-mail address.

  4. dunstvangeet says:
    July 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm  (Quote)

    DaveH:
    When I used to do computer support, there were a few people that called me to find out where the “any” key was.

    This reminds me of a story I heard way back in the late 80′s about a support technician that took a call from a customer.

    The customer’s complaint was that when he was editing a word processing document that the “words disappeared” from his screen and he couldn’t get them back. The technician tried to help based on this information thinking that perhaps the application had crashed but as he asked more and more questions, he finally realized that the computer had no power. It was then that the customer told him that the power had gone out in the building. With everything the technician had done in his quest to help this person, he apparently got irritated with what the customer told him when he said “Oh, I know what the problem is. You need to box that computer up right away and send it back.” The customer then says “It’s that bad, huh? What do you think the problem is?” and the technician replied “You’re too stupid to own a computer”.

    As I wrote, that’s just a story I heard. I don’t know if it was true or not but it sounds plausible with some of the customers I’ve dealt with in the past.

    There’s a common abbriviation in helpdesk and customer tech support…

    PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair)

  5. gorefan says:
    July 29, 2014 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    ellen: I don’t want to give out my home e-mail address.

    Why not set up a gmail account? They are free, they hid your IP address and you can have more than one.

  6. Dave says:
    July 29, 2014 at 3:09 pm  (Quote)

    Under the heading of “Other Conspiracy Theories,” Erik Rush over at WND has one: Obama pushing false narrative on Flight 17?, complete with question mark because he’s just asking. The question he’s asking: isn’t just obvious that Obama shot down that plane?

    I’m also noticing just how many blogs feed on stupidity. We have Right Wing Watch: Erik Rush Thinks Obama Shot Down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, and Wonkette: WND Idiot Erik Rush Just Asking Whether Obama Shot Down Flight 17 (He Totally Did).

  7. Dave says:
    July 29, 2014 at 10:23 pm  (Quote)

    Taitz has posted a draft of a complaint to the ICC against Khaled Meshaal for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. I am not informed enough to say whether such charges against Meshaal are or are not justified, but I’m pretty sure this complaint isn’t going to accomplish anything. Starting with the fact that half of her zibits are Jim Hoft blog posts.

  8. Bonsall Obot says:
    July 29, 2014 at 10:29 pm  (Quote)

    So America’s Worst Lawyer is citing the ravings of the Stupidest Man on the Internet to inject herself into the Middle East crisis, and the inmates at Birfoon Report are arguing 9/11 Trooferism and swearing out warrants for each others’ internet citizen’s arrests. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly are anathema to Birfers, and they’d better change their tunes, boy-howdy, or else.

    In other words… Tuesday.

  9. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 30, 2014 at 7:47 am  (Quote)

    ConWebWatch

    Dave: I’m also noticing just how many blogs feed on stupidity.

  10. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 30, 2014 at 7:48 am  (Quote)

    Or do like Orly and use HushMail.

    gorefan: Why not set up a gmail account?

  11. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 30, 2014 at 8:03 am  (Quote)

    There have been other emails sent to Hayes, but he has never replied anything of substance, something that would allow his conclusions to be verified of refuted. One of the reports said that Hayes was unaware of the Hawaii verifications when he issued his conclusions. It would appear from this and from what you said, that Hayes is not questioning that the White House released a copy of what the State of Hawaii issued. It would appear that he is questioning the original 1961 document.

    ellen: However, I certainly believe that Doc or others who want to ask him questions should not call but instead send a list of e-mail questions to which Hayes might reply (and if he doesn’t, then call).

  12. The Magic M says:
    July 30, 2014 at 10:56 am  (Quote)

    ellen: But, interestingly, HE BELIEVES THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, so he thinks that it is possible–perhaps even likely—that the forged long form was forged by an enemy of Obama’s in order to attack Obama.

    So he believes that somebody took the original and replaced it with one with (likely) identical information but “obvious signs of forgery” so that somebody else could start a smear campaign based on “It’s forged!”?

    That’s a theory I haven’t heard before. “It’s an *anti*-Obama conspiracy!”

    Or it might be Hayes’ way of saying “I’m not a birther, I don’t identify with any of their claims“, either honestly or dishonestly.

    If he doesn’t base this theory on the PDF and its “anomalies” but on the contents (as in “this signature couldn’t possibly be from Obama’s mother”), it means he believes somebody with access to the vault document replaced it with a different version.

    DaveH: This reminds me of a story I heard way back in the late 80′s about a support technician that took a call from a customer.

    I have sort of an upside-down version of that:

    In 2001, one of my interns had to call tech support because an externally hosted server (owned by one of our clients) was not responding. She said the tech support person told her he had problems as well as his computer was showing a black screen – until my intern suggested he turn on the monitor…

    Of course we immediately advised our client to change his hosting company.

  13. ellen says:
    July 30, 2014 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    Re: “It would appear that he is questioning the original 1961 document.”

    That is possible, but not clear. I recall him saying that he looked at the White House document, but it was not clear whether he went to the White House site himself or was sent a copy by the CCP. IF he was sent a copy by the CCP, that could easily have been forged, with the suspicion falling on the CCP.

    So, I do think that he was talking about the modern document.

    It would be very strange to think that the original had been forged since it was created in 1961. It is possible—but difficult—to question that it was created in 1961—but the birth notices crush that notion. (Unless you believe that the birth notices were forged as well.)

    So, if the original had been forged, Obama obviously could not have participated in that forgery, since he was an infant at the time.

    So why be concerned about the original UNLESS you believe that Obama was born in a foreign country. But Reed Hayes says that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    No, I think it is more likely that he was talking about the modern document.

  14. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    July 30, 2014 at 11:23 am  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: There’s a common abbriviation in helpdesk and customer tech support…

    PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair)

    Ah, the 1D-10-T error.

  15. J.D. Sue says:
    July 30, 2014 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    ellen: he answered some questions though not on what basis he considers Obama’s birth certificate to be forged.

    —
    I’m trying to think of a reason why I would want to question Reed Hayes. He won’t discuss his findings And, no doubt, he wouldn’t answer any questions regarding his contract with the CCP. Seems that there is nothing else to talk about with him.

  16. Bovril says:
    July 30, 2014 at 11:49 am  (Quote)

    So if Hayes is “questioning” the original 1961 document, one wonders exactly how?

    I mean to question it would presumably require him to have an otherwise unimpeachable reference document to compare against.

    It can’t be a “model” empty document as that would be identical in format and structure so it would need to be a contemperaneous filled in, whole document. As far as I am aware, there isn’t one of those around that Hayes could get his mitts on.

  17. gorefan says:
    July 31, 2014 at 2:18 am  (Quote)

    IIRC, the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept Doug Vogt’s secret affidavit under seal because they didn’t do that sort of thing. But this case both the respondent and the appellant were granted leave to file a brief under seal.

    No. 12-8932
    Title:
    Obaydullah, Petitioner
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

    Docketed: February 26, 2013
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    Case Nos.: (11-5123)
    Decision Date: August 3, 2012
    Rehearing Denied: November 29, 2012

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Feb 26 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 28, 2013)

    Mar 22 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 29, 2013.

    Apr 29 2013 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 24, 2013.

    May 24 2013 Motion for leave to file brief in opposition under seal filed by respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

    May 24 2013 Brief of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. in opposition filed. (Redacted version)

    Jun 4 2013 Motion for leave to file reply brief under seal filed by petitioner Obaydullah.

    Jun 5 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.

    Jun 24 2013 Motion for leave to file brief in opposition under seal GRANTED.

    Jun 24 2013 Motion for leave to file reply brief under seal GRANTED.

    Jun 24 2013 Petition DENIED.

    Was it just Dougie they didn’t like?

  18. The Magic M says:
    July 31, 2014 at 3:45 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept Doug Vogt’s secret affidavit under seal because they didn’t do that sort of thing

    It happens occasionally, and obviously more often than in previous years:
    http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-law-summer-2011/under-seal-secrets-supreme-cour

    In your example, it’s likely the opposition brief involved classified information (I would guess the petitioner was a Guantánamo detainee).

  19. The Magic M says:
    July 31, 2014 at 3:56 am  (Quote)

    ellen: So, I do think that he was talking about the modern document.

    It would be very strange to think that the original had been forged since it was created in 1961.

    I understood the relayed remarks to mean that Hayes thinks the person who was supposed to make certified copies of the vault document instead made certified copies of a clumsily forged document so it would appear Obama had reason to forge his BC.

    It’s quite convoluted but, in a way, much more likely than the “everybody’s in on it” birther crap because it wouldn’t need to involve more than one person.

    Of course it’s still crap because it assumes somehow all the courts and many others involved with confirming the authenticity of the document would participate in a conspiracy to call the forgery a real BC. So if Hayes followed his theory to the end, he would have to claim that

    (1) Hawaiian authorities did not care the document was made to look like a clumsy forgery and instead were content with verifying that the information on it still matches the real BC in the vault, and

    (2) all courts involved with the document still wanted to cover for the President and refused to accept the forgery as forgery, instead insisting it was real.

    Since both these assumptions are ridiculous and would involve at least as many people as Basic Birtherism [tm], it’s only at first sight that his theory seems “saner” than birther claims.

  20. Majority Will says:
    July 31, 2014 at 5:24 am  (Quote)

    ‘Palin of the South’ House candidate flees from interview over Obama birth question

    (excerpt) When Wasserman confronted [Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney] about the claim that the Earth was getting colder, “she froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal or news source to back up her beliefs.”

    So, he changed the subject, asking her if President Barack Obama was a natural born U.S. citizen.

    “When she replied that it was a matter of some controversy, her two campaign consultants quickly whisked her out of the room, accusing me of conducting a ‘Palin-style interview,’” Wasserman wrote.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/30/palin-of-the-south-house-candidate-flees-from-interview-over-obama-birth-question/

  21. donna says:
    August 2, 2014 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    orly’s OSC …. and the beat goes on

    DR. ORLY TAITZ VS. JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

    ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

    The Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause are ordered to show cause why the emergency relief requested in Plaintiff’s Emergency Application for Stay/Injunction should not be granted. The Government is ordered to comply with this order by August 11, 2014

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Taitz-v-Johnson-Order-to-show-cause-why-the-shout-should-not-rule-in-favor-of-Taitz.pdf

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Taitz-v-Johnson-Application-for-Stay-draft-12-final-summons1.pdf

    .

  22. Keith says:
    August 2, 2014 at 4:47 am  (Quote)

    Walt Kelly and [i]Pogo[/i] were mentioned the other day.

    Lookee what I jes foun’

    Rediscovering Walt Kelly’s lost Pogo Short

  23. Lancelot Link says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:40 am  (Quote)

    Dave: I’m also noticing just how many blogs feed on stupidity.

    Anything that feeds on stupidity will never go hungry.

  24. Arthur says:
    August 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm  (Quote)

    This will come as no surprise, but,

    “Sovereign Citizens Now Considered Top Terrorist Threat In United States”

    “Forget Islamic extremists! A consortium of law enforcement agencies ranks sovereign citizens as the highest national security threat.”

    http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/sovereign-citizens-now-top-terrorist

    So I’m wondering . . .

    What percentage of birthers identify as a sovereign citizen?

    What percentage of birthers routinely post terroristic threats at B.R.?

    What percentage of birthers would be unable to spell “sovereign” correctly?

  25. Dave B. says:
    August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm  (Quote)

    It’s been an interesting couple of weeks here in my world, and in the process of getting through them I just now acquired a copy of my original Certificate of Live Birth. Have any of the self-professed birther experts on vital records, who have been so eager to tell us about what terms were or were not used on birth certificates in the 1960’s, come up with “American White” as a race designator?

  26. Arthur says:
    August 2, 2014 at 8:30 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Have any of the self-professed birther experts on vital records, who have been so eager to tell us about what terms were or were not used on birth certificates in the 1960′s, come up with “American White” as a race designator?

    Thanks, Obama!

  27. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 3, 2014 at 11:19 am  (Quote)

    Disgraced ex-cop Mark Kessler, who still goes by “chief”, has long distanced himself from the birther movement, but he’s still a right wing kook, just the same. His Facebook page has been a comedy goldmine. He, and his “3 percent” brain trust, has been on a mission to “patrol” the US border. A lot of his posts are him whining about how his group keeps getting punked and taken advantage of. Guess he’s uber frustrated that real life doesn’t play out like “Red Dawn”.

  28. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 3, 2014 at 12:13 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, I think I’ve got a new QOTD for you.
    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/08/context-carl-gallups-updates-sheriff.html#IDComment860757133

    “ItsObvious · 21 hours ago
    Like I said before, Operation American Spring was an Obot propaganda operation so that Obots like Juris could make statements like this one.”

  29. Arthur says:
    August 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Disgraced ex-cop Mark Kessler, who still goes by “chief”, has long distanced himself from the birther movement, but he’s still a right wing kook, just the same. His Facebook page has been a comedy goldmine. He, and his “3 percent” brain trust, has been on a mission to “patrol” the US border. A lot of his posts are him whining about how his group keeps getting punked and taken advantage of. Guess he’s uber frustrated that real life doesn’t play out like “Red Dawn”.

    Kessler has all the makings to be the next Republican V.P. pick.

  30. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Kessler has all the makings to be the next Republican V.P. pick.

    I approve of this idea, Kessler is so vile, that there would be zero chance his running mate would be elected.

  31. Arthur says:
    August 3, 2014 at 3:37 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I approve of this idea, Kessler is so vile, that there would be zero chance his running mate would be elected.

    Kessler is vile to all rational people, but that would exclude Republican primary voters.

  32. Keith (not logged on) says:
    August 3, 2014 at 8:25 pm  (Quote)

    100 years ago today: Great Britain declared war on Germany.

    Austria-Hungary had declared war on Serbia on 28 July. Russia mobilised in support of Serbia on 31 July. Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August and France on 3 August and invaded Belgium to get at France.

    Britain and the empire then entered the war.

  33. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    August 4, 2014 at 4:59 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: What percentage of birthers would be unable to spell “sovereign” correctly?

    ‘S over, Ayn!

  34. Jim says:
    August 4, 2014 at 9:25 am  (Quote)

    Happy Birthday Mr President! Oh, and me too! 😀

  35. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm  (Quote)

    Jim:
    Happy Birthday Mr President!Oh, and me too!

    Falcon and company will be celebrating the President’s birthday in the usual birther fashion: Repeatedly stomping their feet, while wailing “It’s not fair! It’s not fair! It’s not fair!”

  36. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 4, 2014 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Reminds me of the Onion headline, which I’ve updated here:

    “President turns 54 despite Republicans’ objections.”

  37. Keith says:
    August 5, 2014 at 5:03 am  (Quote)

    On this day 100 years ago:

    The first shot by the British Empire in the Great War (World War I) was fired… in Australia.

    World War I: British Empire’s first shot in Great War, fired in Victoria, commemorated

  38. The European says:
    August 5, 2014 at 7:31 am  (Quote)

    Over at BR the poster BirtherPro (I guess some people here know his real name) is insulting your President’s mother in a really disgusting way. I am really happy that in my neck of the woods it is a crime to denigrate dead persons. But yeah – free expression ……..

  39. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    August 5, 2014 at 9:22 am  (Quote)

    The European: is insulting your President’s mother in a really disgusting way

    In all fairness, they desperately needed a break from calling Obama’s wife a man and his children adopted. There’s only so many Obamas to write nasty stuff about, y’know? And we wouldn’t want BR to be indistinguishable from some low quality bots writing the same stuff over and over again, now would we?
    (In fact I’m pretty sure 99% of birthers will fail the Turing test because they always appear to work from a list of claims and insults and never address any direct questions or claims.)

  40. Dave says:
    August 5, 2014 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    Oh, I don’t know, it’s hard to make artificial intelligence mimic natural intelligence, but it’s easy to distinguish it from a complete lack of intelligence.

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    (In fact I’m pretty sure 99% of birthers will fail the Turing test because they always appear to work from a list of claims and insults and never address any direct questions or claims.)

  41. JPotter says:
    August 5, 2014 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): (In fact I’m pretty sure 99% of birthers will fail the Turing test because they always appear to work from a list of claims and insults and never address any direct questions or claims.)

    At least they aren’t asking to play chess. Yet.

    Should go ask them to play chess….

  42. Arthur says:
    August 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    Birthers have been claiming for almost 2 years that Benghazi would bring down Obama. Guess that won’t be happening:

    “Less than two months before Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) House Select Committee is set to begin its Benghazi hearings, the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously on July 31 to declassify its report on the deadly 2012 attacks on American facilities. The committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration, confirming ‘that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given,’ as committee member Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) explained. Ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) stressed that the “bipartisan, factual,” and “definitive” report found no evidence of a scandal involving the intelligence community’s talking points on the attacks.”

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/04/how-the-newest-house-benghazi-report-should-cha/200316

  43. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 5, 2014 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur:

    … the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously on July 31 to declassify its report on the deadly 2012 attacks on American facilities. The committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration, confirming ‘that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given,’

    “Those were all RINOs who were bought off and also possibly targeted by regime for drone assassination and also chemtrails and SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP BENGHAZEEEEE”

    They will never, ever give up on BENGHAZI!

    Hell, birferism was debunked six years ago, and they can’t let it go.

  44. Crustacean says:
    August 6, 2014 at 5:07 pm  (Quote)

    Bonsall Obot: They will never, ever give up on BENGHAZI!

    I think they were hoping “GHAZI” would replace “GATE” as the go-to suffix for scandals. For example, “Climategate” would become “Climateghazi”. And then there are

    Nannyghazi
    Iranghazi

    and my personal favorite: Dongleghazi.

  45. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 6, 2014 at 5:31 pm  (Quote)

    It has… but only for fake scandals.

    So, in a way, they’ve done us a service. When someone likens something to BENGHAZI!, we know it’s bullshot.

  46. gorefan says:
    August 6, 2014 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    Arnie Rosner (whoever that is) will be hosting Mike Volin’s show today. All you wanted to know about the Selective Service registration.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificate/2014/08/07/arnie-rosner-discusses-obamas-forged-selective-service-registration

  47. justlw says:
    August 6, 2014 at 10:43 pm  (Quote)

    Oops. I’m listening to the replay right now, and 20 minutes in, my conclusion is that Mr. Rosner (who is the guest, not the host) is a SovCit, and really doesn’t give too much of a crap about the Selective Service registration. Much to the host’s growing dismay.

    The host (who if he introduced himself, I missed it) started off with a fun digression, though: his fervid premise is that clearly everyone in power knows that “natural born citizen” means “two citizen parents” or they wouldn’t have tried to pass the Hatch Amendment. Because trying to change it to “no citizen parents” means it must currently be “two”, I guess.

  48. justlw says:
    August 7, 2014 at 12:08 am  (Quote)

    Ah, around fifty minutes in, host finally asks Rosner about the registration. Rosner replies that of course it’s a phony, and if you spend any time trying to prove why it’s a phony, why then you’re just falling into their trap, which was first set into motion by a gentleman named Mr. Saul Alinsky.

  49. The Magic M says:
    August 7, 2014 at 6:15 am  (Quote)

    Crustacean: I think they were hoping “GHAZI” would replace “GATE” as the go-to suffix for scandals.For example, “Climategate” would become “Climateghazi”

    Don’t forget how Nixon was framed in Waterghazi.

  50. justlw says:
    August 7, 2014 at 2:38 pm  (Quote)

    The Magic M: Don’t forget how Nixon was framed in Waterghazi.

    In honor of the eve of the 40th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, John Dean’s testimony that set everything in motion:

    “Well, I stumbled across a recording. It said something about someone named Obi-Wan Ghazi. I thought it might have meant old Ben.”

  51. The Magic M says:
    August 8, 2014 at 3:39 am  (Quote)

    The Alinsky meme just went full circle.
    I was having a discussion on the UK Telegraph website about a copyright controversy over a photograph of a monkey and one poster accused me of “using Saul Alinsky tactics” after I said he had no idea about copyright law….

  52. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 8, 2014 at 9:23 am  (Quote)

    Have you seen THIS Obama birth certificate?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of8ffbfzHmA

  53. Dave says:
    August 8, 2014 at 7:41 pm  (Quote)

    Taitz has posted the DoJ response to the OSC in Taitz v. Johnson. This is why I like Taitz lawsuits best — she posts everything, no matter how bad it makes her look.

  54. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 8, 2014 at 8:08 pm  (Quote)

    If Taitz ever really did believe that the OSC was a good sign for her, she seems to be disabused of that notion now; that response was utterly devastating, and she made a seemingly-resigned reply on her blog to a question about it. She’s lucky she shopped for a wingnut judge, or she’d be facing possible sanctions now. But not even a wingnut judge is going to let this mess proceed.

  56. Dave says:
    August 8, 2014 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    Birther Victoria Jackson lost her bid for a seat on the county commission of Williamson County, TN.

    As far as I know she did not run on birtherism — her major issues were fear-mongering about Common Core and Agenda 21, anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-gay bigotry. I guess this was her version of a shift to the center?

    I learned this news at Wonkette. Who else would report on this?

  57. J.D. Sue says:
    August 8, 2014 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Taitz v. Johnson

    defendants’ response

    ——
    Nice brief. Favorite line: “Plaintiff has not shown how this broad injunctive relief would resolve her cough,,,.” id. at 16.

  58. RanTalbott says:
    August 9, 2014 at 1:14 am  (Quote)

    For those of you wondering what’s preventing Arpaio and Zullo from executing the Presidential Frogmarch, the twitfeed brings us the answer today: it’s John Boehner.

    Apparently, TLGS has just discovered that Boehner said over 3 years ago that Hawaii’s word was good enough, and 16 months ago Zullo complained that Boehner wouldn’t let the House join his snipe hunt. So, today’s headline is “John Boehner Is the One BLOCKING Sheriff Arpaio’s Posse From Busting Obama”.

    Which is kinda weird, if you think about it (which, I’m pretty sure, the author does not want you to do): I’ve been around quite a few years, and I don’t recall ever hearing of “an official criminal investigation” with “iron-clad, documented, universe-shattering evidence” that was unable to proceed without assistance from the House of Representatives.

    I guess they have a different legal system in Birferstan…

  59. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 9, 2014 at 3:33 am  (Quote)

    I think my favorite birther paradox is how Obama is supposed to be a mindless and incompetent buffoon, yet at the same time, he is somehow history’s greatest super-criminal, who is masterminding the downfall of America, while being just too damned clever to be caught red handed.

  60. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 9, 2014 at 7:56 am  (Quote)

    Orly must elaborate on Constitutional violations raised in her complaint.

    “7. As a direct result of the unlawful and unconstitutional actions of Obama and co-defendants, this nation indeed got flooded by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.”

    Orly should:

    1) Allege the United States waived its sovereignty when it installed an ineligible President. (Extremely important. It’s not too late. Constitutional questions can be raised at anytime and must be addressed by the court.)

    2) Allege prudential standing requirements are waived after the United States waives its sovereignty.

    3) Allege the Federal Rules of Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence are artificial barriers enacted, amended, or implemented by order of the Supreme Court with two appointees of President Obama participating on the court.

    4) Allege the Dep. Dir. Kisor was appointed by Obama in violation of the Appointments Clause and lacks authority to represent the United States.

    5) Allege the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an answer by the U.S. federal government with an ineligible President, an Attorney General appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, a U.S. Attorney appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, and AUSA Hu is in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

    6) Defendants cited Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012) to support their argument. Justice Sotomayor, an appointee of the ineligible President Obama participated and voted on it. Object! The case was filed against the State of Arizona by the US Dept of Justice in 2010. AG Holder holds his office in violation of the Appointments Clause. Object! Demand a hearing after discovery to determine the eligibility of the current President of the United States and the validity of the appointments made by President Obama.

    J.D. Sue: ——
    Nice brief. Favorite line: “Plaintiff has not shown how this broad injunctive relief would resolve her cough,,,.”id. at 16.

  61. Arthur says:
    August 9, 2014 at 8:34 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Object!

    The vampire speaks; and as usual, it’s soul-sucking rubbish.

  62. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 9, 2014 at 8:53 am  (Quote)

    Orly should cite Justice Scalia’s Bench Statement in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012) frequently and often.

    Justice Scalia supports Orly’s inferred argument.

    Justice Scalia wrote, “No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.” (Paragraph 5).

    http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/372493/scalia-statement.pdf

    The State of Texas has maintained its sovereignty while the U.S. federal government has waived its sovereignty by installing an ineligible President.

    Justice Scalia wrote, “It is not at all unusal for state law to impose additional penalities or attach additional consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal law – state drug laws are a good example. That does not conflict with federal law.

    In sum, Arizona [, Texas, and California] [are] entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws.” (Paragraphs 6-7).

    This is why Judge Hanen invited California AG Harris to participate in the hearing.

  63. Hektor says:
    August 9, 2014 at 9:26 am  (Quote)

    No, what Orly should do is remodulate the shield frequencies then bypass the secondary power couplings. Then she can reverse the polarity of the inertial dampeners and invert the quantum variance matrices.

  64. John Reilly says:
    August 9, 2014 at 9:38 am  (Quote)

    Sven actually cited to an opinion and got it right.

    On the other hand, Justice Scalia wrote for himself, and how, except in anarchy, Justice Scalia’s opinion gets to be controlling precedent, remains unexplained.

    But this is a better argument for Dr. Taitz than the butterfly effect: an illegal alien child crossed the border in Laredo, and she got a cough.

    SvenMagnussen: Orly should cite Justice Scalia’s Bench Statement in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012) frequently and often.
    Justice Scalia supports Orly’s inferred argument.
    Justice Scalia wrote, “No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.” (Paragraph 5).

  65. Northland10 says:
    August 9, 2014 at 11:07 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Orly should cite Justice Scalia’s Bench Statement in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012) frequently and often.

    Justice Scalia supports Orly’s inferred argument.

    Justice Scalia wrote, “No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.” (Paragraph 5).

    Do you know the definition of the word, “dissent?”

    Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2511 (2012)

    Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.

    Now listen carefully. Justice Scalia’s opinion is not the opinion of the court.

  66. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 9, 2014 at 11:31 am  (Quote)

    Hektor:
    No, what Orly should do is remodulate the shield frequencies then bypass the secondary power couplings. Then she can reverse the polarity of the inertial dampeners and invert the quantum variance matrices.

    It’s too late for that. Eject the warp core!

  67. Arthur says:
    August 9, 2014 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: Now listen carefully. Justice Scalia’s opinion is not the opinion of the court.

    But it IS an opinion, and in birtherstan that’s a lot!

  68. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 9, 2014 at 11:44 am  (Quote)

    Hektor:
    No, what Orly should do is remodulate the shield frequencies then bypass the secondary power couplings. Then she can reverse the polarity of the inertial dampeners and invert the quantum variance matrices.

    Did she try reversing the polarity of the neutron flow?
    Failing that, has she tried typing IDKFA?

  69. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 9, 2014 at 1:03 pm  (Quote)

    Any time your legal reasoning aligns with that of Fat Tony “Always Wrong But Never In Doubt” Scalia, it’s probably advisable to re-examine every one of your premises to see where you went wrong.

  70. Suranis says:
    August 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm  (Quote)

    In my latest Book “Sven; The lives, loves and letters of the world’s first postmodern Gobshite” I describe how Sven takes his opinions from the legal opinions of Justice Thomas, the truth left in secret code by birds dove bombing his car, a Frisbee, a drunk that rambled on about how its all the fault of the people who drive blue cars, and generally anyone that does not like the American President.

  71. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 9, 2014 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Do you know the definition of the word, “dissent?”

    Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2511 (2012)

    Now listen carefully.Justice Scalia’s opinion is not the opinion of the court.

    Justice Scalia’s Bench statement is important because it is separate and distinct from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court influenced by Justice Sotomayor currently holding her title after a violation of the Appointments Clause. The case was initiated by the U.S. federal government after it waived its sovereign immunity by installing an ineligible President against a State that has maintained its sovereign immunity. A separate Bench statement is precedent in the unusual event a Supreme Court opinion is voided after issuance due to an Appointments Clause violation disqualifying a sitting justice.

  72. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 9, 2014 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen:

    Opportunity is beating down the door and Orly is screeching about “Black Plaque.”

    And Sven is whining on the internet.

    Crazy and racist and downright stupid as she is, even Orly is more worthy of respect than you are, Sven. At least she’s trying. All you do is lie and whine. You are pathetic.

    NOTE: just because you’ve since edited the above quote out of your screed doesn’t mean you didn’t say it. The internet remembers.

  73. Hektor says:
    August 9, 2014 at 3:50 pm  (Quote)

    But Sven, if you do things that way you’ll overload the Heisenberg compensators and then lose half of your primary systems. No, the key here will be to re-route the secondary processors through the deflector grid and then engage the tertiary override protocols. That will allow for auxiliary power to be funneled in a inverse feedback loop, much like an ocean wave crashing delicately onto the beach. All that will be left to do is to is reinitialize the emergency backup system, and then the day will be saved, the triumphant music played and the President arrested!

  74. John Reilly says:
    August 9, 2014 at 7:11 pm  (Quote)

    I suspect that the voiding of a Supreme Court decision because of the violation of the appointment clause is rarer than, say, the Cubs being in the World Series.

    IANAL but I’m guessing, just guessing here, that this has never happened.

  75. Northland10 says:
    August 9, 2014 at 7:31 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: A separate Bench statement is precedent in the unusual event a Supreme Court opinion is voided after issuance due to an Appointments Clause violation disqualifying a sitting justice.

    Does it hurt when you pull stuff like that out of your ass?

  76. Arthur says:
    August 9, 2014 at 9:06 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Does it hurt when you pull stuff like that out of your ass?

    After all these years, I doubt he even feels it anymore.

  77. Dave says:
    August 9, 2014 at 9:49 pm  (Quote)

    I have no objection to Sven giving advice to Taitz — but posting it here is unlikely to bring it to her attention.

  78. Thomas Brown says:
    August 9, 2014 at 10:15 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: After all these years, I doubt he even feels it anymore.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure by now it just kinda falls out.

    What’s that you’re mumbling in response, Sven? Oh, “Depends.”

  79. Sef says:
    August 9, 2014 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    This web site has been around since way back when computers had keyboards, but it’s still funny. http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_calls.shtml

  80. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm  (Quote)

    Dave:
    I have no objection to Sven giving advice to Taitz — but posting it here is unlikely to bring it to her attention.

    Well, we know she reads the comments here, but she’s unlikely to take Sven’s advice in any case, since she’s advice-averse to begin with AND can’t imagine sharing credit with anyone.

    Which is a pity, since a Sven/Orly team-up would initiate the Derpularity, causing Birferism to irretrievably collapse upon itself.

  81. J.D. Sue says:
    August 10, 2014 at 1:42 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: 5) Allege the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an answer by the U.S. federal government with an ineligible President, an Attorney General appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, a U.S. Attorney appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, and AUSA Hu is in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

    —
    Sven, it was a tough call, but I think this is my favorite one of your recommendations to Orly. Orly names defendants and files in that court, the court orders defendants to answer, and you suggest she now argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the defendants’ answer. That’s some brilliant birthering.

  82. Suranis says:
    August 10, 2014 at 2:52 am  (Quote)

    Its ok, The court will all wear earplugs when the defendant is answering.

  83. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 10, 2014 at 5:55 am  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: —
    Sven, it was a tough call, but I think this is my favorite one of your recommendations to Orly.Orly names defendants and files in that court, the court orders defendants to answer, and you suggest she now argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the defendants’ answer.That’s some brilliant birthering.

    Orly made an application to the court for injunctive relief with a short sentence alleging violations of federal law and unconstitutional acts by the defendants. The court ordered the defendants to show cause why the court should not grant injunctive relief to the applicant.

    I advised Orly to elaborate on her allegations of violations of federal law and unconstitutional acts. Further, if the defendants assumed their offices in violation of the Appointments Clause and Dep. Dir. Kisor assumed his office in violation of the Appointments Clause and AUSA Daniel Hu is in violation of Article VI, then my advise to Orly is to have their answer stricken from the record for cause.

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the people can elect anyone to be their chosen leader of the Executive branch of the U.S. federal government. But that does not mean there won’t be consequences for choosing an ineligible person to be President of the United States.

    Where did you go to law school?

  84. nbc says:
    August 10, 2014 at 6:21 am  (Quote)

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the people can elect anyone to be their chosen leader of the Executive branch of the U.S. federal government. But that does not mean there won’t be consequences for choosing an ineligible person to be President of the United States.

    Unlikely since this is a clear political question the Constitution leaves to Congress.

    You’re involved in wishful thinking not logic, reason or law…

    But good luck getting Orly to argue your ‘arguments’, as if she is not already in enough trouble right now…

  85. Paper says:
    August 10, 2014 at 7:35 am  (Quote)

    We will need an ineligible president first. As such, even were your notions accurate, it would be a little late for Taitz to make use of them.

    SvenMagnussen:

    But that does not mean there won’t be consequences for choosing an ineligible person to be President of the United States.

  86. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 10, 2014 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    Guys, I think saying anything above and beyond “Sven, you’re an idiot!” is giving that man too much of your time and effort.
    That said. Sven, you’re an idiot!

  87. CCB says:
    August 10, 2014 at 11:45 am  (Quote)

    Ole and Sven, brother Norwegian bachelor farmers, went into town and bought a new top of the line Buick Roadmaster station wagon. They brought it home, parked it in front of the garage, got a crowbar and a hammer and then proceeded to remove all of the wood trim from the sides of the new car. After they were done, they stood back, looked at it and Sven said to his brother,”You know something, Ole? I think I liked it better when it was still in the box!”

    http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/features/hodgepodge/20000401_jokeshow/ole_sven.htm.

  88. CarlOrcas says:
    August 10, 2014 at 12:28 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That said. Sven, you’re an idiot!

    Ditto!

  89. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Every time Sven, a licensed attorney who could bloody well file his own lawsuits if he wanted to, posts his “advice” to Orly, I hear the voice of the hanger-on coward who says “let’s you and him fight!”

    Since Sven won’t file a suit espousing his nutball legal “theories,” its safe to assume he’s a coward who doesn’t even believe his own spew.

    That said: Sven you’re an idiot!

  90. Arthur says:
    August 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm  (Quote)

    Bonsall Obot: Since Sven won’t file a suit espousing his nutball legal “theories,” its safe to assume he’s a coward who doesn’t even believe his own spew.

    Sven is thus several notches below the meretricious Appuzo, who, being just as wrong as Sven, at least had the guts to be shot down fair and square in court.

  91. CCB says:
    August 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm  (Quote)

    I am sorry. I misspelled a name in the joke. It should be “Orly”, not “Ole”.

  92. Northland10 says:
    August 10, 2014 at 5:10 pm  (Quote)

    Bonsall Obot: Well, we know she reads the comments here, but she’s unlikely to take Sven’s advice in any case, since she’s advice-averse to begin with AND can’t imagine sharing credit with anyone.

    If I recall, Sven mentioned that Orly was not posting his comments on where websty. When even Orly will not even read his comments, it means only one thing.

    Sven, you’re an idiot.

  93. Sef says:
    August 10, 2014 at 5:15 pm  (Quote)

    Fun Fact: Putting Orly Taitz into the Martindale website doesn’t return a result http://www.martindale.com/Find-Lawyers-and-Law-Firms.aspx

  94. Jim says:
    August 10, 2014 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Sef:
    Fun Fact: Putting Orly Taitz into the Martindale website doesn’t return a result http://www.martindale.com/Find-Lawyers-and-Law-Firms.aspx

    According to Orlylaw…isn’t that irrefutable proof she’s not an attorney? 😆

    Like we needed any more proof. 😀

    Sven, you’re an idiot.

  95. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    August 10, 2014 at 7:54 pm  (Quote)

    Oh. Goodness me! I went and spawned a meme! 🙂

  96. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 10, 2014 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Oh. Goodness me! I went and spawned a meme!

    It’s my new outgoing voice mail message.

  97. Keith (not logged on) says:
    August 10, 2014 at 8:03 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: After all these years, I doubt he even feels it anymore.

    Do you suppose Sven is the last link in ‘The Human Centipede’?

  98. justlw says:
    August 10, 2014 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: influenced by Justice Sotomayor

    Because, well… you know.

  99. Arthur says:
    August 10, 2014 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    Keith (not logged on): Do you suppose Sven is the last link in ‘The Human Centipede’?

    Overall, birthers do consume a lot of b.s., so I guess it’s possible.

  100. Arthur says:
    August 10, 2014 at 9:37 pm  (Quote)

    So, yesterday, a 22 year old black man was shot and killed in an Ohio Walmart when he was carrying what’s being called either a “toy gun” or a “pellet rifle” that he got inside the store.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cops-shoot-and-kill-man-holding-toy-gun-walmart

    Meanwhile, we’ve got gaggles of white men bringing loaded real guns into stores, restaurants, and churches and right-wing gun nuts like Cliven Bundy intimidating federal officers, breaking the law, and threatening to start a range war.

    It’s disgusting.

  101. Sef says:
    August 10, 2014 at 10:14 pm  (Quote)

    It seems to me that this latest DC gun case says that no one can be prevented from bringing a fully loaded gun into a DC courtroom, including SCOTUS. Don’t they EVER think these things through?

  102. J.D. Sue says:
    August 10, 2014 at 11:09 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Blah Blah, Blah. Where did you go to law school?

    —-
    Sven: Thank you for again repeating your argument as if I didn’t get it the first time. That is hardly responsive.

    I am wondering why you care to know where I went to law school. Are you thinking of retaining me? Or, perhaps you want to subpoena my school records? Anyhow, I’m not the one making legal arguments here, I’m just poking at yours.

    Your seditious position is clear. you demand that judges thwart their jurisdiction, ignore binding legal authority, disrespect their brethren on the bench, suspend the rules of procedure and evidence (thereby suspending due process of law), assume control over the executive branch, toss members of the federal bar out of the courtroom, and enter an order giving Sven and his new-country “majority” all of the assets of the United States of America (free of debt, no less). Sorry, Sven, making war on America isn’t that easy.

    I have great respect for the Court, particularly the Federal Courts, even when I sometimes don’t like particular individuals wearing robes on benches. While in those robes, however, They Are The Court and they and their courtrooms have my utmost respect. And their courtrooms are very important arenas where seemingly-countless important matters must be handled and hopefully well-resolved. As such, I don’t think much of people who want to use our Courts as their personal playground, and I particularly don’t appreciate contemptuous slanderous playground bullies.

    I applaud our Courts and government attorneys who have so admirably preserved the dignity of their office, despite the relentless efforts to bait them.

  103. RanTalbott says:
    August 10, 2014 at 11:26 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: Sorry, Sven, making war on America isn’t that easy.

    Obviously, you’ve never read The Mouse That Roared: Sven’s doctrine that everyone who files the right kind of lawsuit gets immunity from the laws until Jesus comes and blesses Obama’s birth certificate on live TV is, clearly, the legal equivalent of the capture of the Q-Bomb.

  104. J.D. Sue says:
    August 11, 2014 at 12:02 am  (Quote)

    p.s. Sven, I forgot to mention: your argument is idiotic!

  106. RanTalbott says:
    August 11, 2014 at 4:26 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: So, yesterday, a 22 year old black man was shot and killed in an Ohio Walmart when he was carrying what’s being called either a “toy gun” or a “pellet rifle” that he got inside the store.

    The story says it was a Crosman MK-177. If you look it up on websites that sell it, the tan version has a somewhat toy-ish look to it, but the black one would be much harder to judge until you had it in your hands. It’s close in size, and similar in shape, to a real AK. Including have a fake 10-round mag hanging out of the bottom. It doesn’t have any of the garishly-colored bits commonly used to identify toy guns these days.

    While it’s clear in hindsight that the cops over-reacted because they couldn’t tell it wasn’t a real firearm, there’s no way to tell what really happened from what’s been reported so far. If Crawford wasn’t properly trained in gun safety, and was thinking of what he was holding as an unloaded toy, he might well have carelessly done something that would’ve been a real threat with a real gun. Or the cops could’ve panicked because suburban cops don’t get a lot of experience in real firefights.

    And, yes, there are a lot of white guys (and brown guys. And even some black guys) carrying real loaded guns in stores. But they’re pretty much always holstered sidearms. And, if they’re dumb enough to draw them in the presence of cops, they sometimes get shot, too.

  107. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 11, 2014 at 4:26 am  (Quote)
  108. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    August 11, 2014 at 4:28 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: A separate Bench statement is precedent in the unusual event a Supreme Court opinion is voided after issuance due to an Appointments Clause violation disqualifying a sitting justice.

    And I thought birther statements about Constitutional law couldn’t get any dumber.

  109. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 11, 2014 at 4:39 am  (Quote)

    Orly: Non-traditional plaintiffs … Georgetown Suzie does not want you to read this.

    http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1458&context=californialawreview

    Quote Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975), frequently and often. Scalia loves it.

  110. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 11, 2014 at 4:45 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): And I thought birther statements about Constitutional law couldn’t get any dumber.

    I’m not a lawyer. Explain it to me. Why would a sitting Justice issue a Bench statement separate and distinct from his concurring opinion?

  111. nbc says:
    August 11, 2014 at 5:15 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Orly: Representational standing … Scalia approves!

    One out of 9.. Yawn…

  112. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 11, 2014 at 6:04 am  (Quote)

    GEORGETOWN LAW laments the slow death of the political question doctrine …

    Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine (2010)

    http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=facpub

    and then jumps on the Relative Standing bandwagon …

    http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2014/04/ReRelative.pdf (2013)

    Who’s J.Brandeis? It looks like Chief Justice Roberts has a thing about quoting Brandeis. Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346–48 (1936)

    nbc: One out of 9.. Yawn…

  113. Suranis says:
    August 11, 2014 at 7:12 am  (Quote)

    I think Sven thinks he is winning and beating us with his winning arguments and leeeenks.

    Sadly, he is an idiot.

  114. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    August 11, 2014 at 8:25 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Why would a sitting Justice issue a Bench statement separate and distinct from his concurring opinion?

    Why don’t all judges do that if they are worried about what would happen if the President appointing one of them were ineligible?

    Besides, he dissented in part and concurred in part (something pretty normal in SCOTUS cases). Where did he “issue a Bench statement” that was “distinct from his concurring opinion”?
    (Other birthers may however celebrate as he quoted Vattel.)

    Sheesh, your claims are getting more and more disconnected from reality.

  115. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    August 11, 2014 at 8:30 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Orly: Representational standing … Scalia approves!

    No, Scalia approves of the idea that Congress may by law vest “representational standing” in certain people, not that Orly has one in general or in her silly case.

  116. Dave says:
    August 11, 2014 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    Did you read this article you cited? Do you have any foggiest clue what it says?

    SvenMagnussen:
    GEORGETOWN LAW laments the slow death of the political question doctrine …

    Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine (2010)

  117. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 11, 2014 at 9:28 am  (Quote)

    So far this morning:

    Sven is lying.
    Sven is wrong.
    Sven is misdirecting.
    Sven is flailing.
    Sven is an idiot.

    Before most people’s day has even started.

    That’s an impressive derpformance.

  118. Arthur says:
    August 11, 2014 at 9:29 am  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: But they’re pretty much always holstered sidearms.

    I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with the open-carry phenomenon.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=open+carry&rlz=1C1CHUA_enUS498US505&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=48ToU4H5KdejyASn9IKICg&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1467&bih=698&dpr=0.9

  119. Rickey says:
    August 11, 2014 at 9:50 am  (Quote)

    Bonsall Obot:
    So far this morning:

    Sven is lying.
    Sven is wrong.
    Sven is misdirecting.
    Sven is flailing.
    Sven is an idiot.

    And he still hasn’t responded to my request of him to post a link to the quotation he claims to have taken from “Jack Mccaskill.”

  120. Bonsall Obot says:
    August 11, 2014 at 10:26 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: And he still hasn’t responded to my request of him to post a link to the quotation he claims to have taken from “Jack Mccaskill.”

    Sven is very john-like in his remarkable ability to ignore any question which would expose his idiocy.

    He prefers to do that on his own.

  121. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 11, 2014 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): No, Scalia approves of the idea that Congress may by law vest “representational standing” in certain people, not that Orly has one in general or in her silly case.

    And Judge Hanen invites Calif. AG Harris to attend a hearing on Orly’s application for injunctive relief. Why would Judge Hanen do that if he does not plan to grant her application?

    “The States’ power to control immigration, however, has always been accepted, and is indeed reflected in some provisions of the Constitution.” Paragraph 2 of Scalia’s bench statement, Arizona v. U.S.

    I looked it up. Bench Statements are bird calls to Congress and the Courts. Orly is leading the charge for States’ rights.

  122. Arthur says:
    August 11, 2014 at 11:32 am  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: I looked it up.

    Link?

  123. Dave B. says:
    August 11, 2014 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    Sad day for states’ rights, then.

    SvenMagnussen: Orly is leading the charge for States’ rights.

  124. CarlOrcas says:
    August 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: And Judge Hanen invites Calif. AG Harris to attend a hearing on Orly’s application for injunctive relief. Why would Judge Hanen do that if he does not plan to grant her application?

    Why would he hold a hearing if he plans to grant her motion?

  125. SvenMagnussen says:
    August 11, 2014 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Why would he hold a hearing if he plans to grant her motion?

    An Order to Show Cause was issued after Judge Hanen scheduled a hearing on Orly’s application for injunctive relief. The Order to Show Cause said Judge Hanen may hold a hearing after the defendants file an answer.

    You should exchange email addresses with Rickey so you can keep up.

  126. CarlOrcas says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: An Order to Show Cause was issued after Judge Hanen scheduled a hearing on Orly’s application for injunctive relief. The Order to Show Cause said Judge Hanen may hold a hearing after the defendants file an answer.

    You should exchange email addresses with Rickey so you can keep up.

    You missed the point: You don’t have any idea what the judge may or may not do…..assuming you are right about what is happening.

  127. sfjeff says:
    August 11, 2014 at 2:08 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: I looked it up. Bench Statements are bird calls to Congress and the Courts. Orly is leading the charge for States’ rights.

    Its not a charge if there is no one behind you.

  128. Dave says:
    August 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Taitz has a post entitled “Far left pro-Obama rag attacks Attorney and Dr. Orly Taitz as they are unhappy with the order by Judge Hanen for Obama to show cause why shouldn’t he rule in favor of Orly Taitz . Obama’ CA yellow press wants Taitz deported to Texas.”

    The “far-left pro-Obama rag” it refers to is OC Weekly, and the linked article is notable for not expressing or even hinting at the slightest unhappiness with the OSC.

    I get the impression that Taitz is disappointed that the “far-left” is not concerned about the OSC, and she really wants them to be.

  129. Benji Franklin says:
    August 11, 2014 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: I’m not a lawyer. Explain it to me.

    If you’re not a lawyer, and have not been able to rationally understand the overwhelming conclusive legal significance of your lunatic Birther team’s accumulated record, being as of this year the loss of 220 original court decisions while winning NONE; the loss of 220 plus appellate court rulings while winning NONE; and the loss of 25 plus Supreme Court Rulings while winning NONE, and you need a legal expert to explain to you the degree of insignificance of your endless misinterpretations of routine courtroom procedures, why in the name of your own admitted expert incompetence, do you continue to self-servingly critique, peevishly condemn, or hopelessly miss-predict the prospects and/or outcomes of additional Birther cases, and then posture yourself as a Constitutional expert, a legal advice-giver to Birther lawyers, a legal scolder to Birther-enlightening judges, a legal critic of Obama-eligibility-recognizing state officers, and a procedural adviser to non-existent Congressional Obama eligibility investigating initiatives?

    But getting back to your question, you wrote:”I’m not a lawyer. Explain it to me.”

    Okay, you’re not a lawyer and here’s the explanation.
    You’re a lunatic.

  130. Jim says:
    August 11, 2014 at 3:25 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen: Orly is leading the charge for States’ rights.

    You mean like the States’ rights spelled out in the Constitution? Like, say, the States rights to have their records accepted by every other State? You know, like all the other States accepting that the President was born in Hawaii? So glad you’re finally seeing the light and agree that the President is eligible. Orly does too, that’s why she’s moved on. You may want to try it Sven. 😆

  131. Dave says:
    August 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    BR has gotten so desperate for material they have a post about a birther article in the Romanian language edition of the Falun Gong newspaper Epoch Times.

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

    Anyhow, there is a comment from “BornTexas” that I really like:

    “Maybe this is part of the roll-out plan to the media…”

  132. RanTalbott says:
    August 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with the open-carry phenomenon.

    I live in rural Arizona. Open carry isn’t a “phenomenon” here. It’s not as common as some alarmists would have you think, but it’s not “extraordinary”.

    If you look through those images, you’ll see that the people carrying long arms are pretty much all city folks engaged in some sort of symbolic act or protest. And the rifles are nearly all slung.

    Seeing someone with a(n apparent) firearm in a position where it appears they’re about to do harm is rare, even for cops.

  133. Keith (not logged on) says:
    August 11, 2014 at 8:24 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin: But getting back to your question, you wrote:”I’m not a lawyer. Explain it to me.”

    Okay, you’re not a lawyer and here’s the explanation.
    You’re a lunatic

    Perhaps more to the point, he is a troll.

  134. Rickey says:
    August 11, 2014 at 9:45 pm  (Quote)

    SvenMagnussen:

    You should exchange email addresses with Rickey so you can keep up.

    I’m still waiting for you to provide us with the exact “Jack Mccaskill” quotation and a link.

  135. Arthur says:
    August 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: Open carry isn’t a “phenomenon” here. It’s not as common as some alarmists would have you think, but it’s not “extraordinary”.

    Whatever. You said it was mostly holstered pistols, I demonstrated that that isn’t the case.

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.