Birthers and healthcare reform

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering if this new bout of wing-nuttery over Obama’s birth certificate has anything to do with the healthcare debate? It seems as though “birthers” are bubbling up everywhere in the press these days, and I have to think it’s not just a coincidence that we’re hearing it now. I’m not suggesting that it’s a huge, orchestrated plan, but, given that healthcare firms are pouring unprecedented sums of money into anti-healthcare reform initiatives, one has to wonder if there might also be a somewhat deliberate campaign afoot to delegitimize the President. I haven’t seen polling data on the subject, but my guess is that most people, even though they know the claims of Liddy, Dobbs and company are complete bullshit, still wonder if maybe there’s a remote chance that Obama is, as Liddy states, an “illegal alien” born in a “Kenyan slum.” And, yes, I realize this makes me sound almost as nutty as those claiming that Obama forged his birth documents and the notices of his birth in Hawaiian newspapers, but isn’t it conceivable that, with so many billions of dollars on the line, people are going after him where they perceive him as being vulnerable? I mean, with the healthcare industry losing the battle of facts, is it so hard to imagine that they might ask a few of the media channels that they supply with advertising dollars to mention that there’s a debate as to whether or not Obama is really an American citizen? If nothing else, it muddies the water and momentarily diverts attention.

And, here, while we’re on the subject of birthers, is a little something from Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Joke of the Day
This entry was posted in Observations, Other, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

87 Comments

  1. Brackinald Achery
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    As your eyes and ears into the right wing fringe camp, I must report that I’ve been seeing birther stuff going steadily since before the election online, and it certainly didn’t spring up just now. But maybe it’s getting more press now, I don’t know; I never paid a whole lot of attention to it, nor do I watch much TV.

  2. Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Yes, it was there during the campaign, and since then to some degree, but my sense is that the column inches devoted to the story have been growing exponentially this past week. And I can’t figure out why that would be, as there hasn’t been any new news on the subject these past six months. It’s not like the Birthers have found a smoking gun.

  3. EOS
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Maybe it’s because the lawsuits are now making their way through the system. An Army officer that questioned his authority as Commander in Chief had his overseas orders changed so as to prevent him from having the legal standing to force the release of the documents. It’s not only the “wingers”, his own relatives claim they were present at his birth in Africa. And Obama’s own website has changed the name of the hospital that he claims to have been born at. Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to block the release of not only his official birth certificate, but also his early school records where he not only claims to be an African citizen but a Muslim as well. I’m not saying it is a negative to be Muslim, but it is disconcerting that our President is not forthright on this issue.

  4. Morton F
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    How do we know he’s from this planet? Seriously, I didn’t see his mother give birth. How do we know he wasn’t built in a laboratory on another planet? How do we know he’s not the Zodiac killer? How do we know he doesn’t feed on white babies? This is serious stuff, people. WAKE UP!!!!

  5. Publius
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    The right has it’s “birthers” and the left has it’s “truthers”. Both nuts.

  6. Paul
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, fooled them too?

  7. EOS
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    How about a web site?
    http://f2a.org/coast2coast/obamacitizenship.htm

  8. Posted July 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    It is extremely unlikely that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    1. Why would the Democratic party pump support into a candidate who was not eligible to sit as President when they had a number of other candidates to choose from. It wasn’t like Obama had a whirlwind of support in the primaries.

    2. He would have had to have been naturalized at some point and the INS would have a record of his immigration status as his mother would have had to have applied for his citizenship. Obama does not come from a rich family. It is extremely doubtful that his mother would have had the cash to bribe someone for a forged birth certificate.

    It’s not surprising that EoS believes this nonsense.

  9. Tim
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, contrary to all scientific evidence, but I do not believe that Obama was born in the US, even though his birth was announced in 2 Hawaiian newspapers in 1961.

    Obama, as all thinking people now agree, was created in a laboratory. He’s bionic. And he eats the flesh of white virgins.

  10. Castor
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    No one has definitively proven to me yet that black people do not have tails.

    Speaking of which, will this new health system cover tail removal?

  11. Steve Petersen
    Posted July 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    You might be on to something. Have you seen how this story about Professor Gates is overshadowing the health care debate? Very little coverage of families bankrupted by medical bills, and lots of stuff on race.

  12. Tom
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    You might be on to something. Because racism doesn’t exist and is therefore a non-issue, the Gates thing is being used as a smokescreen to cover up the TRUTH.

  13. EOS
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, and that fact is not evident because he is fighting the release of his official birth certificate, he abandoned his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man. Obama moved to Indonesia, was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, and then subsequently enrolled in a school that required Indonesian citizenship. When he returned to the United States with his mother he became an illegal immigrant since he did not renounce his Indonesian citizenship and did not become naturalized. When his natural citizenship was questioned by Alan Keyes during a debate preceding the election for Illinois Senate, Obama himself answered that it didn’t matter because he wasn’t running for POTUS.

    I’ve posted audio recordings of his grandmother claiming she was present at his birth in Kenya. Where is the evidence that he is a natural citizen? Where is the official birth certificate rather than a copy of certificate of live birth? Dude, your argument about the Democratic Party sufficiently vetting him is weak considering they had a hard time finding candidates for cabinet positions who had actually paid their full taxes.

  14. Brackinald Achery
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    For decades and decades Congress has been completely ignoring the 9th and 10th Ammendments of the Bill of Rights, and since 1934 at least have been infringing on the 2nd. I seriously doubt that this birth certificate gnat-straining is going to gain ground among a citizenry that has happily swallowed those camels.

  15. Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    EoS, face it, you’d believe in Santa Claus if some wacko on the internet told you to.

  16. EOS
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Dude,
    I the one who thinks Christmas has nothing to do with a bearded man in a red suit called Santa or red-nosed reindeers for that matter.

  17. EOS
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Brack-

    Straining gnats? There are only 2 requirements for the office and he fails to meet one of them. Have we set the bar too high for the highest office in the country?

  18. Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    I think that Jesus should be impeached. After all, we have no proof that he was actually born in a manger, nor that Mary wasn’t getting any sex before the baby was born.

    Persistent requests for Jesus to produce his birth certificate have been denied. Persistent requests for Mary to produce a blood stained sheet have been repeatedly denied.

    There were no commercial planes on 9/11. The war on terror is based on a lie.

  19. Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    And then Obama and Bill Ayers killed his mother so that she could never share his terrible secret.

    Don’t forget that.

  20. watching laughing
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    compliments of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and G.Gordan Liddy. What a group. Man.

    watching laughing.

  21. Mark H.
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    I believe that all the evidence is clear, Obama was born in Hawaii.
    But even if he had been born outside the United States – Kenya, say — to a mother wo was an American citizen, he’d be entitled to American citizenship. The whole birthers squad is totally crazy, and it’s a shame East of Sprawl has joined in with it, proving that EOS should henceforth stand for East of Sanity.

  22. Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    Can someone remind me if EOS was also among those vehemently advocating for an inquiry into whether or not any strings were pulled to keep the young George Bush from serving in Vietnam? Or whether or not Dick Cheney was drunk when he shot his friend in the face? I think both of these speak more directly to the character of our leaders than whether or not Obama was born here. But, with that said, I don’t see how Hawaiian newspapers could have possibly been involved in a coverup in 1961, when they published notice of they baby Obama’s birth. Either someone time traveled, or someone knew in 1961 that a particular baby born in Kenya would need to establish US citizenship in order to rule the world. As his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, he would have been considered a US citizen anyway. The only reason his being born on US soil would be an issue is if they knew he would one day run for President. And, no offense to EOS, but that’s laughably stupid.

  23. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    Mark(s)-
    Obama’s mother was not of legal age under the laws of the time when she gave birth. If Barack was born in Kenya, as his paternal grandmother claims, then his mother could not have conferred legal citizenship. She would have had to be 21 under the laws of that time.

    It is entirely possible that the proud maternal grandparents paid for a birth announcement in Hawaiian papers. No, I don’t think they considered doing so because they thought Barack would someday run for president. An ad in the paper does not prove legal citizenship.

    What evidence of yours is clear? Where’s the official birth certificate? Where’s the adoption papers of Barry Soweto? Where’s his school records? Why has he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to block the release of this information. Why are his lawyers fighting this at the Supreme Court level? Why not just release the information and stop all the speculating?

    I haven’t said anything about Obama’s character in this thread. Just pointed out the trail of evidence that points to Obama as not being qualified to serve as president under our constitution. Waiting for someone to provide evidence to disprove the allegations.

    By the way, I’m not East of the Sprawl, I’m on the Edge of the Sprawl.

  24. watching laughing
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    Stay tuned on Fox news for the latest made up BS, litterally pulled out of their assess.

    watching laughing.

  25. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Actually, CNN is a much better source for us birthers.

  26. Veg
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    If you ‘re an American citizen and have a child abroad, that child is an American citizen. John McCain was born abroad, in the Philippines. He’s still an American citizen. And let’s not forget that Zachary Taylor was born in Haiti.

  27. Mark H.
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Mr Veg is correct. Mr Edge of Sprawl is clearly Edged out of Sanity, as evidenced by his reliance on made up ideas of citizenship, proof, and the vacuous claim that this issue is being litigated at the United States Supreme Court. I’ve not checked how old Obama’s mom was when he was born, but how is that relevant anyway, EOS? You thnk that only children born to American women over the age of 21 are automatically citizens, and that all kids born to underage women are denied citizenship??? This country has had some tough struggles over defining citizenship and birthrights, but you and your fellow conspiracy theorists have made this one up out of whole cloth.

    Nor is there any relevance in whether Obama’s mom’s second husband adopted or intended to adopt Obama. Being adopted by a non-citizen does not invalidate one’s citizenship.

  28. Mark H.
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    When I wrote that Veg was correct, I meant only in the claim about a child born abroad to an American mother being an American citizen. That’s long settled for the USA, and it disproves the whole case of the birther conspiracy theorists. Veg is 100% right on that. However, Veg is incorrect about President Taylor, who was born in Virginia, of course, and also wrong on John McCain, who was born not in the Philipines, but in the Panama Canal zone.

    At root, I think the birther conspiracy stems from the deep rooted resistance of some folks to the idea that it’s even possible for a Black president to be legitimate. The birthers are the ideological descendants of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which held that Negroes have no rights that whites are bound to respect, and that Blacks were inherently incapable of being American citizens. The imagined “fact” that Obama isn’t truly a citizen, and thus entirely illegitimate to lead the USA, is based several facts that, while irrelevant to the citizenship issue, are also unprecedented for an American president: The fact that his father wasn’t American, but was instead Kenyan and Muslim, and that his childhood included a long period in Indonesia. That hardly adds up to a lack of citizenship, but it makes Obama quite odd in the pantheon of presidents….Our constitution expressly forbides any religious or racial test for office holding, but American culture still prizes homogenity over diversity in many ways, and this is especially true on the right wing fringes. Many of the fringe who find Obama’s goals and allies as unsettling as his race seek or even need a way to discredit him as an American, much as Chief Justice Roger Taney did in the Dred Scott case, and that need trumps logic and evidence.

  29. Mark H.
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I love doing this history gig for MarkMaynard.com! The money’s great, and the company superb!

  30. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Today, a child born to a citizen abroad will be considered a citizen regardless of the age of the mother. At the time of Obama’s birth, that was not the case. The law, between Dec. 24, 1952 and Nov. 13, 1986 clearly stipulated,” If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, that parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which had to have been after the age of 16, in order for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not 21 at the time of his birth. If he was born in Kenya, then he is not a natural born citizen. If he was born in Hawaii, then this is a moot point. Why doesn’t he spend the $10 and release an official copy of the long form Birth Certificate.

    Secondly, if he was born in Hawaii, he would be a citizen regardless of the nationalities of his parents. However, when his mother remarried an Indonesian man, that man adopted Obama and converted his citizenship to Indonesian so that he could attend the local Madras. The U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship under these circumstances. If Obama was an Indonesian citizen, then his parents renounced his American citizenship. If he didn’t undergo the naturalization process when he returned to the U.S., then he is not even a citizen!

    John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama while his father was serving there. Both of his parents were Americans and the base was considered U.S. territory at the time. His citizenship was investigated by a Senatorial committee during his Presidential campaign. He provided an official birth certificate which ended any further investigation. So, why can’t Obama do likewise?

    Several of the existing lawsuits were considered for a hearing at the Supreme Court, but they didn’t receive cert. His lawyers filed briefs, but have not litigated this at the Supreme Court level – yet.

    You can ridicule, you can smear someone as racist, but the facts stand on their own.

  31. Andy C
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    “If Barack was born in Kenya, as his paternal grandmother claims, ”

    He wasn’t. The below link has a transcript AND link to the actual audio file of the interview with his grandmother.
    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/23/liddy/

  32. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    The issue is about whether we are still a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law. Does anyone exist who would prefer Biden as president?

  33. Mark H.
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    EOS, your first paragraph from your 10:54 comment makes little sense as written. Could you revise it, to clearly indicate what words you are quoting are quotes, where the quotation starts and ends, and what your source is for this quotation? Your supposed factual statements are either false or not, but you’ve provided both unclear statements and no supporting evidence for them. Quotations to be meaingful should be complete and clear and contain both open and close quotation marks….

    You imply that there is a real chance that one of these lawsuits will be heard by the US Supreme Court. That is a retreat from your previous claim that Obama’s lawyers are already “fighting this at the Supreme Court level”, which is an entirely false assertion. Your argument rests on made up claims, not evidence. So I ask – what suit relevant to this matter is before the US Supr. Court, or has been appealed to it? From what jurisdiction has it been appealed to the US Supremes? I am sure you have nothing relevant or factual to say on this question, and I offer you this challenge: Please name an actual lawsuit that’s been appealed to the US Supreme Court, a lawsuit for which there is a clear public record and actual court proceedings on file that show it’s going to the Supreme Court. I believe you will be unable to do this; if I am mistaken, I’ll buy you lunch at any Ypsilanti restaurant you like. To claim this challenge, you need to produce citations on this blog that can be verified by me and other readers of MM.com. The requirement is legal proof of actual court proceedings that are pending or have been appealed to the US Supreme Court; the mere existence of such litigation, at the stage that EOS has claimed it already is at, is the point I am disputing. Whether or not such litigation supports the birthers’ claim is another, more basic matter; my argument is that EOS’s entire argument is based on little more than fantasy.

    And, EOS, how can someone whose actual name is unknown be “smeared”??! Not that I called you a racist. I did say the birthers argument is ideologically similar to the Dred Scott case, and i stand by that.

    Lastly, I’ll say this, EOS: you seem to know about as much about constitutional government as a rock lying on the bank of Ford Lake.

  34. Mark H.
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    In principle, nearly any case could eventually be appealed to the US Sup Ct. EOS has claimed that Obama is already fighting some case brought by birthers at the level of the Supreme Court. This is false. My challenge to him is to prove either that claim, or to prove his backup claim that one or more such case is now being appealed to the US Sup Ct. A case filed in some local court, that has not already gone thru the appeals process far enough to be in a position of possible appeal to the US Supr Court, does not qualify as meeting my challenge. The USSC hears very few appeals, and very few cases ever reach a point where it is even hypothetically possible for it to be appealed to the USSC.

    I believe that not a single court any where in the US has issued even a single decision on any claim made by the birthers. Maybe i am wrong. Even if I am wrong on this however, I am convinced that no such decision is now in a position to be brought before the Supreme Court, not even to the point of the Court having to decide whether to hear the case….no more so that the aggrieved person in traffic court who swears he’ll appeal the judge’s fine “all the way to the Supreme Court!” That’s the position of an angry blowhard, not a factual claim. Birthers are angry (a la Chief Justice Taney) and their claims are faith-based, evidence-free dogma.

  35. Brackinald Achery
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Well EOS, go to town. You may even win this debate, I have no idea and don’t feel like looking into or taking a stand on it. Personally I’d rather everyone be paying attention to the Fed audit legislation that’s building bipartisan steam than working to make Joe Biden the new President, but I guess we have different priorities.

  36. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Mark H,

    Look at the previous link provided by Andy C.

    …”Liddy got this particular myth a little garbled, but it’s a favorite of the Birthers’. I’ve covered it before, but it’s worth posting on now, I think, because cable news is just getting back to this story (there was some coverage late last year, when the Supreme Court declined to hear one of the Birther lawsuits) and hosts like Matthews don’t know all the crazy twists of the conspiracy theory well enough to knock them down.”…

    Gee, I hope I got the quotes right on that one. Salon seems to think there was a case that was looked at by the Supreme Court as well. It was widely reported in the newspapers at the time and all over the Internet as well. You’re the professor – look it up yourself.

    Really, I’m just a spectator in this issue. I read from a number of sources and shared the information that is out there. I don’t want Biden as president. And I don’t want to meet you for a public debate or have lunch with you. Brack is 100% right on this issue. Just because you are arrogant doesn’t mean you are right.

  37. Posted July 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Really, you’re just a moron.

  38. dragon
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    more EOS >
    I’ll tell you what I’m blathering about… I’ve got information man! New shit has come to light! And shit… man, he kidnapped himself. Well sure, man. Look at it… a handsome young president, in the parlance of our times, you know, and he, uh, uh, owes money all over town, including to known Kenyans, and that’s cool… that’s, that’s cool, I’m, I’m saying, he needs documents, man. And of course they’re going to say that they didn’t get them, because… he wants more, man! He’s got to feed the monkey, I mean uh… hasn’t that ever occurred to you, man? Sir?

  39. watching laughing
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Coo-coo coo-coo

    watching laughing.

  40. biblical schooner
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Barack Obama cannot see his reflection in a mirror.
    Barack Obama has no bones.
    Barack Obama sacrificed his grandmother to become President.
    Barack Obama is a hologram.
    Barack Obama IS a birth certificate!!!

  41. Brad
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    EOS, the call is coming from inside your house!!! Get out!!! The birth certificate is sneaking up behind you!!!!!!!

  42. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    http://legalnewsline.com/news/216858-obama-citizen-question-goes-to-u.s.-supreme-court

  43. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html

  44. EOS
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Supreme Court:

    * Oklahoma (Steven Craig): (07/06/09)
    o Petition for writ filed
    o Craig v. United States

    DC Circuit Court of Appeals:

    * DC (Gregory Hollister): (07/23/09)
    o Briefing Schedule Set. Appellant’s Brief due August 5, 2009. Appellee’s Brief due September 4, 2009. Appellants’ Reply Brief September 18, 2009.
    o Hollister v. Soetoro

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals:

    * Berg v. Obama (07/23/09)
    o Case tentatively tentatively listed on the merits on October 26, 2009 (No decision yet as to whether oral argument will be permitted.)
    o This case caused SCOTUS case for writ of cert to be denied

    Federal Court for the District of Arizona:

    * Allen v. Soetoro (07/07/09)
    o Filed
    * Hamblin v. Obama, et. al
    o Obama Opposition to Motion for Default filed July 20, 2009
    o Hamblin Second Motion for Default against Obama filed July 6, 2009
    o Hamblin Reply in Opposition to McCain Reply filed July 7, 2009
    o McCain Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed June 19, 2009
    o Hamblin Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed June 12, 2009
    o McCain Motion to Dismiss filed May 29, 2009
    o Amended Complaint filed April 4, 2009

    Federal Court for the District of Columbia:

    * James v. Obama (03/29/09)
    o James v. Obama: Motion for Quo Warranto, USDC for DC
    o Not currently docketed

    Federal Court for the Central District of California:

    * Keyes v. Obama (07/23/09)
    o On July 17, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency re: Taitz’s renewed Motion for Default.
    o On July 17, the Judge issued a written Order requiring Taitz to properly serve defendants no later than August 16, 2009, and file Proof of Service of such on or before August 23, 2009.

    Federal Court for New Jersey, Camden:

    * Kerchner v. Obama (07/27/09)
    o Defendants file Reply to Plaintiffs opposition Brief

    Federal Court for Middle Georgia, Columbus:

    * Cook v. Good (07/23/09)
    o On July 16, the Court issued an Opinion re: dismissal of Cook Injunction

    Federal Court for Middle Florida:

    * Cook v. Simtech (07/27/09)
    o Dismissed
    o On July 22, Cook filed a Motion for TRO/Injunction in the Middle District of Florida. (He filed this case pro se)
    o On July 23, the Court dismissed the TRO/Injunction, without prejudice, for failure to follow local rules. (Cook may refile TRO with required complaint.)

    At the State level: Latest update: 07/05/09

    * California:
    o Joan Corbett: Corbett v. Bowen (11/16/08)

    * Florida:
    o Spencer Connerat: Connerat v. Obama (07/05/09)

    * Hawaii:
    o Birth Certificate Brief File in HI Appellate Court
    o Andy Martin: Martin v. Lingle (05/27/09)
    * New York:
    o State Department, DHS Respond
    o Christopher Strunk: Chris Strunk FOIA (05/01/09)
    * North Carolina:
    o New case to be submitted
    o Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan: Sullivan v. Marshall (03/20/09)

    Other Reports: (02/09/09)

    The following presumably does not include all above action:

    * Phil Berg mentioned another Berg v. Obama case under seal at this time
    * Georiga: Filed December 2008
    * Alabama: Filed December 2008
    * Illinois: Filed December 2008
    * Michigan: Filed December 2008
    * Virginia: Challenge
    * Ohio: Challenge
    * California: Legal action
    * North Carolina: Legal action
    * Massachusetts: Challenge
    * Maryland: Commitment from numerous individuals to file a challenge
    * Virgin Islands: Commitment to file a challenge

    After Inauguration: (01/12/09)

    * If all other actions fall through, Philip Berg plans on filing a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the President-Elect’s qualifications for President

    Seeking an Attorney (02/17/09)

    * Ms. Cris Ericson: Ericson v. Obama (12/24/08)
    o Challenging Obama’s birth certificate

  45. kjc
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    “The issue is about whether we are still a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.”

    We just had 8 years to flesh that out. No, we’re not.

  46. Brackinald Achery
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    I’m going to have to agree with kjc on this one. That debate is pretty well settled, unfortunately.

  47. Meta
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    From Think Progress:

    Last Thursday, CNN President Jon Klein sent an e-mail to a handful of the network’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” staffers informing them that he considered one of the stories pursued by the infamously anti-immigrant host to be “dead.” On his radio show the week before, Dobbs declared that President Obama needed to “produce a birth certificate,” picking up on a thoroughlydebunked conspiracy theory that claims Obama was not born in the United States, and the birth certificate released by his campaign last year was fake. Dobbs repeatedly pushed the “birther” cause despite the fact that his colleagues at CNN have repeatedly called the story “total bull.” In fact, while guest-hosting Dobbs’ own show on July 17, Kitty Pilgrim refuted the fringe theory, saying, “CNN has fully investigated the issue, found no basis for the questions about the president’s birthplace, but the controversy lives on, especially on the Internet.” But Dobbs has persisted, attacking his critics as “limp-minded, lily-livered lefties” who hate him because he has “the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was.” As Dobbs continued to air the conspiracy theory, Klein backed off his admonition of the host, telling the Los Angeles Times that Dobbs had handled the issue in a “legitimate” manner and “if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes.” On Sunday, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz used his CNN show to chastise media outlets that “give the birthers any airtime” to repeat their “ludicrous claims.” Kurtz specifically criticized Dobbs for not acting “responsible.”



    BORN IN THE USA: Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. This date is on the Certification of Live Birth released by the Hawaii Department of Health last year at the request of Obama. Birthers like Dobbs point to the fact that the campaign released the “short form” certification rather than the “long form” — which is drawn up by the hospital and contains more information — as the crux of their argument that the President is hiding something. But as FactCheck.org noted when they investigated and debunked claims about Obama’s birth certificate, “the Hawaii Department of Health’sbirth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate,” and “their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.” Birthers, likeconspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, claim that the certificate posted by the Obama campaign was “a false, fake birth certificate,” but its authenticity has been independently confirmed by FactCheck.org, which examined it in person and declared that “it is real and three-dimensional.” Additionally, on Oct. 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued a statement saying that he had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” Definitive proof of Obama’s Hawaii birth has also been found in the archives of two Hawaii newspapers, the Honululu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, which both printed birth announcements days after Obama was born in 1961. Birth announcements in those papers are placed by the state Department of Health, not the family.



    RIGHT-WING MEDIA GIVES VOICE: Dobbs isn’t the only media personality giving voice to the birthers. As PolitiFact’s Robert Farley wrote last month, “the conservative WorldNetDaily.com Web site is the conductor of the Birther train.” The far-right outlet, which sells “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” bumper stickers, convinced someone to ask White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the conspiracy in May. The birther theory has also been pushed by bigger names in the right-wing media. Before the 2008 election, radio host Rush Limbaugh speculated that Obama may have gone to Hawaii to visit his dying grandmother to take care of “this birth certificate business.” Since then, Limbaugh has joked, “[W]hat do Obama and God have in common? Neither has a birth certificate.” Earlier this month, Limbaugh stepped it up a notch, declaring that “Barack Obama has yet to prove he’s a citizen.” Fox News has also elevated the birther conspiracy, running headlines like “Should Obama Release Birth Certificate?” on its Fox Nation website andrunning reports on birther-based lawsuits on its news shows. Fox’s Sean Hannity has aired claims that “the president is not, in fact, a legitimate citizen by birth” and asked a caller on his radio show if he had “ever seen” Obama’s birth certificate.



    THE BIRTHER BILL: In March, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced legislationrequiring “presidential candidates to produce copies of their birth certificates and other documentation to prove natural-born citizenship.” Posey’s bill has gathered nine co-sponsors in the House. Trying to explain why he introduced the bill, Posey issued a statement saying, “This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president, will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president.” But Posey has undermined this seemingly innocuous rationale for his legislation byoutright accusing Obama of hiding something on a right-wing Internet radio show. “The only people that I know who are afraid to take drug tests are the people who use drugs,” said Posey. Claiming that he hadn’t looked at the evidence, Posey previously told the Orlando Sentinel, “I can’t swear on a stack of Bibles whether he is or isn’t” a citizen. On MSNBC’s Hardball last week, host Chris Matthews challenged one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), telling him that “what you’re doing is appeasing the nutcases…you’re verifying the paranoia out there.” Asked if he believed Obama was a citizen, Campbell responded, “as far as I know, yes.” Matthews retorted, “as far as you know? I’m showing you his birth certificate!” Matthews is correct that many conservative lawmakers are comfortable “feeding the wacko wing.” Just today, Politico reported that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said birthers “have a point.” “I don’t discourage it,” said Inhofe.


  48. Mike want longr name
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Hey, BA, what’s this Fed audit legislation? Where could one find more information about that?

  49. Brackinald Achery
    Posted July 28, 2009 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    Well Mike, I’m glad you asked: it’s legislation aimed at auditting the Federal Reserve. One could google it, or click on a link you posted in a previous thread!

  50. Mark H.
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    EOS,

    Are you incapable of reading your own sources? Or are you just trying to bury your lack of evidence for your claim that the birther conspiracy is now or will soon before before the US Supreme Court?

    None of your cut and pasted internet sources support your claim. The Craig lawsuit you identify for Oklahoma appears to be a nut case suit filed this very month, in Oklahoma’s Federal District court….That is NOT the Supreme Court, and it appears not to have been resolved at the District level yet, so how is it possibly before the Supreme Court? Likewise with the other cases you name in NJ and California.

    Same for all your other sources. And the link in the comment by Andy C that you reference, as if it would support your claims of a conspiracy, is to a news article in which Obama’s alleged Kenyan grandmother is reported to deny the reports that she was present at his birth and that it was in Kenya. So that story hardly supports your claim.

    Nor do lawsuits, filed and dismissed last fall, after Obama won the election, arguing that the election results should be overturned because Obama was not a US citizen, constitute proof that there’s merit to the claim; and they surely don’t constitute proof that these cases are going to the US Supreme Court! They aren’t!

    But your method is clear: Avoid actual evidence, and just pile up allegations and cut and paste sources that don’t support the allegations. Distort what the constitution actually requires, and a century’s worth of case law on what citizenship is. Distort what the evidence says, and insist that there’s a coverup. Demand that those who dispute your wild claims do the research that you won’t or can’t do, and insist that if your critics don’t produce sources that support your argument it’s

    The conspiracy theorists’ work would be funny were it not for the corrosive effect such nut-case ideas can have on our already fragile democracy. A rock lying on the floor of Ford Lake has a better grasp of evidence that does EOS, Mr. Edged Outta Sanity.

  51. EOS
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Mark H.-

    Just admit you were mistaken and move on. You said there were no cases. You said the Supreme Court didn’t deny cert on any case, but they did on Berg v. Obama. Everyone on this site can google the cases and get the transcripts.

    By the way, EMU just called and asked that you don’t use your real name anymore.

  52. Posted July 29, 2009 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Mike: It’s Ron Paul’s HR 1207 and Bernie Sanders’ S 604. (Yes, you read that right, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders!) They seem to have wide bipartisan support, with 279 co-sponsors in the House (source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207) and 20 in the Senate (source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604).

  53. EOS
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    U.S. Supreme Court Ruling 6/1/09

    08-10053

    Cert Denied – Craig v. United States

  54. EOS
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Mark H.

    Your words:

    …”I am convinced that no such decision is now in a position to be brought before the Supreme Court, not even to the point of the Court having to decide whether to hear the case…” …

  55. Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Uhh.. if the Supreme Court denies it, then it isn’t before the Supreme Court.

    “On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009.”

  56. Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Mark H’s incorrect statement does not make your moronic claims and methods any less moronic.

  57. EOS
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Uhh, yes Dude. But the petition filed on 7/6/09 has yet to be ruled on.

  58. Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Oh my god. You must be right then. After 10 petitions have been thrown out FINALLY one hasn’t been thrown out yet. It’s true. OBAMA IS NOT AMERICAN!

  59. EOS
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Dude,
    Denying cert means the plaintiffs were determined to not have standing. The merits of the case have not even been considered. When an officer who was under orders to go serve in Afghanistan filed suit – they changed his orders. It would have been nearly impossible to rule that an individual about to be put in harms way did not have standing. After the orders were changed, they determined he did not have standing. At least one of the candidates who was on the presidential ballot has filed suit. It will be interesting to watch and see if they deny him standing. Once a person has standing, all they have to do is request all the relevant documents.

  60. Mark H.
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Dude for applying reason and evidence. EOS hasn’t a clue. If Mr. Justice Scalia is denying cert for these crazy cases, there’s clearly no chance that the rest of the court is going to grant cert. Merely filing papers asking the court to hear a certain case is not the same as the case being argued before the court, and I believe that EOS has claimed that the Court was hearing arguments, and that is not true.

    EOS has also claimed that “Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to block the release of not only his official birth certificate, but also his early school records where he not only claims to be an African citizen”. These claims of his are also false. I won’t belabor the point, but the state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth there, and EOS ought to know that Africa is a continent with many countries on it, not a single country with one “African citizen”ship as he implies. Obama has Kenyan roots on his father’s side: That’s a fact that is both unprecedented for an American president and irrelevant to the constitutional requirement.

    I am with Justice Scalia on this one: The issue deserves no attention, and it hasn’t gotten any from the USSC.

    If anyone thinks I made an error in prior comments, I’d appreciate you copying my erroneous words and posting them in a fresh comment, and telling me what my mistake was. I am prone to mistakes and am eager for corrections. I don’t see what mistake it was that i made, however (unless it’s the mistake of addressing these issues at all! You can’t win a debate with a rock lying on the floor of Ford Lake).

    any case in which the Court has denied cert is a case that does not support EOS’s claim.

    If the US Supreme Court EVER grants a hearing to any of these birther cases, i will buy drinks for all MM.com readers who show up at the Corner at a date to be set. Crazy nut case theories do not get before the supreme court, not even the Roberts court. Take my word for it!

  61. Posted July 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    If the Supreme Court ever grants a hearing to any of these moronic proposals, then I will renounce my citizenship. Seriously.

    That this bullshit has even gotten this far makes me question the ability of a large percentage of the American populace to use reason and logic.

  62. EOS
    Posted July 29, 2009 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Barak-Obama-must-release-Original-1961-Hawaii-Certificate-of-Live-Birth

  63. Montana
    Posted July 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Dear DUDE:
    If you have seen the video of the lawyers handling this BS, you can sleep assured that they will only get attention but none of their cases will be won.

  64. EOS
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Dude,

    You can always see if Alec Baldwin wants a roommate overseas should someone succeed in getting a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate.
    Bon Voyage!

  65. Posted July 31, 2009 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    What does Alec Baldwin have to do with anything?

    I know his name, but I really don’t even know who he is or what he does.

  66. EOS
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    He’s the guy who promised to leave the country and never come back if G.W. Bush was elected. Except he reneged.

  67. Mark H.
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    EOS,
    I think you may be confusing Mr Baldwin’s hyperbole with an actual sincere promise. GW Bush also, on the phone to his campaign manager during the Florida election crisis in late 2000, said repeatedly (but privately) “Let’s just count all the votes!” and at first the campaign manager was confused, as he knew counting all the votes WAS not the winning strategy for Bush, and he thought Bush was singing from the wrong page. But then he figured out that Bush was just pulling his leg. Many rhetorical styles involve less than literal truthfulness or earnestness.

  68. EOS
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Mark H.,

    No, Bush did want to count all the votes in the state of Florida – including those from the military. Gore wanted a recount in only a few cherry picked places like Broward County. And then they manhandled the punch cards and started counting hanging chads and dimpled chads … ad nauseum.

  69. dragon
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    ELAINE: Well, I mean, your underwear was in Lou Dobbs’ apartment, and then it’s gone and it’s in your apartment.

    EOS: Maybe you think we’re in cahoots.

    ELAINE: No, no.. but it is quite a coincidence.

    EOS: Yes, that’s all, a coincidence!

    ELAINE: A big coincidence.

    EOS: Not a big coincidence. A coincidence!

    ELAINE: No, that’s a big coincidence.

    EOS: That’s what a coincidence is! There are no small coincidences and big coincidences!

    ELAINE: No, there are degrees of coincidences.

    EOS: No, there are only coincidences! ..Ask anyone! (Enraged, he asks everyone on the blog) Are there big coincidences and small coincidences, or just coincidences? (Silent) ..Well?! Well?!..

    (Everyone just kinda shrugs, then murmurs. The doors open)

    MAN: Will you take that tinfoil hat off?!

    EOS: (Pointing the hat tip at him) Maybe I shove it on your face! (To Elaine) It’s just like Loe Dobbs said – you and Jerry are jealous of our love. You’re trying to destroy us.

    ELAINE: Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?

  70. EOS
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Dragon-

    Did you hear the story about a man who bought a factory. After a few weeks, he called in the union steward to complain about the workers. He told the steward that they smelled bad. Because of the stench, he wasn’t sure they showered or even changed their underwear. So the steward called a meeting of all the factory workers and announced to them that they had to change their underwear on a regular basis. Mr. Jones should change with Mr. Smith, Mr. Johnson with Mr. Miller…..

    The moral? Just because there is change doesn’t mean there is any improvement.

  71. Meta
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/new-poll-less-than-half-o_n_248470.html

    Less than half of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, a new public opinion poll finds.

    Only 42 percent of Republican respondents in a Research 2000 survey, conducted for the liberal website Daily Kos, said they thought Obama was a natural born citizen; 28 percent said they did not believe Obama was born in the United States; 30 percent said they were not sure…

  72. Oliva
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Thinking back (okay, back and sideways)–Republicans overwhelmingly believed that George W. Bush had been reborn in the United States, whereas most everyone else felt sure he was . . . faking. (What a wonderful thing that we hardly even hear about him–may that continue–so I apologize for bringing him up. )

  73. EOS
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    That’s an interesting poll from Huffington. 93% of Democrats “know” he was born in the United States even though there hasn’t been a single witness come forward who was present at his birth, no physician or hospital in the U.S. has claimed the honor and Obama has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his original birth certificate. The majority of Democrats must “feel” that no person would distort the truth just to lay claim to the power and prestige of the office of president and leader of the free world. I think the only honest answer is we don’t know for sure, but as citizens of a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, we certainly have a right to know. There should be some process to verify that the requirements to hold office have been met.

    I don’t know about most Republicans, but a lot of sincere Christians questioned whether Bush was using his religiosity for political advantage. Who really knows whether another person is truly born again? It’s hard to believe a born again Christian could announce that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Many people feel they must vote for one of the two major parties and choosing someone who pretends to be moral and votes accordingly at least some of the time is certainly a lesser evil than choosing someone who advocates and embraces immoral views.

  74. Mark H.
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    EOS, you say “Bush did want to count all the votes in the state of Florida” -which shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Never did he argue that the counting of ballots should proceed until all the uncounted ballots were tallied; his strategy was to stop the recounts. Gore handled the whole issue like a fool and followed inconsistent strategies, but Bush’s strategy was clear: stop the counting. His campaign successfully halted the recount in Miami-Dade County by threatened violence (the Brooks Brothers riot), and the uncounted votes there were NEVER counted. The US Supreme Court in Dec. 2000 halted the recount of disputed and under-vote ballots in Florida just after that state’s supreme court had ordered that recount to begin. Thus, the recount was halted, and thousands of votes were never counted; the US Supreme Court decision, by 5-4, in this infamous case, Bush v. Gore, gave Bush a legal victory, and the electoral votes of Florida. Bush’s goal was to halt the counting of previously uncounted ballots. That Gore handled the whole thing stupidly does not refute the FACT that Bush’s strategy was based on NOT counting all disputed and uncounted ballots. (Hence, Bush’s joke to his manager, “let’s count all the ballots,” which I cited earlier in this thread as an example of a rhetorical style that cannot be taken at face value….)

    EOS seems either to be a poser, or someone so blinded by ideology that he can’t deal with facts. Here’s a fact: I was born in the United States. Another fact: No witness to my birth can be called forward, because they’re all dead. Same may be true so for lots of people my age, and I’m older that the President.

    EOS errs in implying that the lack of a certain kind of birth certificate, and the absence of living witnesses to a birth a half century ago, constitutes grounds to think something is being hidden.

    The whole birther conspiracy theory is promoted by people who claim to be defending American democracy and profess worry about attacks on American rights of self government, but in actuality every method of the birthers is based on repudiating fundamental principles of American freedom. Such as, the right of being innocent until proven guilty? To their way of thinking, Obama is obviously guilty because he hasn’t produced evidence that is sufficient (to their absurd and undefined, unattainable) standard; but true American patriots realize that guilt must be established by the prosecution. Dictatorships past and present may require the accused to prove their innocence, but it’s not supposed to be that way in the land of the free.

    And the birthers cannot produce evidence for any of their claims. Therefore, it’s obvious that Obama is protected by a huge conspiracy of people hiding the evidence!

  75. Felix The Clock
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    “I don’t know about most Republicans, but a lot of sincere Christians questioned whether Bush was using his religiosity for political advantage.”

    Yes, and then the most sincere tried their best to use George Bush to their political advantage. Bush was quite a bit more saavy, and politically astute; at least his team was. He played them for a bunch of rubes.

  76. EOS
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Mark H.

    Can you tell us how exactly you came to be privy to of the dialogue in a private phone conversation between Bush and his campaign manager? Is this another example of your rhetorical style that involves something less than literal truthfulness? I think that’s merely an academic’s way of stating you lie when it is to your advantage in a debate.

  77. EOS
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    When you’re speeding down the road and a police officer pulls you over and asks to see your license, registration, and proof of insurance, do you call the officer a dictator? Do you stand on your fundamental right of innocence until proven guilty? Are you allowed to show him a different kind of document other than the original official forms? Can you really believe that asking for the original official document is an undefined, unattainable, standard?

  78. Posted August 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad nobody has asked for the long version of my birth certificate because all I have is this piece-of-shit photo copy that I have had forever!

  79. Mark H.
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    EOS asks me —
    “Can you tell us how exactly you came to be privy to of the dialogue in a private phone conversation between Bush and his campaign manager?”

    and my answer is that the story is told on page 94 of Jeffrey Toobin’s book “Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election” (Random House, paperback edition 2002). Toobin’s sources are good enough for me, but I’m sure East of Sanity will say he’s part of some liberal conspiracy or some such thing…

    EOS adds, ” Is this another example of your rhetorical style that involves something less than literal truthfulness?” to which I answer No, it’s a quotation from a reliable book by a great journalist on a vital topic. Why does EOS always have to add insults to his arguments — such as his next sentence, which isn’t worth the ink by which it’s printed on a blog: “I think that’s merely an academic’s way of stating you lie when it is to your advantage in a debate”. EOS calls me a liar. Yawn. Nobody’s impressed, and playing words games with him isn’t fun anymore. I endeavor to be truthful and accurate, and I pray for EOS to one day acquire the humility and humanity which will allow him to see that his ideology does not give him a monopoly over truth, and that those who may disagree with him on a given issue are not ip so facto fools, liars, or criminals.

    Read Toobin’s book! A page turner, and an exciting story, even though you know the disaster awaiting at the end….Good beach reading, actually!

  80. Posted August 1, 2009 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    I doubt that EoS has ever read a book.

  81. EOS
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Ken –
    Write a letter to the county of your birth. For a small fee you (as well as Obama) can get a notarized copy of your original birth certificate.

    Mark H-
    It would be easier to consider you truthful if you picked one story and stuck with it. First you relate the details of a private phone conversation. Then you claim it was some kind of joke. Next you claim its from a book by Toobin, but again offer no explanation of how he came to have information from a private phone conversation since he wasn’t one of the two cited as talking.

    You might be able to get undergraduates to buy into your revisionist history in order to get a passing grade but you can’t persuade eye witnesses. Every day that that they manipulated the punch cards during the recount, the fallen chads were collected as evidence. A legal battle to stop a biased partial recount is not the equivalent of not wanting to count all the votes. Every single one of your posts contains insults, so who is calling the kettle black now?

    I offered you an honorable exit – that you were mistaken, but you pressed on. The lies in your postings are there for everyone to read. I never once said that Obama’s case was being litigated at the Supreme Court or arguments were being heard, merely that it was being fought at the Supreme Court level with lawyers from both sides filing briefs. I never once mentioned a conspiracy – you claimed that there was a conspiracy 6 times. You said there wasn’t a single case in any court in the U.S., so I gave you a list of more than a dozen. You said none were before the Supreme Court, so I gave you the case number and date. Then you have the gall to state that you endeavor to be truthful and accurate. Good night.

  82. Posted August 2, 2009 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    I still doubt that EoS has ever read a book.

  83. Mark H.
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    EOS seems to rest a lot on the Craig v. US case from Oklahoma; this case will surely fail to get a hearing before the US Supr Court, but it is on the list of pending cert cases (meaning, the party has asked the Court to hear the case). It does not meet the test of being argued before the Court, nor are Obama’s lawywers fighting it. Below I’ve copied from another blog one commentator’s well informed explainatin of why this case will NOT be heard by the US Supremes:

    “1. No cause of action stated.
    2. No case or controversy.
    3. No subject matter jurisdiction.
    4. Supreme Court petition for write of certiorari filed prematurely, prior to hearing & determination of 10th circuit appeal.

    The case is scheduled for conference in September because the Supreme Court HAS to place all cert petitions on a conference calender. Cert will be denied.

    What a monumental waste of time.”

    Any lawyer can file a cert petition with the Supr Court, and they’ll put it on what’s called a conference agenda, to consider whether to grant a hearing. Later the court will announce what certs they’ve granted, and which denied. That a cert petition has been filed in itself proves nothing. That Craig filed his cert peitition without appealing his Federal District court loss to the Federal Appeals court before trying to get it in front of the US Supreme is an indicator of how unlikely this nutty case is to get a hearing at the US Suprme Court. The US Supreme Court is known for being sticklers for procedure and order, and skipping the Appeals court isn’t often, to say the least, a strategy that gets a case before the US Supreme.

    If anyone sincerely thought in my earlier challenge to EOS to provide the name of a case before the Supreme Court was meant to include cases that the Court will deny a hearing to, but for which requests to hear the case (a peitition for cert), well, then, that’s not what I meant, but I’ll make good on the offer to buy dinner for anyone who had that impression. Contact me and we’ll set a date. Point is: Not a single case in the US brought by the birthers has won on the merits, and none now are in a position to do so. None of them will ever be argued before the US Supreme Court, even if many such plantiff’s file cert petitions.

    To grant a cert petition takes, I think, 4 Justices; there are not 4 votes in favor of the birthers’ arguments, which are aimed at using the courts to overturn the result of the 2008 election. The court has no stomach for a judicial coup.

    The constitutional requirement for a president regarding citizenship is merely that one be born a US citizen….Obama plainly was. Case closed! This is how every court will see the matter: the facts and the law permit no other conclusion.

    EOS is determined to make a case against my honesty based on his misreading of a well known story told by journalist Jeffrey Toobin in his book. Well, I think Toobin’s a reasonable source, and I think that, even if his sources are disputable, how I presented that story in comments about Bush’s joking, insincere desire to “count all the votes” in Florida, was consistent and entirely honest.

    But I am done arguing anything on this topic brought up by EOS, no matter how silly or baseless his next line of attack may be. My recommendation that people read Jeffrey Toobin’s TOO CLOSE TO CALL is meant for anyone wanting to read a page turner of a serious book this summer, one that manages to sustain drama til the end, even though everyone knows who wins at the end….

  84. Oliva
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Mark H., for the summer reading tip. Jeffrey Toobin’s such a readable, smart guy. Funny too sometimes (though can anything in the book you recommend be funny?!). I really like his extended interviews on C-SPAN, where his natural curiosity and pleasure in learning are fully on display (more than in quick Q&A’s on CNN, though he would be one of the better elements of the network).

  85. Posted August 2, 2009 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I am more interested in getting my real birth certificate, not a notarized copy.

  86. Mark H.
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Olivia, for the comment on Toobin. Yeah, he’s smart and readable! A more recent book of his, called “The Nine,” is a detailed account of the last years of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, and it’s also quite good. It picks up about where “Too Close to Call” ends….but it’s not quite the page turner.

  87. Meta
    Posted October 7, 2010 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    It looks as though Lou Dobbs, the guy that’s always yelling about the threat of illegal aliens, has been caught employing a few.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/155209/lou-dobbs-american-hypocrite?page=full&sms_ss=reddit&at_xt=4cadd705927bc3e9,0

Leave a Reply

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

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative The Prisoner