Sheriff Arpaio writes:
The comments under the article are interesting. Commentor "Dillett" is very reasonable, logical, and keeps referring to the evidence and facts, and those who disagree, amazingly don't care at all about them, and attempt to use mere rhetoric to dismiss even the idea of bothering to look for the evidence, because, as they allege (and fail to prove), "oh, it's been looked into already, been debunked, etc.".
Me, I'm with the EVIDENCE.
Who's with me, and who wants to act like an evidence-ignoring, pro-Obama propaganda clown? I know one such person, who doesn't give a crap about evidence himself. He's a pompous troll in the comments section herein.
Evidence? Here it is being presented:
We have produced experts in the creation of electronic documents who will attest that the document in question is a forgery, evidence that the president's Selective Service registration card is highly suspect and looked far different from any other card we examined from the same exact post office in the same exact month in which his was filed.
And we uncovered information from the National Archives that is mysteriously missing one week of flight information into Hawaii out of a 10-year span requested by my investigators. It just so happened to be the week of the president's birth.
After spending over an hour discussing these facts and much more, not one reporter ever asked about the evidence or the case itself.
Their pre-determined desire to discredit me and my office would not even allow them to consider listening to what was presented in an unbiased manner.
The comments under the article are interesting. Commentor "Dillett" is very reasonable, logical, and keeps referring to the evidence and facts, and those who disagree, amazingly don't care at all about them, and attempt to use mere rhetoric to dismiss even the idea of bothering to look for the evidence, because, as they allege (and fail to prove), "oh, it's been looked into already, been debunked, etc.".
Me, I'm with the EVIDENCE.
Who's with me, and who wants to act like an evidence-ignoring, pro-Obama propaganda clown? I know one such person, who doesn't give a crap about evidence himself. He's a pompous troll in the comments section herein.
Evidence? Here it is being presented:
20 comments:
"He's a pompous troll in the comments section herein."
Awww. You always say the sweetest things.
Sentinel, you do realize that the number of people who take this nonsense seriously is dwindling? That the birfer movement is becoming the exclusive domain of the craziest edge of American conservatism?
"the number of people who take this nonsense seriously is dwindling"
---Evidence, please?
I agree with CS insofar as the facts and the evidence must be paramount if we're to get to the truth of this sordid tale. It's not enough to dismiss unpopular assertions as the ravings of a reprehensible scumbag. The assertions have to be tested against a standard of plausibility and relevance...it's the scumbag's claims that are important and not the scumbag's character that is to be addressed first.
Dr. Conspiracy is my go to site for birther refutation and he posts a list of 20 questions that must be answered in order to adequately assess the Sheriff's claims. Hopefully the information can be brought forward or uncovered so that those with open minds can decide for themselves.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-conspiracy-theories-blog-launches-investigation-into-sheriff-joes-cold-case-posse/
Sentinel: certainly. What evidence would you accept as credible?
Mike: I agree that evidence is paramount. I also believe that after a certain point you stop reviewing evidence of absurd claims. A birther, a truther, a vaccinophobe, an Illuminati conspiracy theorist, an "Elvis Lives" believer or a Flat Earther will NEVER cease producing "evidence"; at what point do you decide, enough nonsense already?
Incidentally, Sentinel - in this critical week, shouldn't you be throwing the entire weight of your blogging network and followers to promote Newt? He doesn't seem to be doing that well, and I'm sure he'll appreciate the endorsement?
I just suggest it because it looks like that damned Socialist-in-Capitalist's-Clothing Romney is poised to take the candidacy.
Mike, thanks for the link to the conspiracy piece. What a thorough and hilarious debunking.
Sentinel, any comments?
Oh, just this:
Everyone can see the ass in you.
Or, since you're an Obamacracy sheeple, perhaps it should be the "ass in ewe". LOL
Beyond that, no, no comments, other than you guys are so useless in your comments that I'd feel just fine putting on moderation for good.
I have no interest getting "into it" with dishonest prog activists who insist on bullshitting whenever they feel they better, to serve the so-called "Greater Good", ie. neo-communism, racism, global governanc, far left-wing social reengineering, etc. And I have zero doubt now that that's what you guys are, ie. Mike and Blabs, at least.
Cheerios, guys. Have some. It's a very popular food with babies, both big and small.
Oh, and I forgot the anti-Semitism masquerading in you guys' belief in the Big Lies being told against Israel, and your insistence on ignoring the objective, visible evidence that proves the Muslim side to be the hostile instigator, the guilty party, not Israel. I hate that about you progs. Which is another reason why I have almost no patience for you guys' lies. Don't worry, 'cause while I hate the way you guys "think", I still love y'all, 'cause it's the Christian way. :) God bless you, whether you want to believe or not.
Please willingly suspend your disbelief that you just MIGHT be intellectually dishonest, or if not, then big assholes, and proud of it. For you folks are either or both. But you have willpower and CAN choose to NOT be assholes. Up to you.
Leaving aside the name calling, Sentinel, and your strange lurch into Middle Eastern politics, I'm delighted to hear that your heart is full of Christian love for me. You express it strangely, but thanks.
Anyhow, back to the topic. As the open minded truth seeker you profess yourself to be, I'm sure you read the comments Mike linked to with great interest. So...no refutation?
Well the site playing 20 questions doesn't refute anything. In fact I waited to go there until I had time to seriously analyze a rebuttal. Needless to say I'm now watching a House rerun.
This site is a leftist hack site looking to publicize individual names and suggest inappropriate relations between government and private organizations. It also requests information on technique of the analyses which other investigators have already fully disclosed and demonstrated effectively.
The main thrust is to attempt to expose people to the vicious Alynski styled smear machine run by the likes of David Axelrod. Requesting the information required to debunk, and an actual debunking, are not the same thing.
We've been asking for a simple long form birth certificate for a long time. Show us the long form and we'll answer all 20 questions.
There's no long form. We know that. That's why there were 2 OCONS.
Debunk this:
"The obvious crime in this intentional dissemination of misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it. Why would the DNC not share its verification documentation of Obama's candidacy with the Democrat Party of Hawaii's official? If the DNC was actually able to verify Obama's eligibility, the DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and verifiable, both party authorities would have included the same appropriate language in accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian law also allowed for seven more days from the dates appearing on both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the DPH and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama's eligibility.
Also, if the original version of the DNC's OCON had been authored with language confirming Obama's constitutional eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two different versions. The inclusion of such language only reinforces perception of Obama's eligibility in every state. Therefore, the submittal of different documents indicates an act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC in an effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON."
http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2011/01/00970-new-analysis-on-obama-s-democratic-party-of-hawaii-certification-of-nomination-had-legal-help-from.html
And for those who love irony:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text
Mike, I've forgotten, what grade do you teach? If you're teaching them that everything they read is valid... well just what do you teach them?
Excellent, Infin, excellent.
My prediction: Balbulican will not attempt to dissect what you've provided to us there.
Why won't he?
Simple. His sole raison d'etre herein is to attempt to show his far-left brethren that I'm somehow wrong. He does this with rhetorical manipulation, and is excellent at it, being a professional at that stuff, in fact. And naturally his lefty brethren will eat it up like meaty pizza with extra cheese, for such is the nature of Useful Idiots.
Leftists aren't about truth, nor proof, and couldn't care less about evidence, logic, reason, common sense, nor fundamental raw intelligence. Leftists are about delusion, pretending, intimidation, acquiescence, submission, imposition, confusion... They want to have what they want, no matter what, to hell with the consequences. America is bankrupt and on borrowed Chinese monetary life support? No problem- give more money to unions and start providing free rubbers and abortions to sluts and so on and so forth...
Indeed, I'd like also to see Mike's response to Infin's question... Mike reminds me of a commie economics professor who was always telling us to read Noam Chomsky and Linda McQuaig, the likes of such bullshitty commie lefty militants, and never anyone of the prominent economists from the "right". We were expected to believe that everything Chomsky and McQuaig wrote was true and valid... but I know it was not. Even then I knew better than to just believe everything a professor says, because nowadays many are more like brainwashers than teachers.
"My prediction: Balbulican will not attempt to dissect what you've provided to us there.
Why won't he?"
Hah. Because balbulican finds squiggle's weird sexual taunting a little disturbing, and doesn't read his comments.
Based on the string of clichés you responded with, I'm not missing much. :)
∞ ≠ ø...I'm not a teacher although I do have 3 kids in school. I agree that producing the long form would go a long way to shutting up the birthers although we both know that some die hards would find problems with that as well. I also suspect that Obama likes sticking it to the conspiracy minded and for that reason is happy to supply only the minimum paperwork required.
I think the birther phenomenon is a weird intersection between folks who genuinely hate the President and the off kilter collection of odd right wing thinkers who view the world as a tangle of conspiracies. I dismiss the "he doesn't have a bc because he wasn't born here" claim out of hand but I find the legal questions surrounding the "natural born citizen" requirement somewhat interesting. It's clear what American courts understand by the phrase but some of the issues raised and how they relate to specific precedents are worthy of some consideration IMO. That doesn't mean I don't believe that he's entitled to his position but merely that the legal issue resides in a less fantastic realm than does the other stuff.
To me the "legal" issues collapse just about as quickly as the claims of Kenyan birth in the face of their own inherent contradiction.
1) Birthers allege that one or another dimension of Obaba's parentage fails to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.
2) The Constitution unequivocally relegates the adjudication of such matters to the Judiciary Branch.
3) The Judiciary Branch has examined bushels of claims and "findings" by such luminaries as Orly Taitz and Sherrif Joe, and dismissed them, sometimes in scathing terms.
And at this point the "weird intersection between folks who genuinely hate the President and the off kilter collection of odd right wing thinkers who view the world as a tangle of conspiracies" takes over from the lawyers. Because in order to maintain this belief (and it is no longer a reasoned conclusion for birthers, but an article of faith),it is necessary to posit a universe in which the Judiciary Branch, State Governments, the federal bureaucracy and hundreds of civil servants are complicit in a conspiracy so brilliantly concealed that only the Birthers can see it.
This despite that some of the richest men in America, including Mitt Romney and Donald trump, would LOVE it to be true.
Hi Mike,
Sorry, I got the teacher idea from the field trip to an occupy protest. I forgot you were discussing family not students.
"...a weird intersection between folks who genuinely hate the President and the off kilter collection of odd right wing thinkers who view the world as a tangle of conspiracies...
Well, it's not that weird. Actually this situation has been going on since the days of Chester Arthur and is exactly what you get when you kick the can down the road too many times. Interestingly, when Romney's dad had a run at the presidency, he had issues with eligibility.
What I find galling, is that Obama was one of the authors (which means he signed it, he doesn't write all that much) of the Senate resolution on McCain's eligibility (link in my previous comment). It was a lenient view in my opinion, and represented an excellent opportunity for Obama to petition for his case as well, with quid pro quo and the race card on his side. But that didn't happen. His case is a bit more tricky even in the best of circumstances which were, at the time, arguably pretty damn good.
So, given the Senate resolution, let me make the point that an informed decision was made to avoid an eligibility hearing. This is because Obama's eligibility is conflicted three ways.
1. He does not have proof of birth in the territorial U.S. (This requires a long form birth record and/or a witnessed event (COLB).
2. His father was a foreign national who did not have even residency status.
3. When Obama departed to Indonesia all indications are that he became a citizen there. This is reaffirmed by his stop in Indonesia on his way to Pakistan in the 1980's. A U.S. passport would not get you into Pakistan.
A brilliant article I found a while back (which has since disappeared from the web)was written by a person who worked in the Hawaii records offices at the time. It described, I believe, four different scenarios for the issuance of birth certificates and the different types. The main thrust of the article was to demonstrate the differences between the terms long form and COLB etc. The most salient point was that if a person became a citizen of another country, the long form, if there was one, was removed while data from it was retained for future reference.
This is very important. Such an event would explain why oaths are being taken on both sides of the issue.
In '08 Obama's State Department passport file was breached by an employee of John Brennan who is now Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, and Assistant to the President.
Obama's SSN # is form Connecticut.
One of two OCONs omitted the required constitutional language.
"I dismiss the "he doesn't have a bc because he wasn't born here" claim out of hand.."
I dismiss everything Obama says out of hand.
The issue will go to the Supreme court. So far, cases have been thrown out on procedural grounds. This is unfortunate.
In Georgia a judge named Malihi...
(who is the only judge at his level in the country who has no bio) heard one case on natural born citizen status. He ruled against the plaintiff but this will be appealed and there is now a path to the supreme court.
The point has been so muddled historically that only an idiot could fail to bring it that far if necessary.
I'm perplexed about this Malihi. He actually heard the case. That took balls.
(Still taunting.)
http://www.dansdata.com/images/ecmags/bigballs640.jpg
Thanks for the reply. My knowledge of the American judicial system isn't bad for a Canadian blog junkie but I certainly don't claim any particular authority. My understanding of Judge Malihi is that he is an Administrative Court justice in Georgia and is not in the general court system. As such, he didn't have much to lose by allowing the case to go ahead despite the lack of participation from the WH and its lawyers. While I agree that the court cases brought forward thus far have been dismissed on "procedural" grounds, I think this really says more about the state of the "evidence" brought by those seeking to have Obama ruled ineligible. Unless a competent attorney brings a real case with real evidence behind it then the chances of a case advancing past the introductory court level is remote, let alone go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Still. I find it all interesting.
"he is an Administrative Court justice in Georgia and is not in the general court system..."
Indeed. And Sheriff Arpaio's dramatically named "Cold Case Posse" has no actual standing, and the "court order" issued at Orly Taitz's request last year (the one that Sentinel hailed as a dramatic breakthrough) turns out to be a routine administrative procedure.
I guess it's part of the strategy that lets WND keep this "story" alive. There must always be a dramatic "next step" just waiting to happen, hopefully associated with some impressive sounding legal measures like "posses" and "court orders".
Well, that's fine. Everybody needs a hobby; but if you like fantasy, I'd suggest the first season of "Game of Thrones", just out on DVD this weekend. It's at least plausible.
This facet of the eligibility issue is fairly well argued in my opinion.
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Georgia-Petition-for-Appeal-and-Review-of-Final-Decision.pdf
Add to it:
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
John Bingham, House of Representatives 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.
James F. Wilson 1866
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born
citizens of the United States
Attorney General William Bates 1862
I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States
Obviously there is intended difference between natural and native born citizens. The case has clear merit. It's not silly birfer stuff. It is an argument based on the founding principals of the U.S.A.
An argument the Supreme Court should hear.
Post a Comment