Dispatches from the Culture Wars

When Michelle Malkin is the voice of reason talking you down, you are so far out on the lunatic fringe that you've built a condo out there.

I saw her name and thought for sure this was going to be something different. Good for her.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 8, 2008 9:53 AM

Supposedly, the Supreme Court is supposed to announce something today about one of the law suits filed relative to the Obama birth certificate issue. Attached is a commentary that accuses Justice Thomas of accepting the proffer for discussion for purposes of getting even with the President Elect for a statement he made during an interview at the Saddleback Church in which he stated that he would not appoint justices like the former if he were president, specifically mentioning Thomas by name. Hopefully, the justices will politely tell the complainant, a Mr. Donofrito, to take a hike.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/83953

Posted by: SLC | December 8, 2008 9:57 AM

..And if they do tell them to take a hike, SLC, it will be the end of constitutional rule of law in the United States. Bye bye freedoms! No more free speech for you unless you support the party in charge! Welcome to Dictatiorship of the United States! No more protections for you. No gun ownership protection, no freedom of religion, no redress of grievances, nothing. But you will all make good little slaves.

And as a bonus, though, those of us who aren't willing to be slaves won't have to abide by any federal "laws" passed under the usurper dictator's administration! So, while you all are busy being slaves, I will do what I want to do within the realm of CONSTITUTIONAL law.

Posted by: had enough | December 8, 2008 10:05 AM

These accusations are a matter of fact easily answered by Mr. Obama's original birth certificate. While I tend not to believe all the accusations made against Mr. Obama, he could certainly easily clear them all up by providing this one piece of paper. I, like many other normal, non-tinfoil-hat-wearing Americans wonder why he would employ a team of lawyers to stonewall instead of just providing a $14 document. I also wonder why seemingly every record of Mr. Obama's past has now been sealed and is unavailable for public review. Anyway, I wish Mr. Obama would address these questions. I would be satisfied if he simply stated he was born in Hawaii.

Posted by: James Orleans | December 8, 2008 10:13 AM

had enough: you are a reactionary statist throwing a temper-tantrum; when the SCOTUS says "take a hike" to those with whom you disagree, I'm quite sure that you wouldn't see that as some sort of "dictatorial usurpation."

Posted by: jws | December 8, 2008 10:14 AM

James Orleans: These accusations are a matter of fact easily answered by Mr. Obama's original birth certificate.

Wow! This is the topic that just keeps giving!

Actually, these accusations are, as a matter of fact, easily answered by the documents that have already been provided. What relevant information would be in the so-called "long form" that isn't already in the provided "short form" document? Especially since the officials of the State of Hawaii have already checked the so-called long form and assured us all that the provided document is accurate.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 10:22 AM

SLC: Yes, because obviously the answer to conspiracy theorists being insane is prison rape.

You know, you can wish someone an unpleasant stay in prison, or other nasty treatment, without hoping that they're repeatedly raped.

Posted by: user@example.com | December 8, 2008 10:36 AM

Yes, American Believer, seek the truth: in this case, the truth is that the next POTUS was born in Hawaii and the truth is that some folks are sore losers who will never accept that truth.

Posted by: jws | December 8, 2008 10:40 AM

James Orleans states:

I would be satisfied if he [Obama] simply stated he was born in Hawaii.

He did, way before this manufactured controversy arose. You can find an unequivocal statement in his first book on page 64, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

I don't own the book so there may be more claims in the book than the one on page 64, I found that one using Amazon's search inside the book feature. You can't copy the text, otherwise I'd share it and the context.

That page is talking about Obama being with five family members touring the area in Hawaii where he lived with his grandparents, including their driving or walking by "the remodeled hospital where I [Obama] had been born".

Assuming Mr. Orleans is an honest man of integrity, we have one less denialist on this matter.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 8, 2008 10:49 AM

We the People believe that some of us People are so stubborn that no amount of proof can get them to admit that they are wrong. Please, American conservatives, keep saying that Obama was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, or wherever; keep saying that the state of Hawaii routinely alters birth certificates to make them seem as though someone born outside of the U.S. was actually born in Hawaii; keep up this stupidity - that way the great majority of voters will stop listening to you on every other matter, as your credibility is disappearing.

Posted by: jws | December 8, 2008 10:57 AM

When Michelle Malkin is the voice of reason talking you down, you are so far out on the lunatic fringe that you've built a condo out there.

And when Michelle Malkin writes for the National Review, that once-kinda-sorta respectable conservative publication has gone to the loony bin.

(Notice how Malkin had to preface her attack on right-wing troofers with an attack on left-wing troofers? This strongly implies her audience would not have believed her without this lame attempt to be "fair-n-balanced." She may be right this time, but she's still writing from, and to, "teach the controversy" territory.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 8, 2008 10:58 AM

To those that claim they're merely defending our Constitution regarding your questioning whether Obama is a natural born citizen; please provide evidence of your ardent efforts to impeach President Bush and VP Cheney and also criminally investigate members of his Administration (e.g., Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Addington) given their known violations to the Constitution.

Please also provide empirical evidence that Obama's natural born birth should be in doubt given factchecker.org has provided empirical evidence for a Hawaii birth.

If you can't meet these two conditions, the rational person can only conclude your intentions are something that has nothing to do with the defense of the Constitution; a matter taken extremely seriously in this forum by Ed and many (most?) of his readers.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 8, 2008 11:01 AM

The Supremes just refused to hear the case.

Posted by: Taz | December 8, 2008 11:04 AM

"God help our nation if we allow the Constitution to be trampled on by those who would rather have their personal views and desires met over the truth and rule of law."

I think a part of my brain just self destructed to avoid having to process that sentence.

Posted by: Bubs | December 8, 2008 11:06 AM

Mary E - please elaborate. Why doesn't Malkin speak for the Republican base?

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 8, 2008 11:08 AM

WScott posted the bad news "The Supremes just refused to hear the case."
But on a more positive note they have agreed to re-form and re-record thier 1964 hit "Baby Love". So ya gotta be happy 'bout that. eh Ralph? - :D DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 8, 2008 11:13 AM

In today's Orders, Donorfia was dismissed. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf

Unfortunately, that will make no difference. I'm curious why no one is banging the drum for the old "Natural Cituzens vs 14th Amendment Citizens" argument?

Posted by: kehrsam | December 8, 2008 11:16 AM

Jeff Walker: We will believe when we see the actual Birth Certificate.

Well then you are in trouble. The "actual" birth certificate is a legal document that is on file in a government office in Hawaii. You will never, ever get to see it. Maybe if you were a law enforcement officer who needed to examine it on the basis of an investigation of an explicitly charged criminal act they will let you look at it. Or maybe if a court of law subpoenaed it, the judge and jury could examine it, but you and I will never, ever see it ourselves.

The best that we can hope for is to see a copy of that document or a shorter document that certifies that the birth certificate exists -- this is the birth certificate the you and I have in our possession and that Obama has already provided us with. If you have doubts that a person's birth certificate is wrong or a forgery, then you can ask the relevant state officials to verify it, and this has also been done in Obama's case.

Obama has provided an official state document that verifies that he was born in Hawaii. This suffices for any other purpose where a person has to demonstrate citizenship, and it suffices to demonstrate eligibility for President. In addition, in response to these sorts of allegations, the relevant state officials have actually verified that Obama's birth certificate is genuine (by examining the original copy on record) and that the information on it is accurate.

Everything has been done the way it is supposed to be.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 11:38 AM

To be clear, Donofrio v. Wells, which was routinely rejected by the SCOTUS today, did not challenge Obama's birth origin. Instead it argued that "natural born" standards were not met because the suit claims that Obama inherited his father's British citizenship at birth. It's a crackpot legal question unworthy of any federal court's consideration, including the trial courts.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 8, 2008 11:42 AM

Michael Heath, do you really think that matters to them? The ultimate result is the same.

Posted by: Bachalon | December 8, 2008 11:45 AM

This birth certificate flap morphed into a wingnut conspiracy theory the moment someone claimed that the birth certificate (COLB, or whatever) Obama provided to dailykos.com and factcheck.org was a forgery. Even when the Hawaiian officials affirmed its authenticity, these people refused to believe it, and we've already gone way past the point where the publication of the original birth certificate would satisfy them.

This "we only want to see proof" line is a lie. All they want is to see Obama thrown out of office, no matter how valid his citizenship is.

Salon has an excellent article explaining why the stories about Obama's birth certificate will never die. Just yesterday I came across one benighted soul who claimed that Obama using the phrase "grew up in Hawaii, like me" instead of "was born in Hawaii, like me" when introducing the new head of the VA, General Shinseki, was highly suspicious. (As if a person who is supposedly committing the greatest fraud on the American people in history would be squeamish about telling another little lie.)

Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 11:55 AM

Jeff Walker: "We will believe when we see the actual Birth Certificate."

I'm sure Mr. Walker is not nutty enough to think that he is personally going to see it. How about seeing real photos of BC in Mr. Obama's possession?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Mr. Walker, have you seen your "real birth certificate"? Not the one the health department in your state sent you. How do you know you are a citizen, or even real. Maybe you are an alien who, through advanced technology inserted your own made up data into the paper files.

Posted by: bobh | December 8, 2008 12:14 PM

CJCollucci:

Let me know if you'd like a copy. I can do it a lot faster than I did HUSSEINobama's, that fucking Hawaiian State Seal is mofo to forge.

Posted by: democommie | December 8, 2008 12:27 PM

When Michelle Malkin is the voice of reason talking you down, you are so far out on the lunatic fringe that you've built a condo out there.

Yeah, and your next door neighbor has a "Sarah is not Trig's Mother" sign in his front yard.

Posted by: heddle | December 8, 2008 12:36 PM

LOL, heddle. I don't see thousands of people writing hundreds of column inches a day all over the internet and filing dozens of court cases all around the country over the women who makes you see starbursts whenever you see her on TV. The wackiness factor may be the same, but when it comes to the sheer scope and size of the conspiracy theory, there really is no comparison.

Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 12:42 PM

heddle: Yeah, and your next door neighbor has a "Sarah is not Trig's Mother" sign in his front yard.

Good point! Er, at least it would have been a good point if someone were filing lawsuits claiming that Palin is Constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President because she really isn't Trig's mother.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 12:45 PM

heddle's joined! And wasted no time in invoking Sarah Paloon, goddess of something or other. Let the fun begin, again!

Posted by: Mike | December 8, 2008 12:48 PM

I very rarely hear any mention of the fact that Obama would be a natural born citizen WHEREVER he was born because his mother was an American citizen. Is anyone disputing that she was a citizen? Why are the wingnuts so unclear on basic U.S. citizenships laws?

Posted by: Jennifer | December 8, 2008 1:05 PM

Obama would be a natural born citizen WHEREVER he was born because his mother was an American citizen.

Exactly. Just like John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone), or myself (born in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), or any of the thousands of people born overseas to American parents every year.

-jcr

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 8, 2008 1:19 PM

Here's a telling quote from the Salon article tacitus cited:

Gary Kreep, who heads the United States Justice Foundation and is representing Alan Keyes in one of the lawsuits over the president-elect's eligibility, has said his group will file suit to challenge each and every one of Obama's actions as president.

This is what it's all about: a bunch of hateful loonies who will NEVER accept "that one" as President, and will will do whatever they can to deny the reality.

After eight years of Bush Jr. and Karl Rove framing our entire public dicsourse, the result is that this sort of obvious insanity has become "mainstream,"and the sane adult community are forced, day after day, to let children (both ordinary and overgrown) pretend they have to be taken seriously as grownups. In a saner country, it would not be taken seriously at all. In our present state, we might as well expect the Supreme Court to make a ruling on the shape of the Earth.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 8, 2008 1:30 PM

"Yeah, and your next door neighbor has a "Sarah is not Trig's Mother" sign in his front yard."

At the risk of sounding really foolish, I will make this assertion about Prof. Heddle's comment: I believe he is saying that the loonies on the left who spread this rumor about Gov. Palin were as foolish, and radical, as the loonies on the right who are arguing about the birthplace of our President-Elect.

If this the case, this is the first time I would agree with him. If this is not the case, I'm in the dark about the point he was trying to make.

Posted by: dean | December 8, 2008 1:45 PM

The wingnuts seem to have all fled; they've probably determined we are not wounded prey and there's better pickins somewhere else.

Is there a website which allows you to get RSS feeds based on key words being published on a particular webpage on today's date? How else do the wingnuts know to zero in on a particular blog post from Ed? It's not like they comment here regularly.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 8, 2008 1:49 PM

@ dean

I believe that was the point of heddle's post. I, too, find myself in rare agreement with him.

Posted by: Ranson | December 8, 2008 2:09 PM

To all those stating the State of Hawaii authenticated that Obama was born in Hawaii...they didn't. They only authenticated, in a carefully worded statement, that his birth certificate exists and is on file according to the rules....bla blah blah. Nowhere do they state he was born in Hawaii on his original birth certificate. Regardless, I just want the truth. I would rather he were from Hawaii so that we don't have a Constitutional crisis and civil unrest. However, it is too important a question to remain unanswered. Regardless, the Keyes lawsuit against the SOS of California will force Obama to produce his original birth certificate. Keyes has the standing that Berg does not and the original document will be evidence in the suit. If Obama really were born in Hawaii, I wonder why he is allowing all this distraction, time, and money to be wasted when he could just produce the $14 document.

Posted by: James Orleans | December 8, 2008 2:11 PM

James Orleans: You are a liar - no amount of evidence will be good enough for you or your ilk. What would be good enough for you is for Obama to not be president.

Posted by: jws | December 8, 2008 2:25 PM

Re: Heddle's Palin comment. Yes, the rapidity with which lefties jumped on the issue of who was really the kid's mother was not to their credit.

However let's keep in mind that as soon as it became clear that she really was the kid's mom, the lefty wingnuts dropped it.

As a libertarian, I despise both the far left and far right, but in this case my impartial ruling is that the leftie wingnuts just didn't act very wingnutty at all in comparison to the righty wingnuts. Either, like the Democrats in general, they're a bunch of wimps who just can't keep a battle going or, more plausibly, they're better able to recognize the truth than the birth truthers.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 8, 2008 2:35 PM

James -

These righty wingnuts you describe remind me of Africanized so-called killer bees. Their individual sting is no worse than the sting of a regular European bee, but they are far more aggressive, stinging in larger numbers at less provocation, and are more tenacious, following and stinging long after the target has receded away.

Posted by: Dave S. | December 8, 2008 2:43 PM

James Orleans: Nowhere do they state he was born in Hawaii on his original birth certificate.

No. It states that he was born in Honolulu on the documents that he provided. The provided documents tell us what is on the so-called "original" birth certificate. The so-called "original" birth certificate says that Obama was born in Honolulu -- Obama has provided official documentation that tells us precisely the location of birth recorded on the so-called "original" birth certificate. What the officials of the State of Hawaii have told us is that the documents provided by Obama are not fraudulent, that is, that they are an accurate documentation of the relevant information that is on the so-called "original" birth certificate.

-

Regardless, I just want the truth. I would rather he were from Hawaii so that we don't have a Constitutional crisis and civil unrest.

Were posting here about a month ago under the pseudonym "John Adams"?

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 2:48 PM

Actually the one blogger most responsible for keeping the Palin baby story alive isn't even a liberal. Andrew Sullivan may be an Obama supporter, but he's a true blue* Tory Thatcherite, which puts squarely at the right end of the political spectrum (well, with the exception of the religious wing-nuts he so opposes).

*Note: Blue in Britain denotes right-wing, red denotes left. Why Americans had to go and switch things around and confuse everybody is anyone's guess!

Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 3:02 PM

Heddle, my apologies. When you made your comment, I thought you were off base since I had not seen anyone whinge about Trig's parentage in quite sometime. Clearly there are still a few nutbars out there, and you are entirely correct, the Palin birthers are just as nutty as the Obama birthers.

Posted by: Dave | December 8, 2008 3:05 PM

Its clear that OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!
as his grandma says

Hawaii officials have just 'verified' they have never stated 'he was born in hawaii'. Look at it this way: if he was born in Hawaii he would immediately release an authentic long form online, not this pathetic forged short form. There is NO advantage for Obama camp to have negative rumors going around, there is EVERY advantage to quiet such negative rumors. But there is simply no document, or should i say it says something embarassing that would cost him the presidency...

Posted by: Eds | December 8, 2008 3:32 PM

Eds,
What planet are you living on exactly?

Obama has supplied (and has had verified) all the documentation he was required to submit. If he goes further, he submits to unwarranted discrimination. Sorry the vacuum between your ears cannot fathom a black man as president. He's qualified, he's eligible and amazingly enough after the last 2 elections an articulate, thoughtful, intelligent human will lead the country.

Posted by: Mike | December 8, 2008 3:48 PM

So, heddle, do you always feel the need to point out that there are Obama-hating crazies out there too whenever the right-wing message boards you read begin to fill with outrage over Palin's treatment by the left?

Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 3:50 PM

Its clear that OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA! as his grandma says

Eds, that turns out to be untrue too. From those who have listened to the tape in full, it's clear that his grandmother is initially confused over whether she is being asked about Obama Sr, or Obama Jr, and when she realizes the confusion later she corrects herself, saying that it was Obama Sr. who was born in Kenya (which we already knew).

So, another dud for the "birthers" (I like that term!). No wonder it too so long for that tape to come out.

Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 4:03 PM

tacitus

So, heddle, do you always feel the need to point out that there are Obama-hating crazies out there too whenever the right-wing message boards you read begin to fill with outrage over Palin's treatment by the left?

I don't read any right-wing blogs except, occasionally, NRO (and not much of that, post-election). They didn't raise questions about Obama's citizenship--at least not that I read. Oh--I started to read the new (and rather pretentious) blog secularright.org, but there too I have not seen "obama ain't no citizen" arguments. But to answer your question, what I encounter here is a tin-foil-hat double standard:

1) There are wingnuts attacking Obama's citizenship (true)
2) The questions about Palin's maternity are legitimate (cue Twilight Zone Theme)

If I ever encountered the same double standard on the right:

1) There are wingnuts attacking Palin's maternity (true)
2) The questions about Obama's citizenship are legitimate (cue Twilight Zone Theme)

I would indeed call out the buffoonery, as I do here.

I have a track record of attacking loony fundies and persecuted-Christian-crybabies on my blog. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by: heddle | December 8, 2008 4:16 PM

I wasn't barking up any tree, I was simply asking you a question. Thanks for taking the time to answer it in full.

Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 4:21 PM

But, heddle, you didn't respond to the critique that the left didn't continue barking up the Trig tree, whereas the right has continued barking up the citizenship tree.

There's no double-standard involved in saying that the latter has behaved in a far more wingnuttish fashion than the former. Further, there's no standard at all in acting as though the extent of their behaviors is fairly comparable.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 8, 2008 4:43 PM

James Hanley,

But, heddle, you didn't respond to the critique that the left didn't continue barking up the Trig tree, whereas the right has continued barking up the citizenship tree.

Because The Christian Cynic already answered. My guess is that it is because Palin is off the radar. Had she been elected VP, the leftwing loonies would be as vociferous as the rightwingers are regarding Obama.

Posted by: heddle | December 8, 2008 4:53 PM

heddle: My guess....

So you're admitting that you have no way of knowing whether your analogy is apt?

-

What about Dr. X's point? Did Palin ever release a copy of Trig's birth certificate that lists her as the mother? If she did, then I am more likely to view alleged leftists who are making an issue of Trig to be roughly as wacky as those who are making an issue of Obama's citizenship.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 5:01 PM

Again, odd as it may be, I find myself agreeing with Prof. Heddle for the second time in this sequence of posts. In short

those on the left who think Gov. Palin is not the mother of
her son are (in my opinion) bat-shit foolish

those on the right who question the citizenship status
of President-elect Obama are bat-shit foolish

I'm not sure how I would describe those on the two sides
who continue to press their respective idiocy in
light of all evidence to the contrary, but that
description would involve a description worse than
bat-shit foolish

get over it folks, the pet conspiracies on each side need to be put to rest. go back to your basements and play some more video games.

Posted by: dean | December 8, 2008 5:16 PM

Re dean

Would Mr. dean care to enlighten us as to the identity of the leftists who are currently claiming that Governor Palin is not the mother of Trig. As both I and Mr. heath have previously stated, the only significant hold out, as we sit here today, is Andrew Sullivan, a conservative commentator.

Re Eds

I don't want to play constitutional lawyer here but this is the way I see it. One of the big problems with the Keyes action is that he is asking for a remedy that the court has no authority to grant. He is requesting that the Secretary of State in California be enjoined from certifying the election results. The problem is that nobody in that state or any other state voted for Obama or McCain or Keyes or any other candidate on the ballot. Yes that's right, former Senator Obama did not receive a single vote. All the votes which have been attributed to him are actually votes for 55 electors who have stated that, if they are elected, they will vote for the former senator in the Electoral College. But there is no federal law requiring them to do so; in fact, as far as the federal authorities are concerned, they can vote for anybody. Therefore, unless Mr. Keyes can show that some or all of the electors are ineligible to vote in the
Electoral College, there is no federal issue here.

Posted by: SLC | December 8, 2008 5:34 PM

dean: you're right about the batshit foolishness on both sides of the proverbial aisle; but there's still a huge difference between the two political cultures: the Republicans have made batshit foolishness an ingegral part of their campaign strategy, even taking the place of substantive policy debates (of which they have absolutely nothing to offer). As I've said before, Palin herself repeated the long-discredited line about Obama "pallin' around with terrorists," while nearly all of the mainstream Democrats stayed well away from, and did not try to use, the nonsensical stories that heddle, for the most part, rightly ridicules.

Here's another crucial difference in political cultures: as soon as Palin's unwed pregnant teenage daughter hit the national news, Obama himself flatly said "family are off limits." (And since then, both he and Biden were amazingly soft on Palin herself, as well as on her family.) Now here's a hypothetical: if the unwed pregnant teenage daughter in question had been one of Obama's, would any Republican have responded as Obama did?

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 8, 2008 5:39 PM

Eds, that turns out to be untrue too. From those who have listened to the tape in full, it's clear that his grandmother is initially confused over whether she is being asked about Obama Sr, or Obama Jr, and when she realizes the confusion later she corrects herself, saying that it was Obama Sr. who was born in Kenya (which we already knew).

So, another dud for the "birthers" (I like that term!). No wonder it too so long for that tape to come out.

Just to be clear here, we are also talking about a woman who is not, in fact, Obama's biological grandmother. Rather, she is a subsequent wife of his polygamous biological grandfather who raised Obama Sr. and his siblings (hence the reason she would have been an observer, and not a participant, in the birth of Obama Sr). I'd have to go back to my copy of Obama's first book to remember the exact circumstances as to why his biological grandmother was not in the picture for his father's whole childhood.

Just to add another argument against the case rejected today by the Supreme Court, would Obama even have had dual citizenship if his parents marriage were invalid? It seems to me that Kenya, being part of the British empire, would have had laws surrounding marriage based on British law. I highly doubt British law, even in the colonies, would have made allowances for plural wives, and clearly American law does not have those allowances. Because Obama Sr. had a wife in Kenya, IIRC Obama's American grandparents had doubts about the legitimacy of their daughters marriage. Assuming the marriage was not valid, would citizenship rights have even passed to President-Elect Obama through his father?

Finally, one note on the Palin/Trig controversy. It does seem to me, from my perusal of allegedly "fringe" liberal blogs, that the "Bristol is Trig's real mother" meme has nearly completely died. It is pretty clear even a total slut could not get pregnant within days of a previous birth, so the questions about Trig's parentage have ended. What has not ended, for some people, are questions about Palin's alleged actions surrounding Trig's birth. Certainly it does not make sense for any woman in a high-risk pregnancy to delay medical attention for so long, and to undergo such a long trip (how many OBs' would have allowed the trip anyway, it is my understanding there is no travel by air for women after their 28th week) if her health were at risk. My own favorite theory on these actions? Palin knew exactly what she was doing and was attempting to create a late-term "miscarriage" to avoid the problems associated with a severely retarded child. It is a far simpler explanation than anything else put forward, and would be in keeping with her narcissistic personality.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | December 8, 2008 5:42 PM

SLC:
My comment was not aimed at you. It was not aimed at Mr. Heath. I read your comments, as well as those of Mr. Heath. Would I agree that most lefties are leaving Palin alone? Yes. I would also agree that most sane conservatives are leaving Obama alone. Would I agree that all (from either side) are? No - read my post. I'm not sure what "Chiroptera" was trying to say in an earlier post about no publishing of a birth certificate.
Do I think that others who read this blog push the Palin thing? Yes. Clearly some who do so push the Obama thing. And, as I noted, I know people who are still doing it (and yes, I've told them they are bat-shit loony).

My point, through all of this, is that I'm more than a little tired of
* people on both sides holding ideas that have long
been demonstrated to be false
* the belief that one side or another has a greater
(lesser) hold on the fruitcake market. I don't buy
the view that "the right wing is worse". More vocal?
Maybe, but I'm not sure about that.

Tell me you believe September 11 was an inside job: I conclude you're a moron.
Tell me you believe our President-elect is constitutionally disqualified for the office: you're full of it.
Tell me you believe Palin is not the mother of her child: the stupid, it burns.

I know you haven't done this, and many others haven't, but this string of posts wouldn't exist if it weren't being done by some.

Posted by: dean | December 8, 2008 5:52 PM

heddle: The class act of the campaign, bar none, was Obama's statement concerning the pregnancy of Palin's daughter.

Since we're playing the game of when one side does something, point to something on the other side to show that they are exactly equivalent: was it a class act when Palin herself used her daughter's pregnancy as a campaign point?

Anyway, I don't know what Obama said about the younger Palin's pregnancy so I can't vouch for his being a "class act", but there is nothing gauche in pointing out that certain policies proposed by the other side don't work and to point to the candidates themselves as specific examples of the policies not working.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 6:00 PM

dean: I'm not sure what "Chiroptera" was trying to say in an earlier post about no publishing of a birth certificate.

I'm just pointing out that Obama has produced legal documentation of his citizenship, documentation that was confirmed as authentic by the relevant state authorities. Did Palin do the same concerning Trig? If not, the two situations are not equivalent. Those who think that Palin is not Trig's mother may be crazy, but if there has been no verified documentation of Trig's birth then they are not crazy in the same league as those who deny Obama's citizenship.

I was simply commenting on this bizarre notion that critics of the left (even those critics who are on the left themselves) have that fairness requires comparing the insanity and the barbarity of the right with examples of stupidity from the left, and no matter how rare the instances are on the left, or how minor and mundane they are, somehow that puts the two on an equal moral footing.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 6:07 PM

even a total slut could not get pregnant within days of a previous birth

Posted by: Palin Truther | December 8, 2008 6:16 PM

I'll actually have to (*gasp*) agree with heddle on this. I would submit that he picked a poor example; rather than comparing the birth certificate troofers to the Palin maternity tinfoilers, it would be a better analogy to compare them to the "selected, not elected" conspiratoids in 2000.

Posted by: Martian Buddy | December 8, 2008 6:34 PM

So we have two alleged plots here:

In one, a couple with a mixed-race baby born in Kenya decide he's going to run for president in 47 years and move to Hawaii, falsifying his birth certificate (presumably with the help of the state government), retroactively placing a birth announcement in the newspaper, and yet somehow forgetting to change his Arabic first and last names.

In the other, we have a right-wing "family values" candidate who would be embarrassed by having an unwed pregnant teenage daughter pretending the baby is hers.

According to Dr. Heddle, anyone believing in possibility number two is "equally loony" as someone believing in possibility number one. REALLY?

Posted by: Lurkbot | December 8, 2008 6:53 PM

really amazing, one of the main "Birthers" has been WND (the great reliable news source), I found that strange as WND send forgery experts to Obama's office and found the document authentic.
quote from WND article:
"A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there"

Link to archived article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

after publishing this, they found Obama bashing gave them more readers, so "authentic" was deleted and WND went back to bashing the BC (luckily "authentic" was archived)
That is good Christian ethics!

Posted by: richCares | December 8, 2008 6:58 PM

Re Heddle

Apparently, Prof. Heddle considers that somebody named Brad Sanders, whoever he is, is of equal significance as Andrew Sullivan, a well known writer and television commentator. Unless Prof. Heddle has some information as to who Mr. Sanders is, that is a little like claiming that Prof. Heddle is of equal significance as a physicist as, say, Richard Feynman.

Posted by: SLC | December 8, 2008 7:22 PM

Chiroptera,

but if you meant your comment as a compliment toward Obama, heddle, then I misread your comment and I apologize.

No problem. I did mean it as a sincere compliment. I was more than impressed when Obama immediately issued a cease and desist to all questions about the Palin girl's teen pregnancy. But I can see how you might have thought I meant "class act" instead of class act.

SLC,

Apparently, Prof. Heddle considers that somebody named Brad Sanders, whoever he is, is of equal significance as Andrew Sullivan

James Hanley,

I call bullshit, because the Palin/Trig issue died while the campaign was still in process!

You've got to be kidding. Google "Palin Trig Mother" and you can still find leftwing wingnut blog posts from this month that are

Here's one! Maybe it's the smokin' gun!

Or are you going to move the goalposts like SLC--Oh no, not just any wingnut, only wingnuts as famous as Sullivan count!

From today's Chicago Tribune:

They contend that Sarah Palin lied about the birth of her son Trig. They are certain that the Down syndrome baby is actually the child of Palin's daughter Bristol or a family friend.

And while Palin's loss in the vice presidential race has turned wails of outrage into whispers of frustration, it has not stopped the conspiracy theorizing. Never mind that the Alaska governor returned home to pardon turkeys and Obama is preparing to take over the country.

So James, you should contact the Trubune's ombudsman to correct their error.

Posted by: heddle | December 8, 2008 7:53 PM

You've got to be kidding

Well, check to see if your sources are. For example, when you're quoting the Chicago Tribune, check to see who their "conspiracy theorizers" are. Unattributed third person nouns are, as you know, kinda useless in this. If they're thinking of Sullivan...well, there goes your argument.

Basically, you're not supporting your arguments very well.

Posted by: gwangung | December 8, 2008 8:11 PM

Heddle: "Here's one! Maybe it's the smokin' gun!" (linking to this blog post)

Im sorry Heddle, but unless Im mistaken, Ed didnt mention Palin at all in this blog article and the first time she appears in the comments is your post. Yes, Andrew Sullivan is still ranting about it, but thats about all I can find. The Tribune article is no help, they reference nothing and the only links that come up in their suggested search are to articles in the September timeframe.

Posted by: Dave | December 8, 2008 9:20 PM

@ richCares:

There's no "gh" in that kind of "strait", but other than that, that was chock-full-'o-win! That's right, Conspirotards, put your insanity where your mouth is, instead of vice-versa! Inundate those right-wing fuckers Reagan and Bush stuffed the court with with your blatherings! Show them what their true constituency is really like!

Maybe one or two of them will be scared straight...nah!

Posted by: Lurkbot | December 8, 2008 10:23 PM

"At the risk of sounding really foolish, I will make this assertion about Prof. Heddle's comment: I believe he is saying that the loonies on the left who spread this rumor about Gov. Palin were as foolish, and radical, as the loonies on the right .."

NO NO NO. ..that rumor was started by REPUBLICANS in Alaska who are against her because she is sucking up all the oxegen and the cash. The left barely yawned. Its her old enemies that are pushing that meme..

Posted by: Kevin | December 8, 2008 10:50 PM

"They contend that Sarah Palin lied about the birth of her son Trig. They are certain that.."

They? they who?

This smells like a typical kick the dead horse to get one more story out of it.

look at the main liberal websites, that supported obama...how many stories? none? Remember it was the RNC that first leaked that Bristol was pregnant...and then attacked "the left" for attacking Palin for having Bristols baby.

really. The rnc started it...

" Results 1 - 10 of about 149,000 for trig is bristol's baby." that is a low number.

Posted by: Kevin | December 8, 2008 11:05 PM

Tell them about the vast conspiracy witch involves State of Hawaii, US State Dept, Gen Jones, Gen Shinseki, Sec. Gates, Condi, Powell, McCain, even Bush is helping Obama

Don't forget the Secret Service, FBI and CIA. You can't do a conspiracy right without them!

Maybe throw in INS, too!

Posted by: Aquaria | December 9, 2008 12:37 AM

How high does this thing go?

Posted by: Bachalon | December 9, 2008 1:40 AM

I have...have...to....agree...with....

...

...

I CAN'T SAY IT

I do agree that if MM has to smack down a Rightist delusion (when she usually props them up), the claim is beyond insane.

Posted by: Scott M | December 9, 2008 6:31 AM

Re Heddle

Poor Prof. Heddle. No matter how much he sucks up to her, Governor Palin is not going to jump into the sack with him. Maybe he should try Ann Coulter who, by her own admission, will boink anybody with a dick.

Posted by: SLC | December 9, 2008 7:40 AM

Citizen Z stated (quoting SLC):

As both I and Mr. heath have previously stated, the only significant hold out, as we sit here today, is Andrew Sullivan, a conservative commentator

In all fairness, you're talking about a "conservative commentator" who endorsed Kerry in 2004, endorsed Obama in 2008, is practically despised by many popular right-wing pundits (like Malkin, NRO...), supports gay marriage, and regularly rails against "Christianists".

He's a fringe libertarian nut a la Ron Paul (whom Sullivan initially endorsed during the primaries).

Posted by: Citizen Z | December 8, 2008 10:59 PM

I never referred to Sullivan as a stereotypical conservative. I did infer that he is on the right, which he clearly is in his ideology, which is Oakeshottian conservatism.

Sullivan is also no nut, he's very consistent in expressing his ideology and applying it to current day issues, the opposite of mainstream conservatism, and that ideology is not radical in any way a la Paul. Sullivan supports politicians across the spectrum for the same reason many moderates and independents do, he is not an issues voter when one candidate is clearly superior to their competition. As I stated earlier, Sullivan can be very annoying on certain topics given his predisposition to stridency but he is no nut.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 8:03 AM

Re Heddle

The trouble with Prof. Heddle is that he breathes in but he doesn't breathe out.

Posted by: SLC | December 9, 2008 9:12 AM

There's really no point in wasting any more time arguing with heddle's empty subject-changing dodge. He only tossed it out here to avoid the reality of just how insane a huge chunk of his party's basest base is; other respondents have already pointed out the important and obvious differences between the Palin-bashing and the Obama-bashing (thanx, Donalbain, for beating me to the punch); and heddle is deliberately arguing WAAAY below his own previously-demonstrated level of intellect. He's not really as ignorant as he sounds; he's CHOSEN to act ignorant, which means he's also choosing not to listen to anyone else.

Getting back ot the original subject of this post, the bogus attacks on Obama's legitimacy as an elected leader are coinciding with increased instances of racist speech, and even racist violence, all over the country. Jeb Bush has advocated creating a Republican "shadow government;" and the Republicans are, so far at least, doing absolutely nothing to tone down the anti-democracy rhetoric.

This is not a case of "dickheads on both sides;" this is a case of radical right-wingers -- NOT left-wingers -- deliberately trying to provoke civil unrest.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2008 9:40 AM

Raging Bee,

Damn those Republican, Bush-supporting, Obama-bashing, criminal governors.

Posted by: heddle | December 9, 2008 10:29 AM

Raging Bee made some claims regarding Jeb Bush's proposal that the GOP create a "shadow government" which I found extremely provocative. Here is the original story in text, which also has the video of the interview embedded into this link: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jeb_bush_interview/2008/11/30/156557.html

I did not watch the video but read the text report. I was disappointed that the article didn't follow-up on the "shadow government" term and ask Bush to elaborate on his use of that term. Bush's follow-up comments don't correlate to what I perceive a shadow government to be.

I also observed that Bush is mired into the same mud many conservatives are, i.e., they still do not perceive that their ideology is not capable of good governance and still believe, incorrectly in my view, that their past faults are due to their not being ideologically pure enough conservatives. At the very same time Bush is noting the party needs to broaden its base with Hispanics. Those appear difficult to reconcile, and I take that to infer that Bush thinks the party should move further into populism a la Huckabee and Palin, a sure loser in my opinion unless they get Hispanics on their side in significant numbers since it would further alienate pro-business, pro-competent hawks that have been leaving the party in droves (the plutocrats).

While Bush notes Jindal as the new standard the party should apsire to, which is contrary to my conclusion, Jindal is an exceptional individual and politician. No party could establish a process to govern by using an outlier like Jindal as a model, which is why I predict such a move to Jindalism would really result in more Huckabeeism/Palinism.

It is not unusual for conservatives to state a certain set of ideals while practicing a contradictory set of ideals so I'm comfortable with my prediction that if Bush's aspirations come true, we'd see an even more dysfunctional GOP than we've seen the past eight years.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 10:35 AM

Other than the exorcism news, I don't know anything about him.

He's another fundamentalist like Palin, only of the Catholic variety, and much more intelligent. I would be shocked if he runs in 2012 -- he's not even 40 yet, so there's no rush for him and I suspect he will bide his time and run in 2016 when there is no incumbent to run against. 2012 will probably be mostly retreads -- Giuliani, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, etc. -- and likely sacrificial lambs.

Posted by: tacitus | December 9, 2008 11:22 AM

Jebus Tapdancing Cripes, heddle. Do you lack even the basic self-awareness necessary to see how absolutely pathetic your shtick has become? Do you really think you are fooling anyone anymore?

Posted by: StuV | December 9, 2008 11:37 AM

Dean - the plutocrats already dismissed Huckabee so that's not a prediction on my part, it's merely relating what's already transpired. Rush Limbaugh was very effective and ultimately successful at leading the charge early in the primary season. Limbaugh correctly characterized Huckabee's legacy as a pro-tax populist, which pushed the plutocrats to split between Romney and McCain in the primary and a primary reason a conservative-dominant party ended up with Goldwater-conservative McCain campaigning like a social conservative.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 11:42 AM

Michael, thanks for the update. I still feel that Huckabee is the one who scares me the most. Romney isn't any better, but I don't think people will get past his religion. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I can't believe enough people will take Palin alone as a serious candidate.
But I fear they will take Huckabee seriously, even without the blessings of the Limbaugh/Liddy (and others of similar lunacy) crowds.

Posted by: dean | December 9, 2008 12:01 PM

James Hanley,

We all know how corrupt Illinois politics is. What does Gov. Blagojovich's attempt to sell Obama's senate seat have to do with the argument at hand?

It has exactly as much to do with the argument at hand (if by that you mean Ed's post: even MM can see that questions of Obama's citizenship are nutso) as Raging Bee's comment on Jeb Bush. Which, as you correctly quantified, was: nothing.

Posted by: heddle | December 9, 2008 1:11 PM

It has exactly as much to do with the argument at hand (if by that you mean Ed's post: even MM can see that questions of Obama's citizenship are nutso) as Raging Bee's comment on Jeb Bush. Which, as you correctly quantified, was: nothing.

Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2008 2:20 PM

If you are into science then you deal with FACT. The wnat to make sure the facts come from a reliable source and can be verified. That is what the Obama lawsuits are about. If Obama provides his documents (NOT FORGED ones) and the evidence shows he is a Natural-born citizen then we can get on with life. If he continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys trying to keep the facts secret than his decisions will be challenged. If Obama is NOT a Natural-born Citizen than he cannot be president and any order/bill he signs is NOT valid.
Show us the FACTS and lets get over this issue.

Posted by: Tom from Florida | December 9, 2008 2:57 PM

T from F - There is no evidence that the BC Obama supplied was forged, and several independent groups that have verified its authenticity. Nothing he does will convince you nut jobs, but that's ok. I hope you have the courage of your convictions, and refuse to obey laws you consider invalid because of Obama's supposed illegitimacy. Then we'll see some truly interesting court cases.

Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2008 3:06 PM

Question 17:

"When the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars,then ________ will guide the planets and _________ will steer the stars."

Question 18:

This is the dawning of the age of ___________.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 3:17 PM

Ooooh, ooooh, I choose B.
That's an answer from 30 years ago, high school science. Sure hope it's right or I'm going to have to study harder....

Posted by: Mike | December 9, 2008 4:08 PM

Damn, I missed seeing the question. That's the T Tauri wind, right? I always loved that name.

Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2008 4:18 PM

d) Bill O'Reilly's exploding ego.

And for the "real" question, I'd choose A), though B) is plausible.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2008 4:19 PM

(And as for why I answered so late: I loaded the page and just read while my workstation was chugging. The question hadn't been answered when I loaded the page.)

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2008 4:26 PM

Tom from Florida: The wnat to make sure the facts come from a reliable source and can be verified. That is what the Obama lawsuits are about. If Obama provides his documents (NOT FORGED ones) and the evidence shows he is a Natural-born citizen then we can get on with life.

And that is what Obama did, but some wackaloons can't seem to get on with life. Obama provided an official state document, similar to the one that we all get and that we all call our "birth certificates", that states that there is an official recording of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii. Some people have claimed forgery, and in response officials of the State of Hawaii, just like they would do in similar other cases, investigated the original records and verified that the document Obama has in his possession is accurate in regards to the information about his birth.

What more needs to be done? Obama has proven his citizenship to the same degree that anyone else would be required for any other purpose.

Posted by: Chiroptera | December 9, 2008 4:48 PM

If you are into science then you deal with FACT. The wnat to make sure the facts come from a reliable source and can be verified. That is what the Obama lawsuits are about.

Wrong.

It's more like the Discovery Institute and intelligent design in education.

Did you verify that if OBAMA did what you want him to do, it'd be ILLEGAL? Why are you insisting on someone to break the law to satisfy you? And why should we listen to someone who is insisting on such rampang law breaking?

Posted by: gwangung | December 9, 2008 5:15 PM

SOCUS... you mean SCOTUS?

My hope is that all of you on the left reading this also do not buy into the Bush Lied! about WMD nonsense. We wouldn't want any kooky conspiracy theories on the left, would we?

Nah... Bush didn't lie. Of course not!! He was just completely incompetent when he stated that there were WMDs. Does this sound any better to you??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o&feature=related

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 9, 2008 9:11 PM

Sorry, I'm back. Yes I meant "SCOTUS" my bad.

Until the day he left office on January 20 2001 President Clinton maintained that Saddam had WMD. Was he in on the conspiracy too? Along with the intelligence services of every nation in the world? Along with most all Democrats in Congress?

Looks like trutherism is alive on the left here....

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter | December 9, 2008 10:22 PM

"One point on which I might almost sympathize with the wingnuts: feeling certain they have the Constitutional goods on Obama, but not being able to get through the "standing" barrier. It raises the question: what good is a legal requirement if there is no agreed-on method of determining whether the requirement has been met?"

Just as the individual states determine who gets on the Presidential ballot, they get to determine according to their own laws that the candidates are eligible (obviously the laws have to be consistent with the US Constitution).

As I understand it, when registering for the ballot in each state, the candidates have to submit evidence of their eligibility.

Typically that takes the form of certified copies of various documents including the birth certificate and/or sworn statements from the candidate and/or the officials of their party in that state.

Obama met those requirements.

Posted by: Ian Gould | December 9, 2008 10:48 PM

Tom - it is simply not true that foreign intelligence agencies were convinced Saddam possessed WMDs. Here is one of several examples: Germany, who was holding "Curveball" advised us his intelligence was suspect and that he was mentally unstable and that was a primary reason they didn't join the alliance. "Curveball" was our only human source for much of the BS Bush pushed on us regarding chemical and biological weapons. We never had access to Curveball, we took what German intelligence provided and which they called claimed was "outlier" intelligence and transformed it into certainty. Outlier means in intelligence jargon the same it does in stats, beyond a certain number of standard deviations, in the intelligence industry that's usually less than 2%.

I could do this all day. This is not controversial stuff, its been validated by many legitimate journalists. You are framing your concession when confronted with Bush lying with new statements exactly how Bill O'Leilly now frames it, is that were you get your facts? If so, I suggest reading something honest, like the Washington Post. A good start prior to reading books on the subject would be wiki "Iraq War" and go the section titled, "Iraq's WMD controversy", it's sourced from credible sources.

The UK also did not believe there was convincing evidence Hussesin had WMDs. Blair made a strategic decision to stick with the U.S. through thick and thin, a trait I admire about them. That's also true of several eastern European countries who joined the effort.

Clinton never used the intelligence he got to start a war, it was convenient for him to frame an argument assuming he still had capabilities for leverage in containing Iraq. At the time he was in office, the U.N. team was telling him there was none. A a U.S. Marine led that team in-country and was consistent that there was no inventory and no capability, the U.N. efforts were successful. I forgot his name and it's too late to look up, Scott something or other.

Tom - the facts are clear and unequivocal. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice all knowingly lied about WMDs. They were all fed data that was never expressed as certain and told the American public they were certain. Bush even made absolute statements that were false in his state of the union addresses his Administration had already discredited - i.e., yellow cake from Niger. They also lied about ties between Iraq/Hussein and al Qaeda. The CIA knew Hussein considered them competitors and a threat to his own rule. Read the books Looming Tower or Imperial Hubris for validation on this last point. Looming Tower is a history of al Qaeda and Imperial Hubris was written by America's leading expert on al Qaeda and the guy who established the rendition program, ex-CIA analyst Michael Schueur.

Powell is another matter. He did not lie. Read the latest biography on Powell to understand how he was duped by the intelligence team being run out of Rumsfeld's office regarding the data he was given that he used in the his UN speech. Both of his top direct reports are on the record on that fiasco (Wilkerson and the guy who leaked Plame's name, forgot his name).

These facts are also all on video where you can easily see Bush and the other liars going on the record lying even though we know have witness and documents showing the opposite was known prior to their lying to the public (the linked video in an above comment thread is a poor one for making this argument, there are much better out there).

Tom - you are grossly misinformed.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 11:04 PM

I know one person who believed the Sarah Palin not being pregnant story because she was trying to give benefit of the doubt. The way she saw it, if Sarah Palin was telling the truth then she had flown back to Alaska at a time that was incredibly irresponsible and was putting politics ahead of the serious risk to her baby. If Sarah Palin was lying to protect her daughter then she was lying, but for an understandable and even largely benevolent reason. Therefore the baby not actually belonging to Sarah Palin was the best interpretation of the facts she could come up with. Which is a world away from the birth certificate malice.

She in the end came round to the position that Sarah Palin was so narcissistic and irresponsible that she did fly after her waters broke, irrespective of the danger to the baby.

Posted by: Francis | December 10, 2008 7:13 AM

Multiple choice? In a university exam???

Posted by: Donalbain | December 10, 2008 4:29 PM

I took many undergrad biology, math, physics, and mechanics tests mostly or entirely multiple choice. The more advanced the courses got, the less multiple choice there was. Especially with the intro courses though, I cannot imaging grading 2000 essays or complex calculus or differential equation problems.

Posted by: Mike | December 10, 2008 6:02 PM

I think a one question test on astronomy would be fine.

Question 1.) Explain the universe. Ask for more paper if you need it.

Posted by: democommie | December 12, 2008 10:00 AM

Arc,

When writing in most languages I'm aware of, there are a few basic conventions to follow:

1. Letters form words;
2. Words form sentences;
3. Sentences form paragraphs, and so forth.

You seem to have gotten lost somewhere between steps 1 and 2.

Posted by: DaveL | December 12, 2008 12:11 PM

Below are two official emails that dispute the public version of Obama's Birth and his mother's marriage to BHO Sr.

From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration

Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II's mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:

Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962

The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University's response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Madolyne Lawson
Office of Public Records
206-543-9180

From: Stuart Lau [mailto:stuartl@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
Subject: Re: Inquiry

The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992

Degrees awarded:
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)

Sincerely, Stuart Lau
****************************************
Stuart Lau
University Registrar
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ph: (808) 956-8010
****************************************

Commentary on University Emails:

For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:

1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack's mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.
2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.
3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.
10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.
Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.

This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.

Barack's sister was born in Indonesia, and has a COLB from Hawaii like Obama II. She is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" of the USA as required by the Constitution to become president...and Obama probably isn't either.

Posted by: No Free Lunch | December 23, 2008 5:02 PM

DEMOCrat! -

** BARRY ** BARAK ** BARACK ** BARRACK ** HUSSEIN ** MOHAMED
** ABDULLAH ** BIN SOETORO ** ONYANGO ** UBAMA

- ILLEGAL ALIEN , kenya

____________________________________________________________

WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
WWW.ISRAELENEWS.COM/VIEW.ASP?ID=3324
WWW.WETHEPEOPLEFOUNDATION.ORG/OBAMA
WWW.DAILY-JEFF.COM/NEWS/SIMPLE_ARTICLE/4486084

www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

____________________________________________________________

Posted by: C1ON | March 4, 2009 3:03 PM

The timing of Obama’s latest school children indoctrination speech is no coincidence. September 8, 2009 is meaningful to Obama for an entirely different reason. (See below.)

Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:

“Discovery hearing” re: Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.

08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ON MOTIONS: (See document for details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

Notice:
This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”

Posted by: Sunnstarr | September 5, 2009 4:46 PM

I suspect the emails printed above are bullshit, since I find it hard to believe that the "Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State" require the U of W to give out student information to anyone who asks.

Posted by: Taz | September 5, 2009 7:00 PM