Orly Taitz, the lawyer and de facto leader of the “Birther” litigation, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of Dr. Connie Rhodes after Rhodes accused her of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz is also facing a possible $10,000 fine from United States District Court Judge Clay D. Land, who previously dismissed the action. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for her “reprehensible” representation.
The latest development in this unraveling case began when Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation. She then proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
I am a bit curious that all of this case appears to have been a surprise to Rhodes despite endless coverage in the papers and cable shows. It is curious that she never acted to sever representation before this time.
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggests that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He notes:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
Go girl. This is incredible. Why didn’t the opponents of W do the same thing? After all he did steal not one but two elections.
I think they had her in mind when this song was composed:
Isn’t this really all about money…
After the fax by Captain Rhodes firing Taitz was posted over at the Federal Judge thread, there were immediate claims that Rhodes’ fax was a forgery. The claims were made on the web by Larry Sinclair, A CONVICTED FORGER. Who better to know.
Orly joined the chorus, also chiming in that the fax was a forgery.
But as usual with birther myths, this one was soon exposed, and now even Orly recognizes that she has been well and truly sacked.
The client fired her. So she turns on the client.
It also seems that Taitz may have added Rhodes to the case in California, Keyes and Barnett v. Obama, without her knowledge and consent.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=2535
It should also be remembered that the retired general who was supposedly added to the Major Cook case [and who took up more than 1000 posts at the Retired General thread here] later denied that he ever joined the suit.
The very, very latest OrlyBomb from California: [quote on]
Plaintiffs’ L-R 7-10 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply To Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ September 4, 2009 Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs hereby move and request leave of court to file a surreply in response to Defendants’ Reply filed and served on Friday, September 25, 2009. Plaintiffs cite the following authority from the Local Rules of the Central District of California:
L.R. 7-10 Reply Papers. A moving party may, not later than the seventh calendar date (not excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) before the date designated for the hearing of the motion, serve and file a reply memorandum, and declarations or other rebuttal evidence. Absent prior written order of the Court, the opposing party shall not file a response to the reply.
Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants have raised new matter in their reply which require an answer. Namely, the Defendants submit cast in a highly prejudicial light to the Plaintiffs’ cause, namely the orders of the Honorable Clay D. Land from the Middle District of Georgia.
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military.
Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the question of “redressability”, and this matter needs to be clarified in light of the Plaintiffs’ substantive due process contentions regarding the intersection of the First and Ninth Amendments as sources of the right of discrete and insular but politically powerless minorities to invoke strict scrutiny of obvious deviations from and therefore to enforce precisely and exactly the letter of the Constitution on the model of Flast v. Cohen and this charge requires a surreply. Finally, the Defendants continue to misrepresent the Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding standing and how standing as a barrier to self-governing enforcement of the Constitution through Petition to Article III Courts (as advocated by the Defendants, in any case) would itself constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process of law in the enforcement of the plain letter of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ pray, pursuant to L.R. 7-10, that they be allowed to file a surreply to Defendants’ response in this case, and even to do so as late as Thursday, October 1, 2009, especially since they are precluded from filing their Second Amended Complaint prior to the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by this Court’s Minute Order entered Thursday, September 24, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Saturday, September 26, 2009
By:______________________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney-at-Law
(California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-766-7036
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
[unquote]
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-75-motion-for-leave-to-file-sur-reply-to-motion-to-dismiss/
Unsigned again.
What is a “surreply”?
What is “redressabiltiy”?
What are the “substantive due process contentions regarding the intersection of the First and Ninth Amendments as sources of the right of discrete and insular but politically powerless minorities to invoke strict scrutiny of obvious deviations from and therefore to enforce precisely and exactly the letter of the Constitution on the model of Flast v. Cohen….”?
How is standing “a barrier to self-governing enforcement of the Constitution through Petition to Article III Courts (as advocated by the Defendants, in any case) [that] would itself constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process of law in the enforcement of the plain letter of the Constitution”
Can anyone translate any of this into English?
whoolie:
“Isn’t this really all about money…”
***************
Isn’t it always.
Vince:
“Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the question of “redressability”, and this matter needs to be clarified in light of the Plaintiffs’ substantive due process contentions regarding the intersection of the First and Ninth Amendments as sources of the right of discrete and insular but politically powerless minorities to invoke strict scrutiny of obvious deviations from and therefore to enforce precisely and exactly the letter of the Constitution on the model of Flast v. Cohen and this charge requires a surreply.”
**************
I bet you can’t string this many non-senical words together!
Here’s my plagiarized attempt:
“‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!”
(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)
Vince,
I took a swing at it and while I could make it more readable, I couldn’t make it any more sensible. Her main contention seems to be that she didn’t get her way so obviously there is an issue with the Courts preventing her from enforcing the Constitution as she interprets it and that this prevention is somehow unconstitutional from what I can tell, but beyond that?
I’d say perhaps Orly can get a new job as an interpreter at the U.N., but I can’t see how having another native speaker of a distinctly different sub-dialect of Gibberish is going to help foster peaceful co-operation.
It is about time that someone smacked down this alleged attorney. Vince and Buddha and Mespo, et all have exposed the nonsense that this person is trying to pass off as legal work. I hope the respective bar association complaints will rid the profession of this stain called Orly.
raff,
Thank you but please, really, all the thanks here should go to Vince. I brought some condiments. Vince tracked, manually strangled, butchered, prepared and cooked the entrée.
Redressability is the court’s power to give plaintiff the relief she seeks. The United States argues the claims Taitz alleges, purportedly on behalf of her clients, aren’t redressable, since a federal court doesn’t have the power to undo the 2008 Presidential election.
Judge Land was not acting on CPT Rhodes’ letter terminating Orly Taitz when he issued his sanctions OSC. He found the motion for a stay to be frivolous because Taitz continued to use rhetoric for proof and failed to address the abstention issue. And Taitz had a prior history making the OSC appropriate. Her intemperate language became contumacious when she filed the stay application.
All of this is discussed in great detail at http://www.PolitiJab.Com where all of Taitz’s pleadings, and her unethical alliance with a disbarred lawyer (Charles E. Lincoln, III), who has appeared with her in court in California, have been the cause of all her problems. (Of course, having a losing case doesn’t help, either.)
Sterngard, thanks for the definition and link. Welcome aboard.
Taitz has a”law degree” from the online “William Howard Taft University”, and no CA license, or one anywhere else I could find. This could explain some of her misuse of legal terms and ineffectual client representation, and her convoluted briefs/filings/whatever. She’s a cartoon character, like Glenn Beck of the morning zoo radio tradition.
I wouldn’t want her to be looking into my mouth for dental work, either.
@mr,ed – Sadly, Taitz is licensed by the California State Bar. Some concerned lawyers, however, are working to see that that is changed.
Buddha,
I stand corrected! Great dismantling job Vince.
Vince, maybe she meant to say “surly reply.”
There was some discussion of natural born citizenship in an argument before the Court ten years ago, and the questions are now buzzing around the internet.
Scalia seemed to favor jus soli, law of the ground, or birthright citizenship in the country of birth, against jus sanguinis, law of the blood, or citizenship based on descent from parents.
On the McCain issue, Ginsburg said that children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents should be natural born citizens.
The Justice Department argued that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
DOJ did not seem to leave any room for a person who is citizen by virtue of birth in the United States, but who would only be a “born citizen” or “basic citizen,” that is, a citizen born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction who would not be a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. [I have found no such concept in the text of the Constitution, or in the constitutional jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
Here is for all to read and judge for themselves. Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, No 99-2071, oral argument:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
We are all adults here, and as adults we know there are consequences for are actions, so if you do not agree with his policies, you can a) do nothing, b) support him, c) not support him, d) protest and picket, its your choice, live the dream! As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I would not bet the farm on this one. She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all these filings her travel, her wigs? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I heard they are now playing the victim card as well. Please, feel sorry for us the “Birth Certificate” that we built our entire case around and that we have been dancing around turn out to be a big “Fake”. Her material might work on “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.
Wow.
Judge grants Taitz’s motion to withdraw as counsel.
But with conditions.
She remains subject to court jurisdiction for the show cause sanctions order and related proceedings.
She is NOT authorized to breach attorney client privilege.
The court is not relying on the faxed letter discharging Taitz.
Whether Captain Rhodes authorized the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to whether it was frivolous.
No matter how it is spun, this is not good for soon-to-be-former attorney Taitz.
QUOTE
09/28/2009 21 ORDER granting 20 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney with conditions (see order for explanation). Attorney Orly Taitz terminated. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/28/2009 (esl) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
O R D E R
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 20). Plaintiff apparently does not object to such withdrawal. (See Doc. 18.) Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted with the following conditions. Counsel remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court’s show cause sanctions order and related proceedings, and Plaintiff remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court’s previous order casting the court costs upon Plaintiff.
The Court further notes that this order shall not be construed to authorize Plaintiff’s counsel to breach any attorney-client privilege that may exist due to counsel’s representation of Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel. Whether Plaintiff expressly authorized counsel to file the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to the Court’s determination of whether the filing was legally frivolous.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of September, 2009.
QUOTE OFF
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/rhodes-v-mcdonald-motion-to-witdraw-granted-with-conditions/
“Mother Mindy Rose insisted that she is a “friend.” Really Mindy? Or are you just one more enabling parent who is encouraging these types of opportunistic, predatorial acts of kindness. Do you think that block parties and other scourges of society just happen, Mindy? No, it starts with parents like you and Snyder, the child watcher.”
Are you kidding me!!!!!! They are only dropping kids off at a designated bus stop per Middleville school distric who happens to also be a friend and not caring for the child. Like millions of other parents do in this world. IT IS A BUS STOP LIKE EVERY OTHER BUS STOP IN THE US!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT!
Suzie’s post moved to Menace of Millegeville
The good news for Taitz: she gets to file her surreply.
The bad news: not to exceed 10 pages.
[quote]
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER: GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SUR-REPLY
….
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and will give Plaintiffs leave of court to file a sur-reply not to exceed ten (10) pages to be filed by 5 p.m. on October 1, 2009.
Plaintiffs’ courtesy copy of the sur-reply shall be delivered to the Court’s dropbox on the ninth floor of the Santa Ana courthouse by no later than noon on October 2, 2009.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20339157/KEYES-v-OBAMA-76-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-REQUEST-FOR-LEAVE-OF-COURT-TO-FILE-SURREPLY-75-Govuscourtscacd435591
Dr.Conspiracy say it looks like the same malware is back on the Orly Taitz Esq . com web site.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/orly-taitz-quarantined/
“Of the 269 pages we [Google] tested on the site over the past 90 days, 33 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-09-30, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-09-30.”
So do not go to Orly’s site until this clears up.
The sur-reply was filed today, October 1st.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20508475/KEYES-v-OBAMA-78-opposition-surreply-opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss-re-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUP
Also here:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-78-finally/#more-5147
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20508475/KEYES-v-OBAMA-78-opposition-surreply-opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss-re-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUP
Today, October 2d, was the deadline for Orly Taitz to show cause why Judge Land should not sanction her.
Did you expect contrition?
Remorse?
An apology?
As Steve Martin would say, “Naaaaaaahhhh…”
She filed a motion for recusal against the Judge.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/rhodes-v-mcdonald-doc-24-motion-for-recusal/
On the Show Cause order, she asked for a delay until October 16th.
http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.25.0.pdf
In the motion for recusal, she argues that “While Plaintiff and undersigned counsel are both quite aware that a Judge’s rulings on legal questions, without more, will ALMOST never constitute grounds for recusal, Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney.”
Judge Land, it will be recalled, decided that case within hours of filing BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO. The lawyer filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) because she said her client would be irreparably harmed by shipping out to Iraq. SHE ASKED FOR A QUICK RULING. Now she complains that he issued his rulings within hours.
I am quite sure this is not the end of the story.
Thanks for the follow-up, Vince.
This is better than anything on television.
Asking the judge to recuse himself at the same time you are asking him for more time (on the due day) doesn’t seem like a particularly smart tactic to me… I guess I just don’t understand the sophisticated legal strategies that you learn in on-line law school.
Nice catch at Native and Natural Born Citizen site. Taitz is using the same brief she used try get the judge in the Major Stefan Frederick Cook case recused.
“While Plaintiff and undersigned counsel are both quite aware that a Judge’s rulings on legal questions, without more, will ALMOST never constitute grounds for recusal, Plaintiff submits that Judge LAllARA’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney.”
That motion was denied by District Judge Richard A. Lazzara
“frivolous and wholly without merit.”
The site has parallel columns with the two motions side by side, and has now red-lettered the verbatim borrowings:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/recycling-arguments/
Just amazing. Did not even run it through the spell checker. “Hasting” rulings? This looks more and more like professional suicide.
The hearing on the Government’s motion to dismiss the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California is up for Monday, October 5th.
Big Bird chimes in on the birfers:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3544631
That was funny. At least we now know where those pesky vegetables are in the political spectrum. lol
Dr. Conspiracy suggested the need for a definition of “natural born citizen” for the Urban Dictionary, an online edited dictionary written by users, with a place for viewers to vote thumbs up or down. It already had multiple definitions posted by a birther. So with the help of a scholarly friend, I posted a new one:
1. Natural Born Citizen 70 thumbs up
A “natural born citizen” is a person who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to citizenship “at birth” or “by birth.”
The term includes
(1) a person who is born in the United States, including its territories and possessions and the District of Columbia, and who is subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not born to foreign diplomats or to hostile occupying forces;
(2) a person who is born abroad to two U.S. citizens; and
(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.
Examples:
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born abroad to two citizens, and was born in the Canal Zone, a United States possession.
The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=natural+born+citizen
It got 60 votes in less than a week, and the editors moved to the No 1 spot.
To update the Orly Taitz thread at the Turley blog, here is today’s profile in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html
In California, there was a three-hour hearing on a Motion to Dismiss in Barnett v. Obama and Alan Keyes v. Obama on Monday, and it ended with the Judge taking it under consideration.
Outlook for Orly, bleak.
A guy with the handle “wavey davey” in the audience took notes and had them typed up and posted on the web last night:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20658448/Barnett-v-Obama-Report-on-105-Hearing
Expect a written decision on the Motion from the Judge in the near future, most likely dismissing the complaint.
Above on Oct. 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm, Taitz did not show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, but instead asked for recusal of the judge and a delay for her response.
As if that was not enough, she then claimed that the administration tried to influence the case, based on a joint sighting of bigfoot, Elvis and Eric Holder in Georgia.
Sorry, Orly, bigfoot and Holder were out west that day, and Elvis has left the building along with your case and your reputation.
QUOTE ON
Posted on Tue, Oct. 06, 2009
Orly Taitz claims Judge Clay Land influenced by Obama administration
BY ALAN RIQUELMY
Attorney Orly Taitz, under threat of $10,000 in sanctions from U.S. District Judge Clay Land, submitted an affidavit Sunday in support of the argument that the judge may have been influenced by President Barack Obama’s administration.
The affidavit, filed Sunday in support of Taitz’s Friday motion for Land to recuse himself, is signed Robert D. Douglas, of Alma, Ga. It states that Douglas was in a coffee shop waiting for the 12th Street federal courthouse to open for a hearing on Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook in July when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder entered.
“Red flags went up immediately in my mind and the questions remain, as yet,” the affidavit states. “Why does the attorney general of the United States need to be present in an obscure hearing well off his beaten path? Could it possibly be, since Holder did not present himself in open court, he may have had a little ‘whisper in the ear’ to a federal judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the president’s agenda of obstruction?”
Holder was giving a speech in Los Angeles the day Douglas claims to have seen him in Columbus, according to news releases on the Justice Department’s Web site. When told Holder was in California that day, Douglas said he didn’t realize that was the case.
“If he was scheduled somewhere else, obviously I’m mistaken, if that’s indeed true,” Douglas said. “I have no way to verify if that is true.”
….
UNQUOTE
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/864399.html
Wow!
She’s gone nuclear. “The President is out to get me!”
rofl
Perhaps there is a new designer jacket in Orly’s future? One with sleeves that tie in the back. Her days practicing law? Yeah. That joke just writes itself.
I can’t wait for the HBO mini-series.
Any suggestions on Taitz casting?
Buddha,
Casting is obvious – all you need is a Gabor sister and a time machine…
I think that Mrs. Taitz Esq. has finally reached Lands’ End…
FFLEO: Good one!
Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!
Sorry, bdaman, this information is bogus, again.
There was no denial of the motion to dismiss.
There was just a modification of the docket.
This is a paste=up from Birfer John Charlton, who is leaping to conclusions.
This is all over the bither web already. Take a look at
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&start=3275
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 12:03 PM From: This sender is DomainKeys verified “Charles Lincoln” View contact details To: “Dr. Orly Taitz” RE: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery. Mittwoch, den 7. Oktober 2009, 11:31:18 Uhr
Von: “West, Roger (USACAC)” Karte anzeigen
An: Charles Lincoln
——————————————————————————–
Nuts.
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Dejute, David (USACAC); West, Roger (USACAC)
Subject: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
Dear Messers DeJute & West:
Dr. Taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the Scheduling Order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. We need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. The Judge specifically said that the Scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.
Charles E. Lincoln, Research Associate & Law Clerk for Dr. Taitz, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiffs.
Deo Vindice
“May the Lord God be with you,
and with thy spirit!”
My assistant, Mr. Lincoln has contacted Roger West, assistant US attorney, lead attorney representing the defendants, asking to stipulate to discovery in light of today’s order by Judge Carter. You can see his polite and constructive response “Nuts”. I wonder, if I wasn’t a woman, if I was a part of good old boys club, would there be a more appropriate response.
Troll posting misinformation.
There has been no decision by the judge.
Tentative dates have been made final, but every “final” date is contingent on the resolution of the motion to dismiss.
It has not been resolved yet.
From http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&hilit=dr+orly+taitz&start=3250
QUOTE
Postby keokuk » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:38 pm
She’s looking at the same thing I just described above then. It says nothing about the motion to dismiss. She’s taking the move from “tentative” to “final” in the schedule as a hint of how he is going to rule.
Postby cbreitel » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:45 pm
I speculate: this is simply confirmation of the judge’s comments that the scheduling conference will not be discussed since all deadlines will stay put, pending his ruling.
I’m not worried.
UQ
From Politijab.com:
Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:54 pm
They forgot to read the part about the court taking the motion to dismiss under submission. And they apparently missed the part where the minute order is dated October 5, 2009. But these morons know how to read a birth certificate? Please. I suspect they need pictographic instructions on how to use toilet paper. And I bet they still screw that up 50% of the time.
Postby combatengineer » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:55 pm
It’s hit over in the Hannity Forums mega BC thread. The local birther monkey started posting about it. I gave them a one time common sense post about it, I’m sure they will ignore and go with all the general birther world excitement….. Oh well….
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&hilit=dr+orly+taitz&start=3300
Vince, I find it amusing that the birthers get excited by case management orders. They ought to at least have a bona fide lawyer around to tell them what some of this stuff means. It would save a lot of unwarranted elation.
Mike, they are on an unbroken legal losing streak.
Any “victory” will do.
The Supreme court recently denied cert. on Craig v. United States, a case from last Spring.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/craig-v-us-ruling-us-court-of-appeals-10th-circuit/
Alleging a distinction between the rights of citizenship of naturalized citizens and of natural-born citizens, Craig asserted that he, as a “Legacy,” or natural-born citizen, suffered from discrimination due to “exclusion of distinctions” and “omission of acknowledgment” due to Congress’s failure to enact laws recognizing this distinction, whereas it has enacted laws defining the requirements to become a naturalized citizen.
He sought redress in the form of a declaratory judgment defining “natural born Citizen,” as it appears in the Constitution, and “providing a means for citizens bearing that moniker to obtain certification of that fact from the federal government, as well as punitive damages.”
The big “victory” for Craig earlier in the Court of Appeals was that they changed the District Court’s Dismissal with Prejudice to a simple Dismissal.
Guy probably took a victory lap on that one.
This is really funny, from
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/nuts/#comments
Orly thought that the minute of the Oct. 5th hearing meant there would be a trial. She asked her paralegal assistant, disbarred lawyer and convicted felon Charles Lincoln, to ask the U.S. Attorney to begin discovery.
QUOTE ON
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Dejute, David (USACAC); West, Roger (USACAC)
Subject: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
Dear Messers DeJute & West:
Dr. Taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the Scheduling Order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. We need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. The Judge specifically said that the Scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.
Charles E. Lincoln, Research Associate & Law Clerk for Dr. Taitz, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiffs.
UNQUOTE
Roger West had a succinct reply:
QUOTE
Von: “West, Roger (USACAC)” Karte anzeigen
An: Charles Lincoln
——————————————————————————–
Nuts.
UNQUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe
I may physically hurt myself laughing. Not intentionally mind you. But these things happen.
Buddha,
Did you ever get that email I sent?
Yes, I did, Bob. I only got about half way through the article though and I’ve been fighting alligators ever since. I’ll let you know what I thought of it as soon as I get a chance to finish.
The other (recent) email
Um, no.
Bob,
Read and responded.
ditto
Turley blog, World War II History Category.
“Nuts,” said the General.
Said the German, Was ist “nuts”?
QUOTE
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:11 PM
To: West, Roger (USACAC)
Cc: Dr. Orly Taitz
Subject: AW: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
Dear Mr. West:
Unless you can provide us with a more thoughtful answer and analysis of the situation, or can you ask Mr. DeJute to do so, We will report your Laconic response below to Judge Carter as the full and final statement of the United States’ well-considered position in this case.
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Von: West, Roger (USACAC) (Roger.West4@usdoj.gov)
An: Charles Lincoln
Datum: Mittwoch, den 7. Oktober 2009, 12:17:38 Uhr
Betreff: RE: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
You are obviously not a student of military history. Because you appear confused, let me be clear. Per Judge Carter’s order, discovery is stayed in this case. We will not agree to any discovery in this case at this time.
UNQUOTE
Jahwohl, Herr West
Wiki: The official reply: “To the German Commander, NUTS!, The American Commander” was typed and delivered by Colonel Joseph Harper, commanding the 327th Glider Infantry, and his S-3 Major Jones to the German delegation. Harper had to explain the meaning of the word to the Germans, telling them that in “plain English” it meant “Go to hell.”
Disbarred felon Charles Edward Lincoln counterattacks:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20772227/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-82-0-07-2009-82-EX-PARTE-APPLICATION-to-Accelerate-motion-for-relief-from-stay-of-discovery-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-Case
“EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY ….”
Exhibits A and B are “Nuts” and explanation.
Didn’t the Marx Brothers do all of this in a movie in an alternate time line?
As they say, Lincoln is surrounded; he has them where they want him.
Vince,
Great work as usual. When will these Birthers understand that they lost?
“Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney-at-Law”
1. Don’t use the Esq tag on yourself. It’s a sign of respect others give you, not yourself.
2. If you disagree with 1., then at least don’t use Esq. and Atty-at-Law together; insecurity complex?
and finally
3. If you’re going to include “Attorney for the Plaintiffs” as you properly should, then omit 1 & 2 entirely.
Ms Taitz is a maze ing.
Come on Patrick, every profession has its fools. Politicians have Bush or just about any “god-fearin’” Republican you can say; the clergy have Ernest Angley; the physicians have Dr. Sanjay Gupta; and we, well, we have Orly–but we do have to share her with the dentists. More is the pity.
Judge Carter to Taitz and Lincoln on their Ex-Parte Motion for relief from the Stay of Discovery:
Nuts.
“The ex-parte Motion is hereby DENIED.”
October 8, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818334/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-83-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-DENYING-EX-PARTE-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-OF-DISCOVERY-82-Gov
Read it and weep, Orly and Charly.
The gavel falls.
There is a 43-page order by Judge Land on Orly Taitz. Judge Land fined her $20,000.00, not just $10,000.00. The Judge reported her to the California Bar.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
From the Order.
Delusional:
“The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.”
Frivolous and sanctionable:
“Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
Failure to follow simple rules:
“The Clerk’s Office was burdened by Ms. Taitz’s inability to follow the Court’s rules regarding pro hac vice admission and the Court’s rules for electronic filing. On five separate occasions in a short period, the Clerk’s Office personnel error-noticed counsel for her failure to follow simple rules.”
Failure to make coherent legal arguments:
“At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.”
Justin Elliott, at Josh Marshall’s TPM, Oct. 13, 2009, at 11:33AM, had Orly’s cell phone number and called her up to get her take on her latest smackdown:
QUOTE ON
Reached on her cell phone by TPMmuckraker and informed of the $20,000 fine imposed on her by a federal judge this morning, Birther attorney Orly Taitz responded, first, with laughter.
“So he didn’t recuse himself?” Taitz asked, after letting out an extended, nervous-sounding chuckle.
Still defiant after months of legal wrangling and, by our count, three written denunciations by federal district court Judge Clay Land, Taitz said she had absolutely no plans to pay the $20,000 fine.
“Are you kidding? Of course not,” she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. “This is a form of intimidation ”
Instead, she plans to file yet another written response (though it’s unclear whether the court will even accept one).
“I’ll go to the circuit court of appeals. I’ll take this as high as I have to go,” Taitz said. UNQUOTE http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho.php
Sure. Take it to the Galactic Council. Ask the Starfleet Federation Senate to intervene. Appeal to Jor-El and the Krypton Parliament. She will fight them on the beaches and the landing places. She will fight them in the streets. She will never surrender.
Vince, I have just finished reading the order. Judge Land has very carefully put together an order which will withstand the scrutiny of any appellate court called upon to review it. It was masterfully done. I particularly liked his observation that Ms. Taitz’ comparison of her efforts to those of Thurgood Marshall in Brown v. Board of Education would, if believed, “disgrace Justice Marshall’s achievements.” (p. 33). Whatever she may have to say at this point is simply whistling past the grave yard. There is delicious irony in the fact that she is getting her comeuppance from a Georgia judge. I predict that within the next twelve months, her license will be suspended by the California Bar.
Mike, there is a lot of valuable discussion in the decision. I noted that Judge Land correctly stated that the proper route to challenge a President is through the impeachment process under the Constitution, not by frivolous and duplicative lawsuits. The birthers will pick up on this eventually, and will begin to target Congressional offices with repetitive and unfounded charges.
Vince Treacy, thank you sir.
When the U.S. Attorney commences collection proceedings, will those backing Ms. Taitz continue shilling the court? They couldn’t have foreseen the 20K fine coming. Atta boy Judge Land.
I can agree in substance in regards to the procedure to remove a sitting president but in regards to the fine being paid I think that she may have a valid point. Other than Susan B. Anthony being politically connected she is the only woman that has never been forced to pay a 100 dollar fine for violating the constitution for voting, when she clearly did not have the right to vote.
Now play that against the 13, 14 and 15th Amendment when all other minorities had the right to vote but white women did not. I am not saying they had the ability to vote, just the right to.
Footnote 7 of Judge Land’s decision, quoted without comment:
“7. The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a ’round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,’ asserted that the President is not human.”
“asserted that the President is not human.”
Help I’m a prisoner in Wonderland and I can’t get out!
Great job Vince, as usual.
Vince,
Do we know if it was Robot or Alien not human? I’m pulling for Robot, but that’s only because I love Asimov’s short stories.
Orly will open her first branch office in Roswell, N.M.
Can someone on this thread please tell me what Hawaii has refused to tell me?
What Hawaii statute, administrative rule, or court opinion dictates Date Filed by Registrar vs. Date Accepted by State Registrar as it appears on COLBs issued by the State of Hawaii?
I have asked the AG, Lt. Gov., and the Director of the Department of Health, but have only received a reply from the AG and Lt. Gov.
When the DOH did not reply within the 10 days specified by law, I submitted a formal request for assistance to the Office of Information Practices. I submitted the request for assistance on 11/5. The next day, the Director of the OIP resigned.
Obama’s COLB says that his birth report was filed by the registrar on 8/8/1961. Most Hawaiian COLBs say that they were Accepted by the State Registrar on a specific date.
I know that the COLB also says that it is Prima Facie evidence of the birth. There must be some law that says that both Filed and Accepted birth reports should be considered as sufficient proof to issue a COLB. All I want to know is what law or rule is the authority to support it.
For those who care, I think Orly Taitz is an incompetent boob. She is so overtly incompetent that I question which side she is really on. If I was Obama, I’d be glad she is doing what she has been doing.
Oh, the reverse paint. But there’s a flag on the field!
Nice move, Jimmy. Seriously, your tactics are improving. Not much, but some. Too bad Orly is such a liability that the GOP will ever be stuck with their girl. To answer your inane question, Hawaii is telling you that Obama – despite his many other flaws – is an American citizen. What they are not telling you is what you want to hear.
Paully,
Thank you for posting over here. My guess is that Vince Treacy et al. have subscribed to these ‘birther’ threads and you are more likely to get a response here from those like VT who understand the legal implications of your questions.
I follow these threads out of interest and it is good to have an archive of all the correspondences to which we can refer.
“I know that the COLB also says that it is Prima Facie evidence of the birth. There must be some law that says that both Filed and Accepted birth reports should be considered as sufficient proof to issue a COLB. All I want to know is what law or rule is the authority to support it.”
What is the point of this question?
“Most Hawaiian COLBs say that they were Accepted by the State Registrar on a specific date.” What is the basis, legal citation, or link supporting this statement?
The Hawaii Revised Statutes on Vital Statistics are online. These are all the Hawaiian laws. Here is the first page. On the lower right is a button for next, and a button for previous is on the left.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-.htm
338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates
§338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
338-13 Certified copies
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
338-18 Disclosure of records
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Good question Paully. Maybe an answer from the DOH will help resolve why I have in my posession a birth certificate from CPGH.
A little FYI to the regular visitors, the CPGH bc has never been debunked, and I have plenty of information to support its authenticity.
Vince Treacy, Thanks for providing the links to the Statutes of Hawaii. I have searched the statutes, but was unable to come up with anything for Date Filed vs. Date Accepted. I think that would indicate that the determination is controlled by some administrative rule or court opinion.
All birth reports are FILED, but it appears that not all of them are ACCEPTED. Why is that? I can tell you that the State of Ohio will file a birth report, but will not accept it unless supporting evidence, like a doctor’s exam, is subsequently submitted. I’m not making any claims of legitimacy, I’d just like to know what controls the different variables.
COLBs are generated by computers. They do so by responding to a query, and the appropriate fields are filled in according to if/then statements. The Date File or Date Accepted is not preprinted on the COLB. The database makes that decision based on the available fields.
It may be that all COLBs issued during a specific period say Date Filed, while during other times they say Date Accepted. Either way, somebody had to write the program, and somebody had to make the decision about the different fields.
It is a noted inconsistency, so it is a relevant question. The significance of the deviation can only be surmised by knowing the answer.
For the regulars, the Cape Province General Hospital (CPGH) supposed birth certificate (“bc”) alluded to cryptically by “Inspector Smith,” is known and proven forgery, put up by a known forgery.
QUOTE
Another Day, Another ‘Birther’ Forgery
By David Weigel 9/8/09 11:00 AM
Josh Gerstein is all over the Justice Department’s filing in Orly Taitz’s latest “birther” lawsuit. Taitz’s suit includes — not as evidence, but as something she wants the court to verify — a ridiculously obvious forgery of a 1961 Kenyan birth certificate, obtained by a man who identifies himself as “Lucas Smith, an American,” who debuted the certificate via a shaky, “Blair Witch Project”-style video before submitting it to Taitz.
How do we know it’s a forgery? Because in a lengthy article on the case, WorldNetDaily notes that it “has reported on an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate, which looks distinctly different from the document Smith released in the video.” Not that this prevented them from headlining the new story “Panic in D.C.?”
http://washingtonindependent.com/58010/another-day-another-birther-forgery
Even World Nut Daily could not swallow this one.
Sorry, Inspector, but brazen forgeries have a very short shelf life here at the Turley blog. Go back to the birferblogs where they eat this stuff up for breakfast.
Inspector Smith,
Let me take the few moments before Vince jumps in and destroys your arguments to ask – is that the birth certificate allegedly signed by the hospital administrator months before they took over the office?
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946
off-topic p.s. I picked up a copy of “And Another Thing…” (the sixth Hitchhiker’s book), but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet due to some complications in my life (“life, don’t talk to me about life…”), but I’ll let you guys know what I think when I finish it.
Oops, too late. Vince is too quick on the draw for me…
Pauly, the Certification of Live birth says “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR August 8, 1961.” It says date of birth August 4, 1961, and place of birth Honolulu.
What is your problem? Again, what is the point of this?
It is in accordance with Hawaii law. The Hawaiian official has issued an official statement that the records show Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
So they do things differently in Ohio. So what? Filed by whom? Accepted by whom?
It is prima facie evidence. The custodial officials have attested to it. If an investigator goes to the bureau of vital statistics, she will find the same evidence.
“It is a noted inconsistency, so it is a relevant question.” What inconsistency? Where was it noted? Where is the form taht says date accepted? How do you know about the computer generated forms and the fields.
There is NO credible evidence to the contrary. The Kenyan birth certificates are forgeries. The grandmother never said he was born in Kenya; the birthers believed this only because they never played the part of the tape where she said he was born in Hawaii.
And you say you have asked Hawaiian officials. I can’t say much unless you post your letters of inquiry and their letters of response.
Leo got off on this issue a while back, filing all kinds of request with Hawaii. The response: the index data shows Obama born on August 4, 1961!
Thanks, Slart. Those were good posts over at Dr. Conspiracy.
A glimmer of good news that I noted on another thread: The Reverend Birther Drake has stopped praying for the death of the President:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/eligibility-lawsuit-plaintiff-drake-stops-praying-for-obama-to-die/
Hallelujah!
Vince Treacy, I’m not sure if you understand the question that I am presenting. Do you not believe that some COLBs say Date Accepted by State Registrar, and that others say Date Filed by Registrar?
I know about databases and reports because that is what I do. I write databases. I tell the reports how to fill in the data.
Does the State of Hawaii issue COLBs, declaring them to be prima facie evidence, for birth reports filed by a parent, relative, owner of the house or plantation, even when no supporting evidence is submitted?
Ҥ338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.”
I can see where the local agent prepares and files the birth report, but I can’t find what controls acceptance by the state registrar.
Here’s an example of the coding
=IIf([Date Accepted] Is Null Or [Date Accepted]=”",”Date Filed by Registrar”)
This would tell the report to print Date Accepted by State Registrar, unless a [Date Accepted] did not exist, which would cause Date Filed by Registrar to be printed in its place.
“I know about databases and reports because that is what I do.” Do you do it for Hawaii?
“Do you not believe that some COLBs say Date Accepted by State Registrar, and that others say Date Filed by Registrar?” I know that Obama’s Certification of Live birth says “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR August 8, 1961” because I have seen it online. How do you know that others say “Date Accepted by State Registrar “? Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?
“Does the State of Hawaii issue COLBs, declaring them to be prima facie evidence, for birth reports filed by a parent, relative, owner of the house or plantation, even when no supporting evidence is submitted?”
What did Hawaii say when you asked them? I know that Hawaiian officials have said that in recent years they only issue COLBs for all that apply for birth certificates. They no longer issue long forms. If any Presidential candidate in 2012 is asked for a birth certificate, and was born in Hawaii, then he or she will have to ask for and get a COLB, and nothing but a COLB. The Hawaiian officials have told us that their records say that Obama was born in Hawaii. The COLB is an official certified state record of the information in their files. It is binding on all other States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution.
I know the COLB meets the definition of a birth certificate that has been enacted into federal law. The definition in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
Have you got a problem with that definition?
Why are you asking this? Obama was born at the Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. It was named for Queen Kapi’olani. The hospital furnished the birth information for all of its births to the responsible state officials.
His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.
So what is the relevance of this question about birth reports by parents or others? Is this part of the theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that friends or relatives or his mother flew him to Hawaii, that they got him off the plane and through immigration, and then phoned in information for a birth certificate to the state agency? That did not happen, because he was born in Hawaii.
“(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.
Vince Treacy,
Strange that you would rely on WND when they put out a BS article that serves your needs!
You present yourself as a man of facts, yet you call the hospital “Cape Province General Hospital”.
WND attempts to claim that the Hospital did not exist in 1961. I have proof to the contrary.
WND attempts to claim that Dr. Ang’awa was not in Mombasa in 1961. I have proof to the contrary.
Shall I continue?
Are you interested in the facts, or are you just interested in selling your version of fiction?
Slartibartfast,
The subject of Dr. Othigo has been fully addressed. Dr. Othigo is the DEPUTY Chief Administrator. Dr. Othigo was also the DEPUTY Chief Administrator when Dr. Shikely was the Chief Administrator.
I have provided plenty of links, including Dr. Othigo’s ZoomInfo page, to support this point.
“Do you do it for Hawaii?” If I did it for Hawaii, I probably wouldn’t need to ask Hawaii the question.
“Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?”
Here are a few.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=UnknownCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DecostaCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
Here’s one that is like Obama’s. It says Date Filed by Registrar, but it does not list an island of birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg
“What did Hawaii say when you asked them?” The AG and Lt. Governor’s Office said that they don’t maintain those records. That makes sense. Hawaiian law leaves that up to the DOH. The question was presented to Dr. Fukino, Director of the DOH, on 10/16. The law requires her to make the information available within 10 working days. She has not yet responded to the request.
I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama.
“Obama was born at the Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii.” I have no statement from the hospital or the State of Hawaii to support that claim. If you have prima facie evidence to support, will you please provide a link?
“His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? Please provide the source for this information. I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper. If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s. The newspaper lists births that took place from Aug 2 thru Aug 7.
Too many links for wordpress.
“Do you do it for Hawaii?” If I did it for Hawaii, I probably wouldn’t need to ask Hawaii the question.
“Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?”
Here are a few.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=UnknownCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DecostaCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
Here’s one that is like Obama’s. It says Date Filed by Registrar, but it does not list an island of birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg
“What did Hawaii say when you asked them?” The AG and Lt. Governor’s Office said that they don’t maintain those records. That makes sense. Hawaiian law leaves that up to the DOH. The question was presented to Dr. Fukino, Director of the DOH, on 10/16. The law requires her to make the information available within 10 working days. She has not yet responded to the request.
I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama.
“Obama was born at the Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii.” I have no statement from the hospital or the State of Hawaii to support that claim. If you have prima facie evidence to support, will you please provide a link?
“His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? Please provide the source for this information. I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper. If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s. The newspaper lists births that took place from Aug 2 thru Aug 7.
“I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s.”
Oooooooo
Spooky special knowledge.
ROFLMAO
Christmas is coming and people need money for their holiday gifts. Hence the return of Jim Byrne and company to earn more coin trolling us. Wasn’t there a book and movied called the Neverending Story? For these birthers, ashamed to admit the racism and bigotry motivating them, no answer will ever be good enough.
Inspector Smith,
Whatever links you may have are insufficient to the evidentiary hurdle that is in front of you – if you want to prove that your birth certificate is the valid one then, for starters, you need an affidavit from a Kenyan official testifying to its veracity. Even then, if you were paying attention to Judge Carter’s ruling in Barnett v. Obama, you would realize that even having the affidavit of a Kenyan official to prove the validity of your BC on hand is not sufficient to trump the Hawaii DOH. Judge Carter seems to think that US records are more reliable than those of other countries, and I would wager that pretty much every judge in the country would agree with him. So even if you got the name of the administrator correct on your Kenyan BC, you haven’t provided and of the support necessary for anyone (especially a court) to give you any credence. It is said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet you make an extraordinary claim in the face of nearly insurmountable contrary evidence (I can’t imagine what you could have that would trump the Hawaii DOH’s statements on the matter) and offer little to no evidence to support it. Credibility, sir, is what you lack.
Pauly: “Here’s one that is like Obama’s. It says Date Filed by Registrar, but it does not list an island of birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg”
That one says “DATE FILE BY REGISTRAR” just like Obama’s. Where is on that says “Date Accepted by State Registrar.” You have not produced a COLB accepted by the state registrar.
It doesn’t list island of birth? Huh? All of the islands are in the State of Hawaii, which is one of the 50 United States. All you need to qualify for President is to show birth in a State, not in a specific island.
You asked “Does the State of Hawaii issue COLBs, declaring them to be prima facie evidence, for birth reports filed by a parent, relative, owner of the house or plantation, even when no supporting evidence is submitted?” You said, “The question was presented to Dr. Fukino, Director of the DOH, on 10/16. The law requires her to make the information available within 10 working days. She has not yet responded to the request.”
Which law? How about posting the language of your letter so that we can read the question presented for ourselves?
“If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?” Any report sent in by relatives to the newspapers was in the form of an advertisement, run in addition to, and separate from, the official birth announcements. Parents could not call in the information for the official announcement in the long lists that were printed, since only official information was printed. This has been reported in the press. I have posted links to support all my other statements many times on this blog, and will do so again. A lot of regulars here have read them all.
“I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s.”
And what is to be inferred from that information?
As BIL says, “Oooooooo.”
Pauly says “I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama.” So what is the point of all these inquiries? Are you a poker player like Leo, hiding your hole card? There is a birth record, but what? Do you think the record shows him born in a taxicab, with the hacker doing the delivery? Is this Birther Boyle looking to see if the witness is the grandmother or someone.
Here is a question. Would you agree that “I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama showing that he was born in Hawaii”?
Because the responsible state official have stated that their records show Obama born in Hawaii. Are they lying?
I said Obama was born at the Queen Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, named for Queen Kapi’olani. Obama sent them a letter this year congratulating them because he had been born there. The hospital put in their newsletter and website. I posted this all for bdaman. I put up the link here at the Turley blog. Obama and his family have consistently stated that it was his place of birth. This is all evidence.
I had to personally explode the birther myth that his sister said he was born at a different hospital. She never said that. The high school student reporter for Rainbow Newsletter wrote it it, and he was wrong, but World Nut still flogs this. So I have evidence of the hospital of birth. What have you got that shows birth elsewhere?
And, you do not need a hospital of birth to qualify for President, since a natural born citizen need only be born in the US, subject to its jurisdiction, not in a hospital in the US.
What are you driving at? We can’t read your mind.
Repeat question.
“I know about databases and reports because that is what I do.” Once again, do you do it for Hawaii?
Mike Spindell,
FYI, my wife is not white, so your claim of racism in not supported. You have played your race card too often. It is a crutch, used by you to prolong your ignorance of the facts presented.
I should pity the man such as you who lives in fear, and deamonizes others for asking questions. Are you really that afraid of the truth?
Your comments do nothing to support the facts or the law. Are you not capable of understanding either? You don’t bring much to the table.
Vince Treacy, My previous comment provided links that demonstrate Date Accepted by State Registrar.
Smith, you are dodging the fact that the Kenyan birth certificate is a forgery.
It is a forgery, proferred by a known forger. You have not posted any information to support its authenticity other than a bald assertion.
Slart has posted a link to the site exploding it. That jumpy tape has been circulated for months and proves nothing.
Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?
Smith, I noted the Nut site since a certificate that even the leading birthers can debunk can have no credibility. If even a birther site can’t swallow it, why should anyone?
Also, please consider the source of that “certificate.”
“It doesn’t list island of birth? Huh? All of the islands are in the State of Hawaii, which is one of the 50 United States. All you need to qualify for President is to show birth in a State, not in a specific island.”
That COLB does not reflect a piece of information normally listed on a COLB. That COLB, like Obama’s was Filed, but not accepted.
“Which law? How about posting the language of your letter so that we can read the question presented for ourselves?”
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
(1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency;
The question as presented
Dr. Fukino,
This is a request for any statutory laws, procedural instructions, or legal opinions from a court of competent jurisdiction, that are maintained or in the possession of the Hawaii DOH that dictate the application of “Date Filed by Registrar” and/or “Date Accepted by State Registrar” as it appears Hawaii Certifications of Birth.
I would prefer to receive the requested information electronically, but can have someone available to view them at the DOH Office if needed.
This request is pursuant to Chapter 92(f) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Thank you for your cooperation.
“Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?”
Exactly! What does it mean? Why sometimes filed, and sometimes accepted?
Here’s a birth report that shows a place where it is filed with the registrar, and a place for the satate registrar to accept it.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-OriginalCertificateofLive.jpg
There’s an old Polish proverb my mother would say when she felt there was no point in arguing over something with folks…especially those who chose not to believe the truth of a matter. She’d say it in Polish and then repeat it in English for me. It goes something like this: You talk to a hill–but a hill is a hill.
Who is Lucas Smith? Get some answers at this site:
QUOTE ON
Monday, September 7, 2009
Lucas Smith is Back
Back in July, I helped expose Lucas Smith, the BS artist who was auctioning on eBay a supposed Kenyan birth certificate for Obama. Smith disappeared for a while, but reemerged in mid-August in a series of WorldNetDaily articles. Amusingly, WND has simultaneously run headlining articles publicizing Smith’s claims alongside separate articles declaring that his claims are bogus. Thus, they position themselves to help spread lies and falsehoods while positioning themselves to be able to deny any responsibility for spreading those same lies and falsehoods.
…
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/09/lucas-smith-is-back.html
“I said Obama was born at the Queen Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, named for Queen Kapi’olani. Obama sent them a letter this year congratulating them because he had been born there. The hospital put in their newsletter and website. I posted this all for bdaman. I put up the link here at the Turley blog. Obama and his family have consistently stated that it was his place of birth. This is all evidence.”
A claim made by someone who could not have been aware of their surroundings, because they had just been born, is not evidence.
Are you channeling Orly?
Your respected authority says it’s not true.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103294
Editor’s note: Following WND’s questioning, the letter was removed from the Kapi’olani Medical Center’s website.
I should have provided you a link to the birth certificate for the 8/5/1961 birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=30mwjyx.jpg
If you look in the lower right you can see where there is a place for the Reg. General to accept it. The link I provided two comments prior is from a 1969 birth. That one clearly demonstrates a place where the birth report is to be accpeted by the state.
Was Obama’s birth report accepted by the state? If not, then why not?
repeating the question directed to Vince Treacy
“His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? Please provide the source for this information. I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper. If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
Pauly, those types of Certificates are no longer issued in Hawaii. Everything changed when they computerize. They only issue Certifications to everyone now. RichCares at Dr. Conspiracy lives in Hawaii and has confirmed this. Whatever is on them is irrelevant.
On the hospital, I een through this with bdaman. The letter was still on the website after WND said it had been removed.
Reread. WND is not reliable. But if even they won’t take a Kenyan certificate, then it is really phony.
“Obama and his family have consistently stated that it was his place of birth. This is all evidence.” Please re-read. I said Obama AND HIS FAMILY. They are a reliable source. You have nothing to contradict them.
Do you have a problem? It does not matter under the Constitution whether one is born in a hospital or not, so the name of the hospital is irrelevant.
“What does it mean? Why sometimes filed, and sometimes accepted?”
So what does it mean? Why are you so obsessed with two little words?
Maybe the words are synonyms, that is, two different words that mean the same thing. For example, certificate and certification are synonyms, since they mean the same thing.
Unless you tell us what you are driving at, we cannot help you.
Maybe they do things differently in Hawaii.
Your letter to Dr. Fukino is very confusing and should have been a lot clearer about what you were asking about. You should have laid a foundation, giving examples, so that a reader would know what you were driving at.
The law provides for “Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability.”
It does not apply to “statutory laws … or legal opinions from a court of competent jurisdiction.”
As of now, your question is too trivial for more attention.
Repeat question: What are you driving at? We can’t read your mind
On your repeat question, just google it.
Pauly, “I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper.”
I am of the same opinion. Obama’s birth was filed with the state agency, and the agency sent the information to the papers. The parents and relatives could not do that.
Obama was born in Hawaii, United States of America, in 1961, and is a natural born citizen. He is the President of the United States.
Repost
Vince Treacy 1, July 8, 2009 at 11:03 am
Anatomy of a false rumor.
Funny thing. Dr. Jerome Corsi wrote: “In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.”
Well, the newsletter is not the Rainbow. It is “The Rainbow Edition,” published by he students at Education Laboratory School in Hawaii. Attorney Phil Berg posted it online as part of his frivolous lawsuit. Please read pages 2 and 15: http://www.radiodujour.com/people/berg_philip/pdf/057_2%20Exhibit%20Charter%20Schools%20Rainbow%20Edition%20Newsletter.pdf
The article did not say that Maya Soetoro said that Obama was born at Queens. It is the writer of the article who began by saying that Obama was born at Queens Medical Center. The quotations by Maya Soetoro say nothing of the sort in the article. So there is no first hand evidence of the persistent internet rumor.
The hospital of birth issue is not heating up. It is getting colder by the minute.
Source: http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/03/the-new-math-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-solves-low-school-passage-rates-by-lowering-school-standards/
“I said Obama AND HIS FAMILY. They are a reliable source.”
And what family? What member of his family, that could have witnessed his birth, has corroborated his claim of being born at Kapiolani?
“When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
“Do you have a problem? It does not matter under the Constitution whether one is born in a hospital or not, so the name of the hospital is irrelevant.” I didn’t bring up the name of the hospital. You did. It must have been relevant to you.
“So what does it mean? Why are you so obsessed with two little words?” Those two little words seem to indicate that a birth was reported, but the information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it. I don’t like to speculate, but the DOH has failed to answer the question, leaving me no other choice.
“Your letter to Dr. Fukino is very confusing and should have been a lot clearer about what you were asking about. You should have laid a foundation, giving examples, so that a reader would know what you were driving at.” That’s a load of crap. The AG and the Lt. Gov didn’t have any problem understanding the question. I doubt the DOH did either. She didn’t respond with “I don’t understand the question”. She just didn’t respond.
You know exactly what I am driving at. I want to know why some COLBs say Date Filed and others say Date Accepted.
“Those two little words seem to indicate that a birth was reported, but the information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it. I don’t like to speculate, but the DOH has failed to answer the question, leaving me no other choice.”
So that’s it. That is pointless. No reasonable person can draw an inference that the “information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it.” To pin all of that on two words that mean the same thing in this context is stupid.
The state official have repeatedly stated that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii.
If it was filed, it was accepted. Get over it.
“You know exactly what I am driving at.” I do not.
What are you driving at?
Been here. Done that.
Vince Treacy 1, July 11, 2009 at 11:28 am
bdaman: “By the way FYI all news articles that quoted Obama being born at Queens Hospital have been switched to say Kapi’Olani. Then Kapi’olani has now taken down the letter the president sent after it was posted on there website for six months.
Fightthesmears website no longer available all this in the last 48 hours.”
Every statement in that paragraph is wrong or totally irrelevant. Show us a link to a news article that has been “switched.”
At Dr. Conspiracy’s site, richCares has noted, for those unfamiliar with Hawaii, that Honolulu has two hospitals, both founded by Queens: a Maternity Hospital started by Queen Kapiolani, and a Medical Center started by Queen Emma; both hospitals are often called “Queen’s Hospital.” “If it’s Maternity, it’s probably Queen Kapiolani Maternity Home, the name it went by in the 60’s (now Queen Kapiolani Medical Center).” Rich said “these two Hospitals are often confused. If looking for Queens Hospital either may come up, so some made a mistake.
“However Obama and his family never varied in stating where he was born, Queen Kapiolani.
“Birthers trying to use a simple mistake to bolster their ignorant story, that’s normal for idiots grasping at straws. Yes, the birth certificate issue is over.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/hawaii-homelands-declares-short-form-good-enough/comment-page-9/#comment-13285
PS, The facility was originally opened by Queen Kapi’olani as the Kapi’olani Maternity Home in 1890[wiki]. Concerned about the welfare of Hawaii’s mothers and their babies, Queen Kapi’olani opened the Kapi’olani Maternity Home in 1890. From its inception, the hospital has played a vital role in the health of Hawaii’s women and children [official website].
There is a upi.com story out there that made this mistake.
The hospital still displays the letter on its site, and has it framed in its lobby.
Bdaman was certain that Maya Soetoro told reporters that Obama was born at Queens Medical Center, but I posted the original newsletter which showed that she was never quoted to that effect. The reporter, a high school student said it, and he made a mistake. No response yet.
Fight the Smears was a campaign website. The campaign is over. The birth certificate issue is over. Get over it.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/10/reports-shows-additional-undisclosed-surveillance-programs-and-likely-unlawful-conduct-by-bush-administration/
From the link to Dr. Conspiracy in the above post:
QUOTE When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.
“They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.”
“There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.
“When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.”
As for the theory that Obama’s original birth certificate might show he was foreign born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama’s does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.UNQUOTE
As I said, JFGI.
READER SERVICES
Submit a birth announcement
Aloha and congratulations on your new arrival!
The Honolulu Advertiser invites you to announce the birth of your new baby in the Island Life section of the Sunday newspaper and on our Web site.
You can mail your announcement to The Advertiser via one of the addresses below or fax it to 535-8170. Feel free to attach additional pages or a copy of an invitation. No street addresses or telephone numbers will be published or given out; they are requested for verification purposes only.
IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby’s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.
You can also submit your celebration announcement using our online form.
The Advertiser publishes announcements up to six months after the baby’s birth. Only parents named on the birth certificate can be mentioned. At least one parent must be a current or former Hawai’i resident or Hawai’i-stationed military member.
Here’s the legal stuff: All submissions may be edited for length, accuracy and clarity. By submitting a photograph and/or announcement information, you grant The Honolulu Advertiser the right to publish, distribute, archive and otherwise use the photograph and information, in whole or in part, in print, electronic or any other media and for promotional purposes related to The Advertiser’s products and services. In addition, you represent that you have the right to authorize The Advertiser to use the photograph and information submitted.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/oh/births
Vince Treacy, Do you think you have posted enough irrelevant information yet? I’ll wait if you feel the need to publish more.
Just tell us what is on your mind, Pauly.
BTW, the link to the Honolulu paper at 8:40 PM was in direct response to: “When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” “What different format? If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?”
That is hardly irrelevant.
Paully,
I think you scared Vince Treacy. I was just thinking about how irrelevant to the discussion many of his comments are. I don’t think he understands English. Maybe I could teach him Swahili.
Vince Treacy, Make all the fun of the question presented that you want. You don’t need to want to know the answer. I was hoping you knew the answer. I’m pretty satisfied in knowing that you don’t know what dictates Date Filed vs. Date Accepted. I’m satisfied with knowing that you consider any birth report filed with Hawaii to be accepted, even when the State Registrar doesn’t agree.
At least this blog serves as a record.
Wow. My need to earn a living has been interfering lately with keeping up with what’s happening on this site. I am amazed that the birther discussion has started once again. A word of advice to Paully and Inspector Smith. You ought to educate yourself by reading all of the entries by Vince Treacy on this issue. If you do not find them convincing, you are either simply bullheaded or are a devoted follower of Orly Taitz, who will in due course be an ex-member of the bar for some pretty obvious reasons. You also ought not to rely on worldnetdaily for anything remotely resembling the truth. Finally, why is it that I never see a question about the president’s citizenship raised on this site by anyone with a real name?
Inspector Smith.
Neither you nor Pauly scare me at all.
The regulars at this site know better.
Smith, you have been taken in by forger Smith, so you have no credibility at all.
Pauly has yet to say what his point is.
I’m waiting.
“You can mail your announcement to The Advertiser via one of the addresses below or fax it to 535-8170. Feel free to attach additional pages or a copy of an invitation. No street addresses or telephone numbers will be published or given out; they are requested for verification purposes only.”
Vince Treacy, You can’t be that naiive. Does the Obama birth announcement contain a published the street address? That information you quoted is not from the period when Obama was born.
I didn’t know we could just make things up. That sure does make it easy.
Vince, Let me make it clear. Obama’s birth, as indicated by his COLB, was never accepted by the State Registrar.
I want to know why? I don’t care if you want to know why, or if you find the question to be relevant. I came here, as ffleo suggested, to see if you had the answer. Instead, you chose to be an advocate for keeping the answer hidden.
“I’m satisfied with knowing that you consider any birth report filed with Hawaii to be accepted, even when the State Registrar doesn’t agree.”
That’s a lie, Pauly. I did not say that. Where did I say that “…the State Registrar doesn’t agree.” Nowhere.
This is like arguing with a child. The registrar filed it. How could he file it if he had not accepted it. If he had not accepted it, then he would not have it in his possession to file, would he?
So maybe the act of acceptance is implicit in the act of filing, since he cannot file without accepting. Maybe they changed the form to reflect this.
There is no inference that may be reasonably be drawn from the terminology that “the information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it.”
They could not file it if they had not accepted it.
You don’t know the difference between acceptance and filing. Too bad.
You are not adding much to the discussion.
Pauly, you are totally confused about the official lists of births and the personal ads.
Vince Treacy,
How have I been “taken in” by Smith.
I am Lucas Daniel Smith.
Vince, are you light of brain?
Are you really that unaware?
“They could not file it if they had not accepted it.”
No Vince, that is wrong. A birth report is filed with the local registrar, then it is accepted by the state registrar.
Look here:
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-OriginalCertificateofLive.jpg
In the lower right. It gets filed by the local registrar, and subsequently accepted by the state registrar. If it all was the same thing, they wouldn’t have two different boxes.
I came here as a courtesy. I thought y’all might have wanted me to answer some questions. It turns out that comments are in abundance, but the answers to questions are strategically avoided.
No Vince Treacy, it is you that is confused.
We’re talking about 1961 reports in the Hawaiian Newspapers, not 2009. Don’t provide me with how they do it today, and claim that is how it was almost 50 years ago. Go sell that story to your friends. They will undoubtedly believe you.
Mr. Smith,
I have a question for you. What evidence can you offer us of the validity of your Kenyan birth certificate that we should consider more credible than statements by the Hawaii department of health?
“You don’t know the difference between acceptance and filing. Too bad.
You are not adding much to the discussion.”
Neither are you, because you don’t know the difference either. At least I have the guts to ask the question. I won’t ask you any further questions. I think InspectorSmith is right. You’re afraid of the answer, so you avoid the question.
I’ll let you know if and when Hawaii decides be an open records government.
Slartibartfast,
1. Name and signature of attending doctor (1961).
2. Name and signature of supervisor of obstetrics (1961).
3. Embossed seal of CPGH Mombasa Kenya (2009).
4. Stamp and signature of current CPGH chief admin (2009).
Slartibartfast, what can you offer us of the validity of Hawaiian COLB and statements by the Hawaii department of health?
Pauly, you are linking to a form from 1969. They have changed the forms since then.
Smit.
“I am Lucas Daniel Smith.”
You should not boast about that, given your record.
Please do not do us the “courtesy” of flogging forgeries at this site. We do not aid and abet.
I just checked his site. The Inspector is indeed Lucas Smith, part of the Orly Taitz con. Sorry, I don’t have any questions about nutrient analysis. Any decent eBay bids on the birth certificate yet? BTW, where is that explosive story you were supposed to unveil last August? And if you have such detailed insider information, why haven’t you approached the appropriate authorities rather than simply engaging in self-promotion? Just thought I’d ask.
“Pauly, you are linking to a form from 1969. They have changed the forms since then.”
I have provided a 1961 and a 1969 certificate of live birth for you to review. The 1961 has a place for the Registrar General to accept the filing, and the 1969 certificate has a place for the state registrar to accept the filing.
Vince Treacy,
You should run for US Congress. You know just how to answer a question without answering the question. Brilliant.
I can tell you that I have probably questioned the authenticity of the CPGH doc more than you have. I have been working hard to verify anything I can about the hospital and the associated doctors.
All I can tell you is that the claims that it is a forgery are unsubstantiated.
Mike Appleton,
Spoken with such elegance. I wonder if you speak in person with such tremendous articulation.
Do you not keep up with current events? Where were you in August, on sabtical with a young boy?
As for me I debuted the CPGH Obama birth certificate in August.
I’ve also a witness in federal court for a civil action filed againat Obama.
Really, where have you been? How many young boys have you escorted of to the Bahamas to play house with?
Mr. Smith,
Hawaiian officials have made statements on the record about the veracity of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii (which have been linked many times in this thread and others) and, forgive me for saying so (and please correct me if I am wrong), but you have been convicted of both fraud and forgery, so can you see why I might put more weight in a public statement by Hawaiian government officials than your statement on a blog? Do you think that any judge in the country would take your word over theirs? Furthermore, even assuming that your claims about the provenance of the Kenyan birth certificate are true, all that you have demonstrated (and again, correct me if I am wrong) is that you bribed someone claiming to be a Kenyan official to give you a document. Neither they nor any other Kenyan official is standing behind the document (I assume that if you had such an affidavit you would have publicized it). I’m sorry, but that’s not going to convince anyone here to change their minds.
Mike Appleton,
“The authorities” are already aware of the existence of the CPGH bc. They know how I got it, and where I got it from. If US President Obama and the Prime Minister of Kenya would remove the gag order, and allow the Kenyan Government to authenticate the bc, I would have them do that.
Please forgive me for my most recent comment and the perversion insinuation that it entails. My reckless comment was totally out of line.
Forgive me sir.
Respectfully,
Lucas Daniel Smith
Inspector Smith, I don’t pretend to understand your seeming obsession with pederasty, but gratuitous accusations of sexual perversion against a total stranger are juvenile at best. I doubt both your sincerity and your investigative skills because you have attempted to pass off something as authentic without objective evidence. You and Ms. Taitz suffer from the same misunderstanding of the fundamental rules of evidence. No one has the responsibility to attempt to prove that the document which you procured through bribery is a forgery. To the contrary, it is the burden of the proponent to prove its authenticity. You have been unable to do that, but attempted to cash in anyway, recognizing the always strong market among the gullible and the conspiracy theorists. You are simply an adventurer and opportunist. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but you shouldn’t expect serious people to listen to what you have to say.
Slartibartfast,
Well, if you don’t put much “weight” in a “statement on a blog”,
then why do you cite statements on a blog:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946
Sort of a double standard, wouldn’t you agree. Please, an actual answer would be great. Not more legalese.
Mr. Smith,
You don’t seem to understand what your burden of proof is. In order for a court to accept your document, you need someone attesting to its validity (e.g. an affidavit from a Kenyan official stating that the BC was legit, or from one of the people who signed the BC saying the same thing). No court is going to recognize you as an expert in Kenyan records. Even if you had these affidavits, you would still find them insufficient in the face of the Hawaii DOH’s statements. If all that you are trying to do is win in the court of public opinion, I would suggest that this is a bad forum to try as the people here are too well-informed for you to convince them without solid evidence and you’ve presented none (and likely have none).
Mike Appleton and Slartibartfast,
I know I have a checkered past. I have done my time, and have learned plenty from my mistakes. I submitted my information under penalty of perjury. I have no desire to sit in prison for playing some stupid game.
As to the Hawaiian Officials, they are only reporting what they have on record (although, according to Paully, they are not very forthcoming with everything). I don’t have the power to make either government open their records for inspection. If I did, I would want to see the Hawaiian records and the Kenyan records.
I know it is possible to file a birth report for someone born at home, so why not for someone claimed to be born at home? If someone reported that Obama was born at home, and he really wasn’t, what would identify that?
Nothing that has come from any Hawaiian Official rules out a false birth reported by Obama’s relative. Nothing at all. Hawaii has only stated that they have a birth report on file. Nothing more and nothing less.
Slartibartfast,
Thank you for completely ignoring the question.
Do you care to answer now?
Again:
Well, if you don’t put much “weight” in a “statement on a blog”,
then why do you cite statements on a blog:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946
Sort of a double standard, wouldn’t you agree. Please, an actual answer would be great. Not more legalese.
Mike Appleton and Slartibartfast,
If my grandmother filed a false birth report, and I it looked like I was going to be elected POTUS, I’d be pretty worried that she might spill the beans. I would make sure she got sick and died before she could tell anybody the truth. I’d probably use poison. The best way to avoid the detection of poison would be to have her cremated.
I wonder. Was Grandma Dunham cremated? Were her husband and daughter cremated? The answer to the first question is Yes. The second is no. But I’m not suggesting anything.
Mike Appleton,
I have a real problem with Orly Taitz, and I announced it to the world.
She wanted me to claim that I was the one who obtained the first report of Kenyan birth. The one she claims to have gotten from a foreign agency. I was not about to do that.
If you can suggest a way to authenticate the CPGH bc, while Obama and Odinga keep the doors closed, I am listening.
To the regulars.
I am not going to dignify “Lucas Daniel Smith” with any response, given his record.
Pauly, “I have provided a 1961 and a 1969 certificate of live birth for you to review.”
That was the sixties.
They changed over to the COLB in the 2000s.
Mr. Smith,
I said that I don’t put much weight in a statement on a blog vs. a public statement by Hawaiian government officials. I cited that blog so that you (and others) could see what I was referring to and did not dispute your rebuttal (having no solid evidence to determine which is correct). As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. “Barack Obama was born in Honolulu” is not an extraordinary claim, which “Barack Obama was born in Kenya” is. You cannot expect rational, intelligent people to be swayed to your side without some pretty compelling evidence. And as for your comment about legalese, I am not a lawyer and have never studied law (I’m a mathematical biologist), so I’ll take it as a compliment that you can’t tell the difference between me and the many lawyers that post here
Mr. Smith,
I wont ignore your questions, but you need to give me a little time to answer them
If my answer above isn’t sufficient, let me know and I’ll elaborate.
Bravo Vince Treacy!!! No one would ever accuse you of saying “The guy made some mistakes, but he has done his time.” I hope you don’t do criminal defense.
That’s right. You just defend the unions.
Vince Treacy,
If you can’t think of answer, or any rebuttal, that’s fine.
Just say so. Cease with euphemisms for “I can’t think of anything to post that makes sense.”
Vince Treacy,
I provided you with certificates of live birth from 1961 and 1969. The COLB is derived from information on the original. The COLBs may have changed in 2000s, but the fact still remains that Obama’s just says it was filed, and most of the others say that the state registrar accepted them.
Mr. Smith,
I find it sad that you would consider poisoning your grandmother if she knew a damaging secret about you, but again, if you want to imply that President Obama did that you can (and did), but if you want to convince anyone else of that, you need evidence. Also, if you had read this thread (as well as the other ‘birther’ threads here), you would know that Vince has done yeoman work debunking every birther theory imaginable with well-documented research, logic, and patience. If he says something I (and I suspect almost all of the posters here) take him at his word. Your attack on him only damages your credibility, not his.
InspectorSmith you are an ignorant fool and your posts clearly demonstrate your best talent. I tried to view one of your videos but you are incapable of 3rd grade diction.
Your comments about Mike A. were inexcusable. Everyone here champions free speech; however, there are times when intelligent people will refuse to listen to foulmouthed, nonsensical noise.
As a former LEO, I understand the need for redemption for one’s criminal mistakes, although you do not appear to have learned from your mistakes and perhaps you were set free far too soon.
Did you get your “inspector” badge out of a nickel gumball machine or from a prison confidant?
If you think the Global Warming Scam was big check this out.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/#comment-1605
For some reason, Inspector Smith reminds me of another blowhard, Commander McBragg:
Paully. “The COLBs may have changed in 2000s, but the fact still remains that Obama’s just says it was filed, and most of the others say that the state registrar accepted them.”
So show a COLB Certification that says “Accepted.”
Haven’t seen one yet. The COLB posted said “FILED.”
Paully, at 3:50 pm: “COLBs are generated by computers. They do so by responding to a query, and the appropriate fields are filled in according to if/then statements. The Date File or Date Accepted is not preprinted on the COLB. The database makes that decision based on the available fields.”
Now how does Paully know that if without working for State of Hawaii?
Besides, “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” looks pre-printed, just like all the other entries, like date of birth, mother’s name, and certificate number. It is in the same typeface.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg
It looks like COLBs under the new system are pre-printed to say, “date filed,” not “date accepted.” Paully has yet to come up with a COLB that says, “date accepted.” The only ones with “date accepted” printed on them are the obsolete long forms. “Date filed” does not in fact seem to be a computer-generated “if/then” heading. It looks just like “hour of birth” or “sex.”
Sorry, but Paully seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
Vince,
I commend your patience, but the racist birthers will not be deterred with something so petty as the facts.
To the regulars:
Just to refresh our recollection, the Hawaiian officials have seen the records, and they show Obama was born in Hawaii:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
See full story in USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
The same story notes that U.S. House of Representatives reached the same conclusion in a nonbinding resolution.
“A congressional resolution introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of island statehood was delayed Monday.
“The resolution includes a clause noting Obama’s Hawaiian birthplace. The line ‘Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961’ appeared to be construed by birthers as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship, said Dave Helfert, an Abercrombie spokesman.
“As the issue came to a vote Monday, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., rose to object, saying there was not a quorum present. The House later voted 378-0 to approve the resolution. Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution.”
All rational, reasonable people have examined this issue and moved on. Obama was born in Hawaii.
-30
Vince Treacy,
Are you really that stupid? You already tried to make that claim.
1.“Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?”
Here are a few.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=UnknownCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DecostaCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
Paully
1, November 23, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Vince Treacy, My previous comment provided links that demonstrate Date Accepted by State Registrar.
Vince Treacy
1, November 23, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?
So Paully finally showed a couple of COLBs, requested for hours, that said “accepted.”
Where were these all along?
And once again: So what?
What difference does it make?
So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?
Nothing. There is no evidence that one phrase differs from another. There is no reasonable implication to be drawn from the usage.
There is nothing here.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
The statement is crystal clear.
She has “seen the original vital records.”
She issued an official statement “verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”
There is a valid birth certificate under the federal legal definition posted above.
There is verification by the custodial official.
There is no credible evidence of birth on Kenya or elsewhere.
There is no room for speculation based on a so-called distinction between “accepted” or “filed.” This is official.
Paully ought to learn how to present a case.
Kids, don’t try this at home or in court.
My patience is at an end. Have a nice life, Paully.
Yes, it’s tremendously logical, no, it’s profoundly logical that President Obama will not release a copy of his original birth certificate.
Oh yeah, I know, I know, Hawaii doesn’t give out copies of that those of anymore. And Obama has no power to request a copy from the Hawaiian Dept of Health microfilm records.
Yeah, it’s crazy, why should President Obama have to do that? It’s just so racist. It is, yes, so racists. Terribly racist.
I know what we should do now! We should form online blogs and talk about how the “Birther’ are just so terribly ignorant. We’ll tell them all about the official from the Hawaiian Dept of Health that has vouched for having seen Obama’s birth certificate original birth certificate on microfilm. We’ll have to mention that the “Republican” Governor of Hawaii also has seen the proof in the pudding!
(Yes, we have to mention that she is “Republican”! That will prove that “Birther” are wrong! After all, if we have a Republican that doesn’t believe this Birther rubbish, then it’s got to be true that Birther’s are wrong. Oh, by the way, whatever else that Republican says is strictly boloney. That Republican is only correct about Birthers being nutcases.)
So, yes, yes, yes. We’ll get together and we’ll blog about the crazy Birthers, we eat meat and drink fine wine and we’ll joke about Birthers. We devote our time and money into proving that the Birthers are mad! I tell you we will! Get behind me! We’re all attorneys and wise men /women here. We are sophisticated! We can do this I tell you! It’s about time a black man was elected President I say! Us whites deserve some pay back I tell you! We need to be whipped and bound in chains! It’s great that Obama doesn’t like whites! I tell you that he has a social responsibility not to like us whites! We’ve been bad for so long now, our medicine, our right-lobe thought process! We are evil, us whites are evil I tell you!
Get behind me now I say! Rally the troops! No man, woman or child shall be permitted to look upon the birth certificate of our great Savior and Comrade Barack Hussein Obama II.!
Respectfully submitted,
Group of liberal attorneys (and other wise men) that are fat with meat and full of wine.
What a birther thinks they say:
“Well Orly is right! It’s not logical because it’s not what I want!”
What people actually hear when birther’s speak:
“Blah blah blah blah blah nigger blah blah blah blah.”
It’s profoundly logical that a certain segment of our society is so stupid that they won’t accept a documentary standard of evidence that’s accepted in county, state and Federal courts for identifying one as being born an American citizen.
It’s a phenomena called “You’re a racist moron.”
It’s profoundly logical because that segment of society is either insane, totally brainwashed and or just not man enough to admit they’re racists but aren’t smart enough to piece together any sane and logical reason Obama is part of the problem – the same problem that their fascist redneck white boys brought to a nice head with their war for Exxon’s profits.
Once again:
1) There are plenty of issues with Obama and some of them are indeed unconstitutional.
2) His not being a citizen? Not one of them. Get over it.
3) None of this negates Bush and Cheney are war criminals who stole at least one election and started a war for their family profits and need to be hanging from a tree as appropriate punishment.
So next time you want to rail on the birth certificate? Take a big ol’ spoonful of STFU, you simpleton racist half-wits. Just because you think it doesn’t make it true and just because you have the right to say something repetitively stupid doesn’t give you the right to be free from ridicule for your stupidity.
It’s profoundly logical. Because you birther clowns are the tools of not just evil, but pawns to your own intellectual inadequacies. You have the right to be stupid. Also to be wrong and marginalized for your stupidity too. How about getting mad about something with substance? Hmm?
Be mad about signing statements.
Be mad about the continues bailout of Wall St. criminals.
Be mad about the Patriot Act.
Be mad about torture being done in your name that exposes all of our soldiers to greater danger.
Because being mad about the birth certificate is about as logical as being mad at the tooth fairy.
So just like children who won’t behave, it’s simply time for your lot to shut up and go to bed without any satisfaction. Or be prepared for the perpetual drubbing your stupidity invites. Your choice. You want to be angry at the government? Fine. There’s plenty of reasons.
JUST USE A REAL ONE.
To the regulars, Dr. Conspiracy has a complete rundown on Date Filed v. Date Accepted, posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Maybe Paully can take his problems to the experts at that site and stop bothering us for a while (this is meant sincerely).
Meanwhile, JT has opened a new birther thread today, Nov. 24th, so all further discussion will be continued up there.
I have read all the posts re: Pres. Obama’s COLB. Lets uncomplicate all the discussion and answer my simple question:
As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it. It is a very simple thing to do. (After all these years I have mine and could produce it for anyone who asks in just a matter of minutes.) It is such a simple request and could so easily settle peoples’ minds, as the ramifications of a birth certificate can mean so much. Just produce it and be done with it.
As it is, it tends to make me wonder what the reason for not doing so could possibly be?
Peoples’ imaginations are many times worse than the reality generally.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
“FYI, my wife is not white, so your claim of racism in not supported. You have played your race card too often. It is a crutch, used by you to prolong your ignorance of the facts presented.
I should pity the man such as you who lives in fear, and deamonizes others for asking questions. Are you really that afraid of the truth?”
As a forger, liar and con man what part of credible do you evince? Lou Dobbs has a latina wife and yet hates latino’s. If it’s true that your wife is non-white, which given the history of your vercity is unknown,
that doesn’t mean she is African-american per se. Perhaps though you are not a racist per se, but simply another scammer trying to make a buck.
What the con man needs is a gullible population, that has an axe to grind be it greed, or in this case racism. You as a scammer will surely use whatever tools you can find to reap your rewards, be they financial, egotistical or both. Like most con men you view those you con with contempt, making you fill the emptiness in your own mind which is really a suspicion of your own worthlessness. It is nice for you that you have hooked up with such willing sheep, but please don’t flatter yourself into believing that people with at least average intelligence and without an agenda of bigotry find you the least bit credible.
Paully,
Fess up. you don’t like black people and you are paid to write comments and act the troll part. Don’t confuse yourself with a patriot, which you clearly are not.
Yesterday, at 6:14 PM Paully posted links to demonstrate Date Filed vs Date Accepted
At 7:16 PM Vince Treacy responded with “That one says “DATE FILE BY REGISTRAR” just like Obama’s. Where is on that says “Date Accepted by State Registrar.” You have not produced a COLB accepted by the state registrar.”
At 7:21 PM Paully said “Vince Treacy, My previous comment provided links that demonstrate Date Accepted by State Registrar.”
At 7:25 PM Vince Treacy acknowledged this “Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?”
At 12:33 AM (5 hours later) Vince Treacy says “So show a COLB Certification that says “Accepted.” Haven’t seen one yet. The COLB posted said “FILED.”
For the record: Vince Treacy was not only provided with examples, he acknowledged viewing those examples at 7:25 PM on Nov. 23rd. Then 5 hours later, he claims to have never seen them.
“As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it.”
Lilove,
The answer is that by responding to mean spirited foolishness the President would only be lending credibility to his attackers, who have none and would continue the attack anyway. Birther writers have already stated that there is no proof they would accept that the President is a citizen. They have also stated the lie that to be a “natural born” American, both ones parents have to be US citizens. They have further gone back to a Swiss Philosopher, who died in 1753 (23 years before the Revolution) as an authority on what “natural born” citizen means. In short their real agenda is to de-legitimize the President by any means possible and to stir up enough hatred to invite violence against him. Some have called for the military to take over the government in a coup. I believe that this is because of his skin color.
The birth certificate issue has already been decided by the courts and by the legal processes of the United States. The birther movement is using a technique developed by the NAZI Joseph Goebbels called “The Big Lie.” This technique holds that if you repeat something as often as possible, even if it is false, the public comes to believe it to be true. This was how the NAZI’s were able to get their people into believing they had to kill millions of innocent people. The people behind the birthers are using this same “big lie” technique and for the same reasons bigotry and greed. This is not a question of whether or not you like the President and his policies, this is really about whether you love our American system, or want to replace it with one led by hatred and violence.
Mike Spindell,
InspectorSmith exposed you yesterday. You play your race card to cover for your ignorance. This is a discussion of law and facts. You bring neither to the table. You play your race card to castigate others. It is your attempt at censorship.
Yesterday, ffleo went after InspectorSmith for making unsupported comments about Mike Appleton. I don’t know Mike Appleton but I suspect that ffleo was correct to jump all over InsepectorSmith for making the comment. Will ffleo jump all over you for doing the same? Do you think your ignorance is an excuse that should permit you to make wild unsupported accusations?
If you don’t possess the intellect required to engange in honest debate, you should remain silent.
Mike Spindell, You are in over your head!
1. The birth certificate issue has not been decided by the courts. Only the issue of standing and jurisdiction has been decided by the courts. Those courts, contrary to the claims of Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo and their faithful flock, made the correct rulings.
2. Vattel’s Law of Nations was adopted as part of the Common Law of England in 1764. The Case was Triquet and Others v. Bath.
“Triquet v. Bath? was a case which turned on the question whether the defendant was a domestic servant of a foreign minister, and whether he was entitled to the diplomatic privilege. In the course of the argument ” Mr. Blackstone observed that the Act of Parliament of 7 Anne c. 12 was not any alteration of the law of nations from what it was before: for that ambassadors and their attendants were, by the general law of nations, entitled to the same privilege,” and Lord Mansfield, C.J., remarked: ” This privilege of foreign ministers and their domestic servants depends upon the law of nations.”
Your suggestion the the law of nations is some archaic rambling that is no longer consulted by the U.S. courts is also not supported. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), a citizenship case, the U.S. Supreme Court looked to the law of nations.
Awwww.
“Do you think your ignorance is an excuse that should permit you to make wild unsupported accusations?”
Now that’s just funny, Pa Kettle.
And as for ignorance? Eh, I’m thinking Mike is more credible in his sleep than you are on full tilt, Junior. The proof is in the eating of the pudding and, oops!, Mike can really chow down on some troll pudding.
Please, Paully! Entertain us with your poo flinging monkey dance! Because your arguments are junk. The package is kinda funny though. Wishful thinking hokum and distraction propaganda.
But please do rattle on.
I bet there is a used calliope you can come by quite cheap on eBay.
That kind of dancing needs the proper accompaniment.
I think a few posters in this thread should be required to produce a COFB–Certificate Of Functioning Brain.
lilove11: “As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it.”
You lie!
The truth is that Obama has produced his Certification of Live Birth (COLB).
Zero tolerance for liars at the Turley blog.
Mike S,
I think that instead of accusing birthers of racism and bigotry (which not all of them are guilty of), a better tactic is to ask them why they are so comfortable with fellow travelers who are so obviously racists and bigots. That said, they shouldn’t be surprised that after rolling around with the dogs they’ve got fleas…
Elaine M,
Thanks for the laugh.
Paully,
There is a difference between using “Law of Nations” to refer to de Vattel’s book and using the term law of nations to refer to, you know, international law…
Ok, Paully did show links to 2 COLBs on November 23, 2009 at 6:19 pm “Too many links for wordpress.”
To repeat.
And once again: So what?
What difference does it make?
So what does the fact that some say “filed” and others “accepted” mean?
Nothing. There is no evidence that one phrase differs from another. There is no reasonable implication to be drawn from the usage.
There is nothing here.
There has been no answer to why this trivial difference in words makes any significant difference.
Take the discussion over to Dr. Conspiracy. Maybe they can figure it out.
Posted by Dr. Conspiracy on Saturday, February 28, 2009
QUOTE
This came in the mail:
I ran across a birther argument [on Free Republic] I could not answer. Obama’s COLB has a “Date Filed,” whereas other COLB’s posted on the internet have a “Date Accepted.”
The birthers seem to be attaching a lot of significance to this discrepancy. I briefly searched the Hawaii DOH websites to see if I could find any information on what it might mean, but was unsuccessful.
If you have time, you may want to explore this further. I’d be curious to know what you find.
Look at the “Alan” birth certificate (long form from 1963)
When a Vital Records agency prints an abstract form like Obama’s COLB they put old data in the current format. That is, the data is old, but the labels are new. Without a definitive policy from the Health Department, we can’t tell which of the two blocks from the birth registration, 20 or 22 went on Obama’s form. I would think it’s block 22, the date the State accepted the record from the local registrar.
Even today, birth registration is sometimes done by local agencies (for example a county health department in Indiana). Note that the signature next to the Date Accepted (block 20) is that of a military officer (COL, MSC, USA), which would indicate that the signer was most likely someone over the U. S. Army Tripler General Hospital.
The Alan document would have been forwarded to the State from the Army hospital and it would be stamped with a state-wide certificate number (or File Number in this case). You see the state acceptance date 4 days later (block 22).
Look at this Hawaiian Death Certificate from 1992 (page 5).
It also has two blocks and they are labeled “Date received by local registrar” and “Date Filed by State Registrar”. Page 6 of that document shows a 1991 version of the COLB which looks to be hand typed on some decent security paper and shows only “Date Received by Local Registrar”.
Some modern COLB’s say “Date Accepted by State Registrar” and some say “Date Filed by Registrar”. Below is another example with the same wording as Obama’s.
UNQUOTE
SOURCE: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/#comments
Paully,
Mike Spindell does not siphon libelous comments via his mouth from the sewer as InspectorSmith (IS) did and nothing Mike S. has stated herein requires rebuking.
Buddha mentioned to you and other birthers that there are real legitimate problems with Mr. Obama and his Administration with which you should focus your energies. Bdaman mentioned the FOIA issue that is a major concern to me.
If you gave financial and other support to the ACLU and/or other organizations contesting Mr. Obama’s broken pledges, then you could help ensure that he is a one-term president—unless he redeems himself soon. As I mentioned regarding IS, every human deserves a chance at redemption.
The birther movement that was initially worthwhile to investigate has since been illegitimatized, you need to accept that outcome as we all must do when our claims become refuted , and move on to change the real reasons why Mr. Obama is a poor, exceptionally dishonest president.
‘
“Vattel’s Law of Nations was adopted as part of the Common Law of England in 1764. The Case was Triquet and Others v. Bath.”
Paully,
Thanks for proving my point about your being a troll and probably Jim Byrne. Only a true troll would bring an 18th Century, Swiss natural philosopher into this discussion. Also may I remind you that Blackstone, an English Jurist died in 1780 and while his book is still used in law schools it is a stretch to use his take on what was in essence a world of total monarchy to define 21st Century American jurisprudence. As far as your citing the use of Vattel in a 1963 citizenship case (the best you could do is 46 years ago?) SCOTUS has through the years made many peculiar decisions for instance “Plessy v. Ferguson,” or “Bush v. Gore.” I use both of them as examples because I think they exemplify your personal bias and true lack of belief in constitutional law.
You have to go back to the likes of Vattel though and to also bring in silly birth certificate questions, because you simply have no case other than your bigotry. You are a rather gutless bigot though, because those I’ve met at least have the balls to admit their prejudice. You hide yours behind obfuscation and behind the “Big Lie.”
You are in fact just another Goebbels wannabe, goose stepping to the beat of your own anger and hatred. I bet your prime sexual fantasy is to have some women dressed in black leather, swastica prominent, dominate you. I am by the way attacking you on an ad hominem basis, simply because your arguments are a rehash of the “same old, same old” and because a bigot like you doesn’t deserve any better. Incidentally,
you don’t anger me, you amuse me in your total lack of self awareness.
Unlike you though I don’t claim to know it all and so I’ll offer an alternative theory on why you write as you do: You get paid for it and like the old joke about the whore, the question is not what you are, but how much is your price? A third theory that you are merely a patritoic American seeking justice is made absurd by your own written statements.
“Inspector Smith exposed you yesterday. You play your race card to cover for your ignorance.”
Paully/Jim Byrne,
As yogi Berra said it’s deja vu all over again. You write exactly like Jim Byrne and “birther” and that is because you probably are. As for Smith “exposing” me, how does a proven forger and con man get to expose anyone. Finally, you are a racist. “Play the race card” where have I heard that before? How about the KKK and other “white power” groups. You guys are too stupid to even realize how easily you expose yourselves and too cowardly to ever admit the truth of your bigotry.
“I think that instead of accusing birthers of racism and bigotry (which not all of them are guilty of), a better tactic is to ask them why they are so comfortable with fellow travelers who are so obviously racists and bigots.”
Slart,
Although you and I agree on many, many things, we disagree on this. To me the “birther” movement is a racist one and if you’re a “fellow traveler” to bigotry you are one.
Slartibartfast,
You’re correct. I know of birthers that are racists. I also know of Democrats that are racists. I don’t label the group based on the statements of the few.
To answer your question “why they are so comfortable with fellow travelers who are so obviously racists and bigots”?
Who said they are? I avoid those who are racist. They don’t care about the facts anymore than those who avoid the facts to support any other agenda. How do you propose the birthers get rid of the racists who support them?
Mike S,
I don’t think that any of your posts here were out of line and I’m certainly aware that the birther movement has some really dark and unsavory motivations at its root, I just think that it’s more important to focus on the fact that the birthers are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law instead of the racism inherent in the movement. It is very understandable that you would be more sensitive to racism and bigotry than me (especially since I have seen such directed at you personally on this blog) so I have no problem with agreeing to disagree (respectfully) with you on this topic.
Paully,
The character of the people standing with you (figuratively) reflects on your cause – it’s naive to think otherwise. I would suggest that any birthers concerned about this should drop the issue and spend their time on any of the real, serious issues facing our country and our planet. If you don’t want people to think you’re a part of the KKK, then don’t march down the street wearing a white robe…
Vince Treacy says “So what does the fact that some say “filed” and others “accepted” mean?
Nothing. There is no evidence that one phrase differs from another. There is no reasonable implication to be drawn from the usage.
There is nothing here.”
Thanks for the good laugh Vince Treacy.
Paully=Jim Byrne=birther=troll=racist.
ffleo, Until some reliable source can provide the documentation that dictates the usage of Date Filed vs. Fate Accepted, that question will remain unanswered. Obfuscation is not resolution.
Vince Treacy relies on speculation from Dr. Conspiracy.
As important as what dictates the difference is the reason(s) the Director of the Department of Health has refused to comply with the laws of Hawaii. Remember the rule of law? Are you complicit in this violation of Hawaiian Law?
Mike Spindell’s determination that I am a racist, because I ask a reasonable question, is unsupported.
Do we really want to permit unsupported name calling on this blog? Is that a door you would like to se opened?
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.
Given the repeated beatings you’ve taken in your various incarnations, maybe YOU should ask if YOU want to keep opening any doors here, slick.
1) There is no rational basis for the argument Obama is not a citizen. N-O-N-E.
2) No legal basis either.
3) It’s curious that you, Indentured Servant -er- InspectorSmith and bdatroll all show up at the same time again.
What’s the matter? Didn’t get a bad enough beating the first two dozen times you birther clowns tried to float this dead dog argument? Your masters really breaking out the whip just in time for the holidays?
Your ruses are painfully transparent, Mr. Illogical Racist. And that is what you are, Birther. Your stances fail on logic and law, ergo, simple racism must be your motive for butting heads with the reality of Obama’s citizenship in light of overwhelming evidence that – duh – you guys don’t know what the Hell you are talking about. Birthers are sound and fury signifying nothing. Truly a tale told by idiots.
Who questioned Obama’s status as a citizen? Who claimed that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States?
“Who farted?”
Why that’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. And the maxim has ever been “He who smelt it, dealt it.”
Coincidence?
“Do we really want to permit unsupported name calling on this blog? Is that a door you would like to se opened?”
Jimmy,
I’ve been open about attacking you on an ad hominem basis. My reason is that one cannot argue with someone who will not admit when they have been beaten. I attack you thus, to ridicule you and expose the falsity of your posting.
However, Buddha did it more succinctly then I with:
“Truly a tale told by idiots.”
Why should we lend credence to your arguments when they have been so thoroughly debunked? You write with the same frenetic activity of a headless chicken scampering through a barnyard, but the chicken at least deserves sympathy. True also is Buddha’s observation that bdaman, your doppelganger, has again risen. Coincidence? I doubt it.
I’m here every day. Just because I refrain to comment on another rogue cop tasering someone or Barbie wearing a Burqa doesn’t mean I’m not lurking in the shadows ready to jump in at a moments post. There are only two subjects that interest me here, Obama and AGW. I’ll get the rest of the funnies from the comic strip in the daily newspaper.
Wow! I just read the last two days of posts.
I really don’t know if I have ever seen, first hand, such an overt attempt to propagandize before. Paully and i. Smith have managed to defy every bit of patience, logic and the attempts to help them reach an understanding of the facts with their seemingly insane mission to reincarnate this myth.
I have to agree with some of the other posters. This ‘show’ that paully and smith have been putting on stinks of a coordinated effort to re-ignite the paranoid fringe.
The really scary thing to me is, these two are unashamed in their repeated lies with regard to court rulings and testimonies given by state and federal officials. To read the postings here and see that P and IS are motivated to cause such fear and spread misinformation, so that their own greedy needs are meet, is treasonous.
Also, the funniest thing has been reading as ‘paully’ clings to “accepted/filed” clerical difference like its a linchpin holding back a torrent of truthiness. Even though paully continues to insist that this is a crucial point he fails to ever explain what the implications of the difference in terms.
Why? Because there is none, of course. Thanks for the entertainment, birther clowns
Slartibartfast said “The character of the people standing with you (figuratively) reflects on your cause – it’s naive to think otherwise.”
Just how insanely stupid are you? Are you wearing your “I wanna be like Mike” t-shirt?
Starting to feel like you stepped in something Slarti?
You are who stands with you?????
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D989E8JO3&show_article=1
I can keep this up forever.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/16/culture-of-corruption-alert-pennsylvania-democrat-convicted-on-137-counts/
lilove11, Nov. 24, 2009 at 10:36 am: “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.”
(1) Can’t do that without an email address, Einstein.
Please reread:
“E-mail (will not be published)”
(2) Obama produced his COLB in 2008.
To the regulars, it looks like Paully has joined bdaman as a habitual troll.
Do not feed the trolls.
No Vince, I’m just supporting Slartibartfast. Don’t you think we should support our fellow bloggers?
When provided with a supporting SCOTUS opinion, Mike Spindell said “the best you could do is 46 years ago?”
Does anyone need me to demonstrate just how stupid that comment was, or do I need to provide examples?
Paully,
I think that President Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright reflected on him as well as his decision to distance himself from Wright. The other things you posted seem to be oranges rather than apples to me – I wasn’t referring to people who support you, but to people with whom you associate. Also, wouldn’t you agree that the proportion of racists in the birther movement far exceeds that of Obama supporters? Feel free to keep posting videos, I’m not going to waste my time watching them.
Vince,
Sorry for feeding the troll, but as he was responding to my comment, I felt it necessary.
Slartibartfast, I’m not going to let you off that easily. I doubt you could name 50 birthers, let alone provided any support to call them racists.
“[A] small percentage of the Left, maybe 5%, are not only loonies but also are vociferous in their denigration of Israel. [Yet, I stand with them as a leftist] That 5% influences possibly another 10 to 15% of the Left inordinately. That makes up 20%. The other 80% tend more to think for themselves, or are iconoclasts like me.” [Unfortunately for all Leftists, we are who we stand with]
Slartibartfast, Who do I associate with? I had lunch with a retired school teacher today. He’s as pro-union as they come. He’s also pro-life, and he voted for Obama.
I didn’t equate people with who they stand with, I said they reflect on them, which they do. And I hear much more racism and bigotry out of the birthers than I do denigration of Israel out of the left. Also, I never said that the composition of people in a movement was the only (or even the most significant) basis on which to judge it. As for who you associate with – on this board you have associated yourself with the birthers and that reflects on you – though not nearly as much as your words and stubborn refusal to stop clinging to ignorant positions even when you are shown that they are irrational.
Slartibartfast, On this board, I have associated myself with no one. I asked a question. I did so respectfully, and when asked, I provided links to support my reason for asking the question.
You said “The character of the people standing with you (figuratively) reflects on your cause – it’s naive to think otherwise.”
I can’t control who adopts my beliefs. To think otherwise is delusional. There are always those who will join any effort, if that effort may provide the result they want.
Slartibartfast, You seem somewhat reasonable. What do you know about national security?
everyone is fiddling with “Birther” while Rome burns.
Benny “B” and the Fed just said the economy is going to be in the toilet for 5 years plus.
Who would have thought after all that stimulus money. Well duh, it happened exactly the same way in 1931. Things started turning around and then look out below.
Looks like the fools in DC have done it this time.
What a shame we never learn the lessons of history.
Slart, no problem. We cannot let troll falsehoods go unanswered. I have seen your posts at Dr. Conspiracy. The Turley blog is a general blog, but Dr. C.’s is devoted entirely to the Obama birth issue, with a dedicated thread on filed/accepted.
Has Paully asked his question over there at a dedicated site conducted by an expert in vital statistics?
Not the last time I checked.
Maybe he anticipated that he would not like the answers he would get over there.
This tells me that he really does not care about the issue of filed or accepted, but would rather disrupt the conversation.
Blind Faithfullnes, thank you for saying it so well: “Also, the funniest thing has been reading as ‘paully’ clings to “accepted/filed” clerical difference like its a linchpin holding back a torrent of truthiness. Even though paully continues to insist that this is a crucial point he fails to ever explain what the implications of the difference in terms.
“Why? Because there is none, of course. Thanks for the entertainment, birther clowns”
Amen.
Vince Treacy sais “Maybe he anticipated that he would not like the answers he would get over there.”
You’re sharper than you were yesterday!
There is only one agency charged with printing Hawaiian COLBs. That is the only agency that can provide the answer to the discrepancy.
As to your claim that Dr. Conspiracy is an “expert in vital statistics”. -Prove it! The Turley blog will not permit you to lie.
Mike Spindell said “Also may I remind you that Blackstone, an English Jurist died in 1780 and while his book is still used in law schools it is a stretch to use his take on what was in essence a world of total monarchy to define 21st Century American jurisprudence.”
Mike, Thank you! With you as my adversary, I don’t need any additional help to support my position. LOL
I’m interested. Do Vince Treacy or Mike Appleton support the quoted statement from your earlier post?
More Internet reference information for the regulars, just to put a little common sense into the debate. First, there is also a thread on accepted/filed, where anyone can log in and post questions, at politjab.com:
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2752&p=82364&hilit=filed+accepted#p82364
QUOTE Post by Epectitus » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:23 pm Re: “Accepted” vs. “Filed”
Even Polarik/Polland debunked that one. His image of another “filed” COLB was included on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in February.
That said, the State Department’s regulations for proof of citizenship at birth only require that it be “filed” within a year of birth, not “accepted.” So, if any of these COLBs are suspect, it’s not the ones that say “filed.” UNQUOTE
So maybe the pre-printed COLB changed the heading to date filed from date accepted to make it easier for the State Department to accept.
Second, over at Dr. C, richCares, who is Hawaiian, said on February 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm (Quote)
Hawaii Health Dept has acknowledged that these wording changes were made without also changing the Form number. Form numbers are only for an internal office matter. They said in typical Hawaiian fashion “Ain’t no big thing” (Unquote).
This just does not seem to rise to the level of one of the greatest injustices of the Third Millennium.
Finally, I think that Hawaii’s agencies have been inundated with floods of birther letters, many spurred on by Leo Donofrio, and often barely coherent, so it is unsurprising that replies are lagging.
So what are you trying to say Vince?
If a COLB says Date Accepted by State Registrar, is the State Department not going to accept it?
Be careful. You’ll dig yourself a whole. You’re already relying on WND and Polarik for support.
I’m still waiting for you to support your claim that Dr. Conspiracy is an “expert on vital statistics”.
Yet another Republican congressman has joined forces with the birthers.
The most recent example: Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey said President Obama should produce his birth certificate after being pressed on the issue by constituents who believe President Obama is actually a Kenyan citizen. Dave Weigel chronicled the encounter, which took place last week. After being pushed for nearly five minutes to to weigh in on the birther conspiracy theory, Garrett tried to deflect the question, saying there was “no political solution to it.” Weigel continues:
He’s cut off by another constituent. “Have him show his birth certificate! It’s as simple as that! None of this ‘talk about it, talk about it’ — just let’s see the birth certificate!”
“I agree,” says Garrett — who’s not one of the 12 sponsors of the “birther bill.”
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), also a 2010 Republican Georgia gubernatorial candidate, is seeking Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. Today, SavannahNow.com posted a story concerning Rep. Deal’s foray into eligibility.
My office, and I’m sure many other offices,” the Gainesville lawmaker said, “continue to get inquiries. … The president has the ability to put this to rest completely, and I think he should do that. …
“It takes up my staff’s time. We are constantly required to answer these kinds of inquiries. … I’m willing to take his word for it, but I think he needs to convince those who still have doubts.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, only native-born citizens may serve as president. Hawaii became a state in 1959.
I would like to see all of the doubters of Obamas Certificate of Live Birth if one exists. Post it here on this site at this very instance. If you don’t how do we know that you were born? Do you see how moronic your inaneness has become.
Paully,
Vince’s latest post leaves you with no leg to stand on – you’re in a field with both of your arms and legs on the ground next to you, the question is, will you man up and say you were wrong, or will you say, “tis but a scratch”? I know which way I’d bet. This is the point where you and the other birthers go from asking a relevant question to crazy conspiracy theorist – it’s been shown to a reasonable degree of certainty that there is nothing significant about the accepted/filed issue therefore you can either admit you are wrong or admit that this isn’t about a rational concern for the constitution, but about removing President Obama from office because you don’t like him. There isn’t really any other explanation. You should pay especially close attention to the last two sentences of Vince’s post:
“This just does not seem to rise to the level of one of the greatest injustices of the Third Millennium.
Finally, I think that Hawaii’s agencies have been inundated with floods of birther letters, many spurred on by Leo Donofrio, and often barely coherent, so it is unsurprising that replies are lagging.”
as these are good examples of how reasonable people think (you could use some help in that regard).
You know, I just realized something about why the birthers annoy me so much – they are demanding that they have the right to see the original copy of President Obama’s original birth certificate (and hear sworn testimony from the doctor who delivered him, plus have a lie detector test given to his late mother via seance and HD video of the birth complete with DNA samples…) while I have no legal right to see my own original birth certificate*. Screw them.
*I was adopted as an infant and my birth certificate lists my adoptive parents.
Slartibartfast,
I think you have named it. Why does it matter? They are asking for something that they themselves are not willing or incapable of doing.
Slartibartfast, If you think Vince’s last post does anything more than show his true colors, you’re an idiot. Pay attention, and I’ll show you a little bit about the Vince Treacy that you trust.
Vince Treacy, Why don’t you provide us with a hyperlink to this quote of yours? I dare you.
“Second, over at Dr. C, richCares, who is Hawaiian, said on February 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm (Quote)
Hawaii Health Dept has acknowledged that these wording changes were made without also changing the Form number. Form numbers are only for an internal office matter. They said in typical Hawaiian fashion “Ain’t no big thing” (Unquote).”
Anybody here find a result for that quote from Dr. C? If you do, post a link.
Just watch! Vince will post numerous long comments to hide this.
ffleo, Are you an honest man? Can you find that quote?
AY–
It’s difficult to produce a birth certificate when you’ve burst–fully formed as an adult–from a pod. In my view, the birthers may be proof of a science-fiction-becomes-reality case of the “body snatchers.”
Whaddya think?
And this supposed quote
QUOTE Post by Epectitus » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:23 pm Re: “Accepted” vs. “Filed”
Even Polarik/Polland debunked that one. His image of another “filed” COLB was included on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in February.
That said, the State Department’s regulations for proof of citizenship at birth only require that it be “filed” within a year of birth, not “accepted.” So, if any of these COLBs are suspect, it’s not the ones that say “filed.” UNQUOTE
Please provide us with a link, Vince. We don’t put up with liars at the Turley Blawg.
Paully,
Since you seem to want to focus on the specific wording on President Obama’s COLB, what do you make of the words “This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”? What do you think they mean? What do you think they would mean to a judge? Just asking…
To the regulars:
Here is the link, again, to Dr. C’s thread on filed/accepted:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Scroll down to the bottom left, and click on “Older Comments.” Be patient, since the site is sometimes a little slow. Then scroll down and click again. This gets the viewer to the first page of comments.
RichCares is the first up, followed by this exchange: QUOTE.
Dr. Conspiracy says:
February 28, 2009 at 4:28 pm (Quote)
It could be that the label for filed/accepted could be a variable in the print routine. They could use different labels for data from different eras to reflect different definitions of their data fields at different times.
I’ve never worked on Hawaii’s system, so I can’t say for sure what they’re doing.
TRUTH [apparently a birther, VT] says:
March 1, 2009 at 12:30 pm (Quote)
Excuse me DOC?! “…. so I can’t say for sure what they’re doing….”
And the HI health dept has no Definitive policy?
But we’re 100% sure that what we have seen is legitimate. Okie Doke.
Dr. Conspiracy says:
March 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm (Quote)
Well Truth, there are some things which are rather simple: “Location of Birth: Honolulu”. That doesn’t take much explanation. “Date filed by Registrar” could be interpreted differently within a narrow range of possibilities since we don’t know whether it refers to a local registrar or a state registrar.
I’m sure the Health Department has a definitive policy; I just don’t know what it is.
The obvious reason that this field is on the form is to meet the requirements of the Passport Office on timely registration for acceptable birth certificates for passport purposes. Late registrations (which Obama’s isn’t) are a primary source of certificate registration fraud. If the date were a year out (or even maybe a month) then I would be telling you that this is a “caution flag”.
What I have seen on other sample birth certificates from Hawaii is a lag of 2-4 days between event and registration, which is exactly what we have in Obama’s case.
UNQUOTE
At this point, Paully or anyone else can post a reply or question to expand the discussion. It does not seem to me to be a big deal. Maybe someone ordered a new batch of printed forms with the heading “filed” instead of “accepted.” It does not seem to rise to the level of a conspiracy.
At any rate, that is how to find the quotation and the link.
I see now .that this link goes right to the first page of comments.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/comment-page-1/#comments
I am sorry about the confusion.
Here is what I posted above:
“More Internet reference information for the regulars, just to put a little common sense into the debate. First, there is also a thread on accepted/filed, where anyone can log in and post questions, at politjab.com:
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2752&p=82364&hilit=filed+accepted#p82364
Now here the problem is that the site, as I mentioned, requires people to register with them before they can log in and view all the threads. Since I registered, it seems that I can go right to the thread by clicking the url, but that may not work if someone has not registered.
They cover a lot of issues, and have numerous birther threads with a lot of resources, so anyone interested should register. I went there and put “filed and accepted” in the search window and found the thread.
Paully,
Well, I’d call that a medium length comment from Vince (followed by a small clarification) (followed by another email with a link to more discussion about this topic – damn Vince you’re the frickin energizer bunny…). Unfortunately for you, he answered your challenge. What was this supposed to tell me about Vince? That he has integrity and knows this stuff forward, backward, and sideways? What about my question to you? What does “prima facia evidence of the fact of birth” mean to you? Do you have the integrity to admit it when you’re wrong?
“Please provide us with a link, Vince. We don’t put up with liars at the Turley Blawg.”
Paully,
Au Contraire. you’ve been allowed to post many times.
“Mike, Thank you! With you as my adversary, I don’t need any additional help to support my position. LOL”
Jimmy B,
I’m not your adversary. You’re simply not worth taking seriously. Your viewpoint has already been shown to be bankrupt, you a racist and a liar. I’m merely ridiculing you for not only your poor showing but the fact that you lack the courage to be honest about your real agenda. Vince has demolished you with able assistance from Slart and Mike A., why add to the rouite, when clearly you have nothing to recommend yourself as either an American or a human being? If you side with traitors and terrorists, you are one for all intents and purposes. The birther movement and its alligned “teabaggers”(how apt a name given its real slang meaning)are not loyal Americans and some of them have expressed terrorist opinios. If you lie with pigs you get dirty and you have.
You and your sidekicks, the bigoted bdaman and the con man Smith goose step together in spreading “Big Lies,” just as did Goebbels. The truth is you actually take that comparison as a compliment, but can’t admit it openly. Your regurgitate the same vomit not out of concern for this Nation, but as people who want to overthrow this Nation. That is where traitor comes in. The terrorism comes in by your use of fear as a tactic. If God forbid any violence comes of this nonsense, you would be abetters to it. However, in no way are you an adversary of mine simply because you lack the sincerity to be taken seriously.
Incidentally, the fun in all this is that my ridicule has hit its mark.
The one thing frauds like you most hate is ridicule, or not being taken seriously. That’s why you attempt to answer me with feeble insults and why on another thread bdaman resorted to bigoted slurs. Your production never rises to the point of serious discourse and what you have produced has been ably refuted. You all are exercizes in bad parody, but unfortunately the more unhinged among you are psychotically dangerous and it is to those that you really direct your propaganda.
I trust them don’t you?
FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn’t say. Wonder why?
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7600
bdaman’s post is obsolete. Factcheck made the first evaluation last year. Since then expert Dr. Neil Krawitz has shown that it was valid. Politifact.com saw the document and verified it. The so-called anonymous experts who claimed it was a forgery have been discredited. need proof. JFGI.
The stuff at TRSOL is a bogus effort to camouflage a competed and utter rout and retreat.
But this is all irrelevant. Dr. Fukino, the custodial official, has stated that she examined the documents and they show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The COLB is valid, and the official in charge has said that their files corroborate what is in the COLB.
It is time for the troll to move under a new bridge.
Comment at Dr. C:
QUOTE
Black Lion says:
November 25, 2009 at 10:53 am (Quote)
Vince, I can’t believe that Lucas Smith is over there trying to defend is so called Kenyan BC that he got in the Dominican Republic… UNQUOTE
For all the readers here at Turley, Dr.C. is not a lawyer but has a superior grasp of all of the legal arguments on the natural born issue and has uncovered a trove of relevant historical materials.
Link: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-28789
Vince Treacy, Thanks for the links. That wasn’t so hard was it?
Aren’t links or citation customary when used to support an argument?
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t find “richCares” (die-hard Obama supporter) to be a trustworthy source. I didn’t see richCares support his argument with any relevant authority.
You stated that richCares is Hawaiian. Do you mean that he was born in Hawaii, or that he lives in Hawaii, or that he is of Hawaiian decent? Not that being Hawaiian gives any credibility to his statements about forms issued by the Hawaiian DOH. I’m Italian. I guess that would make me an expert on Italian governmental procedures.
Until the Hawaii DOH provides the requested information, this is a MAJOR STORY!!!
Good one Vince doing a google search Dr. Neil Krawitz Obama Birth certifcate brings up numerous links.
What kind of Dr. exactlty is he.
Dr. Fukino said she saw it? how come she’s the only one allowed.
Adults shouldn’t play hide and seek, it’s a kids game.
HMMMM I know I’ve seen the ORIGINAL somewhere, now where could it be? AHHH HA I know but you can’t see it. Dr. Fukino only. Nobody in, Nobody out.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Here is a good description of bdaman’s work: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Sscroll up, all the links are up there and were furnished at the time. Next time, instead of calling someone a liar, try saying that there was a problem with the links, can it be fixed. When it is fixed, try refraining from gratuitous insults. They do not bother me because I always consider the source. I let the readers decide.
Questions for rich? Go ask him.
Major story — in your own mind. Ha!
Vince–
The truth? Folks like Bdaman and Paully can’t handle the truth. They prefer to exist in a delusional state believing in ginned-up conspiracies about Obama being born in Kenya and death panels and pulling the plug on grandma and John Boehner not being invited to the President’s first state dinner, etc.
And the MSM does its best to keep these fake conspiracies in the news in hopes of getting good ratings.
“Adults shouldn’t play hide and seek, it’s a kids game.”
Children shouldn’t play at propaganda. Especially when you’re not very good at it.
Slartibartfast,
Prima Facie evidence is not conclusive evidence. If it was, Mickey Mouse was born in Hawaii. I’ve seen Mickey’s COLB. It says that it is prima facie evidence.
“Prima Facie evidence is not conclusive evidence.”
Prima Facie evidence is evidence which is self-evident from the facts. For example, as proof that this is an apple I offer that it looks, tastes and behaves EXACTLY LIKE AN APPLE.
Prima Facie evidence better than conclusive evidence because it is conclusory by its very basic nature and requires no supplemental argument.
English. You should really learn some, Paully.
I’ve also seen your posts. That’s prime facie evidence you’re a birther troll racist, Paully.
If you want to talk about the quality of evidence that is.
Buddha,
Awww, that was my troll…
Paully,
Wikipedia define the term “prima facie” (and I apologize for misspelling it earlier) as follows:
Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be “at first face”, prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
What this means (and Vince or one of the other lawyers here please correct me if I’m wrong) is that in a court of law, President Obama’s lawyers merely need to present the document of which images are shown on the web to the judge and the court MUST recognize (in light of the full faith and credit cause of the constitution) that he was born in Hawaii, unless there is sufficient evidence to rebut this document (which as I have pointed out before is a nearly impossible hurdle to surmount). The judge isn’t going to ask “What’s the deal with this filed/accepted thing?”, he’s going to say “Thank you Mr. President, case dismissed.” Do you really believe that it will go down any differently? Do you really believe that it SHOULD go down any differently? Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?
A bonus question: Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?
Slartibartfast, Thanks for the Wikipedia definition.
I agree with most of what you said. A COLB is a presumptive means of legitimacy, but it is not conclusive. Conclusive evidence leaves no room for rebuttal. If it did, it would not be considered conclusive.
“Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?”
I can’t answer that until Hawaii provides the requested documentation. If their own documentation states that, IAW U.S. and Hawaiian Law, all reports of birth must be filed by the local registrar, but are not to be considered as legal proof of the event, and shall not be accepted by the State Registrar without supporting documentation from a licensed medical practitioner, I think that would make us think twice about the validity of a filed, but not accepted, COLB.
“Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?” I don’t know why the AG and Lt. Gov responded IAW Hawaii’s UIPA, and the Director of the DOH did not. I can only report that a request was submitted, and am still waiting for a response. The day after a Request for Assistance was filed with the Office of Information Practices, the head of that department resigned.
(aside) Neat disguise, eh?
Slartibartfast,
In response to your questions:
“The judge isn’t going to ask “What’s the deal with this filed/accepted thing?”, he’s going to say “Thank you Mr. President, case dismissed.” Do you really believe that it will go down any differently?”
No, deep in my heart I understand that this is exactly how things will play out, but I can’t admit it because it would totally undermine my position.
“Do you really believe that it SHOULD go down any differently?”
Of course, I want Obama gone and I don’t care how much of the Constitution needs to be shredded to do it.
“Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the (sic) accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?”
Well, filed may indicate that the information on his birth was provided by his grandmother who found out about the birth when her daughter called her from Kenya and then concocted a plan to ensure that the child would have natural born citizenship (even though he doesn’t really because his dad was a scary African/Kenyan/Brit VATTEL RULES!) instead of naturalized citizenship so that one day he could run for president and fraudulently get elected to enact a socialist/communist/muslim/nazi agenda and destroy the United States of America thus fulfilling his evil destiny.
“A bonus question: Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?”
Oh yes, everyone in the Hawaii government as well as the democrats, the republicans, the SCOTUS, the taliban, the entire nation of Kenya, every muslim on the planet,the federal reserve, the North Koreans, the ghost of Stalin, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and my cat are all in on the conspiracy.
p.s. I think Vince Treacy is really smart!
Paully,
You said:
“I agree with most of what you said. A COLB is a presumptive means of legitimacy, but it is not conclusive. Conclusive evidence leaves no room for rebuttal. If it did, it would not be considered conclusive.”
What do you think would be sufficient evidence to rebut the COLB? (Vince, I’m curious as to your answer to this question as well)
I said:
“Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?”
You responded:
“I can’t answer that until Hawaii provides the requested documentation. If their own documentation states that, IAW U.S. and Hawaiian Law, all reports of birth must be filed by the local registrar, but are not to be considered as legal proof of the event, and shall not be accepted by the State Registrar without supporting documentation from a licensed medical practitioner, I think that would make us think twice about the validity of a filed, but not accepted, COLB.”
So you think that the Hawaii DOH would issue a document claiming to be prima facie proof of birth and publicly attest to the veracity of that document even though it was unacceptable to them?
I said:
“Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?”
You responded:
“I don’t know why the AG and Lt. Gov responded IAW Hawaii’s UIPA, and the Director of the DOH did not. I can only report that a request was submitted, and am still waiting for a response. The day after a Request for Assistance was filed with the Office of Information Practices, the head of that department resigned.”
Are you implying that your request was the cause of the head of the department resigning? (by the way, getting promoted would be a better term for what happened than resigning – just sayin) You don’t think that a change in the head of the department (especially if a new head hasn’t been determined yet) might slow down the handling of things? (Like, say, a request from a birther for trivial information.)
Ok, say that it is proven that Obama was in fact not born in the US or was not even born, he just appeared one day. Are you with me so far?
With what Bush and Cheney did to the Constitution, you think its going to be fixed in this term? Yeah right. Obama is still dealing with it. He stepped into it and now is at least trying to be man enough to do something.
Here’s a secret. And don’t tell anyone else. I did not vote for Bush. I did not vote for Obama. I voted for Nader. Shhh. FYI the election was stolen twice for Bush. Once in Florida where the Sct set precedent claiming it was a state rights issue. Hmm, with me? It appears if he was certified to be on the ballot then what’s your beef. The second time the election was stolen was in Ohio. Damn, no one saw that coming but the ones in on the theft. Hmmm. Not much you can do about that? Is their now? What can you really do about Obama right here, right now?
By the way, where is your COLB?
Slartifartpast, Are we going to play a game of hypothetical sisuations?
If so, other than one day becoming POTUS, are there any other benefits to U.S. citizenship?
Is it even possible for his grandparent to file a false birth report.
What would a COLB produced from a false birth report look like? Can you provide an example? I’m sure many would like to know how to tell the difference.
If someone was born on a plantation in Maui, what would their COLB look like?
Has anyone ever seen a requirement that someone must be born in a hospital? Or that a Doctor must attend the birth?
To me it seems that no one has questioned where Ronald Reagan was born or Gerald Ford or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Am I missing something, like maybe its because he Black? Bdaman where is your state issued ID’how do we know you are black?
“What do you think would be sufficient evidence to rebut the COLB?”
I’ve prepared an answer for you, but I’ll let Vince Treacy go first.
If someone were born on a plantation in Maui, their birth certificate would look like every other birth certificate, except that it would have a seal in the shape of a coconut. Next question.
Paully,
You said:
“Slartifartpast”
Wow, making fun of my handle, that really adds gravitas to your arguments.
You said:
“Are we going to play a game of hypothetical sisuations?”
Sure.
You said:
“If so, other than one day becoming POTUS, are there any other benefits to U.S. citizenship?”
There are none (if you read carefully, I said natural born vs. naturalized).
You said:
“Is it even possible for his grandparent to file a false birth report.”
I suppose that it is possible for a grandparent to file a false report – I’m not sure what evidence is necessary to do this, but since the validity of the BC has been confirmed by the Hawaii DOH and his grandmother and mother are dead, this is a moot point.
You said:
“What would a COLB produced from a false birth report look like? Can you provide an example? I’m sure many would like to know how to tell the difference.”
If the Hawaii DOH considered a report false, I assume they wouldn’t issue a document proclaiming itself prima facie evidence of birth or publicly attest to the validity of said document.
You said:
“If someone was born on a plantation in Maui, what would their COLB look like?”
Mike A. answered this – a question for you: Are you going to start using your coconut anytime soon?
To all readers, Hospital childbirth did not become the norm until the 1940s. Most people prior to that time did not have birth certificates. The first President to be born after hospital births became the norm was Bill Clinton.
Obama is only the third President to take office after hospital births became the norm. He is also the first President to have a foreign student as his father.
Birth certificates for home or hospital births didn’t get started until the 1900s in the U.S.
For those wanting to know why people didn’t ask for the birth certificates of past presidents. The answer is quite simple. They probably didn’t have one.
Paully asked “If so, other than one day becoming POTUS, are there any other benefits to U.S. citizenship?”
Slartibartfast said; “There are none”
Final answer?
Or, we to assume that you just don’t want to recognize any benefit to being a U.S. Citizen, unless one wants to be POTUS.
Is that because the only reason a relative would have is so that the child could someday be POTUS?
Slarti said “I’m not sure what evidence is necessary to do this”
You can’t rule it as a possibility until you know if it can be done.
Slarti said “the validity of the BC has been confirmed by the Hawaii DOH”
WRONG!! The validity of the bc HAS NOT been confirmed by the DOH. Only the existence of the record has been confirmed. We have nothing to support a claim that the veracity of the birth report has never been confirmed.
“If the Hawaii DOH considered a report false, I assume they wouldn’t issue a document proclaiming itself prima facie evidence of birth or publicly attest to the validity of said document.” You know what they say about “ASSUME”. That is why I have asked the DOH to provide documentation to explain the difference between date filed and date accepted.
If a birth takes place in the woods, and only the husband and wife are present, is it still filed? Does the DOH send the CSI team to investigate?
Type-O
I said “We have nothing to support a claim that the veracity of the birth report has never been confirmed.”
That should have been “ever” been confirmed.
Slarti said, “If the Hawaii DOH considered a report false, I assume they wouldn’t issue a document proclaiming itself prima facie evidence of birth or publicly attest to the validity of said document.”
Is the DOH to consider all reports of home birth to be false? If there is no independent witness or doctor, do you think the state refuses to file the birth record? Do you really think the state can make the mother submit to a gynecological exam?
This one is 4 u Slart and the Junk Science Professor
Paully,
Once again, if you read what I said when I was cleverly disguised as you, I compared ‘natural born’ to ‘naturalized’. If you don’t understand that there is no difference between the two for any person not running for the presidency (or VP) then you’re way out of your league… come to think of it, you are way out of your league.
You said:
“Slarti said “I’m not sure what evidence is necessary to do this”
You can’t rule it as a possibility until you know if it can be done.”
You are badly misunderstanding where the burden of proof lies in this case (I’ll give you a hint: you’re carrying it). If this were David v. Goliath, you’d be David standing there with just an empty sling and Goliath would be in an M1-A1 main battle tank… with air support… and artillery. Let’s just say that there’s no happy ending for you here. Just because something is possible in the mathematical sense doesn’t mean that it must be ruled out in the legal sense before prima facie evidence can be accepted. I can say that you helped Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990 all I want, but it’s not going to get you or Glenn arrested without proof. Can you prove that you didn’t help Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? I doubt it. And no authority has verified that you didn’t commit this heinous crime. Should you be put on trial so we can find out the truth?
You said:
“Slarti said “the validity of the BC has been confirmed by the Hawaii DOH”
WRONG!! The validity of the bc HAS NOT been confirmed by the DOH. Only the existence of the record has been confirmed. We have nothing to support a claim that the veracity of the birth report has never been confirmed.”
Listen, you can parse words all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that no rational person agrees with you and, more importantly, no court in the land would agree with you.
I said:
“If the Hawaii DOH considered a report false, I assume they wouldn’t issue a document proclaiming itself prima facie evidence of birth or publicly attest to the validity of said document.”
You responded:
“You know what they say about “ASSUME”. That is why I have asked the DOH to provide documentation to explain the difference between date filed and date accepted.”
Fine. Come back to us with the earth-shattering information contained in their response. I’m not holding my breath.
You said:
“If a birth takes place in the woods, and only the husband and wife are present, is it still filed? Does the DOH send the CSI team to investigate?”
If you’re in the woods and a bear eats you, what does that make you?
Paully,
I have two questions for you:
1) Why did you change your name from Jim Byrne to BIRTHER to Paully?
2) Are you and Bdaman the same person?
Bdaman, (assuming you are a different person)
Cute video, but I don’t care to debate climate change with an irrational troll today. Go peddle your Big Lies somewhere else.
“Slarti said “I’m not sure what evidence is necessary to do this”
Paully said; You can’t rule it as a possibility until you know if it can be done.”
Slarti then said “You are badly misunderstanding where the burden of proof lies in this case”
Slartibartfast, Does this happen to you often? We were talking about evidence to support a birth report, and you shifted to some legal case. Do you think a birth report is filed with the court?
Slarti,
Sorry. Didn’t realize I was poaching.
I’m done.
I hope everyone has a good Thanksgiving.
Cute video, but I don’t care to debate climate change with an irrational troll today. Go peddle your Big Lies somewhere else.
Inhofe has now started the calls for the investigation. Letters sent out to all involved. We now know who the liers really are.
You can lie to yourself but you can’t lie to me. Hide the decline
Bdaman,
Answer this?
Has anyone ever seen a requirement that someone must be born in a hospital? Or that a Doctor must attend the birth?
Am I missing something, like maybe its because he Black? Bdaman where is your state issued ID’how do we know you are black?
Come on be a sport. Show us your COLB and state ID.
Here’s the nut of it for me: where were the ‘birthers’ when George Bush was appointed to the Presidency for his first term and then stole his second term?
It’s like the people that bitched about bussing for de-segregation; if they weren’t in the streets protesting when bussing was used FOR segregation they had nothing to say that a moral person needed to hear.
It’s all about the racist agenda.
Buddha,
That’s okay, I just wanted to stick my tongue out at you (figuratively speaking).
Besides, you did a fine job of slapping him down and I managed to amuse myself with my Paully disguise, so it’s all good… I find it amusing that he didn’t answer my question about why Jim Byrne/BIRTHER/Paully changed his name (maybe he thinks we can’t figure out that they’re the same person). In any case, I was the one who fed the troll, so I’m not on strong moral ground so to speak. Anyway, I’ve got to figure out a dessert to make for tomorrow – right now I’m thinking Key Lime Pie…
There is no requirement Head Master, I concede. Be a sport? No one but the all powerfull Buddha has ever used the word sport. It is his trademark. You must obtain permission from the anointed one to use it. So grab the mirror and ask him before returning using that word.
Where were the birthers’ when George Bush was appointed to the Presidency.
Ah duh we weren’t born yet. I was born in late 2008.
By the way he stole the first term, hanging chad remember. The well thought out plan to allow 9-11 is what got him re-elected.
Bdaman:
those emails appear to be very damning. Interesting stuff. But then there was a good deal of grant money riding on this stuff so what do you expect?
Science should not be funded by governments, it then becomes political. Once the conservatives take over in 2010 we will have science showing the earth is 6,000 years old and abortion leads to breast cancer. I suppose turnaround is fair play but it would be better to leave politics out of science.
Bdaman,
Irrational troll.
Let’s look at that.
ir·ra·tio·nal \i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, adj., Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason (irrational fears)
That sounds like every argument ever made by birthers.
troll \ˈtrōl\, v., (idiomatic usage: Internet Troll)
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance [sic] to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
A behavior to you which you, bdatroll, have proudly admitted in the past and engage in on a perpetual basis.
So you keep spouting idiocy and we’ll keep pointing out you’re an idiot propagandist. Or why not try this on? Why not avoid EVERY argument you can’t win like you just did with the climate change argument. Like say . . . the birther argument that keeps getting you your head served to you on a plate? Hm? Or the argument that you’re not a plant? Or the fact that you encouraged soldiers to not report for duty because you’re a racist, thus endangering the lives of other soldiers? Can’t quit because you’re cashing the pay check? Or won’t quit because you’re a fascist? Or would you like to allude to your military sanction again, you lying bigoted hack?
Irrational troll.
That’s called “projection”, childrens. And accusing the enemy of your very weakness is pure Rove.
One must always consider a source, and in these parts, you being the source means something. It means every word coming out of your keyboard is propaganda crap.
Key Lime Pie.
I must confess like your way of thinking, Slarti.
Slart,
Key Lime? On Thanksgiving? That’s just unamerican. I’m going to have to see proof of where and when you were born, preferably in some sort of “certificate” issued by the state. Maybe one that would be considered some fancy legal term for evidence that (unless a large amount of proof to the contrary surfaced) would be considered proof by the very nature of it’s existence.
Of course that could be faked, so I’m going to need you to prove that this hand written note saying you were born in Kenya isn’t real. Oh and disprove this crayon drawing of a stick figure woman holding a baby in front of a Hospital with the word “Africa” written on top of the picture isn’t an artists rendering of the day of your birth.
(and that my friend is how you do Satire).
Lottakatz,
I can’t answer for “The Birthers”, but I can tell you that I was not aware that he stole the election. I, like most of mainstream America, was not paying close enough attention. Nobody came knocking on my door to say “We have a problem”.
I was probably just like most of you are today. My guy had won, so why would I care. I know that’s not the right way to think, but that’s exactly the way it was.
Now you can proceed to beat me up for relying on the MSM.
I’m done for the holiday weekend. I won’t be back unitl Monday.
Again, I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving.
Byron,
You mean the out of context snippets of a huge mass of e-mail between a very small percentage of climate scientists appears damning to the community as a whole?
Here’s a quickie clerihew. Sorry I don’t have more time to polish this verse…or write a double dactyl.
Orly Taitz,
Your transportation awaits.
Now just slip into this straitjacket
And stop makin’ a racket.
Buddha,
I was thinking of Triple Chocolate Terrine, but I don’t have the freezer space.
Jam Burns,
As I said earlier on this thread, I have no legal access to my original BC (the one I have lists my adoptive parents), so I can’t disprove your theories. However, I do now have in my possession a document stating that you are a lying liar and the the crayon drawing you refer to is you and your mother on the day of your birth, so there! Pptthhpt! And besides, key limes come from the Florida keys which are part of America, so I say that key lime pie is as American as apple pie and therefore appropriate for Thanksgiving! (Unless you have the freezer space to do the Triple Chocolate Terrine which is always appropriate) So get out of here you apple pie hating commie!
Gyges,
Well said. In addition, even these so-called damming e-mails aren’t very damming. It’s all another tale told by idiots full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Byron,
So should science be funded by companies? I’m sure it’s just coincidence that all of the studies funded by industry support their employer’s interests… (Besides, what’s good for big business has got to be good for the country, right?)
Slart,
Why aren’t you forcing the state of your birth to break it’s own laws and supply you with the information I want? What do you have to hide? I demand you stop playing hide and seek, I demand that you prove that you’re following the rule of law by breaking a law!
All in due time, Watergate took 13 months.
Piltdown man 40 years plus or minus. More proof that scientist will fudge the data to MAKE thier theory work.
I got rhythm, naturally of course. Comes from the African drum beats of days gone by. I’ll just keep markin time until I’m vindicated. Then the truth shall set me free.
No warming in last ten years
Ice caps not melting
Polar Bear population tripled in 50 years
Scientist fudging data on Climate Change 3 days ago.
Don’t think they have released the best e-mails first. The best is yet to come. Just look how the Acorn fell to the ground, it hasn’t hit it yet.
Jam Burns,
HA! You didn’t respond to my communist allegation, so clearly you are a commie propagandist trying to discredit loyal Americans on the eve of Thanksgiving. As a loyal American I will do the proper thing and pray for your evil plans to be stopped by a rabid bunch of pilgrim pirate ghosts. Or some meddling kids…
I was out running errands.
Paully never denied that he was BIRTHER/TROLL/ or Byrne. He or she does not have to. (The poster known as BIRTHER was banned from the site for 30 days by JT. BIRTHER never denied he was Byrne.
So who knows.
Reposted from Sign of the Times;
For those who just tuned in bdaman once addressed Mike S. as “Jesus killer” in a posting. He later said he was sorry for that despicable insult, which recalled centuries of anti-Semitic blood libel, but now he his republishing the libel.
This is just to reopen an old wound.
bda does not belong in this conversation.
His target has not even posted on this thread (A Sign of the Times: Colorado Billboard Proclaims the Lunacy Taking Hold in America), so may not even have a chance to rebut the defamation.
bda told Leo D. that one site had banned him and had deleted all his posts.
Wonder why.
Vince,
I was out in the yard playing with the troll today and we had this exchange that I thought that I would bring to your attention in case you missed it:
Paully:
“I agree with most of what you said. A COLB is a presumptive means of legitimacy, but it is not conclusive. Conclusive evidence leaves no room for rebuttal. If it did, it would not be considered conclusive.”
Me:
What do you think would be sufficient evidence to rebut the COLB? (Vince, I’m curious as to your answer to this question as well)
Paully said that he had formulated an answer, but was waiting for you to go first.
Now I need to go shopping for ingredients for my un-american key lime pie. Have a great Thanksgiving! (That goes for everyone – even the trolls.)
Slarti:
not being a scientist I can only assume that when a company does science to bring a product to market it better make sure the product works and doesn’t have much downside. Otherwise the company is out of business either from loss of consumer support or because it hurt someone and they are litigated into oblivion.
Most people I know put their own welfare paramount and that would include producing a viable product that has market value. Do some companies produce lousy products, of course they do but then market forces tend to cull them out. Maybe a very large company can assume losses from a bad product but most cannot.
Seems pretty obvious to me, but then when I design structures I want them to fail and kill people so I can go to jail and have everything I own given to the person(s) I have injured or killed.
Do some companies engage in junk science, sure they do. But then it is their money and they can do what they want with it.
Byron,
When companies commission research that has results unfavorable to them they just don’t publish the research. Additionally, I’m sure there is internal pressure to get the desired results. The peer-review system and government funding agencies are imperfect, sure, but they are far, far better than the results of putting science in the marketplace. I could go on, but suffice it to say that, as a scientist, I can assure you that having corporations responsible for funding research would be an unmitigated disaster – but the research would ‘prove’ that climate change is a myth and pollution is good for you. Just look at the behavior of the tobacco industry to see that what I’m saying is true.
bda told Leo D. that one site had banned him and had deleted all his posts
Could you provide a link to that comment cause I surely don’t remember saying that or that ever happening.
I know after the dispicable remark I made to Mike S and JT threaten to ban me, I think I mentioned that I looked for some comments I posted here and couldn’t find them and said that JT possibly deleted them. In fact JT said he had deleted some of my comments at that time but I believe it was in that thread.
But it doesn’t matter I’m here whether you want me or not, so thanks for the comment.
Byron,
When some questionable climate researchers that have results unfavorable to them they just don’t publish the research. Additionally, I’m sure there is internal pressure to get the desired results. The peer-review system and government funding agencies are imperfect, sure, but they are far, far better than the results of putting science in the marketplace especially when the government wants to become the market place, you know Cap and Trade. I could go on, but suffice it to say that, as a Troll and Right Wing Extremist, not to mention birther, I can assure you that having corporations responsible for funding research would be an unmitigated disaster – but the research would ‘prove’ that climate change is a myth and pollution is good for you. Just look at the behavior of the Hadley CRU research center to see that what I’m saying is true. Oh and don’t forget the e-mails. Hide the decline
Bdaman 1, November 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Don’t change the subject. What is the meaning of the post at Bdaman 1, November 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm on “Sign of the Times”?
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/24/a-sign-of-the-times-colorado-billboard-proclaims-the-lunacy-taking-hold-in-america/#comment-93006
Gyges:
“You mean the out of context snippets of a huge mass of e-mail between a very small percentage of climate scientists appears damning to the community as a whole?”
I just read a bunch of those emails, what I got out of it is that they are being challenged on a number of fronts and don’t like it. I did not see anything yet that said they were fabricating data. One guy was bitching about observational data not matching predictions.
They did not appear to be out of context as they were discussing various aspects of the science. I started reading around 1996 when they were discussing data from the Yamal Peninsula and ended up in 2009 when they were discussing the cold weather in Denver.
They referred to Yamal a good deal. So I am going to assume that a good deal of weight is placed on that study within the Global Warming community.
My little ad hoc study leads me to believe that they do not like being challenged and are a bit sensitive about it. My guess is that they have had free reign with little challenge for a number of years and have their backs up a bit. As I said above I did not see anywhere that data was fabricated. Although a couple of places you might be able to read that into what was written. Kind of like the humor in Shakespeare, you know it should be funny but you don’t know why because of a lack of knowledge of the 15th century.
Byron,
How many actual people were involved in the e-mail exchanges? How many actual climate scientists are there? The key thing to remember here is that the scientific community doesn’t say “well one scientist says this so it must be true,” instead it says “let me check this guys work.” Meaning, even if these people are lying jerks (and I dare you to try and find a set as large as “climate scientists” that doesn’t include at least a few lying jerks), their work has to be vigorously reviewed, and the duplicated by people with a vested interest in proving it wrong in order to be accepted as accurate.
Here’s why science is such a great way of determining what’s actually going on, it takes into account that people are biased, and occasionally liars or jerks and corrects for it.
Ahem, forgot to change my pen name.
As Slart says,
When some questionable climate researchers that have results unfavorable to them they just don’t publish the research.
One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Another reason why peer reviews are so important from the IPCC
And today the flies are dropping out of mid air. This scandal is going to lead to revolt.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
This “scandal” is leading exactly where the birther “scandal” went, bdarube. No where. It’s called “tempest in a teapot”. There was no falsified data. They are a couple of guys bitching about the opposition.
Imagine that.
I also suggest that if you have a problem with that I suggest taking a big ol’ spoonful of Milk of Hypocrite and stow it.
But there is no “scandal” here. No lie. No big cover up. No crime. Unlike Cheney’s Secret Energy Task Force.
But noting untoward happened in this instance. Unless you count the Big Oil’s interest in conflating the ridiculous in an attempt to make themselves look better, which while not necessarily scandalous per se is skeevy fascism and manipulation at its cynical corporatist best.
So tow that line, bdapuppet.
As long as you comfortable with that hand up your backside that operates your mouth, I’m good with that. It’s entertaining in that train wreck sort of way.
Disrupt, Discredit and Destroy. I live to be of service.
You live to be of service to whom is the question, troll-boy.
Banging a drum louder won’t get people to dance if you play a nonsense beat.
Good morning to you to Sunshine.
I also think you fail to make the distinction, bdaflailing.
There is a difference in being of service to your fellow humans and servicing your fellow humans.
Being a confessed troll, you fall into the later category.
Careful how you use words, bucko. A double entendre is a two-edged blade. It’s also self-evident you are no swordsman.
Good Morning to you too, Charlie McCarthy.
Good morning, geeze.
Slart could you please give us your opinion. They are starting to breakdown the raw data. Can you confirm or deny.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
All the talk about climate change, fraudulent science, the politicization of science, has reminded me of one of my favorite stories of all time. In the Nazi period, 100 “Aryan” scientists signed a statement against Einstein — saying that the theory of relativity was a Jewish hoax.
Asked to comment on this, Einstein said, “If what they are saying were true, one signature would have been enough.”
Bdaman,
I think that your question shows some of the ignorance of the general public as to scientists (this is not in any way meant to be a personal attack on you, just the start of a rant that is a pet peeve of mine). There seems to be a view of scientists (reinforced by TV shows and movies) as experts on all things scientific or technological and frequently master engineers to boot. This may have been true 500 years ago, but in the modern age the vast size of the sum of human knowledge requires scientists to be specialists. Carl Gauss (who died in 1855) is considered to be the last complete mathematician (the last person who knew everything there was to know about mathematics). Since his time the sum total of all mathematical knowledge has become to large for a person to learn it all in a lifetime. And that’s just math – the basic toolbox of the scientist. You have to focus your learning very narrowly in order to get to the edge of human knowledge (where scientists operate). While my knowledge of Mathematics is broader (and therefore less deep) that most PhDs, my knowledge of science not. If you ask me about evolution, I have an informed opinion, if you ask me about the cell cycle I have a fairly high level of knowledge, if you ask me about the DNA damage G2 checkpoint in the cell cycle I can confidently discuss it with experts, and if you ask me about mathematical models of the G2 checkpoint you’d be hard pressed to find someone more knowledgeable (I am an expert). But ask me about global warming data and I likely don’t have much more specific knowledge than you (albeit I likely have a better understanding of how to interpret and present data). The difference between us in this case is that I have a better understanding of and more faith in the scientific method. Let’s assume that these emails are iron-clad evidence of the outright falsification of data by these scientist (which they are not even close to). That would be damming to those particular scientists, would require any papers based on their results to be scrutinized carefully and possibly discarded, and would effect the consensus view of climate change… not at all. The strength of the scientific method is that scientists repeat each other’s work and if they don’t get the same results that casts doubt on the research. When a general consensus builds, it is thus based on a large number of researcher’s work and is very robust – details might not be totally correct, but the general conclusions are pretty solid. When I look at the climate change argument, I see a large number of scientists across multiple disciplines having a consensus and a relatively small number of scientists, a disturbingly large proportion of which are funded by industries with a large stake in polluting, who are dissenting. This leads me to believe that that climate change advocates are probably correct. I also believe that if they are not correct, the consensus view will eventually change – a scientific consensus cannot survive in the face of mounting contradictory data (and while I say that COULD happen, I’d like to stress that that isn’t what’s happening here). Considering the question from a political point of view for a moment, if climate change advocates are correct, the risk of inaction is catastrophic (we can’t afford, as a species, to take your position and be wrong). On the other hand, you would argue (please correct me if I’m wrong) that there are serious economic costs to reducing carbon emissions that aren’t worthwhile if the climate change consensus is wrong, which I don’t disagree with. However, in light of the demonstrable fact that industrial emissions (not just talking about carbon here) have had a negative impact on our biosphere, I would argue that the positive benefits of reducing pollution are more than worth this economic cost. Furthermore, I think that the additional benefits of going down this road are incalculable: clean air, clean water, reducing the undue importance of the Middle East that comes from their oil reserves, saving petroleum for making plastics, ultimately a green industrial base for our society and hopefully the US emerging as the world leader in sustainable technologies. Especially when compared to what I fear the alternative is: extinction. If you would like to die by drowning in your own waste, fine, but please get out of the way of those of us who would rather avoid that fate.
Finally, as Orly is a serious threat due to the amount of hot air she emits, I commend Judge Land for fighting against global warming by fining her. That, in my opinion, is just about all of the connection the topic of this thread has to climate change. If you’re going to be a troll, at least try to be an on-topic troll.
Slartibartfast , November 25, 2009 at 7:36 pm:
Vince,
I was out in the yard playing with the troll today and we had this exchange that I thought that I would bring to your attention in case you missed it:
Paully:
“I agree with most of what you said. A COLB is a presumptive means of legitimacy, but it is not conclusive. Conclusive evidence leaves no room for rebuttal. If it did, it would not be considered conclusive.”
Me:
What do you think would be sufficient evidence to rebut the COLB? (Vince, I’m curious as to your answer to this question as well)
Paully said that he had formulated an answer, but was waiting for you to go first. END
Well, I am really tired of Paully playing hide the bean under the shells. If he has an answer, then post it or go away.
But, Slart, out of my respect for you, I have written up a few notes on how the issue would play out. This is not a legal treatise.
Slart, this can take up a lot of discussion, but here is an abstract. Take an employment discrimination case for example. An employee who wants to prove that her employer discriminated illegally on the basis of sex by firing her must meet a burden of proof.
Under a case named McDonnell-Douglass, from the 1970s, the employee has the initial burden of making a prima facie case of discrimination. She can do this, for example, by producing evidence that she was fired, and that males with less experience and ability were retained. If she does this with her testimony, she has met her burden of production.
If the employer does not answer, then she prevails on her claim. If the employer does answer, the burden of moving forward with evidence then shifts to the employer to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge.
The burden then shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s reason for the discharge was a pretext for discrimination. The overall burden for proving discrimination is on the employee.
A case contesting someone’s birth might proceed the same way. If a party with standing who has stated a valid claim might challenge a person’s birth status, then the person can produce a COLB like the one issued in Hawaii. This could arise in an inheritance case. A witness would be sworn and produce a cert. It would be introduced into evidence. Since it is prima facie evidence, that satisfies the person’s burden of proof. If there is no answer, the person prevails.
The burden would shift to the other party to articulate some reason why the COLB was not valid. The burden would be on that party, for example, to produce something like an expert witness to testify that the cert was a forgery.
The expert would have to qualify as a scientific authority, stating education, experience, publications, and would have to provide methodology and rationale. All of the expert’s qualifications have to be stated to the court before it will qualify an expert.
Counter experts could be called in rebuttal. Slart, as a scientist, you could advise an attorney of how to query the qualifications of such an opposition expert. Is he a Ph.D. or B.S.? Is he an active researcher or a lab tech? What has he published? Professional memberships, etc.
So if the issue of presidential birth ever did make it to trial, a representative would be sworn in and would produce the COLB. It would be entered into evidence.
The burden then would be on the birthers.
The prospects of the birthers would be bleak.
Even if the court asked for a custodial official from Hawaii to testify, we know that the testimony will be that the COLB accurately reflects the fact that the state records show birth in Hawaii.
The birthers’ big web “expert” “Polarik” was an anonymous pseudonym, for cripes sake! Get out of here! A bona fide expert Dr. Neil Krawitz [sp?] attested to the authenticity of the COLB. Birthers do not have a prayer on this one.
The other tack would be to produce the Kenyan cert. Lucas would have to go on the stand and explain that he, a convicted forger, committed the crime of bribery in a Kenyan hospital to get the cert. The cross exam would be a hoot, since it would have him repeat all his crimes in detail. Legitimate experts would render the Kenyan cert into confetti.
The ultimate issue is for the trier of fact, judge or jury as the case may be. How will that turn out? Here is a clue from Judge Carter:
QUOTE
\D. Discovery and Freedom of Information Act Claims
Plaintiffs argue that they have been ignored by several government agencies in their quest to receive Obama’s long-form Hawaiian birth certificate and other information such as his passport records. See Compl. 86 – 109. Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”). Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
As support for their right to these documents, Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under the Freedom of Information Act. The Complaint states, “The Plaintiffs as a group may not have adhered closely or precisely to the letter of FOIA in all of their approaches to the current administration for information, but this court has assured them that the present case will be decided on its legal merits and factual substance, and not on procedural irregularities.” Compl. 59. In Plaintiffs’ briefing, they state, “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 8:27-28.
UNQUOTE, SOURCE AND LINK:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-89-motion-to-dismiss-granted-2/
Emphasis on “Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.”
Have not got much time right now to continue this with Paully, so he can have the last word.
The strength of the scientific method is that scientists repeat each other’s work and if they don’t get the same results that casts doubt on the research.
Or they just repeat each others work
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
“Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.”
In truth we really don’t have to read any of bdaman’s posts. Just find out what the Republican line is on any topic and you know his opinion.
Bdaman simply follows the herd.
Vince,
Wow. Once again, you exceed all expectations… Thank you for this through discussion (and never fear, you’ve given me more than enough to rebut Paully, if necessary). The part of Judge Carter’s ruling that you mentioned was what led me to raise this topic in the first place, so I’m glad you highlighted it (and linked the reference).
Bdaman,
I’m happy to see that you admit that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible for his office (since you clearly have no legitimate argument to the contrary). I’m not going to respond to your AGW trolling since you clearly have no understanding of science and are blind to anything which doesn’t support your own preconceived biases. Enjoy drowning in your own filth.
Mike S,
The sad thing is not that Bdaman merely repeats Republican talking points, it’s that having done that he is either unwilling or unable to discuss them on their merits, but rather just spams us with the crap generated by those talking points in the right wing echo chamber.
I’m a one man show and being a one man show I get to play by MY own set of rules.
I live to be of service
I’d rather die tryin then die lying.
Hide the decline.
Slart,
He is by your description and in fact the textbook definition of a troll. Either he’s too dim to know it, or he’s getting paid.
Thank you, a true badge of honor. When do I get the troll of the year award. Is it a big trophy or a little one. Let me know when you’re ready to send the check.
Sincerley,
Bdaman
Sorry this was a reply to my handler, I must of copied and pasted it here, my bad.
Bdaman:
outstanding posts, although not enough of the linking. You and I talked about doing more. I especially wanted to see some links from John Birch.org and JoeMcCarthywasright.com and AlgerHisswasatraitor.biz.
Before you get paid you are going to have to neutralize Vince T, Slartibartfest and Mike Spindell and Buddha is Laughing. Even I can see they are kicking your a . . .
Before you get to excited, by neutralize I mean their arguments.
whoops!
Mike Spindel is gonna eat you up like a Turkey Byron gobble gobble
So sorry Byron they will never ever except anything again from you. Watch out the troll label is soon to come.
you need to correct the record though, I have never spoken to you about anything. I am a one man show.
Let your true colors come out Byron come out of the closet.
Now Bdaman can’t even put his off-topic trolling on the right thread
I believe he meant to make the last several posts on ‘A Sign of the Time’ instead of here.
No Slart, I didn’t, if you can’t figure it out, I’ll let RNC TOP Dog do it.
Bdaman,
The difference between you and Byron:
Byron: Compassion, intelligence, ability to research and test his beliefs, sincerity, iconoclasm and truthfulness.
bdaman: None of the above.
Come on don’t I at least get (, to and(x2) his) out of that. Your cruel
Mike S:
is Bdaman that bad? What were those little plastic trolls with the colored hair called? A little weird but cute in a quaint sort of way.
Consider him the honorary blog pet that you keep trying to house train. Swat his nose with logic and intellect enough times and who knows.
I know you and the others wont admit it, but you do seem to have fun jumping on Bdaman and he seems to take it like a man.
Oh I enjoy it Byron, especially when Buddah goes off. I often wonder if there is an increase in blood pressure when they unleash their tirades. Makes me want to turn the blade after the initial thrust, just like I was trained to do. You know being a right wing extremist and everything.
Bdaman:
you do it up close and personal? I thought right wing extremists like to snipe from a distance.
do you use a K-Bar or just a Buck?
Byron–
You said that you think Bdaman “seems to take it like a man.” How do you know Bdaman isn’t taking it like a woman? Unless you meant to imply with your comment that we females can’t handle ourselves with the same kind of toughness as you folks with “y” chromosomes.
I wonder how you fellas would fare in a delivery room???
Just a thought.
Vince, I am aware of the COLB;s shown from Hawaii. However, it does not satisfy what I really want to know, and that is if Pres. Obama is a LEGAL citizen of the US. A COLB merely says he was born alive. My question was a serious one. And all I got from you was a snide irrelevant crack, helping no one.
In the future I would appreciate it if you would give me the sane courtesy as you are giving ” Lucas Daniel Smith”.
“I am not going to dignify “Lucas Daniel Smith” with any response”
One more thing, from all I have read it would not seem to be that much of a challenge to get a COLB in Hawaii.
Lilove
“Mike S:
is Bdaman that bad?”
Byron,
The first anti-Jewish thing said to me in my life was when I was seven years old and some of my classmates called me a “Christ-Killer.” That libel has been used for almost 1,700 years to support the persecution of Jews. The destructiveness of it was recognised as being so bad that the Catholic Church even took it back and apologized for it. Most Christian biblical scholars admit that the Gospels were enhanced in 325 CE, Council of Nicea, to make it seem as if the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus, to take the heat off the fact that the Romans killed Jesus. Pontius Pilate, who contemporary Roman (non-biblical) records show was removed from his position shortly after for behavior that even the Romans thought was too cruel, has been made into a Gospel hero trying to avoid Jesus’ death.
Bdaman’s accusing me of killing Jesus is a big deal and one that exposes the truth about him. He is a bigoted and ignorant man, who at least had the brains to understand that he had badly crossed the line. However, that he holds his bigotry in check, does not mean that he isn’t a bigot, only that he is to gutless to admit what he really believes. Say what you want about me, but you at least know where I’m honestly coming from, that is not so with bdaman except for that slip and a few others he has made.
“I often wonder if there is an increase in blood pressure when they unleash their tirades.”
He is also stupid and vain enough to think he gets under people’s skin, when the truth is that demolishing his weak attempt at reason is a labor of love. I despise bigots and liars, but having watched the deconstruction of the Republican Party in recent years I realize that in small numbers they abound. Bdaman has slipped and let us see the smarmy inside of his thought processes, which really contain little original thought, but are strictly party line.
Think about it Byron, even though you are a conservative, from issue to issue I have no way of predicting your thoughts on a topic. That is because you actually think about it. With bdaman, that is not true, he is as predictable as Karl Rove, who basically gives his marching orders.
“Consider him the honorary blog pet that you keep trying to house train.”
If he were a dog that might be true, but try to house train a hyena and you won’t be successful. In any event no bigot is “cute.” They’re merely poisonous.
Mike S:
I am sorry, I did not know that statement was so hurtful. There are somethings that one cannot forgive and this appears to be one of them.
Personally I thought it was just childish and ignorant to say that. I did not mean to make light of it, as I did not understand the actual nature of Bdamans’ remark.
My apologies.
Elaine M:
I have been in a delivery room twice, it wasn’t that bad, at least from my vantage point.
By the way I know Bdaman is a male, or so he says.
Just so you know I have told grown men to take it like a 10 year old girl, my daughter (now 18), she is tougher than most men I know.
So when I want to convey absolute toughness I tell them to take it like a women, for just plain toughness you tell them to take it like a man.
I told my daughter once she had “balls” the size of potato’s, she said no “the size of melons”. I did not disagree.
lilove11
“I am aware of the COLB;s shown from Hawaii. However, it does not satisfy what I really want to know, and that is if Pres. Obama is a LEGAL citizen of the US. A COLB merely says he was born alive. My question was a serious one.”
COLB shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, one of the United States. Under the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. Therefore, Obama is a US citizen. He was subject to its jurisdiction because his parents were not diplomats or occupying hostile forces. That is why he is a legal citizen of the US.
“One more thing, from all I have read it would not seem to be that much of a challenge to get a COLB in Hawaii.”
It is not hard, and Obama obtained his COLB in 2007, and the campaign released to the press for independent examination in 2008.
The COLB meets the legal definition of “birth certificate” in federal law:
SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
Contents
(a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
certificate” means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the
United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United
States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency or authorized custodian of
record and produced from birth records
maintained by such agency or custodian of
record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
Federal, State, or local government agency or
authorized custodian of record, of an original
certificate of birth issued by such agency or
custodian of record.
Section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 note):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The COLB is a “certificate” of birth, because it said on its face that any alterations of “this certificate” would render it invalid. It has a certificate number. It was issued to an individual who was a citizen at birth, not a naturalized citizen. His birth was registered in the United States, according to public statements of the responsible custodial officials.
The COLB was issued by a “State … government agency or authorized custodian of record” and it was “produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record….” In the alternative, it was ”an authenticated copy, issued by a … State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such agency or custodian of record”
So the COLB meets all of the elements of the definition of a “birth certificate.” There is no requirement for the name of the hospital or the names of any witnesses in the definition.
Byron at that time there were a series of personal attacks here at the Turley Blog. An ongoing rift between a poster by the name of Patty C, Jill, Mike S, Buddah and others including myself.
What I said was completely and utterly out of line and the most disrespectful way another human being could be towards another. I have apologized and will do so again, Mike Spindell I apologize from the bottom of my heart. Sincerley and Honestly. I do not expect you to forgive me for my being forgiven shall only come from the most high. I have asked him, and will have to wait when I face my day of Judgement.
It is true what they say of me. I am a troll, birther,rightwing ect. ect. but in the beginning of posting comments here I took it personal. I’m not here to get along nor to sugar coat. I have a paticular style that most here, if not all do not like. I take pride in that. As the saying goes, it is what it is.
At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, the sponsors said that “subject to the jurisdiction therof” was meant to codify the existing law that all persons born the US were citizen except the two narrow categories of diplomats and hostile forces. That is why all persons born in the U.S. are citizens except for those diplomatic or hostile.
The Supreme Court ruled in Wong that children of aliens born in the States are just as much citizens as the children of natural born citizens.
Even if a child’s parents are aliens not eligible for citizenship, it becomes a citizen if born on US soil.
That’s the law.
“It is true what they say of me. I am a troll, birther, rightwing ect. ect….I take pride in that.” signed, bdaman
Bdaman,
What I don’t even get honorable mention? You do get paid to be an ass don’t you?
“Mike Spindell I apologize from the bottom of my heart. Sincerley and Honestly”
Never once in all my life have I used a slur to denounce anyone and as you might imagine I’ve had my share of verbal as well as writeen ones.
The reason for this is that I am not a bigot in my heart towards anyone. That you made the statement is positive proof that whether you normally have the social control to suppress your beliefs, this is what you believe in your heart. That is what to me is unforgivable about your behavior.
I searched out the original question just to be sure. QUOTE
lilove11 1, November 24, 2009 at 10:36 am
I have read all the posts re: Pres. Obama’s COLB. Lets uncomplicate all the discussion and answer my simple question:
As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it. It is a very simple thing to do. (After all these years I have mine and could produce it for anyone who asks in just a matter of minutes.) It is such a simple request and could so easily settle peoples’ minds, as the ramifications of a birth certificate can mean so much. Just produce it and be done with it.
As it is, it tends to make me wonder what the reason for not doing so could possibly be?
Peoples’ imaginations are many times worse than the reality generally.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email. UNQUOTE
The answer then was “The truth is that Obama has produced his Certification of Live Birth (COLB).”
Once again, Obama has produced his COLB. That was the answer given up above, and is still the answer.
For the regulars, Hawaii the ONLY form Hawaii ow issues is the Certification produced by Obama. It does not issue so-called “Certificates” to anyone. The COLB released to the public is the only legal birth certificate available from Hawaii.
Where is the birth certificate? Obama has released the birth certificate.
When will birfers stop beating their wives? Since they never started beating their wives, it is a false question to ask them when they stopped.
What email?
Mike as I have said before, I should have known better. As many times that I have had racial epithets said to me or spat upon, I more than anyone should know not to say what I said. The fact of the matter is I said it. I can’t take it back. I can only ask to be forgiven, after doing so it is no longer in my control.
And I would like to mention AY, he was the last to rip Patty C to shreds which ultimately got her banned. Now that i think about it, I was no different than Patty C as to you as I was to Mike S. I’m sorry
Coulda shoulda woulda.
The past is fixed (despite what a Neocon revisionist would have you believe). The future does not exist except in our imagination and is therefore fluid within the context of human experience. The only real is now and it stands on the firmament of the past. One may influence the future. Changing the past is impossible. Even if you were to be able to go backward in time (not physically impossible, just difficult in the extreme), you would only be able to change A timeline, not THE timeline. Funny how time prevents things past from being undone and yet preserves all possible futures. The beauty of this symmetry is only equaled by its dual edge.
Time has a direction.
Because if it didn’t, there would be a whole lot of murder victims apologized right back to life.
Removing an “I Work For PNAC” tattoo would be easier than putting the anti-Semite toothpaste back in the tube.
I told you this is a venue that ends badly for you to which your witty reply was somewhere along the lines of “that’s what you say”.
Looks like a lot more people than me are saying that, bdatroll. Guess which end of the stick you are still left holding? See? That’s what happens when you pick up some sticks. You can be sorry all you want. Oppenheimer was sorry. Using some tools has consequences. You using the “Christ Killer” tool irrevocably destroyed your credibility. Oppenheimer using his skills to bring Trinity to fruition ushered in the Age of Death – the first time we as a species really possessed the ability to kill all life as we know it.
You had your choice in tools.
Had. Past tense.
Once done, some choices cannot be undone.
Look on the bright side.
At least you’re in good company if not really much of a conversationalist yourself. When you get to Hell, ask Bobby O. for a drink and get him talking about Shiva. He can go on for hours.
Look on the bright side.
I do Mr. Sunspot. I could be you,
but hey
Thanks for the comment
Vince Treacy
Thanks for your serious answer. Even tho I still have questions, I really appreciate your input. I think that in this world, there will just be some things never fully explained, and will always remain a mystery.
I am bidding farewell to this site. Now that Thanksgiving is over, the food put away and the kitchen cleaned, and the kids all gone home, I just don’t have time for this, as interesting as I sometimes find it.
Lilove
Awww. Did I hurt your widdle feelin’s?
You could be me, but you’re not.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
You can be mad at me all you want. Your total lack of credibility is a train wreck of your creation. The very fabric of your misfortune falling from your fingertips like karmic rain. I just like to draw arrows pointing to it. I am a certified rascal although some call me the Gangster of Love (but that’s another story). However, if you’d like a more appropriate target for your outrage at not being taken seriously, might I suggest the nearest mirror, badman. Sorry. bdaman.
You sank your own battleship, sport. Being pissy about it is the sign of a sore loser. A loser nonetheless, but a sore one for certain.
You’re welcome for the comment.
Gangster of Love?
yea you in a circle jerk, as the pivot man
Tsk tsk tsk, bdaloser. That’s the best you got? Weak. But since you mentioned it, I will stipulate that masturbation is a much less odious habit than being a bigoted troll and general propaganda windbag – one which I would enjoy and admit freely whereas doing what you do?
Eh, not so much.
You do realize you didn’t get frustrated this way when you had quit trolling here?
Maybe there’s a correlation.
You do realize you didn’t get frustrated this way when you had quit trolling here?
********************
Maybe his hand was otherwise occupied and he can’t do both. Or maybe he has messed up a keyboard before. Who knows…..
AY,
Not everyone can surf porn and work at the same time. It throws off their rhythm.
Or the money to by a new laptop.
Question: If a porn video, which has dancing in it is played on a laptop, do you have to tip for a lap dance?
That might lead to a case of overlap.
But the doctor can give you a shot. Clears that right up.
Yes drill sargent.
cus you told me to drill sargent.
One of my favorite people of all time was a Sergeant. You seem to be under the impression I take “Drill Sergeant” as an insult. Your grip on the English language, much like your grip on reality, seems to be slipping more each day, bdatroll. It’s that steady diet of propaganda you ingest. And as bad as that is for your brain, you should see what it does to the enamel on your teeth.
But let’s be clear.
You are running yourself off, sport. Unless you like the ridicule that comes with being a confessed troll and a bigot by action. Which would make you a masochist. There are better webs sites if you just get your jets blasted by being humiliated. Hey, it’s not my thing, but to each their own as long as kids aren’t involved and no one dies or is maimed.
No, if you feel compelled to flee, it’s your own embarrassment driving the car. You thought you were driving Solutions, but the reality is you are driving Problems. So sad. But it comes down to choices: you choose to support the ideas of, and by extension, bad guys – the very same Neocon crap that started the end of the world for their greed. Once long ago, before you showed your true colors, you asked if I thought you were a bad person (without a doubt I do now) and I said that you didn’t seem bad so much as a guy a with bad ideas. You chose to get behind the wheel of the Problem model just like you choose the wrong tools to make a favorable impression that you are both decent and credible as a source of information and analysis.
You choose your vehicle and you are driving your car.
I’m just helping steer because you aren’t a very good driver.
You really should go back to lurking.
This is F1, not NASCAR. And I drive for Ferrari.
yes drill sargent
cus you told me to drill sargent
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”
Let shine a light on that timely definition.
Ad Hominem is indeed an impeachment attack and generally not polite. Tactically speaking, it’s usually a bottom of the drawer tool. There is an exception.
The defense being that attacks against character are permitted if they are both truthful and relevant to veracity of your opponents assertions. This assumes that truth is your goal and not simply victory at any cost for your side of choice. When evidenced by past and current acts, destroying the credibility of the speaker is perfectly acceptable since the object opened the door to the characterization of his past and previous acts. In this case by explicit bigotry and being a confessed troll with all the attached baggage. His actions opened to door to the charges. bdaman’s words and actions damn his credibility. Nothing else. Like I’ve said before, I’m just drawing arrows with a highlighter.
It’s not a personal attack if what you are describing is bias and unreliability of a declarent that is based on documented behavior. In that context, it’s not an error. It’s factual. It’s error correction, not error creation. Ad hominem attacks are like most logical tools – they have more than one function. If it’s a lie being used solely to smear, that’s another matter. That’s seeking to manipulate the system and obscure truth. To be clear, bdaman is both a bigot by his express actions and a troll by express admission. For these reasons, he should not be taken as credible. If he didn’t want people saying, “Don’t listen to that monkey, he flings poo” then he shouldn’t have been throwing poo.
There is a difference between accurate, provocatively predjudical and “my feelings are hurt”. If Reinhardt Heydrich was trying to espouse how his views benefit all when all the evidence pointed to him being the engineer of genocide, it’s perfectly acceptable to point out his employment record with the Third Reich. Because it happened. I’m sure he might have had his feelings hurt if you called him a monster. Is it prejudicial? No, it’s relevant to the speakers veracity in re his extraordinary claims. Doesn’t mean it’s not a personal attack but it is true and relevant. True is not always convenient. But it is true.
The same goes for bdaman. He’s a proven what he is himself. If it’s ugly and used against him, he has no one to thank but bdaman – or his masters in case he’s just swallowed too much raw powdered kool-aid.
Just to be clear.
Climate email update:
here is one that looks rather like a smoking gun:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Phil Jones
I will assume that hide the decline means hide the decline in temperature.
If someone else has any analysis I am all eyes.
IPCC AR4 Report:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/copenhagen-an-ugly-picture-of-truth/
Buddha expounded clearly and eloquently on ad hominem but I would like to add a comment. We see on the TV “News” shows Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan called upon as commentators on the President, Health Care and other issues of the day. The “journalists” interviewing them, or putting them on “discussion panels” make little reference to their past history and current loyalties and so what they say is viewed as equivalent to others who are perhaps less biased. The same is true when there are “experts” presented for the Heritage Foundation, AEI, or some of the foreign policy institutes that abound in D.C.’s “Village.” These people are presented as “credible” and their commentary is treated as if unbiased.
In dealing with the positions stated by people such as this it is my personal belief that ad hominem attacks are not only reasonable but necessary. My reason is that without understanding an individual’s biases, simply dealing with the position, someone countering the argument is at a loss strategically. This is because the tactic with all of these people lately is to make statements rife with wording and suppositions that are flawed, yet to counter their argument one would have to literally parse every word and phrase used in those suppositions. A person doing so appears to be a “nitpicker” and yet if they don’t the false wording and premises take on the appearance of fact.
This has occured recently when David Broder, the purported “Dean of Washington Correspondents” wrote a column criticizing President Obama’s taking time to judge what to do in Afghanistan. His position was the President should make an immediate decision, whether or not it was the correct one. This became accepted wisdom within the D.C. “Village” and thus the media, reinforcing Dick Cheney’s contention that the President was “dithering.” Since Broder has a long history of making such “pronouncements,” to me it seems perfectly reasonable to attack his credibility by pointing out his long history of being wrong and then to go further and attack his personal credibility as a pundit.
Bringing this argument back to this venue, if someone in their writing has exposed themselves as a bigot, made false statements/claims, repesents a knee jerk viewpoint meeting all the qualifications of a troll, how do we seriously engage with them? As I’ve stated before my personal belief is that it is reasonable to go for the jugular without common courtesy. Some others may see it differently.
Byron,
Quite simply as an engineer, you should have a better understand of statistics to consider THAT a smoking gun. Seriously. There is a line between massaging data and fraud. It’s not that I approve of massaging data either when its purpose is to obscure accuracy, but you know as well as I do that some problems are not solved until you model them in different ways. That is the nature of science. Poor wording? Oh yeah. Smoking gun? Not even.
And what Mike said.
Byron,
This might help, the issue you’re talking about is addressed in the 7th paragraph, but the whole thing’s worth the read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Mike S,
Okay, you’ve convinced me that you are correct in how to deal with racists and bigots. I still find ad hominem distasteful, but your arguments (and Buddha’s) show that it is sometimes pertinent and necessary to reasonable debate to address a person’s character and previous actions. Well argued, sir.
Byron,
I second what Buddha said about massaging data and fraud. I would also like to add that the reference to the ‘Nature trick’ is referring to one of the most respected scientific journal and the term ‘trick’ in this sense almost certainly refers to a data analysis technique rather than fraud.
Byron we don’t need smoking guns just the facts.
Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/29/week-discusses-climategate-obamas-copenhagen-trip
GEORGE WILL: It raises the question of — we’re being asked to wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven. And the consensus far from being as solid as they say it is, and the debate as over as they say it is, the e-mails indicate people are very nervous about suppressing criticism, gaming the peer review process for scholarly works and all the rest. One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped. Well, they shouldn’t be embarrassed about that. It’s a complicated business, and that’s why we shouldn’t wager these trillions.
Reduced to drive by trollery.
Now that’s funny. What’s the matter? Boss looking over your shoulder today?
Byron if you don’t have Climatedepot.com in your favorites you need to. Climategate started off as a walk and is in full sprint mode. This looks to be more now that a whistleblower released the info than a hacker. BBC had the info for a full 30 days and did nothing.
Remember it’s not Warming Globe anymore it’s Climate Change. Why? cause the Globe hasn’t Warmed since 1998 which is proof that the Climate Changed.
http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals.
In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.
In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.
This May Be the Nail in the Coffin to Global Warming Junk Science—
Renowned statistician and software engineer Eric S. Raymond (ESR) says the global warming “hockey stick” graph data was “hard-coded” or purposefully “fudged.”
Dr. Michael Mann, who co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph,” was implicated in Climategate this week. Mann’s controversial work has been challenged in the past.
Today, Reboot Congress reported this stunning news- that the “hockey stick” was fudged.
On his blog Eric Raymond (ESR) comments:
krygny Says: Wait just a second. Explain this to me like I’m 12. They didn’t even bother to fudge the data? They hard-coded a hockey stick carrier right into the program?!!
ESR says: Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what they did… Of course, they now claim that crucial primary datasets were “accidentally” deleted… After reading some of the emails about evading FOIA2000 requests… accidentally, my ass.
Al Gore’s new book had a problem – no big hurricanes since Katrina to put in the book to look “threatening” to the USA. Any imagined link between hurricanes and global warming has evaporated.
Solution: the artists airbrush.
Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from Florida State University writes:
Anthony,
Not a lot of hurricanes here
The cover opens and closes half and half — so you only see one hurricane…as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.
But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some “artist”) Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula…
and the final product:
Now with 4 scary hurricanes – hey where’s the ice?
WUWT?
A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru — and the Arctic Ice is gone (perhaps it is summer) and the Florida Peninsula is half gone
There are other differences I am sure you can find — but the hurricanes are just nonsense…
Ryan
Here’s the book cover:
Nonsense? No more like scaremongering, especially when it has been shown time and again that there is no hurricane to global warming linkage, and we are at a 30 year low.
Mr. Gore, you are a charlatan.
UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf ‘should be barred from the IPCC process’ — They are ‘not credible any more’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4100/UN-scientists-turn-on-each-other-UN-Scientist-Declares-Climategate-colleagues-Mann-Jones-and-Rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-IPCC-process–They-are-not-credible-any-more
Even liberal members of parliment in Australia know the gig is up.
ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.
Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.
Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
Buddha/Gyges/Slarti:
Whenever I have taken random data for a report, say strut deflection for a support of excavation project, I don’t add or deduct numbers to massage the data. Although this is not rocket science and I am reporting actual data from monitoring using electronic strain gages.
If I have one strain gage reading that does not seem in line with analysis I would check into why that number was not in line with the others and the predicted axial shortening of the strut. I would not make the data fit, I would leave it on my graph with a note that tried to explain the anomaly. Once I had done an analysis of the data, I may decide to discard that data point or I might normalize it to some sort of mean. But it would be explicit as to what I did and why I did the correction.
The whole thing seems fishy to me at this point, not saying it smells yet but . . .
I’ll be back, on my lunch break, only got 30 minutes. My boss has been looking over my shoulder all morning.
yes drill sargent
cus you told me to drill sargent
The only charlatan here is you, bdatroll.
Or haven’t you read that memo yet? What’s the matter? Don’t want yet another thrashing about being as credible as a steamy pile while the boss is watching?
You simply avoid the topic and copy paste more drivel about how oil is not that bad guys. Weak.
So how much does one get paid for selling out credibility without so much as whimper? I certainly hope you are a paid professional troll and not just an amateur. Be a shame if you made yourself a clown and had nothing to show for it but the red nose and big shoes.
Byron,
I submit that is because engineering is a system building exercise geared to known finites. You design things to failure as a general rule based on shape and material composition. Analytical sciences are different. They require more flexibility in modeling data because the models are generally for seeking patterns you may or may not know exist versus engineering which is designing systems to a known quantity. It the whole difference between science and engineering: one seeks to uncover basic principles and one seeks to apply them. In the former, massaging data is required for the most through analysis. In engineering, massaging the data can lead to disaster when components fail.
Byron,
I’ll assume you read the article I linked too?
Let’s say you’ve been taking measurements for the past 30 or so years. We’ll say of the average weight of grain bills purchased at a home brew store. Now at a certain point, say 15 years in, the store buys a much more accurate scale, and you notice that the old scale was for some reason starting to get much more wildly divergent readings. You check the accuracy of both scales and the older one is definitely the problem. What would your solution be?
I’m betting it’s something like “look for where the readings start to diverge, and stop using the data from the older scale at that point.” Which is what was done with the data that was being “hidden.”
Here’s the Nature part of the ‘Nature trick’
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
I also think it’s worth mentioning that once again: scientific theory isn’t made up by one person and then accepted, it’s thoroughly and repeatedly checked before the community as a whole accepts it. Which is why the fact that a few scientists said some stupid stuff in private e-mails isn’t all that damning.
bUDDHA/GYGES:
good points.
I liked the grain scale analogy, I would keep my mouth shut and bury that bitch in the backyard if I had been over charging my customers. What do expect from a cappie?
Gyges,
Good link. The article is very helpful to anyone trying to understand this debate.
Byron,
What you describe is entirely appropriate for engineering data (data on known phenomena which needs to be tested to ensure the quality of an engineering product. Scientific data, however, is a somewhat different beast. You don’t know, a priori, what to expect from data (which is why you collect it – to help you understand what’s going on) and some data is more reliable than others (and different people have different opinions of this which is why good scientists explain and justify why they’ve made these kinds of decisions). Your goal is to find some sort of pattern that hasn’t been previously discovered in the data and then interpret what this pattern implies about the phenomenon being studied. This is actually one of my strengths (at least in my opinion)
My favorite ‘trick’ is to use color as a variable in figures (if you take red, green, and blue intensities separately you can add 3 ‘dimensions’ to a figure), vastly increasing the information contained and giving you the ability to visually see patterns that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to detect. I admit that these emails warrant further investigation, but an on-line discussion is not the appropriate venue. This needs to be looked at by people who understand the scientific process (and the climate change field as well) to determine if any ethical violations occurred. I would also note that the timing of this seems suspicious as well – something smells on both sides of the fence…
Bdaman,
You are one high volume troll. I notice that you didn’t touch my argument (posted at 12:06pm on Nov. 27th and partially reposted below) about why working to reduce carbon emissions (and pollution in general) is a good idea even if global warming isn’t anthropomorphic – I guess this isn’t surprising since you’ve never shown the ability to debate or even think for yourself (you are a champion cut-and-paster, however). Until you answer my points, I wont be answering any of the specious crap that you post, either. (Byron, I would be curious to know what your response is to this as well.)
I said at 12:06, Nov. 27th:
“Considering the question (climate change) from a political point of view for a moment, if climate change advocates are correct, the risk of inaction is catastrophic (we can’t afford, as a species, to take your position and be wrong). On the other hand, you would argue (please correct me if I’m wrong) that there are serious economic costs to reducing carbon emissions that aren’t worthwhile if the climate change consensus is wrong, which I don’t disagree with. However, in light of the demonstrable fact that industrial emissions (not just talking about carbon here) have had a negative impact on our biosphere, I would argue that the positive benefits of reducing pollution are more than worth this economic cost. Furthermore, I think that the additional benefits of going down this road are incalculable: clean air, clean water, reducing the undue importance of the Middle East that comes from their oil reserves, saving petroleum for making plastics, ultimately a green industrial base for our society and hopefully the US emerging as the world leader in sustainable technologies. Especially when compared to what I fear the alternative is: extinction. If you would like to die by drowning in your own waste, fine, but please get out of the way of those of us who would rather avoid that fate.”
And you never answered my question from the last debate we had.
What is the percent of Co2 present in all greenhouse gases? Answer that and you’ll see how ridiculous your argument is.
Secondly going to the scale and grain theory, in this case it doesn’t work if the scales are tipped in your favor.
Anthony Watts did a volunteer campaign to expose this called, How Not to Measure Temperature. Any sane person can see how this data is not reliable.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Slarti,
Need I say more than Pavlov in re avoidance behaviors?
Slarti:
interesting post on the use of colors to visualize patterns. Do you like pastels or Autumn Colors?
If you add data points or massage them, how do you know you are not causing the patterns? Even if you can determine which variables were changed and change them in some controlled fashion how do you then know the right variables were changed in the right order/combination to reflect a natural phenomenon (weather in this case)?
The science is settled, there will be no more debate.
It’s junk
Buddha,
No. I already admitted that you and Mike S. were right… I just truly hate how divisive our national debate has become and believe that civility is a virtue which we are in desperate need of. That the lack of civility you sometimes display is justified and necessary doesn’t mean that I have to like it, so I’ll continue trying to encourage (or goad) Bdaman into actual debate while recognizing that you and Mike are what’s keeping most of the poo he’s flinging off of us…
Byron,
I don’t add data points or massage them, I put enormous amounts of data into visual form. An example – You have a system of two coupled oscillators and want to investigate how the system behavior changes with respect to 2 parameters so you do, say, a quarter million simulations with different values of these parameters. How can you look at all of this data to see what patterns, if any, are present? You can look at the amplitude of the two oscillations, you can compare them, you can take Fourier transforms and compare the frequency information – but there are many specific details involved in how you do this, all of which require decisions as to what works best. After doing this, you certainly need to determine if the patterns you saw are really in the data, or if they are a result of your manipulation, but nothing unreasonable has occurred. (I apologize for the preceding being a bit technical, but I really couldn’t help it – it’s a sketchy description of something I did for my thesis to obtain one of the most significant of my results.) Furthermore, in the warming data, as I understand it, points weren’t added but removed – which, as has been pointed out, is reasonable if such measures can be justified. Giving a solid argument for the validity of any manipulations of data which you make is a necessary part of a good scientific paper. Personally, I like autumn colors, but in the context of data interpretation all that matters is different behavior can be distinguished with different colors (my figures do tend to be pretty, though).
Bdaman,
I’ll stand on my reputation for engaging in debate on this site – I’m sure the other people here are perfectly capable of deciding which one of us does a better job of answering questions that are asked of us. I will make one remark about your latest post:
You said:
“Secondly going to the scale and grain theory, in this case it doesn’t work if the scales are tipped in your favor.”
I think this tells us quite a bit about you as a person while doing nothing to impeach the analogy to which you refer.
The scientific evidence that overuse of fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil is not only harmful to the planet, but their extractions is destructive to the environment. Slarti is a scientist and I’ll let him handle that aspect of the debate as he already is ably doing. What I think we should look at is how this has been politicized mainly in the service of the coal, oil and nuclear industries, who want the ability to have free rein to do as they wish with our evironment.
Most people, like myself, want to see my futre progeny inherit a world that is better than the one we have. The anti-environmentalists frankly don’t give a damn about the futre of their children and their children’s children. This is broken down in two ways: One way is the fundamentalists who believe the world is going to end soon so why care.
The second is those who think themselves entrepeneurial (many libertarians for instance) and do not believe any rein should be put on capital seeking outlets. They really don’t care either because they are usually highly self-centered individuals thinking mainly of their own comfort.
To people who go either way, the smog in the atmosphere, the spike in cancer, the destruction of natural beauty in service of greed, the pollution of the rivers and the destruction of rain forests are all justified by the lure of profit. Look at what coal has done to the beauty of Appalachia and the impoverished millions left in the wake of its’ moving on to new sites. While their water supply is compromised and their flora and fauna is destroyed.
I don’t need science to tell me that unbridled development will cause untold ruin, hunger, thirst and human deprivation. My problem is that I actually care about the fate of all of humanity and so believe myself to be a member of a society. Those who support unbridled development only really care about their own selves and in that sense are an anti-social element.
Mike S,
I absolutely agree with everything you said. I think that the self-serving nature of the pro-pollution movement should be pointed out at every opportunity. Those who doubt the environmental impact of industry should go live downstream from a coal mine or a hog farm or really any major industry and see what your water is like – I’m sure the arsenic gives it extra flavor!
Slarti,
Might I suggest Baton Rouge. It sucks for just more than being home to Louisiana’s politicians. It’s a petrochemical cesspool with cancer rates way above average.
Source:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)
Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.
The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).
“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.
The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.
“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.
The University of East Anglia has previously released statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.
Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.
The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change
The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.
There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.
In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.
The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.
Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.
We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.
Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.
One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.
Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.
We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.
My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.
We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.
CRU statement
Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.
A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.
This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.
There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:
• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.
The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.
CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.
One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.
Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”
The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.
CRU: “…statement was released on November 24 at 3.30pm.”
Buddha:
the following is a table from a paper on cancer in La.
http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/tumorregistry/statistics_monograph_monolist.asp
5 top causes of death in La. in 1996 for children 10 to 14:
all causes – 147
1. accidents – 58
2. congenital anomalies – 20 (possible environmental factors?)
3. homicides – 10
4. cancer – 8
5. heart disease – 4
5. asthma – 4
Byron–
On the deaths caused by accidents: Did people die because they accidentally bought homes downstream from giant hog farms or coal mines–or accidentally fell into petrochemical cesspools?
Just asking.
“Home to ”Cancer Alley,” a strip of land between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that houses many industrial and petrochemical plants, Louisiana is found to have cancer rates that outpace the national average. For Louisiana residents, the most frequently diagnosed cancers are lung at 16 percent, prostate, 16 percent, breast, 14 percent, colon and rectum, 12 percent, and urinary bladder, 4 percent. The five-year period between 2000 and 2004 brought 105,082 diagnoses of invasive primary in Louisiana residents, or an average of 21,016 cases per year. Specifically, Louisiana’s incidence rates for tobacco- related cancers such as lung, oral cavity, kidney, and pancreas are also higher than U.S. rates, which are preventable.”
From the Louisiana Public Health Institutes website.
And the problem isn’t so much rate of incidence as it is mortality rate. Even among preventable cancers, the mortality rates are higher in parts of Louisiana. For a more detailed look at cancer rates in Louisiana, LSU has some good studies at:
http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/tumorregistry/statistics_monographs_exec_summary.asp
Elaine:
you never know.
It is quite possible they were slaves of Huey Long and he made them have intercourse with a chemical pit.
Buddha:
here is part of the link you posted:
http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/tumorregistry/statistics_region_II.asp
it shows cancer death rates per region of Region II which is Baton Rouge.
If you dbl click on the regions a pdf file pops up that shows statistics. They are from 1997 but seem to show the cancer death rate is about equal to the US cancer death rate.
Having worked in the oil field I can certainly understand why there might be an increase what with all of the solvents and other chemicals used.
But this data doesn’t seem to show any significant difference in and around Baton Rouge.
Buddha:
this area has some higher than average deaths:
http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/tumorregistry/PDF/Profiles/P-R.pdf#page=1
I think it is near New Orleans.
also check out:
http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/tumorregistry/statistics_region_III.asp
Byron,
It’s that whole strip from Baton Rouge to N.O. that’s the issue. It’s covered in fractionating plants. You can see them from the highways. But you can smell them way before that if the wind is right. I just singled out BR over NO because at least NO has good restaurants. BR? It’s a pit. Always has been, always will be. From the pols to the tank farms to the phallic state house, Baton Rouge simply sucks worst of the two.
LSU campus is rather nice.
Question?
Is Observer B-da-man the same?
No.
And the hits just keep right on comin with the best still to come.
Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. …”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3
I think that Observant and Bdaman are one in the same. This smells like a troll posting. Well look at the thread and comments.
Why are so many people against nuclear power? Are they just afraid of what they don’t know?
Wondering,
That is part of it. France has proven long term nuclear power plants can be run in a reasonably safe manner.
But some of us are against the way the U.S. is proposing to use older reactors that are past their prime (http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/LifeAfter60WorkshopReport.pdf) instead of using this as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and spur local economies by building newer, more efficient plants like the Toshiba 4S. Combine this with decentralizing production (which means more plants), introducing infrastructure of safe waste management and upgrading the power grids and you’ll have done a HELL of a lot more to help the economy than giving those tools on Wall St. a damn dime. Electricity is a real product. It can make our factories hum, our homes warm-safe-entertaining, and power our transportation needs. Credit Default Swaps are a made up horseshit shell game. Hmmm. Actual production capacity or a Ponzi scheme? Seems like an easy call if you’re not in someone’s pocket.
I am wondering if Observant and Bdaman have the same address?
GODDAM, BUDDHA YOU SOUND ALMOST LIKE A CAPITALIST.
am I wearing off on you?
Byron,
Buddha is a capitalist. Don’t you know? But he also has a compassion for his fellow man. Sometimes the two do not mix. And I state that if it was between Corporate Profits and a Human life, which do you suspect Buddha would pick?
AY:
I think most would pick the individual life, I know I would.
The problem with that statement is this, at least in my mind, if corporate profits saved a 1,000 lives and one died then where would you stand?
It is not an either or proposition. And similar to a life boat scenario, you know the one that is always used to determine morals. Who do you throw overboard? That is not a good way to teach morals as those types of situations do not exist in everyday life.
Bryon,
So then its ok to build a Pinto, Corsair, Sell Tobacco to People and build a Nuclear Power Plants that leak?
AY,
I think you’ve pointed out exactly how many of us feel about capitalism. It’s been an engine that has generated enormous wealth, but it has gone from being our servant to being our master. Capitalism is like a puppy that made a mess on the floor – we need to rub it’s nose in it and give it a whack in the nose. The problem with capitalism today is that there are no restraints on it – no negative feedback (or not enough). Byron, do you think we would be better or worse off if corporations could be held responsible for actions like injuring or killing people, devaluing our shared property (air and water) by polluting it, and, say, nearly collapsing the world-wide economy and causing a massive recession? I think that corporations should have to pay for offenses in stock – how many Ford Pintos would be on the road if the shareholders were risking having their investment diluted to a fraction of its value?
“if corporate profits saved a 1,000 lives and one died then where would you stand?”
Byron,
Unfortunately that is not a likely scenario. Corporations exist simply to make profits, that is their sole rationale. I think where you tend to get confused is that you see things in an either/or perspective. do you think I’m a socialist for instance? I’m not and unlike many on the right I actually know what socialism means and I knew actual socialists and communists. I like capitalism as a system because it works better than anythng yet devised. however, unbridled capitalism is a horror show and is as bad as anything socialists or communists can offer.
As an example let’s take labor unions. Just as corporations have the right to negotiate so then should labor. The inequality of size makes most individual negotiations fruitless, so workers band together to negotiate through strength. This would be a free market concept, but corporations have worked through government to limit labor’s ability to use the free market to negotiate better wages/benefits. Where you and I disagree most is that you believe in a “free market” and I believe that corporations don’t want a free market, except in the meaning of having no social control. We do not live in a capitalist system today, we live in a system of Corporate Socialism and individuals feudalism.
Has anyone figured out why they make ALL of the Consumer Electronics Over Seas? Cheap labor is a factor. The major factor is Water and Soil Pollution. Why do you think that EXXON has not rebuilt the refinery in LA? No duty to dig and inspect. But once you do, guess what, you have to clean up the mess you created.
Anyone read about General Motors/Delco Love Canal? How about when GM filed Bankruptcy, when they were closing plants environmental issues were raised. Seems like more things discharged too.
Has anyone questioned why it is ok and safe to eat fish out of the Great Lakes, unless you are under 13 and or pregnant? I am male and 50 something and hell it ain’t sage enough for me. Lake Superior’s fish is edible. Since the 60′s they have concentrated on clean water.
The reason Lake Superiors Fish is safe to eat is Canada has very restrictive discharge laws regarding water pollution. They made the Corporations clean up the stuff.
AY,
A professor of mine one told me about a conversation he had with an EPA official – he asked the official to tell him something that he couldn’t tell the general public and he said “Don’t eat fish out of the Great Lakes”. As a Michigan native, I find that depressing…
Byron,
I sound like a rational humanist who understands complex systems. I still think capitalism appeals to sociopaths and the simply evil because at it’s core it’s materialist drivel. He who dies with the most toys is still dead and a narcissistic ass on top of it. I still think socialism is the only rational form of economics as a pragmatic manner. I’ve said it before: free markets are fine for 90% of the crap we sell, but unrestrained greed leads to fascism. You’ll note I did not mention that these reactors should be built by private firms. In fact, aside from the Toshiba manufactured components, this should be a government run and owned project. Corporations have proven they are incompetent to manage critical infrastructure from prisons to hospitals to oil companies. Because at the end of the day, they only care about who gets to steal the most, not making things actually work.
As Bdaman has hijacked two threads (that I know of) with his climate change trolling”
I must be on the wrong thread, can you please stay on topic!!! this is about a client who fired an attorney.
no capitalism is not perfect and companies should be held accountable for malfeasance.
well being neither evil nor a sociopath I still think capitalism is a much better way to go. Do some take advantage of others, certainly. Is it right, no.
I don’t think you could build a nuclear reactor without private firms doing the actual construction. It is a very specialized field of construction.
Byron,
Yes it is. But the government can hire engineers and crews too. It’s not like they’ve never built anything technically impressive before. And they don’t have profit pressures so instead taxpayers wasting 20% of the budget on useless CEO perks and bonuses, they can funnel that money into both safety and actual plant operations instead of Lil’ Timmy’s Offshore Bank Account.
Buddha:
Lil’ Timmy is the only f’er that ever makes out.
I lost my house from being out of work figured out how to start makeing money online at This work from home site. I was doubtful but am so happy I gave it a try. I am trying to get the word around that it is possible.
http://www.findstorageusa.com/
Thought it was pretty good. The only problem I saw was in your hip movements. They were to smooth and not jerky enough. Keep at it and good luck.
Hi there, it all on what you want to accomplish from your blog. If you have any specific questions, I will be more than happy to help. Cheers Ron
Thanks for sharing nice post. i have been looking information on the “Client Fires Orly Taitz and Threatens Bar Complaint Against Her As Judge Explores Sanctions” this discussion has solve my concern to a great extent . i am grateful.
Remove Complaint
Admin – could you use help with your website? Through our site you can find Outsourced Workers starting at $1/hour. They speak English, work flexible hours, and pride themselves on doing a quality job. There are Article Writers, Web Designers, Virtual Assistants, Email Response Handling, SEO Workers, & more. If interested we invite you to check out OutsourcedWorker.com . Thanks