Friday, January 23, 2009

Linda's Big News!

I held onto this for a couple of days, but now the time is ripe. The ever-reliable Linda Starr had some big news on Tuesday:
Important announcements...if you missed Phil on the radio tonight!
Second, how many of you picked up on what Phil said on tonight's radio show about the FOIA confirming Barry never had an American passport under the name of Barack Obama until hsi diplomatic passport issued as a US Senator? Do you understand and comprehendc the enormity of that announcement? Do you all realize what it means? I can tell you now that is one part of several pieces of good news we had the other day that I hinted at and could not reveal. That information confirms Barry had to renew an Indonesian passport to go to Pakistan in 81. That means Barry swore an Oath of Allegiance to Indonesia and had to renoucne all other allegiances to get that passport. This is independent confirmation of information we've had and from OUR OWN State Department, Barry couldn't go to Pakistan on an American passport if he didn't have one.

That's amazing! That's so amazing, in fact, that I have no doubt that Phil Berg would not hesitate to post such explosive documentation on his website within moments of its receipt.

Of course, I'm sure the niggling detail that it's now Thursday and we still haven't seen this very-much-real paperwork isn't important. It's not like Phil Berg has a history of claiming to have documents that he never ends up producing.
There are so many amazing pieces of good news coming in. I wish I could tell you all about it...

I may have some very interesting information for everyone tomorrow. Tune in. Hehehe.

written by Linda Starr, January 20, 2009

It's now January 23. Still nothing. Good thing Linda hedged herself with that "may." It gives her the ability to claim that she didn't actually lie.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Meet Loren!

It seems that someone (namely, someone I will be addressing more directly in my next post) has accused me of 'relying on anonymity' in writing this blog. I wasn't aware that I was doing so. I post under my real first name, and anybody with a modicum of web-fu could figure out my last name within seconds. I hadn't said any more because I didn't think anybody really cared to know more about who I am.

But if I'm going to be attacked on flimsy claims of 'anonymity,' I might as well nip that in the bud now.

I am, as previously mentioned, Loren. I'm a 30-year-old Atlanta attorney, and lifelong Georgia native. I'm a comic geek and a Presbyterian. I've run for Congress twice as a write-in. I have a long underattended political blog at

Two of those sites should clue you in to the fact that I'm no liberal. For one, I hate, hate, Social Security. Politically, I'm a libertarian, or more accurately, a classical liberal. And, like I stated in my first post here, I didn't vote for Barack Obama in November. Rather, I voted for Bob Barr; here's a photo of me with Mr. Barr:

While I imagine many of my readers may differ from me, I'm not pro-Obama myself. Politically, I differ with him on a LOT. Especially Social Security. But this site isn't pro-Obama; it's anti-idiocy. I'm not here to defend Obama's policy decisions or badmouth conservatives. I'm about highlighting the unintentionally humorous absurdities that can result when people let their partisan desires overrun their rational instincts. It's apparently not enough for some people to simply say that Obama is wrong on a political issue; no, he has to be an adulterous, murderous, fascist foreign-born grandson of sleeper Communists, and there's a labyrinthine conspiracy to keep all of the evidence of this from the American people.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them in the comments section.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

For Inauguration Day: A Birther Platonic Dialogue

Birther: "Oh why won't Barack Obama release his birth certificate? If only he did that simple little thing, we could put this whole matter to rest. And it would only cost him ten dollars."

Rational Person (RP): "Didn't you see the birth certificate he posted online?"

Birther: "Anyone could have Photoshopped that. In fact, I saw an anonymous guy on the internet claim that he could prove it was faked. He's an expert in 'instructional media.'"

RP: "You do realize that 'instructional media' doesn't have anything to do with document analysis, right?"

Birther: "Regardless, it's still fake. If Obama truly had nothing to hide, he'd release his long-form birth certificate, not this computer printout."

RP: "How should he release it? If he simply posted a scan online, wouldn't you accuse it of being faked?"

Birther: "Oh, certainly. Anything he produces shouldn't be trusted unless it's reviewed by a competent authority, like a judge."

RP: "So if Obama obtained his long-form birth certificate, published it, had a judge review it, and then the judge announced that it was legit and he was born in Hawaii, that would be enough? You'd give up arguing that his election is illegitimate, stop filing lawsuits, and concede that he's eligible to be President?"

Birther: "Hardly. For all we know, Obama's parents could have lied to Hawaiian officials, and claimed he was born in Hawaii, when he was actually born in Kenya. Or Canada. For all we know, Hawaiian officials themselves might be in on the cover-up."

RP: "What if it can be proven beyond a doubt that the birth certificate is real and accurate, and that he was born in Hawaii. Let's say there's a video of John F. Kennedy himself playing midwife to Ann Dunham. Would that settle the matter?"

Birther: "It'd settle the matter of where he was born. But that doesn't mean he's a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President."

RP: "Why?"

Birther: "Because before he was born, his mother married a British citizen. That means she gave up her American citizenship even before he was born. And Obama can't be a natural-born citizen if neither of his parents were American citizens."

RP: "So you're begging Obama to release his birth certificate, even though you admit it won't actually stop your complaints."

Birther: "That's right."

RP: "Well, what if I can show you that American citizens don't give up their American citizenship when they marry foreigners? Will that put this to rest?"

Birther: "Oh, no. Even if I accepted that he was born in Hawaii, and that his mother was still an American citizen, his father was still a Kenyan and British citizen, and that means Obama inherited dual citizenship and thus wasn't a natural-born citizen. So he can't be President."

RP: "I see. For the sake of argument, then, let's say that I could show you that there's no requirement that a natural-born citizen be born of two U.S. citizens. Would that satisfy you?"

Birther: "Sorry, but no. Even if the birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii, and he could show that his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and that his father's citizenship didn't disqualify him, there's still the matter of Indonesia."

RP: "What does Indonesia have to do with anything?"

Birther: "When Obama's mother married Lolo Soetoro, she gave up her U.S. citizenship, and by proxy, Obama's U.S. citizenship. So he can't be President."

RP: "No, it doesn't work that way. Didn't we already cover this with her first marriage?"

Birther: "It doesn't matter. Even if her marriage didn't invalidate his citizenship, when Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, he ceased to be a U.S. natural-born citizen. So he can't be President."

RP: "A minor child can't surrender his U.S. citizenship that way. Besides, there's no evidence that he was adopted in the first place."

Birther: "Even if that's the case, he's still not in the clear. Because when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on his Indonesian passport, he gave up his U.S. citizenship."

RP: "Apart from the fact that that wouldn't have sacrificed his citizenship, do you actually have any direct evidence that he in fact did use an Indonesian passport?"

Birther: "Not direct evidence. But American passport holders weren't allowed into Pakistan in 1981."

RP: "Do you have any evidence that that is actually true about travel to Pakistan in 1981?"

Birther: "No."

RP: "I see. OK, if you put aside the passport, would you concede that he's eligible to be President?"

Birther: "Still no. When Obama was adopted, his name was legally changed to 'Barry Soetoro.' There's no proof he ever changed his name back, but he ran for President as 'Barack Obama.' And that violates election law. I will never accept his Presidency until I see the documentation where he changed his name back to Obama."

RP: "That's impossible. How can he possibly produce that documentation, when he never changed his name away from Obama in the first place? What proof is there that he was ever legally adopted or changed his name? And even if he was adopted, what possible reason would there be to legally change his first name to a nickname?"

Birther: "A school application in Indonesia says his last name was 'Soetoro.' They take those applications very seriously in Indonesia, so this is solid legal proof that he was adopted and had a name change."

RP: "And the fact that the same application says he was born in Hawaii?"

Birther: "That was a mistake."

RP: "OK, so to recap, you wanted Obama to release a birth certificate, but when he did, you accused it of being a forgery? Right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And you say that if he simply shared his long-form birth certificate with the public, that could be forged too? Right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "So you want him to release his long-form birth certificate and to have that birth certificate reviewed by a judge, to satisfy his critics and answer the questions they're asking? Right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And if the judge affirms that the birth certificate is legitimate and it says his place of birth was Hawaii, you say it might be falsified, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And even if he proves he was born in Hawaii, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother's first marriage, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And if he then proves that the marriage isn't an issue, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his father's citizenship, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And if he then proves that his father's citizenship isn't an issue, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother's second marriage, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And if he then proves that his mother's second marriage isn't an issue, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his supposed adoption, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And if he then proves that he didn't give up his citizenship via adoption, you claim that he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his 1981 travel to Pakistan, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "And if he then proves that he didn't give up his citizenship via passport, and even when you run out of citizenship arguments completely, you then claim his election is illegitimate because his legal surname is Soetoro, right?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "So you want to know why Obama won't take the simple measure of releasing his birth certificate, when you already have at least eight consecutive fall-back arguments you'll make if he does so, whereby you'll continue to insist that he's ineligible for the Presidency even after he proves that he was born in Hawaii?"

Birther: "Right."

RP: "Y'know, if I were Obama, I think I'd save my ten dollars too."

Berg's Track Record

Not only is today inauguration day, it's also the three-month anniversary of this story:
The touchy interview tapes of Michelle Obama, the wife of the US Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is soon ready for release in the US and will be aired unedited.

The release has taken long due to the fact that API wanted to clear all legal hurdles and be safe from getting sued by any one. API and a US Law firm - LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG has just entered into an agreement giving the law firm the right to represent API in all matters that may arise due to the Michelle Obama interview and the release of the tapes in the US.

October 20, 2008

An update from Phil Berg himself, posted on the same site:

I asked Philip Berg, via e-mail, whether or not he thought the API/Michelle Obama tapes were real and whether they would in fact be released within the next day or so as Chief Editor Korir maintains. His answer was simple, and firm.

"Yes," Berg wrote.

And this comment from Berg comes from

"They came to me, and they want me to do it," said Berg, who maintains that he has not yet heard any tape himself, but mentioned that API is saying that they "have more information than what they already released." that Berg's people have more information than they've released so far? Why does this line sound so familiar coming from Berg?

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Stanley Ann Dunham: Human Organ Trafficker!

This isn't new, but it's too good to ignore. Back on November 18, Mitchell Langbert posted a very long and rambling e-mail that, sadly, doesn't really lend itself to choice quotes. But the accusation dropped in the middle of it is priceless, though it needs some setup:
Stanley A. Dunham
320 E. 43rd St.
NY NY 10017
Telephone Number 212-573-5000
Job Title: Part of the Gender Equality Program Co Ford Foundation...

BIG Note about THE FORD FOUNDATION that Ann Dunham was associated with, and her many years of work there in Indonesia from THE FORD FOUNDATION website...

The Ford Foundation began working in Indonesia, from an office located in Jakarta, in 1953. Over the years, we have provided more than $450 million in grants in selected fields...

Are these doctors involved with Organ Harvesting/Trafficking???
June 7, 2007

"...He said trafficking for organs was on the rise in China and in many impoverished states in Southeast Asia, like Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines and Vietnam.”

Are the people currently associated with the building that houses THE FORD FOUNDATION at 320 E. 43rd St. involved in another body organ trafficking ring?

Posted by Mitchell Langbert, November 18, 2008

There's plenty of other nonsense in the post (it mostly consists of what appears to be stream-of-consciousness research conducted by a person with a short attention span and no real understanding of Lexis), but it doesn't get any better than that.

Barack Obama: President for Life!

WorldNetDaily reports:
Hail King Obama: President for life
Move underway to repeal Constitution's term limits
By Drew Zahn

As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.

Further down, the article does acknowledge a couple of details that the lede ignores:

H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose...

At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

So it's really not accurate to say "some in Congress are" doing anything, is it? The plural tense is inaccurate here. It should read "someone in Congress is..."

And the aforementioned bill in the 108th Congress is just one of the times Serrano has introduced this bill. It's not even the most recent attempt before the current one. Serrano is also responsible for proposing a repeal of the 22nd Amendment in:

110th Congress - H.J. Res 8
109th Congress - H.J. Res 9
107th Congress - H.J. Res 4
106th Congress - H.J. Res 17
105th Congress - H.J. Res 19

Yes, Rep. Serrano has proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment on the first day of every Congressional term since 1997. This is, at least, his seventh attempt. He made the exact same proposal four times during the eight years of the Bush Administration. Whatever Serrano's agenda is here, it doesn't seem immediately partisan.

That's not to say it's a good bill, though. Personally, I believe strongly in Presidential term limits and would hate to see Serrano succeed in getting rid of them. But WND seems to be painting this as an Obama-centric proposal, when it's not.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Just When You Think They Can't Get More Incompetent...

Not stupid. Not gullible. Not paranoid. Just plain incompetent:

A reader Linda sent me this, it shows Obama being born in Somerville, MA...

FREE Birthday Search
Can't remember the birthday of a friend, relative or co-worker?
Search our database of 120 million names and birth dates:

First Name Last Name Estimated Age
Note: Our information comes from official government records so it is best to search using the person's full first name, like Robert instead of Rob or Joseph instead of Joe. But, if you do not find their birthday after your first search, try again using their shorter first name. Also, the City/State/Zip shown in our results may not be current. It is what was listed on file at the time our data collected, and just used to help you identify the correct person.

First Name Last Name Birthday City State Zipcode
BARACK H OBAMA 1961-08-04 Somerville MA 02145

Total records: 1

Written by Orly Taitz, January 16, 2009

There's a lot of great nonsense in the middle, but for the moment I want to focus on this one tidbit that opens and closes Orly's post. Go check out for yourself if you're curious. But a simple glance at the site, or at the text Orly herself quoted above, should show you where the incompetence kicks in on this. I'll quote it again, in case you missed it:

"the City/State/Zip shown in our results may not be current. It is what was listed on file at the time our data collected, and just used to help you identify the correct person."

IT'S A CURRENT ADDRESS, NOT A BIRTHPLACE! The website says so itself. Orly herself quoted the text saying so. How can she (and her readers, who haven't pointed this out in the comments) completely ignore that, and pretend like the site is claiming Obama was "born in Somerville, MA"? The guy lived there in college, and the fact that that's the last listed address the website has is only testimony to the limits of their data. Not only does Orly seem incapable of fact-checking simple material she's been forwarded, she now seems incapable of even noticing when she's disproved her own argument within her own post.

If you need further proof, look no further:

Yes, although the White House website states that President George W. Bush "was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut," the location listed by his name in is "Dallas, Texas."

But according to Orly's reasoning...what does George W. Bush have to hide? Why is he claiming, on his official government website no less, that he was born in Connecticut when a free internet database says "Dallas, Texas" by his name? Yeah, it doesn't actually say he was born there, and yeah, it actually says that's his last address (not his first), but that's irrelevant. No Texas-born person would ever claim to be born in Connecticut unless they had something seriously sinister to hide. So what is George W. Bush hiding with regard to his birthplace? Constitution-loving Americans demand answers!

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Barack Obama: Serial Killer!

Larry Sinclair has been claiming for months that Obama was complicit in the murder of Trinity United Church of Christ deacon Donald Young.

As if one murder wasn't enough, leave it to Linda Starr to claim Obama was involved in THREE:

"It wasn't just one gay guy at Barry's church, there were THREE close gay friends murdered execution style with gunshots to the back of the head! There are very dangerous Chicago mobsters behind Barry."

written by Linda Starr, January 15, 2009

Linda hasn't provided any follow-up on this yet, but a couple of other posters have. Including this bit of political insight:
"I think he's more than a sociopath... he's psychotic

"Will anything or anyone stand in this criminal monster's path to power? Will 8 years be enough to quench his bloodlust for power, or will term limits be repealed and his ACORN/DNC/Muslim/Marxist Axis thug-ocracy see to it that he is "president for life" a la Idi Amin Dada?"

written by J. Jonah Jameson, January 15, 2009

Does Godwin's Law apply to comparing your opponents to Idi Amin yet?

"Proof (through the internet)"!

Someone made a big discovery, and announced it over on Stephen Pidgeon's website:
I found proof (through the internet) that a birth record was issued for Babyboy Obama, born at the state-supported hospital in Kenya to parents of British citizenship (Mr. & Mrs. Obama). I’m ready to go forth with this. Do you need a retainer (or Pro bono would be good !). Also, there are LOTS of published reports that Mrs. Obama did file for a Birth Certicate as soon as the plane landed in Hawaii (with baby Obama about a week old). So you can get on the internet & get the same proof that I have and give me a call 206-283-2113.

Posted by Paul LaVanway

Exciting stuff, no? I'm sure within a matter of days this remarkable new evidence will be released for public inspection.

Wait, what? You noticed I left off the date of Mr. LaVanway's post? My apologies:

PAUL LAVANWAY on January 1st, 2009 7:45 am

Ouch. Two weeks ago. And I can't say I've heard seen Mr. LaVanway's miracle evidence in that time. But that hasn't stopped folks over at Berg's from talking about his claim, even after a half-month of producing nothing:

"MommaE called and spoke to [LaVanway]. He was one of Stephen Pidgeon's plaintiff's. The information has been given to Phil and Lisa to look into."

Strangely, this same poster, Philadelphia Roof Doctor, seemed to hedge his own comments a little on the very next page:

"The guy is definitely legit - he was/is one of the plaintiffs in the Stephen Pidgeon case. He didn't and doesn't actually have the document. But, he did have some useful information that was passed on to Phil and Lisa."

If he doesn't have the document he originally claimed he found, then what makes him legit?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009


Over at obamacrimes, the always-quotable Ms. Starr had this to say:
Just don't bet the farm on your beliefs cuz you'll end up losing. I hate to break it to you, but some things may be breaking in the next few days that wil bust this case wide open. Lisa got several very good pieces of news today. Instead of celebrating an Inauguration, ole Barry might be carted off to jail in handcuffs, along with Michelle, Pelosi, Dean, Feinstein, Reid and any others who aided and abetted in these crimes. Things may get real ugly real fast when they come to arrest them.

Get prepared, immediately. Stock up any type of emergency supplies you may need.

written by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009

I'm quoting this post to preserve it: on January 12, Linda predicted that big things may be breaking soon, that Lisa had already gotten very good news, and that the combination of these things might not only lead to Obama not being inaugurated, but that he and several other Democratic leaders might actually be arrested over these reveals.

The question isn't whether or not this will actually come to pass. It's whether Linda Starr & Co. will be willing to acknowledge their mistake when their predictions turn out horribly wrong, or whether they'll just pretend like such predictions were never made while simultaneously continuing to make new and equally bogus predictions.

Why the Department of Hawaii Home Lands Doesn't Matter

Itooktheredpill repeats a canard that we've seen plenty of:

In order to process your application, DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Home Lands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it “For DHHL Purposes,” and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification.

Posted by Itooktheredpill, January 13, 2009

This much is true; the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does indeed require more than a computer-printed Certification of Live Birth. What the Birthers consistently, and intentionally, ignore is WHY the DHHL has this standard of proof.

The answer is, naturally, in the same DHHL manual that RedPill links to:

To be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian home lands homestead lease, you must meet two requirements:

- You must be at least 18 years of age; and
- You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian.

So for this particular Hawaii department's program, which is limited to homestead leases, you need to prove your genealogy, not just your birthplace. The manual goes on:
The general rule of thumb in determining 50 percent blood quantum is to submit enough documentation tracing your genealogy to your full Hawaiian ancestor(s). Some applicants need only go back two generations, that is, to their grandparents. Others may need to go back further, gathering pieces of information which eventually grow into a large family tree with roots beginning with full Hawaiian ancestors...

You will need the certified birth certificates for:
- Yourself;
- Your biological father; and
- Your biological mother.

That's right: not only do you need your own certified birth certificate, you need certified birth certificates for BOTH of your parents. Again, only for this state program, and not for any other state purposes. The reason a computer-printed Certification is insufficient is because it only lists your parents' names and races; when you need to prove your heritage, you need more than that. Importantly, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth lists the newborn's parents' birthplaces, in addition to their ages and addresses.

And pause for a moment and think how many times in your life you've been asked to produce certified copies of your parents' birth certificates. It doesn't happen. That's because this is a singularly unique program, with requirements you don't see for normal state business. The only reason the DHHL has gotten singled as emblematic of Hawaiian policy is that it's the one lonely little program that would require more than Obama's provided.

Naturally, folks like Redpill conveniently ignore the fact that DHHL's concern is with genealogy, not mere birthplace. They emphasize the requirement of a Certificate rather than a Certification, and claim that that requirement should be binding on Obama, but then they turn right around and black-out the DHHL requirement to produce parental birth certificates. To even pay lip service to that detail would serve only to shine a spotlight on the unique circumstances of the DHHL and their emphasis on family (not individual) birthplaces, and nobody in their right mind would expect a Presidential candidate to produce birth certificates for his parents to run for office. As with so much else, the Birthers pick and choose which details they want to shout from the rooftops, and which ones they want to bury.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Question: Where Did the "Born in Kenya" Theory Come From?

Central to the entire Birther conspiracy is the notion that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, or Canada, or really anywhere other than his stated birthplace of Honolulu, Hawaii. It's a fairly ridiculous proposition on its face, but its believers are nonetheless rabid in their faith in it.

My question is: where and when did this theory originate? Particularly the specific allegation that he was born in Kenya, and what the original 'evidence' was that the allegation hinged on.

Even though Obama started campaigning for President in early 2007, Phil Berg didn't file his lawsuit until August 2008, just days before the Democratic convention. Jerome Corsi's book, "The Obama Nation," was published earlier that month, and despite the fact that it didn't shy away from making outrageous allegations, even it didn't raise any questions as to Obama's birthplace. Andy Martin's 2004 hit piece similarly didn't raise any birthplace disputes.

A cursory search on my part for the origins of this meme have produced these results:

- In the first moderately high-profile mention of the Kenyan-birth theory that I've found, the National Review's Jim Geraghty mentioned it June 9, 2008 as a theory he found "rather unlikely."

- Geraghty's own citation for the existence of this theory was an April 21, 2008 posting on the Snopes message board.

- An anti-Obama site "Ruthless Roundup" said this on March 5, 2008:

Add to the family history shown in this article that Obama's mother was allegedly visiting Kenya with Obama's father in the final months of her pregnancy and was not allowed to board a flight in her late term to return home.

She allegedly had Obama in Kenya and quickly boarded a flight to Hawaii. Airlines do not accept late term pregancies but do not refuse passage to a newborn, usually issuing a 10% or free fare ticket for the trip.

Once in Hawaii, his mother registered him as being born in Hawaii.

- A commenter on a TV news website wrote on March 2, 2008, "There is something seriously wrong here! From what I can find out Obama was either born in Kenya or in honalua and then lived in Kenya and Indonisia the first 10 years of his life, went to Muslam schools?"

Does anyone know of any usage of the Kenya-birth theory before March 2008? Does anyone know how it initially spread?

And does anyone know what the original argument was for Kenya, specifically, as the *real* place of birth? Birthers consistently rely on only two pieces of evidence that they say point specifically to Kenya, but both of those (the October 2008 McRae/Sarah Obama interview, and the November 2008 radio morning show interview with the Kenyan ambassador) BOTH happened after Berg filed his August complaint. Berg's complaint does note a June 2008 article by Wayne Madsen, wherein he mentions a supposed February 2008 GOP trip that supposedly found a Kenyan birth certificate. But even the National Review was already shooting down the theory by that time, so even that can't be the original alleged evidence.

So where did this theory come from, and how did people come to be convinced that 'Kenya' was the truly legit place of birth, in the absence of ANY evidence actually pointing to Kenya at all?

"XXXXXXXXXXXX" Spells "Polarik"

Of all the various aspects of the legal farce that is the Birther cause, none may be more legally unsound, and more hilarious, than the anonymous affidavit of Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXX, filed in the Hawaii case of Keyes v. Lingle. If you haven't been convinced yet that Orly Taitz has all the legal credibility of Harvey Birdman, then her apparent belief that this court, or any court, would ever accept an anonymous expert affidavit ought to win you over.

Now anyone familiar with the Birthers would probably automatically suspect that the anonymous "Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXX" is actually the anonymous "Dr. Ron Polarik." I imagine this is pretty well-accepted among those of us who think "Dr. Polarik's" credentials are probably on par with Dr. Pepper, but I honestly don't know what the Birther community thinks on the matter. So, with the assumption that there may still be people out there who think that "XXXXXXXXXXXX" is actually a separate and distinct person from "Polarik," here's a side-by-side comparison of excerpts from XXXXXXXXXXXX's Affidavit, linked above, and "Ron Polarik's" Final Report, as posted on "Polarik's" webpage:

10. Also,, a pro-Obama fact checking website, published a copy of the same image as posted on the Daily Kos, but also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.

Polarik, a supposedly nonpartisan, fact checking website that is unquestionably pro-Obama, published a copy of the same image as that posted on the Daily Kos, but was also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.

11., a pro-Obama fact checking website posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos and Obama's "Fight The Smears" websites. Factcheck's image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy, but was not cropped to the borders. is run by Obama supporters and is funded by the Annenberg foundation through the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

12. made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:

Polarik, a pro-Obama fact checking website ,posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos. Factcheck’s image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy before that image was cropped. is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; a center run by Obama supporters and funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:

13. Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, from Tommy Vietor or from anyone else connected with the Obama Campaign. As noted above, the only parties outside of the Obama Campaign to have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image are (a) The Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (b), a pro-Obama political research group, and (c), another pro-Obama political research group.

Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, for that matter, from Tommy Vietor or any one else...the only people alleged to have received a copy of this document image from the Obama Campaign have been (1) Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (2) FactCheck, a pro-Obama political research group, and (3) Politifact.

17...To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was intentionally altered, and that the pixel patterns were not naturally occurring printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners. By trying different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my "clone." From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of image tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama's original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.

To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”

From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama’s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.

18. All of my findings pertain to a single source image from which the Obama Campaign made four (4) copies. These copies were posted to four different websites:,,, and, as referred to and described above. These images are still posted on these websites, and are described in my Final Report,

All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report

19. Slightly more than two months after the publication of the COLB image on the Daily Kos and Obama's Campaign website, Factcheck published a story, Born in the U.S.A., in which they presented nine digital photographs that they allegedly made of Obama's "real, paper COLB" at his campaign headquarters - the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16. Without a doubt, the COLB image that Factcheck posted is a forgery, and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. Factcheck had created a conundrum: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the document image and the photographs were all forgeries.

...slightly more than two months after the publication of the image on the Daily Kos and Obama's website, Factcheck published their story about nine photos they claimed were allegedly taken of Obama's "real" COLB at his campaign headquarters – the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16. There was no longer any question in my mind that the COLB image Factcheck posted is a forgery and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. However, Factcheck created a conundrum for me: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document image, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the image and the photos were forgeries.

20. I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering in both the alleged COLB object they photographed and in the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with a Seal superimposed onto it. FactCheck's photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on a genuine 2007 COLB and the presence of illogical and impossible features that would never be found on a genuine 2007 COLB.

...I have thoroughly examined the photographs that Factcheck published, and have subsequently found clear evidence of tampering with both the alleged source of the photos, and the photos made of that source. Factcheck has committed sins of omission and sins of commission given that their photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on genuine COLBs along with the presence of irrelevant and illogical features that would never be found on real COLBs.

2l . With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and inefutable, as outlined in EXHIBIT "A," that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website,, to the, a pro-Obana blog, to, a pro-Obama political research group, and to, are, in fact, image forgeries, created with the
intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Barack Obama's genuine, "original" birth certificate

With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website,, to the, a pro-Obama blog, to, a pro-Obama political research group, and to, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

22. With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive, as outlined in Exhibit "A," that the COLB photographs posted by, a pro-Obama political research group, and to, are, in fact photographic forgeries, created with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were
taken of Obama's genuine "original" birth certificate,

With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by, a pro-Obama political research group, and to, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

Either "XXXXXXXXXXXX" is "Polarik," or "XXXXXXXXXXXX" plagiarized the living daylights out of "Polarik," and Orly allowed him to submit it as an affidavit of his own "findings."

So yeah, Orly, when you wrote "how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?", did you really think no one would notice that they wrote the exact same things? Or do you just imagine that everyone has the same reading comprehension level as yourself?

The Anti-American Revolution

I previously pointed out that I was getting an air of something more than civil discontent over at Berg's site. I'll admit that I haven't been following the comment sections on Orly's site closely, but I see that such sentiments have made their way there too:
"So close to the people taking up arms against a usurper.but then again, you'd like that now, wouldn't you Kyle...the right to revolt against an unconstitutional government is still the people's option. I'm guessing you aren't military, otherwise you'd know that they are plenty peeved that their votes were not counted!"

Posted by southerncross, January 12, 2009

For me, at least, these comments are only exacerbated by the fact that "Southern Cross" has certain connotations of its own, including being the name of a racist superhero that I talked about on a previous blog of mine.

Y'know, some political pundits have weighed the possibility of a sector of Americans outwardly refusing to recognize Obama as President for various reasons, including race. But I can't imagine that a year ago, anyone would have guessed that the #1 most vocal group opposed to him would be motivated by a bogus birthplace/citizenship argument, of all things.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

WorldNetDaily's Bogus Obama Petition

If you're on this blog, there's a decent chance you've heard about WorldNetDaily's Petition for Public Release of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate. WND is quite proud of this thing, currently bragging on their front page that 210,000 people have signed their petition. Birthers cite it all the time as evidence that there's actually a groundswell of support for their cause.

The standard rebuttal (as I'm not the first to point this out) is that the petition is horribly flawed, even by internet petition standards. Signing the petition requires only first and last name, and e-mail address. Zip code is optional. There's not even a clause where the signer affirms that the information given is true and accurate. That alone opens the petition to abuse, but what keeps this from being mere incompetency on WND's part, and instead elevates it into the realm of intentional con-artistry, is WND's decision to keep the actual list of signers secret. Are the same people signing the petition over and over? We can't see the list of signatories, so we don't know. Is the list full of fake names and bad aliases? We can't see the list of signatories, so we don't know.

So tonight, I engaged in a little experiment. Here's a screenshot of the petition, taken at 4:36 pm EST tonight:

You can see that at the time, the petition reflected 214,295 signatures. Granted, the page states that the total is updated periodically, so I took another screenshot at 4:57 pm EST, when the total was given as 214,705:

And another screenshot almost an hour later, at 5:54 pm EST, when the total was 214,737:

In the interim I surfed around a bit, created an Amazon listing, watched some Battlestar Galactica webisodes, and created 43 tabs over four Firefox windows that looked like this:

43 ready-to-go tabs for WND's petition, every one with the signatory name of "Barack Obama" himself, and every one with Phil Berg's e-mail address. I unchecked the little "YES!" box on each one, too.

And why 43? Not only is it the Hitchhiker's Guide answer +1, but it's also a sufficiently large number to prove my point, but also small enough that I don't need to set up 100+ tabs. Entering that info 43 times was kinda repetitive, even with Firefox's help.

Anyhow, right after 6:00 pm EST, it was time to give it a go. Here's the final screenshot, taken moments before I began submitting petition entries. For extra authentication, I put a shrunken window of the US clock on the screen. At a few seconds past 6:01 pm EST, the total was 214,738. 43 signatures in about 1 hour, 25 minutes, an average of about 1 signature every 2 minutes:

I started clicking petition submission buttons, and a couple of minutes later, I refreshed that original control window (which I didn't use to sign the petition), and it said this:

214,782. 44 signatures in 2 minutes, 8 seconds. A rather statistically improbable yet coincidental increase, wouldn't you say? An increase that reflected every one of the 43 applications I submitted, plus one additional one that reflects the average submission rate I noted above. An increase of the total during the 2 minutes of my experiment that matched the increase of the previous hour-and-a-half combined. So not only can you sign WND's petition multiple times, and not only you can sign it with the same name dozens of times within a couple of minutes, but you can sign it dozens of times within a couple of minutes even if you use the name of the President-Elect himself.

Here's one last screenshot, taken at 6:37 pm EST, after I've taken the time to upload images and type this post:

It's been over half an hour since my little experiment, and the total has only increased another 14 signatures.

So if you put any stock in the validity of this petition, take a moment to reconsider. And after that moment, take another one to reconsider exactly how much faith you should put in WND and Joseph Farah for attempting to snooker their readers like this.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Bellying Up to the Bar, Again

A poster over at offered up a new wrinkle on the Michelle Obama/law license scenario, so I might as well quelch it now while the topic is fresh:
"I first read of Mich**le being disbarred on texas darlin td blog. The gal writing in said when you voluntarily give up your license to practice law it is done under Rule 756, but when it is court ordered it is under rule 770. She indicated Mich**le's was under rule 770, which does cover disciplinary reasons, and had something to do with insurance fraud. She provided no links to authenticate any of this, and it was some weeks back on the td blog. I think this gal also posted it on, but can't recall exactly."

Posted by changeling, January 10, 2009

I couldn't find such a post on texasdarlin's website, but I did find exactly such a post in the comments at Atlas Shrugs:

Rule number is all about types of Discipine...and reasons for a lawyer to be disbarred

See, Rule 756 is about voluntary inactive status, which simply costs $105/year, no biggie. That's what you'd do if you were a lawyer wanting to go inactive, voluntarily without any extraneous forces.

But Rule 770 is all about DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS. An attorney may be on "voluntary inactive status persuant to Rule 770" but that is not the same as Rule 756, which is invoked purely on personal whim. Michelle's ARDC report states: "No malpractice report required, as attorney is on court ordered inactive status."

Court ordered means court ordered, not Michelle ordered.
If Michelle had ordered it, that would be via Rule 756. Michelle Obama is on "Court Ordered Inactive Status" pursuant to Rule 770, i.e. disciplinary rules, to avoid reporting of malpractice. Compelled to go voluntarily inactive would be the kindest description of this outcome.

Posted by tminu, January 04, 2009

What we have here from tminu is sloppy research. A quick glance at the text of Rule 770, which is available via tminu's own link, shows that the Rule 770 he's referring to used to be Rule 771. Another quick glance at the commentary below the Rule explains further:

"Effective April 1, 2004, former Rule 771 ("Types of Discipline") was renumbered as Rule 770 and a new Rule 771 ("Finality of Orders and Effective Date of Discipline") was adopted."

Michelle Obama went inactive in 1993, eleven years before this new Rule 770 was adopted. As my previous post observed, in 2000 the old Rule 770 was deleted , and Rule 756 was amended to include an inactive registration status. Under the rules that were actually in effect in 1993, voluntary inactive status was done under Rule 770, just as Michelle did.

Raising the Bar...of Stupidity

A quote in my last post from Linda Starr made reference to Michelle Obama's status with the Illinois state bar. Here's the whole quote of hers:
That way Michelle can run in the streets and act like she's somethng when we all now she's a disgraced, disbarred former attorney. If we don't find out soon what she did to get disbarred permanently, it'll be permanently classified so we can't ever get it.

written by Linda Starr, January 10, 2009

As best I can tell, this urban legend began with...*wait for it*...Orly Taitz, back on December 17. It seems if you go check the website for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, you find this when you search for "Michelle Obama":
Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama
Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989
Registered Business Address: Not available online
Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law - Last Registered Year: 1993
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.

Now despite the fact that the entry explicitly says "Voluntarily inactive", the Birthers have opted to latch onto "court ordered inactive status,", and ignore the other evidence that contradicts their interpretation of that phrase. (Sounds familiar, no?)

Now a simple look through the website of the ARDC will produce a definition of what that phrase actually means. To wit:

"The 2000 total, which reflects an increase of only 147 attorneys over the number who registered in 1999 (as compared to average increases of 1,600 each year for the previous five years), was impacted by amendments to the rules governing registration categories and inactive status, first effective for the 2000 registration process. The amendments eliminated from Rule 756 the out-of-state registration category under which lawyers could pay a reduced fee if they did not reside, have an office in, or practice in Illinois, and deleted Rule 770, which had provided for a court-ordered inactive status that did not require annual registration or payment of any fee. At the same time, the amendments added to Rule 756 an inactive status registration category, which requires the payment of a reduced fee and annual registration, as well as a new retirement registration status, which requires no fee and no annual registration for lawyers. Lawyers who choose to register under either of those categories are not authorized to practice. The 10,400 attorneys who had previously registered as out-of-state had to choose either active, inactive or retired status. In addition, several hundred lawyers who were previously on court-ordered inactive status returned to active status and then chose one of the new registration categories, most often choosing retired status."

In other words, until 2000 in Illinois, a non-practicing attorney could avoid paying annual bar registration dues by voluntarily choosing to go on court-ordered inactive status. The court declared you "inactive," and you saved yourself some money, but you couldn't practice law in Illinois anymore. Anyone who's actually a member of a bar association (i.e. Orly Taitz, Phil Berg) shouldn't have a bit of trouble understanding this.

If there's any doubt left, let me illustrate what an ARDC entry looks like for an attorney who WAS disbarred. I've blackened out personal information, because I, unlike Orly, actually want to respect the privacy of strangers:

See? "Not authorized to practice law due to discipline." "No malpractice report as attorney is disciplined." THAT is what it would say if Michelle were disbarred.

Finally, bar disciplinary results are public and published. You can look them up on this ARDC page. There's no record of any discipline against Michelle Obama.

Of course, I fully expect the Birther response to this to be 'They've managed to cleanse and whitewash her records, eliminating any mention of her discipline.' And thus, a conspiracy that has already expanded to include the Hawaiian Secretary of State's Office and the entire nation of Kenya grows to include the Illinois Bar Association as well.

Obama's Mama-In-Law

So have you heard that Michelle Obama's mother will also be moving into the White House, at least temporarily, to help take care of her granddaughters? You can imagine how well that has gone over with the Birther community:
Did anyone read the news whereby Barry is moving his Mother-in-Law into the WHITE HOUSE? Good lord, next will be moving his illegal Aunt there as well..

How Despicable,

Posted by William, January 9, 2009

If the Supreme Court steps up and does the right thing the taxpayers won't have to worry about that one.

Posted by John Hawck, January 10, 2009

Michelle's mother I think would be open to a luxury tax as I don't believe she lived with them before. In addition she should be obligated to pay for room and board to the Government, not Barry.

Posted by Justice Now, January 10, 2009

And of course, we can always count on Linda Starr for a choice quote. Watch as she spins this story into a personal attack on Michelle herself:
She's the de facto live-in nanny. Don't you see? That way Michelle can run in the streets and act like she's somethng when we all now she's a disgraced, disbarred former attorney.

Friday, January 9, 2009

UPDATED: Of Serious Concern

I don't have much commentary on this, other than to say that I disavow its position entirely, but I thought it should be preserved and shared, I didn't want to retype it myself (hence the actual screenshot), and at the time of this posting, the following post has not been deleted nor has the poster been chastised or banned by Berg's moderators:

Posted by GK Pace on

If the status of the above post and/or poster changes, I will share it. Until then, however, one can only assume that while it's a bannable offense on Berg's forum to question Phil Berg, the rhetoric seen above is apparently acceptable and tolerated.

Update, January 10: GK Pace's post has not been deleted, and I have not seen him warned by moderators. To the contrary, Linda Starr posted this, without mention of Pace:

"Please, if you see something objectionable posted here, let us know. One of us will handle it as soon as we are notified. We want this to be a positive experience for our supporters. It is our supporters who finance Phil's suit and makes possible the existence of this site and blog."

Presumably, the lack of response to GK Pace's post suggests that Berg & Co. do not consider his comments to be objectionable.


Quotes like this are why this blog exists:
I can a*sure you, USA today doesn't rely on Internet Blogs for research. If you think that is the basis for Phil's suit, you are mistaken. I know things because I do the research behind them.

Written by Linda Starr, on, January 09, 2009

Phil doesn't rely on internet sources for his suit? Let's take a look at Phil's Complaint, filed August 21, 2008. And just so there's no confusion, I'm linking to (and quoting) the Complaint posted directly on Berg's website. So here's Berg's evidence, in Berg's own words, as filed by Berg in U.S. District Court.

Berg cites Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia as sources:

"Upon investigation into the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version under the subject “Barack Obama” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version under the subject “Queens Hospital” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital."
- Berg's Complaint, Paragraph 18, p. 5.

Berg cites unidentified internet "references":

"There are further references circulating on the internet claiming examination of the hospital’s records in Hawaii show no birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother."
- Paragraph 19, p. 5.

Berg cites a piece written by a 9/11 truther, republished on the website Online Journal:

"Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal was a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating the GOP sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen."
- Paragraph 20, p. 6.

Berg cites a phony Canadian birth certificate "posted on the Internet":

"There is a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961."
- Paragraph 22, p. 6.

Berg quotes blogger Andy Martin:

"Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin states Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. Andy Martin further states on Obama’s Senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father."
- Paragraph 23, p. 6.

Berg actually goes so far as to cite internet RUMOR as a source:

"Additionally, there is rumor circulating on the Internet that his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, adopted Obama."
- Paragraph 26, p. 7.

And finally, Berg cites three anonymous dudes who posted on the internet:

"However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama’s campaign website."
- Paragraph 35, p. 10.

That's some stellar research there, Linda and Phil. I'd praise your Google skills, but a halfway decent Google researcher would have still been able to identify some source URLs to include in the pleadings. And even the most minimally competent internet sleuth would never, ever resort to explicitly citing "rumor" as a source.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Pastor Manning is Still At It

You may remember Pastor James Manning from back during the campaign season, when he called Obama a "pimp," a "long-legged mack-daddy," a "good house negro," and referred to him as "trash" because of his parentage.

Well, he's back, with a brand-new YouTube video up today:

Sadly, there's not much new material here; mostly standard Birther rhetoric, albeit delivered with a definite flair for the dramatic. The best moment (IMO) comes around the 5-minute mark, when Manning claims that Obama asked Chief Justice Roberts to "SHOUT" his middle name to the world during the inauguration. (As as aside, every President in my lifetime has used his middle name in his inaugural oath, so it's not like this is an odd thing to do.)


I stumbled across a message forum called Hillary's Village. Other than being generally pro-Hillary, I'm not quite sure how to pin it down politically. They have Sarah Palin in their banner, but they don't like Obama much.

One poster had a reaction to the Orly/address matter I shared in my last post, which may be my favorite crazy interpretation of that list of addresses:
Maybe these are relatives or friends of Obamas that are muslims and or illegals That are helping with the taking over of America for the NWO or NWA

Posted by Mrsawd, January 7, 2009

I know 'NWO' refers to the conspiracy-lovers' "New World Order," but what the heck is the NWA?

Barack Obama: Muslim Landowner

The latest from Orly Taitz is her new hang-up on this ridiculously long list of properties supposedly associated with Obama or his mom. She doesn't say where the list came from, which might help to explain why so many of the entries Seriously, "123 White House, Irving, California"?

There's no point in going over that list without at least knowing its origin, but she did subsequently single out one entry in a way that caught my attention:
Street Address - 1603 RUCKER RD
City, State, Zip - ALPHARETTA GA 30004-1435
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 579-02-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Feb 08 - Aug 08

Ok I checked on the above address because I know the area and there is no 1603 Rucker Road shown on the tax appraiser web site HOWEVER there is an Islamic Center of North Fulton Inc. showing ownership of two properties on the same road at 1255 and 1265 Rucker Road as well as a man by the name of Hussain Mohammed Shahib and Shaiman Bano showing ownership of the properies located at 1380 1410 and 1420 Rucker Road now I will drive up to the 1603 address sometime tomorrow and see if it exists or not but this is a strange coincidence yes?”

Posted by Orly Taitz, July 7, 2009

I live several miles from Alpharetta, so that at least piqued my interest. But what I found hilarious here was the MUSLIM! accusations that Orly found meritorious enough to repost on the front page of her blog.

Apparently, Orly finds it 'strangely coincidental' that there's an Islamic Center located half a mile away from an alleged and unconfirmed address of Obama's. And just as spooky, two guys with Muslim-sounding names might actually own property nearby! Oooohhh!!!

"Citizens": The Other '-S' Word

The blog's front page is looking awfully text-heavy and image-dry, so here's a graphic cribbed from the site:

Poster "SM Foyle" apparently thinks "children of citizens" necessarily implies that natural-born citizenship requires parentage of TWO American citizens.

You don't need any caselaw or legal background or unabridged dictionaries to recognize the flaw in this reasoning. All you need is grammar.

"Children" is plural. So naturally, "children" will have American "citizens" as parents. The only way "children" could have a single citizen parent is if they're all siblings. Does "children of a citizen of the United States" even have the ring of sounding grammatically correct?

To wit, if a news article were to refer to, say "children of victims of rape," would any rational person interpret that to mean that BOTH parents were victims of rape, or just one? If a writer referred to "children of football players," would you think that referred to children whose fathers AND mothers were football players?

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Banned from Berg's Blog...I Think

A commenter below asked if I was the same 'Loren' who posted on Phil Berg's website a few weeks back. Indeed I am. Why did I stop posting there? Simple: because, without explanation, they stopped me.

On December 17, I made my last post on the site. It's still there, and it's rather simple:

The Tribe/Olson Memo
written by Loren, December 17, 2008
McCain redux
written by Jeff Williams, December 17, 2008
Here's an interesting article on the debate over McCain's eligibility:

Laurence Tribe's memo has apparently never been released, which is too bad -- it would interesting to know what his actual analysis was and what weight they gave which factors.

Well, I found it, though it took a bit of effort.

Nothing special or inflammatory. The next day, December 18, I attempted to post a response to another post (one poster, 'Jimmy the C', even asked for me to post: "I wish Allison or Loren would check in. I need to freshen up my debate skills."), and I found that my account no longer worked. No one on the board reported that I had been banned, and I didn't receive an email or other notice saying I'd been banned, and frankly, I hadn't done anything to get banned. So I was a bit mystified.

A day or two later, I attempted to create a new account (the unsubtle 'LorenC'), and it worked. I didn't proceed to post anything, though, and by the time I attempted to post, I found that that account had been disabled too. I finally wrote the webmaster an email asking about my status, and I didn't hear back.

So presumably, I've been banned from Phil Berg's site. I don't know why. If I had to guess, I'd fathom that someone was unhappy with my series of posts just prior to the Tribe/Olson one, where I went through Berg's August Complaint and pointed out what evidence had and hadn't been publicly produced (I'll be reproducing those posts here soon).

But one big nagging aspect of this is that in the weeks since, as far as I can tell, it's never been announced that I was banned. When a frequent poster named 'greatkim' was banned, the board was informed of it. When a frequent poster named 'allison' was banned, it was not only announced, but the board was provided with an explanation of WHY she was banned. As far as I can tell, the board has never been informed why I was banned, or even informed that I was banned at all. I was, for lack of a better term, simply 'disappered,' and posters were permitted to assume that I'd voluntarily quit posting.

So, barring further evidence, it certainly seems that someone over at not only wanted to keep me from posting there anymore, but they didn't want anybody to know that they'd silenced me. And hey, it's their board...they're not obligated to allow me to post, and if they were troubled by my posts pointing out the gaping holes in Berg's claims, then they're certainly free to keep me from exposing him on their own site.

Fortunately, they can't silence me everywhere, so rather than make me shut up, they inspired me to create this blog, and hopefully reach even more people. In a roundabout way, perhaps I should thank them.

And if anyone who happens to read this also happens to still post over at Berg's site, I wouldn't complain if you shared what's become of me.

Civil War? Seriously?

It'd be all too easy to fill space here with posts from Stormfront and its ilk. But what's the entertainment value in spotlighting the crazy theories of racists? I'm sure I'll get some good material out of them from time to time, but it'll have to be exceptional to merit any attention.

And so it kinda disappoints me that a couple of folks over at, particularly Berg associate Linda Starr, have started sounding more than a bit like Stormfront posters in their rhetoric:

"Well, since you read X-Rays, I imagine you will be extra busy from the injuries of the Civil War that is coming.

"Mark my words, a Civil War is coming. We are not starting it, but when the Blacks start their threatened race riots because Barry is found ineligible by the SCOTUS and removed, people who support upholding the Constitution WILL fight back. And some will shoot I wouldn't be hoping for that if I were you. You think we're zealots and lunatic fringe? What would you call the Founding Father's of this nation? I guess you'd call them zealots and lnatic fringe, too?

"It took a whole lot less than threats of race riots to start the American Revolution or the Civil War. Do you think people are not prepared to fight and take this country back? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Desperate people who are armed will fight back. You doubt people will fight? It's called self preservation. Barry has done more to harm race relations in this country than almost anyone, except for that mean wife of his. The fact that it has been discovered he is not a legal citizen will destroy the chances of any Black becoming president for the next 40 years. He is personally undoing every bit of positive progress made by people like Martin Luthor King. Blacks are threatening violence and race riots once he is unmasked as ineligible?

"You better, as a doctor, get down on your knees and pray Phil is successful and the remedy is peaceable because patriotic citzens won't be blackmailed just to let an illegal Black become president."

Posted by Linda Starr, January 5, 2009

...and even more disturbing...
"They are doing their best to portray him as the new Messiah. Well if this is the Second Coming he is in deep trouble. We know how the First Coming turned out for the Messiah." (emphasis added by me)

Posted by Linda Starr, January 5, 2009

Linda's veering dangerously close to being accused of making threats, methinks.

U.S. Media Ignores Unfounded Rumor, to Blogger's Dismay

I almost feel bad about focusing so much on the nutty anti-Obama sites I've already discovered, when there are so many more out there. One I just discovered is Barry's ObamaNation, with the subtitle "A Journey of exposing the questionable character of Barack Hussein Obama." Under a post entitled "Obama's Sexual Affair. Truth, or Rumors?," the anonymous author writes:

"In October they covered a story that the U.S. press would not touch with a 10’ pole. Since I have no pole or press, just Latex gloves, here goes:
Barry may have had an affair. Again, Barry may have had an affair. I know, no big deal since that clown Clinton lowered the Presidential standards, but some people may want to know want his highness Barry may have been up to. Anyway, I thought I would type this up really fast, post it, and worry about reading the articles later to see if I am blowing smoke."

Posted on 'Barry's ObamaNation', January 3, 2009

Well, I suppose we should be thankful for the writer's honesty in admitting upfront that he/she hadn't read the article being referred to. Because if you actually click over to the British Daily Mail article, you'll see this:

Barack Obama is the target of a shadowy smear campaign designed to derail his bid for the US Presidency by falsely claiming he had a close friendship with an attractive African-American female employee.

The whispers focus on a young woman who in 2004 was hired to work on his team for his bid to become a senator.

The woman was purportedly sidelined from her duties after Senator Obama’s wife, Michelle, became convinced that he had developed a personal friendship with her...

The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.

And some Washington insiders suggested that she was the victim of an 11th-hour attempt to smear Obama by die-hard Hillary supporters.

Yeah. I can't imagine why the U.S. press didn't run with a story that was pure rumor and was denied by the alleged paramour. I mean, the media's unwillingness to report unfounded gossip like this just evidences how they were totally in the bag for him.

On the other hand, if the press was more like this blogger, and reported stories without bothering to read them first, then maybe we'd have heard a lot more rumors like this.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Dr. Orly Says: Let's Harrass Obama's Relatives!

Orly made no fewer than 18 posts on her blog yesterday. Eighteen posts so ripe with material that I could easily run the risk of overwhelming this blog with Orly-related material. Thankfully, there was a significant, if disturbing, theme to many of her posts yesterday: she wants volunteers to help harass Obama's extended family...

Can someone visit Madelyn Dunham's brother in Chicago and have him sign consent for release of docs?

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 10:20 am

Does anyone have info on BO's aunt Zetunia?

BO has an aunt, I believe her name is Zetunia. She was supposed to be deported, since she was an illegal alien and was muching of us the taxpayers, living in public housing in Boston. Does anyone have info on where is she now?

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 10:22 am

Can somebody find this reporter, he should have info on the addresses of Margaret [Payne], Jack [Payne] and Charles[Payne]. That's a starting point. Maybe he has info on their children and grandchildren

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 2:46 pm

More info and let's pray for one decent person in that family
One of the readers stated that Margaret Payne lives in Kansas. Another reader stated that reader Buela made a mistake and Charles Payne is alive. If that is correct, we have Charles, Margaret and Jack Payne, all of their children and grand children. Any living relative can sign a request for release of BO's original BC. I hope that in this whole family there is one honest, decent person, that cares about the truth and the Constituion of this country and signs a rquest to get a copy of BO's BC.

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 3:17 pm


Can anybody see if Stanley Armor Dunham had any siblings?

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 4:39 pm

who is Cynthia?
Does anyone know who is Cynthia that lived with Madelyn Dunham?
Was she a live-in nurse, a caretaker? Can someone visit her and ask the unanswered questions?
David Crockett says:Today, 4:15:55 PM“A commenter on my blog wrote:

"...start with Cynthia the young woman that lives in Madelyn’s apartment.... Who is this woman and why is she still living there?..."

Personally I don't know the answer nor where the person is pointing at. Nevertheless I post it here as maybe somebody could do something with it.

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 6:29 pm


Apparently Arlene Payne is Margaret Arlene Payne, born 1926, BO's great aunt, Madelyn Dunham's sister.

She was a professor of statistics at Chapel Hill, NC and now lives in [state]. Can someone interview her?

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 6:32 pm

Can one of our patriots from NC visit Margaret Payne and ask her about BO's birth and all the other pertinent questions

Margaret Arlene Payne is still living; she is 83 and lives with a long time
friend...[Orly then proceeds to distribute Ms. Payne's telephone numbers and home addresses for her readers]

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 11:09 pm

Cyntia lived with Margaret Dunham

Here is more info on Cynthia that still lives in Madelyn Dunham's appartment.
[Orly then gives out Cynthia's full name and birthdate]

Posted by Orly Taitz, January 4, 2009, 11:27 pm

As if Orly's outright enthusiasm in the promise of tracking down and hounding these people wasn't bad enough, her willingness to simply post home phone numbers and residential addresses for private individuals is flat-out disgusting, and remarkably unprofessional for someone who holds herself out as a lawyer and a scholar. I don't even want to make a closing joke here, out of concern that it would distract readers from the stark indecency that Orly has displayed here. Taitz should be ashamed of herself, and if she has any professionalism or common courtesy at all, she should take that private information down immediately.

Barack Obama: Pakistani Drug Mule AND Grandson of Communists!

The Birther community has been agog for months with speculation over Obama's 1981 trip to Asia. Most of the focus has been on his stop in Indonesia, but over at, one poster has some thoughts on his stay in Pakistan:
Gotta tell ya, Laura, that it's POSSIBLE that the reason BHO wanted to travel to Pakistan in 1981 is b/c he was going to be bring drugs (coccain) back into the US. Remember Afghanistan (where's it's produced en ma*se) is very close to Pakistan. Barack had at least 2 Pakistani roommates at Columbia. At least one of them was, and I believe still is, a drug addict and sold drugs. Barack admitted to doing coke in college. Maybe he was distributing too. Maybe that's how he got some of the money he used to live on. Columbia Univ. tuition and living in NY was very expensive. Therefore, it would make logical sense that there COULD BE a reason BHO would WANT to use his Indonesian pa*sport/citizenship.

Posted by Karen, January 5, 2009

I suppose she thinks that stressing "POSSIBLE" makes it reasonable and okay to suggest that the man was not only a drug dealer, but engaged in international drug deals. This is apparently her way of being even-handed, in the same way it's only POSSIBLE that 'Karen' is a 49-year-old man who likes to pose as a woman on the internet.

A little further down, the same poster turns the spotlight on Obama's maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham:
Personally, I believe that PART of the reason the Dunhams moved to Hawaii (where the CPUSA) was strong and Hawaii had just become a state . . .was b/c the Dunhams were secret/undercover Communists, CPUSA members and Hawaii was their next a*sIGNMENT.

I also believe that the Dunhams were "a*signed" to Washington State, as well. It's QUITE a coincidence that the Dunhams arrived in Wash. State SHORTLY before Ann was to attend Mercer Island HS which was overtly infiltrated and STAFFED with COMMUNISTS, real communists -- members of the CPUSA. I also find it ODD (and problematic) that the Dunhams CHOSE to attend the "communist church" -- "little red church on the hill"

Considering that Ann's HS friends described Ann as a pa*sionate athiest (in the 1950s) and a "fellow traveler" which IS CODE for COMMUNIST . . .it makes logical sense that ANN is very pursuaded by communism b/c HER PARENTS are communists too.

Posted by Karen, January 5, 2009

For those of you keeping track, Obama's family tree, according to the Birthers, has him with Arab heathens on his daddy's side, but godless sleeper commies on his mom's. I daresay I've never heard so much about a President's grandparents before. Though the conspiracy nuts did take aim at Prescott Bush for a while.

(Note: Berg's forums at have a bizarre profanity block that inserts astericks into even innocuous words, if the consecutive letters spell a swear. Hence, "passport" becomes "pa*sport," and "Michelle" becomes "Mich**le." I don't want readers thinking I edited in those astericks above.)

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Does Orly Taitz Censor Her Comments?

Once Orly Taitz made her second misinformed post about Charles Payne, I took the opportunity to post the first comment in the thread, linking to the article she was citing and disproving what she claimed it said. I posted the following:

Do I have any newspaper articles from October 21-22? Yes. I have the exact Seattle Times article you (and Buelah) are referencing:

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT CHARLES PAYNE DIED. To the contrary, it has a couple of quotes from Mr. Payne regarding his sister.

So even though you say "The Seattle times ran an article showing Charles Payne, Madelyn Payne Dunham's brother dying Oct 22, 2008," that's completely false. You obviously haven't even looked at the article you're talking about, and yet you're citing it as a source. Heck, you've already made TWO posts about it, without doing even any cursory research or fact-checking.

It's harsh, I know. But it's completely true; she clearly hadn't read the article she was relying on. The second post in the thread was something of a response to mine, saying that if he's alive, then he can be contacted.

So I went to supper, and when I got home, both my comment and the second comment have disappeared. If I didn't know better, I'd say Ms. Taitz was censoring her comment threads.

To test this theory, I reposted my comment, and this time, I took a screenshot for good measure:

Now to sit back and see if this comment disappears too.