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.

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 www.socialinsecurity.net.

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.

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 hannity.com:

"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."

Hmmm...claims that Berg's people have more information than they've released so far? Why does this line sound so familiar coming from Berg?

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???

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSMAN28233220070607
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.

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 birthdatabase.com, 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 http://birthdatabase.com/ 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 Birthdatabase.com 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!