ORYR goes all birther all the time
Rather than let its readers be polluted by the outside world, they have decided to turn inward and censor any and all pro-Obama commenters.
To whom it may concern,So that gives me some more free time. The move seems popular on the site, with comments like:
If you voted for or support Obama your comments are no longer welcome here. Since I will be forced to purchase something against my free will and my tax dollars will continue to be used to murder innocent babies. I choose to abort any and all pro-Obama comments posted here that I come across. Don’t like it? Tuff shit! Oh, and masking your IP won’t work in the long run.
About time you flushed these turds. A+I left this parting shot:
the commie scum that posted here were just paid antagonist anyway, good riddance
Good, now they will go to their stupid blogs and cry about censorship. [well duh, what do you think? Doc]
you don’t have to post the obots BS, good for you! they are icky, gross people, and I prefer to communicate with real people.
This is the best news I’ve heard all day! Thank you, ORYR!
What a WONDERFUL new year suprise (sic)——————–the one thing these narcissistic "obotomy" blind followers hate is being IGNORED!
T H A N K Y O U !!!
Their drivel and distortions are a waste of time that can never be supported by FACTS !!!
HALLELUIA!
I voted for Obama, so I will go away. If you want to contact me, you know where to look.
Waiting for Grinols
The Fogbow is down, suggesting to me that I and everybody else is trying to get some news about the hearing results in Grinols v. Electoral College.
The hearing should have been over about 45 minutes ago, but it is not
unusual for an Orly Taitz case to go beyond the allotted time.
First results from the Fogbow:
First results from the Fogbow:
TRO denied. Written order to follow.From The Tribune:
No dismissal. No sanctions.
Sad Orly. Testy judge.
England said the case is unlikely to succeed, that the plaintiffs lacked standing and they failed to submit legal documents on time.From the Sacramento Bee:
"Your argument, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever," the judge told her at one point.From the Honolulu Star-Advertiser:
England rejected Taitz’s pleas to allow a man from Florida to testify about what she said are inconsistencies in the typeface on the birth certificate Obama released, which she said would "prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the documents are forgeries."The Fogbow Boots on the Ground thread.
15 minutes of fame not enough for Paul Irey
Today Orly Taitz says [link to Taitz web site] she gets 20 minutes1 to present her side in Grinols v. Electoral College
today at 2 PM before Judge Morris C. England, Jr., arguing for a
temporary restraining order against Congress counting the Electoral
College votes tomorrow, and to prevent her subpoenas from being quashed.
One of her witnesses, commercial printer Paul Irey, is none too happy
about the 15 minutes she promised him, writing in an email [link to Taitz web site] to Orly:Orly,Personally, I don’t see how Orly could begin to think of giving Irey 15 of her precious 20 minutes and I sincerely doubt that she will. The issue at today’s hearing is not whether Obama’s social-security number is fake or whether his birth certificate is a forgery; the issue is whether a federal court can order Congress not to count votes tomorrow. It’s a legal question. If Orly tried to put Paul Irey on the Stand, it would be a repeat of what happened in Indiana, the defense would be objecting to everything said, only this time in front of a much more competent judge. It would be a total fiasco. If Orly wanted Irey’s testimony considered, she should have done by affidavit.
When did you figure this out? I just finished pasting up the 13 exhibits on foam core. 15 minutes is not nearly enough … nor is it worth flying across the country and back for 15 minutes total time to testify. You probably have 2 hours and the attorneys are going to spent that time objecting to the hearing … simply because they don’t want the evidence presented. Why can’t you stop them? That’s what they did the last time.
I spent over a week preparing for 15 minutes??? Sure … the less testimony the better … for the criminals avoiding conviction. I’m going to run everything that I can’t testify to on WND and say so. Judge did not want to hear it. Obama’s attorneys do not want to hear it. I was ready to prove the forgery about 15 different ways … but now we can say that the courts run us out before we can present the testimony … then the press censors it and the congress does nothing.
I am getting out of this country where Mickey Mouse can run for president because there are no laws against it … and no one has “standing” to challenge treason.
Paul
Speculative conception of Irey’s exhibits
1The allocation of 20 minutes is specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, Local Rule 230 (g).
On the merits
Birthers believe things that aren’t true. I saw that over at ObamaReleaseYourRecords today, where a commenter addressed me saying:You’re not keeping up with current events. The specific issue of the legitimacy of the lfbc proffered by the White House has not been adjudicated by a court. So neither you nor I know whether there are facts sufficient to prove a forgery.That’s not true. The authenticity of Obama’s long form birth certificate was adjudicated in 2011.
In the case of Farrar v. Obama Orly Taitz presented witnesses, among them Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa, who testified to the alleged forgery of the LFBC. She also presented exhibits including the analysis of Paul Irey. Judge Malihi, in his order, stated that he had decided the case "on the merits of their arguments and evidence". In regard to the allegations of forgery, Judge Malihi said: "The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations."
One may say that this loss was not due to a lack of evidence, but to the ineptitude of Orly Taitz in presenting it (and she certainly had no clue about how to present expert testimony), but administrative law judges in Georgia such as Michael Malihi have wide latitude in considering evidence, including unqualified testimony that wouldn’t be admissible in superior court. Malihi said: "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony."
Malihi also rejected arguments that Obama was ineligible because of his non-citizen father.
In conclusion, Judge Malihi ruled: "President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b)."
Whatever criticism one may raise against that trial, still the authenticity of Obama’s Long Form birth certificate WAS litigated ON THE MERITS and Obama was found eligible.
Onaka’s verification wording
Blogger
Butterdezillion along with Mr. Hendershot have made a big deal about
the wording of a series of verifications of the information on Obama’s
birth certificate. One commenter here raised the issue succinctly. Hermitian: The last sentence in SOS Bennett’s request for verification was:Birthers have focused on the wording of these three verifications, trying to find hidden meaning in what was not said, trying to make what was not said contradict what they clearly intended to say, but in a sense, Hermitian is technically correct. Onaka couldn’t verify the photocopy; however, this was because of the law, not because the photocopy isn’t an accurate image copy of the original. The verifications are worded as they are because of the law governing such verifications:
“Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certiļ¬cate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
Onaka was unable to verify this as fact. Instead he responded as follows:
“Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.”
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.Dr. Onaka said in the verifications that the certificate existed and was in their files, and that the “information contained” in the White House long form image matches the original. That is precisely what he is allowed to do by law, and nothing else. The law states:
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.This blanket prohibition on the release of information constrains Department of Health Officials in what they may and may not do, and gives them no flexibility to deal with the crazy idea that the certificate is a forgery even if everything on it is correct. Rather than looking for hidden meaning, birthers ought to look at the plain requirements of the statute.
Here’s the birth certificate!
One of the dumbest questions asked by birthers is “Where’s the
Birth Certificate?” Amid unfounded rumors that candidate Obama’s middle
name was “Mohammed,” his campaign released his birth certificate in June
of 2008. Perhaps you’ve seen it?
Birthers have tried to deny this simple document ever since. First, they denied that the document even existed in paper form, and that it didn’t have the seal of the State of Hawaii. Staff from FactCheck.org actually took photos of the original paper document, but those were denied too.
Continue Reading →
Birthers have tried to deny this simple document ever since. First, they denied that the document even existed in paper form, and that it didn’t have the seal of the State of Hawaii. Staff from FactCheck.org actually took photos of the original paper document, but those were denied too.
Continue Reading →
Noonan doubts judge’s GOP credentials
This was published at The American Resistance Party web site, attributed to birther plaintiff Edward Noonan:
The non-sequitur in Noonan’s complaint here is that in the NAACP/SWP case, the organization was allowed to keep its records private. That’s different from the disclosure of public records. If the NAACP members and SWP members had made political contributions, or registered something with the State, their records would be public also.
As one of the litigants in Attorney Orly Taitz’s upcoming Barry Soetoro (aka BHO) eligibility case (Jan 3, 2013), I have doubts that Judge Morrison C. England, Jr can be objective about removing the Usurper-in-Chief from office. England will be incapable of being fair and honest in this “Soetoro eligibility” matter. I will admit that England was nominated by George W. Bush (on March 21, 2002) for the seat on the Federal bench but I can hardly believe that England is a stalwart GOPer.Every judge has politics, but they are expected to follow the law, and if they don’t their decisions get overturned.
I have been unhappy with England in the past. He was the “conservative turncoat” who decided anyone that contributed money to Prop 8 could be “outed” in newspaper articles. The same leftist garbage is currently being pulled back East where names of private GUN OWNERS are being highlighted in the local newspapers. This so-called Judge (England) ruled that it is okay to ridicule and give out names and addresses of those that contribute to anti-gay causes and campaigns.
See: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Judge-won-t-limit-disclosure-of-Prop-8-donor-list-2326456.php
Judge England disregarded Supreme Court rulings that allowed the NAACP and the Socialist Workers Party to conceal their membership or contribution lists after encountering public hostility. But the anti-gay patriots were not allowed the same status. Thus, I do not feel kindly towards Mr. England.
The non-sequitur in Noonan’s complaint here is that in the NAACP/SWP case, the organization was allowed to keep its records private. That’s different from the disclosure of public records. If the NAACP members and SWP members had made political contributions, or registered something with the State, their records would be public also.
No comments:
Post a Comment