Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Judeccahedron posted:

I love how he goes from "How dare they place such a high honor in the hands of those loving hippies" to "You know who else was Person of the Year? That's right... "

My favorite part is the "mayhem and bedlam" stuff.

Anyone who has paid even just a modicum of attention to the Occupy movement knows that it is not only an overwhelmingly peaceful movement, but that the Occupy protestors are victims of violence and crime, not the perpetrators.

Just look at all the cases of police and security committing violent assault against Occupy protestors using pepper spray, rubber bullets, tasers, gas and flashbang canisters, and other police weaponry. Can you imagine the total loving shitstorm that would come from these critics of the Occupy movement if the Tea Party received just 1% of the violence from police that the Occupy protestors have received?

# ? Mar 8, 2012 01:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 21:08

LP97S: Apr 25, 2008

Bruce Leroy posted:

My favorite part is the "mayhem and bedlam" stuff.

Anyone who has paid even just a modicum of attention to the Occupy movement knows that it is not only an overwhelmingly peaceful movement, but that the Occupy protestors are victims of violence and crime, not the perpetrators.

Just look at all the cases of police and security committing violent assault against Occupy protestors using pepper spray, rubber bullets, tasers, gas and flashbang canisters, and other police weaponry. Can you imagine the total loving shitstorm that would come from these critics of the Occupy movement if the Tea Party received just 1% of the violence from police that the Occupy protestors have received?

They pretend to live in the Just-World, where any violence perpetrated by the police is justified in response to some unspecified thing the protestors must have done.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 02:38

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

Not even Glenn Beck is far enough to the right

quote:

The Curtain Has Been Opened
The Great and Mighty have been exposed
A few weeks back I wrote an opinion piece on the subject of Obama's eligibility issues, forged documents and hidden past and why the various groups from the media to conservative talk show hosts, refused to acknowledge or even discuss the possibility that there now serves, in our White House, an usurper. At that time I had given the talk show hosts a bit of a pass, crediting them with having weighed the potential trouble that would result as the country became aware of Obama's crimes, against any good that could come from it.

Time has run out on that free pass. For the many people that have been involved in the forensics of Obama's activities, there has been no doubt in our minds concerning his fraudulent documentation. Understanding that our so called conservative talk show hosts, have intentionally avoided this issue and all it's associated facts, it was easy to see why they are oblivious to them.

A Game Changer Fellows:
This past Thursday, Sheriff Joe Arpaio released a report on his six month investigation into Obama's eligibility problems and document manipulation. The evidence he produced left no doubt that there has been and continues to be a massive cover up of fraud and forgery. It has become clear that not only would the main stream media continue it's denial but so would the likes of Rush, Sean, Mark and Glenn.

But wait, they all did not ignore it. No, not quite. Glenn on his radio show and his Blaze website, shook off the horse blinders and brought up Sheriff Joe's investigation. So, were we finally going to get a prominent conservative to speak of the crazy uncle in the attic? Well, not exactly, but what we did learn was the real reason those supposed defenders of the Constitution have been silent.

Glenn Beck exposed himself and the cadre of others yesterday. They do not fear unrest in the streets. They do not fear a Constitutional crisis. They fear Obama. That's right! They fear him and what would happen to their careers if that occupier of our White House is in reality so smart and cunning that he is setting a trap for them. This is what they fear and this is what drives their silence. Self preservation is their highest priority.

All of these hosts speak about and promote the Constitution. They give it away free, demand our politicians abide by it and espouse its virtue, sometimes, ad nauseam. That rhetoric as well as their phony demeanor as to being its protector and savior, is beginning to stink worse than the south end of a north bound bull.

As Glenn and his cohorts ridiculed and belittled not only Sheriff Arpaio, his extremely efficient investigative team and a very large part of his listeners and viewers, it became evident that he had not even watched the press conference. If he had, he could not have possibly come to the conclusion that Obama has no Hawaii birth related issues because a "newspaper reported" his birth.

Earth to Glenn, Obama and his mother could have been on Mars when the doting grandparents called the local newspaper and told them of Obama's birth. There is no fact checking or backup required. You give them the info, pay the cost and it gets printed. What grandparents would not like to get their grandchild's birth in the paper so they could have a keepsake and proudly display it to their friends? Glenn, in contrast to what you said, the person wouldn't have to be an embedded KGB agent to get that in the paper. Knowing how to dial a phone is all it would take.

I'm not going to go into the many extremely troubling aspects released in Arpaio's report, you haven't bothered to read them there and would most likely not read them here. However, to laugh at and impugn a person of great stature, such as Sheriff Arpaio, a person that has always done the right thing, despite the blow back and personal danger he has faced for years, is nothing less than despicable.

Glenn could have and probably should have, continued to ignore the issue. But he chose, instead to "hold up as some kind of joke" not only the millions of people who are concerned about what is going on, but his inclusion of Sheriff Arpaio in that charade, was deplorable.
I lost a lot of respect for Glenn yesterday. TPATH had intended on promoting Glenn's Dallas event. Now we will not be going or promoting it. It is doubtful we will renew our subscription to GBTV. Glenn promotes his web cast something like this "News the main stream media won't report". Why would anyone "pay" to be kept in the dark? The main stream media does that for free.

Finally, to all of you celebrity hosts, who have decided to keep yourself as well as those that depend on you, uninformed, know this. Maybe not this year or next, but eventually, each of you will have been proven to be on the "cowardice" side of this issue. Just as the internet has lessened the people's dependency on the main stream media, we the people shall wean from the so called conservative talk show hosts. Its your call and its not too late.

In closing, for all the girlie-man hosts that think Obama has intentionally, and masterfully created a deception that will end your careers, wake up. There are many much easier and lawful ways of trapping the enemy. No fellows, Obama has a real big problem. He knows it and has done everything he and his gang of organized forgers and ideological supporters could think of to hide his past for as long as possible. He has managed to subvert and corrupt judges and state officials, he has managed to destroy government passenger manifests, he has criminally used official government seals in forged documents and has hidden every aspect of his life from the public. This man is not a brilliant contriver of an elaborate plan to take down a few talk show hosts or the Republican Party. He is scrambling, lying and breaking the law at every possible opportunity in an effort to continue hiding from his past in order to complete his planned destruction of this country.

The left will continue to hide these things from the public, for ideological reasons. You guys, the pious protectors of the Constitution are actually just protecting yourselves and in the process helping the usurper. That is a shame.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 03:15

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Dr. Tough posted:

Not even Glenn Beck is far enough to the right

I love that Arpaio's response to being investigated for being racist and corrupt as gently caress is to investigate Obama for being black.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 03:23

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Dr. Tough posted:

Not even Glenn Beck is far enough to the right
quote:
I'm not going to go into the many extremely troubling aspects released in Arpaio's report, you haven't bothered to read them there and would most likely not read them here. However, to laugh at and impugn a person of great stature, such as Sheriff Arpaio, a person that has always done the right thing, despite the blow back and personal danger he has faced for years, is nothing less than despicable.

Wow. Just loving Wow.

Arpaio does illegal poo poo on a daily basis, like violate the rights of Latinos, steal documents from defense attorneys, and use his deputies to prevent journalists from accessing public records, but these loving nutjobs just love him because they are a bunch of sadists that get off on his retarded "tough on crime" bullshit.

If you're wondering about the "personal danger" part, that was when Joe Arpaio and his crony deputies entrapped an 18-year-old as part of a media stunt. The man spent four years in jail awaiting trial and was found not guilty by a jury because he was obviously framed for the crime. Maricopa county settled a huge lawsuit brought by the victim and his family, costing the county $1.1 million (the settlement was much larger, but the exact figure hasn't been made public because the county's insurer's portion of the settlement was never disclosed), which is on top of $43 million in settlements paid to the families of people victimized in Arpaio's notorious prisons.

Frankly, I'm quite surprised that Arpaio hasn't been indicted by the federal government for numerous counts of violating the civil rights of people in Maricopa County.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 09:27

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

Bruce Leroy posted:

Frankly, I'm quite surprised that Arpaio hasn't been indicted by the federal government for numerous counts of violating the civil rights of people in Maricopa County.

He's still under investigation.

Dr. Tough fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Mar 8, 2012

# ? Mar 8, 2012 16:18

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Dr. Tough posted:

He's still under investigation.

Has been since shortly after Obama was inaugurated, if memory serves. I hope either they wrap it up or Obama gets reelected, because I can't see that investigation continuing under Gingrich or Romney.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 18:25

Boxman: Sep 27, 2004; Big fan of

bairfanx posted:

I don't even have words for this one:

Love how it goes all at the end there.

It's also blinding in its Amero-centrism. The letter talks about the "protestor" as though it was just the Occupy movement, while ignoring the Arab Spring (something I'm pretty sure Time didn't do.) Although I like the idea of people being angry at protestors living under more oppressive regimes being pissy that they didn't obey the cops.

Bruce Leroy posted:

What is it with conservatives not understanding Time's "Person of the Year?"

It's not necessarily a compliment or endorsement, it's simply acknowledgement of an individual(s) who has been extremely important and influential over the past year. I don't think anyone could really dispute that Hitler was one of, if the not the most, important people in 1938.

Time really screwed the pooch by not giving bin Laden the title in 2001.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 21:54

Elim Garak: Aug 5, 2010

Boxman posted:

Time really screwed the pooch by not giving bin Laden the title in 2001.

Yeah, the choice of Rudy Giuliani over bin Laden is just going to look more and more foolish.

# ? Mar 9, 2012 01:38

Frog Act: Feb 10, 2012

What I like is that person clearly thinks that's exclusively referring to Occupy and American movements. God forbid they also be referring to the rest of the world, and it's brown-people (therefore irrelevant) protest movements.

# ? Mar 9, 2012 01:42

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Fandyien posted:

What I like is that person clearly thinks that's exclusively referring to Occupy and American movements. God forbid they also be referring to the rest of the world, and it's brown-people (therefore irrelevant) protest movements.

I think the right wing doesn't really like the Arab Spring either, which is why there are so many pundits that try to deflate and minimize the movement by talking about how "chaotic" things are in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. or even how the evil Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over in all those countries and turn them into terrorist Sharia states.

This has been their "go to" narrative to combat the Arab Spring, but it really isn't all that catchy or effective because they are basically arguing that it was better for all these nations to be run by terrible autocratic regimes because they were puppets of the American government.

These right wingers are perfectly fine with authoritarianism and the lack of liberty and democracy as long as it favors them.

# ? Mar 9, 2012 09:28

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Bruce Leroy posted:

These right wingers are perfectly fine with authoritarianism and the lack of liberty and democracy as long as it favors them.

Right-wingers? I think you mean Western nations.

# ? Mar 9, 2012 10:53

Elder Postsman: Aug 30, 2000; i used hot bot to search for "teens"

Welp, this horrible poo poo has been posted a couple times on my facebook feed already.

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603899&ibdbot=1

quote:

I'm writing this from Australia, so, if I'm not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me � the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law, and recently testified before Congress.

Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn't a Congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn, and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of Miss Fluke Goes To Washington, with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in tennis whites and drawling, "Anyone for bull****?"

Oh, and the "young coed" turns out to be 30, which is what less-evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She's a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked, but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity. She's had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who've booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing "Sarah Palin is a c***" routine ...

Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-aged schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.

Well, as noted above, she's attending Georgetown, a nominally Catholic seat of learning, so how expensive can that be?

Alas, Georgetown is so nominally Catholic that the cost of her sex life runs to three grand � and, according to the star witness, 40% of female students "struggle financially" because of the heavy burden of maintaining a respectable level of pre-marital sex at a Jesuit institution.

As I said, I'm on the other side of the planet, so maybe I'm not getting this. But I'd say the core issue here is not religious liberty � which in these Godless times the careless swing voter now understands as a code phrase meaning that uptight Republicans who can't get any action want to stop you getting any, too.

Nor is the core issue liberty in its more basic sense � although it would certainly surprise America's founders that their republic of limited government is now the first nation in the developed world to compel private employers to fully fund the sex lives of their employees.

Nor is it even the distinctively American wrinkle the Republic of Paperwork has given to governmentalized health care, under which the "right to privacy" the Supreme Court claimed to have discovered in Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade will now lead to thousands and thousands of self-insuring employers keeping computer records of the morning-after pills and herpes medication racked up by Miss Jones on reception.

Nor is the issue that America has 30-year-old schoolkids � or even 30-year-old school kids who expect someone else to pick up the tab for their extracurricular activities, rather than doing a paper route and a bit of yard work to save up for their first IUD, as we did back in my day.

After all, the human right to government-mandated free contraception is as American as apple pie and far healthier for you. In my most recent book, I quote one of Sandra Fluke's fellow geriatrics gamboling in the groves of academe and complaining to The Washington Post about the quality of free condoms therein:

"'If people get what they don't want, they are just going to trash them,' said T Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. 'So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?'"

All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth ultrasensitive spermicidal lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world, and all that.

Nor is the core issue that, whatever the merits of government contraception, America is the Brokest Nation in History � although the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false. As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California's pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a Hell of a price tag.

Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you're pretty much done for.

No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts. As stark-staring nuts as the court of Ranavalona, the deranged nymphomaniac queen of Madagascar at whose funeral the powder keg literally went up, killing dozens and burning down three royal palaces.

Indeed, one is tempted to arrange an introduction between "T Squalls, 30," now 32 going on 33, and Sandra Fluke, 30 going on 31, like a skillfully negotiated betrothal between two royal houses in medieval Europe. The student prince would bring to the marriage his impressive fortune of a decade's worth of Trojan Magnums, while the Princess Leia would have a dowry of index-linked RU 486s settled upon her by HHS the Margravine of Sebelius. They would not be required to produce an heir.

Insane as this scenario is, the Democrat-media complex insists that everyone take it seriously. When it emerged the other day that Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old Michigan million-dollar lottery winner, still receives $200 of food stamps every month, even the press and the bureaucrats were obliged to acknowledge the ridiculousness.

Yet the same people are determined that Sandra Fluke be treated with respect as a pioneering spokesperson for the rights of the horizontally challenged.

Sorry, I pass.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1784. In the absence of religious virtue, sexual virtue, and fiscal virtue, one might trust to the people's sense of sheer preposterousness to reject the official narrative of the Fluke charade. Yet even that is not to be permitted.

Full disclosure: I will be guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh this Monday, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on Rush's intervention. But let me say this. Almost every matter of the moment boils down to the same story:

The left's urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that "conventional wisdom" unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the Laws of Physics.

Nothing that Rush said is as weird or as degrading as what Sandra Fluke and the Obama administration are demanding. And any freeborn citizen should reserve the right to point that out as loudly and as often as possible.

"It would be inappropriate of me to comment, but let me just say that Obama and Fluke are worse than Rush, laters."

# ? Mar 11, 2012 21:26

King Dopplepopolos: Aug 3, 2007; Give us a raise, loser!

Wow, they're just going to completely ignore the fact that the issue is insurance paying for birth control. But I guess telling the truth wouldn't rile their base as much, would it? Is it too much to expect an honest debate on these things?

# ? Mar 11, 2012 22:06

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

I'd wager a dollar that a Baby Boomer wrote that (64 going on 65)

# ? Mar 11, 2012 23:38

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

King Dopplepopolos posted:

Wow, they're just going to completely ignore the fact that the issue is insurance paying for birth control. But I guess telling the truth wouldn't rile their base as much, would it? Is it too much to expect an honest debate on these things?

He's just a liar like the rest of the right wing.

E.g. "Nor is the core issue liberty in its more basic sense � although it would certainly surprise America's founders that their republic of limited government is now the first nation in the developed world to compel private employers to fully fund the sex lives of their employees."

Germany's universal healthcare program works via employers paying for their employees' health insurance (to health insurers that are legally prohibited from taking profits), with the government providing assistance to those who are unemployed. This coverage includes paying for contraceptives, just as the recent HHS mandate would, showing that Steyn's claim is patently false.

dur posted:

Welp, this horrible poo poo has been posted a couple times on my facebook feed already.

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603899&ibdbot=1

"It would be inappropriate of me to comment, but let me just say that Obama and Fluke are worse than Rush, laters."

I don't understand all the repeated mentions of Fluke's age and calling her "middle-aged." What is the point of this, to demean her by implying that she's an old slut or to devalue her for being a law student at age 30 (there are plenty of 30-year-old law students)?

# ? Mar 11, 2012 23:46

Elder Postsman: Aug 30, 2000; i used hot bot to search for "teens"

Bruce Leroy posted:

I don't understand all the repeated mentions of Fluke's age and calling her "middle-aged." What is the point of this, to demean her by implying that she's an old slut or to devalue her for being a law student at age 30 (there are plenty of 30-year-old law students)?

I'm almost positive it's the latter. He's trying to paint her as one of those "forever-students" who just never want to grow up and spend all their days in the sheltered bubble of liberal academia, while Real Americans are out working hard at their Real Jobs in the Real World.

I ended up writing a 600 word response to this dumb column. It probably wasn't worth the effort.

# ? Mar 12, 2012 00:23

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

dur posted:

I'm almost positive it's the latter. He's trying to paint her as one of those "forever-students" who just never want to grow up and spend all their days in the sheltered bubble of liberal academia, while Real Americans are out working hard at their Real Jobs in the Real World.

I ended up writing a 600 word response to this dumb column. It probably wasn't worth the effort.

But she's not a "forever student," she's in law school at loving Georgetown.

What likely happened was that she graduated undergrad several years earlier and worked for a while to afford law school or she attended law school right after undergrad, but she spent several years working between high school and starting undergrad. Either way, she's not a "lazy" person.

The funniest thing to me is that they all keep talking about what a "slut" and "prostitute" Fluke is, but she wasn't even talking about herself in her congressional testimony, she was speaking about her fellow Georgetown students. The very best part of this is that the key anecdote of her testimony was about her friend who suffered preventable ovarian cysts and is a lesbian, so there's no way this woman was taking birth control pills to prevent pregnancy, which really belies the whole "these sluts just want us to pay them to have sex" bullshit.

# ? Mar 12, 2012 06:52

Elder Postsman: Aug 30, 2000; i used hot bot to search for "teens"

Well, yeah, but the people reading these columns don't give a poo poo. I mean, one of the guys that posted this article was in the military, then did his undergrad and law school, graduating when he was 29. A mutual friend of ours just started law school, and she's 28. It's the same thing we see over and over again - the people you know are the good ones, whether it's being a student, using welfare, being a minority, whatever, and everyone else is the ambiguous Other that is Bad and Doing Bad Things.

Every time someone posts a stupid thing about Fluke's testimony, I've been posting the transcript of it (here, if anyone needs it), but I never get a response when I ask them to find where she asks America to subsidize her sex life, or whatever bullshit they're claiming.

# ? Mar 12, 2012 15:35

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

dur posted:

Well, yeah, but the people reading these columns don't give a poo poo. I mean, one of the guys that posted this article was in the military, then did his undergrad and law school, graduating when he was 29. A mutual friend of ours just started law school, and she's 28. It's the same thing we see over and over again - the people you know are the good ones, whether it's being a student, using welfare, being a minority, whatever, and everyone else is the ambiguous Other that is Bad and Doing Bad Things.

Every time someone posts a stupid thing about Fluke's testimony, I've been posting the transcript of it (here, if anyone needs it), but I never get a response when I ask them to find where she asks America to subsidize her sex life, or whatever bullshit they're claiming.

Those people you are responding to don't really want a discussion, they simply want you to reaffirm their preexisting beliefs and opinions with something monosyllabic or even just a simple "like" and a reposting/retweeting of what they already did.

# ? Mar 13, 2012 03:57

Elder Postsman: Aug 30, 2000; i used hot bot to search for "teens"

I know, and that makes me really sad.

# ? Mar 13, 2012 04:13

constantIllusion: Feb 16, 2010

dur posted:

Welp, this horrible poo poo has been posted a couple times on my facebook feed already.

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603899&ibdbot=1

"It would be inappropriate of me to comment, but let me just say that Obama and Fluke are worse than Rush, laters."

Sometimes, I want to believe Rush was actually pointing out the dearth of critical thinking in American discourse in his tirade. :shepicide:

constantIllusion fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Mar 13, 2012

# ? Mar 13, 2012 05:06

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

constantIllusion posted:

Sometimes, I want to believe Rush was actually pointing out the dearth of critical in American discourse in his tirade.

I think that's a few dozen IQ points too high for Rush. I mean, the guy thinks that women have to take birth control pills every time they have sex. If he gets something that simple wrong, then it's unlikely that he'd have much insight or awareness about reasonable, critical thought in our political discourse.

# ? Mar 13, 2012 10:54

U.T. Raptor: May 11, 2010; Are you a pack of imbeciles!?

This thing that turned up on FSTDT today seems to be a newspaper editorial so this is as good a place as any to post it.

# ? Mar 13, 2012 12:44

Shalebridge Cradle: Apr 23, 2008

Bruce Leroy posted:

I think that's a few dozen IQ points too high for Rush. I mean, the guy thinks that women have to take birth control pills every time they have sex. If he gets something that simple wrong, then it's unlikely that he'd have much insight or awareness about reasonable, critical thought in our political discourse.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Rush isn't a some great intellectual, but he isn't actually stupid. Everyone knows how birth control pills work, but that doesn't fit the narrative he was trying to create. No one who agreed with him is going to do the basic research, or they already know and will ignore it because its more fun to call some liberal a slut since the radio said it was ok.

# ? Mar 13, 2012 15:23

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

We printed a letter today about how smart meters are out to get'cha.

posted:

Health concerns. Links to brain tumors. Security scares. Over charges. Rate increases. All for an updated, modernized, KREMC �Smart Meter?�

I say no way and so should you!

KREMC recently provided a meeting to its customers informing them of the new Smart Meters that will be installed over the next 18 months. They have invested $3.4 million, completed studies, and will begin installation in three weeks.

Despite the various benefits touted by KREMC, very few of the 40 attendees were convinced of their need for a Smart Meter and asked to opt-out. Several concerns were mentioned, including:

1. Illness � numerous complaints have been lodged noting headaches, difficulty concentrating, ringing in the ears, and others, after Smart Meter installation.

These illnesses are related to radiofrequency magnetic fields. In May 2011, the World Health Organization labeled these as a 2B carcinogenic (causes cancer) and noted a link to brain tumors!

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

2. Security � every appliance has its own �fingerprint� and since the meter is reading and sending out information about which appliances are being used and when, hackers/criminals can get very detailed information about your lifestyle. For example: owner makes coffee at 7 a.m., makes toast at 7:15, no activity for several hours, oven use at 4:30 p.m., Wii at 6:30 p.m. See the danger?

3. Rate increases � despite a promise by KREMC that rates would not increase, further study via smartmeter.gov revealed that customers will be charged more during peak hour use, noon to 9 p.m. This �encourages� customers to �manage� their energy use and do things like laundry or run the dishwasher at off-peak times, before noon and after 9 p.m. Not sure about yours, but my life doesn�t work that way.

4. Over charges � many people have complained that they were being over charged once Smart Meters were installed.

When confronted with these issues the KREMC representative simply stated he had read all of the same information and just didn�t believe it. He gave no statistics, no suggestions as to where to find better information. I pointed out to him that we were there to get more information and he stated he had given us information, the need and benefits of having a Smart Meter.

The KREMC representative then said that he didn�t know if any of those in attendance believed that 9/11 was done by the U.S. Government, but there was a lot of information about it as well, but it didn�t make it true. The insinuation was clear; we�re all �crazy.� However, he is looking out for his $3.4 million investment.

In light of these links to cancer, other health concerns, rate increases, and over charges, I encourage every KREMC customer to call KREMC and ask to opt-out of the Smart Meter Program. Attendees were told �I hear you� and promised that �Before the meters go out, there will be a program set up for you. We�ll have a (opt out) program for you.� Let�s be sure they stand by that promise.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 01:41

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Saint Sputnik posted:

We printed a letter today about how smart meters are out to get'cha.

From the pdf link in the letter:

quote:

Results
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10year period).

This paper not only doesn't support the letter author's position, but actually contradicts their claim that smart meters and other environmental wireless signal sources cause cancer.

So, did the author not read their own linked pdf or did they read it and are simply betting on readers not checking out the link for themselves?

Also, I like the indignation that the author might have to slightly adjust their lifestyle to save energy and money. "Turn the dishwasher on after 9 PM?!? How dare you fascists tell me how to live my life!!"

# ? Mar 14, 2012 02:22

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

Bruce Leroy posted:

From the pdf link in the letter:

This paper not only doesn't support the letter author's position, but actually contradicts their claim that smart meters and other environmental wireless signal sources cause cancer.

So, did the author not read their own linked pdf or did they read it and are simply betting on readers not checking out the link for themselves?

Also, I like the indignation that the author might have to slightly adjust their lifestyle to save energy and money. "Turn the dishwasher on after 9 PM?!? How dare you fascists tell me how to live my life!!"

Yeah I looked over the WHO paper and noticed the same thing. Most likely she was handed the link by another nutter and either took someone else's claims on it at face value, or read just enough to confirm her bias.

I looked into the issue more and it all stems from some California neighborhood who made exactly the wrong connection between an unusually hot summer and the accuracy of the meters. Misinformation snowballed from there. The radio waves cause cancer thing has been around forever of course; at another paper 10 years ago I had a lady try to get me to write about how automatically opening Walmart doors cause cancer.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 02:41

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

quote:

Evangelical patriarch Rev. Pat Robertson has long been a leader in the conservative movement advocating for a better civil and moral society. But his recent support of marijuana legalization couldn't be more wrongheaded.

"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol," Robertson said last week in an interview with The New York Times. "I've never used marijuana and I don't intend to, but it's just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn't succeeded."

"It's completely out of control," Robertson added. "Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all."

Robertson's arguments are wrong on each and every fact. First, regulating marijuana like the way we regulate alcohol (or cigarettes) will only result in the increased use and abuse of marijuana, particularly among youths. As the late, great political scientist, James Q. Wilson, put it, "The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption." Arguing that adding a dangerous substance to the legal marketplace will reduce its usage is to renounce all common sense. Does Robertson truly believe that addicts and first-time users will be curtailed once the substance they seek becomes easier to obtain?

To stay on alcohol for a moment: There are about 79,000 alcohol-related deaths each year. The Center for Disease Control calculated that excessive drinking cost the United States $223.5 billion annually and the government pays more than 60 percent of these health care costs. Is that really the model that Robertson would recommend for the betterment of society?

The Household Survey of Substance Abuse tells us that alcohol, more than tobacco and illegal drugs, is the most used and abused drug among youth. Why is that? Because alcohol is legal; drugs are not. Alcohol is easily available; drugs are less so. Alcohol is culturally acceptable; drugs are, for the most part, stigmatized, in large part because they are illegal. Robertson has long respected the importance of the law and the culture. It is a grave error for him to abandon that now.

As for his other claims, the 2011 World Drug Report paints a detailed picture of marijuana abusers. Among cannabis users in treatment in the United States, 80.5% are not married, 90% have obtained an education of 12 years or less; 25% are unemployed and 46% are not in the labor force (of which 55% are students). Of the cannabis users who entered treatment services from 2000 to 2008, nearly a quarter report psychiatric problems. In addition, new research suggests that driving under the influence of marijuana could double a person's risk of getting in a serious or fatal car crash.

Why should we promote the legalization of a substance that can irretrievably harm our children's brains and makes our citizens less intelligent, less productive and less safe? Open and unrestricted drug use cannot coexist with a free, safe and productive society.

Moreover, Robertson's claim that our prisons are overflowing with marijuana users are wildly exaggerated. The U.S. criminal justice system is the largest referral source for drug treatment programs. And, the large majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, recently reported that of all the inmates in state prisons, 0.3% are arrested for offenses involving only marijuana possession.

Contrary to Robertson's view, we have had successes in the fight against drugs. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, 700,000 fewer teenagers used illicit drugs in 2010 than a decade earlier, a 16% decline. From 2000 to 2010, current marijuana use by teens has dropped 9%, methamphetamine use by teens has plummeted 60%, LSD use has dropped 50%, and current cocaine use among high school seniors has dropped 38%.

There have been other important victories, too. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the help of the Partnership for a Drug Free America, America's policymakers and opinion shapers got tough on drugs. Through movies, television, mass media, and, yes, sermons, America sent a message: Drug use is not culturally or morally acceptable and it will not be tolerated. The nation was committed to defeating the cocaine epidemic, and it did.

We have much work left in our own fight against drugs. We need more drug education and prevention classes in schools, more rehabilitation and treatment centers, and more resources for law enforcement officials. But all this is for naught if our nation's leaders, including its religious leaders, undermine and abandon the cause.

During a recent trip to Mexico, Vice President Joe Biden was right to reject the idea of legalization. "There is no possibility the Obama-Biden administration will change its policy on legalization," he said. It's time for a new bipartisan coalition committed to defending our children and our future from the dangers of drug abuse and addiction. Surrendering, like Robertson suggests, is not an option

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/14/opinion/bennett-drug-war/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The War on Drugs, that famous success story :downs:

# ? Mar 14, 2012 16:00

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

It's amazing when Pat Robertson has a more intelligent viewpoint than Biden, let alone anybody.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 16:06

Harry: Jun 13, 2003; I do solemnly swear that in the year 2015 I will theorycraft my wallet as well as my WoW

Wasn't that Joel Olsteen guy advocating legalizing it a while back as well?

quote:

As the late, great political scientist, James Q. Wilson, put it, "The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption."

Wasn't this proven wrong in Portugal?

# ? Mar 14, 2012 16:31

zeroprime: Mar 25, 2006; Words go here.; Fun Shoe

Yes and no. You have yearly fluctuations with some higher usage rates and overall a reduction in abuse/addiction rates. So I'd say that the central thrust of his statement misses the point, you don't legalize a drug to reduce its consumption, you legalize it to reduce turning people into addicts and criminals.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 18:56

Salvor_Hardin: Sep 13, 2005; I want to go protest.; Nap Ghost

zeroprime posted:

Yes and no. You have yearly fluctuations with some higher usage rates and overall a reduction in abuse/addiction rates. So I'd say that the central thrust of his statement misses the point, you don't legalize a drug to reduce its consumption, you legalize it to reduce turning people into addicts and criminals.

I can't think of a mechanism in which legality would prevent addiction. The benefits would be that once the stigma is removed, drug addiction can be treated as the disease that it is rather than a character flaw or perceived lack of morals/will power.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 19:03

zeroprime: Mar 25, 2006; Words go here.; Fun Shoe

Well, yeah, the second half is basically what happened in Portugal. They decriminalized (not legalized) drugs and actual got people to voluntarily accept treatment for addiction instead of throwing users in a rape hole with violent criminals for several years.

Somewhat recent update: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

quote:

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.
�This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.�

# ? Mar 14, 2012 19:07

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

This definitely belongs here. The town of Brookfield (coincidentally in the conservative hellhole that is Waukesha County, Wisconsin) is up in arms because the local Muslim population wants to build a mosque.

Not if Mary Kay Sr. Director Nancy Jo Baratti has something to say about it:

quote:

A mosque in Brookfield is troubling proposition

Public Forum:

"Islam isn't in America to be the equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - 1998 speech to Muslims in California by Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations

While the Koran (Qur'an), Islam's holiest book, gives three reasons why Muslims are encouraged to lie, we can be sure that Omar Ahmad is not lying in the above statement, by judging the behavior of the Muslims in countries where they have been allowed to dominate.

Regarding the Muslim mosque being considered for Brookfield, it is a horrible idea for many reasons:

1. Where mosques exist in other U.S. cities, they are routinely used as facilities in which to train their members in terrorist activities.

2. Where Muslims dominate the population, they impose Sharia Law, totally opposed to our Constitutional form of government.

3. Even though Mayor Steven Ponto, as accomplished as he is, has stated on TV that Brookfield has been working with the Muslim community for three years now, he may not really understand (as most U.S. residents do not), the real facts and motives behind the Muslim faith. (Re-read opening statement). For documentation on this information, go to TheStraightWay.org, Usama Dakdok's website. He is an Islamic expert, born and raised in a Muslim country (Egypt), and has translated the Koran without distortion or "political correctness."

4. The Muslims are supposed to lie to any "infidel" (non-Muslim) for any reason, until they have enough momentum to dominate a population, which is their goal. So, when they maintain they are basically a "peaceful religion," Usama, and commonsense, caution us to not believe them. Remember late President Ronald Reagan's words when dealing with sworn enemies, "Trust but verify?" We would be wise to not trust those who would kill us.

5. Remember that the true followers of Mohammed demand that the infidels either convert to Islam or are killed. (Beheading is the method of choice: It was Mohammed's favorite!)

In addition to the extra taxes and fees we Brookfield residents will undoubtedly need to pay, we say nix to the mosque here in the bosom of Brookfield.

For further information, listen to WVCY Radio 107.7 FM at 12.30 p.m. weekdays to hear Daktok explain the issues from the Koran.

Nancy Jo Baratti

Brookfield

Let's run through the checklist:

1. Terrorists? Check
2. Sharia Law? Check
3. Lying Muslims? Check
4. Ronald Reagan? Check
5. Beheading? Check
6. ARE TAXES? Check

Easily one of the most horrifying things I've seen lately.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 21:03

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

I work like a minute away from Brookfield. It's not surprising at all that they're pulling this, as it is mostly made up of wealthy white people. It's an affluent community with a poo poo ton of soccer moms driving around huge Lexus SUVs with nothing better to do than fear the Muslim Menace.

FYI, WVCY is a Christian radio station. That's another lovely level of irony.

EDIT: The comments on that article are surprisingly sane and call out the bigotry of it.

# ? Mar 14, 2012 21:48

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

I tired to find some source for the quote by Omar Ahmad but could only find crap from wnd etc. Usually a lot of information in these things is total bullshit, I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly cribbed from a recent email the writer received, but I do like to be sure.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 03:13

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

katlington posted:

I tired to find some source for the quote by Omar Ahmad but could only find crap from wnd etc. Usually a lot of information in these things is total bullshit, I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly cribbed from a recent email the writer received, but I do like to be sure.

I was about to post the same thing. So many of these crazy right-wing letters, editorials, etc. rely on the readers being lazy shits. It takes all of 5 seconds to google this poo poo and figure out how full of poo poo the authors are.

In that spirit, here's some stuff courtesy of Right Wing Watch:

Gingrich: The Left Doesn't 'Believe the Wright Brothers Invented Flying' posted:

Liberals have this desire to ration, to regulate, to control and the possibility that we could actually produce enough energy that we did not need the Middle East is something that most liberals just look at with fear because it suddenly means that you and I could be free, we could buy the kind of car that we want, we'd have a job here at home, the government would be less important. It's a fascinating experience.

The Left has believed for at least forty years now in a concept called Peak Oil that says 'gee, we're about to run out." Well, it turns out that our reserves in the US, because of new technology, which is something that the Left rejects - they don't believe the Wright Brothers invented flying, they don't believe Edison invented electric light, and they don't believe we're about to invent the next generation of interesting things.

"Dianna Cotter: "Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged" posted:

A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.

A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.

Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.

On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a "Long Form Birth Certificate" from the State of Hawaii in hand. From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,". Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document.

That's right, forged.

The president himself created the scene; one filled laughter from an adoring press corp., a scene of unprecedented fanfare while holding a forged document which was later posted on the White House website. This was the news Sheriff Arpaio revealed on March 1, 2012 in Arizona.

Arpaio asserts that his investigators discovered, during a 6 month long investigation which is ongoing, not only was the "Long Form" likely a digitally created forgery, but the presidents Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, was also a forgery. These documents are what Barack Hussein Obama relies upon to prove his constitutional eligibility to the office of President of the United States.

Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?

The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio's audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.

For months before Mr. Obama released the April 2011 forgery, American businessman Donald Trump had been demanding that the president show the country definitive proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii, and eligible for the Office of President. The birth certificate forgery which was presented by Mr. Obama was in response to the repeated public requests from the billionaire businessman.

One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.

On the contrary, the press itself forged documents regarding the 43rd President: Long term CBS newsman Dan Rather lost his credibility along with his job when he presented forged Air National Guard documents allegedly denigrating the president's service in the 1970's. One can imagine the glee evidence presented by law enforcement officials of a real forgery made by President Bush would have generated. The press feeding frenzy would have eclipsed that of Watergate, the most controversial political event in modern America history which led to the resignation of President Nixon in August of 1974.

The questions in the White House Press room would have been merciless to say the very least.

What has been the response from the Obama era press?

Silence.

Silence so loud it can be felt.

What has been the response from the 44th president so far?

A tweet from Obama Campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt, containing a link to the conspiracy theory television show "The X-files" theme song: a mocking, Saul Alinsky like, retort.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors appear to have been committed by the President of the United States or his personal representatives in presenting a forged document to the press and the Nation as a legitimate document, and this information has been delivered from Law Enforcement Officials.

Arpaio refused to take the bait offered by a clearly hostile press in the conference room. He refused to accuse the president directly, instead informing the world that they had a "person of interest" in the forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.

Where is the outrage from the press??

As surreal as this is, it isn't the main event. It's only a part of a larger story.

Citizenship
Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allow those who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.

There are two reasons for Obama's concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,".

Except for Barack Obama.

The second reason for Obama's concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

This U.S. Supreme Court case decided that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, could not use the 14th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote. This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is. It has been cited in dozens of cases since.

This is an issue which cannot be brushed aside by Mr. Obama. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was a student from the British Commonwealth of Kenya, a British Citizen who never sought to become a US Citizen, and indeed was eventually forced to leave the country. Mr. Obama has only one parent who was an American Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

The Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, discussed these very reasons why no person of divided loyalties, divided nationalities, should ever have command of America's armed forces. Dozens of letters and many debates in the constitutional conventions recorded these concerns, always returning the "Law of Nations", Emerich De Vattel's encyclopedic record of the laws civilized nations had developed over two thousand years of which the founders were clearly aware of in their debates:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

E. De Vattel 1758 Sec 212 Ch19

Vattel's definition has been accepted since the days the United States was still a motley collection of British Colonies. It has been accepted in no less that 3 Supreme Court Cases, has been accepted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. It is by no means an original source; only recently dug out of dusty tomes in 2008. Indeed, this concept is enshrined in every Nation the world over. Every nation not only accepts, but has enshrined this concept: a person born to two parents who were citizens of that nation and born on its soil was a natural born citizen of that nation.

After his rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention, Barack Obama was considered a shoe-in for running for president in 2008, and indeed his campaign began that night in Boston. Yet his citizenship was a serious obstacle to his ambitions, and the ambitions of the liberal progressive movement which supported him.

So the efforts to obfuscate Obama's citizenship issues began in earnest. The plan was deviously simple, make certain that people focused on his Hawaiian documents, and minimize the visibility of Minor V. Happersett and Citizenship to the public.

The State of Hawaii

The state of Hawaii's role in this cannot be neglected for several reasons. Hawaii has a couple of legal Achilles heels of its own.

It was well known at the time, that any person could register the birth of a child in the state on a late form with only the signature of a witness (Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form). This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare), and Hawaii needed the federal dollars registering those births brought to the state. Second, and perhaps most importantly, Federal laws with regard to Hawaii had been written to allow a baby receiving state documents to be declared a Citizen of the United States without being subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States:

Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Missing from this US Statute is the following which appears in the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This disparity created a legal loophole which is specific to Hawaii: A child born in Hawaii, regardless of whether or not they were born in the state and subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, automatically gained US Citizenship. This is the only state in the United States where this condition existed. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to forge birth documents for. It is why Obama's birth is being alleged to have occurred there instead of somewhere like Washington State or elsewhere, and is so vitally important.

Obama, by being born in Hawaii, got automatic citizenship status in the United States without regard for whether the United States had jurisdiction over his citizenship. [WTF?] Otherwise, his citizenship would have legally followed his father's, British, as Barack himself admitted on his "Fight the Smears" website during the '08 campaign.

And it only took a witness signature to gain it. It is unknown how many children gained U.S. citizenship through this means. The real citizenship status of these individuals is similarly unknown, and now that it has been discovered that Barack Obama has put forth a forged Hawaiian Birth certificate, his own proof of birth in the state is subject to serious questions by law enforcement officials.

Months before the election of 2008 Barack Obama began deliberately directing public attention to his Hawaiian Records. The Obama campaign, before redirecting the site to "Attack Watch" maintained the "Fight the Smears" website which can still be found on archival websites. The Obama campaign posted the candidate's "short Form" birth certificate with the following information from FactCheck.com:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982."

The campaign obviously wanted public attention directed at his birth documents in Hawaii.

The campaign itself created the entire birth certificate controversy, and acted to maintain and fan the flames of that controversy for several truly simple reasons. As long as the public was wondering about what being born under "the British Nationality Act of 1948" meant, and the birth certificate "birther" controversy in general, they were not looking into laws which would have legally prevented the senator from assuming the role of candidate and then President. Legal cases such as Minor V. Happersett.

This case was, and still is, of tremendous import. Had it been found during the campaign it would have prevented his candidacy, certainly preventing him from taking the oath of office in Jan 2009.

So a campaign to hide Minor V. Happersett was undertaken at the same time.

Justia

Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed "JustiaGate". [Hmm, Tim Stanley must be pretty lovely at erasing things, because I found Minor V. Happersett on Justia.com in 5 seconds]

The author of this article personally documented and published the scrubbing done by Justia, documented the failure of Tim Stanley's explanation for the "errors", and assisted in the research which connected Justia.com to Public.Resource.Org, where Stanley is on the board of directors. Public.Resource.org is the source of Supreme Court materials in data form Justia.com receives for publication. Public.Resource.org is owned and run by Carl Malamud, and funded in part by the Center for American Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded by George Soros. This is a direct connection to the Soros Foundation, a major source of political donations to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Justia erased "Minor v. Happersett" along with text quoted from the case out of its Supreme Court servers deliberately in an effort to minimize the ability of the public to find the case by searching for it, significantly reducing its apparent importance.

These two separate efforts, raising the profile of the Senator's birth certificate in as controversial a manner as possible, while minimizing the legal role of Minor v. Happersett succeeded. Barack Obama was able to illegally win the election, and illegally take office. It was stolen right in front of the American public.

The house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama's ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement has found his birth documents to be "highly suspect" as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being "highly suspect" as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper, an unconstitutional President of the United States.

The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama's Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren't so blatantly obvious.

It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama's fraud itself.

If you are wondering about the Minor v. Happersett case cited above, this author completely misinterpreted the case. The Court sided against Minor because it reasoned that voting was not a right of citizenship, not that Minor "could not use the 14th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote."

Also, Minor v. Happersett is not used as precedent to define what natural born citizenship is, the US Code does, so the entire issue is really moot.

Seriously, this author is loving crazy and stupid as hell. I like her bio that she listed at the end of the article:

quote:

Dianna Cotter is a Senior at American Military University, a 4.0 Student, the recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean's and President's Lists for academic achievement. She has published at Examiner.com, in American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters.

Maybe I'm a bit of a snob, but a for-profit online university seems pretty lovely to me.

# ? Mar 15, 2012 12:08

Shasta Orange Soda: Apr 25, 2007

Bruce Leroy posted:

Maybe I'm a bit of a snob, but a for-profit online university seems pretty lovely to me.

The other college this company owns is called American Public University, and together they form the American Public University System, owned by a company called American Public Education, Inc.

When even your name is a lie, that's a bad sign.

Shasta Orange Soda fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Mar 15, 2012

# ? Mar 15, 2012 13:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 21:08

Thomase: Mar 18, 2009

Hey now, they have proof, they have proof that he won't reveal the proof that he is undoubtedly American.

They have proof that he is a martian as well. He won't let himself be dissected by scientist to prove he doesn't have moon blood, what else is he hiding?

# ? Mar 15, 2012 15:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »