certifigate: a scorecard

the following chart is reproduced from dr. conspiracy's ongoing obama conspiracy theories docket project, in which he hopes to catalogue all "lawsuits against barack obama or others alleging conspiracies about obama". his list is not exhaustive and i've omitted cases not posing an eligibility challenge.

thus far the the good doctor's eligibility portion of cases is up to 31, with 22 denials or dismissals. and contrary to what patriotic usurper-hating certifigaters want to tell themselves, successfully filing a application doesn't count as a win. they remain ever determined, however, to get their big vindicating victory in the courts, even if they have to roll their own.

case	court	s/f	status	notes
berg v obama et al	pa east	f	dismissed	documents
	3rd circuit appeals	f	filed	brief fec brief o dnc
	scotus	f	denied
berg v obama	dc district	f	filed	sealed
brockhausen v andrade			dismissed
broe v reed	washing state supreme	s	dismissed	article order
church of jesus christ christian aryan nations of missouri et al v obama et al	mo west	f	filed	article
cohen v obama			dismissed
connerat v browning			dismissed
donofrio v wells	nj	s	dismissed
	nj supreme court	s	denied
	scotus	f	denied	application
essek v obama	ky east	f	dismissed	order
gleeson v mcdonald et al	nd	f	filed	official
hollister v soetoro	dc	f	filed	article complaint amend1 o motion order motion op
hunter v obama			dismissed
judy v mccain			dismissed
kerchner et al v obama et al	nj	f	filed	complaint amend 1 amend 2
keyes v bowen	superior court of ca	s	filed	petition quash quashpa quashd article
keyes v lingle			dismissed
keyes et al v obama et al	ca central	f	filed	article complaint
lightfoot v bowen	scotus	f	denied
morrow v obama	fl miami	f	filed	prisoner complaint
neely v obama	mi east	f	dismissed	complaint
roy v obama	hi	f	dismissed	complaint order
schneller v cortes	pa supreme court	s	denied	summary
stamper v us			dismissed
strunk	nys 29641-08	s
strunk	nys 29642-08	s
strunk	ny east	f	dismissed
strunk	2nd circuit	f	denied
sullivan v marshall			dismissed
terry v handel			denied
welch v mukasey et al	ny	f	dismissed
wrotnowski v bysiewicz	ct	s	dismissed	order
	scotus	f	denied
"s/f" = state/federal. "article" = published non-judicial comment. "official" = plaintiff is suing the president in his official capacity. "prisoner" = plaintiff is in prison suing the president in his official capacity. see also the right side of life eligibility lawsuits page. cases with hyperlinks are from this source. see also free republic list of cases.

life is cheap

... and after the bankrupt ruin of the invasion of iraq, so are neocons.

fred kagan, brainchild of george bush's "surge strategy" escalation gamble, on iraqi indifference:

... the interesting thing is that when we were fighting those battles and doing that damage, on the whole the iraqis were not bitching about collateral damage. you had nothing like the degree of upset about how many civilians were being injured and how much damage was being done to the infrastructure in iraq at a much higher level of destruction than you have in afghanistan at a much lower level of destruction. i think there's a cultural reason for that: afghans don't fight in their cities. iraqis do. for good or ill, iraqis expect to fight in their cities. that's where the insurgents dug in, saddam hussein planned to dig in to the cities or lure us into an urban fight. it's sort of understood that the battlefield is going to be there, that doesn't mean that they don't complain about it, that doesn't mean that it's not a problem, but it does mean that when the insurgents dig in and we root them out, the iraqis don't on the whole say "darn it, you shouldn't have blown up all of our houses." they sort of accept that. afghans do not.

shorter kagan:

the oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the westerner. life is cheap in the orient. — general william westmoreland, “hearts and minds” (1974)

... which is why we shouldn’t feel bad about killin’ lots 'n' lots of ‘em, amirite, freddy boy?

invitation declined

more fun stuff via p.z. myers @ pharyngula:

dear professor gotelli, i saw your op-ed in the burlington free press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. in light of that, i wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. the discovery institute, where i work, has a local sponsor in burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. but we need a partner on campus. if not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative. ben stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. as you're aware, he's known mainly as an entertainer. a more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows david berlinski or stephen meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. i'll copy links to their bios below. wherever one comes down in the darwin debate, i think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views — in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed. i'm hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with. a good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be dr. meyer's book that comes out in june from harpercollins, "signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design." on the other hand, dr. belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and darwinian theory. would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon? with best wishes, david klinghoffer discovery institute

dear dr. klinghoffer: thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the discovery institute. your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the discovery institute's website: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/ however, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists. academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. i would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that i would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a holocaust revisionist. these ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. creationism is in the same category. instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as science, nature, or the proceedings of the national academy of sciences? if you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. that would be nobel prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals. "conspiracy" is the predictable response by ben stein and the frustrated creationists. but conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards. finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern new england? practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. if creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well. so, i hope you understand why i am declining your offer. i will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of nature and science. but until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation. in closing, i do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the discovery institute website. as an evolutionary biologist, i can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. my colleagues will be envious. sincerely yours, nick gotelli p.s. i hope you will forgive me if i do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the discovery institute. this has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.

update: klinghoffer responds:

what is hypocrisy, after all? i've been corresponding with nicolas gotelli, a university of vermont biologist. when i received his response to my initial email, i thought it was so ridiculous and hypocritical that i said to myself, wouldn't it be amusing to publish this on ENV? then i reflected disappointedly, no, it's a private correspondence, that would be unethical! i can't do it without his permission and, since he'd have to be pretty thoughtless to allow someone to reprint his hysterically bristling letter, it's not worth asking. luckily, professor gotelli has solved my problem for me. he promptly and without seeking permission sent our emails off to pz myers, who immediately published them on pharyngula. you can read the correspondence there. thank you, gentlemen. gotelli is the fellow who wrote an op-ed in the burlington free press expressing the view that it was only proper that uvm should cancel ben stein as graduation speaker because the popular entertainer is also a "notorious advocate of intelligent design" who maintains that darwinian ideas had deadly consequences in the form of nazi racist ideology (only too true). gotelli asserted it was appropriate to invite "controversial" speakers to campus, since "one of the best ways to refute intellectually bankrupt ideas is to expose them to the light of day." but a commencement speaker is someone special, gotelli went on, someone chosen for his peer-reviewed scholarship. someone, it turns out, like the widely published scholar howard dean, to whom UVM turned next and who will deliver the commencement address. what, as one online reader of gotelli's op-ed plaintively asked, "was daffy duck unavailable?" prompted by a friend in vermont who wanted to see stein speak at UVM, i wrote to gotelli on the assumption that just possibly he was sincere in his protestations about being for free speech. perhaps he would agree to advise me on finding a forum for a debate about darwinism on the UVM campus, on some occasion other than commencement. i suggested that rather than ben stein, it might be illuminating to put up a scientific darwin critic like stephen meyer or david berlinski against a darwinian advocate like, oh, nick gotelli. it was a pipe dream of mine. these guys always run from debates as fast as they can manage, hiding and shivering behind the excuse of not wanting to grant public recognition to doubts about darwin — doubts shared, of course, by most americans. sure enough, gotelli wrote back, all in a huff. first, he was offended by a post on ENV that mildly guffawed at his op-ed and the choice of dean as commencement speaker — thinking i had written the post, which actually i didn't. gotelli had misunderstood the author identification. he called the post "sneering" — which it hardly was — and decried my "two-faced dishonesty" in now writing to him in a courteous tone. i always try to write to and about people in a courteous tone. not so, gotelli — or pz myers, or most anyone i can think of in the online darwinist community, where venom and vulgarity are the norm. which is interesting in itself. i guess ideas have consequences after all. after throwing around the scare word "creationism" a number of times and mixing it up with other insults and untruths, gotelli closes by, first, withdrawing his earlier suggestion that stein (or anyone associated with ID) would make an appropriate "controversial" campus speaker, and then childishly warning that if i should try to reply to him, he would not answer me or anyone else from the discovery institute. in other words, "nah nah nah, boo boo!" as my kids would put it. hypocrisy may be the wrong word for gotelli's about-face on free speech. anyone who fails, out of weakness or temptation, to live up to his own openly professed ideals is a hypocrite. that would include most human beings. the normal feeling that goes with this is embarrassment. a hypocrite wouldn't seek to publicize his hypocrisy. maybe, then, the right designation for someone like gotelli is a cynic. that's someone who treats ideas as chess pieces. when it suits your purposes, you advance an idea — like "free speech." when it doesn't suit your purpose, the same idea becomes expendable, a useless pawn. but no, that's not quite it either. a cynic is typically smart enough to try to keep his cynicism a secret. that's part of his game strategy. a cynic wouldn't forward his correspondence to a buddy with a popular website, so that everyone could see how little trouble he takes to consider the words he writes. the person who would do that isn't a hypocrite or a cynic. he's a fool.

ooh ... pretty!

evolution chart (click for full size):

(hat tip to p.z. myers @ pharyngula)

certifigate: a grand opening!

hear ye! hear ye! attention all natural-born™ constitution-loving citizens of this free republic!

when in the course of stalled litigation and disagreeable judgments, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the judicial bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the injured sensibilities of all usurper-hating patriots and the famished purses of the counselors who succor them requires that they should declare the formation of their own independent judiciary body:

national grand jury declaration february 15, 2009 ursuant to first amendment (the right of the people peaceably to assemble), the ninth amendment (the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the tenth amendment to the constitution for the united states of america (the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people), this national grand jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the united states of america, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes: to examine all aspects of the federal government by initiating its own investigations. to serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights. and privileges established under the organic documents of the united states of america, as properly amended from time to time. to conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments.

the national grand jury process ... the national grand jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the declaration of independence, constitution for the united states of america as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states.

requirements to become a grand juror national grand juror candidates must meet all of the following qualifications: be a natural born citizen of the united states (born in one of the fifty states of the united states to parents both of whom were u.s citizens and resident in the united states at that time). be at least 18 years old. be a resident of the state that the juror represents for at least one year immediately prior to selection. exhibit intelligence, sound judgment, and good character. cannot have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any felony or other high crime. cannot be serving as a public official.

hmm ... item 1 would disqualify mccain, though i doubt too many freepers would be disappointed. in fact, item 4 would disqualify most if not all freepers and without exception all certifigaters ...

grand jury selection process there shall be 50 members of the grand jury with 50 alternates. candidates are to be selected from a pool of nominees who shall submit their nomination to the nominating committee. nominees will be appointed by the affirmative vote of the nominating committee, who shall base their nomination on the following criteria expressed in priority: first - an affidavit of qualification where the nominee asserts that the nominee: is intelligent (demonstrating the ability to read and to write), uses sound judgment (exhibits ability to reason) and is a person of good character (does not engage in misconduct, interpersonal attacks, foul language or disruptive behavior); can and will render decisions according to the rule of law without prejudice or bias

this part probably needs amending:

is intelligent (demonstrating the ability to read and to write), uses sound judgment (exhibits ability to reason) and is a person of good character (does not engage in misconduct, interpersonal attacks, foul language or disruptive behavior towards "certifigaters"); can and will render decisions according to the rule of law without prejudice or bias against "certifigaters"

there! all fixed! so when do we get started?

the federal grand jury will be held virtually on the internet with a central location to be decided for when physical meetings are required. mr. pidgeon also hints that there will be those who would be willing to enforce any finding that is to come out of a federal grand jury. it is expected that the federal grand jury’s mission will be completed by the end of summer, 2009, sometime after a continental congress is held. this initiative is expected to be fully spearheaded by mr. pidgeon.

oh most excellent! a cyber jury! with cyber police! agent smith, i can't wait! bring forth the contestants!

the requirements are even stricter than that required of the president! that said, i could easily qualify for about 99% of them. (i do have a tendency to let a well vocalized “swear word” pass my lips when the occasion calls for it-that might disqualify me.) where do you sign up??!! ; )

exhibit intelligence, sound judgment, and good character. that excludes all lawyers.

would that include declaration author steve pidgeon, as well as phil berg, orly taitz and the rest of the certifigate brain trust?

... having folks produce their birth certificate along with the birth certificate of their parents should be easy enough to do and for the folks to provide. i can produce mine and those of my parents.

as long as they check out with polarik and techdude, you're in, citizen!

this is either a very cool idea, or someone is feeling extremely self-important. sounds like quasi-government/within-yet-outside-government/cum posse commitatus/extralegal quixotic windmill tilting, and will be perceived as such (if it ever reaches any appreciable levels of public perception at all). but then, i could be wrong. hope so.

i'm sensing you're not fully on board the love train, citizen. next!

true. that could be the downside. in the wrong hands it could easily turn into a "people’s tribunal" kinda thing. that would be my only reservation about it.

i find your lack of faith in the "people" disturbing, citizen. next!

true. that could be the downside. in the wrong hands it could easily turn into a "people’s tribunal" kinda thing. that would be my only reservation about it. i think it's about time for one.

ding! ding! ding! i believe we've found our first juror!

negotiation 101

this should not have been a learning experience:

what has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?

obama: now, just in terms of the historic record here, the republicans were brought in early and were consulted. and you'll remember that when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. those tax cuts are still in there. i mean, i suppose what i could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that i was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them. and maybe that's the lesson i learned.

never open with a compromise. always make your counterpart earn every concession, especially when he isn't bargaining in good faith. your initial generosity won't be acknowledged as a concession to be reciprocated and will be treated as a giveaway, as it predictably was: it won obama zero republican votes. his initial plan might as well have been to nationalize the economy and imprison all the bankers for all the support it got from across the aisle. it would have been at least a better hand to start with.

if nothing else, the gambit for "bipartisanship" helped expose the republicans as the "know-nothings" and "do-nothings" they've devolved into, at little cost to obama's popularity.

gallup:

cnn:

seventy-six percent of those questioned in a cnn/opinion research corp. survey released monday gave obama a thumbs-up on how he's performing his duties, while 23 percent disapproved.

... three out of four poll respondents said that obama is doing enough to cooperate with republicans in congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional republicans are cooperating enough with the president.

six out of 10 approved of the way democratic leaders in congress are handling their jobs. but only 44 percent of those questioned approved of the way republican leaders in congress are performing. overall, only 29 percent said they like the way congress is handling its job, with 71 percent disapproving.

certifigate: calling ken starr

it has the potential of being the trial of the century. winning it, by exposing obama as the charlatan that he is, against all the powers unlawfully at his command, would put the name of even an already accomplished attorney on the biggest pages of history. so where are the darrows and the bryans? after all, no less than the integrity of the constitution and the soul of democracy wait as helpless and as hopeful as a fairytale damsel.

so where are the mighty dragon-slayers of the legal fellowship? surely, the power of vanity alone should make the chance to litigate against the usurper himself, in front of the highest court in the land, all but impossible to resist for even the most hardened of cynics. so where are the dershowitzes and the allreds?

over in the land of the free and the conservative, at our favorite wingnut blog free republic, someone thinks he knows where ...

are you saying that if a "real, non-kook, big time and/or famous lawyer" presented any of these cases, even if the cases were exactly as they are now, they'd have a better chance?

the real, non-kook, big time, famous lawyers love to argue in front of the supreme court— it gives them great prestige, which leads to tons of lucrative work. i used to work for a very large, national firm, and they would do supreme court cases for free, or for a fraction of their usual fees, because of the advertising value of arguing before the court. the fact that none of the "usual suspects" (90% of supreme court appeals are argued by one of maybe 10 or 12 firms) has touched any of these cases is probably seen by the court (rightly or wrongly) as a sign that these are fringe issues.

... by and large, the lawyers who argue before the supreme court are an elite among the elite. i have practiced law for 30 years, and argued dozens of appeals before many federal and state courts of appeals, and i have never argued a case in the supreme court and will in all likelihood never get to do so.

... the elite nature of the supreme court bar is not just a matter of snobbery. the court hears only a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it, and each case it decides is going to set precedent for the whole country. they want to make sure that the lawyers who argue the cases to them are the best of the best, who won’t mess up.

... there are conservative supreme court advocates-- roberts was one before he got on the court, ken starr is another, and there are more. if a case presents an issue that the court may be interested in, these lawyers will call up and practically beg you to let them argue your case (heller for one, and kelo, for another-- kelo didn't come out right, but the homeowners had no trouble finding a top supreme court litigator).

... there are exceptions-- a public defender from oregon that no one had ever heard of before got a case granted by the supreme court a year or two ago, and set a major precedent. but it's rare.

OK you clarified it. if one of these obama suits gets a hearing, the lawyers will come out of the woodwork. the case gets accepted first then the slick lawyers beg second.

no, if the case presents an issue that they think the supreme court will take, the slick lawyers will call when the case gets decided in the lower court, saying "are you going to appeal to the supreme court? we want to help." that they didn't do that in any of the natural born citizen cases means that they didn't see any likelihood that any of them would be accepted by the court.

okay, so with the round table presumably taking a curtsy on slaying this particular dragon, just exactly who are stepping into their boots to take back the country from its alien overlord?

philip berg (pa): the first member of the certifigate brain trust to have been actually heard in federal court and on the merits. that case was dismissed as "frivolous and not worthy of discussion". not a good sign, but this crowd considers merely filing a application to be an achievement. berg is well known as a litigious crank who filed a racketeering suit against bush as a 9/11 co-conspirator. berg has also been found guilty of malpractice and ethics violations. currently suing obama and biden on behalf of a retired ready reserve colonel facing "the possibility of a conflict in his duties". also representing an internecine libel suit against fellow certifigater ed "bugs" hale (see stephen pidgeon, below).

leo donofrio (nj): a.k.a. "jet schizo" a.k.a. "jet wintzer". multi-talented indie rocker, professional poker player and retired lawyer, whose only certifigate winnings have been at the card table. sued presidential candidates obama, mccain and socialist roger calero as ineligible. challenged the authenticity of obama's birth records in a second case. both denied by the supreme court. as of feb. 1, mr. "the homeless are sending black helicopters after me" donofrio has decided to resume his retirement. (i heartily recommend reading his farewell post in its entirety.) i pass on having anything to do with military suing over POTUS eligibility. i don’t have the resources to guide such a litigation, nor do i see that any court would ever provide true justice after what i’ve experienced with my case and cort’s. i have absolutely NO faith in the US legal system. none. nada. zilch. zippo. ... i will now go on to display power via chess, poker, golf, film, art and music. the power i represent through my art is the boss. there is no other. god is champion of the universe. god is accurate, precise, all knowing, all powerful and prepared to prove that to you with a kiss. ... i am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life.

andy martin (il): self-proclaimed "internet powerhouse" (!) and n.y. times-proclaimed "prodigious filer of lawsuits" who was once blocked from the illinois bar after a psychiatric finding of "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." once considered a congressional run to "exterminate jew power". claimed on fox news that obama was "in training for radical overthrow of the government". unsuccessfully sued gov. lingle of hawaii to produce obama's birth certificate.

orly taitz (ca): she'll clean your teeth while you await your next dismissal! this dentist-slash-counselor earned her law degree online from the unaccredited taft university. taitz seems determined to use the power of teh internets to rally flash mobs to badger functionaries up and down the judicial system into listening to her, including u.s. attorney patrick fitzgerald and the chicago fbi, especially after a network hiccup made her supreme court filings temporarily unavailable (obama's fault!). accused the high court of being in league with "a few billionaires, trilateral commission and the bielderberg group". currently demanding records of the jan. 14 ceremonial meeting between the justices and obama, and soliciting military personnel to sue the president. incredibly, taitz's antics are giving heartburn even to her fellow travelers in d'nile. donofrio on taitz: this is very bad language. NO SOLDIER NEEDS TO DISOBEY AN ORDER FOR THE ISSUE OF POTUS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PROPERLY LITIGATED. i do not believe the attorney meant to do harm, but the consent form is so incredibly dangerous that i must speak out about it. furthermore, i would counsel the attorney that they may be guilty of inciting sedition. please stop using this form and counseling people with regard thereto. currently trying to pretend that alan keyes is still picking up her phone calls.

alan keyes (ca): unlike his colleagues, keyes comes with a real resume. unfortunately, like his colleagues, keyes also comes with a real defect, of the hardcore christian fundamentalist bent. once a diplomat in reagan's state department, keyes has made a subsequent career as a perennial also-ran, having most recently been denied a seat in the illinois senate by obama, and the republican presidential nomination by mccain. as a political rival, keyes believes he has legal standing to challenge obama's qualifications. his case comes up in march. was a party to andy martin's failed suit against hawaii gov. lingle. currently running away from dr. taitz as quickly as possible.

gary kreep (ca): yep, that's the man's name and he's doing his best to live up to it. hardcore conservative activist. founder and head of the u.s. justice foundation, justice political action committee, the family values coalition, and in 2008, the republican majority campaign, which ran a shady-sounding under-the-radar phone and direct mail campaign against clinton and obama, an effort that, unlike its founder, obviously failed to live up to its name. declared his intention to "file suit to challenge each and every one of obama's actions as president". currently assisting alan keyes with his suit against obama.

stephen pidgeon (wa): conservative christian attorney who demanded washington's secretary of state "set aside the votes cast for senator barack obama, because at the time of the election, senator obama had failed to establish that he was a 'natural born citizen' of the united states, failed to establish that he was an american citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of barry soetoro". dismissed without comment by both the washington state and u.s. supreme courts. his clients have declined to appeal. currently assisting bigfoot slayer, radio and internet self-promoter ed "bugs" hale empty the pockets of his listeners track down the usurper's elusive kenyan birth certificate.

mario apuzzo (nj): obeying the certifigate universe's law of conservation of litigants, apuzzo is the new kid on the block, stepping into the void left by donofrio. on inauguration day his clients filed a federal suit in new jersey against obama, congress, the senate, cheney and pelosi, seeking "to learn the truth about whether obama is an article ii 'natural born citizen'".

and there you have it, faithful citizens: the sole bulwark against the lawless hordes of the ineligible one. with the blessed constitution on their side, these budding legends will never tire and never quit — at least as long as the laws of conservation hold. the triumph of good over evil depends on it.

but, just in case ... ken starr, the red courtesy phone awaits you.

we're not your classic heros. we're the other guys. — mystery men (1999)

life is short

life is short filled with stuff don't know what for ain't had enough — the cramps, "new kind of kick" (1981)

when i first heard that verse, i thought they were among the best lines ever written, without qualification. twenty-eight years later, i still do.

the human experience in four lines. so deceptively simple. so compact. sheer haiku.

i'd be surprised if it took more than a minute to actually think up and i'd be doubly surprised if any of the cramps gave it half as much thought as i have.

i wonder if lux had any idea how truly awesome that little verse is.

lux interior, dead at 62.

born erick lee purkhiser, interior started the cramps in 1972 with guitarist poison ivy (born kristy wallace, later his wife) — whom, as legend has it, he picked up as a hitchhiker in california. by 1975, they had moved to new york, where they became an integral part of the burgeoning punk scene surrounding cbgbs. their music differed from most of the scene's other acts in that it was heavily steeped in camp, with interior's lyrics frequently drawing from schlocky b-movies, sexual kink and deceptively clever puns. (j.h. sasfy's liner notes to their debut ep memorably noted: "the cramps don't pummel and you won't pogo. they ooze; you'll throb.") sonically, the band drew from blues and rockabilly, and a key element of their sound was the trashy, dueling guitars of poison ivy and bryan gregory (and later kid congo powers), played with maximal scuzz and minimal drumming. because of that — not to mention interior's deranged, iggy pop-inspired onstage antics and deep, sexualized singing voice (which one reviewer described as "the psychosexual werewolf / elvis hybrid from hell") — the cramps are often cited as pioneers of "psychobilly" and "horror rock," and can count bands like the black lips, the jon spencer blues explosion, the reverend horton heat, the horrors and even the white stripes as their musical progeny. ... due to their imagery, obsession with kitsch and dogged dedication to touring — they wrapped up their latest jaunt across europe and the u.s. this past november — the cramps commanded a loyal fanbase, and even earned a spot in the rock and roll hall of fame, in the form of a shattered bass drum that interior had shoved his head through.

interior was widely rumored in 1987 to have died from a heroin overdose, and his wife received flowers and funeral wreaths. "at first i thought it was kind of funny," he told the los angeles times at the time. "but then it started to give me a creepy feeling."

specialists wanted

to date, just two filings in the ongoing effort to uncover the truth about barry "the usurper" hussein soetoro-obama have been actually discussed on the merits. all have been summarily dismissed. when a constitution-loving natural-born™ citizen cannot be heard against an all-but-proven illegal alien, then something is very very wrong with our legal system.

well, enough is enough! thanks to registered voter and vermont patriot cris ericson (bless her freeper heart!), today the system gets fixed and the remedy is so glaringly simple:

class action lawsuit against president barack h.obama for fraudulent concealment of facts OTHER LAWSUITS HAVE FAILED, BUT THIS ONE WON'T! the worst part about the american judicial system is when judges dismiss claims based on lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction. claims that are not in the correct court or which do not have the correct cause of action, should be re-directed, not dismissed!

that's right — all we need is a system in which a breed of specialists, trained and practiced in unraveling the tangled skeins of the law and the courts, could ensure that every claim entering the system would be directed unerringly to its proper venue:

other lawsuits seeking barack hussein obama's original long form birth certificate were either filed in the wrong court or filed with the wrong cause of action; that didn't mean there was no valid claim. there are divorce courts, and family courts and probate courts and tax courts and criminal courts and civil courts and county courts and state courts and federal courts; how is a person to know which court to go to? getting the right cause of action is just as tricky as getting the right court. there needs to be a new system, file one claim in one court, then let court specialists sift it out to the right jurisdiction and for the right legal cause of action for standing. that would make a lot of new jobs, and save a lot of wasted money filing in the wrong jurisdiction for the wrong cause of action resulting in loss of standing.

what a wonderful idea! these "court specialists" could remove from plaintiffs' burdensome care the baffling responsibility of navigating our byzantine and broken court system, and could guarantee all ordinary plainspoken folks their constitutionally mandated day in court without having their grievances cruelly and contemptuously dismissed on a technicality or as an inconvenience to some self-important jurist!

imagine what it would be like if lay people could first consult one of these "court specialists" and be properly directed to the proper jurisdiction without going through the whole embarrassing rigmarole of dismissals and re-filings. these specialists would certainly relieve the entire court system, from the least of plaintiffs to the highest of judges, of a lot of wasted time and effort and money. it would be the kind of system that the founding fathers must have only dreamt of.

imagine what kind of everyday heroes these specialists would be, saving the little guy, the everyman, john and jane q. public, the nation entire, from the tedious chains holding down a system that no longer responds to the needs of the very people who empowered it! such heroes deserve a name, perhaps even a privileged place in our overtaxed system, given the invaluable service they could provide us.

why, we could name them ... "lawyers."

now if we could just find us one ... preferably for free:

ms. ericson is hoping to find an attorney licensed to practice law in federal courts to file a class action lawsuit, PRO BONO, on behalf of herself and other registered voters who want to know, and who need to know, and who allegedly have a legal right to know if the legal notice is based on material facts that would reveal that president barack hussein obama is not a natural born citizen, and may reveal that president barack hussein obama is a naturalized citizen. ms. cris ericson believes that the material facts that the legal notice represents may provide legal cause of action to allegedly prove continuing fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers and voters by president barack hussein obama, former vice president dick cheney, and each and every member of the united states congress.

office politics

you're a manager.

you supervise a group of subordinates.

when you were hired, the human resources department, eager to hire you, reduced your benefits package in order to qualify you for the position and bring you aboard. this move was fully explained in the company newsletter.

a subordinate insists that he can no longer do his job because, due to the aforementioned technicality in the firm's hiring policies, you shouldn't be a manager.

the h.r. dept. is happy with its decision. you are happy to work there. your subordinate is not.

who wins? who walks?

lawsuit challenges clinton eligibility a state department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court against newly sworn-in secretary of state hillary clinton claiming she is constitutionally ineligible to serve. judicial watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in u.s. district court in washington, d.c, on behalf of u.s. foreign service officer and state department employee david c. rodearmel. rodearmel, a resident of virginia, maintains clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as secretary of state and that he cannot serve under her because doing so would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the constitution of the united states. ... the constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term. ... according to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times since clinton began her second, six-year senate term in january 2007. on jan. 1, 2007, the secretary of state's salary increased to $186,600. in 2008, it increased to $191,300, and on jan. 1, 2009, it increased again to $196,700. ... the lawsuit acknowledges that congress tried to shirk the constitutional exclusion with a "saxbe fix," reducing the clinton's salary to the level in effect before jan. 1, [2007] but it states that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the u.s. secretary of state increased during defendant clinton's tenure in the u.s. senate. ..."

ianal, but i say you win and the subordinate walks (or just learns to suck it up). the subordinate is not in a position to contest the h.r. dept.'s efforts to comply with its own policies. that is between the h.r. dept. and you. nor can the subordinate demonstrate material harm from your hiring in itself. perhaps if the subordinate was in fact a rival for your position ...

aw, jeez ...

we all knew jim horne, certainly anyone in commercial design for the last half century, and most certainly anyone with an internet connection for at least the last five years, even if we never knew his name, which i learned for the first time today:

for about 15 years beginning in the late 1940s, mr. horne was ubiquitous, perhaps the most widely seen male model in the country, appearing in hundreds of advertisements in magazines and newspapers, on billboards and catalog covers, in television commercials and industrial brochures. he died on dec. 29 in manhattan, at 91. his wife of 45 years, francesca marlowe horne, said the cause was cancer, but added that he also had congestive heart failure.

i doubt many people knew he had been still alive.

mr. horne had been an actor with bit parts in hollywood movies before moving to new york city and establishing a second career. he had a chiseled jaw, a distinctively rounded hairline, a seemingly permanent pompadour, a gleaming california smile and an athlete's physique. it was an image that photographers and advertisers found easily adaptable to a number of stereotypes of the day: the dashing ladies' man, the dapper dandy, the devoted dad, the suburban husband, the businessman commuter, the country club sophisticate and the one mr. horne, an avid fisherman, preferred: the rugged outdoorsman. [snip] he learned the lesson of how evanescent celebrity could be without a famous name. few, if any, of his photographs still strike a familiar chord. well, maybe one does: a jokey shot taken in 1953 (whose rights he signed away), showing him with a sour, headachey expression of generic woe; it has been used dozens of times, even in the last decade, in ads for aspirin, tax services, hangover remedies and other stress relievers. his wife said it didn't bother him that this was the image that survived. "to him it was a job you did," mrs. horne said. "and then you went fishing."

it's nice to finally get a name to the face:

i'd say goodbye, but i have a feeling he'll still be with us for a good long time ...

ask a silly question

house minority leader john boehner (r-oh), griping about the new economic stimulus bill:

how can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? how does that stimulate the economy?

bonus quip: booman shares a deep thought:

everytime republicans leave obama's white house they say that they "have concerns about the size of his package".

neutered by norah

much to the vicarious distress of perennially sexually-insecure freepers everywhere, msnbc news host norah o'donnell, while covering the senate vote of newly-confirmed secretary of state hillary clinton, went where few village slights have gone before — that is, across the aisle:

norah o'donnell: i want to play what senator cornyn said today about these concerns about hillary clinton, and her husband still able to take money into his foundation. let's listen:

john cornyn: i was encouraged by my conversation with senator clinton yesterday in the rotunda following the inaugural ceremonies. she said that she would be open to a requirement that is an across-the-board disclosure requirement, that isn't just her and the clinton foundation.

so they want more information; they want instant disclosure, essentially, not the disclosure at the end of the year. if this is a serious issue — which seems like a serious issue, why then two seconds later says "but i'm still going to vote for her"?

i mean, have they kind of lost their cojones, the republicans?

tucker carlson: [chuckling] oh ... ? kind of ... !

ooooooh ... that's gonna leave a mark.

if she was looking at tucker carlson at the time, I can understand why that thought came to mind.

proof that the media are slow learners.

once upon a time they did. newt and the contract with america gang had them. still a few with cajones but the rest like mccain and his gang are eunuchs.

the republican brand has been deteriorating ever since the senate republicans folded at the impeachment trial of wj clinton.

what's with the leftist female cajones fascination?

to leftist females its meant as a compliment, meaning a guy finally 'gets it'.

of course they immediately go on to ridicule the newly emasculated males lack of cajones.

technically she is wrong. they never had them to lose.

it's been quite evident for some time. where has this twit been?

the answer is yes, thou norah does have a great rack.

"lost" makes it sound like an accident....

offered them up for removal more like.

sigh ... not a good day to be a republican. and may there be many more like it.

certifigate: out with a whimper

january 20, 2009: the din of righteous battle in the defense of our sacred constitution against the marxist muslim obama-bot hordes has given way, for the moment, to a rare and quiet call for reflection in the normally boisterous hills of our favorite wingnut blog free republic. let's listen in:

with the inauguration of zer0bama today, it signals the end of a phase in the narrative of the certifigate scandal and the beginning of a different phase. the purpose of this thread is to look back on the old phase and try to learn what we could have done better, where we could have been more effective, what we would have done different, what we learned moving forward. ... even though it's as plain as day to some of us familiar with the evidence, zer0bama has been deemed to be qualified once he's sworn in. from that point onward, there is no longer any constitutional language about the eligibility, he is assumed to be eligible. the only way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment. ... if the SCOTUS didn't have the courage to take on zer0bama when he was president elect and the constitutional language was very clear, they will have less courage when the constitutional language is absent or murky and the guy has the authority to park tanks in the SCOTUS parking lot as a hint. ...

y'know ... this "reflecting" business is starting to sound just a little depressing! can we have a freepathon instead?

LEARNINGS media bias: this scandal showed the media bias to be more stark than they’ve ever been in the past. there was an almost perfect media blackout over this issue. it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just groupthink. how could we have overcome the groupthink? well, someone tried to buy ads in the MSM and they were refused. there’s a historical first. ... the thing to do is for wealthy constitutional conservatives to buy a few of these media outlets and start a conservative media. i don’t know anybody wealthy enough to do it. there would be an obvious aggregate wealth of conservatives getting together to buy outlets, but that is a cat herding project on a scope that is beyond what is foreseeable in the near future.

hey, freepers can dream, can't they? just imagine what they could do if they had their own media run by their own moguls ...

as another example of a form of media bias was what happened at intrade. i set up a thread to monitor this scandal and push for contracts. ... after all, what business is intrade in if not setting up contracts and taking money from gullible gadflies & such? but they never set up a single contract. does that mean they’re in on a conspiracy? no. it means they made a calculated expedient decision not to raise the ire of the likely next POTUS who will be in charge of the commission that oversees their activity. ...

yes, it's hard to believe, isn't it? the obamania's gotten so bad an absolute moran can't even throw his money away anymore ...

constitution: all of us learned more about the constitution in this certifigate episode. for instance, i didn’t know before this that the 20th amendment even addresses eligibility ... ... there are freeper lawyers who know more about the constitution, the appellate court processes, etc. ... all agreed this was a legitimate constitutional issue (it probably still IS). when the discussion proceeds to the minutiae of appellate procedures and minor points of legalese, i tend to lose track and probably so do a lot of other freepers. and, notably, those who claim to be lawyers don’t all agree on the significance of things (like cases getting forwarded for conference) or on how cases are processed in SCOTUS, what the chances of cert were, that kind of thing. it was confusing. how can we improve that situation? i don’t know, i toss it out there for freepers to consider and suggest solutions.

all that constitutional law stuff ... man, that's hard work ... i mean like really hard! does it really need to be so complicated that you can't just pick it up on a blog???

what else could/should we have done with the certifigate issue? what else did we learn from this go-round? i will kindly ask those who've been operating against us to refrain from the usual "give up the tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff" and gloating and contrariness. it amounts to dancing on the grave of the constitution; this is a constitutionalist website, so show some freeping respect. if you want to gloat or dance on the grave or whatever, start a thread and do it and ask us show you respect.

just a little respect for the dearly departed, please? that's all we ask, okay? 'cause today, we're all freepers, amirite?

let it go...sheesh.

let it go birthers.

poor baby, wants an echo chamber and all you got was this t shirt...(chuckle)

oh-kay ... so it looks like some folks aren't quite ready to make nice ...

eh, as far as i'm concerned it's over. i'll be watching tomorrow and monday to see if berg or orly's cases are accepted, but if they're not, i think the issue is effectively dead.

... you need to post it on your own blog. you put it up in a public forum, you get all kinds of viewpoints...thats what these forums are FOR, remember? including from conservatives like myself, that understand this is no different than 'bush knew', and KNOW this will be cited in the mainstream media as another 'example of FR being a hate site/kook site'. that you and those fixated on this ridiculous snipe hunt don't understand the damage you cause is the only thing surprising. no 'gloating' here and no 'dancing on the grave'. and finally, this doesn't warrant a thread from me. its that ridiculous.

you trolls just don't get it, do you? this is all about truth, justice and the american way!

what i learned is that the constitution means nothing as long as the people vote for an unqualified candidate, the electoral college ignores it, the congress ignores it, and the supreme court swears him in. in other words, the constitution is just a piece of useless paper. i'll remember that. my new attitude towards everyone and everything is, "yeah? what are you going to do about it. screw you."

yeah, tear up the constitution already. it's so 18th century. not letting go of this. troll.

thanks for showing your true colors. it's plain for all to see what you and others did to dismay constitutionalism on this constitutionalist website.

curse the day that i should have lived to see constitutionalism dismayed!

to me, there is nothing as important as truth. nothing. everything else is secondary or even further down the list. has truth been served in this election? i don't think so. those who taunt, naysay and sling words like "troothers" and "birthers" and "kook" around seem to have little regard for truth. ... if such people think that people like you, me and others who want the truth are idiots and kooks, what does that say about their desire to have the truth? anyone who says stuff like "move on" etc is not caring much about truth. and i'm all for trying to get real conservatives elected - heck, isn't that the goal? - but after four years of 0bama it's not going to be easier, it'll be harder. as a sort of side point, it is clearly that the GOP leadership [sic] need to be cleaned out like the augean stables. spineless, power hungry, egocentric with who knows what kind of hidden dirty laundry - they don't represent me.

i think much prayer and deep contemplation is the next step.

a record-breaking transition

and too long in coming ...

bush's final approval rating: 22 percent president bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new cbs news/new york times poll showing mr. bush's final approval rating at 22 percent. seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way mr. bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years. mr. bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago. the rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents bill clinton and ronald reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to cbs news polling. recent one term presidents also had higher ratings than mr. bush. his father george h.w. bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while jimmy carter's rating was 44 percent. harry truman had previously had the lowest end-of-term approval at 32 percent, as measured by gallup.

nation's hopes high for obama, poll shows obama will take office tuesday as the most popular incoming president in a generation. he also will enter the white house with a broad mandate to act that was missing when george w. bush was elected by the narrowest of margins in 2000. more than half of all americans have high hopes for his presidency, almost three-quarters of the public say obama's proposals will improve the struggling economy, and about eight in 10 have a favorable view of him — more than twice the percentage now holding positive views of bush. about seven in 10 say obama understands their problems, and a similar proportion say his victory gives him "a mandate to work for major new social and economic programs."

poll finds faith in obama, mixed with patience president-elect barack obama is riding a powerful wave of optimism into the white house, with americans confident he can turn the economy around but prepared to give him years to deal with the crush of problems he faces starting tuesday, according to the latest new york times/cbs news poll. ... as the nation prepares for a transfer of power and the inauguration of its 44th president, mr. obama’s stature with the american public stands in sharp contrast to that of president bush. mr. bush is leaving office with just 22 percent of americans offering a favorable view of how he handled the eight years of his presidency, a record low, and firmly identified with the economic crisis mr. obama is inheriting. more than 80 percent of respondents said the nation was in worse shape today than it was five years ago. by contrast, 79 percent were optimistic about the next four years under mr. obama, a level of good will for a new chief executive that exceeds that measured for any of the past five incoming presidents. and it cuts across party lines: 58 percent of the respondents who said they voted for mr. obama’s opponent in the general election, senator john mccain of arizona, said they were optimistic about the country in an obama administration. ... his favorable rating, at 60 percent, is the highest it has been since the times/cbs news poll began asking about him. overwhelming majorities say they think that mr. obama will be a good president, that he will bring real change to washington, and that he will make the right decisions on the economy, iraq, dealing with the war in the middle east and protecting the country from terrorist attacks. over 70 percent said they approved of his cabinet selections.

disappointment

bush: there have been disappointments. abu ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. i don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were — things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way.

matthews: i found it interesting that the president, who admitted he was wrong about WMDs as a justification for war, called it a "disappointment." if a police officer in the line of duty in the middle of the night shoots a fellow because he thinks he's got a gun, it turns out he's got a wallet, your reaction if you're a police officer is not that you're disappointed he didn't have a gun, it's shame that even if it was a technical mistake that you've made, that you've killed a guy without reason. why does the president use the word "disappointment" when he says they didn't have the WMD to justify us going in? i think it's an odd use of the word.

walsh: and finally ... the point that you made earlier, about a cop who shoots an unarmed man, does not then regret that the guy did not have a gun. he regrets that he killed an innocent man. and he regrets that he didn't take the extra 30 seconds maybe to ascertain whether the guy was armed.

certifigate: freepers place their bets

with the impending coronation of not-my-president-elect barry "the usurper" hussein obama-soetoro now only days away, excitement that's been building since the election is finally coming to an effervescent head at our favorite right-wing blog. ever confident, the natural-born™ citizens of free republic are in an upbeat mood; the waiting is almost over.

in the longest thread yet seen (now clocking in at 1,640+ comments), freepers are gaming out every possible scenario — and more than a few impossible ones — for the last-minute rescue of life-as-they-know-it. now's the time, if ever, for all patriots who still love the constitution to double down and put their freepin' money where their first amendment-protected mouth is:

if something happens this week are you will to give a large contribution to free republics?

ah, a wager? i might be up for that, if you could be a little more specific. what exactly are you expecting to happen?

physical proof that obama is not qualified, was not born in the USA. you work out the amount with jim rob.

("jim rob" = jim robinson, founder & owner of free republic.)

ok, if physical proof is uncovered or announced this week which leads to obama's being declared unqualified for the presidency because he is not a natural born citizen then i will make a contribution to FreeRepublic in an amount to be agreed upon with you and jim robinson. i'll even set the week being from today, tuesday january 13th through noon, tuesday january 20th when obama is sworn in. to be clear, the proof only has to be announced or uncovered this week. if based on it obama isn't removed until sometime in the future then you still win.

and what do you do if it doesn't happen?

THE SAME

then we have an agreement.

and jim robinson has some cash — since, as we all know, the house always wins. ka-ching! viva las vegas!

while you’re in a betting mood, how about contacting FR-little jeremiah, keeper of the BC troll list, and approaching the obots with a ‘pay to play’ offer of sorts?

("BC" = birth certificate = the macguffin)

("obots" = obama-robots = certifigate doubters = saner folk.)

how about you two? you want to play hoo-mama’s pay to play?

how much are you willing to pay FR if they find proof that BO is not qualified?...

see above arrangement with NON for details.

not a problem. the only acceptable proof that bambi wasn’t born in the US would have to be proof that he was born in another country. if that shows up we’ll all have a party.

i’m in but i have six kids with a seventh on the way, so i need a stop-loss feature at $250. i say nothing will happen because there is no statute, case law, or constitutional mechanism to compel production, AND, given that that is so, the USSC won’t make new law.

if any court in the u.s., between now and obama's inauguration, holds that obama is not a natural born citizen, or orders him to produce proof of his citizenship, i will contribute $1,000.00 to FR. will you contribute the same amount if obama is sworn in by chief justice roberts on schedule?

now we're talkin'!!!

"physical proof"

too much weasel room on that one. that’s one reason why i like intrade. they arbitrate on the actual meaning and payout of the contract, and if someone wants to weasel out, they can’t.

("physical proof" = we're getting a little queasy = this ain't what we're used to dealing with here in freeperville.)

so what’s the intrade line on obama not being a natural born u.s. citizen?

no contracts posted yet.

none yet? you'd think there'd be plenty easy money to be made betting on such a sure thing ...

intermission time folks, go refill the popcorn and grab some fresh drinks.

good advice:

they hide in the light

from erstwhile republican now democratic convert john cole @ balloon juice:

via alicublog, i see that the cornerites are taking the time today to celebrate vince foster's birthday as an excuse to bring up his suicide. you will have to read edroso's commentary to fully appreciate the right wing ability to raise "serious questions." [snip] i don't know if i will ever be a member of "the cause" again. on the eve of obama's inauguration, it is both funny and disturbing to look back to how things were eight years ago — i was so thrilled that a republican was about to be inaugurated. i was so excited to vote for bush in 2000 that i literally could not sleep, and, as always, was at the voting booth at 6:30 — 7:00 in the morning, the only person under 60 standing in line. now, today, i am so disgusted with the republican party that i don't think i will be able to vote for a national republican for twenty years. i wouldn't say my positions have changed completely, either. i really don't feel like there has been a dramatic shift in my opinions. on several issues, i am certainly more to the "left" than i was before. for example, i was never a proponent of gay marriage, and felt that civil unions were more than an acceptable compromise. not anymore — gay marriage is the future, it is the right thing to do, and those who can't cope with that reality one day will just have to deal with it when we finally get there. what has changed, however, is that i have seen a lot of the arguments that come from the republicans for what they are — just bullshit. i have watched over the past few years and seen how nonsense bubbles up into the mainstream, and how distorted versions of events designed to distract and queer the debate turn an upside down version of events into the "conventional wisdom." you don't have to look any farther than the recent attempts to blame the entire financial crisis on democrats, fannie mae and freddie mac and poor minority borrowers. we just spent an entire election season where prominent republicans thought they really had something with bill ayers and obama's birth certificate. of course, months could be spent documenting all the bullshit that has been churned up in the past eight years. the embrace by the right-wing of the idiotic tome "liberal fascism" could itself be the subject of lengthy study. you all know by now what a dork i am, so i am not outing myself when i state that one of my favorite all-time episodes of the x-files was a show called "folie a deux", in which scully and mulder investigate a man who thinks his boss is a monster. everyone thinks the man is insane because he insists that his boss is a zombie who eats people brains, and he is driven to madness that no one else can see his boss for the monster he is. he states frequently that the monster "hides in the light." eventually, fox is able to see the monster as the show comes to a conclusion. you see where this is going, don't you? i understand now why the dirty fucking hippies were driven to near madness by the gop and the election of bush. having watched things pan out the last few years and observed how truly perverted the beltway insiders who dominate our dysfunctional discourse are, i understand bob somersby and glenn greenwald and others. i don't know how much to "the left" i have actually moved on a lot of issues, but i do know one thing. when i see this nonsense from byron york and wideload doughpants, raising their "serious questions" about vince foster's suicide, i know clearly what i am seeing — i'm just watching the monsters hiding in the light, right where they always have been. this time, though, i see.

what joe learned today

former bad plumber sam wurzelbacher, a.k.a "joe the plumber", plumbing the depths of just how bad a former bad political mascot can be as a very bad war correspondent.

eagerly waiting on your next bad career move, mr. sarahcuda-in-drag.

not.

so, i mean, ah ... now, d'ya have ... aw shoot. [sighs deeply] i've a lot of questions. just tryin' to find the right one ... um ... [snip] oh, what did i learn today? um, y'know, the israel people are actually incredible. even with world opinion beatin' down upon 'em, they're not broken ... ah, y'know, they, ah, for most part don't care, y'know, they need to be protected. and, ah, i'm ah ... amazed with the courage that i see in the people — i'll be honest with ya, i don't think that journalists should be anywhere allowed war. i mean, you guys report where our troops are at, you report what's happening day to day, you make a big deal out of it. i-i think it's asinine. y'know, i like back in world war i and world war ii, when you'd go to the theater, and you'd see your troops on, uh y'know, the screen, and everyone would be real excited and happy for 'em. now everyone's got an opinion and wants to down on, down soldiers, our american soldiers — or israeli soldiers. i think media should be abolished from, ah y'know, reporting, y'know, war is hell. and if you're gonna say "look at this atrocity", you dunno the whole story behind it half the time, so i think the media should have no business in it.

it can be safely said that you can identify any conservative ideologue by their congenital lack of irony.

it's the little disappointments

... that always seem to hurt the most.

despite the seasonably bad northeast weather, in freeperville the sun's always up in the morning. and today the natural-born™ patriots of right-wing blog free republic had an especially good reason to bask in its warmth, for today was the day that the new congress counts and certifies the electoral votes cast in november, thereby putting its official stamp on the results.

freepers today is the big day. i'm assuming it's going to be on C-SPAN. i did not find a discussion thread so i'm starting one for us.

now why would freeperville look forward to the day that legitimizes and carves in stone the theft of the election by the "bitter" enemy of all who love the constitution — "the usurper" barry hussein obama-soetoro?

the answer, of course, is that all freepers love good theater:

i bet someone challenges the count, just one person.

i hope one will. ... if for no other reason than to make a symbolic stand ... and give me hope that a spinalectomy isn’t performed on everyone who enters DC.

i was hoping an elector from alaska naturally. we will just have to wait and see i suppose. picturing a scenario of what if, how would the MSM react? my guess is they will go into shock mode with constant red alerts on faux. if there was a contested scenario it could also open up other fracture scenarios, it could turn the tide in as such as the MSM going into shark feeding frenzy.

mmm ... popcorn!

that’s the only thing i’m hoping for. at least ONE person with enough guts to at least broach the subject. i’m not under any misconception of hope that it will change today’s outcome in certifying the vote, but if at least ONE representative, or senator brings it up at least it’ll be in the record.

i hope whoever steps up will run for president in 2013.

2013 ... ?

i predict we’ll have one congressman attempt to object and it will be ignored by the speaker as if no one said anything.

well, we all know by now how the afternoon matinee played out. obama-biden got all their pledged 365 electors. mccain-palin got all their 173. do i hear any objections? bueller ... ? bueller ... ?

i picked an awful day to quite drinking.

not one single comment about ineligibility issues.

seeing that cheney did NOT even offer an opportunity to voice objections does this go against procedure, or not?

... i’m wondering if there is a procedural rule regarding request for objections or not. if there IS, then the supreme court may indeed have something to say about it (not holding my breath on that either though).

3 USC 15 - section 15 "every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one senator and one member of the house of representatives before the same shall be received." if i’m reading this right, no one objected in writing beforehand, so cheney didn’t have to call for it.

the rep. from georgia failed to do what he said he would do. he must not have been able to get a crook from the sen. to join him! this is sad. no constitutional supporters in either house! of course if you ain’t got any you don’t need a jock strap!

they can certify all day long, it means nothing. until he releases documents to verify his past, he's a phony.

there is now no way to deny that the GOP has joined with the rats to form one big happy party. this was the design all along. now we have witnessed it. and they all just took an oath to uphold the constitution. they have no intention of ever doing so. now we will see amnesty, a trillion dollar bailout, energy DE-pendence, the complete devaluing of the dollar and of our personal worth, the emasculation of our military. make no mistake about it — we are in the pot, and the temperature of the flame is being increased incrementally. it only took ten years for this country to fall. from february 12, 1999 when the senate failed to do its job to convict a perjurious president to january 8, 2009, when not one member of congress objected to obama not being qualified under the constitution to be president. only ten years to lull the sheep to sleep, and to take away their will to fight. biden and obama will ensure another terror attack, the result of which will be to extend control over us in the guise of security. darkness awaits. we rebelled against england for less than this.

sigh ... those little disappointments.

well, we can always count on one thing — when freepers just can't find good theater anywhere, these hearty troopers aren't shy about supplying their own!