Listen to internet radio with R C on Blog Talk Radio
If you're    ready for a zombie apocalypse, then you're ready for any emergency.
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

« Dispatches from Birtherstan - 17 February 2011 | Main | Dispatches from Birtherstan - 23 February 2011 »

February 22, 2011


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dispatches from Birtherstan - 18-22 February 2010:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


A bit late for this weeks lunacy in birtherism but this has to be a classic from the PUMA opportunist Buzzard

It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name “Barack Hussein Obama” on it — since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is given.

This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed “Soetobakh” by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.

In Indonesia, there are no last names. The man who adopted Obama is routinely called “Lolo Soetoro”, but in reality his name in Indonesia is just Soetoro. ”Lolo” is a nickname — but on documents in the West, Soetoro seems to have used the name “Lolo Soetoro” because he needed to complete a first and last name line on documentation.

The lunacy is never ending.


Just out of interest I did a quick search of the word "examiner" on the Pest and eFail. Apart from the obvious recent articles decrying Mr Bowman and now telling her muppets that no-one should take any notice of anything at the website.

They are many, many earlier articles, or should that be blog posts, that reference and hyperlink to articles from the very same website.

Just a few of the numerous examples:
"This breaking story by Kimberly Dvorak of the San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner concerning a third memo “leaked” inside the DHS confirms our worst fears."
"The Examiner is reporting that the Mexican drug cartel, Los Zetas, has seized control of two ranches in Laredo, TX."
"David Oatney, a writer for the Tennessee Statehouse Examiner, recently opined that in all reality it was a parliamentary maneuver to stall an up or down vote in the House before the General Assembly adjourns on May 17, 2010."
"Not everyone is in agreement with Gates’ knee-jerk response of more regulation to prevent any future rampages. Austin Gun Rights Examiner, Howard Nemerov, questions whether more government control equals greater security."

Poor Sharon. It's not easy running a "newspaper" when people can easily search your archives.

The Magic M

Isn't it time to start our own conspiracy theory? I mean, you would think it requires quite a lot of influence to get GOP representatives in 10+ states come up with "birther bills" that are not only unconstitutional on their face, but also pretty much alike word-for-word.
Not to mention the fact that most birther commenters' writing style and apparent fixation with the same terms over and over again ("usurper-in-chief", "all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC", "has spent millions to hide...") could point to a couple of high-profile sock-puppets (with the technical and manpower resources of strong financial backing) just as well as to typical crank obsession.

Just sayin'...


The term "usurper" always bothers me when they use it. Who do they think he usurped it from? Whether or not Obama is eligible (and he most definitely is eligible - put that aside for now), he was elected to the office by a majority of the popular and electoral votes cast. He IS the person chosen by the people to hold that office. He isn't "usurping" it from the rightful office holder, from someone else who was the REAL winner of the election. He IS the real winner of the election.

When the army marches in, seizes the throne room and crowns the general king in Shakespeare, that is a usurper. If the deposed on comes back (invariably in a play) and defeats him and regains the throne he is not a usurper because it was his office to begin with. Likewise, if the king dies of natural causes and no one likes his son, that doesn't make the son a usurper. He's the new king. If because no one likes him Lord Somebody declares himself king in his stead, then it is he who usurped the crown.


Were there any gems of crazy worth reporting from that attached cRAP Masters video? Has anyone bothered to waste their time wading through all of it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bad Tips

Help my blog?

Tip Jar

Crazy Internet People


Obama Conspiracy Theories

Oh, For Goodness Sake

Reality Check | Blog Talk Radio Feed

Reality Check Radio Blog



Turning the Scale