In today's dispatches, Obama's attorney in Georgia moves to dismiss Dr. Orly's ballot jihad there, and points the court to an interesting footnote. Birther Report resembles a zoo. More on the SuperDeluxeMondoSizedPAC. Martha Trowbridge is freebasing vap-o-rub again.
John Woodsman challenges Swiftboat liar Corsi and World Nut Daily's stable of "experts'. Farah is upset that the media noticed his banner over an empty stadium. Dr. Kate's cesspool rapidly needs a truckload of lithium dumped into it. Polls show that over half of Iowa Republicans have no contact with reality.
And finally we have Jules Manson, a California individual who thinks that killing the President and his children is just a peachy-keen wonderful idea.
16 December - Obama's attorney moves to dismiss Dr. Orly's Georgia ballot jihad.
(PDF here)
"The citizenship issue sought to be litigated by the plaintiff cannot be raised in the context of a party preference primary that exists solely to apportion delegates but neither elects nor nominates. Only the Democratic Party of Georgia can determine qualifications of candidates named on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. See, Duke v. Cleland, 954 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir., 1992); Belluso v. Poythress, 485 F.Supp. 904 (N.D. Ga., 1980). Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69.456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it. 1"
Note the number at the end, referring to the single footnote in the entire document,
And what a footnote it is, taking up half of page 8, and all of page 9.
"1 See, Federal cases: Alien v. Soetoro, 4:09-cv-00373, 2011 WL 2130589, (D. Ariz. May, 2010); [n re: American Grand Jury, 3:09mc00215(USDC Tenn., 2009); Keyes v. Obama, 8:09-cv-00082, 2009 WL 3861788, (U.S.D.C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009), appeal pending, No. 10-55084 (9,h Cir., 2011); Berg v. Obama et ai, 574 F.SUpp.2d 509 (E.D.Pa. 2008), ajj'd, 586 F.3,d 234 (3rd Cir. 2009), Ce,·t. denied, 129 S. ct. 1030 (2009); Berg v. Obama, 656 F. Supp.2d. 107 (D.D.C. Cir. 2009); Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission, 09-15562 (E.D. Cal., 2008), affd 09-15562 (9" Cir., 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1732 (2010); Bowhall v. Obama, 2:lOcvo0609, 2010 WL 4932747, (M.D. Ala. November 30,2010); The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et ai, 6:08cv03405, 2011 WL 4916569 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 17, 2011); Cohen v. Obama, 1:08CV02150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D. D.C., Dec. 11,2008), ajj'd, 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cil'. 2008); Cook v. Good et ai, 4:2009cvoo082, 2009 WL 2163535, (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2008); Cook v. Simtech" 8:2009cV01382 (M.D. Fla., 2009); Craig v. U.S., 5:09-cv-00343 (W.D. Okla., 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 141 (2009); Craig v. U.S., 5:09-cv-01345-c (W.D. Okla., 2010); Dawson v. Obama, 2:08cv02754, 2009 WL 532617 (E.D. Cal. March 2, 2009); Ealey v. Sarah Obama, 4:08-mc-00504 (S.D.Tex., 2008); Essek v. Obama, 08-379-GFVT (E.D. Ky., 2008); Hamblin v. Obama, 2:09cV0041O, 2009 WL 2513986 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2009); Hamrick v. Fukino, 1:08-cv-00544,2009 WL 1404535 (Haw., May 20,2009); Herbert v. Obama, 3:08-cv-01l64-HES-TEM (M.D. Fla., 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 562 (2009); Herbe,·t v. US, 3:08-cv-00634-TJC-MCR (M.D.Fla., 2008); Herbert v. US, 3:08cvOI201, 2009 WL 129585, (S.D.Cal., Jan. 15, 2009); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C. Cir. 2009), ce,'t. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1017 (2011); Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court, 2:08cv00232, 2009 WL 111683, (N.D.Tex., Jan. 16,2009), appeal dismissed, No. 09-10246, No. 10-10009, No. 10-100064 (5" Cir., 2009); Jones v. Obama, 2:1O-CV-01075 (C.D. Cal., 2010); Judy v. McCain, 2:08cv01162 (US DC Nev., 2008); Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (D.N.J. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010); Liberty Legal Foundation v. DNC, CH-1l-1757 (D Ariz., 2011); Mackay v. Obama, 2:11-CV-05458-JP (E.D. Pa., 2011), voluntarily dismissed, No. 11-3862 (US DC Pa., 2011); McLanahan v. Obama, 2:1l-CV-00374-EFS (D.Was., 2011); Mor1'Ow v. Barak Humane Obama, 1:08-cV-22345 (S.D. Fla., 2008); Neely v. Obama,2:08-cV-15243 (KD.MI., 2008); Patriot's Heart Network v. Soetoro, 1:09-mC-00442-RCL (D.D.C., 2009); In Re Paul Andrew Mitchell, 2:08-cv-04083 (E.D. PA, 2008),affd 304 Fed. Appx 113, 2008 WL 5381436 (3,d Cir., 2008), mandamus denied, No. 08-4443 (3d Cir., 2008); Purpura v. Sebelius, 3:IO-CV-04814, 2011 WL 1547768, (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2011); Rhodes v. Gates, 5:09-cv-00703-XR (W.D.Tex., 2009); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009), ajfd, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15,2010) cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2830 (2009); Robinson v. Bowen, 567F.Supp.2d 1144 (N.D.Cal. 2008); Roy v. Fed. Election, 2:08cvOI519, 2008 WL 4921263, (W.O. Wa. Nov. 14, 2008); Stamper v. US, 1:08 CV 2593,2008 WL 4838073 (N.D.OH.2008); Strunk v. Patterson, 1:08cv04289 (E.D.N.Y., 2008), appeal dismissed No. 08-5422 (2d Cir. Nov. 14,2008); Strunk v. U.S. Dept. ojState, 693 F.SUpp.2d 112 (D. D.C.Cir. 2010), mandamus denied, No. 09-5322 (D.D.C., 2009), appeal dismissed, No. 10-5092, (DC Cir., 2010); Super American Grand Jw'y. 1:09-mc-00346-RCL CD. D.C.,2009) ; Taitz v. Obama, 707 F.Supp.2d 1 (D. D.C. Cir. 2010), appeal pending, No. 11-5304 (DC Cir., Oct. 31, 2011); Taitz v. Astrue, l:ll-CV-00402, 2011 WL 3805741, (D. D.C.Aug. 30, 2011); Taitz v. Ast1"ue, 1:n-mC-OOls8 (D.Ha\'v., 2011); Taitz v. Ruemmier, 1;11-CV-01421 (D.O. C., 2011); Thomas v. Hosemann, 1:08mco0280 (D. Haw., 2008); Thomas v. Hosemann, 2:08-cv-00241-KS-MTP (SO Miss., 2008).
State cases: Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.K2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) Ajfd, No. 49A02- 0904-CV-353 (Ind. App. Court); Brockhausen v. Andrade, No. 08-100,-C365 (Tex. State Court); Brae v. Reed, 82473-8 (Was. State Supreme Court); Connerat v. Browning, 999 So. 2d 644 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008); Connerat v. Obama, No. 09003103SC (Fla. State Court); Connerat v. abama, No. 09005522SC (Fla. State Court); Constitution Party v. Lingle, No. 29743, 2008 WL 5125984 (Haw, Dec, 5, 2008); Corbett v. Bowen, No. 30-2008-00114112-CU-FR_ CJC, (Cal. Superior Court, 2008); Craig v. Oklahoma, MA-109808 (Okla. Supreme Court); Donofrio v. Wells, No. AN-1053-08T2 (NJ. Nov. 03, 2008), Cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 752 (2008); Fitzpatrick v. Obama, no docket number (NC State Court); Greenberg v. Brunner, No. 2008cVI024 (Ohio State Court, 2008); In re John McCain's Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in Pa, 944 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2008); Justice v. Fuddy, 253 P.3d 665 (Haw. 2011); Keyes v. Bowell, 189 Cal. App. 4th 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 99 (2011); US v. LTC Terrance L. Lakin, MCAT-JA-SC; Liberty Legal Foundation v. DNC, CH-11-1757 (Tenn. State Court); Lightfoot v. Bowen, No .• 68690 (Cal. Supreme Court, 2008), Gert. denied, 555 U.S. 1151 (2009); Marquis v. Reed, No. 08-2-34955-1 (Was. State Court, 2008); Martin v. Lingle, No. 29414, 2008 WL 4684786, (Haw. Oct. 22,2008); M01·tin v. Lingle, No. ICC08-1-002147, 2009 WL 1669050, (Haw. Jun. 9, 2009), Appeal Dismissed, 2009 WL 2372096 (Haw. Aug. 3, 2009); Martin v. Bennett, No. 1CCIO-1-000969 (Haw. State Court); Meroni et al v. McHenry County Grand Jury Foreman et ai, No. 09mr399 (Ill. State Court, 2009); Neal v. Brunner, No. 2oo8cV72726 (Ohio State Court, 2008)j Patriot's Heart Media Network v.lllinois Board oj Elections, No. IOHoo0605 (Ill. State Court); Schneller v. Cortes, 199 MM 2008 (Pa. Supreme Court, 2009), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2830 (2009); Sorsensen v. Riley, cv-2008-1906 (Ala. State Court, 2008); Spuck v. Sec. ojState, 2008 CV1116 (Ohio State Court, 2008); Stumpo v. Granholm, No. 08-140-MM (Mich. Dist. Ct. (30th) Mar."
And, since it's not enough to point out that every single birther case filed has failed:
"Every Georgia case considering the issue ruled against the plaintiff. Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009), affd, 2010 WL 892848 (l1t :, Cir. March IS, 2010) cerl. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2830 (2009); Terry v. Handel, 08CV158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373; Cook v. Good el aI, 4:2oo9c\,00082, 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D.Ga. July 16, 2008).
*Chuckle*
16 December - Looks like the primates at Birther Report want to fling poo at the motion to dismiss in Georgia.
"Just in case you need to know said…[Reply] This so far does not make it dismissed. Being not a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN", LET ALONE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. THE REAL AMERICA, PLEASE STAND UP, AIM, FIRE. December 16, 2011 6:24 PM"
And today's visit from the Secret Service goes to….
"Anonymous said…[Reply] "Defendant will insist on the right to cross-examine each individual making a statement in the documents."That means that Orly has to have all the witnesses present at the hearing -- Susan Daniels, Gregory Hollister, Linda Jordan, Doug Vogt, John Sampson, Chito Papa -- plus anyone who is quoted in the affidavits that Orly intends to introduce and any other witnesses needed to lay a foundation for each exhibit.
This is going to be big! This is going to be expensive!
December 16, 2011 10:01 PM"
This is going to be amusing.
Oh look! Historical re-editing.
"Anonymous said…[Reply] @Anonymous "I don't recall that being one of the campaign issues raised by either party during the 2008 campaign." --- Your memory is a little faulty. Hillary Clinton's campaign and John McCain's campaign raised it as an issue. That is why Obama created the "Fight the Smears" web site and posted a copy of his short form Certification of Live Birth on that web site, four months before the general election. December 17, 2011 10:02 AM"
Your memory is a lot faulty. Neither McCain or Hillary Clinton's campaigns ever touched the birther claims. The "Fight the Smears" site was started due to *right wing* claims about Obama. (which later the PUMAs helped along and spread)
17 December - Professional seditionist Sharon Rondeau pimps out the new Article II Super Duper Extra Special PAC that the de Vattelists seem to be hot on.
"MRS. RONDEAU: What would you say to someone who says, “I think he was born in Hawaii, so that makes him eligible; case closed?”
MS. TANSEY: What I would say is what Leo Donofrio said almost four years ago, and that is that this gentleman could have born on the Supreme Court steps. It doesn’t matter; the fact of the matter is that his father was not a United States citizen. Therefore, his birth does not meet the definition of Article II. "
No, it doesn't meet how you WANT to define Article II. 200+ years of case law and civil law disagree with you.
"So for us, it’s all about the Constitution. It’s all about the law."
Which you prove by showing your utter contempt for the Constitution and the law.
"MRS. RONDEAU: Many people do not seem to be aware that citizenship involves the parents. Pamela mentioned to me during her interview that years ago, when a woman married, her citizenship, if different, changed to that of her husband, which would have produced two U.S. citizen parents."
Yes, before the turn of last century, and was officially repealed in the 1930's.
"MRS. RONDEAU: And you are looking for volunteers and financial support?
MS. TANSEY: Absolutely. If we don’t have people on the ground as well as the financial wherewithal to be able to inject our Article II message into the political debate,, we’re just going to be spinning our wheels. So yes, those two pieces are critical. "
At least they're being open about soaking the birthers for their money. I suspect they'll end up spinning their wheels and whining.
18 December - Martha Trowbridge comes up with a new twist to her "Malcolm X was Stanley Ann Dunham's baby daddy" theory. (reposted at the Pest and eFail)
See, on 2 May 1990, the Associated Press (as republished in the Daily Herald), had this line:
"He was born in Hawaii, his father an Oxford- and Harvard-eduated economist from the African nation of Kenya, his mother a white anthropologist from Kansas. Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2 when his parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian."
Now to anyone who didn't eat lead paint as a child, this looks like a case of a reporter getting the facts wrong.
But not to the reality challenged mind of Martha Trowbridge, who not only takes this as a confession direct from Obama:
"And so, that exciting spring day, when his actual personal history was beginning to morph into “The Obama Narrative”, quite unwittingly, “Obama” talked Truth.
In an AP interview entitled Harvard Student Tackles Racism At Core, published 3 May 1990, he stated three words he surely has regretted:
“At age 2.”
Oh, how the tiniest details offer a gaping view into Truth.
For, the context of these three Truth-ful words is:
“Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2″.
Actually the context shows that the reporter made this claim, not Obama.
But wait, there's more:
“Barack Obama’s” Indonesian Odyssey did not originate with “Stanley Ann Dunham” taking him, hand-in-hand, at age six, to live with her and her new husband in a modest home in Jakarta – as “The Obama Narrative” wants you to believe.
All things considered, from what I can determine, at approximately age two, circa 1961, Bâri′ M. Shabazz apparently was sent to live at The Presidential Palace of Indonesian President Sukarno.
[You see why The Obama Campaign went to such great lengths to "establish" that he and "Stanley Ann" were in Seattle?]
President Sukarno – a Malcolm X hero, and long-time good friend.
President Sukarno: Revolutionary Extraordinaire. Sukarno, Man Against Oppression. Sukarno, who bravely, brilliantly led the Indonesian overthrow of the ‘oppressive colonial’ Dutch Government."
I think this is one of the better examples of someone trying to put two and two together and coming up with eggplant. Or maybe velveeta.
18 December - John Woodsman challenges Swiftboat liar Jerome Corsi, along with former PUMA Mara Zebest and other "document experts", to a debate.
Not surprisingly, Corsi doesn't seem to have the fortitude to accept this offer:
"More than two weeks ago, I publicly challenged Jerome Corsi — along with all the best of his “more than 20″ experts — to appear and publicly debate the evidence regarding their claims.
According to Mark Gillar, host of the Tea Party Power Hour (who was to speak with Corsi and his main experts about the debate), Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, and Tom Harrison have all agreed to debate me — but he also stated that Jerome Corsi would not appear.
This is very odd, as Jerome Corsi does not seem at all the type to turn down any opportunity to get public air time."
18 December - The Ledger-Enquirer reports on the Georgia ballot jihad.
"As local U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land stated in a ruling against Orly Taitz, nobody in any state challenged Obama's legitimacy when he ran for office the first time. It was only once he was elected that people really started climbing aboard the birther bus.
And now that Obama's shown the world his birth certificate, what avenue do his detractors have except to challenge his candidacy by claiming both parents have to be U.S. citizens?
Of course, if they prevail, that means George Washington wasn't really president. We always suspected his parents weren't American."
18 December - Joseph Farah whines that the media noticed the "flying the banner over a closed and empty stadium" stunt.
"If you were channel surfing last Wednesday night, you might have caught a trifecta of WND-bashing and Farah-faulting."
In other words, "Damn, they caught me out.".
"And what makes me so bad?
I flew a banner asking "Where's the real birth certificate?" over the Dallas Cowboys stadium prior to the game with the New York Giants last weekend. Olbermann thinks it was a mistake because it was a night game."
At least he admitted it was prior.
"I'm touched that Olbermann is so concerned we missed our target audience by arranging a flight prior to the game. But not only did most of the 95,000 or so fans see the banner because they arrived early to the game for tail-gate parties and the best parking spots"
Funny how the video shows a mostly empty parking lot. Most of those 95,000 must have carpooled or taken the bus I guess.
Or maybe the were simply trying to find seats, since Cowboys Stadium holds 80,000.
18 December - At Dr. Kate's cesspool…
"heather December 19, 2011 at 11:48 am Exactly- an all purpose false flag! GWB should be hung from the highest tree for crimes against America and her people. We need to set an example for everyone so just pick a pouts to convict and sentence. Any one of them will do–my pick is GWB since he laid the final ground work for barry to finish us off."
So at this point any former president will do for their necktie party.
At least she's honest:
"heather December 19, 2011 at 1:08 pm I don't care what they call me–be it racist, bigot, who cares–I am who I am and these are my God given rights…."
"cedartree
December 18, 2011 at 11:07 pm
and the bottom line?
BRITANNIA STILL RULES THE WAVES!!
WE ARE RULED BY BRITAIN. Every time you see the Queen of England realize she is your ruler by consequence of the extension of historical cabals. For shame. All the pomp of Wills and Kate, they are just next in line."
They really need their meds adjusted….
"Quantum Leap December 19, 2011 at 3:04 am That Muther f*cker. The people who voted for this Otyrant all need to be beat up and put out of their misery. No one knows who he really is, where he was born or what his real birth date is."
How very threaty
"Quantum Leap December 19, 2011 at 3:41 am Isn’t it fishy that the day the troops come home the Otyrant’s bill is passed and the Bill of RIghts is null and void? Thanks boots. Now go f yourselves. We no longer have a constitution. RISE UP PATRIOTS! RISE UP ON THE WH LAWN. (he’s going to use the troops to round up the occupoopers, boots and patriots and put them in detention (death camps) no excuse needed.) NWO is on the march. Sorry if I’m over posting but this peeves me off to no end. We knew this would happen before he was elected."
Paranoid much??
18 December - Jules Manson, a self-described Libertarian in Carson, California, calls on Facebook for the assassination of President Obama and his children.
Manson scrubbed his FB soon afterwards, but not before screen captures were made. Michael Stone for the "National Democratic" version of the fake Examiner did an article about it that later disappeared for a time.
While the Examiner showed some rather impressive moral cowardice in doing this, a few other blogs also snagged the story as well.
No word on when Sharon Rondeau offers Jules Manson a column in the Pest and eFail. And I'm sure Dean Haskins will announce Manson's invitation to birtherpoolza any day now.
I will also note that while some sources have called him a tea party member, there's no links so far to show a connection between Manson and any tea party group. Same with his support of Ron Paul.
18 December - Jack Cole at the Tampa Social Issues version of the fake examiner also writes about Jules Manson (this article also disappeared for a time from examiner.com), notices the lumping:
"This is ridiculous. Lumping together some failed politician from California whom happens to support Ron Paul and then implying that all Tea Party members, Ron Paul supporters, and Libertarians are racist is just off the wall.
Similar to how we can reason all Tea Party members and Ron Paul supporters are racist, we can deduce from these quotes that not only are all Democrats similar to cattle who need to be herded; they are racist bigots. More than that – they are hypocrites. "
18 December - Addicting Info comments on Jules Manson.
"Facebook users are outraged at this comment which has since been removed. Manson’s page has also been taken down because so many people have reported it for abuse. Manson has run for office before, but has failed thus far to win an election. His Facebook post just ended his hopes of ever winning political office. For any person to openly call for the assassination of the President of the United States is outrageous and should be tried for treason. If Republicans do not condemn this unacceptable instance of bigotry and hatred, they are just as guilty as Manson is."
18 December - Public Policy Polling asked nearly 600 Iowa Republican voters "f they thought that President Barack Obama was born in the United States".
The results say something sad about this country.
Q12 Do you think that Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?He was…………………………………… 47%
He was not………………………………. 31%
Not sure………………………………….. 21%
"Only 47% of the GOP voters polled in Iowa said that Obama was born in the United States.
For god’s sake… half?? Still? People this “reality challenged” and ignorant shouldn’t have such an out-sized influence on who gets to be leader of the free world. An electorate as uniformed and as unintelligent as this is a danger to all of us.
That’s why we should cut funding for education…it’s KENYAN SOCIALISM!"
18 December - Boy, Mario Apuzzo sure loves him some Martha Trowbridge.
"Ms. Trowbridge explains how Sukarno started losing power in October 1965 and that Army Major General Suharto eventually replaced him on March 12, 1967, becoming the new president. Bâri′ was 6 years old in 1965.
The question then is what happened to Bâri′? How and when did he make his way back to the United States? Where did he go? Did he really arrive in Hawaii? When did he arrive? With whom did he live? Why has Obama told us that he lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10 when it looks like it was probably age 2 to 6? I hope that Ms. Trowbridge will provide answers to these and other questions in her future articles. "
I'm sure Martha Trowbridge will come up with the answers right after her next oxycodone and NyQuil binge.
19 December - The New York Daily News reports on Jules Manson.
"Jules Manson, who failed miserably in his 2011 bid for a City Council seat in Carson, Calif., urged the sickening reprisal, saying Obama's support of a revised military authorization bill last week was an act of "treason" that "eroded" constitutional protections.
"It must be countered with assassinations onto them and their children," he wrote in the original posting that has since been scrubbed from his Facebook profile.
"Assassinate the f----n (N-word) and his monkey children," he prodded, according to a screen grab obtained by YourBlackWorld.com."
19 December - The International Business Times also reports on Jules Manson.
"At first, Manson tried to defend his statement. Two hours after the offensive post, according to The Examiner, he made another bizarre statement claiming his use of the N-word wasn't racist. That comment has since been removed, as well as the original exchange.
Jules Manson's online presence has been further scrubbed from the Internet with every hour that passes, likely by both Manson himself and Ron Paul and Tea Party supporters horrified by his racist comments.
Several posts by Manson on Ron Paul's Facebook page have been removed, as well as several posts on other web sites.
But Facebook users were too quick for Jules Manson, and his racist rant was captured in a screen cap by several users before they posted it across the online community"
19 December - The "New Civil Rights Movement" blog notes that Jules Manson has provided an explanation and a warning about his threat, but (surprise surprise) no apology.
Earlier today Manson offered this warning as an explanation via Facebook — no real apology included:
Once you have taken the position that anyone should be imprisoned for careless emotionally driven remarks that had no real substance, you deserve what your government has become. All I can really say is to be careful what you wish for because setting such a precedence can come back to bite you. I have felt deeply regretful and apologized for my past mistakes. Can you do the same?
This is what happens when extremism meets false information.
And as I often say, consider the source.
19 December - The "Angry Black Lady" blog comments on Jules Manson as well.
"Why am I making the effort to describe the nexus between Josh Harkinson’s erroneous article on the signing of the NDAA and Manson’s assassination threat against the President and his children? Precisely because we at ABLC have been documenting the overheated rhetoric and doomsday reporting about the NDAA, and calling attention to the way memes are being introduced into the popular narrative that are not supported by the actual content of the legislation.
We here at ABLC have a deep interest in seeing to it that our media provide the public with factual, analytical and contextually appropriate information about the workings of government, so that citizens can be well-informed and ready to make reasonable demands of their elected officials. We don’t believe that inducing panic into the populace leads to good decision-making, and Mr. Manson’s trajectory from failed candidate to assassination advocate is an extreme example of the kind of over-reaction this kind of inflammatory writing can evoke."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wannabe-tea-party-politician-unleashes-racist-facebook-screed-president-obama-article-1.993937
"No one answered a telephone number listed for Manson's residence in a Carson trailer park Monday.
"An enthusiastic supporter of Tea Party pioneer Ron Paul, Manson described himself as a mechanical engineer bent on fiscal conservatism when he announced his city council candidacy earlier this year.
"Rising taxes and lease rates at his mobile home park motivated his run, he said.
"He received just 550 votes, less than 4%, according to local newspaper Random Lengths."
He was motivated to RUN for city council because the lease rates AND the taxes went up at his mobile home park.
Something that President Obama has no control over.
This guy is a looooooser. I'm not sure why he's even getting air time on this.
Posted by: Some Other Patrick | December 19, 2011 at 07:07 PM
OH yeah, according to Wikipedia, as of the 2010 census, Carson had a total population of 91,714.
(Quite a lot of people really!)
"The racial makeup of Carson was 21,864 (23.8%) White, 21,856 (23.8%) African American, 518 (0.6%) Native American, 23,522 (25.6%) Asian, 2,386 (2.6%) Pacific Islander, 17,151 (18.7%) from other races, and 4,417 (4.8%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 35,417 persons (38.6%)."
Soooooo.... most of Carson is non-white, and at the very least 23.8% of the population of Carson is African American.
No surprise he only got 500 votes.
Posted by: Some Other Patrick | December 19, 2011 at 07:09 PM
Good and fair reporting on the Jules Manson story, Pat.
I’m glad that you are bringing in-depth analysis of this, one of the truly most openly vile and racist recent threats made against the President and his family. I’m glad to read lots of reports that people have called the SS to report him and think this is a case that deserves more than just the typical warning. This kind of threat behavior against a President is only going to escalate unless someone is actually held accountable to make others think twice about the consequences of such incitement.
In also looking into the story, I too have not found any direct connection between the Tea Party and him as of yet. Same thing about confirming that he was a Ron Paul supporter. So far, all I can find are articles that are mostly just re-telling the same original report, without any citations or sourcing confirming those oft repeated claims about his affiliations.
I suspect that some of the info may have been gleaned before his Facebook page was appropriately taken down. However, like you, I want good and accurate journalism and I expect to see substantiation for claims that are made.
It is also possible that such affiliations were merely “assumed” to be his position, since the way he self-identifies and the issues he cares about align closely to many in the Tea-Party. Further, his own words on his campaign website and other places show that he clearly identifies himself as a "conservative libertarian", so this is perhaps what makes someone leap to the conclusion that he is a Ron Paul supporter.
One of the articles I read DID claim that he had made comment posts of support on Ron Paul websites, but that they have already been removed since this story came to light. So, if true, that would confirm him as a Ron Paul supporter. However, I would still like to see some capture of an actual attribution by him to back these claims up.
What I could find to confirm about him came from some links I found within the comments under one of the links you provided :
(http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/12/jules-manson-tea-partier-of-the-year/)
From there, I found his former failed campaign website to be the most informative and confirming about how he views himself:
http://julesmanson.com/
His self-description, including blog articles on his positions, do significantly align with similar to ones I’ve routinely heard coming from Conservative & Tea Party circles. However, I could not find any reference nor endorsement actually connected to a Tea Party organization there, so the “Tea Party” candidate claim is still suspect until sufficient confirmation can be found.
Two snippets from his own words on his site do reveal his ideology:
“I believe I am the most conservative candidate running for a seat” and
“I am however a member of the Libertarian Party (constitutional conservative) but I am not loyal to any political party, institution, or business.”
The second web link also revealed info on Jules Manson, from a website editor that knew him and his posts and had to ban him for RACIST statements he had made there several months ago:
http://www.dehavelle.com/2011/12/follow-up-on-jules-manson-from-supportatheism-com/
“The current editor of SupportAtheism.com notes that Jules Manson was removed from that organization for similar racist behavior.”
Note: An open letter from that editor also confirms this and also casts further dispute of the issue of any direct connection to Tea Party organizations:
“Greetins Mr. Mo,
FYI, Jules was removed from his association with SupportAtheism.com and the affiliated Atheist months ago due to similar racist behavior.
We have a zero tolerance policy for racism in our community.
But, also I can say from knowing Jules a bit in a professional capacity and reviewing some of his submissions that were political – that he was his own weird extreme kind of libertarian – as far as I know – and granted I removed him and blocked him months ago – he does not identify as a Tea Party member, and in fact spoke derisively of them.
His behavior is reprehensible and perhaps deserves the level of pushback he is getting – but unless he has changed in the last few months- the attempt to paint him as a Tea Party enthusiast is dishonest and short sighted. If anything Jules identifies as a libertarian of an individualistic variety.
I despise the Tea Party, am disgusted by Jules’ behavior, and find hardcore Libertarians to be as guilty of starry eyed idealistic magical thinking as some theists – but I am a big fan of honesty and getting the facts straight.
Best Wishes,
Jacob Kramer
Senior Editor and Co-Founder.
SupportAtheism.com"
Posted by: G | December 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM
> I think this is one of the better examples of someone trying to put two and two together and coming up with eggplant.
And Martha seems to see Obama in just about every picture she posts:
"Wouldn’t it be fascinating, if, in the video still below, that’s young Bâri′ with mama Jo Ann Newman?"
Posted by: The Magic M | December 20, 2011 at 02:17 AM
And this article points out one of my favorite birther "tactics" - taking a document that has some error or statement that they agree with, picking out that specific factoid as Absolute Truth, while simultaneously disregarding the rest of the document as a forgery or lies.
It seems to be the case with the article you found, Patrick. It's the case with that Indonesian school certificate that (likely erroneously) says he's an Indonesian citizen (which is Absolute Truth), but also says he was born in Hawaii (which is a vicious lie!).
It's great.
Posted by: Tarrant | December 20, 2011 at 04:37 AM
Today Orly writes:
"3. I need supporters in the courtroom on January 6 before judge Nishimura in Honolulu, First Circuit court"
Why? Is she charging admission to her circus? Does her ego need plumping up? Will four freaks sitting in the courtroom sway the judge in her favor?
Posted by: Bob | December 20, 2011 at 08:16 AM
Yup. Same for the WKA ruling - those birthers who don't claim "it doesn't define NBC" claim "it was wrong" or "it was deliberately confounding the issue", but the ruling they claim supports them (Minor) of course is infallible.
It's one of the most obvious instances of confirmation bias.
Posted by: The Magic M | December 20, 2011 at 08:17 AM
> Will four freaks sitting in the courtroom sway the judge in her favor?
People who believe that judges render verdicts based on sympathy for the issue of course think that they just need to show that their cause has "a lot of support" to make the judge change his mind.
Posted by: The Magic M | December 21, 2011 at 01:56 AM
"Will four freaks sitting in the courtroom sway the judge in her favor?"
This basic misreading of Law is like a popular misunderstanding of Science: that it is a popularity contest. Einstein was once told "many other scientists say they can disprove your theories," to which Albert replied "One." As in, it doesn't matter how many people claim something; all it takes is one with an unassailable proof.
Birfers, take note. If there were any solid evidence for any of your claims, the game would be over. But there aren't. So, basically, just STFU.
Posted by: Thomas Brown | December 21, 2011 at 06:21 AM
We now have confirmation that the Secret Service paid a visit to Jules Manson. This link contains not just a writeup, but also a news interview with Manson after the visit.
Let's hope he's learned his lesson and that one's emotional state of agitation does not abrogate one's responsibility for what they say or do and that nothing justifies threatening someone's life or making such blatently racist statements.
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-carson-candidate-obama-threats,0,6861058.story
(H/T to Majority Will for bringing this link & story to my attention)
Posted by: G | December 21, 2011 at 02:16 PM
"We now have confirmation that the Secret Service paid a visit to Jules Manson. This link contains not just a writeup, but also a news interview with Manson after the visit. "
It's a felony to threaten the president. My question is , WHY AREN'T these people being prosecuted??
Posted by: whodunit | December 21, 2011 at 03:29 PM
I distinctively remember one judge trying to remind her repeatedly, that a court hearing is not a political debate but a presentation of legal arguments. Her constant requests for supporters at the courtroom shows she has not learned the lesson yet. Either that, or she is trying to forget that judge since it was he who sanctioned her.
Posted by: Northland10 | December 22, 2011 at 04:45 AM
I'm sure your next post will contain extensive coverage of the 9th Circuit smackdown of Drake v. Obama:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000011948
I get quite a chuckle of seeing how the Birther’s frivolous filings succeed in only one thing – serving as precedent against them to bite them in the ass the next time one of them tries to pull the same lame argument. That was on display here as well as page 16 notes:
"The harm he alleges is therefore too generalized to confer standing. See Berg v. Obama"
Also, I got quite a kick out of the seeing that the only place this court disagreed with the prior ruling, was essentially saying that the prior court was too lenient to entertaining one of the plaintiff’s arguments in the first place and didn’t even need to “go there”, because the plaintiff’s point could have been solidly dismissed without getting that far in hypethetical scenario play. In other words, they simply pointed out that the prior court didn’t even need to “go there” in the first place. The plaintiff’s argument was already moot:
"The District Court was mistaken in assuming, however, that the political
candidates still had an interest in a fair competition at the time the complaint was
filed. The original complaint was filed on January 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn in as President. The
First Amended Complaint was filed on July 14, 2009. Whichever complaint is
considered, the 2008 general election was over when it was filed. Once the 2008
election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no
longer “candidates” for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged
any interest in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of
the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the “potential loss of an
election.” Owen, 640 F.2d at 1132. Plaintiffs’ competitive interest in running
against a qualified candidate had lapsed.4 Similarly, Robinson’s interest as an
elector—derived from the competitive interest of his preferred candidates—was
extinguished by the time the complaint was filed."
That can be found on pages 19 & 20 of the report. See also footnotes #3 & #4 on those pages, which expand upon driving this point home…
Posted by: G | December 22, 2011 at 01:14 PM