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 - 15-16 December 2011 | Main | Dispatches from Birtherstan - 20-23 December 2011 »

December 19, 2011


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dispatches from Birtherstan - 17-19 December 2011:


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

Some Other Patrick

"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.

Some Other Patrick

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.


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 :

From there, I found his former failed campaign website to be the most informative and confirming about how he views himself:

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:

“The current editor of 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 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."

The Magic M

> 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?"


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.


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?

The Magic M

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.

The Magic M

> 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.

Thomas Brown

"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.


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.,0,6861058.story

(H/T to Majority Will for bringing this link & story to my attention)


"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??

Bob: 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?

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.


I'm sure your next post will contain extensive coverage of the 9th Circuit smackdown of Drake v. Obama:

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…

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