Hermeneutic of Conspiracy

Friday, October 9, AD 2015

 

 

Well, now the Pope is warning about “conspiracy theories”:

 

 

Pope Francis has warned bishops at a global church meeting on the family not to be taken in by conspiracy theories, as conservatives and liberals reportedly engage in attempts to manipulate the synod.

A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, on Thursday confirmed reports that the pontiff had warned Catholic bishops and cardinals behind closed doors on Tuesday not to get caught up in “the hermeneutic of conspiracy”.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Hermeneutic of Conspiracy

  • He should know there is no conspiracy. It is his agenda and he is in charge.

  • Pope Francis is simply shocked, shocked that a conspiracy is going on at Vatican. How rich! Spoken by the master manipulator himself. What we have here is the makings of a movie, part Godfather, part Dr Strangelove, part Shakespeare. It is all so very surreal and hard to believe any of this is actually happening. But it is, and it is BAD.

  • When the diabolical comes out of the closet (pun intended)it becomes a heck of a lot easier to find the truth–that which will set us free.
    One has little doubt (to paraphrase Shakespeare) there is a whole lot rotten with what’s going on in Rome.
    I suspect, the words “Roman Circus” could be applied without distorting things much.

  • I find it ironic that a straight shooter like Pentin works for one of the biggest Francoshills in the entire Catholic Media Complex, the National Catholic Register.

  • The Pope said that he wanted to clean up the Curia and make it ‘responsive’ to the whole Church. It looks as though he is either failing or a parallel alt-Curia has been created.

  • “Fr. Robert Dodaro was the editor of “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”, a compilation
    of chapters from bishops and theologians defending Church teaching on Communion
    for divorced-and-remarried persons. The book was sent to each bishop before the
    gathering.”

    .
    While copies of the book were sent to all 200+ bishops of the synod, they never received
    them. The books were all stolen from the synod fathers’ Vatican mailboxes. But Francis
    would have us believe there’s no conspiracy to manipulate the synod…

  • Isn’t this the same guy who wrote an encyclical on “climate change?”

  • What we have here in Pope Francis is an in-your-face, out of control, Machiavellian, ego-maniacal, mendacious dictator who is corrupting the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Face it, this guy needs to go–and fast. But in the meantime, being good Catholics and all, let us pray for him.

Lincoln and the Jesuits!

Sunday, July 14, AD 2013

 

Lincoln Shocked!

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy .

Abraham Lincoln, letter to Joshua Speed, August 24, 1855

 

 

Presidential assassinations attract nut cases like bribes attract politicians.  The original presidential assassination conspiracy theorist was Charles P.T. Chiniquy, a Catholic priest from Quebec, who came to Kankakee County in Illinois circa 1850 to serve a colony of French Canadians who had settled there.  In 1860 he left the Church with some of his parishioners, having run afoul of his Bishop.  Eventually he became a Presbyterian Minister and made a living from publishing anti-Catholic books and tracts and giving anti-Catholic lectures

Chiniquy had used Lincoln’s services as a lawyer in a slander case in 1856.  From this slight association, after Lincoln’s assassination he created a fable of the Jesuits having been behind Lincoln’s death and putting anti-Catholic sentiments in the mouth of a man who knew no religious bigotry.  Chiniquy’s lies have been exposed for well over a century by historians.  One of the best eviscerations of Chiniquy was undertaken by Professor Joseph George, Jr. in an article which appeared in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society in 1976:

In 1891 John G. Nicolay, Lincoln’s former secretary, received a note  from Benedict Guldner, a Jesuit priest in New York, asking for information about a “libellous pamphlet” printed in Germany.   The pamphlet, according to Guldner, was a translation of a work “originally written in this country … in which the author maintains that the assassination of President Lincoln was the work of Jesuits.” Nicolay and John Hay, another former secretary to the President, had not mentioned the allegation in their biography of        Lincoln, and Guldner wished to know if they had heard the charge and if they considered it false. [1]         Nicolay consulted Hay, and then replied:        

          To [y]our first question whether in our studies on the life of Lincoln we came upon the charge that “the assasination of President Lincoln was the work of Jesuits”, we answer that we have read such a charge in a lengthy newspaper publication.  To your second question, viz: “If you did come across it, did the          accusation seem to you to be entirely groundless?”, we answer Yes. It seemed to us so entirely groundless as not to merit any attention on our part.  [2]        

        

        Perhaps the decision of Nicolay and Hay to ignore the charge of a Jesuit conspiracy against Lincoln was unwise. A prompt and firm denial might have prevented further publication of the story.  [3]        

        The originator of the conspiracy theory was Charles P.T. Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest who claimed to be a close friend and confidant of Abraham Lincoln’s.   According to Chiniquy, “emissaries of the        Pope” were plotting to murder Lincoln for his defense of Chiniquy in an 1856 trial.   Chiniquy’s autobiography, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, published in 1885,  attributes remarks to the President on a variety of subjects, particularly religion. [4]  Most of Chinquy’s stories are so foreign to what is known about the Sixteenth President that scholars  have ignored them. Nevertheless, many of the less sensational portions of Chiniquy’s reminiscences have been used by serious students of Lincoln’s life, and the most sensational passages have been widely quoted and disseminated by writers engaged in anti-Catholic polemics.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Lincoln and the Jesuits!

I Guess it is Easier to Stack Internet Polls

Thursday, March 8, AD 2012

Hmmm, Doctor Delusional’s campaign is wondering why they aren’t winning any caucuses or primaries:

BOISE, Idaho — Ron Paul’s top strategists are confused and frustrated that the wild enthusiasm they see at their campaign rallies and events is not translating into votes.

Thousands turned out to see the Texas congressman at events in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota in the days before Super Tuesday. Paul said publicly and believed privately that he could win all three states outright. When the votes were counted, though, he finished third in Alaska and Idaho and second in North Dakota.

Paul may still emerge with a big chunk of delegates in the GOP nominating race, but the candidate’s much-hyped focus on caucus states has yet to yield an outright victory in any state.

This gap between dreams and reality came to a head during a Wednesday morning conference call for senior staff when the discussion turned to why the campaign keeps underperforming its own forecasts.

“They count the numbers and then they count the votes,” said Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser who was on the call. “Did they get overconfident? … We’re digesting that.”

Continue reading...

37 Responses to I Guess it is Easier to Stack Internet Polls

  • “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many” (Hebrews 12:14,15).

    Does Dr. Paul owe you money?

    It sounds a bit personal here. I believe that his, and our, common enemy is President Caiaphas and the Peoples’ Democratic Pharisee Party. Regardless of how offbeat he might be, if he is not winning, then what’s the issue? He’s not taking delegates from Sen. Santorum in any large volume.

    We’ll need every vote we can get in November. Keeping that fringe in the numbers count is essential. Elitism and dismissive derision never generate the desired outcomes. Most of all, remember the Reagan Rule.

    Thanks.

    “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31,32).

  • “Does Dr. Paul owe you money?”

    Only for his wasting of the time of the conservative movement for the past few decades. Loons like Paul have always been the bane of the conservative cause. He was the featured speaker a few years ago at the Fiftieth Anniversary celebration of the John Birch Society. Fools like Doctor Delusional have always walked arm in arm with the Left in efforts to make conservatism seem ridiculous. You cite Reagan. Ron Paul thought that Reagan was such a poor president that he resigned from the Republican party during his term in office. Would that Ron Paul would do so again.

  • It’s interesting in how you framed his rallies, a freak show. Each and every time I see him on television I picture him with a clown suit on and makeup.

  • I think the best way to explain the disconnect is that the Idea of Paul is very, very intriguing–and energizing–to a lot of young people, but the actual candidate falls short. It’s silly to discount his ability to fill a decent-sized arena wherever he goes.

    Insert qualifier….now.

    But the man himself is not the horse to draw his own cart. I do think his baggage is a more serious problem than they want to admit, and the perceived/actual alliance with Romney does not help.

    The messenger is inadequate to advance the message to the next stage. Whereas his senatorial son just might be able to do so.

  • I think Rand Paul has a bright future ahead of him Dale, once his father is safely in retirement.

  • Yes trying to solve OUR domestic problems first is WACKO!! Putting OUR border security first is INSANE! Borrowing more money from China , continuing to expand government and sending off even more young Americans to die for more failed foreign policies, now THAT’S pure genius. I guess I havent read you enough as I thought this was a conservative blog, but if yours is the republican mindset we’re in big , big trouble. I had almost convinced myself to vote for ANYONE that runs against the current Totalitarian in the oval office. Your comments have me thinking for the first time , “why bother”?

  • Pammie, Ron Paul is an isolationist, conspiracy believing, crank who has no legislation of note to his credit after more than two decades of keeping a seat warm in Congress. His Paulbot followers are given to chant “Ron Paul Revolution, Give Us Back Our Constitution”! That is risible because all that can be shown for Ron Paul’s political career is nothing. He never led any effective movement in Congress. He has been a total lone wolf. He has done zero to effectively reduce the size and scope of government. His specialty has been to give a platform for every wacked out conspiracy theory imaginable from the fringe right. He has as much to do with conservatism as Bill Clinton has with chastity.

    I go into greater detail in regard to Doctor Delusional at the link below:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/12/29/yep-ron-paul-r-pluto-is-pretty-much-of-a-wackdoodle-isolationist/

  • Having read your comments on Dr. Paul, let me tell you a few reasons why I find him appealing: 1) he hasnt been purchased by any lobby (to my knowledge) unlike ALL the other candidates bought and paid for , including the POTUS. 2) He is for limited governmental interference in the day to day life of Americans citizens. 3) He understands and abides by the Just War teachings of the RC Church. 4) He understands the importance of the Constitution as a deterrent to governmental power and protection of the citizenry 5) He is more concerned with protecting the borders of the USA than the borders of Israel or Pakistan. 6) He understands how fearmongering has been used to undermine basic American freedoms. These are all concerns that speak loudly to me. If caring about these issues designate me in your opinion as a “Paulbot” then so be it. I’m not trying to change your mind regarding Dr. Paul. But I am telling you what attracts me to him. Which one, in your opinion, would NOT be a traditional conservative position? Perhaps your candidate would be happy to lose RP voters and are contemptuous of these issues, and maybe you find them valueless, fringe right wing or just plain nutty…surely a judgement call every one must make. But invective such as yours and a refusal to speak to these issues in other candidates’ platforms doenst give us who share them much incentive to vote for them. Politics is all about compromise, but when legitimate voter issues are summarily dismissed, there isnt any room for compromise be it republican or democrat, for they are all candidates on the same disasterous course.

  • Pammie-
    the part where we “limit” the gov’t interference when it comes to defining who is a legally protected human?
    The part where he wants to abandon those we’ve made promises to– like Japan? (Oops, sorry you don’t have a military– sucks to be you! Hope you manage something before China eats your lunch!)

    #1 would be hard to prove, #3 is generally short for “he doesn’t like Iraq, and I personally don’t believe the case for that being a just war,” #4 I’m not so sure about since he won’t argue for it to apply to all Americans, #5 implies that isn’t so for others– which is simply laughable, and #6 can mean just about anything.

    Ron Paul lost my respect when I noticed that he claims to believe the unborn are persons, but wants to let the states decide if they can be slaughtered at will. There are a couple of options for why he’d make that argument– three that come to mind: he doesn’t actually believe the unborn are persons; he doesn’t believe all persons have a right to not be killed; he’s not willing to argue for that whole shall not be deprived of life or liberty thing when it will hurt him politically– and none of those options are very respectable, especially when his whole shtick is how he’s the brave defender of American idealism.

  • “Ron Paul lost my respect when I noticed that he claims to believe the unborn are persons, but wants to let the states decide if they can be slaughtered at will.”

    Yet trying to elect national politicians who claim to be prolife hasnt worked either has it? My state would at once put into laws restricting abortion, as most of the citizens are against it, were it not for the behemoth federal government . There is more than one way to accomplish a goal, is there not? Particularly when the old method hasnt worked in 40 years. All of your other comments are based on perception more so than RP’s statements and public record. I personally dont believe we need to finance the world’s defenses, particularly as we are in the middle of a financial crisis ourselves and borrowing money from our biggest creditor to stay afloat. That is pure madness ….like falling behind on your own living expenses but borrowing money to help out a stranger to pay for his security system so he can have more disposable income to spend on other things. What sane person would do that? How has Europe managed to fund its widespread socialism since WWII ? Those missles cost lots of American taxpayer dollars and many manhours of American labour. Makes sense to you folks one supposes , but not me.

  • Pammie-
    why are you trying to change the subject?

    He has stated that the states should decide what humans are not really people, which is not “the best way to protect the unborn is on a state-by-state level,” nor “the people of the states should be able to defend human life without being prevented from doing so by the Feds.”

    All of your other comments are based on perception more so than RP’s statements and public record.

    Of course they are, I was responding to your claims that did not have RP’s statements or public record specifics.

  • Nevermind Mr Foxfier. I wasnt aware I was changing the subject about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome by mentioning an approach that was different than the one you espouse …one that has proven to be a failure so far. But we can give it another 40 years and hope for a different outcome instead of trying a different approach.

    “Of course they are, I was responding to your claims that did not have RP’s statements or public record specifics.”

    Really? Your response for my #3 was “…is generally short for “he doesn’t like Iraq, and I personally don’t believe the case for that being a just war,” That’s an opinion based solely on your perception, not a rebuttal or statement of another candidate’s similar view or knowledge of me. RP’s stand on war in Iraq ( whether or not he “likes” Iraq would not be relevent) is a matter of public record and was essentially the same as the Pope’s . My personal view is that it was a stupid, pointless war, wasteful of human lives and resources and frankly has nothing to do with “Just War” theology. Our interests there are in worse shape now than before. Not to mention the plight of Iraqi Christians , which Republicans & Democrats are both strangely silent about.

    Like I said at the beginning, my intention in bringing up these issues is not to convince you or anyone . But these are what draws me to RP as he is the only one who is willing to bring them up in debate. We are sinking as a society and our attentions are on nonexistent enemies a world away. That “crazy RP” and all the rest of us “Paulbots”–we just keep wringing our hands on how to pay for it all and watching our personal freedoms decline as the massive federal bureacracy grows by leaps and bounds. Meanwhile yall keep your attentions glued on Iran and Syria et al and continue to congratulate yourselves that you are not as foolish as we.

  • Nevermind Mr Foxfier. I wasnt aware I was changing the subject about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome

    Mrs (thus the fox-girl in a sailor girl outfit in my icon… *squints* although that might be a bit small to see at a glance) and it’s changing the topic because we weren’t talking about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome. We were either talking about Ron Paul in relation to the unborn, or my newish lack of respect for him based on his rhetoric while trying to get elected.

  • My sincere apologies MRS. Foxfier. I guess it matters more to me now that the unborn be protected than it does in how it’s accomplished. I’m willing to settle. RP’s idea offers an alternative to the unsuccessful thinking of the past and a hope of a little faster change and at least a few more lives snatched from a certain and brutal death. Havent heard anything forthcoming from any of the other candidates on how this can be accomplished in a more timely way. Have a great evening.

  • I guess it matters more to me now that the unborn be protected than it does in how it’s accomplished.

    And… again… changing the subject….

  • Quibbling over semantics. How many babies will die before the Supreme Court can be stacked to overturn RoevWade or an amendment can be worded just right and passed by a two thirds majority ? What is Santorum’s, Gingrich or Mitt’s plan to accomplish this? Taking the power FROM the federal government in this and other issues (like many states are doing with Same Sex “Marriage”) might have a shot. But I guess I understand your point: RP didnt say he was prolife in the way you wanted him to express it. OK . Got your point. My point is : Saving some babies is better than saving no babies.

  • I am seriously dense.

    Can someone explain to me how Ron Paul differs from Lyndon Larouche?

    How can RP get the abortion thing down to the States where it can be outlawed? It’s been ruled as a “right” by the SC. How is RP not delusional for this impossible stance?

    RP opposes nearly all Federal powers. That’s not the same as pro-life.

  • Who is Lyndon Larouche ? Does he also serve as pebble in your shoe or a splinter in your index finger?

  • Ron Paul’s “Sanctity of Life Act” is purported to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the courts. I’m not well-versed in law etc…, so I am curious how that is supposed to work.

    The bill (introduced many times over his tenure) basically states that the fetus is human or a person. It says that states have the authority to protect life. If we have a human person in utero, why then is this person not granted equal protection under the 14th amendment?

    Even though the bill is unique in its approach, it is fundamentally flawed. A self-proclaimed champion of the Constitution should do better.

  • “I’m not well-versed in law etc…, so I am curious how that is supposed to work”
    It wouldn’t. The Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional in a nano-second, as the Court simply would not allow Congress to reverse it by stripping it of jurisdiction in an area as this bill seeks to do.

    “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
    `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
    `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
    `(A) the performance of abortions; or
    `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.”

    There are only two ways to get rid of Roe: have the Supreme Court reverse itself, or a constitutional amendment. There are no short cuts

  • Thanks, Donald. Now if this had been dealing with Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Laws, I could easily understand. 🙂 But that’s just the electrical engineer in me…

  • Thank God the mysteries of your field do not come up on this blog Big Tex, or I would have to stand ingloriously mute! 🙂

  • Quibbling over semantics.

    Dang straight I point out when a claim doesn’t match what the words actually mean. Part of the reason Ronulans are so disliked is because of the gap between what they want and what is. That gap isn’t bridged by yelling that it doesn’t exist.

    And no, Pammie or pammie or pamelanak or whoever, I did not say “RP didn’t say he’s pro-life the way I wanted.”
    I pointed out that there are three possible conclusions from his stated desire to push definition of what humans are people whose lives are protected under law down to a state level, and none of them got any respect from me.

  • PM-
    Lyndon Larouche is the guy who’s like Ron Paul, but more popular to the left. They’re outside of post offices and stuff doing Truther outreach a lot in the Seattle area around Christmas. (not sure what the rest of their stuff is– I was kind of in a hurry, and Trutherism makes me sputter a lot*; lots of Infowars bumper stickers, though, and they seemed to dislike the UN, so not all bad….)

    *statements like “fire can’t melt steel!” do have that effect on me, especially if screamed in my face.

  • During the run up to Obamacare, they would come to townhall meetings hosted by legislators and hold up their posters with a picture of Obama with Hitler mustaches. Fringe nut-jobs, as Foxfier has indicated.

  • Foxfier, Thank you. (Should have looked it up, and all, but computer seems to dislike the internet connection lately and gets testy when I move places and click & I’m not tech-y)
    They sound big city – or college. Anyway, stay strong.

  • PM-
    part of why the info I offered is so sketchy is because when I tried to look him up, I got a really wide range of stuff, the only one of which I recognized has, as its entire point, being nasty with a mainline liberal edge. (Think “The Daily Show” amateurs.)
    The only things I know about him is the stuff I passed on. (In defense of the folks that I saw, they seemed very earnest and polite…but I didn’t stop and disagree with them, so who’ll know.)

  • Gee whiz Foxfier, Foxlier or whoever. Do you have anger issues or something? It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement. Your candidate might need the support of the people with whom you have been so snarky and dismissive . All these nasty, snotty attitudes from Republicans (minus the “Paulbots”) makes me want to stay home on election day anyway….and just when I had almost convinced myself to vote for ANYONE who opposes Obama. Good job convincing me otherwise and good luck getting your candidate elected without the help of the “disliked Ronulans” and all the other people you also despise.

  • It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement.

    Great idea– have you considered trying it?

    Failing that, make arguments in support of your statements, with facts and logic, without having to misrepresent others involved. I can handle being called names, no problem, but not much I can do if you can’t be bothered to make an argument.

    Part of the reason the term “Ronulan” came about is to differentiate between folks who support Ron Paul and people who show up, post under multiple handles, make claims they’re not willing to support, attack everyone who disagrees and then do things like announce how they’ll take their ball and go home, all in the name of Ron Paul. With allies like that, he really doesn’t need enemies.

  • Donald McClarey, Thank you. I appreciate your givng me the clarity on Ron Paul’s bill: “Their are only two ways to get rid of Roe: have the Supreme Court reverse itself, or a constitutional amendment. There are no short cuts” Since all men are created equal and We hold these truth to be self-evident, then the newly begotten human being is no less equal a person than the person on the Supreme Court for the United States of America. So, you are correct, Donald. Perhaps when the human being’s personhood is acknowleged as being preeminent, the Person of our Creator will be no longer be prohibited in the public square, and our plagues and problems will be placed in the hands of Divine Providence, as was first inscribed in our founding principles. My son, Nelson and myself were discussing Ron Paul, and he compared Ron Paul’s candidacy with Ross Perot’s. It is believed that our culture would not be atheistic (read homicidal, Obama wants no more snowflake babies standing up and or abortion survivors. Obama has ordered all frozen embryos to be destroyed) had Perot been elected. I do not know, but at least now, I understand where Paul is coming from. For myself I am looking at Santorum and Chris Smith of NJ as VP. The American Catholic is human.

  • Me: “It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement.”
    Foxfier: “Great idea– have you considered trying it?”

    The juvenile, snarky comeback rather proves my point dont you think?

    “Part of the reason the term “Ronulan” came about is to differentiate between folks who support Ron Paul and people who show up, post under multiple handles, make claims they’re not willing to support, attack everyone who disagrees and then do things like announce how they’ll take their ball and go home, all in the name of Ron Paul. With allies like that, he really doesn’t need enemies.”

    I expect this makes sense to you but what it has to do with me I’m not quite sure. If it is a concern of yours, my reason for posting here was to get feedback and maybe some info about other candidates’ views on the things that concern me from people who are supporting them . Didnt attack you or anyone else and I really wasnt looking to incite a hissy fit , get a critique of my mental skills or a judgement as to my poor value to RP from a total stranger with a rancourous attitude .

    Thank you Mr. McClarey for the explanation regarding RP’s strategy for ending abortion. I can see now where the flaw in that is now, so this hasnt been a total waste of time.
    Announcement: I am now taking my ball and going home.

  • I sometimes wonder if the reason so many are annoyed by Ronulans is because of the huge amounts of apparently unintentional irony….

  • “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity.” …from The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, the stated purpose and intent of the Constitution. Before the Amendments to protect the human person as being created equal and endowed with unalienable rights by our CREATOR, the words “our” (not theirs, but our) “posterity” all future generations to come, each and every newly begotten sovereign person endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (a man’s destiny) is accounted for and provided for in our Constitution. In Roe, one woman and eight men sworn to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America 1) could not read 2) did not comprehend what our Constitution intended. 3) were prejudiced against the unborn because of their lack of faith in and reliance on Divine Providence of The Declaration of Independence, the same Divine Providence Who delivered the colonist from the hands of the British and established the United States as a bastion of Freedom, the FREEDOM endowed by our CREATOR. 4) Lusted for power and worshipped at the feet of mammon and Moleck and kissed the devil’s face, the face the devil wears and speaks through on his butt. I prefer to think it is the forth option, that the utilitarianism and LUST for power and greed collapsed any reason of their rational soul into the garbage of Roe v. Wade. Before the babies were thrown into the garbage, the Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade threw reason , Justice and our America into the garbage. IT IS A REVERSAL OF ROE BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT NEEDS TO BE. In addition, an amendment to the fact, so it never happens again.

  • “one woman and eight men sworn to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America 1) could not read”

    It was nine men on the Roe court in 1973. Two justices dissented: William Rehnquist and Byron White. From a legal standpoint the problem with Roe was that the court majority simply created a right out of thin air. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents any government from banning it. Even many pro-abortion legal scholars have admitted that it was a decision without legal basis. As Justice White wrote in his famous dissent in Roe:

    “With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

  • Donald McClarey: A senior moment on my part. My respect for Byron White, and William Rehnquist has never failed. May God bless you for this beautiful work. The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins. Mother and child are persons first, citizens second. The Constitution can only judge citizens, as is verifiable by the lack of authority to judge foreigners and those with diplomatic immunity, citizens of other countries. The unborn are citizens of “nature and nature’s God”. “My kingdom is not of this world” God bless.

  • At what point does a person become a citizen? When the person is born into the world or is naturalized. The unborn sovereign person cannot be tried in any court of law, because the unborn sovereign person is not yet a citizen of the United States of America, until after he comes into the world and breathes his first breath and is given a birth certificate. At this point, the born person becomes a citizen. Roe v. Wade tried a person who was not a citizen of the United States. ..and ordered his death before he could become a citizen. The Supreme Court for the United States of America can only try citizens.
    Given that the Supreme Court for the United States of American may only interpret the Constitution for the United States of America for American citizens, not for foreign dignitaries and sovereign persons with sovereign immunity, the citizen of the world and universe, Jesus Christ in His human nature, in His innocent citizenship cannot be banned from the public square unless it is proved that Jesus Christ, as a citizen, violated the law and became criminal. Then and only then, will the human nature of Jesus Christ, as a man, become “persona non grata.” The Person of Jesus Christ WHO is God , Who is perfectly, immutably innocent and Love, cannot be proved, in a court of law, to be criminal.
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America can only try citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot try citizens of another kingdom, “not of this world”, the sovereign citizens of heaven, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, and His Father and His Holy Spirit of Love. Nor can the U.S. Supreme Court try the Person of Jesus Christ, WHO is God. The Supreme Court has found Jesus Christ guilty by association with criminals on Golgatha.
    Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the self-proclaimed atheist sued to have all mankind’s First Amendment rights to FREEDOM subjugated to her lawsuit through her complaint that prayer to God, through Jesus Christ offended her son. An imperfect human nature, who is offended by perfection.
    If Madalyn Murray O’Hair was truly an atheist, she would have annihilated her own being. God, our Creator, made all things and KEEPS THEM IN EXISTENCE, therefore, Madalyn Murray O’Hair at some underlying level of consciousness, accepted God’s love for her and for her son. Madalyn Murray O’Hair spoke perjury in The United States Supreme Court, when, as an atheist she said: “I AM an atheist.” The atheist used God’s name: “I AM”, in vain and contradicted herself. Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not prove her case as perjurers never do.
    Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not have two witnesses to establish a judicial fact. Two atheists cannot bear the Truth into a court of law. Perjury does not count.

  • more threadbare clarification:
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign persons in the womb, who are citizens of nature and nature’s God, until they become, at birth, citizens of the United States of America.
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America is the personification of JUSTICE, the interpreter of The Constitution for the United States of America and the dispenser of JUSTICE to the common man, each and every American citizen. The JUSTICES are given compensation. JUSTICE is priceless. The Court has no jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns, ambassadors with diplomatic immunity and sovereign persons who are citizens of other sovereign nations.
    A human being comes into existence at the will of God (and man when two become one at procreation) through the laws of nature and nature’s God. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. The newly begotten sovereign person endowed by our Creator with life is granted citizenship in America upon being brought to birth and breathing his first breath in the world, until then, this sovereign person is a citizen of nature and nature’s God. Before becoming an American citizen at birth, this sovereign person’s endowed rights are held in trust for him by God, our CREATOR, by his parents and by the state, in this order. Upon becoming an American citizen, this sovereign person’s civil rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the pursuit of his destiny, are held in trust for him by God, our CREATOR, by his parents and by the state, in this order.
    Roe v. Wade had no jurisdiction over the sovereign person existing in the woman’s womb, a citizen of nature and nature’s God. One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign person existing in the womb and who has not been born into the country and is not yet a citizen.
    The Supreme Court denied existence to the sovereign person in the womb, which is perjury by the JUSTICES and miscarriage of JUSTICE by Roe v. Wade. If there were no human existence in the womb there would be no abortion. Blobs of cells, tumors do not have sovereign personhood from conception and can never be born into citizenship.
    Why, then, one might ask, can the court order surgery to protect the life of the newly begotten in the womb or charge homicide in the death of the unborn, if the court has no jurisdiction over the newly begotten? It is because the legal and moral innocence of the unborn is the standard of JUSTICE for the state and the unborn constitute the state by their very existence. It is because any law can be broken to save the life of a human being.”You shall not stand idly by while your neighbor’s life is in jeopardy.”
    Damage that has not yet happened cannot be proved in a court of law. Destruction of the sovereign person of the unborn is a crime against the laws of nature and nature’s God.
    The absolute stupidity of Thomas Malthus in his demographics for his not factoring in Divine Providence, our CREATOR, into his numbers, and the abject ignorance of John Mills in his utilitarianism for his not factoring Divine Providence into his philosophy, and the criminal negligence of Paul Erlich for his not factoring in Divine Providence into his book: “Population Bomb” render their unsubstantiated conclusions invalid. Thomas Malthus and John Mills are facing the wrath of God as I write and Divine Justice will find Paul Erlich for the half-truths he is propagating.
    Charles Darwin did not factor in Divine Providence into his theory of evolution rendering his work lacking in integrity.
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign persons in the womb, who are citizens of nature and nature’s God, until they become at birth citizens of the United States of America.

I Blame the Catholics!

Thursday, December 8, AD 2011

I have long contended that I stay in the law for one reason only, the amusement factor.  Case in point:

A fed-up bankruptcy judge Wednesday ordered a Hastings attorney and her
client to show cause why each shouldn’t be fined up to $10,000 for calling the
jurist a “Catholic Knight Witch Hunter” – as well as other names – in a court
filing.

In a pair of sternly worded orders, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Nancy Dreher said a
legal memorandum filed last month by attorney Rebekah Nett was filled with
“unsupported and outrageous allegations of bigotry, deceit, conspiracy and
scandalous statements.”

Among other things, the attorney’s memo called Dreher, another judge and a
couple of trustees “dirty Catholics” and said the courts were “composed of a
bunch of ignoramus, bigoted Catholic beasts that carry the sword of the church.”

Nett had signed the document, but it was written by Naomi Isaacson, a
Minneapolis woman who is president of Yehud-Monosson USA Inc., which owned gas
stations and convenience stores. It is a subsidiary of a religious group known
as the Dr. R.C. Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology Inc., or SIST,
in Shawano, Wis., and is embroiled in a bankruptcy dispute in Dreher’s court.

Dreher set a hearing for Jan. 4 and told Nett and Isaacson they’d have to
come up with good reasons why they shouldn’t be fined.

She also said she plans to order them to write public apologies to those
slurred in the November filing and will order Nett “to attend, at her own
expense, no less than 30 hours of ethics training within the next 12 months.”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to I Blame the Catholics!

  • SIST is well known in Northeastern Wisconsin. There have been numerous shootings and other nefarious goings on for a long time associate with SIST. Out of the same area sprang the Posse Comitatus a white supremacist group of the 60’s to early 80’s (it still exsits today but in a much reduced form). There is no direct association, that I know of, between the groups but both are/were very secretive and located in the same area. It makes for interesting reading. Another fringe group that has an association with the Posse Comitatus is The House of Yahweh.

  • Cool. They never let me carry the sword of the Church.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • The Gillette-Torvik blog has a discssuion about whether the lawyer and client can avoid being sanctioned. The post also notes that since the initial filing that got them in hot water, further anti-Catholic filings were made in the case. http://gillette-torvik.blogspot.com/2011/12/cost-of-slur-apparently-1000.html

  • Thanks for the tip Mike. That is a good write up. By the way gang, the jig is up. They are on to us based upon the latest filing in the case:

    “I want the Court to know, President Obama to know, Attorney General Eric Holder to know, United Nations to know, foreign media to know, and the world to know that Chapter 7 Trustee Nauni Manty keeps bolding lying because the judges and Court are controlled by her own race and Catholic religion. In the United States, under the Constitution, church and state are supposed to be separate. But, now like the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church obviously is in control of the Bankruptcy Court and the media.”
    The next time I have a ruling go against me in Bankruptcy Court, I will have to tell the Judge that Catholics control the Bankrupcty Court and therefore unless a Catholic lawyer was on the other side he really should reconsider his ruling. Or perhaps not.

  • Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, don’t they?

    Actually, it’s very sad. Bad enough to suffer from paranoia, but to have it part of the public record, reprinted and recorded in media outlets …. St. Christina, pray for them.

  • Best way to take care of a SIST:
    Lance it, drain it, remove it’s membrane.

    All done.

  • “But, now like the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church obviously is in control of the Bankruptcy Court and the media.”

    Sounds like somebody’s been watching too much Seventh-Day Adventist TV (except for the Bankruptcy Court part maybe, but there’s always next year).

The Birther Suplot: A Waste of Time

Wednesday, April 13, AD 2011

At my own blog I’ve already shared my annoyance with the Birthers.  For those of you not up to speed, “birthers” are those that doubt, to one degree or another, that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii, and who suggest, therefore, that he is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.  To me it’s a silly conspiracy theory that doesn’t crack even a “1” on the credibly believable scale (and I am referring to the conspiracy being believable, not Obama’s family history).

Then there is what one might term the birther subplot.  There are those who don’t really doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, but who nonetheless insist that he release his long-form birth certificate.  Donald Trump has harped on this issue quite a lot as he embarks on a futile attempt to draw more attention to himself on a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  Long story short, Trump and others sense that Obama is hiding something.  The most common rumor is that the long-form certificate would (for some reason) indicate that he was a Muslim.  Commenter “The Man From K Street” offers a couple of other plausible theories on the blog “Est Quod Est”:

First (and to my mind the likeliest) — it will reveal what most people already have figured out: Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were never actually married, let alone licitly (even a presumptive wedding would have been invalid as bigamous).

Second — there has been some speculation that BO Sr. might not have been the actual father. One alternative candidate in particular has been discussed in various parts of the net, but even if we saw the long form, this will probably stay graffiti on the bathroom wall of history forever.

Possibly.  And then there’s the conspiracy of the non-conspiracy, and Don alluded to it in the comments of my post.  Essentially Obama is dragging this thing out because he knows that the birth certificate contains nothing all that embarrassing, but by playing the story out it allows some of his opponents to look like complete loons.  Frankly, this would be my bet, and that gets to the heart of my annoyance with people like Trump.  Even if there is something on the birth certificate that is potentially slightly embarrassing, why should we care?  Nothing is going to have any bearing on his qualifications to be president.  The only theory that would be even partially troubling if true is that his religion is listed as “Muslim.”  Sure, it would create some tension because hard core Islamists view apostasy as punishable by death.  Well, yes, but my guess is those very same people who would seek to kill Obama because of his apostasy want him dead anyway.  And again, that really shouldn’t matter in the slightest when evaluating his worthiness to be re-elected.

At the risk of going back on my New Year’s resolution not to discuss the 2012 presidential race until Labor Day, I am going to have to side with Mitt Romney on this (something I might not be saying too often after Labor Day):

Mitt Romney forcefully said Tuesday night that he believes President Barack Obama was born in America and that “the citizenship test has been passed.”

“I think the citizenship test has been passed. I believe the president was born in the United States. There are real reasons to get this guy out of office,” Romney told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow the day after he formally announced that he’s exploring a run for the White House. “The man needs to be taken out of office but his citizenship isn’t the reason why.”

As Ed Morrissey adds:

The 2012 election should hinge on real issues and deep questions about Barack Obama’s ability to handle the office.  The freak show is a distraction that damages the serious nature of Obama’s opposition — and don’t think the media isn’t eating it up, either.

Indeed.

Update: As if to bolster my point, I would think that Obama being a demagogic manchild incapable of serious governance is enough reason to oppose him that we don’t need to manufacture stuff.

Continue reading...

73 Responses to The Birther Suplot: A Waste of Time

  • Only a logical person would question why he sealed ALL his records including his birth cert. Look, this guy came out of nowhere and became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Is there anyone here who believes that just anyone can become president? No, boys and girls, only those groomed for the job. Obama does not pass the smell test and could put many “thoughts” to rest by just presenting the asked for documentation.

    Frankly i am annoyed with the sheeppeople in this country…

  • As conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty lame. I still want to know who was actually on the grassy knoll in Dallas, where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, what happened to Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater, and whether “spontaneous human combustion” can ever been scientifically verified.
    : )

  • http://patdollard.com/2010/08/cnn-poll-only-42-of-americans-believe-obama-is-a-citizen-only-23-of-republicans/

    a cnn poll no doubt!

    only 42% of Americans believe BO is an American citizen….. if it was truly a honest poll and not one of the left wing it would probably be well over 50%…

    Thank God for logic ….

  • Angie said: “he sealed ALL his records including his birth cert. ”

    Obama did not seal any of his records. He published the official and only birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by THREE Republican officials. As for school, college and graduate school transcripts, his parents’s marriage license, etc, Obama does not have to publish them. They are not sealed, they are simply private. No president has ever shown all these records, and none have shown school transcripts or college transcripts (a few were leaked by colleges, but the candidate or president did not show them).

    IF, however, in the next election the Republican candidate shows her or his college records, parents’ marriage license, etc., then Obama is likely to do so too.

  • He published the official and only birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by THREE Republican officials.

    I’m not sure that is true. I think he released an unsigned “certificate of live birth”, not his actual, signed long-form birth certificate.

    I rather suspect that the “birther subplot” is where the actual facts lie: that is, Obama was born in Hawaii but is concealing his long form birth certificate – and all sorts of other personal information – because there are things in it that he believes to be politically damaging. Of course that is just speculation though — my own gut feeling if you will.

    For a guy who wrote two autobiographies before he had accomplished much of note Obama is really, really cagey about actual, detailed personal data.

    In short, I think Lawrence Auster’s take on the issue is about right: Obama is clearly hiding something or somethings, and while it is unreasonable to jump to conclusions – after all, the central point is what we don’t know because Obama has chosen to hide it – it is not at all unreasonable to ask, and persist in asking, just what he is hiding and why.

  • Re: “I’m not sure that is true. I think he released an unsigned “certificate of live birth”, not his actual, signed long-form birth certificate.”

    Answer: The unsigned short-form CerificaTION of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it every year to get their US passports. It is not supposed to be signed or to have the name of the hospital or the doctor because it is the short-form, which many if not most states have adopted.

    Re: :’Obama was born in Hawaii but is concealing his long form birth certificate – and all sorts of other personal information – because there are things in it that he believes to be politically damaging. Of course that is just speculation though — my own gut feeling if you will.”

    Answer: There are two reasons why he does not release the long form. The first is that the short-form is the official birth certificate now, and hence is the RIGHT form to release. The second is that Hawaii does not release the long-form anymore, to ANYONE, and it hasn’t since 2001.

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606

    Re your speculation: “because there are things in it that he believes to be politically damaging. ”

    The way to find out if this is true or not is to search online for a copy of someone else’s long form Hawaii birth certificate, and check on it whether or not there are places on the form to enter anything that COULD be politically damaging, such as religion (No) or whether or not his parents were married (No). It does include spaces for the hospital name, name of the doctor, etc–but these are not likely to be politically damaging.

    So, birthers claim that there must be a difference between the words actually entered on the original and the ones on the published birth certificate. They claim, for example, that Obama’s real father was Frank Davis, or Malcolm X, or that his race is listed as “white” or “negro”–and the clerk changed the words to Obama and African. But that is not the way that it works. The clerk simply copies the data from the original. The name of the father is the same, and the race listing of “African” is what is on the original too. (Some people say that that is not a race, but the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that folks are allowed to describe their race anyway that they want.)

    Re: “For a guy who wrote two autobiographies before he had accomplished much of note Obama is really, really cagey about actual, detailed personal data.”

    So? Most politicians are. Clinton said that he didn’t inhale. Obama said that he did.

    Re: “Obama is clearly hiding something or somethings…”

    If you feel that Obama has hidden more of his background than the Republican candidate in the next election, vote for the Republican. Or, vice versa. Has Pawlenty shown a birth certificate? Romney? Were their parents married? Can they prove it? Did they inhale?

  • Obama wants the birther meme going 24/7.

    It’s distraction and misdirection from his 24/7 failures. Failures that even his imebecilic worshippers cannot cover up.

    Did anyone listen to todays deficit LIE-ARAMA?

    Let’s go to the video tape. In February 2009, your “demagogic manchild” told a crowd of useless dolts that he was going cut in half the federal deficit. He tripled the federal deficit in his first year. Math is not his (or any idiot liberal’s: I repeat myself again) strength. Probably a reason he won’t release his university transcripts.

    I know he was born. I don’t care about whatever embarrassing facts are in the real birth certificate.

    And I don’t want to see the embarrassing stuff in his university transcripts and his medical records that he has spent millions to keep under wraps.

    I want to see him vacate the White House in early 2013.

    Else, prepare ye for the zombie apocalypse.

  • The Birther rubbish is idiocy on steroids. Obama gets his American citizenship from his mother. It doesn’t matter where he was born. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that did not make him a non-citizen. Knaves are making money on this non-issue by getting fools to contribute money to them on the basis of this complete folderol.

  • EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 I’m not a lawyer but I think it makes it illegal to uncover Obama’s past!

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/obama/presidential.html

  • Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code sets forth who is a natural citizen:

    The relevant provision for Obama, even if he had been born in Kenya:

    “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html

    I do wish loons would leave the law to people who know something about it.

  • Granite:

    yes he did seal ALL his records…. note the above commit…

    we do not even know what classes he took or if he even passed all his classes … if you are going on his word then i have some beach front property in AZ i would love to sell you… 😉

  • Don, perhaps it’s a sideshow and irrelevant but it provides much entertainment in a political scene laden with dullness. Can anyone imagine anyone duller than Mitt Romney?

    And this “debate” over the budget and debt is tiresome. What matters how much money the U.S. owes? I’d say the creditors have a bigger problem than the debtors. There was a time when America was owed all the money and few paid back. Now we owe all the money and are worried about default?

    Let the Chinese sue if we skip a payment. Who cares? We can always print more money.

    We’re a long way before U.S. dollars become Weimar reichmarks.

    But if you want to balance the budget, here’s a way:
    1. Close half the U.S. military bases abroad. They’re not needed.
    2. End the wars, close Gitmo and cancel all military orders for new fighter jets, carriers and other weaponry, which are superfluous.
    3. Abolish the Dept. of Energy, Homeland Security, the Dept. of Education and dump 500,000 deadweight government employees from the payroll. Pension em out at one-quarter pay.
    4. Stop all Medicare fraud, end the food stamp program, funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR, National Endowment for the Arts and every other wasteful nanny state outlays that previously were none of the government’s business.
    5. Turn the unspent TARP money back into the U.S. Treasury.
    6. Dump the income tax totally. Make everyone pay 20 percent flat tax, and 1 percent national sales tax. Abolish the IRS and just deduct it from paychecks.

    There, I just balanced the budget.

    I’d run for President, but I wouldn’t want to live in the White House. I’d rather just be a king with a sharp axe. :: )

  • “What matters how much money the U.S. owes? I’d say the creditors have a bigger problem than the debtors” — Joe Green

    You’d be wrong then. See Argentina, Post-WWI & -WWII Germany, Russia, and Yugoslavia for starters. America will have a problem if we don’t pay off the debts we owe to foreign nations.

    On Topic, the Birther Conspiracy is a farce. Even if it were true that he wasn’t born in the US, his mother is American therefore he is American. My personal thought is that Birthers are just idiots who want to keep the complaining about Obama in the news so that people will vote him out.

  • I disagree on the issue of debtor vs creditor for..

    Tell China too bad and if they do not want to play, good! we do not need China or anyone else for that matter. The truth is we cannot pay this off and we are going to do some suffering for it sooner or latter so lets make it sooner and get it over with. We have the technology, materials and all the resources to make everything we need and then some. We have been borrowing money from China to buy their junk. Who has benefited, not the USA. Jobs have been bleeding from here for years thereby reducing the actual middle class.. actual yes for government has grown and secured wages that surpassed the private sectors for years buy guess what… to work government must be a fraction of the private sector… Now we are waking up and realizing our middle class is all but gone and that boys and girls is what defines an economic power…. if we continue on the road we are on the UDS will not be around in 4 years ….

  • There is a question on whether Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, renounced her citizenship. If that is true then there is a constructional issue on Obama being a legitimate president and whether anything he signed acting as president is valid. There is also then a question of who else knew about this and therefore crimes perpetrated against the Unites States of America. This could in fact be treason which is punishable by hanging.

    Now for the questions…..
    When Obama went to school in Indonesian he HAD to be a Indonesian citizen to attend school there.

    Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which assumed was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption. At the time of adoption his mother would have renounced her citizenship.

    His mother was not found of this country and it is not far fetch to believe she renounce her citizenship. Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it.

    Also, Prior to 2007, Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged.

    Why the refusal to open his college transcripts…. Foreign aid….. they had a ball smack-talking about Bush and Pailn’s records and even Gore who was a flunk out in college made his public yet BO keeps his sealed…… why one runs for public office how much privacies does one expect… not much..

  • Complete rubbish. After his birth it matters not one whit if Obama’s mother renounced her citizenship.

    “F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

    Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.”

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

  • Angie said: “EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 I’m not a lawyer but I think it makes it illegal to uncover Obama’s past!”

    You are wrong. It actually makes it harder than a similar executive order issued by Bush for presidents and former presidents to seal their records. And, it does not apply to state records or college records or private records or corporate records, or any records except to the federal presidential records of presidents and former presidents.

  • Angie said:

    “When Obama went to school in Indonesian he HAD to be a Indonesian citizen to attend school there.

    Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father…”

    None of this is true. The allegation that you had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend school there comes only from a birther site. You can check on whether or not it is true by calling the Indonesian Embassy. It’s not true, and while you are there you can ask whether Obama was adopted while in Indonesia (he wasn’t) had his name officially changed to Soetoro (no, but he did use the name, but that is not illegal) or whether he became a citizen of Indonesia (he didn’t) or had an Indonesian passport (no on that too).

  • Angie said: “we do not even know what classes he took or if he even passed all his classes …”

    Answer: There is no law that says that a president or a presidential candidate must show his school or college records. Unless and until there is such a law, they have the same privacy rights as everyone else. However, it is your right not to vote for someone who has not show sufficient background information. The result of this will be that IF in the next election the Republican candidate shows school and college classes and the grades, etc–then Obama is likely to do so too.

  • The birther subplot does not alter the fact that Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States of America.

  • “When” and “if” his mother her citizenship is important and the question of Obama renouncing his citizenship is also important. Those of you here accepting these lairs at their word are beyond ignorant. To not even question all the inconsistency shows that you are easy marks. Does anyone here even care about the US Constitution or the fact that this county is so divided? No wonder you do not get much traffic here. Mark my words the sh__ is going to hit the fan soon… first Spain will pull down Europe and then the US will fall…. but you will have your minions of ostriches … good luck to you …..

  • Angie, with you we see the “birther” mindset in all its ignorant glory. You know nothing about the law or the facts and yet you pontificate on the subject. This is only a distraction from the myriad of substantive reasons to oppose Obama and his worthless administration. Obama is clearly a natural born citizen, through his mother, wherever he was born. He never took the steps necessary under law to renounce his citizenship. Those who waste their time on this dryhole of a non-issue help Obama and his supporters by allowing them to attempt to tar all opponents with the type of nutball accusation that is truthfully applicable to the rabid “birthers”.

  • Don, it would seem to me that Angie raises some interesting legal points to which you, as a lawyer, appear to dismiss as sheer “ignorance” or a mere “distraction.” While I agree that it is a horse that has been well beaten, it also is a fact that the horse is not quite dead yet — and for good reason.

    If, indeed, it were ever to be proven that Obama was not a naturalized U.S. citizen and hence had been unqualified to be President that would be the biggest political story in U.S. history and its most shameful.

    Now, in a land in which you are presumed innocent and the burden of proof lies with the accuser (except in the case of airport security and the IRS and a few other things in which guilt is presumed), then it seems to me that trying to uncover “evidence” in the birther matter is virtually impossible since the only exculpatory evidence would be the genuine document attesting to his birth in U.S. You can’t prove a negative, so only the actual birth certificate will end all discussion. As for school records, it’s clear Obama might have scored as high as C- (giving him considerable benefit of the doubt).

    One other point, as shown in the fictional case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Dickens’ Bleak House dragged on for generations in England’s Chancery Court without resolution, which fueled reform in that nation’s cumbersome and often unworkable legal system.

    As a lawyer, for no other reason than guaranteed continuous remuneration and having an pecuniary interest in seeing matters unresolved to your benefit, it would seem that further legal inquiry in the birther issue would afford some barrister a nice living (present company excluded, of course), for I believe, Don, you are a man of integrity who believes in the true meaning of justice. Still, time has been billed for more trivial legal pursuits no doubt with little harm to clients except for lightening their pockets. : )

  • Joe, it is legally impossible for Obama to be a non natural born citizen unless he took the steps subsequent to his birth necessary to renounce his American citizenship. There is zilch evidence that he ever did that. To be quite blunt, Angie has raised no interesting legal points, but mere conspiracy mongering garbage. There is far too much of that on the internet, and The American Catholic will have no part in that. If Angie persists in doing that, she will be banned by me from this blog, since TAC will not provide a forum for that type of pernicious nonsense.

  • “Angie, with you we see the “birther” mindset in all its ignorant glory.”

    Donald, have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Has he showed it to anybody? Isn’t one of the requirements for president is to be a Natural born citizen?

  • Considering that Angie has already proven incapable of debating people without insulting them, I’ve already gone and banned her, Don.

  • This distraction/misdirection/waste of energy and time does nothing to assuage the American people’s miseries: high food and fuel costs, high unemployment, and despair.

    Gallup: “Obama’s Approval Drops Below 50 Percent Among Poorest Americans; No Longer Enjoys Majority Approval In Any Income Class.”

    The natural born requirement was emplaced in the Constitution so that no foreign idea or cults of personality could come here and ruin the country. If it had been enforced the “demagogue manchild”; his unlawful czars; and his 40,000,000-strong horde of abortionists, guv employees, traitors, union thugs, etc. would not be destroying the country and our way of life.

    Obama must go.

  • Jasper asked: “Donald, have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Has he showed it to anybody? Isn’t one of the requirements for president is to be a Natural born citizen?”

    A question for you first. Did you see Bush’s birth certificate or Clinton’s? How about Bush41. Reagan’s is in his library, but it was not published before or while he was president. Same for Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Etc.

    So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate. However, you can do it voluntarily, as Obama and Trump have.

    The birth certificate that Obama has shown, known as the Certification of Live Birth, is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and has been since 2001. It is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out, even to people born before 2001. Thousands of people use it to get their US passports every year.

    The Wall Street Journal said:

    “The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues….

    Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

  • Considering that Angie has already proven incapable of debating people without insulting them…

    It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

  • It does include spaces for the hospital name, name of the doctor, etc–but these are not likely to be politically damaging.

    That is as much mere speculation – that revealing those details would not lead to any politically damaging inquiry – as is “birther” speculation, or my own speculation that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. The reason why it is mere speculation is because of Obama himself: because he has blocked access to those details.

    I mean, folks may be right that the birther issue is a “distraction” — as if that observation were somehow different from ‘”shut up”, he explained’ — and they may be right that the birther issue politically damages elephants more than asses, etc etc. I couldn’t care less about those contentions, which is why I didn’t comment on them.

    The fact remains that Obama is hiding the details of his birth, and it is not unreasonable, it doesn’t turn one into a raving lunatic, to ask why he is doing that or even to further contend that he ought to reveal those details.

    If the anti-birther crowd (I am neither pro- nor anti-birther, any more than I am pro- or anti- “Battlestar Galactica fan”) were willing to openly concede that Obama is deliberately hiding the details of his birth, and it his deliberate witholding of information that is the cause of controversy, but… well that would be an honest discussion. As it is, all the contempt heaped upon “birthers” just signals, to me if to nobody else, a fundamental dishonesty on the part of anti-birthers: an attempt to paint those who disagree as raving loons. (Granting, of course, that given any position X there are virtually always raving loons who agree with X).

    As I said, I fully expect that Obama was born in Hawaii — and even if not, that he is a natural born citizen, fully and unambiguously eligible for the presidency. That is my speculation — which is as supported/unsupported, given the deliberate withholding of detailed facts by Obama, as any other speculation.

  • Granite1,

    Ok, I take your word for it. Thanks

  • So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate.

    If I take (say) Lawrence Auster as an example of the “birther subplot” – that is, those who expect that Obama is in fact eligible for the presidency, but wont just shut up and go away the way the author of this post would like them to shut up and go away – then this is a straw man. Auster for one has never (that I have seen) contended that Obama is legally required to reveal the details of his birth, nor that presidential candidates in general have done so.

    One problem with trying to paint those who disagree with you about something as raving loons is that you almost inevitably end up attacking all sorts of straw men.

  • Speaking of strawmen:

    those who expect that Obama is in fact eligible for the presidency, but wont just shut up and go away the way the author of this post would like them to shut up and go away

    One problem with trying to paint those who disagree with you about something as raving loons

    I don’t believe that Trump and his ilk are themselves loons, nor do I say that they should shut up and go away (well, maybe Trump, but not for this). I simply think it’s a waste of time and that nothing meaningful can be revealed by pursuing this. I think that pressing the issue will allow them to be portrayed as loons, but I’m not suggesting that they are.

    Now Angie and those of her stripe who out and out suggest that Obama is not a natural born citizen – yeah, I think that’s loony.

  • I simply think it’s a waste of time and that nothing meaningful can be revealed by pursuing this.

    Fair enough. That is your mere speculation, though, resting on the same quicksand of absent facts – caused by Obama’s choice to hide the details, again despite being the sort of personal exhibitionist who twice authors supposedly intimate autobiographies before he had done much of anything – as the speculations of those with whom you disagree.

    Your anti-speculation is no better founded than the speculations of those against whom you argue. And the reason why everyone’s speculations are equally useless is because of Obama-the-exhibitionist’s deliberate choice to hide the detailed facts.

  • The problem isn’t where Obama was whelped. It’s he is ruining the country.

    Jobless rates “surprisingly” increased in today’s report; inflation raises prices on necessities.

    Only 45.4% of Americans held jobs in 2010, the lowest since 1983 and down from 49.3% in 2000.

    A redux of Carter’s ruinous regime is the best case scenario, a miracle.

    “Manchild Demagogue” spends three times as much as Dubya: blames Dubya.

    “Eat the Rich” Department:

    Americans prefer spending decreases to tax increases by 50% margin: three to two.

    Gallup: Obama’s Approval Drops Below 50 Percent Among Poorest Americans; No Longer Enjoys Majority Approval In Any Income Class.

    “So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate.”

    The AZ legisalture is about to make proof of Constitutional eligibility to be President a requirement to be included on the ballot in AZ.

    Obama must go.

  • Bob said: “because he has blocked access to those details.”

    Answer: No he didn’t. Hawaii does not send out the original birth certificate anymore. That was Hawaii’s decision, back in 2001, when it decided not to send out the long-form birth certificate anymore, and since then it hasn’t, not even to people who were born before 2001.

    Re: “The fact remains that Obama is hiding the details of his birth..”

    Answer. Once again, no he hasn’t. It is Hawaii that does not send out the original birth certificate anymore.

    Re: “If the anti-birther crowd…were willing to openly concede that Obama is deliberately hiding the details of his birth.”

    We do not and cannot because it is Hawaii that does not send out the original birth certificate to anyone. ANYONE.

    Re: “As I said, I fully expect that Obama was born in Hawaii…’

    Answer. So do I, based on the birth certificate, the confirmation of the officials in Hawaii (Three officials, three times, all Republicans), the notices in the Hawaii newspapers, which were not ads by the way, this witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    And the absence of any US travel document indicating that Obama traveled in 1961. (If a child were in fact born in a foreign country, she or he would need a US visa or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA)–which has not been found for Obama.

    I expect that you need proof that Hawaii does not send out copies of the long form birth certificate to ANYONE:

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606

    And:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-

  • TShaw said: “So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate.”

    The AZ legisalture is about to make proof of Constitutional eligibility to be President a requirement to be included on the ballot in AZ. ”

    Answer: Yes that may pass. My point was that there was none so far, so Bush and Clinton did not break any laws by not showing their birth certificates.

    IF Arizona does indeed pass that law, then the most that it can do is require Obama to show the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the one that he has already shown. Yes, I know that the bill still says “long-form,” but that is unconstitutional under the US Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. Under that clause every state must accept the official documents of all other states.

    So, it may have to go to court. If it does, there is no question that the courts will rule that Arizona must accept Hawaii’s official birth certificate, which is the Certification of Live Birth.

  • “Considering that Angie has already proven incapable of debating people without insulting them, I’ve already gone and banned her, Don.”

    Bravo Paul!

    “Donald, have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Has he showed it to anybody? Isn’t one of the requirements for president is to be a Natural born citizen?”

    Well Jasper I’ve already cited the law that makes Obama a natural born citizen and I will cite it again:

    “Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code sets forth who is a natural citizen:

    The relevant provision for Obama, even if he had been born in Kenya:

    “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html

    I am quite familiar with this law, and not only because I am an attorney. My brother was born in Saint John’s Newfoundland to my American Father and my then Canandian (She later became a naturalized American citizen) Mother. Out of curiosity I looked up the law on the subject years before I became an attorney and I know this aspect of the law by heart.

  • Ironically, Romney’s father who ran for the Republican nomination in 1968 was born in Mexico but it didn’t matter because his parents were US citizens, making him a natural born citizen.

    Obama’s father was not a US citizen so if he wasn’t born in the US he wouldn’t be a natural born citizen.

    My cousin went to school in Indonesia without being an Indonesian citizen.

  • “Obama’s father was not a US citizen so if he wasn’t born in the US he wouldn’t be a natural born citizen.”

    Untrue RR. See the statute I cited prior to your comment.

  • Donald,

    Ok, I believe you.

  • Obama’s mother was a citizen, so I believe that would make him a NBC regardless (hence the wacky theory that his mother renounced her citizenship prior to Obama’s birth).

  • Bear in mind also, there is, so far as I know, absolutely no evidence that Obama’s mother ever went to Kenya, and given that Obama Sr. had another wife back in Kenya that Ms. Dunham didn’t know about, that seems unlikely.

  • Bob said: “because he has blocked access to those details.”

    Answer: No he didn’t.

    Are you suggesting that Obama does not know and is not capable of finding out the details of his own birth?

    I suppose that is another possibility; though how believable a possibility is another matter.

  • So, Obama, Sr. had two wives at the same????

    He was married to Stanley and another woman in Kenya????

    Kenyan citizens are legally permitted to retain two wives???

    Now, I understand. It is all perfectly clear.

  • All of this is just a PR boon for Obama. First, it makes his opponents look like nuts, but it also brings to the forefront Obama’s most sympathetic qualities. Any embarrassing information on Obama’s birth certificate would be no fault of his own, but a product of his rather unconventional and tragic childhood. One of the few things I can say I admire about Obama is the fact that he overcame a difficult past and is, as far as I can tell, a devoted family man. That’s truly a wonderful thing. You can’t say that about Bill Clinton. I think all Americans are naturally sympathetic to someone with humble beginnings who then succeeds. As opponents of Obama, we need to concentrate on his numerous policy shortcomings, and not farfetched accidents of his birth.

  • Paul, it could very well be argued that good breeding matters a great deal. Objectively examining Obama’s parentage and extended family tree, one is hard-pressed to locate sturdy limbs upon which to hang the utmost confidence. That’s putting it as delicately as I can.

  • but a product of his rather unconventional and tragic childhood. One of the few things I can say I admire about Obama is the fact that he overcame a difficult past and is, as far as I can tell, a devoted family man. That’s truly a wonderful thing. You can’t say that about Bill Clinton.

    Calling his upbringing ‘tragic’ is de trop. By what accounts have appeared in the papers, Ann Dunham could be described as an odd, erratic and self-centered creature and the effects of this certainly tainted the lives of the people around her (both children, her parents, and her 2d husband). By the age of 35, she had taken two trips through the divorce courts and subcontracted the rearing of her son to her parents. That having been said, the life BO lead in Honolulu was (in material terms) agreeably bourgeois and there is little indication that any of the adults in his domestic milieux were given to the sort of cruelty that Roger Clinton visited on his sons or Hugh Rodham on his.

  • Don, you’re right. I misread the end of the statute about military service as a conditional.

  • Thank you for providing the following, Mr. McClarey:

    Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code sets forth who is a natural citizen:
    The relevant provision for Obama, even if he had been born in Kenya:
    “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”

    Do you have any legal considerations to offer us regarding Obama’s Connecticut Social Security number?

  • First, it makes his opponents look like nuts, but it also brings to the forefront Obama’s most sympathetic qualities. Any embarrassing information on Obama’s birth certificate would be no fault of his own, but a product of his rather unconventional and tragic childhood.

    If that were true, though, it seems it would motivate Obama to release the information rather than hide it, as he has done. So it seems likely that the qualities in question aren’t sympathetic – at least in the sense of inspiring support for him rather than undermining him politically, for whatever reason.

    Perhaps the argument is that whatever the facts turned out to be, no matter what they are, those facts ought to inspire sympathy and thus political support, given an ideally virtuous electorate. But an ideally virtuous electorate would never have elected Obama in the first place, so I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove; and in any event it is far from clear that it is wise, let alone virtuous, to willfully ignore a president’s formation and upbringing.

  • President Obama’s mother was a US citizen.

    She was permanently resident in the United States before his birth.

    She was permanently resident in the United States after his birth.

    Thus

    The President is a natural born United States Citizen if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Antarctica, the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the far side of the moon, or Alpha Centauri.

    Since the Courts would hold that for any Tom Dick or Harry in the same situation, I have no doubt that they would hold it for President Obama.

  • I’m not suggesting that someone’s upbringing is irrelevant to one’s character, but by continually bringing it up it makes Obama’s opponents look like jerks. He should be judged on his actions and stated beliefs, not his mother’s erratic behavior. Also simply growing up without material want doesn’t mean that he did not have a tragic childhood. As the child of multiple divorces, I’ve felt this personally.

    I vehemently oppose Obama politically, but I would hope that I would never fall into the trap of some of Bush’s detractors who seem to find everything about the man objectionable, sinister, or evil. It’s bad strategy and spiritually unhealthy.

    Bob, I honestly don’t think there is anything to be revealed, embarrassing or sympathy inducing. By delaying, Obama keeps the focus away from his actual record, and on this kookie issue.

  • I honestly don’t think there is anything to be revealed, embarrassing or sympathy inducing.

    And again, this is no better or worse a speculation than birther speculations, because we don’t have the facts; and the reason we don’t have the facts is that Barack “two autobiographies in his forties even though he did nothing of note” Obama, the exhibitionist, who has continually made a political symbol of his personal childhood and upbringing, is deliberately hiding those facts.

    What birthers and anti-birthers have in common is that they both assume that they know the implications of the deliberately-hidden facts about Obama’s childhood. Birthers think those unknown facts make Obama unqualified to be president under the Constitution; anti-birthers think those unknown facts are irrelevant. The “birther subplot” which is being criticized in this post seems to me to be frankly the only reasonable position: that is, we don’t know the facts, and we don’t know them precisely because Obama, who has deliberately made a political symbol out of his childhood, refuses to reveal the facts about his politically symbolic childhood.

    I suppose we might say that there is an “anti-birther subplot” at work too. An unspoken premise of the anti-birther subplot is that it is an unreasonable and embarrassing waste of time to press any issue which is presumed (without factual basis) to be unimportant.

    Under the anti-birther subplot, pressing the issue – the fact – that Obama-who-made-his-childhood-a-political-symbol-and-wrote-two-autobiographies-by-the-time-he-was-in-his-forties-and-won-the-presidency-on-that-narrative, refuses to reveal the details of his own childhood – is unreasonable and embarrassing.

    I don’t think either birtherism or anti-birtherism (as defined in this thread) are at all reasonable, because both presume to know facts which we do not in fact know, and we don’t know them because Obama is deliberately hiding them. And I don’t find the “shut up, he explained” or “pressing any issue which is not the most important issue is a foolish waste of time” narrative of the anti-birther-subplot, as typified by this blog post, to be particularly reasonable either.

    The more I think about it, the most defensible position seems to be the “birther subplot” position: we don’t know the facts because Obama, who deliberately made a political symbol of his own childhood, is deliberately preventing us from knowing them. Furthermore, as human beings we are perfectly capable of talking about and pressing more than one issue. Pressing some particular issue doesn’t mean it is the most important issue, so the contention that pressing this issue from the standpoint of the “birther subplot” is a waste of time, is pish-posh.

  • PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature gave final approval late Thursday night to a proposal that would require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state’s ballot.

  • Also simply growing up without material want doesn’t mean that he did not have a tragic childhood. As the child of multiple divorces, I’ve felt this personally.

    There is a distinction between ‘disagreeable in some aspects’ and ‘tragic’.

  • Bob,

    There are literally dozens of reasons that Obama is unfit for office. Harping on a stupid non-issue like this is a waste of everyone’s time and energy. In fact I now regret even bringing up the issue because it’s an even bigger waste of time and energy discussing what a complete waste of time and energy it is. Who cares if his mother was unmarried or his father was a louse or anything that might be on the long-form certificate? It is irrelevant to the fact that the man is: a demagogue unserious about tackling the financial issues facing this nation, is the biggest enemy of the unborn ever to occupy the White House, has absolutely no idea how to conduct foreign policy, lies with practically every breath he takes, and seeks to socialize the economy to an extent heretofore unseen. Oh, but there maybe kinda possibly be sort of something that is not good on his birth certificate. Who. Freaking. Cares.

  • Thanks Don. I will grant that the Birthers have absolutely nothing on the Trig Truthers. Now that is some unhinged crazy.

  • Z: Thanks for bumping that comment.

  • Rah!, rah!, facts are a waste of time! woo-hoo!

    I’ll have what you guys are drinking.

  • What “facts” have you presented, Bob? Do you think that ranting and raving is somehow proof of your argument?

    Unreal.

  • Every time you use the term “waste”, “ranting”, “raving”, “crazy”, “who cares”, or “unhinged”, you have to drink.

  • Right Bob, using strong adjectives is the same thing as making unsupportable claims and stating them as fact.

    I’m done with this.

  • I think it was Rochefoucauld who said that arguments would not last long if the fault were on only one side.

  • I rather think Rochefoucauld did not have deranged conspiracy nuts in mind when he made that statement Joe. 🙂

  • Don’t forget that “birther” itself is a play on “truther”, the term for the (generally left leaning) people who insist that 9/11 was an “inside job” plotted, or at the very least allowed to happen, by the Bush Administration. I guess “-ther” has become the suffix of choice to designate crackpot conspiracy theories just as “-gate” is for political scandals.

    Another one of Trump’s supremely idiotic statements on the birther issue was his assertion that the birth announcements which appeared in the Honolulu newspapers were paid advertisements placed by his grandparents in an attempt to make little Barry appear to be a U.S. citizen and thereby gain the benefits of citizenship.

    It may be true TODAY that people have to pay to publish birth announcements (or wedding announcements, or obituaries). However, routine publication of birth announcements in newspapers (along with hospital admissions and discharges) was a common practice in small towns and small- to medium-size cities prior to the advent of medical privacy laws and concerns about child abduction and identity theft.

    My own birth and that of my older brother (nearly the same age as Obama) was announced in the local newspaper in precisely the same format as was Obama’s — “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe (Jane Smith), 123 Elm Street, Anytown, girl, Saturday, St. Mary’s.” In the 1960s hospitals automatically provided this information to local newspapers unless the parents specifically requested that it NOT be published.

  • “However, routine publication of birth announcements in newspapers (along with hospital admissions and discharges) was a common practice in small towns and small- to medium-size cities prior to the advent of medical privacy laws and concerns about child abduction and identity theft.”

    Quite right Elaine. In my own small town newspaper this is still the case. I almost think Trump, bad hair piece+big ego, is a mole attempting to get Obama re-elected.

  • As with many arguments, this one (referring to “anti-birther-subplot” as opposed to “anti-birther”) seems to suffer from an utter incapacity to accurately paraphrase what you are arguing against.

  • Actually Bob I think it’s quite simple. Birthers are either fools or knaves who either have no knowledge of the relevant law and facts or deliberately choose to ignore the relevant law and facts. Nothing complicated about it.

  • Actually Bob I think it’s quite simple. Birthers are either fools or knaves who either have no knowledge of the relevant law and facts or deliberately choose to ignore the relevant law and facts. Nothing complicated about it.

    Don: you prove my point just about perfectly with that post.

    All of my own discussion in this post has been about the “birther subplot,” not “birtherism” proper. I explicitly rejected the “birther” position above, which you would know if you were putting even the slightest effort into making an accurate paraphrase.

    I get it, though. This post wasn’t about substantive discussion; it was just a rant. And hey, everyone needs a little rant now and then.

    Enjoy the hothouse, boys!

  • “I get it, though. This post wasn’t about substantive discussion; it was just a rant. And hey, everyone needs a little rant now and then.”

    No Bob, this post was to indicate that Birtherism is a complete dead end. Your meandering contribution did help substantiate that point, so very good show Bob!

  • I believe we have reached the end of the useful life of this thread.

Seymour Hersch Channels Dan Brown

Wednesday, January 19, AD 2011

 

Hattip to Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal.  Seymour Hersch, part time left wing loon and full time writer at the New Yorker, critiques US policy in the Middle East and blames us papists:

In a speech billed as a discussion of the Bush and Obama eras, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh delivered a rambling, conspiracy-laden diatribe here Monday expressing his disappointment with President Barack Obama and his dissatisfaction with the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

“Just when we needed an angry black man,” he began, his arm perched jauntily on the podium, “we didn’t get one.”

It quickly went downhill from there.

Hersh, whose exposés of gross abuses by members of the U.S. military in Vietnam and Iraq have earned him worldwide fame and high journalistic honors, said he was writing a book on what he called the “Cheney-Bush years” and saw little difference between that period and the Obama administration.

He said that he was keeping a “checklist” of aggressive U.S. policies that remained in place, including torture and “rendition” of terrorist suspects to allied countries, which he alleged was ongoing.

He also charged that U.S. foreign policy had been hijacked by a cabal of neoconservative “crusaders” in the former vice president’s office and now in the special operations community.

“What I’m really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over,” he said of his forthcoming book. “It’s not only that the neocons took it over but how easily they did it — how Congress disappeared, how the press became part of it, how the public acquiesced.”

Hersh then brought up the widespread looting that took place in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. “In the Cheney shop, the attitude was, ‘What’s this? What are they all worried about, the politicians and the press, they’re all worried about some looting? … Don’t they get it? We’re gonna change mosques into cathedrals. And when we get all the oil, nobody’s gonna give a damn.'”

“That’s the attitude,” he continued. “We’re gonna change mosques into cathedrals. That’s an attitude that pervades, I’m here to say, a large percentage of the Joint Special Operations Command.”

He then alleged that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC before briefly becoming the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and his successor, Vice Adm. William McRaven, as well as many within JSOC, “are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta.”

Hersh may have been referring to the Sovereign Order of Malta, a Roman Catholic organization commited to “defence of the Faith and assistance to the poor and the suffering,” according to its website.

“Many of them are members of Opus Dei,” Hersh continued. “They do see what they’re doing — and this is not an atypical attitude among some military — it’s a crusade, literally. They see themselves as the protectors of the Christians. They’re protecting them from the Muslims [as in] the 13th century. And this is their function.”

“They have little insignias, these coins they pass among each other, which are crusader coins,” he continued. “They have insignia that reflect the whole notion that this is a culture war. … Right now, there’s a tremendous, tremendous amount of anti-Muslim feeling in the military community.””

Continue reading...

47 Responses to Seymour Hersch Channels Dan Brown

  • Any proof given?

    When intelligent (READ: conservative or tea party) people are involved the morons lose: they do not have ANY evidence. As in names, dates, places, numbers, inventories of loot, . . .

    OTOH, You got to give the devil his due. Obama has ended “enhanced interrogation” and replaced with assassinations by unmanned aerial drones. A stopped clock is correct twice a day.

    Anyway, this is extremely dangerous. There are thousands of drug-deranged, totally vicious liberal losers that are (truth) so moronic as to believe this stuff.

    Worse: they’ll blame Sarah (Palin 2012!!!) the next time her Church burns down. And, Rush Limbaugh for the next assassination (by a drug-crazed liberal loser) of a GOP-appointed Justice about to rule on the (genuflect!) Obama agenda.

    Suppose you were an idiot. And, suppose you were a liberal. But, I repeat myself.

  • First, I am serving in Afghanistan and Stash did not give me crusader coin, “whats up with that”.

    Second, Mr Hersch was once the press secretary to presedential candidate Eugene McCarthy, ’nuff said”. Extreme Liberal.

    What is it with these old reporters/columnists (Helen Thomas) who just keep their opinions to themselves.

  • God keep you and protect you stan and thank you for your service to our country. If you do get some of those crusader coins, save one for me!

  • Afghani”stan”

    God Bless you.

    Our son was there in 2009. He is set to go again in March.

    Keep alert. Stay safe.

    We love you. You wonderful guys are in our prayers morning and night.

  • Hersch clearly got carried away by pointing fingers at just about everyone, but he wasn’t far wrong about the crooked Cheney bunch who made hundreds of millions of dollars in blood money off the Iraq slaughter through Halliburton, et al. One wonders why Cheney would consider a heart transplant when it doesn’t appear he has one.

    Read “The New American Century,” hatched by the neocons about 10 years ago that said “absent a Pearl Harbor,” it would be difficult to revive defense spending. They got their wish with 9/11 and, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist, just stating a fact that gave the shot in the arm the sagging military-industrial complex needed.

  • Careful Joe.

    “Blood money” is awful close to “blood libel.” As we know from Palin’s use of that term, it is anti-semitic. Your use of the term can equally be considered anti-semitic especially in conjunction with your use of the word “slaughter.” Add to this that Cheney is from Wyoming which is next to Idaho which has a large number of extreme rightists, then you are clearly invoking violence.

  • Phil, I’ll take your comments as tongue-in-cheek, but if not then I’ll be careful and watch my back.

  • Joe,

    I’m controlling your dream reality as I write. You will not be able to watch your back. 😉

  • Second, Mr Hersch was once the press secretary to presedential candidate Eugene McCarthy, ’nuff said”. Extreme Liberal.

    Hersch was let go by the McCarthy campaign. Hersch contended that McCarthy took no interest in race relations and so he (Hersch) had to leave in conscience. Martin Peretz, then employed by the campaign, said that Hersch was lying and that he departed the campaign because McCarthy did not think that Hersch as his press secretary was charged with policy-making duties.

    Sen. McCarthy might be criticized for ineffectuality (with regard to the slide of the Democratic Party into the status of cat’s paw of the Planned Parenthood Federation) but was a detatched and ironic mainline Democrat, not an extremist. Hersch’s sensibility bears no resemblance to McCarthy’s and the two manifested little in common in the years after 1968.

  • but he wasn’t far wrong about the crooked Cheney bunch who made hundreds of millions of dollars in blood money off the Iraq slaughter through Halliburton, et al.

    1. Richard Cheney worked for Halliburton for all of four years.

    2. Who is ‘the Cheney bunch’?

    3. Why is their compensation as a government contractor ‘blood money’?

  • 1. “For all of four years”…resigned to avoid “conflict of interest” when he became VP. Meanwhile, racked up $30 million (known) net worth.
    2. ‘Cheney Bunch’ includes the following: Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz.
    3. Because they make it by killing innocents and then get no-bid awards to rebuild what they destroyed.

  • Never new Halliburton killed people. I thought they were into oil rigging.

  • As someone wise once said, “You think you die for your country, but you actually die for some industrialist.”

  • Just because some wackjobs buy into every conspiracy doesn’t mean there aren’t any conspiracies. Human history is full of them, chiefly one of the close followers of a certain Jewish Rabi we are all familiar with who conspired with the Sanhedrin to have Him killed. It is illogical to be Catholic and not believe in the existence of human conspirators – the Church, as promised by her Founder, is the object of many evil conspiracies and will always be. Somehow, I don’t think that space aliens have anything to do with that though 🙂

    When we give up our analysis due to the false left-right paradigm, we miss much.

    Sometimes conspiracies are made of convenient enemies who happen to have aligned interests at the time, sometimes it is because some people are just opportunists and sometimes it is an actual conspiracy in order to achieve an evil end.

    I was not against the Iraq war, at the time, partly because there was evidence, at the time, of the presence and willingness to use WMD, after all, Rumsfeld and Cheney sold them to Saddam to use against Iran in the 80s. What I think is a conspiracy is the fact that we are still there – it does not take this long for the finest military the world has ever seen to effect regime change and destroy an opposition army. It is silly to engage in guerrilla warfare in a foreign country. So why are we still there? Could it be part of a Persian flanking maneuver? Could it be very profitable for some people? Could it be that a state of war will always allow the welfare-warfare corporatist state to expand and work its way toward absolutism?

    It seems to be yes, on all fronts – that is a conspiracy.

    Notwithstanding the inane anti-Catholicism, do any of you really disbelieve that the enemies of the Church have entered the Church? Have you seen the damage done to Her? Sure, Holy Mother Church will be here until the end of time, but we have no guarantee that it will be anything more than a small remnant of saints. Of course, these saints can change the world.

    The problem is labels – it is not a right-wing, or a left-wing conspiracy, it is the result of Libido Dominandi, the Lust for Power driven by pride, sin and disobedience and in many cases humans who are in full cooperation with the demonic. Neocons are corporatist statists, modern liberals are corporatist statists and they exist in both parties (if there are in fact two parties) and they have been running this country into the ground. A great Republic like ours does not get brought down except from the inside, and that is a conspiracy.

    The days of this conspiracy are coming to an end – either the fulfillment of the conspiracy will occur soon and we will all be slaves, or, as I think will occur, we will thwart and destroy the conspiracy – for now anyway. Remember, the chief conspirator never sleeps and is always on the prowl to devour souls.

  • I am willing to bet that less than one percent of the people who ascribe dark motives to Haliburton have no clue what it does or what its operations in the Middle East are comprised of.

    As for conspiracy mongering in general, it’s a counter-productive activity. Instead of focusing on the content of the policy disagreement, conspiracy mongers prefer to see evil intent behind said policy. This of course only perpetuates the status quo. After all, if all the bad things the government does are due to the fact that most are slaves to some ill-defined corporate entity, then really there’s not much we can do to change things. In other words, its an excuse for dropping out of politics altogether. In other, other words, it sanctions laziness.

  • Joe and Ak, loosen up the tinfoil hats. The idea that the Iraq war was fought to further corporate interests is as risible as the lunacy Hersch is peddling.

  • Paul, My point re Halliburton can best be summed up by this definition by Ambrose Bierce:

    ‘Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.’

  • Of course that idea has a long pedigree. Isolationists in the thirties were peddling the idea that sinister arms merchants were behind World War I, the so-called merchants of death. It was all rot, without a shred of evidence to support it, but a lot of people bought into it, with Congressional hearings held in regard to it. It gave a strong impetus to the isolationist movement in this country, and helped ensure that the US entered World War II badly unprepared.

  • Donald, I find your rejoinder close to ad hominem, which is out of character for one who purports to conduct a fair and open forum. Beneath the “tinfoil hat” you assert I wear, there lies a brain that attempts to do some critical thinking. There is ample evidence to suggest that Halliburton and other war contractors benefited enormously by the Iraq war. But in the spirit of civility sought by our President, I hereby will refrain from casting any aspersions on a corporation or those associated with it.

  • And Joe is no closer to providing an actual description of what Haliburton does, how it influenced policy, or how it has blood on its hands. More vague insinuations about a shadowy corporation. Nothing of substance.

  • I have a strong antipathy to conspiracy theories Joe. Throughout history belief in such theories, almost always unfounded, has wreaked much havoc.

  • Paul,

    Acknowledging a conspiracy does not make one politically lazy. In some cases it can inspire political action. If the conspiracy does exist, and we know that conspiracies do exist and you ignore it, then your political action will probably be rendered inert.

    I think one can take conspiracy too far, in the sense that everything is so secret that anything is possible – this of course, can only occur from a materialist perspective. With eyes of faith we know, not only do conspiracies exist, but that we can’t and don’t need to know everything about them because we trust in Divine Providence. Materialists are fools, and sadly, some are Christian, as if God did not know that the Enemy was tempting Adam and Eve in the garden.

    If we look at the evidence and employ some critical thinking and understand a little about power and human nature – then the conspiracies are fairly obvious. There is a money-power conspiracy in nearly every government and almost always and everywhere. The power of government is too tempting for sinners. If not for conspiracies and government abuse, why would the Founding Fathers have conspired to commit treason by rebelling against the Crown and then drafting Articles of Confederation to ensure that the same conspiracy did not befall them again?

    Don, I only wear the tinfoil hat to keep my hair out of my eyes, everyone knows that aluminum does nothing against Death Rays and H.A.A.R.P bombardments from Alaska.

    Don, where did I say that the second Iraq war was fought ONLY for corporate interests? I suppose you think the hack Eisenhower was wrong about the military-industrial complex too. I think Iraq was a legitimate war, given the circumstances at the time. I think we should have gone in with more force and wrapped it up much sooner and been far more concerned about liberating Muslims to allow them to kill Christians, intentionally or unintentionally (and no for this I don’t blame Bush – but those left-wing neocons). Nevertheless, a perpetual state of war is in no way in the best interest of a Republic – this is the action of Empire and an Empire abroad is always despotic at home.

    Don, There is no question that J.P Morgan and the mercantilist-Anglophile elite pushed us into WWI, what was the American interest in that mess, other than to bring about Wilson’s League of Nations to rule and order the world according to the scientific-technocrats superior ideas of social engineering and eradicate the true enemy, the Popish Church. Versailles guaranteed that we’d have to go back and fight Hitler, so long as we don’t damage any of the I.G. Farben/Rockefeller buildings of course.

    Don, throwing around a word like isolationist detracts from the validity that most of the wars we have been driven into and the perpetual state of undeclared war since WWII and Korea are NOT within the interests of the USA. Surely, we can agree on that.

  • Don,

    Did the Jacobins hatch a conspiracy? Was the havoc that ensued because of the Jacobins, or those who tried to fight the conspiracy?

  • Paul, Donald, et al…To document the vast array of facts regarding Halliburton and other war profiteers going back decades would not only take up too much bandwidth but also challenge the ‘conventional’ wisdom found hereabouts and subject me to further verbal assault. Though I have donned my flame-retardant suit, I nonetheless find the heat uncomfortable and wish to retain good relations with all those on TAC, which otherwise brooks dissent on a variety of topics.

  • Coincidence?

    Company Name Profits BEFORE WWI Profits by the end of WWI

    DuPont (Gunpowder) $ 6,000,000 $ 58.000,000
    Bethlehem Steel $ 6,000,000 $ 49,000,000
    United States Steel $ 105,000,000 $ 240,000,000
    Anaconda $ 10,000,000 $ 34,000,000
    Utah Copper $ 5,000,000 $ 21,000,000
    Central Leather Company $ 3,500,000 $ 15,000,000
    International Nickel Company $ 4,000,000 $ 73,000,000
    American Sugar Refining Company $ 2,000,000 $ 6,000,000

    Source: “War is a Racket”

  • Joe,

    I am not challenging your premise, because I suspect, to a large part we agree; however, correlation does not prove causation. Furthermore, not all war is a racket. Just wars are a necessary part of human life and history. Profits earned during a just war are not necessarily unjust and not necessarily part of a racket or conspiracy.

    Of course, humans without informed moral consciences, will prefer to have business guaranteed than compete in a market and war tends to move a populace to rally for support because the fear becomes existential.

    For example, we are at war with Muslim terrorists; however, this war is ill defined as the War on Terror, as if we can eradicate terror. In fact, this is a war OF terror and it is being fought against us. Does that mean that Muslim terrorists are not dangerous and that we should not deal with them, even if that means invading a host or supporting country – of course not. We have every right and in many cases duty to prosecute military action against them; however, that isn’t what we are doing most of the time. It seems the answer to being attacked by Al Qua’ida is to pass the Patriot Act. I thought it would have been better to just kill Osama, like when Clinton and Berger had the opportunity – I wonder why they didn’t squeeze the trigger.

    Oceana needs be at war with EastAsia or EuraAsia at all times to keep the citizens of Oceana under control.

  • AK, as defined by Augustine and Aquinas, perhaps the last “just war” was World War II. That profits inevitably flow from war is indisputable, but I’d agree that correlation is at times nebulous. Ike’s famous 1961 speech (delivered 50 years ago almost to the day) on the military industrial complex is worth re-reading.

    As for perpetual war for perpetual peace, Orwell sums up Oceania thusly:

    The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work.

  • Donald, 2 Medals of Honor, a long and distinguished military career, I’d say he has some cred. Or don’t you believe that contemporary witness is best in recording history. Were this not so, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John could be readily dismissed and yet we Christians rely on them (and Paul) for much of what we believe.

  • Actually Joe, contemporary accounts indicate a wide spread belief that Butler fabricated the whole thing. Butler was passed over as Commandant of the Marine Corp in 1931 because he publicly accused Mussolini in a speech of having run over a child. He never got over it and he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1932 as a Republican. He then turned hard left, attacking capitalism and the military as being gangsters for the capitalists. That is what makes his entire idea of a fascist plot against FDR so laughable. By 1934 he was known as an ardent supporter of FDR and yet shadowy plutocrats wanted him to command a coup against Roosevelt? FDR obviously thought it was rubbish as there were no criminal prosecutions by the Feds of anyone named by Butler. Butler was a very brave man as attested by his two medals of honor. He was also a fabulist, to put it politely, of the first order.

  • Re: Halliburton… I think people are just peeved at them because the French company Schlumberger didn’t get the contract. BooHoo. 😉

  • To document the vast array of facts regarding Halliburton and other war profiteers going back decades would not only take up too much bandwidth but also challenge the ‘conventional’ wisdom found hereabouts and subject me to further verbal assault.

    This is a very long way of saying you don’t have anything substantial to back up your allegations. Color me surprised.

  • Donald, no doubt he had his critics. Who doesn’t? Still, I would take his views with more than a grain.

    Tex: Your francophobia is showing. : )

  • Paul, the evidence is substantial, compelling fact-checkable and easily accessible to any objective investigator. That’s the short of it.

  • Finally (I promise), I hate to resort to a cliche, but connect the dots.

  • Joe, in part that is a kitchen sink list of professors, politicians, and wonks who have had, at one time or another since 1969, some sort of employment in the foreign policy apparat. However, you have also leavened it with a miscellany of others you appear not to care for, including a history professor at Yale, a theologian at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a publisher of business and travel magazines, and a retired editor at Basic Books. Several of these people held appointive positions contemporary with Cheney’s in the Ford Administration (in which Cheney was Rumsfeld’s subordinate, not the other way around), the 1st Bush Administration, and the 2d Bush Administration. Few other than Lewis Libby might be called Cheney proteges. His association with most, however, is limited to being a registered Republican with some entree into certain circles.

    Because they make it by killing innocents

    Who? where?

  • Art, They are ALL signatories to the 1997 New American Century think thank document (since disbanded), which posits:
    * we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
    * we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
    * we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
    * we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

    Interpreted by some, this is but another blank check for militarism and imperialism.

  • Right Joe. The truth is out there.

  • I’m reminded of an old Jewish joke: a Jewish immigrant visits a deli and horrifies his friends by pulling out a notorious anti-Semitic rag to read while he’s eating his lox and bagel. “Abie, how can you read such a disgusting paper!,” they exclaim. ” It’s full of lies!”

    Abie replies, “When I read the Yiddish papers, all the stories are sad ones about pogroms and persecutions of Jews. When I read this one, it goes on about how our bankers run the whole world and how all Jews are smart and rich. This one makes me feel much better!”

    Similiarly, it’s a bit more fun to fantasize about the fabulous Knights of Malta, the ever-mysterious Opus Dei and crusader coins than it is for me to read the letter I just got from Archbishop Listecki regarding our Chapter 11 reorganization. Hey, Opus Dei, send a few crusader coins our way!

    But then I remember that there are people in the world who both take Hersh’s ridiculous theories to heart and are in a position to hurt Catholics and other Christians living in Muslim countries. Then Hersh’s absurdities aren’t so amusing.

  • Although it was founded by the Alsatian brothers, Schlumberger, since the 1940s the company has had its headquarters in Houston Texas USA.

  • Conspiracies a absolutely do exist. FDR once said: “If something happens in Washington, you can bet it was planned. Does that mean all conspiracy theories are true? Of course, not, but a few things that were once “conspiracy theories” but later turned out to be conspiracy fact: 1) banker’s plotted to seized the White House and overthrow Roosevelt (true: check out Semedley Butler and find the Congresssional Hearings classified until the mid 1980s, 2) the Contra-Cocaine affaire, 3) MKultra (yes, the CIA contracted prolific research on mind control), 4) FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack (last evidence to prove that came in in the last two years), 5) American bankers did business with the Nazis AFTER World War II had started (recent declassification of Justice Department documents have proved this true), 6) filibusters were an organized effort to create a “greater South” directed by a Secret Society called the Golden Circle (true, despite the fact National Treasure II tried to “fictionalize” much of this story. That’s only a half dozen of “loon” conspiracy theories that have been proved to be real plots or events.

    Now, is Hersch right on his charges? I have no idea, but try checking out the unit patches and symbols used by various departments of the military (you can start with the School of the Americas) and you do see over and over that the symbol includes symbols of Knights of Pythagoras, Knights of Columbus, the ubiquitous “all seeing eye” (NASA has a bunch of these on recent military missions, etc.. It is intriguing that these are chosen so often. Does each one have a link to a secret society or conspiracy thereof. No doubt the answer would be no, but are some quite possibly linked to a conspiracy or cabal within the military? Dismissing the idea out of hand is just intellectually lazy and possibly dangerous. Of all the real secret societies and plots that have ever existed, well over half have been associated the military, mercenaries, or some other paramilitary organization. What kind of hubris does it take to believe that we’re beyond all that in an era where “secrecy” is increasingly cloaking every thing the military and Homeland Security is involved in?

    Doubt Hersch? Sure. Dismiss him? I don’t think we should.

  • Blake Hounshell has a follow up today. We can diss Hersh as a loon but this is truly sad:

    “More than a few readers, including Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, complained that I hadn’t rebutted Hersh’s arguments… I imagine that when most reasonable people read the transcript — I don’t have a video, unfortunately — they will see what I’m talking about… I thought it was self-evident that several points Hersh made were off-base and conspiratorial, but perhaps it’s worth spelling things out for everyone.”

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/21/me_and_seymour_hersh

  • “There’s a lot more, but you get the idea. So I’m going to go out on a limb here and just say it: Odds are good that JSOC is not being overrun by Catholic fanatics.”

    That is sad RR. Apparently for some people no mad rantings are too bizarre to believe if Catholics can be painted as villains.

  • “1) banker’s plotted to seized the White House and overthrow Roosevelt (true: check out Semedley Butler and find the Congresssional Hearings classified until the mid 1980s”

    No, actually the evidence was that Smedley Butler was a fabulist in regard to his statements about this conspiracy, as demonstated by FDR’s Justice Department making no attempt to indict anyone name by Butler.

    “2) the Contra-Cocaine affaire-”

    The Reagan administration admitted at the time that some of the Contras had engaged in cocaine dealing to support their operations.

    “3. MKultra (yes, the CIA contracted prolific research on mind control),”

    The CIA wasted a fair amount of money in the fifties and sixties on mind control, telekinesis, mind reading, ESP and other nutty dead ends. MK Ultra has become a source of endless loony conspiracy theories as a google search will reveal.

    “4) FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack (last evidence to prove that came in in the last two years)”

    That is complete and total bunk.

    5) American bankers did business with the Nazis AFTER World War II had started (recent declassification of Justice Department documents have proved this true).

    Almost complete bunk. American banks and companies had ties with German companies and banks. The idea that this constituted doing business with the Nazis is a staple of conspiracy theories on the far left and far right, usually involving Prescott Bush. Go to the link below to separate fact from fancy:

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2434/was-president-bushs-great-grandfather-a-nazi

    “6) filibusters were an organized effort to create a “greater South” directed by a Secret Society called the Golden Circle”

    The Knights of the Golden Circle was a remarkably ineffective Southern “secret” organization that was well known throughout the North during the Civil War.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle

    “Dismissing the idea out of hand is just intellectually lazy and possibly dangerous.”

    No, believing in conspiracy theories without solid evidence is intellectually lazy and almost always dangerous for societies if enough people begin to believe in them.

  • Re FDR, Donald, a lot of smoke if no fire:

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

  • No smoke and no fire Joe. Gordon Prange, a historian who clearly despised FDR, in his definitive Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History demolished the argument that FDR knew in advance of Pearl Harbor.

    http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Gordon-W-Prange/dp/0140159096

9-11 Conspiracy Theories Are Ludicrous

Friday, September 10, AD 2010

From the only reliable source of news on the net, the Onion.  The true humor of course is that a cottage industry has arisen claiming that 9-11 was an inside job.  No belief, no matter how farcical, will fail to have fools and knaves to rally about it.  A useful resource to answer some of the whacked out contentions of the 9-11 Truther Movement is the Debunking the 9-11 Myths at Popular Mechanics.  Another first rate source is the Journal of Debunking 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to 9-11 Conspiracy Theories Are Ludicrous

  • I volunteer to give a gratis kickboxing lesson to anyone that ascribes to such lunacy.

    The truth is the mortal remains of 1,100 persons that tragically expired that inauspicious day were never found or returned for burial to the widows and orphans.

  • My opinions of the “truthers” are best left unsaid on a Catholic website.

  • I did find that Popular Mechanics book extremely helpful both for understanding the claims by the truthers as well as the mistakes they’re making.

    Considering the outrage by the left that people think Obama is a Muslim or doesn’t have a birth certificate, it’s amazing that this kind of nonsense it tolerated, as I’d rather Americans think the President was lying about his religion rather than the President has coordinated an attack on his own people.

  • The fact that Popular Mechanics is a co-conspirator in supressing the truth is hardly surprising given that it is owned by privately held and therefore notoriously secretive Hearst Communications. But for The Onion to betray its normally exceptional journalistic principles by promoting this transparent parody is very disappointing. It seems that no one outside of Hollywood has the courage to speak truth to power anymore.

  • Since you can’t really argue with crazy people, the best defense may be humor. When he hears people voice these types of bizarre theories, a friend of mine in a very serious tone chimes in, “Yeah you know Fort Sumter was in an inside job as well.” Sometimes people actually go along with his charade and then they really feel stupid when he tells them the truth.

    I told him the next time to add some more historical events to his routine. For example tell them that the the Archduke was never shot and WWI never really happened. Perhaps tell them that the Archduke lives on an island where he has since married Ameila Earhart and is entertained nightly by the sounds of Elvis and Jim Morrison performing in the hotel’s lounge.

  • We know that 9-11 was a conspiracy. Al Qa’eeda conspired to destroy, what they consider the symbol of Western imperialism – money, wealth and trade, as in the World Trade Center. Of course, that is only the secondary target, the primary target has and always will be the heart of Christendom, Our Holy Church.

    Were elements in our government and other power centers involved? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is probably likely. To be clear, the truthers miss the point when they decide to attack Bush and the ‘Right’ in general, because that makes a mockery of the likely collusion. It is neither part of the false Left-Right paradigm, nor American and it isn’t even part of our governing structure. What is far more likely is the embedding of moles, spies, collaborators and other hidden elements that seek to destroy what is left of Western Civilization.

    Look at the Ft. Hood shooter, he was an officer in our Army and yet, he is a Moslem terrorist. We are all concerned about Mexican anchor babies used to facilitate illegal immigrants getting work and welfare here, yet what goes relatively unnoticed is Moselm anchor babies that can blend in to our American culture and yet harbor ill will and are likely to strike in the future.

    Communists, who now subvert us by openly ‘serving’ in our government have been there all along, only they were hiding. Conspiracies are real, beginning in the Garden and resulting in the Fall. To ignore that is to be out of touch with reality. Of course, the secret nature of conspiracies is that facts are hard to find and even when known the context is difficult to discern.

    Did the Al Qu’eeda terrorists receive support from elements in our country and from elements within our government? Probably. Does that mean that this is part of some government conspiracy? I doubt it. But we have to recall that some will use government power for their own ends, others for ideological ends and yet others will infiltrate in order to destroy because they work with our enemies. It is quite possible. Was George Bush the mastermind? Of course not. It is unlikely that conspirators can achieve that high and public an office. Unlikely, but it may have been achieved in 2008. Nevertheless, Obama is a pawn of his own ideology and the behind the scene machinations of those with evil intentions.

    There is no question that we have been weakened in the eyes of Moselm terrorists and the Islamic heresy, the Communists and just about every enemy, foreign and domestic, since this man has taken office.

    We have to remember that poor leadership and even foreign attack, especially Moslem and Communist, is punishment for sin. Unless you are deluded into thinking our culture is heading in the right moral direction, then you cannot ignore the fact that these things happen because we are unfaithful.

  • I have long suspected Mike that Popular Mechanics is in league with the Illuminati, although the Onion did surprise me. I assumed that the Onion was owned by the cattle mutilating subsection of the Elvis-was-an-alien-cult and they are strong believers that 9-11 was an inside job.

  • I was speaking (no, really!) with a liberal who believes in UFO’s and Big Foots, not in God.

    I told him if while deer hunting in the Adirondacks, I saw a Big Foot, I’d shoot the son-of-a-gun.

    He begged me not to. He said, “That would (tick) off the aliens.”

    Truth.

  • I hear that the world is actually controlled by someone in a bunker in rural Illinois, a Catholic (who else?) who occasionally communicates with his minions via coded essays about Abraham Lincoln.

  • My problem with both conspiracy theories and accepted “our government is great” jingoism is the same, and partially put into words for me by someone on Facebook the other day:
    1. Original Sin
    2. Most people are too lazy or incompetent for conspiracies (or government) to work properly.

    That said, I don’t believe it was an “inside job” in the sense of the “Truthers”, but I *do* believe that our government has a long history of allowing events to happen when it wants to go to war to justify being the “heroes”: Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, and Tonkin Bay all were to some degree known about, and the 9/11 Commission found that the government did have information that could have helped prevent 9/11.

    As for whom the terrorists were attacking, they didn’t attack the US for being the “heart of Christianity” or for being Catholic. They attacked the US for being imperialistic and for spreading filth around the world through Hollywood.

  • “They attacked the US for being imperialistic and for spreading filth around the world through Hollywood.”

    Complete and total rubbish. Some of the 9-11 perps slept with prostitutes in the days leading up to them murdering 3000 innocent Americans. Pornography of a particulary perverse nature has been a part of Arab culture for centuries as well as wide spread pederasty. As for imperialism, if that means that we will not allow them to annihilate Israel or murder every Christian and Westerner in the Middle East, guilty as charged.

    The Jihadists actually murdered 3000 innocent Americans for the same reason they have murdered Spanish, English, French, etc and countless Muslims: Power. The Jihadists are involved in a long term war to seize power throughout the Islamic world. Attacking the US placed Bin Laden and his gang of merry cut throats at the top of this movement. Attacking all nations in the West helps give the jihadis street creds among the inhabitants of the Islamic world who wish to see their countries ruled by these thugs.

  • “I hear that the world is actually controlled by someone in a bunker in rural Illinois, a Catholic (who else?) who occasionally communicates with his minions via coded essays about Abraham Lincoln.”

    Please J. Christian, I do not want to have to send my squad of papal albino squirrel assassins to silence you!

  • talking to you is like talking to a goat.

    THAT was funny.

    I was almost expecting him to say:

    talking to you is like talking to a dining room table.

  • Very good, “they are den of jackals…” lol. Here’s my latest amateur Onionesque offering.

  • He said, “That would (tick) off the aliens.”

    Your friend is protecting you. He knows they gave ray-guns to the bigfoots, err, bigfeet.

  • I hear that the world is actually controlled by someone in a bunker in rural Illinois, a Catholic (who else?) who occasionally communicates with his minions via coded essays about Abraham Lincoln.

    Hey, if you broke the code, you would know that that last essay about secession actually revealed who was really on the grassy knoll in Dallas. I never would have guessed it -not in a zillion years.

    And now I know, but I’m not telling. 😉

  • Ah, but who is pulling the strings of this world controller? (“Yes, dear, I’ll get off the computer soon and do the dishes and take out the trash.”) 😉

  • Fools, it’s Dick Cheney. He’s the one pulling the strings.

    Who is the one that created Hurricane Katrina and made it hit New Orleans?

    Dick Cheney that’s who.

  • “”Look, there’s Joel,” visitor Lance Mattson told reporters, pointing to a wall listing the names of the several thousand Jews who received advanced warning not to go into work on 9/11. “It’s just so moving to think—hey, why are you asking so many questions, anyway? Who sent you here?”

    “Oh my God, this is all part of it, isn’t it?” Mattson added. “I should have known! This whole place is just another conspiracy to placate those brave enough to speak the truth.”

    Mattson then excused himself and rushed past a series of bronze bas-reliefs charting the connections between the Carlyle Group, Donald Rumsfeld, and the bin Laden family.

    At press time, no members of the Trilateral Commission, New World Order, or the committee in charge of constructing the 9/11 memorial at the Ground Zero site in Lower Manhattan were available for comment.”

    The Onion outdid itself on that one Paul!

  • I’m a traditionalist, so of course I believe the Stonecutters are the ultimate source of Earthly power and evil.

  • The hypocrisy of Christians has been the basic complaint of Muslims from day 1, when Mohammed infamously challenged the Christian priests to walk through fire to prove their faith–a challenge which St. Francis offered to accept, winning him the Sultan’s personal medal and an escort for his pilgrimage through the Holy Land.

  • “The hypocrisy of Christians has been the basic complaint of Muslims from day”

    No, the main complaint of Muslims against Christians from day one is that we are polytheists because of our belief in the trinity and because we worship Christ as God.

    Sura 4.171 “O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.”

  • The main thing I notice about these theories is that they seem so unnecessary, and distract people from the real problems. Things we know, with no conspiracies necessary: our government gave and continues to give large amounts of money and influence to Saudi Arabia, which fosters these terrorist groups and from which most of the 9/11 terrorists came; our government’s immigration policies allowed people who all but had ‘terrorist’ written on their foreheads to infiltrate the country using sneaky tactics like writing ‘Hotel’ on their Visa application; and our government’s main reaction to the attack was to start body-searching Irish grandmas and telling people they couldn’t take shampoo on airplanes.

    Isn’t that condemnation enough? Do we really have to come up with elaborate “Bush planned it” theories to be convinced that the powers that be are corrupt and too caught up in political correctness and their own quest for power, and that they should all be run out of town? I sure don’t.

  • “Things don’t happen; things are made to happen.” –JFK