PoopPac Downloads The Honey Wagon!!! (Or, Birthers Run Downhill)

CDR Kerchner Worked Tirelessly To Spread His Message

The Article II Superpac, aka PoopPac (People Opposing Obama’s Presidency PAC) made the news at ObamaReleaseYourRecords with an ad that ran in the Washington Times. The banner reads  BIGGER THAN WATERGATE.  Here is a link to the Internet Article:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-washington-times-bigger-than.html

And here is a copy of the ad:

The whole premise of the ad above relies upon the fact that Sheriff Arpaio and The Cold Case Posse’s found the long form birth certificate image to be a forgery.  Well, let’s play a little game and we’ll call it “What’s My Lie???” Let’s assume for a moment that the long form birth certificate is a forgery! Let’s try to discover what information on it would  actually be something Congress should be interested in.

In a previous Internet Article, I made a list of all the 43 pieces of information included on the long form. Here is again. Just refer to pages 3 and 4 for the list:

Obama Forgery Test

Now, let’s narrow this list down and see how many of these items, if false, would make Obama ineligible to be President.  Well, we get one whole item, which if false, would make Obama ineligible:

6a. Place of Birth (City) –  Honolulu

That’s it. If the time of Obama’s birth is false, he is still eligible. If his father isn’t Barack Obama Sr., he is still eligible. If the doctor wasn’t David Sinclair, he is still eligible. The same with every other item of information, except the place of birth. Everything else on the birth certificate could be false, forged, materially altered, erased, or created out of whole cloth, etc.,  BUT, if Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, then he is eligible.

I guess the purist might point out if Obama’s parents were both foreign diplomats, or invading soldiers, then Obama wouldn’t be eligible, but so far even the Birthers haven’t argued that. No, the only real item of potential forgery that would make Obama ineligible is his place of birth.

Sooo, has Sheriff Joe or Deputy Zullo, or any other member of the posse proven, or even alleged, that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii???  Nope. Nada. None.  In fact, they have not been able to prove to any degree whatsoever that any single one of those 43 pieces of information contained in the long form image is false, forged, materially altered, erased, or created out of whole cloth, etc.

In fact, Arpaio and Zullo admit that there is NOTHING which criminally implicates Obama in their investigation. This is from a transcript of the July 12, 2012 press conference, at pages 26 and 27 :

Female reporter: Are you insinuating that the President in any way – are you saying that the President has anything to do with this?

Zullo: I am not. I am not, ma’am. I don’t know what Mr. Obama knows about this. I, I trulydon’t.

Arpaio: I said on March one, right from the beginning; we are not accusing the President of any crime. We are strictly investigating a possible government forged document, and that’s the way we’re still going with this, we’re talking about documents.

Reporter: If that, if that’s. I, I don’t get that sir, because if this is a crime, and it’s the President’s
birth certificate, how could he not be accused of a crime? How could you not be accusing himof a crime?

Arpaio: We’re not saying that he knew about it. Did we, did I ever say that he knew about it?

Reporter: So you’re telling me he doesn’t know about this birth certificate … [unintelligible]

Arpaio: I have no idea. [Zullo and Arpaio whispering unintelligibly]

Zullo: Yeah, let me … [unintelligible] I think that’s a great question.[Several reporter talking over each other and over Zullo – unintelligible]

Zullo: [Difficult to understand due to cross-talking] Let me explain this to you; let me explain this to you, sir. Sir. I think I said it March 1st [interruption] – hang on – hang on a minute. Sir, sir; what I said in March 1st. None of us could validate with any certainty where we were born. We weren’t cognoscente of the event. Ok? For all I know, Mr. Obama’s been told this his whole life.I don’t know. It might even be he was born in Hawaii.

What we are telling you is [points to the Long Form Birth Certificate while shaking his head], that document isn’t real. That’s the difference; that’s the distinction in law. We’re talking about a forged document being used, maybe mistakenly, by Mr. Obama. But somebody knows how it got there. The Department of Health didn’t create it; didn’t create the file [points to the Long Form Birth Certificate]. Somebody else did. That mere fact means the Department of Health,that would have the only legal authority to make a copy of a document like that or even render an abstract; the only legal authority to do it did not. That’s a falsified document.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100805605/Unofficial-Transcript-of-the-Arpaio-Maricopa-County-Cold-Case-Posse-Press-Conference-July-17-2012

I like hyperbole as much as the next girl, but really now, an investigation that can’t disprove any of the 43 items of information is sooo wonderful and important as to be BIGGER THAN WATERGATE???  An investigation where the investigators admit that Obama may have indeed been born in Hawaii is supposed to have any credibility at all???  

I think it is more accurate to say the results of the investigation is browner and stinkier than the stuff the farmer in the image above is spreading on the fields.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Honey Wagon.

Wiki and Wiki Talk say:

Honey wagon” is a facetious traditional general term for “a wagon or truck for collecting and carrying excrement or manure”, such as a cesspool emptier, which serves as a sanitation system including at campgrounds and marinas.

manure spreader or muck spreader or honey wagon is an agricultural machine used to distribute manure over a field as a fertilizer. A typical (modern) manure spreader consists of a trailer towed behind a tractor with a rotating mechanism driven by the tractor’s power take off (PTO). Truck mounted manure spreaders are also common in North America.

Joseph Oppenheim, a schoolmaster in the small town, concerned that his older male students often missed school loading and spreading manure, patented a wagon that, behind the drag chain and two beaters, incorporated a steel axle with several wooden paddles attached to the shaft at an angle to throw the manure outward in a broad pattern eliminating the necessity for manual spreading. On October 18, 1899, Oppenheim began to produce his new manure spreader, incorporating the “widespread” paddle device. Neighbors soon referred to it as “Oppenheim’s new idea” and Oppenheim adopted this name for his business.

The origin of the term “honeywagon” goes way back to outhouses not just recent porta potties… thought I’d just mention that you might want to check more into why it is called this…what I was told by parents who remember Honeywagons from in the early 20th century: the name had nothing to do with the color of anything dripping from “tanks”…they said they were called that tongue-in-cheek and the Honeywagon people were “Honeydippers” since they literally had to dip the waste from the hole in the ground in the outhouse to clean/empty them when they were getting full. Like beekeepers, who sold honey kept in large pots or barrels, would do to remove the honey to put in containers for the customer using a large dipper, the other honeydippers “dipped” the “honey”/waste from the privvie (sp?) and put it in the barrels on the honeywagon (which was actually a real wagon pulled by horses) and, as they drove thru the streets of the town to do their jobs, the flies, of course, would be attracted by the “fragrance” of the “honey” and buzz the wagon like they would buzz around honey skeps and hives and trees containing honeycombs.

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

44 responses to “PoopPac Downloads The Honey Wagon!!! (Or, Birthers Run Downhill)

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky,

    State birth certificates are designed to register births, not to prove identity or any other information contained in a birth certificate. The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General did a study under
    the title of: “BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD ”
    OEI-07-99-00570

    It’s FINDINGS:

    “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.”

    Obama’s two state certified birth certificates “Prove” that a live birth occurred and that that birth was recorded by state authorities. All the other information contained on Obama’s two birth certificates have to be proven the old fashion way: by a preponderance of evidence.

    Since remarkably, Obama has not provided one, single, solitary, independent*, corroborative piece of evidence in support any of the claims made on his two birth certificates, an examination of the Hawaiian Health Department records is in order to trace the evidence the Hawaiian Health registrar used to create their file and trace their path to a live birth decision. When you stop and consider what’s at stake; how hard can this be, especially when the worse that can happen to Obama is that he will be proven qualified?

    Lastly, the certification stamp on Obama’s LFBC states:

    “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF TXE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.”

    The “TXE” is the file extension identifier for a “text file.” What the certification says is that Obama’s “record” is a “true copy or abstract.”

    We know it’s not a true copy because a true copy of a text record would not be formatted as a birth document. The document that the White House released is “an abstract of a text file. Therefore, we know that the electronic image posted on the White House website is not a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. So where’s Obama’s “original, long-form birth certificate?”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * Independent of Hawaiian Health Department records.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      You said you want confirmation “Independent of Hawaiian Health Department records”. This is simply not possible—the “gold” standard for records about who was born in Hawai’i is the Hawai’ian Department of Health. In addition, the records are not original paper versions of documents, nor are they microfilm or microfiche—they are data in a computer file. Data, I might add, which has already been verified by the DoH. If the Founders felt differently, they shouldn’t have put the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution (you remember the Constitution, don’t you—the document that you try to denigrate at every opportunity…). You want to hold President Obama to an impossibly high standard—one that neither you nor any other birther could meet (nor could Rmoney and Ryan, by the way… but, hell, you don’t even care about their tax returns—hypocrite!). What did President Obama ever do to earn your hatred? (I suspect that it’s nothing that he did, but rather a combination of your own prejudice and the immense amount of propaganda that you’ve been sucking down…)

      The continuation of your Quixotic jihad against President Obama is just further proof (as if anyone needed it) of what a seditious little bigot you are.

    • Reality Check

      @ David

      My 😆 was directed at your ridiculous conclusions that you made from the one sentence from the article on birth certificate fraud you linked. (I am not sure why you replied with something about de Vattell to my “LOL” although they do rhyme nicely!)

      Anyway, when Birthers post links and quotes like that I have a fancy genuine BS radar detector with a pair of rabbit ears that flashes “taken out of context”. Guess what? It was accurate again!

      If you read the article carefully what it says is that the vast majority of “birth certificate fraud” is committed using genuine birth certificates that other people obtain fraudulently then use to obtain other documents like passports. The article says that it is easy for someone to get a certified copy of another person’s birth certificate and use that document to steal an identity by getting other documents.

      What the article does not say is that birth certificates are not still prima facie evidence for place and date of birth.

      • David Farrar

        So you don’t think the prima facie evidence we presented in my Georgia case, plus the prima facie evidence presented by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio isn’t enough to simply allow for an examination of the files the Hawai’ian Department of Health registrar used to arrive at their live-birth decision; Why not?

        What’s so hard about doing this, when you stop and consider the worse that can happen is that Obama will be found qualified? I mean, when you throw into the equation the seriousness of this matter; I would think we would almost be compelled to exam the record more closely; wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t anybody?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Reality Check

          What prime facie evidence? Opinions of amateur self-appointed experts are not even admissible evidence.

          What the evidence does suggest is Birthers like you lied two years ago when you said all you wanted was the LFBC and you are lying now when all you want is access to the vault or microfiche.

        • David Farrar

          RC:

          In prima facie identity cases like this one, because the worse that can happen to the defendant is that /she is proven qualified, the judicial notice level is set very low. It is just a check of the record.

          I will submit to you that “little, if any” is more than none and is enough to allow for an examination of Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department file. But, more importantly, I think most honest Americans would support a simple request to check the record in this case.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Reality Check

          You case was not an “identity” case (whatever that is). It was a ballot challenge without any real evidence other than the opinions of a bunch of Birthers. That is not evidence. Go back and read Judge Malihi’s and the Georgia court’s decision.

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky,

    You could be right. But I found this article compelling: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/14/opinion/granderson-romney-likeability/"<Media blackout on Obama docs baffles Arpaio posse.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Perhaps that was at http://times247.com/

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      The second link works. I have always thought the image was “manipulated”, but that does NOT equate to a forgery. For something to be a forgery, there has to be false creation, false information, or materially altered information coupled with an intent to defraud somebody out of something of value.

      My GUESS is that either Obama had the image fiddled with to gig the Birthers, or somebody just screwed up putting the thing on line. That is why I focus on the INFORMATION part of it. Mere manipulation of an image does not equate to forgery.

      My goodness, I manipulate images all the time to put in the Internet Articles I do. For example, yesterday I put a bunch of little “Miki Booth” heads on a zombie mob for a post.

      Is that image a forgery??? Nope. Not trying to defraud anybody. What if Obama put the “Smiley Face” on the signature to play with the Birthers and drive them crazier? That would be manipulation but not forgery.

      The Cold Case Posse has to focus on the information contained on the document, and frankly, there is only one piece of information which if false, could rise to a constitutional problem and that is Obama’s place of birth if outside the U.S.

      If for example, Obama was actually born in Connecticut, then he would still be NBC. On this issue there only a few pieces of evidence that he was born outside the country, like the book publisher bio. These pieces of evidence do not trump a Hawaiian birth certificate, which is why I don’t lose any sleep over this.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • David Farrar

        You know I thought that too for a long time. It was Mrs. Taitz (I think) who told me its fraud if Obama claims that was his long form birth certificate and it wasn’t. He has no long form birth certificate. He has a TXE file. When he took his TXE File and changed it to look like his long form Hawaiian birth certificate, he committed the crime of forgery.

        Now as to the veracity of the charge, other factors come into play. To address those issues we would need to see the file in whatever form it presently exists; don’t you agree?.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    RC,

    It was a case of establishing Obama’s true identity, and nothing else.

    As I pointed out in my appeal, since the object of the lawsuit was simply to establish the truth, judicial notice should have been low, certainly lower than suggesting we were trying to actually prove Obama was guilty of the crime of forgery.

    I am sure you would agree; all we are attempting to do is prove a positive.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Reality Check

      No, you wanted to throw Obama off the ballot (well the primary ballot but it is a little late for that). You have neither the law nor the evidence on your side. Read the decisions.

    • Northland10

      Well if that’s the case.. good job, you have proven Obama is eligible.

      • David Farrar

        I have said the same many, many times before. The level of judicial notice judges should use in my Georgia case, in Susan Daniels case she filed on Monday, July 2, in Geauga County (Ohio), and any other of the cases seeking — not to keep Obama off the ballot –but simply to force access to documentation that would “prove” Obama is qualified should be set very low.

        Look at Susan Daniels “Prima facie” evidence she is presenting in her Ohio case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ev1edK3j8&feature=player_embedded), as she did in my Georgia case, Obama Social Security isn’t legitimate. Now, is she suing Obama for SSN fraud?

        No. She is simply suing the Sec of State of Ohio to keep Obama’s name off the ballot UNTIL he grants her access to an SSN file that has thus far been denied to her. That’s it!

        In other words, these are simple suits to obtain access to the independent, corroborative evidence needed to substantiate the information contained in Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department file . As I have said before in my appeal: the judicial notice level should be set very, very low since our objective is to prove a positive and the worse that can happen to Obama in any of these proceedings is that he will be found qualified — which is a “positive” benefit to the nation as a whole.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David said: “prima facie

          You keep using those words—I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

          In no way can Susan Daniel’s evidence be considered to be “prima facie”—in fact, it can hardly be considered evidence of anything at all…

        • G

          Well David, you may personally desire that the judicial bar be set extremely low, so that any lazy pile of incompetent crap, (such as your case, Susan Daniels’ one, etc.), can get through, but that is NOT how our courts actually work.

          What you propose it to simply clog the courts with endless crazy crap, simply because you have a personal dislike/irrational fear of the current President and are too incompetent to bother with actual evidentiary standards.

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast:

    If it isn’t “possible” to produce any independent, corroborative evidence to substantiate the information contained in Obama’s two Hawaiian birth certificates, then an examination of whatever line of evidence the Hawaiian Health Department registrar used to establish the live-birth decision would be in order.

    While Hawaiian Health Department officials have stated they have digitized their records, they have also stated they were not in the business of destroying records. Their original records are NOT thrown away, but safely stored

    The Full and Credit clause of the US Constitution, as it applies to state certified birth certificates, simply requires the document be treated in the same manner as it was issued by the State in question. It has no corner on the truth.

    Lastly, nobody is holding President Obama to an impossible standard when he, himself, holds the key to establishing his Constitutional qualifications.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast

    “In no way can Susan Daniel’s evidence be considered to be “prima facie”—in fact, it can hardly be considered evidence of anything at all’…

    Thank you, Slart…I couldn’t have come up with a better definition of “prima facie evidence if I tried…”prima facie”—in fact, it can hardly be considered evidence of anything at all’

    Remember now: All she wants is access to SSN records they will prove Obama is qualified. Under these circumstances, her qualifications and her “prima facie evidence” should be enough to allow access to those records. But it would not be enough “prima facie evidence” to prove Obama forged his SSN.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      Read a fucking dictionary for once:

      prima facie |ˌprīmə ˈfā sh ə; ˈfā sh ē; ˈfā sh ēˌē|
      adjective & adverb Law
      based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise : [as adj. ] a prima facie case of professional misconduct | [as adv. ] the original lessee prima facie remains liable for the payment of the rent.
      ORIGIN Latin, from primus ‘first’ + facies ‘appearance.’

      You cannot prove (or provide any evidence whatsoever) that President Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent, therefore you must accept it to be correct. On the other hand, Susan Daniel’s “evidence” comes from websites which warn that their data may be inaccurate—which is the opposite of prima facie.

    • Monkey Boy

      Remember now: All she wants is access to SSN records they will prove Obama is qualified.

      I almost asked the rhetorical question: “Do you realize how stupid this sounds?” But, then I considered the source and realized that the question would not be a rhetorical one in this case.

      For all persons with a triple-digit IQ, no further exposition is necessary; for mouth-breathers, it would be useless.

  • Slartibartfast

    David said:

    If it isn’t “possible” to produce any independent, corroborative evidence to substantiate the information contained in Obama’s two Hawaiian birth certificates,

    First off, it isn’t necessary to see more that the originally released COLB once the Hawai’i DoH had verified it—that suffices to prove birth in Hawai’i (and natural born citizenship) in any US legal hearing from SCOTUS down to Judge Malihi’s administrative hearing. This evidence needs no corroboration and I cannot conceive of any way to refute it short of proving massive institutional fraud on the part of the Hawai’i DoH (or having another state claim President Obama was born there—which wouldn’t suit your dishonest purpose in any case…).

    then an examination of whatever line of evidence the Hawaiian Health Department registrar used to establish the live-birth decision would be in order.

    No, it’s not—you need to find evidence of massive institutional fraud first. Do you have that? No, you don’t. Therefore, your allegations have no merit.

    While Hawaiian Health Department officials have stated they have digitized their records, they have also stated they were not in the business of destroying records. Their original records are NOT thrown away, but safely stored

    It doesn’t matter—the official records are data in a computer file. That is the data which is assumed correct until proven otherwise.

    The Full and Credit clause of the US Constitution, as it applies to state certified birth certificates, simply requires the document be treated in the same manner as it was issued by the State in question.

    Yes—and the State of Hawai’i says it is legitimate, therefore it must be treated as legitimate according to the US Constitution. Wow—you basically just agreed that your whole argument is wrong. I already knew you weren’t the brightest bulb in the bunch, but that seems to be obtuse even for you…

    It has no corner on the truth.

    It does absent evidence to the contrary—evidence which does not exist (or at least has never come to light…).

    Lastly, nobody is holding President Obama to an impossible standard when he, himself, holds the key to establishing his Constitutional qualifications.

    He can’t order an inspection of the original birth certificate, so you are just flat-out lying here.

    • Monkey Boy

      I would think that the only credible way to impeach the data in the records, is to prove that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was not present in Honolulu on the recorded birth date.

      Legally, it doesn’t matter HOW the recorded data got there, it is now legal gospel, and heretical bleatings of “I don’t believe…” require explicit and unimpeachable proof that the gospel is errant, or it simply will not be re-examined.

      • David Farrar

        But none of our prima facie evidence was impeached in my Georgia case.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          You had no prima facie evidence. According to the judge, you didn’t have any credible evidence whatsoever, let alone evidence assumed by law to be valid on its face.

          By the way… when the judge thinks your evidence is so bad that you couldn’t beat an empty chair, then your evidence has already been impeached.

        • G

          David, you have a bad habit of using words improperly.

          Please stop saying “prima facie” for things that are clearly NOT. You are just embarassing yourself.

    • David Farrar

      Judicial notice is what we are talking about here. Whether my prima facie evidence is enough to impeach Obama’s one prima facie evidence to allow access to his predicatory documentation in an effort to establish the facts in the case has traditionally been set very low. It should be set even lower in these cases, not because the defendant is the President of the United States, but because he is simply a candidate for that office and that the worse case scenario is that Obama will be found qualified.

      Please note: This is the last time I will respond to you if you continue to use language unsuitable for public discussion, as I have others in the blog.

      Either grow up or shut up.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar.

      • G

        For the last time, you DO NOT have any “prima facie” evidence.

        Please stop using words you don’t understand.

        So either learn to speak properly or shut up. Continued misuse of terms after they have been explained to you just makes you a liar and a fool.

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast
    August 15th, 2012 at 12:43 am

    “David,
    The term “natural born citizen” was not, however, part of the 1760 translation.”

    Please cite your source. Thank you.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      I’ll cite a source if you will then promise to quit using the argument that Vattel in any way defines the term “natural born citizen”. If not, then you are just the dishonest fool that you appear to be and I wont enable your disgraceful behavior.

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast,

    I think the judge said: “Little or no credible evidence “… which is definitely more than none.

    In any case, I think the judge was using a higher level; of judicial notice than he should have applied in this case.

    We shall see shortly when we file suit again after the DNC Convention and Obama is “officially” named and their nominee for president.

    I assume you haven’t been able to find your cite on the 1760 English translation of de Vattel’s Law of Nations; have you?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Northland10

      Yes, the judge had evidence. Evidence that your attorney and her client are clueless idiots.

    • G

      You are truly self-delusional, aren’t you? Your selective confirmation bias is refusing to pay attention to the “no credible evidence” part of that phrase…

      Sorry David, but the phrase “Little or no credible evidence” is a common euphemism phrase. It is simply a kind way of saying you’ve got nothing.

      You’ve really become pathological in your denialsim fantasies as of late. That is a clear warning sign that what you really need is professional help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: