Tag Archives: Conspiracy

Very Interesting. . . But Stupid!!! (Or, A White Rose By Any Other Name)

Wolfgang Mistakenly Applied For The P.I. Job Thinking It Was For Wild Irish Rose

Well, just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internet, darn if there isn’t a Secret Birther Group working to round up all of us Anti-Birthers and Obots. The name of the group is The White Rose! The original Internet Article was scrubbed, but I managed to get a copy of it anyway.  It looks like somebody accidentally posted the article and then realized they had let the cat out of the bag. There was even an abortive posting at Free Republic, but that was pulled also.

Anyway, here it is again, this time from a reposting at  a secondary website. You might want to screen save it at the link  before The White Rose discovers somebody accidentally posted it again. But, if you don’t, or it is pulled first, just let me know. I have the original.

New Crack in Birth Certificate Conspiracy

Frustrated by the lack of progress in fully exposing the conspiracy behind Barack Obama’s fraudulent Certificate of Live Birth, a nationwide group of web researchers, private investigators with access to national databases and individuals with computer hacking skills, led by a teamleader now located in California, have been investigating the individuals and sites involved in the creation of the fraudulent document and the disinformation campaign associated with the false narrative of Obama’s personal history.

Working over the last several months, using information already gleaned by other investigators and communicating via encrypted email and private social networks, the group has pieced together a web of conspirators including members of the legal profession, the IT community, journalists, web bloggers, Obama operatives and government officials.

The team leader noted: “The focal point of the conspiracy has always been Washington, D.C., but it has been supported by a small group of individuals residing in other parts of the country with bursts of activity in such places as the Seattle and Chicago areas and, of course, Hawaii. The number of individuals directly involved in the fraudulent birth certificate is small, but the disinformation campaign is much wider. There are both unethical and criminal activities involved.”

The group, loosely known as “The White Rose” named in honor of the resistance group fighting against the Nazi regime in Germany, has linked literally thousands of emails, blog posts and other information to identify both major and minor players in the birth certificate conspiracy, many of whom have used monikers, multiple email accounts, access through “gateways” and other techniques to hide their identities and locations.

http://www.wethepeoplenation.com/showthread.php?11205-New-Crack-in-Birth-Certificate-Conspiracy

Oh, this is turning out to be fun!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Arte Johnson from the old timey TV show, Laugh-In. He had a running gag about which Wiki says:

Johnson is best known for his work on Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, an American television series (1967–1973), on which he played various characters including “Wolfgang”, a smoking World War II German soldier scouting the show from behind a bush (still fighting the war) invariably commenting on the preceding sketch with the catchphrase “Very interesting…” followed by either a comic observation or misinterpretation, or simply “but stupid!” Johnson indicated later that the phrase came from Desperate Journey, a 1942 World War II film with Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan playing Royal Air Force pilots shot down in Nazi Germany; they managed to cross much of the country without speaking German or knowing the territory but, when captured, their Nazi interrogator doubts their story with the phrase.† Johnson reprised the role while voicing the Nazi-inspired character Virman Vunderbarr on an episode of Justice League Unlimited.

† Johnson was somewhat incorrect in his recollection of the details of this movie, and his faulty recollection was subsequently misquoted and widely repeated on the Internet, further distorting the origin of the phrase. In the movie, after getting shot down and captured, an English-speaking German officer played by Raymond Massey interrogates the flyers. During the interrogation, they see through a window some nearly-assembled aircraft being transported on trucks, and the Raymond Massey character says “I see you find that view most interesting … too bad you saw that, now you can not be even considered for exchange…” but it was not spoken doubting any story told by the flyers. The flyers escape from the interrogation and begin their “journey” across Germany and The Netherlands, traveling towards the English Channel in stolen vehicles while wearing stolen German uniforms. Along the way, they have several violent engagements with German troops and commit sabotage; they are actively pursued by the Raymond Massey character and at the end commandeer a British bomber previously captured by the Germans and fly it back to England, without any German remarking, to either the flyers or to another German: “Very interesting … ” and, the Errol Flynn character is fluent in German. It is possible that the actual source of the phrase is the movie “Berlin Correspondent” (use of the phrase in the movie is reported but unverified) and that Johnson had confused elements of the two movies and/or misremembered aspects of them.

Note 2. The Caption. P.I. can stand for Private Investigator, or Public Intoxication. Far different than White Rose, Richards Wild Irish Rose is a quintessential bum wine. Wiki explains:

An early reference to the problem of cheap and poorly made wines is in the “Report on Cheap Wines” in the 5 November 1864 issue of The Medical Times and Gazette. The author, in prescribing inexpensive wines for a number of ills, cautions against the “fortified” wines of the day, describing of one sample that he had tried:

“When the cork was drawn it was scarcely tinted, and was a very bad one – a thing of no good augury for the wine. There was no smell of port wine. The liquid, when tasted, gave the palate half-a-dozen sensations instead of one. There was a hot taste of spirits, a sweet taste, a fruity taste like damsons, and an unmistakable flavor of Roussillon [an alternative name in France for wine made from the grape Grenache]. It was a strong, unwholesome liquor, purchased very dearly.”[

It is reported, however, that the popularity of cheap, fortified wines in the United States arose in the 1930s, as a product of Prohibition and the Great Depression:

“Prohibition produced the Roaring Twenties and fostered more beer and distilled-spirit drinkers than wine drinkers, because the raw materials were easier to come by. But fortified wine, or medicinal wine tonic—containing about 20 percent alcohol, which made it more like a distilled spirit than regular wine—was still available and became America’s number one wine. Thunderbird and Wild Irish Rose, to name two examples, are fortified wines. American wine was soon more popular for its effect than its taste; in fact, the word wino came into use during the Depression to describe those unfortunate souls who turned to fortified wine to forget their troubles.”
—Kevin Zraly, Kevin Zraly’s American Wine Guide (2006) p. 38.

More recently, the appeal of cheap fortified wines to the poor and homeless has raised concerns:

Community groups in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland have urged makers of fortified wines such as Wild Irish Rose and E & J Gallo’s Thunderbird and Night Train brands to pull their products from the shelves of liquor retailers in skid row areas. In Nashville, Tennessee, one liquor store owner told Nashville Business Journal reporter Julie Hinds that police warned him to stop selling his biggest selling product, Wild Irish Rose, because it encouraged homeless people to linger in the area.
—Janice Jorgensen, Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands: Consumable Products (1993), p. 492.

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


Did Corsi and The Cold Case Posse Cross The Line???

Putting His Posse Camouflage Training To Good Use, Zullo Agreed To Meet Corsi By The Old Juniper Tree

Ever since I learned that Jerome “Jerry” Corsi of World Net Daily (WND) and Deputy Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse (CCP) had a pre-existing book deal when the investigation began, I have wondered if the sleeziness of such an act crossed the line into possible criminal activity. It just doesn’t seem right that an law enforcement investigator has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of an investigation. Well, I am not a lawyer but I play one on my blog sometimes. So here are my thoughts.

First, there is a Federal law which addresses a conspiracy against the rights of a person, 18 U.S.C. 241:

Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC 241)

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The United States Department of Justice says about this statute:

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/241fin.php

Well, despite the Image above, which is for humor, I don’t think they went in disguise. But did they:

conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same

Obama certainly qualifies as any person. Is running for the presidency or being the president a right or privilege??? According to a set of Federal Pattern Jury Instructions I found, the range  of rights is pretty broad.  The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which includes Arizona, has general instructions to the jury, but none specifically tailored to individual offenses.  However, I did find some for the Federal District Court in South Carolina.  Each page there was a separate pdf file, so I combined them as text files in a word processor, and then repubished them as one pdf document. I also made minor cosmetic changes to make it easier to read. Here is the pdf file:

18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 Pattern Jury Instructions

I also included the instructions for Color of Law abuses. If you want to double check these instructions, here is the link to the South Carolina Federal District Court, where they run from page 50 to page 56:

http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/JuryCharges/

Now, back to whether running for the presidency is a right or privilege, we find on pages 52 and 53:

Other protected rights include the following:

The right to vote, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 323 (1941), but the issue of voter bribery and an honest election falls under 42 U.S.C. § 1973i, United States v. McLean, 808 F.2d 1044, 1046 (4 Cir. 1987);

The right to report a crime, In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, 535 (1895);

The right to testify at trial, United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 626-27 (5 Cir.1982);

The right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, United States v. LaVallee, 439 F.2d 670, 686 (10 Cir. 2006);

The right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This right includes the right to be kept free from harm while in official custody. “No person  may ever be physically assaulted, intimidated, or otherwise abused intentionally and without justification by a person acting under the color of the laws of any state.” United States v. Bigham, 812 F.2d 943, 949 (5 Cir. 1987);

The right to enjoy public accommodations, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. The presence of electronic video games turns a convenience store into a supplier of entertainment and therefore a place of public accommodation. United States v. Baird, 85 F.3d 450 (9 Cir. 1996). In United States v. Piche, 981 F.2d 706, 716 (4 Cir. 1992), the defendant was prosecuted for interfering with Asian-American men because they were enjoying the goods and services of a public facility. The district court correctly charged the jury that “[a] place of public accommodation is any establishment that is used by members of the general public for entertainment, that is, recreation, fun, or pleasure, and in which the sources of entertainment move in interstate commerce.”

You also find the range of rights to be fairly broad from these cases cited on page 51 of the Instructions:

“The right to choose is the right of qualified voters to cast their ballots and have them counted at Congressional elections. [T]his is a right secured by the Constitution [and] is secured against the action of individuals as well as of states.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 (1941). This includes primaries for Congressional elections.

§ 241 embraces a conspiracy to stuff the ballot box at an election for federal officers, and thereby to dilute the value of votes of qualified voters. The government does not have to prove an intent to change the outcome of the federal election. The intent required is to have false votes cast and thereby to injure the right of all voters in a federal election to express their choice of a candidate and to have their expressions of choice given full value and effect. Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 226 (1974).

Therefore, it appears to me, a non-lawyer, that Obama having the right to run for President is a right belonging to any natural born citizen, and subject only to the Constitutional limits imposed by Article II, Section , Clause 5. The recent ruling of the FEC regarding non-natural born candidate Abdul Hassan seems to confirm a citizen’s right to run for office, but not the right to receive matching campaign funds.

Abdul Hassan FEC Ruling

There does not seem to be a color of law requirement element in violations of the Conspiracy section. Here is the actual jury instruction from page 50:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 241 makes it a crime to conspire with someone else to injure or intimidate another person in the exercise of his civil rights. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish the unlawful purpose. It is a kind of partnership in crime in which each member becomes the agent of every other member. For you to find the defendant guilty, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that two or more persons agreed to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person;

Second, in that person’s free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised his right or privilege [the right or privilege should be identified and explained to the jury]; and

Third, that the defendant knew of the agreement and willfully participated in the agreement.

Now the question becomes whether or not the actions of The Cold Case Posse and any potential co-defendants had an unlawful purpose. In other words, is the mere act of investigating Obama an unlawful purpose, such as to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate anyone. This issue has come up before when the police are involved. In a recent 2011 case, a Memphis police officer, Arthur Sease was accused of violations of BOTH Section 241 Conspiracy and Section 242 which is actually depriving someone of their rights under color of law:

Sease’s convictions are based on fourteen separate incidents. The incidents  follow the same basic plan. Sease would arrange for a drug buy or a drug sell (using  drugs taken in a previous incident) using a non-officer contact as the front person. As the deal was occurring, either Sease or one of his fellow co-conspirator officers would arrive at the scene to make a purported arrest and seize the money and drugs involved in the deal. The participants would then be released, and Sease and his conspirators would split the proceeds without reporting the incidents.

U.S. v. Sease

Sease argued on appeal:

Sease is correct that his appeal is properly understood as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The offenses for which Sease was charged and convicted are predicated on the illegality of the searches and seizures he conducted. For example, Sease’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for deprivation of rights under the color of law require the government to show that the defendant “depriv[ed] [any person] of [the] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . .” If Sease’s actions were in fact legal, the government could not prove the deprivation of rights element of the offense, and the convictions must be overturned.

Sease argues that this case is governed by Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). In Whren, plain-clothed officers made a traffic stop on an individual who stopped for an unusually long time at a stop sign, and then dashed off at a high rate of speed. Whren, 517 U.S. at 808. Because the officers were working a high-drug area, they believed that individuals in the car were engaging in drug activity, but they did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make a stop on that basis. Id. at 809.

According to the petitioners in Whren, the police officers had improper motives, in the sense that the officers conducted a stop for the purpose of investigating drug offenses for which they did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion, using the traffic offenses for which they did have probable cause as a pretext. Id. at 810-12. These improper motives, the petitioners argued, made the stop a constitutional violation. The Supreme Court rejected this approach, citing previous case law to “foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved.” Id. at 813 (citing previously, e.g., Scott

However, the Sease Court distinguished between improper actions in the course of duty and non bona-fide activitities:

Whren, however, presumes that the officers are engaging in bona fide law enforcement activities when they make the stops. However improper it may be to use a traffic violation as a pretext to look for drugs, there is no question that making traffic stops and looking for drugs are valid and appropriate law enforcement activities. It is only arguably improper if the officers lacked the required probable cause or reasonable suspicion under the specific facts of the situation. By contrast, it is inherently improper for officers to set up drug deals for the purpose of taking the money and drugs for themselves, regardless of the context. Sease’s actions are improper in an entirely different way and to an entirely different degree than the actions of the officers in Whren.

Unlike the actions of officers in cases such as Whren, Sease’s conduct was thoroughly and objectively illegal from start to finish.

Then, the Sease Court went deeper into the differences, and the burdens of proof:

[S]imply, the Fourth Amendment’s concern with ‘reasonableness’ allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.” Whren, 517U.S. at 814.

However, this balance shifts in the context of a § 242 prosecution. Section 242 is a punitive statute designed to punish officers who willfully violate constitutional rights under color of law. The punitive purpose would be undermined were the court to allow a corrupt officer to hide behind the policy goals of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, although for the purposes of the exclusionary rule the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant, in the context of a § 242 prosecution, the courts may inquire whether the officer acted with a corrupt, personal, and pecuniary purpose.1 In addition, unlike in the exclusionary rule context, the court must already inquire into the subjective intent of the officer because willfulness is an element of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Accordingly, there is no additional evidentiary burden to justify ignoring subjective intent. 1

In other words, actions that may be legal on their surface, may be a violation if there was a corrupt,personal and pecuniary purpose. There is some question where the line is to be drawn.  Not all corrupt, personal, and pecuniary purpose constitutes a violation under Section 241 and/or Section 242. From Sease, here an acquittal:

Finally, while there are fortunately few reported cases that deal with this level of officer misconduct, those that do exist all agree that purely illegal activities by law enforcement constitute a constitutional violation. In United States v. Bradfield, we considered a series of raids of crack houses by Detroit police officers. 225 F.3d 660, 2000 WL 1033022 (6th Cir. July 18, 2000) (unpublished table decision). During the course of the raids, officers would take a portion of the money, drugs, and guns for themselves, while reporting the rest for forfeiture. Bradfield, 2000 WL 1033022, at *1.

We upheld the judgment of acquittal, via a review of the quantum of evidence supporting the individual charges against the officers. Id. at *4-10. However, implicit in our analysis is the premise that the actions of the officers would amount to constitutional violations, if supported by sufficient evidence.

Also reported in Sease, among several other cases, is this one:

[I]n United States v. Contreras, a Laredo police officer arrested a woman, raped her, and attempted to kill her to avoid having her testify against him. 134 F. Supp. 2d 820, 823 (S.D. Tex. 2000). On habeas review, Contreras argued that his stop was proper pursuant to a provision in federal law authorizing municipal police officers to make stops based on reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an illegal alien, and thus his 18 U.S.C. § 242 conviction should be overturned. Id. at 825. The district court dismissed Contreras’s contention stating “Contreras did not arrest [the victim] because he had probable cause to believe she was an illegal alien; he arrested her so he could rape her.” Id.

In my non-lawyer opinion, that is where any such action against the CCP and others would end up. Trying to determine the intent of the parties. Is the investigation of Obama based on any objectively realistic probable cause, or is it just a cover to get him, in violation of his rights??? One thing mentioned on page 51 of the jury instructions is that “the government is permitted to present evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy even though they are not specified in the indictment. (United States v. Janati, 374 F.3d 263, 270 (4 Cir. 2004)). This means any book deals and other quid pro quos could be introduced as evidence.

It is unlikely that Obama would ever make the complaint against the Cold Case Posse and any accomplices, because at this point in the game, it is probably politically expedient to let them run around in hysterics. But I think I have shown that a viable legal option exists. A violation of the conspiracy statute seems easier to prove. No actual harm is required, nor any overt act. The whole thing is going nowhere, so there will probably never be a violation of  Section 242.

I would certainly appreciate any input from real lawyers on this. In the mean time, make up your own mind whether or not the lines have been crossed. As for me, I assure you any Defendants would certainly not want me on any jury.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note . Jury Instructions for 18 U.S.C. Section 242. From page 53, here are the jury instructions for this section:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 242 makes it a crime to deprive any person of his civil rights under color of law. For you to find the defendant guilty, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that [name of victim] was present in [name of state];

Second, that the defendant deprived [name of victim] of a right secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [the right infringed must be identified], or to different punishments, pains, or penalties on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color or race;

Third, that the defendant acted under color of law; and

Fourth, that the defendant acted willfully.

As I said above, I don’t think the CCP et.al. can accomplish anything other than to sling mud. But I am not sure what this part means:

different punishments, pains, or penalties 

Do extra legal fees and emotional distress count???


Vattel Birthers – The New “Loop Gurus” ???

The Vattel Pack Traveled to France Searching For Emerich, The Alpha Male

The Loop Guru Poem

Even a man who is pure of heart
In matters pedagogic,
Will pull out his hair,
Gnash his teeth, and Swear!
At Vattle Birther logic.

Well, it’s not long until Halloween, and most everybody knows that a Loup Garou is the French term for a werewolf.  But I already put up one “wolf” image today, sooo I did the Eiffel Tower in France, instead.  The term Loop Guru, in my title is about a different kind of fiend,  one who goes around butchering the law and murdering logic and reason.  A Loop is something that just keeps circling around and around,  and doing the same thing over and over, and that is how the Vattle Birthers ( which is my sarcastic term for the Vattel Birthers) argue their legal theories. In circles,  and no matter how much you prove the wrong at each and every point, they just keep going to the point like nothing happened. Which I am going to give you an example of shortly.

And  Guru,  is a word for a teacher, but it is also what people call the pretend lawyers who go around misinforming people about stuff like income taxes being illegal and people not having to pay them. Which is TOTALLY wrong and just gets a lot of people in trouble. Plus these gurus peddle a whole lot of other Idiot Legal Arguments, which you can find out about in the Pseudo-Lawyer and other Internet Articles here.  Trust me,  I will be writing a whole more about this topic!!!

Sooo, here is the example I promised you. I have debated a lot of Vattle Birthers on the Internet, and watched others do it, too, and I assure you this is representative, and actually on the mild side of Vattle Birther logical mayhem:

Vattle Birther: There is a difference between 14th Amendment citizens and natural born citizens. Obama may be a 14th Amendment Citizen, but he is not a natural born citizen like it requires in the Constitution to be President, because he does not have two citizen parents.

Rational Person:  There is no difference.  All the 14th Amendment requires is birth within the United States, while under its jurisdiction to be citizen, which is the same thing the old term natural born citizen meant. The citizenship of the parents does not matter.

Vattle Birther: OH NOES!!! A natural born citizen is supposed to be defined by common law, not the 14th Amendment.!!!

Rational Person: Oh, whatever if it will shut you up. OK, here is what the common law says, from an 1888 case, which is quoted in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. (1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.)

See, it’s the same thing. So now, will you STFU???

Vattle Birther: OH NO! Allegiance means having two citizen parents!!! Like Emerich de Vattel said.

Rational Person:  No it doesn’t. Here is what the Wong Kim Ark judges said allegiance was, which was just being there inside the country:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance [ ] and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject [exceptions omitted].

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13

Now just what is sooo hard to understand about this. If we do it the right way, through the 14th Amendment, or your stupid way through common law, the result  is the same. Either way you do it, 14th Amendment or common law, you end up in the same place. Which is no surprise to rational people who understand the 14th Amendment put the common law on this issue into the Constitution.  Plus, Vattel is not quoted anywhere in common law or the Constitution for the purposes of determining who is a natural born citizen.

Vattle Birther: But, but, but. . . I don’t like that Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case in 1898. I want to go back in time 24 years to 1874, where the Minor vs. Happersett judges said that ONLY people born in the country  to two citizen parents were natural born citizens.

Rational Person: That case didn’t say that.  Here is what it said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

See, those judges left the issue open. You must have forgot the part I bolded, huh??? Use your head for a minute. What are the possibilities of kinds of people born in America??? Huh??? Isn’t it this:

a)   People born in America to 2 citizen parents;
b)   People born in America to 2 alien parents;
c)   People born in America to 1 citizen parent and 1 alien parent.

All the Minor judges said was that people in (a) were natural born citizens.  The Minor judges said they didn’t need to decide about the people in (b) and (c).  Then, the Wong Kim Ark case 24 years later made sure everybody understood (b) and (c) were in when a Chinese guy was born here to two alien parents and they said he was a citizen by virtue of his birth here.

Vattle Birther: There is a difference between 14th Amendment citizens and natural born citizens. Wong Kim Ark may be a 14th Amendment Citizen, but he is not a natural born citizen like it requires in the Constitution to be President, because he does not have two citizen parents.

Rational Person:  Pulling out hair. Gnashing teeth. Aargh! *%&*!!!*@!!!

Trust me, this is what you go through!!!

Aargh! *%&*!!!*@!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Mars Needs Vattel Birthers!!! (Do YOU Have What It Takes???)

The Vattle Birthers Were Delighted to Learn That For A Small Fee, Anybody Could Be A Lawyer On Mars!!!

Because there is little oxygen in the atmosphere of Mars, experience has shown those applicants with the most cranial atrophy, are least affected by oxygen deprivation. The  purpose of this Test is to see if YOU have what it takes to be a Martian Settler!!!

Question 1: When a court says there are doubts about an issue, and says it does  NOT (Hint!) need to address those doubts in THIS particular case, it means:

a) The court did NOT make a ruling on that issue.

b)Yippee We Win!!! The Court Decided That Issue In Our Favor!!!

c) It depends on the meaning of the word “NOT

d) Is this a “Trick Question”???

Question 2: When a court says there are only TWO  (Hint!) sources of citizenship, birth and naturalization, that means there are:

a) Only Two kinds of Citizen.

b) Three Kinds of Citizen.

c) Seventeen Kinds???

d) God does not mean for mere humans to possess this kind of knowledge.

Question 3: If a court  makes a ruling in 1898 on an issue, then to overturn that decision requires:

a) A case in the same or higher court AFTER that decision.

b) Any old case that is EARLIER than that decision if it says what I like!!!

c) A legal dictionary I bought at a garage sale.

d) Emerich de Vattel.

e) George Washington’s library card.

f) Is this in human or dog years???

g) Any of the above except “a”.

Question 4: In the year 2011, issues of citizenship in the United States of America (Hint!) are decided by reference to:

a) American law.

b) British law.

c) Kenyan law.

d) Emerich de Vattel.

e) Vive le Roi! The Ancien Law of France!!!

f) It’s complicated.

Question 5: When a court says “ALL persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens, ” the word ALL (Hint!) means:

a) ALL of them.

b) Some of them.

c) Yeah, what Emerich de Vattel said.

d) Voulezvous coucher avec moi (ce soir)?

Question 6:  When a court says: “the law of England for the last three centuries [is], aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance . . .of the English sovereign; . . . and therefore, every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject. . .The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established” . . .means:

a) Children born to aliens in the United States in 1961 are within the allegiance of the United States.

b) Children born to aliens in the United States in 1961 are within the allegiance of England???

c) Whatever Emerich de Vattel says.

d) Aliens aren’t from here, are they???

e) I’m confused??? The law doesn’t seem to care WHERE their parents are from???

f) What are you,  a Communist or something???

Bonus Question: If the law says,   “The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, [two exceptions omitted]. . .AND the law also says “ALL persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens, “ then:

a) ALL children born in the United states, including children born of resident aliens, are born in the allegiance of the United States and therefore, are natural born citizens.

b) The 14th Amendment only applies to foreigners and the children of foreigners, not to people born here of citizen parents.

c) I don’t like where this is leading and I want to go back to Emerich de Vattel!!!

d) Can’t I get a trophy for just participating???

To score the test,  simply list the alphabetical answer and score 1 point for all “a” answers, 2 points for all “b” answers, 3 points for all “c” answers and so forth and so on.  Add up the points. Any score which is HIGHER than 7, means that YOU have what it takes to go to MARS!!!

My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. a lawyer, helped me on this Internet Article. As a matter of fact, she wrote most of it. Thank you Fabia!!! I could not have done it without you!!!

Good bye Vattle Birthers!!! The Mother Ship will be here shortly!!!

Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

(Note:  Sometimes, I purposely spell “Vattel” as “Vattle” to tease the Vattle Birthers!!!)

Bonus: The Alternative Image for this Internet Article:

Grokk Did Not Take Kindly To Being Told He Was NOT A Natural Born Citizen


Nietzsche and The Obotski “BirtherJunkies”!!!

Pot??? Kettle. Black.

Friedrich Nietzsche, a German Philosopher said, “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Among the Obotski,  there is no doubt that Birthers are Capital “C” Conspiracy Theorists, much like  Moon Landing Deniers and 9/11 Truthers.  This is not really a nice thing to call someone, because it has the connotation of being somewhat crazy, paranoid, and OBSESSED. Most dictionaries define Conspiracy Theory as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”Under this definition, I do not think Birthers were ever Conspiracy Theorists, as explained in another Internet Article here.

But maybe another way, a less derogatory way, to define a conspiracy theory, a Little “c”  version, is just “when a group of people do not believe some other group’s official version of something and think  that some people are actively covering up the truth.” Under that looser definition, Birthers, and a lot of other groups qualify. Perhaps even the Obotski,  who are completely obsessed with Birthers.

There are two main Obotski Websites, Obama Conspiracy Theories run by Dr. Conspiracy, and Fogbow run by PJFoggy.  Lots of the Obotski at these two websites even have their own individual blogs. Some go to all the court cases, take notes, infiltrate Birther websites, and pretty much just spend all their time obsessing about Birthers. They even have their own radio station where they gather and plan stuff and carry on. They are “Birther Junkies” or maybe “Birther Groupies”  who just can’t get enough of us. They even have their own word for it, “Birfessed.”

Sooo, I wonder.  Have the Obotski looked into the Abyss too long and become just like what they think Birthers are??? And maybe even worse, going all the way to being full fledged Capital “C” Conspiracy Theorists??? Inventing all kinds of excuses to disbelieve The Official Birther Versions, such as the most prevalent at the time, “Why doesn’t he just cough up the long form if he has nothing to hide??? and imputing all sorts of evil motives to a perfectly innocent question.

Wired.com put out a Conspiracy Generator based on 6 elements:

First, choose an Event
1. Appeal to precedent
2. Ruling elite
3. Disturbing question
4. Dedicated group of truth-seekers
5. Expert endorsement
6. Suggestion of imminent threat

Here is what their program generated for  Moon Landing Deniers

Are you kidding me? The moon landing was a total sham! Think about it! Everyone knows that governments always try to divert attention from unpopular wars. And have you noticed that the CIA  has started to act very strangely? They obviously don’t want this story getting out. I mean, what would happen if people began asking to see the high-quality video of the first moonwalk? Well, they may be able to fool the sheeple, but the members of The Flat Earth Society aren’t swallowing their story. Look, don’t take it from me; self-published author and former Rocketdyne librarian Bill Kaysing is convinced as well. But we have to act fast, because just look at what happened to Kennedy. I just wanted you to be aware of this, in case I disappear.

Hmmm, here is what I get when I plug in the Obotski:

Are you kidding me? [Questioning why Obama didn’t cough up his long form for three years ] was a total sham! Think about it! Everyone knows that [ The Birthers just can’t stand a scary black man in the White House]. And have you noticed that [Orly Taitz] has started to act very strangely? They obviously don’t want this story getting out. I mean, what would happen if people began asking [ why hasn’t this ever happened to a WHITE president]? Well, they may be able to fool the sheeple, but the members of [ Obama Conspiracy Theories and Fogbow ] aren’t swallowing their story. Look, don’t take it from me; [Glen Beck and FOX News ] is convinced as well. But we have to act fast, because [ I think these people are going beserk and are going to hurt somebody]. I just wanted you to be aware of this, in case I disappear.”

Wired – Conspiracy Elements and Conspiracy Generator

Well, I guess if the Tin Foil Hat fits. . .

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


A U.S. President Would Never Lie – – Would He??? (A White Paper)

Quo Periurium???

All the Obots who call us Birthers crazy think that a president would never lie ,
cover up, or do shady things. Noooo, a U.S. President WOULD NEVER
LIE ABOUT A PIECE OF PAPER. Here is a list of things that I have
read about. If people can think of other BIG LIES President have told
and their friends have helped them COVER UP, please add them.

Woodrow Wilson:

On the morning of October 2, Mrs. Wilson found her husband
unconscious on the bathroom floor of their private White House
quarters bleeding from a cut on his head. Wilson had suffered a stroke
– a massive attack that left his left side paralyzed and impaired his
vision. She immediately summoned Dr. Grayson. Then the conspiracy
began. The two of them formed a bulwark between the invalid
President and the rest of the country, simultaneously shielding Wilson
from intrusion and hiding his condition from outsiders.

For seventeen months the enfeebled President lay in his bed on the
brink of death, barely able to write his own name. The outside world
knew none of this. All communication with the President went through
his wife. She entered the sick room with messages and emerged with
verbal instructions or the scrawl of a signature on a piece of paper.
Edith Wilson called the period her “stewardship.” Later, others called
her the first woman President. The Senate rejected the Treaty of
Versailles with its provision for the League. Although Wilson’s
health improved, he never fully recovered.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/wilsonstroke.htm

Franklin Roosevelt:

The nation was stunned when FDR died unexpectedly on April 12,
1945 — less than six months after being elected to a fourth term in
office. The death was unexpected because the president’s personal
physician, VADM Ross McIntire, whenever asked, had proclaimed
that FDR’s health was excellent. McIntire, an otolaryngologist and
then surgeon-general of the U.S. Navy, must have known FDR was
gravely ill — FDR’s physical decay was plainly evident even to
non-physicians in the final months . FDR must have known, too,
[More] and the FBI was interested in who among the public knew
about his condition at the time of the November 1944 election.
[More]
Given his ill health, why did FDR run for a fourth term? FDR told his
son he felt compelled to run because he had “to maintain a continuity
of command in a time of continuing crisis” . World War II was, after
all, still raging in 1944. Was FDR justified in this decision? If McIntire
was an accomplice in the deception, was he acting for a greater good?
Today, no one can precisely say how much McIntire knew and when
he knew it. FDR’s medical record, which was kept in a safe at
Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, has been missing since the
president’s death. VADM McIntire was one of three people with access
to the safe.

http://www.doctorzebra.com/Prez/g32.htm

John F. Kennedy:

Kennedy’s womanizing had, of course, always been a form of
amusement, but now it also gave him a release from unprecedented
daily tensions,” Dallek writes.

During a 1961 meeting with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan,
he confided that he got headaches if he went three days without sex.

His mistresses included Pamela Turnure, Jackie’s press secretary;
Mary Pinchot Meyer, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee’s sister-
in-law; two secretaries nicknamed Fiddle and Faddle, and mob moll
Judith Campbell Exner.

Then there was a 19-year-old “tall, slender, beautiful” White House
intern.

Her identity remained a secret until last week, but JFK came close to
having several other “other women” publicly named during his time in
office – including Ellen Rometsch, a suspected East German spy who
romped naked in the White House pool.

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/05/18/2003-05-18_jfk_s_liaisons__jackie_s_pai.html

Richard Nixon:

Late in July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach
Nixon on the grounds of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and
refusal to obey a congressional subpoena ordering him to release
the tapes. On August 5, 1974, Nixon obeyed the Supreme Court
ruling and released the tapes. The tapes proved that Nixon had
authorized the cover-up as early as June 23, 1972. The Watergate
debacle came to an end on August 9, 1974, when Nixon became
the first president to resign from office..17

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v5n1/waggoner.html

Bill Clinton:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having
“sexual relations” with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided
by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton’s semen, Starr concluded that this
sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked “Have you ever had
sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined
in DepositionExhibit 1, as modified by the Court?” The judge
ordered that Clintonbe given an opportunity to review the agreed
definition. Afterwards,based on the definition created by the
Independent Counsel’s Office,Clinton answered “I have never had
sexualrelations with MonicaLewinsky.” Clinton later stated that he
believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded
his receiving oral sex.[25]

President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan D.
Webber Wright.[26] His license to practice law was suspended in
Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court.[27] He
was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony[28] which was
paid by a fund raised for his legal expenses.

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

George Bush:

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before
asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of
American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of
unequivocal statements about the reason the United States
needed to pursue themost radical actions any nation can undertake
— acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the
past, Bush’s White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues
like this under the carpet and out of sight. But it is not clear that they
will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) go away — unless,
perhaps, they start another war.

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html

So here we have U.S. presidents lying all over the place and people
covering up for them. But such a thing COULD JUST NEVER
HAPPEN today over ONE SINGLE LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER,
could it? I guess we are all just paranoid. (NOT!)

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Practical OBOT Fighting Tip #1:

Sooo, here’s one thing to ask when the OBOTS say that it wouldn’t make any difference if Obama just coughed up the LONG FORM, because we wouldn’t believe it anyway. Well first, that is like soooo INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE!!! But we can’t say that to the OBOTS because that is how they have fun. That will just make them say it more!

Here is what you ask them instead: “Well, it couldn’t HURT Obama could it? I mean do you really believe that LESS people are going to vote for Obama because he proves he is an American??? That is really twisted thinking.

Now, if you do it this way, you are putting the stupid thinker hat back on the OBOT’s head. DUH!!! Because that really is STUPID if you think about it. If Obama coughs up the long form, and it is real, the only down side for Obama is NOTHING! There isn’t one. Nobody is going to NOT vote for him because he is American. So why doesn’t he just do it?

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter