Tag Archives: lies

Fawlty Headlines!!! – Fatheads Yell “Win!”

fawlty

Bob Bauer Shows Obama How To Jaywalk Without Getting Caught

Well, Poo Poo Simmons and other Birther websites such as ORYR are reporting this:

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

OUTED! Obama’s Eligibility Attorney Bob Bauer Behind Illegal IRS Targeting

…groups opposed to Obama’s agenda. That means the targeting came from the highest levels in the White House. There is no way Obama did not know about the IRS, AP, DNS…,

Bob Bauer, White House Counsel, top lawyer for DNC, mentor to Sen. Obama, Gen. Counsel to Obama-Biden campaign, husband of Mao-loving communist Anita Dunn, lawyer at Perkins-Coie, Obama’s Chicago law firm, no doubt architect of forged documents, go-between of White House.gov and Hawai’i DOH birth certificate scam … and the list goes on.
 – Miki Booth
Author of – MEMOIRS OF A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER FROM HAWAII

http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/06/outed-obamas-eligibility-attorney-bob.html

Once again, a Birther headline doesn’t match the story. There is nothing, absolutely nothing,  IN THE STORY to indicate that Bob Bauer is acting or has acted primarily as Obama’s eligibility attorney.

Maybe the little blip there from Miki Booth aka Miki Mouth and Princess Miki is the key? She slipped “no doubt architect of forged documents” into the parade of horribles when there is every doubt in the world in the world that anything is forged.  In fact, there is no doubt that Deputy Mike Zullo said, ” There is not enough evidence to convict him on jaywalking … let alone anything else.”

But, putting out a misleading headline allows any New Silly Fathead to piggyback the Birther idiocy onto legitimate news stories. I guess they hope credibility will rub off on them. Not gonna happen.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the BBC TV show, Fawlty Towers, The Germans episode. Wiki says, in part:

Fawlty Towers is a British sitcom produced by BBC Television that was first broadcast on BBC2 in 1975 and 1979. Twelve episodes were made (two series, each of six episodes). The show was written by John Cleese and his then-wife Connie Booth, both of whom also starred in the show. The first series was produced and directed by John Howard Davies; the second was produced by Douglas Argent and directed by Bob Spiers. The series theme music was written by Dennis Wilson and was inspired by Ludwig van Beethoven’s Minuet in G major.

The series is set in Fawlty Towers, a fictional hotel in the seaside town of Torquay, on the “English Riviera”. The plots centered around tense, rude and put-upon owner Basil Fawlty (Cleese), his bossy wife Sybil (Prunella Scales), a comparatively normal chambermaid Polly (Booth), and hapless Spanish waiter Manuel (Andrew Sachs) and their attempts to run the hotel amidst farcical situations and an array of demanding and eccentric guests.

In a list drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted by industry professionals, Fawlty Towers was named the best British television series of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawlty_Towers

Note 2. The Post Title. Well, those who haven’t caught on or Halfway Listened could read the whole Wiki article at the Wiki link above for a clue. Because I believe one should Hide Fantasy Well!  Meanwhile, those Birthers who Always Need Filth should just check out Poo Poo Simmons.

Note 3. An Excerpt from The Germans.


Pooperscooping The Vattel Birthers – No. 1 (The Floating “But”)

Vattle Birther's Scat

Introduction:

One of the things that is sooo frustrating about the Vattle Birthers (my funny name for the Emerich de Vattel CULT) is that it is difficult to distinguish between the flat out liars and the totally stupid ones. If you knew for sure they were intentionally lying, then they could be put into a Vattle Birther equivalent of the Obotski Hall of Shame.  The sheer degree of idiocy exhibited  in their theories prevents any rational discerning of which is which.  Therefore, the real screen name of the Vattle  Birther and link will be omitted.  

Pooperscooping the Vattle Birthers is a series dedicated to presenting actual Vattle Birther statements of Dogma (pun intended),  or intentional misrepresentations (who can tell the difference???)  in all its rancid glory.  Odds are, if you ever engage a Vattle Birther, you will encounter some variation of this argument.

The Floating But

The Sane Proposition: The law says that a person born in U.S. territory of parents who are not “under foreign jurisdiction” (not diplomats, foreign military at war with the U.S., etc.) are citizens by birth, and the law does not distinguish between “citizen by birth” and “natural-born”.

The Vattle Birther Response:

The Supreme Court makes the distinction. It says one term is defined by the Constitution while the other is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution:

NBC: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

Citizenship by birth: “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.”

NBC, the court said is being born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Citizenship by birth is defined by the birth clause of the 14th amendment: Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … with the latter half being defined as having parents who have domicil and permanent residence, such as had Wong Kim Ark:

The Squeeky Smackdown:

You are NOT being sincere!!! Here is what you said:

” NBC: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

Citizenship by birth: “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.”
==========

By putting the “But” where you did you made it read the way you wanted, like NBC was one thing and “citizenship by birth” was another. BUT, here is the actual COMPLETE quotation:

As stated by the Court in the historic decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702,

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

Sooo, now it is clear that the second part, citizenship by birth is being contrasted with NATURALIZATION, not with NATURAL BORN CITIZEN like you tried to get away with!!!

Because I googled your words and it sent me here which made it clear what you were trying to do:

Perez v. Brownell

I guess I am going to have to google it every time you quote something.

==============================

Later on, after this Internet Debate ended, I had a chance to go look for the two sentences that were wrongly and misleadingly combined. The first sentence came from the top of page 655 of Wong Kim Ark, and the second sentence came from the bottom of page 702. The  first sentence was part of paragraph stating that the meaning of the term natural born citizen would have to be determined by going to the common law.  The second sentence was, as stated above, contrasting natural born citizenship as being in the constitution and naturalization being controlled by legislation. Somewhere in those 47 intervening pages, the Court said the common law and the constitution were saying the same thing, not opposite things as implied by the Vattle Birther.

For shame, Vattle Birther, for shame!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


A Vattel Birther Tackles The Bible

Doh! and the Other Vattle Birthers Need De-BUNKING!!!

First, a little background. It is Sunday and being a good little Girl Reporter, here I am reading my Bible and trying to behave myself, when it suddenly occurrs to me, how would a Vattle Birther interpret the Bible. Vattle Birthers are what I call the silly, ignorant people who think that it takes two citizen parents for somebody to be a natural born citizen. They are a embarrassment to the rest of the Birthers. Vattel was a Swiss guy who spoke French and died like 300 years ago, but who the Vattle Birthers think was the inspiration for the Constitution or something.

If it wasn’t Sunday, and if I wasn’t trying to behave myself, then I would use a whole lot worse language to describe the Vattle Birthers besides silly and ignorant. If, for example, it was Monday, then I would be calling them a pack of big fat liars who are purposely misleading people.  They ignore court decisions which they don’t like. They read court cases to mean the opposite of what they really mean. Nobody can mangle the English language as bad as they do on accident.  Anyway, here is the imaginary discussion between me and a Vattle Birther about the Bible.

—————————————————

Vattle Birther: You know, if you believe in Jesus, you are going to die and not get to go to Heaven. That’s what it says in the Bible.

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:  DO WHAT??? That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard. Haven’t you ever read John 3:16, where it says, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Vattle Birther: You are reading it wrong.  The “him” refers back to God, not Jesus. If you believe in God, then you get everlasting life. If you believe in Jesus, then you aren’t believing in God, so you are going to perish.  John 3:16 is the seminal verse which proves my point that you are not supposed to believe in Jesus.

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: That is an absurd way to read the verse, and nobody else in the universe reads it that way.  Plus what about the rest of the Bible and all the other verses like in Romans10:9, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Vattle Birther: Romans??? How can you believe anything in Romans, because Paul was a Roman and they were the ones who fed Christians to  the lions!!!

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: You’re crazy and a liar to boot. What about all the preachers of every denomination. None of them say what you do, that is wrong to believe in Jesus???

Vattle Birther: All the preachers are in on it. None of them tell the truth because they would lose their jobs.

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: That is just purely stupid and you ought to be ashamed of yourself misleading people that way!!! I can see how some of the sophisticated Christians might water stuff down, but what about the Hellfire Texas Baptists??? They have guns and aren’t one bit afraid to tell the truth.  Plus, why is it that nobody in the last few hundred years has interpreted things like you have??? You are just a demon or something, GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!

——————————————————

Now, if anybody thinks that this is exaggeration, forget it. The Vattle Birthers do just exactly this sort of stuff to arrive at their conclusions. And, if you think I am being sacrilegious. . .well, it is Sunday, and I got you to read two Bible verses, which is probably two more than most of you Heathens would have read otherwise!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Vattle Birthers: An Embarrassment To The Birther Movement!!!

Vattel Birther Legal Experts

This is a kind of long Internet Article, but it is about important stuff. Plus, it is the first in a new series I plan to do on the Vattle Birther Issue. (I mis-spell it as Vattle on purpose because I think the whole Vattel thing is just silly.)

From the very beginning, there have been two main Schools of Birther Thought related to the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. One was the Common Sense Suspicious Birthers who simply were not convinced by Obama’s verifiable-information deficit short form birth certificate.  If Obama was born outside the United States, then he was NOT eligible to be president.

The other group was the Vattel or British Citizen Birthers who invented this weird legal theory that it takes TWO citizen parents  to make a natural born citizen. The actual law on this is pretty well established in a U.S. Supreme Court Case called Wong Kim Ark. (This was the name of the Chinese person, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Arkansas). In that case, the Supreme Court said over and over that if you were born in the United States, and weren’t the child of a diplomat or invading soldier, then you were a natural born citizen and it didn’t matter where your parents were from.  Which is why we have the anchor babies you hear about on the news. Here is a excerpt from the case:

every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

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.

Here is a link to this very long 1898 case if you are interested:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

The Supreme Court was very clear that there were only two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized:

The Fourteenth Amendmentof the Constitution, in the declaration that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

Now, the Vattel Birthers, knowing that Obama’s father is probably from Kenya, which in August 1961 was still part of the British Empire, believe that this makes Obama not eligible to be president even if he was born in Hawaii. Most of this was based on a guy named Emerich de Vattel, who wiki confirms was SWISS (not French as I have previously stated) but wrote stuff in French.  (The Swiss don’t seem to have their own language.)

This is because Vattel wrote this:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

And thus, because Obama’s father wasn’t born here, Obama is supposedly not eligible.  Here is a link to the Vattel stuff:

http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

This is a really nice theory, but there is a pretty big problem. American courts DO NOT use Vattel’s definition. American courts, like quoted above, use English law.  Plus, according to the Wong Kim Ark case, there were only two kinds of citizens–natural born and naturalized, where you have to get the government to make you a citizen.Which, if you think about it, makes sense, because our country was British at the time of the American Revolution and NOT Swiss.

Sooo, the Vattle Birthers tried to argue that there were two kinds of birth citizens— just plain old regular birth citizens, like the illegal alien anchor babies,  and then natural born citiziens who had two citizen parents.  Again, a really nice theory, so in 2008 some Vattel Birthers in Indiana sued to have Obama thrown out because he was just a regular birth citizen and not a natural born citizen. So here is what the Vattle Birthers said.

“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States” and a „natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

But the Indiana Court said NOPE!!!

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

Here is a link to the full Indiana case if you are interested:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/

Sooo, after all this you think the Vattle Birthers would get the point. But they don’t and this is where this whole Vattle stuff leaves Legal La La Land and becomes a embarrassment to the rest of the Birther Movement. Because the Vattle Birthers keep at it, throwing out every thing they can lay their hands on:  letters from 200+ years ago, law school articles, law dictionaries from the 1800’s, law cases before the Wong Kim Ark case, and anything else they can to try to  get around what is a real simple law thing.

That is what irritated me a year ago when I wrote my first anti-Vattle Birther Internet Article.  I would be debating Obotski, and doing a good job, then here would come a Vattle Birther with all that two citizen parent crap and the whole thread would disappear in a confusing mix-match of whatever nonsense they could duck tape together. Usually, the recipe looked  something like this:

1. Start with a 1787 letter to George Washington from John Jay, which stated “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable [Blah Blah Blah]that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”;

2. Then, stir in a  definition from a 1800’s something law dictionary that had different definitions for natural born citizen and native citizen thus proving for all time the two are different!!!;

3. Adding in a dash of Congressional Intent from a Congressman named John Bingham in 1862 who said: “Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”;

4. Sprinking in some Vattle seasoning, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”, and then, finally to make it all look LEGAL;

5. Dump a heap of mis-interpreted law case(s), which DO NOT discuss the issue,  like from this 1875 Supreme Court Case, Minor v. Happersett, and then PRETEND  it decided the case in your favor—see the bolded, italicized part below :

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.

This process might take up 5 or 6 pages or 20 or more. But the Vattle Birther would take this mess and proclaim  they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is NOT eligible, and now, everybody just knows it takes two citizen parents to be president.  And if you didn’t agree, then you were just totally stupid or something.

Except that the Vattle Birther had completely disregarded the two cases above, and usually managed to mangle whatever case they were quoting.  And, you have to ignore the fact that if this was really the law, the lawyers working for Hillary Clinton and John McCain must have really messed up.  And, you have to ignore that not one legal case backs them up. And, that only a couple of conservative lawyers in the whole country out of hundreds of thousands, have filed anything. And, you have to ignore that probably nobody was ever taught this in school; And, you have to ignore that even a large number of Birthers don’t buy it.

And those other Birthers, the ones like I was,  actually managed to accomplish something. By repeatedly asking why Obama had not coughed up his  long form birth certificate, by the time of the 2010 mid-term elections 58% of Americans had some degree of doubt where Obama was born, Obama was SHELLACKED and neutered, and Obama was maneuvered into coughing up his long form birth certificate, as flaky as it is.

What have the Vattle Birthers accomplished??? NOTHING, except confusion and stress from having to read their silly crap. There have been some decent Vattle Birthers.  Mr. Apuzzo is a nice person and he put together as respectable a case as he could, but the Supreme Court didn’t even think it was worth a hearing. The Birther websites are run by dedicated people like Dr. Kate, Sharon Rondeau, and whoever it is who runs Obama Release Your Records, just to name a few.

But, by and large, the Vattle Birthers sit there and write their dribble day after day, and Heaven Help Them if the Obotski find them because here comes those two law cases from above and the Vattle Birther just has to do his or her best to ignore the legal reality. Which is kind of hard to do when you are debating with people who have good reading comprehension skills. It used to embarrass me when I was on the same thread as a Vattle Birther, and it is embarrassing me more and more when these twerps spew their nonsense.  It is embarrassing to watch the stupid Vattle Birthers just get creamed time after time and know people are associating them with me. Sooo, I think I am going to start doing something to shut them down. Sooo, now The Birther Think Tank has a NEW category: Vattel Birther DeBunking!!!

BTW (which means By The Way),  if you see somebody who looks like those two guys above, it is probably a Vattle Birther.  Be prepared for a lot of noise, slobbering, and drooling!!!

Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Birtherism as Conspiracy Theory??? (Lies the Obotski Taught Us, No.1)

Orville Obotski, Warning the World About The Birthers

The Obotski have maintained since the beginning that Birtherism is a form of “Conspiracy Theory” in an effort to marginalize the Birther Movement. In fact, the leading Obotski web site is even called “Obama Conspiracy Theories“. According to the Obotski,  Birthers are merely another in a long line of paranoid conspiracy nuts which include The 9-11 Truthers, and Moon Landing Deniers.  Let us take a closer look at this accusation. It is The Birther Think Tank’s position that NOT all “Conspiracy Theories” are alike.

Legally, a conspiracy is defined as: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors. These are “Little c” types of conspiracies and they occur all the time. Yet, the term “Conspiracy Theory” does not attach. What does it take to elevate a run-of-the-mill “Little c” conspiracy into a full fledged “Conspiracy Theory“???

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.”  Using this definition, it is easy to see how the 9-11 Truthers and Moon Landing Deniers fit the mold. Only POWERFUL conspirators could have pulled these tricks off. After all, there were videos of both events.

But, I would argue that a really good Conspiracy Theory needs at least two more elements to rise above the simple “Little c” conspiracy level.  First, a relatively large number of conspirators to participate in the cover-up activities. Second, the conspiracy needs to be about something important and out of the ordinary which requires a lot of cover-up activities. Once again, applying these criteria to the 9-11 Truthers and Moon Landing Deniers, show they fit easily into this enhanced criteria.

Both 9-11 and the Moon landing were important events and out of the ordinary, and any conspiracy would have required a lot of participants and cover-up activities. It would have taken a large number of active conspirators to plant bombs in the World Trade center, and steal aircraft, and crash them. It would have taken a lot to cover it all up. It would have taken large numbers of active conspirators  to act in the Moon Landing re-enactment, and film it, and design all the props. Plus, it would have required large numbers of silent onlookers willing to just keep their mouths shut about what was really going on, and help cover it up. For example, the people sitting at their computer screens and looking at blinking lights in Cape Canaveral pretending something real was going on.

And, the large numbers of conspirators is one of the things which make the real Conspiracy Theories hard to swallow in the first place, because people like to talk. The more active conspirators and the more silent onlookers  involved, the less likely the story is true, or even possible. Plus, the more activity required to make the conspiracy work, the more people who must be involved.  From the carpenters and electricians down to the people delivering pizzas to them. All this extra activity also make the  Conspiracy Theory seem more bizarre and implausible. With that behind us, let us examine Birtherism to see if ever fit any of the criteria for a genuine Conspiracy Theory.

Birtherism, insofar as it relates to an overseas birth, would have required a fake or phony birth certificate be filed in 1961 in Hawaii. This would have required but two conspirators. One, presumably a grandparent, and two, a willing participant at the Bureau of Vital statistics. Once a fake birth certificate was placed into the files in 1961, it would require little or no further activity from that point forward.  Any driver’s licenses or bar applications or passports would have required no active conspirators or silent onlookers. Yet, the Obotski have repeatedly portrayed Birtherism as implicitly requiring these unnecessary participants.

How much activity would it have taken to pull this off? Not much. No carpenters behind the scenes. No, directors or scripts. No actors or extras. No pyrotechnics or stunt doubles. No criminal mastermind to put it all together.  No, document fraud was pretty easy in those days of 1961. In fact, birth certificate fraud itself is pretty easy. Doubt it???  Here, is a link to a 31 page government report about Birth Certificate Fraud:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54392994/Birth-Certificate-Fraud

Would faking a birth certificate require powerful conspirators??? Nope. Just a grand parent and a clerk. Would faking a birth certificate require large numbers of people acting to cover anything up??? Assuming a birth in a third world country in 1961 would have even resulted in a birth certificate, maybe a bribe or two to lift it from the files. Such things happen regularly, and are not anything out of the ordinary. But strictly speaking, even this would not have been required.

Would it have required large numbers of silent onlookers to fake an Hawaiian  birth certificate??? Again, no. Was Obama’s birth in 1961 an important event??? Not outside of his family. Yet, again the Obotski take this opportunity to mis-characterize Birtherism as requiring the fakery be tied to Obama’s presidential aspirations 50 years after the fact.  This is a blatant attempt to mislead. Few, if any Birthers, have ever maintained the fakery was done so that Obama might one day be president.  Frankly, I have never seen it set forth that way outside of Obotski scribblings. There were good reasons for Obama’s family to want him to be an American citizen in 1961 which had nothing whatsoever to do with running for president.

Might a politician or two, or some other people, have become involved in this along the way??? It is possible, but not necessary. Only one or two people in Hawaii have ever seen the actual original paperwork. If they were involved in some way, it would only have been 50 years years after the fact, and in more of the cover up role.  And still, the number of conspirators could be counted on one hand. This is less than the number of people who helped cover up Arnold Schwarzenegger’s love child for ten years. Sometimes these things just take on a life of their own for political or other reasons.

This branch of Birtherism, the one questioning where Obama was born, was about possible document fraud. Document fraud is easy. It is occurring now, on a massive scale in our country. Some admit it. Some try to cover it up. Some, are employees of the government. These things have a life of their own.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/05/former-lps-employees-allege-30-to-78-error-rate-in-borrower-mortgage-records-contradicting-bankerregulator-cover-up.html

Summing this all up, it is clear that among the Birthers who questioned whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, there was never a  need for a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory to tie it all together. The Obotski who said there was, were simply lying, or carelessly parroting the lies of others.

Squeeky Fromm,
Girl Reporter

[Note: My BFF, Fabia Sheen, proofread this for me and added a few things. Thank you!!!]