Tag Archives: Logic

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s Distributed Muddle!!!

drunk

Apuzzo Finally Found The Bench Which Supported Him!

I guess Mario Apuzzo, Esq. read my “A Pazzo” article. Today in his blog comments we find:

I of IISqueeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, the artsy fartsy Obot queen, has taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article. You can read her haughty prose here. https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

She says that I have misread Minor v. Happersett because the Court said that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also said: “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.” Hence, the Court said that at common law, if you were not born in the country to citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner. This is the same exact thing that Congress reflected in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. So Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has proven nothing but to show that she does not understand what she reads.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell argument. In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):

All NBCs are CABs.
All X’s are CABs.
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.

To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing by use of some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I said that this Maskell argument is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle and also is fallacious for affirming the consequent. I said that this is the argument presented by Maskell. So, what is ironic is that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, takes a shot at the second part of my logical analysis of the Maskell argument:

All CAB’s are NBCs.
All X’s are CAB’s.
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.

Continued . . .

June 12, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Blogger Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

II of III explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” And even though Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails.

I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his adjusted major premise is true. I have also presented my evidence that shows that the adjusted major premise is false. I have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the adjusted Maskell major premise, i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just says a lot of mixed up nothing (like her art work), demonstrates how incapable she is of understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.

June 12, 2013 at 2:42 AM

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4091601506130883249

Blah. Blah. Blah. Well, once again Mario Apuzzo MISSES THE WHOLE DARN POINT of my article!!! I clearly said that I was saving a substantive refutation for later. The point of the Apuzzo/A Pazzo post was to show how Apuzzo’s use of syllogistic forms was misplaced and darn near useless when it is the major premises themselves which are at issue.

Apuzzo says the same thing but just doesn’t understand the impact of his own words. This is from his original article:

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true. But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.

Notice how Apuzzo admits that in this proper logical form, Maskell’s argument is LOGICALLY valid. In Mario’s mind, what is it that renders the conclusion UNSOUND? Is it LOGIC??? Is it Aristotle speaking from beyond the grave??? Naw. It’s just that Mario disagrees with the Major Premise. That’s it! Maskell thinks one thing, and Mario thinks something else.

BUT, that is NOT the stuff of which logical fallacies are made. It’s just a disagreement. It happens all the time. I don’t think Mario Apuzzo is wrong because he violates forms of logic. I think he is wrong because he misinterprets applicable law, bases conclusions on inappropriate legal authorities, and flatly doesn’t know what he is talking about.

I guess you could put some of that into syllogistic form, to wit:

Major Premise: People who think earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898) are wrong;

Minor Premise: Apuzzo thinks earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898);

Conclusion: Apuzzo is wrong.

But why go through all that??? It isn’t necessary. It is simple enough to say, “Apuzzo commits error by focusing on earlier cases to the exclusion of subsequent cases. DUH! If I did utilize syllogisms in that fashion, it would not be for illumination, but obfuscation.  That was my whole point with the earlier article.

Sooo, let me close with an Artsy Fartsy Irish Poem:

Losing To Wit

Apazzo ignores the courts’ rulings,
To busy himself with his droolings.
To Wit: he’ll keep losing,
‘Cause he keeps refusing
To listen to Squeeky Fromm’s schoolings!

Squeeky Fromm
Artsy Fartsy Girl Reporter

Note 1. Undistributed Middle/Distributed Muddle. For ESL’s, this is a word play on logical fallacies (Undistributed Middle), and confused messes (Distributed Muddle).

mud·dle (mdl)

n.
1. A disordered condition; a mess or jumble.
2. Mental confusion.

v. mud·dled, mud·dling, mud·dles
v.tr.
1. To make turbid or muddy.
2. To mix confusedly; jumble.
3. To confuse or befuddle (the mind), as with alcohol. See Synonyms at confuse.
4. To mismanage or bungle.
5. To stir or mix (a drink) gently.

v.intr.
To think, act, or proceed in a confused or aimless manner: muddled along through my high-school years.

Note 2. The Image Caption.  The Bench also means:

World English Dictionary
bench (bɛntʃ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a long seat for more than one person, usually lacking a back or arms
2. a plain stout worktable
3. ( sometimes capital ) the bench
a. a judge or magistrate sitting in court in a judicial capacity
b. judges or magistrates collectively

4. sport the seat on which reserve players and officials sit during a game
5. geology a flat narrow platform of land, esp one marking a former shoreline
6. a ledge in a mine or quarry from which work is carried out
7. (in a gymnasium) a low table, which may be inclined, used for various exercises
8. a platform on which dogs or other domestic animals are exhibited at shows
9. ( NZ ) a hollow on a hillside formed by sheep

Note 3. The Image Easter Egg:  Malt does more than logic will, to justify Apuzzo’s swill.

This is a word play based on two lines from  A.E. Housman, in A Shropshire Lad, XLII (#62) the one which begins, “Terence, this is stupid stuff”.  Here is an excerpt:

Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God’s ways to man.
Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world’s not.

http://www.bigeye.com/housman.htm

Note 4. To Wit. The Irish Poem is based on a punning use of the legalistic phrase “To Wit” (Namely) with the general meaning “To Wit” (To Humor) being the clear winner in many arguments.

The phrase to wit, meaning namely or that is to say, is primarily used in legal texts and speech, though it sometimes spills over into other types of writing. In general, unless you’re going for a formal tone, to wit bears replacement with one of the many alternatives, such as namely, specifically, in other words, more precisely, or to clarify.

Here’s an example of to wit used in a legal context:

The indictment charged that Broadnax “did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate commerce, a firearm, to wit: a RG Industries, Model RG 31, .38 caliber revolver, serial number 019420.”

http://grammarist.com/usage/to-wit/


Fun With Dick and Jane and a Vattel Birther

Though He Was Born In America, Vattel Birthers Maintain That "Spot" Is Not Eligible To "Run", Due To His English Cocker Spaniel Father

[WARNING: If you have never argued with a Vattle Birther (My humorous name for the two citizen parent Birthers who believe Emerich de Vattel, of Switzerland, is the source for England and America’s law on natural born citizenship.) then you may think the following is an exaggeration. I assure you that it is not. Arguments actually degenerate to this level.]

Rational Person: That Spot sure is a cute little dog!

Vattle Birther: How do you know that the term Spot refers to a dog? The authors didn’t say Spot, the dog.

Rational Person: Uh, there is a picture of a dog, and he is running. Duh!!!

Vattle Birther: No. You are committing a composition error.

Rational Person: A what???

Vattle Birther: A composition error, you know, a logical fallacy. When somebody infers that something is true of the whole thing from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole thing. Like above, the dog may be running, but how can you just assume the words See Spot run are about the dog??? Maybe the dog is named Fido???  Maybe Spot is a smudge on the girl’s dress. Maybe the little girl is named Spot??? She is running, too!!! Or maybe  Spot stands for Spaceship Positioned Over Terra.

Rational Person: Who’s Tara??? I thought the kid was named Jane, or maybe Spot???

Vattle Birther:  Idiot! Terra is what the aliens and ET’s call our planet. It’s like Latin or something for “earth.”

Rational Person: So let me get this straight. Here is a picture of a running dog, and a little kid, and the words  see Spot run that is obviously on a school bulletin board, and you say it may refer to a spaceship or a smudge. And then, you put the burden on me to prove  I am NOT committing a logical composition error.

Vattle Birther: That’s right! The word Spot could mean something else!

Rational Person: And, you don’t think YOU have any burden to show the words might mean the something else  you say they could mean.  Do you think  that just by saying,  it could mean something else, that you have proved it does mean something else? Don’t you think you ought to point out a spaceship in the picture, or maybe a bottle of Clorox Bleach???   Is it your idea is that all you have to do is simply list a logical fallacy, and then not provide any application of that rule of logic to the facts at hand, or show how the rule was violated???  That YOU can skip all context, simply burp out a fallacy, without any analysis or proof, and then I have to run around and prove that your squirrely possible interpretation  isn’t true.

Vattle Birther: You got it!

Rational Person: Well, aren’t you committing the logical error of asking someone to prove a negative??? To prove that your possible interpretation isn’t the correct one??? While you don’t have to present any information that supports your interpretation???

Vattle Birther:  Well, uh, uh. . .

Rational Person: Plus, aren’t you just engaging in sophisms???

Vattle Birther: In WHAT???

Rational Person: You know, sophisms. You don’t think you’re the only person who can google stuff, do you??? A sophism is a derogatory term, and means a specious argument or verbal trick used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood, or it might use obscure words and use complicated sentence constructions in order to fool people and misrepresent the truth. And, before you ask,  specious means superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

Vattle Birther: You are insulting me!!!  I am honestly confused about who or what Spot is in the above picture! There was a Boy named Sue, why couldn’t there be a Girl named Spot???

Rational Person:  No you aren’t confused.  You know the kid is NOT named Spot.  You know there aren’t any spaceships in the picture. You are just engaging in sophisms!!!

Now, this is actually how some debates with Vattle Birthers go.  Without putting someone on a lie detector they can argue the equivalent of stuff as stupid as kids named Spot forever.  But, if you pay attention, somewhere along the way, the absurdities start to show up. One Vattle Birther claims the 14th Amendment does not apply to people born in America to two citizens, but the rest of the 14th Amendment does apply.

The same one claims that the Ankeny judges never said Obama was eligible from office, even though the decision says children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Oh, I guess McCain’s parent’s weren’t American. Or maybe Obama wasn’t 35 years old in 2008. This is the kind of idiocy you have to deal with when you debate the Vattle Birthers.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note: The Vattle Birthers think I am being mean to them, so I wanted to do a nice thing to show it isn’t too personal. Sooo, here is a list of 21 other things SPOT could stand for.  This should help them in their encounters with Dick and Jane!!!

SPOT   Système Pour l’Observation de la Terre (French remote sensing satellite)—[Do they stare at goats???]
SPOT   Satellite Personal Tracker—[Ankle monitoring systems???]
SPOT   Smart Personal Object Technology (Microsoft)—[They’re into sex toys, now???]
SPOT   Single Point of Truth—[When you hit 30, and you aren’t married???]
SPOT   Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques—[Trying to not sit next to babies and creeps???]
SPOT   Satellite Probatoire d’Observation de la Terre—[Damn! Was he right??? Oh no. It’s French.]
SPOT   Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (US Department of Defense program for tracking deployed contractors)—[Making sure there is water, for water boards???]
SPOT   Special Purpose Operational Training (airlines)—[Teaching Stewardesses how to fend off Pilots???]
SPOT   Sequential Proxy Optimization Technique—[Activating a clone???]
SPOT   Signaling Point of Termination —[This sounds ominous. Scheduling a hit man???]
SPOT   Secondary-Location Point of Termination- – -[This still sounds ominous. Did the hit man miss the first time???]
SPOT   Sociedad Puertorriqueña de Ortopedia y Traumatología—[Too much Living La Vida Loca???]
SPOT   Searching Peak of Tension (polygraph testing)—[Run! Vattle Birthers! Run! Run! Run!]
SPOT   Stupid Previous Owner Trick (automotive)—[Why can’t you add oil to the radiator overflow thingy???]
SPOT   Sensor Placement Orientation Tool—[For when it’s dark, and you don’t have both hands???]
SPOT   Simply Protecting Our Tots—[Begin by NOT naming them Spot!]
SPOT   Space Station Proximity Operations Trainer—[Maybe they are over Terra after all???]
SPOT   Speed Position and Track—[Something to do with intravenous meth use???]
SPOT   Sprint Procurement Online Tool—[Finding hookers fast on the Internet???]
SPOT   Strategic Programs of Technology (Sprint)—[How to hide fees, really well???]
SPOT   Swiss Professional Officer Training Course —[Swiss??? Does this have anything to do with Vattel???]


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


Scientific Birtherism – The KISS Matrix

Every Falsehood in Motion, Tends to Stay in Motion Until It Bumps Into The TRUTH!!!

The Birther Think Tank has as it central Philosophical Tenet, the Birther Theory based on the KISS Matrix.This is also known as Scientific Birtherism, because the issues of Obama’s Birth are approached in the same way that any other scientific phenomenon is approached – that is, from a stage of initial uncertainty which proceeds by steps to determine the true state of affairs. As wiki says, “Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses.” Each of the elements of the KISS Matrix, is a separate hypothesis!!!

The beauty of the KISS Matrix, is that it fully embraces the UNCERTAINTY surrounding Obama, while at the same time, concentrating on what is most relevant to the average citizen: WHY are we having to go through all this, and WHY doesn’t Obama just “cough it up” and resolve this problem???  Plus, when answered, the KISS Matrix will answer WHERE.  The KISS Matrix was developed by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter.  Here is a explanation of the KISS Matrix, as found on Miss Fromm’s website:

The KISS Matrix

Squeeky Has An Epiphany!!!

This is a short recap of the KISS Matrix, which is the unique way I look at Birtherism.  It is the central philosophical tenet of my Birther theories. As far as I know, I am the only Birther in the world who views the issue this way. But that is not how I started out.

When I first became a Birther, I was convinced that Obama was a Kenyan (and a Muslim, Marxist Usurper to boot, who wanted to have multiple First Ladies in the White House!) I have evolved since then. I originally thought that being a Kenyan was the only possible explanation for Obama refusing to cough up a long form birth certificate in the face of all the flak he was catching and the impending mid-term elections. I was wrong.

After intense debates with the Obotski, I realized that there may have been other reasons Obama refused to “cough up” the Long Form Birth Certificate.  Then, I had my EUREKA MOMENT!!! There were NO good reasons not to cough it up, AND all the other possible reasons are bad, and WORSE than Obama being a Kenyan. I express this range of possible reasons as the KISS Matrix:

1. KENYA. He is born in Kenya, or there is something embarrassing on the Long Form Birth Certificate.
2. IGNORANT. Obama is too ignorant to think of the simple answer.
3. SNOBBY. Obama thinks Americans are too stupid to believe the REAL THING!
4. SLIMY. Obama thinks it is OK to make some Americans look crazy if it gets him votes.

[NOTE: Twelve days after this Internet Article was presented, Obama  apparently coughed up his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. Accordingly, as with all scientific things, The KISS MATRIX has incorporated this fact into The KISS Matrix 2.0, removing the Kenyan/Embarrassing stuff from the matrix of possible reasons:

1. KIDS.  Obama has a bunch of Kids for advisers, who think this is funny???
2. IGNORANT. Obama was too ignorant to think of the simple answer.
3. SNOBBY. Obama thought Americans were too stupid to believe the REAL THING!
4. SLIMY. Obama thought it was OK to make some Americans look crazy if it got him votes.]

That’s it. Those are the 4 most likely possibilities. Sooo, while the sophisticated Republicans eschewed Birtherism because the Kenyan Option seems so conspiratorial in nature, they threw the baby out with the bath water. Who wants, for example, a president who intentionally sits idle and lets a divisive issue persist so that he can pick up the “anti-crazy” vote. Isn’t that what “race-baiters” did a few generations ago??? KISS permits people to address the birth certificate issue as it should be addressed, as an insight into Obama’s personality and thought processes.

And, if you think Ignorantis a stretch, then just remember how badly the mid-term elections turned out. Obama didn’t pick up enough votes to prevent a SHELLACKING, as Obama, himself, described it. Not changing this horse in midstream, is just asking for a second coat of SHELLACK in 2012.Of course some of the Obotski maintain that no matter what Obama coughs up, the Birthers won’t believe it, so that the Snobby option isn’t necessarily a bad reason. But there is no good faith basis for this belief.  Remember, Obama has only provided 1(One) document, the short form COLB, with NO VERIFIABLE INFORMATION on it. And that wasn’t provided to the PUBLIC, but to some special group who put a PICTURE on the Internet.

In mathematics, you can not predict a series of numbers from just one number. The same is true here. You can not predict a future pattern of disbelief, just because people don’t necessarily believe the one document they have been given. Plus, the long form is the very document people have been suing to get, with no success.

Plus, exactly what harm would occur if Obama coughed up a Long Form Birth Certificate??? Nobody seems to have postulated that any sort of disaster would occur.

So that it is where it stands. Forget all the WHERE questions. Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo two citizen parent nonsense. Just be honest. Which is to concentrate on WHY Obama has not resolved this for three years. Because none of us really knows for sure why he hasn’t. But we do know ALL the possible KISS answers  are bad.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

(PS: I also learned Obama isn’t a Muslim, and isn’t a Marxist, and is in fact, the Poster Child for the Wall Street Oligarchs!)

The Head Researcher