Tag Archives: World Net Daily

Ornery Orly Taitz Calls Out The Arizona Kid!!! (Or, Ghostwriters In Disguise???)

Calamity Jane 2

Well, Zullo, I Say You’re A Dirty, Lowdown, Yellow, Stinking, Bushwhacking Varmint!

Ornery Orly has just fired another broadside at Deputy Mike “The Arizona Kid” Zullo, and his enablers World Net Daily, Carl Gallups, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It is such a comparatively good and well-written Orly  rant, that I have posted the whole thing, with a link below so you can check out the comments:

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

More general talk from WND, Carl Gallops and Zullo-Arpaio camp, however so far no criminal complaint filed by Arpaio, no new evidence made public, just general talk with nothing to back it up

More general talk from WND, Carl Gallops and Zullo-Arpaio camp, however so far no criminal complaint filed by Arpaio, no new evidence made public, just general talk with nothing to back it up.

As always I see more general statements and talk coming from Zullo-Arpaio camp and their channels of advertising and fund raising: Carl Gallops and WND. In the articles published lately they stated that Arpaio-Zullo are talking to some congressmen and they have some affidavit from an expert Reed Hays.

The problem is that we heard this general talk before. There are no names of congressmen, affidavit of Reed Hayes was not made public, we do not know what is in it and most importantly Arpaio-Zullo never filed a criminal complaint against Obama. One can talk generalities until the cows come home. And then what?

a. Kessler stated that Zullo demanded that Kessler sign a non-disclosure agreement. Kessler stated that a bona fide police officer would put prosecuting a crime first, publishing books second. He was questioning why did Zullo seek a non-disclosure agreement from Kessler? Was it because Zullo wanted to keep this alleged affidavit hidden until he publishes his book? Until WND and Carl Galllops promote this book? Any value of an affidavit, is in   court. If it was not submitted to court and published in a book, it is worthless.

b. Kessler stated that in one of the shows Carl Gallops stated that between Arpaio and Zullo there are some 80 years of police work. Arpaio was in law enforcement for some 50 years, so people assumed that Zullo has some 30 years of experience. Kessler stated that he questioned Zullo how many years he worked as a cop, and he stated that Zullo responded that he was a cop only for 5 years. That is not much.

You can see that when I report on this site , I publish the evidence, actual pleadings, file the actual cases. The public has all the evidence.

Tell Arpaio, Zullo and their channels of distribution: WND and Carl Gallops: we need real action, real complaint to be filed by Arpaio. If he has an expert testimony, he needs to file it with the criminal complaint before something happens to the witness and he is no longer willing or able to testify. Sheriff Arpaio: do your job as a sheriff and file the criminal complaint or refund   the donations that you and Zullo collected telling the public that you as a Sheriff are working on a criminal case.  We need the real complaint, we do not need more book sales. If members of Congress decide to act, they will act. However, the only reason Brian Riley brought to you, Arpaio, a criminal complaint signed by 250 citizens of Maricopa County, AZ, is because Congress was not doing anything and the public wanted you as a sheriff to act and file a criminal complaint against Obama for running for President in your county on basis of fraud, based on fabricated and stolen IDs. You confirmed that it was a 100% fraud, but you never filed a complaint.  General amorphous talk does not do any good to anyone.  Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=428114#comments

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

She has flatly called the whole bunch out. Again. But, what I noticed immediately is that this rant is much better written and presented than most of her efforts to date. I suspect that somebody helped her out with this. Carl Gallups last name is mis-spelled as Gallops, which is what a spell checker would probably indicate. When did Orly ever use spell check???

I could be wrong, because there are a couple of clauses where her Boris and Natasha accent shows through the lack of an article, such as:

the public wanted you as a sheriff to act and file a criminal complaint against Obama for running for President in your county on [missing a “the”] basis of fraud, based on fabricated and stolen IDs.

And, there are the numerous strings of phrases missing conjunctions, which add to the broken and clipped  Bullwinkolocity sound, such as:

You can see that when I report on this site , I publish the evidence, actual pleadings,[missing “and”] file the actual cases.

Then, other sentences that are hybrids, both with and without conjunctions, indicating some kind of grammatical evolution:

Tell Arpaio, Zullo and their channels of distribution: WND and Carl Gallops: we need real action, [missing conjunction “and” and missing article “a”] real complaint to be filed by Arpaio.

But then again, you have phrases such as these, which do not sound anything like Orly:

One can talk generalities until the cows come home.

General amorphous talk does not do any good to anyone.

Amazingly,  you actually see the use of  relevant pronouns [egs. “that”] in some of the dependent clauses, more than once in some sentences!

Kessler stated that in one of the shows Carl Gallops stated that between Arpaio and Zullo there are some 80 years of police work.

Overall, it wasn’t as tortuous or torturous as reading through most of her writings. My best GUESS is that the rant was originally written by Orly, and then dressed up a little by somebody. But this is only one rant, and you can’t get a pattern from one rant. But just like with real ghosts, once you see one, you start looking over your shoulder.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Doris Day playing a lovable rough and tumble brawler, in the 1953 film, Calamity Jane. There really was such a person, whose interesting life is recounted at Wiki. That is, assuming she really was Calamity Jane, Indian fighter, etc.  It appears that the moniker, Calamity Jane, is an alias! There are also suspicious documents and age discrepancies!!! Here are a few excerpts so you can judge for yourself:

Martha Jane Canary (May 1, 1852 – August 1, 1903), better known as Calamity Jane, was an American frontierswoman, and professional scout best known for her claim of being an acquaintance of Wild Bill Hickok, but also for having gained fame fighting Indians. She is said to have also exhibited kindness and compassion, especially to the sick and needy. This contrast helped to make her a famous frontier figure.

Martha Jane was involved in several campaigns in the long-running military conflicts with Native American Indians. Her unconfirmed claim was that:

“It was during this campaign [in 1872–1873] that I was christened Calamity Jane. It was on Goose Creek, Wyoming where the town of Sheridan is now located. Capt. Egan was in command of the Post. We were ordered out to quell an uprising of the Indians, and were out for several days, had numerous skirmishes during which six of the soldiers were killed and several severely wounded. When on returning to the Post we were ambushed about a mile and a half from our destination. When fired upon Capt. Egan was shot. I was riding in advance and on hearing the firing turned in my saddle and saw the Captain reeling in his saddle as though about to fall. I turned my horse and galloped back with all haste to his side and got there in time to catch him as he was falling. I lifted him onto my horse in front of me and succeeded in getting him safely to the Fort. Capt[.] Egan on recovering, laughingly said: ‘I name you Calamity Jane, the heroine of the plains.’ I have borne that name up to the present time.”

As reported in the Anaconda Standard (Montana, Apr. 19, 1904): Captain Jack Crawford, who served under both Generals Wesley Merritt and George Crook, stated, Calamity Jane “…never saw service in any capacity under either General Crook or General Miles. She never saw a lynching and never was in an Indian fight. She was simply a notorious character, dissolute and devilish, but possessed a generous streak which made her popular.”

It may be that she exaggerated or completely fabricated this story. Even back then not everyone accepted her version as true. A popular belief is that she instead acquired it as a result of her warnings to men that to offend her was to “court calamity”. It appears possible that Jane was not part of her name until the nickname was coined for her.

In 1893, Calamity Jane started to appear in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show as a storyteller. She also participated in the 1901 Pan-American Exposition. At that time, she was depressed and an alcoholic. Jane’s addiction to liquor was evident even in her younger years. For example, on June 10, 1876, she rented a horse and buggy in Cheyenne for a mile-or-so joy ride to Fort Russell and back, but Calamity was so drunk that she passed right by her destination without noticing it and finally ended up about 90 miles away at Fort Laramie.

By the start of the 20th century, Madame Dora DuFran was still going strong when Jane returned to the Black Hills in 1903. For the next few months, Jane earned her keep by cooking and doing the laundry for Dora’s brothel girls in Belle Fourche. In July, she travelled to Terry, South Dakota. While staying in the Calloway Hotel on August 1, 1903, she died at the age of 51 (or 53 or 56). It was reported that she had been drinking heavily on board a train and became very ill. The train’s conductor carried her off the train and to a cabin, where she died soon after. In her belongings, a bundle of letters to her daughter was found, which she had never sent. Some of these letters were set to music in an art song cycle by 20th-century composer Libby Larsen called Songs From Letters. (These letters were first made public by Jean McCormick as part of her claim to be the daughter of Jane and Hickok – but the authenticity of these letters is not accepted by some, largely because there is no non-McCormick document supposedly written by Jane and there is ample evidence that Jane was functionally illiterate.)

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

Note 2. The Caption. For ESL’s the Image mouseover Easter Egg is a word play on “bar” which is both a place to drink, and a word for the legal profession and the courtGhostwriters In Disguise??? is a word play on a famous cowboy song, Ghost Riders In The Sky. It all fits in with the Western theme of the Cold Case Posse, The Arizona Kid, and Ornery Orly. Here is a youtube version by The Sons of the Pioneers:

Note 3. Ghostwriters. They may also edit and do general repairs as Wiki points out:

A ghostwriter is a writer  who writes books, articles, stories, reports, or other texts that are officially credited to another person. Celebrities, executives, and political leaders often hire ghostwriters to draft or edit autobiographies, magazine articles, or other written material. In music, ghostwriters are often used for writing songs and lyrics for popular music genres. Screenplay authors can also use ghost writers to either edit or rewrite their scripts in order to improve them, increasing their chances to be optioned or produced. Also, ghost writers may work on accompanying documents, such as treatments for screenplays.

Ghostwriters may have varying degrees of involvement in the production of a finished work. Some ghostwriters are hired to edit and clean up a rough draft, others are hired to do most of the writing based on an outline provided by the credited author. For some projects, ghostwriters will do a substantial amount of research, as in the case of a ghostwriter who is hired to write an autobiography for a well-known person. Ghostwriters are also hired to write fiction in the style of an existing author, often as a way of increasing the number of books that can be published by a popular author. Ghostwriters will often spend a period from several months to a full year researching, writing, and editing nonfiction works for a client, and they are paid either per page, with a flat fee, or a percentage of the royalties of the sales, or some combination thereof. The ghostwriter is sometimes acknowledged by the author or publisher for his or her writing services.

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

Note 4. PS: Thank you Grammar Girl!!!

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/commas-adjectives?page=all

 

Advertisements

Saving America With The SHERIFF Plan???

The Sheriff Plan

As Usual, The Birther’s Load Kept Coming Up A Few Bricks Shy

Well, I have heard of the MARSHALL Plan, but now it seems we have a SHERIFF Plan to repair what’s wrong with America. By getting rid of Obama. Here is an excerpt from an hysterical World Net Daily email blast:



Is the biggest Obama scandal yet about to hit?
Major new development in eligibility case promised by investigators


Every day brings a new shocking headline:

      • The Obama administration provided U.S. firearms to the drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the deaths of two U.S. law enforcement agents and countless American and Mexican citizens, apparently in an effort to make a political case for gun control.
      • The Obama administration covered up a debacle in Benghazi that cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.
      • The Obama administration used the Internal Revenue Service as an attack dog against its political adversaries, including, but not limited to, the tea party movement.
    • The Obama administration even targeted its friends in the media by spying on journalists at the largest news-gathering operation in the world, the Associated Press, along with a reporter from Fox News.

Could this be just the tip of the iceberg?

Have the media begun to turn?

Why are even some of Barack Obama’s most loyal supporters beginning to have their doubts?

Why did the first post-scandal poll show some 50 percent of Americans supporting impeachment of Obama?

What would happen, in this climate, if Obama’s biggest secret ever were blown wide open for the public to see?

What is that biggest secret? It’s that Obama’s Hawaii “birth certificate” is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a forgery – a fraud.

That scandal, too, is about to break wide open, according to investigators working within Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse. They say some new earth-shattering developments will soon be announced.

***But the Cold Case Posse investigation, headed by Mike Zullo, desperately needs financial support to complete its work. ***

Here is the link to the full story at Poo Poo Simmons:

http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/07/bc-fraud-is-biggest-obama-scandal-yet.html

Yeah, fat chance when Zullo has already spilled the beans that the Cold Case Posse doesn’t have enough evidence to what was that Zullo said??? Oh yeah, this:

I know [Taitz] had 20-some-odd court cases on this very issue and maybe now she’s feeling very threatened,” Zullo said. “There is not enough evidence to convict him on jaywalking … let alone anything else.”

http://missionviejo.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/orly-taitz-criticized-by-sheriff-joe-arpaios-cold-case-posse

But sure, send some more money because that will automatically help upgrade that attempted jaywalking non-count to maybe full fledged jaywalking in the first degree with felonious intent. At least, that is how The Sheriff Plan works. But, the main thing is, SEND MONEY!!!

Whatever. Any Birther who buys into that is more than just a few bricks shy of a full load. Their hod is missing its bottom.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is an actual photo of a Marshall Plan in action. Well, maybe the sign has been changed a little. Wiki says this:

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American program to aid Europe, in which the United States gave economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism.[1] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948.[2] The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.[3] The term “equivalent of the Marshall Plan” is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.[4]

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

For ESL’s there is a wordplay in the title on Marshall, which is also an acceptable spelling for a law man (Marshal), and a Sheriff, such as Joe Arpaio. The idiom, a few bricks shy of a full load means that one is less than reasonably intelligent. For fun, and more idioms, see here:

http://dan.hersam.com/lists/not_bright.html

For those interested, here is the original photo:

Marshall Plan

The German words mean: Berlin’s Emergency Program with Marshall Plan Aid

http://84388555.nhd.weebly.com/the-marshall-plan-and-containment.html


Lord Monckton’s Mathematical Folly (Or, Odds Botchkins!!!)

Lord Monckton Unsuccessfully Tried To Blow Some Smoke

Well, math is certainly not my strong suit so I am probably going to regret this one, but nobody has tackled Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s Eligibility Odds analysis yet. Except that I found after doing this Internet Article, that Dr. Conspiracy had just finished one, too. So here is the link to his, too:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/miscalculating-the-odds/

Anyway, here is the relevant excerpt from the World Net Daily Internet Article, and the link to the whole article follows the excerpt:

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY ODDS: 1 IN 62.5 QUINTILLION

Lord Monckton crunches the numbers

He cites:

1.   The fact that the registrar’s signature-stamp on the electronic form can be moved about: 100:1 against.
2.   Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 against.
3.   Multiple 1-bit monochrome layers and one 8-bit color layer: 60:1. (Experts twice found no such pattern in 600 file-optimization programs: I allow for 10 anomalous programs to exist.)
4.   “Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter:” 10:1
5.   Human error: Certificate number out of sequence: 25:1
6.   Incorrect birth date of father: 40:1
7.   Use of “African” contrary to written form-filling rules and 20 years before the term came into common use: 25:1
8.   Miscoded statistical data: 25:1 (official government estimate).
9.   White halo around letters: 10:1
10. Chromatic aberration absent: 100:1
11.  Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate: 100:1
12.  Two-digit year on selective service stamp against DoD written rules: 100:1 (actually impossible: no two-digit example other than that of Kenya’s “son of the soil” is known)
13.  Non-citizen of Connecticut holds Connecticut social security number: 100:1.

“There are many other errors, but these suffice. Defenders of Mr. Community Organizer say each error could have just happened by accident. I mean, it’s government form-filling, right?,” he wrote. “But here’s where the math comes in. If each error is a genuine accident,  the errors are independent events, so the probabilities of each error are multiplied together to determine the probability that all occurred in one document.

“Thus the odds against all of these errors occurring in a single document except by design are 1 in 100 x 100 x 10 x 10 x 25 x 40 x 25 x 25 x 10 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100. Accordingly, the probability that Mr. Obama’s birth narrative is in substance true is no better than 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000, or 0.0000000000000000000016.”

He wrote, “Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-eligibility-odds-1-in-62-5-quintillion/

First, let’s look at the method of determining the odds, from this website:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/gambling/odds.html

Independent vs Dependent Events

People often misunderstand the notion of independent events.  This is a probability term meaning that past events have no influence on future outcomes.  For example, when flipping a coin four consecutive times, the probability of getting four heads is:

This is because the probability of flipping a head if you flip a coin once is ½.  Flipping a coin is an example of an independent event.  When flipping a coin, the probability of getting a head does not change no matter how many times you flip the coin.  When the coin is flipped and the first three flips are heads, the fourth flip still has the probability of ½   However, many people misunderstand that the first three flips somehow influence the fourth flip, but they do not.  The probability is still the same, as if the first three flips had never occurred.

This is simple so far. You put the chance of something happening in the form of a fraction for each event, and then multiply the numerators and denominators. So let’s try it! Pull out 5 cards. Make 3 of them face cards. Turn them over, and pick one. What are the odds it will be a face card? 3 chances in 5. Pick out a second set of 5 cards with 3 of them being face cards. Now turn each set over and pick one card from each set. What is the chance both of them will be face cards??? 3/5  x  3/5 = 9/25.

Now we have the basic math down. Plus we learn something interesting. The more events you have with a fraction less than 1, the more the odds go up. With one set of 5 cards you had a 60% (3/5) chance of drawing a face card.  With 2 sets you have a 36% (9/25) chance of drawing 2 face cards. Monckton has a 13 series of events above, so his game is rigged from the outset to result in lower odds.

Let’s move on to some more concepts. Take the 5 card set and a penny.  The cards have a 3/5 chance of a being a face card, and the penny has a 1/2 chance of being flipped  “heads.” Multiply those fractions and you get 3/5  x  1/2 = 3/10.  But what does the 3/10 represent??? It can’t stand on its own as just a number without describing in more detail what it represents. Which in this example is the chance of drawing a face card AND getting “heads” on the flip.

Now, let me add a third item to these two, with some dice. What are the odds of me rolling box cars, or double sixes??? Those odds are 1 in 36, or 1/36. What are the odds of drawing a face card from the five card set, flipping “heads” on the penny, and rolling a double six???  Here’s the math: 3/5  x  1/2  x  1/36 or 3/360 or 1/120.  But the question arises, “What am I really measuring???”

Let’s make it more interesting still. What are the odds that I will break a nail while picking a card, flipping a coin, and rolling the dice??? I put those odds at 1 in 100,000. Now what am I up to in the odds? Here’s the math:  1/120  x  1/100,000 =  1/12,000,000 or 1 in 12 million. But the question arises once more, “What am I really measuring???” These are unconnected things.  I am picking the card, flipping the coin, rolling the dice, and breaking a nail all on the same desk top. What are the odds of that happening on the same desk top??? The answer is 1 in 12 million, but as you can see this is a basically meaningless number.

But I am still NOT happy with this number. I want it to be higher. Sooo, I am going to find a non-event, assign odds to it, and put it into the math mix. What I need for my non-event is something that either doesn’t happen at all, or if it does happen, it is not really what we normally think of as a measurable event, such as flipping a coin.  How about how many times does McDonalds fail to give me ketchup with my drive thru order.  That’s about 1 time in 4, or 1/4.  That makes the odds for everything (pick face card, flip “heads”, roll box cars, break a nail, and fail to receive ketchup)  about 1 in 48 million. See how easy it is to work your way up?

But, the McDonalds non-event needs more explanation. Simply not getting ketchup may not be an event at all because it is possible that I only ordered coffee at the window, and that typically does not require ketchup. Or, it could be that I ordered a dinner meal and no fries. Or, I just wasn’t feeling like ketchup on that trip, and so did not request any. Or, that I had some extra ketchup in the car.  Trying to pin a set of odds on a situation like that is very problematic. It is possible it wasn’t a failure at all.

Monckton slyly engages in this same practice. He mixes facts and conjectures about an electronic image and tries to make the nexus the fact that they all occur about the same document. He goes further, because he also picks some events which are not agreed to constitute events by the non-Birther side. This is like saying “heads” were flipped, when one party to the action does not believe the coin was flipped at all. But Monckton makes the leap, and then assigns those contested facts odds as if they were not contested. This is great if you trying to run the number up, but pretty much meaningless for any other purpose. It will take a while, but let’s examine Monckton’s 13 so-called independent events in more detail.

1.   The fact that the registrar’s signature-stamp on the electronic form can be moved about: 100:1 against. 

I am going to call this one a non-event.  This is more like saying the coin exists, but it has not been flipped. The signature stamp on the paper document can not be moved about. If it can on the electronic image, it is not necessarily indicative of anything wrong.

2.   Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 against.

I am going to call this one a non-event, also.  The date stamp on the paper document can not be moved about. If it can on the electronic image, it is not necessarily indicative of anything wrong.

3.   Multiple 1-bit monochrome layers and one 8-bit color layer: 60:1. (Experts twice found no such pattern in 600 file-optimization programs: I allow for 10 anomalous programs to exist.)

Three time’s the charm, I guess. I am going to call this one a non-event, too.  There are no layers on the paper document. If  there are  on the electronic image, it is not necessarily indicative of anything wrong.

4.   “Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter:” 10:1 

I’m sorry. Has the Hawaii DOH been shown to have been lavishly funded in 1961? Did I miss that?  And what is a “wonky” typewriter as compared to a non-wonky one? If we are going to go all mathy on this, can we at least get some discrete measurable independent events???

5.   Human error: Certificate number out of sequence: 25:1

I am beginning to see a pattern here. Monckton is choosing things which are NOT events at all. There is NO proof that the certificate number is out of sequence. In fact, Alvin Onaka. Ph.D, Hawaii State Registrar has thrice verified the number as correct.

6.   Incorrect birth date of father: 40:1 

This is not a measurable event to which you can assign odds. No one knows what caused it.  Was it a typo, or did somebody lie, or did somebody just mess up by accident???

7.   Use of “African” contrary to written form-filling rules and 20 years before the term came into common use: 25:1

Again, a non-event. This isn’t contrary to anything. The Cold Case Posse used the wrong coding book. I am becoming disappointed in Lord Monckton. We are halfway through this stuff, and there has not been one single discrete measurable independent event.

8.   Miscoded statistical data: 25:1 (official government estimate).

What miscoded statistical data??? The penciled in “9” is the correct number. Zullo and Corsi were using the wrong coding manual.

9.   White halo around letters: 10:1

Are we back to non-events again??? This is on the electronic image. There are no white halos on  the paper document.

10. Chromatic aberration absent: 100:1

Damn non-event again.

11.  Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate: 100:1

Nope, he’s gone to a different document to multiply against the long form birth certificate. This is just for the purpose of making the number larger, like me adding broken fingernails to the discrete measurable events.

12.  Two-digit year on selective service stamp against DoD written rules: 100:1 (actually impossible: no two-digit example other than that of Kenya’s “son of the soil” is known)

Nope, again. Different document. Same reasoning as 11 above. Plus, there is no evidence that the stamp wasn’t broken. How many 1981 documents from that post office have been analyzed???

13.  Non-citizen of Connecticut holds Connecticut social security number: 100:1.

This one might be a keeper, although it doesn’t relate to the birth certificate. There probably is a way to measure how often the SSA assigned group numbers to non-residents of the state. But that doesn’t prove anything was wrong. It could have been a typo.

Now I am kind of irritated here. I went and studied up on some math, and practiced multiplying fractions and Lord Monckton didn’t have but one marginally measurable event out of 13 alleged independent events. Everything else was an alleged incongruity of some sort, but mostly on the electronic pdf image. In other words, because Corsi and the Cold Case Posse couldn’t figure out how the paper document was scanned and uploaded, they came up with a bunch of ALLEGED errors, which His Majesty, or whatever you call him, tried to shoehorn into a phony probability analysis.

What is the chance that was an accident on Monckton’s part??? Let’s see, if we assume there is a 1 in 2 chance it was an honest boo-boo on his part, and we have 13 boo-boos, then 1/2 to the 13th power equals 1/8192 or 1 chance in 8,192 that it was an honest mistake.

For shame Lord Monckton of Brenchley!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1931 film, Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde.

Note 2. Links. Here is the previous article about Lord Monckton:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/the-british-hysterical-society-presents-lord-monckton-or-a-flashman-in-the-pan/

Note 3. Odds Botchkins.  This is a word play on the epithet, Odd Bodkins:

Odd’s bodkins is a mild profane oath, which literally means ‘God’s dear body!’ It’s now archaic, but was used as an exclamation like God damn! or a host of others.

The usual form of the second word is bodikin, which is a diminutive of body (the diminutive suffix -kin is found in such other words as lambkin). The expression occurs in Shakespeare (Hamlet: “Odds bodikins, man,” with a variant reading from the Quarto of “bodkin”), Fielding, and Smollet, among others. Expressions like this were very common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; some other examples are ‘sblood (God’s blood), ‘snails (God’s nails), zounds (God’s wounds), and gadzooks (God’s hooks).

The word is unrelated to bodkin ‘a small dagger or pointed instrument’, which itself occurs in Hamlet, in the “to be or not to be” speech (“He himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin”). This word dates back to the fourteenth century, and is of uncertain origin.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/?date=19960925

Botch means to mess something up.

Blowing Smoke means bragging or boasting. (Blowing smoke is similar to “hot air;” it has little substance, and dissipates rapidly.)


Israeli Birth Certificate Article Disappears!!! (Or, The Invisible Hanukoglu???)

Though A Little Lax Scientifically, Hanukoglu Prepares To Apply Phenolphthalein To The Computer Screen

Hmmm. Remember the BIG STORY yesterday about that Israeli scientist, a Mr. Israel Hanukoglu, who claimed Obama’s long form birth certificate was a phony??? Well,  guess what happens today when you hit the World Net Daily link for the Israeli Scientist’s article:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Here is the WND link again, so you can try it for yourself:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/israeli-science-website-obama-birth-certificate-forged/

I played around the website a little, and the 404 still shows up, even if you try to link from the site index page. Oh, I wonder what happened??? I hope the swift response from The Birther Think Tank played a part in this. Plus, Dr. Conspiracy discovered the article was an inaccurate retread from May 2011. (See links below in Note 2.) Did we spook Mr. Hanukoglu, or make him look silly???  Is he hiding out, ala:

Israel Hanukoglu??? Uh, No. My Name Is Smith. Uh, Fred Smith.

Perhaps Mr. Hanukoglu just couldn’t fix the problems with his article by putting band-aids on it.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Images. These are from the 1933 film, The Invisible Man.

Note 2. Links. Here is a link to yesterday’s Internet Article about this:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/the-weird-science-of-the-israeli-birther-or-another-corsi-puff-piece/

Here is the link to Dr. Conspiracy’s article:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/israeli-web-site-goes-birther/

Note 3. Put A Band-Aid On It:  Word playing on the Invisible Man’s bandage disguise. This is an American idiom which means:

A temporary solution to a problem, or something that seems to be a solution but has no real effect.

Usage notes: Band-Aid is a trademark for a thin piece of sticky material used to cover small cuts on the body.

A few food and medical supplies were delivered to the region but it was little more than a Band-Aid.

Note 4. The Image Caption And Easter Egg.  WTF, Phenolphthalein??? Well, it lends that scientific air to this Internet Article. And according to Wiki, phenolphthalein is:

A white or pale yellow crystalline powder, C20H14O4, used as an acid-base indicator, in making dyes, and formerly in medicine as a laxative. Because of its toxicity, it is no longer used in over-the-counter laxatives.

Sooo, get the word plays??? Bring out the base. A little lax.


The Weird Science Of The Israeli Birther (Or, Another Corsi Puff Piece)

I Will Name Him Puff, And I Will Hug Him And Pet Him And Squeeze Him…

One of the latest stories floating around Birferdom is that Israeli scientists have declared Obama’s long form birth certificate to be a phony. The story started with Jerome Corsi and World Net Daily(WND). This is just another one of his vain attempts to make himself, and the Birther cause, look respectable. Instead of the old “Look, a real live sheriff said it’s fake!“, now it’sLook, a real live scientist said it’s fake!

First WND gives you this teaser, where it looks like the whole dang nation of Israel is telling us something:

ISRAELIS: OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS PHONY

Then when you click on that link, you get this, where the eight million Israelis quickly devolves down to one website and one individual:

ISRAELI SCIENCE WEBSITE: OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGED
Award-winning, former Netanyahu adviser behind assessment

Maybe Corsi could sell this Israeli Reduction technique to Iran for a few extra bucks?  Anyway, here are a few excerpts, and the link follows:

Israel Science and Technology, the national database and directory of science and technology-related websites in Israel, has published an article asserting the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is a forged document.

The website was created by a former science adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Hanukoglu, Ph.D.

Hanukoglu, an award-winning researcher, is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology in the Department of Molecular Biology at Ariel University Center of Samaria in Ariel, Israel.

The professor established the first version of his website during his tenure as Netanyahu’s science adviser. The site has evolved into “the premier science and technology portal for Israel.”

The website says that the White House’s release of the Obama document in April 2011, after years of controversy, “raised in our minds the possibility that there could be something suspicious about the information available on this document.”

The website conducted an independent analysis and cites others who came to the same conclusion.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/israeli-science-website-obama-birth-certificate-forged/

Well,  this means you have to surf off to Israel to check this out:

http://www.science.co.il/

and when you type “Obama birth certificate” into the site search, you get this, which I screen saved:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Rather than going straight to the “phony birth certificate”  story, I hit the second link, which takes you to an October 27, 2008 article at rhe site.  You know, to kind of check out Hanukoglu’s street cred a little. This anti-Obama screed pops up with a list of 27 reasons why you shouldn’t vote for Obama:

Imagine for a few moments that you are the Human Resources Director of a major multi-billion dollar corporation. You are sitting in your office when you receive a phone call from the Chairman of the Board of Directors. He tells you that the board is considering a candidate for a high-level executive position. He advises you to complete a thorough background investigation and have it to him within 10 days.

You immediately call the Private Detective Agency you have used for years and give them the name and address of the prospective candidate, along with the deadline for a high level security clearance. Your next move is to call your assistant to your office, giving him/her the candidate’s personal information along with instructions to ‘do your standard beginning background checks.’

Preliminary findings begin landing in your fax machine on the third day.

1. Your candidate has used more than one name.

5. On day four, you receive in the mail from the security agency two books the candidate has written. You read both books, highlighting the anti-American, anti-white racist passages. You note the admissions of drug use.

8. The fifth day brings to your special delivery mail: The complete background on Bill Ayers; his association with your candidate, his FBI criminal record, and a copy of the book ‘Rules for Radicals’ written by communist Saul Alinsky.

9. You are advised your candidate used tactics from ‘Rules for Radicals’ at his previous employment.

15. You receive printed transcripts of his pastor’s anti-White, anti-American ‘sermons’ and are advised your candidate has been close personal friends with this ‘pastor’ for two decades.

24. The candidate has surrounded himself with anti-American grievance mongers, and appears to manipulate ‘typical white people’ by appealing to their guilt about slavery. He is a socialist, and totally disenfranchised from the history of ‘root America .’

http://www.science.co.il/arab-israeli-conflict/articles/Anonymous-2008-10-27.asp

Hmmm,  that doesn’t sound very much like science to me. It’s a fun read, and you need to read the whole thing, but it ain’t science. Science is supposed to be non-biased, and rational, and fair to both sides of an issue. But this stuff reads like a Jerome Corsiesque smear job.

By putting that on his website,  Mr. Hanukoglu  made his personal opinion of Obama very clear. Which there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but how in the world can someone plaster over their opinions with a SCIENCE label, and not feel pretty cheesy about it???

Moving forward to what I am sure is going to be a fair and independent analysis of the birth certificate [NOT!!!], we find that Mr. Hanukoglu  realizes this shticks out like a sore thumb on what is supposed to be a science website. So, he tries to fool us into believing there is a noble and scientific reason for it to be here:

Since this is a site of Science and technology, there is a need to explain why this site dedicates a page to expose forgery about a document related to Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is the President of the USA that is currently the leader of the Free World, and the most powerful country in the Western hemisphere. In his position as the President, the policies pursued by Mr. Obama affects the whole world and not just the USA.

Yeah. Sure.  Then he does a little more editorializing, and plays around a little with opening the birth certificate pdf in a program, and wiggling it around some,  and then passes the reader off to some links with a series of experts like Mara Zebest and the Cold Case Posse to tie up any loose ends.  And this is supposed to be SCIENCE??? There is nothing new here that hasn’t been addressed and debunked before. This is just recycling old garbage. Here is the link so you can see for yourself:

http://www.science.co.il/Obama-Birth-Certificate.htm

This is just another smear job, this time with the aura of SCIENCE to cover up all the bullsh*t. Hanukoglu, aka Mr. Science, doesn’t explain to us which information on the long form image is false or how one would go about proving a document is forged by analyzing its image. It could be done, but so far none of the Birther experts, including him, have even come close. And Mr. Science provided no parameters for his research, and what he intended to prove, and how his findings proved anything. He didn’t even define what forgery is.

Which is also why the Cold Case Posse isn’t going anywhere. None of this wonderful group of so-called experts has laid out the basic elements of a forgery charge, because to do so would show how pitiful their efforts have been. Forgery is either creating false documents, or materially altering real ones with the purpose of defrauding someone of some benefit. All these Birther “experts” have proven is that they can’t figure out how a document was scanned and uploaded.

Another thing that I found interesting  is where these articles are listed on his website. It is NOT in the science section of the website, but under the  Arab-Israeli Conflict section under U.S. Policy.  Definitely not the stuff of science. More like an editorial section. Here is the link:

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/US-Policy.asp

You can find other fun stuff here, like:

Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi / Muslim “Plant” in the White House?

To sum it all up, this piece is typical Jerome Corsi-ish World Net Daily-ish histrionic yellow-journalism CRAP.   With a SCIENCE label slapped on it to fool the idiots.  I am surprised that Israel Hanukoglu is stooping to this level and playing along. Meanwhile, Birthers are already holding hands and dancing horas to Hava Nagila. Rudy1776 is probably trying to sign up as a double naught spy for the Mossad.

What a bunch of meshuganas.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

UPDATE!!! By using the Wayback Machine, Dr. Conspiracy has determined the analysis by Hanukoglu was originally put out nearly a year and a half ago in May 2011, and his method of analysis was so lame that it was even debunked by one of the BIRTHER experts, Garrett Papit:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/israeli-web-site-goes-birther/

Note 1. Links. For people who are interested in all the imaging aspects of the birth certificate question, Mr. John Woodman has written a book which debunks all that Birther nonsense. Here is a link to his website:

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/

Note 2. The Caption. This is a word play on the dragon Image ( Puff, the Magic Dragon?) and a quote from the 1961 film, The Abominable Snow Rabbit starring Bugs Bunny, and Hugo The Abominable Snowman.  A “Puff Piece” is:

A newspaper article or item on a television show using exaggerated praise to advertise or promote a celebrity, book, or event.

Note 3. Horas and Hava Nagila. Here is a groovy way to do it:

Here is a different version:

 


An Open Letter To Larry Klayman, Esq.!!! (Or, Patriotic Girl Reporter Per Missive)

After Delivering The Letter, The Postman And Klayman Chatted A While

It seems the Birthers are constantly doing these goofy open letters, where the Birther is usually indignant that somebody somewhere isn’t doing something. Then all the Birther blogs print the letter as if it is big news. The headlines are a hoot. You see stuff like:

Ex-Cop Writes Letter To Congress Demanding Impeachment!!!

Patriotic Ex-Marine Demands Prosecutor Arrest President!!!

Grandmother of Six Calls For Obama To Be Frogmarched Back To Kenya!!!

They always seem to characterize the writer in some American Hero Jungian Archetype, fashion, where either the job occupation or some other fact about the writer is supposed to elevate the nature of the piece away from the “some clown wrote a letter” category.  I suppose if Sammy The Stumblebum  hits them up for some Thunderbird money, the headline would be:

Small Businessman Demands Justice Department Do Something About Obama!!!

So anyway, why should they have all the fun??? Here is my first attempt at an Open Letter. I will get better with practice. Just click on the image to enlarge:

Plus, here is a pdf of the letter in case any blogs want to run a story on this:

Squeeky’s Open Letter To Larry Klayman

I think a good headline would be something like:

Very Smart And Intrepid Girl Reporter Demands Answers!!!

Sexy Daughter of Retired Air Force Officer Targets Birthers!!!

Well-dressed Girl Reporter Clobbers Birther Lawyer WITH LOGIC!!!

But I’m not trying to influence anybody or anything like that. Oh no. Not me.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1997 film, The Postman. Kevin Costner is playing the postman. I am not sure who the mule is playing Larry Klayman.

Note 2. Here is the World Net Daily Internet Article which inspired this piece:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-about-natural-born-citizenship/


Justice Scalia Accosted By Mad Man!!!

Justice Scalia Points Out The Scary White Man To His Attorney

Being on the United States Supreme Court is a lot more dangerous job than you might suppose! First, it was Chief Justice Roberts who got a hernia lifting all the Birther paperwork that Orly Taitz sprung on him at a University of Idaho lecture in 2009. Now, Justice Antonin Scalia gets accosted by Birther Attorney Larry Klayman. Here is what happened according to Klayman:

Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”

Here is a link to the whole World Net Daily Internet Article by Klayman:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-about-natural-born-citizenship/

I wasn’t there, but my GUESS is that Scalia was taken aback by the gross impropriety of Klayman trying to pump a legal opinion out of him.  Justice Scalia is not supposed to pre-decide cases. He may have an opinion, but simple judicial professionalism requires him to not go around blabbing about it in any kind of detail.  Were Klayman or some other Birther lawyer to actually get a Birther case to the U.S. Supreme Court, would they prefer that Scalia already had his mind made up??? Would any attorney wish for such a thing? Of course not.

Further, as I have been told by my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, the ONLY time an attorney is supposed to answer a specific legal question or give advice without looking up the law first, is on the bar exam.  The point is, that Scalia would need to read Wong Kim Ark (1898) and other cases before rendering an answer.

And one should not forget all those Senate confirmation hearings where the Supreme Court appointees get grilled for hours under hot lights without spilling their opinions out in any specific detail.  If they can survive, without squealing, they usually get confirmed. That being said, it is helpful to reconstruct the conversation from what we know of Klayman’s side of things:

Larry Klayman:  What do you believe to be the definition of “natural born citizen. And, I am not  asking you to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

Justice Scalia:  I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?”

Larry Klayman:  Then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?”

Justice Scalia: I don’t know.

Being blind-sided like that, it is obvious that Scalia was not comfortable going any further for no good reason, and without additional research. I am someone who stays on top of this stuff, and if Klayman asked me that question, I would be reluctant to answer without knowing which particular use of the word “citizen” Klayman was referring to. And whether he was talking about the Constitution or the Amendments or both.

That being said, I did not see Scalia messing up in major way. Most natural born citizens are people who are born in this country, so he passed the legal knowledge test without getting too chatty about it.

Plus, Scalia was probably not in the mood to be interrogated on some minor point of the law by a delusional and paranoid person with an obvious axe to grind. I mean if I was a judge, and some clown came up to me and said, out of the clear blue sky, “given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here” little bells and whistles would start going off in my mind.

Oooo-kaaay. I would start noting where the doors were, and what kind of stuff I could lay my hands on in case I had to clobber this person. Apparently, Scalia had a little fright thing going on, too. And I don’t think it was about having to give a straight answer. Notwithstanding these points which should be sort of obvious, Klayman angrily starts banging the gong of judicial cowardice and the drums of revolution. From the link above:

Lower court judges, in myriad cases where the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has been challenged, have abdicated – for apparent political reasons to save their own standing in and among the establishment – their responsibility to rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen qualified to be president. Now, with the exit stage left of the one Supreme Court justice conservatives thought had the guts to enforce the will of the framers, and to protect We the People, it is clearer than ever that revolution can no longer be avoided.

Americans no longer have a government run by people with the ethics and courage to protect the nation, and we must now do it for ourselves, hopefully peacefully and legally and with minimal collateral damage to ourselves and our families. But, as the framers experienced in 1776 with a king who did not and would not take into account their grievances, we again have no choice.

Were Klayman in court, I think he would draw a swift Irrelevant, Immaterial, and Incompetent objection for this and other conduct.  And maybe a few days in the Contempt Hoosegow for stirring up sedition. Additionally,  the title of Klayman’s article is misleading. It isn’t Scalia who is flummoxed. . . it’s Klayman. He’s done been told what a natural born citizen is when he got spanked in Florida a few days ago:(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Maybe instead of a Revolution, and all that collateral damage, we just need some good old-fashioned Remedial Reading classes for Birthers.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. the Image. This is scene from the long running TV show, Perry Mason. The image, before my alterations, is from the 1962 episode, The Case of the Dodging Domino. The show is currently running on METV, which is on cable and free antenna TV across the country.

Note 2. Irrelevant, Immaterial, and Incompetent.  Part of the Perry Mason theme.  This was a repeated objection by Hamilton Burger. Wiki says:

Hamilton Burger is the fictional Los Angeles district attorney who is the nemesis of Perry Mason in the long-running series of novels, films, and radio and televisionprograms featuring the fictional defense attorney created by Erle Stanley Gardner. The name is a pun; shortening “Hamilton” to the popular nickname “Ham” would produce “ham-burger”.

Critics have suggested that Burger must have been the most incompetent lawyer in history (see Mad Magazine’s parody, “The Day Perry Mason Lost a Case”), as his cases inevitably involved prosecuting the wrong, innocent person who was defended by Mason, who always in the end revealed the true criminal through a series of inadmissible courtroom tricks. Burger’s bag of tricks was comparatively empty, chiefly comprising indignant exclamations of, “Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial!” Once Mason had outed the true perpetrator, Burger always joined in Mason’s motion to the judge to dismiss the charges against Mason’s client so that Burger could then charge the actual wrongdoer. A scene from the TV series in which Mason consoles Burger after such a dismissal inspired a young Sonia Sotomayor to become a prosecutor.

Wow, this article sure needs updating!

Note 3. The Image Easter Egg.  Well, to overkill the heck out of this note, the words, “Like Some Ghoul In A Late-Night Horror Movie That Repeatedly Sits Up In Its Grave And Shuffles Abroad”  is as Wiki notes, from Scalia’s concurring decision in :

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District”’, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), [a] decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents. In a unanimous decision,the court concluded that it was.

Three justices concurred in the judgment. The court had, in passing, invoked Lemon v. Kurtzman, and the concurring justices wrote to express concern. Justice Scalia, in one of his best-known opinions, wrote:

Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed “test” but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature’s heart (the author of today’s opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.

The secret of the Lemon test’s survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs ‘no more than helpful signposts.’ Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him. (Citations omitted.)

Here  is the Court’s “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1.  The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.  The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.  The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Geesh, talk about a detour! Glad that’s over.