Posts Tagged ‘Army’
That is still one of the number one search questions that bring people to my blog. Sure, you guys on the left might be saying I’m stilling beating an old drum – but – this is still very much a burning question and everyone wants an answer. Sure – you guys keep falling back stating the Republican Governor of Hawaii said she saw and verified there is “a birth certificate” on record.
But – what has not been released or verified is his actual vaulted copy of the original certificate of birth. For those of you that have not read my previous post on this issue – Hawaii has two different types of birth certificates – A Certificate of Live Birth and A Certificate of Birth. A Certificate of Birth is the one that is issued when an individual is actually born in Hawaii. A Certificate of Live Birth is one that anyone born anywhere can have issued to them from Hawaii. The latter indicates the actual origin of birth. So – this makes the Governor’s statement very vague and does not answer the burning question.
So – what is it that has prompted me to bring this issue to the forefront again? LOTS!!!!
First – two separate but related stories….A 1LT Scott R. Easterling, active duty Army currently stationed in Iraq has joined a lawsuit filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq that challenges Obama to verify his origin of birth by releasing his vaulted Certificate of Birth issued from Hawaii at the time of his alleged birth IN Hawaii. In his exact words:
As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action.
You can follow the link up there to see his actual letter. He is so absolutely dead on with that statement. We service members take an oath that says we will “protect the Constitution of United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Domestic is the key word here. He is following through on his sworn oath to defend our constitution against a potential domestic enemy. How can I call Obama an enemy? Well, if he has usurped our constitution and is found to not be an actual U.S. citizen – then he is an enemy to the state as he has assumed the top leadership position in this country under false pretenses and has done so willfully.
Next – a second story came out today – Another U.S. soldier has thrown his hat into the ring and joined the Orly Taitz lawsuit. His name remains unidentified at this time, but will be revealed once enjoined to the motion. He doesn’t want any undue publicity at this time. In his exact words – and this should make so much sense to anyone:
“When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver’s license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.
“I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States,”
Right on! So – why hasn’t Obama gone through the same scrutiny for the highest position in this country? No – you guys on the left are absolutely wrong. He was not vetted. That is part of the argument in the Taitz lawsuit. He also names Congress and the Electoral College in this lawsuit because they are constitutionally bound to verify a candidate’s eligibility. They never actually viewed Obama’s birth certificate either.
Lastly – if you think this is all just payback – you are sooooooo wrong. There are a LOT of people out there concerned about his eligibility that also includes other elected officials from both parties at multiple levels of government. Here is a short list of all those lawsuits that are currently in motion and unresolved (the majority of those dismissed were done so at a judicial level only with no actual review of evidence):
- New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
- Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
- Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
- Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
- Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
- Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
- Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
- In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
- In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
- In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
- California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
- In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
- In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
Obama is in for a very bumpy ride. Just one burning question – if he REALLY is a U.S. Citizen and REALLY was born in Hawaii – why won’t he release the vault copy of his birth certificate and just get this thing over? What is he hiding? The majority of those cases were thrown out stating those individuals had no legal “standing.”
Well – Orly Taitz and the two U.S. soldiers certainly have standing. If a member of the U.S. military is to take orders from the President as the Commander-In-Chief they certainly need to know whether or not those are lawful orders.
If he can have his public records sealed – does this mean that I can have all of my public records sealed as well? Birth Certificate, Mortgage Records, DMV records, etc? I also want to know under what authority he had his PUBLIC records sealed! Him being a Presidential candidate and now the President is not authority to hide public records from the public.
It’s that time again! So sorry for posting this up so late – you know how it goes – the real world stuff gets in the way sometimes! So – without further adieu – the winner this week goes to:
This guy, Jon from A Lie a Day for this post: Conservatives are Cowards. Actually, that’s not the post I was originally going to give him the beat down on – but – when I went back I saw that one and just knew he must have written that just for little ol’ me!! Here’s the original post I was going to give him the award for: Time to Reap What we Have Sewn - The gist of that post was that Ronald Reagan and Dubya were directly responsible for the failures of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. I was going to set his ass straight and remind him of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that Jimmy Cahtah enacted and then was revised by Billy Boy Clinton in 1996 that essentially told any mortgage lenders that if they didn’t accept high-risk loans for the “disadvantaged” they would be considered racists and would never do business in the housing market again – then I was also going to remind him of the 2006 updated to that crafted by Congress, and ignorantly signed by GWB, that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create the sub-prime loan vehicle. The Democrats crafted that thing in such a way that there would be absolutely no oversight. But – that’s not the one he gets an award for – so – I guess I won’t tell him about all that or the fact that the two Managers of Freddie and Fannie who were recently found guilty in a civil suit and have to repay millions back, including fines, are economic advisors to Barack Obama. (Isn’t it funny how all of Obama’s associates continue to turn out to be criminals?)
So – let’s get down to the post that prompted me to change my mind about the award:
First, Jon, I need some clarification here – the title of your blog – are you publicly acknowledging that you are attempting to spread one lie a day here? You know, from my vantage point – it appears that is exactly what you are doing. He says:
I have noted before how fear filled the right wing’s bed wetting brigade can act with something goes bump. I have always considered it to be a notable factor in the make-up of many of those on the right.
Well, it appears I was right.
Me, being the actual researcher that I am and having an insider knowledge of how studies are actually conducted, decided to go check out his links. The first link just references back to a previous post of his that spews some stupid bull shit about how we conservatives are fear mongers and blah blah blah. The second link is to an on-line newspaper article that quotes a University of Nebraska study that was reported in “the prestigious Science journal.” So – I checked out the Science Journal website – here’s what they say about their journal:
Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews and analyses of current research and science policy. Our offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, U.K., welcome submissions from all fields of science and from any source.
Competition for space in Science is keen, and many papers are returned without in-depth review. Priority is given to papers that reveal novel concepts of broad interest. We are committed to the prompt evaluation and publication of submitted papers. For the quickest and most efficient processing of your manuscript, please follow the guidelines and procedures laid out in this author help site.
Please pay particular note to the statement “Priority is given to papers that reveal novel concepts of broad interest.” That’s where this study falls. Even though they consider themselves a peer reviewed journal – apparently, not all studies are scrutinized to ensure the data is statistically valid. Here’s what I found in the news article regarding the study:
In the study, 46 volunteers were asked about their political views on such hot button issues as immigration and gun control, which have a strong correlation to voting booth behaviour.
All righty then!!! One of the key aspects of any study is that you need to do a power calculation to determine the statistical reliability and validity of the sample itself. The reason for the power calculation is that you need to have an appropriate sample that is generalizable to the target population as a whole. In any real study you need to have a study group and a control group. Since this paper gives no details about the study design – and the fact they measured all 46 volunteers – this leads me to believe there were no controls. Additionally, the newspaper article did not link back directly to the study – so – we have no way of reading the actual report to critique for ourselves. We also need to know whether or not the researchers controlled for any biases or made corrections for the random/cluster effect or even took in to account for alternative reasons for the results. Lastly, we don’t know what analysis tool they utilized to determine the statistical validity of the results.
What we need to know is one of the following: the alpha value, the degrees of freedom, the standard deviation, or the p-value, in addition to confounders. But – even without knowing any of these, I can tell you with certainty that a sample of 46 volunteers is not a statistically valid or reliable sample given there are almost 150 million registered voters that align themselves as liberal, conservative, independent, and all others in between. There is no possible way that the results of 46 college students are a representative sample that can be generalized to the entire voter population.
The next question I’m sure Jon might ask me is – how do you know they were college students? Well, dipshit, this would be one of the very few University studies that wasn’t based entirely on college students. Where the hell do you think the universities get their subjects?
So – I need to ask you, Jon, why didn’t you include that small little detail in your post? Is it because when you read it you knew that it had to be bogus? Was it because libtards like you will take everything out of context and just use pieces of articles that suit your purpose to continue spreading lies? Why is this the only section of the entire news article that you quoted on your blog?
a new study in the prestigious journal Science says that people with right wing views blink and flinch far harder than liberals when confronted with startling stimuli.
In the first study to directly link politics and physiology, the University of Nebraska led study suggests that people who hold conservative views on things like foreign policy and gun control, are more frightened than those with a more left-leaning bent on those issues.
Let me take a moment here, Jon, to point something out for you – but, given you are such an educated and knowledgeable liberal – I’m just sure you already know this – do you see that part in the article up there where it says “the University of Nebraska led study suggests….” Do you see that word, “suggests”? Here’s what this means in terms of statistical analysis, reliability, and validity – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! This tells me, the guy who actually knows statistics and is in the process of doing my own research and has been published myself in journals, there is no statistical significance to their findings. If there were, that is exactly how the study results would have been presented to the public. Rather, what this means is that it is a hack job and is being rushed to print to mislead the public about conservatives and to have USEFUL IDIOTS like yourself continue to distort the truth for them just furthering their liberal agenda. Here, try this out – I too conducted an observational study, honestly, in which I watched and followed 10 homeless panhandlers. My study suggests that panhandlers are not homeless, and they are in fact making an average of $60,000 a year from their panhandling efforts. What do you have to say about that? Actually, I did observe two of the ten leave at the end of the day, change out of their “bum” clothes into nicer clothing and drove their mid-sized cars, that they retrieved from the parking garage at $12 a day or $65 a month, to go to their homes. I was able to infer by the cars that they were driving and the homes they drove up to that they would have to be making at least $60,000 a year to be able to afford the cars and the homes. But, this was an observational study with no statistical significance – but – my findings do indeed “SUGGEST” exactly what I said.
Hey, Jon – you nimrod – learn to read between the lines and quit being a shill for the loony left there. Here’s how he ended this post:
And that is why the Bush administration worked so hard to keep everyone freaked out from 2001 to 2006; It help in their political efforts.
This clearly would not apply across the board to everyone who has conservative views and it does appear to apply to protective issues more than broader issues. That said, this is the first step in confirming a detail that I have long suspected; Many of those on the right who have been screeching the loudest are doing so because they are afraid.
As s follow up to this study I think that there is another effect that should be reviewed. I would love to see the effect that ever increasing scare tactics has on how voters vote. I bet it moves them to the right, at least a little, no matter where they are on the political spectrum.
You really are an idiot aren’t you? So – you say you wouldn’t apply it across the board (is it perhaps because you also understood that only 46 people were OBSERVED) but then you go on as if you are some kind of all knowing omnipotent individual to continue the smear yourself by stating that we speak up only out of fear. Actually, if you really understood the conservative movement, you would know we speak out because of lilly livered little pussies like you who want to turn this country in to a socialist state that goes completely against our constitution and what our forefathers intended. We really do believe in protecting this country from enemies. Unfortunately, there are morons out there like you who don’t realize that the threats are real. Iran really is in the process of building nukes. North Korea really did have nukes and are continuing their program again. The islamofascists really do want to kill you and me. There really are bad guys out there that want to harm us and our way of life and want to take that from us. Sometimes, the only way to deal with fanatics like this is to kill them before they kill us. But, you don’t get that because you would rather try to talk to them and get to know how they feel – just before they take that machete to your head.
Regarding your second assertion – the idea that you want a follow up study to determine the effect of “scare tactics” on voters. This just proves to me that you live with your head in the sand. I guess you live in that pre-9/11 world where you think everything was just peachy-keen. Let me tell you about the world I grew up in -as the son of a career Army Airborne Infantry service member – I travelled around the world. I was living in Germany when the Palestinian terrorists killed the Israeli Olympians in Munich. I was living in Germany when the Arabs blew up the Abrams building in Frankfurt. I lived under terrorist alerts as a child. I’ve seen what those bastards could do. I remember the images of the Marine Baracks being blown up in Lebanon in 1983. I remember the images of Leon Klinghoffer being thrown overboard of the Achille Lauro from his wheelchair by Palestinian terrorists in 1985. I remember the images of one of our Navy seamen being thrown out of the back of a TWA plane on to the tarmac in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists in 1985 after they shot and killed him. I was living in Greece and serving in the USAF when our American ambassador’s car was blown up and his head was found on the street in 1987. Are you getting the point here?
For this idiotic post just passing on lies and continuing to spread results of a faulty study that has no significant findings and for the fact that you are too stupid to open your eyes to reality – you get The BoBo of The Week Award! Congratulations – wear it proudly!