Jim Byrne is better known as mocorrupt and kahunah, Lying Lucas' ex-comrade, who had an ugly falling out with Lying Lucas 2-3 months ago.

Just the fact that Jim has now confirmed Maganga's first name as "Heltan," which all sane people already knew, is a big deal.

I for one salute Jim for stepping forward. But all of this does not explain this.

finally some birther took his time to verify what others had allready done but wanted birthers to do: contact the signing doctor. In the process all the necessary news articles, e-mails, telephones, had been provided.
Helton was allways Heltan
Othigo and not Maganga was the ca on Feb 19th 2009

Byrne says it's a forgery, as he must in the teeth of undeniable direct evidence. But then he himself backtracks, because no birfer can be completely candid:


And it's all the fault of Barack Obama.

Once a birfoon, always a birfoon.

Still, for a birfer to imply that he, Lucas Smith, merits a level of disgust usually reserved solely for the likes of Obama -- them's strong words indeed!

IS there anything that can be done?

What a riot. He, Lucas, is going all Obly over there

Yep, he's going bonkers, but like all cons, he will never admit his con.

Strunk is in the P&E thread.

Not only is that all a single sentence, but I can't make a lick of sense out of it. It's like some bizarre kind of mad libs exercise. "Knight of Saint Gregory Knight"? Kangaroo? Vatican II? Chardin?

Birthers well and truly get me hot blooded sometimes. Take this Kenyan birth certificate for example, it is so evidently fake and considering the vast differences between Obama's Hawaiian BC and this one (ie being verified by Hawaiian officials, having been compared to other birth certificates) I mean the arguments that these same birthers made about the short form should have automatically trumped the fake Kenyan ones into the ground as well, but for some reason their answer is always "you have no evidence to prove this is a fake".

I mean this among many other examples, among the fact they cannot account eligibility for the last 43 presidents, I mean I feel these people know they are lying, they are being hypocritical in their arguments, that they are being misleading. I feel that they know how wrong they are, many of them, but they don't care. So long as this smears the president, they are fine. For whatever reason, whether it be racism or partisanship or religous reasons, they are completely stubborn over revealing their real motives and it gets to me that many of them are paid this much attention to. Mind you I frequent Above top secret quiet regularly and that is a conservative website consisting of mostly freepers, drudge and WND surfers politically, but it still gets to me.

These people are pathetic but at the end of the day I always try to remind myself that these people have always existed. They were around in opposition to the movement to end slavery, they were around in opposition to end segregation, they were around cheering Clinton to be impeached. They never really get their chance to halt progress. Progress is inevitable, and their cries, their whining is just a reflection of resistance of the inevitable. But I will not stand silent. I cannot resist... and whenever I see repeated garbage from a birth, I cannot resist but pounce on them.

You know I don't know about you guys but Iv encountered a new set of birthers. The ones that now insist they are not birthers themselves, or even to the extent that they do believe Obama was not born in Hawaii. They start their posts with this sort of disclaimer of theirs and then proceed to criticise Obama for not being transparent, insist showing more information would end it all, and then going on to show videos about how 'socialist' or 'far left' or 'corrupt' Obama is and then afew more posts down the line they start referencing age old birther claims again. They try to cover themselves up and I just hate that. There is nothing more I hate than a coward that cannot by the least be upfront about what they believe however outlandish it is. I recently came across one birther like this. Ubelievable.

In the garden of hate they reap their daily crop of lies. Sometimes it is sufficient to plant a seed of truth, sometimes it will bear fruit and sometimes they will taste it's sweetness.

Rupert Murdoch is a Companion of the Order of Australia, and his father was a Sir too. Apart from that, he was made a Papal Knight (officially Knight of Saint Gregory) when he was married to a Roman Catholic from Estonia (despite being divorced!). So, you could reasonably call him twice a Knight (not that he will actually answer twice a night).

Apostate is a code word for Protestant who switched to the wrong religion. Well, Rupert is now officially Christian again, but Beck is a Mormon. Charity in Truth is an encyclical letter by the present Pope, which contains a number of phrases that have been interpreted as a reference not only to Chardin but to the New World Order. "Beam me up Scotty" - well it did refer to the United States of the Earth, right.

Leaves only the "news apostate" to explain, in esse. Obviously a stream of consciousness reference to Australia, Rupert's birth place, but also to kangaroo court. Perhaps he considers Fox a sham news agent? If so, who would have thought Strunk could possibly say something rational?

But you are right, the grammar is a bit off. "whose ... who". Not yet Finnegan's Wake material, I am afraid.

Yep. I've seen 'em. They dare me to mock them. So, I do.




http://twitter.com/DavidBugnon/

That is a sentence only in the sense that the word salad ends with a period. What it is is a barrage of signals intended to rally someone to Strunk's side with one signal or another. "Vatican II" rallies one set; "Fr. Teilhard de Chardin" rallies another; and "Murdock" rallies another. In other words, it is a series of magical incantations, and only one of them needs to work.

Incidentally, the phrase "the apostate Glenn Beck" could have been written by a Lutheran. Mormons are apostates to most Christian denominations.

[center]Lucas is going postal[/center]

I know that some countries claim extra-territoriality over it's citizens. For example, the US is prosecuting it's citizens that travel outside the country to obtain sex from minors. The issue of the Guantanamo prisoners is not quite the same since they were originally taken as prisoners of war (and later changed to avoid giving them the benefits of the Geneva Conventions).

My question is:
Can the Kenyan government assert jurisdiction over someone that is in possession of a fraudulent document that purports to be an official document of that country, even though the perp is not a citizen and both the document and perp are outside Kenyan territory?

Perhaps, I should have addressed my question to Dr. Levy, who is a recognized expert on international law.

WWCD*



*What Would Cabindans Do?

Personally, now that he's sent it to Congresscritters and held it out to be authentic and so is "using" it fraudulently, I think the US should charge him.

Just WHO in the US I dunno.... but I sure wish someone would!

Loren, Mik Taerg, anyone else...

Please check your saved links that showed Jennifer Othigo as the Chief Hospital Administrator at CPGH up through April 2009.

Also check your links for The Book Thief.

I won't say more at this time.

This one still works:



From Google cache:



This link is dead and I couldn't find it on Google cache or the Wayback Machine. The newspaper was the Daily Nation and the link was: http://www.nation.co.ke/InDepth/-/45289 ... index.html

I don't know what this refers to, (the book and movie?), so I doubt I have any links to it.

Maybe he, Lucas Smith, can't afford food or a place to stay, and since he's not grifting with CEL3 anymore, nor sponging off Orly Taitz, he has a hankering for some more prison time.

This was one of Smiths online personae - see sluggos blog