I spoke too soon. All of the comments except 18 have been deleted.

Anthony said it wasn't him doing the deleting, but it was Examiner.

Anthony also threatened a lawsuit because someone called him a coward and a fraud.

NO FAIR! - He's deleted my comment!

Although in fairness he's also deleted a supportive comment that I was rebutting.

It's now down to 15 comments - it was 17 a few minutes ago.

Anthony G. (as in ginormous head) Martin sez Obama is in for a major SMACKDOWN by the Supreme Court.

Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable



I think Anthony's sources are the little voices in his head.

more at the link

AKA Orly's suitcase of delusion, eh?

Ummm pray tell, is the Supreme Court aware of this?

So what is the Supreme Court going to do with this information? From what I understand, SCOTUS is an appellate court (except for certain interstate and consular matters) and has no power to initiate action on its own. This man is either a fool or knows nothing about his own country (or both).
Regards ............Dick

The Gi-normous talking head published that article back on July 9 I think his 'sources' may include someone sending him the 'Obama's eligibility quietly moves to the supreme court ' email that's been circulating since forever.

That was my first thought, too, WD.

The birthers are really just running around in circles at the moment.

Ha - quietly accepted as in waiting sixty days for Orly to refile correctly and else discard the stuff without docketing ...

LOL! I'm reminded of how I "quietly accept" the Yellow Pages that are dropped on my front step.

It does me no good to yell at the guys who are delivering them and tell them not to leave them. Here in SoCal, dropping off Yellow Pages is a job that does not require English. It does no good to hang up on the recording that calls to ask if it was delivered -- they'll just keep calling.

So I "quietly accept" it, and gently move it from my front step to the recycle bin, and press 1 to tell the recorded call that I have received it.

This dude expects the Court to suddenly decide that they are a law enforcement body? There's supportin' the Constitution for ya.

How come you don't want Yellow Pages?

'cause they're old and crinkly like me.

Out of date listings, manual search function with only one sort order, dead trees. Meh.

I keep the Verizon directory (white & yellow pages) every year and put it on the shelf under the phone where my mom can see it. She never uses it, but it seems to be a security blanket sort of thing. The cleaning ladies dust it every week, so it always looks new. The other bazillion yellow pages that get dumped in our driveway go right into the recycle bin. I've never had anyone call to see if we got a directory, though. Must be a SoCal thang.

Apologies to our new member. The topic title was based on the Conservative Examiner (and Ginormous Talking Head) Anthony G. Martin as well as the Portland Civl Rights Examiner, Dianna Cotter (aka the freeper Danae).

Ginormous says the speech sucked. This is his stoopidist post in a long time.


State of the union address--a critique

* January 25th, 2011 11:07 pm ET

All Hail St. Ronnie:



blah, blah, blah.

It ended well:



Continue reading on Examiner.com: State of the union address--a critique - National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... z1C7Xcp0DN

He has it covered even if everybody says it was a good speech.

This guy really likes apples and oranges, doesn't he?

He has somebody helping him now. Ginormous was never a Vattelite before.

Obama and the 'natural born citizen' requirement

* January 28th, 2011 1:56 pm ET







Continue reading on Examiner.com: Obama and the 'natural born citizen' requirement - National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... z1CMNahZNj

I'm gonna tweet the ankeney opinion at him. If I can find that footnote by Carter, I'll do that too. I don't remember where it is though.

But, does anybody have a quickie post that debunks the Vattelites?

There are so many things that debunk the Vattelites, like the Constitution itself, and more specifically the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and much more, all of which they completely pfffffffft.

I think it's impossible to get through their addled brains that Vatel did not rise from the dead and write the Constitution nor did he have any influence on it related to citizenship.

I think it's a hopeless pursuit. They're most all like MichaelN... lack of reading and comprehension, and they approach everything with a conclusion in mind then attempt to find crap to fit that conclusion.

I mean, they've just discovered that Foreign-Trade Zones exist in the U.S. and they it's a plot promoted by Obama toward a Chinese communist takeover... totally ignoring the fact they've existed since 1934 in the U.S.

They're hopeless... and nutz.

Funny - I just posted a comment GITH's page and it doesn't show up. I think he's going in for pre-moderating or maybe he's banned me!

It's a common trait of pseudo-legal arguments. Pseudoscience nutters are bad enough, but pseudo-law is an even harder nut to crack.

Science, at least, depends on actual experimentation and results. Pseudoscientists can attempt to rely on faulty experiments or misread results, but they still have to have some kind of data to present if they want to at least maintain the veneer of science. You can try to build a pseudoscience around just theories and no data (see: Timecube), but it's pretty easily distinguishable from real science at that point.

But the law is inherently a man-made endeavor. Moreover, the law is built on interpretation; the entire legal system is prefaced on two sides disagreeing on what the law means. So you can turn virtually any insane legal concept into an argument with enough effort. You can use selective quotations and out-of-context examples to bolster your position. And when confronted with any amount of precedent that says you're wrong, you can simply say: no, IT is wrong. If you're not trained in the law, it can be difficult to distinguish a legitimate argument from an illegitimate argument.

And like tax deniers, once you're convinced that the Supreme Court is in on the cover-up, literally NOTHING can make you change your mind. The individual has come to believe that he has some kind of special insight into the TRUE law, and everyone else, from the textbook writers up through the appellate courts, is just wrong.

It's a big club.

He blocked me from twitter too. But he still tweets at me. He's a fool.

False alarm- my post eventually appeared but now the Examiner.com gateway is down so I can't respond to GITH's response!

I noticed Anthony Martin said this on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/welshman007/statu ... 5964095488



I thought this was odd, because Sputnik burned up on reentry. But apparently, Martin is referring to the crash site of Spunik IV, launched three years after the first satellite.

I, for one, am shocked and disappointed that the President didn't know where the fourth Russian spacecraft crashed. Sure, Sputnik IV is so historically insignificant that it's not even mentioned on the Sputnik program Wikipedia page, but ignorance is no excuse!

Alternately, I find it strange and amusing that Anthony Martin is complaining that President Obama doesn't know enough Soviet history.

I'm snipping the rest of your brilliant argument, but recommending that anyone interested in this subject check it out. You have very well captured the problem with "pseudo-law" as opposed to pseudoscience. Just as pseudoscience attacking evolutionary theory fails to meet even the most basic criteria of scientific theory, though, ludicrous birfer bullshit fails to overcome the presumption of validity of state documents like certifications of live birth.

Nevertheless, without ridiculous levels of proof and citations to evidence, birfer BS can be seen as credible by people who aren't familiar with the real standards. This presents real issues. Not as to what the law actually is, but as to what public policy requires in order that what the law actually is remains unclear to the public. It is actually not a great idea to leave an issue of law this important to remain unclear to the general public.