Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever

From Mother Jones 
Yeah, I know there's an atteribution to Mother Jones and I don't take credit for it, but some people are so stupid that if you don't attribute something in a way that is so obvious, they will accuse you of plagiarism.

Interesting thoughts

Some people don't know what things were like 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago--why should they have an idea what they were like 200+ years ago.

I'm not sure how many people remember that Kennedy was criticised for being a Catholic during the 1960 presidential campaign.

That said: check out this poster.

About 5,000 copies of this flyer were distributed around Dallas in the days before President Kennedy’s November 22, 1963 visit, accused Kennedy of a range of offenses, from being “lax” on Communism, to “appointing anti-Christians to Federal office,” to lying to the American people about his personal life.

The poster was designed by General Edwin A. Walker, a Texan who served in World War II and the Korean War, who had resigned from the Army in 1961 after a Kennedy-ordered investigation found that he had violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity on the job, by distributing John Birch Society literature to his troops. Walker then moved to Dallas and became a leader of right-wing activity in the city.

Look familiar?

See also:

• JFK Assassination: Flyer distributed in Dallas by Edwin Walker's group before his visit

I finally figured out where we can seriously pin some serious blame on Barack Obama

 Kweisi Mfume

The radical right in the US.

They would have had to make him up if he didn't really exist.

And even then they still make him up.

Anyway....

Yeah, I doubt they would care if it had been somebody such as Kweisi Mfume or Chaka Fattah since they were Frizzell Gerald Gray and Arthur Davenport before they took up the furren sounding names.  There would probably have been some inner comfort in that.

Barack Obama has always been Barack Obama.

And what's worse, his father was from Kenya. he even has relatives back in Kenya.

And they are of the Kitchen Toto variety, not the Happy Valley crew, which means Barack is definitely NOKD.

Even if Barack was born on US territory (and a US citizen because of that fact), not only does he sound furren--he kinda looks furren.  Kweisi and Chaka might sound furren, but deep down they aren't REALLY Africans.  If they wear African clothing  (e.g. a dashiki or kente cloth), it could be taken as dressing up.

But, if Barack Obama wears Kenyan garb--expect a shit storm.

My African Heritage

And, even if there are more Christians in Kenya (demographic religious breakdown of Kenya is Protestant 47.7%, Roman Catholic 23.5%, other Christian 11.9%, Muslim 11.2%, no religion 2.4%, African Traditional Religion 1.7%, Bahá'í Faith about 1%, Buddhism 0.3%, other 2%)--he is accused of being a Mooselim.  That says more about the ignorance of the accuser than Barack Obama.

The reality is that the hatred of Barack Obama goes beyond racism and goes into xenophobia and ignorance, since there are far more Christians in Kenya than Muslims.

So, just think of the relief if the person who had become president had been Kweisi Mfume or Chaka Fattah since they may sound furren, but deep down they are as American as well, Barack Obama.

Then again, it could be the right wing loonies' alzheimers is kicking in and they keep hearing "Obama Papa Mau Mau" in their heads.

Active, Inactive, Retired, suspended, and disbarred lawyers

Since it has become an issue with the Obamas, I have been asked about the differences between the categories of lawyer.

I would have to say that it is highly likely that the people making an issue of this are people who are unfamiliar with professional practise and licensing.  That is because professions such as medicine and law require that you are licensed to practise in a jurisdiction: otherwise, you can be liable for unauthorised practise of law (or medicine, etc.).

If one quits the active practise of a profession for whatever reason, they may want to switch to retired or inactive status, which is different from being suspended or disbarred: although I know that being inactive, suspended, or disbarred requires the person to petition for reinstatement before resuming practise.

On the other hand, being inactive is not a statement that the person is unfit for practise: merely that they no longer practise law for whatever reason.  This is the relevant section of Pennsylvania law regarding inactive status as a lawyer--204 Pa. Code § 93.146:

 (b)  Inactive Status. Enforcement Rule 219(j) provides that:
   (1)  An attorney who is not engaged in practice in Pennsylvania, has sold his or her practice pursuant to Rule 1.17 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, or is not required by virtue of his or her practice elsewhere to maintain active licensure in the Commonwealth may request inactive status or continue that status once assumed. The attorney shall file either the annual form required by §  93.142(b) and request inactive status or file Form DB-28 (Notice of Voluntary Assumption of Inactive Status). The attorney shall be removed from the roll of those classified as active until and unless such inactive attorney makes a request under paragraph (3) of this section for an administrative return to active status and satisfies all conditions precedent to the grant of such request; or files a petition for reinstatement under §  89.273(b) (relating to procedure for reinstatement of an attorney who has been on inactive status for more than three years, or who is on inactive status and had not been on active status at any time within the prior three years) and is granted reinstatement pursuant to the provisions of §  89.273(b) of these rules.
   (2)  An inactive attorney under this subsection (b) shall continue to file the annual form required by §  93.142(b) and shall pay an annual fee of $70.00. Noncompliance with this provision will result in the inactive attorney incurring late payment penalites, incurring a collection fee for any check in payment that has been returned to the Board unpaid, and being placed on administrative suspension in accordance with the provisions of §  93.144.
   (3)  Administrative Change in Status from Inactive Status to Active Status: An attorney on inactive status may request resumption of active status by filing Form DB-29 (Application for Resumption of Active Status) with the Attorney Registration Office. Resumption of active status shall be granted unless the inactive attorney is subject to an outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, unless the inactive attorney has sold his or her practice pursuant to Rule 1.17 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (see §  89.273(b)), unless the inactive status has been in effect for more than three years, or unless the inactive attorney had not been on active status at any time within the preceding three years (see §  89.273(b)), upon the payment of:
     (i)   the active fee for the registration year in which the application for resumption of active status is made or the difference between the active fee and the inactive fee that has been paid for that year; and
     (ii)   any collection fee or late payment penalty that may have been assessed pursuant to §  93.144 of these rules, prior to the inactive attorney’s request for resumption of active status.
     Where a check in payment of the fees and penalties has been returned to the Board unpaid, the Attorney Registration Office shall immediately return the attorney to inactive status, and the arrears shall not be deemed to have been paid until a collection fee, as established by the Board under §  93.142(b)(2), shall also have been paid.

In other words, one no longer practises in that jurisdiction and does not have to pay full licence fees or take continuing legal education (CLE).  That also applies to being retired (same section) although there is no fee associated with being retired. The annual fee for inactive status is less than the  annual fee assessed active attorneys, and inactive attorneys are exempt from paying the additional annual fees imposed upon active attorneys.

One can be reinstated to active status from inactive by petitioning the court and paying the fees for the period of being in inactive status.

Of course, one can not take new cases or actively practise law, yet remain on the active list, but one is obligated to pay the full licence fees and take CLE to remain active (if there is a CLE requirement) as well as any other obligations which come with being licenced.  Also, one cannot be listed on a firm's letterhead if one is inactive since they aren't supposed to be practising law.

Also, some jurisdictions make retirement final (as opposed to being inactive), which would mean that one would have to retake the bar if they wished to resume the practise of law.

Whether one remains active, inactive, or retired depends upon a lot of things, but ethical issues are not a part of that: the real question is more like will you be likely to practise your profession?  You would be better served by keeping your licence if the answer is yes.

On the other hand, some people do not need to practise law, but may wish to resume at some future time.

You have a problem if Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Not a question, but a statement since the Constitution that some people claim to respect and all that says (Article VI):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Repeat that last part just to make it clear to you who don't get that the US is a SECULAR Society (like it or not):

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That means it doesn't matter what religion Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney or anybody else for that matter) happens to be.

You might have missed that bit since that paragraph comes right after:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And if you don't think the founders would support this: guess again:

"Both House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia, the Design [purpose] in building not being to accommodate any particular Sect, but the Inhabitants in general, so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism [Islam] to us, he would find a Pulpit at his Service. "

As I said, you have a problem because the Constitution isn't on your side if you are trying to make someone's religion an issue in US politics.  In fact, religion would not intrude in US politics given the US's being a secular state--I only wish more people would be disgusted by this trend.

But, maybe some of you aren't  the strong supporters of the Constitution that you claim to be.

Or, maybe you just need to brush up on what exactly it is that you are supposed to be defending.

The US is a secular nation: understand that fact.

About Obama's Speech in Jerusalem

What Obama Did

The Absolutely Stunning First Lady Michelle Obama

This may be the greatest political speech I've ever heard - the poise and sincerity, the substantive issues mentioned, her smile, the delivery. Before I predicted that Obama would win by a landslide against Romney, now I'm adding something else: Michelle Obama in 2016.

Obama is Sincere - Romney is Not

Obama Speaks About Gun Control

Yahoo News

President Obama: AK-47s Belong In The Hands Of Soldiers, Not Criminals'

In his broadest remarks on gun control yet in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, President Barack Obama called late Wednesday for tougher background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.

"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," he said. "These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

He went on to make the standard concessions to the 2nd Amendment adherents, which made the speech difficult to decipher. Is he finally taking a stand or is this just more talk aimed at appeasing both sides?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Like it or not--HE'S A US CITIZEN!

One thing the birthers never come up with and that is a certificate that Barack Obama has renounced his citizenship, which is necessary for one to no longer be a US citizen. The process sounds simple:

To renounce U.S. citizenship, you must go in person to a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the U.S. and sign before a consular officer an oath or affirmation that you intend to renounce your citizenship.

At the end of a formal process one is issued with a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

One can renounce US citizenship if they do not have another nationality. Although, the Foreign Affairs Manual instructs State Department employees to make it clear to Americans who will become stateless after renunciation that they may face extreme difficulties (including deportation back to the United States) following their renunciation, but instructs employees to afford such persons of their right to give up citizenship.

As for being a Kenyan Citizen: Kenya’s constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). In other words, Obama’s father was Kenyan, not British. Any citizenship which would have come from Obama’s father would have been Kenyan and not British.

The Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

President Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Thus any claim that Obama can have to being eligible for Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.

The same applies for Indonesia. The latest law regulating Indonesian nationality is Law No. 12/2006 (UU No. 12 Tahun 2006). This law revokes Law No. 62/1958 (UU No. 62 Tahun 1958).

Generally, Indonesian citizens are those natural Indonesian people and those of other nationalities that are endorsed by the law as Indonesian citizens. The Indonesian nationality law does not recognize dual citizenship except for persons under the age of 18. After reaching 18 years of age individuals are forced to choose one citizenship.

Again, like Kenya, Obama would have had to make the affirmative act of choosing Indonesian citizenship when he turned 18.

Even if Stanley Ann Dunham renounced her US citizenship, it wouldn’t have effected Barack Obama’s citizenship since he needs to make the affirmative act renouncing for himself (citizenship cannot be renounced by an agent). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355, says:

“A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.

So, there is no way under US law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship due to action of his own OR that of his mother before he was 21 years of age. Under US law, he maintained his birthright US citizenship with no loss or interruption, and no deed for “naturalization” or any “oaths of citizenship” because Natural-Born US citizens don’t require them.

Obama is not a dual national since neither nation he was alleged to have citizenship recognises dual nationality. Additionally, he has not taken the affirmative actions required to acquire either Kenyan or Indonesian nationality.

Like it or not, Barack Obama is a US citizen, and he’s YOUR president.

Sources:
Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?
Indonesian nationality law
The Indonesian Citizenship Myth

Obama Derangement Syndrome

I just became aware of this. One of the characterisitcs is an inability to distinguish Hawaii from Kenya--not that septics were any good at geography and how that might impact them anyway...



Kevin drum from Mother Jones points out that one of the key things that's long convinced me that Obama Derangement Syndrome is way stronger than Bush Derangement Syndrome ever was is the disparate treatment of their wives. I occasionally saw some snotty comments about Laura Bush in various precincts of the blogosphere and the partisan media, but nothing either serious or sustained. But Michelle Obama? Holy cow. There are times when you'd think she was the antichrist. The poor woman decides to make childhood obesity one of her focuses — about as First-Ladyish a subject as you can possibly imagine — and gets hammered by the wingnut brigade for supposedly being the vanguard of Stalinesque Big Government rules decreeing exactly what all of us will and won't be allowed to eat in the future. And that's just for promoting the idea of better nutrition and more exercise for kids!

Simon Maloy has more, treating us today to a dissection of a new column from Joe Curl that's headlined — in unwitting Dr. Seuss style — "The very angry first lady Michelle Obama." The First Lady, says Curl, is back, "and she's madder than ever," "ready to spew her bilious disgust with America on the campaign trail," blah blah blah.

I mean, it's comical in a way, but weirdly revealing in another. The level of blind, lick-spittled rage it takes to produce this stuff is pretty remarkable. And presumably there's a ready audience for it. You could almost understand where this came from in the case of Hillary Clinton: a feminist child of the counterculture who was deeply involved in policy creation was always bound to get under the skin of a certain type of social conservative. But Michelle Obama? Sure, she's a liberal and she supports her husband's initiatives, but her own work has centered on military families, childhood obesity, national service, arts education, and cultivating her organic garden. How traditional do you have to be to get the right-wing crazies to calm down?

Hypocrisy and Lies of the Right on Obama and Immigration- Jon Stewart Shoots the Fox (the media vermin kind, not the cute puppet or wildlife varety)

Did you happen to notice how the right edits things on a regular basis so as to misrepresent the content?

Seriously, it has become their standard operating procedure, even before it was notorious by sleazy weasel James O'Keefe. 

Did anyone else happen to notice that when the opposition has to LIE like this, they clearly must be losing, must be utterly without a valid point or facts supporting their side? 

If the right didn't have racism and bigotry working for them, if they gave up deception like what is spotlighted here, it is hard to know what else they WOULD have.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Bob Dylan Receives Medal of Freedom from President Obama

Obama's Accomplishments

via Mad Mike's America

1) Averting another Great Depression
2) Rescuing the Auto Industry
3) Repealing the discrimination of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”
4) Passing the comprehensive health care act
5) Ending the War in Iraq
6) Nominating two women to the U.S. Supreme Court
7) Killing Osama bin Laden
8.) Reduced unemployment and created 3.5 million new jobs

More on the “Don’t Re-Nig 2012” Bumper Stickers

via Stinque

“According to the dictionary, ‘nigger’ does not mean black. It means a low down, lazy, sorry, low down person. That’s what the N word means.” —Paula Smith of Hinesville, Georgia, explaining why she’s cool selling “Don’t Re-Nig 2012” bumper stickers.

Overt Racism

via Mad Mike

An image purporting to show a racist, anti-Obama bumper sticker on the back of a vehicle has been garnering lots of attention on Facebook in the past 24 hours.

The bumper sticker reads, "Don't Re-Nig in 2012." And in smaller print below, "Stop repeat offenders. Don't' reelect Obama!" The sticker also features an image of the Obama campaign logo crossed out.

Several viewers have claimed the image has been digitally altered. After all, it seems shocking that someone would proudly display an openly racist image on their vehicle in 2012. So, is the image authentic?

In short, yes.

My experience has been that racist Obama-haters deny their racism and wouldn't display it on their vehicle. Of course there would be exceptions.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Obama Opposes NC Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

Yahoo News reports

President Barack Obama took a stand Friday against a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in North Carolina, a state he won in 2008 that remains crucial to his re-election hopes.

"While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples," said Cameron French, the Obama campaign's North Carolina spokesman, in a statement. "That's what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do — it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples — and that's why the president does not support it."

This is an interesting issue in that it clearly separates the Democrats from the Republicans. Obama's stance on this is another thing which puts him ahead of his competitors.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Cenk Says Obama is Tremendously Disappointing

via SUPGV

Catch 2012

I don't think there's enough gun control in the world for Obama to make up for this.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive