There he goes again

Politico is reporting today that, "Investigators for an Arizona sheriff’s volunteer posse have declared that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is definitely fraudulent. [...]

Mike Zullo, the posse’s chief investigator, said numeric codes on certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren’t filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama’s father and his field of work or study were completed."

Yes! Look at the codes! And the state of Hawaii, all the candidates he's ever run against, the Republican Party, and everyone else not certifiably in-flipping-sane is in on it!

And only a rag-tag band of professional conspiracy theorists given a platform by an embroiled-in-controversy nutcase of a sheriff can show us the truth!

You may remember that Mike Zullo is selling a book on the subject, and so has a particular interest in milking this cow for all it's worth. You might also remember that said book was co-authored by ultraconspiracy megatheorist Jerome Corsi, who wrote a previous, more expansively dumb book on the subject that tanked when Obama released that document Corsi said he wasn't releasing. You may also remember that Sheriff Joe is, well, freaking insane. Nonetheless, they assure us they only have our best interests at heart.

Sheriff Joe is still, technically speaking, a public official, though what the hell he does during his actual day job is certainly a mystery to all. Since his constituents appear to be in no particular hurry to stop the public shaming of their county, all we can hope for is that, at some point, Arpaio retires to spend more time with his pet theories and find even crazier people to share them with. He and Donald Trump can form a road show. (Hat tip to Hunter)

Barack Obama released a PDF version of a certified copy of his original hospital 1961 birth certificate at a White House press conference on April 27, 2011. That document resides on the White House web site and has been the subject of intense criticism from those whose ideas about the President’s birthplace are challenged by it.

One of the interesting characteristics of the form is penciled notations adjacent to some data items, consisting of numbers and letters. While they were a mystery to some, it was clear to those experienced in old data systems that these were codes for data entry operators

In August of 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services released information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the coding of natality (Birth) data in 1961. The first part of the response response consisted of a hyperlink to the 1961 document titled Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part II Coding and Punching, Section C, Geographic Code Final, Births, Deaths and Fetal Deaths Occurring in 1960-1961 (VSIM). The second part of the FOIA response was a 12-page document titled: Division of Data Processing, Vital Statistics Programming Branch, Tape File Information, 1960-1961 Natality Tape Files for the United States (NTFUS).

 The NTFUS is the layout for all of the data stored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), all 26 reels of magnetic tape comprising 2,134,172 records for 1961. The document can be used to inform us how data was submitted by the states. How did Zullo turn this into a conspiracy theory? He counted on nobody remembering there is a Google.

This is an Open Thread.

Comments

[Official Spy of BW]

As someone else said on another thread, it is pretty funny, and not at all "tiresome" to watch some of you defend Mitt.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans today killed a bill to encourage American companies to bring overseas jobs back to the United States. The bill would have stopped companies from deducting the expenses of moving workers or operations overseas from the U.S. It also would have offered a 20 percent credit for the costs of shifting workers back home.
Yeah, it's all Obama's fault.

[T-S]

Do you have the vote? I'd like to know how many DINO's voted with the Repubs. Any republicans vote with the dems?

[Puget Sound Blathers]

How come I don't get to deduct the interest on my credit cards? And they better never take my mortgage interest deduction away. Small potatoes when compared to Romney's subsidized wealth.

Posted by: T-S | July 19, 2012 at 02:28 PM

Why should your credit card debt get a deduction? You want others to subsidize your lifestyle?
Stop freeloading and pay your own way.
More T-S, B-S....

Lets move to no deductions and simplify the Tax Return. Okay, maybe one deduction for charity if you have to but no more than that.

[KS]

No wonder she supports President Deadbeat. It's written all over, besides being a bleeding heart prog.

[KS]

The bill would have stopped companies from deducting the expenses of moving workers or operations overseas from the U.S. It also would have offered a 20 percent credit for the costs of shifting workers back home.
Yeah, it's all Obama's fault.

Posted by: Official Spy of BW | July 19, 2012 at 03:09 PM

Offical Spy - you sound like a typical liberal prog., void of most rational arguments. Only 29% independents approve of your guy - you may well end up disappointed and full of hatred (hopefully not) like the other lib progs after Nov. 6th.

[Gorgeous]

What I posted was a joke, I thought. I didn’t know Ann Romney was in fact talking to Robin Roberts.

I guess it goes to show you, the Romney’s is stranger than fiction.

[T-S]

I just heard the numbers for that vote on Spitzer per Sanders. Sanders said that all the dems voted for it and three republicans but they were still short the sixty needed to prevent a filibuster so the minority(haha) obstructed democracy again.

But I blame the dems. They knew at the beginning of the year the corruption on the right and they still kept the filibuster. I don't know how many times they have to be bit before entering into any gentlemen's agreement with the corrupt right. They may actually have to lose the Presidency to learn their lesson.

PS, again you cannot connect the dots. And I am not going to waste space, time and my patience tutoring you again.

But I have to say, even for a bean counter, you're awfully slow.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

hey T-S, they had filerbuster proof majority for most of the 2009-2010 session.

[Walt]

PS this has been cussed and discussed numerous times, always ending with you doing a ROFL about the Dems who voted with the Republicans. Why bring it up again, other than you don't ever have anything original to say. Cant you think of a new topic?

[KS]

T-S - If I have told you once, I've told you 1000 times, stop exaggerating. There is a lot of corruption in DC, but 2/3 of it is from the Dems in power who are only interested in furthering their own party but not the unemployed in this country. The GOP doesn't get it right occasionally but they are not the outright liars like the new left, aka the lib progs are.

That bill deserved to be shot down in the Senate, the bill was dysfunctional and Reid would not allow any amendments by the GOP. Enough of your faux crocodile tears. You have been listening to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the clown princess with the pinocchio nose of the Democratics too much.

[T-S]

yes, you say everything a thousand times - over and over and over. It is always ranting, name calling and your trashy opinion sans any kind of facts at all. I guess that's the Fox non-News effect.

[T-S]

Only KS could possibly think an amendment repealing the affordable care act should be included in a bill to bring jobs back home. Is there any more proof of your IQ KS? And you wonder why it wasn't allowed? I can't believe I'm even responding to you. You don't deserve the respect of a response from anyone on this blog including PS.

[BlackRhino]

This election is going to be won by one of two very accomplished men. One, with a PHD and the drive to serve the people; the other measures his success in dollars. The one grew up, fighting for and earning the accolades of an Ivy League school. The other was shown the way to the same schools via a privileged pedigree. One grew up being bullied the other was the bully.
Some of us appreciate the characteristics of one or the other, but I suggest the voice of their most fervent supporter.

This is their most controversial quote…I think it speaks volumes.

"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

“It's our turn now.”

[KS]

you are blowing smoke once again, T-S BS. bla bla bla. Your IQ is equivalent to Nancy Pelosi's but well below average. The bill PSB and I was talking about was not repealing Obamacare - Reid tabled that, you dolt !

Once again, you have no argument, just a lot of incoherence. You talk about respect - HA ! what a joke ! A piece of advice - Don't drive the rest of the evening.

[Gentlemen Rouge]

Very nice BlackRhino, but you missed something. One showed his taxes for 8 or so years, the other did not.

[T-S]

Still no facts, KS?

According to The Hill, "Republicans were expected to support the 'insourcing' bill until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was unlikely to include any Republican amendments." Specifically, Republicans wanted to include an amendment repealing the Affordable Care Act.

[T-S]

Yes, Rhino. And one spoke for herself and the other was a talking point spoken by the husband and the wife at different times.

[KS]

T-S BS - I don't blame them for trying, after all he refused to bring to the floor for another vote after it passed the House last week with 6 Democrats voting against it.

That's what that SOB Reid has also done on over 30 other jobs related bills that the House passed dating back to last year -what a prick... He is more to blame for gridlock than anyone else in congress.

The Daily KOS is a skeptical source with questionable cred that is reflected in your irresponsible comments. I read about it on Yahoo and did not specifically see that.

[T-S]

I don't blame them for trying,

Trying what? What does the ACA have to do with outsourcing/insourcing?

Do you know what you are talking about?

Trying to understand but you don't say anything one can understand.

[Squeaky in support of BW]

As far as I can tell this is a blog to express your opinion on the particular topic and/or in the case of an open thread specifically comment on a topic - not to attack one another. That is getting pretty old and childish so please stick to the topic and refrain from this kind of posting.

[The BW Crew]

Agreed, Squeaky. Find a way to move the discussion forward, folks. If the "strength" of your argument requires an insult and name calling to make it stronger, you need to work on your argument.

[T-S]

Squeaky, I agree about the name calling and will try to do better. However, you've posted nothing yourself other than to judge us. What do you think about a topic of your choice or a follow up to one already begun?

Nobody loves the political discussion more than I do.

[Squeaky]

Well, in this particular case I happen to be a fan of Sheriff Joe, I think he's a fine American who believes in strict law enforcement and laws of our land. He enforces the laws which too many times are overlooked or not enforced. Does that make me a Republican. No I am studying the candidates in the objective way I can by reading what they say they stand for and comparing it (if possible) with what they've done before. I must say that I am leaning toward Romney presently but that could change as voting time nears. I am not committed to a particular political party but rather feel an urgent need to vote for whomever I think will do the best overall job for America.

[T-S]

Some of us lean left as you can tell. What is your criteria for "best overall job?"

[Squeaky]

Well T-S, I think I would lean to whomever I felt had the best economic plan. I really don't think that is particularly discernable at this point as neither candidate has outlined anything specific yet.

[Puget Sund Blathers]

one thing Squeaky,
we can look at the results to date.

for those satisfied, you're vote is clear.

for those not satisfied, then you're vote is clear.

[T-S]

I'm surprised you have no criteria. How will you know when you see it? If you don't know what you want, how will you know when you get it?

I know exactly what I want in a good Pres. When given time, I'll post.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

actually, performance is good starting point.

[KS]

I don't blame them for trying,

Trying what? What does the ACA have to do with outsourcing/insourcing?

Posted by: T-S | July 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Nice try in feigning obtuseness again and then trying for the gotcha T-S BS. Go back and read my post for the actual story about why repeal of the ACA was part of this outsourcing bill - Congress pulls that stuff all of the time on both sides - where have you been ? If you have anything to dispute that with, but you would have to pull that out of your a...

Here is an expose on the character of Whorehouse Harry Reid - poster geezer for gridlock in Congress...

Several reporters confronted the Senate Majority Leader on the question of why his party didn't impose this urgent tax hike on "the rich" when they controlled everything in 2009 and 2010. Why is his party threatening to shove all American taxpayers over a fiscal cliff in 2013 when they could have resolved this issue when Republicans were powerless to stop them? Reid's response was, shall we say, less than convincing:

TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts...why didn't Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?

REID: The tax cuts weren't about to expire then.

TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.

REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.

REID: And that's why they were extended one year.

TWS: Why didn't they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?

REID: Next question.

Here's the video, which laughably begins with Sen. Patty Murray promising "an honest debate" on the tax debate. The best part is the awkward pause as Reid tries to concoct an answer before giving up:

In this short exchange, Reid makes two factual misstatements. He claims that the tax cuts weren't expiring at the time (they were, as a reporter points out), and he says that the rates were then extended for a year. They were, in fact, extended by two years. But aside from that, it was a flawless answer, unworthy of any additional follow-ups.

[T-S]

According to Romney, his plan is the Ryan plan. So I guess you do know what he'll do. What do yout think about it?

And, as PS points out, the Obama performance has been front and center even though largely obstructed.

Do you expect the plans to change?

KS: You're still off-topic. Why let the ACA or what you think of Harry Reid affect the bill having to do with outsourcing/insourcing jobs? Do you think it is worthy of passing?

[Hedge Fund Hal]

Obama doesn't have a PhD. BR, i think you're confusing him with Dick Cheney who does have a PhD.

[sparky]

Cheney started a doctoral program but never finished it.

[Coiler]

I don't doubt it, he was too busy getting 5 deferments.

[KS]

To answer your question, the outsourcing bill was not worth passing. not enough bi-partisan support - seemed like primarily a feel good measure that would have had little effect.

You all seem to forget - Neither Cheney nor Bush are running. Mr. Obama's harangue last week about "you didn't build that" may have done him irreparable harm. They are trying to distance themselves from it already, but it's all on tape - too late now.

His economic big government policies have not helped the recovery by any stretch. I do not expect a quick turnaround if Romney wins- it will be rough sledding for a time.

Looking back on the last 3 years, fiscal restraint by the Democrats would have made a measurable difference. When the Republicans only control 1/2 of congress in 2011, the Democrats still have more control and they could have exercised it - like considering the Bowles-Simpson recommendations instead of throwing it under the bus like they did.

[T-S]

The democrats could have exercised control by giving Republicans what they. I see.

[T-S]

"what they want." Sorry.

[KS]

The democrats could have exercised control by giving Republicans what they. I see.
Posted by: T-S | July 20, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Huh ? Try what the voters wanted - they wanted Bowles-Simpson to be implemented. They wanted reduced Federal spending, but the Dems balked repeatedly. Increased revenues was also part of Bowles-Simpson, as was overhauling the existing tax code. If the election results in 2012 are similar to 2010, you will know why, but I'm not sure if you or the progressives are capable of learning from that. Larry Sabato, PhD. the guru of predicting elections says it is shaping up that way, but still too early to tell about the outcome of the POTUS race.

[T-S]

the voters wanted - they wanted Bowles-Simpson

How do you know? Besides, it was the Republicans who signed a pledge to Grover who obstructed Bowles Simpson on the revenue side.

[KS]

it was the Republicans who signed a pledge to Grover who obstructed Bowles Simpson on the revenue side.

Posted by: T-S | July 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Back at ya - Probably because the Democrat/progressives in congress and the President never embraced Bowles-Simpson after the President has called for it -grounds for his dismissal in November.

The Republicans should have also been more proactive, but they were backed into the corner by the left, who controlled (and still do) 1/2 of Congress and the Presidency.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

T-S,
The President could have done a little thing folks call 'Leadership' on the issue of Simpson-Bowles. He is the Leader of the Free World. You telling me he is worried about someone named 'Grover'?
LMAO
He could have had the Senate on his side with his majority Dems and worked in the House.

Instead we got nothing. A non factor. Again, performance will be a key metric for this election.

While I still think Pres Obama wins it again, it won't be easy.

[KS]

There are a number of ways that he could improve the economy, but he won't do that - he has had his opportunity. Based on performance, it will be a big slap in the face to the intelligence of the American voter if he somehow does win, IMHO.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

a missed opportunity for sure. i don't give the republicans high marks on this account. at least you and i are willing to put the blame on both parties.

the key for mitt romney is to be able to get the message across that he can improve the economy in those swing states. that's the key.

[Hedge Fund Hal]

word is come election day, Holder will be out and about in the streets of Philly in his mobile Justice Department "Generalmobile" protecting citizens rights...oh wait a minute....actually i guess he will be protecting Black Panther Party members rights to carry ball bats outside of polling places and intimidate white Repub voters......

[T-S]

Probably because...

So you don't know.

It is always someone else's fault, isn't it boys. The Republicans really aren't obstructionists, didn't really have a meeting the night of the inauguration and never signed a pledge to anybody.

[KS]

T-S BS. You have Grover on the brain and are a conspiracy theorist. Are you ADD ? You missed the most important point that both parties are to fault. The Democrats are more to fault since 2009 and the Republicans were more at fault from 2001-2008. The same could be said back in 2001 at Bush's inauguration that the Dems took a pledge and were the obstructionists then, but I know it really didn't happen that way.

Hopefully not, HF Hal. Holder must go, but he's the big fall guy for Owebama.

[T-S]

but I know it really didn't happen that way.

Then why say it.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

interesting how folks allow the President to abdicate his responsibility to lead the nation. Of all the people. Bully Pulpit is what it is called.
Be a LEADER.

Cognitive dissonance is a good term that applies to some on this blog.

[KS]

The Republicans really aren't obstructionists, didn't really have a meeting the night of the inauguration and never signed a pledge to anybody.

Posted by: T-S | July 21, 2012 at 09:46 AM

but I know it really didn't happen that way.

Then why say it.

Posted by: T-S | July 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM

To make the point that I believed about the D's back in 2001 that you were sarcastic in making (wink-wink) in the first post above about the R's in 2009.

[T-S]

you were sarcastic in making (wink-wink)

only in your imagination KS

[sparky]

The laser-like Republican focus on jobs continues:

" Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is floating legislation that would name most U.S. coastal waters after former President Ronald Reagan. Issa reintroduced his bill Wednesday to rename the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which generally extends from three miles to 200 miles offshore, as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone."

No it isn't from the Onion.