By Mike Kelleher
The White House
Tens of thousands of letters, faxes, and emails from Americans across the country arrive each day at my office, the Office of Presidential Correspondence. We do our best to reply to these in a timely fashion, and a handful—just ten a day—are chosen for President Obama to personally read and respond to.
The "Letters to the President" video follows the journey of your message as it winds its way from your home to the President’s desk in the Oval Office. This is the first in a series of exclusive "Inside the White House" videos that will be available here at WhiteHouse.gov.
The Washington Independent
[Update: Credit where it's due—my source tipped me off to this in the Politijab web forums, which have become a good site for "birther" debunking.]
One of my friends in the small community of Obama "birther"-debunkers passes on quite the discovery: a 1964 "certified copy of registration of birth" from Australia, easily available on Bomford.net, a genealogy site. There are striking similarities between this document and the one Orly Taitz is passing off as a "Kenyan birth certificate" for Barack Obama.
- The design is identical, down to the seal at the top and the classifications ("Christian name," etc) used for identifying the baby.
- The "registrar" on the Bomford document is G.F. Lavender. On the Taitz document, it's E.F. Lavender.
- The "district registrar" on the Bomford document is J.H. Miller. On the Taitz document, it's M.H. Miller.
- The number of the book is identical on both documents: Book 44B, Page 5733.
What's more likely — that two Kenyan bureaucrats shared last names with two Australian bureaucrats, and that the numbers on both certificates were identical? Or that someone used this document, available online for anyone who wanted to look, to forge the Obama "certificate?"...(Original.)
You know, if you're going to try to dig up 45 year old documents as part of your "research," as dingbat Birther Queen/Dentist/Carnival Barker Orly Taitz says she did with Obama's really, really, totally real birth certificate from
Media Matters did. (Because they're not f-ing nuts.)
It appears to the glue-sniffers are absorbing their chemicals of choice via IV drip now. I am not sure how else to explain this much brain damage.
Kos smacks the morons down.
Now let us examine the psychotic "attorney" driving this glue-sniffing machine, now popularly known as the birther movement, Orly Taitz. Ms. Taitz apparently got her law degree from William Howard Taft Univ.
And just what is this prestigious law school you ask? According to wiki, it is laughable:
"William Howard Taft University is not accredited by the American Bar Association, nor is it seeking such accreditation because it is ineligible. No on-line law school is accredited by the American Bar Association. William Howard Taft Law School is not accredited by the State Bar of California."So Taitz got her law degree from an online law school which is not accredited by the ABA. One might say she has a faux law degree. Moreover, Taitz was not born in the US. Apparently, she is from my part of the world:
"She was born and raised in Kishinev (also spelled Chisinau), the capital of the Republic of Moldova, a country in Eastern Europe that was formerly part of the Soviet Union."As luck would have it, I have relatives in Kishinev. I will ask them to look into her life there. Apparently, Taitz then moved to Israel, NOT THE US, in her mid 20s. But wait, she is a trained dentist it seems:
"Taitz passed the dental boards, and her practice grew substantially. She now has two separate dental offices in Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif. Two dentists work in Taitz' offices each week to assist patients."And how did she become an American? She married one....(Remainder.)
Many people have asked me why I would bother to create a collection of Biblical errors. They correctly point out that it is like shooting fish in a barrel, yet it must be done for several reasons. While many people will academically point out that such errors exist, they rarely if ever can point to any examples. This leads “true believers” to conclude that such errors really don’t exist and that Biblical error is nothing but an evil conspiracy to discredit their religion.
This work is also necessary because many, many people in America accept the myth that the Bible is divinely inspired. They believe that either contradictions do not exist, or that there is only a couple that may have slipped in through mistranslation. Therefore I had to create this web page to demonstrate the shear volume of contradictions and logical errors that exist in what is purported to be divinely inspired book. From the evidence presented by this page, it should be obvious that the Bible contains many, many direct contradictions of logic, history, scientific and prophetic errors that occur in the original text and have nothing to do with mistranslation.
All references here are presented from the King James Version of the Bible. I agree that some of the errors presented here may be copy errors and mistranslations that go away once you go to a more modern translation. But I list them here anyway because the Christian fundamentalists that I grew up with are absolutely convinced that the King James is the only valid translation and that every word of it is literally true. The point of this entire web site is to aid recovering fundamentalists, so I view this as appropriate.
With this in mind, I present this web page with the intent of showing every obvious error and contradiction I could find. To be sure more exist that can be easily explained away or be seen as mistakes of omission, so I did not put them in this article. Instead I have tried to present the errors and contradictions that I believe to be most difficult to deny or explain away. I expect to add more over time, but you must be aware that this is a lot of work.
This collection is divided into four sections; Logical Contradictions, Historical Errors, Scientific Errors, and Prophecy Gone Wrong. Each of these sections will begin with a brief description of the type of error followed by a listing of examples. Enjoy….(Remainder.)
By The White House
At George Mason University today, the President explained why the Post-9/11 GI Bill is so critical to our country. "We do this not just to meet our moral obligation to those who have sacrificed greatly on behalf of our country. We do it because these men and women must now be prepared to lead our nation in the peaceful pursuit of economic leadership in the 21st century."...(Remainder.)
Early this morning, we (along with others) noted that the purported Obama birth certificate posted by WorldNetDaily says that it was issued by the "Republic of Kenya" on February 17, 1964, but that Kenya did not become a republic until December 12, 1964.
Well, here's WND's response:
Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn't a republic until Dec. 1964."There are a couple points to be made here....(Remainder.)
But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.
An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I - THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state..."
It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.
By Keith Olbermann
Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Health Care Reform in this country, and in particular, the "public insurance option." In March of 1911, after a wave of minor factory fires in New York City, the City's Fire Commissioner issued emergency rules about fire prevention, protection, escape, sprinklers. The City's Manufacturers Association in turn called an emergency meeting to attack the Fire Commissioner and his 'interference with commerce.'
The new rules were delayed. Just days later, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. The door to the fire escape was bolted shut to keep the employees from leaving prematurely. One hundred and fifty of those employees died, many by jumping from the seventh floor windows to avoid the flames. Firefighters setting up their ladders literally had to dodge the falling, often burning, women. This was the spirit of the American corporation then. It is the spirit of the American corporation now. It is what the corporation will do, when it is left alone, for a week. You know the drill. We all know the drill.
You get something done, at a doctor's, at a dentist's, at an emergency room and the bills are in your hands before the pain medication wears off. And if you're one of the lucky ones, and you have insurance, you submit the endless paperwork and no matter whether it's insurance through your company, or your union, or your non-profit, or on your own dime, you then get your turn… at the roulette wheel....(Remainder.)
War Room at Salon.com
Full disclosure: I was supposed to be on MSNBC this afternoon talking about the Birthers and their release of what they claim is a copy of President Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. (It's really an obvious forgery.) But shortly after I agreed to go on, the booker called and said they had to cancel. The reason why, it turns out, is that they'd booked de facto Birther movement leader Orly Taitz instead.
I'm not here to criticize MSNBC, though. Sure, they may have lost out on facts and reasoned discussion, but even I'm more than willing to admit that on my best day I can never be as, um, entertaining as Taitz was.
The segment was, from the very beginning, a train wreck. It started with Taitz asking how much time she'd be given to respond -- not exactly the kind of question anchors like to get, as it means you're eating in to the time scheduled for your segment -- and spiraled swiftly downward from there, with Taitz calling host David Shuster a "Brownshirt" and Shuster asking Taitz if it was true that NBC had offered her a car to bring her to the studio, but "you refused because it was a Muslim sounding name with the driver." (Taitz said it was not true.)
There's a good argument to be made, one I'm normally sympathetic to, that people like Taitz shouldn't be getting airtime, same as anyone else advocating a completely debunked but disturbingly popular conspiracy theory. (When's the last time you heard someone on MSNBC saying we didn't land on the moon?)...(Remainder.)