I don't understand why they would compare what BCs from 1961 looked like, when this was a Certified Copy of Registration of Birth from 1964??? What am I missing? Wouldn't it be more authentic to look at other CCRBs that current Kenyans have from 1964??

I'm sorry, but I was EXTREMELY offended last night at Glenn talking about the "birther idiots," especially during the very segment with Dr. Ablow where he was discussing how the Left marginalizes, offends, dismisses, diminishes, discredits those they want to silence.

I really don't give a crap where Obama was born and I really don't give a crap if he stays in office, but in reading the actual motions and investigative work done by the PIs and attorneys in several cases, there is a LOT that is not answered. NO ONE has satisfactorily answered the issues. Even those on Fox are quick to call us idiots or say that we are wrong. Wrong isn't the issue - show us the documents!

I cannot for the life of me figure out how ANYone who has looked at the actual evidence in the motions and in the investigations can just roll over and let this go. If this were a conservative president, would the Left let it go? I want answers.

Instead of explaining how other people born in HI have detailed copies of their BCs; instead of explaining why the neighbor who has lived next to the address given in the birth announcement for over 50 years says no such people lived there (maybe she's senile? but prove it!); instead of explaining why Kenyans celebrate the place of Obama's birth in Kenya (maybe they're making it up, but why?) and instead of explaining how an exact replica of what BO posts on his site can be replicated by any home computer in five minutes and why should we accept that as proof; instead of explaining why on earth we just take the word of some employee in the HI records department that she's seen it; instead of explaining WHY the time lines don't line up for when his mom was supposed to be in one place, but school records prove she was in another....Glenn just calls us idiots.

I'm sorry Glenn, but you lost a loyal fan last night. You take the time to put the obvious concentration camp rumor to rest (anyone who read the bill could see there was no issue), but this, that has Constitutional significance for the country and you call us idiots. You don't mind that a deceptive cheater and liar may be running the Country and the Military, a man who most likely has loyalties to other countries and an un-American world view? SHAME

I want to see what he is hiding and the fact that you accept what has been given as legitimate is shameful.

Signed up for Twitter to be a Constitutional Watchdog, but can't figure out how to post to Glenn's page to alert him.

1. Given that immunizations (ie, for swine flu) per Arkansas Health Dpt can be/are mandatory per taped conversation
http://www.infowars.com/arkansas-state-health-dep...
2. Given that the military has been sought to help with immunizations for swine flu for Fall.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/07/28/military.swi...
3. Given that pesky Posse comitatus act where "The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or ***Congress***."
4. This bill is particularly disturbing:
HR 645 To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
I'm not too bright, but doesn't this mean that Congress could authorize military to enforce immunizations? The taped H.Dpt conversation reveals that if you decline a shot, you could hurt other people if you get sick and spread it to them (therefore you don't have a choice)

Part of letter to Glenn from Lt Col David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC. Letter is too long to post here, but it's on Orly Taitz's website in full. The letter is regarding Glenn's mocking of those in the military wanting proof their Commander in Chief is legitimate.
"Dear Glenn,
30 July 2009
I will get right to the point. Either out of ignorance or with intent
your recent comments on your television program are nothing less than a
slap right across the face of each and every Soldier that serves and has
ever served this great Country. How could you do this to us? You contend
that you are supportive of the military and yet when it comes to an
issue vitally important to us you scoffed, demeaned and ridiculed those
of us who serve and are fighting to defend the Constitution. You placed
us right along side Whoopi Goldberg who, to my knowledge, never served
in the military a day in her life. You have insulted our intellect and
integrity. Until now I had been a big supporter of you. Now I am left to
question your very motives. Has money become your new God or was it
simply a mistake on your part? Whatever the case is, I need and deserve
an explanation and an apology for your actions..."

New lawsuit demanding immediate jury trial with BO's Kenyan BC showing up.
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix Photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya)(Taitz, Orly)
8:09-cv-82

Image of BC (no text). Copy to your computer for when the site is scrubbed.
http://orlytaitzesq.com/obama-certified-copy-of-r...

Corroboration from Kerncher/Apuzzo site
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-news-p..." target="_blank">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-news-p...

Post from Orly Taitz:
thugs are at it again
August 1st, 2009
Until today if you were to type orly taitz on yahoo, you would get nearly 800,000 articles. Now there are only 178,000. Some thugs scrubbed 600,000 articles.
Suddenly Google shows that there is malawere on my site, when in reality there isn’t.
I must be really hitting a nerve if smbd spents so much time and effort to attack me."

I thought so too, but I switched back later and it was on.

Yesterday I heard THREE people on Fox on the same day refer to "our Democracy." Those people were Bret Baier, Jeff Sessions and Lindsay Graham...

That scares the crap out of me that our leaders aren't even aware that we are a Republic.

I googled laura bush attendants, laura bush staffers, laura bush personal staffers and couldn't find anything. I'm probably just not looking in the right places.

Continuation of previous post...

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry

They also have a video and multiple definitions from various dictionaries of CO2. If the link doesn't work, I found it at Popular Technology.net. Funny that the date on it is November 2008.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-d...

Ten Scientists with PhDs explain that CO2 is necessary for life and it's not a pollutant.

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Continued next post