SELF-PROCLAIMED “BIRTHER DEBUNKER” CHARGES NYT REPORT on ROSA PARKS is “RACIST REVISIONIST HISTORY”

© 2011 jbjd

Advertisements

16 Responses to SELF-PROCLAIMED “BIRTHER DEBUNKER” CHARGES NYT REPORT on ROSA PARKS is “RACIST REVISIONIST HISTORY”

  1. bob strauss says:

    This is getting ridiculous.

    obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/07/ooooooopsdnc-makes-big.html

    bob strauss: Yes, it is ridiculous that, 3 years after the first paid political electronic advertising campaign entitled “Fight the Smears” hit the internet; the D’s are not only repeating the same gimmick to solicit funds but, even worse, are also arousing the ire of people like you who still fail to understand these campaign expenditures are perfectly legal under the U.S. Code! DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)

    bob strauss, even if I am the only ‘birther’ saying something; this does not mean, everyone else is telling you the truth.

    azgo, I will be curious to hear what was your reaction when you read this comment. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. azgo says:

    bob strauss says:
    July 10, 2011 at 17:36

    This is getting ridiculous.
    —————————————————————————————-
    Mugs, T-Shirts, a Birth Certificate Image and Political Free Speech.

    As no legal definition of ‘natural born citizen’ exists, Mr. Obama doesn’t even know if he meets this qualification, as he, his political party or even his legal counsel has not publicly proclaimed or explained the candidate is a ‘natural born citizen’ and no authority for the public record has determined the candidate eligible as a ‘natural born citizen’.

    What people, citizens, need to understand is what the campaign is now handing out, giving out …is political speech by way of political literature and novelties …mugs, t-shirts, web pages and printed copy with an image of a birth certificate, all to convince the public the candidate is for real, donate and ‘vote for me!’.

    As a real controversy of opinions continues, the birth certificate, whether real or not, by way of some sort of invisible deflecting mirror, evades the issue of natural born citizenship.

    Political free speech is a constitutional protection which the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment.

    On April 27, 2011, the 2012 Democratic presidential candidate posted a computer image for distribution to persons interested in the candidate’s birth document and since has promoted the sales and ‘giving out’ of political literature with an image of a birth certificate.

    Remember, Mr. Obama announced his candidacy for President on April 4, 2011 and much of this President’s time will be spent on gathering and sustaining votes.

    The campaigning reminds me of this court case which resembles the scheme of the 2012 Democratic presidential campaign in “handing out leaflets” (birth certificate images), of course without even qualifying the candidate is eligible as a natural born citizen but is, as jbjd says, “perfectly legal under the U.S. Code”. (Now I know why the 2012 campaign chose April 27 to ‘hand out leaflets’, so to speak, of political literature. lol !!!)

    In the Supreme Court case, McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM’N, ___ U.S. ___ (1995), Justice Stevens wrote;

    Here are some quick excerpts;

    “On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting at the Blendon Middle School in Westerville, Ohio. …

    Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. …

    Indeed, the speech in which Mrs. McIntyre engaged – handing out leaflets in the advocacy of a politically controversial viewpoint – is the essence of First Amendment expression.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&friend=oyez&friend=oyez&vol=000&invol=U10296

    Now, the 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate’s national political party is displaying a web page with an image of a birth document and is a political advertisement which conforms with U.S. Code 441.d, “Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations”. The web page claims the 2012 candidate is an American citizen and the controversy of citizenship is a distraction. The viewer, the audience, must understand the claim is ‘American citizenship’ by the speaker being the national political party, and this speaker does not address any claim of natural born citizenship. During the last election cycle, the 2008 Democratic candidate was a ‘native born citizen’ as proclaimed by his campaign.

    http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate

    For now and until the time of the 2012 election, the American people as voters must rely on what the Supreme Court said in regard to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and advertising as Justice Kennedy so simply advises us;

    “But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1594.ZO.html

    Forgery or not, legal political advertising literature with images does not make a person for President a natural born citizen. (Hint to the Attorney’s General of applicable states which election laws require the presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible.)

    Nothing …nothing in the public record has established the 2012 Democratic candidate eligible as a natural born citizen.

    As to Mr. Bad Fiction, a master of free speech, maybe he can explain why the candidate, his political party or even his legal counsel has not publicly proclaimed or explained the candidate is a ‘natural born citizen’.

    azgo: As usual, we can count on you to interject concrete sanity into the conversation; and to reduce things to their simplest form. ‘Announcement this is Obama’s birth certificate’ = mug = t-shirt = bumper stickers = lawn signs… Thank you, again.

    And, thank you for reminding people, the only way to get to the issue of any candidate’s eligibility for POTUS, whatever the definition, is through state laws with regard to state election ballots; and, of course, through state A’sG, that is, persuading them to exercise their legislatively bestowed official discretion to pursue enforcement of these ballot eligibility laws. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Of course, inasmuch as he is the self-identified “Birther Debunker” Mr. BadFiction ‘intended’ to blast me by implicitly charging, I am a racist, notwithstanding my comments echoed the facts in the NYT article I had linked in my original comment on that other blog, which comment he excerpted for his blog, minus that link! As you imply in your present comments; he was unable to de-bunk the factual elements of my work and so, in the alternative, clumsily and disingenuously, attempted to fulfill his self-appointed role by personally attacking me. I hope both he and his readers look at the other article linked in that comment, my homage to Howard Zinn. Because while I included the link in my original comment on drkate’s blog inasmuch as I was proud that he had also acknowledged, unsolicited, the role played by Claudette Colvin in effecting equal rights for blacks, before Rosa Parks; that article also contains Professor Zinn’s proposal that education, not ridicule is the appropriate tool to change people’s minds. And, along those lines, the article contains my plea to those people who think we ‘birthers’ are crazy in questioning Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, to help us get an answer from any members of the D club who signed Obama’s Certificate of Nomination, to the unanswered question that fuels our skepticism: on what documentary basis did you ascertain Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for President, before swearing he was to state election officials to get his name printed on the ballot, in those that only allow on the ballot the names of those candidates eligible for office?

  3. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, this was posted at CW, I thought there may be docs you may find of interest. I found Obama was not a dependant of Lolo and Ann Soetoro, he is not listed on their tax 1040 form. Can a foreigner be claimed as a exemption?

    What page is Soetero’s name mentioned on?
    obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/07/revealed-us-citizenship-and-immigration.html
    *******************************************
    Pat 1789, check out pages 167, 168, and 169, under filing status, there is no exemption for Barry, and on page 168, Maya is listed as an exemption, but no Barry. Page 169 shows 3 exemptions, and no Barry. I don’t know what it means but either Barry inserted himself into this family or someone else claimed Barry as an exemption.

    bob strauss: I will in no way contribute to the countless hours devoted by so many others to minutia like this which in no way could possibly establish whether any allegations based on such electronic wizardry are true or false. (If I didn’t know better; I might suspect, the people promoting these types of distractions get a perverse ‘thrill’ watching Obama detractors chasing their proverbial tails.) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    “the article contains my plea to those people who think we ‘birthers’ are crazy in questioning Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS…”

    We are fortunate that we haven’t been arrested for our right of expression in questioning Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. Although, I feel ‘hurled out of the courtroom’ as the A’sG of applicable states refused to answer or even investigate the merits of the letters of complaint filed by so many citizens.

    (azgo, I omitted this reference after spending too much time trying to find a follow-up story from a site I trusted. If you find such reference, please, re-send. jbjd)

    Questions: The Arizona Constitution says this;

    “3. Supreme law of the land
    Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.”

    Doesn’t this make the Presidential Qualifications Clause a ‘supreme law’ of Arizona and a person for President must be constitutionally eligible? (As the person “shall be eligible to the Office” per the Constitutional requirements.)

    Is Arizona actually breaking the ‘supreme law’ of Arizona by not providing only eligible candidates on the ballot and not requiring proof of natural born citizenship, age and residency?

    Or does all of this need to be further codified?

    (P.S. – Nice education on Claudette Colvin – I must be one of the “Young people” thinking “Rosa Parks just sat down on a bus and ended segregation”.)

    azgo: No; the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land whether we say so in our state constitutions, in that we are a Constitutional republic. (I think this fact that we are a republic is what the hordes of people fighting me on the 14th Amendment are missing. Everyone born here was a citizen of the U.S. EVEN IF NOT OF AN INDIVIDUAL STATE OR, OF IF ONLY A CITIZEN OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT AND THEREFORE, PREVIOUSLY NOT CONSIDERED A U.S. CITIZEN; before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment only clarified this fact, in order to amend the Constitution so as to allow all U.S. citizens the same “rights and privileges” as all other U.S. citizens, notwithstanding their rights will always differ inasmuch as they are citizens of any of the several states.

    But no provision of the Constitution requires the Electors to elect only an eligible President. And the Constitution is silent as to how states can run their elections, including which names it prints on the ballot.

    So, yes, if we want to require our Presidents are Constitutionally eligible for the job then, we need to change state election laws to make sure only the names of eligible candidates are on the ballot, for the easy discernment of our voting population. (Of course, I would argue, voters should know better than to elect a man who refuses to establish he is eligible for the job and, worse, says he is by posting an electronic image of campaign advertising only visible with the aid of a computer screen!) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Kelly C. says:

      I need to interject here… jbjd said, “But no provision of the Constitution requires the Electors to elect only an eligible President. And the Constitution is silent as to how states can run their elections, including which names it prints on the ballot.”

      I am still of the firm opinion that the Constitution has already stipulated the requirements for the president. Moreover, the first part of Waite’s ruling in the Minor v Happersett SCOTUS decision DEFINED what a “natural born citizen” means, setting a legally-binding precedent. (i.e., the 14th amendment was not needed to determine Minor’s citizenship status) Why must we also have a “procedure” or a “provision” to further enforce something that is common knowledge? I don’t get it. We have the constitution requiring it. We have a SCOTUS case DEFINING it…. Why is there still such confusion on something as simple as a name on a ballot? EDIT — It seems we need a provision for everything in this country from ballots to scratching our back-sides! I just want to SCREAM!

      Yes, I know… my questions above were really generated out of pure frustration, and are meant to be rhetorical. Sorry… It’s just been 3.5 years already. I’m tired of fighting. I’m not giving up, but I’m just TIRED…. Tired of the LIES, and FRAUD. Tired, tired, tired…

      Kelly C.: This line points to the biggest mistake in your ‘take’ both on what the 14th Amendment did AND what Minor means with regard to the 14th Amendment; and you are not alone. You write that the Minor court issued a “legally-binding (sic) precedent,” which you identify was that “the 14th amendment was not needed to determine Minor’s citizenship status.” Both your statement as to what constitutes legally binding precedent and your example of that ‘precedent’ in Minor, are wrong.

      I am not here presenting a law course on what constitutes binding precedent. However, concluding after investigation that authorities unanimously considered anyone born in the U.S. of 2 citizen parents to be a native citizen even before the 14th Amendment was enacted; and that, therefore, Minor is a citizen; is not it. The question before the Minor court was this: given that the 14th Amendment entitles citizens to all of the rights and privileges of other citizens; is MO violating Minor’s rights by restricting voting to men only? Thus, the court had to first determine whether Minor was a citizen under this new amendment; and then, whether voting was a right and privilege of such citizenship.

      The court did not say, Minor did not need the 14th Amendment to become a citizen. It merely said, the definition of citizen in a person similarly situated was not questioned by the weight of authority and so, no one doubted, she was a citizen, even before the 14th Amendment clarified that, being born here under U.S. jurisdiction, she is a citizen. Then, the issue was, is voting a right and privilege of that citizenship? “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” does not make people who were not citizens BEFORE this amendment, citizens now. It merely clarifies for those who were confused; and, as the court pointed out, when it came to people like Minor, no one was confused, even before this clarification written in the amendment. However, obviously, people were confused as to, say, the citizenship status of the population called slaves. Thus, the 14th Amendment did not make slaves citizens, either; in the absence of consensus among authorities, it merely clarified, they were already citizens.

      And, perhaps more importantly, the amendment made clear; regardless of one’s status in relation to the individual states; a person born here under U.S. jurisdiction is a citizen of the U.S., in addition to any citizenship held under the laws of each state.

      You are correct, the Constitution stipulated the eligibility of the President. Now, it is up to the states to write the laws that require Electors to elect only Presidents who meet that eligibility; AND to fashion the set of facts that will result in a court ruling as to what NBC means; in the holding of a case on point, making such definition legally binding precedent.

      Finally, let me suggest your frustration is being fueled by people who wrongly identify the meaning of the 14th Amendment; and misapply “legally binding precedent” which is a term of art. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    Regarding the free speech story in Quartzsite, Arizona, interesting details are beginning to surface as to whether corruption in the local city government exists in the town of Quartzsite. KFYI radio station in Phoenix carries the story with the AP article and a link to a Phoenix CBS TV station with the story.

    Quartzsite is a winter RVer’s destination and for these visitors and the local people, they exchange rocks – and are known as “rockhounds”. The locals are now throwing rocks at each other, so to speak.

    http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html?article=8815856

    What a way to get the attention of state and even federal officials.

    I wonder if AG Abbott and Boyd Richie are paying attention to this story. I suppose freedom of speech also grasps the right to remain silent. Careful guys, there may yet …be a ‘Jennifer Jones’ in Texas.

    It is sounding like the AZ AG may be doing an investigation on receipt of the mayor’s complaint, I’ll keep you posted if it gets more interesting than it already is…

    azgo: Can you imagine, the level of corruption alleged in this small town appears to have been so incredible that, even those state and federal authorities who might otherwise have been predisposed to acting, remained silent. What if these allegations are true? I see the AP is now running the story; maybe this press scrutiny will continue and, spearhead official action. (Needless to say, the AP has been ‘awol’ on the issue of Obama’s ‘credentials.’)

    Kudos to Ms. Jones. Having apparently done her homework, she was incredibly brave to speak up at a public meeting to disclose her troubling findings. I agree; perhaps such courage will catch on in your neck of the woods. Please, keep us updated on this story. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      jbjd,

      “(Needless to say, the AP has been ‘awol’ on the issue of Obama’s ‘credentials.’)”

      One of AP’s ‘go to guys’ on the eligibility issue is Peter Spiro who said this;

      “7/30/2009 Peter J. Spiro | Philadelphia Inquirer

      Temple Law professor Peter Spiro comments on the stir challenging President Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed. “The Obama citizenship (non)controversy should be used not to better define arcane constitutional language, much less to impose filing requirements for the presidency. Rather, it’s an opportunity to get rid of the birth requirement altogether.””

      http://www3-a.law.temple.edu/kiosk/
      (P.S.- The Philadelphia Inquirer article is no longer available and through my many searches.)

      Mr. Spiro believes that American citizenship is a dying concept in his world of globalization and most likely teaches his ideas to young minds.

      AP must be on the same page.

      http://www.law.temple.edu/Pages/Faculty/N_Faculty_Spiro_Main.aspx

      azgo: At least Mr. Spiro appears not to be adding hypocrisy to an apparent support for ignoring the Constitution. That is, at least he is not claiming Obama has established any citizenship credentials. But, at present, the Constitution, that is, the law of the land, does dictate that only a NBC is eligible for President. Thus, swearing someone is eligible without first ascertaining he is, when such eligibility is a prerequisite to getting one’s name printed on a state ballot, is against the law.

      Perhaps this shift in focus to doing away with the requirement; is best read as a tacit admission, Obama has failed to establish, he is eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, I saw this at CW. This article contends that Obama can not be president, was never elected, and he cannot be impeached.

    I know you have written that Obama was duly elected by electors that were fooled about his NBC status, therefore he is president. I remain confused. bob

    (excerpts from WND omitted by jbjd)

    bob strauss: I will not knowingly re-post a link to WND. And, given that no state has enacted a law requiring Electors to only elect a President who meets the Article II, section 1 eligibility requirements for the job; and that Electors elected Obama to be President; I cannot understand your confusion with my conclusion, Obama was lawfully elected for the job, notwithstanding I agree, he has failed to establish his Constitutional eligibility. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Please be careful about repeating what you think I said. I do not contend that Electors were fooled by Obama’s eligibility status. However, even if they were, that is, even if they individually would not have cast a vote for him knowing he is ineligible; this still does not mean, he was not lawfully elected. For starters, let’s say an Elector who alleges s/he would not have voted for an ineligible candidate also pledged to vote according to a state law requiring Electors to vote for the party nominee? (Guess we should have been paying more attention when we passed those laws, too, huh.)

  7. bob strauss says:

    What do we need to do in order insure only eligible candidates get on the ballot in future elections? I think this would be a good subject for congressional hearings, or a Tea Party subject, because the system we have now, is not working. Either the eligibility laws mean something, or they don’t, ignoring them is not helping the process.

    As long as we have people with no ethics, willing to exploit our voting laws, what can be done to make the system “bullet proof” and honest?

    bob strauss: HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard) ADMINISTRATOR

  8. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, sorry about casting you as a person who thinks Obama’s electors were fooled as to his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS.You said,

    P.S. Please be careful about repeating what you think I said. I do not contend that Electors were fooled by Obama’s eligibility status. However, even if they were, that is, even if they individually would not have cast a vote for him knowing he is ineligible; this still does not mean, he was not lawfully elected.
    *****************************************
    If they weren’t “fooled” then they would all be complicit in the commission of a crime, of electing an unqualified candidate, that they knew didn’t not meet Constitutional requirements.

    If the electors were “fooled” by the Obama campaign, into believing Obama was Constitutionally eligible, when he really wasn’t, then I would say there is your “fraud”. Obtaining the office of POTUS by fraud does not make Obama a Constitutional POTUS.

    bob strauss: I am so glad you wrote this comment. Because now, I can clarify several common misconceptions. Fraud is only fraud under those several specific elements spelled out in the state law. But let’s say, for example, documentary evidence available in the public record establishes, Obama is not a NBC. And let’s also say, an Elector who voted for him assumed he is a NBC. Plus, let’s conclude that, under the definition of the crime of fraud in any particular state; Obama can be alleged to have perpetrated a fraud. In a state in which the Elector must vote for the party’s nominee; how could anyone prove that Elector would have violated that state law, and not voted for him? But, let’s say you could. That’s one state and one Elector; and how many years to see the criminal process through to appeal?

    In other words, even granting all assumptions; this prolongued obsession with Obama’s eligibility as the means to elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job; is misguided, at best. Just based on this scenario, the biggest problem with this approach appears to me to be, the law telling the Elector s/he must vote for the nominee of the party! ADMINISTRATOR

  9. bob strauss says:

    In other words, even granting all assumptions; this prolongued obsession with Obama’s eligibility as the means to elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job; is misguided, at best. Just based on this scenario, the biggest problem with this approach appears to me to be, the law telling the Elector s/he must vote for the nominee of the party! ADMINISTRATOR
    ******************************
    Yes, vote for the candidate if constitutionally eligible, but no vote should ever be for an ineligible candidate.

    Those letters of nomination used to be a reliable determination of eligibility, but not anymore. Not when crooks like Nancy Pelosi are involved.

    bob strauss: Yes! And, as I have said all along, I will fight for your right to elect a stupid candidate but this does not mean, I will sit silently by while you foist an ineligible candidate on me! So, run your D or R club any way you want; but don’t make me a ‘party’ to your subterfuge.

    That said, I am hesitant to propose states enact criminal sanctions against the party even in those cases in which they refuse to disclose the documentary basis on which they established a candidate’s eligibility (in those states which have already enacted ballot qualification laws). Because as we have seen in TX, the law is only as good as it is enforced. And, until citizens completely understand the process; they will refrain from exercising their power to persuade the AG to enforce the law. ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob strauss says:

      Any determination of eligibility needs to be finished before the candidate is put on the ballot, not three years after the election, and yes, disclose the documentary basis on which they established a candidate’s eligibility, for someone else may have a different opinion on that eligibility.

      bob strauss: Absent legal action at the state level – states are in charge of the conduct of state elections – explicitly spelling out the mechanism for ensuring ballots laws as to candidate eligibility are carried out; and, until the electorate understands its laws and, is ‘on top of those laws’; this ‘after-the-fact’ attempt to address the issue of candidate eligibility after the fact, is all we have left. Ask yourself: since I first began pointing out the shortcomings in our laws, 3 years ago now; how many citizens concerned with candidate eligibility have even explored their state election laws, let alone tried to shore them up to produce the desired result?

      In short, we get the government we want. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    Is Clyburn at it again?

    “Clyburn Likens Executive Order To Raise Debt Ceiling To Emancipation Proclamation”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/28/clyburn_likens_executive_order_to_raise_debt_ceiling_to_emancipation_proclamation.html

    I found this under the definition of “executive order”.

    “The president’s power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.”
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/executive+order

    A related article from yesterday.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60038.html

    Clyburn seems to be the best at what he does the best.

    azgo: Someone on another blog put in a comment, “Looks like Clayburn and other Dem rep are calling on the president to use the 14th amendment to allow the president to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Can he do that?
    Where is jbjd when you need a legal eagle to explain such things.
    Can he be impeached he tries to do it?
    Anybody…..” And, I have begun researching this; your links will help. (Time for me to put down that other project and pay attention to the blog!)

    You know, Clyburn might be ‘all that’ right now, because people have let him get away with his shenanigans. But understanding the SC party primary system; no one can let the D’s get away with putting Obama’s name on the ballot, without a challenge. Because even if claims are made, he was already Certified eligible under SC law to get on the 2008 ballot; people need to make a stink that Kathy Hensley cannot have ascertained he was eligible, standing in the office of the election commission when, told there was no Certification of eligibility on the list of candidate names, she whipped out her pen to hand write, ‘oh,now I remember, of course, yes, he is.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  11. ruleoflaw01 says:

    jbjd,

    I share your frustrations. This situation has gone on long enough and I would like to discuss your complaint of Election Fraud off line. I would like to know if you ever received an response from the ATTY. General of Texas Greg Abbot.

    ruleoflaw01: Welcome. No; as far as I know, no one has received a response from AG Abbott to a citizen complaint of election fraud. However, as far as I know, no concerted effort was raised in Austin, on the steps of city hall, that would help to persuade AG Abbott to exercise his legal discretion to investigate such a complaint, either, notwithstanding my recommendation that such efforts could provide him with the political ‘cover’ to proceed. My email is contactjbjd@gmail.com. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. It’s just a seat! I wonder what would happen if it was a sofa? Civil war?

    • jbjd says:

      Phoenix criminal law attorney: Way to deflect. Obviously, the point of the article was not the public conveyance involved in the historically significant event but rather, the fact that, when I accurately reported the event (based on facts known to me BEFORE the NYT printed their article); I am labeled a racist, admittedly based on my identification as among the group known as ‘birthers,’ whereas the same facts, reported by the NYT, have not merited the same charge, from the same critic. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: