Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Justice Oprah

And in the "some losers are too stoopid to breathe" department, we have this pathetic "appeal to higher authority":
01/19/09: PRESS RELEASE - Berg sends 2nd letter to Oprah, stressing that she is one that can have Obama withdraw his name to avoid damage to racial relations in the U.S. for years to come because when the truth comes out that Obama does “not” meet the “qualifications” for President as Obama is “not” “natural born” we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/19/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending as well as two [2] other cases, announced today that he wrote a 2nd letter to Oprah requesting her to speak with Obama to withdraw his name before our country is in a Constitutional Crisis as Obama’s lack of ‘constitutional qualifications’ for President. 1st letter was dated November 7, 2008 and the 2nd today, January 19, 2009. [A copy of the two [2] letters are at the end of this Release]
Philip Berg's a certified loony-toon, and having gotten his butt kicked every which way 'til Friday by every court in the land (including the U.S. Supreme Court), he's decided to take it to the next level. ROFLMAO.

The sad thing is that this insanity is contagious: I listened to KSFO-560 (RW talk radio) a week back or so, and the RW foamer talk-show host was going on and on about the grave constitutional crisis we were facing should we inaugurate Obama..... More like a Thorazine crisis, if you ask me.

9 Comments:

At 4:34 PM, Blogger PMS_Chicago said...

I like reading the posts of people who rail against fact-checking sites like Snopes. It adds a whole new dimension to "you can't handle the truth."

I especially like arguments that seem to require time-travel to make sense, like the idea that a 1982 law on Hawaii's books somehow allowed Obama to be declared a citizen in 1961.

 
At 5:34 PM, Blogger Arne Langsetmo said...

PMS_Chicago:

I've heard at least one of them insist (on Greenwald's blog, I think) that the 1982 law was retroactive, and/or that Obama's dad pled with the Hawai'ian authorities to make an exception....

There's just no end. All you can do is poke sharp sticks at 'em and giggle.

Cheers,

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Arne Langsetmo said...

BTW, on Philip Berg's website,he's got filmclips available ... from "Illuminati Films Video". Say no more, say no more...

Cheers,

 
At 8:20 AM, Blogger PMS_Chicago said...

I've heard at least one of them insist (on Greenwald's blog, I think) that the 1982 law was retroactive, and/or that Obama's dad pled with the Hawai'ian authorities to make an exception....

Ah, okay, that does make some sense (if you cover your eyes when looking at the place of birth on the certificate), I guess.

I'm not putting my pokin' stick down, though.

 
At 5:21 PM, Blogger Enlightened Layperson said...

What it amounts to is this. Birth certificate conspiracists demand proof Obama was born in Hawaii. Someone presents such proof. Conspiracists explain why the proof might be false. They present no evidence that it actually is false. They present no evidence that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Such is the nature of conspiracy theories.

 
At 6:25 AM, Blogger mattski said...

Such is the nature of conspiracy theories.

Well, if I may. Not all conspiracy theories are equal. Occasionally there are conspiracies in the real world. JFK (not the movie) QED.

As for Charles over at Balkinization, I'm familiar with him from the Washington Monthly blog. It is truly frightening that people can be that stupid.

 
At 8:34 AM, Blogger Enlightened Layperson said...

Mattski,

Do tell. What does Charles do at Washington Monthly?

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger mattski said...

EL,

He was a regular at the site (Kevin Drum hosted at the time) when I started participating in '04. He posted as "Charlie". After a while he promised to leave the site after being caught in several egregious lies. However, he wouldn't leave, he just kept coming back under various aliases. For sheer vapidity he is unmatched. Also, try as he might to disguise himself he proved too dimwitted to conceal his most obvious rhetorical tics.

The sort of person who would make Ghandi question his faith in human kind.

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Mattski:

I never lied. I left Washington Monthly as soon as Kevin asked me to. I would gladly leave Jack Balkin's site if he asked as well. It seems as if Charles Gittings is more upset with you just for asking for civility though.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home