Promoting Mutiny To Get Obama
They will see your Bush Derangement Syndrome and raise it.
The idiotic controversy surrounding claims that President Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” and has forged and concealed birth documents in Hawaii that would expose his alleged foreign birth refuses to die. Even though both the campaign and the Hawaii Secretary of State have released documents that refute claims that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, some members of the conspiracy-minded right find the issue to be a useful outlet for their anti-Obama crusade.
Now, they have turned to promoting mutiny, encouraging soldiers to reject Obama’s claim to be commander-in-chief and join in lawsuits against the President. Such moves cross the line from even tolerable forms of fringe dissent to potentially criminal actions. Encouraging soldiers to refuse orders is a violation of both military and civilian law, and rightly so. Military units cannot function if and when each soldier appoints himself judge over the fitness of the commander-in-chief. And the old “I’m protecting the Constitution” dodge doesn’t wash — the oath of enlistment requires soldiers to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them without an exception for situations when the soldiers might choose to undertake an investigation into the Presidents’ birth certificate first.
The lawsuits should be dismissed as frivolous but, more importantly, the military members who threw aside their oath out of an excess of extremist political ideology should be disciplined. Barack Obama is President of the United States. Deal with it. If you’re a soldier, that’s your job that you swore an oath to do.
UPDATE: For those determined to try to hijack the issue by talking about President Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate, the authoritative debunking site Snopes has the smackdown for you. For those that want to see how deranged conspiracy theorists persist in spite of any evidence and thus prove my points about them, you can simply scroll down to the comments section.
UPDATE 2: I have another challenge to the anti-Obama obsessives who keep reviving this non-issue: How far does this principle extend? Should every corporal given an order by his lieutenant to take a hill first demand a notarized certificate attesting to the officer’s proper commissioning? And if they believe there is a technical detail that is wrong on that certificate, should they refuse to obey the order?
If your answer is yes, you are frankly a moron who should never be entrusted with a weapon or a position of any trust in national security. If your answer is no, you are illogical and inconsistent and should never be entrusted with a keyboard. Either way, your position is indefensible.
If Obama is quailified to be president why doesn’t he just provide his long form birth certificate. If I was him, I would want to get the controversy behind me. McCain provided his birth certificate when asked, but Obama refused. I do not want a president that feels he is above the constitution.
I agree with Billy. What documents did the Hawaii Secretary of State release? As far as I can tell, they merely confirmed that a birth certificate exists, but made no claim whatsoever as to the birthplace or hospital listed on the birth certificate. Either way, this has not been settled in court. Congress investigated McCain’s eligibility, but no such investigation is on record for Obama. I for one hope we can get this controversy behind us soon, and the best way to do that is for Obama to stop railroading the legal subpoenas for his birth and school records and just give them up. If he has nothing to hide, why drag this on?
It was probably just me, but one of the many, many weird and uncomfortable moments in Bobby Jindal’s speech last night was when he gave the details of his mother being four months pregnant when she and his Dad came to the states. Again, I’m probably just reading too much into it, but with the backdrop of this ‘natural born citizen’ trutherism going on about Obama, I immediately felt as though Jindal was trying to say “Hey, I was born here, you know!”
The question is real. People are avoiding this question by pulling the race card constantly. It’s not that hes part black, middle eastern or even white (I think), it’s the fact that somethings wrong. Obama’s whole presidency started with too many problems, as if it started with the idea of stubbing your toe in the morning leads to a bad day idea. Too many problems and that HIS party isn’t willing to fess up about. Show “US” the Americans that his Presidency is valid some how some way. Then WE will forget about how WE were wrong about false accusations. At least give US the chance to be wrong.
Until Mr. Obama releases all documents to satisfy the U.S. Constitution he – in most Americans eyes and hearts will not be seen as our Commander & Chief.
It’s just a matter of time given that this issue will come to an end and for most – we will see if in fact – if he legit or not.
the crickets chirp. The other side always questions the opposing POTUS.
But this and Glenn “Crazy” Becks Warroom is an all in on the (fill in the blank)DS.
Well, Rudi, given your active and eager participation in BDS, I think you have a certain lack of credibility on complaining about ODS. LOL
It’s not just about a “side”. I am, for example, actively opposed to both BDS and ODS excesses. Your opposition seems much more…opportunistic.
And let’s not forget that a BDS type on HuffPo actually called for a military coup against Bush. Was that also an “all in” in your opinion? And how about when Libby on Newshoggers predicted that Bush would cancel the 2008 elections and establish himself as a dictator? Was that “all in” on BDS? Can’t remember ever seeing you willing to join in the condemnation towards political derangement until now…..
Well, Jason, at least Rudi’s being internally consistent. You oppose deranged conspiracies on principle, no matter which party engages in them, while Rudi embraces them all!
I must have misread Rudi. Is he embracing this anti-Obama derangement? Or is he criticizing it after having endorsed and participated in years’ worth of BDS fun?
These blogosphere progressives are so intellectually flexible that it is tough sometimes to track the latest abrupt shift in standards, subject matter, or universal construct, so it is certainly possible that Rudi wandered off on an unforeseen tangent.
Speaking of which, isn’t this the point at which the Ron Paul types should show up?
To the Question of a Military Person Obeying the Orders of the Commander-In -Chief or for that matter any superior Officer, the challenge is to Obey any Lawful Order, if Obama is not Legally the Chief-in-Chief he cannot issue orders to the Military and they are right in questioning the Legality of any order issued by any superior Officer. This can be confirmed by the UJMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Oh, I think it was my bad, sorry- I think he is criticizing.
I’m afraid that I often find Rudi’s tangents a bit difficult to follow, and his preference for edgy snark over clarity.
@Kelly J
To correctan error:
This can be confirmed by the UJMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Should read:
This can be confirmed by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Fantastic. Let’s one of your anti-Obama drive-bys cite the specific UCMJ article that authorizes military members to undertake investigation of the commander-in-chief’s birth certificate prior to following any and all orders received through the chain of command. (p.s. even if that was an authorized activity, the link at the end of the post provides legally dispositive proof (unsupported conspiracy theories are not admissible in court) of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.)
Once that information is provided, I will gladly retract my post. But unless the UCMJ has changed rather dramatically since 2001, I am confident that the article I’m asking for does not exist.
If that information is not provided, the anti-Obama commenters will continue to reveal themselves as deranged obsessives without a legal leg to stand on.
The birth certificate is of no matter. It is far simpler than that. Fact is, his Father was not an American, a Kenyan in fact, making him and his new born son both citizens under the British Flag. The baby was born a Brit. Whether or not the child ever became an American is of no issue here. He is not a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN! Being a Brit. at birth gives him at least dual citizenships, making him unable to hold the title NATURAL BORN. Please read up on why our founding fathers put this in our constitution. Read the letters written between the authors at the time this was discussed. They had a reason! That reason is still valid! The Constitution has been overlooked! This situation has to be addressed! Wake up America
Flat wrong on the law, Old1. As we just covered in my class on international law last week, the United States of America uses the jus solis rule for determining nationality based on geographic place of birth, not the jus sanguinis rule using parentage. Whatever the British Empire may have used is irrelevant for purposes of interpreting the United States Constitution.
This comment thread is, however, becoming a fascinating case study in Obama Derangement Syndrome, revealing it as a carbon copy of Bush Derangement Syndrome, right down to the same disturbing inability to master basic rules of grammar and punctuation. But none of the arguments used (all of which ignore the point of the post anyway) survive even the most cursory legal or logical analysis.
P.S. By your standard, George Washington was ineligible to be President of the United States, since his father was a British subject.
this is ridiculous….
not only are the charges against president obama laughable on their face, but the level of idiocy rises to epic proportions when you actually take time to read the accusations and “evidence” presented by president obamas accusers and critics.
the law that orly taitz sites in her youtube video, hawaii state statute 338-17.8 allowing for the registration of foreign born nationals, wasn’t law until 1982, that’s 21 years after obamas birth. orly taitz claims to be a lawyer and should know better.
jerome corsi, alex jones, orly taitz, alan keyes, all should know this basic truth of america, you are innocent until proven guilty. if any of the “evidence” put forth; the indonesian school records, the recordings of grandmothers and then kenyan ambassadors, anything had any merit at all, wouldn’t the GOP, mccains campaingn, the right wing heavy supreme court would have done something about it? how could something this easy slip by?
as for the ucmj, i think (i could be wrong) this would fall into §938. Art. 138. which does provide procedures for soldiers who feel they have been wronged. however the referring court this would go to would most likely be congress, who is aware of situation and does have mechanisms for handling it as well. that would be the 12th amendment, since not one, not even sen. richard shelby exercised his constitutional duty to raise doubts before ratifying the electoral college vote, we can assume that claims against president obama are pretty baseless.
I think the more serious UCMJ article would be article 134:
By this article, I think any military member who engages in a campaign to subvert the willingness of other military members to obey the orders of the President may be guilty of a crime. Also relevant may be Article 81 (Conspiracy), Article 88 (Contempt for Officials), and Article 94 (Mutiny or Sedition).
Just a thought, but since the Supreme Court denied all challenges on the birth certificate matter and the head of the court swore him in, I find it hard to believe there is any basis for this claim. Both the Congress and the Court (the other two branches of government) have validated Obama’s presidency. There is no constitutional mechanism to take it back other than impeachment. Also the burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove their claim he is not who he says he is and who the state of Hawaii says he is. Basically this accusation is that Obama and state officials in Hawaii have committed fraud and conspiracy, so that would be a matter for the Justice Dept. (which if there was any real evidence could been handled by the Bush Justice Dept.) All this talk of Obama being born in Kenya is also nonsense, common sense would tell you a girl in the late stages of her pregnancy would not travel half way around the world in 1961 to go to a third world nation…riiight.
So all this discussion is doing inciting sedition.
@Kelly J
The only one here that know what there talking about. This soldier has the Constitutional right to question his legitimacy as Commander & Chief.
Therefore – All American citizens also has this right to question Mr. Obama’s qualifications as called for by our U.S. Constitution.
As a Canadian, I can only watch in fasinated horror as this constitutional mess unfolds. Our recent Parliamentary crisis doesn’t apporoach the severity of this economy-sized can-of-worms: Obama’s birth certificate.
I simply can’t fathom why President Obama doesn’t just produce the ‘vault copy’ of his birth certificate, and be done with this silliness…unless he DOES have something to hide. In that event, the result would be a train-wreck of Global proportions, with the U.S. economy, political system and media suffering irrepairable damage in the World’s opinion.
The pro-Obama camp is using ‘race’ as a red-herring. About seventy percent of ‘black’ Americans have some European ancestry and more than a fifth of their ‘white’ counterparts have African, or other non-Caucasian blood. The REAL issue has been that the media-telecom industry funded and promoted the Obama campaign; there is no ‘impartial’ news media in the U.S. Obama’s “secret agenda” is probably reversing the Bush FCC’s whitespace spectrum reallocation that hurt the Democrats’ NAB masters.
The “Obama birthers” are like the “9/11 truthers” There is nothing you can say or do to change their minds. In fact the harder you try, the harder they hold on to their derangement.
Maybe Obama’s real BC was in WTC 7?
LOL
One would think that such an expert on the subject would at least know the correct title of “Commander-in-Chief” as well as the difference between “there” and “their” and “they’re”.
I don’t know, maybe you are right. Maybe President Obama actually is constitutionally unqualified to be “Commander & Chief”.
I’m still wondering when the Paulbots are going to show up to complete the farce. Maybe they have a “vault copy” that testifies to … well, something devastating, I’m sure.
Jason, your ignorance about the Constitution is showing. The Framers specifically exempted from the “natural born citizen” requirement anyone who was alive at the time the Constitution was adopted. Why? Because no one would have been eligible to serve as President otherwise. Why impose any ‘natural born’ requirement? The intent was to deny the Presidency to anyone who may by birth have loyalties to a foreign nation. In the parlance of the day a ‘natural born’ citizen was one both of whose parents were American citizens. It’s all rather obvious. Obama is ineligible to serve.
Evidence for your claims of constitutional and statutory interpretation and your authority to draw absolute conclusions is lacking.
Please cite the relevant court cases in standard format and explain the source of your authority to determine Obama’s eligibility. Please also highlight the evidence you used in drawing your conclusion and explain how it defeated the counterevidence provided by the Hawaii Secretary of State’s office in a legally binding way. In order to return the topic to the actual subject of the post, please also explain how your authoritative legal determination is authorized for exercise by individual soldiers sitting in judgment over the qualifications and certifications of their superiors up to and including the Commander-in-Chief.
If you are yourself a Supreme Court justice and therefore able to speak as authoritatively as you claim, please post contact information so that your identity can be confirmed.
If you cannot provide all of this information to back up your assertions, you can go back to your militia compound now.
It wouldn’t surprise me. He has some things going against him should he decide to run in four years. For one, his ethnic heritage is from a country that is, from my own experience, perceived as one that has taken many American jobs over the past decade or more.
It also doesn’t help that his background is from a country that is near by the ones included in our War on Terror.
Look at the crap Obama got from spending four years in Indonesia. Jindal has spent his whole life here, but I can only imagine the scoffing by some Americans if a candidate is, in their own perception, a “sand-n***er.” I guarantee you that the racists won’t care about his governorship of Louisiana, his southern accent, or his Catholicism.
Hopefully it’s just a minority, though.
Michael, are you aware that the original purpose of the KKK was anti-Catholic advocacy and persecution?
That is quite incorrect.
From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
Up untill the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, English Common Law was the law of the land.
So, you are totally wrong, but hey, don’t let that stop you.
Oh, on the related issue of “standing” here is a nice, short little web page I found.
http://goldni.blogspot.com/2009/02/wherein-i-humor-stacey-campfield.html
And, as for the military officer, 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, I think he is about to learn about Article 88
[quote]“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”[/quote]
Oops.
As above, he is in violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.
Speaking of anti-Indian racists, case in point, apparently:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/25/the-obligatory-helen-thomas-makes-nasty-crack-about-jindal-post/
I know in some iteration they were/are, but I didn’t know it was the original goal. A quick look at Wikipedia says the 1915 group expanded to anti-Catholicism. And no, I didn’t think about them when I wrote my post.
So, add at least the KKK wing of the Democrats, and Helen Thomas, to the list.
And I forgot to comment on the post. I agree with Jason. ‘Nuff said.
Born in the US mainland of TWO US citizen parents.
Obama MAY have been born in the US mainland, but he had ONE US parent — ergo, he’s not a “natural born citizen.”
Here’s the law: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Not really so idiotic.
@Alferd P
That’s what he wants, a court martial.
As a defendant, he will have “standing” and will also have the power of the subpoena to call witnesses and force the release of documents — like vault-copy birth certificates.
@Alferd P
Please note, the repeated use of the plural form of parent.
Obama had one US citizen parent. He is a citizen. He is NOT a “native born citizen.”
Beckwith, do you know the difference between a collective and a plural noun?
Jason, you need to go back and question your professor in your class. You need to read up on “The Law of Nations”. Since the Constitution does NOT specifically spell out the definition of NBC, the text is highly insightful and is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
Allow me to copy/paste some of the applicable text:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
There is much more on the subject, but that section is enough to get you started.
I’m not quite sure what to make of your comment about George Washington, surely you were being flip.
And on the matter of what has and has not been verified. Hawaiian officials have NOT verified anything other than there is a vault copy of the BC on file. They did NOT verify any of the contents of that document, nor did they verify where Obama was born. You have to read the statement for what it says and not for what you WANT it to say. They chose their words very carefully for a reason. They did not confirm or deny anything.
To be truly unbiased in your assessment of the situation, you have to read the statement like you are on the opposing side of the arguement. Critical thinking skills are a must. You cannot merely decide a statement says this or that simply because it suits your arguement.
The mere fact that we are having a discussion points to the fact that the case NEEDS to be heard. There is NO definitive ruling on the matter. The historical cases on the subject were NEVER heard or decided based upon the individual running for POTUS or VPOTUS.
Consider this – he ran, he won, he is President. Why do you feel the need to continue to argue for what we already know is truth? The only reason you would feel the need is if you know there could be a sliver of truth to what is being said – if you KNOW there is no clear cut resolution to the matter and as such, as an American and Obama follower, I would think you would want the issue settled once and for all as well.
Sally Hill–LMAO.
The claim that an individual noncom can ignore orders coming through the chain of command on the grounds that the CiC has not personally satisfied THAT soldier as to his legitimacy, despite being the sworn CiC, is essentially to make the claim that the ENTIRE chain of command is therefore illegitimate if ANY link is questionable. Silly, at best.
Jason, I’d quibble only to the extent of saying that they’re going to need to accumulate a lot more chips to raise the PDS pot. But judging from some of the comments, I’m sure they’ll get there eventually.
Sally Hill, no offense, but I AM the professor in question.
No where is “Law of Nations” imbued with legal authority. The relevant question in determining U.S. nationality is, as I said, the jus solis rule, derived from English Common Law (see above) and codified in the 14th Amendment. The nationality of the parents is not relevant in U.S. law, period.
Sorry you don’t like it, but that doesn’t change the law. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as attested by a birth certificate that is dispositive legal proof. The fact that some people might prefer that a different standard of legal proof would be required does not make it so. Besides, no standard will ever be sufficient to satisfy conspiracy mongers and obsessives. Even if a “vault copy” (whatever that supposedly is) were produced, all that would happen is we would have people like you and your fellow travelers here insisting that it was a forgery concocted by the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral Commission in combination with the Illuminati and the International Communist Conspiracy….blah, blah, blah.
And NONE of these questions authorized individual soldiers to demand such proof before fulfilling their oath to follow orders. No military organization could ever function on such a standard.
Snopes is a complete hoax run by a liberal couple who are quite selective about allowable content, so don’t trust your facts to this. Try truthorfiction.com if you really seek the truth. I don’t have anything against Mr. Obama, but if my son has to present a birth certificate to play little league baseball, then certainly Mr. Obama should have to present a legal valid birth certificate to be POTUS. Don’t be blinded by your own agenda. Everyone deserves to know and should want to know the truth about this man. If you don’t seek the truth, then you are just another sheep in the herd, incapable of independent thought and higher level reasoning.
@Beckwith
It, that is what he wants, then he will be sorely disappointed.
This is a military court, not a civilian one.
Furthermore, article 88 is strictly about contempt, nothing else.
For example, let’s say that a military officer wrote in a blog that “President Obama is a n****r.” As offensive as it is, technically, this statement is true. However, because it is contemptuous and vile, The officer would be liable for court martial under article 88 for making that statement.
Alfred,
I suspect that is precisely why most of the military people they are advertising on their web site as signatories to the lawsuit are, if you look more closely, actually just retirees with plumped-up titles.
Then again, this here might just be one of dem dere web sites run by libruls….
Sally Hill, a french book of political philosphy does not supercede the precedential laws in place at the time that the Constitution was written. The Constitution was based on the English Common Law in place in the colonies at that time. Thus, the definition of the terms used in the Constitution are to be found in historical common law use, not an obscure book of French political philosophy. For over two centuries, the courts have looked to the historic English Common law for guidance, in these types of debates.
Based on this precedence, you are a natural born citizen if you are born in the country, no matter who your parents are.
icare, that’s funny. I’ve heard them described as Republicans before.
You know what they say about being derided as both conservative and liberal. It means you’re probably doing something right.
Hey Jason,
I found a couple good sites for the Citizenship Issue.
Dr. C. over at Obamaconsipracy.org does a great job debunking the birther claims.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/
Also, quite a few lawyers belong to the politijab forum. There are lots of members of the forum, but I’d say 1/2 dozen are lawyers. They really help to explain the documents. And, they’re fun.
http://politijab.com/phpBB3/index.php
There are a few more sites as well. I think Dr. C. has them listed in the right column on his site.
Thanks.
Hawaii did not confirm Obama’s citizenship, only that they have an official birth certificate in a vault. they did not say what country it is from.
factcheck does not say he is Natural Born. More on that below.
All they want to see is a $10 birth certificate! At least 5 congressmen have now signed onto a lawsuit requiring Obama to produce, birth records, college applications and passport records. Although the Senate had hearings during the primaries regarding John McCain’s eligibility, they refused to verify Obama. Currently the president has only provided a short form certificate to a website, and not to any government verification agency. He has spent $1000000 hiding his past. An example of a short form certificate is the Hawaiian birth certificate of Sun Yat-Sen, the first president of the Republic of China, who’s long form birth certificate shows him to be born in Guangdong, China He obtained the same kind of short form Hawaiian birth certificate as Obama which also states his place of birth as Honolulu, even though he didn’t come to the US until he was 14. (Obama Family and Kenyan officials have given affidavits that he was born in Kenya, his mother wasn’t old enough to confer any kind of US citizenship to him if this is true). We know Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, and records from his school list him as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. This required him to drop any other citizenship. As far as we know, unless he applied to become a naturalized US citizen when he became an adult, he is an Indonesian citizen still. As an Occidental college student, age 20, he traveled to Pakistan, which had closed it’s borders to US citizens. The current court case requires Obama to open records he has meticulously sealed from public scrutiny, school admission records, passport records, and a long form birth certificate. Why spend a million dollars to hide something if you are ‘transparent’ and have nothing to hide?
This was brought up a year ago by Clinton Democrats, and has been ignored by the press and DNC. As Americans, it should be important to us that our representatives are not deceiving us.
Anyone who wants to find out more about this loony moonbat conspiracy and those behind it, and have some fun in the meantime, definitely check out politijab.com! It is a forum for all things political, with a special focus recently on the Birthers and their uncannily hysterical adventures in crazyland!!
Invite to all, especially Jason and Michael, please do join us at the politijab forum, I think you would both fit right in!
http://www.politijab.com/
Hey kool-aid drinking fools who follow the so called one blindly. If he is legal to be president why does he not release the info to prove it. I can’t get a drivers license by showing what he has shown to be president. He is a liar and a deceiver fully intent on bringing down this country to put absolute power in the hands of a few. And the odds are, you aren’t one of them. The way he throws away his “friends” shows he will turn on you too.
Whack jobs can’t even keep their own paranoid rants straight….:)
After you get the content links on your site working, I might have an idea for you — please contact me by backchannel when that happens.
obama2012, I’m still trying to decide if your site is liberaltopia or some kind of moderate venture that has recently been infiltrated by some of the obama!cult crowd.
Every time I see one post that makes me decide one way, I see another that changes my mind.
I would like to see the long form birth certificate. I had one hell of a time getting my youngest kid his drivers license recently. They didn’t accept the hospital birth certificate and required a certified copy from New Mexico, where he was born. We had to get that from New Mexico. I would think to become president one would have to supply requirements that are stricter than getting a drivers license in the state of Texas, for Gods sake.
Because of an excessive number of vulgar, abusive, and off-topic comments requiring deletion, this comments thread has been closed. And the 60+ comments that had to be deleted doesn’t even count the dozens of hateful and threatening emails!
Suffice it to say that the point of the post — that anti-Obama obsessives are easily the match of anti-Bush obsessives in their level of inanity, vitriol, and pure nuttiness — has been thoroughly proven by their own behavior on this thread.