Kitty Pilgrim recites nonfacts & lies as “evidence”

July 16, 2009

Updated list of birth certificate posts

Yes it’s taken awhile. It’s such a worthless little segment because it’s filled with nonfacts and Kitty Pilgrim’s attitude is downright nasty. I wasn’t going to bother but we keep getting asked about it so here it is. Funny thing is she doesn’t realize she is the ignorant one and comes off looking so. The lies are pointed out in red. If you want more detail, follow the link above – everything is explained in post after post.

Forget the facts – it all comes down to one question: Why won’t he just release it?

USArgos

CNN TRANSCRIPT

Kitty Pilgrim sitting in for Lou Dobbs, Orly Taitz, Alan Keyes, Errol Louis, John Avlon.

KITTY PILGRIM: Coming up, the discredited rumor that won’t go away. Now, questions about President Obama’s place of birth and his eligibility to be president.

PILGRIM: Well, an Army Reserve major is again raising controversy over President Obama’s place of birth. [It never went away.] Now, the Major challenged his deployment orders claiming that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States, and that renders his orders illegal.

Now, a former presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, also filed a lawsuit challenging the president’s right to hold the office, and a hearing on that suit will be held on Monday.

Now, questions about the president’s place of birth have been asked and answered many times since before the election, and the president’s birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. [Non fact. The only one who could say that is Dr Fukino and Alvin Onaka and they aren't talking.] The state’s Republic governor and other officials have backed that up. [Lie. All that was said about Gov Lingle: "Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently." Besides, they can't possibly know that and if they did they are legally unable to speak about it unless barry gave them permission, which he hasn't.] CNN has fully investigated the issue, found no basis for the questions about the president’s birthplace, [Ridiculous. They do not even know what hospital he was born in because Gibbs doesn't even know.] say but the controversy lives on, especially on the Internet.

Joining me now is Orly Taitz and she represents the Army major and filed the Keyes’ lawsuit. Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes joins us. And on the other side, John Avlon who is a columnist with the DailyBeast.com and author of “Independent Nation.” And Errol Louis, columnist for the “New York Daily News” and a CNN, also an attorney.

And so, let me, just before we start, bear with me a bit. There’s overwhelming evidence that proves that his birth certificate is real [Nonfact. No birth certificate has been made public.] and that was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. And if you’ll just bear with me, I’ll run through a little bit of the evidence and then we can get to this discussion. Now, the Annenberg political fact check, which is a nonpartisan group, [LIE. barry is directly connected to them. He worked for the Chicago Anneberg Challenge with Bill Ayers. The fact that she doesn't knows this makes clear she doesn't know anything about the issue - or barry for that matter.] went to Chicago to view the birth certificate [If they did that's not what they photgraphed and put on the internet.] last year and they released photos and this statement, “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. [Now this simply infuriates me. They lie straight out that they physically touched the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Even Gibbs admitted that that one-sided piece of paper is NOT a birth certificate. And again, if they did actually see the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE it's not what they put on their website. They posted a Certification of Live Birth. Period. Something that has not been connected to the ACTUAL original birth certificate that Dr Fukino vouched for.] We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. [State Department requirements do not include natural born status. Meaningless determination.] Our conclusion: Obama was born in the USA, [They can't possibly conclude that. And curiously, why did they not use his full name and why did they not say born in Hawaii?] just has he has always said.”

The Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, on record, she says Obama was indeed born in her state and we should note, she did support John McCain. [I have no idea what she is talking about. Politifact wrote: Even the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican who at the time was stumping for John McCain, said it was on the up-and-up. But they - a factchecker - provided no direct quote or reference so it is meaningless.] So, we also have a copy of the “Honolulu Advertiser” the newspaper, August 13, and the “Hawaii Star-Bulletin,” August 14, 1961, both announcing Barack Obama’s birth.

Also, October last year, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health wrote a letter stating, “I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedure.” [Yes. But she did not say what was on it and more importantly she said nothing about that COLB on the internet. And her spokeswoman Janice Okubo, who has not seen his actual birth certificate said: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."]

PolitiFact.com reissued their results from the investigation they conducted in June of last year and they say, “Since we published Obama’s birth certificate, [LIE. Not a birth certificate.] questions about its authenticity have been frequent and fierce. After reviewing the evidence, we are confident of our rulings.” [And their ruling? A negative. "There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic." He didn't release a birth certificate making their "findings" null and void. And the only way to know if that COLB is "authentic" is to see what Dr Fukino saw. There is nothing proving that COLB has anything to do with his birth certificate.]

This is the last one, thanks for bearing with me. The White House press briefing this week, reporter from the “World Net Daily” pressed again about the birth certificate, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said this following comment:

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY: Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the Nobel Truth, and the Noble Truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America.

[She left out his preceding exchange where he admitted as in "I KNOW" that what was on the internet - the COLB - was not a birth certificate and also that he did not know the name of the hospital barry was born in.]

PILGRIM: Now, Alan Keyes, you’ve been patient letting me get through all that, but what more do you need to be convinced? [What Dr Fukino looked at. That, yes, barry can get.]

(LAUGHTER)

ALAN KEYES, FMR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Some evidence. And the evidence is something that president Obama is strenuously blocking. You ask me to prove that I was born in New York City at the time and hospital I say, and I will give you a certified copy of a full birth certificate with a doctor’s signature, the hospital, and everything else. I won’t direct you to some photograph on the Internet and a bunch of hearsay statements that would not be accepted as evidence in any court of law.

And so the very simple question is, why spend 800,000 to a million dollars blocking the birth certificate? Blocking records at school and college that would in any way have a bearing on the question…

PILGRIM: All right, Alan…

KEYES: Both of his birth and of his citizenship claims at various times in his life. Why is he going to all this trouble, if as they say, the matter is resolved? Can’t be resolved by a bunch of statements and assertions.

PILGRIM: OK, Orly, we have to keep this quicker, but please tell me…[Keyes = 9 sentences.]

ORLY TAITZ, ATTORNEY: OK, Obama never provided his birth certificate. What he provided is certification of live birth that was issued last year that does not have the name of the doctor, does not have the name of the hospital, does not have any signatures. Do you know that Hawaii has a statute 338, that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residence to get Hawaiian birth certificates. Did you know that?

PILGRIM: Errol, I would like you to respond. [Taitz gets 4.]

ERROL LOUIS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Listen, I think — I think what we have here is a case where under the guise of saying, well, we can’t trust whether or not he should be president because we don’t have the evidence, it’s actually the reverse. These are folks, and there are a number of them, and some of them are raising money like “World Net Daily” which is as far as I’m concerned, running a scam, where they’re selling all kinds of bumper stickers and stuff like that, and I don’t know what Miss Taitz is taking in the way of legal fees.

(CROSSTALK)

They’re raising legal fees from across the country and the reality is they don’t accept that the president is the president, and, therefore, they work backward and there will never be enough proof to satisfy them.

[He cannot possibly say that until the birth certificate is released.]

PILGRIM: All right, John, I have to let…

You’ve offered a mountain of evidence in addition to two birth announcements. That’s a pretty deep conspiracy. What we have here, you know…

[MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE? Go back and read what "evidence" there was. And he is supposedly a lawyer. At least he separates the birth announcements from the word "proof".]

(CROSSTALK)

JOHN AVLON, DAILYBEAST.COM: No, what we have here is Obama derangement syndrome. This pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism. Ambassador Keyes says that President Obama has called him a radical communist. You on your blog have repeatedly referred to the administration as Gestapo SS. Which is it? Get your story straight. Is he a Nazi or a communist? You guys are nuts.

[What did he say of importance? Where was discussion of fact, evidence, or proof?]

PILGRIM: Orly, I have to ask you to let everyone at least have their say before you respond to it. I believe we’re out of time, I’m sorry to say.

(LAUGHTER)

TAITZ: Let me say one more thing, in order to be the president, you have to have to have two parents that are citizens. Obama’s father was never a citizen of this country.

PILGRIM: All right, Orly, we have to call it, there. I’m sorry. Thank you very much, all of you, for joining in this very lively debate.

Debate?

Even that’s a lie.

Why can't just the known COLB be subpoenaed?

February 2, 2009

Some further thoughts re Col Hollister v barry soetoro (original complaint). barry was supposed to submit documents on the 26th and instead they filed a motion to dismiss. The dismissal brief sounds like a bot post with it's condescension and indignation for challenging "that one". I had no idea the law team was just as obamerized and that it would come out in legalese. I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore.

Is this American or Nazi Germany? barry knew this all going in folks. He is a constitutional and voting rights lawyer.

Anyway, it's always the fact that no one has standing. A plaintiff must have these three to meet the requirement of "standing", without which there is no case. There must be an injury in fact - something already had to have happened, there has to be a causal relationship between the injury and barry's ineligibility and there must be a substantial likelihood that a favorable ruling would redress the issue at hand.

Col Hollister's potential military service is hypothetical so there can be no injury and thus no redress. There must be some harm that comes about directly related to barry's actions and even if there were to be - all of the American People would be harmed - so one individual or group of citizens cannot claim an "injury" when everyone else would suffer the same injury.

Bottom line: It seems no citizen within or outside the military can have standing.

So who does?

Congress.

Remember their lame attempt at Sen McCain's resolution whereby they decreed him a natural born citizen? Good old Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who sold her soul when she lied about barry's snub of Sen Clinton, headed it up with an assist by the Get out of the Damn Race Already Hillary Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

If one had paranoid tendencies, one might think they are all in on the conspiracy. Why would they be so helpful to a republican when they desperately wanted barry to win? So much so, the pundits and DNC and everyone else screamed at Hillary every hour to stop "hurting" barry.

Why would they take away his advantage? To be respectful of a true America hero? Nope. They proved that with their "POW card" comments. How could any American even think those words let alone say them? Another thing Mr President did not stop. And "families were off limits" only after ArcXIX dreamt up his vile rumors and barry's attack dogs had descended on Wasilla.

The only reason they did it was so that it would be a precedent for barry. Why else wouldn't they try to eliminate McCain entirely?

It defies logic, as does everything else barry does, including withholding his long form birth certificate. No court has even suggested that someone not connected to barry's website examine the actual document. It has been taken as FACT by a "factcheck" operation that has connections to NEWSWEEK (even admitted to by jonjon alter) and Annenberg where barry palled around with bill ayers, who couldn't even get into Canada.

And if the COLB is 100% authentic, then why doesn't he release it to the media like he did his Wailing Wall "stolen" note?

The "it's sufficient enough proof" COLB is in the public domain. If it's enough - if that document is all that is needed - and that is what the court is are relying on - then have an independent news source vet it.

It is a "public record" and is being used as a "material witness" in a way, so why can't the public see it?

At the bare minimum - can't those who sued barry actually examine it in the flesh to satisfy the evidence in the case? Just that. Nothing else.

Why haven't the courts ask that it be vetted? If it were to be found to be a forgery - all the rulings they made contingent to it as "proof" have to be thrown out. Then he would have to show the long form as absolute proof in the cases that were based on forged "proof".

That is the way to make barry produce it - not as proof of his eligibility where standing is needed - but as proof to prove the authenticity and legality of the COLB used to dismiss the other cases.

Who cares about the long form - it is clear We The People will be barred access to it and it is clear none of us will ever prove standing until he injuries us and then we'll all be injured so there would be no redress to provide. So let us see the actual "proof of citizenship" he and the Court are using as a basis in part to dismiss the lawsuits.

He doesn't need to send for anything. It is online in as public a domain as there can be. It has been taken as "established proof of his citizenship" - so why can't someone simply sue to prove that the proof is a sound legal document?

Am I missing something here?

Can a case be appealed because the fundamental "proof" has never been sufficiently proven to be "proof" in the first place?

Why haven't the lawyers suing barry been able to just look at it - in hand - and attest to its authenticity?

If something is being used in a court of law as an exhibit, which is then subsequently used to "prove" something that results in the defendant not being sued and the plaintiffs' refusal, aren't the plaintiffs allowed to examine the "exhibit"?

If someone is injured in a car accident and the court dismisses the case because the defendant had a legal license - isn't the Court first responsible to prove said license was in fact legal? And isn't the plaintiff allowed to see the evidence to satisfy the ruling?

Why have only two barry sites looked at it?

More importantly - why isn't the media demanding a copy? Anyone demanding the media to demand it? What's FOX doing?

Why hasn't some hacker hacked into the site like they hacked into Palin's email account? (Not that I would ever advocate such a thing!)

The Philly judge, Hon R Barclay Surrick, when he ruled on Berg v Obama, said he couldn't imagine that barry's birth certificate would be an issue because of the "excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory".

In other words, the Court was deferring to the media, who in turn has been completely corrupted and have not bothered to vet barry because they've been vetting to the point of destruction barry's oppenents. If they have info (at least one person in the media knows), then somebody's probably writing a book and wants to remain quiet so he can make serious cash when the time comes.

What would be the punishment and who would decree it? He would be able to say, hey, the Supreme Court threw out all the cases...

The media hasn't even held themselves accountable for Iraq. How would they ever own up to this?

They are all are complicit.

Joe Scarborough said he was emailing the other networks to see if they were going to Joe Biden's prediction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Mika "Mommy" Brzezinski declared a "Biden attack-free zone" and settled on a dicussion of the more pressing issue concerning national security: the wardrobe. What a stellar job that investigative reporter did. How worthwhile must she feel at the end of the day for investigating credit card receipts and FEC filings. And the FEC isn't going to investigate barry because they don't want to embarrass him? Wasn't Palin embarrassed?

The press has demonstrated they do not know the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" let alone long form birth certificate vs Certification of Live Birth. They have shown no public awareness of the lawsuits and their various nuances - but they can check out how much clothes, hair and makeup costs and they can descend on Wasilla and completely try to ruin a family.

Tabloid jouralism at its finest. Even Barbara Walters and Andrea Mitchell (garbage truck paparazzi stake out in front of Sen Clinton's home) have joined them. Tony Blankley is embarrassed by the media? What has he done except roll merrily, merrily, merrily along and mention the "weird little internet sites"? Most egregious of all, barry has never said a word about newly-elected Minnesota Senator Al Franken's SNL incest "sketch' alleging that Todd Palin was having sex with his daughters and by extension that was his baby.

Change we can believe in!

Pardon my digression.

Why not circumvent the "standing" issue and go after the factcheck COLB itself - by itself. barry's lawyers say that the factcheck COLB is sufficient proof and because of that nothing more is warranted because no one has standing to compel him to provide anything else. Fine.

Has someone, without any conditions or interest other than simple chain of custody of evidence, subpoenaed the actual COLB that is on Factcheck to have it verified as "proof" - since it is being used as "proof" to make court rulings?

Just that. Nothing else. No comparisons to vault copy. No eligibility questions. Just as concerns the authenticity of the COLB itself by itself - that very one - presented as public record and court evidence.

Dr Fukino verified the existence of barry's long form - that it was in compliance with Hawaiian law - but she never verified that factcheck's COLB was derived from the piece of paper she verified. See here.

And what about a challenge to the actual website?

What if factcheck.org was proven to have lied about other "fact checks"?

Wouldn't that be compelling evidence to warrant a recheck of that actual COLB?

Like if they lied on other things - knowingly or not - then the integrity of their factchecking - including barry's COLB - would be brought into question thus requiring independent analysis. Requesting a new one could in no way rectify the decisions that were made referencing or relying on the factcheck COLB as "evidence" of "proof".

And how does factcheck have standing to evaluate barry's COLB and not anyone else?