Posted by: graemebird | November 27, 2008

James Taranto: Mindless Incompetent Fuckwit/ Find The Argument Because I Cannot.

“Taranto attended California State University, Northridge but “never bothered to graduate”.[2]

Face it mate. You were too fucking stupid. James Taranto is a particular embarrassment because he was born in 1966.  Whereas I tended to think that this sheep-like mindlessness was more a function of people who are thirty-something today. So he didn’t graduate from California State University. So he graduated neither from any law school nor any school of journalism. And I can guarantee you all that the honorary degree in logic is not in the mail with the name James Taranto on it.

Below you will see his article on the issue of challenges to Barry Soetoro’s eligibility to be President. He talks about the issue. He makes several baseless predictions. Predictions which he in no way tries to justify. And I challenge anyone to find any argument in favour of Barry Soetoro’s eligibility to be President.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

‘Natural Born’ Baloney 
Debunking the urban legend about the Supreme Court and Obama’s citizenship. 
By JAMES TARANTO 

No, the Supreme Court is not going to intervene and stop Barack Obama from becoming president. 

Normally this would be “Bottom Story of the Day” material, but lots of crazy rumors have been going around, albeit mostly on blogs and other Web sites of the far-right fringe. Last week, however, David Serchuk of Forbes.com rehearsed one of them, giving us an opportunity to set the record straight. Here’s Serchuk: 

You’ve got to hand it to Philip J. Berg: he doesn’t give up easily. You might recall that Philadelphia attorney Berg tried, and failed, to halt the presidential election of Barack Obama on the grounds that he is not a native-born citizen. Game over, right? Wrong. 

Berg filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in late October, asking that the highest court review the decision of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. No, the Supreme Court is not going to intervene and stop Barack Obama from becoming president.  Standing requires plaintiffs to prove they are directly affected by the issue at hand, with evidence of injury that is concrete and particular. In its decision the district court said Berg “does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact.” It also dismissed his claims as frivolous. 

Berg takes this in stride. His writ, he says, requires Obama and the Democratic National Council to respond by December 1. . . . 

One of the pillars of Berg’s argument is that Obama doesn’t have a legally-valid U.S. birth certificate because he was born in Kenya . . . 

In fairness to Serchuk, he doesn’t seem to take this seriously–but he doesn’t quite explain why it is nonsense. So, here goes. 

In August Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia’s federal trial court, alleging that Obama was not a “natural born citizen” and thus constitutionally ineligible to be president. No trial was held; on Oct. 24, the court summarily dismissed Berg v. Obama on the ground that Berg did not have standing to sue. (In fact, the judge who dismissed the case opined that Berg’s efforts to establish standing “are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”) 
PODCAST 

James Taranto discusses the Obama lawsuit urban legend. 

On Oct. 30, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari–in laymen’s terms, he asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. (Note that contrary to Berg’s language, which Serchuk repeats, one does not “file a writ.” One files a petition, and the court decides whether to issue a writ.) On Oct. 31, according to Berg’s Web site, he filed a motion asking Justice David Souter for injunctive relief in the form of halting the following week’s election. 

On Nov. 3, Souter denied the injunction. The next day, the election was held as scheduled. You might have read about it, it was in all the papers. 

It is true that Berg’s petition for certiorari is still pending before the high court. It is also true that there is a deadline for responses from the defendants (including Obama) of next Monday, Dec. 1. The defendants, however, are under no obligation to respond, and there is no reason to think they will bother. 

The probability that the court will actually grant certiorari is, in theory, greater than zero, but it is such a small number as to be incomprehensible to anyone within the ordinary range of intelligence. As Judge Peter Messitte notes in an article for the State Department’s eJournalUSA, the justices typically grant such petitions only for cases “raising particularly significant questions of law, and/or those where there is a division of legal authority, as where lower courts have produced conflicting interpretations of constitutional or federal law.” 

An additional rumor, not repeated by Forbes.com’s Serchuk, is that the “response” that Obama is “required” to file next week consists of proof that he is a natural-born citizen. Those who make this claim seem to believe that cert. is two, two, two writs in one. In fact, the only question currently before the high court is whether to hear the appeal at all. 

Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that the court does grant certiorari, it almost certainly would consider only the legal issue raised by the lower court’s ruling–namely, whether Berg has standing to sue. In the even more vanishingly unlikely event that the justices rule in his favor, the case would be returned to a trial judge for consideration of the factual allegations. 

One Leo Denofrio has a pending petition for certiorari in a similar case that was dismissed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. His prospects for success are approximately equal to Berg’s, for the same reasons. We devoutly hope this is the last item we will ever have to write on this silly topic. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now notice this idiot makes several promises to debunk something or other in this piece yet he never delivers:

 

1. “Debunking the urban legend about the Supreme Court and Obama’s citizenship.” WHERE’S THE DEBUNKING JAMES TARANTO YOU NEEDLESS ADDITION TO THE PAPERS BUDGET?

2.  “No, the Supreme Court is not going to intervene and stop Barack Obama from becoming president.”

WHERE’S THE SUPPORTING ARGUMENT FOR THIS SOOTHSAYING JAMES TARANTO YOU COST CENTRE?

3. One of the pillars of Berg’s argument is that Obama doesn’t have a legally-valid U.S. birth certificate because he was born in Kenya . . . 

In fairness to Serchuk, he doesn’t seem to take this seriously–but he doesn’t quite explain why it is nonsense. So, here goes. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT BARRY WASN’T BORN IN KENYA YOU STUPID MINDLESS WASTE OF NEWSPAPER BUDGET???

4.The probability that the court will actually grant certiorari is, in theory, greater than zero, but it is such a small number as to be incomprehensible to anyone within the ordinary range of intelligence. 

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THIS SOOTHSAYING JAMES? WHY IS IT NOT A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MIGHT DECIDE TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION? AS OPPOSED TO ALLOWING USURPATION? WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORTING ARGUMENT? ARE YOU IN FACT SAYING THAT THE COURT SYSTEM IS SO CORRUPT IT WILL, AT 99%+PROBABILITY REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION. IF SO WHERE WAS YOUR SUPPORTING ARGUMENT DOPEY?

5. One Leo Denofrio has a pending petition for certiorari in a similar case that was dismissed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. His prospects for success are approximately equal to Berg’s, for the same reasons. WHAT REASONS? YOU DIDN’T GIVE ANY REASONS IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU COCKHEAD? WHAT REASONS? HOW DO YOU SPEND YOUR EARNINGS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I challenge ANYBODY to find the advertised DEBUNKING in this above article. Or indeed any basis for this fucking mindless dickheads soothsaying?

Where is it? Give me the paragraph number? And this IDIOT has a gig at the Wall Street Journal????

Now you shareholders and managers of magazines and newspapers. Look fellas. I don’t think there ought to be laws prescribing how you people earn your living. But don’t you think that you have a bit of a responsibility TO FUCKING EMPLOY PEOPLE WHO CAN DO THE JOB?

Why is anyone employing James Taranto? It would be bad enough if he had merely taken the wrong side of this issue as he has. Thats deplorable enough. But the stupid cunt was unable to formulate any coherent logical argument whatsoever. And the incompetent little twat had the nerve to let his screed go out under the heading that it was a debunking. A DEBUNKING?

Come to THIS part of the ether and DEBUNK something.

Now seriously. You people running these newspapers and magazines. Get people who can do the job, and save your money when it comes to dead wood like James Taranto.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Even if Obama was not born in Hawaii – and there is ample evidence that he was, including a notice in the local paper, see here: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/
    then he would still be a natural born US citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen
    as has been upheld by numerous court cases:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
    Obama as a child also had dual citizenship with Kenya by virtue of his father. This automatically lapsed when he turned 21 without renouncing his US citizenship:
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
    Obama’s mother’s marriage to an indonesian did not in any way remove her citizenship unless she explicitly renounced it, as per Afroyim vs Rusk, which took place before her marriage to an Indonesian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk. There is no evidence that she renounced it – she continued to travel on a US passport – and even if she had renounced her citizenship, it would not necessarily affect Obama’s status.

    Obama’s stepfather would not have the power to renounce Obama’s US citizenship on Obama’s behalf, or to change his legal name without filing a change of name with the US embassy, whatever he wrote on a school certificate. The use of nicknames (like Barry), even on official correspondence, is common in Indonesia.

    Consider the evidence, instead of YouTube.

  2. “Bird, if you’re reading this, Taranto is a solid conservative unlike you, who is read by other solid conservatives.”

    I know he pitches himself as a conservative and I didn’t say otherwise. He’s a dummy. He’s an airhead.

    Can you find his argument? I’m interested in supporting journalists on the basis of which tribe they choose to write to. The guy is a fuckwit and an argument free zone. As I proved above.

  3. How can someone write an entire column, with a string of PROMISES shall we say. A string of advertisements that he was going to prove a number of things…. And no actual arguments in favour of these matters.

    I took the time to read a whole swag of his columns. And its true he pitches right-centre. But he’s an airhead and he’s basically ignorant.

  4. “Then there have been the speakers at McCain-Palin rallies who continue, unchecked by the candidates, to refer to “Barack Hussein Obama”–the emphasis on his middle name is an implication that Obama, who is a Christian, is Muslim. The latest occurred Wednesday in Pennsylvania, when Bill Platt, the Lehigh County Republican chairman, mentioned Obama’s former reluctance to wear an American flag lapel pin and said: “Think about how you’ll feel on Nov. 5 if you see the news that Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, is president of the United States.”

    Another example of this fellow being a politically correct airhead. Its pretty unlikely that Obama is any sort of Christian. So he’s not really much of a deep thinker here either.

  5. I would have just simply assumed that Barry was Muslim but what through me off was his extremist and totally barbaric attitude to abortion. It struck me that a Muslim couldn’t go in for that. But an extremist Muslim could. Because Muslim babies won’t be subject to this threat and afterall, from the extremists point of view, its only American babies that are being killed in this way. Barry is not likely to be any sort of Christian. But its hard to ascertain how much of a Muslim he is. One thing for sure is he’s a commie.

  6. I’m not the only one taken aback by Taranto’s idiocy. He’s been accused of being for open borders??? Some conservative. Open borders, in terms of what that means in America right now, is clearly anti-libertarian. The open borders thinking of yesteryear is a totally different concept. In any case I’ll have to bust Taranto for this particular idiocy for myself.

    Here’s what one person says:

    “With all of the evidence mounting, it is no wonder that Taranto and his Band of Sycophants would be afraid of challenging the illegal alien Barack. With “conservatives” like him and them, who in the hell needs enemies?”

    Presently we will find that he’s some sort of turncoat idiot like SOON or JC. Never missing a chance to let the side down.

    Thats the gig. Pitch everything centre-right. But on something that really matters, like the absolute criticality of closing the American borders, well then thats a strategic win for the enemy…… so you attack the conservatives from within the tent.

  7. “I’ve actually met Jim Taranto. He’s a good friend of of a good friend of mine.
    The guy runs a good web based column in the WSJ.
    He’s appears normal to me which is why he thinks this Obama isn’t American crap is total nonsense.”

    YOU FUCKING IDIOT JOSEPH CAMBRIA. SO WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT???? WHERE IS THAT ARGUMENT YOU STUPID CUNT.

    YOU QUOTED AN ENTIRELY VACUOUS PIECE BY THIS AIRHEAD THAT DIDN’T CONTAIN A SINGLE ARGUMENT IN IT AS TO WHY BARRY IS ELIGIBLE.

    AND NOW YOU ARE USING THAT SAME DUMMY TO JUSTIFY YOUR POSITION.

    YOU ARE A FUCKING DUMMY MATE. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

    FIND AN ARGUMENT.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    CAN SOMEBODY FIND A COHERENT ARGUMENT FOR THIS DUMB CUNT? AND MAYBE HE CAN SHARE IT WITH THIS OTHER DOPEY CUNT, TARANTO.

  8. the WSJ editorial team has always been for open borders

  9. “the WSJ editorial team has always been for open borders”

    What is your point? You are supposed to have a point?

    Well thats not a conservative or libertarian position. “Open borders” is a treasonous position and a position for legal nihilists and nihilists of all stripes. Generous immigration and generous work permits yes. Thats the practical outcome of libertarian ideas in 2008. But “open borders” is something entirely different. Its treason. Since it will allow people to plant nukes in American cities, lead to terrorist attacks more generally, and it will mean a failure to bring immigration into an environment of legality and equality before the law.

  10. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=95000738

  11. Look I’m sick of fucking guessing mate. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? What is your argument?

    Open borders, as practiced by the United States, is anti-libertarian and anti-conservative. Since it sets up a situation where people are no longer equal before the law. It prejudices law-breakers over people who follow the law.

    You make this statement. And you make this link. But nowhere do you make an argument. We might call it Taranto’s disease. The inability to make coherent arguments.

  12. You are going to have to augment this link with an argument Jason. Or I’ll get rid of the link lest people think its an argument in and of itself.

    The idea with posts is to have A POINT TO THEM.

    What is your point?

  13. Fatty-Taranto was born in 66. So he’s got no excuse. You kids have to learn how to make coherent arguments and state clearly what it is you are claiming. Fatty-Taranto is to old to learn anything of this nature. So he ought to be part of some sort of drive to financial triage.

  14. The weekend’s civic elections nudged the political balance in Metro Vancouver slightly to the left, a shift that won’t be welcomed by the B.C. Liberal government, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan says.


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: