Paul Irey Doesn’t Like Us. We Are Not Shedding Tears.

In our post “Dear Birthers: Grasping at Straws Hurts the Conservative Cause,” we showed how the work and analysis of a “Paul Irey,” an “expert in typography” as proclaimed by World Net Daily was somewhat shoddy, to say the least. The quality of the work of Mr. Irey was not the main focus of our piece. The focus was that “birthers” – those who continue to claim that Obama is not an American citizen and or his birth certificates are not “real” – are a distraction to the main issues of the upcoming presidential campaign and election. We believe, and stated, that the vast majority of the country have made up their minds about the “birther” issue and as such, it is a distraction to other more compelling issues that resonate with voters.

We were therefore surprised and somewhat shocked when a comment left on the post was made by the aforementioned Paul Irey.

We thought we had given Mr. Irey’s work a pretty thorough, albeit “light” bashing in the original post, but apparently he was not satisfied. That is not surprising. One thing that we have noticed over the years is that conspiracy theorists have a thought process that relies more on perception rather than reality. For example, a conspiracy theorist will say, “Look at ‘A’!” as support for his theory. When “A” is de-bunked, the conspiracy theorist will respond with “but look at ‘B’!” After debunking “B,” the conspiracy theorist will say, “Ah! But look at ‘C’!” When “C” is debunked also, they will return to “A” or a variation of “A.” After awhile, with all the permutations of the debunked theories they maintain are legitimate, a person is tired of the battle and simply says “whatever.” The conspiracy theorist will then say “you need to look at all the evidence!” even though you have discredited all of the evidence.

One person described this type of thought pattern as “roaches after the lights come on.” It is a weird name, but at the same time, it makes the point that if you kill one roach in your home, there are others – more in fact – because the roaches are able to reproduce faster than you can kill them. You may end up killing them to the point where they are out of your home, but they never go away. They never accept defeat. They will never listen to rational thought.

PALM BAY: Deliberately Censors Speech, Violating The Rights Of Citizens.

The City government of Palm Bay is at it again.

Despite Governor DeSantos’ initial mandate that cities resume in-person meetings for City Council and Boards, that mandate was put on hold for a month. Therefore, despite the City having the ability to host a meeting with Council members on the dais on October 1, the Council chose to have some members stay at home and still “social distance.”

One citizen was upset by this and one the City’s Facebook page which was broadcasting the meeting at the time, posted this on the City page:

Hell Freezes Over.

Cathy Miller is the owner of “Cathy’s Creations” dba “Tastries,” a bakery in Bakersfield, California. Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio came to Tastries and asked the bakery to make a wedding cake for the couple’s pending marriage ceremony. Miller refused the order on the grounds that to make the cake for the same sex marriage would violate her deeply held religious beliefs.

The couple turned to the State of California who sued the Miller and the bakery for discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Incredibly, the initial ruling from the court is in favor of the bakery saying in part:

The State cannot succeed on the facts presented as a matter of law. The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace.

The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence.

No public commentator in the marketplace of ideas may be forced by law to publish any opinion with which he disagrees in the name of equal access. No person may be forced by the State to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance against her will. The law cannot compel anyone to stand for the National Anthem. No persons may be forced to advertise a state-sponsored slogan on license plates against their religious beliefs.


A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here, Rodriguez—Del Rios plan to engage in speech. They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another. The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees….

More On Blind Squirrels.

Yesterday in a post we talked about how Orly Taitz and alleged “expert” Paul Irey had trotted out another document which they claim is a forgery.

One of the things we addressed was the size of the “USA’s” on the document. We read Irey’s claim to mean that at least one was different size from the others. A friend called today and said that he thought that Irey was claiming that the “USA’s” were different in size from other information in the document.

We pulled the text from two other places on the document – line 1a where the title is listed and also line 4a, where the Copyright Claimants are listed.

We did the same thing as we had done previously. We have already demonstrated that all of the “USA’s” are the same size, so we cut the “USA” from line 2a, changed to hue to some shade of ugly orange, and then changed the opacity to be able to see the shape below it.


As you can see, the letters and sizes match up perfectly. Even if we misunderstood what Irey was trying to say, it doesn’t matter. He is wrong no matter which way he tries to spin this.

Just another day in the office where a blind squirrels go hungry.

Sometimes Blind Squirrels Go Hungry.

Taitz-Irey-ROH As a lot of blogs are covering the Bergdahl / Taliban prisoner exchange we decided to head on over to self proclaimed “Birther Queen” Orly Taitz to see what was happening in her world.

There are a lot of posts with the normal “woe is me,” “the world is against me,” and “can you donate to the cause?” type posts.

BTW – in all our years of watching Taitz, we have never see her give an accounting of the money she has collected in donations. That does not mean she has not done so, but we have never see it. In fact, unlike other sites that seek donations, we have never seen her state how much she has collected from people.

While we were skimming her site we came across a post where she has taken up the cause that a Certificate of Copyright issued for Obama’s book “Dream of My Fathers” was forged. Leading the charge with this accusation was our ol’ buddy Paul Irey. We clashed with Paul Irey before on Raised on Hoecakes over his belief and fatally flawed “investigation” into the Obama Hawaii birth certificate. Irey has now turned his sights on the Certificate of Copyright.

The blinds squirrels of Irey and Taitz are looking for nuts, but alas, they go hungry.

Here is the the document in question:

Writing to Taitz, Irey says in part:

Otherwise I think it should be made public that the one you have presents a form with typewriter type from an old manual typewriter not likely used at Random House publishing in 1994.
In addition … the part of the form identifying the country of birth … USA … is typed twice on the in two places but the size of the typewriter type is obviously not the same for each.

Irey’s assertion that Random House would not have used a manual typewriter (and we assume he means an electric typewriter as well) fails the test.

“Birther” Taitz Loses Again. In Other News, Water Is Wet And The Sun Is Hot.

Orly-Taitz-ROH EDITOR’S NOTE: We are still working on our second post of a series on the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut. We promised it for today, but unfortunately is it not ready for posting. We apologize.

Some corners of the conservative world were all a-titter as dentist, real estate agent and lawyer Orly Taitz had filed a lawsuit claiming Barack Obama was not eligible to be president as he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the US Constitution Article 2, section 1, clause 5. The case is Noonan v. Bowen (2:12-CV-02997-MCE-DAD,) and was filed on December 13, 2012.

While the case was being scheduled, Taitz filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent California Electors from casting their Electoral College votes for Obama as well as seeking to stop California Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying the state’s election results.

Taitz was granted a hearing on the TRO which was scheduled for January 3, 2013.

This too set the “birther nation” all a-twitter.

We read post after post and tweet after tweet saying Taitz’s case would be heard in front of the Supreme Court on January 3.

“Finally,” they exclaimed, “we can get rid of the guy who is ineligible to sit in the White House!”

When we read the posts and tweets, we had to hang our head in shame. There is just so much wrong with them. First, the case was being held in the Federal Court for the Eastern District of California. That is not only the US Supreme Court as many of the posts and tweets imply, but it is not even the California Supreme Court. Secondly, a hearing for a TRO is not the same thing as a trial.

Taitz wanted to present witnesses but the judge, using rules for federal courts, ruled that the arguments would be oral arguments restricted to 20 minutes per side.

Taitz was not happy and according to news reports from the hearing spent a great deal of time arguing that she should be able to present witnesses.

“Birthers” Lose In Georgia. Obama Allowed to Appear On March Ballot.

Another case challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama has ended in a judgment for Obama.

On Friday, February 3, 2012, Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi entered a verdict for Obama in what seemed to be a promising case to have Obama declared ineligible to be president. This makes the tally 99 cases filed against Obama’s eligibility. Of the 99, 8 are still pending. The remaining 91 have been dismissed or decided in favor of Obama’s eligibility.

But the Georgia case was different. Under Georgia law, a voter could ask the Secretary of State to verify the eligibility of a person appearing on a ballot. The State looked at the evidence and declared Obama to be eligible. But under the same law, the voter could appeal the decision of the Secretary of State and ask for a hearing in front of an administrative judge. The plaintiffs did just that and the case was assigned to Judge Malihi.

For the hearing, Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski was issued a subpoena for Obama himself to appear in court. Jablonski attempted to have the subpoena quashed but Judge Malihi ruled against him saying in part:

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

There actually is a great deal of precedence for quashing a subpoena for the appearance of a sitting American president. The law has often recognized that sitting presidents have more important things to do than to respond in person to every lawsuit filed against them. (Even Thomas Jefferson refused to answer a subpoena.) While Jablonski was technically right, in what appears to be a case of bad lawyering, he forgot to cite any relevant law or precedent.

When Malihi made this ruling, he was hailed by many who support the birther movement to be one who “upheld the law.” He was praised as a hero for holding Obama to the same standard as other citizens.

A showdown was set for January 26th in Malihi’s courtroom to enter more evidence into the case whether Obama is eligible.

When Ideology Gets In the Way of Truth.

This past weekend we were reading posts on our Facebook wall when we saw a post from a gentlemen saying the US Supreme Court was going to hear a case on the eligibility of Obama to be president. This is an issue we have followed somewhat closely over the years and were somewhat surprised to see we had missed something this important.

The post linked to this article on entitled “Very Quietly Obama’s Citizenship Case Reaches the Supreme Court.”


In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College … Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.

This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

The article perplexed us further. As we said, we follow the court cases on the eligibility issue rather closely here and haven’t seen anything to support this article.

Little nagging things within the article bothered us as well. First, the article simply says “AP” but does not link to an actual article by the Associated Press. Secondly, the AP usually puts the name of a court case when it is headed to the Supreme Court. As no case appeared in the article, we were even more skeptical. Lastly, we had never seen a Supreme Court Justice announce a case was going to be reviewed. Usually it is the entire court that releases the docket.

We started to look and came upon an article from examining a couple of emails they received 2009. One was received in April of that year. Here’s the first paragraph of the email:

« Previous Entries