Eligibility Update: Wikipedia Censors (Again), Grand Jury Memo, $25 million for Birth Certificate, Rumors and Strunk FOIA
As WorldNetDaily had originally documented, Wikipedia took people to task over just how much information would be allowed on the President’s wiki entry. Now, after some (including myself) had taken note about another wiki entry concerning the Presidents’ places of birth, they have once again scrubbed another entry.
First, here’s the page — now archived — as it looked like until February 7, 2009. Towards the bottom of the page, it stated the following:
The following Presidents were born British subjects after the establishment of the United States:
Footnote “9″ referenced the following:
^ British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” Since Kenya was a British colony at the time of Barack Obama Jr.’s birth in 1961, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject at that time and therefore Barack Obama Jr. was a British subject at birth.
This is, of course, exactly what I had reported back on December 8, 2008 from FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com and is precisely the source that the Defendants used in Hollister v. Soetoro in their motion to dismiss.
Yet, user “Riptor3000″ on February 7, 2009, gave the following reason for the change:
Removed Barack Obama from the list of Presidents born as British subjects; this claim is without merit and politically motivated
What a baseless and meritless claim, per se! Apparently, Wikipedia clearly needs to be FactChecked themselves!
Bob Campbell at AmericanGrandJury.org posted the following grand jury update:
Hi Everyone,
Yesterday was a historic day for the Grand Jury but it is still business as usual. We are processing jury member applications as fast as possible.
I need to get the word out so people understand why we are a little slow right now in responding. We are simply overwhelmed with applications.We have around 300 people waiting in the wings to serve.
We don’t talk much about what is happening behind the scenes at American Grand Jury. There are rules in place to protect the Grand Jury and its members, expert witnessses and others.
Today I am going to take the time to automate the “initial contact” process so people can move further along without waiting 2 to 3 days for a response. By tomorrow the message system will send an “auto-response” that explains the Grand Jury process and a link to go and get the Oath of Office form for printing and submitting.
We WANT as many Grand Juries convened as possible.. we have (4) scheduled for May. The Lone Star Grand Jury in Texas is now being scheduled for an online event. Things are cooking here!
Please keep sending your email messages requesting to serve on a Grand Jury.We have saved every one of your requests and will be replying to all of you as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Bob Campbell
American Grand Jury [emphases original]
Someone is offering $25 million for the President’s birth certificate. I can only wonder what the details are for the offer. SonoranNews.com features an op-ed on this offer.
There have also been two rumors floating around that I would like to address:
- New Discovery: 5 Photoshopped images of Obama done by the same user calling her-himself Ducky – one of these 5 images is the Certificate of Live Birth!
- Obama – Smoking gun finally found?
The first is interesting, and if nothing else, shows that the referenced images — including the online certification of live birth — were all edited by the same person. Does this mean anything? Don’t know offhand, as there’s really nothing against which to compare the hexadecimal renderings of the images, both from a technical or an original image perspective.
The second is far more suspicious, if for no other reason than the article’s publish date is April 1. Other than that, multiple searches at AP.org or various search engines produces no way for the article to be sourced. Not only this, but Leo Donofrio’s case could only move forward if Leo attempted to push his issue any further in some way; to date, he has given no indication for doing so. Also, Supreme Court Justices don’t simply respond to “pressure from several groups;” the Justices simply are not empowered to bring cases by themselves.
And finally, Chris Strunk received a response from the Departments of State and Homeland Security on his FOIA request for the President’s records:
I must point out that the denials by DoS or DHS are essentially the result of a pending motion to dismiss (as many paragraphs specifically state). There have been many comments by the opponents of eligibility on my site having already commented on the above response basically saying that DoS or DHS absolutely must have documentation in hand in order to substantially make such denials.
For instance, take paragraphs 33 and 34, the Defendants rightfully state that the certificate (which is different from a certification; I’m not sure if this is a semantics issue or what) is sufficient proof of US citizenship which is, in my opinion, beside the point. We’re talking about natural born citizenship, not mere US citizenship.
Also, take paragraphs 35 and 36. The Defendants deny that the President is not a natural born citizen and that he was born outside of Hawaii. How do they know these things? What documentation do they have that supports the supposition in the affirmative? I don’t think they have such documentation because they’re merely denying a premise that Mr. Strunk has petitioned.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits and common law/citizen grand jury updates can be found here.
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- Kerchner v. Obama: Court is “working on it”
- Kerchner v. Obama: Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief
- Chris Strunk FOIA: State Department Responds
- Could FactCheck.org be Plainly Stating Obama’s Biggest Citizenship Problem?
- Certifigate: Kenyan BR “Likely Not Authentic;” Birth in Kenya Not Ruled Out
The liberal lemmings have no recourse. ignore the facts and push misleading, fraudulent documents, and demonize those who are freethinkers and have the common sense to understand the FACT that the states and congress failed to verify anything about soetoro. Of course that was the plan all along. What they did not plan for was Lt. Quarles Harris Jr. obtaining evidence from passport records. Is there anyone who has researched Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.? You will learn what happened and why the investigation is non existent.
rrobin,
Allow me to first say that I have appreciated your readership on my blog pretty much from the beginning. You have been and continue to be a stalwart defender of what we both believe is the right thing to do; that is, going about finding any meaningful way to (1) question authority and to hold them to account via (2) following the Constitution.
I will also say that you are not the first person to have approached me — either publicly on my site or privately via email — regarding how I moderate my site. Therefore, I’m going to give you the same answer that I have given them.
I started my site on approximately Saturday, October 25, 2008, mainly as an experiment in my being able to express my views regarding the President’s eligibility. I have been blessed on a number of occasions to have been in the “right place at the right time” to have had my site be “catapulted” into the consciousness of the blogosphere as one of the key sites regarding the President’s eligibility (some would call my site a “birther” site, but that’s simply because (1) I do question this President’s eligibility and (2) my official stance is “I don’t know” if he’s eligible or not); this is a status that I do not take lightly nor do I take for granted; it’s all been and continues to be a group effort.
Having said that, since I believe in the American Constitution, I also believe in the 1st Amendment. Part of this means that I believe in tolerance, where “tolerance” is tolerating intolerance, and this is a concept that precious few sites on the blogosphere really and truly put into practice.
Now, you can call this being “fair,” and I might condone that with respect to the discussions on my blog. However, I care less about being “fair” as I care about being “right,” and being right means, to me, that I allow anyone to express their opinion — so long as it’s kept civil — on any given posting I have on my site. Furthermore, and as many in the opposition — to include those to whom you refer: HistorianDude, earl, and brygenon, as well as others — have frequently pointed out, I am one of the few — if not the only — major eligibility sites that allows such discussion.
As per your charge that somehow this allowing of dissent is somehow meaning that they “own” my site versus me, I don’t think you really understand the concept of postings and commentary. Postings are what defines a particular blog, as the bloggers are the ones who control this “official” content of said blog. Comments are merely responses/reactions to such postings, and while they can be strong, they’re still just comments. Not only this, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find where I’ve changed any of my stances based on the commentary my postings have received.
As per your charge that you, specifically, are no longer going to refer people to my site, that’s obviously a matter of your opinion, which is quite obviously your prerogative to have. I’m not going to convince you one way or the other as to your stance in reaction to other people having strong opinions; I have always thought that the content I post on my blog speaks for itself, and the traffic to my site will also quite obviously “live or die” based on this ongoing reputation.
There is a very important reason why I enjoy having the opposition come to my site; I get an idea of what they’re thinking and what threads of thought they’re pursuing. Since I’ve said from the beginning that I see eligibility and constitutionality a long-term issue, it is therefore important, at least to me, that I know what the opposition is thinking so that I can therefore have a better gauge of exactly how I need to formulate my own postings as a means to get to the truth.
Remember, I don’t see the opposition as “O-bots” (this is, to me, a very degrading term on an individual level that does nothing but relegate a human being to that of an object seemingly unworthy of holding an opinion). Rather, I see some of the opposition as “illegitimizers” (I’ve defined this term as someone who doesn’t think that this President’s eligibility should be questioned), in that it is my view that some of them do not understand the ramifications of not pursuing eligibility no matter the politician.
Instead, I’m here to help everyone win. I don’t think those individuals who would consider themselves “liberal” or “progressive” to be inherently evil, though I do believe that their ideas are wrong and can lead to furthering evil. Rather, I see the opposition as potential prospects that can be eventually lead to the truth as is contained within the Constitution.
It’s a very long and arduous process and will not happen overnight (especially when the opposition is embarking on the exact same endeavor for the purposes of trying to get people like me to agree with them). However, I am convinced that the truth will ultimately prevail.
After all the above, my only recommendation to you is that when you see a comment by someone you don’t want to read, skip over that comment. It might even be better for your nerves to back off the Internet for a while; I’ve had to do that over the past few weekends as I’ve had some very large blessings occur in my personal life and something had to give!
Bottom line: I would hope that you would continue to frequent my blog, but you have to do what’s right for you.
Best,
-Phil
You know, Phil, the incessant nonsense that Historian Dude keeps posting here is getting really boring. Does HE own this site or YOU?
(You, after all, are the one that keeps allowing his views to be foisted on the rest of us…)
Sorry, and yes, I know I’m welcome to leave any time.
But I care about your site and believe you provide an invaluable service.
But it IS becoming a forum for HistorianDude, Earl, and Brygenon primarily, and I do hope you realize that their opinions don’t matter to the rest of us, and you’re just bending over backwards so much to be fair, that you’re now really just giving their idiocy a daily platform.
I USED to refer to your site all over the internet as THE place to learn about all the issues that matter, but that’s not possible anymore, strictly because of the above.
I hope you’ll take this seriously.
Sharon 2:
Stop being untruthful, Sharon. I never said he made it up. I do not know nor do I care what his source was. What I care about is that your original claim that Obama said he was born in two different hospitals is not true. [Unneeded psychobabble]
1. Kapiolani Hospital has no such waver. All they have is a letter in which Obama acknowledges that he was born there. They can release the letter, but nothing from their actual records. That would be (as you so perfectly know) a violation of HIPAA.
2. Gibbs could have mentioned a lot of things. But instead he did the most expeditious thing. He joined the rest of the press corps in laughing Lester Kinsolving out of the room.
3. A court will never “tackle the definition of natural born citizen” for two reasons. First, it is not their responsibility to define it. That responsibility constitutionally belongs to Congress. Second, there is no real controversy over the definition.
Sharon. Stop spinning and pay very close attention to the following two objective statements of fact:
1. Ogego never said (even in the original interview) that Obama was born in Kenya.
2. Ogego has been forceful in his retraction of even any impression that he was verifying a Kenyan birth for Obama.
These statements are simply and incontrovertibly true.
How would you know?
Many are. Many are not. It remains simply true that there is no legal requirements to keep hospital directories.
[Unneeded verbiage]
Sharon 2,
The threat is in the questions. A truly open government with nothing to hide would not fight (albeit indirectly with surrogates for the purposes of plausible deniability) to not only block such information from being produced, but also go to the extreme of individual character assassination on the part of the individual doing the questioning, in the hopes that such character assassination would stymie/encumber/hinder/diminish said individual’s influence to where the original question becomes moot.
Of course, I see no expiration date or “statute of limitations” that says that the President’s eligibility must no longer be questioned once the general election is over.
-Phil
H.Dude,
1. We have established that you were wrong when you claimed that Obama said he was born in two different hospitals.”
<<< No, you checked the speech noted in the UPI article. The source that I can’t check is the author of the article to see where he took that quote from. You say he made it up. It is of course your perogative to believe that he made up the information. You only know that the quote didn’t come from the Obama speech.
2. We have established that we actually have access to firsthand assertions that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, thus solving this huge mystery that has been keeping Birthers up late into the night worrying.
<<< Kapiolani Medical Center has a waiver from the President that it is okay for the hospital to make this confirmation now maybe. Gibbs could have mentioned the letter today. Why hold back the long form at this point? (Eventually, a court will have to tackle the definition of natural born citizen.)
I don’t know what you mean by staying up late at night worrying. I don’t know the reason why other people stay up late but mine is because this is the only time that I have no distractions. I enjoy Phil’s website.
3. We have established that it is against the law for hospitals to release any information regarding who their patients have been without those patient’s permission.
<<< Yes, for patients covered under HIPAA where there has been no waiver of any sort.
4. We have established that Ambassador Ogego never said Obama was born in Kenya and that he has strongly retracted any impressions he might have made to that effect.
<<< No, Ogego said by his answer to the direct question that Obama’s birthplace in Kenya was already celebrated. He may have misspoken, but he didn’t SAY he misspoke. He said that the radio host asked him about Obama Sr., which he did not. Look at the transcript again. He tried to blame the radio host for his answer. After listening to Ogego and reading about him, I believe he is a good guy. But his answer to the question was not one of word twisting by the radio host or any tape editing. He said what he said. The whole conversation prior to that was about celebrating Obama’s victory. He could have said that he thought the radio host was asking about Sr., that he misspoke and that he was confused about the question. The transcript shows that HE was misstaken. Instead, he got angry, for some reason.
From other comment:
And yet… they were still “purged.” Prior to computers the term of art was “thrown away.”
<<< The names weren’t purged or thrown away. They exist.
I did not say any such thing. I pointed out that the source you used was the completely unofficial suggestions of a web site, not regulations, and legally meaningless. This is still true.
<<< Many helpful guides are “unofficial” yet people look to them for guidance. I guess you don’t believe that patient registries exist after patients are discharged. Fine.
[Let's not bully the other commenters now, shall we?]
Phil, thanks for sparing me what was sure to be much unpleasantness in the comments directed toward me. Why would anything I say matter so much to cause such reaction? I have no influence. I haven’t filed any lawsuits. I don’t maintain a blog. I don’t see anything wrong with discussing why I believe information should be publicly available. People try to do that all the time. News reporters used to fight to retrieve information. I remember when Dale Earnhart died and there was a fight over autopsy pictures (not from the media) that eventually resulted in legislation in Florida protecting the privacy of the family.
With all the distrust of the last administration, everyone is supposed to now suddenly be “accepting”? Government should be transparent,as Obama says. Trust but verify.
Sharon 2:
Don’t sell yourself short, Sharon. We have established quite a lot.
1. We have established that you were wrong when you claimed that Obama said he was born in two different hospitals.
2. We have established that we actually have access to firsthand assertions that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, thus solving this huge mystery that has been keeping Birthers up late into the night worrying.
3. We have established that it is against the law for hospitals to release any information regarding who their patients have been without those patient’s permission.
4. We have established that Ambassador Ogego never said Obama was born in Kenya and that he has strongly retracted any impressions he might have made to that effect.
[Let's not bully the other commenters now, shall we?]
Joseph Maine:
Sadly, Joe, this is all true.
I was one of the folks who made the offer to fly Berg to Chicago in direct emails to him and in postings on the Obamacrimes blog.
And I can give you examples of people who asked to see the COLB and were granted access. Start with this whole team:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Now… since it is impossible to prove a negative, it is now up to you to point us to a single person who asked to see the document and was denied. How hard can that be if you’re correct, Joe? A single one.
Sharon:
[Unneeded condescension]
I didn’t and it isn’t. The law is clear that a person’s information cannot be included into a directory unless they are formally asked to say yes or no. It is an opt in, since unless they say yes the default is that their info will be withheld.
And yet… they were still “purged.” Prior to computers the term of art was “thrown away.”
I did not say any such thing. I pointed out that the source you used was the completely unofficial suggestions of a web site, not regulations, and legally meaningless. This is still true.
Your sources to this point have all been equally flaccid. That is your fault, not mine.
You said that Obama claimed he was born in two different hospitals. That turns out to be a falsehood. No matter how many other extraneous sources you throw in as a smoke screen… the simple truth is that what you said was a falsehood.
The fact that you now plead ignorance (“I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE”) about those irrelevant other sources is hardly an excuse. You could have checked, but you didn’t.
Obama (and his sister) have never once claimed that Obama was born anywhere other than Kapiolani Medical Center. Both of them have been explicit on that point, and have never contradicted themselves.
[Even more completely unneeded verbiage meant to be flame bait -- and you already know what that is, so don't do it again]
Historian Dude,
You should know by now why people can’t take you seriously. I go on and on with a post about how you don’t back things up with verification, then what do you do? You bullet list 3 points …
WITHOUT verification!
You made things up again (Berg subsidized airfare? everyone was permitted)
You proved you are a joke … AGAIN!
Finally, H.D., we have established nothing.
I. “Just as you worked so hard to try and come up with a loophole to the HIPAA laws.”
Wrong. First you said that patients having to “opt out” the directory was backward, but then admitted it was a matter of semantics. Then you said that patient directories are purged in a way that could not have been done in 1961. When I found information that suggested patient registries should be kept permanently, you incorrectly said that I said they were regulations; I never said that. There have been numerous times that you have misquoted me or taken off a tangent as indicated below:
II. “And the public sources that you asserted were implied by his article are absolutely not the sources… ”
???
I said that Wiki sited the UPI article, not the other way around. The genealogist gave no source; what source did you check? I have no idea what you are talking about. I found two references of Obama’s birth being in Queens Hospital; I had no idea where UPI or the genealogist got the information but said it must have come from somewhere. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE. You think the author of the UPI article made it up. I guess you do believe in some kind of agenda then, for a UPI article to place that information in the article.
III. “Are we not justified in concluding that your “questions” have nothing to do with the facts, but spring from some other font of discomfort you have with Barack Obama?”
Who is “we”? Flaming again, I see.
HistorianDude,
I’ll explicitly state that I’ll give you the last word on this. I have my opinion, you have yours. I agree to disagree with you.
-Phil
Joseph Maine:
Why would he bother? Why would he feel the need to jump through a single Birther hoop?
Sharon:
Why would I not believe he said it? Nobody is claiming he has said two different things on the issue, so there is no controversy.
Now, when controversy does arrive, it’s a different story. Then it becomes necessary to do something that I have done repeatedly but you refuse to do: Check.
Secondary sources are often in error, as you have shown by providing us with so many error prone secondary sources. Go to the primary source and check.
Again… The article absolutely does not attribute that statement to Obama concerning his place of birth. It is added entirely without comment or attribution by the reporter.
The reporter certainly got the information from somewhere… but it does not provide any source whatsoever for that detail. And the public sources that you asserted were implied by his article are absolutely not the sources… I checked</b. Perhaps checking is a skill you should add to your repertoire.
You have already told us what your impression was regarding the source, and it turned out to be wrong. The complete text of Obama’s declaration speech as a candidate is online, found with a simple google search. You were simply wrong.
Who cares what their source for the information was? They are secondary sources at best. They do not attribute the information to the people you claimed they did. They are wrong. End of story.
Now… let’s get back to the most interesting issue here: What you believed was wrong. Yet you still are bending over backwards trying to somehow salvage the fake “fact.” Just as you worked so hard to try and come up with a loophole to the HIPAA laws. What does this tell us about the way conspiracy theorist’s think?
You have repeatedly said that this is the kind of thing that “causes questions.” But what we have established is that it does not matter whether or not it is true, you continue to have “questions” even when what supposedly caused them turns out to have been fake.
Are we not justified in concluding that your “questions” have nothing to do with the facts, but spring from some other font of discomfort you have with Barack Obama?
Phil:
It is not “codified in any law.” This may come as a shock to you, Phil, but most things that human beings do are not “codified in any law.” It is not law that establishes this as the accepted process for verifying eligibility. It is history that does so.
In the case of verifying “natural born citizenship,” for most of American history this presumption was the only possible process since official documentation of birth in this country is a fairly recent phenomenon. Birth certificates were not required in most states until 1906, several states much later. Most presidents (to include as recently as Harry Truman, Ike Eisenhower and Ronal Reagan) had no birth documentation at all. So… the only possible process was the presumption that they were what they claimed, in the absence of contrary evidence.
Then (as now) no contrary evidence has ever existed for any American President. So the presumption stands substantively unchallenged.
What “law on the books” are you speaking of? There is no law on the books establishing any formal process at all for vetting a candidate’s eligibility. The process is and always has been informal; originally out of necessity and continuing now because it has worked so well and does not require “fixing.”
It is again odd to find a self declared “libertarian leaning” right winger like yourself advocating more law and a more controlling government. Then again, consistency has never been your strong suit.
See… here you are not merely moving the goal post, you changing the rules of the game by adding hurdles in the way to a touchdown.
1. A birth certificate alone is sufficient to prove citizenship, if it meets the standards set in US Department of State Regulations.
2. There is no difference between a certification of live birth and a birth certificate with respect to anything. A COLB is a birth certificate both by definition and by law.
How many times have we explicitly gone over this detail, Phil? How many times must it be explained to you that the Department of State does not declare anybody eligible for President.
The Department of State has the authority to declare someone’s citizenship status. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that its declaration of citizenship also established eligibility in fact is a complete side effect.
We have now covered this no less than four times, Phil. Do you get it yet?
Ah…. So not only have you already moved the goal post several times, you are now preemptively prepared to move it yet again. Amusing, but not surprising.
But I don’t have any burden of proof here, Phil. Since you are petitioning for court approval to violate established privacy laws, it is up to you to affirmatively establish some “right to know” that warrants that violation. And it must be more substantive than your personal prurient interest, or some tiny special interest group’s political agenda.
Once again you find yourself in a complete vacuum of compelling rationale and try to escape by pretending the burden of proof is on your opposition. But it’s not, Phil. You insist you have a “right to know” what Obama’s college GPA was, or what courses he took as an undergrad. Great.
Prove it.
One last time, with feeling.
Law doesn’t establish this standard. History does.
HistorianDude,
Off the top, I appreciate that you’re beginning to source your reasoning for why you believe the way you do. However, you’re raising more questions, to wit:
Please cite where “The Presumption” is officially codified in any law. I do not accept the premise as being a “controlling legal authority,” unless you can show otherwise.
In fact, if we were to treat all laws that are on the books with little to no case history behind them as being practically invalid simply because “we said so” (another euphemism for “historic standard”), we would likely soon become quite the law-less nation.
Faulty premise: State any law that specifically says that, in reference to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution: (1) only a birth certificate is sufficient to substantiate eligibility, and (2) there is no difference between a certification of live birth and a birth certificate with respect to determining eligibility.
Since there is no law that enforces the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution, the above is essentially a loaded question. Furthermore, it would be interesting to find the law that states that the Dept. of State (or any other federal agency, for that matter) has the authority to declare any American citizen eligible for the office of the President.
Not only the above, but nowhere have I ever indicated that the original “vault” birth certificate was enough to substantiate eligibility; in fact, I have specifically stated on numerous occasions (and have challenged a number of commenters) that this documentation may not be enough.
As I’ve just addressed, above, I do not claim to know what is substantial “enough” to determine presidential eligibility, so the rest of your “moving goalposts” theory #3 is effectively moot.
With respect to the last sentence, please cite the law that backs your opinion. After all, if I were to go to Court over privacy issues, I would have to present to the Court under what auspices my petition either violates or affirms the “public’s” right to know regarding the content of my petition. I’m asking you to do the same regarding your opinion.
While you have every right to your opinion (and notice that I don’t berate you for having an opinion that differs from mine), I would again ask you to cite the law that establishes this “standard” to which you refer so that we may both know precisely what you’re talking about.
-Phil
Joseph Maine:
1) I have never made any claims regarding Fox News.
2) All media was “permitted.” Only some media (specifically FactCheck) took advantage of that permission. Most media ignored the issue because the judged, correctly, that the issue was a wacky canard and unworthy of attention.
It remains a puzzle however why no Birther lawyer ever bothered to ever try to go look at it. Phil Berg was even offered subsidized airfare to do so, but ignored the offer.
But the bottom line is that the following is objectively true:
Not a single person who went to examine the document was turned away. Every single individual who has examined the actual document has declared it authentic. Not a single piece of evidence exists to contradict it.
3) I never “imply” when a direct assertion is more effective. And I directly assert that there was complete openness and no effort to hide anything.
Nonsense. I have posted sources ad nauseam, many such sources several times, and especially when specifically asked. What is it that you want me to document?
As much business as anybody else. Certainly, more business than random Birther’s on the web.
Sadly, you were able to demonstrate none of that in your post. You have identified no “made up stories,” you have demonstrated no absurdities… so I see nothing of which to be ashamed.