Votes from the Fringe: Stacey Outpolls Marking

In the South Dakota U.S. House race, Independent B. Thomas Marking got 5.99% of the vote. That 5.99% of the vote had little to do with Mr. Marking's qualities as a person or candidate. Lori Stacey, Constitution Party candidate for Secretary of State, nuttiest person on the statewide ballot, got 6.60% of the vote. 832 votes more than Marking.

B. Thomas Marking didn't say much, but what policies and positions he did advocate were debatable yet reasonable. Lori Stacey spouted conspiracy theories and baseless threats and dwelt on minutiae of word choice as only a desperate paranoiac fringe candidate can. Her campaign finances were laughable even compared to Marking's paltry sums.

Yet she got more protest votes than B. Thomas Marking, who got to play referee (a good role for Indies—keep that in mind for future elections!) between Kristi Noem and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in the marquee race of 2010.

Maybe worth noting: Marking's third-best showing came in Hamlin County, Kristi Noem's home turf. Noem's own neighbors were among the folks most willing to vote for the third man. He drew 8.32% in Noem's backyard, even better than the 7.89% he pulled in his home county of Custer. Marking had his 17th-best showing in Brookings County, Herseth Sandlin's current home county. He bombed in Herseth country up north, Brown County, where he got only 4.59% of the vote.

Nesselhuf Tops SOS Poll; Constitution Party Cracks 4%!

The latest Madville Times poll shows a strong standing for Demorat Ben Nesselhuf, at least among all you Web literati. I asked "Which candidate will get your vote for South Dakota Secretary of State?" Here's what 141 of you said:

Lori Stacey	6 (4%)
Jason Gant	36 (26%)
Ben Nesselhuf	99 (70%)

Votes: 141
Conducted 2010.09.20–22.

A last-minute push from the Constitution Party camp pushed Lori Stacey just over the 4% mark, an amazing showing for otherwise hapless purveyors of conspiracy theories, unsupportable libel lawsuit threats, and ineffective legal arguments. The latest from the Stacey bunker: this broadside branding South Dakota Right to Life as deceivers for endorsing Republican Jason Gant.

Stacey says nothing about Gant's demonstrable deceit concerning his no-show at last week's scheduled forum with Ben Nesselhuf on Thursday at Western Dakota Tech.

What might the numbers of the candidates in double digits tell us?

1. Nesselhuf voters find great comfort in reading the Madville Times. :-)
2. My eager readers prefer Nesselhuf's focus on issues specific to South Dakota, including his intelligent and outside-the-box attention to economic development, over Gant's GOP playbook campaign of fear-mongering over voter fraud that happens elsewhere but is hardly an issue in South Dakota.

More polls to come! Stay tuned!

Vote Now: Madville Times Polls Secretary of State Race

The candidates for South Dakota Secretary of State are in the news: let's poll! The latest Madville Times poll asks you, eager readers, whom you want running your statewide elections, supervising corporate filings, and coming up with cool Web apps for voter enlightenment. Your choices:

• Constitution Party candidate Lori Stacey (though note: if Stacey's supporters are anything like her, they'll cast their votes, then retract them and deny they ever voted)
• Republican candidate Jason Gant, who skipped a debate scheduled for last week Thursday and then, according to Mr. Dahle at Badlands Blue, tweeted what may rise to the level of scandalous misrepresentation about his absence.
• Democratic candidate Ben Nesselhuf, about whom I can't really say anything silly, because Nesselhuf hasn't done anything silly on the campaign trail.

Poll is open in the right sidebar until breakfast time Wednesday morning. Tell your friends, and vote now!

Constitution Party Still Whining to Courts; Candidate Deleting Attacks

The South Dakota Constitution Party continues its futile search for an activist judge to give it preferential treatment under South Dakota election law. The Constitution Party is asking the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Roberto Lange's decision that the Constitution Party failed to follow the legal requirements to place candidates on South Dakota's statewide ballot.

The only point of this appeal is publicity. The law is solid, as is Judge Lange's ruling. Secretary of State Chris Nelson has already drawn the ballot order. The only Constitution Party candidate you'll see on the South Dakota this November is Lori Stacey, who will get 1% of the vote for Secretary of State.

Speaking of Lori, her lawyers must be too busy writing up the ballot appeal to bother with her faux-legal grumblings. Last week she posted a threat to sue "a particular blogger" for libel. I merely mentioned that threat here on the blog Saturday. (O.K., I mentioned it, then laughed at it.) I also left some blogging advice and recommended a lawyer in Stacey's comment section. By Monday morning, that threat had disappeared Stacey's Sioux Falls Conservative Examiner blog.

Interestingly, Stacey had replaced that post with a gripe about South Dakota Right to Life's choosing to endorse Republican Jason Gant for Secretary of State rather than herself. "SD Right To Life chooses partisan politics over principles," read the headline, dated August 29. This morning, that post is gone, too. Politifi scraped up the opening lines here, as did Worldnews.

Google result for Lori Stacey's now-deleted blog post on Jason Gant
and the hypocrisy of SD Right to Life, 2010.08.31, 09:37 CDT

I can't wait to hear Lori Stacey in the debates against Gant and Ben Nesselhuf, just to hear her start every rebuttal with, "No, wait, never mind what I said two minutes ago. I didn't really say that."

I would honestly enjoy the rise of a serious third party to challenge America's two-party system (or, arguably, in South Dakota's case, the one-party system). Alas, the Constitution Party demonstrates at every turn they don't have the chops to fill that serious role.

Constitution Party SOS Candidate Stacey Threatens to Sue "A Particular Blogger"

Hey, I'm the only blog in the state giving Lori Stacey headlines, and this is the thanks I get? Where's the love?

Here's a sure sign Lori Stacey's Constitution Party campaign for Secretary of State is going nowhere. When she could be campaigning hard, promoting sensible ideas for good government, and establishing her credibility so voters might actually consider entrusting her with managing our elections, Lori Stacey instead is whimpering about "a particular blogger" saying things that make her mad.

Now understand, Lori Stacey can't even blog effectively, let alone run a statewide election. She does not name the source of her frustration. She provides no hyperlinks to the text in question. She provides no information to help blog readers access the original evidence on which she bases her claims and make their own evaluations. Blogs are all about helping people find information and "see for themselves"; Stacey leaves her readers wallowing in her own pile of grimacing goo as she rages about hate crimes and exploring "possible legal action."

Why does the thought of "possible legal action" by Constitution Party lawyers inspire laughter rather than fear? Oh, I don't know... past performance?

In celebration of the blog ethos, I'll simply link Stacey's yowling and the blog post that appears to incur her wrath and let y'all waste your weekend making your own evaluation. But I will say this: Lori Stacey's reliance on cowardly revisionism and Merriam-Webster to build a legal case makes me laugh.

Candidate Stacey, if you really want to take to the hustings and decry the evil nameless blog impugning your political positions, then by all means, Lori, knock yourself out with that. Such brittle thin-skinnedness will only support what 99% of South Dakotans already know: the last thing we want is the Constitution Party running our state government.

--------------------------------
Update 2010.08.30 11:28 CDT: Guess who backed down? Lori Stacey's post threatening libel action has disappeared. For the record, here's what Stacey wrote that inspired my above post... someone threw her text down the memory hole (thank you again, Google cache):

As a Constitutionalist, I have been a defender of Freedom of Speech and oppose most "Hate Crimes" legislation as it goes so far that it has become a danger to all of our rights to freedom of speech. However, there unfortunately comes a time that some writings can be so blatantly false, personally offending, defamatory and widely spread without any factual basis that it constitutes malicious, reckless intent and rises to the level of a crime called Libel.

As defined by online version of Merriam-Webster:

"Main Entry: ¹li·bel

Pronunciation: \?l?-b?l\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book

Date: 14th century

1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) :(3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel" defamation of a person by written or representational means

I do not push my deeply-held religious beliefs on anyone and respect an individual's right of free will to believe or not to believe for even God freely gives us this choice. Because I have increasingly become the victim of such patently false, libelous statements derived from such enormously illogical conclusions that no reasonable person could have possibly derived, I am now choosing to be silent no longer and will defend myself to set the record straight.

In a particular blogger's imagination, just because 1 of several sources that I sent him to present evidence of my point in a debate which actually had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, there was a short YouTube clip in which the first few SECONDS showed a picture of Jesus and supposedly the FILM MAKER denies the existence of Christ. This blogger then went on to print, publish and republish outrageous lies that state that I supposedly believe Jesus is a hoax. This is outrageously false, baseless and libelous considering I have been a Christian my entire life.

1. FALSE: "She promotes an online film denying the existence of Christ"

TRUTH: I have never even seen but a couple short clips of this film and have never watched the entire movie myself. In fact, there are so many other sources of information, some of which I sent in this exchange. It was the only time that I can recall even using a clip from it. To publish that I PROMOTE it is an absolute lie. To conclude that someone agrees with a filmmaker's supposed personal views just because you have seen an 8-10 minute clip of one of their movies is a conclusion that defies all reasonable logic.

2. FALSE: "She believes Jesus Christ is a hoax".

TRUTH: I have been a Christian my entire life going as far back in my childhood as I can possibly recall. In my adult life, I have had at least 2 miraculous events that saved me from nearly losing my life which has strengthened my belief to the point that I can never deny.

3. FALSE: I supposedly refused to ever publish this person's first initial rude, mean-spirited comment.

TRUTH: This system that we had been using AUTOMATICALLY published comments that are made and I left this comment up for a minimum of 24 hrs. It was one of less than a handful that I have ever manually removed before it AUTOMATICALLY disappears from easily viewable sight after 7 days. Now, Examiner is launching an entirely new system in which comments and other sections will be handled differently and we do not know the full extent of all of these changes at this point.

With all that said, I am not holding my breath to see any retractions as these libelous statements have increasingly continued to be smeared throughout the internet over the past year. If sufficient corrections are not made promptly, possible legal action will be explored.

I have not been able to retrieve the two comments I left Ms. Stacey on this post. I can't help speculating she didn't like them very much.

Lori Stacey, Consti-spiracy-Theory Party Candidate for Secretary of State

The South Dakota Constitution Party will have its lawsuit challenging candidate petition signature requirements laughed out of court next week. (O.K., so U.S. District Court Judge and MHS debate alum Roberto Lange will probably have enough class not to laugh out loud.)

But the Constitution Party still promises comic relief through the rest of the 2010 election season, courtesy of the one candidate they managed to muster for the statewide ballot, Secretary of State candidate Lori Stacey. Attentive readers will recall Stacey as the woman who not only lacks basic counting skills (a rather important qualification for someone in charge of elections) but also adheres to the following tenets of beyond-Glenn-Beck paranoia (and I quote Stacey's five points verbatim from a September 2009 e-mail):

1. The dollar will be replaced by an IMF World Currency.
2. Bush signed documents in March of 2005 to merge the US with Canada and Mexico BY 2010, they will pretend that is an all of a sudden solution when our economy crashes very soon.
3. 9/11 was a complete fraud and vehicle to terrorize our own citizens into giving up our freedoms in the name of security.
4. FEMA is not your friend!
5. As one human being to another, DON'T TAKE ANY VACCINE.

Hmm... calls 9/11 a trick by Uncle Sam, denies science to flog hysteria that may be killing babies, and expects North American Union to happen this year (six months down, and I'm not speak Spanish or Quebecois yet, eh?). Oh yeah, and she promotes an online film denying the existence of Jesus. With candidates like Lori Stacey, it's no wonder the Constitution Party can't recruit enough members to collect 250 signatures for a gubernatorial candidate.

Stacey appears to buy into the birther craziness (perhaps not unlike our current Secretary of State?). On her blog, she writes, "We must never again allow any Presidential Candidate onto any ballot in South Dakota that can not prove they are Natural Born as our Constitution demands." But at least she's an equal opporuntity birther: she believes that neither President Barack Hussein Obama nor Senator John McCain is a natural born citizen. It's all one big conspiracy, Democrats and Republicans, working together... to elect foreigners?

Like so many other talk-radio-karaoke posers, she vows in her campaign URL to Take America Back... but from whom? Chris Nelson? The Rounds-Daugaard Administration? Commie atheist punks like me who are natural-born citizens but don't deserve to be since we disagree with the Constitution Party?

Now I can sympathize with Stacey's concerns about electronic voting machines and the potential for abuse. She wants to ban electronic voting machines completely. My man Congressman Dennis Kucinich has expressed similar concerns. Update 14:40 CDT: Bob Mercer notes Stacey's proposal to go back to hand-counting every ballot. I'd love to hear the conservative Stacey's fiscal analysis of how many more people county government will have to hire to eyeball all those ballots. (Next headline: Constitution Party Backs Bigger Government?)

Stacey agrees with Kucinich and me that the Patriot Act is really, really bad. I can also sympathize with Stacey's complaint that the two major parties have too much control over the electoral process. I would like to see Independents and new parties have a fairer shot at establishing themselves and participating in the election process and government. But all the ballot reform in the world won't help fringe conspiracy-theorist candidates like Lori Stacey establish their parties as credible political forces.

I can't wait to see this woman on a stage answering questions next to Ben Nesselhuf and Jason Gant. Try not to laugh, fellas.

Rounds Drinks Kool-Aid, Accepts Obama Appointment

Socialist/Globalist Flags in Pierre Due Shortly

Governor M. Michael Rounds has succumbed to the seduction of the Marxist cabal currently occupying the White House, accepting President Barack Obama's appointment to the ominously named Council of Governors. This newly formed star chamber of state leaders carries a shadowy portfolio, including the "synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities."

The mandated bipartisan nature of the committee—five governors from each party— demonstrates the clever charade of national unity the White House usurper will use to tear the nation apart. The geographical distribution of the appointees, with appointees from Arizona and Vermont, Washington State and North Carolina, reveals the sinister plot for coordinated nationwide suppression of political resistance. Selection of governors of Maryland and Virginia proves the President's intent to tighten his iron grip on the nation's capital and the Eastern seaboard. The inclusion of the Puerto Rican governor unmasks Obama's plans to internationalize his executive coup and expand the de jure authority of the enslaving Federal Reserve.

Sorry—just had to throw the Illuminati off my scent. We now return you to our regularly scheduled blogging.

----------------------
Update 2010.07.11: I was kidding... but Constitution Party candidate for Secretary of State Lori Stacey isn't. She says pretty much what I say above about the Council of Governors... and believes every word.

Tea Party Mindset: Paranoia, Apocalypse, and Complete Lack of Evidentiary Skills

I hate to even link to this post, since the writer is coming unhinged, but when a comment leads to an e-mail exchange like this, it's worth the press.

Lori Stacey of Sioux Falls is an exemplar of the McCarthyite Tea Party movement. Conspiracy theories, inability to use evidence, apocalyptic/messianic delusions—everything you need to guarantee no effective political action. But she at least recognizes, as I do, that supporting George W. Bush in 2000 was a bad idea.

Stacey wrote a post for the faux-local Examiner.com about the "real" numbers at the Glenn Beck party in Washington, DC, on September 12. She claims that numerous photos and sources prove that the gathering was "the largest protest in US history."

I couldn't resist commenting. I said that a profound claim like "largest protest in US history" required some affirmative proof. I noted that her post lacked any links or reliable sources. The only specific source Stacey named was Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who as a speaker at the rally probably isn't the first person we should turn to for an objective crowd estimate. (Blackburn has also shown slick hypocrisy and a weak grasp of facts previously.) I also noted that the photo her commenter "woot" cited appeared to be the one Bob Schwartz and others showed early on was a ruse, a photo lifted from a much earlier and larger Washington protest.

She hasn't published my comment (Stacey appears to follow a "supporters only" comment policy—living in an echo chamber is another common chracteristic of the Tea Party paranoiacs). She did, however, grace me with an e-mail reply:

Corey,

There are 100's of photos online that show parts of the crowd but the best picture is from a vantage point of the balcony of the Capitol Building and is under exclusive rights by photographer Michael A. Beck and FreedomWorks.org which was the main sponsor of the event which would be the best vantage point for what you are looking for.

I can't just publish any photo I want to without permission. The Examiner is rightly very strict on this point. Here is a link to a blogger that claims to have gotten permission to publish this particular photo. You can click on the image and enlarge it. Since the image is now being used in a copyrighted poster sold by Freedom Works there is no way I am publishing it on my webpage. http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=6500

I referenced Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn being told that it was estimated to be 1.5 million. If you are really after the proof, then I would suggest contacting her office and finding out her source. There are many other sources that have likewise estimated between 1.5 and 2 million so provide me with proof that there wasn't.

MLK's speech was less than a million by reported estimates. Too bad there are not more people like him today. I stand by my story.

Lori Stacey
Sioux Falls Conservative Examiner [e-mail, 2009.09.27]

My reply:

Dear Lori,

Thank you for taking time to reply to my comment. Alas, I find your answers evasive and unsatisfactory. The claim of copyright fear is specious. You could easily provide links in your blog post to the sources that own the original photos. The site you provide in the e-mail claims association with an anonymous congressperson? It just gets more suspicious. The photo provides no quantification, no context. The iowntheworld blog appears no more credible or unbiased than you or I.

Congresswoman Blackburn is far from an independent source. I would not take a crowd count from either a Republican or a Democratic Congressperson as gospel. Rep. Blackburn "mentioned in her speech" the million-plus figure... hmm... not exactly a head count.

Now on burden of proof, you are the one making the affirmative claim ("largest protest in America ever!"). You have the burden to prove such an audacious claim. It is not the duty of others to provide negative proof that any given words coming from your mouth are false.

However, I enjoy going above and beyond the call of duty. Let's turn to Politifact.com, which cites four sources, including Fox News, that put 9/12 attendance in the tens of thousands, maybe 60K-75K. The Hill reports "tens of thousands" as well, with 30,000 marchers registered online. That's no small potatoes, plenty to brag about... but still well shy of the claim "largest protest in America ever."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/14/tea-party-photo-shows-large-crowd-different-event/

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/58431-tens-of-thousands-of-conservative-activists-converge-on-capitol

I love citizen journalism. I hope you'll keep writing. But when you make remarkable claims about historic protest numbers, I hope you'll ever more solid evidence than the wishful thinking and cheerleading of protest leaders.

You and I have the same goal, to save America one good argument at a time. I have plenty of my own biases, but if we are to do any good, we citizen media need to do what we can to back our views with facts. Keep at it!

Sincerely,
Cory Allen Heidelberger -- Madville Times [e-mail, 2009.09.27]

And then the wheels come off.

Cory,

Even in your own links, the article sites many different sources ranging up to 2 million. So you only chose to mention the lower figures in your reply and a very different photo. I knew about the organizing of the event before FreedomWorks, before Glenn Beck. It was originally a completely grassroots effort by other organizations and was supposed to be for the entire weekend and had 900,000 confirmed to attend months ago. That is the back story that I knew about personally along with many that actually attended and know how far the crowd stretched and how many buses that were chartered from many states by private citizens in grassroots efforts. A picture does not always serve as the only evidence or testimony. Sometimes pictures don't do a story the accurate justice.

I usually write about WAY MORE controversial information like the truth about what is REALLY happening to our country and the world BEHIND THE SCENES. Instead of this debating, the people should be uniting because we are ALL in big trouble. It does not matter one bit if it was Obama or McCain, the one's that pull the strings are behind both major parties and We The People in this world are all in for a very rough ride.

1. The dollar will be replaced by an IMF World Currency.
2. Bush signed documents in March of 2005 to merge the US with Canada and Mexico BY 2010, they will pretend that is an all of a sudden solution when our economy crashes very soon.
3. 9/11 was a complete fraud and vehicle to terrorize our own citizens into giving up our freedoms in the name of security.
4. FEMA is not your friend!
5. As one human being to another, DON'T TAKE ANY VACCINE.

I am no dummy, I have done exhaustive research for years. Unfortunately, if we all don't come together, we will all lose our country and our freedoms. A revolution, a civil war or a one world government for which China is the model. Those will be our choices if more Americans don't get off their couches and start doing some real research and open their eyes.

I spend most of my time writing in other forums and just started with the Examiner. I used to do my own internet tv shows talking about all of the controversial subjects with all the proof in the world to back it up. Some people sadly just don't know the truth. Others, you can show them all the proof and they choose to keep their head in the sand. And lastly some have had their entire lives and views changed by finally seeing the truth. The last group will end up hopefully saving our country!

Time will tell, the truth will come about for all to see. I warn people that are open to listen and don't waste precious time on one's that won't anymore.

Good day,

Lori [e-mail, 2009.09.27]

Funny that after years of exhaustive research, she's decided to simply ignore opposition rather than provide some evidence. Oh well, as she said, it's exhaustive research. She's tired.

But never give up, never surrender:

Dear Lori,

Unfortunately, you still have failed to offer any justification for the higher crowd estimates. The sources claiming million-plus crowds are all promoters of the demonstration. The sources claiming thousands (again, thousands, a remarkable number, requiring no exaggeration) are all outside observers with little to no stake in inflating the estimate.

You can choose to live in your own fantasy world (America and merging with Canada and Mexico? again, where's the proof?) and ignore those who not only listen but dispute your baseless claims, or you can choose to live in reality. You will be much more effective as a voice for change when you choose reality.

(By the way, I see you haven't published my comment. Could you send me a copy of the text I wrote? Thank you.)

Sincerely,

Cory Allen Heidelberger -- Madville Times [e-mail, 2009.09.28]

Oh well. Another fruitless conversation before breakfast. But on we go! Be sure to get your flu shots!

---------------------
Update 16:15 CDT: This is why I don't do conspiracy theories. They just let to endless silliness. Ms. Stacey responds:

Cory,

Your comment WAS published and was not deleted until very late last night. It was RUDE and I did not have to keep it published all day or respond to it.

Many State Legislatures have passed bills to try to STOP the North American Union. It is a fantasy??? Ever wonder why the Federal Government won't build a border fence even after appropriating funds to build it?

This is all old news. Wake Up America!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo&feature=fvw

I have years of proof but no time for someone that chooses to remain in their own world.

Good luck to you and God Bless,

Lori [e-mail, 2009.09.28]

Vexed, I dash off a quick note before class:

Dear Lori,

"I have years of proof but no time..."

Ah, the last refuge of those who have no proof. You sound just like Senator McCarthy. Such disregard for truth poses a much greater threat to America than any of the fantasies you have concocted.

Sincerely,

Cory Allen Heidelberger [e-mail 2009.09.28]

Incensed, Ms. Stacey answers:

You obviously did not even LOOK at the video that I sent. You won't look at any proof as I suspected!!! So there is no reason to refer you to hundreds of my links, documents, videos, etc.

End of discussion.

Lori [e-mail, 2009.09.28]

Sigh.

Dear Lori,

Actually, I have taken the time to watch it. I could put together a similar video... but would you believe it? Who's the source?

Ah. Peter Joseph. Zeitgeist. Roundly discredited:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2007/0825/1187332519087.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25#feature
http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/zeitgeist.html
[Jane Chapman, Issues in Contemporary Documentary, in Google Books]

By the way, Tim Callahan writes that Joseph opens the film you cite with a denial of the existence of Jesus. If you plan to make Joseph a central part of your arguments, you might want to prepare a response on how you aren't also advocating atheism or nature worship. Folks around here tend to respond negatively to associations with such concepts.

Dr. Jane Chapman, who knows more about film-making than either of us, calls Zeitgeist a "typical conspiracy movie" that makes "unethical use of content and of records."

In short, the video you sent me is both unethical and incorrect.

There are plenty of real problems in the world to solve: silly lockdown policies at Tea High School, South Dakota's looming budget shortfall, corporate farming, pollution, etc. Feel free to join me in speaking out about such problems, problems that matter to a majority of our fellow South Dakotans. Your passion directed toward real, practical problems would be welcome. It might even make a difference... unlike adherence to unprovable, imaginary conspiracies.

Sincerely,
Cory Allen Heidelberger [e-mail, 2009.09.28]

And so on, ad nauseum....

Update 2009.09.29: More silliness ensues:

Cory,

You are obviously the problem. Lou Dobbs is not credible? Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov) was not real? The Conservative Caucus is not credible? Many states' legislatures voted to block something that doesn't exist??? The documents on the Council on Foreign Relations where most is plotted for everyone to see, is not real? My entire political party, the Constitution Party is not credible? Congressman Tom Tancredo, Marcy Kaptur, Virgil Goode, Ron Paul have all been fighting something that does not exist for years? Not to mention Barry Goldwater, the John Birch Society and many other people and organizations with all the proof in the world for over 50 years?

A library of info from yet another source.
http://www.nauwarroom.org/index.php/video

I gave you a chance but you are beyond hope and are just an attack dog. Those are the tactics of people that don't want to ever wake up and smell the coffee. You will be no hope in saving our nation until the reality hits you right in the face. Until then, you are part of the problem. This is my last reply.

Lori [Stacey, e-mail, 2009.09.28]

Anyone want to lay odds on that last sentence?

Dear Lori,

"Attack dog"? If that is the label you use for everyone who has the gall to refute your arguments, couldn't I apply the same label to you?

"Many states' legislatures voted to block something that doesn't exist??? The documents on the Council on Foreign Relations where most is plotted for everyone to see, is not real? My entire political party, the Constitution Party is not credible? Congressman Tom Tancredo, Marcy Kaptur, Virgil Goode, Ron Paul have all been fighting something that does not exist for years?"

Do you realize how illogical those statements are? The existence of people who believe X does not prove the existence of X. The existence of the Council on Foreign Relations does not prove the existence of the conspiracies you ascribe to X and more than the existence of the Catholic Church proves the existence of the DaVinci Code.

Woof woof.

CAH [e-mail, 2009.09.29]

So remember, everyone, I'm just a problematic attack dog. Conspiracy theorists like Lori Stacey believe 9/11 and Jesus are hoaxes. Choose your partners, do-see-do!