It only counts if you buy it through Erickson's official Red State Amazon store.

Coming up with new and creative ways to part wingnuts and their money is the Erickson way.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this interview represents the insight of an intellectual.

A blowhard without the tiniest sense of self-irony, certainly. And that's about it.

When Gibbs tells a reporter that his question "has been noted in the building,"* then they'll begin - just begin - to rise to the level of the GWB administration.

* http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2001/06/09/01

GOP politicians understand one thing: political power. And political power comes from money.

I plan to let every single lying, prevaricating, hypocritical GOP politician who is part of (or encouraging) this disinformation campaign that I am donating money to his or her opponent in the next election. And that includes primary opponents.

Hit 'em where it hurts.

I'm curious as to how exactly Walpin "brought down Roy Cohn."

From what I can tell, he was charged with several federal and state crimes, but was never convicted. He was finally disbarred for misconduct, but that was an administrative action by the state bar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

So again, how exactly did Walpin "bring down Roy Cohn"?

The IG Act of 1978, as amended by the IG Reform Act of 2008, states that "[a]n Inspector General may be removed from office by the President," subject only to the requirement that the President communicate his or her reasons for doing so to Congress no later than 30 days prior to the removal.

You will note that this provision says nothing about the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Congress is given no authority over the power of removal.

There are plenty of appointed offices that require Senate confirmation, but whose occupants serve at the pleasure of the President.

http://www.presidential-appointments.org/confirmations/confirmation_countdown.htm

sitka0230, you are correct that pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, the IG serves at the pleasure of the President.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sec_05a_01000003----000-.html

(Sec. 3(b))

The 1978 act is also where the notice requirement originated. The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 merely added the 30 day requirement.

http://www.ignet.gov/pande/leg/pl110-409.htm

(Sec. 3(a))

You are also correct that Obama complied with the law by notifying Congress that Walpin was suspended with pay, with termination to become effective 30 days hence.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-fires-controversial-inspector-general-.html

To the others: The phone call to Walpin did not constitute a removal from office, so its timing is of no consequence.

Trying again:

www.obamaconspiracy.org

Here:

Obama Conspiracy Theories

I'm done paying for this crap.

And you have yet to answer my question.

Why exactly do you say the production of a long-form birth certificate would lay the matter to rest? Be specific.

And please explain exactly what information relevant to Obama's eligibility is absent from the Certification of Live Birth but present on the long form? Notice the operative word here: relevant.

Sorry about that.

Actually, the law in effect in 1961 did require five years of residency in the US after the age of 14.

Irrelevant though, as there is irrefutable proof Obama was born in Hawaii, and no proof he was born anywhere else.