Ralph Lauren: We are responsible
Glow in the dark mushrooms
Funny video of congresspeople running away from a Huffington Post reporter because they don't want to answer the question, "Is Barack Obama is an American?" If they say yes, they will offend their birther wingnut base. If they say no, they will be seen as birther winguts. So, they run.
Only one, Trent Franks of Arizona, gives a correct and clear answer, but even he can't help himself from suggesting that Obama is facilitating Jihad and turning America into a socialist state.Elected Birthers on the HillFolks, this is what it has come to. The most powerful people in the world -- nationally elected legislators responsible for setting policy for the most powerful country on earth -- are lining up with cuckoo-bat-shit-crazy elements of the lunatic fringe.
And they have to. It's their base.
RSS Feed
The pen is mightier than the sword, and a video camera is mightier still.
The congresspeople know this, and that's why they run.
Birthers are perhaps even worse than Truthers, but I don't see how hounding them with cameras is a good thing. Don't we decry this when Fox News does it?
Did HuffPo even request a formal interview?
they all run from cameras. not just the nutball right but the nutball left as well. they are equal opportunity scumbags.
This is awesome!
I love the Birther nonsense. If I were a Democrat operative, I'd fan the flames of this wingnut hysteria as high as I could.
The more they focus on this instead of policy and message, the weaker they become. The birther phenomenon is a gift to liberals everywhere. Long may it live!
What it is, tragically, is latent racism - the real issue that is being politely tiptoed around. Precisely the kind of thing that is being unearthed - and confronted - during Obama's administration. There is a relevant article from a N.Y. Times columnist regarding the "birthers," and Henry Louis Gates:
"The problem is again the legitimacy of a black man living in a big house, especially when it’s the White House. Just as some in Durham and Cambridge couldn’t believe that Gates belonged in the neighborhood, so does a vocal minority find it hard tobelieve that an African-American could possibly be the real president of the United States. "
See the whole column here
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/henry-louis-gates-deja-vu-all-over-again/
illson, austin tx
Both the left and the right have their fringe that cannot take "Yes" for an answer. The left has its truthers and BDS sufferers and the right has its birthers and its "Hussein is his middle name" crowd.
Neither side will change their mind after being presented the facts, and much like scientific crackpots, will blame anyone who disagrees with them with being in cahoots with the other side.
I think you're right, Illson.
The Birthers are basically the corrupt, small town sheriff who pulls over your car and tells you, "You got a busted tail light, boy."
But when you get out of your car to have a look, you'll see that your tail lights are perfectly intact.
When you point that out, the Sheriff will smile, kick in one of the tail lights, and say, "Looks busted to me."
The problem is, it's a lot more difficult to, figuratively, kick in someone's tail light on this scale with everyone watching. (Not that there aren't people around willing to deny reality.)
I'm interested to see the equivalence being made here between Birthers and 9/11 Truthers -- it's true that both are groups of nutjobs, one from the right and one from (mostly) the left.
But: does anyone take Truthers seriously? Do they get wall-to-wall news coverage? Is there a Truther Bill before congress? Do we have congresspeople who would refuse to state on camera whether 9/11 was an inside job?
Truthers are as totally crazy as Birthers for sure. But Birthers have, as demonstrated here, a huge influence over both the popular imagination and their party. Truthers are part of a lunatic fringe that no one pays real attention to.
K012957,
The left have the "truthers" as well as the "dibold handed the election to bush"ers.
I'm not saying that any party is free of conspiracy theorists.
But the congresscritters who play to their conspiracy constituents IS interesting. I don't think there was a large number of truthers/diebolders among congressional democrats.
The further right the conservatives go, the more they have to cater to the wackier fringe.
@k012957:
Um, "Hussein" is his middle name. It's really weird that there are a number of lefties that believe that this is a right-wing myth.
Also, shouldn't it be "cannot take 'no' for an answer?"
To amplify what SIAMANG hints at:
Both parties have nuts, but among Republicans, the nuts are in charge.
And God forbid if a Republican dares to publicly suggest that Sarah Palin is a loon, that Rush Limbaugh is a corrosive demagogue, or that playing to fears of rural soreheads is a suicidal strategy.
I am honestly astonished, and deeply dismayed for my nation, that the saner elements of the GOP haven't formed a "Real Republican."
I'm waiting for the birthers to provide proof that BHO was born in Indonesia or Kenya!
The left have the "truthers"
Horsecrap. I'll agree about the Diebold types, but don't pin the 9/11 truth types on the liberals. They're a modern day moon landing denier movement, not a political movement.
I agree with Illson. Racism is the real motive. The other night on ABC Nightly News, they showed footage of a representative's Town Hall meeting as it was highjacked by a birther nutcase, who laid out (shouting and sobbing) all of the standard lines that she had been fed by the movement, saying how ashamed that her father, who gave his life for his country in WWII, would be of the country today, for letting a "non-citizen" be elected President. She ended by waving a flag and screaming "I want my country back, I want my country back!". Basically, they can't believe that the country elected "one of them", and will take any excuse to argue that we actually didn't, that he isn't President.
Erm, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the truthers are lefties. They're just paranoid wackos.
#10 you miss the point 100%. No one is denying Hussein is his middle name. I don't know a single lefty, not one, who doesn't acknowledge that. Not sure where you got that impression from.
Her point was the right wing lunatics harp on it, as if its proof he's a Sekret Muslin Kenyan Terr-rist!
Birthers infurate me because its indeed outright racism "concealed" behind a ridiculous excuse. Every last one of them is a shining example of ignorance and stupidity, two qualities apparently embraced by the far right.
"It's really weird that there are a number of lefties that believe that this is a right-wing myth."
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone deny that, SamSam. I believe the point wasn't denial, but making an issue of it at all. That I have heard, lots of it.
"there are a number of lefties that believe that this [Obams's middle name being Hussein] is a right-wing myth."
Really? Are you sure about that? I never once have heard anyone say that.
@SAMSAM,
It's not that the left don't know or believe that his middle name is Hussein, they just think it's irrelevant, and find it funny/sad that so many FoxNews people keep pointing it out.
Once the Birther movement is done, I expect the Retroactive Hawaii Secessionist campaign to mobilize next.
That's tough, and shows how damaged the GOP is-- a very vocal and implacable faction of the party is controlling the debate (whereas the "truthers" never controlled the debate, nor seriously influenced the Democratic party.) The GOP needs every vote it can get, but the more they try to satisfy the cranks, the more they alienate the moderates. Which makes me wonder-- if the mainstream media is so liberal why didn't they harp on about the various 9/11 conspiracies the way so many FoxNews and AM radio hosts are now with the "birth question?" (In fact I think those same right-wingers spent more time covering 9/11 conspiracies than the so-called liberal media, with the intent of making the left look like crackpots).
This is why they lost the election.
Echoing #17,16,15 etc: the issue is that there isn't an issue with his middle name being Hussain. And yet a bunch of right wing lunatics think there is. Apparently everyone called Hussain and Mohammed gets handed an AK and a "Kill all americans" flag at birth or something.
#20: "The Left has celebrated much loonier theories with very little criticism: Bush knew about 9/11 is believed by one in three Democrats, according to some polls"
Uh. Not a chance in hell. No idea where you read that statistic, but its complete bullshit.
one in thirty thousand democrats, MAYBE.
The truthers are generally NOT democrats or even left wing.
But thanks for playing.
The fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is a settled fact. What we really need is proof that Hawaii is, in fact, part of the United States of America.
Until sufficient evidence is brought forward, I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of this administration, and will protest by plugging my ears, closing my eyes, and saying "lalala I can't hear you!"
#25: I feel the same way about Kansas.
This story has no "base."
And your comment has no citations. Not even one teeny little citation for all those claims.
they all run from cameras. not just the nutball right but the nutball left as well. they are equal opportunity scumbags.
I'm sorry. You forgot to link to the videos that demonstrate your point.
I remember a Daily Show bit during the Kilborn years where they went after sidewalk Santa Claus yelling vague accusations like, "Are the allegations true?". They all looked really guilty.
"The most powerful people in the world -- nationally elected legislators responsible for setting policy for the most powerful country on earth -- are lining up with cuckoo-bat-shit-crazy elements of the lunatic fringe...And they have to. It's their base"
Sorry, as bat-shit insane as this consipracy theory is, these are not nationally elected legislators, they are LOCALLY elected legislators selected to represent their (admittedly bat-shit-insane) constituants on the national stage. Maybe I'm foolish, but I EXPECT my locally elected legilators to represent my local opinions and positions, even if those positions may seem bat-shit insane to the rest of the nation. It's value, beauty, (responsibility?) of a democratically elected legislator. This is why I say the problem is NOT our legilators, but the people of the US itself. We need better education, stronger emphasis on sciences and humanities that help us ask the big questions in critical ways. In short, we're focusing our wrath on the wrong idiots. Do worry about the idiot by proxy, worry about the actual idiots.
#10 - Well, the CEO of Diebold (spell it right, for God's sake!) did indeed say that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year (2004)." What he meant by that is a subject for debate, but he was in charge of building the damn electronic voting machines. Perception is reality. Between him and Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who was doing everything he possibly could to suppress voter turnout in certain areas of the state, it sure looks like there was a lot of shenanigans going on in the Buckeye State in 2004.
You see, while the left has its conspiracy theorists, the actual conspiracies the left has been screaming about since 2000 have tended to be true.
taken objectively and on the global scale, it is an inescapable conclusion that American republicans are a pernicious threat to the survival of the human race. Their bloody fingerprints are on every major war, ecological catastrophe, gross social injustice, short-sighted idiocy and election to power of the most immoral and imbecilic so-called "leaders" such as Nixon, ShoeBoy and various other lamprey and ticks that have drained the blood of the species for moronic personal gain. It behooves every human being that feels any responsibility at all to their descendants to stamp out this vile disease once and for all. More than enough evidence has accrued, the verdict is long on; they are evil, they are a menace and they must be wiped out. Whether it is their intrinsic internal defect of mentation, as evinced by any republican voter that actually has to work for a living, or the utter depravity and degeneracy of any undeservingly wealthy supporter of the corrupt mass of weaselly political maggots in the flesh of the body politic that constitute republican putative "office holders", they are in any case more contagion that can be tolerated if we are to live. There is no sin in dealing with such by fire and sword, indeed it is your sacred duty.
@22
"The "birth" conspiracy has been denounced from every Conservative journal and spokesman you can name: National Review, O'Rielly, Coulter, Limbaugh, et. al."
Really? Lou Dobbs mentioned his doubts:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lou-dobbs-raises-questions-about-obamas-bi
"The questions...haven't been dealt with straightforwardly and quickly."
Then he aired a comment from some crackpot about "Obama having enough Czars to call him 'Obama the Great.'" Thanks for pouring gas on the fire, Lou. Caught leprosy yet from any of those illegal aliens you said were bringing it into the US?
There's a difference between "Bush knew about 9/11" and "Bush made 9/11 happen" - Bush knew, or sources in Bush's white house knew that the trade centers were a target (as pretty much everyone in America knew), and it's evidenced that they were aware that an attack plan was at least in the works, see: the constantly replayed video of Rice saying "I believe the title was Bin Laden determined to attack inside the united states."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM
Granted, that's a long stretch from "The president knew 9/11 would happen" but it clearly indicates that there was intelligence that could have been acted upon but wasn't. I don't think that means that he had the ability to prevent it from happening, but I chalk that up to ineptitude, and maybe even bad luck, not some incredible conspiracy.
So I think that when you simplify the question down to a boiled skeleton of "Did bush know about 9/11" then the "yes" answer comes out. That's not a fair question though, and it frames everyone who answers in the affirmative as a conspiracy nut, even though their perspective is likely to be far more nuanced. I don't know many people who genuinely believe Bush or anyone in the administration had a hand in planning the attacks.
SamSam @11, what Democrats are complaining about, with Obama's middle name, is the tendency for right-wingers to ostentatiously use Obama's full name when talking about him, often emphasizing the middle name. You pretty much never hear anybody say "John Sidney McCain the Third" or "John Reid Edwards" or "Sarah Louise Palin", but somehow, Barack Obama's middle name becomes a vital part of his identity when right-wingers are talking about him.
Wow. No disemvowelling. Does the story have to be about Palin for that to happen?
who's Palin?
GravyTop,
If you feel a comment has gone over the line in some respect, or deserves to be looked at by a Mod, please hit the 'eyeball' on the comment in question and let us know why.
Thanks.
hmmm..six billion plus humans, one planet... 5% only live in the USA, ...what percent are actual card-carrying repubs?... must be a very finite number... perhaps a membership list leaked to the web worldwide?...nothing like putting a face on the real enemy...
I agree with Illson also. Birthplace is used as a strawman because being racist is no longer socially acceptable.
Try asking a Hawaiian (or Pacific Islander as they prefer to be called) if the Hawaiian islands have been or ever will be American Territory, and if they are American citizens. Don't stand too close when you ask them this because they are going to try and punch you in the face.
Hmm... if it was racism, wouldn't they be sayign he born in Canada? Or has that euphemism passed from parlance of late.
#16, 17, 19, 24, 37... The original comment that I quoted listed Birthers, Truthers, and the "'Hussein is his middle name' crowd." But if the original author wasn't equating the latter with the myths, then I misread.
I have had to revert several Wikipedia articles in the past from people saying "I don't know why people repeat this 'Hussein' myth," but that was early in the election when perhaps it was less well-known? Also, a number of birthers themselves actually believe that "Hussein" is a myth, and that his actual middle name is "Muhammad." True.
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missouri.
http://henryjenkins.org/obama%20spock%202.jpg
"Only one, Trent Franks of Arizona, gives a correct and clear answer"
Aaron Schock, "I believe he was." What's incorrect or unclear about that? I'm not a Schock supporter, but he said he believes Obama was born in the US. There are plenty of GOP goofs as it is; there's no point in pretending Schock is a birther.
that's "Missurrah!"
http://images.google.ca/images?q=grandpa%20simpson&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
@#50 posted by Anonymous:
That's crazy. Equally crazy, though, is that 18% of independents also believe that Bush knew, as do 12% of Republicans, according to that poll.
So while the poll shows that there are a lot of crazies, the fact that more than one in ten Republicans believe that their own president was involved in such a huge conspiracy shows that this specific crazy is spread around pretty evenly.
yh, bt rpblcns r dchbgs.
Polls are only as accurate as their sample group and the way the questions are formed: in essence - they are fucking meaningless.
douchey, but good for a laugh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/william-shatner-makes-pal_n_246034.html
Any mouse @ 50
"#25 Rasmussen poll. Loony conspiracy-think is usually the province of the Left, from the moon walk being faked to JFK to 9/11, etc."
The Rasmussen poll is a well known right wing poll that skews it results with regularity. No one should take it seriously.
#22 posted by hiteque
"-The conspiracy began with a Hillary Clinton supporter at a blog called The Blue State."
My memory is vauge but I do seem to remember something along those lines poping up at that time. However the conspiracy really got it's legs from noted loon Pamela Geller. For a run down on this conspiracy's real origins see:
The Origins Of The Birther Theory
"-The "birth" conspiracy has been denounced from every Conservative journal and spokesman you can name: National Review, O'Rielly, Coulter, Limbaugh, et. al."
From the article referenced to above:
All you have is hearsay, I have a referenced article with full links to the relevant quotations. But then I'm just a DFH, go figure.
I think it's hilarious that John McCain was also born OCONUS. So we have people who (probably) would rather have a prez from the Panama canal zone, instead of from Kenya/Indonesia/wherever the hell Barry H. Sotero happens to have been born.
I lived through forty years of a prevailing right-wing conspiracy theory called the Communist Menace. If you weren't a flag-waving knee-jerk reactionary, you were either a communist or a communist dupe.
It's funny how right wingers blame the 9/11 truthers on the left when Alex Jones, an avowed right-winger, is one of the big leaders of the nutters. The Truther movement has much the same origins as the Birther movement: they can't believe that a dozen non-white non-American people brought the nation to its knees, so they need to invent stories to sooth their rabid right-wing nationalist pee-brains.
@14: Have you heard anybody on the right say, "Boy, I sure do love me some Bush, but... he was definitely in on 9\11"? C'mon. Of course it's a left-wing push, and rather obviously so, as well. Only the truly dogmatic would deny it; it's a little like Mormons who try to pretend polygamy was never part of their doctrine- it's a shame-based denial over something ridiculous that a fringe group believes.
@22, 28, etc.: of course this story has "no base": none of the politically-motivated "pieces" on BB do... and frequently seem to be written only to bolster the POVs of people who agree. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, vote Libertarian usually, and find it hilarious how all these kinds of stories merely turn into idiotic comments like #52. This isn't a discourse, it's mostly a reason for people to rag on the other side, whether right or left...
...which brings me to #34- once again by somebody without anything meaningful to add... you could say the same about anybody, assuming you disagreed with them enough to wish to deal with them "by fire and sword". What are you, a thirteen-year-old with too deep an interest in Nietzche? Personally, I'm against *anybody* legislating my life, whether they appear to do so because they thing everybody's stupid and need them to foist "morality" on the public, as the right does, or whether they seem to do it for the sake of telling people what to do and "for their own good", and because "rights" is such a cheap word nowadays that you can attach it to anything and get a protest going. As far as every war being the fault of the right, what party did Truman belong to again? Y'know, the guy who nuked 2 cities... or LBJ? Or did he turn Republican *before* the secret wars in Cambodia and Laos? Check your history, genius. Hell, use Google if you don't know something.
Oh, and how much did George Soros contribute to the last two races, all by his little lonesome? It's easy to throw stones, less so to know what you're talking about without spewing propaganda or using loaded language. Try reason instead of an imbecilic attempt at either humor, or goosestepping incitement, next time.
I foresee an effective, but humane, final solution to the republican problem. The secret camps set up under the Cheney Administration originally intended for the liquidation of the literate elements of the general population could be re-tasked to handle the republican useless eaters.
There is ample precedent in American history for the use of a fine quality, European made de-lousing compound which was initially tested on Mexican farm workers in the border states. A bit of efficient organization and some cooperation from the railroad companies and we could quickly deal with the republicans in the manner most appropriate. Blackwater Xe has already volunteered to provide the required security and General Dynamics along with SAIC has made proposals for green-friendly co-generation plants to handle the "bio-waste".
lol *yawn* great job overlooking the plotholes, chief. Personally, I say stick everybody from both sides in- between the weird and virulent crap coming from the mouths of the left, or the obfuscation and stiffnecked ignorance of the right, neither side is any less *evil* than the other... the GOP has just had more time to prove their brand of evil lately.
I, for one, won't be waiting around for Obama and Co. to save me. Between "Birthers" and "Truthists", I'm all outta time for dogma, party lines, and loaded language. I don't feel that blindly putting faith in some guy because he isn't the other guy makes any more sense than the whole argument about where he was or was not born. Who cares? Ultimately, there has to be something more constructive to do with one's time than calling one another names... nah, probably not.
As a cultural sidelight, the Honolulu Advertiser just reconfirmed that Obama's birth certificate, or 'Certificate of Live Birth', is still on file:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280345/Hawaii+officials+confirm+Obama’s+original+birth+certificate+still+exists
Oh dear.
O Diskordia,
You don't have enough credit here to be that dickish. Dial it down.
another tell-tale sign of the Infiltration; "Live Birth:" indeed. Clearly, they forget their egg-laying ancestry in a moment of bureaucratic ecstasy.
of course, we would have to cull the more comely of their youth - temporarily anyway, before returning them as "more worthy".
Those useless operatives, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Sideshow Ann and all... contemptible lack of discipline as usual. Especially that Rush; "drug him well and bring him to my quarters"! The expense of the fat idiot's Harkonnen suit! Ah well, they'll come out "in the wash".
Birthers? Teabaggers?
Sounds like a strange fetish for excessive compulsory child-bearing and ball-sack face-rubbing respectively.
As of today, I officially feel old.
Takuan spewed:
These Secret Camps? Puh-leeze...
The most interesting part of the video to me is around 3:45 when one Republican senator says "I'll be quite honest with you, when they told us to bring that into question [whether Barak was born in the U.S.], we did some research". I love those rare admissions that all the Republican dirty tricks come from a central place as "talking points".
Now if only there was a website somewhere that published all the weekly talking points, for Democrats and Republicans and Whoevers, we'd probably know a lot more about what's actually news and what's just bogus propaganda.
Takuan suggested:
Really?
Vietnam War - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican (started, ran through Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R) and Ford (R) who ended it)
Korean War - President Harry Truman, Democrat (started it, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican, ended it)
World War II - President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat
World War I - President Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
Spanish American War - President William McKinley, Republican
Civil War - President Lincoln, Republican
Lincoln was the first Republican President, so earlier wars excluded...
Seems like a mixed-bag to me...
no need to maintain the charade Agent Hutton. Your reward is assured.
We have a representative form of government. It just happens to represent a nation that has gone batshit crazy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXr1mkYWeCU
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama
wrybread was looking for a source of various party talking points, for the Democratic Talking points, you need go no further than Keith Olberman's show, on the Republican side, I'm not sure where to point you - I think that is indicative of the Republican party's main problem...
Oh, if the Right only had our own Keith Olberman!
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/this_land
Well, we do know one thing for sure: McCain was ineligible for the presidency.
His birthplace was grandfathered in, but he was born one year too soon to benefit from that law.
McCain is a Venusian?
JFRANCIS - If McCain isn't a citizen, how can he be a Senator? That position has a citizenship requirement as well, but if you are saying he never became a naturalized citizen...
Having been born of U.S. Citizen parents, the location of the blessed event is immaterial. The location is considered only if the child is born of one or more non-U.S. citizens. John McCain is a citizen, and the law regarding his actual status (eligibility) with regard to the office of President or Vice President, having been born of US Citizens on a US military base is a matter that would have to be resolved by the US Supreme court. (based on a read of a Wikipedia entry or two, I'd welcome a better source, but that's the best I have at the moment.)
O Diskordia,
The Democrats are the lesser of two evils. If the Libertarians had any power, the Democrats would be the lesser of three evils.
You criticize a poster for sounding like a 13-year-old with too much interest in Nietzsche, yet you say "Personally, I'm against *anybody* legislating my life,..." Which I think shows an immature understanding of an individual's relationship to society.
You know what the funniest part of the Hussein thing is? It means handsome - comely.
From wiki:
Husein, Hussein, Hossein, Hossain, Hussain, Husain, Hosein, Haussein, Husayn (Arabic: حسین Ḥussayn), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hassan, meaning "good" or "handsome" or "beautiful".
So, these people who think they are insulting Barack Obama, casting aspersions or whatever - are actually calling the man handsome!
HAHA! Take that, homophobes!
:-)
Ok, let's say that Obama was born outside of the US.
So what?
Think of the many many thousands of US Military personnel stationed throughout the world, now a good chunk of these people are having kids, sometimes with each other, sometimes marrying people who are from the area that they are stationed.
So the "birthers" would have it that none of these kids are American citizens, assuming that they were all "legitimate" issue of a marriage?
I dunno about you but I would be seriously reticent to get in the face of some Gung HO Semper Fi US marine corp jarhead and tell him the Little baby Jarhead Jnr, born in Manilla or Dusseldorf is NOT a US citizen.
But this applies to non military US citizens, you meet Brunhilda at the Munchen Oktoberfest and it's love at first sight, and down the line you find that your kid is not American?
I don't think so.
It's a bit early to dip back into the stock market, but I'm going long on popcorn futures.
And those Secret US boncentration bamps are a perennial. Apologies for linkwhoring, but the Great Gazoogle didn't offer up any alternatives.
A note about HITEQUE's post (#22): It's mostly a cut-and-paste plagiarism from Rich Lowry in The National Review.
But seriously, thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Error404 - Citizenship is conferred in three basic ways:
1) Being born on American Soil
2) Being Born of American Parents (two)
3) As the result of a legal process, which includes the renouncing of any previous citizenship.
(A woman that goes overseas, has a child in, say, France with a French father, then that child is not a US Citizen, they are entitled to US Citizenship (the third path listed above), but the child is not simply a US Citizen by having survived gestation in the womb of a US Citizen.)
There are exactly two forms of citizenship, categories, if you will:
Citizenship - all citizens are considered equal, unless they are elected to the office of the President.
Natural Born Citizen - only exists as a specific requirement for assuming the Presidency. The sole requirement for "Natural Born Citizen" is to be born in one of the American States, and this clearly excludes possessions and territories, but military bases are an unresolved question.
So, you are willing to concede (for the sake of argument, nothing more) that President Obama was born off US soil, that eliminates the first way of becoming President.
Then, since his father is not a citizen, that eliminates the second path to citizenship.
Finally, if he does not enter into a legal process to secure US citizenship, that eliminates the third path to citizenship.
So, actually, where he was born is a big issue, since he was elected President.
I am not a birther, and I don't question President Obama's citizenship, but I do think that Team Obama could have handled this better, more definitively a couple years ago.
Typos in my previous post - I meant to say:
.
As a citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii, I feel it is my duty to settle this controversy, once and for all. Legally, Obama's birthplace was Honolulu, Hawaii. But Hawaii is an independent Kingdom, illegally annexed by US Pres. McKinley (for which he was assassinated by an illegal alien). So, technically, your President was not born in the USA. His Mom was, though, so he is in fact a citizen, according to current US law.
And here's the other side's proof: A imaginary Kenyan birth certificate. Ah, imaginary Kenya! I can still smell the imaginary lions! Watch out they don't come back to bite you in your imaginary ass, b'wana!
.
@Timothy Hutton:
It seems as if your post about John McCain and your post about natural born citizens contradict each other.
The question would be whether McCain is a Natural Born citizen. The two preceding adjectives may (or may not) imply a higher standard of citizenship for presidents than for senators, which according to your link need only be citizens for nine years.
McCain could therefore potentially be a citizen but not a natural born citizen, and so eligible to be a senator but not president.
I'm not saying he is, mind you. I think the whole argument is ridiculous. I'm just saying your post #80 is contradicted by your post #85.
Samsam - thanks. The first post was about McCain and his "disputed" citizenship. His Citizenship isn't in dispute, his status as a "Natural Born Citizen" is an (as yet) un-answered legal question. I hinted at this in my second post, but wasn't clear. (according to Wikipedia link I provided)
I said:
Thanks for asking, I hope this helps.
Samsam - A person can be born one of four places (for purposes of this discussion):
US State - Citizenship is conferred upon birth (anchor babies) no matter the parents.
US Territory/Posession - If born of US Citizens, citizenship conferred upon birth, not so for foreign nationals at the same location. (American Samoans are citizens, and their children are as well)
US Military base/consular facility - If born of US Citizen parents, citizenship is conferred upon birth, not so for children born of foreign nationals.
Foreign Soil - If born of US Citizen parent, citizenship is conferred upon birth.
(I'm speaking about "citizenship" not "Natural Born Citizen" status in the above)
My second wife was born in Germany, to an American soldier and his (also American) wife. There was never any doubt about her American citizenship - she worked for both the IRS and Social Security, so she'd been thoroughly vetted. This whole "birther" argument is ridiculous right-wing radio nonsense, and I don't blame Obama a bit for ignoring it in the manner it so richly deserves. One is not required to respond to lunatics.
TIMOTHYHUTTON
Ah right, thanks for the clarification.
I have to say that it seems ridiculous that both parents have to be US citizens.
I'm a Brit (Scotsman actually) but my mother is Irish, so from the moment of birth in the UK I was both British and Irish.
That seems the way to do it to my mind.
Anyhow, birthers are insane as BHO was born in Hawaii which legally make shim a US citizen.
Although i fully appreciate as a Scot and an Irishman the point made earlier about illegal occupation of countries.
Timothy Hutton,
There is no 'definition' of natural born citizen other than whatever Congress and the Supreme Court deem to be convenient at any given moment. For those born after 1986, the rules are looser for children born abroad of one US citizen. It's unfixed and negotiable.
As to your comment that possessions are excluded and military bases are undecided, what exactly do you think a military base on foreign soil is?
Antinous asked:
I was writing in the context of "Natural Born Citizen," not "citizenship", and I'm a bit confused about "military bases on foreign soil" question, I was only considering military bases on foreign soil, and while a child born on a military base on foreign soil is certainly a citizen (if born of US citizen parents), the law is not clear (as I've said twice already) on if that child is a "Natural Born Citizen," a requirement to assume the office of President.
As for you "lack fo definition" statement, I've never said anything different - I said it is a matter for the Supreme Court to address (following quote from entry #80):
The above is in the context of a child born on a US military base on foreign soil, since that is where John McCain was born (I should have reminded the reader of that in my entry)
thanks to timothy hutton for clarifying the roots of the birther controversy - the very real possibility that Barack Obama doesn't fulfill the 'Natural Born Citizen' definition required for Presidents. However, let me ask this: if it was (for the sake of example) John McCain, or some other Joe Blow who doesn't neatly fulfill the 'Natural Born Citizen' definition but happens to be White-Anglo-Saxon protestant, would there be a controversy?
Umm... no, I think you missed something way above. Timothy Hutton has been discussing the various ways that someone born outside of the United States may or may not be a "natural born" citizen.
Obama, however, was born in Hawaii, which is in the United States, rendering the discussion moot.
The discussion in the last bunch of posts has been about John McCain or some other theoretical person born outside of the United States, not about Obama...
samsam
i re-read the the above post and realized my error - thanks
Anonymous - you missed an important point - namely, that if Senator John McCain were elected, there would be a need for the Supreme Court to make a ruling, since he was born on a military base on foreign soil (Panama Canal zone?), and that falls into a gray zone/uncharted territory...
@ Timothy Hutton:
They wouldn't have to make a ruling unless someone mounted a lawsuit that made it through the Federal courts. As it is few legal professionals really doubted McCain's eligibility.
Timothy Hutton, I think you're wrong in two ways: one, strategically:you let Takuan troll you with his ridiculous-on-the-face-of-it prescription for dealing with Republicans; two, factually: one only has to have ONE US citizen parent to be entitled to US citizenship.
Depending on the nationality of the other parent, the child so born may be forced to choose at majority, or may be able to maintain dual citizenship.
IANALATINLA.
of course we would need a Conference to fine tune the details. I suggest Washington state, somewhere quiet... Walla Walla perhaps?
Xopher - I don't see the troll from Takuan - care to point it out?
As for the one parent, two parent "question" - the law was amended in 1986, beaning it currently applies only to individuals under 24 years old - and since you have to be 35 years of age or older to be President it won't impact Presidential politics until the year 2021...
Brainspore - can you imagine raising and spending three-quarters of a Billion dollars to get a four year job with some sweet perks, only to find out you lost to a fellow that maybe wasn't eligible for the job, due to a vague passage in the Constitution and not sue?
How many lawyers were lying in wait in the last election (on both sides), a couple thousand? We know the McCain campaign investigated the the birther "claim" (as they should have, and they dismissed it rather quickly, never to speak of it during the election), do you suspect no one on the Obama side investigated McCain's citizenship? I think they did, and I base my conclusions on the fact that Obama had all his opponents removed from the ballot in his 1996 Illinois State Senate election.
And I think he should, if he found himself in that situation - he would owe it to his supporters, IMHO.
carry on Agent Hutton, your good work is appreciated and history will show you were a major contributor at the Walla Walla Conference. Perhaps it will be immortalized in film.
do you suspect no one on the Obama side investigated McCain's citizenship?
The same Obama that, along with Hillary Clinton, sponsored the Senate resolution to declare McCain a natural born citizen?
Antinous snidely commented:
Sure, why couldn't he investigate his opponent, find him to be be a citizen (or likely to to prevail in any legal challenge, same difference), and then publicly "take the high road" and voice support for the obvious?
Old habits die hard, he's eliminated political opponents before when the stakes were comparatively low (Illinois State Senate race vs. President of the United States), and I see no reason to think that was "off the table"... Was that just a youthful indiscretion?
Just to be 100% clear - I'd see nothing wrong with the Obama campaign investigating his opponent's citizenship - why fight an invalid opponent?
@ Timothy Hutton #104:
Brainspore - can you imagine raising and spending three-quarters of a Billion dollars to get a four year job with some sweet perks, only to find out you lost to a fellow that maybe wasn't eligible for the job, due to a vague passage in the Constitution and not sue?
In a word, yes. I truly believe that had their positions been reversed then Obama would have taken the high road, just as McCain has.
Brainspore - Fair enough, but I think it would be very hard for him to explain to his (Obama's, in this hypothetical) supporters...
It is fair to question the questionable, and to be honest, the documents I've seen leave the "Natural Born Citizen" question open, w/r/t John McCain's "being born on a military base on foreign soil by US parents" status.
I know of several instances where John McCain publicly "took the high road," and I am certain there are just as many instances where Candidate Obama also "took the high road" - maybe even more, but it isn't about either candidate. Each had what appeared (on the surface) to be reasonable questions about their opponent's ability to meet the requirements of the Office of President. The role of Opposition Research is to uncover, examine and inform the candidate/aides about their opponent, that is all I am describing - nothing nefarious.
I don't think questioning someone's ability to meet the legal requirements of a position they seek is "the low road." Ignoring the truth and perpetuating false acqusations would be "the low road," but neither candidate did that in our most recent election.
But, as a pure hypothetical, let's say Candidate A found out that he could, legally, disqualify his opponent, Candidate B by merely pointing out that Candidate B was ineligible to hold the position they both sought, as a matter of law. Let's also say that there is another candidate, Candidate C, that Candidate A was afraid of running against, more so than Candidate B. Might it not be in Candidate A best interest to let Candidate B run against him, and only point out the legal issue if Candidate B wins the election (for the good of the country, Candidate B can't be President, he doesn't meet the requirement), but if Candidate A wins, he need never bring it up. It's a win-win for Candidate A. Candidate A wouldn't even need to publicly point out the problem with Candidate B, he could simply let his concerns be known after the election, before the results are confirmed...
Reminder - the above was a pure hypothetical.
Brainspore - wait, I just re-read your comment, are you saying that McCain has some lever to unseat President Obama, but he "took the high road" and choose not to follow up on it?
President Obama was legally qualified to assume the position of President of the United States, he won the election, and now is President - do you know something different?
@#103 Timothy Hutton:
There have been several, but you've been too willing to dismiss people as ignorant to realize they were poking fun.
Here's one:
#60 posted by Takuan
I foresee an effective, but humane, final solution to the republican problem. The secret camps set up under the Cheney Administration originally intended for the liquidation of the literate elements of the general population could be re-tasked to handle the republican useless eaters.
You clearly didn't even question whether this ridiculous comment might be a joke, instead responding with the accusation that Takuan was "spewing" and had to come up with some proof to show how wrong he was. (Gee, wow, you mean Cheney wasn't actually planning on liquidating literates? Where would we be without you?)
As an aside, you rhetorical put-downs of people by quoting them as "spewing," "snidely commenting" and so on only lowers what has otherwise been an interesting lesson in constitutional law.
Timothy Hutton 103: I don't see the troll from Takuan - care to point it out?
How about here, here (which you failed to realize was a joke/trolling here), here, and here. Actually "trolling" may be overstating the case; Takuan was having fun at your expense, and you unwittingly played along. As SamSam points out, no one, not even the most foaming-at-the-mouth tinfoil-hat-wearing leftie freakazoid, seriously believes Cheney was planning to kill everyone who could read (everyone who could read the Qur'an, maybe, but not the general literate population). Well, maybe the people (and they exist) who believe that Cheney (and Queen Elizabeth II!) are actually lizards from outer space, but I bet even they think the human population will be enslaved rather than exterminated.
You seem to know a lot, but the things you know don't appear to include "when you're being played"—or even, as in this case, just "played with."
I am a conservative and a registered Republican.
What are all these things I'm supposed to be doing, now? I can't keep track... I know you all say I eat babies out of season, but I can't even remember when babies are in season.
Help me out, here, people. I just want you all to be happy!
(I can't post under my username today because Moveable Type is objecting to any attempt to authenticate. It probably doesn't like Republicans.)
@ Timothy Hutton:
When I referred to McCain "taking the high road" I was referring to his tasteful and eloquent concession speech (in my opinion the best speech he made during the entire campaign). After a hard-fought election McCain accepted that the American voters chose the other guy and stepped aside. Again, I think Obama would have done the same if their positions were reversed.
And no, I don't think Obama would have had a hard time explaining that to his supporters. Obama understands the Constitution better than most- he spent twelve years as a professor of constitutional law, after all- and he had already clearly stated that he believed McCain was eligible for the Presidency.
Stefan, JJasper --
What you're seeing there is an automatic assertion of symmetricality: "The other side does it too!" It's a purely anecdote-based response style that takes no account of magnitude or frequency, and it's almost always done by right-wingers.
Well, it retroactively took my username despite generating an error page. Go figure.
Still waiting for a list of what Republicans are supposed to be and do, here. Help me out! Should I be shooting people randomly on pre-christian holidays?
BTW, I'll bet every single person in this thread is a 911 conspiracy theorist. Remember, the US goverment says members of al-Quaeda conspired to commit the WTC and pentagon atrocities. If you're not a 911 conspiracy theorist, I'd love to hear your narrative!
@ Ito Kagehisa #116:
Clearly you haven't been here long if you thing BoingBoing is full of "9/11 Truthers." In fact you clearly haven't even been reading much of this thread, because several people already made comparisons between those fanatics and the ones who think Obama's birth is part of a massive cover-up.
As for what I personally think Republicans do:
Support bad public policy, mostly. Anything else is your business.
@Brainspore: OK, anyway, so I'm supposed to support bad policy, got it. I guess voting against George W. Bush four times was a wrong move, then. Thanks for the correction!
But are you sure there isn't more? I see so many "republicans do this" and "republicans do that" posts every day it seems like there must be more I should be doing.
Incidentally, I've been here since bOINGbOING went electronic.
@ Ito Kagehisa:
Republicans as a whole do things that individual Republicans may not. Your voting against Bush is an example of that.
It is still an accurate statement to say "Republicans supported George W. Bush through two election campaigns." And it's definitely a better generalization than "every single person in this thread is a 911 conspiracy theorist."
Speaking of trolling...an endless stream of 'what ifs' look an awful lot like a disingenuous attempt to undermine the facts by rumor and misdirection. But, bird gotta fly, fish gotta swim.
Ito, you've neglected phrase semantics in your analysis. The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' means something more than "person who believes there are conspiracies." There ARE conspiracies; the FBI just took one down in and around my state that involved 44 people and everything from illegal campaign contributions to money laundering to trafficking in human organs.
Believing that real conspiracies have taken place is not enough to make someone a conspiracy theorist, as the phrase is understood today. In fact, applying that label to someone implies that they're wrong about whatever conspiracy they theorize about, and possibly crazy into the bargain. So to say "I thought he was a conspiracy theorist, but he was right" isn't being silly.
Or were you just joking, as you were in the first paragraphs of your post? If so...please don't. One Takuan is plenty, IMO!
Oh, as for what you're supposed to do as a Republican: you're supposed to get into the nice house and lock the door after you (this is particularly interesting if you're an immigrant; you should make sure you tell everyone that no one who immigrated after [date you immigrated] should be allowed to stay). You also should snatch food from the mouths of children and sell it to help pay for your giant yacht.
If you're not wealthy, you should be stupid. Also if you're not white. Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side.
You must keep a loaded handgun with the safety off under your pillow, a shotgun under your bed, and a bb gun in the baby's room (unless, of course, you've already eaten the baby, in which case you can skip that part). You should kiss, fondle, and [CENSORED] with your guns every day. You must shoot anyone you don't recognize who comes anywhere near your property, even if the light is dim and it could be the neighbor's kid.
You should use the most vulgar, racist, inflammatory language possible at all times, and brag about how "politically incorrect" you are. Exception: when a TV camera is pointed at you, you can smirk and use phrases like 'rhymes with bigger' and 'there's a word for that but I won't say it'. Make sure you think you're being virtuous when you do.
Make sure you're a young-Earth Creationist, and believe everything in the Bible without question. That includes believing that Jesus was the true son of Joseph (thus of the House of David) AND, at the same time, that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit before Joseph, or any man, ever lay with her. Believe that marriage is sacred, except when Republicans decide they want to change spouses, and that the death penalty is OK but abortion is murder (unless the wife or daughter of a Republican has one, in which case it's OK).
In fact, it's better if you don't THINK at all. Just believe whatever Rush and Ann tell you, regardless of how ridiculous it is, and recite this week's talking points. Whenever someone tries to point out a contradiction in what you say, talk louder than them so they can't make their point (watch how Bill Kristol does this, he's really got skillz).
NOTE for the humor-impaired: The above is a joke. Timothy Hutton, please don't take it apart point by aching point; I know there are Republicans who aren't like this, including, I assume, most in this thread. This is a liberal stereotype of Republicans. Grain of truth in it, like most stereotypes, but it's presented here as humor, not analysis.
Ito 118: I guess voting against George W. Bush four times was a wrong move, then.
In terms of "being a loyal member of the Republican base," yeah it was. For all other purposes, not so much.
xopher - This was a great BB article, and not unrelated to your point.
I don't represent or defend all Republicans, and I'm more than willing to let Takuan have his fun - it hurts no one, and as others noticed, it is an obvious joke. When he refers to me directly, I weigh the benefit of responding, and sometimes it's worth it, some times it's not.
I hadn't seen any pointed directly at me worth responding to (I've been focusing on sharing information on-topic, foolish me...).
As for the "snide" comments, they are earned, not given. I am deliberate in my use of them, and they bear the malice of forethought.
Brainspore - First, President Obama was a lecturer on Constitutional Law in Chicago, not a professor. There is a difference.
Second, pity you limited your observation of McCain "taking the high road" to his concession speech, there are many examples of McCain defending Candidate Obama when various wing-nuts got the microphone at town hall events and trash-talked his opponent. I don't recall, but I am happy to agree that there were various times when Candidate Obama acted in the same way - it would be perfectly in character with the way he ran his campaign.
And for those of you who've been skimming my posts, let me point something out - of the two candidates, it was McCain that has/had an actual legal issue with his candidacy, as best as I can figure out (and IANAL), the "born on a US military base to US citizen parents on foreign soil" question hasn't been decided (but his "Natural Born Citizenship" may be a forgone conclusion).
@ Timothy Hutton #125,
Wow, I can't even pay McCain a compliment without you getting upset that I didn't mention every decent thing he's ever done.
Whatever, I think you get my point. Obama would have respected McCain's legitimacy if the election results had been different, just as McCain respects Obama's. Now let's see if we can put all those tedious hypotheticals behind us and continue to mock the "birther" movement.
As for the "snide" comments, they are earned, not given.
And here I was, working for the weekend.
Someone asked, so I reviewed my posts on this thread, and I found the following times when I prefaced a quote with an adverb:
#68 Takuan spewed:
#70 Takuan suggested:
#95 Antinous asked:
#107 Antinous snidely commented:
I stand behind each, abd notice that two of them (Fifty Percent!) are absolutely neutral, and the two that cast aspersion ("spewed" and "snidely commented" were both earned). Takuan's comment was a bile-laced false acqusation, and Antinous apparently thought he had "gotten me", so I called his comment a snide remark, properly defining the way I read it, and I assume the way he meant it.
I didn't escalate, I simply made note of the tone in the passage I quoted, acurately, IMHO. I've not had Takuan, Antinous, or others complain, so I assume I was correct.
You're rocking today, Xopher! Well done.
OK, I'll stop since you and Antinous are being so nice. But hell, I had some zingers saved up, you didn't even let me get to my "fried chicken and watermelon" routine. That one always makes people start gobbling and spluttering incoherently.
I really am a registered Republican, though. And extremely conservative - I think Reagan was a god damn traitor who should have been shot.
Brainspore - I'm not upset, I assumed your orignal comment was broader, that's all. You didn't need to mention everything he ever did, your original statement didn't seem to be limited to McCain's concession speech, and I was suprised when it was - that's really all.
When I'm upset I use exclaimation marks (!) and exciting HTML, and when I think my humor might be lost in the post, I emphasise my smiley, like this: ;^)
Xopher volunteered:
You're from Jersey, I'm from Jersey! What exit?
@ ito - That one always makes people start gobbling and spluttering incoherently.
Nothing says "i take other peoples opinions seriously" quite like that does, ito.
Good to know you subscribe to the "Nice dialogue you got there, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it" school of rhetoric.
Not only that, Timothy, but we both have 3-syllable first names stressed on the first syllable (and that have short versions, but we use the full version), and last names spelled H_tton. My real name's in my profile if you're curious.
I don't drive, so I'm not sure what exit. Also not sure I want to publish my exact location, especially since my name IS on my profile. Give you a hint, though: the mayor of my town was among those arrested; he'd been in office only briefly.
Erm, no, not really.... at least as far as nonacademics should concern themselves. His title was "Senior Lecturer," but that's only operative in an academic context, or when he needed to officially identify by title: say, when speaking to the media in his capacity as Senior Lecturer. If you're going to quibble about his exact status in the academic box factory, accuracy would help.
But this is all inside baseball: "Professor" is the general term for "college teacher," and that's good enough for the hoi polloi. The term's never been used inaccurately qua Obama's rank, at least that I've seen: all instances I'm familiar with have been in the general sense of "smart guy who teachers college." To refer to a college professor by their exact title would be beyond the knowledge of those who don't need to know the exact gradations of academic rank: more to the point, it would be a rather strained, arch way of speaking, finical parsing rather than communication.
This has also been a Republican talking point, BTW, part of the "Obama doesn't tell the truth meme." Add to this a lurking anti-intellectualism, and you have one toxic meme there, which I'm sure the community will be grateful for your avoiding in the future.
Don't know that school, MDH.
I am in the "don't unsheathe the blade if you don't fully intend to kill something" school, though, which may be related.
I really really don't like it when people stigmatize all members of a large diverse group the way Republicans are stigmatized in this thread. It feels very personal when it's a group I'm a member of. I like to point out the bigotry.
Some people registered Republican because they wanted to make a difference. Democrats don't vote in republican primaries, democrats don't influence republican electors, democrats don't get to be republican voting officials, etc. Myself, I've been registered Republican ever since that traitor Reagan's second term.
Xopher going completely over the top made it OK, for me at least.
Antinous has a good ear for tone. It's one of the things that makes him a good moderator.
Ito Kagehisa, why do you consider Reagan a traitor?
I don't know about Ito, but secretly selling weapons to a hostile power sounds like treason to me. Like almost the legal definition of treason.
Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason. Giving weapons to declared enemies fits the bill, as Brainspore noted.
Unfortunately that article requires "the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court" for conviction, so that was easily prevented.
"you must be at least THIS TALL to ride the Takuan"
Wow.
So the public face smiles at the nutcases while the private flushes with sublimated suspicion.
Choke down those conspiracy theories with a pro biotic-thermite chaser to totally dissolve your niggling infatuation with the truth-er.
Alex basically seems out to emphasise the sexiness of internal document revelation. That's his job. The conclusions he draws are fantastic by anyone's standards but the basic information is solid.
So perhaps some of you 'deniers' out there can help assuage my hysterical caterwauling and point out how a bunch of barely closeted racists bear any resemblance whatsoever to groups of concerned experts?
...Without resorting to referencing of the fringe screamers and Jonesian marketeers!
Hey -
Sorry I'm late to the party. Wayyy up at #103 there's a link to an explanation of the change in the law for "Natural Born Citizens" in 1986:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
"Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."
That reads to me pretty clearly as a change intended to be retrospective; otherwise why mention births in 1952?
That jibes with what I've read elsewhere - that one citizen parent (who met the physical presence requirements at the time) is sufficient to make you a "Natural Born Citizen".
(I'm aware this is irrelevant in the case of the current POTUS, as he was born on U.S. soil anyway).