161

Obama, Republicans and the Birthers

President Obama turns 48—and some of his opponents go “crazy”


 

Obama, Republicans and the BirthersOn August 4, President Barack Obama will be celebrating his 48th birthday.  It seems the actual date poses no problem but his place of birth has become a hot-button issue in the blogosphere and has given rise to a movement called, birthism. In recent weeks, the movement with its prominent and active website has been either supported or encouraged by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, CNN’s Lou Dobbs , Fox’s Glenn Beck, convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy and a number of  Republican elected officials. They have succeeded in keeping the issue alive and some poll figures in the American South show over 30 per cent believe he was not born in the U.S. or they are not sure. A disturbing, though for now, isolated statistic.

To the mainstream media with the exception of Lou Dobbs, this is seen as a marginal issue. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan organization and a respected fact-finding and verification outfit associated with the University of Pennsylvania, disputes the allegations of the Birthers and has verified existing legal documents to confirm that Obama fulfills the constitutional requirement of being born in the United States. The state of Hawaii officially assures us of Obama’s birth in Honolulu in 1961 with documents at hand. Yet, despite a grueling primary season and presidential campaign that lasted over two years with close scrutiny and vetting by media and opponents, and the fact that Obama has been in office for over six months, some Republicans are introducing legislation  requiring future occupants  to provide birth certificate evidence that they are native born citizens. They say Obama is not the target, just future candidates. Who are they kidding? This entire episode following last year’s campaign about Obama being a Muslim should be laughable, but it illustrates a more disturbing line of attack on Obama.

Opponents of the Birthers have begun to respond and not a moment too late. Some critics of the Birther movement go as far as to claim that it is a form of subtle racism aimed at the first African American to occupy the Presidency. Some moderate conservatives are concerned that this fringe element risks marginalizing the Republican party  as it tries to regroup for the 2010 mid-term elections. Others are equating the Birthers to the arch right wing John Birch Society of the 50s and 60s which conservative icon and legendary columnist William F. Buckley considered as anathema to the conservative movement of the day. This may appear encouraging to moderate Republicans who probably wish the Birthers would go away, but I would not hold my breath. The line of attack on Obama from the outset by the hard right has not been on policy but on identity. Everyday, Limbaugh claims that Obama dislikes America and charges that he actually apologizes  to foreign nations for past foreign policy decisions. Glenn Beck went as far as labeling the President a racist for his comments in the Gates-Crowley affair. That drumbeat is becoming louder in the opposition to the stimulus package, healthcare reform, the Sotomayor nomination hearings, and foreign policy.

When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, the right wing—with Rush Limbaugh leading the way—went after him with a vengeance . Surely, they attacked him on policy but they especially went after him on personal matters  with the Whitewater investigation, Troopergate, Paula Jones, and  later the Lewinsky episode being the highlights. Granted, Clinton displayed bad judgment and actually played into the hands of his adversaries. However, in the case of Obama, he appears more elusive on character issues. It seems the fringe or hard right has chosen the angle of his identity, his Americanism. The Beer Summit may have  given them further material to attack the President. Never mind that we can actually have a conversation on race that does not degenerate into name calling or violence. Obama made it into a racial question,  ol’ Rush and his ilk claim. Politics often creates its silly seasons but this one is closer to the crazy season.

The Republicans must find ways to rise above this ‘craziness’ and must dissociate themselves from the Birthers  because it divides and polarizes America. It also works against a GOP that must widen its tent as it reconstructs. After all, Obama is an active President with enough controversial policies and initiatives—his opponents can find other ways to attack him and regain the upper hand. In fact, they have placed the Obama Administration on the defensive on healthcare. But attacking on the basis of identity can only make America regress and marginalize the Republicans.


 

Obama, Republicans and the Birthers

  1. It's a nice distraction from the charlie-fox that has been the Obama Administration's first six months, and it's a good way to associate the Right with craziness. I assume that's why the media (with Parisella following closely behind) is suddenly making an issue of it.

    After all, the "Birthers" have been making noise about this since a year ago. But that was during the campaign, when it might have hurt Obama's chances, so the media ignored it. Now it can do him no harm whereas discussing the real issues of the day (deficit skyrocketing, health care bill stalling, North Korea going nuts) look quite bad, so Birtherism is suddenly the issue du jour. After all, it can be used to "marginalize Republicans". Ergo it must be good.

    Here's a thought: let's apply that last paragraph of Parisella's frivolous diversion to the Truthers who spread rumours that Bush knew of or even launched the 911 attack. You know, like Michael Moore, one of the guys with a place of honour at the 2004 Dem Convention. Or Cynthia McKinney, a Dem congresswoman at the time (before she assaulted a police officer).

    "The [Democrats] must find ways to rise above this ‘craziness' and must dissociate themselves from the [Truthers] because it divides and polarizes America. It also works against a [Democratic Party] that must widen its tent as it reconstructs. After all, [Bush] is an active President with enough controversial policies and initiatives—his opponents can find other ways to attack him and regain the upper hand. In fact, they have placed the [Bush] Administration on the defensive on [Iraq]. But attacking on the basis of [treason] can only make America regress and marginalize the [Democrats]."

    Such a paragraph would have been nice at the time. But the media were too busy trying to calculate whether the controversy would help or hurt the Left to bother with niceties such as not dividing and polarizing America.

  2. It's a nice distraction from the charlie-fox that has been the Obama Administration's first six months, and it's a good way to associate the Right with craziness. I assume that's why the media (with Parisella following closely behind) is suddenly making an issue of it.

    After all, the "Birthers" have been making noise about this since a year ago. But that was during the campaign, when it might have hurt Obama's chances, so the media ignored it. Now it can do him no harm whereas discussing the real issues of the day (deficit skyrocketing, health care bill stalling, North Korea going nuts, government transparency turned into a punchline) look quite bad for Obama, so Birtherism is suddenly the issue du jour. After all, it can be used to "marginalize Republicans". Ergo it must be good.

    Here's a thought: let's apply that last paragraph of Parisella's frivolous diversion to the Truthers who spread rumours that Bush knew of or even launched the 911 attack. You know, like Michael Moore, one of the guys with a place of honour at the 2004 Dem Convention. Or Cynthia McKinney, a Dem congresswoman at the time (before she assaulted a police officer).

    "The [Democrats] must find ways to rise above this ‘craziness' and must dissociate themselves from the [Truthers] because it divides and polarizes America. It also works against a [Democratic Party] that must widen its tent as it reconstructs. After all, [Bush] is an active President with enough controversial policies and initiatives—his opponents can find other ways to attack him and regain the upper hand. In fact, they have placed the [Bush] Administration on the defensive on [Iraq]. But attacking on the basis of [treason] can only make America regress and marginalize the [Democrats]."

    Such a paragraph would have been nice at the time. But the media were too busy trying to calculate whether the controversy would help or hurt the Left to bother with niceties such as not dividing and polarizing America.

    • Gaunilon:
      The mainstream media did not do its job with Bush in 2002-2004. After 9-11, they allowed him to get away with the fake buildup to the war , the Patriot Act and his allowing BIN LADEN to escape. They imbedded themselves with the troops. The Dems supported Bush because the media did . Dems are opportunists more than they are left .I wonder where you were back then . Your obsession with the Left is clouding your judgment.As for dividing Americans , birthers are doing fine with Republican complicity.

    • Hey Gaunilon,

      I would be more inclined to give your suggestion that far left 9/11 conspiracy theorists and right wing 'birthers' can be treated as analogous if you can name me as many democratic elected officials that were at the time suggesting on the record that 9/11 was an inside job as their are currently republican officials doing the same with Obama on his birth certificate. also, at the time of 9/11 unfortunately almost literally none of the demos put Bush on the defensive re Iraq. they pretty much all gave him carte blanche with a few noteworthy exceptions.

      but more importantly there is a bigger problem with your post. you are comparing scrutiny, questioning and division over whether Bush should have entered an ill-advised and illegal war and the techniques he chose to apply in the face of domestic and international statute and a phony made up scandal over a birth certificate. this isn't even apples and oranges. it is apples and unicorns.

      also if Obama is a cluster F given the plate he inherited I would love to see your assessment of the Bush years.

      • Comparing a conspiracy alleging:
        -the president flew planes into buildings
        with a conspiracy alleging:
        -the president was born outside the US
        I'm sorry, but anyone who makes this watermelons to grains of rice comparison is insane.

        • i thought you were 'all i not going to comment on your stuff anymore' scf?

      • Show me one Republican elected official who is suggesting Obama was not born in the US.

        As to the "Truthers", McKinney and Kucinich, both elected Democrats, come to mind. I have you outnumbered 2-0 thus far.

        The comparison is apt: Truthers believe Bush was complicit in the 911 attack. It is quite crazy. If anything, it's even more crazy than believing Obama was born elsewhere. It is also quite distinct from those who reasonably question the justifications given for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        • if you beleive in unicorns it is.

          1) Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma told Politico that the birthers "have a point,"

          2) the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, is on video supporting the theories. "We're all going to find out," McMorris Rodgers tells Fire Dog Lake's Mike Stark when asked about Obama's birth certificate. "I'd like to see the documents.”

          3) Rep. Bill Posey, a Florida Republican has recently introduced legislation

          4) Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) supports the legislation

          Not to mention the rage of other Repub elected officials that refuse to deny the legitimacy of the issue, such as

          5) Rep. Cynthia Lummis….“I'm not questioning your concern,” Lummis told the crowd, according to the Wyoming Eagle Tribune. “I am questioning whether there is credible evidence.” The congresswoman ended up asking for anyone who had “evidence” to send it to her.

          Not to mention the unofficial party apparatus that is organizing birther disruptions of town hall meetings on trivial matters like health care.

          so… unless you can come up with some more, and you can point to legislation aimed at Bush re 9/11 as an inside job than you have fallen well short.

          • (1) Lummis was stating that she saw no credible evidence for the Birther paranoia. And yet, you're trying to use her as an example of a Republican birther.

            (2) Legislation is being brought forward to ensure none of this idiocy happens again, by making people show documentation before starting a campaign next time rather than holding off until the rumours start flying. That is a good thing, and has nothing to do with supporting Birther nonsense.

            (3) McMorris and Inhofe have both said that Obama should have cleared this up from the get-go by providing documentation as soon as it was requested, rather than dancing around it for months.

            None of these amount to an "endorsement" for Birther paranoia. I think you can see the distinction; I know most other readers can.

          • I love it when media news types like Chris Matthews demonstrate their objectivity by writing on the Huffington Post. Makes me wonder why I even have to make the argument that media is biased.

          • I love it when media news types like Chris Matthews demonstrate their objectivity by writing on the Huffington Post. Makes me wonder why I even have to make the argument that the news is biased to the left.

          • love it when right-wing commenter types like Gaunilon demonstrate their objectivity by responding without reading links. Makes me wonder why I even have to make the argument that the right has lost all credibility.

            Mathews did not write for the HuffPo, they merely posted a clip of his tv show.

          • I love it when right-wing commenter types like Gaunilon demonstrate their silliness by responding without reading links. Makes me wonder why I even have to make the argument that the right has lost all credibility.

            Mathews did not write for the HuffPo, they merely posted a clip of his tv show.

          • Good grief, I'm batting a thousand today.
            You're right, I was thinking of Olbermann posting diaries on Daily Kos.

          • Good grief, I'm batting a thousand today.
            You're right, I was thinking of Olbermann posting diaries on Daily Kos….which would still be a case of an MSM 'news' anchor posting on an uber-left blog.

    • Amen Gaunilon… I would love to know where the "MSM" and people like Parisella were when the Truthers were out there about Bush having caused 9/11.

      Easy way for Obama to solve this: show the damn long-form birth certificate. Wasn't he Mr. Transparency in the election? (Despite showing nothing, revealing nothing and basically just using oratory to convince the masses he was legit.)

      I'm not sure it matters anyway, if Obama keeps up the way he is — 47% and falling, civil war in the Dem Party over health care, laughed at by world leaders (read: the Allies, not the despots Obama likes), he'll join Carter in 2013 as a one-term President.

      • "I would love to know where the "MSM" and people like Parisella were when the Truthers were out there about Bush having caused 9/11. "

        Take a moment and think that through again. Where were they? They were IGNORING THE CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! Which was the correct thing to do and prevented Bush from being tarred with widespread, unfounded suspicion for the duration of his presidency.

        What's different now? Lots and lots and lots of members of the "MSM" from the "journalists" (Lou Dobbs) to the propagandists (Rush Linbaugh) are promoting the birther theory as CREDIBLE. The rest of the journalists are talking about the birther theory because everybody is talking about it. But the source of all the MSM noise is those journalists who are humouring the crazy conspiracy theorists.

        For the love of god, is it that difficult to understand?

      • While we're at it… As for showing further documentation, Obama should tell them all to go screw themselves. The birthers have nothing – nothing – by way of evidence. The relevant public officials have make their statements. There is no reason for Obama to humour this clown show any further.

        Next they'll want DNA evidence, stool samples and the opportunity to rifle through his sock drawer. Conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied, they're ALREADY ignoring credible facts.

    • No mainstream Democrat — NO mainstream Democrat — ever endorsed 9/11 Trutherism. By contrast, this paranoid nonsense is not confined to long-in-the-tooth Birthers, it's being shouted from mainstream Republican megaphones. This is not a good development: a government, even an American government, needs a coherent and rational opposition. Imagine if the main opposition to Bush had come from the 9/11 Truthers! America would still be in the grip of Dick Cheney.

      • Two elected Democrats (Kucinich and McKinney) endorsed it. The NY Times published an article endorsing it. Michael Moore made a movie endorsing it, after which he was invited to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

        Name one "mainstream Republican" who has endorsed the conviction that Obama is not a native. Name one.

        • Now you're just inventing stuff. I don't know about Kucinich and McKinney, but I saw the Moore film and it was hardly 9/11 Trutherism: all he said was that certain Saudis in the USA were whisked away after 9/11, which is true and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories about foreknowledge of the attacks.

          Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP at the moment, and he's been all over this stuff. It's a disgrace.

          • You do realize that Rush Limbaugh isn't actually the leader of the GOP, right? Personally, I'd take the words of Michael Steele, RNC chair, and John Boehner, House Minority Leader, as a more authoritative voice of the party and they both have come out against the birthers.

          • here we disagree. Rush expresses the Republican point of view better than your two birds . Steele is a joke!!!

          • the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, is on video supporting the theories. "We're all going to find out," McMorris Rodgers tells Fire Dog Lake's Mike Stark when asked about Obama's birth certificate. "I'd like to see the documents.”

          • I think most folks can see the difference between saying "I'd like to see the documents" and saying "Obama wasn't born in the US", particularly in response to John Stark's ambush tactics as he tries to find Republicans who support the madness so that he can discredit them.

          • that is consistent with Kucinich was saying as far as i have seen.

          • One of us is inventing stuff, that's for sure. Both your links are from things Limbaugh said almost a year ago (when the issue first surfaced and the media were ignoring it) and before it got resolved by Obama finally showing proof that he'd been born in Hawaii.

            The Moore film hammered pretty hard on the Bush/Saudi/Bin Laden connection, then on warnings pre-911 that Bush supposedly ignored or silenced, leading into Bush's supposed lack of surprise during the attack perpetrated by Saudi hijackers sent by Bin Laden. It was Trutherism writ large, minus all the idiocy about melting steel.

          • Hello? Rush is a talk radio personality! The only one calling him leader of the GOP are the Democrats, and apparently, Mitchell.

          • Obviously he's not the Official Leader or whatever, but he's the main voice of Republicanism in the States right now. For Christ's sake.

          • He's a big voice among conservatives. That's not the same as being the main voice of Republicanism.

          • Yes, as far as I know, Rush goes out of his way to call himself a conservative and not a republican. In fact, I believe he really really disliked McCain, but decided to back him in the presidential race as the lesser of two evils.

          • One of us is certainly "inventing stuff". Both your links are from things Limbaugh said almost a year ago (when the issue first surfaced and the media were ignoring it) and before it got resolved by Obama finally showing proof that he'd been born in Hawaii. And all Limbaugh does in those links is state that Obama hasn't shown a birth certificate, and should.

            Furthermore, Limbaugh is a talk-show host. We might as well attribute Letterman's sick jokes to the entire Democratic Party.

            The Moore film hammered pretty hard on the Bush/Saudi/Bin Laden connection, then on warnings pre-911 that Bush supposedly ignored or silenced, leading into Bush's supposed lack of surprise during the attack perpetrated by Saudi hijackers sent by Bin Laden. It was Trutherism writ large, minus all the idiocy about melting steel. Kucinich made his statements in the House regarding Bush knowing in advance of 911 and letting it happen, while McKinney went on a long rant to the Washinton Post about same, back when she was a sitting Congresswoman.

          • My bad, you're right that the first link is recent.
            The remaining points stand: (a) Limbaugh is not saying Obama is not a native, merely that he is not being entirely open by supplying documentation when asked for it, and (b) Limbaugh is no more a representative of the Republican Party than Letterman of the Democrat Party.

          • My bad, you're right that the first link is recent. I confused it with the second.
            The remaining points stand: (a) Limbaugh is not saying Obama is not a native, merely that he is not being entirely open by supplying documentation when asked for it, and (b) Limbaugh is no more a representative of the Republican Party than Letterman of the Democrat Party.

          • My bad, you're right that the first link is recent. I confused it with another.
            The remaining points stand: (a) Limbaugh is not saying Obama is not a native, merely that he is not being entirely open by supplying documentation when asked for it, and (b) Limbaugh is no more a representative of the Republican Party than Letterman of the Democrat Party.

            So we have a talk-show host wondering where Obama's birth certificate is, versus two elected Democrats stating outright that Bush knew of the 911 attack in advance and let it happen, a NYT article saying the same, and a movie by a DNC speaker.

            I think, on the craziness scale, lefties win hands down.

          • But Bush did "know" there was going to be an attack, in the sense that the intelligence agencies had sent the White House a memo saying that Bin Laden was going to attack the US. That is a far cry from saying that Bush had the details and let it happen — IMHO there was nothing that could have been done at that late date with the piecemeal intelligence available — and I would bet a small sum of money that that is what Kucinich was refering to. Not a large sum of money, but a small sum of money. As to Moore, there is really nothing in the movie that qualifies as 9/11 Trutherism: Moore just says that the Bushes were in bed with the Saudis, which is the absolute truth.

            I can't believe you seriously view Limbaugh as just a talk-show host.

          • If you watch the clip in the link I posted above, you will see Kucinich stating openly that Bush knew about 911 in advance and chose to do nothing. McKinney's statements were even more direct, as quoted for example in the Washington Post story "Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot" by Juliet Eilperin on April 12, 2002.

            And yes, Limbaugh is merely a talk-show host, despite the Dems' efforts to make him out as the new Republican leader.

          • only exactly in the manner that Jack states Gaunilon: that Bush had been briefed that an attack was imminent – albeit with sketchy details – and chose not to do anything (e.g., makes adjustments to domestic security measures). this is know fact.

          • only exactly in the manner that Jack states Gaunilon: that Bush had been briefed that an attack was imminent – albeit with sketchy details – and chose not to do anything (e.g., makes adjustments to domestic security measures) as opposed to facilitate (i.e., tell the millitary to stand down) or direct it. this is know fact. the latter two are "Truther" positions the first is Kucinich's.

        • "Two elected Democrats (Kucinich and McKinney) endorsed it. The NY Times published an article endorsing it. "

          Citations, please.

      • Two elected Democrats (Kucinich and McKinney) endorsed it. The NY Times published an article endorsing it. Michael Moore made a movie endorsing it, after which he was invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

        Name one "mainstream Republican" who has endorsed the conviction that Obama is not a native. Name one.

      • Yes, it's from the Weekly Standard, and yes, it's a survey of Democrats and not necessarily elected Democrats, but I still thought this was interesting and relevant (sorry, don't know how to link):

        "David Freddoso writes:

        Twenty-eight percent of Republicans believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and 30 percent are "not sure," according to this poll.

        But before liberals begin to smirk, here's a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.

        So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It's a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they're out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier — which is probably within the margin of error."

        • Still, I object to the comparison of these two, one involving mass terrorism, the other involving a place of birth. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

          • The more I think about it, the more I think you're right.
            One suggests that the President is a traitor and mass murderer, the other that the President is hiding an inconvenient aspect of his childhood. The paranoia factor is a lot higher with the first.

          • LOL, "inconvenient" because the Birthers would like nothing less than to turf Obama. If you polled the Birthers on whether Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate, you would likely get 90% who agree. It's exactly the same appetite for craziness you get with the Truthers.

          • So – you're prepared to measure the degree of crazy between the two, but no mention of the fact that the Truthers were a scattered bunch of nobodies while the Birthers include prominent, we'll-conected people, including cable "journalists" with audiences numbering in the millions.

            There will always be a crazy fringe. The key point here is that unlike the Truthers, the Birthers are not just fringe elements.

          • Are you calling elected Democrat Congressmen "a scattered bunch of nobodies"?

            Careful, they might send the Black Helicopters for you next.

          • You know, there's a difference between:

            – Calling for in-depth investigation of a massive terrorist attack, or implying that the Bush administration failed to act to prevent the attack despite having clear indications that it was iminent, or demanding investigation into strange trading patterns on the day of the attacks (the Kucinich and McKinney statements), and

            – Claiming that it was an inside job carried out by the Bush administration (the Truther position).

            Those Democratic Congresspeople are claiming a sin of omission, the Truthers are claiming a sin of commission. Those are two very different things.

          • Were a President to allow a terrorist attack to proceed, knowing full well what is about to happen and having the means to stop it, he would be an accessory to the crime. This is what Kucinich and McKinney charged, on the grounds that Bush stood to make a profit from the attacks and could use them to further an aggressive agenda.

            You can claim that this is different from the Truther position, I suppose, in that the Truthers generally go one step farther and argue that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled explosion. But in terms of culpability there's not a whole lot of daylight between what some Congressional Democrats said and what the rest of the Truthers say. It's nuts, and it's paranoia, and it's at least as much so as the Birther paranoia which has not been espoused by any Republican officials to the best of my knowledge.

          • Were a President to allow a terrorist attack to proceed, knowing full well what is about to happen and having the means to stop it, he would be an accessory to mass murder and a traitor. This is what Kucinich and McKinney charged, on the grounds that Bush stood to make a profit from the attacks and could use them to further an aggressive agenda.

            You can claim that this is different from the Truther position, I suppose, in that the Truthers generally go one step farther and argue that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled explosion. But in terms of culpability there's not a whole lot of daylight between what some Congressional Democrats said and what the rest of the Truthers say. It's nuts, and it's paranoia, and it's at least as much so as the Birther paranoia which has not been espoused by any Republican officials to the best of my knowledge.

          • "This is what Kucinich and McKinney charged, on the grounds that Bush stood to make a profit from the attacks…"

            No, they're pointing to Bush's documented dereliction of duty in doing NOTHING in response to massive evidence of imminent attack. They're also pointing out that, following the attacks, a lot of people got rich and a lot of Republicans gained massive power.

            Read this part closely: they are NOT claiming that Bush knowingly let the attacks happen for some personal gain. I'll say it again: they are not claiming that Bush had a part in the attacks, nor are they suggesting that he knew what was going to happen.

            That, for the slower among us, is different from the Truther conspiracy theory.

            "You can claim that this is different from the Truther position, I suppose…" Exactly. And the way you and others juxtapose quotes are twisting the Democrats' positions to make them sound like the Truthers'.

            The only thing nuts here is everybody espousing stupid conspiracy theories, and the people who claim that the Dems did it too and therefore the Birthers are defensible. For the love of god.

          • Here's a quote from McKinney, March 25, 2002, while she was an elected Democrat in Congress:

            "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide? What is undeniable, is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th."

            Now, let's parse this statement. Without setting herself up to get sued, she is implying the following:
            (a) The administration knew of the attacks in advance.
            (b) The administration did not use this knowledge to warn people.
            (c) Their reason for doing this was to gain profit from increased defense spending.

            It's not actually very subtle, just phrased as questions to avoid liability charges. Kucinich's statements in the House were similar.

            She was indeed claiming that Bush deliberately let an attack happen so that he could profit from it. To say that she is merely asking questions about what he knew, why he didn't use the knowledge she doesn't say he had to save peoples' lives, and making unrelated statements about who profited is disingenuous.

            Lest there be any further doubt about McKinney being a Truther, here's another McKinney quote, this one from September 2008:
            “It's not that I just support the 911 Truth Movement; I love the 911 Truth Movement.”

            I suppose you'll insist that supporting the 911 Truth movement does not mean she is a part of the 911 Truth movement. If that makes you happy, I'm delighted.

            Now, can we perhaps admit that fruitloops are not exclusive to the Right, that they are even more prominent on the Left, and that the media (and Parisella) are using this nonsense to distract from Obama's mounting failures as a President.

          • Ok, let's look in the order you posted:

            a) Bush DID know of the attacks in advance. on Aug 6 2001, he looked at a CIA brief warning of imminent attacks inside the US and said to the analyst "ok, you've covered your ass". And did nothing.

            b) Obviously the administration did nothing to warn anybody, fend off the attacks or even prepare for the aftermath. Nothing.

            c) Your conclusion here is wrong, wrong, wrong. She said that certain corporations undeniably benefited from the increased defense spending. She did not say that Bush deliberately planned/allowed the attacks to proceed to ensure their profits. It kinda sounds like she's hinting at it, but don't put words in her mouth, m'kay?

            If you're allowed to put words in her mouth that way, I can line up about 50 elected Republican officials who endorsed the birther conspiracy theory. Do you really want to lower the standard of the debate to that (ie *your*) level?

            I am reminded of the old saying: never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it. And yet here I am, wasting a summer evening with someone who's pissing away my time…

            Of course "fruitloops" are not exclusive to the right – look around you. But this goddam Birther craze is bringing them out of the woodwork in truly unprecedented numbers, and, being a rightwing cause, is gaining huge traction with the MSM. This is orders of magnitude beyond anything the Truthers ever pulled together. And you bloody well know it.

          • I see. Democrat Congresswoman McKinney is definitely not a Truther, despite the quote I provided (and you ignored) in which she says she supports the 911 Truthers. If you can't respond to the facts as presented, you should admit your error rather than ignoring them.

            And don't whine about me wasting your time. If you wanted to leave this conversation (and I use that term loosely), you would have and could have. Take some responsibility for yourself. You might come to like it and discover your inner righty.

            Again, point me to any Republican official, or even public Republican figure, who has endorsed the Birther nonsense. Point me to someone asking "How much does Hawaii know about Obama's birth? Why won't they tell us what they know to prevent a violation of the Constitution? What I do know is that Obama has a lot to benefit from being considered a native." Or perhaps someone saying "I don't just support the Birthers, I love the Birthers!"

            You can't, and you haven't, because there aren't any. It is a piece of idiocy first promulgated by the rabid Hillary fans during the primaries, then ignored during the Presidential campaign, and now resurrected by the media in order to distract from Obama's real problems. Parisella being a less-than-original media follower, his article is more of the same.

            If the MSM gave "traction" to rightwing causes, they wouldn't have been such Obama-sycophants during the Presidential campaign.

          • I see. She's definitely not a Truther, despite the quote I provided (and you ignored) in which she says she supports the 911 Truthers. If you can't respond to the facts as presented, you should admit your error rather than ignoring them.

            And don't whine about me wasting your time. If you wanted to leave this conversation (and I use that term loosely), you would have and could have. Take some responsibility for yourself. You might come to like it and discover your inner righty.

            Again, point me to any Republican official, or even public Republican figure, who has endorsed the Birther nonsense. Point me to someone asking "How much does Hawaii know about Obama's birth? Why won't they tell us what they know to prevent a violation of the Constitution? What I do know is that Obama has a lot to benefit from being considered a native." Or perhaps someone saying "I don't just support the Birthers, I love the Birthers!"

            You can't, and you haven't, because there aren't any. It is a piece of idiocy first promulgated by the rabid Hillary fans during the primaries, then ignored during the Presidential campaign, and now resurrected by the media in order to distract from Obama's real problems. Parisella being a less-than-original media follower, his article is more of the same.

            If the MSM gave "traction" to rightwing causes, they wouldn't have been such Obama-sycophants during the Presidential campaign.

          • I see. Democrat Congresswoman McKinney is definitely not a Truther, despite the quote I provided (and you ignored) in which she says she supports the 911 Truthers. If you can't respond to the facts as presented, you should admit your error rather than ignoring them.

            And don't whine about me wasting your time. If you wanted to leave this conversation (and I use that term loosely) you would have and could have. Take some responsibility for yourself. You might come to like it and discover your inner conservative.

            Again, point me to any Republican official, or even public Republican figure, who has endorsed the Birther nonsense. Point me to someone asking "How much does Hawaii know about Obama's birth? Why won't they tell us what they know to prevent a violation of the Constitution? What I do know is that Obama has a lot to benefit from being considered a native." Or perhaps someone saying "I don't just support the Birthers, I love the Birthers!"

            You can't, and you haven't, because there aren't any. It is a piece of idiocy first promulgated by the rabid Hillary fans during the primaries, then ignored during the Presidential campaign, and now resurrected by the media in order to distract from Obama's real problems. Parisella being a less-than-original media follower, his article is more of the same.

            If the MSM gave "traction" to rightwing causes, they wouldn't have been such Obama-sycophants during the Presidential campaign.

          • very interesting conversation but gaunilon is not winninhg this one by exaggerating and distorting what he calls statements by so-called Truthers.
            Bush and rice knew an attack was imminemt . they were unprepared just like hurricane Katrina. They recoved a couple of days but immediately began to prepare the War in Iraq. The evidence is beyond question and documented.
            Gaunilon then spends a day attacking people who do not think like him and defending people who he claims have the right to their view. He reminds me of Lou Dobbs.
            you are really not credible, Gaunilon.
            Finally , I remain convinced that the Birther movement is racially motivated.

          • "Again, point me to any Republican official, or even public Republican figure, who has endorsed the Birther nonsense."

            This sort of wilful ignorance is why I'm accusing you of wasting my time. Quoting sea_n_mountains above:

            "1) Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma told Politico that the birthers "have a point,"

            2) the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, is on video supporting the theories. "We're all going to find out," McMorris Rodgers tells Fire Dog Lake's Mike Stark when asked about Obama's birth certificate. "I'd like to see the documents.”

            3) Rep. Bill Posey, a Florida Republican has recently introduced legislation

            4) Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) supports the legislation

            Not to mention the rage of other Repub elected officials that refuse to deny the legitimacy of the issue, such as

            5) Rep. Cynthia Lummis….“I'm not questioning your concern,” Lummis told the crowd, according to the Wyoming Eagle Tribune. “I am questioning whether there is credible evidence.” The congresswoman ended up asking for anyone who had “evidence” to send it to her.

            Not to mention the unofficial party apparatus that is organizing birther disruptions of town hall meetings on trivial matters like health care."

            Spare me your sanctimonious lectures about personal responsibility in the middle of your myopic, disingenuous argument.

          • Those quoted cases from sea-n_mountains were addressed above when he/she quoted them. I won't waste my time here by repeating the points above; suffice to say they all boil down to people saying "let's see the documents and put this to bed."

            I suppose you could have avoided the wasted time you keep complaining about if you'd read the response and addressed it, rather than reposting the same stuff another commenter and I hashed out above.

            I love how, in your mind, people saying "let's see the documents" or pushing for legislation to avoid this nonsense in future or in Lummis's case actually saying she sees no credible evidence for Birtherism are now being interpreted by you as Birthers. Yet McKinney's Trutherism, openly declared as quoted in the thread above, is somehow inadmissible.

            So, again, you can't name a single Republican official who supports the Birther nonsense, you won't admit the nuttiness on the Left (supported by Dem Congressmen) for Trutherism, and you're determined to blame anyone but yourself for the disconnect. Ah, the Left. Always good for a chuckle.

          • Those quoted cases from sea_n_mountains were addressed above when he/she quoted them. I won't waste my time here by repeating the points above; suffice to say they all boil down to people saying "let's see the documents and put this to bed."

            I suppose you could have avoided the wasted time you keep complaining about if you'd read the response and addressed it, rather than reposting the same stuff another commenter and I hashed out above.

            I love how, in your mind, people saying "let's see the documents" or pushing for legislation to avoid this nonsense in future or in Lummis's case actually saying she sees no credible evidence for Birtherism are now being interpreted by you as Birthers. Yet McKinney's Trutherism, openly declared as quoted in the thread above, is somehow inadmissible.

            So, again, you can't name a single Republican official who supports the Birther nonsense, you won't admit the nuttiness on the Left (supported by Dem Congressmen) for Trutherism, and you're determined to blame anyone but yourself for the disconnect. Ah, the Left. Always good for a chuckle.

          • Those quoted cases from sea_n_mountains were addressed above when he/she quoted them. I won't waste my time here by repeating the points above; suffice to say they all boil down to people saying "let's see the documents and put this to bed."

            I suppose you could have avoided the wasted time you keep complaining about if you'd read the response and addressed it, rather than reposting the same stuff another commenter and I hashed out above.

            I love how, in your mind, people saying "let's see the documents" or pushing for legislation to avoid this nonsense in future or in Lummis's case actually saying she sees no credible evidence for Birtherism are now being interpreted by you as Birthers. Yet Democrat Congresswoman McKinney's Trutherism, openly declared as quoted in the thread above, is somehow inadmissible.

            So, again, you can't name a single Republican official who supports the Birther nonsense, you won't admit the nuttiness on the Left (supported by Dem Congressmen) for Trutherism, and you're determined to blame anyone but yourself for the disconnect. Ah, the Left. Always good for a chuckle.

          • In both cases, these are conspiracy theorists with no evidence whatsoever. They should not be humoured – no additional evidence would satisfy the Truthers or the Birthers. To interview them on TV, to play coy word games, to say "I don't see any evidence, but I think the President should release more evidence to make them happy"… all these things provide credibility and energy to conspiracy theorists.

            Elected Republican officials are being cautious but are quite consistently saying that the Birther conspiracy requires more investigation. That is bullsh*t and they know it. That helps the Birthers and they know it. That is indirect support for the Birthers.

            The Truther analogy would be Kucinich saying "I don't see any evidence that Bush perpetrated the mass slaughter of 3000 Americans for personal gain, but I think he needs to release more evidence to prove he didn't." The Truthers never got that kind of indirect support from the Democrats and you know it.

            Several posts back, you listed a bunch of quotes from Democrats, claiming that they were expressing support for Truthers. I investigated every one and NOT ONE amounted to direct or indirect support for the Truthers' theory. Was that deliberate on your part? Now you have a McKinney quote that sounds damning, but has no context and no citation. Given that you've misled me before, maybe you can do your own homework this time. Convince me that McKinney meant to endorse the Truthers' conspiracy theory and that isn't just another quote taken out of context.

          • I see. Democrat Congresswoman McKinney is definitely not a Truther, despite the quote I provided (and you ignored) in which she says she supports the 911 Truthers. If you can't respond to the facts as presented, you should admit your error rather than ignoring them.

            And don't whine about me wasting your time. If you wanted to leave this conversation (and I use that term loosely) you would have and could have. Take some responsibility for yourself. You might come to like it and discover your inner righty.

            Again, point me to any Republican official, or even public Republican figure, who has endorsed the Birther nonsense. Point me to someone asking "How much does Hawaii know about Obama's birth? Why won't they tell us what they know to prevent a violation of the Constitution? What I do know is that Obama has a lot to benefit from being considered a native." Or perhaps someone saying "I don't just support the Birthers, I love the Birthers!"

            You can't, and you haven't, because there aren't any. It is a piece of idiocy first promulgated by the rabid Hillary fans during the primaries, then ignored during the Presidential campaign, and now resurrected by the media in order to distract from Obama's real problems. Parisella being a less-than-original media follower, his article is more of the same.

            If the MSM gave "traction" to rightwing causes, they wouldn't have been such Obama-sycophants during the Presidential campaign.

          • Were a President to allow a terrorist attack to proceed, knowing full well what is about to happen and having the means to stop it, he would be an accessory to mass murder and a traitor. This is what Kucinich and McKinney charged, on the grounds that Bush stood to make a profit from the attacks and could use them to further an aggressive agenda.

            You can claim that this is different from the Truther position, I suppose, in that the Truthers generally go one step farther and argue that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled explosion. But in terms of culpability there's not a whole lot of daylight between what some Congressional Democrats said and what the rest of the Truthers say.

            It's nuts, and it's paranoia, and it's at least as much so as the Birther paranoia which has not been espoused by any Republican officials to the best of my knowledge.

          • Firstly, Rosie O'Donnell is a cable "journalist" with audiences in the millions and she was a truther. A Canadian was dismissed as an electoral candidate for being a truther.

            Secondly, I am not the one who made the comparison, I am the one objecting to the comparison.

            Thirdly, the birthers are fringe elements. Most people who want the legislation want to see what Obama is hiding from the original birth certificate (they do not believe he was born elsewhere).

    • No one needs to go out of his or her way to associate right wingers with lunacy, as Gaunilon loony (and long) comment amply demonstrates.

  3. Okay, this is what we have: hearsay evidence by President Obama's supporters, hearsay evidence by Hawaiian officials who carefully parse their words, a birth announcement in a paper, and an image on a private website. May I sell you the Brooklyn bridge?

    • "hearsay evidence by Hawaiian officials"????

      They have repeatedly stated the certificate is authentic.
      I wonder, who exactly do you think is a more reliable authority on official documents of the State of Hawaii than officials of the State of Hawaii?

      Retard.

      • As witnesses, until they are under oath in a court room, their statements are meaningless. And, I cannot imagine anyone getting away with saying "My state official says I was born in such-and-such state" when required to present a birth certificate. There are reasons American citizens all have legal documentation showing who we are, and that is all people are asking for–legal documentation of President Obama's citizenship.

        • It seems pretty reasonable to put the burden of proof on the people making the unsubstantiated, wild-assed claims.

          If they have some evidence that leads us to doubt Obama's place of birth, THEN we should humour them with courts and public officials. I don't see why anybody should piss away their time humouring the whacko fantasies of a bunch of die-hard conspiracy theorists.

  4. Finally , it is time to challenge these crazies. If the Right hates to be associated, then speak up!!
    I believe it is fundamentally race inspired.
    Conservatives opposed civil rigths in the 60`s,won elections on a southern strategy from Nixon on,oppose judicial activism which gave civil rights and now they have a black guy in the WH. The birthers and the rigt are the same thing.So they have decided to question his origins in order to attack his legitimacy.
    Obama is doing well and the republicans will try anything .

  5. Over the last eight years, when Bush was presented in the most vile and disgusting way by the far (and even not so far) left,

    the media was strangely silent (or on occaison complicit – see fake national guard memo).

    There's two merging factors at play here:

    1) Although both parties have "wings" the mainstream media only recognizes the "rightwing". No radicals on the left, so says the MSM, and

    2) Obama is their guy, and they'll defend him like no other.

    Combine those two and you'll have "circling the wagons" mania.

    Now, onto rooting out those crazy "right wingers".

  6. Which means, for example,

    when fairly prominent liberal bloggers foist a disgusting meme regarding Sara Palin's children (incest and the like),

    no one from the Dems is called upon to stand up to the insanity.

    • That's because it's just a liberal BLOGGER who has no say in anything beyond what's on the internet which, last I checked, included every disgusting, outragous and false claim anyone ever thought of ever. No one stood up to the insanity because no one needed to, it was just a couple of whackjobs on the internet.

      What we have now is prominent conservative media personalities (Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs each having significant followings well above and beyond any blogger) and even large groups of Republicans in Congress joining the birther movement. It's not an apples to oranges comparison – we're talking about huge sections of elected officials compared to a guy sitting in his basement with a computer. Who do you think has more power to sway public opinion?

      As for Bush, he was presented in a vile and disgusting way because, surprise surprise, he did vile and disgusting things (not to mention illegal under international and US law)! And despite the evil leftist media, he pretty had free reign to do these things until about mid-2005.

  7. I don't trust ANY politician and almost no one in the media. I still want two answers.

    1) Why can't we see his long-form? Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding?

    and most disturbingly,

    2) Why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there's a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States.

    OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!

    • Show us your pencil dick, "Captain" Steve.
      Or did you leave it back on your schooner?

      This is the real problem with abortion: not enough people are having them.
      Like Steve's mother.

      • wow.

        You are one of the real "tolerant" ones eh?

    • Obama gave certification of his birth sufficient to the requirements in the constitution.

      Heck, I can't produce my original birth certificate (it having been destroyed when I dropped my wallet in a lake at the age of 16), so all I would be able to get is the same state-certified copies that Obama produced. I don't have any more proof that I was born in Canada than Obama does that he was born in the US, nor do most people born in either country.

      For that matter, besides the arbtrary rule in the constitution, why does it freaking matter? Exactly what part of where you were born is essential to be qualified to be President? Even if you disregard the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, he spent the vast majority of his childhood and all of his adult life living in the US, and there's plenty of evidence of that.

      • Yeah, my mother lost my original birth certificate when I was a child, so all I have is a certified copy from when I was like five. Pretty sure that would make me look even more suspect if someone were claiming I was born somewhere else.

  8. How was bho elected? How could he do his own job without constituion?

    Constitutionl questions about the president is not a fringe matter.
    It should be clearly made pulic.

    But instead of clarifying the eligibilty, you are just playing politics.

    Why are left-lemming calling people asking for the clarification of the eligibility of the president, lunatic or cranks?

    I think something is going on all across america…

  9. Man.. there's just too many here to respond to each of you individually, but I'd just like you all to know that Alcan Inc. appreciates your continued support.

    • I think I agree with you but I'm not sure…I seem to be having some problems with my trans-aluminum reception.

  10. To the mainstream media with the exception of Lou Dobbs

    Lou Dobbs. Mainstream media? You don't watch much CNN, do you?

  11. Isn't the movement really just 'stupidity'?

  12. Right wingers *are* loony. We all know this. No point in beating around the bush. This discussion demonstrates that quite nicely.

    99% of these loony discussions would be nipped in the bud if wingies were forced to answer just one question after each of their statements: How do you know this? Chances are, they have no idea.

  13. I don't know what to make of this controversy. What have past presidents done? So far, Obama has only shown the Americans secondary sources, not the primary one.

    My guess is that Obama was born in Hawaii but there is something else on his original form that he doesn't want Americans to see. It would tie in with his behaviour of not revealing his school years either. Obama only wants Americans to know about his life starting after law school, I wonder why.

    And Obama did make the Crowley//Gates into a racial question when he called Crowley stupid and said it was a teachable moment. Interesting how when Obama wades into racial questions, he's more like Sharpton/Jackson when Americans were led to believe that he was 'post-racial', his favourable numbers sink even lower in the polls.

    • Your guess is stupid and unsubstantiated.

      • that's our jwl.

        • "What have past presidents done? So far, Obama has only shown the Americans secondary sources, not the primary one."

          That's how the loonies do it. *They* don't know about, something, therefore it's always possible that it doesn't exist.

      • You call that debunked? The one they posted is not the original authentic birth certificate.


        The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

        Hello?

        • aha I have it now. what really makes him legit as president is his birth weight!

          • scf and the other birthers are NOT happy…negative marks for jokes

    • I've seen you theory repeated many times elsewhere. There really is something on the original birth certificate, and that is the real reason why there are Republicans who would like to see legislation.

  14. BTW am I the ony one here who has lost their birth certificate?

    • Nope. I lost mine a long time ago, but I must say, the Government of Ontario worked quick like bunnies when I requested a replacement.

    • Obama did not lose the original. He simply refuses to release it. Get with the facts.

      • You're embarrassing yourself by associating with the Birthers, sf.

      • youa re aligning with the birthers and admonishing people on facts….well that is…. uhm, ridonculous.

  15. The goal in politics is to win . I am with the Birthers and the Republicans are making gains . things are going in the right (RIGHT!) direction .

    • WOW, great thought Joe! Republican's only goal is to win? They do not care about anything else. Healthcare reform? Bah, it's not ''worthy'' enough. Let's ''make points'' so we can win the by-election. Let's not care about the middle class and unemployed. They don't ''pay'' enough. __Wow. Is that what you stand for, what you are proud of? Politics is a game in which the only goal is to win?!?!__Being a politician is a privilege. You have the privilege to represent your people. __No. Politics is not a game. Politics is how you lead your country, improve life quality and work for the ones that are less lucky than you.__The only thing the ''Birthers'' and the Republicans are doing is bringing up a controversy that has already been explained. The only thing ''you guys'' are doing is dragging the medias' attention out of ''real'' issues in order to ''win'' points. __Politics is not about winning and losing. Politics is about ideas that can better improve a society.

      • I think the two of you have nicely captured the state of the modern Republican party.

      • Those ideas can only improve society if the people who hold them win.

  16. Lost my birth certificate ages ago. Have a lovely copy, but I guess I'll never know if I was truly born in Winnipeg.

    Hold on…(checks for toque, hockey stick)
    Yeah, I was born in Winnipeg.

    • lol

      Off topic, did you see Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg?

    • He didn't lose it, he simply refuses to release it.

      • scf!
        you're a Birther too? my, my…

        crit_
        watch it… as M_A_N says, fabulous.

        • Ah, scf, don't dissapoint me. I knew you leaned to the right, but the birther argument isn't a lean to the right, it's a "fall down so hard your right side is paralyzed' kind of lean.

          • Give me a break.

            For one thing, I am not a birther, the short form birth certificate has been produced, and it seems there is various other evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

            That being said, this is hardly a conspiracy, considering the guy has a Kenyan father, numerous relatives in Kenya and elsewhere (one in Britain) and spent many childhood years in Indonesia. It is not a conspiracy theory to have the thought that perhaps he was born elsewhere, because when someone has a family history like Obama's, it is quite possible.

            However, there is no evidence that he was born elsewhere and there is evidence that he was born in Hawaii, so I am not what they call a "birther", the guy is clearly a Hawaiian native.

            I have simply pointed a fact that is obvious: Obama refuses to release the long form birth certificate, and that is partly what is driving this. People think he is hiding something, so they want to see it.

        • I'm not a birther, truther, or conspiracy psycho of any kind. Obama was born in Hawaii. The Americans really did land on the moon. 9/11 was committed by Muslim terrorists.

          I'm just setting the story straight.

          Most of the people cited here (congressman) are not people that believe he was born elsewhere, they are people that believe he should be required to produce the long form, full, birth certificate. And I agree with that, if there is a law that says the president must be American-born (I don't agree with this law either) then they should enforce the law properly. Obama has refused to produce it, not because it was lost, not because it doesn't exists, simply because he has refused to show it. And that is what some people wish to change.

          Frankly, I don't care where he was born.

          • i am not sure about the moon….

    • Yeah, I was born in Winnipeg.

      My condolences.

      • A western sensibility, with the hip of Toronto. I'm all win, all the time, baby.

  17. Weren't all these "birthers" clamoring for changes to the constitution so ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER could run for president?

    • No.

    • There's certainly more than enough crazy on the American right for there to be overlap, but no reason to expect that someone would necessarily belong to both camps.

  18. A conspiracy theory that envelopes liberalism, race and religion.

    One so large it would involve thousands and thousands of people.
    Over half a century.
    To implant a black Muslim in the White House (democratically elected no less.)
    While he is still being accused of being a secret Muslim.
    And a secret Marxist.
    Secretly born in Kenya.

    I bet the British are behind it. They want their colony back and figured some 50 years ago only a black Muslim Kenyan could get it back for them.

    Damn those Brits are just too smart and well funded. No one else could pull off the largest, most expensive and best organized conspiracy in recorded history.

    Your play, America.

    • I think Cheney and Haliburton are behind it all.

      • No, no… they were behind getting a Thai Buddist homosexual into the White House, not the black Muslim Marxist from Kenya.

    • Manchurian Candidate. Ahnold's doing a re-make. Another one.

    • It's almost like "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

    • It's almost like that "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was conspiring against Hillary's husband.

    • It's almost like that "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was conspiring against Hillary's husband.

      Watch out for the right-wing extremists – they're everywhere. You can't see them because they're too well hidden.

      • Almost like, except the Clinton impeachment hearings didn't involve people being bat f%cking crazy. That is the distinction that needs mentioning.

        Birthers, however, need to be bat f%cking crazy to believe their American-born, democratically-elected president is a plant Marxist Muslim from Kenya – Who probably works for aliens, Pierre Trudeau or maybe Marx himself.

        Who knows, but the Birthers.

  19. It's almost like a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

  20. Incidentally, the non-lunatic right wing response is not "I would like to see the birth certificate to be sure", the correct non-lunatic response is "I see no reason this is likely to be true, barring evidence wholly absent at present."

    • Unlike the Left, the Right does not accept the notion of "correct" thoughts that must be held by all.

      • Yes, the obvious difference is between left and right, here, not sane vs. stupid. I'll leave you to work it out for yourself.

        • He's going to need a lot of time.

          Like, a LOT of time. Don't hold your breath.

          • Yup, I'm inordinately stupid like all the rest of the right wing.
            If only some day we could be as smart (and tolerant!) as you guys on the Left.

          • Yup, I'm inordinately stupid like all the rest of the right wing.
            If only some day we could be as smart (and tolerant!) as you guys on the Left.

            In fact, I'm typing on this keyboard-thingy into the intertubes with my thumbs. They are opposable though.

          • Yup, I'm inordinately stupid like all the rest of the right wing.
            If only some day we could be as smart (and tolerant!) as you guys on the Left.

            In fact, I'm typing on this keyboard-thingy into the intertubes with my thumbs. They are opposable though.

    • I feel dumber after reading your comment.

      • Thanks for the kind words but I can take no credit for your acomplishments.

  21. This is why I hate discussing politics, usually only 10% of the population is interested in it, and of that 10% approximately 9% are complete wackjobs.

    I'm not the biggest fan of Obama's policies, whether it be his support for bailouts or his healthcare reforms that won't actaully implement single payer healthcare. However too say Obama wasn't born in the United States is stupid.

    America needs a principled opposition. It's moments like these that I feel gratified to live in a much more sane country.

  22. Granted, this was a very poor move by the republicans; however, this article is really taking this out of proportion.

    We have to present our birth certificates for many things, why not the president too?

Sign in to comment.