Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Inequality and crises.
  2. Shot “something” … likely piece of paper or clay pigeon. The horror! (gun tech vid here)
  3. Iranian nukes, for big or little “satan”.
  4. Of Uganda and Columbia.
  5. Failure of imagination … gosh is there any difference in the family past between GOP candidates and Mr Obama? Hmm, one has a foreign parent, no reason to imagine that might make a difference, eh?
  6. A primer for the arguments in the upcoming Obamacare SCOTUS discussion.
  7. Feminists against porn.
  8. Two for Lent, St. Basil on sin and
  9. for this Sunday … the cross.
  10. Marking inconsistencies … or consequences of ownership?
  11. In short, no.
  12. Ooooh, Obamacare not as insolvent as suspected, with a windfall of unanticipated fines and taxes. And that’s a good thing?
  13. A local hero and her bike(s).
  14. Student given life sentence for burning “To Kill a Mockingbird”  … oh, wait.
  15. Tea party and Hunger Games.

37 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. Re #5 Not sure what having a foreign parent has to do with being a natural born citizen eligeable to be President of the US. But how exactly do we know who was anyone’s parents and where they were born? At least in Romney’s case, his father was a governor so it is at least halfway plausible to imagine such a man might consider making it appear an adopted son was really born inside the US in order to someday set him on track to be President. Why should we assume all the non-black candidates should simply be taken at their words about who their parents are and where they were born?

  2. Boonton,
    Uhm, “Why should we assume all the non-black candidates” … why that’s quite the racist comment. You know if you jump to assume racism, that’s a sentiment running closer to your vest than not. It was stated quite publicly that Mr Obama’s father was a foreign national. This has not been said of any other candidates. Apparently the author of the #5 piece can’t imagine that would be a factor. Apparently you were unaware of that as well.

    Let me make this simpler for you … which GOP candidate has stated publicly his parent was a foreign nation? Can you imagine this might be a difference that might be a distinction for some.

  3. It was stated quite publicly that Mr Obama’s father was a foreign national. This has not been said of any other candidates

    I’m unclear why this is a ‘factor’ that is somehow ‘cleared’ up by a birth certificate….or a birth certificate double checked…or triple checked. If the purpose is to ensure that presidential candidates meet the Constitutions requirement of being ‘natural born citizens’ then why trust what is ‘said publically’ about a candidates parentage?

    Just consider if Mitt Romney’s father, a governor, sought a son to groom to be President as JFK’s father did but his only son was, say, from an affair with a Canadian mistress who gave birth in Ontario….well why would we expect that to be said publically? Mitt Romney himself might not even know!!!! It would seem a demand to see a birth certficate, or long form birth certificate, or super-birth certificate, or super-duper birth certificate should apply equally to all candidates or not.

  4. Uhm, “Why should we assume all the non-black candidates” … why that’s quite the racist comment.

    Just a factual one. Perhaps if Herman Cain was a GOP contendor still you’d be able to say this isn’t the case, but he’s not so it’s only a statement of fact that all non-black candidates are not being asked to verify their birth certificates. We can also say that about the 2008 election where the GOP nominee was actually born overseas in Panama. I’ve just reported/observed this coinciding of objective facts, I have not argued for any motivation that might have caused them. As one of your fav. news sources might say, I report you decide.

  5. Boonton rather beat me to it; I responded on the birther issue here:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/where-are-the-birth-certificates-for-romney-gingrich-santorum-and-paul/#comment-205810

    Mitt’s father had a Mexican birth, and that didn’t disqualify him from running for the presidency — not sure why the double standard on this issue, to Obama’s detriment. But more to the point, why only the Democrat gets the hassle, and why only the black Democrat?

    Birthers are wholly irrational, and inconsistent on the issue — as well as wrong, according to every legal opinion and — how many by now, 16? — every state and federal court that looked at the issue on Obama. Heck, in Georgia, the administrative law judge was ticked at Obama’s lawyers for not showing up, but he ruled against the birthers anyway because they can’t make a case even without any opposition, solely on the law and the evidence.

    If your irrational bias isn’t on race, then it’s on Obama. What other Harvard grads do you insist shouldn’t be eligible for the presidency? Which other sons of broken families are you questioning? Which other kids raised poor do you challenge?

    Birthers have been at it for almost four years now. It’s a new cycle, with new candidates to check out. Odd, though, they don’t appear to be checking any of the others out. Some of the birthers insist that the GOP wannabes are being checked out by “experts.” Remember the last scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark?” What kind of experts, you may ask. “Top experts,” I’m sure.

    I’ll grant you it’s not a racist bias. It’s wholly without reason, and probably a mark of insanity, then.

  6. Boonton,
    It’s also a factual statement that Mr Obama is the only candidate who has two teen/pre-teen daughters. There are any number of “factual” statements that you could make that distinguish Mr Obama from Paul/Gingrich/Santorum/Romney. Like color of skin, none of them are particularly germane to a discussion of nationality of parent. Now if you can imagine how color of skin might be a valid distinction, I’d offer that’s racism on your part. I can’t see that as a valid relevant germane point for this discussion. That’s a failure of my imagination. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

    I’m unclear why this is a ‘factor’ that is somehow ‘cleared’ up by a birth certificate….or a birth certificate double checked…or triple checked.

    Huh? What does that have to do with anything. The poster saw no reason for any distinction related to the nationality and place of birth that could be made between Mr Obama and the GOP candidates. None of them had a foreign born father. That is a distinction that one could make. End of story/claim. I’m not defending birtherism, don’t pretend I am.

  7. Actually IMO it probably is a racial bias. Those who seriously argue birther arguments are not IMO simply following a rational (but mistaken) theory but are exhibiting a clear double standard. It’s a classic example of the phrase that men hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. That leaves us with the question of why do these men (and women) only want to hear that Obama’s not a natural born American?

    I’m willing to grant that birther apologists like Mike Hucklebee might be motivated by non-racial motives such as keeping his conservative credentials on the right, but for rank and file birthers it seems pretty strained to continue to give them the benfit of the doubt.

  8. It’s also a factual statement that Mr Obama is the only candidate who has two teen/pre-teen daughters. There are any number of “factual” statements that you could make that distinguish Mr Obama from Paul/Gingrich/Santorum/Romney.

    Well Bush had two teen daughters (or just over teen daughters) when he ran for President the first time and I don’t recall any birth certificate scrutiny nor do I recall birth certificate scrutiny of Bill Clinton who had one teen daughter, you’re free though to report your own set of other coinciding factors for us to decide.

    Like color of skin, none of them are particularly germane to a discussion of nationality of parent

    Again I’m not sure why Obama’s birth certificate would be relevant to the nationality of his father. For that wouldn’t you want to see his father’s birth certificate?

    Huh? What does that have to do with anything. The poster saw no reason for any distinction related to the nationality and place of birth that could be made between Mr Obama and the GOP candidates. None of them had a foreign born father. That is a distinction that one could make. End of story/claim. I’m not defending birtherism, don’t pretend I am.

    Not quite getting this. The Constitution makes no distinction over a natural born citizen whose born of US parents or one whose born of foreign parents. And no you’re not defending birtherism, you’re just making use of it while trying to keep your hands clean by generating plausible deniability.

  9. At least in Romney’s case, his father was a governor so it is at least halfway plausible to imagine such a man might consider making it appear an adopted son was really born inside the US in order to someday set him on track to be President.

    As what governor of Michigan, having been born in Mexico, wouldn’t dream of his son taking over the U.S. in a grand plot? George Romney came out of Mexico during the Revolution, you know? The U.S. was at war with Mexico, pretty much — with Gen. Pershing’s troops scampering all over the northern half the country trying to trap a leading candidate for the presidency of Mexico.

    If you’re going to imagine plots — and all the crap against Obama is purely imaginary, if not very imaginative — let’s be consistent in our craziness, eh? Gov. Rick Perry — who tried to take out Romney in the GOP race — says we are essentially at war with Mexico now.

    And you don’t think we should check out the bona fides of the Mexichurian Candidate?

    Is it because you know the flap against Obama was all made up? Or is it because you’re in on the plot to make the U.S. speak Spanish?

    By the way, did you notice how the Romney campaign came alive when Santorum went to Puerto Rico and told them they’d have to learn English?

    Don’t be blind, Mark — unless you’re in on the joke. Then let the rest of us in, too.

    Foreign-born fathers — you make a flap about Obama’s and you ignore Romney’s, and don’t even bother to check Santorum, Gingrich or Paul. How is that not an unholy bias?

  10. Actually even if Obama was born overseas, he would still be a natural born US citizen by right of his mother’s blood. Even if Obama had been adopted by his mother’s 2nd husband from Indonesia, that wouldn’t have voided his status as a US citizen. Given these facts, it’s not at all ‘rational’ to give Obama scrutiny over a foreign born father.

    Now as a general rule, people who really feel strongly about something tend to know a lot about it. For example, Mark feels rather strongly about the Bible and is able to speak quite intelligently about it. For example, take the question of whether or not the Bible predicted Jesus would be born of a virgin. JA will toss up the assertion that the Hebrew word that was used simply meant ‘young woman’ while Mark will intelligently discuss the opposite assertion…

    But birthers do not do the same about Obama. For something that’s supposedly so important to them (ensuring the Constitution is faithfully followed), they get stuff that should be really simple amazingly wrong (such as the assertion that Obama supposedly was raised in Kenya where he he picked up anti-Churchill sentiments). It would be as if Mark, after asserting how important it is to get the Bible right, would suddenly start clapping someone who said the Da Vinci Code had really uncovered a massive conspiracy to keep the secret story of Jesus hidden. It would be quite reasonable to say, if that happened, that whatever Mark’s true motives were, it was not his stated one to apologize for Orthodox Christianity.

    So given it is implausible to believe since maybe late 2008 that birthers are really motivated by a desire to just see the Constitution faithfully respected, what then is the real story behind this? I suggest racism is an excellent hypothesis that would explain quite a bit, that coupled with a more cycnical desire by GOP politicians to exploit those so motivated for votes (i.e. Birther-teasers like Donald Trump, and others) Mark suggests an alternative hypothesis might be hatred of men who are father to two teenage daughters. I’m perfectly happy to see my hypothesis set against Mark’s in the field of emperical evidence.

  11. Boonton,

    I suggest racism is an excellent hypothesis that would explain quite a bit, that coupled with a more cycnical desire by GOP politicians to exploit those so motivated for votes (i.e. Birther-teasers like Donald Trump, and others)

    I think “birth teasers” and racism as a hypothesis has been kept alive more by left wing fanatics than right wing ones. Mr Darrel is not scraping headlines and frontline news for his accusations, he’s searching the bottom of the barrel. Why … probably a cynical desire to see the GOP in an evil light.

    Ed,
    Look. You misunderstand completely. You made the claim that you saw no distinction between Mr Santorum, Mr Romney, &co and Mr Obama regarding their birth/citizenship status. I pointed out there was a distinction, only Mr Obama has a foreign non-citizen for a father. Apparently you get all excited about this being a birther hypothesis or defense. It was not. It was only to point out a connection to a former post I had written about failures of imagination (not being an argument). I never offered either a defense of birtherism or provided an accusation or grounds for an accusation that Mr Obama was not a citizen (you could point to the sentence/phrase in which you misinterpreted what I said … so I can watch my English usage in that regard in the future). So untwist your panties and relax. I’m not defending any birther hypothesis and don’t attempt to get a rise out of me that way. Geesh.

    Apparently you seem also (lately) to think that Mr Romney’s father having a child out of country means his after was not a citizen any longer … or that his children would lose their citizenship being born out of country. This is not the case.

  12. Boonton,

    For example, take the question of whether or not the Bible predicted Jesus would be born of a virgin. JA will toss up the assertion that the Hebrew word that was used simply meant ‘young woman’ while Mark will intelligently discuss the opposite assertion…

    Actually the difference there is “which” text. The Septuagint (translated from Hebrew by Rabbis in 1000-800 BC) used the Greek word for virgin. The Masoretic Text, assembled and “fixed” by Rabbis in 900 AD used a Hebrew word most commonly translated as “young woman.” There are two possibilities, which cannot exactly be decided from the extant texts, one is that the post-Christian Rabbis chose a word which would not lend itself so well to virgin specifically as a counter to Christian reliance on the term. The other is that there were multiple variants of Isaiah at the time of the Septuagint translation (into Greek) and the Rabbis that did the translation chose a different textual branch than the later Masoretic scholars. The second suggestion is the one most taken, likely as it is clearly the most charitable.

  13. Boonton,
    Oh, Heh, I found this … in reference to the “DV Code”

    It would be as if Mark, after asserting how important it is to get the Bible right, would suddenly start clapping someone who said the Da Vinci Code had really uncovered a massive conspiracy to keep the secret story of Jesus hidden.

    Look at this. It seems there are knuckleheads who do exactly that.

  14. Mark, I question your support of the birthers, that is all. I agree with you that their arguments are irrational — if that is what you’re saying — but part of that irrationality is the utter refusal to demand of the white Republicans, or white Democrats, running for the presidency the same thing demanded of Obama. They offer excuses, that Obama’s father was foreign born — so was Romney’s. Heck, for all you know, so was Santorum’s and Gingrich’s and Paul’s. They claim Obama came from a household headed for a time by a single mother. So did Gingrich. They claim Obama came from a home with not a great deal of financial support, but somehow got through. Same for Gingrich and Santorum.

    So why the different treatment? You fall back to “foreign citizen father.” Again, you don’t know that’s not true for anyone else running, nor do most other people because they haven’t bothered to look. That doesn’t change Obama’s status as a citizen, but the birthers go to great lengths to claim it somehow does, flouting 200 years of legal precedent, common law, resolutions from Congress, and legal precedents.

    It’s not racist? That would at least give a reason for the bias, though an unsavory reason. (Obama’s nearly as much Irish as African, by the way.) So, if we don’t say it’s racist, where is there any reason at all for the disparate treatment of Obama?

    Imagination? We’re talking law and history. Denying the law and history lead us to dangerous places. Don’t make stuff up. Forget imagination in this case — it’s wholly inappropriate.

  15. Ed,
    I’m not supporting birthers. Again, why do you pretend that. You said that there was no reason for them to not treat the GOP group the same as Obama. I offered a reason. That isn’t support, it isn’t an examination of the specifics of the case. Back up a bit. Ask the question in the abstract. If a person was to question the birth of a Presidential candidate in some cases and not in others. What reasons might exist for that. You offer that there are none. This is your failure of imagination, you failed to figure out or imagine that any possible explanation might exist. I offered a possible distinction. End there … I didn’t enter into the birth debate. I only offered that this distinction is one which can be made. Apparently you think this an (hidden?) argument that somehow Mr Obama is not a US citizen. I’m not making that statement, I don’t think he isn’t, and I’m not defending any statement to that effect.

    Again, you don’t know that’s not true for anyone else running, nor do most other people because they haven’t bothered to look.

    Alas for you it isn’t true for anyone else and the distinction can be made.

    And by the by, race is (according to my best Liberal sanctioned as non-racist friends) is a valid reason for choosing President. Apparently you can vote for Mr Obama on the basis of his race. If that the case, by symmetry, it is also possible to vote against Mr Obama on the same principle (and note: “vote” here is a proxy for other things, like support, campaign for, and even like). Apparently, Black individuals can vote for Mr Obama without taint of racism based on their shared “race” (inasmuch as race is well defined … and it isn’t) because of shared experience. Then too, a white person, who has been say, mugged by, beaten by, or lost a job to preferential selection criteria … can vote against him based on his race. If you want to say “race is unsavory” then you’ve a lot of housecleaning in your own party to do.

  16. You said that there was no reason for them to not treat the GOP group the same as Obama. I offered a reason.

    You offered an excuse, but not a reason. Since the birthplace of the father has zero influence on the issue of citizenship, it’s not a reason. Were it a reason, reasoning people would be examining the birthplaces of the fathers of the other candidates.

    You claim a good imagination, able to imagine an excuse. You can imagine flying monkeys stealing ballot boxes that would have put Newt Gingrich over the top in [pick a state]. That’s not a reason. It’s a hallucinogen.

    I’ll concede racism may not be the motivation for the irrationality, for the sheer insanity of the challenges to Obama’s eligibility. That takes it wholly out of the realm of reason and puts it completely in the zone of irrationality.

    It’s insane. Any claims of reason are similarly out to lunch.

  17. Mark

    I think “birth teasers” and racism as a hypothesis has been kept alive more by left wing fanatics than right wing ones. Mr Darrel is not scraping headlines and frontline news for his accusations, he’s searching the bottom of the barrel.

    You’re losing track of the issue here. You may be right that racism is a motivation of birthers but since they are so ‘bottom of the barrel’, so unrepresentative of the Republican party that they aren’t worth addressing. But then we have the birth teasers, relatively mainstream Republicans who are one record making clear overtures to birthers? If this group was so fringe orientated, then why would mainstream Republicans think it electorially useful to play to them?

    Look. You misunderstand completely. You made the claim that you saw no distinction between Mr Santorum, Mr Romney, &co and Mr Obama regarding their birth/citizenship status. I pointed out there was a distinction, only Mr Obama has a foreign non-citizen for a father.

    Unfortunately for you this is not relevant to Obama’s citizenship status so why would it serve as a distinction between Obama and the others? You might as well return to your father of two teenage girls argument.

  18. Boonton,
    I think the birth teasers far more often are people like Mr Darrel, not candidates.

    Unfortunately for you this is not relevant to Obama’s citizenship status so why would it serve as a distinction between Obama and the others?

    So the undocumented offspring of a spring break student visting Paris might run for US President claiming US citizenship due to US citizenship of his father? It’s taken you a lawyer and a political blogger how many days and comments in this discussion to figure out that (possibly) the citizenship of the father and place of birth doesn’t matter. But some proof and documentation of the same might be when such circumstances arise. Apparently you figure everyone else knows the Constitutional and legal data behind dual citizenships and citizenship and the candidacy for President known better by the ordinary non lawyer/non-political blogger that this might never raise as an issue. Mr Darrel speaks of hallucinations, I think he’s talking about himself and you.

    Ed,
    See above.

  19. I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

    In a case where only one parent is a citizen and the child is born overseas, the child is a US citizen if the US parent had been ‘physically present’ in the US before birth for at least 5 years, two of which would have to have been after her 14th birthday. Even if we assumed that Obama’s mother took a wild African vacation when she was at 8 months and ended up giving birth in Africa, there would be no question of Obama’s citizenship in the US nor his ability to run for President. He would be a natural born citizen by right of blood through his mother. There’s been no question that Obama’s mother was born and raised in the US giving her more than the 5 years necessary to claim Obama as a citizen. More to the point, even if there was a dispute about his mother being in the US for enough time examining Obama’s birth certificate could not settle that issue.

    As for your question about the offspring of a fling in Paris, the answer seems to be yes.

    As for ‘Birth teasers’, the GOP record speaks for itself. Either mainstream, important GOP politicians are actual birthers or they seek to win the favor of birthers, which you describe as being the ‘bottom of the barrel’.

  20. Look. You misunderstand completely. You made the claim that you saw no distinction between Mr Santorum, Mr Romney, &co and Mr Obama regarding their birth/citizenship status. I pointed out there was a distinction, only Mr Obama has a foreign non-citizen for a father.

    I don’t imagine a U.S. without the 14th Amendment, which is necessary to make the distinction you offer.

    Of course, you’re not suggesting the absence of the 14th Amendment as a racist idea, even though it’s hard to imagine anyone but racists wishing it gone, since it was designed to make sure no one revived the logic of In re Dred Scott which suggested that, while African Americans may have been born in the U.S., they are not that kind of citizen, meaning whatever right they are demanding is something that they are not allowed to demand.

    I don’t imagine a foreign-born, foreign-citizen father makes a difference because, according to the Constitution, it doesn’t.

  21. Ed,
    Your imagination is flawed, this lack of which still fails to be an argument. I will try once more to spell it out for you. I begin, alas to suspect, that you’re intentionally putting me on. You claim those who are “birthers” are immune to argument and reason. Perhaps you are imitating them intentionally.

    Look. Mr Obama has said he has a foreign father. People want to see his (and not the other candidates) birth certificates for this reasons. And yes, one has to only have one birth parent who is a US citizen to be a citizen. So, of what relevance might a birth cert server? I will not pause for an exchange to allow you to guess. You’ve amply proved you cannot imagine a reason.

    You may have heard that the reliability of documentation and amount of corruption in other countries, especially third world countries like that or Mr Obama’s father, are not quite to the standards of ours. If, for example, Mr Obama produced a birth cert from such a place its provenance might be suspect. So that is a reason why place of birth and might be relevant.

    Geesh. Stop letting the echo chamber do all your thinking. Use your imagination to try to see a reason for the other to think the other way. Try to see a way to make the other guys arguments strong not weak using all your imagination.

  22. Not quite getting this yet again, Obama never produced a birth certificate from a foreign country. You’re presenting an imaginary universe where Obama’s mother might be in question but that has nothing to do with the real life birther obsession nor the willingness of the right to play along with it.

    But I’ll grant you the hypothetical, if a person came forward seeking to run for President and his claim to being a natural born citizen was a birth certificate from a foreign country purporting to show one American citizen parent I would be willing to entertain those who might demand more proof to make sure that this wasn’t some elaborate ruse.

  23. Boonton,
    Yes, he didn’t have a birth certificate from a foreign country. How do you know that? Because he has a birth certificate from the US. By what means you know that, because he demonstrated it. And there you are.

    And yes, if a person showed a birth cert from a foreign country you’d want more, DNA or what not … but he didn’t. This is not an argument for why a birth cert is insufficient. It’s an argument for why seeing that he does have a birth cert from the US that’s sufficient and why having a foreign parent might make that relevant.

  24. Errr yes we know that because back in 2008 he produced a certified birth certificate from his state and his state confirmed it was accurate. The document you would produce if you had to get a passport or renew your drivers license. That makes all post-2008 birtherism suspect. As for birtherism being suspect *because* he had a foreign father, that has no rational bearing on it. It would only have impact if birthers suspected his mother wasn’t really his mother. But that’s not what any birther or their apologist that I’m aware of tried to argue.

    Let’s call a spade a spade here, birtherism was not rational back then nor was it since 2008 until he released his ‘long form’ certificate and even after that it isn’t rational. Neither birthers nor their teasers in the Right really cared about being rational. For hard core birthers this may be excused as simple ignorance possibly combined with mental illness in some cases. Birther-teasers, though, which I think would include you as well as mainstream right wing figures as Palin, Hucklebe & others don’t really get that as an excuse.

  25. Boonton,

    That makes all post-2008 birtherism suspect.

    Yes, but that’s not the point. Mr Darrel made the claim that there was no difference between the GOP candidates and Mr Obama and that he could see no rational for asking for a b/c from Mr Obama and not the other candidates. Clearly that is false, and as I originally pointed out the failure was one of imagination (as noted in the prior post). His continued objections are as non-rational as the non-rational post 2008 questioners.

    I’d note that for some time post 2008 there was question in the media whether he had produced a document. This is perhaps a consequence of the strong liberal bias in the media, which makes news sources untrustworthy if you’re not liberal (and given the undeniable strong bias, it’s unclear why even liberals trust the veracity of the media … how do you correct for it?). But yes, the point of the b/c questions are based in a doubt that his birth was in the country … which leads to the problems of less reliable documentation elsewhere.

    I guess then, if/when, “truther” teasers by figures in the mainstream left are pointed out you’re going to vehemently disavow their reliability and credibility. I’ll try to remember that.

  26. I’d note that for some time post 2008 there was question in the media whether he had produced a document. This is perhaps a consequence of the strong liberal bias in the media, which makes news sources untrustworthy if you’re not liberal (and given the undeniable strong bias, it’s unclear why even liberals trust the veracity of the media … how do you correct for it?). But yes, the point of the b/c questions are based in a doubt that his birth was in the country … which leads to the problems of less reliable documentation elsewhere.

    In other words, you are free to pick and choose your truth because the mantra of ‘liberal media bias’ means any facts you don’t like can be dismissed as you will. This is how you defend rationality huh?

  27. Boonton,
    No, the liberal bias in the media makes things difficult. What I don’t understand is why you don’t think that’s problematic for you (as a liberal) But, it doesn’t mean that you disbelieve what they say, just remember that the news has a well defined and obvious slant means at best parts of stories get left out and that other things aren’t covered at all.

    Look at the objection Mr Schraub raised to the claim being made that Ms Fluke did not choose her law school based on non-coverage of contraception. He says this is false and that she had “checked that this was the case and went anyhow.” I don’t find this very credible. Who checks details of medical coverage when selecting schools. That’s not very credible … especially for a particular coverage for an item that isn’t expensive in the first place.

  28. I think you’re use of ‘liberal media’ as a whipping boy to excuse dishonesty has been played out more than enough. The media is more diverse, less one sided than it has ever been and it’s been that way now for nearly 20 years, since the Clinton era. There are no major networks anymore, no CNN lock on cable news, blogs and other outlets have challenged the dominance of major print news.

    So what, now, is your claim about the ‘liberal media’ in regards to Obama’s birth certificate? That the state of Hawaii was screaming the certificate Obama was putting out on the web was a forgery but no one heard about it because the NYT and CNN refused to air it? (Was George Soros holding a gun to Murdoch’s head to keep Fox from reporting it?!) What might have once been a legitimate grip and might still be a gripe in certain contexts ceases to have any credibility for people like you use ‘liberal media’ to invoke some type of Matrix like reality where any fact can forever be doubted regardless of the evidence.

    I don’t find this very credible. Who checks details of medical coverage when selecting schools

    Physician heal theyself. You’ve been the one parroting the line that she choose Georgetown for the express purpose of challenging their contraception coverage policy! So clearly if its not credible to buy that someone would check what a schools health plan covers before going there, then your claim about her is not credible. Amazing isn’t it that you’ve been making that very claim, though, repeatedly. Digging yourself deeper when even Rush had the half sense to give it up.

    Schraub’s objection was not a judgement about whether or not Fluke’s statements were credible, they were an objection to people like you lying about what her statements actually were. But what’s odd and rather disturbing about your lie is that it’s not even internally consistent. It would be a lie to say George Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and allowed it to happen in order to get support for a war in Iraq. But I could see how a person might believe that very passionately. But what would one make of a person who claimed that in one sentence and then in another asserts that Bush was amazingly stupid because 9/11 took him by complete surprise because he should have known it was coming? This isn’t just dishonesty but dishonesty squared, at least a single lie shows respect for the truth by trying to pretend to be true. Multiple contradictory lies though demonstrate a utter contempt for even trying to be true. At least the deranged birther is at least trying to uncover the truth about some grand conspiracy. The ‘birth teaser’ though simply can’t be bothered with the truth to begin with.

  29. Mr Darrell made the claim that there was no difference between the GOP candidates and Mr Obama and that he could see no rational for asking for a b/c from Mr Obama and not the other candidates.

    No rational basis, since the only differences between Obama and the Republicans are demonstrated in the Republicans, too.

    But if you wish to claim that having a foreign born father who is not a citizen is a difference, then you’re just ignoring the law — you say I suffer from a lack of imagination. I say you suffer from birther hallucinations. The Constitution rules, and Obama qualifies according to the 14th Amendment, law on citizenship, the Supreme Court, Senate resolutions, and the precedents of President Arthur and Vice President Curtis.

    Clearly that is false, and as I originally pointed out the failure was one of imagination (as noted in the prior post). His continued objections are as non-rational as the non-rational post 2008 questioners.

    Romney has a foreign born father, too. You claim he was a U.S. citizen? Where’s the long-form birth certificate to prove it? You don’t know. You just extend your imagination to presume, in the absence of knowledge, what you want. Again, it’s not my lack of imagination, it’s your biased hallucinations. The White Mormon is in. The Black Hawaiian is out — in your imagination.

    I’d note that for some time post 2008 there was question in the media whether he had produced a document.

    “In the media.” Really? What news outlet asked to see the document then wondered about its authenticity? None.

    There were imaginary questions, hallucinations, but no “questions in the media.”

    This is perhaps a consequence of the strong liberal bias in the media, which makes news sources untrustworthy if you’re not liberal (and given the undeniable strong bias, it’s unclear why even liberals trust the veracity of the media … how do you correct for it?). But yes, the point of the b/c questions are based in a doubt that his birth was in the country … which leads to the problems of less reliable documentation elsewhere.

    There was never any question. There were at least six different legal presumptions of the validity of the claim that Obama was born exactly as the documents said, in Honolulu. To claim, or believe, that there was any doubt required that one assumed several different agencies were, simultaneously, and completely, incompetent to carry out their legal duties in checking birth certificates: The State Department under Ronald Reagan, the Selective Service, the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the Illinois State Bar, the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the U.S. Senate Rules Committee, the U.S. Senate, Hilary Clinton’s opposition researchers (you clearly don’t know them!), John McCain’s opposition researchers, the National Republican Party, the Hawaii State Department of Public Health, the Honolulu Public Library, the 1961 publishers and editors of the Honolulu Advertiser, the 1961 publishers and editors of the Honolulu Star (if I recall the name correctly), the Republican governor of Hawaii in 2008, and a lot of other people along the way.

    That large group of organizations and people probably do not agree on anything at any other time — the simultaneous failure of each and every one of those entities is a mathematical impossibility.

    Under our laws and Constitution, there is nothing more reliable than a document from a government, under seal. That is what the State of Hawaii issued to Obama — twice very publicly. That you think any of these agencies might be unreliable is more a measure of your paranoia, lack of common sense and common decency, or insanity, than it is an indictment of any of them.

    I guess then, if/when, “truther” teasers by figures in the mainstream left are pointed out you’re going to vehemently disavow their reliability and credibility. I’ll try to remember that.

    Check the facts. Not all claims on the internet, nor anywhere else, are equal. Truth is out there, and especially under the rigorous evidence rules of U.S. courts both state and federal, a close evaluation can make a solid determination of what that truth is.

    In this case, the truth is laid out no fewer than six ways from . . . Hawaii.

    None of the Republican candidates has been subject to equal scrutiny. You cannot say about any Republican candidate that he is a “natural born” citizen of the U.S. with the same degree of assuredness that you can say that about Barack Obama — if you stick to the law, to the evidence, and to the Constitution.

    You may “imagine” something else, but that’s just your wild imagination, not the facts.

  30. Romney has a foreign born father, too. You claim he was a U.S. citizen? Where’s the long-form birth certificate to prove it? You don’t know. You just extend your imagination to presume, in the absence of knowledge, what you want. Again, it’s not my lack of imagination, it’s your biased hallucinations. The White Mormon is in. The Black Hawaiian is out — in your imagination.

    Indeed, in terms of imaginative fantasy it’s much more plausible to imagine a White Mormon Governor deciding that he shall see his son become President some day even if it means covering up circumstances that may technically disqualify him if known and taking action 40+ years ago to implement such a cover up as opposed to a not particulary rich, powerful or very focused white woman giving birth to a mixed race baby concocting a like plot and being able to enlist officials at a state’s dept. of vital statistics to go along with it.

    “In the media.” Really? What news outlet asked to see the document then wondered about its authenticity? None.

    Ohhh well you see that’s what’s so imaginative about this free form approach to facts. Because the media is so liberally biased, the fact that they didn’t doubt its authenticity is reason to not to trust their decision to not doubt its authenticity. See this is the difference between the sincere honesty of the insane loons and the insincere dishonesty of the right. The lunatic thinks he can discover proof that the certificate is forged by staring at pixels on his computer monitor. As stupid as he is, he at least wants to get at the truth. The right wants anything but the truth. It wants everyone else to bend over backwards to try to produce certainity while it wants there to be uncertainity. It wants the authenticity to be in doubt, but it doesn’t want to say it thinks the document is inauthentic. They don’t want to lie because they are to morally corrupt to even embrace the honor of lies.

  31. Ed,
    I’m done. You’re insane. Get some help. You are just as insane as the birthers you attack. You don’t read/listen a bit. We’re not talking one bit over whether the certificate was authentic. Or whether he is a citizen (he is).

    Boonton,

    Indeed, in terms of imaginative fantasy it’s much more plausible to imagine a White Mormon Governor deciding that he shall see his son become President some day even if it means covering up circumstances that may technically disqualify him if known and taking action 40+ years ago to implement such a cover up as opposed to a not particulary rich, powerful or very focused white woman giving birth to a mixed race baby concocting a like plot and being able to enlist officials at a state’s dept. of vital statistics to go along with it.

    Now you’re imagination is failing. Can you imagine a reason a non-US person might want to have US citizenship besides becoming President. I can think of several. Perhaps you can too.

    Ohhh well you see that’s what’s so imaginative about this free form approach to facts.

    What “free form” approach to fact/non-fact do you have in mind?

  32. Now you’re imagination is failing. Can you imagine a reason a non-US person might want to have US citizenship besides becoming President. I can think of several. Perhaps you can too.

    Indeed I can, although I would suspect such a person would avoid seeking a high profile position that would likely lead to intense scrutiny of his citizenship like running for President. As a best selling author and successful Senator a non-citizen Obama would have had a very easy life by simply staying out of Presidential politics.

    But more importantly the lack of imagination here is you. You’re imagining plausible reasons to want Obama’s citizenship confirmed but you’re refusing to see an equal amount of imagination could yield possible cases where the other nominees may likewise not be qualified Constitutionally. The clear rational response then is to set an equal level of scrutiny for all nominees. If the offical standard birth certificate is the bar, then that should be the bar for all candidates. If the special ‘long form’ should be the bar, then that should be the bar to all. If DNA testing is what you want, then advocate that.

    What really requires imagination, though, is trying to come up with a rational reason Obama should be subject to intense citizenship scrutiny but not anyone else. You’re right, imagination does seem to fail there.

  33. Boonton,

    You’re imagining plausible reasons to want Obama’s citizenship confirmed but you’re refusing to see an equal amount of imagination could yield possible cases where the other nominees may likewise not be qualified Constitutionally.

    But that’s not the game. You have a number of candidates. You can come up with reasons why any one not the other might be checked. You’re done then. You are demonstrating that there are reasons why a particular person might be scrutinized and not the others. Given 400 million people in the country, if you’ve 17 not impossible reasons for checking a set of them, you’re going to have a set of people who prefer one of them to the other. Any one person can have is own (and not the full set) of criteria. For the purposes of this discussion re imagination .. existence proof is sufficient, one does not have to prove uniqueness.

    As a best selling author and successful Senator a non-citizen Obama would have had a very easy life by simply staying out of Presidential politics.

    That might be the preference of the parents, who may or may not have informed their child of his situation. What’s your point? (and I thought he was a ghost author (cue drum snare shot)).

  34. Boonton,
    Clarification. What I’m saying is that I completely agree that an equal amount of imagination might be able to come up with a reason why Mr Paul should put forth his b/c and not the others. That doesn’t invalidate the notion that there is a reason for checking Mr Obama and not Mr Paul &co.

  35. Actually no there’s not. The error you’re making is assuming because you may imagine a possible case where Candidate A may not be a natural born citizen, that somehow excludes the possibility that Candidates B, C, D and so on may likewise not be qualified.

    For example, let’s say Obama’s father had Obama with a white woman from England but because he wanted his son to rise in America, worked together with a sympathetic American woman to create a fake birth certificate and US birth story. She intended to tell her adopted son the truth but she died of cancer early and never had the chance. Obama went on to run for President without even realizing the truth!

    Ok very well, say one believes this. That would justify scrutiny of Obama’s birth certificate. But whether or not this story is true has no impact on the question of whether, say, Mitt Romney, might be in the same boat or perhaps some other silliness with his origins. Maybe he is too young to be President but his BC was faked to make him look older as part of some obscure Mormon belief. Who knows.

    Fact is there’s no rational reason to, say, demand a long form b.c. from Obama unless you have reason to believe your hypothesis somehow excludes the other candidates from having problems of their own.

  36. Boonton,
    Unless you think that the salient part is having a parent who is not a citizen, which only Obama has said applies to him.

  37. Back to the beginning again, then. Why would that be ‘the salient part’? And what exactly would one be trying to prove by confirming the birth certificate, that Obama’s father was really not a citizen? Was anyone trying to assert that he was?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>