Main Menu

Senator Conspiracy?

No, I’m not running for office. This is about Scott Brown, who is engaged in a tight race to become a US Senator from Massachusetts in a special election next Tuesday for the seat of the late Ted Kennedy. It would be ironic if the one vote needed to derail the health care overhaul came from the seat formerly held by one of its strongest proponents.

This blog, however, is not about health care and Senate seats; it is about Obama conspiracies, and it appears that Scott Brown may be a birther. In the interview below, Brown expresses doubts that Barack Obama’s mother was married when the  President was born.

It may also be that Brown was simply making a knee-jerk objection to the point being made against him.

68 Responses to Senator Conspiracy?

  1. avatar
    brygenon January 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    I don’t see how that makes Brown a likely birther.

  2. avatar
    kimba January 17, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    Birtherism and “Barack was born to an unwed mother” go hand in hand. Normal people know Barack’s parents were married.

    What we have here is a right wing, teapartyin’, birther who has run as a moderate, but appears to be recognizable to the right wing, teapartyin’, birthers who have come out of the national woodwork to try to get him elected.

  3. avatar
    aarrgghh January 17, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    doc notes:

    It would be ironic if the one vote needed to derail the health care overhaul came from the seat formerly held by one of its strongest opponents.

    i think you mean “proponents” here, if “its” refers to “the health care overhaul”, unless “its” refers to “the one vote needed to derail the health care overhaul”, which only makes the construction very awkward in both concept and execution …

    but i agree.

  4. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    brygenon-I agree. In fact, if Obama’s mother had been unmarried when he was born, that would destroy the 2 main birther arguments:

    1. He would be a US citizen from birth even if born outside the US.

    2. The non-citizen father argument vanishes.

  5. avatar
    brygenon January 17, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    kimba: Birtherism and “Barack was born to an unwed mother” go hand in hand. Normal people know Barack’s parents were married.

    Normal people mind their own business and know that the timing of Ann Dunham’s or Bristol Palin’s marriage ain’t such.

    The eligibility matter is different. I don’t like that our Constitution requires the president be a natural-born citizen, but it does, so he must, and President Obama is.

  6. avatar
    Loren January 17, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    Three thoughts on the video:

    One, given the word choices involved, I can’t help but suspect that what happened here might have been Brown misunderstanding what the woman said. Namely, that he didn’t hear “And married,” but rather “Unmarried.”

    Two, whether it could have been such a mistake is hard to tell given how quickly the video cuts off after the comment was made. If we could hear the rest of Brown’s sentence, it would offer more insight into Brown’s mindset. Because given the way that next sentence starts, it sounds like he’s about to compliment Ann Dunham, not bash her.

    Three, the context of this video places it sometime in September 2008. Even if we assume Brown honestly meant he didn’t know if she was married, this was well before Birtherism got any attention; even before it got named. Berg’s lawsuit was only a few weeks old, and WND hadn’t yet picked up the torch. In other words, one would have to assume that Brown was not only fluent in Obama’s personal backstory (otherwise he could simply be honestly ignorant of Obama’s mother’s marital status), but that he was partial to denialist theories that were still very much in their infancy at the time.

  7. avatar
    Husker Blur January 17, 2010 at 7:40 pm #

    –>”I don’t like that our Constitution requires the president be a natural-born citizen”

    It was inserted to prevent the crowned heads of Europe from trying to install relatives in the White House.

  8. avatar
    Who Knows January 18, 2010 at 5:59 am #

    Why does the entire nation believe Scott Brown can stop the health care bill.

    News flash: The senate ALREADY passed a bill. If Brown was elected the house would know it would have to pass the senates version unchanged to save healthcare – and OF course they will do just that.

    It’s not rocket science.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    I find it hard to believe that he misunderstood. It could be that he was simply making an uninformed knee jerk objection to the point being made against him. Your other two points are well taken.

  10. avatar
    G January 18, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    I agree that would be a likely outcome.

    However, that scenario would still be a tremendous loss. At least the current “negotiation” process between the house & senate provides the possibility to improve on the senate bill before final passage (which in and of itself is not a sure fire guarantee of happening, either way).

    But Health Care is just one piece of legislation and if the rest of this congressional term is nothing but party-line votes to block everything either congress or the President wants to do to address problems in this country, then Scott Brown still represents the worst case scenario of total gridlock we’ve ever seen (until Harry Reid grows enough balls to fight this constant threat to filibusterer everything nonsense.)

  11. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2010 at 9:37 am #

    The filibuster should be severly limited if not abolished. The Constitution requires a supermajority only for over-riding Presidential vetoes and conviction upon impeachment. The budget mess in California shows the dangers of requiring supermajorities for action.

    At a minimum, the painless filibuster should be ditched and they ought to go back to old-style flibutsrters where the Senators read from the DC phone book, like in “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”. If a Senator wants to gum up the works, he should be seen doing so by his constituents on C-Span.

  12. avatar
    G January 18, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    I completely agree.

  13. avatar
    sponson January 18, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    I would suggest another possibility: perhaps Brown was expressing doubts about whether Obama’s parents were married at the time of his conception, thus questioning his “legitimacy” as it pertains to parent’s marital status but in a way that is not motivated by a desire to question his eligibility to be President. The context of the discussion was childbirth out of wedlock and the disparate treatment, pointed out by Dunham, of the Palin family’s situation compared to others.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    It’s pretty well established that Obama’s parents were not married when he was conceived.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    In a press release, insurgent Internet Powerhouse, Andy Martin commented on the issue. Martin, who believes Obama was born in Hawaii, but is not the son of Barack Obama Sr. or that the Obama’s were not legally married (old Barack already had one wife in Africa) said:

    “The Obama marriage’ in Hawai’i was bigamous and therefore null and void. When Barack was born, he was born in Hawai’i, but his birth was illegitimate.

    http://www.pr-inside.com/illinois-republican-andy-martin-becomes-r1671839.htm

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Democratic Senate candidate Coakley said:

    “Now, we find out that, similar to the fringe Birthers movement, he’s raised questions about President Barack Obama’s birth,” DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz said of the video. “Despite his best attempts to mask who he is, Scott Brown is an extremist who does not represent Massachusetts values, and he owes voters an explanation today on what he meant in this interview.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122695713

  17. avatar
    Sallyven January 18, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    In a conference on July 10, 2008, someone said this about Obama’s mother: “[she] was “very young and very single when she had him.”

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/10/1193601.aspx

    Who was it? A birther?

    Answer: Michelle Obama.

  18. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    In today’s world, the term “single mother” refers to any mother raising a child without the active participation of the father. This would include divorced, widowed and separated women, as well as unmarried ones. On the other hand, if the parents are not married, but are living together in a stable relationship, the term would not apply. So given that Obama Sr. abandoned the family, she was a single mother.

    In any event, what does the marital status of Obama’s parents have to do with his fitness, legal or otherwise, to be President? As I pointed out above, if his parents weren’t legally married, then the birther “case”, even if one gave them the benefit of every doubt, collapses. Not that it hasn’t anyway.

  19. avatar
    Gordon January 18, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Really it sounds more to me as if he was casting dispersions on Obama Sr. and the possibility that if he were still married to his Kenyan wife that he may not have been legally able to marry Barack’s mother. Of course none of that would change Barack Jr.’s status as an NBC. However who can tell what’s really in the mind of some of these people on the Right.

  20. avatar
    Jody January 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    So Andy Martin is admitting that President Obama is a Natural Born Citizen? Then why does he have his knickers in a twist?

  21. avatar
    sponson January 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    In an article and video posted today, Brown claims that this was his motivation, he was referring to the timing of Obama’s conception.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/18/brown-accuse-obama-bastard/

    Of course I’m sure that he thinks this will endear him to birthers anyway, since it is a cheap shot at the circumstances of Obama’s birth, something over which he had no control.

  22. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    In a conference on July 10, 2008, someone said this about Obama’s mother: “[she] was “very young and very single when she had him.”

    Single or married, it makes no difference.

  23. avatar
    Sallyven January 18, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    I was responding to the original post, which stated: “…it appears that Scott Brown may be a birther. In the interview below, Brown expresses doubts that Barack Obama’s mother was married when the President was born.”

    It is my understanding the video clip of Brown was sometime around August or September 2008. Michelle’s statement was in July of 2008. And she said:” “Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education ….”

    Note that she said “when she had him”, not “when she raised him.”

    It seems perfectly reasonable that Brown hesitated to agree with the statement that Obama’s mother was married when she had him.

    Maddow tonight called Brown a “birther” several times, with her usual facial expressions of complete disgust. And of course, she never mentioned Michelle’s comments that I quoted above.

    It is interesting that a hint of a question about Obama’s parent’s marital status is called ‘birtherism.” If anything, I would think it would be the anti-birther crowd who would love to latch on to this one, since it is Obama’s admission of his mother’s marriage to his Kenyan father, who was never a US citizen, and the fact that at his birth, Barack, again by his own admission, was subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain, which most of the “birthers” feel is the primary issue.

    A question of whether this dual citizenship at birth overrides “natural born” status as required by the constitution is not “conspiracy theory.” It is a legitimate constitutional question.

    And to call Brown a “birther” because of his comments is quite a spin.

    But I’m not surprised. Anyone who is opposed to Obama’s policies is called a “birther” or a “teabagger” or the “shouting mob.” Problem is, now Obama and his supporters are, in essence, calling over half of the country these names. It will be interesting to see where that goes.

  24. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    A question of whether this dual citizenship at birth overrides “natural born” status as required by the constitution is not “conspiracy theory.” It is a legitimate constitutional question.

    Nonsense, the issue was settled in Wong Kim Ark

  25. avatar
    kimba January 18, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Oh no, no, it’s not more than half the country. The birthers and the teabaggers and the Palinistas overlap and they constitute about 20% of this country. But they are loud, very loud. It’s the same 20% that still approved of Bush when he left office. It’s the same 20% making calls into Mass tonight and calling Brown “the LtCol”.

  26. avatar
    aarrgghh January 18, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    sillyhen clucks:

    now Obama and his supporters are, in essence, calling over half of the country these names.

    i guess that wasn’t the half that swamped the polls in 2008.

  27. avatar
    kimba January 18, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    They just love any shot at smearing President Obama, his family, his background. Any cheap shot is good. Yeah, Brown, just get in that pickup truck and drive to DC and act like you’re all populist, with your Jesuit education. By the way, wiki says his parents were divorced and each remarried 3 times (tsk tsk tsk family values?)

  28. avatar
    Sallyven January 18, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Oh, the times they are a changin’…

    Olbermann’s head is about to spin off his shoulders as he talks about Brown. Talk about “loud”…

    Oh, I forgot. It’s only smearing, astroturf, propaganda, hate, etc. when the right does it.

    Cluck, cluck.

  29. avatar
    aarrgghh January 19, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    sillyhen, avoiding the subject:

    Oh, the times they are a changin’…

    Olbermann’s head is about to spin off his shoulders as he talks about Brown. Talk about “loud”…

    Oh, I forgot. It’s only smearing, astroturf, propaganda, hate, etc. when the right does it.

    Cluck, cluck.

    i’m not hearing any non-imaginary evidence that makes obama’s eligibility a legitimate question … or why you’ve been keeping it a secret.

  30. avatar
    chufho January 19, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    you missed big time on this one a marraige doesnt take away from the fact who is father was

  31. avatar
    Greg January 19, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    US law says that citizenship more easily follows the mother. Rogers v. Bellei.

    Now, what about the child who doesn’t know who his father is? Is that child forbidden to run for President because he could be the child of a foreigner?

    This is too easy. The birthers don’t know law and cannot reason, so they obviously cannot be bothered to think about the consequences of their legal pronouncements.

  32. avatar
    NBC January 19, 2010 at 2:09 am #

    Is it too hard to address the arguments. Instead you whine whine whine.

    Pathetic

  33. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 2:42 am #

    @Sallyven:

    Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

    Got a question: since Booker was born in DC, what argument are you going to use to disqualify him?

    Is it going to be DC is not a state, so Booker is not NBC? Sorry, Gore was born in DC.

    Is it going to be Booker was secretly born in Canada? C’mon, let’s get warmed up. I can’t wait.

  34. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    “Yeah, Brown, just get in that pickup truck and drive to DC and act like you’re all populist”

    Just like George Allen. Pick-up truck, Confederate flag, chewing tobacco…then it turns out his mother is a Tunisian Jew. Ha, ha.

  35. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 19, 2010 at 5:45 am #

    Stanley Ann was married three times? Who was the third husband?

  36. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 7:10 am #

    “Who was the third husband?”

    Jor-El

  37. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Sallyven says:

    Oh, I forgot. It’s only smearing, astroturf, propaganda, hate, etc. when the right does it.

    No, it’s only smearing, etc. when what’s being said isn’t true.

  38. avatar
    kimba January 19, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Try to keep up Dick. Brown’s parents were divorced and each married 3 more times. What sort of family values is that?

  39. avatar
    kimba January 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    “Now, what about the child who doesn’t know who his father is? Is that child forbidden to run for President because he could be the child of a foreigner? ”

    Only if he “looks” like he “could” be a foreigner. You know, one of those icky brown or yellow people.

  40. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    “What sort of family values is that?”

    Christo-Republican values. You betcha. Also.

  41. avatar
    SFJeff January 19, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    ” the fact who is father was”

    If the citizenship of the father is relevant to the NBC status of a person born in the United States, then really we should have been requiring paternity tests for the last 20-30 years. And that should be a requirement going forward.

    And by the way- this will require blood tests of the father or other relatives too in order to establish paternity.

  42. avatar
    DavidH January 19, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    The marital status of obama’s mother has nothing to do with Obama’s citizenship. I suspect Brown knows this.

    To the birthers I say, Obama won, get over it. To the Coakley supporters, Brown won, get over it.

  43. avatar
    Joseph January 20, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    DavidH – It’s patently obvious you haven’t a clue that “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are NOT interchangeable terms and ONLY a “natural born Citizen” can LEGALLY hold the office of president. You’re a typical lying know nothing, but pretend you know everything “progressive”.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2010 at 7:00 am #

    But of course everyone knows that naturalized citizens cannot be president. Your fiction is that that there is a third class on citizen who is neither natural born nor naturalized.

  45. avatar
    Scott Brown January 20, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    It would seem that someone is in denial.

    20% hahahahahahaha

    you wished

  46. avatar
    Scott Brown January 20, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    “Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.”

    Yep – just like Coakley was going to win last night!

    You people are a scream. Do you seriously not realize what is going on in the nation in which you reside?

    The majority do NOT want big government, big debt, and secrecy. In other words, all the things that Obama stands for but did not campaign on – he sold the country a bill of goods that we cannot afford.

  47. avatar
    SFJeff January 20, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    re: Scott Brown- I am not terribly upset that Coakly lost. I hope it does make the President rethink his strategy.

    “The majority do NOT want big government, big debt, and secrecy.”

    Yet the majority re-elected George Bush when he was representing exactly those things. Where I agree with you is that I think President Obama has been too secretive, and I think that the Health Care Insurance bill has dragged him down. The current version is looking more like poorly made sausage- too much fat and not enough good stuff. I think its time to back off and shelve healthcare and focus on other things. I say that as a proponent of Universal Healtcare.

    Meanwhile I will point out that the only President with lower favorables at this point in his presidency was Ronald Reagan. If the economy is strong in 3 years, President Obama will be re-elected, if the economy is still in the tank, he will probably lose.

  48. avatar
    kimba January 20, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    Let’s look at this Scott Brown. Yesterday, there were 60 Democratic senators – the largest majority by a single party in over 30 years. Today there are 59 Democratic senators – the second largest majority by a single party in over 30 years. I hope your lack of understanding of just how little your victory means sinks in slowly, otherwise your fat head might explode. Let’s look at what it means to be a junior senator in the minority party shall we? You will get some sucky sub-committee assignments. You’ll never get to speak until those after-hours sessions on CSPAN where no one else is present in the chamber. You’ll be able to advance no legislation. You might get asked to be a co-sponsor. You’re gonna get an office the size of a suburban bedroom and a teensy weensy staff. What? You thought you were going to get Kennedy’s office and his committee assignments? Why would it not surprise me if you rented a room at the C Street House?

  49. avatar
    kimba January 20, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    I am just going to add, if Scott Brown’s normal behavior and outlook on life was reflected in his speech today, I don’t think it’s going to be long before the people of Mass experience a severe case of buyer’s remorse. The comments directed toward his daughters were downright creepy. Even his family seemed a little put-off. Way to go Massachusetts another Republican freak in the Senate. I predict something weird about this guy is going to come out soon.

  50. avatar
    TRUTH January 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    I must be misunderstanding something here Doc. You accuse Mr. Brown in the opening comments at the top of being a possible birther. The female in the video stats “and married” to which you are essentially disagreeing in this last post. So if she is wrong, and Brown merely disagreed with her, that would make brown Correct, AND he was correct Pre-Birther Movement, making this entire post a farce.

    Not to mention it is hilarious to see the video, Scott Brown being asked questions of Sarah Palin, him defending her as a good person and candidate, yet The Female doing the interview brings up some Baby Issue as if that somehow would make Palin a bad person. It may help to see the entire interview, but I doubt I could stomach that much ignorance from another poor democrat commentator. It was typical of the left then and is Still NOW, just like this Post, that if they can’t find some dirt they’ll just make it up on the fly about a person.

  51. avatar
    TRUTH January 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    It wouldn’t be a threat to Filibuster(just one “er” by the way) everything, if EVERYTHING wasn’t Nonsense. Republicans don’t want HealthCare stopped, they just don’t want to add 80 government offices and 2trillion more dollars to the debt. Dem’s words are GREAT what they want to do. It’s their Actions that are ridiculous, and apparently their Math absolutely sucks.

  52. avatar
    misha January 20, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    First, there was that spread in Cosmo. Then this:

    “So I want to thank Ayla and Arianna for their help as well. And just in case anyone who’s watching throughout the country they’re both available. No, no no. No. Only kidding, only kidding. Only kidding, only kidding. Arianna’s definitely not available. But Ayla is.”

    http://gawker.com/5452332/scott-brown-wins-mass-senate-race-pimps-out-daughters-in-victory-speech

  53. avatar
    Scientist January 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Just out of curiousity, Mr Truthiness. Assuming the Republicans really are big fans of reforming health care, why didn’t they do it any time between 2000 and 2006 when they controlled both Congress and the White House?

  54. avatar
    kimba January 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    Still talking out your tookus I see. You apparently haven’t read either bill or the CBO scores for each. Both bills reduce the debt over their 10 year lives, the House bill more than the Senate bill. The non-partisan CBO takes care of the Math Skills you big dope.

  55. avatar
    Miss M January 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    @sallyven “birther”, “denier”, “teabagger” are all incuded among the shouting mob you speak of. Now those are speculating about who the President’s father is or isn’t. Whether or not he is illigitimate doesn’t disqualify someone from the presidency. It’s just watercooler gossip. Which makes it none of your business.

  56. avatar
    kimba January 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    Apparently even Glenn Beck is creeped-out by Brown! He thinks this could end with “a dead intern”. Beck is insane, but in this instance I agree with him.

  57. avatar
    misha January 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    To paraphrase, ‘a live girl, or a dead boy.’

  58. avatar
    misha January 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    “there is a third class on citizen who is neither natural born nor naturalized.”

    Which Leo Donofrio invented from whole cloth.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    I don’t know the date of the interview (anyone with documentation, please chip in). However, there is no question that Obama’s parents were married. Brown was wrong.

    WHY he was wrong, I cannot say.

  60. avatar
    SFJeff January 20, 2010 at 5:15 pm #

    “Republicans don’t want HealthCare stopped, they just don’t want to add 80 government offices and 2trillion more dollars to the debt.”

    Really no evidence of that. So far the Republicans have been the Party of “No” in 2009-10, except when Bush was President then they were the party that believed in big government and big deficits.

    And as was already mentioned- the Republican’s idea of healthcare reform before was providing billions of dollars of healthcare benefits to Seniors. Hardly the model of fiscal responsibility or arch enemies of ‘socialized medicine’.

    I have no sympathy for the Demos- they have handled this all really poorly. But the Republicans have done nothing but try to stop every reform.

  61. avatar
    Randy January 20, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    I guess we now have Senator Centerfold and he’s a birther.

  62. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    It looks like Deal is really walking back his association with the birthers and his so called letter that demanded the BC from the President…

    “The next shot came from state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who said it was “childish” to question President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That, of course, was aimed at U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, who has written a letter to the White House on that very same topic.

    Deal responded that he had no interest in Obama’s birth certificate, and that his letter was “not an issue in the governor’s race.” The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.

    Obama had not answered, he noted.”

    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/01/19/in-athens-a-gop-debate-that-wraps-up-ethics-health-care-and-a-birth-certificate/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway

    Or this comment…

    “Deal, who represents North Georgia in Congress, sent Obama a letter in December asking him to address lingering concerns that he actually was born in Kenya and thus is constitutionally barred from being president.

    “I think that is a reasonable proposition, and certainly something I think the president should respond to, although at this point, he has not,” Deal said.

    Deal said he was responding to constituents’ questions, and the letter should not be an issue in a state-level campaign.”

    In other words Deal was pandering and was called on it by his opponent…

  63. avatar
    kimba January 21, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    This is an interesting tidbit, because he reveals a bit of the tone of his letter:

    “The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.”

    It’s not a question in his mind, oh no sirree. He’s just tryin’ to help out the fine folks who call his office. He’s going to spend the rest of the primary trying to walk it back. What a clown.

  64. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2010 at 9:17 am #

    There are only 2 possibilites regarding Rep Deal, neither of which makes him look good:

    1. He really does have questions regarding the President’s eligibility. In this case he had a Constitutional duty to object when the votes were counted over 1 year ago. Since he did not, that would make him either a lazy fool who didn’t do his homework for almost a year, or a cowardly wimp.

    2. He really doesn’t have questions regarding the President’s eligibility. In this case, he is a hypocritical liar.

    So, which is it??

  65. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 9:19 am #

    Exactly…In trying to pander to the birther nutjob fringe he cost himself credibility, which is why he never released the letter and is now trying to make it seem like it is not a big deal…

  66. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    Last month, the host of Patriot’s Heart Network and make-believe American Grand Jury activist thought she could stroll in and instruct a real grand jury in Birfer ways and wisdom. Poor Chalice.

    Local birther’s court request tossed

    WOODSTOCK – A McHenry County judge denied a Fox River Grove woman’s request to present to a grand jury her claims that President Barack Obama’s citizenship amounts to widespread voter fraud.

    Sharon Ann Meroni, founder of Patriot’s Heart Media Network, and 20 unnamed network members asked Judge Sharon Prather to appoint Meroni an investigator. As an investigator, Meroni wanted to compel testimony and present evidence before the grand jury about the alleged voter fraud.

    But Prather told her this morning that there was no legal basis to allow such an appointment. She also said Meroni had failed to include any facts in her court filings to support her request last month.

    “There is no legal basis for me to do what you are asking me to do,” Prather said, after Meroni questioned her decision.

    Prather said the State’s Attorney’s Office is vested with the authority to decide what cases to prosecute.

    http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/01/20/00102359/index.xml

  67. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    More on Brown…So is the new MA Senator in the birther camp?

    “Sen.-elect Scott Brown has endorsed a candidate for Congress who has asserted that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than the United States, and who drew complaints from his neighbors during the 2008 presidential campaign for putting up signs on his property depicting Obama as Osama bin Laden.”

    http://www.dankennedy.net/2010/01/21/brown-endorses-birther-for-congress/

    Or is he backing away from the birhters?

    “Neither Scott Brown or anyone connected with his campaign approved that press release before its release or the quote that was attributed to Scott,” said Felix Browne, a spokesman for Brown. “Bill Hudak is an energetic candidate who has been working hard as a candidate for Congress. Right now, Scott Brown is focused on the job that people elected him to do. That’s his number one priority.”

    And how is the supposed birther candidate taking this possible reversal?

    “Scott Brown gave his endorsement to Bill Hudak and it’s unforuante that the people Scott Brown surrounds himself with are backing dowm from a commitment that their boss already made,” said Tyler Harber, a spokesman for Hudak.

    Interesting. Now that Brown won, and has to run again in 2 years in 2012, will he ignore the huge support he received from the birthers in order to be moderate enough to win re-election? This will be interesting to watch…