Main Menu

Birther bill in Connecticut

Connecticut

One aspect of the ultra-right-wing victories in the last election is that state legislatures have some new characters with some strange ideas.

Connecticut is the latest state to see an attempt by legislators to tackle President Obama with proposed new laws on presidential eligibility. The law would require an “original birth certificate” to run for president and vice-president. The proposed legislation does not, however, define “original birth certificate,” a major flaw in my opinion.

Should one of these state-based eligibility verification laws be passed, it will be interesting to see if there are court challenges and how the legal arguments play out.

More fun and games for 2011.

Print Friendly

82 Responses to Birther bill in Connecticut

  1. avatar
    Sean January 31, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    If it gets changed to “copy of the original” and gets passed, big deal. Obama will simply meet that requirement (if he wants to be on the ballot in CT).

    Then what’ll they do? Do they really think he won’t or can’t comply?

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    I think that it is looking promising that one or another of these laws will end up in court. I wonder how crazy their defeat (or denial of cert) from the SCOTUS will make the birthers…

  3. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    The Democrats control both houses and the governorship in CT, so I wouldn’t lose much sleep over this passing. If I’m reading it correctly, the proposed bill requires that the birth certificate certify that the holder is a natural born ciitizen. Since no one’s certificate certifies any such thing, effectively, no one can be President from hence forward. So, the goal of the birthers is a parliamentary system? Is that their secret agenda?

  4. avatar
    Stanislaw January 31, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I think that it is looking promising that one or another of these laws will end up in court.I wonder how crazy their defeat (or denial of cert) from the SCOTUS will make the birthers…

    My guess is that the Supreme Court will invalidate it outright, since it seems to run right up against the Supremacy Clause. I’m sure the drafters of this bill know that it won’t pass; they’re probably just doing this to pay the birthers lip service.

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Stanislaw:
    My guess is that the Supreme Court will invalidate it outright, since it seems to run right up against the Supremacy Clause. I’m sure the drafters of this bill know that it won’t pass; they’re probably just doing this to pay the birthers lip service.

    I think any birther bill (one that wouldn’t allow President Obama on the ballot, in any case) would be overturned by the first court it comes to – if it is appealed to the SCOTUS, then it will probably be denied cert without comment. I certainly hope that at least one of these bills makes it into court – I want to see the fireworks!

  6. avatar
    US Citizen February 1, 2011 at 6:19 am #

    Sean: Do they really think he won’t or can’t comply?

    More amusingly, Obama will likely be one of the first to produce evidence, clearing himself ahead of most others.
    This then paints birthers into a corner: their #1, original target has met their demands, but now all others must too and therein lies the fireworks.
    Foot-shooting, egg-on-face ensuing as they scramble to meet their own requirements.
    Candidates that could have helped them, now disqualified or delayed.
    Courts having to enter special sessions to handle GOP candidates pitted against their own followers, while Obama has already put it behind him- MUCH to their own frustration.
    Some very amusing moments await if any of these states pass such bills.
    It’ll be like a whole class having to stay behind to finish test questions while that one bright kid they targeted is already done and been excused. ;-)

  7. avatar
    ellid February 1, 2011 at 7:31 am #

    Scientist: The Democrats control both houses and the governorship in CT, so I wouldn’t lose much sleep over this passing.If I’m reading it correctly, the proposed bill requires that the birth certificate certify that the holder is a natural born ciitizen.Since no one’s certificate certifies any such thing, effectively, no one can be President from hence forward.So, the goal of the birthers is a parliamentary system? Is that their secret agenda?

    I completely agree. This isn’t going anywhere.

  8. avatar
    Granite1 February 1, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    I think that it is possible that some of the states that went to short-form birth certificates may have already destroyed the originals. Not Hawaii, of course. But some others may have. And, if this is not true, then the legislation would prevent states that have not destroyed original birth certificates from doing so. It does not seem fair for one state to impose the barrier to destroying old files on another state.

    Most likely they would change the words to “the official birth certificate,” if they pass it at all.

  9. avatar
    Granite1 February 1, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    I think that it is possible that some of the states that went to short-form birth certificates may have already destroyed the originals. Not Hawaii, of course. But some others may have.

    And, if this is not true, then the legislation would prevent states that have not destroyed original birth certificates from doing so. It does not seem fair for one state to impose the barrier to destroying old files on another state.

    Most likely they would change the words to “the official birth certificate,” if they pass it at all. And, I agree that it is highly unlikely that they will pass anything. Still, if there is another state that is writing its legislation with the words “the original,” it must consider the possibility that other states may have destroyed the originals or may want to.

  10. avatar
    dch February 1, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    Granite is correct, they will have to clarify the term to “official BC.”

    Personally I hope one of these bills passes so we can watch a birther-melt down.

    The Hawaii COLB would be perfectly acceptable under anything requiring a birth certificate. The concept of “original long form” as a requirement is a delusion of the birthers that makes non-sense. Inidiana had a bill in process in a prior session that required a “long form” – until they found out the State of Indiana did not have such a thing and had a COLB-type thing. It was dropped when the figured out that COLBs was what they would get from everyone.
    My son’s CA “original BC” issued to us when he was born has FEWER data elements than the Hawaii.
    I am curious what the birthers behind this think these bills wil do other than get the same COLB.
    I can’t wait for the non-event of the COLB getting sent to one of these states and being accepted and the birhers reacting to the news that the COLB is a BC.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    dch: Granite is correct, they will have to clarify the term to “official BC.”Personally I hope one of these bills passes so we can watch a birther-melt down.The Hawaii COLB would be perfectly acceptable under anything requiring a birth certificate.The concept of “original long form” as a requirement is a delusion of the birthers that makes non-sense.Inidiana had a bill in process in a prior session that required a “long form” – until they found out the State of Indiana did not have such a thing and had a COLB-type thing.It was dropped when the figured out that COLBs was what they would get from everyone.
    My son’s CA “original BC” issued to us when he was born has FEWER data elements than the Hawaii.
    I am curious what the birthers behind this think these bills wil do other than get the same COLB.
    I can’t wait for the non-event of the COLB getting sent to one of these states and being accepted and the birhers reacting to the news that the COLB is a BC.

    What astounds me is that birthers like Judy Burges of AZ and Leo Berman of TX seem to open their yaps before bothering to find out what constitutes official documentation across the United States. Unless, of course, it’s purely a political ploy to spread bigotry and FUD about the current administration with zero regard for fairness or the law.

  12. avatar
    Sef February 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    Majority Will: What astounds me is that birthers like Judy Burges of AZ and Leo Berman of TX seem to open their yaps before bothering to find out what constitutes official documentation across the United States. Unless, of course, it’s purely a political ploy to spread bigotry and FUD about the current administration with zero regard for fairness or the law.

    It would not surprise me if either of these numbnutz tried to legislate the value of pi.

  13. avatar
    The Magic M February 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    > Unless, of course, it’s purely a political ploy to spread bigotry and FUD about the current administration with zero regard for fairness or the law.

    It’s probably just another “throw the birthers a bone” strategy. The birthers will love them for that and vote for them, and no harm will be done if the bill doesn’t make it or get shot down by the courts.

  14. avatar
    Granite1 February 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    On another subject, Obama’s mother’s passport. Dr. Conspiracy has filed a FOIA request to get the passport documents in her file, and this has run into a confusion over whether the application for the passport is the passport record.

    It suddenly occurred to me (I’d like other’s reactions) that the essential fact is simply the date that the passport file was created. If it were before Aug 4 1961, she probably had a passport. If it were created after August 4, 1961, she could not have had a passport.

    Wouldn’t just asking for the date on which the file was created do the job of determining whether or not she had a passport at the time of birth?

    Moreover, no one could claim that documents had been deleted from the file.

  15. avatar
    JoZeppy February 1, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    dch: Granite is correct, they will have to clarify the term to “official BC.”Personally I hope one of these bills passes so we can watch a birther-melt down.The Hawaii COLB would be perfectly acceptable under anything requiring a birth certificate. The concept of “original long form” as a requirement is a delusion of the birthers that makes non-sense. Inidiana had a bill in process in a prior session that required a “long form” – until they found out the State of Indiana did not have such a thing and had a COLB-type thing. It was dropped when the figured out that COLBs was what they would get from everyone.My son’s CA “original BC” issued to us when he was born has FEWER data elements than the Hawaii.I am curious what the birthers behind this think these bills wil do other than get the same COLB.I can’t wait for the non-event of the COLB getting sent to one of these states and being accepted and the birhers reacting to the news that the COLB is a BC.

    If they fail to clarify it, it depends on how the implementation. If they take the official state issued document, all if fine (although some might try to attack it an vagueness). If they try to implement it to mean containing certain irrelevant info (hospitals, doctors, witness, etc), a court probably would strike the implementation, but uphold the law itself requiring whatever state issued form of “official birth certificate” any particular state issues (if a law can be read in a way that doesn’t run afoul of the constitution, that is the interpretation the courts will adopt).

  16. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 1, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    Granite1: I think that it is possible that some of the states that went to short-form birth certificates may have already destroyed the originals. Not Hawaii, of course. But some others may have. And, if this is not true, then the legislation would prevent states that have not destroyed original birth certificates from doing so. It does not seem fair for one state to impose the barrier to destroying old files on another state.
    Most likely they would change the words to “the official birth certificate,” if they pass it at all.

    It gets worse…

    Some states haven’t had them for 20 years. For instance, I have seen two birth certificates of mine. One was issued in 1988, and one was issued in 2001. They both have the same information on them (no more, no less), and both of them have virtually the same information on them as Obama’s (mine has the state of birth of my parents, Obama’s has race. Only difference). Neither one of them has the doctor. Neither one of them has the hospital. Neither one has any signature but the State Registrar at the tie that they were issued…

    Most these laws will do is require Obama to submit the COLB that has been online for the past 2.5 years. Anything other than that would actually be unconstitutional.

  17. avatar
    Greg February 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    The proposed legislation does not, however, define “original birth certificate,” a major flaw in my opinion.

    It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. I think the COLB would satisfy the language, absent a specific definition that excluded it.

  18. avatar
    Greg February 1, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    Without specific language that forbade COLBs, it would more likely than not be interpreted by Secretaries of State to mean “send us a signed and sealed BC from a state, and not a photocopy of same.”

  19. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    Greg: Without specific language that forbade COLBs, it would more likely than not be interpreted by Secretaries of State to mean “send us a signed and sealed BC from a state, and not a photocopy of same.”

    Do you or anyone else know how many states issue only COLBs?

  20. avatar
    Sef February 1, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    Greg: Without specific language that forbade COLBs, it would more likely than not be interpreted by Secretaries of State to mean “send us a signed and sealed BC from a state, and not a photocopy of same.”

    And Obama would just say “No probs.”

  21. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 1, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    Majority Will: Do you or anyone else know how many states issue only COLBs?

    I tried doing a search a while back how about we start with the states with birther bills? So far I know that AZ doesn’t offer long forms to anyone born after 1989

  22. avatar
    Sean February 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

    Sef:
    And Obama would just say “No probs.”

    Obama can say that no matter which BC they require. Which as someone already pointed out, would only cause problems for other candidates.

    I guess racism is blind.

  23. avatar
    Black Lion February 1, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    Full Faith and Credit

    United States Constitution

    Article 4

    Section 1:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    I printed this excerpt from the Constitution for the benefit of those in the Birther movement who apparently have not had time to read it closely. Namely, the editors of World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, Robert Unruh and, most importantly Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. They’re the ones who have been ringing the bell the loudest over the “eligibility” laws that have been introduced in a handful of states.

    World Net Daily gushes that the 10 states in which these laws have been proposed control 107 electoral votes. (Right now, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency). I guess that’s a little wink-wink-nudge-nudge that these states could play a role in the 2012 presidential race by passing these bills.

    Dreams are happy things, aren’t they?

    The bills, Unruh writes, would

    plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.

    Except, of course, for that pesky “full faith and credit” thing. What that means is that one state has to accept the legally recognized and authorized document of another state. So, if Hawaii, for example, issues a Certificate of Live Birth as proof that a person was in fact born in Hawaii, every other state must accept that document. Period. No matter what half-baked laws they may have on their books; they can’t trump the US Constitution.

    The only way that can get changed is through a Constitutional Convention. And good luck with that, Birthers.

    I’m sure there are other barriers to these bills being upheld as constitutional, even if they do get passed. But Article 4, Section 1 does it for me.

    I’ve often chuckled to myself about how these Birthers, who also consider themselves to be Constitutionalists, are so ignorant of the Constitution. Or perhaps it’s willfull ignorance; they just ignore those parts of the document they profess to revere when it doesn’t jibe with their political agenda. This whole move for state legislation is a prime example: They cite the presidential qualifications section of the Constitution, but conveniently ignore “full faith and credit.”

    There’s a word for people like that: Hypocrites. Although I guess they could also be described as liars, schemers, con men (and women), and just plan jackasses.

    Keep the faith.

    http://www.examiner.com/birther-movement-in-national/full-faith-and-credit

  24. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Here’s a really wicked thought. The states where such bills are likely to pass are very red states that Obama didn’t win in 2008 and isn’t planning on winning in 2012. Yet the laws would apply to Republican challengers as well. How many of them can provide an original hospital birth certificate? Many states no longer provide them. So the really devious thing to do would be not to challenge these laws and let both Obama and his Republican challenger be off the ballot in those states. Then, Obama could be re-elected just by carrying a slim majority of blue states. Clever, no?

  25. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 1, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    It would have been nice if all blue states had passed a law back in 1999 barring anyone with an arrest for DUI being put on their ballots.

  26. avatar
    Northland10 February 1, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    Oddly enough, Arizona posted at some point proposed changes to their current birth certificate. I am not sure the timeline on this and if these changes may have already been made or rejected. The Doc may be able to explain this further (if he has not already). The do seem to be in line with the information requested by the CDC.

    Highlights from these proposed changes are:

    1. Parent’s or informants signature: Deleted: The signature is no longer an essential element in the registration process

    2. Attendent’s signature: Deleted: The signature is no longer an essential element in the registration process

    3. Attendent’s name, title, etc: Action: Move this item from the upper portion of the certificate to the section labeled “Information for Medical and Health Purposes Only.”

    I think the section referred to above is the medical part is the section below the actual “long form” that we used to receive.

    4. Registrar’s Signature: Deleted: The Registrar’s signature is no longer an essential element in the registration process. The Model State Vital Statistics Act deleted all
    references to signatures except when related to paternity affidavits.

    5. The Date received is deleted but the Date Registered is kept. There is no mention of filed.

    http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/cert/

  27. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: It would have been nice if all blue states had passed a law back in 1999 barring anyone with an arrest for DUI being put on their ballots.

    lmao

  28. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    Granite1: On another subject, Obama’s mother’s passport. Dr. Conspiracy has filed a FOIA request to get the passport documents in her file, and this has run into a confusion over whether the application for the passport is the passport record.
    It suddenly occurred to me (I’d like other’s reactions) that the essential fact is simply the date that the passport file was created. If it were before Aug 4 1961, she probably had a passport. If it were created after August 4, 1961, she could not have had a passport.
    Wouldn’t just asking for the date on which the file was created do the job of determining whether or not she had a passport at the time of birth?
    Moreover, no one could claim that documents had been deleted from the file.

    That makes sense to me, but I’d like to hear Dr. C or someone else more familiar with these things weigh in on it as well.

  29. avatar
    Joseph Maine February 2, 2011 at 1:24 am #

    The dumbest line of thinking is the “If he produced the document, they won’t believe it.”

    First of all, if it were easy and he had nothing to hide, he would have produced it. Second, that thinking is pure sham and BS. How do you know what I will/won’t believe?

    It’s like saying “If you disagree with Obama, it’s because you’re a racist.”

    You guys say that ALL the time here. The playbook is so old, and its crying wolf aspect only hurts legitimate cries of racism, wherever they may be.

    When could one EVER disagree with him, given that line of thinking? Totally stupid, vapid, and actually, insane.

  30. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    Joseph Maine: It’s like saying “If you disagree with Obama, it’s because you’re a racist.”

    I challenge you to show anyone here who has said that. I suspect everyone here disagrees with Obama’s stands on many issues (though not the same ones for everyone). But regarding documents, Obama has already shown more documents than any other President or candidate. So when you ask more of him, it is selective treatment and that is suspect. If you can show me that you demanded original birth certificates of Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. then I will be happy to retract and call you a fair minded person. If you didn’t then the charge of being selective and unfair stands. Note I didn’t use the “R” word.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    “How do you know what I will/won’t believe?”

    WTF would I or the President care what a angry bigot who would never, ever vote for Obama believes?

    Stupidity should be painful.

  32. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    To be clear:

    bigot
    noun
    someone who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions

  33. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Majority Will: WTF would I or the President care what a angry bigot who would never, ever vote for Obama believes?

    Yes, I am still looking for the elusive pro-Obama birther. You know, the one who agrees with him on most issues, thinks he is doing a good job as President and would vote for him if only he would show some document or other. I am thinking of offeriing a cash reward for anyone who can point me towards such a critter..

  34. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    Joseph Maine: The dumbest line of thinking is the “If he produced the document, they won’t believe it.”
    First of all, if it were easy and he had nothing to hide, he would have produced it. Second, that thinking is pure sham and BS. How do you know what I will/won’t believe?

    No. This is actually a fact, based on many birther statements on the matter to date. Your argument that there might be a “few” amongst the birther crowd that might quiet down if “only a long form, etc…” was shown is both statistically insignificant and irrelevant.

    Many of the standard hard core birthers that post endlessly and loudly on the issue always start with “show us the long form, etc”, but then post all these additional “back up” arguments about how the long form wouldn’t matter anyways and go onto crazy de Vattel and Indonesian adoption arguments, etc. Many have already stated that they would view anything released as a forgery or just as “suspect” in their mind as they view the COLB…

    So really, there is NO evidence that most of these folks will EVER be satisfied or that their calls for the long form are in any way sincere. Mere concern trolling.

    Furthermore, why should ANYONE in office pander to the whims of a few loud cranks. There is no evidence that any of you would vote for him no matter what. There is no real political gain for him or any official to cater to your nonsense.

    Joseph Maine: It’s like saying “If you disagree with Obama, it’s because you’re a racist.”
    You guys say that ALL the time here. The playbook is so old, and its crying wolf aspect only hurts legitimate cries of racism, wherever they may be.

    BS. That old false victim card trope.

    No. When racist or bigoted posts are made, we call it out. Many of the birthers HAVE demonstrated clear bigotry in their own postings as motiviation and those folks are properly called on it.

    There is a big difference between pointing out the many clear bigots, racists and seditionists amongst the birther movement and casting all people with the same broad brush… although there is something to be said about guilt by association. (You lie with dogs, you get fleas). More importantly, I don’t hear you denouncing or speaking out against those of your ilk who make such bigoted statements. If you weren’t a bigot, then you should take offense to such things.

    People are free to reasonably disagree with his policies or his views. That isn’t racism, that is just opinion. People are also free to disagree with each others mere opinions.

    Hyperbolic nonsense claims are called out for what they are…but these are not charges of racism, they are charges of calling out BS.

    When statements haven’t been bigoted, they are NOT being called such. Go cry your false victim card somewhere else.

  35. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 9:33 am #

    Majority Will: “How do you know what I will/won’t believe?”
    WTF would I or the President care what a angry bigot who would never, ever vote for Obama believes?
    Stupidity should be painful.

    Agreed!

  36. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 2, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    Joseph Maine: The dumbest line of thinking is the “If he produced the document, they won’t believe it.”First of all, if it were easy and he had nothing to hide, he would have produced it. Second, that thinking is pure sham and BS. How do you know what I will/won’t believe?It’s like saying “If you disagree with Obama, it’s because you’re a racist.”You guys say that ALL the time here. The playbook is so old, and its crying wolf aspect only hurts legitimate cries of racism, wherever they may be.When could one EVER disagree with him, given that line of thinking? Totally stupid, vapid, and actually, insane.

    Because birthers have established a pattern. Originally it was if he only showed us his birth certificate, when he showed it online within minutes birthers were claiming it was a forgery including altering the image posted online to say it was a forgery. They then wanted confirmation so they got one from the Director of Health. This wasn’t good enough so she gave another confirmation. This still wasn’t good enough. She then stated in plain english that Obama had posted a copy of the certificate on his campaign website. This still wasn’t good enough and now birthers want a confirmation of the confirmation including a confirmation of the certificate number or that the copy was issued on the date the certificate says. Same thing with the passport records. They got information on them and now they want more information that may not exist. The fact is you guys have established a pattern of not believing as you get more information released. Its obvious nothing will ever satisfy you.
    I have found the more birthers express their points of view the more bigoted they become

  37. avatar
    JoZeppy February 2, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Joseph Maine: The dumbest line of thinking is the “If he produced the document, they won’t believe it.”
    First of all, if it were easy and he had nothing to hide, he would have produced it. Second, that thinking is pure sham and BS. How do you know what I will/won’t believe?

    Ummmm….maybe because he did produce his birth certificate some 2-3 years ago, and the first thing they did was call it a forgery?

    Have you been asleep at the wheel for the past few years? He produced the document, the Republican administration in Hawaii said he was born there. They found the birth announcements, there isn’t a stich of evidence saying he was born anywhere else, not to mention, it makes no bloody sense for him to be born anywhere else, and the logistics of him being born in Kenya are utterly absurd, and yet they believe annonomous posters on line (who have been debunked years ago), one newspaper story saying he was born in Kenya over millions saying he was born in Hawaii, they take a highly edited version of an interview where someone is asking leading questions to get a particular answer, ignoring the unedited version saying he was born in Hawaii, and they take the confused statements of an ambassador, ingorning his next day retraction, and of course, they take the words of one Kenyan M.P. who has never explained what the basis of his statements was, over those of Hawaiin state governemnt officials responsible for maintaining vital records, and the documents of Hawaii, and the US Dept of State.

    Yah, I can see how you would say it would be dumb to say that even if released they wouldn’t believe it.

  38. avatar
    US Citizen February 2, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Joseph Maine,

    Since you’ve likely investigated former presidents and candidates, what is it about Obama that makes you say the equivalent of “show us your papers?”
    He continued the two wars and bailouts that Bush started and is acting more centrist than previous democrats.
    So what exactly makes him different?
    What is it that makes you question HIS citizenship, but not his policies and seemingly, no other politician’s citizenship nor policies.

    Seems it must be something personal and not political.
    Is it his height? His party?
    Perhaps that he preferred mustard over ketchup?
    Please let us all know why you concentrate so much over this one president.

  39. avatar
    misha February 2, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    Interesting – those same people will allow a man with a DUI misdemeanor conviction on the ballot, no questions asked.

    Of course, Shrub is white.

  40. avatar
    The Magic M February 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    > What is it that makes you question HIS citizenship, but not his policies

    I think the dislike started out with race, went on to cover policies (“he’s black, so I hate him, so everything he does must be evil, so he is probably a Socialist Muslim Nazi Marxist”) and ended up with “how could he be removed earlier and more effectively than through elections”. Thus beginneth the birther myth.

    > and the first thing they did was call it a forgery

    Didn’t stop there. Joseph Maine, just look at the amazing inventiveness the birthers displayed in explaining why the birth certificate (certified copy thereof) Obama produced was “not sufficient”. They didn’t stop at “forgery” because that may still confuse their gullible followers.
    Instead they invented all kinds of crazy ideas, like “a certification is not a certificate” (stupid twisting of words) or “anyone could get such a thing no matter where he was born” (yes, but not one stating Hawaiian birth unless that was true) or “we want to see the request for the certified copy and the receipt for it” etc.
    So yes, it’s not much guesswork to assume that birthers will play the very same games with any document Hawaii releases, no matter what it’s called.
    Maybe if they release a long-form birth certificate, they will complain it doesn’t say “long form” anywhere.

  41. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    The Magic M: . . . or “we want to see the request for the certified copy and the receipt for it” etc.

    I once read a birther’s post demanding to see the envelope the COLB was mailed in to prove or disprove . . . something. Who knows or cares?

    “Maybe if they release a long-form birth certificate, they will complain it doesn’t say ‘long form’ anywhere.”

    Or it’s not long enough. That’s known as form envy.

  42. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Joseph Maine: The dumbest line of thinking is the “If he produced the document, they won’t believe it.”First of all, if it were easy and he had nothing to hide, he would have produced it. Second, that thinking is pure sham and BS. How do you know what I will/won’t believe?It’s like saying “If you disagree with Obama, it’s because you’re a racist.”You guys say that ALL the time here. The playbook is so old, and its crying wolf aspect only hurts legitimate cries of racism, wherever they may be.When could one EVER disagree with him, given that line of thinking? Totally stupid, vapid, and actually, insane.

    Not only will they not believe it, there will be those who download it from the internet if it’s posted there and claim that it’s fake, just like they did with his COLB back in 2008. They have already accused officials at Hawaii of lying about his being born there, and they will just make the same dumb claim again if he releases anything.

  43. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Joseph Maine: The dumbest line of thinking is the “If he produced the document, they won’t believe it
    ————————————
    Yeah, like that’s never happened before in the past two and a half years. lol.

  44. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    ORRECTION

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Not only will they not believe it, there will be those who download it from the internet if it’s posted there, alter it, and claim that it’s fake, just like they did with his COLB back in 2008. They have already accused officials at Hawaii of lying about his being born there, and they will just make the same dumb claim again if he releases anything.

  45. avatar
    obsolete February 2, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    They already claim that ex-Governor Lingle, Dr. Fukino, and Governor Abercrombie have lied, so why would birthers believe anything further released by Hawaiian officials? Short answer: They won’t.

  46. avatar
    US Citizen February 3, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    Joe? Where’d ya go?

  47. avatar
    US Citizen February 3, 2011 at 3:14 am #

    (Using one of those slow movie-trailer voices….)

    They weren’t racists.
    They were patriots on a mission.
    Entrusted to find the most tiny shred of evidence,
    the most minuscule detail from the tiniest crack…
    Some were on a mission from God himself.

    But when they couldn’t find anything… anything at all, they knew they had stumbled upon..

    THE WHITE WASH ZONE!!

    A plan so devious, it took over 40 years of meticulous planning to pull off.

    The clues were long scrubbed and the witnesses all dead.
    By the time they started to look, there was nothing to see.

    They came to their own country’s funeral with…. the White Wash Zone!

    *** Fantastically fervent! A wild ride of espionage. *** – Chicago Sun Times
    *** Direction like Sturges. Story like 007. An amazing tale of courage! *** – Variety
    *** A scary film if only for its realism and detail, this Oscar contender should make Washington very nervous! *** – Washington Week in Review
    *** Although the director and actors were excellent, this movie is more like 1 yr of planning and 39 years of cleaning up their tracks. Still, a good spy romp. ** – Rolling Stone Magazine
    *** The entire country playing the anti-hero? Excellent idea and superbly crafted! *** – SF Examiner
    *** This film describes a huge gun with an equally huge silencer! *** – NRA Film and Ammo Review
    *** We don’t do movie reviews! Go to hell. God hates movies! *** – Westboro Baptist Church

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 3, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    US Citizen: THE WHITE WASH ZONE!!

    Have you got a screenplay yet?

    I would note that if there is a god, then the one thing that is sure to be true is that he hates Westboro Baptist Church…

  49. avatar
    US Citizen February 3, 2011 at 3:40 am #

    I wish the late comedian Bill Hicks was still alive.
    He’d be able to spend quite a while on the WBC.

    My version:
    God: Tell me, what are these things I hate.
    WBC: Well you hate gays!
    God: I do? I made gays.
    WBC: Um..well, perhaps you made a mistake?
    God: I don’t make mistakes!
    WBC: Well if you don’t make mistakes and we believed you hated gays, then why did you create us?
    God: Because every time my people are persecuted, they get stronger. It’s natural evolution. Didn’t they teach you evolution in school?
    WBC: Yes, but we picketed against it.

    …and no screenplay ever, just bored that the birthers haven’t come back to play.

  50. avatar
    The Magic M February 3, 2011 at 4:08 am #

    obsolete: They already claim that ex-Governor Lingle, Dr. Fukino, and Governor Abercrombie have lied, so why would birthers believe anything further released by Hawaiian officials? Short answer: They won’t.

    The meme of “they’ve had more than 2 years to produce an undetectable forgery” is already out. Birthers won’t accept anything anymore. Even if Arizona got their crazy bill passed and Obama showed them his “original BC” and Arizona said “all OK”, they would simply add Arizona to their list of “corrupt conspirators” (= world+dog).

  51. avatar
    Black Lion February 3, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Good article by a UMKC student regarding the birthers….Especially take a look at the comments and who decides to show up with his usual “steady drip” of misinformation….

    The idiocy of the birthers’
    By Nathan Zoschke (nzoschke@unews.com),
    on January 31st, 2011

    Last October, I volunteered for several local campaigns, knocking on doors and making
    phone calls to registered voters.

    My volunteerism consisted of asking survey questions and recording responses, the vast majority of which were mundane and unmemorable monosyllabic “yes” and “no” grunts.

    One phone call, however, I remember quite well.

    Usually the question, “Which party do you most affiliate yourself with?” prompted the reply of “Democrat,” “Republican” or “Independent.”

    But that wasn’t the case with one elderly woman I called.

    “You know, I’ve been a Democrat all my life, but not after Obama,” the woman said in a raspy voice.

    “He’s a disgrace to our country,” the lady continued in belligerent ignorance. “He’s not even a U.S. citizen. He’s a Muslim. He was born in Africa, lied about his birth certificate and I think he should be impeached and tried in the highest court of the land.”

    Instead of reading the scripted response and asking the next question, I hung up.

    I had a hard time believing she was serious, but I guess I don’t listen to Michael Savage or other nutty talk radio hosts frequently enough to realize how absurd some people actually are.

    Each president has had his harsh critics and conspiracy theories. To say the so-called “birthers” are exclusive to the conservative right ignores the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Michael Moore types on the extreme left, but the birthers are a special case.

    There are more of them, they’re more outspoken and their motivation is pure racism.

    An April 2010 poll by the Washington Post found only 68 percent of respondents correctly identified Hawaii as the birthplace of Barack Obama. Three percent believed he was born in Kenya. Four percent believed he was born elsewhere in Africa. Seven percent believed he was born elsewhere outside the U.S., and a shocking 19 percent were “unsure.”

    It is astounding such ignorance exists two years after Obama made a copy of his birth certificate available to the public in June 2008, viewable at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html .

    Hawaii officials have, time and time again since the birther movement birthed itself in 2008, stated Barack Obama’s birth certificate exists and is legitimate.

    But that wasn’t enough to cut the umbilical cord that feeds crackpot conspiracies like the birther movement.

    This January, Rush Limbaugh called on Obama, once again, to release his birth certificate, this time the official one housed by the Hawaii Department of Health’s Vital Records division.

    And he may be getting his way.

    Current Hawaii laws limit public disclosure of vital records, although a recently-proposed bill will allow anyone to obtain a copy of Obama’s birth certificate for $100.

    The birther movement is now in its terrible twos, and the Hawaii bill is likely to do nothing to quiet the birthers’ temper tantrum.

    Moreover, I believe the proposed bill is an outrage. Obama should not be expected to release his birth certificate multiple times to dispel a group of fringe morons who clearly will deny the authenticity of the official Hawaii birth certificate the same way they denied the authenticity of the copy Obama released in 2008.

    Other presidents have had their share of criticism. But to my knowledge, none has dealt with the same type of idiotic, dehumanizing criticism as Obama.

    I am not a fervent Obama supporter, nor do I align myself with many of his policies, but I believe he deserves to be treated fairly, and with respect, regardless of one’s political convictions.

    http://unews.com/2011/01/31/the-idiocy-of-the-birthers’/

    Great post….

    RoadScholar
    February 2, 2011 at 4:08 pm Log in to Reply
    Q: What’s wrong with Birther jokes?

    A: Birthers don’t think they’re funny and normal people don’t think they’re jokes.

    Q: How do Birthers form a car pool?
    
A: They meet at work.

    Q: What does a Birther have in common with a beer bottle?
    
A: They’re both empty from the neck up.

    Isn’t it a shame how 99.999% of the Birthers give the whole movement a bad name?

    A Liberal walked into a bar and asked the bartender, “Hey, have you heard the latest Birther joke?” The bartender replied coldly, “No. And I’ll have you know I’m Birther.” That’s OK,” said the Liberal. “I’ll talk slowly.”

    Did you hear about the Birther that refused to go to Canada because he couldn’t speak the language?

    Q: How do you drive birthers mad?
    A: Put them in the Oval Office and tell them that the President’s Kenyan birth certificate is in the corner.

    Q: If you’re paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes will fit in a doghouse?
    A: Ask a Birfer. That question would make perfect sense to them.

    Q: What skill must be learned for a Scout to earn a Birther Merit Badge?
    
A: The Scout must demonstrate the ability to figuratively tie the United States Constitution into a hangman’s noose.

    Q: What do you call 10 Birthers standing ear to ear?
    A: A wind tunnel.

    Q: Why didn’t the birther want to vacation in Honolulu?
    A: He didn’t want to leave the country.

    Q: Why do birthers pee their pants at large outdoor rallies?
    
A: They’re afraid the porta-potties are FEMA camps.

    Q: How do you tell which is the groom at a Birther wedding?
    A: He’s the guy wearing the CLEAN wifebeater.

    A Birther walks in to a pizza place and orders a pie. The pizza man asks him, “Should I cut it into six pieces or eight?” The Birther answers “Cut it into six; I couldn’t eat eight.”

    Q: What swivels around, moves up and down, and has a sticky top?
    A: Orly’s Taitz’ dental chair.

    Q: What did the Birther girl say while having sex?
    A: Get off me Dad, you’re crushing my smokes!

    Why the derision? BECAUSE THOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE ABSURDITIES CAN COMMIT ATROCITIES.

  52. avatar
    Black Lion February 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Old buddy David Manning is at it again….

    Court Orders Obama To Resign In 90 Days

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h0EdpvZ23s&feature=player_embedded

    “Hon. James David Manning, PhD says Mr. Barack Hussein “Long Legged Mack Daddy” Obama has to confess his guilt and resign in 90 days. Recorded on 31 January 2011. Go to http://atlah.org and http://atlahmedianetwork.org for more information.”

  53. avatar
    misha February 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    Black Lion: Old buddy David Manning is at it again….
    Court Orders Obama To Resign In 90 Days

    From the mouth a multiple felon.

  54. avatar
    Black Lion February 3, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    misha: From the mouth a multiple felon.

    But a hero to the birther movement….When they are accused of racism they always bring up Manning to show that they are not biased…

  55. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Birther bill in Nebraska

    Nebraska has joined several other states in introducing a “birther” bill, a piece of legislation that would require proof of U.S. citizenship from candidates for the nation’s highest political offices.

    The 14-page bill, sponsored by District 44 State Sen. Mark Christensen of Holdrege, would prohibit placing presidential and vice presidential candidates on the state’s ballot unless they provide a certified, long-form version of their birth certificate to Nebraska’s secretary of state.

    Christensen’s bill would also require candidates to provide their parents’ certified long-form birth certificates. If a person’s birth father is unknown, Christensen said a candidate would have to file an affidavit with the state, stating that they have no reason to believe their father is not a U.S. citizen.

    The Nebraska Vital Records website contains no option to request a long form birth certificate. Christensen said he had not talked to Nebraska Vital Records staff, but modeled the bill’s language after what has been used in other states.

    Similar legislation has been proposed in other states, including Arizona, Texas and Connecticut.

    Christensen said he was motivated to sponsor the bill after receiving two or three e-mails from constituents who are concerned about the persistent rumors that President Barack Obama is not a citizen.

    http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1700284.html

    (emphasis added)

    Two or three? Got a LOT of time on your hands, Christensen?

  56. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    “Christensen said he was motivated to sponsor the bill after receiving two or three e-mails from constituents who are concerned about the persistent rumors that President Barack Obama is not a citizen.”

    P.S. I hope Jon Stewart gets wind of this idiot birther wasting his constituents’ tax dollars.

  57. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    The Trouble with Birther Bills
    Posted Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:13 AM | By David Weigel

    I noted yesterday morning that “birther bills” had been introduced in more states since the start of their new legislatures. A friend pointed out that some of the bills go further than demanding proof of birth in the United States. Here’s one clause from Arizona’s bill:

    A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.

    And from Nebraska’s:

    Each person who wishes to have his or her name placed on the general election ballot as a candidate for President or Vice President of the United States shall first meet the eligibility requirements of Article II, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. Such person shall submit an affidavit to the Secretary of State along with supporting documentation as specified in subsections (5) and (6) of this section by September 8 of the year in which the election is scheduled. The affidavit and supporting documentation shall be a public record.

    (5) The affidavit shall be sworn or affirmed before a notary public and shall contain statements substantially as follows: I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth. On the day I was born, both my birth mother and birth father were citizens of the United States of America.

    My emphasis. Both of these items apply specifically to Barack Obama. And both are unconstitutional. Article II, Section I only requires that a president be 35 or older and “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States.” Birthers argue that because Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, he had dual citizenship at birth, and they believe that both of a candidate’s parents need to be U.S. citizens. This just isn’t how the Supreme Court has interpreted the issue. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in America to two Chinese citizens was, himself, Americans.
    So birther strategy is evolved, and it might force a lawsuit if a bill like this passes, but it’s the same legal garbage as ever.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/03/the-trouble-with-birther-bills.aspx

  58. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    I think what rational people who understand U.S. history, jus soli, legal precedence and the Constitution are saying is:

    One Wong doesn’t make it White.

  59. avatar
    misha February 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    Majority Will: One Wong doesn’t make it White.

    [bada-bing]

  60. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    The full text of the Nebraska birther bill is here. Christensen has gone full Vattel.

    http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB654.pdf

  61. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    A major birther legal smack down is coming. It will not be pretty.

  62. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    Check out WND’s and Unruh’s weak attempt at astroturfing:

    10 States Now Developing Eligibility-Proof Demands
    by Bob Unruh

    http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212347226.shtml

    COMMENTARY
    Published: Feb 3, 2011
    in The Post Chronicle

    The Post Chronicle™ (tPC™) was founded with one goal in mind: that is, to deliver honest, compelling, timely news and information that offers insight and information designed to engage and excite.
    Our news stories are timely and informative, our opinion columnists are highly motivated, and encouraged to put forward independent commentary and analysis. Our news staff is compelled to provide up-to-the minute news that is accurate and unbiased, and present clear-cut facts and data you can trust. Our editors are determined to ensure accurate, compelling content, and thorough, careful reporting on a wide variety of issues and events.

    The Post Chronicle offers original and syndicated content from the likes of United Press International, Reuters Thompson, Creators Syndicate, Bang Showbiz and World Entertainment News Network. All syndicated material carries the copyright of the provider at the conclusion of every article and those entities are solely responsible for its content.

  63. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

    Majority Will: In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in America to two Chinese citizens was, himself, Americans

    While the Wong case was important, I’m not sure that the definition of citiizen as derived from birth in the country even requires that decision. If you go back to 1790 or thereabouts and imagine a couple, John Brown and his pregnant wife, Mary Brown, who leave England and arrive on the docks in Boston, where Mary gives birth shortly afterwards, long before either of the parents could have been naturalized. Wouldn’t the child have been a US citizen at birth? I believe he/she would have been. So the citizenship status of a US-born child was clear and did not depend on the parents’ citizenship, ever in the case of those of European ancestry. The only complications were for those of African ancestry (fixed by the 14th amendment) and Chinese ancestry (fixed by Wong). Had Wong’s parents been German, the case would never have arisen, as no one would have ever thought the child was other than a citizen.

  64. avatar
    US Citizen February 3, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    I have a video here with a tagline of “Two Wongs make a White”, but it’s NSFW (or even many homes) ;-)

  65. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    Scientist:
    While the Wong case was important, I’m not sure that the definition of citiizen as derived from birth in the country even requires that decision.If you go back to 1790 or thereabouts and imagine a couple, John Brown and his pregnant wife, Mary Brown, who leave England and arrive on the docks in Boston, where Mary gives birth shortly afterwards, long before either of the parents could have been naturalized.Wouldn’t the child have been a US citizen at birth?I believe he/she would have been.So the citizenship status of a US-born child was clear and did not depend on the parents’ citizenship, ever in the case of those of European ancestry.The only complications were for those of African ancestry (fixed by the 14th amendment) and Chinese ancestry (fixed by Wong).Had Wong’s parents been German, the case would never have arisen, as no one would have ever thought the child was other than a citizen.

    Interesting. You should forward that to David Weigel at Slate as well.

  66. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 3, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Sean: Obama will simply meet that requirement (if he wants to be on the ballot in CT).Then what’ll they do? Do they really think he won’t or can’t comply?

    Right now the birther blogs and World Nut Daily are making exactly that assumption. WND is even chortling over the number of electoral votes this will cost Obama because they have already presumed that a) all the bills will pass, b) none of the courts will shoot them down as being obviously unconstitutional, and c) that Obama either will not be on the ballot in those states or will simply not run in those states.

    The birther bills are shaping up to be the latest birther “Great White Hope”.

  67. avatar
    G February 3, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: The birther bills are shaping up to be the latest birther “Great White Hope”.

    Which always translates into the latest birther EPIC FAIL…

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2011 at 12:56 am #

    According to the Hartford Courant, the birther bill in Connecticut is going nowhere:

    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-birthers-in-connecticut-20110203,0,7467632.story

  69. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2011 at 1:47 am #

    US Citizen: I have a video here with a tagline of “Two Wongs make a White”, but it’s NSFW (or even many homes)

    Official policy of the Australian Government in the 60’s: Two Wongs DON’T make a White.

    Seriously.

    Thankfully, no more.

  70. avatar
    nc1 February 4, 2011 at 2:34 am #

    Patrick McKinnion: Right now the birther blogs and World Nut Daily are making exactly that assumption. WND is even chortling over the number of electoral votes this will cost Obama because they have already presumed that a) all the bills will pass, b) none of the courts will shoot them down as being obviously unconstitutional, and c) that Obama either will not be on the ballot in those states or will simply not run in those states.The birther bills are shaping up to be the latest birther “Great White Hope”.

    What is wrong with the law requiring that a presidential candidate must show the copy of the original birth certificate to be included on the ballot?

    If Obama had one confirming birth in the USA – why would this be an issue for Democrats.

  71. avatar
    obsolete February 4, 2011 at 3:01 am #

    nc1: What is wrong with the law requiring that a presidential candidate must show the copy of the original birth certificate to be included on the ballot?

    What is an “Original” birth certificate? The one kept in the vaults by the state? NO ONE gets those.
    If the bills would ask candidates for a certified birth certificate, I see no problem with that.
    It is only when states set demands which exceed those of the US Constitution (supply parents B.C.’s, must list hospital/doctor) that they should be shot down and are a sad waste of taxpayer money.

  72. avatar
    James M February 4, 2011 at 4:13 am #

    nc1:

    If Obama had one confirming birth in the USA – why would this be an issue for Democrats.

    It’s not an issue, but so far it is only a non-issue for President Obama. No other Presidential candidate has ever shown any such thing.

  73. avatar
    The Magic M February 4, 2011 at 4:44 am #

    > Q: How do you drive birthers mad?
    A: Put them in the Oval Office and tell them that the President’s Kenyan birth certificate is in the corner.

    *lol* That’s a good one!

  74. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 4, 2011 at 9:20 am #

    nc1: What is wrong with the law requiring that a presidential candidate must show the copy of the original birth certificate to be included on the ballot? If Obama had one confirming birth in the USA – why would this be an issue for Democrats.

    Doing it so close to an election when there has been no law on the books before to check any previous president. Wait until after the election and try passing these laws if your motives were so pure.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    nc1: What is wrong with the law requiring that a presidential candidate must show the copy of the original birth certificate to be included on the ballot?

    I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with it and the Montana bill, which requires candidates to provide a “a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate or other documentation that has equal effect of a birth certificate under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the candidate was born; or” is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0205.htm

  76. avatar
    Bovril February 4, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Show a state issued BC/COLB or other, sufficient to get you a passport , no issues but I expect this to apply to ALL said states elected officials. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.

    Making up sh*t that is not in the Constitutional requirements because you don’t like the scary black man with a funny name, major issues.

    ps, in case there was any confusion I’m part of the “Stab Birthers repeatedly with (verbal) pointy, barbed sticks Tendency”

  77. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Bovril: ps, in case there was any confusion I’m part of the “Stab Birthers repeatedly with (verbal) pointy, barbed sticks Tendency”

    And the Pointy Sticks Brigade appreciates your efforts. Please bring a coffee cake and your deposit for the new uniforms to the meeting in the basement of the Elks Club off Rte. 11 next Tuesday. Thanks.

    Topic for discussion: How can we make FEMA camps and the NWO seem more real?

  78. avatar
    Bovril February 4, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Majority Will: And the Pointy Sticks Brigade appreciates your efforts. Please bring a coffee cake and your deposit for the new uniforms to the meeting in the basement of the Elks Club off Rte. 11 next Tuesday. Thanks.
    Topic for discussion: How can we make FEMA camps and the NWO seem more real?

    The blood stains ARE getting a litle tedious to remove, I’ve gone through 4 dry cleaners so far….

    I feel if that a tatseful post card invitation sent through the post would be best to get the whole “Camp Fema” thing going, something along the lines of….

    http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/files/2010/11/camp_fema-ventura.jpg

    We can add the necessary instructions about vaccines, chem trails, micro-chipping and add a link to a nice line in pre-purchase clothing items such as

    http://www.zazzle.com/camp+fema+gifts

  79. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    Bovril:
    The blood stains ARE getting a litle tedious to remove, I’ve gone through 4 dry cleaners so far….I feel if that a tatseful post card invitation sent through the post would be best to get the whole “Camp Fema” thing going, something along the lines of….http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/files/2010/11/camp_fema-ventura.jpgWe can add the necessary instructions about vaccines, chem trails, micro-chipping and add a link to a nice line in pre-purchase clothing items such ashttp://www.zazzle.com/camp+fema+gifts

    Amway’s now NWO so blood stains should be less of an issue soon.

    Great ideas on the cards and shirts! And you know we have a very up-to-date birther mailing list. ;-)

    BTW, there’s going to be a secret guest speaker next Thursday on tac-marks and the new NWO. I think you know who I’m talking about. That’s right! OH YEAH! Isn’t that exciting?

    P.S. Did you get your bonus check yet? Mine still hasn’t arrived.

  80. avatar
    Rickey February 4, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: According to the Hartford Courant, the birther bill in Connecticut is going nowhere
    :

    I am distressed to have to report that State Senator McLachlan went to the same college as me, although his online bio says only that he “attended” so presumably he never graduated.

    He also is a Tenther:

    http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/mclachlan/2010/021710.html

    This text of the bill is here:

    http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2011/01/birther-alert-theyre-here.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Note that it does not define “original.” it also does not define “natural-born United States citizen,” although it seems to suggest that a birth certificate alone is sufficient to establish that a candidate is eligible. This won’t please the Vattelists, since a birth certificate does not list the citizenship of the parents.

  81. avatar
    Bovril February 4, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    Majority Will: BTW, there’s going to be a secret guest speaker next Thursday on tac-marks and the new NWO. I think you know who I’m talking about. That’s right! OH YEAH! Isn’t that exciting?P.S. Did you get your bonus check yet? Mine still hasn’t arrived.

    If it’s who I think you mean, I am positively giddy with excitement…..Their work at Ruby Ridge and Waco was outstanding !

    We did more work together out in the ulu as a keeni meeni team, learned much on counter-insurgency work I can tell you.

    As for the bonus, sitting nicely in the old bank account and I hear the HK and SAD teams will get piecework for the ones we “relocate”.

    Interesting times…..

  82. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2011 at 8:33 pm #

    Bovril:
    If it’s who I think you mean, I am positively giddy with excitement…..Their work at Ruby Ridge and Waco was outstanding !We did more work together out in the ulu as a keeni meeni team, learned much on counter-insurgency work I can tell you.As for the bonus, sitting nicely in the old bank account and I hear the HK and SAD teams will get piecework for the ones we “relocate”.Interesting times…..

    Indeed! :-D