Main Menu

Natural born long forms

The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen” so say the courts and authorities. But if you think that term is a muddle, what about “long form birth certificate?”

The Constitutional term has a legal history, and the courts say to refer back to English Common Law for a definition. There’s no legal history for long forms and the usage of the term varies from state to state.

If we’re just talking about Hawaii and within the context of Obama birth conspiracies, I know what they’re talking about. A long form is a certified photocopy of a hospital generated certificate and a short form is a computer abstract. BUT if you get a ruler, the Hawaiian long form is shorter than the Hawaiian short form!

Some of these state “birther bills” attempt to supplement the otherwise fuzzy definition of long form birth certificate by adding two or more specific requirements, such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician. That’s silly because there’s no justification for requiring  a presidential candidate to be born in a hospital. We did quite well for over 100 years with presidents not born in hospitals.

The problem with birther bills is that they’re written by birthers, and birthers are, as we know, focused on their own mythology and not on practical matters like writing workable legislation.

, ,

96 Responses to Natural born long forms

  1. avatar
    dch March 26, 2011 at 9:31 am #

    They are the same force-of-stupid that wrote about 90 court filings that failed to produce a single desired outcome. There record at writing actual laws matches their court room performance. They have not gotten a single bill out of commitee in the most favorable climate for passing bad law in decades.

    I think their problem is they don’t have the backing of the Republican Party’s real center of mass. The money that paid for these governers and state asseblies have objectives that do not include the birther nutnbags. They want: public service unions eliminated, no taxation of their wealth and income, and to privatize state functions and assets (they will buy the assets or get the contracts).
    The birthers are along for the ride.

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 26, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    dch: I think their problem is they don’t have the backing of the Republican Party’s real center of mass. The money that paid for these governers and state asseblies have objectives that do not include the birther nutnbags. They want: public service unions eliminated, no taxation of their wealth and income, and to privatize state functions and assets (they will buy the assets or get the contracts).
    The birthers are along for the ride.

    The problem is that the monied interested behind the Republicans (led by the Koch brothers) will use the birthers in every way they can – primarily, in my opinion, to help paint President Obama as ‘other’ and distract from their real agenda.

  3. avatar
    James L. Greenlee March 26, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    I suspect that they don’t really care if the mythical “long form” proves Obama was born in Hawaii (like they’d believe it was real anyway). They’re looking for some sort of embarrassing information that they think Obama doesn’t want us to know, IMHO. Like his Mom & Dad weren’t really married, or that Mom had an std, or the father is “unknown” or someone other than Barack Sr. At this point, it’s pretty childish. I mean, are we going to say, we can’t reelect him, his mother had syphilis!

    What I’ve yet to hear any kind of coherent response to, is WHY would Mrs. Obama fake the birth announcements in 1961? What possible motivation would she have to do so? And the story that would have to accompany a 9-months pregnant woman traveling to Africa or Indonesia would rival the one Sarah Palin tells about her last pregnancy! Whoops, that’s a different conspiracy theory. . .

  4. avatar
    Scientist March 26, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    James L. Greenlee: I suspect that they don’t really care if the mythical “long form” proves Obama was born in Hawaii (like they’d believe it was real anyway). They’re looking for some sort of embarrassing information that they think Obama doesn’t want us to know, IMHO. Like his Mom & Dad weren’t really married, or that Mom had an std, or the father is “unknown” or someone other than Barack Sr.

    None of those would be on the “long form”. His parents may not have been legally married, due to his Dad’s previous undissolved marriage in Kenya, but the state of Hawaii considered them sufficienty married to grant a divorce, rather than an annulment. All of this is known and wouldn’t be on the long form. Nor would a mother’s health status. Nor would the “long form” show a different father than the COLB unless there was a paternity finding, which would be in court records.

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 26, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    James L. Greenlee: What I’ve yet to hear any kind of coherent response to, is WHY would Mrs. Obama fake the birth announcements in 1961? What possible motivation would she have to do so? And the story that would have to accompany a 9-months pregnant woman traveling to Africa or Indonesia would rival the one Sarah Palin tells about her last pregnancy! Whoops, that’s a different conspiracy theory. . .

    The typical birther response is to say that Mrs. Dunham (acting for her daughter) somehow obtained the false registration of birth to secure US citizenship for the president (apparently this was such a concern – because they must have known the abstruse point of law that required Dr. Dunham to be several months older to transmit citizenship if she gave birth overseas – that she was willing to commit fraud, but not enough of a concern to deter a pregnant (2nd-to-3rd trimester) 18-year-old from taking an arduous trek to a third world country (no motive for taking this trip is ever given, either… did she go to visit her husband’s other wife?) where medical facilities were far less advanced. They use the fact that US citizenship is valuable in its own right (true) and that birth registration fraud has occurred in the past (there’s no evidence of it in this case, nor is there a record of it occurring in similar cases, but it has occurred…) and the fact that travel to Kenya was possible in 1961 (in general – they certainly want to avoid specifics of how Dr. Dunham may have made it to Kenya and back… smuggling a newborn) distract from the question of Dr. Dunham’s motive for traveling to Kenya – something they are incapable of finding a plausible answer for.

  6. avatar
    Scientist March 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The typical birther response is to say that Mrs. Dunham (acting for her daughter) somehow obtained the false registration of birth to secure US citizenship for the president

    That makes no sense either. Any US citiizen can bring their minor child to the US where they can live a perfectly normal life as a permanent resident-attending school, working, playing little league, even getting funding for college on the same basis as a US citiizen. The only thing the child can’t do is vote, but children can’t vote anyway. When the child turns 18, they can become a citzen by a simple naturalization process. Millions of legal immigrant children have done exactly that.

    There was no reason to lie or commit fraud unless she KNEW that her kid would grow up to be President.

  7. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 26, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    Scientist: That makes no sense either.Any US citiizen can bring their minor child to the US where they can live a perfectly normal life as a permanent resident-attending school, working, playing little league, even getting funding for college on the same basis as a US citiizen.The only thing the child can’t do is vote, but children can’t vote anyway.When the child turns 18, they can become a citzen by a simple naturalization process.Millions of legal immigrant childrenhave done exactly that.

    There was no reason to lie or commit fraud unless she KNEW that her kid would grow up to be President.

    I was just relating my best guess as to the reasoning of the birthers – making sense of it is beyond the abilities of man… Maybe the birthers (being the lawless and seditious lot that they are) think that fraud is an acceptable way to avoid the inconvenience of the naturalization process.

  8. avatar
    MaryMitch March 26, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    Is “long form birth certificate” an actual legal entity? If I talk to the people who handle birth certificate documents, do they just toss the words around as an unofficial term, or is there an actual “long form” as opposed to just a birth certificate?

  9. avatar
    Scientist March 26, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Maybe the birthers (being the lawless and seditious lot that they are) think that fraud is an acceptable way to avoid the inconvenience of the naturalization process.

    Oh, yes, i see, committing fraud to obtain what you had every legal right to. Sort of like breaking into your own house to steal the silverware. And then Obama, who had every right to a legitimate SSN, gets a fake one under his real name, also for no reason.

    Makes perfect sense… to a lunatic

  10. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    Scientist: Oh, yes, i see, committing fraud to obtain what you had every legal right to.Sort of like breaking into your own house to steal the silverware.And then Obama, who had every right to a legitimate SSN, gets a fake one under his real name, also for no reason.

    Makes perfectsense… to a lunatic

    That’s why (in my opinion) birthers focus on tiny details (about which there may be reasonable debate) – because it is impossible to put together a logically consistent hypothesis regarding the president’s birth (excepting, of course, the hypothesis that he was born in Hawai’i…) that is consistent with all of the facts. I think that this is pretty much a universal (possibly even definitive) trait of conspiracy theorists.

  11. avatar
    G March 26, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    Slartibartfast: That’s why (in my opinion) birthers focus on tiny details (about which there may be reasonable debate) – because it is impossible to put together a logically consistent hypothesis regarding the president’s birth (excepting, of course, the hypothesis that he was born in Hawai’i…) that is consistent with all of the facts. I think that this is pretty much a universal (possibly even definitive) trait of conspiracy theorists.

    Agreed.

  12. avatar
    G March 26, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    MaryMitch: Is “long form birth certificate” an actual legal entity? If I talk to the people who handle birth certificate documents, do they just toss the words around as an unofficial term, or is there an actual “long form” as opposed to just a birth certificate?

    Based on what I’ve seen, in general it is just an “unofficial term” being tossed around and interpreted differently.

    Is it possible that there are certain states or entities that may, for their particular and specific purposes, have a legal definition for that term?

    Yes, that is quite possible…. But again, really a detour distration argument without any relevance to the true nonsense of forcing “long form” requirements as seen in various birther bill legislation. No legal support for those extra-Constitutional requirements at all.

  13. avatar
    y_p_w March 26, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    I remember checking out Geergia’s HB 401 before it went belly up. That might have been the most specific about what they considered a “long form”, up to the requirement that the residence of both parents is listed. Of course it seems convenient that no form that Hawaii has used since statehood lists more than the mother’s residence. The same goes for California’s forms from the 70s/80s, and the current forms don’t even list the mother’s residence.

    Of course it gets doubly tricky since Louisiana calls their 8.5″x11″ computer printout birth certification their “long form” with the hospital listed, but with no reproduction of the original signatures and without the name of the doctor listed.

  14. avatar
    James L. Greenlee March 26, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    Scientist: None of those would be on the “long form”. His parents may not have been legally married, due to his Dad’s previous undissolved marriage in Kenya, but the state of Hawaii considered them sufficienty married to grant a divorce, rather than an annulment. All of this is known and wouldn’t be on the long form. Nor would a mother’s health status.

    Actually, my birth certificate DOES show a STD test for my mother as “negative.”

  15. avatar
    gorefan March 26, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    James L. Greenlee: Actually, my birth certificate DOES show a STD test for my mother as “negative.”

    All long form BCs are essentially abstracts because they do not typically contain all of the information that the federal government requires to be collected at the time of birth. That is why it is not unusual for different states to have different information on their BCs (birth weight is a common example of this). After looking at the Nordyke twins’ BCs we know what is on a 1961 Hawaiian BC. There is no health information about the mother or even the child on a 1961 Hawaiian BC.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    gorefan: There is no health information about the mother or even the child on a 1961 Hawaiian BC.

    The Nordyke certificate was probably cropped before printing (that’s why they’re so “short”). I know this was the case for my 1950 Alabama certificate where one of the copies I have has a sliver of the titles for the medical section remaining. We also see the cropping on the Danae certificate.

    Hawaii began reporting birth information to the National Center in 1960. The US Standard Certificate implemented in 1956 had a number of data items not visible on the Nordyke certificate, including the number of the mother’s prior children still living (an item on the standard certificate since 1900).

  17. avatar
    Stanislaw March 26, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The typical birther response is to say that Mrs. Dunham (acting for her daughter) somehow obtained the false registration of birth to secure US citizenship for the president (apparently this was such a concern – because they must have known the abstruse point of law that required Dr. Dunham to be several months older to transmit citizenship if she gave birth overseas – that she was willing to commit fraud, but not enough of a concern to deter a pregnant (2nd-to-3rd trimester) 18-year-old from taking an arduous trek to a third world country (no motive for taking this trip is ever given, either… did she go to visit her husband’s other wife?) where medical facilities were far less advanced.They use the fact that US citizenship is valuable in its own right (true) and that birth registration fraud has occurred in the past (there’s no evidence of it in this case, nor is there a record of it occurring in similar cases, but it has occurred…) and the fact that travel to Kenya was possible in 1961 (in general – they certainly want to avoid specifics of how Dr. Dunham may have made it to Kenya and back… smuggling a newborn) distract from the question of Dr. Dunham’s motive for traveling to Kenya – something they are incapable of finding a plausible answer for.

    That’s what the birthers have been doing for years. They confuse possibility with probability. Is it possible that all of those things happened? Yes. Is it even remotely probable that all of those things happened? Hell no.

  18. avatar
    gorefan March 26, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Nordyke certificate was probably cropped before printing (that’s why they’re so “short”).

    That’s true of all of the Hawaiian BCs that have made their way to the internet. That’s why I refer to them as abstracts (like a COLB they do not contain all of the required info).

    I guess for clarity, we should be talking about a short form, a long form (issued to the parents) and a longer form (sent to the National Center for Health Statistics).

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    gorefan: I guess for clarity, we should be talking about a short form, a long form (issued to the parents) and a longer form (sent to the National Center for Health Statistics).

    Nowadays, virtually all births are reported electronically, and there are no forms at all. All NCHS reporting is 100% electronic.

  20. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 27, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Sartiblast, you also forgot that she wanted NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP for her child, not just the plain run-of-the-mill citizenship that can legally be treated no different with the exception of the .000001% chance that her son actually gets elected President.

    Sartiblast, Barack Obama, being the son of an American Citizen living on American Soil, would have been immediately eligible for Naturalized Citizenship as soon as they stepped foot on American Soil. The only difference is that this citizenship would be Naturalized…
    ,
    So, Stanley Ann Dunham must have wanted her son to have the 0.00001% chance of being elected President, so she committed multiple felonies so that 50 years down the road, her son could be elected President.

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 27, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Sartiblast, you also forgot that she wanted NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP for her child, not just the plain run-of-the-mill citizenship that can legally be treated no different with the exception of the .000001% chance that her son actually gets elected President.

    I didn’t forget – Dr. Dunham COULD have known that she couldn’t transmit citizenship to a child born off of US soil (assuming that she didn’t know that she could have transmitted citizenship by having her marriage annulled…). I’m okay with letting the birthers come up with a plausible explanation of why Dr. Dunham would obtain citizenship by fraudulent methods (instead of going through the relatively simple naturalization process that you point out was available) without making them explain why it had to be ‘natural born’ citizenship – it makes it much easier for the birthers to hoist themselves on their own petards… (I do try to be helpful ;-))

  22. avatar
    Jules March 28, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    dunstvangeet: So, Stanley Ann Dunham must have wanted her son to have the 0.00001% chance of being elected President, so she committed multiple felonies so that 50 years down the road, her son could be elected President.

    And, of course, this presupposes that she would have foreseen the chance that her son would be elected President despite the fact that she gave birth at a time when it would have been regarded as inconceivable for the US to elect a black man as President.

  23. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    Jules/Dunst/Slart: You guys are neglecting something. If Stanley Ann Dunham had a baby in Kenya, she had to get him BACK into the US. And quickly, since there are witnesses placing her in Seattle in late August, where she was signed up for classes. Even infants need a passport (forget about smuggling a baby onto the plane and then past customs and immigration at whatever airport she would land at). She had only 2 options for a passport:

    1. US Passport. Her mother falsely registers the birth in Hawaii. But, you don’t get the actual certificate until 4-6 weeks later. So they wouldn’t have the b.c.until early to mid-September. Then you apply for a passport. Even rush would take 2 weeks minimum. We’re now late September. Then, send the passport to Kenya by air mail (there was no FedEx in those days) . We are easily well into October by now.. Then, she has to hope that no one notices that this passport for an infant supposedly born in Hawaii and returning from Kenya has no ENTRY stamp for Kenya, nor for any of the countries passed through in transit. A truly impossible story.

    2. British Colonial passport. How long after birth and registration does it take to get a birth certificate in Kenya? Then how long to get your UK and colonies passport (the application has to go through London)? This would take even longer than the US passport. Then, the child is not a US citizen and needs a visa for the US from the Embassy (remember the child is only naturalized once it arrives in the US). How long does that take? You would be lucky to be home by Thanksgiving.

    And don’t give us she went through Canada and drove across to Seattle, because Canada required passports to enter from overseas too. Nor could she have taken a ship and swam for shore, because sea passage from Mombasa to Seattle (if you could find it) would take at least a month even today.

    So, I submit to you that a birth in Kenya and subsequent timely return to the US was not only extra-ordiinarily unlikely, but scientifically impossible.

  24. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 28, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    Scientist: Jules/Dunst/Slart: You guys are neglecting something. If Stanley Ann Dunham had a baby in Kenya, she had to get him BACK into the US.

    I’m not neglecting it – I’m holding on to it so that I can use it to falsify birther hypotheses… Of course it is (effectively) impossible for Dr. Dunham to have given birth in Kenya, but from a scientific point of view all we can do is to falsify any birther ‘foreign birth’ scenarios…

  25. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Slartibartfast: Of course it is (effectively) impossible for Dr. Dunham to have given birth in Kenya, but from a scientific point of view all we can do is to falsify any birther foreign birth’ scenarios…

    I believe the problem of getting the baby back into the US in any reasonable time frame falsifiies any foreign birth scenario. Even entry from Canada or Mexico, which didn’t require passports in those days, did require ID, which still would have taken some weeks to get for a newborn.

    You would have to resort to birth in Canada or Mexico, followed by smuggling the child into the US overland. And I don’t see that as making sense even to a birther.

  26. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    > So, I submit to you that a birth in Kenya and subsequent timely return to the US was not only extra-ordiinarily unlikely, but scientifically impossible.

    Maybe she swam non-stop across the ocean in at least one direction. Who knows, she might have been the inventor of the quintuple ultra triathlon long before even the basic triathlon was known to man. Birthers always discover astonishing things, just remember the allegiance gene! 😉

  27. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 28, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    Scientist: I believe the problem of getting the baby back into the US in any reasonable time frame falsifiies any foreign birth scenario.Even entry from Canada or Mexico, which didn’t require passports in those days, did require ID, which still would have taken some weeks to get for a newborn.

    You would have to resort to birth in Canada or Mexico, followed by smuggling the child into the US overland.And I don’t see that as makingsense even to a birther.

    I agree that any foreign birth certificate is falsifiable (something which must obviously be true if the President was born in Hawai’i). To me it’s just a matter of whether you want to provide evidence that any foreign birth scenario is falsifiable (which any birther will ignore) or falsify any foreign birth scenario which is put forward (which any birther will ignore). Six of one, half-a-dozen of another, if you ask me…

  28. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 28, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    The Magic M: Maybe she swam non-stop across the ocean in at least one direction. Who knows, she might have been the inventor of the quintuple ultra triathlon long before even the basic triathlon was known to man. Birthers always discover astonishing things, just remember the allegiance gene!

    Who do you think Dr. Dunham was, Chuck Norris? (Chuck Norris could swim to Kenya and back in an afternoon, but Dr. Dunham did it while pregnant on the way there and carrying a newborn on the way back and found the time to give birth to the first African-American president in the middle… 😉

  29. avatar
    TrueAmerican March 29, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    Ha typical!
    Of course you would mention his color.

  30. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 29, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    TrueAmerican: Ha typical!Of course you would mention his color.

    What exactly constitutes a “true american”

  31. avatar
    Daniel March 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): What exactly constitutes a “true american”

    When faced with the reality that no other POTUS in history has been asked for his BC; had his parentage disparaged; had demands for all sorts of irrelevant personal details made; had obscure swiss philosophers quoted against him; had the very definition of NBC destroyed in order to to get rid of him….

    One is forced to ask, what is different about this President? Why has this President been made a target? What quality of this president, that no other president has had, is present that would cause such an uproar.

    The only thing that is different with this President from all other previous Presidents in history… is the color of his skin.

    You do the math.

  32. avatar
    Daniel March 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    TrueAmerican:
    Ha typical!
    Of course you would mention his color.

    Sorry my reply was supposed to be to “TrueAmerican’s” ridiculous statement.

  33. avatar
    Thrifty March 29, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    James L. Greenlee: What I’ve yet to hear any kind of coherent response to, is WHY would Mrs. Obama fake the birth announcements in 1961?

    The closest thing I’ve heard to a sensible story is that Mrs. Obama didn’t start off in Hawaii and go to Hawaii to give birth, but rather that she was in Kenya when she gave birth, and got a fake birth certificate from Hawaii so her son would be eligible for welfare.

  34. avatar
    Daniel March 29, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    So she needed welfare, but she had enough money for international plane fare on short booking?

    Riiiiiiiiight

  35. avatar
    Sef March 29, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    Daniel:
    So she needed welfare, but she had enough money for international plane fare on short booking?

    Riiiiiiiiight

    The vast majority of the birthers have no memory of what life was like in the ’60s. They think the world was always as it is now.

  36. avatar
    The Magic M March 29, 2011 at 2:21 pm #

    > The only thing that is different with this President from all other previous Presidents in history… is the color of his skin.

    … and his name. You can assume that those who don’t hate him because he’s black hate him because they think he’s a Muslim jihaddist.
    C’mon, with a name sounding both like Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, what’s the poor redneck going to do? Only “Adolf Mao Stalin Hickenbottom” would have been worse. 😉

    I’m still waiting for the birthers to pull the numerology and anagram card.
    Haven’t they noticed “Stanley Ann Dunham” can also be rearranged as “Stalyne and Hun Man”? So it’s the Russian Communist Party and the Nazis!!!one!!!eleven!!!

  37. avatar
    Joey March 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    The birthers are having orgasms. “The Donald” has produced a certified copy of his “Long Form” for ABC news.

  38. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Joey: The birthers are having orgasms. “The Donald” has produced a certified copy of his “Long Form” for ABC news.

    Hey look Donald’s has a date filed on it! It wasn’t “accepted”

  39. avatar
    Bovril March 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    No seal……No religion of parents…..No citizenship of parents……It’s just an image on the Inter-Tubes……I can see lots of suspicious “artifacts” (a-la Polarik), it a CERTIFICATION not a CERTIFICATE….No “forensic expert” has looked it over….

    etc
    etc
    etc

  40. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Bovril: No seal……No religion of parents…..No citizenship of parents……It’s just an image on the Inter-Tubes……I can see lots of suspicious “artifacts” (a-la Polarik), it a CERTIFICATION not a CERTIFICATE….No “forensic expert” has looked it over….etcetcetc

    and the birthers will accept it without question it will be a double standard as usual with them

  41. avatar
    Joey March 29, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    The new and improved Trump birth certificate:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/page?id=13248168

  42. avatar
    TrueAmerican March 30, 2011 at 1:51 am #

    LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!
    And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.
    You know, someone that doesn’t hate the country and what it was founded on.
    And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.
    It’s all you have for criticism.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    TrueAmerican: LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!

    Didn’t your mother teach you any manners?

  44. avatar
    G March 30, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    TrueAmerican: LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.You know, someone that doesn’t hate the country and what it was founded on.And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.It’s all you have for criticism.

    Where are these mythical people that live here and hate this country and what is was founded on? Or who disrespect the military, flag, etc? I always hear angry folks talking about “those people”…but I can’t say I’ve ever met anyone in reality who fits that defintion. Just another fictional straw man argument that bigots use to demonize others.

    I think you have a very warped view of people you don’t even know. So, you’re somehow special and think you’re better than everyone else who loves this country, but might have different viewpoints than you, eh? You sound like an arrogant and hateful person, actually.

    If you really loved this country so much, you’d realize that it was made up of over 300 million people, representing almost every type of opinion, culture, race, religion and lifestyle on the planet and that is a very key part of what makes this country so special, so unique and so great.

  45. avatar
    The Magic M March 30, 2011 at 4:00 am #

    > LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!
    > And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.

    Then you’re probably a true North Korean, given you don’t even know where to put commas or that it’s “someone who”, not “someone that”.
    Besides, since you birthers have your own parallel universe version of the Constitution you’re claiming to protect, you can’t possibly claim you have “respect for our military and country” in this universe.
    After all, isn’t it you birthers who claim the entire military, except for the few crazy wingnuts like Lakin or Vallely, is “in on the conspiracy”? Where’s your respect for the military there?
    Aren’t you the ones calling for the troops to lay down their arms and disobey orders in a time of war? Fomenting sedition, calling for a civil war? Now who’s loving “your” country, hypocrit?

  46. avatar
    TrueAmerican March 30, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    Wow you responded! I knew you would!

  47. avatar
    TrueAmerican March 30, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    G: Where are these mythical people that live here and hate this country and what is was founded on? Or who disrespect the military, flag, etc?I always hear angry folks talking about “those people”…but I can’t say I’ve ever met anyone in reality who fits that defintion.Just another fictional straw man argument that bigots use to demonize others.

    I think you have a very warped view of people you don’t even know.So, you’re somehow special and think you’re better than everyone else who loves this country, but might have different viewpoints than you, eh?You sound like an arrogant and hateful person, actually.

    If you really loved this country so much, you’d realize that it was made up of over 300 million people, representing almost every type of opinion, culture, race, religion and lifestyle on the planet and that is a very key part of what makes this country so special, so unique and so great.

    Again, you are mentioning color and I haven’t even said anything about it.
    Let’s see you have a great excuse for that one!

  48. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    G: Where are these mythical people that live here and hate this country and what is was founded on? Or who disrespect the military, flag, etc?I always hear angry folks talking about “those people”…but I can’t say I’ve ever met anyone in reality who fits that defintion.Just another fictional straw man argument that bigots use to demonize others.

    I think you have a very warped view of people you don’t even know.So, you’re somehow special and think you’re better than everyone else who loves this country, but might have different viewpoints than you, eh?You sound like an arrogant and hateful person, actually.

    If you really loved this country so much, you’d realize that it was made up of over 300 million people, representing almost every type of opinion, culture, race, religion and lifestyle on the planet and that is a very key part of what makes this country so special, so unique and so great.

    Hear, hear. Just another idiot, bigot and troll.

  49. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    TrueAmerican: And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.

    And you keep responding with color.

    Are you picking a fight or did you think you had some brilliant, insightful comment to make?

    Has skin color ever been a problem in the U.S.?

  50. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 30, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    TrueAmerican: LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.You know, someone that doesn’t hate the country and what it was founded on.And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.It’s all you have for criticism.

    Vague generalities. Saluting the flag? Actually people usually put their hands over their hearts. Saluting is for people to people interaction not people to inanimate objects. Again another vague claim who has specifically said they hate this country and what it was founded on? Respect for the military? So does that mean just having a bumper sticker on your car that says “Support the troops” or would that mean providing health benefits when they return from fighting? Taking care of their injuries incurred overseas whether mental or physical. Does this mean stopping predatory lendors and shady bank practices from screwing the troops while they’re overseas? Again I’m just asking because you seem to deal with meaningless platitudes and are short on specifics.

  51. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 30, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    TrueAmerican: Again, you are mentioning color and I haven’t even said anything about it.Let’s see you have a great excuse for that one!

    I read what G said and he did not mention anything about color. The only thing he said is that people from various backgrounds, beliefs, race, religion are represented in America. It says more about you that you seem to want to make this about color.

  52. avatar
    G March 30, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    TrueAmerican: Again, you are mentioning color and I haven’t even said anything about it.Let’s see you have a great excuse for that one!

    Wow…

    You must have severe reading comprehension problems and an unhealthy fixation on seeing certain things in arguments that aren’t there…except in your own head and petty fears, I guess.

    Nice dodge of being unable to address anything I actually said and try to change the topic back to your unhealthy fixation on race.

    I think you have no real points and you are just a typical bored internet troll with nothing better to do than pop up on a forum and make some unrelated accusation to try to start an argument. You are merely hiding behind false patriotism in order to seem relevant.

    You have yet to show any real connection between your statements here and the other posts people make. Your vapid and one-track responses say more about you and your intentions and not much else.

  53. avatar
    Suranis March 30, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    TrueAmerican:
    LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!
    And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country

    Ok that right there shows you know nothing about the military you claim to love.

    A salute is a greeting and show of respect between 2 fellow military men. It comes from the Middle ages when a knight would hold up his faceplate to talk to another military man. It also exposed his face to attack, which was another show of respect

    That’s why Privates will salute Generals… and Generals will salute Privates. People like you just saw soldiers doing it and thought that looked cool so you wanted to do it too. Saluting a flag is meaningless as it cant salute you back.

    Holding your hand over your heart is a symbol of showing where the flag is – inside your heart.

    I’m neither a military man nor an American, but I understand and respect the symbols of your countries military better then you do. What does that say?

  54. avatar
    Sef March 30, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    TrueAmerican: And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.

    So that is all someone has to do to become an American? I dare say that a larger percentage of illegal aliens in this country have those qualifications than some NBC people.

  55. avatar
    Daniel March 30, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    TrueAmerican: And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.
    It’s all you have for criticism.

    And I notice you once again dodged the question.

    What is it about Obama that is different, that causes you to demand of him what neither you, nor any of your ilk, have demanded from any other POTUS in history?

    The only difference between he and all other POTUS’ in history, is that he’s black.

    If that is not the case, then please have the guts to tell us what is the difference that would cause you to single him out.

    I’m betting you’re too much of a coward to answer.

  56. avatar
    Rickey March 30, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    TrueAmerican:

    And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.

    Obama doesn’t salute? Then what is he doing in this New York Post photo?

    http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/10/29/news/photos_galleries/obama/obama123141–300×300.jpg

  57. avatar
    jamese777 March 30, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    TrueAmerican: LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.You know, someone that doesn’t hate the country and what it was founded on.And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.It’s all you have for criticism.

    Barack Hussein Obama II is Commander-in-Chief of the US military. He has Robert Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense in the administration of George W. Bush, General John Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen working for him on military policy. President Obama also has more than one and a half million men and women in the US military serving under his direction and putting their very lives on the line at President Obama’s discretion.

  58. avatar
    JohnC March 30, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    TrueAmerican: LOL so funny to see you morons, spin!
    And a True American is someone that is not afraid to salute the flag and has respect for our military and country.
    You know, someone that doesn’t hate the country and what it was founded on.
    And I notice that you keep mentioning Obama’s color as well.
    It’s all you have for criticism.

    Well I guess that astute factual and logical argument conclusively proves that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and greatness with us.

  59. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 30, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    I thought this was True America?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

  60. avatar
    James M March 30, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    Thrifty: rather that she was in Kenya

    They never, ever, place her in Kenya with evidence, so for me this line of reasoning ends right there, before Barack II even comes into the discussion.

    A “foreign-birth” birther needs to put the mother outside the United States in 1961 (or even prior to 1967 would be interesting). Without that there is not even an issue to discuss.

    De Vattel / Donofrio birthers have a different bar to reach. Berg / Kenya birthers don’t even get to the table, since they can’t place the mother in Kenya to begin with.

  61. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 30, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    James M: They never, ever, place her in Kenya with evidence, so for me this line of reasoning ends right there, before Barack II even comes into the discussion.

    A “foreign-birth” birther needs to put the mother outside the United States in 1961 (or even prior to 1967 would be interesting).Without that there is not even an issue to discuss.

    De Vattel / Donofrio birthers have a different bar to reach.Berg / Kenya birthers don’t even get to the table, since they can’t place the mother in Kenya to begin with.

    Oh I just heard a new one today. She was supposedly in Africa the whole time and she got pregnant there. On the amazon forums this is laughable.

    http://www.amazon.com/tag/barack%20obama/forum/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17XU95ZE3WLUZ&cdThread=Tx19XV5JK4UY78G&displayType=tagsDetail

    Joanne M. Robbins says:
    Stephen, I agree with you that a person under 18 cannot renounce his US Citizenship. However, his mother obviously did so when she moved to Indonesia with her husband, Lolo Soetero. Published copies of Barry’s school records show that he is Indonesian (and this country does NOT allow dual citizenship) and that he is a Muslim. I’m surprised you haven’t seen this widely publicized document. Proof of the millions he has spent to hide his past comes with the multiple law suits brought against him and the costs involved with them. This is (unlucky for BHO) public information. It makes no difference what the Governor of Hawaii said, the decent thing for BHO to do is to come clean and show the citizens of the United States his long form (real) birth certificate, which he certainly will not do.

    You are showing your lack of knowledge of Obama’s history with your question about why a pregnant 18 year old would travel 1000s of miles to give birth in a hospital, etc. etc. etc. Stanley Anne Dunham Obama was in Africa with her husband at the time (Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the Muslim) of her advanced pregnancy. It is even harder to believe that she would travel half way around the world to give birth in Hawaii when she was 9 months pregnant in Africa. Really, you should read the history in the multitude of books available about this subject. Many people say, “well what about the birth announcement in the newspapers?” Well, that’s easy!! If I were the mother of this child, or the grandmother for that matter, I would certainly want to announce it in the newspapers! The announcements prove nothing at all. Nothing, other than that Stanley Anne and her parents wanted to do the customary thing and announce in her home town that a baby was born. It is true she returned to Hawaii either shortly before or shortly after BHO’s birth, but nobody really knows which…….because he will not show his birth certificate. Another KNOWN fact is that Hawaii will issue a Certificate of Live Birth (not a true birth certificate) to anybody wishing to have one, especially those whose children were born at home. Stanley Anne and her parents were no dummies!!! They wanted a US birth certificate for the child complete with all the benefits included therein. Did they know he would grow up to be the regime ruler? Of course not. But they naturally wanted to protect him and guarantee his rights to be an American.

    It is a very interesting story, but one thing is for sure…. without the long form birth certificate, nobody knows for sure whether or not BHO was actually born in Hawaii.

    The larger and more important questions revolve around the citizenship of BHO’s father. He was a British subject and that’s a fact. He was NOT an American citizen. He, therefore, by British law, gave his son British citizenship. A dual citizen is NOT eligible to be President of the United States. Only a natural born citizen can be President, which means a person born from two parents who are American Citizens. Why is this important? Because of loyalties to two countries – a very important consideration! Our Founders were not stupid and they wrote the requirements to be President very carefully and with good reasons.

    So you see, Stephen, there are more questions than answers. Wishing and hoping BHO is telling the truth does not make it so. I hope with all my heart that he is an American citizen because if he isn’t, we will have a Constitutional crisis on our hands the day we find out he was lying. There is much, much more to this story than is even revealed here, but to find out more, you should do some investigating. For example, check out why Nancy Pelosi signed two different versions of the document certifying BHO’s eligibility. That is a very interesting story in itself and could truly be the source of a real conspiracy, not an alleged one.

  62. avatar
    TrueAmerican April 4, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    So typical to see all of you here doing the Obama circle jerk.
    And many of you clowns must not be good with reading comprehension because in the original post that I responded to, that person did mention Obama’s color.
    All I see are remarks about rednecks, racist, etc.
    But hatred is all you have.
    Insults too.
    Stay here and keep patting yourselves on the back if you want to.
    I look forward to seeing your mouths gaping wide open when Obama is not re-elected for president in 2012.

  63. avatar
    TrueAmerican April 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Who do you think Dr. Dunham was, Chuck Norris?(Chuck Norris could swim to Kenya and back in an afternoon, but Dr. Dunham did it while pregnant on the way there and carrying a newborn on the way back and found the time to give birth to the first African-American president in the middle…

    Nooooooo! The person above didn’t mention Obama’s color, did they?
    You’re all a bunch of hateful idiotic buffoons.

  64. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    TrueAmerican: Nooooooo! The person above didn’t mention Obama’s color, did they?
    You’re all a bunch of hateful idiotic buffoons.

    Why do you keep bringing up race?

    Is this troubling you?

    Obama/Biden 2012

  65. avatar
    TrueAmerican April 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment, as he refuses to improve things, hateful rhetoric towards Americans from his own administration, refusal of the justice department to investigate crimes etc.
    Yes all Americans will remember exactly what this administration was capable of.
    And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.
    Of course it’s all I expect from a small group of asskissing morons.

  66. avatar
    TrueAmerican April 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Majority Will: Why do you keep bringing up race?

    Is this troubling you?

    Obama/Biden 2012

    In your dreams pal.

  67. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    TrueAmerican: Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment, as he refuses to improve things, hateful rhetoric towards Americans from his own administration, refusal of the justice department to investigate crimes etc.Yes all Americans will remember exactly what this administration was capable of.And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.Of course it’s all I expect from a small group of asskissing morons.

    Yawn. Whine, whine, whine.

    Hey, nobody is making you vote for someone you don’t want to vote for.

    More importantly, you can’t stop people for voting for who they want to either and that includes their right to vote for candidates you don’t like.

  68. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    TrueAmerican: In your dreams pal.

    Do you actually have something to add to the blog topics or are you just here to stomp your feet and disply ODS?

  69. avatar
    James M April 4, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    TrueAmerican:
    Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment

    It didn’t hurt President Reagan one bit.

    It’s also worth noting that unemployment was higher in 2008 than it is today.

  70. avatar
    Daniel April 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm #

    TrueAmerican:
    Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment, as he refuses to improve things, hateful rhetoric towards Americans from his own administration, refusal of the justice department to investigate crimes etc.
    Yes all Americans will remember exactly what this administration was capable of.
    And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.
    Of course it’s all I expect from a small group of asskissing morons.

    I hope Obama doesn’t get re-elected.

    You see I’m a Republican.

    However, being a Republican doesn’t mean I have to be stupid. Being a Republican doesn’t mean I have to use hatemongering, meaningless political rhetoric in order to try to dishonestly undermine my political opposites. Being a Republican doesn’t mean I have to make the mistake of assuming that anyone who doesn’t buy into the stupidity of Birthers is a “liberal” or an Obama supporter. Being a Republican doesn’t mean I have to be stupid.

    IN short, being a Republican doesn’t mean I have to be you.

  71. avatar
    JoZeppy April 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    TrueAmerican: Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment, as he refuses to improve things, hateful rhetoric towards Americans from his own administration, refusal of the justice department to investigate crimes etc.
    Yes all Americans will remember exactly what this administration was capable of.

    And somehow Ronald Reagan was re-elected…by a landslide as I recall….oh…you weren’t talking about Reagan?

    TrueAmerican: And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.

    Big surprise….you again are shown to be wrong!

    TrueAmerican: Of course it’s all I expect from a small group of asskissing morons.

    Well, to be honest, we don’t expect much from you. But the good Dr. is still kind enough to let the special needs people like you post here, so you should thank him.

  72. avatar
    JoZeppy April 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    James M: It didn’t hurt President Reagan one bit. It’s also worth noting that unemployment was higher in 2008 than it is today.

    Beat me to it!

  73. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    TrueAmerican:
    Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment, as he refuses to improve things, hateful rhetoric towards Americans from his own administration, refusal of the justice department to investigate crimes etc.
    Yes all Americans will remember exactly what this administration was capable of.
    And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.
    Of course it’s all I expect from a small group of asskissing morons.

    No one has any expectation that the morans in the birther movement can be convinced to vote for Obama in ’12. You’re not the ‘target demographic’. You’re a lost cause.

    I also doubt Biden will be the VP candidate in ’12. Obama will go for 4 no Trump.

  74. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 1:12 pm #

    TrueAmerican: In your dreams pal.

    You can’t seem to put a coherent thought together. You keep mentioning race over and over and over like a simpleton obsessing over some deep, dark fear.

    Are you a bigot?

    “It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years”

    “The September jobs report was just released and demonstrates that America is on a far slower path to recovery than anyone originally predicted. Despite this, the shedding of government jobs cloaks a glimmer of hope: more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Read that again: 2010 has had more private job creation than during the entire 8 year tenure of George W. Bush.

    This is the 9th straight month of private sector job growth in the midst of a devastating recession that has put a serious strain mostly on the poor and middle class. There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.”

    The rest . . .

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/

  75. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 4, 2011 at 1:13 pm #

    TrueAmerican: Nooooooo! The person above didn’t mention Obama’s color, did they?You’re all a bunch of hateful idiotic buffoons.

    What part of him being the first african american president was Hateful or untrue?

  76. avatar
    Suranis April 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    TrueAmerican: TrueAmerican April 4,

    Seems typical or the type that will happily wrap himself in the flag before setting it on fire.

  77. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    TrueAmerican: And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.

    Right. Because forgetting the incredibly stupid mistakes of the Bush years is a great way to fix them or prevent them from happening again.

    When you stick your fingers in your ears do they meet in the middle?

  78. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    G: More importantly, you can’t stop people for voting for who they want to either and that includes their right to vote for candidates you don’t like.

    Sure you can – it’s just illegal and unAmerican. The Republicans do it all the time – poll taxes, literacy tests, caging, etc.

  79. avatar
    Joey April 4, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    TrueAmerican:
    Only a small group of morons would think that the same president would be re-elected with high unemployment, as he refuses to improve things, hateful rhetoric towards Americans from his own administration, refusal of the justice department to investigate crimes etc.
    Yes all Americans will remember exactly what this administration was capable of.
    And I bet none of you can counter what I say, without bringing up Bush either.
    Of course it’s all I expect from a small group of asskissing morons.

    I think you might want to take a look at the current polls of Obama versus each of the leading and announced Republican candidates for 2012. Obama is currently beating them all.
    Conservatives didn’t think that Bill Clinton would be reelected a year before the 1996 election either. After all, he was under the threat of impeachment and removal from office, and yet the Republicans were incompetent enough to nominate Bob Dole and Clinton won easily.
    Never underestimate the power of the Republican Party to shoot itself in the foot! The 2012 version of Bob Dole or John McCain could make life very easy for President Barack Hussein Obama II.
    [See? No mention of the 43rd President of the United States! ;-)]

  80. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Sure you can – it’s just illegal and unAmerican.The Republicans do it all the time – poll taxes, literacy tests, caging, etc.

    You can add changing the rules for write-in candidates after-the-fact, announcing a fake election day/place, husbands/employers/commanders requiring wives/employees/soldiers to vote absentee so they can see who they vote for, “forgetting” to post an absentee ballot on time. The list goes on.

  81. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Joey: Never underestimate the power of the Republican Party to shoot itself in the foot! T

    Democrats are also very good at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

  82. avatar
    TrueAmerican April 4, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

    Next you are going to state that I have nothing of importance to say.
    But when some of you post at Fogbow, “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!” is all that many of you have to say.

  83. avatar
    TrueAmerican April 4, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Majority Will: You can’t seem to put a coherent thought together. You keep mentioning race over and over and over like a simpleton obsessing over some deep, dark fear.

    Are you a bigot?

    “It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years”

    “The September jobs report was just released and demonstrates that America is on a far slower path to recovery than anyone originally predicted. Despite this, the shedding of government jobs cloaks a glimmer of hope: more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Read that again: 2010 has had more private job creation than during the entire 8 year tenure of George W. Bush.

    This is the 9th straight month of private sector job growth in the midst of a devastating recession that has put a serious strain mostly on the poor and middle class. There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.”

    The rest . . .

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/

    More telling are the comments after your article.
    I will believe the people with common sense than I would your article.
    With a higher unemployment rate than it was under Bush, how could you possibly think that the job situation is better under Obama?
    You didn’t graduate high school, did you? If you went to college, I hope you got a refund.
    You’re still dumb.

  84. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    TrueAmerican: More telling are the comments after your article.I will believe the people with common sense than I would your article.With a higher unemployment rate than it was under Bush, how could you possibly think that the job situation is better under Obama?You didn’t graduate high school, did you? If you went to college, I hope you got a refund.You’re still dumb.

    Lets see considering how much in free fall the unemployment situation was under Bush I’d say you weren’t really paying attention. The funny part will be how you respond next when I mention to you that the unemployment rate was higher under Reagan than Jimmy Carter.

  85. avatar
    Daniel April 4, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    TrueAmerican: Next you are going to state that I have nothing of importance to say.

    Well if you already know it….. why are you still talking?

  86. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 4, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    At this point in 1983, 19 months before the election just as we’re 19 months before the 2012 election, Reagan had a 10.2% unemployment rate compared to the current 9.2% unemployment rate. Reagan also got up to a 10.8% unemployment rate. But I suppose hypocrisy will come out as soon as you read this.

  87. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 3:56 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    At this point in 1983, 19 months before the election just as we’re 19 months before the 2012 election, Reagan had a 10.2% unemployment rate compared to the current 9.2% unemployment rate.Reagan also got up to a 10.8% unemployment rate.But I suppose hypocrisy will come out as soon as you read this.

    You must remember that the probable unemployment among birthers is closer to 100%.

  88. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): At this point in 1983, 19 months before the election just as we’re 19 months before the 2012 election, Reagan had a 10.2% unemployment rate compared to the current 9.2% unemployment rate. Reagan also got up to a 10.8% unemployment rate. But I suppose hypocrisy will come out as soon as you read this.

    Didn’t Reagan get a rather large boon in 1984 due to his opponent promising to raise taxes? I doubt Obama’s eventual Republican opponent will make that mistake.

  89. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Thrifty: Didn’t Reagan get a rather large boon in 1984 due to his opponent promising to raise taxes?I doubt Obama’s eventual Republican opponent will make that mistake.

    But it is entirely possible (maybe even probable) that his eventual opponent will have pandered to the birthers (at least by dog whistle).

  90. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    Sef: You must remember that the probable unemployment among birthers is closer to 100%.

    Those French fries aren’t going to cook and bag themselves.

  91. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 4, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Majority Will: Those French fries aren’t going to cook and bag themselves.

    ahem Freedom fries

  92. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    TrueAmerican: Next you are going to state that I have nothing of importance to say.

    Nothing interesting and some pretty lousy trolling but it is amusing watching you burn up.

    Are you a bigot?

    Obama/Biden 2012.

  93. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): ahem Freedom fries

    Right. And GOP waffles for breakfast.

  94. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    Majority Will: Those French fries aren’t going to cook and bag themselves.

    Don’t give Micky D any ideas.

  95. avatar
    Bovril April 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    So, “True”, do illuminate the dark with your dazzling wit, rapartee and incisive political analysis.

    Exactly which of the current 7 dwarves of the Republican front runners are in any postion to actually beat the current President in a race?

    Just exctly how much of the crucial independant vote has the Birfoon tendency and their Republican “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” politicians managed to alienate from the Repubs?

    Just exactly what does your insane wittering do to assist the Republicans?

    J’accuse…..you and your ilk are all stealth Obots working to get another Democrat Presidency in and we thank you for it.

  96. avatar
    roadburner April 7, 2011 at 8:59 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The larger and more important questions revolve around the citizenship of BHO’s father. He was a British subject and that’s a fact. He was NOT an American citizen. He, therefore, by British law, gave his son British citizenship. A dual citizen is NOT eligible to be President of the United States. Only a natural born citizen can be President, which means a person born from two parents who are American Citizens. Why is this important? Because of loyalties to two countries – a very important consideration! Our Founders were not stupid and they wrote the requirements to be President very carefully and with good reasons.

    hi folks, been scooting around birther sites (they´re just sooo amusing), and have occasionally come across this little gem.

    so let´s put it to bed.

    firstly, i´m english and living in spain. i have a spanish wife and 2 daughters.

    my daughters have spanish citizenship and passports, and are entiltled to british citizenship. remember the word `entitled´, as we´ll be coming back to this in a moment.

    a few years ago, i considered taking spanish citizenship (helps cut through some of the beurocratic bullshit of which we have a plethora here) and started the process. i thought that i could take spaish citizenship and continue with my british citizenship, in other words, dual natonality.

    speaking with the british consulate here, i discovered that to take spanish nationality i would have to renounce my british citizenship as english law does NOT allow dual nationality!

    i gave up on the idea after spending a year getting the papers and permits for a business here and fiding out that with a different i.d. n i´d have to do them all over again. sod that for a game of soldiers!

    remember `entitled´? right, we´re there now.

    my daughters are entitled to british citizenship as i am a british citizen, BUT first their spanish citizenship (due to their place of birth) would have to be renounced.

    this puts a bogey in the custard for the birthers. if obie was born in hawaii as an american citizen, he could not be at the same time a british citizen due to the prohibition of dual nationality under english law. to have british ctizenship passed from his father (to which he would be entitled) he would have had to renounce his u.s. citizenship, which we can pretty much be sure he never has.

    well, there you have it. hope this has been helpful