Main Menu

Is Mitt Romney next?

This is an odd story. I ended up on a blog called USA-We The People reading an article titled Mitt Romney is NOT a natural born citizen! (The author who calls himself “clinicalthinker” — and don’t think I’m going to touch that one — had apparently been over here and posted a couple of dismissive and insulting remarks.) CT’s theory is that George Romney (Mitt’s father) was born in Mexico (that much is true) but that his parents had given up their US citizenship. If George wasn’t a US citizen, then Mitt couldn’t be a natural born citizen, no matter that we was born in the US according to the birther version of the US Constitution written by Emerich de Vattel.

Hershey's Kiss photoI posted a note on CT’s site to go read the Congressional Research Service report on presidential eligibility (which is now linked under this site’s quick links down lower right should you need to find it quickly). Doesn’t CT’s photo remind you of a Hershey’s Kiss?

In preparing for this article, I ran across the Wikipedia article on pseudocompetence that I found interesting. Here’s a taste of that concept:

When a pseudocompetent person does not understand an event or activity in the workplace, the notion that they are expected to know forces that person to take morsels of facts and construct a reality separate from actuality. This phenomenon may become widespread throughout the organization, changing the workers into gossips who distort the truth into their reality because of fear of being found incompetent.

I’m not suggesting that this describes to clinicalthinker. It might be better applied to someone like me who is in a position where I’m expected (or expect myself) to know a lot about the legal aspects of this conspiracy business but never went to law school. Pseudocompetence is a pitfall for those who know their own limitations.

What is more likely to apply to clinicalthinker is what I was actually looking for in the Wikipedia, the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the less competent a person is, the more the more inflated view they have of their own competence. Here’s what CT said:

What amazes me most is even those I consider intelligent can read the quotes from Congress and SCOTUS rulings etc. and still will argue with what those words mean. Folks it honestly is not ROCKET SCIENCE. It is simply fact … read the quotes for yourself. Just because no one in politics or the media is dealing with any of this? None of that ALTERS THE FACTS OR CHANGES what our founders defined this term to mean.

No, it’s not rocket science, but it does take a basic level of competence and some patience.

, , , ,

32 Responses to Is Mitt Romney next?

  1. avatar
    Scientist January 9, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    And Rick Santorum’s father was born in Italy. Even if he naturalized before Rick was born (and I don’t know whether he did), it’s highly likely he did not renounce Italian citizenship at the Italian consulate or embassy. Therefore, Sen Santorum was almost certainly born a dual US-Italian citizen. The dual ciitizen birthers will have to reject him. And of course there’s Marco Rubio.

    The birthers may well have to stay home on election day.

  2. avatar
    JD Reed January 9, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Reminds me of a Will Rogers quote about how a dumb guy is incapsble of recognizing that any point of view but his own might be valiid.

  3. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Scientist: The birthers may well have to stay home on election day.

    I like the cut of your jib, Scientist. Definitely onto something!

    Is it asking too much to have a consistently inconsistent bunch to apply their wad of contradictory mumbo-jumbo equally to everyone? As they insist, they are just trying to uphold the law. I say, uphold away, kind birthin’ sirs. And while they tie themselves ever more securely up, the country moves on.

  4. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 9, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    It will not find as much traction, but of course if some people believe you cannot be black and in the White House, some people (fewer, of course, but still) will say you cannot be a Mormon and in the White House. Good grief, a Mormon in the White House, what is next? A Muslim? A woman?

    These people are bigots, and they cannot adapt to a new world.

  5. avatar
    Daniel January 9, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    The Dunning-Kruger effect rears it’s head in a lot of circumstances similar to birtherism.

    It’s what prompts Creationists with high school education, for instance, to claim that they are right, and that they know more about biology, geology, and physics than all the biologists, geologists, and astrophysicists, combined.

  6. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: (fewer, of course, but still) will say you cannot be a Mormon and in the White House.

    Paul, I appreciate the faith in the American electorate, but do not underestimate the anti-Mormon stigma in evangelical christianity. Mormonism is a godless cult to them. The dynamic of pigeonholing this crowd between what they see as a “cult member” and a “colored man” is a nightmare to them, and a further sign of the godlessness of our times. Will they stay at home, support a third party, hold their nose and “go Mormon” for a day…? Perhaps this will inspire them to abandon politics, and leave real life to realists. I wish.

    Having listened to many preachers rail against those nice young men traveling 2 by 2 in their pretty white shirts, I’d be interested to find any polling on the current level of anti-Mormon bias.

  7. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    Pretty much. That seems to be the case for many of them.

    Paul Pieniezny: These people are bigots, and they cannot adapt to a new world.

  8. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Exactly! Well said!

    Daniel:
    The Dunning-Kruger effect rears it’s head in a lot of circumstances similar to birtherism.

    It’s what prompts Creationists with high school education, for instance, to claim that they are right, and that they know moreabout biology, geology, and physics than all the biologists, geologists, and astrophysicists, combined.

  9. avatar
    JPotter January 9, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    Well, lazy me finally went looking, and while there is plenty of anti-Mormon ranting out there, along with anti-anti-Mormon ranting, not much polling. The best is old reliable, Gallup:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx

    22% are “hesitant” to vote for a Mormon, even if qualified and nominated by their party of choice.

    But hey, they still beating out gays/lesbians, who racked up a 32% hesitancy rating, and blew away America’s least favorite minority, atheists. 49% hesitant to support an atheist. Not much free thought in the land of the free 🙁

    Still, no one asking the question I’m interested in … if it comes down to choosing the lesser of two “evils” …. which way will you go? Hold your nose, or stay on the couch?

  10. avatar
    Woodrowfan January 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    “And Rick Santorum’s father was born in Italy.”

    Italy used to have a law that stated that the sons* of anyone born to an Italian immigrant were themselves Italian citizens. I do not know when (or if) this was changed, but it lead to a number of headaches for the US State Department from 1915-1917. You’d have an American citizen, born in the US, back in the old country visiting the grandparents , cousins, etc, when suddenly they get drafted for the Italian army. In at least one case the US citizen was returned home by the Austrians after he was captured by the AH military.

    And yes, in the Godfather movies, that would have made Michael, Fredo and Sonny Italian citizens.

    * it may have said children, but every case I saw involved a boy born in the US to an Italian immigrant father.

  11. avatar
    JPotter January 9, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    After a little more browsing and thought, it’s clear (in my mind at least), yes, there remains a sizable anti-Mormon sentiment here. However, the controlling factor for most is ideology. A liberal isn’t likely to vote for a conservative because the liberal is black. An evangelical isn’t voting for a liberal because the conservative is something other than Protestant.

    No doubt there will be a few attempts to birf’ against Mitt. Birtherism is ultimately tied to conservatism, and any anti-Romney birthin’ will have its roots in anti-Mormonism, just as the Rubio crap was race-based, not driven by any sincere concern for a constitutional matter. Birtherism is fear of the other, and to some people, those guys are others.

    There was a note exploring the preferences of black Mormon when choosing between Obama and Romney. It was inconclusive. (Yes, there are black Mormons, and have been since the beginnings of Mormonism).

    Now I am wondering about all the truly underrepresented chimeras in American politics …. liberal racists and what not. Who do they vote for?

  12. avatar
    Tarrant January 9, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    I don’t really believe the Dunning-Kruger effect is much in play here. I think we all know people that, for example, think they know how to fix their car, and make it worse, or think they know about electronics, and fry things. Or perhaps at work, the person who thinks they’re more of an expert than they are, and their designs never work quite right. Or, even more common, knew a guy in college who thought he was really smooth with the ladies but was actually comically bad.

    But I’d say what we see with respect to birthers is closer to 1984’s blackwhite, crimestop and doublethink.

    It’s not that the birthers know only a little about the law and therefore don’t understand it. They don’t WANT to understand it. Their position isn’t based on some limited knowledge of law or government, their position is based on the fact that they will accept practically any reasoning, even contradictory reasoning, and continually change that reasoning if need be, that results in President Obama not being eligible. Hence saying he should release a birth certificate, then saying if only he’d release that long form, then kindergarten records, but everything’s forged, etc.

    They don’t want to simply oppose him as President because in their minds the first step to opposing him is having to admit he’s President in the first place, and they cannot accept that. And for many it goes beyond even that, not being willing to accept anything the man puts forward as legitimate because somewhere in their mind they feel like accepting anything at all – even simply the name of his father – as being the truth means they’re agreeing with him.

    On the Fogbow someone today pointed out that one of the birthers that filed a case in I think Alabama (not Hendershot, whose case was dismissed today), also filed one in 2008-2009 to prevent the certification of the electoral votes. The case then said in plain English that to be a NBC one had to be born on US soil, and President Obama was not. The case now says that he was born on US soil but he didn’t have two citizen parents. Another hilarious post on I think ORYR today mentioned that the “massive fraud” goes back a century, because not only Barack Obama, but Chester Arthur, but also people like George Romney who were allowed to run by the corrupt government – it listed perhaps half a dozen people. And rather than consider that perhaps the fact that all these people could run and in some cases were elected means they might be wrong, they prefer to profess a 100-year-long secret conspiracy that exists for…who knows what reason.

    The moral of the story is that when it comes to the birthers, the goalposts will move anywhere they need to go to ensure that they do not need to accept him as the President of the United States. It is not a lack of knowledge leading to a false sense of competence, it’s a willful disbelief by dint of being unable to accept the reality – that Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.

  13. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Tarrant: On the Fogbow someone today pointed out that one of the birthers that filed a case in I think Alabama (not Hendershot, whose case was dismissed today), also filed one in 2008-2009 to prevent the certification of the electoral votes. The case then said in plain English that to be a NBC one had to be born on US soil, and President Obama was not. The case now says that he was born on US soil but he didn’t have two citizen parents. Another hilarious post on I think ORYR today mentioned that the “massive fraud” goes back a century, because not only Barack Obama, but Chester Arthur, but also people like George Romney who were allowed to run by the corrupt government – it listed perhaps half a dozen people. And rather than consider that perhaps the fact that all these people could run and in some cases were elected means they might be wrong, they prefer to profess a 100-year-long secret conspiracy that exists for…who knows what reason.

    Patrick at Bad Fiction just covered that too:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2012/01/dispatches-from-birtherstan-7-9-january-2012.html#comments

    9 January – And sure enough yet another lawsuit shows up to continue the Alabama Birther Ballot Jihad, this one by Harold Sorensen.

    Harold Sorensen is somewhat familiar to me. Last week he was the one who wrote the letter that the Pest and eFail published warning the Alabama Republican Party that they better not nominate Bobby Jindal or Mario Rubio, lest they incur de Vattel’s jealous wrath. And last month he had a rally the troops birther blather there as well.

    He also shows up in Tesibria’s Birther Scorecard(PDF), having filed a complaint (PDF) on 4 Dec. 2008, (Case CV-08-1906-2008), “Sorensen v Riley”, against Alabama Governor Bob Riley, the DNC, the RNC, Barack Obama, and John McCain. The complaint was based around the idea that Obama and McCain, then being US Senators, were somehow ineligible to be President. and that neither were “Natural Born” citizens.

    “The new suit, filed today in Jefferson County Circuit Court by Harold Sorensen of Luverne, also contends Obama is ineligible to serve as president and should be barred from Alabama ballots.

    “In 2008, the (Democratic National Committee) certified an ineligible candidate, Barack Obama, and thus defrauded the American people,” Sorenson wrote in his lawsuit. “This was a violation of the basic voter’s rights and Obama’s subsequent usurpation constitutes the greatest crime ever perpetrated against the American people.”

    Civil cases are randomly assigned, and Sorenson’s suit wound up with the same judge who this morning dismissed a suit by Albert E. Hendershot.”

    Oh dear. *chuckle*

    And a warning:

    “Another similar suit also was filed today in St. Clair County.

    “This is nothing short of judge shopping,” Ragsdale said in response to the new suits. “Sometimes you have to teach people that ‘no’ means ‘no.’ We will definitely be seeking sanctions and attorney’s fees from these other plaintiffs if they refuse to dismiss their frivolous lawsuits.” ”

    BTW, there’s a funny part of Sorensen’s 2008 case.

    “11. To be “natural born” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person seeking such recognition must have exited his mother’s womb, or otherwise been removed there from, within the judicial or territorial power of anyone of the 50 States of the United States of America and there will be no exceptions regarding this Complaint.”

    Wow. I thought it was a matter of known fact among the birthers that EVERYONE was taught in school de Vattel’s sacred definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

    However, in his brand new case (PDF), we have:

    “6. It is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge Candidate Obama has never denied the fact that his father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor has he ever made any statements contrary to this filet. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersetl did go on to state that other subcategories of people mayor may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” ld The Happtersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See ld At 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding. Because it is undisputed that Candidate Obama can never be a natural-bom citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, Candidate Obama cannot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

    I think this is one of the better examples of birthers “moving the goalposts” In December of 2008, it was claimed that “Natural Born” meant “born on US soil”. By January of 2012, the SAME PERSON is claiming that no, it’s two US citizen parents, obviously.

    The entire document is 41 pages. Most of which is Linda Jordan’s admission she broke the law, Douglas Vogt’s pile o’ poo, Susan Daniels “research”, and the proof Greg Hollister broke the law. Wonder if anyone should mention to Mr. Ragsdale that some of the information Sorensen is providing was obtained illegally…..

  14. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    I appreciate your assessment and arguments. I agree with what you describe is happening.

    However, I disagree that the D-K effect is not ALSO a factor at play with many of these fools. We’ve seen a number of cases where it clearly seems to be an ADDITIONAL factor in their flawed reasoning and also their inability to grasp how ignorant they come across in their arguments.

    Your points of what else is strongly at play here are well taken. However, you need to be careful to not fall into the simplistic binary thought approach of thinking that *only* one thing or the other fully explains all of what is going on. Reality rarely works that way and it is unwise to be dismissive of one apparent factor in the mix, simply because you feel that one of the other factors has a stronger impact. Simply put, there are a number of different psychological failed-reasoning effects that are on display amongst these ODS sufferers and their actions. They all factor into the full-picture of what is happening here.

    Tarrant: I don’t really believe the Dunning-Kruger effect is much in play here. I think we all know people that, for example, think they know how to fix their car, and make it worse, or think they know about electronics, and fry things. Or perhaps at work, the person who thinks they’re more of an expert than they are, and their designs never work quite right. Or, even more common, knew a guy in college who thought he was really smooth with the ladies but was actually comically bad.

    Tarrant: The moral of the story is that when it comes to the birthers, the goalposts will move anywhere they need to go to ensure that they do not need to accept him as the President of the United States. It is not a lack of knowledge leading to a false sense of competence, it’s a willful disbelief by dint of being unable to accept the reality – that Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.

  15. avatar
    Tarrant January 9, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    I agree that for some of them there are many factors at play – for example, Orly Taitz I believe is a classic D-K. Yes, she hates the President, but she clearly believes she is a good lawyer, better than she actually is, and that it’s the system keeping her down rather than her inability. She is not moving the goalposts at all from case to case.

    I’m not dismissing the D-K rationale, more stating that I believe that it’s more than just a lack of education on the law and/or facts that is causing the birther “problem” – many studies have shown that D-K “issues” can sometimes be resolved when the people at hand are given an education on the issue, enough so that they realize they actually didn’t have the expertise they thought they had. In this case, while that may be true, the people we’ve seen here, and on other sites, don’t want that education.

    This is compounded, of course, by the people involved that IMO, are in it for the money, or attention, but aren’t really “true believers”, but are happy to spread the “education” and “facts” acting as authorities when they themselves may not believe it at all (or may not care one way or the other). The Corsis, the Farahs…I’d throw Donofrio in there too, as I believe from his other writings that he doesn’t actually think that Minor holds over, say WKA, but it gets him a lot of attention to continue saying so (the fact that he’s happy to put on his blog all this stuff, but unwilling to actually sit in court and put forth such an argument, also says to me that he isn’t really willing to put his money – and law license – where his mouth is).

    In any case, I guess I’m saying I agree.

  16. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Yeah, me too. Thanks for the additional clarifications. I now understand what you are saying and how you mean to apply it. Those were excellent and very valid points you have made.

    I completely agree. Well said & thanks for the excellent analyis and breakdown.

    Tarrant: In any case, I guess I’m saying I agree.

  17. avatar
    Sally HIll January 10, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    Scientist:
    And Rick Santorum’s father was born in Italy.Even if he naturalized before Rick was born (and I don’t knowwhether he did), it’s highly likely he did not renounce Italian citizenship at the Italian consulate or embassy.Therefore, Sen Santorum was almost certainly born a dual US-Italian citizen.The dual ciitizen birthers will have to reject him.And of course there’s Marco Rubio.

    The birthers may well have to stay home on election day.

    Kudos on getting it somewhat correct. Santorum’s father was actually granted citizenship based on his military service long before Rick’s birth in 1958 on US soil, to a US Citizen mother and a US Naturalized Citizen father, making him a Natural Born Citizen. He was not born with dual citizenship.

    Personally, I’m not too wild about Santorum and would not have been too upset had he not been eligible and kicked off the ballot.

  18. avatar
    nbc January 10, 2012 at 12:29 am #

    Sally HIll: He was not born with dual citizenship.

    Did Santorum’s father abandon his dual citizenship? If not then his son would be guided by the laws of Italy as well.

    So do you know if he renounced his italian citizenship?

  19. avatar
    James M January 10, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    J. Potter: Having listened to many preachers rail against those nice young men traveling 2 by 2 in their pretty white shirts, I’d be interested to find any polling on the current level of anti-Mormon bias.

    I’d be very interested in where you have to be and what company you have to keep to have this experience.

  20. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    Of course, he and Rubio and Jinal are all eligible to run, because the “2 citizen parent” nonsense is just a myth and one only created within the last 3 years.

    I may strongly disagree with many of the views and policy positions of Rick Santorum, but I respect that he is honest and open about his positions and at least tries to make a reasoned case for them. I much prefer a sincere politician like him or Ron Paul, where I can respectfully agree to disagree than shameless panderers like Romney. Who knows what that guy stands for at all. Newt and Perry have way to much dishonesty for my tastes as well.

    Of course, as an Independent, if I was looking to participate in the GOP Primaries, the candidate I would likely support is Huntsman. He seems both fairly honest in his views and his positions are the most reasonable to me.

    Sally HIll: Kudos on getting it somewhat correct. Santorum’s father was actually granted citizenship based on his military service long before Rick’s birth in 1958 on US soil, to a US Citizen mother and a US Naturalized Citizen father, making him a Natural Born Citizen. He was not born with dual citizenship.
    Personally, I’m not too wild about Santorum and would not have been too upset had he not been eligible and kicked off the ballot.

  21. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    Or perhaps Buddy Roemer.

    Roemer is the only one who’s about tackling the true source of corruption in our system – the whole structure of how we finance elections and allow too much “big moneyed” special interest influence. In terms of every being able to address and mitigate the systemic problems in our politics, his ideas are the only ones that go to the heart of the true problem and our politics and leglislation will always remain strongly compromised and watered down until those systemic issues can be rectified.

    G: Of course, as an Independent, if I was looking to participate in the GOP Primaries, the candidate I would likely support is Huntsman. He seems both fairly honest in his views and his positions are the most reasonable to me.

  22. avatar
    Lupin January 10, 2012 at 4:16 am #

    In case Vattel rears its head again, I thought I’d provide a short brief on how to use the French “particule” (“de”, “du”, “d'”, etc). I recently edited an anthology which contains a remarkable proto-SF story by Emerich de Vattel and I had to research the matter.

    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/nemoville.htm

    The particule de is used only when the last name is preceded by a first name or a title :
    Emerich de Vattel
    Jean de La Fontaine
    le marquis de Sade
    Madame de Sévigné
    ma cousine de Maintenon
    When the last name is used alone, the particule is not kept :
    Vattel
    La Fontaine
    Richelieu
    Montherlant
    Same in the plural :
    Les Montherlant – not les de Montherlant
    However, d’ , Du ou Des are kept :
    Du Guesclin
    Des Cars
    Des Esseintes
    d’Alembert
    d’Hozier
    Exception : de is kept for monosyllabic last names (the final e being silent) :
    de Thou
    de Sèze
    de Lattre
    de Gaulle
    (Except for Sade which is an exception to the exception)
    de / d’ is not taken into account in alphabetic filing :
    de Sèze will be filed under S
    d’Alembert will be filed under A
    de et d’ are written in lower case :
    Raymond de Sèze
    Gérard d’Aboville
    Alfred de Musset
    Except when preceded by the preposition de (= of ) :
    les mémoires de Raymond de Sèze = les mémoires de De Sèze
    du and des are written in uppercase when not preceded by a first name/title :
    un roman de Guy des Cars = le romancier Des Cars
    la mort de Du Guesclin.

    Vattel being Swiss, I make no representation on how the usage might differ there.

  23. avatar
    Keith January 10, 2012 at 6:41 am #

    Lupin: Vattel being Swiss, I make no representation on how the usage might differ there.

    That’s a weak cop out, if you ask me. 😉

  24. avatar
    Keith January 10, 2012 at 6:42 am #

    And they say English has a lot of silly exceptions and variants. Sheesh.

  25. avatar
    Lupin January 10, 2012 at 6:50 am #

    Keith:
    And they say English has a lot of silly exceptions and variants. Sheesh.

    While its phonetics are somewhat odd (e.g.: Beauchamps pronounced Bitchum), English is a marvelously clear and concise language. A long time ago at university, as part of school project, I wrote a fortran program that composed automatic writing in English that was grammatically correct and (mostly) made sense. You could never do that with French — not on an IBM 1130 with punched cards anyway.

  26. avatar
    Majority Will January 10, 2012 at 6:50 am #

    Sally HIll: Kudos on getting it somewhat correct.Santorum’s father was actually granted citizenship based on his military service long before Rick’s birth in 1958 on US soil, to a US Citizen mother and a US Naturalized Citizen father, making him a Natural Born Citizen.He was not born with dual citizenship.

    Personally, I’m not too wild about Santorum and would not have been too upset had he not been eligible and kicked off the ballot.

    Verifiable and credible source (hint: not an anonymous birther blog) ?

    You’ve been known to lie too many times to count.

  27. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    Sally HIll: Kudos on getting it somewhat correct. Santorum’s father was actually granted citizenship based on his military service long before Rick’s birth in 1958 on US soil, to a US Citizen mother and a US Naturalized Citizen father, making him a Natural Born Citizen. He was not born with dual citizenship.
    Personally, I’m not too wild about Santorum and would not have been too upset had he not been eligible and kicked off the ballot.

    But, my dear Sally, what the US does has no force in Italy. Unless Santorum Sr went to a representative of the Italian government and officially renounced his citizenship, he remained an Italian citiizen (though also a US citizen). And thus, under Itallian law, Rick was born an itallian citizen and is one today unless he renounced it himself. This is the shocking, scandalous truth that Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio, for obvious personal reasons, have failed to tell you. But now i did.

  28. avatar
    The Magic M January 10, 2012 at 7:58 am #

    Lupin: While its phonetics are somewhat odd (e.g.: Beauchamps pronounced Bitchum)

    Watching True Blood, it took me a while to understand that “bun ton” was actually “Bontemps”. 😉

  29. avatar
    JPotter January 10, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    James M: I’d be very interested in where you have to be and what company you have to keep to have this experience.

    Have attended services at numerous small pentecostal, AOG, and baptist churches, late 80s through late 90s, in small towns in OK, AR, KS. Company kept was the upstanding local citizenry. Can provide more exact dates and addresses, if you like. Racial prejudice was also common, but very hush-hush. Movies, dancing, rock’n’roll were preached against. On one occasion, soda pop was denounced as unholy. Muslims had not yet come to prominence in the local consciousness yet. Homosexuality was considered so indecent, it didn’t get many mentions.

  30. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 11:00 am #

    I forgot to mention television and most books other than the bible. And Jehovah’s witnesses, yikes. Oh, and video games. Like portals to hell they were!

    It all falls under the umbrella of old-school “holiness”, sort of a nostalgia-based modern ascetism/discrimination 2-for-1.

    But looking back, it is more a groupthink tough-talk session. Television is evil, but everyone has one. The sermons are absorbed, heads nod, amens murmured, but not much action taken. For instance, if Mormons were actually present, they would be at worst ignored, maybe talked about later, certainly not jailed and shot.

    It’s the kind of thinking/feeling that would be enough to make a voter wish for an alternative, but not drive them to violence like in the “good old days”. Even that nut up in Kansas is ultimately, a non-confrontational coward.

    The evangelical community is split for now … some high profile calls to find and support an alternative to Romney, and some urging support of Romney. Believe me, they won’t be going Obama!

  31. avatar
    misha January 10, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    “CT’s theory is that George Romney (Mitt’s father) was born in Mexico (that much is true) but that his parents had given up their US citizenship.”

    George Romney was born into a polygamist family, which is why his parents lived in Mexico. We really don’t know who George Romney’s mother is.

    It is my most fervent wish that this haunts him.

    George Romney had his revenge: Rambler. We had a Rambler American. It actually had vacuum powered windshield wipers.

  32. avatar
    Lucas D. Smith January 11, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    I think that I will vomit if Mitt Romney becomes our next President.

    Btw, Doc, back in 2007 I used to work with a lot of people who suffered from both pseudocompetence and the Dunning-Kruger effect and I finally had to put my two weeks notice and forget about the job and the people that worked there.

    On a more positive note…..I have published two new and illuminating blog reports at the WOBIK Blog!

    Scans of every page of Kenya’s tangible newspaper, “The Standard”. Wednesday, January 21, 2009. Mr President Barack Obama.

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/scans-of-every-page-of-kenyas-tangible-newspaper-the-standard-wednesday-january-21-2009-mr-president-barack-obama/

    It DOES matter greatly that OBAMA was born in KENYA!

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/it-does-matter-greatly-that-obama-was-born-in-kenya/

    Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below the blog report. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so!

    Thank you!

    Lucas D. Smith
    319-804-0440