Main Menu

The relevance of the “natural born citizen” clause

I made a comment on another article, saying:

Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant as our form or government is no longer novel, and that the US is now a powerful and wealthy nation. That said, I see no groundswell of sentiment that would reach the high bar necessary for a Constitutional amendment, so we’re left with what we have.

Commenters at The Free Republic seemed to think my remark was significant, and also somewhat misrepresented what I said. Let me dismiss out of hand part of the Free Republic’s beef:

What you just read is the mindset of a (sic) Obama supporter. I do not agree with his opinion, nor with his other supporters who agree with him 100%, that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is no longer relevant. In my opinion, it has become more relevant than ever since we have had a non-natural born Citizen become president five (sic) years and counting.

Barack Obama is no more ineligible under the Constitution than he has been president for five years.

I wrote an article a while back, titled The Framers on “foreign influence,” in which I talked about the debates on eligibility for office at the Federal Convention of 1787. It is clear to me that there was a strong feeling among the delegates that they wanted to preserve liberty for their posterity, and that they wanted to preserve the constitutional form of government, and that they did not want to slide into monarchy. They wanted a President who understood the (at that time) uniquely American form of government. They knew all too well the intrigues of European politics, and wanted to keep that out of the new United States. They were afraid that some monied European interest could bribe their way into office in the United States.

Today, there are other constitutional republics in the world, and commitment to that form of government is not unique to Americans. I think that today the risk of money influencing a presidential election is far greater from America than from a foreign source. And today, the information available to the electorate is totally unlike what was available to voters in 1789, and foreign campaign contributions today are illegal. What I am saying here is that the specific concerns from the mouths of the Framers are not applicable, not relevant to the present day. We have new concerns, and new problems. It is certainly possible that those Framers, presented with a different set of conditions, might have proposed a different eligibility requirement.

It may be that the character of Americans today is such that it is properly represented only by a natural born citizen. Whether that is true or not, I can’t imagine Article II being amended in my lifetime,  and so our Presidents will be natural born citizens. The United States being a nation of laws is a far more important principle than argument about relevance. If the Constitution needs change, we can amend it, but we do not ignore it. Since the natural born citizen clause is law, it is relevant.

180 Responses to The relevance of the “natural born citizen” clause

  1. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 11:12 am #

    ” I think that today the risk of money influencing a presidential election is far greater from America than from a foreign source.”

    But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

  2. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    > I can’t imagine Article II being amended in my lifetime

    Who knows? If NBC birtherism keeps being wrongly applied to candidates of both parties on larger scales than about Obama (cf. my comment about potential Cruz birthers who might consider foreign-born incompatible with NBC), it’s possible a bi-partisan initiative would amend the Constitution – not to (effectively) change the meaning of NBC but to clarify the definition.
    Just like I learned the 14th had mostly declaratory value and didn’t create “new rights”, the potential 28th may be a declaratory amendment clearly spelling out what legal experts consider to be the meaning of NBC.

    If OTOH birtherism will die out as a generic movement, again, who knows. The desire to have Schwarzenegger run for President was what motivated attempts to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run. Who knows if some 20 years from now (and I expect you to still be alive then :)), both major parties have presidential hopefuls who just have the problem to be naturalized citizens? Especially if said naturalization happened very early in their life (e.g. as small children when their parents naturalized), I wouldn’t expect any significant extraparliamentary opposition.

    As you stated, this is no longer the time of “foreign agents sneaking in”, not with the kind of vetting by the media and the political opponents. I don’t think anyone would’ve objected to Schwarzenegger becoming President by claiming he has allegiance to Austria and wants to destroy the country as revenge for defeating the Nazis in WW2.

  3. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    Serpico:

    But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

    Another easily debunked smear.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp

  4. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    Rickey: Another easily debunked smear.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp

    Snopes is not reliable. They have been proven wrong time and again.

  5. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 28, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    Serpico: Snopes is not reliable. They have been proven wrong time and again.

    Examples?

  6. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    Serpico: Snopes is not reliable. They have been proven wrong time and again.

    I’m from Missouri, so “show me”!
    When someone debunks you, and cites a source. You don’t get to go “Well, that’s not true!” without citing a source of your own.
    And seeing as your claim is that Snopes has been “proven wrong time and time again”, I will require several sources from you.
    Now put up or shut up!

  7. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 28, 2013 at 11:52 am #

    Serpico: Snopes is not reliable.

    I tried to add this question to my other question but the edit time ran out:

    Are you saying that Maureen Dowd actually wrote the piece in question? If so…..can you direct us to proof of that?

  8. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I’m from Missouri, so “show me”!
    When someone debunks you, and cites a source. You don’t get to go “Well, that’s not true!” without citing a source of your own.
    And seeing as your claim is that Snopes has been “proven wrong time and time again”, I will require several sources from you.
    Now put up or shut up!

    They originally had Obama’s birth hospital wrong proving they are not authoritative on stating facts. They originally had it as Queens Medical Center.
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQueens.bmp

    There are many other cases where Snopes has been wrong before. Google it and you will get your answers.

  9. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    Serpico: Snopes is not reliable. They have been proven wrong time and again.

    That’s a load of b*ll. When Snopes is wrong or incomplete, they immediately amend and/or correct their articles. Sometimes to the point of splitting hairs.

    Therefore what is on Snopes is *extremely* reliable and usually the last word on the topic.

    If you truly believe what you wrote above, you’re totally delusional.

  10. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    I know Americans like to pretend that their country is a Nation of Laws, but in the practice, it often is not. In my experience, of course.

  11. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

    Serpico: They originally had Obama’s birth hospital wrong proving they are not authoritative on stating facts. They originally had it as Queens Medical Center.

    And they corrected it right away. QED.

  12. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    Serpico: But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

    Leaving aside the rubbishy nature of your claim, I am surprised people like you never protested the enormous influence held by the Saudi Oil lobby over the Bush White house.

    Based on actual decisions taken these past 4 years, I fail to see where exactly your President appears to have been unduly influenced by some foreign entity. With Bush, it was pretty much the dog that barked in the night.

    But then, your racist agenda only targets Obama for whatever imagined evils you think he is guilty of.

  13. avatar
    donna March 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    Serpico:

    you and other birthers use the “obamafile” as your “credible” source

    the website “cherry-picks” their articles and issues the disclaimer: “Ultimately, THE READER MUST DECIDE WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE FACTUAL”

  14. avatar
    sfjeff March 28, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    Serpico: ” I think that today the risk of money influencing a presidential election is far greater from America than from a foreign source.”But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

    The easy answer is no.

    The more complete answer is- why do you think that Obama had illegally contributed foreign money in the 2008 election- what is the source that prompts you to ask that question?

    You reject Snopes but provide no source at all. Until you can provide a contradictory source, Snopes is the only substantiation we have- and it says No.

  15. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    Lupin: I am surprised people like you never protested the enormous influence held by the Saudi Oil lobby over the Bush White house.

    But then, your racist agenda only targets Obama for whatever imagined evils you think he is guilty of.

    How do you know what I did or did not protest when it came to Bush? And why do you claim I have a racist agenda. What is your proof?

  16. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

    Serpico: They originally had Obama’s birth hospital wrong proving they are not authoritative on stating facts. They originally had it as Queens Medical Center.
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQueens.bmp

    There are many other cases where Snopes has been wrong before. Google it and you will get your answers.

    You can’t read very well, can you?
    I asked for multiple sources, and you sent me to a single birther site, with an image capture of a story, which Snopes had since corrected. The fact that Snopes corrects any discrepancies on their stories, makes them reliable.

    You’re going to have to do better than a corrected flub. And no more birther sites. That’s like asking a vegan their opinion on where to get a good steak.

    Back up your claims, or don’t bother replying. You ain’t worth my time.

  17. avatar
    Greenfinches March 28, 2013 at 12:40 pm #

    serpico : Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

    ok any evidence of any of this you disgrace to the name of a policeman you; what money and what kind of sources? And what requests were made by the public – and when? Did the FEC have any concerns?

  18. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    Serpico: How do you know what I did or did not protest when it came to Bush? And why do you claim I have a racist agenda. What is your proof?

    What is your proof that Obama has been influenced by foreign money? US foreign policy under Obama has been pretty much unchanged from that over the last 60 years as far as I can see. What specifics can you cite?

    Does Ted Cruz support the Keystone pipeline? Is that because he was born not just in Canada, but in Alberta. Is he Stephen Harper’s lackey? Of is it just because he is a right-wing climate science-denying Texan who would support the pipeline if he had been born in Houston?

  19. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 28, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    Serpico: They originally had Obama’s birth hospital wrong proving they are not authoritative on stating facts. They originally had it as Queens Medical Center.
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQueens.bmp

    There are many other cases where Snopes has been wrong before. Google it and you will get your answers.

    They, of course, corrected the mistake, right? Is it your position that any source that makes a mistake (even if corrected) is totally unreliable?

    If so can you point me to a person, website, news source, etc., that has been absolutely correct, 100% of the time, on everything they have said?

  20. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    Serpico:
    ” I think that today the risk of money influencing a presidential election is far greater from America than from a foreign source.”

    But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

    How many millions of dollars has Romney paid in foreign taxes since 2000?
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-has-paid-over-2-million-in-foreign-taxes-s?s=mobile

    And how much did Romney make from foreign investments?

    “Mitt Romney accumulated more than $25 million in foreign income between 2005 and 2010, while he was governor of Massachusetts and a presidential candidate, according to an analysis of his 2010 tax return.”

    How many millions does Romney hide in offshore accounts to avoid paying U.S. taxes?

    Why was Romney afraid to release all of his tax returns like the President?

  21. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    sfjeff: The easy answer is no.

    The more complete answer is- why do you think that Obama had illegally contributed foreign money in the 2008 election- what is the source that prompts you to ask that question?

    You reject Snopes but provide no source at all. Until you can provide a contradictory source, Snopes is the only substantiation we have- and it says No.

    Here is an example:

    Breitbart.com captured some disturbing screen shots from Obama.com, including an email written from a Canadian woman admitting to an illegal donation in 2008: “I had donated to the original campaign and will again,” she writes. “I would also give my vote but alas I am a Canadian but am a staunch supporter of the Obama-Biden Team.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/09/Obama-Supporter-Brags-About-Illegal-Online-Donations-on-His-Own-Website

    Obama Campaign Rakes In Millions In Illegal Foreign Cash

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100812-628607-obama-campaign-raises-illegal-cash-overseas.htm#ixzz2OqzXgDCP
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    Group Warns of Foreign, Fraudulent Donors to Obama Campaign

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/group-warns-of-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

  22. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    Serpico: How do you know what I did or did not protest when it came to Bush?

    Please send us a link to any anti-Bush postings, articles, etc you may have written at the time.

    e,g. you can still find my posts on billmon’s or dkos as early as 2002 archived on the net; I’d love to see yours.

  23. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Majority Will: How many millions of dollars has Romney paid in foreign taxes since 2000?
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-has-paid-over-2-million-in-foreign-taxes-s?s=mobile

    And how much did Romney make from foreign investments?

    “Mitt Romney accumulated more than $25 million in foreign income between 2005 and 2010, while he was governor of Massachusetts and a presidential candidate, according to an analysis of his 2010 tax return.”

    How many millions does Romney hide in offshore accounts to avoid paying U.S. taxes?

    Why was Romney afraid to release all of his tax returns like the President?

    We are not talking about Mitt. We are talking about Obama and his foreign contributions. Do not deviate from the subject at hand.

  24. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:49 pm #

    Serpico: And why do you claim I have a racist agenda. What is your proof?

    I think your posts speak for themselves. “Presidenting while black” appears to be your main if not only objection of substance to Obama. That you don’t see it is even more of an indictment.

  25. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    CarlOrcas: They, of course, corrected the mistake, right? Is it your position that any source that makes a mistake (even if corrected) is totally unreliable?

    If so can you point me to a person, website, news source, etc., that has been absolutely correct, 100% of the time, on everything they have said?

    I pointed out that Snopes has been wrong. I was correct in my assessment. I have proved they are not reliable and not to be taken for granted on any subject matter as a authoritative entity.

  26. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    Lupin: I think your posts speak for themselves. “Presidenting while black” appears to be your main if not only objection of substance to Obama. That you don’t see it is even more of an indictment.

    Again, show me a specific example.

  27. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    Serpico: I pointed out that Snopes has been wrong. I was correct in my assessment. I have proved they are not reliable and are not to be taken for granted on any subject matter as a authoritative entity.

    You have done no such thing. All media make the occasional mistake. What matters is if they issue a correction promptly when confronted with the evidence.

    Snopes is very reliable because if anyone catches a mistake, they will investigate it and, if necessary, amend their article accordingly.

    There has been no mistakes in the article regarding Obama’s foreign coitributions.

    I note that all the linked articles you provided yourself do not actually evidence any wrongdoing or massive amounts of foreign money going into the O campaign — they “warn” of the “possibility” of such things, but that’s it.

    In other words they slander or scream wolf. But in the end they provide no evidence whatsoever.

  28. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

    Serpico: Breitbart.com captured some disturbing screen shots from Obama.com, including an email written from a Canadian woman admitting to an illegal donation in 2008: “I had donated to the original campaign and will again,” she writes. “I would also give my vote but alas I am a Canadian but am a staunch supporter of the Obama-Biden Team.”

    All campaigns have received such contributions. They screen them and return them when they find them.

    You need to show that the Obama campaign knowingly solicited and accepted such donations and acted differently from any other campaign. Otherwise, what do you have?

  29. avatar
    Lupin March 28, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

    Serpico: Again, show me a specific example.

    Obviously any shenanigans are OK with you except if the Prez is blackety blackety black. Then the pitchforks come out. There’s a word for that. Oh, yes: racist.

  30. avatar
    Greenfinches March 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    Serpico: Here is an example:

    lotsa allegations from non-neutral sources like Breitbart – mud being slung in the hope that something sticks. Comments about Canadians who may or may not have actually donated; and about websites which favour Obama and which work with China. Wow, a smoking gun?.. with not even blanks for ammunition.

    And yes, I got requests for money from Obama in 2012 – and I am not eligible to donate. Proves your point? No way, as guess what, I didn’t donate!

    You appear to have nothing but an allergy to Obama. Let’s hope for a speedy recovery.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

    Serpico: We are not talking about Mitt. We are talking about Obama and his foreign contributions. Do not deviate from the subject at hand.

    Just pointing out that that you’re a troll, a bigot and a partisan hypocrite.

    And I’ll do what I want as long as the host and owner of this blog approves.

  32. avatar
    American Mzungu March 28, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Serpico: I pointed out that Snopes has been wrong. I was correct in my assessment. I have proved they are not reliable and not to be taken for granted on any subject matter as a authoritative entity.

    You certainly set a high bar if a source is deemed unreliable because they made a mistake and then corrected it. What sources do you find reliable and authoritative, and what is the basis for your evaluation?

  33. avatar
    OReaLY Factor March 28, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    Of course when multipl sites independently check and confirm that the story is a fable

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_funds.htm

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/08/chain-email/fake-column-spreads-unfounded-claims/

    http://factcheck.org/2008/07/fraudulent-column-casts-doubt-on-obamas-funding/

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

    Then I’m sure Mr Playdetective claims they have all been proven wrong numerous times … With no support for that claim either

  34. avatar
    misha marinsky March 28, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    Serpico: Breitbart.com captured some disturbing screen shots from Obama.com,

    Like this with the Saudi “king”?

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JIxtZ0JeqqU/TTevci_KLjI/AAAAAAAAA-E/t_KohiXOfN0/s1600/BushSaudiPrinceAbdullahHoldingHands.jpg

    Iraq was about oil – orchestrated by Cheney for his Halliburton cronies. And I detest evangelicals.

  35. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 28, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

    Not to mention that Obama.com isn’t actually owned by the Obama Campaign at any point. The Campaign website was barackobama.com.

    If you read the Snopes piece, Obama.com had no link to the campaign.

  36. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    Serpico: I pointed out that Snopes has been wrong. I was correct in my assessment. I have proved they are not reliable and not to be taken for granted on any subject matter as a authoritative entity.

    At this point I don’t believe anyone is disputing that Snopes appears to have been wrong about the birth hospital. The link you provided is short on context but for the sake of discussion I will say you were “correct in (your) assessment”.

    Beyond that you have proved nothing. They corrected the mistake. That’s what responsible, reliable people and organizations do when they make a mistake. And, of course, no one has said Snopes should be taken for “granted”.

    Now back to the questions I asked and you evaded:

    They, of course, corrected the mistake, right?

    Is it your position that any source that makes a mistake (even if corrected) is totally unreliable?

    If so can you point me to a person, website, news source, etc., that has been absolutely correct, 100% of the time, on everything they have said?

  37. avatar
    Dave B. March 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    As opposed to the impeccable source, so often proven right, from which comes this “huge flux of money from foreign sources” story of yours, I presume?

    Serpico: Snopes is not reliable. They have been proven wrong time and again.

  38. avatar
    Dave B. March 28, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    When I see “Google it”, I figure the argument is over.

    Serpico: Google it and you will get your answers.

  39. avatar
    Bob March 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

    Breaking News:

    Birthers still wetting their beds over typos.

  40. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 28, 2013 at 1:42 pm #

    Serpico: Here is an example:

    What exactly do you think the sites you linked to are “example(s)” of?

    Do you think you see proof of anything in what they say?

  41. avatar
    Andrew Morris March 28, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    The big issue in 2012 was a small group of multi-billionaires openly saying that they intended to buy the election for Romney. They failed – and lost their money – which is good, but for 2016 my guess is they’ll double down with even bigger ïnvestments”.

  42. avatar
    American Mzungu March 28, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

    Dave B.: When I see “Google it”, I figure the argument is over.

    I Googled “Snopes errors” to see what turned up. The top hit was a story by Factcheck looking at a charge that Snopes was biased. Not so, according to the Factcheck story.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

    Let me repeat my question to you, Serpico. What sources do you find reliable and authoritative, and what is the basis for your evaluation?

  43. avatar
    Gabe March 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    Serpico: We are not talking about Mitt. We are talking about Obama and his foreign contributions. Do not deviate from the subject at hand.
    Majority Will: Just pointing out that that you’re a troll, a bigot and a partisan hypocrite.

    And I’ll do what I want as long as the host and owner of this blog approves.

    Majority Will has a “Doctorate” in Spin, like many others posting on this blog having this “Doctorate ” they can, will and have deviated from any subject they want to. It is their job to Spin the Subject

  44. avatar
    misha marinsky March 28, 2013 at 2:06 pm #

    Andrew Morris: The big issue in 2012 was a small group of multi-billionaires openly saying that they intended to buy the election for Romney.

    Like that shonde Adelson.

  45. avatar
    Majority Will March 28, 2013 at 2:08 pm #

    Gabe: Majority Will has a “Doctorate” in Spin,like many others posting on this blog having this “Doctorate ” they can, will and have deviated from any subject they want to. It is their job to Spin the Subject

    Who pulled your string, Gabor?

  46. avatar
    misha marinsky March 28, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

    Gabe: It is their job to Spin the Subject

    Just like Svetlana Auerbach Orly Taitz.

  47. avatar
    donna March 28, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

    redstate TRIED to make a campaign donation to obama from a foreign mailing address, fraudulent passport and credit card – the donation was returned

    quickly reading the accounts in 2012, i found the similarity of GAO & GAI curious –

    GAO is the U.S. Government Accountability Office

    GAI is the Government Accountability Institute – GAI’s Chairman, Stephen Bannon, took over as executive chairman of Breitbart News and directed an anti-Obama movie released at the RNC by Citizens United. GAI President Peter Schweizer is a right-wing activist who advised Sarah Palin on foreign policy and worked as an editor for Breitbart News. The attorney hired by GAI to write their report, Ken Sukhia, shares an address with GAI, has “strong Republican ties,” and touts his work with Republicans on his own website.

    “the Obama campaign called the GAI report and its insinuations politically-motivated, citing a history of right-leaning political activism by authors Schweizer and the Government Accountability Institute.”

    “The blog states that ‘Obama for America’ does not accept contributions from foreign nationals and takes voluntary steps to ensure that the campaign is in compliance with federal election law. At the campaign’s Chicago headquarters, staff manually review each transaction flagged as potentially fraudulent by their third-party credit card processing service, officials wrote.”

    “The president’s campaign also requires a copy of a valid passport from any apparently eligible contributor with a foreign mailing address or from a contributor making a gift from a foreign IP address, according to the post. ‘If they do not offer one in a timely manner, the donation is returned,’ the campaign says.”

    Fact check: Obama for America only accepts contributions from eligible Americans

    http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/fact-check-obama-for-america-only-accepts-contributions-from-eligible-ameri

  48. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

    I was going to rip apart the links Serpico posted, but you guys have done a bang up job of it already! =D

  49. avatar
    ROBB March 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    I don’t understand the opposition to NBC, heck, if expand it to congress and the senate. I personally believe that only “true” Americans, as ethnocentric as that is, should hold the office. While I believe there are very qualified immigrants, when war comes, I want the person defending their home, family, and history.

    Of course, since most legal immigrants are more American (in behavior, desires, equality, and knowledge) than most NBCs, there are decent reasons to change it.

  50. avatar
    Serpico March 28, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    Lupin: Obviously any shenanigans are OK with you except if the Prez is blackety blackety black. Then the pitchforks come out. There’s a word for that. Oh, yes: racist.

    I have never mentioned anything about the presidents race. I asked you to give me an example of anything pertaining to his race. So far you have failed to do so.

  51. avatar
    Deborah March 28, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

    Dr. C, getting back to your original topic: the circumstances that created the Presidential eligibility requirement have changed… Some countries “dictate” your “citizenship” and you are not even allowed to choose otherwise. In the case of Obama, he had a “recognized American freedom of choice” between African citizenship or American citizenship. He chose American citizenship.

    According to Scientist, (from the thread prior to this one) Cruz would have had to make an actual renunciation of Canadian citizenship.

    Scientist March 28, 2013 at 1:22 pm (Quote) #

    sfjeff: There will be no serious campaign trying to paint Cruz as ‘other than American’- it just won’t happen.

    Unless he did this http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce.asp, he remains a Canadian citizen. Of course that doesn’t disqualify him to be US President, but it is a fact.

    Freedom of choice rather than being dictated to is what matters. Although, I don’t see why the birthers even care to get involved since the only point they are trying to prove is that the world is coming to an end.

  52. avatar
    misha marinsky March 28, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

    Serpico: I asked you to give me an example of anything pertaining to his race.

    Not a word out of you about Ted Cruz or Mark Rubio.

    I’ll be watching your ilk, when Corey Booker runs.

  53. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

    Serpico: I have never mentioned anything about the presidents race.I asked you to give me an example of anything pertaining to his race. So far you have failed to do so.

    Its more what you haven’t said. And lets face it, birtherism is lousy with racists, Islamaphobes, homophobes and other assorted bigots, who fear anyone who isn’t a WASP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant

    People are judged by the company they keep. If you regularly rub elbows with racists, get ready to be called one.

  54. avatar
    Deborah March 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

    “Natural born,” for me, conjures up images of a non-indoctrinated infant with a clean slate. “Citizen,” however, is an economic term- a city dweller.

    Is there such a thing at all as a natural born city dweller? I think not.

  55. avatar
    Sef March 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

    Deborah:
    “Natural born,” for me, conjures up images of a non-indoctrinated infant with a clean slate. “Citizen,” however, is an economic term- a city dweller.

    Is there such a thing at all as a natural born city dweller? I think not.

    Isn’t everyone born “pure as the driven snow” without all that indoctrination?

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    No. Foreign political contributions are illegal in the United States. The presidential candidates, including Obama, actively worked to filter these out, and any ones discovered were returned.

    Serpico: But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    You can recite that mantra of it helps keep the spooks away, sort of like whistling in the dark.

    Snopes, the Wikipedia, FactCheck.org and this web site are not infallible, but we all have mechanisms to correct our mistakes when they are pointed out. All have a commitment to accuracy that works well.

    I think it would be much more instructive for you to consider the veracity of the source of YOUR RUMORS than to attack well-respected debunking sites like Snopes.

    Serpico: Snopes is not reliable. They have been proven wrong time and again.

  58. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No. Foreign political contributions are illegal in the United States. The presidential candidates, including Obama, actively worked to filter these out, and any ones discovered were returned.

    Uh oh! You went and made it so he’s gonna have to move his goal posts again, Doc!

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

    Can you give any examples of where Snopes is STILL WRONG?

    Serpico: There are many other cases where Snopes has been wrong before. Google it and you will get your answers

  60. avatar
    SluggoJD March 28, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Serpico: They originally had Obama’s birth hospital wrong proving they are not authoritative on stating facts. They originally had it as Queens Medical Center.
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQueens.bmp

    There are many other cases where Snopes has been wrong before. Google it and you will get your answers.

    Get lost, loser.

    Using the Obama File as a source? LOLOL

    That guy lies more often than he blinks.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    It’s at the bottom of a locked drawer in the basement of the Library of Congress, next to your proof of foreign donations to the Obama campaign in 2008.

    I have had a vision of it.

    Serpico: How do you know what I did or did not protest when it came to Bush? And why do you claim I have a racist agenda. What is your proof?

  62. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    Nah Doc, I have a much more reliable source.
    The ghost who never lies…But I’m the only one who can see and hear him! 😉

  63. avatar
    SluggoJD March 28, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    Serpico: Here is an example:

    Breitbart.com captured some disturbing screen shots from Obama.com, including an email written from a Canadian woman admitting to an illegal donation in 2008: “I had donated to the original campaign and will again,” she writes. “I would also give my vote but alas I am a Canadian but am a staunch supporter of the Obama-Biden Team.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/09/Obama-Supporter-Brags-About-Illegal-Online-Donations-on-His-Own-Website

    Obama Campaign Rakes In Millions In Illegal Foreign Cash

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100812-628607-obama-campaign-raises-illegal-cash-overseas.htm#ixzz2OqzXgDCP
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    Group Warns of Foreign, Fraudulent Donors to Obama Campaign

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/group-warns-of-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

    Breitbart LOLOL, get the phuck outta here, loser!

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Your own article impeaches your claim.

    It says:

    Schweizer and Boyer present no hard data that show Obama’s 2012 campaign has benefited from widespread foreign or fraudulent donations. They also acknowledge that Republican nominee Mitt Romney could theoretically take advantage of the “loopholes,” as well. The report only purports to illustrate that the possibility for fraud exists.


    Serpico: Group Warns of Foreign, Fraudulent Donors to Obama Campaign

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/group-warns-of-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

  65. avatar
    SluggoJD March 28, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Greenfinches: lotsa allegations from non-neutral sources like Breitbart – mud being slung in the hope that something sticks.Comments about Canadians who may or may not have actually donated; and about websites which favour Obama and which work with China.Wow, a smoking gun?.. with not even blanks for ammunition.

    And yes, I got requests for money from Obama in 2012 – and I am not eligible to donate. Proves your point? No way, as guess what, I didn’t donate!

    You appear to have nothing but an allergy to Obama.Let’s hope for a speedy recovery.

    Screw that, I hope he sticks a dart up his eye.

    The guy is a racist piece of poop.

  66. avatar
    JD Reed March 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Serpico:
    ” I think that today the risk of money influencing a presidential election is far greater from America than from a foreign source.”

    But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?

    To answer your question in a word, NO. This was just like so many other ant-Obama rumors that Obamaphobes such as Serpico swallow so fast, it bypasses their taste buds.
    If the donors were never revealed, as you assert, then how do you know they were foreign?
    The reality-based community knows that you have oppo research combing every last cent of campaign finance reports, and we’d have heard from credible sources if there was “a huge flux” of contributions that were unaccounted for.

  67. avatar
    JD Reed March 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

    Serpico: I pointed out that Snopes has been wrong. I was correct in my assessment.I have proved they are not reliable and not to be taken for granted on any subject matter as a authoritative entity.

    Well, you’ve made a considerable number of errors posting here. so I suppose you’re unreliable if making even one mistake makes you unrealiable.
    What Snopes does is pointing out its sources, so you can double check them.
    Unlike you, they don’t usually glean their info from highly idealogical (and often questionable) sources.
    I haven’t bothered to check the Queens Hospital situation, but the original source of the error seems to have been a high school journalist who mistook something Obama’s sister said.

  68. avatar
    Northland10 March 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    Serpico: I have never mentioned anything about the presidents race.I asked you to give me an example of anything pertaining to his race. So far you have failed to do so.

    Let’s see:

    Serpico March 8, 2013 at 5:06 pm:So Obama’s citizenship actually would fall under the 14th Amendment correct?

    Later:

    Serpico March 9, 2013 at 11:38 am:Suranis:

    Does or does not the 14th amendment apply to white people?

    Serpico:
    Not by the original intent, no!.

    And finally:

    Serpico March 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm :Do you respect and believe in the founders ‘original intent’ of what type of person they wanted as a president for Article 2 Section 1 purposes?

    Interesting.

  69. avatar
    richCares March 28, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    “Your own article impeaches your claim. ”
    .
    Now that was funny!

  70. avatar
    richCares March 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

    “school journalist who mistook something Obama’s sister said.”
    actually there were 2 Queens Hospitals, they were often confused
    …Queen Emma’s Hospital – General Hospital
    …Queen Kapiolani’s Hospital – primarily Maternity
    .
    my daughter was born In Queen Kapiolani’s Hospital in 1965, her Aunt went to the wrong hospital to visit her new niece, a common error.

  71. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    JD Reed: To answer your question in a word, NO. This was just like so many other ant-Obama rumors that Obamaphobes such as Serpico swallow so fast, it bypasses their taste buds.
    If the donors were never revealed, as you assert, then how do you know they were foreign?
    The reality-based community knows thatyou have oppo research combing every last cent of campaign finance reports, and we’d have heard from credible sources if there was “a huge flux” of contributions that were unaccounted for.

    Precisely. If Obama’s campaign had received and kept donations from foreigners, the FEC would have investigated and the Republicans would have made an issue of it. But in fact these allegations were made by faux journalists such as Breitbart, who unlike Snopes have no compunction about publishing falsehoods and never correcting them.

  72. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

    Serpico: Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election

    No. I tried to donate $10 bucks but they wouldn’t accept it. Later I tried to buy a mug but they wouldn’t let me do that either.

  73. avatar
    Greenfinches March 28, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    Keith: I tried to buy a mug but they wouldn’t let me do that….

    Me too – a friend in Indianapolis was going to post it to me, but my UK Visa card would not work. I was very sad, I fancied that mug – but I suppose the effort of keeping the mug money separate from campaign funds was too much hassle. Ah well!

  74. avatar
    Scientist March 28, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    Rickey: But in fact these allegations were made by faux journalists such as Breitbart, who unlike Snopes have no compunction about publishing falsehoods and never correcting them.

    It’s a amazing how little the anti-Obama “journalists” have to show for their efforts. He was re-elected comfortably. No dirt that anyone cares about-no one in the real world considers Benghazi a scandal-it’s really boring how clean the Obama Administration is. Even I am yawning at the lack of juicy tidbits. Complete and utter failure from the entire right-wing media/web crowd.

  75. avatar
    ObiWanCannoli March 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    Lupin: Leaving aside the rubbishy nature of your claim, I am surprised people like you never protested the enormous influence held by the Saudi Oil lobby over the Bush White house.

    Based on actual decisions taken these past 4 years, I fail to see where exactly your President appears to have been unduly influenced by some foreign entity. With Bush, it was pretty much the dog that barked in the night.

    But then, your racist agenda only targets Obama for whatever imagined evils you think he is guilty of.

    There you go…..

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_I3Q1kT0tz2A/Sf_HMX4xeUI/AAAAAAAAC6U/P46B6tl4pF4/s1600-h/BushKingAbdullahHoldingHands.jpg

    http://freund.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_saudi.jpg

    http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-15855060/president-bush-welcomes-saudi-crown-prince-to

  76. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 7:06 pm #

    Someone should totally post the hell out of those at every birther site on the web. XD

  77. avatar
    Sactosintolerant March 28, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

    Clearly Obama solicited and recieved foreign donations. He wasn’t sure his “massive voter fraud” would be effective ENOUGH, so he needed something to put him over the top. I’m sure I’m missing at least one other diabolical thing he did to guarantee his reelection… as “dictator for life.”

  78. avatar
    American Mzungu March 28, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

    Sactosintolerant: Clearly Obama solicited and recieved foreign donations.

    Clearly you have not read the thread above with comprehension. Do you have any evidence to back up your allegations?

  79. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    Sactosintolerant:
    Clearly Obama solicited and recieved foreign donations. He wasn’t sure his “massive voter fraud” would be effective ENOUGH, so he needed something to put him over the top. I’m sure I’m missing at least one other diabolical thing he did to guarantee his reelection… as “dictator for life.”

    Dude, don’t insult our intelligence by posting under a different name. If you’re that embarrassed to show your face here, after the whoopin’ you got earlier, just leave.

  80. avatar
    Daniel March 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    Sactosintolerant:
    Clearly Obama solicited and recieved foreign donations. He wasn’t sure his “massive voter fraud” would be effective ENOUGH, so he needed something to put him over the top. I’m sure I’m missing at least one other diabolical thing he did to guarantee his reelection… as “dictator for life.”

    And “clearly” he was born in Kenya

    And “clearly” he is a secret Muslim trying to establish Sharia Law

    And “clearly” he’s ordered commercial jets to add nerve gas to their fuel

    And “clearly” 9/11 was ordered by Bush

    And “clearly” bar codes are the 666 of Revelations

    And “clearly” the earth is really a flat disk

    Aren’t nutbag conspiracies fun? Clearly!

  81. avatar
    richCares March 28, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    “Sactosintolerant: Clearly Obama solicited and recieved foreign donations.”
    I believe he is attempting satire

  82. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    Ever notice how birthers are fond of using words like “clearly”, or “obviously” to pad their arguments? They’re also fond of using “We the People” to describe themselves, as if they’re speak for all of America. Another favorite of theirs is “Everybody knows Obama is a fraud!”

  83. avatar
    Gabe March 28, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

    Reading these post, one cannot help notice a specificity in the content, with the end result pointing to what is called poverty of thought, in lay man terms, it means, though it sounds or reads like it has meaning, the utterances or writings have no meaning or a true understanding of what is trying to be conveyed.

  84. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

    Gabe:
    Reading these post, one cannot help notice a specificity in the content, with the end result pointing to what is called poverty of thought, in lay man terms, it means, though it sounds or reads like it has meaning, the utterances or writings have no meaning or a true understanding of what is trying to be conveyed.

    Waxing retarded are we? http://www.hark.com/clips/nmvffwfccm-carlos-mencia-dee-dee-dee

  85. avatar
    Joey March 28, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    In 2008 Barack Obama had 90.2% full disclosure of the sources of his campaign donations; he had 3.7% partial disclosure and 6% No Disclosure.
    2012 data is still being processed.
    John McCain had 87.2% full disclosure; 3.6% partial disclosure and 9% No Disclosure.
    The data is from the financial disclosure forms submitted to the Federal Elections Commission.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

  86. avatar
    Paper March 28, 2013 at 8:13 pm #

    Don’t skip this inaccurate gem:

    Serpico on March 9, 2013 at 12:11 pm:

    Well first of all, negroes weren’t considered human beings pre 14th Amendment.

    Northland10: [quoting a series of Serpico posts]

  87. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    American Mzungu: Clearly you have not read the thread above with comprehension.Do you have any evidence to back up your allegations?

    I think your satire detector is overdue for its annual ‘clean, lube, adjust’ service.

  88. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    Keith: I think your satire detector is overdue for its annual ‘clean, lube, adjust’ service.

    My satire detector is bacon powered. Out of bacon.

  89. avatar
    donna March 28, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG : Ever notice how birthers are fond of using words like “clearly”, or “obviously” to pad their arguments?

    they also use “proven”, “fact”, “experts” with abandon when nothing they assert has been proven and none of their witnesses are experts ergo they have NO facts

  90. avatar
    American Mzungu March 28, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

    Keith: I think your satire detector is overdue for its annual ‘clean, lube, adjust’ service.

    My satire detector and irony meter are both in the repair shop this week. At times like this I depend on a little help from my friends. 🙂

  91. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm #

    Paper:
    Don’t skip this inaccurate gem:

    Legally, aboriginal Australian weren’t considered human beings until 1992 when the ‘Mabo v Queensland (2)’ decision finally rejected terra nullius, the concept that before the arrival of the white colonialists, Australia was ’empty land’, there was no-one here to own it.

    edit: FYI: ‘Mabo’ is pronounced ‘Mar-bow’

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm #

    It is, except when we by common consent, ignore it.

    Lupin: I know Americans like to pretend that their country is a Nation of Laws, but in the practice, it often is not. In my experience, of course.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

    The difference between Snopes and a birther is that when Snopes is wrong, they fix it. When a birther is wrong, they change the subject. In this case Serpico changed the subject from his long-debunked BS about foreign money in the 2008 election to the reliability of Snopes.

    Serpico: I pointed out that Snopes has been wrong. I was correct in my assessment. I have proved they are not reliable and not to be taken for granted on any subject matter as a authoritative entity.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

    I’ve always had a thing for self-referential writing.

    Gabe: Reading these post, one cannot help notice a specificity in the content, with the end result pointing to what is called poverty of thought, in lay man terms, it means, though it sounds or reads like it has meaning, the utterances or writings have no meaning or a true understanding of what is trying to be conveyed.

  95. avatar
    Dave B. March 28, 2013 at 9:39 pm #

    I guess they’re not true fanatics, then (at least according to Churchill).

    Dr. Conspiracy: When a birther is wrong, they change the subject.

  96. avatar
    Deborah March 28, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    Keith March 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm (Quote) #

    Paper:
    Don’t skip this inaccurate gem:

    Legally, aboriginal Australian weren’t considered human beings until 1992 when the ‘Mabo v Queensland (2)’ decision finally rejected terra nullius, the concept that before the arrival of the white colonialists, Australia was ‘empty land’, there was no-one here to own it.

    edit: FYI: ‘Mabo’ is pronounced ‘Mar-bow’

    Comparing America’s indigenous populations with Austrailia, looking at Thomas Jefferson’s A Summary View (link below), it appears in paragraph #2 that the definition of property rights changes from a natural right (such as aboriginal ownership of land) to a “right that one has fought for.” That distinction is an error, I think, but that is the distinction Jefferson made. No fight no right? Hmm.

    “America was conquered, and her settlements made, and firmly established, at the expence of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement effectual; for themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.”

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffsumm.asp

  97. avatar
    Deborah March 28, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

    Orly has not posted for two days. We are lost for direction without her.

  98. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    Deborah: Comparing America’s indigenous populations with Austrailia

    In North America, the British made treaties with the aboriginal inhabitants before they killed them and stole their land.

    By the time they were forced to move their attention to Australia (because the colonies in NA had rebelled, the ingrates) they had figured out that it was just much easier skip the whole treaty thing and go straight to the killing and stealing phase.

  99. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2013 at 10:28 pm #

    Deborah:
    Orly has not posted for two days. We are lost for direction without her.

    Maybe the laughing gas finally got her.

  100. avatar
    donna March 28, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

    Deborah: Orly has not posted for two days. We are lost for direction without her.

    it’s unfortunate that she didn’t inform us that she was going to be in stamford, ct – many of us would have gone to chronicle her visit for hysterical ……. i mean historical reasons

    being the media hound that she is, it’s unusual that she didn’t ask people to join her while she did ask for money to pay for her expenses after the fact

    so did she really go? nothing is in the local ct press

  101. avatar
    Northland10 March 28, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

    Daniel: And “clearly” he was born in Kenya

    And “clearly” he is a secret Muslim trying to establish Sharia Law

    And “clearly” he’s ordered commercial jets to add nerve gas to their fuel

    And “clearly” 9/11 was ordered by Bush

    And “clearly” bar codes are the 666 of Revelations

    And “clearly” the earth is really a flat disk

    Aren’t nutbag conspiracies fun? Clearly!

    Is that all you got? Clearly, you need to go Serpico’s The Obama File link and catch up all the evil goodness that is our President. I knew Sacrosintolerant was satire because it was way to short and was lacking digital drool.

  102. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2013 at 11:37 pm #

    Deborah:
    Orly has not posted for two days. We are lost for direction without her.

    One might suggest that she is involved in Passover doings?

  103. avatar
    Sactosintolerant March 28, 2013 at 11:39 pm #

    American Mzungu: Clearly you have not read the thread above with comprehension.Do you have any evidence to back up your allegations?

    My bad… I just find it amusing that someone who is going to supposedly name themselves dictator for life even needs to bother with “massive voter fraud”… or that someone naming themselves “dictator for life” AND committing “massive voter fraud” needs to bother with potentially scandalous illegal donations… and so on… and so on…

  104. avatar
    Greenfinches March 29, 2013 at 1:00 am #

    Keith: the British made treaties with the aboriginal inhabitants before they killed them and stole their land.

    And boy did the Americans carry on and perfect this good work!!!

    (somewhat off topic….)

  105. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 29, 2013 at 1:11 am #

    Lupin:
    I know Americans like to pretend that their country is a Nation of Laws, but in the practice, it often is not. In my experience, of course.

    We like to copy other countries like yours. The lower the better, for some reason, maybe because of your inexperience.

  106. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 29, 2013 at 1:14 am #

    Wonder when Dr. Ignorance will mention gay marriage debate instead of Barry Saetoro’s illegal citizenship and phony grab for president when all he is a carnival community barker.

    We know he is illegal. What we want to know if he is gay? Evidence seems to support this phony is also bi-sexual.

  107. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2013 at 1:22 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame:

    We know he is illegal.What we want to know if he is gay?Evidence seems to support this phony is also bi-sexual.

    What’s wrong with being bi-sexual? It immediately doubles your chances of getting a date on Saturday Night. – Woody Allen

    And what would you do if you could prove that Obama is gay? Is that an impeachable offense?

  108. avatar
    aarrgghh March 29, 2013 at 2:32 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Wonder when Dr. Ignorance will mention gay marriage debate instead of Barry Saetoro’s illegal citizenship and phony grab for president when all he is a carnival community barker.

    it’s a big internet. still plenty of space left for you to start your own blog for that and whatever else you want to rant about.

  109. avatar
    US Citizen March 29, 2013 at 2:42 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame:
    Evidence seems to support this phony is also bi-sexual.

    Another birther uses that “evidence” word again.
    When will they learn what it actually means?

  110. avatar
    Deborah March 29, 2013 at 2:48 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame March 29, 2013 at 1:14 am (Quote) #

    Wonder when Dr. Ignorance will mention gay marriage debate instead of Barry Saetoro’s illegal citizenship and phony grab for president when all he is a carnival community barker.

    Is it okay with you if I believe that other people have rights besides white Judeo-Christian heterosexuals? Is it okay with you if I believe that it is OKAY for a white woman to marry an African guy, for instance?

    Actually, I think the government should stay out of marriage totally. Is that okay with you? If you are white and want to get married to a white woman, go get married in a white church and let everyone else do the same, and stop asking all of us to in effect have a spiritual orgy over the matter.

  111. avatar
    misha marinsky March 29, 2013 at 3:15 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Wonder when Dr. Ignorance will mention gay marriage debate instead of Barry Saetoro’s illegal citizenship and phony grab for president when all he is a carnival community barker.

    Да з’равствует Ленин!

    I was a Trotskyite in college – a Jesuit college.

  112. avatar
    Lupin March 29, 2013 at 4:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It is, except when we by common consent, ignore it.

    Lupin: I know Americans like to pretend that their country is a Nation of Laws, but in the practice, it often is not. In my experience, of course.

    The reason I write what I did is of course based on my own anecdotal experience. I don’t want to be like the person whose political views is impacted by the fact he was once mugged by a black person.

    In my professional career, I have been involved (on the legal side of things) in maybe half a dozen lawsuits in the US (all in California, 1 in NY), maybe a dozen or so in France, and one in the UK. All business matters, mostly having to do with intellectual properties. Admittedly not enough to write a treatise.

    Still, it has been my experience that for all the legalities and formalities, American courtrooms and American lawyers are far more likely to — let’s call a spade a spade — lie & engage in all kinds of shenanigans, the purposes of which is to delay or avoid a clean course. As a result, trials which would have taken a week here have lasted months in the US. Cases end up costing 5 to 10 times more. The counsels are more concerned about marking points, winning, and the Courts seem less concerned about justice than form.

    Again, this is my admittedly very limited, very narrow experience in a tiny sliver of the Law. I’m sure I can be buried under counter-examples.

    Still, I can’t help feel that there is less of a respect for the Law and its intent in the US than in France or the UK.

  113. avatar
    Gabe March 29, 2013 at 7:06 am #

    Serpico:
    ” I think that today the risk of money influencing a presidential election is far greater from America than from a foreign source.”

    But what about the risk of money from foreign sources? Didn’t Obama have a huge flux of money from foreign sources in the 2008 election and the donors were never revealed even though the public requested it?
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    During both elections Obama’s credit card donations were not required to submit the CVV (3 digit) number on the back of the card, not requiring this 3 digit number allowed the card to be used time and time again for donations, using different names. To further this the “AVS” (address verification system) which matches the name with the address on file was shut off, this disabling of the AVS has to be done intentionally! These two uses of the credit card ID system was only used by the Obama campaign.

    A further unreported source of contributions, were all those panhandlers that appeared on the sidewalks asking for change and the ones on streets with signs saying they were homeless or would work for money.

  114. avatar
    American Mzungu March 29, 2013 at 7:34 am #

    Gabe: A further unreported source of contributions, were all those panhandlers that appeared on the sidewalks asking for change and the ones on streets with signs saying they were homeless or would work for money.

    Sactosintolerant, are you now writing Gabe’s material? This is even better than your piece yesterday.

  115. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2013 at 7:49 am #

    Or the small handful of desperate and paranoid birther bigot jackasses left are trying to compete for the Most Asinine Post Ever (MAPE) award.

    American Mzungu: Sactosintolerant, are you now writing Gabe’s material?This is even better than your piece yesterday.

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2013 at 8:04 am #

    Gabe: During both elections Obama’s credit card donations were not required to submit the CVV (3 digit) number on the back of the card, not requiring this 3 digit number allowed the card to be used time and time again for donations, using different names.

    The CVV code has no such function. The comment is complete nonsense.

    Gabe: o further this the “AVS” (address verification system) which matches the name with the address on file was shut off, this disabling of the AVS has to be done intentionally! These two uses of the credit card ID system was only used by the Obama campaign. To allow publication of the ignorant story, the reporter never asked the Obama campaign about the incident.

    The second part of Gabe’s comment is just a lie. The Obama campaign didn’t shut down AVS. What they did was to manually check any contribution that didn’t match AVS. The report was due to a stupid reporter for WND submitting a foreign card transaction which appeared to be accepted, but was actually rejected shortly afterwards after failing the manual check.

    It is the persistence of stupidity and lies that keeps folks like Gabe ranting on the Internet about things which would mean something IF THEY WERE TRUE, but are a a foolish waste of time BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2013 at 8:11 am #

    It did in April, 2011. Old news.

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Wonder when Dr. Ignorance will mention gay marriage

  118. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 29, 2013 at 10:00 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame:
    What we want to know if he is gay?

    I’ll bite. Lets say the President is gay. Outside of homophobic RWNJs, who cares? Sexuality has no bearing on a person’s abilities or mental faculties. Nor does their ethnicity or religious background.
    But just for kicks, I’m sort of hoping our next President is a Bisexual mix-raced Jewish woman, with an Chinese-American Mom, and an Middle-Eastern dad! That’ll really stick in your craw!

  119. avatar
    bovril March 29, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    Seeing a lot of projection here “Gabe”, so tell us all, how old where you when your “uncle” starting touching you in the bad place…?

  120. avatar
    bobj March 29, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    Gabe:
    Reading these post, one cannot help notice a specificity in the content, with the end result pointing to what is called poverty of thought, in lay man terms, it means, though it sounds or reads like it has meaning, the utterances or writings have no meaning or a true understanding of what is trying to be conveyed.

    , When, are you going to, apologize for quoting a RWNJ, and attributing, said quote, to the judge, in the case, of Mr,. Lakin. Or, will you; just invite, yourself to dinner?

  121. avatar
    ScottRS March 29, 2013 at 10:41 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: (snip) I’m sort of hoping our next President is a Bisexual mix-raced Jewish woman, with an Chinese-American Mom, and an Middle-Eastern dad! That’ll really stick in your craw!

    or, better still, TWO Dads.

  122. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2013 at 11:53 am #

    Gabe:
    Reading these post, one cannot help notice a specificity in the content, with the end result pointing to what is called poverty of thought, in lay man terms, it means, though it sounds or reads like it has meaning, the utterances or writings have no meaning or a true understanding of what is trying to be conveyed.

    I did an analysis of the readability of your post and you scored 21 out of a possible 100.

    Did you once take a course in writing gibberish?

  123. avatar
    Steve March 29, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You can recite that mantra of it helps keep the spooks away, sort of like whistling in the dark.Snopes, the Wikipedia, FactCheck.org and this web site are not infallible, but we all have mechanisms to correct our mistakes when they are pointed out. All have a commitment to accuracy that works well.I think it would be much more instructive for you to consider the veracity of the source of YOUR RUMORS than to attack well-respected debunking sites like Snopes.

    Just curious, because it infuriates me time and time again when I’m arguing with some of my more conservative (and conspiracy-minded) friends. Is it possible for reasonable people to look at the same evidence that Snopes or Factcheck does and come to the opposite conclusion?

  124. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    Gabe:

    During both elections Obama’s credit card donations were not required to submit the CVV (3 digit) number on the back of the card, not requiring this 3 digit number allowed the card to be used time and time again for donations, using different names.

    Wrong again.

    The only function of the CVV code is to ensure that the person making the purchase (in this case, a contribution) actually has possession of the credit card. Otherwise all you would need to make fraudulent Internet or telephone charges is the account number and expiration date.

    Also, the name and address of the purchaser has to match the information which the credit card company has on file, otherwise the charge will be declined. You cannot make an Internet purchase with a credit card without providing your name and address.

    It is impossible to make multiple contributions under different names using the same credit card.

  125. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 29, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

    ScottRS: or, better still, TWO Dads.

    I smell a sitcom!
    …Oh wait, they already did that one.

  126. avatar
    richCares March 29, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    “Obama’s credit card donations were not required to submit the CVV ”
    where do they get these silly fables, they always seem to fall for them, it has to be a mental problem.

  127. avatar
    donna March 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

    Gabe:

    redstate TESTED the donation process with someone with a foreign mailing address, fraudulent passport number & a gift via credit card. The donation was rejected.

  128. avatar
    Gabe March 29, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The CVV code has no such function. The comment is complete nonsense.

    The second part of Gabe’s comment is just a lie. The Obama campaign didn’t shut down AVS. What they did was to manually check any contribution that didn’t match AVS. The report was due to a stupid reporter for WND submitting a foreign card transaction which appeared to be accepted, but was actually rejected shortly afterwards after failing the manual check.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    I do not question your intrinsic knowledge of credit card security or say what you say is a lie, though I do ask, what is the source of your knowledge, has the credit card company confided in you, sent you documentation of which you could post or link to, fully explaining how the CVV code is used?

    Were you a part of the campaign contribution committee, that you could say without a doubt that the AVS, was not disabled? As it is the, Address Verification System (AVS) is a voluntary pay for service program.
    Here are two links to the Address Verification System and its uses.

    http://www.authorize.net/support/CNP/helpfiles/Account/Settings/Security_Settings/Fraud_Settings/Address_Verification_System_%28AVS%29.htm

    http://www.cardpaymentoptions.com/merchant-account-glossary/address-verification-system-avs/

  129. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 29, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    Gabe: I do not question your intrinsic knowledge of credit card security or say what you say is a lie, though I do ask, what is the source of your knowledge, has the credit card company confided in you, sent you documentation of which you could post or link to, fully explaining how the CVV code is used?

    Were you a part of the campaign contribution committee, that you could say without a doubt that the AVS, was not disabled? As it is the, Address Verification System (AVS) is a voluntary pay for service program.

    Good questions Gabe.

    Let’s turn them around and ask YOU what the source of YOUR “knowledge” is?

    No one can prove a negative so we’ll set that one aside. But I am fascinated by the “panhandlers” story. Where did that come from?

  130. avatar
    richCares March 29, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Gab asks: what is the source of your knowledge,
    .
    there are many sites explaining CVV usage, here is one
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_Security_Code
    also https://www.braintreepayments.com/blog/merchants-are-prohibited-from-storing-cvv2-csc-per-pci-standards
    for lots more google it
    .
    don’t be silly Gabe

  131. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2013 at 1:36 pm #

    Gabe:

    I do not question your intrinsic knowledge of credit card security or say what you say is a lie, though I do ask, what is the source of your knowledge, has the credit card company confided in you, sent you documentation of which you could post or link to, fully explaining how the CVV code is used?

    Have you tried looking up the information?

    The second code, and the most cited, is CVV2 or CVC2. This type of CSC is often sought by merchants to secure card not present transactions occurring over the Internet, by mail, fax or over the phone.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_security_code

  132. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    CarlOrcas:

    No one can prove a negative so we’ll set that one aside. But I am fascinated by the “panhandlers” story. Where did that come from?

    Those panhandlers must have raised tens of dollars for Obama.

  133. avatar
    nbc March 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: We know he is illegal. What we want to know if he is gay? Evidence seems to support this phony is also bi-sexual.

    I see, unsupported, unsubstantiated rumors. Is President Obama gay or bi-sexual? Does it make any difference? Who really cares about the sexual orientation of our President, other than perhaps those who are struggling themselves with the issue?

  134. avatar
    Dave B. March 29, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

    Is that even supposed to make sense?

    Gabe: A further unreported source of contributions, were all those panhandlers that appeared on the sidewalks asking for change and the ones on streets with signs saying they were homeless or would work for money.

  135. avatar
    Crustacean March 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    Gabe: what is the source of your knowledge

    I’ve completely lost patience with the oh-so-familiar dance of the Birtherati: make an outrageous claim with dubious sources (something made up, taken out of context, or from the Breitbart/ WND circle-jerk “news” cycle); then, when called on it, demand that your accuser prove a negative. Why do they suddenly become interested in fact-checking AFTER they’ve been called on yet another lie?

    RWNJ: Obama stole the election!! Blah blah blah [made-up stuff]
    RATIONAL PERSON: That stuff is all made up; none of it is legit.
    RWNJ: PROVE IT!!!!

    RWNJ: Sandy Hook was a false-flag operation to undermine the 2nd Amendment, and those “parents” were crisis actors pretending to mourn for the cameras.
    RATIONAL PERSON: That stuff is all made up; none of it is legit.
    RWNJ: PROVE IT!!!!

    And on and on. I just wish they’d learn to employ their brains’ “PROVE IT” function a little earlier in the process. Usually the best we get is a downgrade from “it did happen” to “it could’ve happened.” But that’s not saying much, because in the fantasy world of the Birtherati, there doesn’t seem to be a discernible difference.

  136. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

    Rickey: Those panhandlers must have raised tens of dollars for Obama.

    I sure it was a very complicated operation with the Obamapanhandlers (all one word) offering some sort of secret password or handshake so that all those illegal contributors (illegal aliens, no doubt; or maybe space aliens?) could identify them easily.

    Now…..prove that isn’t the way it happened. Gabe??

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

    Let’s take a step back.

    You made a claim about CVV and AVS, which you didn’t provide evidence for. Now you are asking your critics for evidence? You’re a joke.

    As to CVV, I did research the use of it before my comment. Only an idiot would think that the same credit card account number belongs to lots of names, sorted out by CVV. But then, you believe that.

    As for AVS, I also researched that too and read the reports of people who investigated the nut-case rumors you presented.

    Unlike you, I check things out before publish them.

    Gabe: I do not question your intrinsic knowledge of credit card security or say what you say is a lie, though I do ask, what is the source of your knowledge, has the credit card company confided in you, sent you documentation of which you could post or link to, fully explaining how the CVV code is used?

    Were you a part of the campaign contribution committee, that you could say without a doubt that the AVS, was not disabled? As it is the, Address Verification System (AVS) is a voluntary pay for service program.

  138. avatar
    Gabe March 29, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let’s take a step back.

    You made a claim about CVV and AVS, which you didn’t provide evidence for. Now you are asking your critics for evidence? You’re a joke.

    As to CVV, I did research the use of it before my comment. Only an idiot would think that the same credit card account number belongs to lots of names, sorted out by CVV. But then, you believe that.

    As for AVS, I also researched that too and read the reports of people who investigated the nut-case rumors you presented.

    Unlike you, I check things out before publish them.

    After reading your responses with the name calling and innuendos, I find you not as intelligent and informed as you make yourself out to be.
    You have not produced any evidence, though you make a statement on the AVS that you researched it and read what others have written about their investigation of the Address Verification System (AVS), I could write that, pound my chest like you and try an present it as evidence as you did, what a joke of self-justification! Where is the documentation that the AVS was not disabled and not some made up red-herring excuse for fact, that you wrote.

  139. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 29, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Let’s take a step back.

    Anyone who has experience taking credit cards in retail or over the phone/on line knows how these two systems work. It’s been a while since we retired but we were involved in several businesses – one retail services and the other mail and phone orders.

    It’s my recollection that the address verification system was designed to thwart people who stole cards or numbers and then tried to have the merchandise shipped to them rather than the card holder. As I recall if the card holder didn’t have the second address registered (kind of like Amazon does) then the approval would be kicked back. We had that happen several times. I recall they checked the Zip Code and the billing address number. That could be a problem overseas and with PO Boxes.

    Similarly the CVV numbers were designed to trip up people who didn’t have the card in their possession but were trying to buy something on line or over the phone.

    In both cases some transactions slipped through and, invariably, the issuing bank and/or the card holder would notice a problem and hold charges and/or contact the card holder. I used to travel overseas quite a bit and several times when I was in a country for the first time a transaction would get flagged or held until I checked in and answered their questions.

    Bottom line: Gabe’s fantasy is, like him, is a joke.

  140. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

    Gabe: Where is the documentation that the AVS was not disabled and not some made up red-herring excuse for fact, that you wrote.

    Where is the documentation that AVS at the Obama campaign WAS disabled and not some made-up………….oh, you see where we’;re going.

    Take a look at my message to Doc about my experience taking credit cards and let us hear your experience and how it differs from mine.

  141. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    Gabe: After reading your responses with the name calling and innuendos, I find you not as intelligent and informed as you make yourself out to be.

    You’re a guest here on a privately owned blog.

    The whooshing noise you just heard was a clue going over your head, Gabor.

    And your whining for credible evidence is amazingly asinine from a hypocrite who provides none and has repeatedly proven to be incapable of grasping the simplest of logical concepts.

    Spin that.

  142. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    And predictably, Gabe pusses out.
    Go make some more hate filled youtube poop, Gabe! It’s what you do best!

  143. avatar
    Crustacean March 29, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    Crustacean: demand that your accuser prove a negative

    Gabe: Where is the documentation that the AVS was not disabled

    There it is!!

    Actually, I think Gabe may have you on this one, Doc. I found lots of documentation on the Interwebs that the Obama campaign turned off the AVS. Let’s see, there’s the conservative axe grinders at the Government Accountability Institute (though their actual evidence was apparently eaten by their dog), as well as the Cronkite-like reporting of “Allahpundit” over at Hotair.com. And don’t neglect the level-headed, neutral musings from “Before It’s News” and Breitbart.com (see “Friends of Hamas”). And if Fox Friend Steve Doocy says something is true, why would anyone doubt it??

  144. avatar
    Daniel March 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    Gabe: After reading your responses with the name calling and innuendos, I find you not as intelligent and informed as you make yourself out to be.
    You have not produced any evidence, though you make a statementon the AVS that you researched it and read what others have written about their investigation of the Address Verification System (AVS), I could write that, pound my chest like you and try an present it as evidence as you did, what a joke of self-justification! Where is the documentation that the AVS was not disabled and not somemade up red-herring excuse for fact, that you wrote.

    Gabe:

    Burden of proof…

    Look it up…

    Read it…

    Understand it…

    Live it.

  145. avatar
    Majority Will March 29, 2013 at 8:55 pm #

    Daniel: Gabe:

    Burden of proof…

    Look it up…

    Read it…

    Understand it…

    Live it.

    Not. Going. To. Happen.

  146. avatar
    SluggoJD March 29, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    Gabe: After reading your responses with the name calling and innuendos, I find you not as intelligent and informed as you make yourself out to be……

    In other words, you got caught with your pants half down, and your dick stuck in the zipper, but you’re unable to apologize because you’re an a$$hole.

  147. avatar
    SluggoJD March 29, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

    Doc, please ban intellectually dishonest folks and racists for life. And publish their IPs, because they don’t deserve to be treated like good folks.

    It’s one thing to come here all stupid and clueless.
    It’s another thing to lie and say bad stuff.

    I just don’t understand why you give liars and racists a microphone to spread their filth. Yes, it’s your blog. But you assist them in spreading their filth, when what you should be doing is exterminating them.

    My opinion.

  148. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 12:15 am #

    Rickey: What’s wrong with being bi-sexual? It immediately doubles your chances of getting a date on Saturday Night. – Woody Allen

    And what would you do if you could prove that Obama is gay? Is that an impeachable offense?

    Gays are notoriously two-faced, easily double-crossed and they make the greatest most loyal citizens. Heck, I would even trust one to be president of the United States, YEP!

  149. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 12:21 am #

    Rickey: What’s wrong with being bi-sexual? It immediately doubles your chances of getting a date on Saturday Night. – Woody Allen

    And what would you do if you could prove that Obama is gay? Is that an impeachable offense?

    It also doubles your chance of not getting a date. You’ll go home twice as disappointed, tsk, tsk.

    Being gay is not an impeachable offense. However, lying about your birth record is. I mean you were born gay? Why not put it on your phony BC?

  150. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 12:25 am #

    nbc: I see, unsupported, unsubstantiated rumors. Is President Obama gay or bi-sexual? Does it make any difference? Who really cares about the sexual orientation of our President, other than perhaps those who are struggling themselves with the issue?

    I”m sorry, I didn’t mean to exacerbate your situation. Hang in there pal, but don’t hang in too long or you’ll be wearing daipers by the time your 40.

  151. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 12:29 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I’ll bite. Lets say the President is gay. Outside of homophobic RWNJs, who cares? Sexuality has no bearing on a person’s abilities or mental faculties. Nor does their ethnicity or religious background.
    But just for kicks, I’m sort of hoping our next President is a Bisexual mix-raced Jewish woman, with an Chinese-American Mom, and an Middle-Eastern dad! That’ll really stick in your craw!

    Gays cannot reproduce. You’ll be changing their diapers again. Do you want that?

  152. avatar
    Arthur March 30, 2013 at 12:39 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Gays cannot reproduce. You’ll be changing their diapers again. Do you want that?

    Lesbians can reproduce with donated sperm, just like single straight women and couples with infertility problems. Gay men can adopt.

  153. avatar
    richCares March 30, 2013 at 1:17 am #

    Obama is a well respected president, after he serves 8 years, his name will appear on Streets, Gov Buildings, and Navy ships. On the other hand, “shame on liberals shame” will be lucky if his name appears on a garbage can.

  154. avatar
    Scientist March 30, 2013 at 6:59 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Gays cannot reproduce.

    The President has reproduced twice, so he cannot be gay.

  155. avatar
    Gabe March 30, 2013 at 7:52 am #

    SluggoJD:
    Doc, please ban intellectually dishonest folks and racists for life.And publish their IPs, because they don’t deserve to be treated like good folks.

    It’s one thing to come here all stupid and clueless.
    It’s another thing to lie and say bad stuff.

    I just don’t understand why you give liars and racists a microphone to spread their filth.Yes, it’s your blog.But you assist them in spreading their filth, when what you should be doing is exterminating them.

    My opinion.

    Oh boo hoo cries the charlatan! He should start with you! If Elton John were to sing the song “Your Song” for you, the lyrics would be found here. http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jimmy_buffett/asshole_song.html

  156. avatar
    American Mzungu March 30, 2013 at 8:38 am #

    Scientist: Shame On Liberals Shame: Gays cannot reproduce.
    The President has reproduced twice, so he cannot be gay.

    With such an elegant proof, why not add QED?

  157. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2013 at 8:41 am #

    Gabe: Oh boo hoo cries the charlatan! He should start with you! If Elton John were to sing the song “Your Song” for you, the lyrics would be found here.http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jimmy_buffett/asshole_song.html

    C’mon Gabor.

    Explain how you understand the law better than Congress and the Supreme Court (without citing World Net Daily).

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

  158. avatar
    donna March 30, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    Arthur: Gay men can adopt.

    i have male gay friends who are REPUBLICAN, who have been together for over 40 years, whose marriage license was signed by romney and who are grandparents – they used a surrogate with sperm donated by one of them

    justice john roberts didn’t “reproduce” – he adopted 2 children who were born in ireland via latin america

  159. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    Arthur: Lesbians can reproduce with donated sperm, just like single straight women and couples with infertility problems. Gay men can adopt.

    Just like liberals. Gotta steal from those who have. You want children? Get married to the opposite sex like *** said! Be fruitful and multiply.

  160. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    richCares:
    Obama is a well respected president, after he serves 8 years, his name will appear on Streets, Gov Buildings, and Navy ships. On the other hand, “shame on liberals shame” will be lucky if his name appears on a garbage can.

    I will give you the honor since you will soon live out of them. The current phony commandeer-in-thief will assure you of that. Then let my name ring true.

  161. avatar
    Rickey March 30, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Being gay is not an impeachable offense. However, lying about your birth record is. I mean you were born gay? Why not put it on your phony BC?

    I’d consider lying about WMDs in Iraq to be an impeachable offense. Lying about your birth record, not so much unless you have evidence (a) that Obama’s birth record is a lie and (b) that Obama knows that the record is a lie. You realize, I hope, that Obama does not remember his own birth.

    I have seen a lot of birth certificates in my day but I’ve never seen one which lists sexual orientation, so I can only guess at what you are driving at on that point.

  162. avatar
    Rickey March 30, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Just like liberals.Gotta steal from those who have.

    How can you steal something which has been donated for your use?

  163. avatar
    misha marinsky March 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Just like liberals.Gotta steal from those who have.You want children?Get married to the opposite sex like *** said!Be fruitful and multiply.

    Another religious nut.

  164. avatar
    misha marinsky March 30, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Then let my name ring true.

    Post under your name, keyboard kommando.

  165. avatar
    Scientist March 30, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: You want children? Get married to the opposite sex

    Like Barack Obama did….

    Shame On Liberals Shame: You are correct. For one moment he became a heterosexual. Because gays cannot reproduce.

    It had to have been at least 2 moments….

  166. avatar
    Shame On Liberals Shame March 30, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

    Rickey: How can you steal something which has been donated for your use?

    Oh, is that what liberals call it now?

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

    You can ring your name somewhere else. You’re not adding anything to the discussion here, and are no longer welcome.

    Shame On Liberals Shame: I will give you the honor since you will soon live out of them. The current phony commandeer-in-thief will assure you of that. Then let my name ring true.

  168. avatar
    Arthur March 30, 2013 at 8:38 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: like *** said! Be fruitful and multiply.

    Who is asterisk?

  169. avatar
    Daniel March 30, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Just like liberals.Gotta steal from those who have.You want children?Get married to the opposite sex like *** said!Be fruitful and multiply.

    *** also said “thou shalt not bear false witness”. Seems you neglected to read that far.

  170. avatar
    misha marinsky March 30, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

    Arthur: Who is asterisk?

    Right here: http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/imgsafe/godmancomic.gif

  171. avatar
    SluggoJD March 31, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    Gabe: Oh boo hoo cries the charlatan! He should start with you! If Elton John were to sing the song “Your Song” for you, the lyrics would be found here.http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jimmy_buffett/asshole_song.html

    Got that dick unstuck yet?

    You’re a racist, and intellectually dishonest. You serve no purpose in life. Use a sharp pencil.

  172. avatar
    Rickey March 31, 2013 at 1:50 am #

    Shame On Liberals Shame: Oh, is that what liberals call it now?

    I’m fairly certain that precious bodily fluids are donated, not confiscated.

  173. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

    Arthur: Who is asterisk?

    He may think it was Jesus (as many of these RWNJs seem to think), but it was not. It is the first commandment God gave to Man in Genesis and it follows, or rather is an integral part of a passage that is very difficult to translate or interpret. Whom did God create in his own image? Man, mankind, or man and woman? The “political” implications of each interpretation are clear.
    Genesis, 1:1-31 is very often used to condemn homosexuality, but the word “fruitful” may also mean “successful”.
    http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/genesis-11-31-go-forth-and-multiply/
    Something RWNJs may be too stupid to understand: judgement by implication on this one may not only condemn homosexuality but also recommend polygamy and sex with very young girls,

    And here endeth the lesson.

  174. avatar
    Arthur March 31, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: And here endeth the lesson.

    Yeah, I understood his reference was to the Holy One; I was just being jokey. Nonetheless, this being Easter and all, and we’re all celebrating the birth of Dionysus, I enjoyed the lesson. But tell me, who is this Jesus you referred to?

  175. avatar
    justlw March 31, 2013 at 6:08 pm #

    Arthur: Who is asterisk?

    It was ruled a wind assist.

  176. avatar
    justlw March 31, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    Interesting that the only two names SoL could never bring themselves to spell out in their posts were “God” and “Obama” .

  177. avatar
    Kiwiwriter April 2, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    misha marinsky: Not a word out of you about Ted Cruz or Mark Rubio.I’ll be watching your ilk, when Corey Booker runs.

    Uh…that’s “Cory A. Booker.”

    Otherwise, I applaud what you wrote.

  178. avatar
    misha marinsky April 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: Uh…that’s “Cory A. Booker.”

    Oops.

  179. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) April 2, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    Dave B.: Is that even supposed to make sense?

    Gabe is quickly approaching Lame Cherry levels of insanity.

  180. avatar
    Keith April 3, 2013 at 2:24 am #

    Arthur: Who is asterisk?

    Asterix: The Official Website