Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
How insane are the birthers? Ann Coulter thinks they're a bunch of cranks and said so on Fox News. Of course she blames it all on the liberal media rather than on the nuts who are still pushing it, because it can't be the fault of those on the right, liberals must be to blame for everything somehow. Video below the fold:
And naturally, the Freepers are losing their minds over Coulter's apostasy.
"Coulter has gone over to the dark side. Her dark roots are showing.""Anne, you are losing it girl. In fact, I think you have already. There would be No issue if zero would show his Birth Certificate. Until then, stop drinking the dims koolaide"
"Ann Coulter is turning into another Peggy Noonan. It's very sad."
Except one guy who is convinced that Ann is so brilliant she's playing a strategic game with the issue:
Ann is a strategist. You don't play your Spades first in a game of Spades. This birth certificate isssue is our Ace of Spades card. Sooner or later, the truth is going to come out. But it makes no sense to play it now, and I say this as someone who truly believes that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
This is really becoming quite amusing to watch.
Politics
Comments
Y'know, I am curious how many of these birthers are certifiable whackaloons and how many are just going along because it gives them something to do and makes them think they are part of something important. And how many are mocking these morons by playing along?
This is something to think about, I think. But perhaps I am being too cynical.
Posted by: Daniel Kolle | July 27, 2009 2:54 AM
Yes, but a are they 'long-form' certifiable wackaloons? Has anyone sighted their wackaloon certificate? Why won't they just publish... Oh you know it goes. :) - DJ
Birfers: Can't live with 'em; can't prevent 'em from voting.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2009 3:11 AM
Am I going crazy, or was Huckabee the most reasonable man there? What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by: nickcan | July 27, 2009 3:33 AM
Well sure she's a strategist. Her strategy is to be rich and (in)famous!
Posted by: 386sx | July 27, 2009 4:36 AM
#3: Huckabee is a fantastic human being who should have kept his Christian ass out of politics. Ann Coulter was really the only crazy at that scene.
Posted by: Brandon | July 27, 2009 5:03 AM
Huckabee is a conniving bastard of an excuse for a human being. Huckabee is an asshole who would smile to your face all the while damning you to his make believe hell. Huckabee is a monster who pardoned a convicted serial rapist and murderer because one of his victims was a relative of Bill Clinton. Wayne DuMond went on to rape and kill at least one more woman before being caught again and eventually dying in prison.
Posted by: tincture | July 27, 2009 5:15 AM
The "Ace of Spades" card. Right.
It's more like that extra card in the pack with "rules of draw and stud poker".
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 27, 2009 8:06 AM
Actually, the leading light of the birther movement, Orly Taitz is so crazy and stupid that she is unintentionally one of the funniest women alive.
Posted by: SLC | July 27, 2009 8:12 AM
tincture: can you please give a citation or reference for the bit about Huckabee pardoning a murderer?
As for Coulter, she's basically trying to keep her credibility and keep her loony-right street-cred (dirt-road-cred?) at the same time. She's still an uneducable cow, of course, just one who can cover her (nearly nonexistent) six.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2009 9:13 AM
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/12/05/murray-waas-huckabees-role-in-serial-rapists-release
Posted by: tincture | July 27, 2009 9:17 AM
Remember the strategy of the conservatives in the wake of Sanford sex scandal? The only response they had was to pull liberals down to their level. They argued that Sanford's lack of family values showed that it was not the republicans who were hypocrites, no it was the democrats -- the liberals -- that were. If liberals now became hypocrites just like conservatives, the world had been set fair and balanced once again.
This is quite like the strategy of the birthers. Obama was elected by such a healthy margin, that attacking the numbers is a futile effort. Since liberals attacked Bush's legitimacy through his presidency (Bush v Gore), the attack on Obama as "the foreign-born Muslim" is all that's left to attack in kind.
Posted by: Matthew Pickard | July 27, 2009 9:19 AM
tincture: thanx for the link. And Holy fucking shit!
Coddling a convicted rapist because one of his (underage) victims was related to Clinton? This says a LOT about Conservative Christian "values."
Posted by: Ragingg Bee | July 27, 2009 9:45 AM
Huckabee is a monster who pardoned a convicted serial rapist and murderer because one of his victims was a relative of Bill Clinton.
There's a certain irony in this comment appearing in a thread about the Birthers, because it employs a similar game-of-telephone level of factual accuracy.
- DuMond was never actually convicted of murder. He did help kill someone, but was not charged with the crime. Not morally distinguishable, no, but legally so.
- Huckabee never pardoned DuMond. The governor in Arkansas doesn't have the unilateral power to issue pardons. In fact, no one ever pardoned DuMond.
- The pardons board recommended a commutation for DuMond in 1990. Clinton rejected it, as he was allowed to do.
- Governor Jim Guy Tucker reduced DuMond's sentence in 1992, allowing DuMond to be eligible for parole.
- Huckabee did announce an intention to commute DuMond's sentence to time served in 1996, after a decade's incarceration. Huckabee, however, did not follow through on this commutation.
- The Arkansas parole board voted (possibly with some pressure from Huckabee) to grant DuMond probation in 1997.
So while Huckabee was perhaps involved behind the scenes in getting DuMond out of prison, he was hardly the only player in this saga, and it the parole board giving him probation that actually set him free, not Huckabee granting him a pardon.
And in case you think I'm just some kind of Huckabee apologist, let me mention that I actively discouraged Republican friends from voting for him in the 2008 primaries. He's a very congenial embodiment of an awful lot of anti-libertarian Republican tendencies.
Posted by: Loren | July 27, 2009 10:30 AM
Loren: You make some very important points, but the fact remains that Huckabee appears to have given lots of undue attention to this particular convicted rapist, and he appears to have given him such attention at the behest of the religious-reich base, for some very evil reasons.
I haven't finished reading the original articles (they're long and it's Monday), but so far they paint a pretty clear picture of Huckabee exerting noticeable pressure to go easy on this scumbag, and then trying to pretend he didn't know what his victims claim to have told him. And this picture comes from former Huckabee supporters, not liberals or atheists or Pagans.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2009 10:43 AM
Crazy? Crazy birthers?
Is it crazy to question the so called "fact checking" organizations that after months of stating Obama was born in one hospital in Hawaii, changing the fact to state that he was born in a different hospital.
Facts don't change, manipulators try to change the facts for their own agenda.
Is it crazy to question a subject matter when the internet is being scrubbed of earlier so called "facts" in order to replace them with the "new facts".
Well I was taught that facts don't change. Must be another change in the law of physics that we have been asked to accept as of late.
When you can't argue the "facts" even when you keep changing the facts to suit your argument, you attack the messenger and call them names.
It is so obvious that there is something to this issue or there wouldn't be so much of a concerted effort to attack those seeking to determine the truth.
Don't worry the coming hate bill may very well stop this discussion but remember that it will also do the same to your discussions in the future. Smell the coffee, anything we do to a specific group will certainly be done to your group eventually.
Posted by: Reality | July 27, 2009 11:56 AM
Who cares where Obama was born?
That's right: nobody.
We have real issues to worry about, thanks.
Posted by: samir | July 27, 2009 11:59 AM
Thanks for the chuckle, "Reality."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 27, 2009 12:07 PM
I think Reality may have lost touch with himself
Posted by: Ramel | July 27, 2009 12:09 PM
Reality* - "Is it crazy to question the so called "fact checking" organizations that after months of stating Obama was born in one hospital in Hawaii, changing the fact to state that he was born in a different hospital." Citation please.
"Well I was taught that facts don't change. Must be another change in the law of physics that we have been asked to accept as of late."
You don't know much about how science works do you? Data comes in. A theory is formed. More experiments are constructed to prove the theory wrong. Then more data comes in. If the theory doesn't fit the data well, a new theory is constructed to better fit the facts, else the the original theory is strengthened. "facts" are always provisional.
"When you can't argue the "facts" even when you keep changing the facts to suit your argument, you attack the messenger and call them names."
When birfers theories is so weak that it requires greater and greater levels of conspiracy theories to work (including time travelling back to 1961 to place a birth announcement to bolster a Presidential campaign 44 years later, and somehow brainwashing the entire Republican Party and the other Democratic candidates to ignore this self-evident birfer 'evidence', which can't be produced to substantiate their claims), calling the idea crazy is not really much of a stretch.
"It is so obvious that there is something to this issue or there wouldn't be so much of a concerted effort to attack those seeking to determine the truth."
Not so much. Most of the birfer activity is from a small number of persons who are trying to create a artificial controversy where there isn't one, rather unsuccessfully I might add. The fact that even the radical right-wing commenters (such as Coulter) don't think there is much in it, means the world-wide conference of birfer true-believers could be held in an average teenager's bedroom.
That was the whole point of the thread. Comprehension fail. -DJ
________
*Love the handle BTW, I'm a big fan of irony.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2009 12:24 PM
Ramel:
I think that Mr. Reality probably touches himself a lot; at first in guilty pleasure, then in delicious self-mortification.
Posted by: democommie | July 27, 2009 12:25 PM
taken out of context (but uninterrupted reporting) of a personal email sent to me was the following:
"...in the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Grade Classes… A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is a person born of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. Mr. Soetoro’s father was a British foreign National and was not a citizen of the U.S.A. There is no way Mr. Soetoro can qualify to hold the office of President…PERIOD!"
Can anyone de-bunk that? Please tell the world cause even at
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12881:media-mischief-the-obama-eligibility-issue-and-the-dispositive-fact-&catid=71:world-news&Itemid=201
they are wondering too.
Posted by: ilene g | July 27, 2009 12:27 PM
The craziest Birther of them all, dentist-cum-lawyer Orly Taitz, is going to be on The Colbert Report this week. There's no mention of it on Colbert's site, but she mentions flying to New York to record an interview with him. (I suspect this will one of those "at the desk" interviews in the early part of the show.)
This can't end well for Taitz...
Posted by: tacitus | July 27, 2009 12:35 PM
One doesn't require even one citizen parent to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens, with a few specific exceptions -- for example, being born to foreign diplomats serving in the U.S. My own father was a natural-born U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in the U.S. to immigrant parents (who actually never chose to become citizens themselves.)
Posted by: Julie.k.stahlhut@alum.mit.edu | July 27, 2009 12:42 PM
ilene, australia.to is a junk news and conspiracy theory web site that pretends to publish serious news. In reality they are no different from sites like WorldNutDaily -- the sections on UFOs and Planet X news is a dead give away.
"The world" is quite happy with Obama as president, as recent polls have shown, and they couldn't care less what a bunch of right-wing deadenders believe about Obama's citizenship.
For the record, Obama's father's citizenship has been known from day one, and not a single serious constitutional lawyer (many of whom are conservative) has ever argued that this fact disqualifies him from being president (and they've had years in which to do it).
The fact is that by being born on American soil to a natural born American mother is more than enough for Obama to meet the natural born citizenship qualification for President.
Posted by: tacitus | July 27, 2009 12:49 PM
Julie Stahlhut - Yes but in addition to that, President Obama's mother was a Natural-born citizen born in Kansas to Naturally-born citizens, and thus he would be a Natural-born Citizen of the US even if he were born in Kenya, England or outer-space, by virtue of having at least one Natural-born citizen as a parent.
Natural-born citizen by place of birth and by birth parentage, Obama is doubly Natural-born thus qualified to be President of the USA. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2009 12:53 PM
"Reality", please don't run away. I've got to know, what change in the laws of Physics have you been asked to accept lately?
Posted by: Taz | July 27, 2009 1:08 PM
ilene g -
Since you're the one making the claim, how about some evidence to support it? Any old phrase from the constitution or SC ruling will due.
Posted by: Taz | July 27, 2009 1:13 PM
Make fun of them if you will, but the reality is much worse than even Mr. Keyes and Ms. Taitz have told us.
As Ed reminds us, the current occupant of the White House campaigned on a platform of dismantling the Imperial Presidency, making the operation of the Executive more transparent, rolling back the State Secrets Privilege, and other topics near and dear to the Left. Right up until January 21, any way.
Obviously, he (whoever he really is) is working towards the same ends as George W. Bush, and considering the convenient timing of the events of September 2001, it's clear that the people who blew up the World Trade Center are part of the same conspiracy -- all aimed at removing the civil liberties of Americans and instituting a police state that will watch our every move without any restraint.
Posted by: Yagotta B. Kidding | July 27, 2009 1:15 PM
Reality, #15: It is so obvious that there is something to this issue or there wouldn't be so much of a concerted effort to attack those seeking to determine the truth.
What concerted effort? You nuts keep popping up, and we keep laughing at you when you do.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 1:15 PM
It is so obvious that there is something to this issue or there wouldn't be so much of a concerted effort to attack those seeking to determine the truth.
So where was all that "concerted effort" back when it would have made a difference? We didn't see any from the Republicans, or from the Republican-run Department of Justice, who could easily have run down any fact that might have cast reasonable doubt on Obama's eligibility to be President BEFORE Election Day.
So by "Reality's" own reasoning, no concerted effort means no issue.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2009 1:27 PM
Yagotta B. Kidding posted:
"Obviously, he (whoever he really is)..."
President of the USA, gee haven't been current events have you?
"... is working towards the same ends as George W. Bush, and considering the convenient timing of the events of September 2001, it's clear that the people who blew up the World Trade Center are part of the same conspiracy..."
You're accusing a former President and a sitting President of Treason? You'd better have some really solid evidence there buddy!
" -- all aimed at removing the civil liberties of Americans and instituting a police state that will watch our every move without any restraint."
See Reality - exhibit "A" - wild and ever-expanding conspiracies without any actual evidence. As I said above you'd better have solid evidence or you could be wading neck-deep into trouble. - DJ
PS: Yes I am aware this is a Poe. But it's instructive to expose these arguments, thus cutting down the credulous and naive belief in birfer idiocy.
Posted by: DingoJAck | July 27, 2009 1:30 PM
Yagotta B. (Nuts) Kidding
Please check the expiration date on your meds. Your conspiracy theories are showing.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 1:35 PM
Obviously the reason Mr. Barry HUSSEIN Soetoro (Peace Be Upon the ONE) wants senior citizens to be aborted and turned into Soylent Green (green being the color of choice for the Islamist) is to erase any memory of his illegal immigration into our country. Big Brotha' wants to flush our elderly parents down the Memory Hole! I mean, would you put such an ungodly act past a devious Kenyan Socialist who has colluded with the time traveling Reptiloids behind ACORN to have had placed a fake birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser? If he has no respect for the integrity of the Time-Space Continuum (not that Anthropogenic Time Warping is anything other than a hoax, mind you), what respect will he have for the right to life of our seniors?
Posted by: jpf | July 27, 2009 1:41 PM
Ah but the Seniors will be safe as long as they can produce the original log-form birth certificates (not Certificates of Live Birth, mind you) and their ancestors going back to Adam (4404BC) plus have said ancestors testify to the veracity of said papers on the witness-stand, under an oath to the Christian God (who will also have to provide his long-form birth certificate, as will everyone else in the universe).
Or that's what I overheard in the WND washroom.... DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2009 1:52 PM
Note since Hussein isn't a natural citizen the 'log form of his birth certificate' will have to be base ten, of course. Or perhaps I meant 'long-form', it's a conspiracy hatched by Saddam Husein, Osama bin Laden and the UN to overthrow the inanity of the insanity of birfer rants so that.... [here the spittle flecked nature of the raving make understanding impossible and Dingo loses interest] - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2009 1:58 PM
The right has spent thirty years imagining red-meat propaganda scenarios and presenting them to the credulous, slavering masses of shock-addicted wingnuts through a fire hose. Over time the body of taken-on-faith 'truths' has become a mighty river of lies, misrepresentation and toxic waste. Even though she has made a career of helping to create the river she is starting think the river has gotten too deep and is running too fast. The river of lies they could use to wash away the truth and channel through the opponents districts has broken through its banks.
Coulter has always been a GOP pol, hack and mouthpiece for hire. But, as with so many of the ilk, the lies and distortion were just means to an end. They really didn't drink from the river of Koolaide they hosed the gullible masses with. It was all a performance piece done to gain tactical advantage.
Coulter saw has sen the lunatic right rise up and over top the dikes of GOP party control. She can see where this is going and has suddenly understood that this is the GOP's 'burn the village, to save the village' moment. The point at which the rhetorical commentary on political events becomes so absurd it becomes glossolalia applied to pareidolia. The point where people hear the words and know the speaker is nuts. She senses that becoming a birther is a level of self parody that can't be recovered from. She was willing to help create the river of lies, she is happy to use its flow to her advantage. She may even swim in the river. But she now sees that the river is out of control and that it now threatens her cause. She blanches at drowning herself in it.
Posted by: Art | July 27, 2009 2:00 PM
And he was born by C-section and his mom took pain meds. That is NOT a natural birth - so he cannot be said to be Naturally Born.
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 27, 2009 2:05 PM
Art - Like you I suspect the right-wing media have suddenly realised this birfer thing is a complete 'vote-loser' so they'll trying to turn it around, with little success. Every re-telling of the same idiotic birfer arguments is a nail in the coffin of their dream^ of permanent GOP majorities.
How do you know Dr Steve*? Were you there??? - ;) DJ
_______________________
^ every thinking humans' nightmare. Imagine a boot stamping on your face, forever!
*(If that's your REAL name, provide us with a long-form original birth certificate and we still wont believe you)
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2009 2:15 PM
Someone should clue in Ilene G that even someone born to two illegal immigrant felon homosexual non-married communists is a natural citizen, as long as (s)he was born in the USA.
Posted by: Mu | July 27, 2009 2:52 PM
Mu: Good point. It should be remembered that the task of deporting illegal aliens is sometimes complicated (IIRC) by the fact that some of them have had babies in the US; and unlike their parents, the babies can't legally be deported because they're US citizens (who, presumably, would be eligible to serve as President should they run and get elected).
IANAL, but I suspect that when they wrote that bit about only "natural-born citizens" being able to be POTUS, the Founders meant only to prevent people with ZERO previous connection to the US from just moving in and running for the job. This rule was, most likely, a response to the common phenomenon (in Europe) of people becomong kings/queens of countries they'd never even visited before, merely by marrying into the right families (case in point: King George I, a German from a German royal family who became King of England without even learning English).
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2009 3:05 PM
Re Reality
I will take Mr. Reality seriously when he produces a Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama.
Posted by: SLC | July 27, 2009 3:09 PM
Ed Brayton, thanks for reporting this.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 27, 2009 3:34 PM
DingoJack -- There are some ambiguities in the law regarding whether a child born to U.S. citizen parents outside the U.S. is "natural born" (although such a child is almost always, under those circumstance, born a U.S. citizen, and does not need to be naturalized.) As I understand it, the law doesn't say that such a person is "natural born" -- nor does it say that s/he is not. So, this will probably remain fodder for spirited arguments until someone actually brings a case to court, which might not happen for centuries. Someone with an actual understanding of U.S. immigration and naturalization law can probably explain this better than I can.
Of course, Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii qualifies him anyway, except in the minds of the aforementioned fringe folks who are probably ready to claim that he was born on a Starfleet ship of joint Tongan and Nepalese registry, but surreptitiously switched at an early age with an infant born to a Ethiopian diplomat and his secret Laotian mistress in their love nest in Paraguay.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | July 27, 2009 3:40 PM
Who is a citizen at birth is found in the US code, Title 8 section 1401:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Spoiler: Obama was a citizen at birth because of condition (a). However, if you want to believe the silly birfers' argument that he was born outside the US, then he was a citizen at birth because of condition (e).
Of course, though, when Obama was born, Hawai'i was part of the United States - having been acquired as a territory in 1898 (63 years before Barack Obama's birth), and having become a state in 1959 (2 years before Barack Obama's birth) - making the reasoning behind having to even think about using condition (e) moot.
I have a feeling like this was covered before, when the question of McCain's citizenship and "natural born" status was in question last year in February. (Spoiler: he is a natural born citizen, because both of his parents were citizens, and Johnny moved back to the US to live most of his life here; being born in the PCZ wasn't - AFAIK - enough on its own to qualify as being natural born.)
Posted by: Umlud | July 27, 2009 3:52 PM
Top story on politico.com just now is that tge birthers are growing as a lose-lose deadweight issue for the GOP. Congratulations, morons, you earned it.
Posted by: william e emba | July 27, 2009 4:01 PM
Raging Bee - IANAL either, but from what I do know, the term "natural born citizen" has never been legally defined. The closest is the decisions stemming from the 14th Amendment and the subsequent US Code. However, the US Code doesn't state "natural born", rather it says "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth". Of course, I'm in the camp who believe that pointing out that the two terms are not equivalent because they use different wording is a red herring. It's more than likely that if it goes before SCOTUS (however unlikely that is to happen), the two terms will be deemed equivalent (after all, it's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who swears in the new President).
And, yes: wouldn't at least one of Clinton's, McCain's, Romney's or Paul's lawyers have thought, "Hmmm... I wonder if Obama meets all the legal requirements of becoming POTUS."
Of course, if you were really wanting to don the conspiracist's mantle, you might say that McCain didn't want to raise it because of his own issues of birth, nor Romney because of his father's (and, therefore - possibly - his own). But Paul and Clinton (let alone Huckabee, Edwards, and the rest)? Sorry, my logical extensions to conspiracy don't extrapolate far enough.
Posted by: Umlud | July 27, 2009 4:13 PM
... sorry... I forgot to close the bold in that first paragraph. :P
Posted by: Umlud | July 27, 2009 4:25 PM
Let me put it this way: if a woman who is a US citizen, legally residing in, say, Niagra Falls, NY (note to birfers: that's part of the USA), gets pregnant, and sometime late in her term takes a short trip to Niagra Falls, ON (note to birfers: that's part of Canada, which is NOT part of the USA), and then goes unexpectedly into labor, will it really matter to US law, or any US officer, what side of the border she gave birth on? If she takes her baby back across the border, with the intent of raising it in her legal domicile, will any self-respecting customs official -- of any country -- actually say "OK, you're a citizen, but your baby isn't, so you have to leave it behind?" Please. Governments in general are loath to do anything remotely likely to break up the families of their own nationals. This is a longstanding convention based on basic family law as well as US ConLaw. If you're a citizen, and you have a baby, and you choose to raise it in your country, then the baby is a "natural-born" citizen, just like you, whether or not it was actually born in-country. If you have a baby and raise it elsewhere, it's still a citizen, although that may not make a difference to the baby at any time in its life.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2009 4:51 PM
Ulmud: Thanks for the link in 44. Great stuff.
Here is another angle: Conservatives love to brag that everybody in the world wants to come to the USA. Why would a man from Kenya marry an American woman in the USA, and then drag her back to Kenya to give birth to his child there? That seems really stupid to me.
Has that been covered? But I would not be surprised if the birthers have a response to that.
Posted by: Blue Nine | July 27, 2009 4:54 PM
What's really funny about this whole birther nonsense, to anyone with a memory longer than 2 years at least, is how, back when Bush was still popular and California still solvent, the Republican talking heads were going on and on about how there needed to be a Constitutional amendment to allow non-natives to run for president so that Schwarzenegger could run in 2008.
Then again, maybe I should be less amused and more worried about how adept my fellow citizens have gotten at forgetting things inconvenient to The Party.
Posted by: Julian | July 27, 2009 5:09 PM
SLC: Pfft; don't you know that no country other than the United States, which is the greatest and bestest and most specialest country ever because god loves giving it teh big lolhugz, can get its shit together enough to issue birth certificates; especially those silly welfare "countries" in "Africa" like Kenya. The very fact that there isn't a Kenya bc to be found PROVES THAT HE WAS BORN THERE!1!!!11!one! OPEN YOURE EYES OMG!
Seriously, get your act together guy.
Posted by: Julian | July 27, 2009 5:15 PM
It concerns me that so many people just ignore and throw away the "Constitution" that made their freedom and quality of life possible.
Perhaps if we turned off the mind control box, the TV, and just lived life for 1 month without the benefit of the STATE RUN MEDIA, maybe we could all see life in a truer, more responsible light?
Perhaps we could see what is really happing to us? Perhaps we could unite as people--- not black, white, red, or brown, liberal, or conservative.... But as Americans. As a people that were meant to be free and strong.
Until we do this, we will become the strongest nation in the world who let the "Elites" use technology to transform a free world into a slave nation.
This is exactly what our American ancestors fought against in the Revolutionary War. And here we are less than 300 years later, letting it happen again.
TRUST, BELIEVE, AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION OF THE USA. Those men knew what they were fighting. It has worked pretty well so far.
The Great Depression was our downfall. Too many of us were hungry and let the "Elites" take control of our lives. And we are doing it again today, even though we are not hungry. We have the most obese nation in the world and the majority of the obese are on welfare.
Something seriously wrong here. STAND UP AND FIGHT!!!!
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 5:25 PM
IANAL, but I suspect that when they wrote that bit about only "natural-born citizens" being able to be POTUS, the Founders meant only to prevent people with ZERO previous connection to the US from just moving in and running for the job.
Actually, it is believed that the clause was added to the Constitution specifically to keep Alexander Hamilton from running for president. Hamilton was born in the British West Indies and was not well liked by the people writing the Constitution because he was a proponent of a strong central government.
By the way, John McCain was not born in the USA. He was born in the Canal Zone.
Posted by: Tom | July 27, 2009 5:42 PM
Michael Keith,
First, you need to work on your grammar. This includes maintaining consistency in both your argument and verb tense. It also means minimizing the use of ALL CAPS to just abbreviations. (Otherwise, it's just annoying to read.) Also, prepositions are very important (i.e., I think you meant "Those men knew what they were fighting for." - it's pretty clear that they were actually fighting the British military and hired mercenaries).
Second, you should provide sources for your claims. For example, what is your justification that "The Great Depression was our downfall"?
Third, what do you mean by "meant to be free and strong"? Are you channeling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny? If so, then nice ironic touch with its juxtaposition to your exhortation to "black, white, red, or brown" people.
Fourth, most of the "we" reading these notes didn't do anything during the Great Depression. "We" (for the most part) were not born. If by "we" you mean "United States citizens," then you are making a false comparison across time (without any stated rationale for doing so).
Finally, are you calling for a symbolic "stand up and fight" or a literal one? If the former, then how? If the latter, then when and where? Without greater specificity, your exhortations of trying to be a "people that were meant to be free and strong", you come across (at least to me) as a jingoistic demagogue.
Posted by: mercurian ferret | July 27, 2009 5:42 PM
It's been almost 30 minutes..... Not one comment. Perhaps I struck a nerve? Welfare was established to keep a voting base dependendent on the "Elites".
As long as we depend on the Elites we will never be free.
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 5:48 PM
Tom - I'm not sure which side of the argument you are trying to make, but yes, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone (not the USA), but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a "national or citizen of the United States at birth". Since McCain was (if memory serves) born after the PCZ changed from a military-run operation to a civilian one, the zone wasn't as a military base (remember here that IANAL, but IFAIK being born on a US military base is the same as being born in the US). However, since both of McCain's parents were US citizens (each having spent more than 1 year in the US before Johnny's birth), John McCain was, according to the US Code, a national or citizen of the United States at birth. (If the PCZ was still a military base when John was born, then he would still be a citizen, but under a different provision. Similarly if he was born in a consulate or embassy -- again, if memory serves.)
Posted by: Umlud | July 27, 2009 5:49 PM
Hmmm... Six minutes between my posted reply and Michael Keith's statement of "Not one comment".
Michael Keith: you need to learn about F5, also known as the keyboard shortcut for "refresh page". You can do the same thing by pushing the little arrow that circles back on itself, found on your browser's navigation toolbar. Surely it didn't take you six minutes to type those three lines?
Posted by: mercurian ferret | July 27, 2009 5:53 PM
In response to :mercurian ferret
I appreciate your response. I must note that your biggest problem with my post was with my grammar.... That is very telling. Secondly, I posted that post as an American Race. An American People. So obviously, I was not there during the Depression.
I was kinda hoping that the people responding on this post might have a bit of historical education. Which would be nice considering the main point of my post was that so many people were discarding the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION ( i know you hate caps).
I stand by my post. If I am wrong, document how I am.
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 5:57 PM
Michael Keith, #58: Which would be nice considering the main point of my post was that so many people were discarding the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION....
Who exactly is discarding the Constitution, and how are they doing it? I only ask in order to get a feel for what you are discussing here. This is a thread about the birther nonsense, after all.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 6:03 PM
Keith: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ah-Ah-ah....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh boy, that's a good one. You've never read a reputable history book on the U.S. in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century in your life, have you? You want to know who the real elites were? The banks foreclosing people's houses. The industrialists who used machine guns to break up strikes. The investors who first invented derivatives during that time, the trading of which, fueled by the over-leveraging of local banks, which itself was fueled by over borrowing to farmers for farm equipment (which coincidentally, not only led to huge foreclosures during the Depression period, but also to the Dust Bowl by encouraging the over tilling of the delicate Great Plains soil and crop monotony) so they'd have more debt to leverage for investing, there-by causing the Great Depression, were the elites. In other words, if you want to see real elites, look to the people who were actually running the country between the end of the Civil War and FDR. I'm glad that you bring up the Depression, because it saves me having to make the argument that the Republican party hasn't changed since FDR, and has spent the last century recycling out-dated arguments and fighting a fight to recreate a country where government serves entirely the interests of the monied and the powerful.
You want to see delusion? Look in the mirror, because the only reason your ancestors ever had the chance to rise to the middle class during the 50's and 60's was because of FDR's movement of our government away from being an enforcer of entitlement and towards the position of being a neutral arbiter focused on creating true, equitable prosperity for the greatest number of its citizens. You want to find elites? You won't find them in the legion of poor and middling youngsters who came to work for government agencies during the FDR period. Read about the company town. Read about the conditions miners and lumberjacks and railroad workers and textile workers lived under before we had a government willing to hold companies to the law, and then come back he and lecture us about how our country was "more free" when getting your foot cut off at the age of 7 by a machine gear because you were contracted to clean the steel press in the same document that contracted your father to twist widgets 20 hours a day was considered a pay-docking offense instead of an crime on the part of your employer.
Posted by: Julian | July 27, 2009 6:06 PM
mercurian ferret :
You are very quickly showing your intelligence. I might have expected more from you.
My 1st post: 5:25
Your post : 5:42
My 2nd post: 5:48
Your 2nd : 5:53
Again, No educated response. Just like your first one attacking grammer, you now attack my internet skills. As always, people do more harm to themselves when trying to evade the truth.
Posted by: michael Keith | July 27, 2009 6:07 PM
Michael Keith - mercurian ferrets points are good ones. Exactly who should be engaging with who and how, and exactly why? What exactly should be those that answer your rhetorical 'call to arms' end game? All I saw in your original post was a lot of hand waving and sophistry; that sort of rhetoric will never get you very very far in a science blog forum. Such rhetoric is also the most likely reason you never saw a response, there was nothing in your post to respond with any substance to consider and either accept or rebut. I guarantee you this forum is not supportive or friendly to the weak, deluded, or intellectually dishonest.
In addition, please be cognizant there are a number of people in this forum who are extremely well-versed in American History, the Constitution, and political science. When making your arguments, please provide citations for any assertions you use that would not be universally accepted by the well-informed; otherwise your arguments will be either ridiculed or ignored like your first "argument".
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 6:32 PM
Posted by: Julian
You have just ASSUMED that I am a republican. If you read my initial post, I am a hater of all "Current Polititians". They are corrupt and power hungry, save a few.
This is the damage that they, and the STATE RUN MEDIA do to us. They are here to divide and keep the animosity alive.
The Constitution reads first and foremost---- WE THE PEOPLE
The "elites" and the State Run Media" have pounded us for 30 years to devide us for their own benefit.
My question, initially, would be that even though I have not boasted a specific fondness for any party, my ideas are being irrationally hammered as though I were an enemy. Why? I have liberals and conservatives hammering me.
Perhaps we need to recognize (as I said in my first post) that the elites are working to enslave us. Whether it be by Republicans or Democrats.
Posted by: michael Keith | July 27, 2009 6:32 PM
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 6:32 PM
By the way, I am Michael KEITH......
To respond to Michael Heath.....
Again, no emperical, historical facts.... Just attacks....
Why do emaotional people try to fight when they have no ammunition? History is what it is. If you have no Constitutional teachings, then we can blame the state run educational system for that.... i.e., Public schools.
Why not quit attacking, and just show some educated response to my claims?
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 6:44 PM
Uh oh, here comes the attacks for typing emaotional instead of emotional..... wait for it, here it comes.
Posted by: michael keith | July 27, 2009 6:46 PM
Five bucks says Michael Keith is a libertarian. I say that because of the full capitalization of the word "state". Much the same way some Christians capitalize Satan, and for pretty much the same reason.
No one is attacking your "arguments" because it's pretty hard to refute detatchment from reality.
If I spent a post talking about the Great Unicorn and Werewolf war of '03 I wouldn't expect anyone to logically refute my post. (The werewolves won, by the way.)
Posted by: JThompson | July 27, 2009 6:51 PM
Posted by: JThompson | July 27, 2009 6:51 PM
Again, personal attacks.. Is there anyone out here that disagrees with me on this site that has a Historical and Constitutional education?
No offense JThompson....
And no, I am not a libertarian. You owe me 5 bucks.
Posted by: michael Keith | July 27, 2009 6:59 PM
Re Umlud
It is my information that Senator McCain was born in a hospital in Panama City which is not in the Canal Zone. Based on the US Code, a link to which was posted earlier, it's irrelevant as both his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth.
Posted by: SLC | July 27, 2009 7:08 PM
In light of the last hour or so of postings, I believe we may have gotten off track. I will again attach my original posting and ask that anyone who has intelligent information to agree or disagree with my idea, do so.... Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------
It concerns me that so many people just ignore and throw away the "Constitution" that made their freedom and quality of life possible.
Perhaps if we turned off the mind control box, the TV, and just lived life for 1 month without the benefit of the STATE RUN MEDIA, maybe we could all see life in a truer, more responsible light?
Perhaps we could see what is really happing to us? Perhaps we could unite as people--- not black, white, red, or brown, liberal, or conservative.... But as Americans. As a people that were meant to be free and strong.
Until we do this, we will become the strongest nation in the world who let the "Elites" use technology to transform a free world into a slave nation.
This is exactly what our American ancestors fought against in the Revolutionary War. And here we are less than 300 years later, letting it happen again.
TRUST, BELIEVE, AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION OF THE USA. Those men knew what they were fighting. It has worked pretty well so far.
The Great Depression was our downfall. Too many of us were hungry and let the "Elites" take control of our lives. And we are doing it again today, even though we are not hungry. We have the most obese nation in the world and the majority of the obese are on welfare.
Something seriously wrong here. STAND UP AND FIGHT!!!!
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 5:25 PM
Posted by: michael Keith | July 27, 2009 7:10 PM
Michael Keith, #69: I will again attach my original posting....
And I will again ask my question:
who exactly is ignoring and "throwing away" the Constitution, and what specific acts are they doing that constitutes "throwing away" the Constitution?
I'm especially interested in why you think this is relevant on a thread about the birther nonsense.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 7:28 PM
Michael Keith - again, please provide specifics to your arguments, all I read is a lot of rhetorical hand waving. I didn't provide any historical facts to buttress my argument in response to your posts given that you provided no cogent arguments, therefore I have nothing of yours to accept, rebut, or question. Given your reading comprehension failed to note I made no rebuttal to you as you claimed, but instead merely asked for your specific argument which remains MIA, I'm not confident the quality of your next comment will allow an exchange; I hope you prove me wrong.
I'm waiting for you to specifically address the following:
Root cause problem you want addressed, currently all you've argued are symptoms. Do you understand the difference between a symptom and a root cause?
Corrective actions that repair the root causes that cause you to comment here. Currently all you've done is wave your hands furiously and rhetorically attack people who point out how vague your arguments are.
Please provide specifics and illuminate your core problems and argued responses with examples as well. Do you have any understanding of what a cogent argument is? Currently I'm inclined to believe we're being exposed to an extreme example of projectionism; which is why we're still waiting for a cogent argument from you while you claim the other commenters are supposedly incapable of rebutting your comment posts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 7:31 PM
Michael Keith,
I have no idea what you are foaming about.
Possibilities:
We should lose weight and fight someone/something?
Are you in favor/against/impartial to birther insanity?
Should we be fighting the NYT, Obama, Bill O'Reilly?
I really cannot tell what point you are trying to make.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 7:40 PM
I would like to stay and educate, but I must get my 10 yr old son dinner, a bath, and to bed.
I look forward to see all the posts when I get on here tomorrow.
One final note: The Elites.... both republican and democrat, are enslaving us. They want nothing more than to have us dependent on them for our substinence.
We became a great nation by LIMITING GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
We have become lazy, and now want government to provide for us. Media and Government are using a "Powermove" now to gain control over us completely.
If we let it happen, all is lost, and freedom will be won back at the cost of blood in the streets.
Call, email, write your Representatives. DO NOT ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL US.
Defend your freedom, STAND UP AND FIGHT!!!!!!
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 7:42 PM
Michael Keith stated:
I realize Ed creates his "Dumbass quote of the day" based on the statements of those in the news, but I would hope he'd make an exception and make this tomorrow's selection.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 7:45 PM
Michael Keith, #73: I would like to stay and educate....
I doubt it. Otherwise you would've made the attempt to "educate" us with the half dozen or so posts you've already written.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 7:46 PM
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 7:28 PM
The whole "birther" concern thing specifically deals with Constitutional adherence. To answer your question quickly.
If you would like to know the constitutional ramifications of the "eligibility" question. Google, read, or maybe pick up a book called "The 5000 Year Leap".
Take care.
Posted by: michael Keith | July 27, 2009 7:49 PM
Michael Keith
You appear to be reading from a script and are therefore unable to answer pointed, specific questions from several posters. I will not be here when bathtime is over but in case I look in tomorrow, what elites are you referring to? Names of people and/or organizations would be nice and why you call them elites and what you specifically are accusing them of besides the general enslavement thing. That is too broad and nebulous. Specifics. Or for you, SPECIFICS.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 7:49 PM
Glenn Beck likes the 5000 Year Leap. That's the dustbin for me.
The eligibility question is finished. Obama is eligible and is legally president. Any other position at this time is a waste of breathe and court time (although not much time as the cases get wiped in seconds but still pointless). Oppose his policies by providing constructive alternatives. Otherwise just be glad Bush & Cheyney are gone.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 7:55 PM
It's interesting. You have two commenters in this thread with identical first names and rhyming last names. I speak, of course, of Michael Heath and Michael Keith. The former is widely regarded as one of the most informative, engaging, intelligent commenters this blog has ever seen. The latter...not so much.
Speaking of which,
I would like to stay and educate
This is a difficult task when the teacher only spits out talking points. I've lost track of the number of times you've urged us to "STAND UP AND FIGHT!"
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 27, 2009 7:55 PM
To Mikema: I am not foaming, merely trying to get robots to think for themselves. Trying to get people to turn off the TV and go to the library and learn history amd constitution.
To Mike Heath: If you had anything constructive to say or add except insults, you would have by now. You need to understand that no matter how long you drink the koolaid, no matter how long Acorn signs your checks, there will always be TRUE AMERICAN CITIZENS that will stand up and speak the truth.
The ELITES will NEVER silence the Constitutional Purists.
Especially with YOUR IQ.
Yeah, that was a shot. I succumbed to your own MO and took a shot. Forgive me readers.
Posted by: michael keith | July 27, 2009 8:03 PM
Michael Keith, #76: ...maybe pick up a book called "The 5000 Year Leap"....
Ugh. One sign of a true nut is when someone thinks that the framers of the Constitution were some sort of magical prophets who knew how people should run their affairs 200 years in the future. In fact, the framers themselves would be the first to call Skousen a nut.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 8:05 PM
78 Glenn Beck likes the 5000 Year Leap. That's the dustbin for me.
Who's Glenn Beck?
Posted by: Michael Keith | July 27, 2009 8:08 PM
Defined as "thinking as I do."
Not elitist, eh?
Posted by: gwangung | July 27, 2009 8:12 PM
gwangung, #83: Defined as "thinking as I do."
Just like "ignoring and throwing out the Constitution" is defined to be "not interpreting it as I want it to be," I suspect.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2009 8:14 PM
78 Glenn Beck likes the 5000 Year Leap. That's the dustbin for me.
Seriously MikeMa, I don't care if you hate my comments, or the other posters as well...
Who's Glenn Beck? Does he know this book? Is he a fan? Why did you bother to mention him?
Would like to know. If I google him will he show up?
Posted by: michael keith | July 27, 2009 8:19 PM
If Michael Keith was simply posting old Beastie Boys lyrics and demanding that we "fight for our right to party" he would have made a more distinct argument than his actual posts.
Posted by: Ciaphas | July 27, 2009 8:19 PM
Too many code words, too much rambling from Mr Keith but the birther cracks are beginning to show.
And thanks to those intrepid founders for making our constitution malleable so that adjustments could be made as times changed. A rigid framework would most certainly have fallen.
Chiroptera: Still waiting to find out who is ignoring or throwing out the constitution but I suspect Mr Keith might mean Obama and his missing long form BC.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 8:22 PM
Michael Keith @85
Glenn Beck does indeed like the book according to an Amazon review. He is a right-wing fucking loon on both radio and tv. If he likes it, it must be unbelievably bad. Google will find lots of Beck lunacy.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 8:25 PM
Found Glenn Beck.....
Idiots, the GOVERNMENT bastardized the Constitution.
Turns out, thanks to MikeMa, there is a decent base out there that still believes in the Constitution of the USA.
See you all on the Battlefield.
Well, probably not, you are all ignorant cowards that want us tax payers to pay for your house, car, health care, food, and clothes. You will never fight the fight.
Quote: It's not revenge, it's the reckoning he's after.
Sleep tight, and may your children live a long and free life that their great great grandparents died for, and that you are giving up for YOUR OWN COMFORT.
Cowards, you deserve what you have coming.
Posted by: michael keith | July 27, 2009 8:38 PM
Who's Glenn Beck? Does he know this book? Is he a fan? Why did you bother to mention him?
Would like to know. If I google him will he show up?
I'm not sure of this "Glenn Beck" person either, but I will make an attempt at google later, probably in the next week or so. Perhaps I should email google and tell them to be ready for me, as I will probably use it two or more times, with the appropriate coffee breaks in between of course. Let me get some rest first.
Posted by: 386sx | July 27, 2009 8:38 PM
Michael Keith stated (directed at me):
Please provide evidence that I "drink the Kool-Aid".
ACORN doesn't "sign my checks". I'm a self-employed business owner, I write checks. The only checks I get is from my clients, none of whom are ACORN.
Ed Brayton is a supporter of constitutional originalism, as am I and many others here. I'm not sure you even understand the term given the vagueness of your hand waving so far. To date you've provided zero evidence you a) understand the Constitution in spite of claiming this forum ". . . that so many people were discarding the AMERICAN [sic] CONSTITUTION [sic]. . . ", b) specify exactly who is doing harm to the Constitution that you are referring to in your posts, or c) provided specific remedies given this supposed harm.
We're perfectly cognizant of who is attacking the Constitution and why in this forum. Merely read Ed's previous posts. We're looking for specifics from you, which again, you appear incapable of providing. We're not looking to get educated from you given you've provided zero evidence you know anything meaningful with the exception you've memorized some popular talking points.
I'm insulting you because your comments appear to be comprised of vague talking points where you appear incapable of drilling down below the hand waving in spite of repeated requests by a number of other commenters here, including me. If you want to avoid derision, I'd advise you, as I did previously, to start making cogent arguments.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 8:42 PM
Dumbfuck Michael Keith addressing this forum:
I sincerely hope you don't supervise anyone (for their sake) given your complete inability, even after repeated requests, to define your specific issues and our supposedly failed response that would cause you to call the readers in this forum "cowards". I can't imagine how an employee who reported to you would respond to your pleas given their utter vagueness in spite of repeated requests by numerous commenters to be specific.
Which also suggests another reason I hope no one reports to you; your inability to respond to justified criticism consistent amongst numerous commenters argues for some sort of persecution complex given your repeated "all is lost" given we can't respond to your vague claims.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 9:01 PM
I agree with Michael Heath that we'd like to debate your ideas but so far there are none expressed, just blown smoke.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2009 9:11 PM
Dear Mr. Michael Keith:
Someday, when I be more better learned, I will respond to your probitive testimonials in a like hearted manner.
In the meantime, let me just say that you should shut your fucking piehole until your brain catches up with it. Most of us are going to still be around in a few years when/if that happy event occurs, so you can give us all holy hell when that day comes.
Otoh, you could just google FreeRepublic or LGF and enjoy yourself with a bunch of loons that may well make you a "one eyed man in the land of the blind", or not.
Posted by: democommie | July 27, 2009 9:37 PM
I know it is said frequently that so-and-so is "off his meds", but Michael Keith has me totally convinced he really IS off his meds.
Come back, Mike. If only for the LOLZ.
Posted by: Rick R | July 27, 2009 9:48 PM
michael keith -
Elites, bad
Constitution, good
Got it! Your work here is done. Run along now, little poseur.
Posted by: Taz | July 27, 2009 9:55 PM
Uh Micheal K - What STATE RUN MEDIA? The US media is owned and operated by companies, not the US Government. Other countries (England, Canada and Australia for example) DO have state-run media (as opposed to STATE RUN MEDIA*). In these cases, such media are more trusted, more accurate and more impartial, because the govenment can't interfere, legally, in the running of of the media organisation.
Again - What are you complaining about, specifically? What actions do you wish to take, specifically? What result do you wish to achieve after the aforementioned action(s), specifically? If you want to converse here, you have to provide actual arguments, backed up by actual evidence. It's all rather simple.-DJ
*Note: ALL-CAPS doesn't make it more sinister sounding, it just makes you sound more like a complete loon. 'State-run' is hyphenated because this is an adjectival phrase that modifies the noun 'media'. Hence 'STATE RUN MEDIA' is not the same as 'state-run media'.
Posted by: DIngoJack | July 27, 2009 10:30 PM
Michael K's comments + thread title = delicious.
Posted by: Rick R | July 27, 2009 10:39 PM
I find it a little hard to believe that MK didn't know who Glenn Beck was, because he certainly knows all the Beck buzzwords by heart.
But if he really didn't, then I suspect Beck has found a new adoring fan, and there goes another soul irrevocably lost to insanity.
:-(
Posted by: tacitus | July 27, 2009 10:51 PM
Taz describes Michael Keith's arguments as:
Elites - Bad
Constitution - Good
While I understood this was Keith's claim, it too had my head spinning given the Constitution was conceived, drafted, advocated for, and ratified by . . . you guessed it - elites. Our continued understanding of how SCOTUS rulings defend or attack it, and our understanding of how the government defends or violates it, in legal terms comes from, elites. This is one of many reasons I asked for more specifics which I subsequently learned he's incapable of providing, i.e., are just this generations' elites "bad", or were they always bad or somewhere inbetween and if the latter, when, how, why, and what exactly is his prescription? In addition, who are these bad elites and are there any good elites and if so, who?
Given there is a diversity of opinions amongst elites on many issues, e.g., from elites who believe we should interpret the Constitution using the original meaning of its text, to those elites who believe we should weigh precedent more heavily, to those elites that believe fealty to Constitutional principles applied in the here and now is superior, to those that mix these principles. What is Mr. Keith's position? I doubt he has any understanding of this ongoing debate given his previous answers avoid discussing specifics.
Consider his repeated, "We the People" chant. Do you really think this guy has any understanding of the term? Does it describe a collective, such as a democracy, or a group of free individuals, or something else? How does a person of that time claim to be free if they opposed constitutional ratification and perhaps never received a vote since state ratifying convention delegates voted? How about those that voted for ratification but then quickly objected to Hamilton's vision of a strong federal government quickly deployed by the Washington administration they viewed as unconstitutional and defended by the Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall? Given this generation has had no input into the employment of government power, how can and do we claim freedom because of this phrase written 220 years ago (not 300 as Keith falsely claimed)?
I'm guessing all of us wait with bated breath for Michael Keith to "educate us". Oh wait, he supposedly already did with previous posts. Funny, after reading his posts I don't feel tardy*.
*Old Van Halen "Hot for Teacher" joke.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2009 11:01 PM
Not that this will do any good whatsoever:
Posted by: tacitus | July 27, 2009 11:02 PM
tacitus:
Ixnay on the octorday's amenay! She's apanesejay!!
Posted by: democommie | July 27, 2009 11:10 PM
But, uh....
Why has Obama hidded virtually all his records, from the actual birth certificate, through passports and school and health records?
And, BTW, a Hawaiian birth certificate showing Obama was born to BHOI in Hawaii would only show he is ineligible for the presidency. (He received a Kenyan/UK citizenship via his foreign father and is not a "natural born Citizen" by originnal intent.)
Posted by: Arlen Williams | July 28, 2009 12:55 AM
Dear Arlen -
a) The President has not hidden anything, this is a frequently repeated lie that has well and truly been debunked. Hawaiian law prevents non-authorised persons from accessing birth certificates to avoid identity theft.
b) Having a Hawaiian birth certificate would show he was born in the US and therefore a natural-born citizen (as it's been US territory since the 1870's and a state since 1959).
c) Having citizenship conferred on one by another state has no effect on your citizenship status in other states. (otherwise all DPRK would have to do.. &etc.)
d) Having dual citizenship has no bearing on whether a citizen is natural-born or naturalized. For a rough definition see posts #23 & #25. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 28, 2009 1:19 AM
Arlen. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a citizen at birth due to US Code Title 8 section 1401, as Umlud said above (see #44). If he was born in Kenya (or anywhere else in the world), then he was a citizen at birth due to US Code Title 8 section 1401, thanks to having a mother who was a US citizen (I use the past-tense, because she is now dead, not because I'm implying that she changed her citizenship). The number of additional citizenships Obama may or may not have doesn't make any difference to his being a US citizen at birth.
Also, please provide citation as to what the "originnal intent" of the Constitution was.
Posted by: John | July 28, 2009 1:22 AM
Darn it, DJ for edging me out on that rebuttal. (But much better written.)
Posted by: John | July 28, 2009 1:24 AM
Actually (hate to love-fest here but..) I'd say the opposite. Having gone over and over the same uninformed talking points since 21 Jan 2009 helps a lot too! - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 28, 2009 1:27 AM
I'm very late to this thread but I just have to say this made me lol (way back up at #64):
Mr. Keith, if it makes you feel better there is no possible way a regular on this blog would EVER mistake one of your posts for one of Michael Heath's or vice-versa.
Posted by: peaches | July 28, 2009 2:24 AM
Taz @96
I think you've forgotten a major point of Michael Keith's argument: "GO TEAM!"
No, wait... That's not quite right... What was it again...? Oh, right: "Something seriously wrong here. STAND UP AND FIGHT [for some ill-defined reason using unstated means against some undefined group]!!!!"
And Michael Keith, reading through your retorts to comments, you seem to have lost all credibility on this thread (and possibly on this blog). If you want to play here, you need to be a little bit more informed, and you need to be able to make a cogent argument that is backed up with facts (good spelling and grammar don't hurt, either). If you can't do these things, then being ridiculed is something that you can expect to happen to you.
... and no, ridiculing you doesn't mean that the commentators of this blog are a bunch of cowards or refuseniks, just that they can discern a jingoistic demagogue when they see one.
Posted by: mercurian ferret | July 28, 2009 3:07 AM
Michael Keith represents everything I'm standing up and fighting. :) So, win-win.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 28, 2009 3:46 AM
Michael Heath - I completely agree with your point about "elites". I was thinking of suggesting keith look the word up, but decided he's one of those people it's not worth arguing with. Anything beyond a slogan is too much for him.
Posted by: Taz | July 28, 2009 8:50 AM
Again, No educated response.
So says Michael Keith, AFTER Julian's quick and concise history lesson.
If I want to hear blustering fake-macho redneck stupidity, I can listen to Toby, who's both more articulate and a better singer than Michael.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2009 9:45 AM
I wonder why either birthers or the rational rest haven't checked on State Dept./Passport records. That should show whether Barack Obama's mother was in Kenya around the time of his birth. She went to Indonesia later with young Barack, so there's a record in general. Heh, when "even Ann Coulter" thinks you're nuts, you're nuts - and when "even Ann Coulter" is thought a traitor to the right-wing cause, her critics on the Right are even nuttier.
Micheal Keith: You are almost right, just need some retargeting. Julian already gave the definitive smackdown to your corporate-elite-driven diversion about government, but you kept up the persecution complex whining that people wouldn't respond intelligently etc. First, the Great Depression showed us how flawed our private economic processes were and why we *do* need to regulate financial markets, have minimum wage laws, etc. The recent mess happened in large part due to forgetting those very lessons. Also, the Media aren't "State" owned, they are corporate owned. The latter interests are not at all the public interest, which the big bad government has at least some motivation since we *elect* them as a people, unlike the corporate boards which are elected by just the shareholders of that company with their narrower interests.
Being suspicious of the government is fine. But we should be suspicions of private institutions too. And it's not a choice between raw "government" and independent corporate entities, we should press for a more genuinely public economy and state.
BTW, Art - that was a bravura piece on Ann Coulter's shtick and what happened with it. Let the pigs now be dragged down by their own foaming rabble, it couldn't happen to more deserving skunks.
paradoxer
Posted by: Neil B ♪ | July 28, 2009 10:18 AM
Son, you don't even know enough to tell when you're being schooled.
Posted by: gwangung | July 28, 2009 10:35 AM
The only interesting bit in that twit's spot was the fairly frank admission that Fox is a conservative mouthpiece, when she referred to Geraldo as "the liberal on Fox."
Posted by: Andrea | July 28, 2009 11:42 AM
And no, I am not a libertarian. You owe me 5 bucks.
Hmm.
We became a great nation by LIMITING GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
We have become lazy, and now want government to provide for us.
Hmm.
Posted by: Stu | July 28, 2009 11:55 AM
I suspect a lot of the "Change the Constitution so Ah-nold can run!" support has fizzled because he didn't legalise concealed carry of pistols the size of your arm, ban homosexuality, and personally chase every illegal immigrant out of California.
Posted by: tim gueguen | July 28, 2009 6:53 PM
Erm, I think that lack of government interference must be only part of the picture. There are many media organisations that are cesspools of inanity without any apparent government help. What does strike me about state-run media is that much of it is nearly commercial-free. I wonder if the disruption of loud, rude, inane, and sexist ads is why quality programming has trouble competing on commercial television and radio.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | July 28, 2009 9:44 PM
Maybe the birfers will be enough to get Coulter to reconsider her evolution denial. [:^)
Posted by: Bob Weber | July 29, 2009 12:27 AM
Tom @53
I've heard the Hamilton thing too, but it doesn't wash--Article two, in discussing the qualifications for the Presidency says in part:
"...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."
Hamilton certainly was a citizen of the US when the Constitution was adopted.
Posted by: Sam Paris | July 29, 2009 12:55 AM
Andrew Wade = quoted me writing: "Other countries (England, Canada and Australia for example) DO have state-run media ... [i]n these cases, such media are more trusted, more accurate and more impartial..", but then replies "I think that lack of government interference must be only part of the picture. There are many media organisations that are cesspools of inanity without any apparent government help."
I a little confused here. Are you equating 'trusted, accurate and impartial' with 'inane'? I think you're using words, but you don't know what they mean.
You'll also note I used the phrase 'in these cases' when referring to state-run media. I was talking of Australia, Canada and England only in this context. State-run media in Iran, China or Zimbabwe might not have these properties, I can't tell, hence I limited my comments to a more restricted set.
Having said that - yes, I do think that commercials tend to interfere with 'quality programming' because of the intrinsic inanity of advertising. Hope that's a little clearer - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 2:11 AM
Sam - Uh no... logically Alexander Hamilton wasn't a citizen of the US when the constitution was adopted. Then again none of the 'Founding Fathers' were, not until the moment after it was adopted, until that time the US didn't exist (de jure). ;) - pedantically DJ
_______________
PS: A moment of Dingo silliness - carry on with your sensible ruminations.
Posted by: DingoJack ☺ | July 29, 2009 2:22 AM
@DingoJack #122:
Well, there were these thinga called Articles of Confederation that predated the Constitution...which is why the Constitution refers to "a more perfect union".
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 29, 2009 3:53 AM
Eggs - insects laid eggs long before reptiles were even around :)
Of course it's a total piece of silliness on my part, I did say that didn't I? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 4:06 AM
@DJ #124:
Ouch.
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 29, 2009 5:22 AM
DingoJack,
My apologies - I think I misunderstood your argument and produced a muddled response. For the record, I don't consider the state-run media of Canada or England inane. (I'm not familiar with Australian media.)
Posted by: Andrew Wade | July 29, 2009 7:21 AM
um can you tell me if he didnt use a condom is it more likely for me to get pregnat? and how many times does he have to nut to make a baby?
Posted by: shantashia | July 31, 2009 9:07 AM
Uh, there's one comment in here (among several others) that needs to be addressed because of its apparent illogic. I don't think anyone has done so, other than to state that anyone born in the United States is "natural born." My grandparents came from Germany. My mother's parents arrived in 1895 and my fathers parents arrived in 1897 and 1901, respectively. My mother and father were born in the United States. By stating that no one born in the United States of a person who was not born in the United States, the commenter simply eliminates everybody from consideration for the Presidency.
See how it works. Even though my parents were born in the United States, they weren't "natural born," because their parents were not born here. Therefore, I am not a "natural born" citizen of the United States, nor are my children. Or their children. One could argue that Native Americans are "natural born," but their ancestors, who crossed the Bering land bridge in the remote past, were also foreigners. Therefore, given the commenter's illogic, no one is qualified to be President of the United States.
Posted by: GODOT | August 1, 2009 12:03 PM