Now on ScienceBlogs: Father and Mother and Uncle John...: Tribalism and a Place at the Table
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Battle in the Obama White House | Main | Radio Show Preview 08-06-09 »
Posted on: August 6, 2009 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton
You have to see this performance by birther nut Orly Taitz. The word "shrew" comes to mind immediately. She rambles, she badgers, she whines and throws a fit. It's quite amusing. When she's asked why Ann Coulter thinks she's wrong, she says that Coulter is not an attorney.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
evolutionblog 02.8.2010
the frontal cortex 02.05.2010
good math, bad math 02.07.2010
oscillator 02.05.2010
highly allochthonous 02.05.2010
Comments
Growing up in Russia, she probably never got to read McLuhan on how TV is a "cool" medium. She probably should stick to radio and the internet.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 6, 2009 9:38 AM
Wow. That was...Wow. If that is the face of the movement, I am stunned that it has gotten this far.
Posted by: mess | August 6, 2009 9:44 AM
Is that her real hair?
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | August 6, 2009 9:55 AM
I see. Coulter is not a *real attorney". Probably in the same sense that people are not Real Christians(tm).
Posted by: Mobius | August 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Yeah, she should definitely drink less caffeine... lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 6, 2009 9:58 AM
@Mobius
That's quite funny considering that Ms. Taitz is a diploma mill attorney.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 6, 2009 10:01 AM
Ann Coulter is not an attorney?
ORLY?
OK, enough of those kind of jokes. Orly is actually a very pretty name - it means "My light" in Hebrew IIRC. Orly Taitz, however, is eighty seven kinds of crazy in a Marilyn Monroe wig.
Posted by: KristinMH | August 6, 2009 10:02 AM
You're sure Taitz isn't fucking with us? She's hysterical, even by conspiracy-nut standards, part of me thinks even she doesn't believe it.
Posted by: Matt | August 6, 2009 10:04 AM
Oh, and the "LET ME ANSWER! LET ME ANSWER! LET ME ANSWER!" over and over again. Dude, they ARE letting you answer. You're just spending your air time complaining about not getting a chance to tell your side of it.
@ The Science Pundit - but is she a real dentist? I'm imagining her coming at me with a drill...*shudder*
Posted by: KristinMH | August 6, 2009 10:05 AM
@Goldbrick4: Not bloody likely. The phrase "bad bottle blonde" springs immediately to mind.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2009 10:06 AM
This is the greatest gift any right winger could ever give. This ...display does more to damage their credibility than it does to further their argument by far. Let's have her on every night.
Posted by: g_whiz | August 6, 2009 10:14 AM
Had to do a double take. Thought it was Tammy Faye Bakker for a second.
Posted by: Joshua White | August 6, 2009 10:16 AM
I echo mess' comment. Wow!
Posted by: Havok | August 6, 2009 10:18 AM
"Let me aaanswer, let me aaaaaaaaaanswer!" [CAW! CAW! CAW!]
Posted by: Sean L. | August 6, 2009 10:25 AM
I saw this interview live.
While I think the "birthers" are grasping at imaginary straws it would have been more interesting had Schuster given Taitz more than 20 seconds to make her case.
Then Tamaran Hall jumps in to ask her what she thinks of Ann Coulter's opinion that she is "crazy".
There's an illuminating question. How was Taitz supposed to answer that?
This was obviously a set up to make her look like a loon, which admittedly isn't very difficult.
I watch MSNBC regularly but it is starting to smell like the left's answer to Fox News.
Shuster was so anxious to jump in and attack Taitz that he missed a great opportunity to let a birther make their case in all its goofy splendor. That would have been much more like journalism and less like advocacy and would have actually served to inform the issue rather than just being an opportunity for Shuster and Hall to display their liberal indignation.
I especially liked Hall and Shuster's post interview eye rolling and face making. Very professional.
Posted by: Lance | August 6, 2009 10:29 AM
"We have a journalistic responsibility to look and see if this stuff is true"
Now do it for every issue, especially science issues and Ill start having respect for what passes for television journalism. The fact that they do it for easy stuff like this just makes me more annoyed. Either they are lazy and do "journalism" on the easy stuff like this, or they are cowards and don't want to piss off folks like creationists.
Sorry for the off topic. Had to vent.
Posted by: Joshua White | August 6, 2009 10:34 AM
All we need to do now is find out why people would rather be watching this kind of thing on the "news" channels than real news and then weep...
Posted by: David Durant | August 6, 2009 10:36 AM
I especially liked Hall and Shuster's post interview eye rolling and face making. Very professional.
Someone who revels in her ignorance and seeks the limelight for her own deluded gratification deserves no professional response. Hall and Schuster should be commended for their restraint in dealing with Taitz.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2009 10:38 AM
But wait, it gets better: last December, Taitz berated reporters for not investigating whether Obama's mother was really dead.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2009 10:44 AM
Wow! I just watched the MSNBC clip and Taitz is a certified nutcase. Her credibility as a "lawyer" (with a degree from an unaccredited, on-line law school) is undermined by her claim that both parents of a "natural born" US citizen must themselves be citizens. Not true. The first sentence of the 14th amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof [an exception primarily for foreign diplomats], are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Makes no difference even if both parents were illegal aliens; although no one disputes that Obama's mother was a citizen.
As for the forged Kenyan birth certificate that Taitz filed last week in federal court, that's been thoroughly debunked as a photoshopped rip-off of David Bomford's Australian birth certificate (down to the identical last names of the officials on both and identical book and page numbers). We don't yet know who created this forgery and palmed it off on Taitz, since she refuses to identify its source.
This would be all fun and games, except for the fact that millions of people (some of them obviously deranged) are credulous enough to believe this nonsense. We know of deranged people with access to guns, so I wouldn't write this off as harmless lunacy.
Posted by: peter irons | August 6, 2009 10:45 AM
Lance,
I agree with the general point about MSNBC, but they have a long way to go before they reach the level of FOX.
As for the treatment of Orly Taiz, she comes on national TV, provides no positive evidence for her claims (e.g. the "forged" birth announcements in the newspaper) and gets hysterical and insulting when she gets called on it.
I'm sorry but this woman deserves to be mocked.
Posted by: n | August 6, 2009 10:49 AM
Coulter isn't a "real attorney"? Good lord.
Whatever one might say about Coulter, she graduated near the top of her class from a highly respected law school, clerked for a federal appeals judge, and spent a couple years practicing at two prestigious firms in New York. Taitz, on the other hand, got an online law degree in between tooth cleanings or something.
Posted by: Chuck | August 6, 2009 10:53 AM
I agree that Taitz is a loon, that doesn't excuse the unprofessional behavior of Hall and Shuster. Mockery is not the job of a professional interviewer or journalist.
If they wish to join Bill O' or Olbermann as paid info-tainment blowhards then MSNBC should drop any pretense of being a "news" channel and just go all the way with the whole "place for politics" theme that they seem to be pursuing anyway.
I agree with you "n" that MSNBC is still a good sight better than Fox News, which I cannot stomach for even five minutes but that doesn't excuse unprofessional interviews that are designed to appeal to people with a certain political ideology being passed off as "news".
Posted by: Lance | August 6, 2009 11:02 AM
Another difference between Ms. Taitz and Ms. (Mr.) Coulter is that the former believes everything she says while the latter believes about 10% of what she (he) blathers about.
Posted by: SLC | August 6, 2009 11:05 AM
Watching her lose her mind was absolutely beautiful.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | August 6, 2009 11:06 AM
"Another difference between Ms. Taitz and Ms. (Mr.) Coulter is that the former believes everything she says while the latter believes about 10% of what she (he) blathers about."
This definitely gives weight to the Coulter-is-indeed-a-real-attorney idea.
Posted by: raymondmarble | August 6, 2009 11:10 AM
I agree that the interviewers blew it. Just because there is an alternate universe of 'journalism' by Beck and O'Reilly and co does not excuse the same behaviors. Taitz' purpose seems to be to depose Obama, but her larger task in the political broil is to provoke the base into maintaining their distrust of the media. She may seem indignant on camera but I'm sure she's supremely satisfied by how that MSNBC bit went.
It doesn't matter whether she's nuts or not; they asked her to appear on the show, and she's right--she should get the benefit of the interview doubt, and she should get to answer the questions as she chooses. Whether she can be clear or not remains to be seen, but that chaotic sputtering is preaching to both choirs and should not be enjoyed.
Taitz should be permitted to answer. The journalist has the job to develop and consider those answers later. It's not her fault that the average viewer finished the decision making process nine seconds in to the conversation, and doesn't stick around to contemplate the complexity after the interview is done and the quotes are recorded. It's the journalist's fault if the interview is structured, then presented, as a conflict.
This problem is further exacerbated by the satellite delay in the conversation. It may be that pros like Shuster just aren't yet able to make Q and A with a delay seem natural, but my high school journalists can do it. The sputtering incivility of these exchanges is the product; it's an intentional process, and it's unethical (on both sides). The ethical approach, by the way, would be to record the interview then snip out the delay, permitting the subject to express their views clearly and effectively. And I don't buy the usual simple-minded claim that the interviewer does it because he's a preening arrogant jackass and can't stand to let other people talk in his airtime. They may not be that smart, but they are typically quite good at the technical process of producing this work. I will bet that the plan for this interview did not include probing questions, thoughtful discussion, and insightful analysis. The plan was simple: poke her with a stick then watch her spray spit and talk her eyelashes loose so our already-persuaded loyalists can hoot and point.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | August 6, 2009 11:17 AM
The weird part is that the website for her dental practice makes it look quite ordinary: http://www.drtaitz.com/
The only thing even slightly out of the ordinary about the website is the "J.D." that comes after the "D.D.S." in her name.
There are quack dentists, but if a dentist doesn't mention that they do amalgam removal, they are probably not a quack. Which is not to say I am crazy about amalgam fillings, but the big bux in woo-based dentistry these days is in playing up the risks of amalgam fillings (which are probably real, but not to the extent these hucksters make it out to be) and then convincing patients they need to shell out hundreds of dollars to get all their old fillings replaced. It's not complete quackery, but it's so lucrative that no woo-dentist would deign to pass it up.
Nope, if the website is anything to go by, she seems to be... an ordinary dentist!!?!
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 11:21 AM
"Both parents have to be U.S. citizens"
Is that even true?
Posted by: n | August 6, 2009 11:21 AM
I completely disagree that the interviewers blew it. One has to keep the perspective that this was on a cable news show, so they can only let her blather about nothing for so long. I did not feel the interviewers were overly confrontational -- perhaps a bit patronizing, but I think it would be impossible to have that conversation without coming across as patronizing -- and, when framed in the perspective of it being a cable news show, I don't feel they unduly interrupted her. (I've seen WAY worse)
The segment was indeed an intent to make Orly look crazy and stupid, but they didn't actively mock her or anything. They just let her on the show, asked her some fair questions (in the standard cable news format, of course), and let her dig her own grave. Furthermore, they clarified that their intention in doing so was to let people see what the birther movement was all about. I don't see a problem with it.
I suppose the production crew laughing in the background is a bit "unprofessional", but I don't blame them one bit. :D
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 11:25 AM
What a waste of an interview, Schuster and the other lady were every bit as bad as Fox News' people. They knew her claims in advance and did nothing to ask the correct probing questions, e.g., what evidence do you have that Obama was born in Kenya, while prepared for follow-ups to fisk her already known positions. In addition, what Ann Coulter thinks has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the birfer claims.
Idiots interviewing nuts, I think this interview will feed the birfers' delusions and corroborate conservatives' perspective of a grossly liberal bias in MSM to the point of dysfunction, not better reveal the absurdity of birfer claims beyond the fact that merely one of their spokespeople is a natural born loon.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 11:32 AM
Answer to "n"; No, both parents don't need to be US citizens for their child (born on US soil) to be a citizen. For example, my family's former housekeeper was an illegal alien (although she now has a green card) and all three of her children (born in San Diego) are US citizens. Some people complain about this, and propose a law to deny US citizenship to such children, but it would take a constitutional amendment to do this, in effect abrogating the first provision of the 14th amendment.
Posted by: peter irons | August 6, 2009 11:42 AM
Worst. Interview. Ever.
"Anne Coulter says you are a crank! Anne Coulter says you are a crank!" Shouted over and over, like some kind of mantra.
What the hell kind of question is that? Bull*, that's what. Absolutely worthless waste of air time. The poster above has it right, idiots interviewing nuts.
The network has zero credibility, the so-called journalists have zero credibility, the birthers have always had zero credibility.
No need to ever watch any of these people ever again. There are other programs airing, you know. I'd rather watch re-runs of Sanford and Son on TV-land.
Complete bull*, from beginning to end, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. You hear that, network execs? Producers? Lame-ass-garbage-crap, that's what you gave us. I hope you all get fired/canceled/replaced or whatever happens to media personalities when they have used up their 15 minutes. I hope your network changes formats to professional wrestling and home shopping. I hope Murdoch buys your steaming pile and replaces you all with funny home videos and infomercials.
And take Orly with you when you go, it'll serve you right.
Posted by: threetorches | August 6, 2009 11:46 AM
I don't agree that the interviewers were unfair. This is an interview, not a grandstand. Taitz only wanted to grandstand, and that's what led to the interruptions. It is wrong to claim that they didn't let her answer--she refused to answer because the questions weren't convenient to her for making her case. The interviewers were right to keep butting in and saying, "please answer the question."
The eyerolling afterward, well, not real respectable, but it's cable TV. That's why serious newsies stick to the print media.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2009 11:47 AM
Taitz has no idea what she's talking about -- no matter what she's talking about. She declares as fact anything she wants to be true. Simple! (Like her.)
As for Coulter: she's an attorney like she's a Christian. A bad one.
Posted by: Zeno | August 6, 2009 11:49 AM
James - I disagree. If an interviewer asked me a question about what Ann Coulter thinks about my position rather than asking direct questions regarding the merits of my position, I would immediately revert to what I'm on the air trying to promote. The job of a journalist is to get at the properly framed truth of the matter, almost no effort was made by the African American journalist to do so and Schuster only asked one decent question. They opened themselves up to her rants. It's a lot easier to keep control of your interview subject if you stay on point. The interview was a goat-fuck from a journalistic stand-point, and I blame Schuster and his co-host far more for that occurring rather than the loon Orly Taitz.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 12:08 PM
The interview was effectively over with the "brown shirts" comment.
I especially loved the "You will be done. You won't be on tv for too long" threat.
Posted by: n | August 6, 2009 12:09 PM
I don't have a problem with the interview style. Schuster was trying to get a simple answer to a simple question: If Obama's parents were in Kenya, how and why did they set up an announcement in two Hawaiian newspapers? Most of us complain when journalists let the interviewees slide on such questions. That's really all Schuster was trying to do IMO. Once Taitz went off the rails everything else snowballed from there. When they realized she wasn't going to answer anyway, they gave her some more air time to show her true colors and then ended it.
Do you want journalists who ask the challenging questions and ensure that they get answers or do you want them to just act a as a frame for the guests' picture? And if you want interviewers who show no emotion or reaction to the guest, even when they're clearly loony bin material, hire robots.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 6, 2009 12:10 PM
The problem with the comparison of Fox to MSNBC is that MSNBC doesn't make shit up out of whole cloth. They don't crop footage deliberately to mislead their audience, they don't doctor photos to make people look less attractive, and they don't manufacture fake outrage astroturf movements. If they were ignoring facts to mislead their audience, Fox and CNN would be calling them on it. They're not.
It's been a tradition in this country that the media, particularly newspapers, has had a slant--not a bias--a slant, to the right of left. Many cities have a left leaning and right leaning newspaper, or at least had until the internet showed up. Nothing wrong with this at all. The difference is the newspapers didn't let their ideology get in the way of facts. Fox News lets this happen constantly; in fact their internal daily memo openly encourages it. I would have no problem with a right leaning news network, but Fox News borders on propoganda.
Posted by: Robert Faber | August 6, 2009 12:11 PM
The interviewers were rude and patronizing, but that's because Taitz simply refused to answer their questions, and instead tried to hijack the airtime she was given and spout the same old talking-points, over and over, without even acknowledging any of the legitimate questions that tend to get asked by sensible people who hear her BS.
Birfers do this all the time on the Web: look for a site that mentions their pet cause, then gum it up with the same baseless assertions, ridiculous demands, and flat-out lies that have already been debunked on the very site they're gumming up. Then, when one or more people actually answer their questions, and/or cite facts to conclusively refute their assertions, they just ignore the responses and keep on repeating themselves. They filibuster, plain and simple, and if you're interviewing one in a video program of any kind, you either have to let them monopolize every second they get saying what they want to say, or keep on badgering them with the questions you intended to ask while they keep on ignoring you.
Quite frankly, this interview could have gone worse for her: she said many things that were just plain false (like the bit about both your parents having to be citizens already mentioned above), and wasn't immediately called a liar. She should be grateful for that.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2009 12:17 PM
They also don't put an erroneous "D" (or "R") next to the name of a politician who has done something embarassing.
I "watch" Fox about once a year, and I've seen them do this *twice* -- live, not on YouTube.
Posted by: xebecs | August 6, 2009 12:37 PM
Is there any way we can get the tax dollars that will be wasted because of this sillyness back. Don't judges have better things to do than this?
Posted by: Sean Walker | August 6, 2009 12:43 PM
My criticism of MSNBC's goat-fuck of an interview in no way insinuates that MSNBC is every bit as bad as Fox News. I do claim that in this case, MSNBC used some of the very same unjournalistic tricks that Fox News does and therefore deserves the very heated criticism me and some others have presented here (though one commenter claiming the network should be thrown off the air because of this is absurd).
Taitz did start at a tagent to answer Schuster's first and only valid line of questioning but was getting to the point of directly answering his question, twice, he just started talking over her too quickly. I think because he didn't care about the answer given his "we already covered the merits of her claims quip" [paraphrased]. Instead it appears the hosts were merely setting her up to look like a loon. That would have been self-evident regardless, they should have stuck to asking pointed questions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 12:49 PM
"As for Coulter: she's an attorney like she's a Christian. A bad one."
How does she rank as a Scotsman?
Posted by: jpf | August 6, 2009 12:52 PM
Sure, Heath, she was just about to answer the original question, but she had to run out the clock as much as possible regurgitating her standard blithering-points first (why do you think she started off by asking how much time she had?). If her hosts had waited for her to get around to answering, she would (SURPRISE!) not have left herself enough time to answer.
The only way for MSNBC to have avoided the appearance of discourteous or unprofessional conduct, would have been not to have Taitz on at all.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2009 12:57 PM
Well sure the interview was a bad case of "gotcha" journalism. But that's what most of journalism is anyway! No big deal.
Posted by: 386sx | August 6, 2009 1:14 PM
Micheal Heath - Must try that next time I have to do a test.
I'm sure that'll work a treat. :D - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 6, 2009 1:15 PM
That's pretty hysterical. Orly Taitz is an attorney. Not Ann Coulter.
Frankly, if I ever get into a legal bind, I'd call the late Johnny Cochrane before either of them.
But, still, Coulter is way more qualified than Taitz to comment on issues of legality. And, on the birther thing (and I never thought I'd say this) I'm with Ann Coulter.
Posted by: JStein | August 6, 2009 1:16 PM
The larger question, for me, is why wasn't this harridan on FoxNews? or did I miss hearing about it?
Posted by: democommie | August 6, 2009 1:35 PM
Others have speculated that she intentionally filled up the time so as to give the appearance of being cut off just before she was about to answer -- but even if we give her the benefit of the doubt, I still don't agree with your characterization of Schuster's interview. It's cable news, like it or not, and you'd better say something directly relevant to the question being asked within the first 10-15 seconds of response -- or at least give an outline of how you are getting there.
It seems to be that Orly could have answered the question quite directly by saying that, "The birth announcement is based off of the short-form birth certificate, which does not provide adequate evidence of citizenship because it is filled out by a relative, not the hospital. Obama's mother or grandmother could have lied on the short-form birth certificate, and the newspaper was merely repeating the lie." I am pretty sure that summarizes Orly's position on the matter, yet unlike her ramblings -- whether it be because of insanity or a deliberate stall tactic -- it starts by answering the question, and then elaborates.
I was already thinking the same thing as Schuster several seconds before he cut her off -- "Yeah, I've heard all this shit, when is she going to answer the damn question?" Given the context that it was in a cable news show, Schuster gave her plenty of time to get to the point, and she failed to do so.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 1:57 PM
I admit the Coulter question was not exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity, but it's business as usual as far as cable news goes. "So-and-so, who is on the same side of the aisle as you, disagrees with you strongly about position X. What is your reaction?" is a pretty standard TV news trope these days, for better or for worse (well, clearly for worse).
If your contention is that the interviewers' performance sucked but was about average for a cable news show, then I think we agree. I'm no fan of the 24-hour TV news cycle, in fact I think it's a bane on our entire civilization. However, given the state of things as they are in general, I don't think Orly was given any special treatment. Maybe the question about the Muslim driver, although if that really happened I can understand why the interviewers wanted to bring it up. The Coulter question, the short time afforded interviewees to get to their fucking point already, meh, it all seemed pretty standard to me.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 2:03 PM
Strange video.
I don't see anyone having a breakdown or losing her mind or anything. Sure, Taitz is very... agitated, but she doesn't even start to scream.
What is funny, but sickening, is how both sides constantly interrupt each other. Has none of the three ever watched a TV interview before? Taitz and the man especially act as if they never had. Hard to believe.
Yeah, OK. The "both parents have to be US citizens" lie is funny. I mean, what next? Both parents have to be able to trace their ancestors back to the Mayflower or something? LOL.
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 6, 2009 2:09 PM
It was a satellite interview, so there is a big delay between when one person speaks and the other hears it. Add to that the fact that Orly is incessantly muttering "Okay, okay," and I can understand why Schuster was having trouble controlling the tempo of the interview. Oftentimes it was unclear whether she was muttering as an acknowledgment of something he was saying, as an acknowledgment of being interrupted, or as the preamble to some new thing she was about to say.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 2:15 PM
I agree this was a bad interview, but the blame lies squarely on Orly's 1980's shoulder-padded shoulders. Answer the questions posed. Don't reply with a two minute tangent and then scream "you're not letting me answer!" Be concise. It's a TV interview, not a platform for a one-sided agenda.
Posted by: Robert Faber | August 6, 2009 2:20 PM
There's a good chance that's a wig. Many conservative Jewish women wear wigs. I don't know her religious orientation for sure, but I suspect she's some flavor of Conservative Jew.
Which is fine; no disrespect intended toward the Conservative community. I'm not assuming she's Conservative because she's crazy, or because she's wearing a bad wig - only just because she's got the wig on.
Posted by: Jillian | August 6, 2009 2:24 PM
Taitz looks like an actress from a German scheisse porn flick.
Posted by: Jon H | August 6, 2009 2:42 PM
I really need someone to explain this situation to me. This blond lady Orly is supposedly a lawyer in a case in which Alan Keyes is suing the California Sec of State to remove Obama from the ballot of an election that was held 9 months ago? One which Keyes would have lost even if Obama wasn't on the ballot (even if McCain wasn't on the ballot for that matter)? Is that right? Has anyone asked her what she expects the judge to do? He can't kick Obama out of office-neither the Constitution nor the law gives any judge that power. When you sue, isn't it supposed to be to have the judge do something he is actually able to do?
People why is this tolerated? Where are the sanctions, fines, disbarment?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 6, 2009 2:46 PM
Jon H - We bow to far superior knowledge of the subject. :) - DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | August 6, 2009 2:49 PM
Orly's main case is the Stefan Cook put-up--he volunteered to go to Afghanistan (he's a reservist) for the sole purpose of contesting the orders in a lawsuit over Obama's legitimacy as CinC. Ironic that the same folks who have been worshipping "the troops" for eight years now crap on their risk through jackleg maneuvers like this. It won't work. DOD simply withdrew Cook's orders, so standing evaporates.
But as to the interview, the real problem is that such interviews don't contribute to the news, they are the news. Real journalists ask questions of sources in order to add the resulting information to a larger story, which is what Michael Heath said, I think. That process includes--in fact, rests upon--the possibility that the interview will be a failure, that it won't contribute to the story, that the source will not speak, will lie, will plead the fifth, etc.--or even that the interview will kill the story. Journalists have to be prepared to have no story, to have their story fade away in front of their eyes; they have to have a standard and not publish what fails to meet the standard. They need to be proudly comfortable with saying "there's nothing to report." "Orly Taitz is a deluded skank" isn't a story. (well, it is, but it shouldn't be.)
We empower this style of entertainment by leaping to the judgement the people offer us, regardless of what political perspective that judgement supports.
(A good example now out there is the lawsuit filed by the woman over whether her college failed to get her a job. The real story is that she has a case, though a minor one, based on a promised action by the college that never happened, something about calling certain people. But that story is boring. It's better to cover what didn't happen, but people believe--that somebody is obnoxious enough to sue their college for failing to do something no college does.)
And putting the interview on live, which is often offered as proof of objectivity and even-handedness and credibility, is even worse. The 'liveness' of it is a farce; it simply ensures that the platform the journalist holds must be bitterly defended to the exclusion of any nuance, any depth. Taitz should have been interviewed carefully with redundant, boring, careful questions answered at length--or nothing. There should have been no 'clock' to run out. Then the answers and questions should be carefully and ethically stitched together and presented to the audience, with nothing but the reporter's integrity to guarantee them. If the subject swears that she's been taken out of context, ignore her; rest on your reputation as an ethical journalist. Repeat that process two or three hundred times without a serious ethical lapse, and you have news credibility, news judgement, and something like a viable, ethical reporting process.
There are lots of people out there with that history and credibility, but there are few new folks trying to create that credibility now.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | August 6, 2009 3:22 PM
It annoys me that comments on this thread (and many others) quickly veer off from the topic of the post into irrelevancies: Was Taitz wearing a wig? Were the MSNBC interviewers mean to her? Did she evade the questions?
IMO, there are only two questions worth discussing on this issue. First, do Taitz and her "birther" allies have any credible evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Second, do they have any credible evidence that he was born in Kenya? By credible evidence, I mean documents and/or testimony that would be admissible in court.
Can we keep further comments focused on these questions?
Posted by: peter irons | August 6, 2009 3:30 PM
Birthers (or at least some of them) distinguish between citizens ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment) and natural-born citizens. Natural-born citizens, according to their claim, must be born on U.S. soil, and both their parents must be U.S. citizens. Not being a lawyer I have no idea if there is any basis to this distinction. I checked a couple of citations given to support this claim, but I couldn't see how they were supposed to apply. Again, IANAL, but it looked like total BS to me.
Posted by: sbh | August 6, 2009 3:32 PM
Hmmm--she thinks Obama's mother conned Immigration?
Given the Right's tendency to project their vices on everyone else, if I did enforcement for DHS, I'd consider having a look at Taitz's INS files.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 6, 2009 3:39 PM
sbh #61- It is a well known fact that Obama's father was not a US citizen. The Chief Justice, a Republican appointee swore Obama in, not once but twice. The idea that he would do so in the face of evidence that he was ineligible is ludicrous. Therefore, whatever any one person's opinion might be, the birthers' case cannot possibly go anywhere, because we already know that the Supreme Court does not agree with their position. For what it's worth (not much) I agree with the Supremes here.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 6, 2009 3:41 PM
Peter that's the point of the other birfer threads. But since, by inclusion of the video and Ed's comments on it, this one is pretty clearly intended as a monument to orly taitz's bat shit craziness.
As to your 2 questions, they're addressed in the other handful of birfer threads and the answers are no and no.
Posted by: JohnV | August 6, 2009 3:46 PM
Can we keep further comments focused on these questions?
Unlike cable news segments, message threads don't operate under a strict timetable. If you don't like a post, ignore it like everybody else does.
Posted by: schism | August 6, 2009 3:47 PM
peter - Who died and made you king of the thread?
In answer to your questions: firstly, no, and secondly, no. This has been extensively discussed, search for the keyword 'birfer'.
sbh - As I understand it (from asking the same questions as you did, and getting answered by lawyers) 'Natural=born' citizens have at least one parent who is a US citizen and/or are born on US territory. President Obama's mother was born in Kansas & he was born in Hawaii, therefore he is natural-born under both of the aforementioned categories*. - DJ
_________
*I suppose the most compelling argument is the fact that the US political system has many, many people who are professional lawyers, none objected to Obama's candidacy when they had the chance. If they don't know the law...
Posted by: DingoJack | August 6, 2009 3:48 PM
Raging Bee and others - she did answer his question directly, if you listen carefully you'll see her doing so twice but Schuster is talking over her. I like hosts that interrupt when subjects stray, Schuster failed by not listening carefully enough, being totally unprepared, and appearing to focus on protraying her as a loon rather than asking pointed questions beyond his first one.
Peter Irons stated:
Exactly. This is why the interview failed. About half of it is taken up trying to get her to answer the Ann Coulter question rather than staying on point. I attribute the vast majority of that failure to Schuster and his co-host.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 3:51 PM
Goldbrick4 @ 3 - Married religious Jewish women commonly cover their hair, often with wigs--lest they become objects of lust.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 6, 2009 4:00 PM
The Coulter question is on point if Taitz has tried to implicate some left-wing conspiracy in the birth issue. I'm not enough of a masochist to pore over her ramblings to see if that's true.
Posted by: Taz | August 6, 2009 4:09 PM
Molly - Aha - "...with a hairdo that rinses...".
Is that why they choose the most unattractive/unconvincing wigs they can, so they can say to all those 'lustful' men: "This isn't my real hair. My real hair is much more sexy than this, but you can't see it. You'll have to use your lustful imagination."
Yep, I can see how that would be successful. Sheesh - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 6, 2009 4:09 PM
"Goldbrick4 @ 3 - Married religious Jewish women commonly cover their hair, often with wigs--lest they become objects of lust."
I'd say Ms. Taitz strategy was more than successful.
Posted by: democommie | August 6, 2009 4:27 PM
Re Peter Irons
I don't want to play constitutional lawyer here but, as I understand it, President Obama might be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Kenya. There are apparently two statutes on the books, one of which was in effect before his birth and the other of which went into effect after his birth. Under the first statute, he would not be eligible because his mother had not yet reached the age of 19. Under the second statute, he would be eligible because the 5 year residence requirement after the age of 14 for one parent was reduced to 2 years.
Eugene Volokh has argued that the first statute is the effective one because it was in effect when he was born. However, I have also seen arguments that a court could rule that the second statute is applicable because of the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. My suspicion is that the court would probably duck the issue by claiming lack of jurisdiction as Article 2 makes it clear that no court has the authority to remove the President from power; only Congress has that authority.
Posted by: SLC | August 6, 2009 4:38 PM
"As for Coulter: she's an attorney like she's a Christian. A bad one."
I've never thought I'd find myself defending Ann Coulter on something.
While I've never actually seen actual legal work by Ann Coulter, she was a Graduate of the University of Michigan where she was Law Review and Order of the Coif. That tells me one thing and probably a second.
1. She really is probably pretty intelligent.
2. Whether or not she is actually conservative, her pundit persona is an act. I can't believe she says some of the things she does, but they make her money, and (speaking as an attorney) what's more like an attorney than to make arguments for "your client" that may or may not have the most sound grounding in fact because you're getting paid to do so.
Posted by: Ben | August 6, 2009 5:35 PM
Orly Taitz is Baghdad Bob in a dress and bad wig.
Posted by: CHV | August 6, 2009 6:49 PM
The problem is this, this nutcase is given air time because she (and morons like her) have convinced a sizable chunk of the Republican party that the birth certificate nonsense is a real issue. A recent poll showed that only 42% of Republicans accept that Obama is an American citizen, the rest either aren't sure, or believe he isn't.
Is the certificate itself an issue? No. Is there any evidence whatsoever that he wasn't born in the US? No. Is there ample evidence that he was born in the US? Hell yes!
Is it an issue that so many people have been confused or even convinced that he isn't a citizen? Yes.
The interview itself, I really can't blame the reporters. They asked her a couple of really softball but legitimate questions up front, she raved at them about moronic bullshit and didn't answer. After that, who the hell is going to ask more probing questions? What's the point? She can't answer the simple questions and turned it into a bizarre diatribe. As for the Ann Coulter comment, it makes sense when you pay attention to the fact that Orly insisted that it is the "liberal media" that are responsible for us accepting "all of Obama's lies." Of course if someone claims that there is bias and that said bias is unfairly leveraged against their position while raving on about not getting a fair opportunity to (not) answer their questions, one logically points to examples of people who are allegedly on her side of the political spectrum but disagree with her as evidence that it isn't some ridiculous liberal conspiracy to keep her silent.
The biggest shame of the whole thing is that this idiot got on the air in the first place due to the fact that so many Americans are approaching certifiable stupidity.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 6, 2009 7:04 PM
You know, I think CHV has something there...at the very least, her rhetorical style seems to be channeling him.
Posted by: Shay | August 6, 2009 7:05 PM
The woman is obviously psychotic. Why would anyone let her speak on TV?
Posted by: bullfighter | August 6, 2009 8:06 PM
bullfigher @ 77:
I think the segment was newsworthy, entertaining, and illuminating having her on. People need to see the quality of person who is one of the leaders of the birfer movement which the sheeple in the GOP delusionally follow. If she represented a nit of the population, than you're right, but when 28% of today's GOP claim birfer-membership and up to 30% of the rest of the GOP are on the fence, well - that's news. Especially because they are loons.
dogmeatIB - if you listen closely, Taitz did directly answer Schuster's question, twice. It's hard to make out because Schuster was talking over her, at least partially because she took too long to get around to answering his question, but also possibly because he had no intentions of allowing her to directly respond to the core questions given his comment, and I paraphrase, ""we already covered the merits of her claims" [in a a previous show].
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 8:25 PM
"what's more like an attorney than to make arguments for "your client" that may or may not have the most sound grounding in fact because you're getting paid to do so."
Which is a pretty shitty way to make a living.
I know a number of attorneys who might only argue the points that they know put their client's case in a favorable light. I don't know any of them that would lie the way Coulter does, simply to make a buck. She may be highly intelligent, so was Ted Bundy. She's just a lyingh skank with a "J.D." after her name.
Posted by: democommie | August 6, 2009 8:50 PM
I think we all just lost too many brain cells. She is a waste of time.
Posted by: k2 | August 6, 2009 11:33 PM
Not surprisingly, Orly's motion was kicked to the curb:
There was no hearing on the merits of the motion, or of the purportedly Kenyan document; it was tossed on procedural grounds.
...the judge says the motion was improperly filed "for the following reasons: Lacks proper notice; improper form and format; Counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No.; description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court's e-docket."
Taitz could file another motion, accompanied again by the forged birth certificate -- but she'll have to overcome the mistakes she made with this filing, and that might prove difficult. The electronic court record for the case, in which she's representing Alan Keyes, among others, is filled with similar procedural errors on her part.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2009 11:33 PM
This whole birth certificate/natural born citizen crap is a manufactured issue on both sides.
There is no reason to believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen and plenty of evidence to conclude that he is. The few people like Taitz, who actually seems to believe this nonsense, seem delusional to me. How else do you describe people who get some weird notion in their head's and refuse to accept clear evidence to the contrary? "Psychotic," I suppose, but that's uncharitable. Consistent with paranoid psychosis," would work.
As for the media coverage of this, the only reason that the vast majority of Republicans even knows that there are a couple goofy people out there with these silly ideas is because of the barrage of coverage.
As for the high percentage of Republicans who claim to doubt Obama's eligibility to be president, it's roughly equal to the percentage of Democrats who believe that GW Bush was complicit in the 911 attacks. It's an obvious flaw in the polling. Ask somebody's political opponents if they think the worst and a high percentage will say they do, whether or not they actually do. It's harmless fun, so long as no media dopes take it seriously.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 1:16 AM
When she's not screaming, I kinda like ORLY?'s voice.
Posted by: tincture | August 7, 2009 2:30 AM
@hedberg #82:
"On both sides"? Explain.
That's an extraordinary claim - any extraordinary evidence to go with it?
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 7, 2009 2:37 AM
"On both sides"? Explain.
That means that while it's pretty much only republicans that have ever run w/ it, (+Keyes of course) it's mostly everybody else's fault for pointing out how insane it is.
That's an extraordinary claim - any extraordinary evidence to go with it?
SHUT UP, THAT'S WHY!
Posted by: tincture | August 7, 2009 2:57 AM
It's not much of an extraordinary claim, Chris Mathews pointed this out on MSNBC yesterday.
Here's a link which turned up high in a simple google search. Doesn't look like an impartial observer, but that's not the question.
I don't think the Democrats were truly that wackie about Bush nor do I think the Republicans are actually that wackie about Obama.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 3:13 AM
Hedberg - And here and here are a website and a video (respectively) I found on the first page of a Google search for "angels". They MUST be real then, right? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 3:23 AM
And tell me, Dingo Jack, what a google search for "angels" will tell us about survey results about Democrats' opinions about Bush and 911 complicity?
There are numerous sources which claim that Democrats' responses to surveys about Bush and 911 indicate that about 60% of polled Democrats either believe that Bush was complicit or are unsure whether or not he was complicit. (You can track down those sources easily, if you wish.) Do you dispute that polls so indicate, and if you do, why? If you don't dispute that, but you think there is some good reason why polls which indicate Republicans are crazy are more reliable than polls that indicate that Democrats are crazy, why?
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 3:36 AM
Does the expression 'unreliable source' mean anything to you? - DingoJack (one word).
Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 3:47 AM
Yes, Dingo Jack, I understand the expression, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, which I gather, is angels.
Here's a link to the Rasmussen. poll that asked about 911. If you dispute that poll or question the objectivity of the report, please explain why and substantiate. If you believe that Rasmussen misrepresents how widespread 911 conspiracy theorism is among Democrats, why do you believe that, and how widespread do you think it is?
And, as long as we're on the topic of objectivity, who do you suppose it was that published the report about Republicans and the birther nonsense?
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 4:07 AM
Hed Berg-
I just meant don't just trust any ol' poll on the Internet. Poll crashing is not an uncommon tactic.
For an analysis of the Rassumssen poll* see here. Thanks DJ
__________
*Published MAY 2007, saying NOTHING about birfer claims.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 5:21 AM
hedberg's using a logical fallacy already being employed by Fox News. It's called the moral equivalency fallacy. In this case, when one's group is caught looking clearly inferior to the other group where there is no refuge, you attempt to relate one's failing's as a failure of the other group as well, even if it's not meritorious to do so.
It's always interesting to see how Fox will react to GOP idiocies. In this case, they too are comparing the birfers to the trufers. The teabaggers at the town hall meetings are being compared to the Viet Nam protestors, except the so-called liberal media was supposedly respectful of the Viet Nam protests according to Fox while supposedly derisive of the teabaggers.
In regards to the poll. DJ's correct to bring Nate Silver's poll and interpretations to play, but I will pile on. Rasmussen is known to fudge polls to derive conservative outcomes. I do not trust their sampling methods and the question is framed in a way that I couldn't answer given one doesn't know how to handle Bush's getting briefed on an pending attack at least once before hand (8/4/2001).
I challenged one of Rasmussen's poll results last Autumn in a letter and the President of Rasmussen responded to our concerns (I assume many others challenged his poll like I did) claiming he was out of town and conceding that poll was in fact not statistically significant. This was the poll that attempted to argue that people who voted for Obama were disproportionately ignorant of the issues relative to McCain voters - an absurd conclusion given nearly all the arguments made by McCain voters were not even true (e.g., 25% of Texas GOP voters were convinced Obama was a Muslim when he is in fact a Christian). The Rasmussen trufer question isn't framed to distinguish who is a trufer; I believe my design to get the result they wanted, a lot of critical thinkers who do not absolve Bush for 9/11 given the repeated warnings he ignored prior to 9/11 starting with Richard Clarke and President Clinton.
I also think we need to stop stating that 58% of the GOP are birfers. They are not. 28% are. Research 2000's survey is also misleading, they only had one question and it was, "Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?. The 30% of the GOP that is unsure is collecting people that are not cognizant of the whole birfer argument or may be mundanely ignorant both of Obama's birth status and the Constitution's 'natural born' requirement. Democrats who are also ignorant of the issue will probably more reflexively vote for their guy in spite of their ignorance, they should have more questions to distinguish this predicted reality. Research 2000 should have also asked whether the pollee was cognizant of the birfer controversy and asked an additional question whether they knew a president was required to be natural born.
However, 28% of the GOP buying the birfer argument is a startlingly result and is absolutely newsworthy since its points to the level of mental illness infecting a large chunk of the party, where we also know its much worse but given the flaw in the poll, can't measure how much worse.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 7:37 AM
@hedberg #86:
When you can find evidence for your claim that 61% of Democrats believe that or aren't sure whether Bush was complicit in 9/11, you will no doubt present it. We now have an absolute upper bound for that figure, in a poll taken for a right-leaning site, on a far broader question of prior knowledge. That bound is the same number (within margins of error) as that of Republicans that do not believe that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the US. So already we see that your claim of equivalent numbers is unlikely to be true.
And you haven't explained your first claim - why do you say that the birther conspiracy theory is a "a manufactured issue on both sides"?
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 7, 2009 7:39 AM
Best I can quickly tell, the question in the Rasmussen poll was: "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?"
It seems pretty clear to me that if Bush did know about the 911 attacks in advance that he was complicit. I don't see any room between the president knowing about the attacks and the president being complicit.
I don't buy that a significant number of Democrats misinterpreted the question.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 9:26 AM
hedberg-Try this on. I believe Bush was warned that attacks were pending by Richard Clarke and others. He ignored the warnings, whether out of wilfullness or intellectual laziness (I believe the latter). I don't believe he or anyone knew the specifics as to dates, targets and methods, but there was plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda was planning something.
Given that position, I could go either way on my answer to the poll question.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 9:32 AM
hedberg's using a logical fallacy already being employed by Fox News. It's called the moral equivalency fallacy.
I don't think so. Lots of people are getting all excited about the results of the Kos poll claiming that it tells us something important about the Republican party. I don't believe this poll tells us anything important about Republicans. I think it tells us something about polls, just like the Rasmussen poll does.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 9:38 AM
Re Hedberg
The fact of the matter is that President Bush was informed that Al Qaeda was planning an attack of the type perpetrated against the World Trade Center in 1993 by Richard Clarke, which information he ignored. Therefore, a yes response to the question as to whether he had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack is in no way irresponsible. What is irresponsible is that he ignored the information because of malice, or because he was behind the attack; there is not a shred of evidence supporting these latter interpretations. The truth is that he ignored the advice because of incompetence. As the old saw goes, never assume malice when incompetence provides a sufficient explanation.
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 9:42 AM
Given that position, I could go either way on my answer to the poll question.
I don't believe that. Saying that there was intelligence about terrorist activity, even to the point of saying that the intelligence, properly interpreted, indicated an attack was likely, is not at all the same as saying that Bush "[knew] about the 9/11 attacks in advance." But, the claim that some significant portion of Democratic responders misinterpreted the question should be testable, if anyone cares.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 9:48 AM
I think the woman is a total kook -- but guys, some of these comments are just sexist. Shame on you.
Posted by: Melody | August 7, 2009 9:50 AM
Yes, Dingo Jack, internet polls can be crashed. But, neither the Rasmussen poll nor the Kos poll is an internet poll. Both were conducted, as far as I can tell, by traditional methods.
What does the fact that the Rasmussen poll was conducted in 2007 have to do with anything?
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 9:59 AM
#98-I'm telling you my personal reaction. I don't give a crap if you believe it. I've been surveyed a few times. Often my answer is, "It depends", but surveys don't accept that. Most push you for a yes or no. Real life usually is more complicated.
However "Do you believe Obama born in the US?" is a simple question, to which the only possible answers are yes, no or don't know.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 10:01 AM
hedberg: there's plenty of room, especially when you remember that outgoing Clinton staffers explicitly warned Bush's people that they had intel saying that terrorists were indeed getting ready to attack inside the US; and that such attacks were likely to involve airplanes being used as bombs; and Bush's people ignored the warnings until it was too late. The warnings were rather generalized, so this doesn't prove Bush Jr. knew in advance about the specifics of the attack that actually happened, nor that he could have prevented it. It does, however, strongly imply that Bush Jr. could have done more to prevent it had he been more inclined to listen and less inclined to focus on tax cuts and ballistic-missile defense. This confusion between general and specific foreknowledge could easily be the source of any misinterpretation of the question that might have occurred.
Your citation of polls, however, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that many high-profile Republicans, both in Washington and in the media, have voiced support (kinda sorta) for the birfers' asinine allegations, while ZERO high-profile Democrats voiced ANY support for the troofers. The Republican establishment are trying to use the birfers' nonsense to destabilize the US government, and distract attention from policy debates they can't win; the Democrats never made any such use of the troofers.
Your "equivalency" argument fails completely.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 7, 2009 10:01 AM
@Michael #92:
I wouldn't blame Rasmussen for this one unless they deliberately contributed to misinterpreting their poll. They asked a question, and people answered. It was not a question comparable to the one about Obama's place of birth, and Nate Silver missed the most important point (but many comments corrected him).
Obama either is born in the US or he isn't, and the evidence one would use to determine that is very standard. It is a very simple question, like whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa. If you answer that he was born abroad, you are a crackpot. If you answer that you don't know, you are an ignorant moron. (BTW, 25% of Americans either answer wrong or don't know on the Earth/Sun question, so any time you get more than 75% of people to answer something correctly, it is a remarkable occurrence.)
OTOH, "advance knowledge" is something on a continuous scale. It is a known fact that Bush was shown a memo warning of some kind of al-Qaida plot. Does that count as "advance knowledge" of a specific attack? That's a matter of subjective interpretation. Additionally, because of the obviously secret nature of intelligence gathering, it is very hard to ascertain exactly how much information Bush had. So a reasonable person could answer "yes" to the Rasmussen question, and "don't know" is arguably the most reasonable answer. The distribution of answers might look very different if the question were more specific. (But there is no objective reason that a poll question must be specific.)
So the whole equivalence thing is a fallacy on its face. It doesn't matter how many congressmen or prominent media figures endorsed each view; the views expressed by those answers are in no way symmetric.
P.S. As for showing crazy people on TV, I still think it is pointless. People who agree with her are not going to be convinced by any evidence.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 7, 2009 10:02 AM
Sounds like hed(dle)bergshit to me.
Melody:
Shame on who? I think Ms. Taitz, trying to hijack the segment for her own whackaloon press conference is deserving of all of the derision she elicits from folks here. Some of it may be sexist, deliberately so, but a lot of it is no doubt simply reaction to her idiocy. If she was Mitt Romney and was mouthing similar nonsense, there would be, no doubt, similar "sexist" comments. Very few, and I mean VERY FEW folks are PC at all times. We're human.
Posted by: democommie | August 7, 2009 10:05 AM
re: 101
You're saying that because Bush's response to terrorist threats was inadequate that claiming that he knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance is an acceptable answer to the Rasmussen poll question. In my opinion, that doesn't make any sense and I don't believe that there are many Democrats who would make that mistake and I seriously doubt that you are one of them.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 10:16 AM
Re Hedberg
If Mr. Hedberg will stop nitpicking and obfuscating for a moment, as I stated before, the Bush Administration was warned by Richard Clarke that Al Qaeda planned terrorist attacks against the United States. The Bush Administration ignored those warnings and 3000 people paid with their lives for the administrations' incompetence. Thus, it is perfectly conceivable that someone responding to the Rasmussen question could answer yes, even though the actual details of the attack were not known by Mr. Clarke (i.e. Clarke didn't know that the terrorists planned to hijack airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001). If the Bush Administration had taken the warnings seriously, it is quite conceivable that the attacks could have been prevented.
By the way, it is my information that some of the most avid troofers are former followers of Ron Paul, hardly representative of the left.
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 10:18 AM
Michael Silver on the birther vs truther debate
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/difference-between-birthers-and.html
to sum up
there were republican truthers, but not many democratic birthers. birthers and truthers have a lot in common. no sitting congressman/senator ever backed the truther movement, there have been more than few that have backer birthers.
Mr. Silver also has helpful analysis of the numbers as always.
Posted by: Josh A | August 7, 2009 10:19 AM
Democommie -- Really? The response to blatant sexism you have is: "we can't be PC all the time?" Frankly, lots of women on the left (or at least me) are tired of the entrenched sexism FROM OUR POLITICAL ALLIES, and are even more tired of being condescended to when we point out the sexism. I'm not asking you or anyone else to be "PC" (whatever that means, beyond a right-wing buzzword). I'm just asking that folks at least think about how political discourse and responses to kookery might be constructed so as to not hate on women qua women.
Posted by: Melody | August 7, 2009 10:22 AM
Interestingly enough, whackjob attorney Philip Berg is both a troofer and a real birther as he claims that John McCain, in addition to President Obama, is also ineligible to be president based on his being born somewhere in Panama. Isn't there a three strikes and you're out rule in stupidity.
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 10:30 AM
hedberg - the 9/11/Bush Rasmussen question was, "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?"
While your interpretation is arguably correct, so is the response that he was warned, which is the whole point of our criticism of your logic. The point wasn't that your understanding was wrong, of course it isn't, but that the question was so vague it could capture answers not consistent with how the results were interpreted. A better poll question to get at what was really attempted to be understood (if the pollster wasn't biased, which they clear were or incredibly incompetent), would be:
"Did the President participate in the conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center on or around 9/11?" Reasonable people regardless of major party affliation would respond with, "No", including some trufers.
Followed by the question, "Were the warnings given to the President about a pending attack ignored by President Bush because he favored such an attack?" Reasonable people regardless of major party affliation, except for all trufers, would answer, "No".
I highly doubt that 61% of Democrats would have answered yes to either of those questions. My assumption, if correct, destroys part of your moral equivalency argument which I stand by after your attempt at a rebuttal, where you compare the number of trufers in the Democratic party relative to the number of birthers. Especially when 26% of Republicans answered, "yes" to the Rasmussen 9/11 question. This latter result, which Nate Silver also noted, shows how badly framed the Rasmussen question was. This is no surprise given other poll results by them, Rasmussen is in the propaganda business, not the information business.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 10:34 AM
SLC, I'm not obfuscating nor am I nitpicking. The claim that the Bush response to terrorist threats was inadequate does not justify a yes answer to the poll question, "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?" Even accepting the argument that Bush's response to the threat was grossly, even criminally, inadequate does not justify a yes answer.
Yes, it seems that a lot of Paul supporters were truthers. But, Paul's supporters are representative of the Republican party in the same way that LaRouche supporters are representative of Democrats. Am I guilty of one of those equivalence fallacies again? I don't think so. Many Paul supporters were/are crackpots. Many LaRouche supporters are crackpots. Paul is a Republican and LaRouche is a Democrat. Neither Paul nor LaRouche nor there respective supporters tells us much about the parties as a whole. Is that fallacious?
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 10:46 AM
Melody.
Hey, you win.
She's a fucking idiot. Happy?
Or should I have just said "that person is a fucking idiot"?
Posted by: democommie | August 7, 2009 10:51 AM
@hedberg:
I don't think the Democrats were truly that wackie about Bush nor do I think the Republicans are actually that wackie about Obama.
Well, the first half of your statement is fine. But since I live in an almost solid red county (in a blue state) I'm trying to reconcile the second half of your statement with the sight of most of my neighbors foaming at the mouth and muttering "Socialist!" under their breaths. And the de facto head of the Republican party right now is a sleazy radio talk show hosts who gets cheers for comparing the President of the United States to a Nazi.
Posted by: Shay | August 7, 2009 10:52 AM
Re Hedberg
The claim that the Bush response to terrorist threats was inadequate does not justify a yes answer to the poll question, "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?
That's your opinion. I, Mr. Michael Heath, Mr. raging bee, Mr. democommie et al respectfully disagree. I suggest that neither side will convince the other so further discussion on this topic is pointless.
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 10:55 AM
Well, hedberg, now you've shown just how silly you are for all to see. Equating Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche is the acme. Ron Paul is a many times elected House member who got into the double digits in several Republican primaries. LaRouche never got elected dog catcher and I don't believe he even got 1% in any Democratic promary. Ron Paul represents a sustantial current in the Republican party and LaRouche was simply a fringe figute.
As for telling me how I would respond to a poll question, well, thank you for crawling inside my head. Now please get the hell our.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 10:58 AM
re: 107
"no sitting congressman/senator ever backed the truther movement"
I think Cynthia McKinney did. News reports from 2002 indicate that her trutherism was important in her primary election defeat.
While I don't know that Kucinich ever came out as a truther, and I don't know that he is a truther, his response to truther stimulus has been pretty tepid, to state it charitably. John Kerry, when confronted by truthers, also responded less than adequately. Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, in contrast, are two Democrats who have no qualms whatsoever about classifying truther garbage for what it is.
At the risk of committing one of those fallacy things again, I'll point out that I'm sure there are lots of Republicans who have responded in a similar manner.
And for anyone who cares, any Republican in congress who fosters this BS about Obama's citizenship status (he's a natural born citizen of the US) deserves all the ensuing ridicule and derision.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 11:07 AM
Demo -- No, "She's a fucking idiot" works just fine.
Posted by: Melody | August 7, 2009 11:10 AM
"And for anyone who cares, any Republican in congress who fosters this BS about Obama's citizenship status (he's a natural born citizen of the US) deserves all the ensuing ridicule and derision."
Well there are 10 or so sponsors of that ridiculous bill in the House. Senators Shelby and Imhofe have said they're not sure Obama is a natural born citizen. That's not a bad little list for ridicule and derision right there.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 11:12 AM
Re hedberg
Cynthia McKinney, who is certifiably nuts, was defeated in a primary by another Democrat. I will take Mr. Hedberg seriously when a Rethuglican Representative who is soft on the birthers is defeated by another Rethuglican in a primary.
By the way, would Mr. hedberg care to back up his claim that Senator Kerry is soft on the troofers.
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 11:13 AM
re: 115
Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche are both crackpots. In my experience, virtually all of LaRouche's supporters and a significant number of Paul's supporters are too. There are lots of Republicans who lean libertarian and some of them were among those who supported Paul's most recent presidential candidacy. But, when you actually look at Paul and his supporters, the statements they make, the positions they take, and who their fellow travelers are (Alex Jones, for example) it should become apparent that Paul and his supporters are pretty far out there in the Republican party. Paul does not represent "susbtantial current in the Republican party." Most of the recent Paul supporters were not Republicans before Paul's candidacy and are no longer Republicans, they came into the party for the purpose of supporting their candidate.
Both Paul and LaRouche are fringe figures.
As for getting inside your head, or the head of anyone else, are you saying that you would answer the question,"Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?" other than "no?"
Where does this stuff come from?
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 11:28 AM
Obviously desperate to keep himself blind to the obvious, hedberg blithers on:
I think Cynthia McKinney did. News reports from 2002 indicate that her trutherism was important in her primary election defeat.
There you go -- the ONE demonstrable troofer in the Democratic Party gets the boot from fellow Democrats who have no use for insanity. Thanks for proving our point: the Democrats aren't letting themselves get pushed by loonies.
While I don't know that Kucinich ever came out as a truther, and I don't know that he is a truther, his response to truther stimulus has been pretty tepid, to state it charitably.
Do you have any specific quotes of citations? Or are you just assuming Kucinich was a troofer because he's a leftie? You certainly don't seem to have ANY real clue as to where Kucinich stands.
John Kerry, when confronted by truthers, also responded less than adequately.
Again, no specific examples. And certainly nothing to compare to either the Republican "leadership's" embrace of the birfers, or any of the other instances of complete batshit insanity to which they've been pandering since 1993. (Examples include the Schiavo meltdown, the Elian meltdown, and all those bigoted right-wing preachers who said God was punishing America for being a free country. And there's more.)
hedburg, you're not fooling anyone. Your party is mired in the worst forms of bigotry and insanity, and has been since 1993, and you just don't have the guts to admit it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 7, 2009 11:51 AM
re: 119
SLC, See this.
I'm not sure of the exact date of that video, probably March or April 2007. The event was in Austin, Texas and there were longer clips floating around in 2007.
Kerry deserves a little slack on this. He was not expecting some crackpot to ask him some stupid inside job question and was, no doubt, not prepared to answer it. Still, how can any reasonably well-informed member of congress listen to some crackpot's allegations about Bldg 7 being brought down by controlled demolition at the order of Larry Silverstein and not respond at least as strongly as Clinton did here. You can find other clips of Clinton's response, but be careful to set your volume level low if you want to open one.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 11:57 AM
@Hedberg:
I entirely agree - as indeed apparently do many others on the thread, since no-one -= no-one - has made that claim.
What has been said is that a belief that Bush had been warned of the threat of a terrorist attack - a belief backed by solid evidence - does justify a yes answer.
What has also been said is that that belief is entirely consistent with a belief that Bush was not complicit in the attacks, merely incompetent.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 7, 2009 11:58 AM
@Hedberg:
My #123 was intended to start with your comment:
"The claim that the Bush response to terrorist threats was inadequate does not justify a yes answer to the poll question, "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?""
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 7, 2009 12:05 PM
I find it one of the darkest moments of my life to see that the 9/11 attacks have still not been fully investigated.
That lack of a real investigation added to the rush to war and the shipping of all the evidence to china before being examined is why people are still have this discussion today. It is a shame and a major blight on this country to think that revenge is more important then finding out the truth.
Until there is a real investigation, and that gets harder every year it is not done, all wild conspiracies will continue and frankly I see nothing wrong with it. Keeping the conversation going is the only way the public will ever hope to one day find out at least some of the official truth.
Christian Nation my ars.
Posted by: theroachman | August 7, 2009 12:07 PM
#120: Are the 10 or so House Members who've sponsored this birther bill (not just voted for it, but sponsored it) all fringe figures? What about Sen Shelby, Ranking Meeber of the Banking Committee, who said he's not sure where Obama was born? Quite a little fringe you guys have there.
If this is fringe, then let's see the RNC issue a statement that says "Barack Obama is a natural born citizen". waiting, waiting, waiting....
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 12:20 PM
re: 121
Jesus Christ, Bee. The claim was made that there had never been a sitting member of congress who is a truther. McKinney was. That's all I said. I'm not trying to claim that McKinney was the pluperfect Democrat or anything. My opinion is that she is at least a little "out there" as far as mental stability is concerned. For the Republicans, they have that Bachman woman who seems to have the same problem
As for Kucinich, I am not assuming that Kucinich is a truther. I hope he is not. But, for your viewing pleasure:
one
and another
and another short one
In my opinion, Kucinich is inadequate in responding to truther claims. He knows what's going on with these crackpots and, in all likelihood, he knows that their accusations are crazy and baseless, and yet he panders to their delusions.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 12:20 PM
the roachman @125:
"Rush to war?". We know al Qaeda did it. I'm still furiuous we sent in mere battalions rather than divisions where the direct result of such an apathetic response was that al Qaeda was allowed to escape into Pakistan. We could have easily, easily killed nearly all of them with a proper invasion force, including all their leaders with the kind of response used in pre-George W. Bush America.
Bush was not bent on revenge either, he instead leveraged 9/11 to invade Iraq in spite of Hussein's not posing a threat given containment efforts had been and continued to be successful. His lack of attention to al Qaeda continues to astound me. No Democratic president would have ever been allowed to respond so impotently to an attack on our soil.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 12:29 PM
re:126
If you want to know why these people are pushing this legislation, don't ask me, though I would be inclined to ascribe bad motives if pressed. I see no reason for it and it seems to have only negative effects. The Republicans should abandon it. Likewise Shelby's comments. If he claims that he's unsure of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, he's either a dope or a liar. If his claim is that he doesn't know exactly what square meter of Hawaiian real estate Obama was born in (and I have read that some of the birthers are fixated on the exact location), well, that's stupid and deserves ridicule and derision.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 12:32 PM
hedberg: I'm not disputing whether you're a birther or are giving them tacit support. You aren't and you're not. Unfortunately, quite a few non-fringe Republicans are and those that speak for the party are not stepping forward to squelch this. Have we heard from the leadership in Congress, Boehner or McConnell? Whay about McCain, Palin, Romney? If so, I missed it.
One further point. All of these members of Congress had a constitutional duty to be sure about Obama's eligibility in January when they certified the election, or else object. Since they didn't, they were sure then. What changed? No new facts (other than a phony Kenyan BC). The only thing that changed was they thought they would appease their base. They aren't just fools, they're cowardly fools.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 12:55 PM
We've heard from some Republican leaders including RNC Chairman Steele. Other Republicans should, in my opinion, join in; it's the proper thing to do. Also, if they are self-interested and desire to advance their own agenda, whatever it may be, they should as there is no legitimate issue and the whole brouhaha is harming the Republicans.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 1:22 PM
hedberg #88: You claim that the Rasmussen poll shows that "about 60% of polled Democrats either believe that Bush was complicit or are unsure whether or not he was complicit" in 9/11. However, your use of the word "complicit" is very misleading. The word means "choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others" but that's not how the Rasmussen poll is worded. The Rasm. poll is asking respondents whether they believe that Bush "knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance". Knowing about attacks beforehand is not the same as being complicit in them, as complicity implies some kind of active role. You should choose your words more carefully. Someone could believe that the President was warned in advance that attacks could be forthcoming without believing that he somehow played an active role in those attacks.
Posted by: wats | August 7, 2009 3:45 PM
It's more then just the birthers. For instance, the only Rethuglicans who appear willing to take on lard ass Rush Limbaugh are Colin Powell and his former deputy Lawrence Wilkerson. The rest of them cower in fear of crossing him. Several weeks ago, Mr. hedbergs' hero, Michael Steele, had the temerity to say a cross word about lard ass Limbaugh and had to back down 48 hours later. By the way, Limbaugh himself flirts with the birthers, although he hasn't yet actually joined them (remember the unfunny joke, what do Obama and god have in common? Neither of them has a birth certificate).
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 3:49 PM
Someone suggested that the RNC needed to make a statement about the birth certificate/citizenship nonsense. I responded that Michael Steele, RNC chairman, made such a statement. Therefore he's my hero?
Steel did not come out of that whole Limbaugh thing looking very good, did he.
Posted by: hedberg | August 7, 2009 4:08 PM
Michael Steele says a lot of things. Elected Republican members of the House have sponsored a bill that openly panders to the birthers. I think their leader, John Boehner, should say in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with them (if he does). If Democratic members sponsored a bill that pandered to birthers, I would expect the same from Pelosi. Similarly I would like to see Shelby make a clear statement that says "President Obama is a natural born citizen and is the legitimate president". Not so hard, is it? McKinney was basically shunned by the rest of her party after expresing her 9/11 sentiments. The DNC stopped funding her and encouraged a primary challenge. Will the RNC do the same here?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | August 7, 2009 5:34 PM
Re hedberg
Mr. hedberg should realize that the Rethuglican Party has been hijacked by right wing nutcases like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Billo the clown O'Reilly,etc. This is in addition to the hijacking in many states by the religious right (e.g. Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Lou Shelton, etc.). It is for the good of the American political system that there be an opposition party which is not controlled by whackjobs and neo-fascists, if for no other reason to keep the Democrats honest. Colin Powell and Lawrence Wilkerson, estimable people that they may be can't do it alone.
I wonder what Barry Goldwater, who had very little use for religious zealots, would think of the state of the current Rethuglican Party?
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 8:26 PM
SLC @ 136:
I just re-read Conscience of a Conservative a few months ago. There's also an excellent though favorably biased documentary of Sen. Goldwater that was produced by his family, which is available at Netflix, which I rated five stars, Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater.
I've never been a conservative in spite of my Republican party membership until last year, but I used to respect most aspects of Goldwater's conservatism, with the exception of his promotion of the defective argument promoting so-called state's rights and his refusal to acknowledge the federal gov'ts obligation to defend our rights against others denying those rights - especially the Executive and Judicial branches.
I can't see him passively enabling this movement within the party. Unlike Sen. McCain, Sen. Goldwater's principles were far more important to him than his ambitions and while Goldwater was not as well-informed as I would like on several issues, he was not deluded or ambitious to a fault.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 9:26 PM
You know, I have to agree with Orly on one point. Who does care about Anne Coulter? I have no idea why her opinion of Orly should be important.
Posted by: Chris Zerhusen | August 8, 2009 2:49 AM
Chris Zerhusen - Who cares? The same could be said of Orly Taitz's opinions. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 8, 2009 5:12 AM
Re Michael Heath
Although I can't find the exact quote, I recall that Mr. Goldwater dismissed the late and unlamented Jerry Falwell in no uncertain terms.
Posted by: SLC | August 8, 2009 7:00 AM
SLC - the documentary I mentioned @ 137 covers his comments and the subject of Goldwater's ire with the religious right quite well. While I can't remember it exactly, it was either and I paraphrase, "Falwell deserves a kick in the ass" or "I'd like to kick Falwell in the ass".
Goldwater was both pro-abortion rights and pro gay rights.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 8, 2009 7:37 AM
I agree about Goldwater, but I also remember that when he commented on the religious right the more extreme attack dogs (Liddy, Cal Thomas, and others) immediately commented that it wasn't the true Goldwater speaking, that after his stroke he wasn't mentally all there. That allowed them to write his current views off while keeping him as an icon of their philosophy. As far as I know they weren't really called on their scummy comments, and that indicated to me (and still indicates) that even then the extreme right had a very strong hold on the republicans.
Posted by: dean | August 8, 2009 9:43 AM
Re Michael Heath
Mr. Goldwater summed up the issue of gays in the military quite pithily, saying something along the lines of military officers should spend less time worrying about their soldiers' sex lives and more time worrying about whether they can shoot straight.
Posted by: SLC | August 8, 2009 12:09 PM
This IS funny!
She does have a point however, Obama is a British Subject as his father was a British Citizen, hence he is not a "Natural Born Citizen" no matter where he was born. Period.
Oh, does that make me a "birther"?
Hardly, it's Constitutional-ist.
Read the law, it's simple people
Posted by: DABIGRAGU | August 11, 2009 2:31 AM
DABIGRAGU - Clearly it's you that needs the refresher course in Constitutional Law.
1) - Where does is say that President can't hold dual citizenship?^
2) - Where does it say that another state's citizenship status effects US citizenship?
3) - Where does it state that the parent's citizenship status negates the well-established principle that a person born in the territory of country is a natural-born citizen of that country.
Since you made this extraordinary claim, I'm sure extraordinary proof will provided by you to back up that claim. Oh by the way: exact quotes only from legal cases and the Continuation only thanks.
We await your inspired wisdom, oh great one+. - DJ
___________
^ George Washington isn't REALLY the first President then is he? HE DIDN'T formally renounce his British citizenship. NOT REALLY PRESIDENT BY YOUR 'LOGIC'.
* BY YOUR 'LOGIC' all the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would have to do is retrospectively grant citizenship to all Americans, the whole US political system would fall into a heap because everyone would have dual citizenship.
+ The Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, The Senate, The Congress, The whole GOP and the whole Democratic Party couldn't find evidence that Barack Obama isn't a natural-born-citizen (Hell, he even posted his BC online, had it examined and had it's authenticity confirmed by the State of Hawaii) and yet you think YOU can?
Your arrogance matches your idiocy.
Posted by: DIngoJack | August 11, 2009 4:13 AM
DingoJack
I beg your pardon, I'm not going into the "rehash" game here.
It's clearly you, who needs to do some research,
i.e., George Washington and his buddies had what's commonly called been grandfathered in, Hawaii has never authenticated any online BC.
Get off your penchant for ad-hominem comments and do your homework, little boy.
Obviously, paid by the keystroke or the hour aren't you.
Posted by: DABIGRAGU | August 11, 2009 4:42 PM
I know I'm going to regret feeding the troll, but...
Former US President Chester A. Arthur's father was not an American citizen at the time of Chester's birth. He was still a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Vermont. What's so different about Obama, apart from his party and skin color of course?
If someone with dual citizenship cannot be President, what's to prevent N. Korea from declaring anyone they want to keep out of office a citizen of N. Korea? Such a person would hold dual citizenship whether they wanted it ot not.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2009 5:36 PM
I will put this out there for those who are critical thinkers, this is only food for thought, not interested in getting into tug of war with "paid employees"
Q- Please point to where “Natural born citizen” is clearly defined in the constitution or any subsequent supreme court rulings defining it.
A- It's not clearly defined. But the most on point definition comes from the Minor case where they indicated doubts exist as to the citizenship of native born citizens of foreign parentage. I have never said it's clearly defined. Regardless, the weight of evidence suggests that a person who was a citizen or Birth Subject thereof a foreign nation should not be Commander in Chief of this one.
How’s this for simplicity:
1) The issue is Presidential eligibility.
2) The Constitution explicitly requires that “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President”.
3) Nowhere in the original Constitution, its ratified Amendments, or Supreme Court decisions, is the term “natural born citizen” conclusively defined.
4) Any consideration of the founders’ original intent for Presidential eligibility must take into account the writings of the man who became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (John Jay).
On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote the following to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
It was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist in our Constitution. Since the oldest natural born citizens in 1787 were only 11 years old, a grandfather clause was included for those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. But the clear intent was to disqualify “Foreigners” from becoming President and Commander in Chief of our armed forces.
5) On a web site run by the Obama campaign (it explicitly states “PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA” at the bottom of the page), it was openly admitted that Barack Obama had FOREIGN citizenship from birth until his 21st birthday. Obama has admitted on several occasions his father was a British Citizen, himself being a British Subject at birth.
(note: website has been scrubbed, yet cached, ask yourself why?)
I think it is pretty clear that John Jay and George Washington, our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and first President, would “declare expressly” that Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen) is NOT eligible to hold the office of President, no matter where he was born.
Posted by: DABIGRAGU | August 11, 2009 5:44 PM
Abby,
Your "question" has been answered several times on other blogs hasn't it.
North Korea?
Let's stick with America shall we?
"feeding the troll"?
Go screw yourself, dear.
Posted by: DABIGRAGU | August 11, 2009 5:54 PM
Well Abby, feeling the regret yet? I love the way he (she?) says "Your "question" has been answered several times on other blogs hasn't it." when even Coulter has taken down these ridiculous assertions, shows no evidence of understanding the North Korea point, and finishes with such a classy line. A truely beautiful piece of gibbering trollishness.
Posted by: Ramel | August 11, 2009 6:19 PM
Dabigragu:
Here it is: U.S.C. Title 8, chapt. 12, sub-chapt. III, part I, sub-sect. 1401(a). If you can't understand this, then you really need to go back to school.
Posted by: madmardigan1 | August 12, 2009 7:18 PM