This is Our America

Here’s the really good news – even if Obama does manage to win on November 6th, we own the future.  We’ve got the better people and the better ideas.  All they’ve got is hatred and greed.

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “This is Our America

  1. Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 5:31 am

    “even if Obama does manage to win on November ” Yes, always prepare for the worst. However, this campaign is looking more like 1980 everyday. I will not say it will be a landslide against barky but things are nowhere near as close as any of the polls say.

    I will say Mitt has the margin of fraud well covered by now.

    Unemployment, the official rate here in Illinois hit 9.1% as of last week. Very good chance that my home state goes red this time around.

    GTFO 2012

    • bardolf September 22, 2012 / 1:25 pm

      GMB

      Your optimism is contagious but I still think Wall St. is going to pony up big time for Barack ‘feeding trough’ Obama and guarantee him a victory.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 6:20 pm

        Me optimistic? You must have me mistaken for some other GMB. 😛

        DOOM!! WE ARE ALL DOOMEDD!!!

        That felt good.

        Have a good weekend all.

        🙂

      • Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 6:23 pm

        Wall Street can pony up all they want. Won’t help the guy or gal out of work though. Wall Street won’t help the guy or gal who wants to support themselves.

        If Wall Street could guarantee anyone victory, I am sure they would have choose some other than barky. Or Mitt for that matter.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 22, 2012 / 3:19 pm

      GMB,

      I’m figuring the low end for Romney will be about 53% – I do love the MSM these days with their harping on “two bad weeks for Romney”…according to polling (which is heavily biased in favor of Obama) these “two bad weeks” resulted in Obama dropping from 52% to 47%. Imagine what will happen if Romney ever has a good week.

      On November 7th there will be a host of very shocked liberals – none of whom know anyone who voted for Romney.

  2. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J September 22, 2012 / 5:33 am

    Mr. Noonan you seem to have had a momentary flight of fantasy. You realize that time is not on the side of American Conservatives. There is no great rise of conservative youth in America yet your base of people over the age of 65, for the most part have only 5 more presidential elections to vote. Those 5 elections will result:

    2016: Hillary Clinton
    2020: Hillary Clinton
    2024: Tim Kaine
    2028: Tim Kaine
    2032: Julian Castro

    By the end of Castro’s first term in 2032 America just might be a real three party government; or it might be a one party state depending on how many scandals, gaffes and campaign disasters the GOP runs as it tries to pander to the far Right over and over again as if that strategy has not failed enough times. For Ms. Love, while she is a refreshing departure from the homogeneous racial profile of the GOP, as well as being a wonderful speaker, she hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of ever getting elected to a congressional office in the State of Utah. As of this morning, Mia Love is so far behind her opponent that she thinks she’s ahead. But alas, diversity is a condiment for the far right conservative not the main course!

    • J. R. Babcock September 22, 2012 / 8:52 am

      Tim Kaine, the used car salesman? Too funny!

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 10:21 am

        2032: Julian Castro
        the racist la raza dude? Too funny

        and the pantsuited lesbo hitlery?
        even funnier
        how do you say LOOOOSERS?

    • Amazona September 22, 2012 / 10:10 am

      Every young generation is vulnerable to the lies of the Left. After all, they sound so good. All the cant about “equality” and “fairness” always appeals to the idealism of youth, and the ignorance of youth lends itself to acceptance of the promises without the necessary question of “How?”

      For a long time in this country, it was possible to move into adulthood without getting slapped in the face by the ugly reality of Leftism. Our economy was good enough to survive its incursions, and the really bad failures were always far away, in some other country. We didn’t have any Alternative Media, so the left-leaning media were able to smooth things over and never linked the political system of the American Left to the utter failure of Cuba, for example.

      So children of the fifties could buy into the starry-eyed belief that Castro was the savior of Cuba, and Che Guevara was not a vicious thug for hire but a folk hero. We heard little of the real miseries of the Soviet Union, of the hunger and the unheated apartment crammed with several families and the lack of basics like boots and bread, much less the mass murder of political opposition. Even so, most of the idealistic Left-leaning youth outgrew their juvenile flirtation with the fantasies of the Left.

      At any time in the last 80 or 90 years, a Leftist mouthpiece could proclaim, based on the simple fact that impressionable youth tended to be less questioning of the Left and more likely to blindly accept its lies, that the future belonged to them. The bleating of Cavalor, evidently fresh from a staff meeting in the Executive Suite, where I hoped he finally replaced the urinal cakes, is just the latest in the whistling-past-the-graveyard of the American Left.

      The problem the Left is facing now is that it is harder to hide behind lies. For one thing, as the global Left looked at the election of a Marxist as a signal to amp up its violence and belligerence in the United States, they forgot to take into account the Alternative Media, and the national awareness of these thugs and their intent to take over our country.

      And the economic policies of the Left have been so damaging, even its followers have to admit that we are, economically, in a world of hurt. Blaming Bush started to wear thin two years ago, and now it’s just a clear act of desperation.

      We really don’t know what to expect right now. The American Right has been like Opie, naive in its belief that merely telling the truth would be all we needed to do, not really understanding the incredible demagoguic skill of the Left, which has after all been honing its craft for a century.

      But you, Cav, and your fellow travelers here, the forkers in the Executive Suite, mitche and bozo and James, have been quite an education, and I have shared what I have learned about the fact that none of you, not one, NOT ONE, is a Leftie because of allegiance to an understood political system or philosophy.

      Not one.

      Look at the representation of the American Left on this blog. There is a cluster of identities which are clearly delusional, and possibly all the same person, bragging about being part of an interstellar hive mentality, and/or demons, with elaborate invented credentials and invented jobs at an invented “newspaper”. in hell, no less. Wow. So impressive. And we have a genuine psycho who posts dozens of posts a day, over and over, from various IP addresses around the world, who doesn’t even try to post anything but psychotic vitriol and hasn’t had an actual political thought. We have mitche and bozo, classic examples of the howling-mob mentality, poor Velma who is the fat old broad at the back they let tag along because she brings cookies, and James, who is so idealistic in his passion for the overthrow of the Constitution and the installation of a Central Committee which can control everything and bring about Utopia.

      Really. This is what the Left brings to this blog. We have no reason to believe that the noise machine for the Left is any more grounded, sane, or even cognizant of political reality than you guys.

      I don’t think you realize the vulnerability of a “political” base which has a foundation so devoid of actual ideological zeal. All you have, and I do mean ALL, is a howling mob that has been effectively stirred up to emote.

      All any of you here have had to say is an unending litany of vitriol against a MAN—–Mitt Romney—-and against identities, and not only that, what you have said is nearly 100% false.

      This is not the stuff of a political movement. This is not the stuff of a legitimate political shift. This is the stuff of emotional manipulation, and the fantasy of a political machine that is really nothing more than rabble with no actual political compass.

      James stated his wish list of an all-powerful central government, states which are mere provinces with no power, and in general a complete upheaval of our Constitutional system. Do you really think that most Americans, when faced with what he admitted is his goal and that of the Left, is going to go along with it?

      The American Left has the illusion of power, but when you look behind the curtain you see a couple of things that you people are not admitting. One is that the only way you can get support for your system is to lie about it, to masquerade as conservatives at the ballot box and then turn your coats when in office. That doesn’t sound like a position of strength to me. And the other is the one I just outlined, its dependence on the emotional manipulation of the weak-minded to foment irrational hatred which is then directed at an imaginary foe—a poor and fragile substitute for actual ideological zeal.

      I think perhaps you are looking at the mobs baying at the moon and mistaking them for actual. solid, political support, when in fact they are nothing but a disorganized and hysterical rabble feeding off the hatred of their minders.

      When you compare that to the actual knowledge, understanding, and ideological commitment of young conservatives, you see a huge difference, and the question now really comes down to how long your mobs can be pumped up, as all they are running on is concocted fury without a serious ideological or political thought among them.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 22, 2012 / 3:29 pm

        Amazona,

        Spot on – and people grow more conservative as they age and gain experience of the world. I’m vastly more conservative than I was 30 years ago. And it is rather funny that the left thinks that Latinos are their future…as if most Latinos are not Catholic and very socially conservative. Here’s the vote in 2032 when George Prescott Garnica Bush (half Mexican and Catholic) is elected President:

        70% of the white vote (which will be about 60% of the vote): 42%

        20% of the African American vote (which will be about 10% of the vote): 2%

        50% of the Latino vote (which will be about 25% of the vote): 12.5%

        30% of the “other” vote (which will be about 5%): 1.5%

        Add it all up: 42+2+12.5+1.5 = 58%.

        Not that I’m plumping for another Bush presidency – but let’s face some facts here: Latinos are not just accepted in the GOP but are eagerly desired. And as Latinos more deeply integrate in to American life they will become ever more open to conservative GOP appeals – just as the Irish did over the years (Irish descended voters used to be nearly as universally Democrat as African-American voters are today). This, of course, explains why Democrats want to keep Latinos poor, ignorant, Spanish-speaking and in the liberal ghetto…they know that integration means “Republican voters”.

  3. Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 7:04 am

    ” the GOP runs as it tries to pander to the far Right ”

    Mitt is pandering to the far right? That has got be the dumbest thing you have ever stated. Just when I think you ding dongs in hell can’t get any dumber you go prove me wrong.

    First McCain now Mitt. Yeah, two great paragons of conservative virtue. It is no wonder that you think you are in hell.

    • Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J September 22, 2012 / 7:19 am

      Indeed he is GMB. All one has to do is a small amount of research on where the 47% pay no income taxes meme came from. Neocon1 many months ago went on and on about this and now the same oath has issued forth from the mouth of Mitt Romney and likely will cost him the election.

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 10:24 am

        calhoun epitaph

        do some research the truth is there, 47% are looters and takers….put some ice on it.

      • tiredoflibbs September 22, 2012 / 2:42 pm

        Forker: “all one has to do is a small amount of research on where the 47% pay no income taxes meme came from.”

        Since when is the IRS “the far right”?

        Try again Forker drone.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 22, 2012 / 3:34 pm

      GMB,

      True – and we’ll have to watch Romney like a hawk when he becomes President. Though the fact that the liberal Ruling Class has been so disgusting here in 2012 will, I think, make Romney much less likely than, say, a McCain would have been in desiring the friendship of liberals. Also, Romney is smart enough to know that if he tacks too far left after January 20th then he’ll have a TEA Party primary challenger in 2016.

      Romney is no movement conservative – he’s a man with some conservative views (as is anyone with a lick of sense, at all) and some conservative policy prescriptions.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 6:52 pm

        I would like to know how anyone is going to watch the person, who in effect, is the most powerful single person in the world, “like a hawk”

        Mitt will do as he pleases, when he pleases, and how he pleases. If the repub party spends the next two years after Jan 20, 2013 conducting business as usual, I’ll let you draw the conclusion.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 7:48 am

        And the problem is?

        Lonely in hell this time of day?

  4. sue September 22, 2012 / 7:31 am

    James Carville wrote a book in 2009 boasting the the Democratic party would rule Washington for 40 years. In 2010 the Republicans took control of the House gaining 65 seats. In the Senate while not taking control they won an additional 6 seats while not losing one they already had. The Republicans also won 690 state legislative seats and 10 governorships.
    I would like to just say, since according to your linked web site that you are getting your information from hell, remember the devil lies. He is after all the father of lies.

    • sarahbloch September 22, 2012 / 9:02 am

      Sue, Carville was accurate. The election of 2010 was an expected reaction to the election of Barack Obama and the conservative fear of the Affordable Health Care Act. If Romney loses look out in 2014!

      • Amazona September 22, 2012 / 10:27 am

        Note the constant regurgitation of the new Leftist talking point—that objective analytical objection to a policy is now, you got it—FEAR !!.

        The mindless lemming are going along with this, lacking the ability to think, so they now have the Right defined as not only RACIST but FEARFUL. Oh, and I forgot—-acting out of HATE.

      • sarahbloch September 22, 2012 / 10:38 am

        I don’t think the Right is racist as a political organ; I do believe there are more bigots on the Right than there are on the Left simply due to the monochrome majority on the Right

      • sue September 22, 2012 / 11:46 am

        Okay Carville wrote a book that said the Democrats would hold Washington,D.C. for 40 years. They go on to lose the House and their super majority in the Senate in less then a year and he was right? It was expected? I still remember the dumbfounded looks on reporters faces as they read the results coming in.
        You say there are more bigots on the right then the left. Most on the right believe that every American regardless of race can succeed on their own if they work hard enough. The left believes that certain people are incapable of succeeding on their own without the government holding their hands. Who exactly are the bigots in that scenario? Or is what you are saying is that white people are bigots simply because they are white?

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 22, 2012 / 3:37 pm

      Sue,

      People do tend to ignore what happened in 2010 – either pretending it didn’t happen, at all, or coming up with a nonsense story that it was some sort of normal reaction. The fact is that we shouldn’t have been able to win more than 20 House seats and we should have lost one or two Senate seats in 2010. That we got 60+ in the House and 6 in the Senate (7 if you count Brown in MA) was astounding – a complete rejection as early as 2010 of the false story of “hope and change” sold in 2008.

      This is what will drive 2012 – people are furious about the state of the country and at Obama for lying to them about what sort of President he’d be.

  5. Retired Spook September 22, 2012 / 9:32 am

    Poor Barry, the bad news just keeps on coming.

    With revenue streams drying up and fewer places to cut costs, corporate America’s outlook for third-quarter earnings is looking grim.

    So far, 103 companies in the index have provided guidance for the third quarter. Of those, 80% have guided below Wall Street consensus estimates, according to John Butters, senior earnings analyst at FactSet. That’s the most negative outlook since FactSet began tracking the figures in the first quarter of 2006.

    The outlook doesn’t bode well for a market that’s at multi-year highs and will soon be facing added volatility as the November elections and the January “fiscal cliff” come closer.

    Adding insult to injury, S&P 500 companies are projected to see earnings drop year-over-year for the first time in 12 quarters. Third-quarter earnings are currently estimated to drop by 2.7% for the S&P 500 as a whole, the worst forecast growth rate over the past 12 quarters, Butters added. At the beginning of the quarter, analysts had been forecasting earnings growth of 1.9%.

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 10:37 am

      GMB

      be Veeeeeeeery caaaaaareful Vee R Vaching you………..

      Lobbyist close to White House behindeffort to stop golf jokes……

  6. J. R. Babcock September 22, 2012 / 10:35 am

    I was surfing around this morning, looking at various tracking polls. One of the strongest indicators that Romney actually has a comfortable lead is the huge disconnect between presidential tracking polls and right track/wrong track polls. Most right track/wrong track polls have it at around 35% right rack — 65% wrong track, and yet most presidential tracking polls have Obama with a 1-3 point lead. The math there just doesn’t add up.

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 10:39 am

      JR HUH??
      you think the sycophant media is lying? HOW can that be???? 🙂

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 10:45 am

        BREAKING…..
        RIOTS in 60 Christian COUNTRY’S, embassy’s burning, 6000 dead……….

        Oh WAIT!!………

        GOP Rep, Religious Leaders Accuse Obama Admin. of Religious ‘Hypocrisy’ Over Controversial ‘Piss Christ’ Photograph

        The photograph shows a small plastic crucifix soaked in the artist’s urine…

      • sarahbloch September 22, 2012 / 10:49 am

        Neocon1 it took you that long to get the Breitbart, Fox nation and The Blaze talking point of the day?

      • sarahbloch September 22, 2012 / 10:53 am

        That photo was taken in 1987 and has been shown in galleries all over the world. I’m sure the point is that you as a Christian are more civilized than Muslims are because you haven’t rioted over having your religion insulted. The real point is you have more to live for than your religion and many poor and angry Muslims simply do not.

      • sarahbloch September 22, 2012 / 10:57 am

        Neocon1 for your enlightenment:

        “The violent slashing of the picture, and another Serrano photograph of a meditating nun, has plunged secular France into soul-searching about Christian fundamentalism and Nicolas Sarkozy’s use of religious populism in his bid for re-election next year.

        It also marks a return to an old standoff between Serrano and the religious right that dates back more than 20 years, to Reagan-era Republicanism in the US.

        The photograph, full title Immersion (Piss Christ), was made in 1987 as part of Serrano’s series showing religious objects submerged in fluids such as blood and milk. In 1989, rightwing Christian senators’ criticism of Piss Christ led to a heated US debate on public arts funding. Republican Jesse Helms told the senate Serrano was “not an artist. He’s a jerk.”

        Serrano defended his photograph as a criticism of the “billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry” and a “condemnation of those who abuse the teachings of Christ for their own ignoble ends”. It was vandalised in Australia, and neo-Nazis ransacked a Serrano show in Sweden in 2007.

        The photograph had been shown in France several times without incident. For four months, it has hung in the exhibition I Believe in Miracles, to mark 10 years of art-dealer Yvon Lambert’s personal collection in his 18th-century mansion gallery in Avignon. The show is due to end next month, but two weeks ago a concerted protest campaign began.

        Civitas, a lobby group that says it aims to re-Christianize France, launched an online petition and mobilised other fundamentalist groups. The staunchly conservative archbishop of Vaucluse, Jean-Pierre Cattenoz, called Piss Christ “odious” and said he wanted this “trash” taken off the gallery walls. Last week the gallery complained of “extremist harassment” by fundamentalist Christian groups who wanted the work banned in France.

        Lambert, one of France’s best known art dealers, complained he was being “persecuted” by extremists who had sent him tens of thousands of complaint emails and bombarded the museum with spam. He likened the atmosphere to “a return to the middle ages”.

        On Saturday, around 1,000 Christian protesters marched through Avignon to the gallery. The protest group included a regional councillor for the extreme-right Front National, which recently scored well in the Vaucluse area in local elections. The gallery immediately stepped up security, putting plexiglass in front of the photograph and assigning two gallery guards to stand in front of it.

        But on Palm Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses aged between 18 and 25 entered the exhibition just after it opened at 11am. One took a hammer out of his sock and threatened the guards with it. A guard grabbed another man around the waist but within seconds the group managed to take a hammer to the plexiglass screen and slash the photograph with another sharp object, thought to be a screwdriver or ice-pick. They also smashed another work, which showed the hands of a meditating nun.”

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:04 am

        I must have struck a nerve in hell……LOL

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:07 am

        “The violent slashing of a picture

        OOh the HORROR I tells ya……….It’s a Catastrophe cha cah cah

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:08 am

        Islam’s Latest Contributions to Peace
        “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
        to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” Quran 48:29

        2012.09.21 (Nawa, Afghanistan) – Woman and children are among five people exterminated by Taliban bombers.
        2012.09.21 (Sinai, Israel) – Terrorists shoot fire at a group of IDFsoldiers providing water to migrants, killing one.
        2012.09.21 (Pattani, Thailand) – Muslims detonate a car bomb to punish businesses for staying open during an Islamic holy day.
        2012.09.20 (Basilan, Philippines) – Abu Sayyaf gunmen shoot dead four unarmed laborers.
        2012.09.20 (Mogadishu, Somalia) – Two Religion of Peace suicide bombers detonate in a restaurant, taking out fifteen patrons.
        2012.09.20 (Baghdad, Iraq) – A children’s doctor is among six Iraqis who lose their lives to Muslim terrorists.

        http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:16 am

        2016….NOW on U-tube

    • Casper September 22, 2012 / 11:37 am

      “One of the strongest indicators that Romney actually has a comfortable lead is the huge disconnect between presidential tracking polls and right track/wrong track polls.”

      That doesn’t mean that voters think Romney is the solution.

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:44 am

        That doesn’t mean that voters think Romney is the solution

        and it doesnt mean they dont DUH!!

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:45 am

        PS

        a rubber duckie would be better than the current POS

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 11:49 am

        Poll on Yahoo Front Page: Romney-46 / Obama-40

        OMG…2012

      • J. R. Babcock September 22, 2012 / 11:52 am

        That doesn’t mean that voters think Romney is the solution.

        Well, except for the polls that show greater confidence in Romney on economic issues, and an Obama foreign policy that is in flames (literally). Still doesn’t add up.

      • J. R. Babcock September 22, 2012 / 12:02 pm

        Neocon,

        From the Left we’re starting to get stuff like Casper’s quip that a 35/65 right track/wrong track doesn’t mean people think Romney’s the answer. From most of my conservative friends, I’m starting to get increase confidence — comments like, “I’m breathing easier”. LOL, if Romney’s “not the answer”, who is?

    • dbschmidt September 22, 2012 / 8:49 pm

      JR,

      Take a look at the “enthusiasm” to actually go and vote including early voting polls–Obama voters are scaling 1-3 while Romney voters are scaling 7-10. If you match that up against the poll and remove the +6 to +12 over-polling the left is doing (to match 2008 enthusiasm–then you will have you result.

      The left (MSM) claims Obama up by 2 in NC where I live and it is (last time I looked) +6 or 7 Romney. Almost the same for Florida where I used to live.

  7. casper September 22, 2012 / 12:19 pm

    J. R. Babcock September 22, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    That doesn’t mean that voters think Romney is the solution.

    “Well, except for the polls that show greater confidence in Romney on economic issues, and an Obama foreign policy that is in flames (literally). Still doesn’t add up.”

    Yet Obama is even or leading in every major poll. Funny how you want to believe parts of polls that favor your world view, but ignore the most important question asked which is “Who would you vote for?”

    • J. R. Babcock September 22, 2012 / 12:31 pm

      Funny how you want to believe parts of polls that favor your world view, but ignore the most important question asked which is “Who would you vote for?”

      Now don’t go puttin’ words in my mouth, Casper. I just said there was a disconnect between the dynamics in various polls between what people say on the issues as opposed to who they say they’re going to vote for. I find it curious.

  8. Cluster September 22, 2012 / 1:35 pm

    The following is from Dick Morris – the pollster who won Clinton reflection and guided him to the middle and a successful second term:

    Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.
    But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.
    An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.
    So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!
    Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll — one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.

    http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-polls-under-state-romney-vote/

    • casper September 22, 2012 / 2:19 pm

      cluster,
      The problem for you is that Obama isn’t Carer and Romney sure the heck isn’t Reagan. Reagan was likable and ran a much better campaign than Romney has. I doubt that Romney will get near the bounce after the debates that Reagan did as Romney just isn’t that comfortable in that kind of a format.

      Morris also isn’t taking third party candidates into consideration. They will probably get between 1 and 3% of the vote.

      • Cluster September 22, 2012 / 2:41 pm

        You are right. Obama is much worse than Carter, but if you read the article, Morris is saying that when an incumbent is poling less than 50%, it means that the independents will break for the challenger. Just a piece of well informed analysis Casper, from a guy that might know just a little more than you do in this arena.

      • casper September 22, 2012 / 3:08 pm

        cluster,
        I’d be much more concerned if Morris was predicting a Obama win. He’s been wrong on his predictions far more than he has been right over the years.

  9. Cluster September 22, 2012 / 1:42 pm

    And on top of $4 a gallon gas, 8.3% unemployment, and $16 trillion in debt, we can also look forward to more taxes, thanks to the MOST INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT EVER:

    Sunday will mark the start of the 100-day countdown to “Taxmageddon” – the date the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2013:

    http://m.atr.org/article.php?id=7203

  10. Cluster September 22, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    I must apologize to all incompetent people, because I offend them when I put Obama in their category. Obama transcends incompetence, and actually takes incompetency to a new level. Never before have we witnessed such breath taking stupidity and mindlessness in the Oval Office. What is now finally being revealed was painfully obvious to most everyone with a pulse from the onset, aside from those in the Obama regime, and of course his slavish, knee pad followers to include most of the media:

    For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/permanent-spin_652887.html

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 2:42 pm

      when the blind follow the blind, they BOTH fall into the ditch.

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:59 pm

        GULP…..

        If Congress ran a surplus of $100B every year that would be used solely to pay down the debt, it would take more than 112 years to retire the debt held by the public.

        Such a debt retirement schedule would require more fiscal discipline than Congress has ever dreamt of exercising. (We should remember that the only time Congress has run surpluses that big was during the stock market bubble at the turn of the century — hardly normal times.) But even if there were no wars or emergencies to thwart such fiscal discipline, running a surplus, or even a balanced budget, for more than a century would be quite difficult. That’s because of the interest payments on the debt, which have no place to go but up.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/another_road_to_perdition.html#ixzz27ELZuHfu

    • Retired Spook September 22, 2012 / 2:57 pm

      Cluster,

      Don’t you find it curious that Bill Maher’s numerous rants about Islam haven’t resulted in any M.E. protests?

      • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 4:00 pm

        spook

        astounding……….

      • Cluster September 22, 2012 / 8:31 pm

        We sure don’t hear Biden and Obama bragging about UBL anymore do we?

  11. neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:05 pm

    johnny

    you seem obsessed with Romneys underwear……..bwany is dat you?

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:29 pm

      NOPE

      is DAT? Raaaaaacist?
      I’ll tell the millions who use it….

  12. neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:07 pm

    but America was ready to elect a kenyan marxist muslim racist who never as much as ran a lemon aid stand?

    LOL

    • mitch September 22, 2012 / 3:12 pm

      Please provide evidence that he is a Kenyan, a Marxist, a Muslim and a racist.He never ran lemonade stand but he was a US Senator and ran a successful campaign to become president, has been president for almost 4 yrs and from the looks of things, is running another successful campaign. And you were a prison guard and now you fix A/C units.

      • Amazona September 23, 2012 / 7:37 pm

        “He ran a successful campaign”….yeah, like he put it together, staffed it, made decisions, etc.

        You guys are really grasping at straws………………….

      • neocon1 September 24, 2012 / 5:20 am

        just like killing OBL,
        sitting in the corner in his golf jacket.

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:24 pm

      fix ac units?

      did 200K last month…a pretty good fixer eh?

      a prison guard? HUH?

      According to a promotional booklet produced by the agency, Acton & Dystel, to showcase its roster of writers, Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

      • Ellen1 September 23, 2012 / 2:25 am

        And you believe that crap?

        ONLY 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. So the people who are making up this stuff about the files are making the incredible claim that Obama and his mother were two of the 21. And they are making that claim despite the fact that IF Obama were born in Kenya, the Bush Administration would have known about it because the parents would have had to have filed applications for travel documents for him in the US consulate in Nairobi (or he would not be allowed in, of course), and the applications would still be on file, and so the Bush Administration would have found them–IF they existed.

        And, guess what, the officials of the Kenya government say that they did research on the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, and there was nothing to the claim. Jon Chessoni, first Secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, DC, said, speaking of inquiries the Embassy received about President Obama being born in Kenya: “When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.” (The McCain campaign and probably the Hillary campaign made similar checks and found nothing.)

        In contrast, the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, and this is further confirmed by the Index Data (a public file showing the birth certificates that are on file, showing one for Obama in 1961) and by the birth notices that were sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH (and only by the DOH) in 1961.

      • Amazona September 23, 2012 / 10:23 am

        But Ellen, it is so easy and so entertaining to get you guys all wound up.

        The fact is, no one really knows where Obama was born. The records in Hawaii are such a mess, and the laws of Hawaii contribute so to the confusion, that they are meaningless.

        Obama’s cousin, for whom he campaigned, threatened civil war if he was not made co-president in Kenya, so there has been ample opportunity for tampering with those records.

        All we have is what we actually KNOW.

        1. Barack Obama fought, fought fiercely, fought at great expense, to avoid producing a birth certificate, and did so for years. Conclusion: Either there was no birth certificate or there was something on the birth certificate he thought would be so damaging to his political career that he willingly risked creating the rumor that he did not have one at all, finding it the lesser of two threats.

        2. When he was pressured to produce something, anything, he had a surrogate produce a copy of a COLB, which is a document of dual and competing purpose—originally designed for people born out of the state and then, for some bizarre reason, used to confirm births within the state. But when used for the first purpose, the application is made by the person himself or any family member, and by law nothing on the application is subject to investigation except the residence of the mother and father. In other words, a COLB by itself is meaningless, until you look at the basis for it—which, in Obama’s case, would have meant proving without a doubt that it was issued by the state as a substitute for an existing long form birth certificate on file. So the whole COLB argument was smoke and mirrors.

        3. The argument of the birth announcements was misstated. Newspapers did not get information from the hospitals but from the Health Department when births were registered. The only reason I bring this up is to point out that the newspaper announcements as proof of anything is bogus, as they could just as easily have been based on a COLB filed at the time of his birth in an effort to establish US citizenship.

        I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT A RATIONAL APPROACH TO THIS HAS TO CONSIDER ALL THE POSSIBILITIES.

        What I get out of this is this: For some reason, which we may never know, Barack Obama purposely set up a scenario in which the nature of his birth was questioned. He did it to hide the place of his birth, or other information regarding his birth, but in either case he made the callous and calculated decision to create chaos and confusion and conflict to cover up whatever it was he wanted to cover up.

        I don’t care if he was born in Hawaii. I don’t care if he was born in what is now Kenya. What I care about is that he has a personal ethical code that justified, in his mind, the creation of this situation, for his own personal purposes.

        What you apologists refuse to admit is that NONE OF THIS WAS NECESSARY.

        It was and is a game, and one harmful to the nation he is supposed to be leading.

      • Amazona September 23, 2012 / 10:42 am

        I will also point out that no matter where he was actually born, he contributed to confusion about his birthplace, for whatever reason. His biography from his publisher, for example, was full of detail about his mother and father as well as his birth in Kenya, and there is no way the publicist just happened to pull all of that detail out her imagination. This bio ran for 16 years.

        There are other examples of his claim to Kenyan birth.

        Personally, I have no problem believing he was actually born in Hawaii. But I also have no problem believing that the man is a compulsive liar who will rewrite his own history to enhance his image or gain some advantage at any given point. And I think this is really important.

        REALLY important.

        A good example of this is his claim that his parents met during the Civil Rights marches, or that his father benefited from the Kennedy plan to bring young Africans to America to go to school.

        At this point, his birthplace is of no import. Even if we were to find absolute proof of birth in Kenya, the constitutional crisis this would create and the damage to national security would be so great, we would have to just write his presidency off as whatever it was, and move on. At this point the only damage would be to a wholly complicit Democrat Party which failed to adequately vet their candidate.

        There is no reason to talk about it.

        Well, there is one. The issue has brought up the unresolved question of the definition of Natural Born Citizen. I do not think this can possibly apply to Obama, at this point—-as I said, you can’t unring the bell—–but now that it has come onto national radar, I would like to see it resolved so we can look to our own political future as conservatives, and know if Rubio or Jindal might be potential presidential candidates.

        And now that I think of it, this might bring up an examination of the very sloppy and vague laws on just how multiple citizenships are handled. For a long time, a child was considered to have whatever citizenships its birth entitled it to, even when the US did not allow multiple citizenships for its citizens. The child was then expected, at the age of 18, to make a declaration of which citizenship he wanted to retain. But even when this was kind of a law, it was vague, with no formal process, as far as I have been able to dig up.

        That should probably be addressed, clarified and codified.

      • Ellen1 September 24, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        Re: “…know if Rubio or Jindal might be potential presidential candidates.”

        They both are eligible because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 9:52 pm

        Ed Meese was a nice man and pretty smart, but not at all qualified to rule on the topic. And if you read the literature on the subject you will see a great deal of confusion regarding the difference between “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen”, many of the commentators not even knowing there IS a difference.

        I believe Ed even misrepresented jus soli as there are many references to citizenship depending on the citizenship of the father. Here is one except from a study on the term “natural born citizen”:

        From an article by By “sourcery” posted on FreeRepublic.

        “When the US Constitution was written, the “natural law” that dealt with issues such as nationality and allegiance to a sovereign was called “the law of nations.” Modernly, we call this “international law.” In 1789, the preeminent codification, description and explanation of “the law of nations” was a work written by Emerich de Vattel, entitled THE LAW OF NATIONS, or principles of the law of nature applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. The Founders were not only familiar with de Vattel’s treatise, they relied on it extensively when they wrote laws and Constitutions (of their respective States, not just the Federal one.)

        In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:

        § 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        Note that de Vattel defines “natural born citizen” as the purest form of citizenship, requiring both jus soli (“law of the soil”) citizenship and jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”) citizenship—with BOTH parents being citizens.

        But de Vattel wrote in French, not in English. In French, the words he used instead of the English “natural born citizens” were “les naturels, ou indigenes.” Literally, “les naturels, ou indigenes” translates as “the naturals, or citizens.” Note that “les naturels” does not translate as “natives.” For “naturel” to mean native the word would need to be used as an adjective. In the quoted section, it is used as a noun. In fact, when de Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. “

        But, unlike the Democrat Party, the Republican Party would like an actual, official, ruling from a controlling legal authority before putting the nation into a tizzy by electing a questionable candidate.

        We love Rubio and Jindal and would hate to lose them, but being right is more important to us than getting our way regarding one or two potential presidential candidates.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 10:26 pm

        From Blackstone. Emphasis mine.

        To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” .” [The italics are Blackstone's]

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 10:28 pm

        OK, enough already. I can understand why it is so important to you to throw up a lot of chaff, to try to create distractions from the harsh reality of your candidate’s performance, record and character.

        These birth issues have been argued, they are not relevant to this election, and what parts ARE relevant will, I hope,be resolved for Rubio and Jindal so the nation is never put through this again.

      • Ellen1 September 26, 2012 / 9:11 am

        I agree that the election should focus on the issues. Neither Obama’s place of birth nor his Natural Born Citizen status are issues. Both are matters of fact. Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and the teacher who wrote home about “Stanley had a baby” all show. And the meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does include every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats), as Meese said.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        Rubio and Jindal and, yes, Obama, are all Natural Born Citizens because of their place of birth. Yes, some people born outside of the USA to US citizens MAY be Natural Born Citizens in addition to the ones born in the USA. But that addition does not change the basic fact that ALL US citizens born in the USA are Natural Born, and only the citizens who were naturalized are not Natural Born.

        Re Blackstone. What you quoted referred to the “in addition” part. It says that the children born of English fathers overseas were Natural Born Citizens. But of course it does not say that those born to English fathers or any fathers IN England were not Natural Born.

        This is what he said about births IN England (Britain, actually):

        “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

        (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

        And that, btw, is what the US Supreme Court ruled six to two (one not voting) in the Wong Kim Ark case.

        Re the possibility that the parent requirement for Natural Born Subjects might be different than the parent requirement for Natural Born Citizens (which some birthers have alleged). The simple answer to that is if there were a difference in the parent requirement, the writers of the Constitution would have told us, and they didn’t. In short, Meese is right, and JIndal and Rubio, and yes, Obama, are all Natural Born Citizens.

      • Ellen1 September 23, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        First, a COLB is a fancy name for a birth certificate. Obama showed his COLB in June 2008, about five months before the election. More importantly, in Hawaii the short-form COLB is the official birth certificate. It is legal proof of birth in Hawaii; in fact it is used by THOUSANDS of people every year to get their US passports.

        Re: “1. Barack Obama fought, fought fiercely, fought at great expense, to avoid producing a birth certificate, and did so for years. Conclusion: Either there was no birth certificate or there was something on the birth certificate he thought would be so damaging to his political career that he willingly risked creating the rumor that he did not have one at all, finding it the lesser of two threats.”

        Answer: Once again Obama showed his birth certificate in June 2008. That was all that he really had to show. The long-form was extra.
        0

        Re: “2. When he was pressured to produce something, anything, he had a surrogate produce a copy of a COLB, which is a document of dual and competing purpose—originally designed for people born out of the state and then, for some bizarre reason, used to confirm births within the state. But when used for the first purpose, the application is made by the person himself or any family member, and by law nothing on the application is subject to investigation except the residence of the mother and father. In other words, a COLB by itself is meaningless, until you look at the basis for it—which, in Obama’s case, would have meant proving without a doubt that it was issued by the state as a substitute for an existing long form birth certificate on file. So the whole COLB argument was smoke and mirrors.”

        Answer: Nuts, the Hawaii COLB is the legal birth certificate used by THOUSANDS of people. It is not allowed to state a place of birth on it that is other than the actual place of birth, and Obama’s COLB says on it HOLOLULU. And what is more in 1961 the DOH of Hawaii was not allowed to issue a birth certificate to someone who was not born in Hawaii. It was NOT originally designed for people born out of the state. Where did you get that nutty idea from? A COLB is simply a fancy name for a birth certificate. Mitt Romney’s birth certificate is also a COLB, a certificate of live birth. It also is only a short-form birth certificate, which does not show on it the name of the hospital or the birth doctor.

        Re: “3. The argument of the birth announcements was misstated. Newspapers did not get information from the hospitals but from the Health Department when births were registered. The only reason I bring this up is to point out that the newspaper announcements as proof of anything is bogus, as they could just as easily have been based on a COLB filed at the time of his birth in an effort to establish US citizenship.”

        Answer: We are in agreement that the birth notices were issued by the Health Department, the department of health. What gave you the idea that the department of health would sent a birth notice to the newspapers for a child that it had not issued a birth certificate to? Why would they do that? (BTW, in 1961 the DOH of Hawaii was under a REPUBLICAN governor.)

        Re: Obama “fought, fought fiercely, fought at great expense….”

        Answer: You are terribly misinformed. Perhaps you believe that there were lawsuits against Obama seeking his long form birth certificate? There were NONE. Perhaps you believe that there were lawsuits against Obama just for documents? There were none. There were only lawsuits against Obama to have his name removed from ballots or declared ineligible. These cases Obama fought, naturally. He fought to stay on the ballot. He did not fight to hide anything because he was not sued for his birth certificate or for documents. He fought to stay on the ballot and not to be declared ineligible.

        Don’t believe that? Well, show a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate or just for documents. There are none. There are simply a hundred or so lawsuits that tried to get him removed from the ballot or declared ineligible.

        Hawaii is still THOUSANDS of miles from the nearest foreign country. We know that his mother was there and his father was there (and WND has proven with a FOI Act request that he stayed there throughout 1961). We also know that it was rare for American women to travel late in pregnancy in 1961, and even more rare to make major trips without their husband along. We also know that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother traveled in 1961, and she certainly did not travel to Kenya—where the government says that it did an investigation and found that the “born-in-Kenya” myth is not true.

        There is no evidence that Obama’s mother traveled from Hawaii, and it would have been rare and expensive and risky. There IS legal evidence—with the confirmation of the officials in Hawaii of both parties, and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers in 1961—that Obama was born in Hawaii. And yet you apparently believe that there is a realistic chance that Obama was born in a foreign country.

        Re: “Obama purposely set up a scenario in which the nature of his birth was questioned. ”

        Answer. That’s a lot of crap. Not only did birther sites on three occasions show “Kenyan birth certificates” that were forged (one by a convicted forger who claimed he got it in Kenya but has constantly refused to show that he went to Kenya) but they also quoted Obama’s Kenyan grandmother as saying that he was born in Kenya, where the tape shows that she repeatedly said that he was born IN HAWAII and another interview shows that she said that the first her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii. And they quote Tim Adams, a member of white supremacist groups, that Obama’s birth certificate does not exist, when Hawaii says that Adams had not access to the birth certificate files in any case. The birther movement is composed of birthers and most of them by far are strong conservatives who hate Obama.

        It was they who claimed that when Obama showed his COLB that did not prove anything, and you have taken it to the next extreme by saying that when he showed his COLB it may prove that he was not born in Hawaii or has something to hide. In fact, it is the official birth certificate, and it shows on it the same facts shown on Romney’s short form birth certificate.

      • J. R. Babcock September 23, 2012 / 11:04 am

        In contrast, the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii

        If that’s the case, Ellen, and I don’t argue that it’s not, then there has to be something on his “original” birth certificate that he doesn’t want anyone to see, like perhaps the name of his biological father being something other than Barack Obama Sr.. We’ll probably never know, absent a DNA test, but it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to discover that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s real father.

      • Ellen1 September 23, 2012 / 5:42 pm

        This is another nutty idea. First, the latest confirmations from Hawaii state that the facts on Obama’s published birth certificate are EXACTLY the same as those in the file. That means that the name of the father on the original is EXACTLY the same as on the short form and long form birth certificates that Obama showed. Want to see the exact words?

        They read: “Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the certificate of live birth that you attached with your request MATCHES (emphasis added by me) the original record in our files.” The word MATCHES indicates that the facts on each document are the same, the name of the father is the same, the name of the hospital is the same, ETC.

        Re, Davis is his real father. To be sure, that is entirely possible. But then it is just as possible that someone other than George Romney was Mitt Romney’s real father. We will never know that without a DNA test either, and there isn’t going to be one. You are welcome to your dreams that Davis was Obama’s real father. But without proof you will not convince anyone who wasn’t going to vote against him anyway.

        In fact, the more that anti-Obama people claim that Davis was Obama’s “real father,” the more that they will convince voters that the anti-Obama side is nutty and not to be trusted.

      • Amazona September 23, 2012 / 6:47 pm

        Oh, Ellen you really need to learn to do a little research before you start emoting—it might keep you from making such a fool of yourself.

        No, the COLB is NOT just a “…a fancy name for a birth certificate..” . How silly. No, those of us who have bothered to look into this know that when Hawaii was on the verge of becoming a state there was a lot of opposition to this, and some of it centered on fears that native Hawaiians would lose some of their Hawaiian identity or stature. A statute was passed to ensure a means of proving Hawaiian RESIDENCY, and until a recent revision was on the books titled Certificate of Live Birth —for persons born out of the state.
        The purpose of this statute, and the document that would result from it, was to prove Hawaiian RESIDENCY for, and this is very important, FOR PERSONS BORN OUT OF THE STATE . The person in question could apply, his parents, his grandparents, his guardian—anyone with an interest.

        At a much later date some brainiac in the Health Department in Honolulu said “You know, when someone asks for a copy of his birth certificate, and we pull it up out of records, instead of just copying it and stamping it why don’t we enter the information into a separate data base and then put this information on a different document that we want to prove birth in the state, but here’s the genius part—-let’s use a document that already exists just for people born OUT OF THE STATE! What could go wrong?

        “: Once again Obama showed his birth certificate in June 2008. That was all that he really had to show. The long-form was extra.

        No. Wrong. He had a surrogate present a photocopy of a COLB, not a birth certificate. And anyone who understood the law in Hawaii knew that the COLB might prove birth in the state, being generated from info on a real, long-form, birth certificate, or it just as easily could have been a copy of a COLB generated to prove Hawaiian RESIDENCY of his parents at the time of his birth, through a process designed specifically to provide this proof for people BORN OUT OF THE STATE.

        The fact that some of you lemmings simply do not understand the difference between a COLB and a birth certificate does not change the fact that they may, or may NOT, prove the same thing.

        Here you go again. Just as wrong the second time around. “Answer: Nuts, the Hawaii COLB is the legal birth certificate used by THOUSANDS of people. It is not allowed to state a place of birth on it that is other than the actual place of birth, and Obama’s COLB says on it HOLOLULU. And what is more in 1961 the DOH of Hawaii was not allowed to issue a birth certificate to someone who was not born in Hawaii. . It was NOT originally designed for people born out of the state. Where did you get that nutty idea from?

        A COLB is NOT a birth certificate, even when its purpose is not to provide proof of residency for people born out of state. It is a document offered in lieu of a birth certificate. INSTEAD of a birth certificate. There is only one birth certificate, and it is not a COLB, though if the state issues a COLB in lieu of an actual birth certificate it can be used for many of the same purposes as a birth certificate.

        As a matter of fact, the State of Hawaii started to demand a long form birth certificate for many of its programs, because it did not find the COLB adequate proof for its purposes.

        Yes, a COLB should not misstate the place of birth. The problem is, the original COLB process did not allow for any investigation of any information offered, other than that regarding the legal residence of the father and mother. So while it was not nice to lie it could easily be done.

        Your confusion seems to be, in part, your conviction that the only possible source of a COLB is a long form birth certificate, and furthermore that they are pretty much one and the same. And this is simply wrong.

        Your confusion is amply illustrated. For example, you say: “…… in 1961 the DOH of Hawaii was not allowed to issue a birth certificate to someone who was not born in Hawaii.” But the issue is complicated by Statute [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
        (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

        “ It was NOT originally designed for people born out of the state. Where did you get that nutty idea from?

        The statute has been revised, considerably. The original statute referred to the COLB, did not call it a birth certificate, and stated it was for people born out of the state. First the title was changed, and then significant portions of the text, and while I am sure the original forms exist (and are probably in the files of a dead computer of mine) I don’t have the resources or time to dig them out.

        There is also the difference between a Certificate of Live Birth, which is the COLB, and the Certification of Live Birth, which is the long form birth certificate.

        It’s silly to argue what cannot be proved, especially when it is no longer relevant. If Obama is reelected, then it would be worth going back to the forensic evaluations of the documents, which of course will be quite difficult given the length of time since Hillary Clinton brought it up, the convenient “revisions” of Hawaiian statutes, etc.

        “Re: “Obama purposely set up a scenario in which the nature of his birth was questioned. ”
        Answer. That’s a lot of crap”

        No, sweetie, it’s a fact. He is the one who provided information to a publicist biographer that he had been born in Kenya. He is the one who refused to provide the birth certificate information when asked for it. He is the one who fought to keep from being forced to provide it.

        This has nothing to do with what anyone else has presented or said. It is totally, exclusively, about the way Barack Obama himself has handled the issue

        When the question of McCain’s citizenship was raised, McCain immediately provided all the documentation asked of him and Congress held a hearing to determine if his birth in Panama while his father was stationed there qualified him as an American citizen. There was no effort to hide anything, no lawyer hired to block inquiries.

        I am not going to re-argue the many irregularities on the two birth documents eventually presented, but suffice it to say that it is highly suspect to see terminology that was not used in 1961. For example, “African” is not a race, and in 1961 a black man’s race would have been entered as Negro.

        “What gave you the idea that the department of health would sent a birth notice to the newspapers for a child that it had not issued a birth certificate to?”

        The fact that both birth certificates and COLBs were legal documents in the state, proving the birth of children, either born in Hawaii or born out of the state to Hawaiian residents. Both documents were filed, both were registered.

        But you are the one having the hissy fit about this, not me. I said I am willing to accept that he was born in Hawaii—why do you ignore this, and worse, distort it?

        Why are you still so frantic about it?

        As for the silly “birther” name, it is meaningless, as it appears to cover people who think he was born in Kenya, people who think he was born in Hawaii but wonder why he spent so much money and energy fighting the release of his birth certificate, people who would like a ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and pretty much anyone who is not willing to recite the litany of lies and distortions you have been so hysterically dumping here.

      • Amazona September 23, 2012 / 7:22 pm

        Actually, I don’t think people are claiming Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s father so much as pointing out that he could be. After all, near the time Obama Jr. was conceived, his mommy was posing nude for Davis’s fetish and porn mags and private collection, then when she was pregnant she suddenly had a new husband without much of a courtship or any marriage ceremony, who spent almost no time at all with his bride or her son, and then she sent Sonny off to be “mentored” by Davis, a known pedophile.

        If Davis was not the biological father of Obama, he appears to have been the spiritual, intellectual, emotional and political father to the boy, whose official father wanted nothing to do with him.

      • Ellen1 September 24, 2012 / 8:08 pm

        Re: “A COLB is NOT a birth certificate…”

        Sorry, you are wrong. Not only is a COLB a birth certificate, but it is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it has been the official birth birth certificate of Hawaii since, I think, 2001.

      • Ellen1 September 24, 2012 / 8:20 pm

        Re: “But you are the one having the hissy fit about this, not me. I said I am willing to accept that he was born in Hawaii—why do you ignore this, and worse, distort it?”

        Because there may be other people on this site who read what is posted and may have the impression that it was possible for Obama to receive a birth certificate from Hawaii in 1961 and get one without having to be born in Hawaii. And these people may think that Obama’s birth notices in the newspapers does not provide confirming evidence that Hawaii issued a birth certificate to Obama in 1961.

        For these people—it is useful to remember that Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and that it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days, and that WND has prove with a FOI Act request that Obama senior was in Hawaii throughout 1961, so that if Obama’s mother had indeed traveled out of the country then she would have had to travel alone. In addition, the government of Kenya said that he was not born there, and so did Obama’s Kenyan relatives (Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya; that was made up by a birther site).

        And the short form and long form birth certificates of Hawaii say that Obama was born in Hawaii, and those facts are confirmed from the facts in the file by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, further confirmed by the Index Data file, and still further confirmed by the birth notices sent to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii, and still further confirmed by the teacher who recalled being told of Obama’s birth by a doctor at Kapiolani Hospital and writing home to her father (named Stanley) about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth at Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 9:18 pm

        Ellen, you are not only wrong, you won’t even admit you are wrong when the law is quoted and links given, so you are not worth any more time. You are terminally confused, you think a Certificate of Life Birth is the same thing as a Certification of Live Birth, you think a COLB is a birth certificate instead of a document issued in lieu of a birth certificate, you have all the terminology muddled up, and in general you have no clue.

        And as I keep saying, it no longer matters. Even if suddenly we were swamped with incontrovertible evidence (which you would deny) that the man was born in what is now Kenya, nothing he has done is going to be overturned on the basis of his eligibility. We let him proceed without properly vetting him and we are stuck with him, in perpetuity, as the official 44th President of the United States.

        This is, now, nothing more than a distraction from the essential elements of the campaign and not worth any more time or energy. I presented the facts, you ignored or denied the facts in favor of your belief system, and that is that.

      • Ellen1 September 24, 2012 / 9:47 pm

        Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth are different in Hawaii. They are not the same thing. I never said that they were. What I said was that they both can be abbreviated COLB.

        In Hawaii (not Michigan) the Certification of Live Birth is the short form and the Certificate is the long form. Both, however, are abbreviated COLB. You were referring only to the short-form as the COLB. Well, fine, but be clear about it.

        You are wrong however in saying that the COLB (referring to the short-form birth certificate) is not a birth certificate and is something issued instead of a birth certificate.

        It is a valid, official birth certificate in its own right, and thousands of people use it every year to get their US passports. It is the only birth certificate that Hawaii currently issues. When you ask Hawaii for a birth certificate, you get a COLB (meaning short form birth certificate).

        In Michigan, the name of the official birth certificate is Certificate of Live Birth, but unlike Hawaii, the Certificate is only a short-form birth certificate.

        As in Hawaii, that short form birth certificate is not issued instead of a birth certificate, it is a birth certificate, and the official birth certificate, and it is used by thousands of people every year.

        Re: “If it were proved with incontrovertible evidence…that the man was born in…Kenya.” Answer. If it were proved with incontrovertible evidence that he was a trollycar, he would be a trollycar. And if it were proved with incontrovertible evidence that he was the Washington Monument, he would be the Washington Monument. BUT it was not proven with incontrovertible (or any evidence) that he was born in Kenya. In fact, the evidence is damn close to incontrovertible that he was BORN IN HAWAII.

        Re: “We let him proceed without properly vetting him…” Answer: Did anyone properly vet Bush or Clinton? Is anyone properly vetting Mitt Romney currently?

        When there is a birth certificate saying that someone was born in a state,and the officials of both parties confirm the facts on it, and it is further confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of that state, and the DOH of that state at the time could only issue birth certificates to children born in that state and the state is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and there is no evidence that the mother traveled out of the country—what other evidence is required?

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 10:23 pm

        Exactly what kinds of birth records does Hawaii provide?

        Posted by Mijgreb on Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:00:00 AM

        Generally, folks don’t know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for multiple kinds of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates. The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii. Go figure!

        1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:

        a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

        b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

        c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

        2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.

        3. The language of the statute clearly applies to births in the days of the Territory of Hawaii, so also births in 1961.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 10:31 pm

        Were there ever questions about the citizenship status of Bush, or Clinton, or Romney? There were about McCain,and he cooperated fully with all authorities to resolve the issue. He did not spend nearly $2 M to hide records from public view.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 10:35 pm

        That short form birth certificate is not issued instead of a birth certificate, it is a birth certificate, and the official birth certificate, and it is used by thousands of people every year.”

        Wrong. A true birth certificate has a lot more information on it than the short form substitute for the long form. This is why there are,finally, two forms of birth record for Obama—-the COLB and the photocopy of what is alleged to be the long form vault copy of the original certificate.

        Even now, the state of Hawaii will not accept the short form for some of its programs depending on certain criteria of Hawaiian birth, requiring the long or vault form, which contains a lot of information the COLB does not.

        I am sorry you find this so confusing.

      • Ellen1 October 3, 2012 / 4:40 pm

        A short form birth certificate is a birth certificate, and in both Hawaii and Michigan it is the official birth certificate and the one that is normally issued. Mitt Romney has shown only his short form birth certificate from Michigan. Obama has shown both his short for and his long form birth certificate. Hawaii accepts the short form birth certificate for everything other than a program that requires details about the race of the applicant—and even in that case, it is accepted for proof of birth in Hawaii.

      • Amazona October 3, 2012 / 7:12 pm

        Ellen, are you still gnawing on that old bone? When a child is born, in any state that I know of, a birth certificate is issued which has detailed information on it. Often when a replacement is requested, the replacement does not have all the information that the original does.

        Case in point: My purse was stolen a few months ago and I needed a copy of my birth certificate, and the fastest way to get it without a drivers license was to have my brother, who is two years younger than I, provide his—-to prove that we are siblings—and request it in his own name.

        When I got my certified copy it had less information on it than my brother’s original does, yet it is a certified copy, a short form if you will, and legal.

        However, the Certificate of Live Birth offered by an Obama surrogate did not contain even the information on my short form certificate, or on Romney’s. Even a cursory examination would show this. The COLB offered by an Obama surrogate was exactly the same as would have been issued to a child born out of the state, to prove Hawaiian RESIDENCY. Therefore, the only way to determine what it means is to learn which method was used to generate it——a substitute for an actual birth certificate as Hawaii has started to do, and which by the way is rejected as inadequate by many Hawaiian agencies, or as a Certificate of Live Birth generated from an application for same, for the purpose of providing proof of residency for a child born out of state.

        A short form may be accepted as proof of birth, of citizenship, etc. but it is not an actual birth certificate, it is a substitute for an actual birth certificate, and every state has on file the original, long form, true birth certificate for every birth registered there—-a form which includes the name and signature of the doctor, the name of the hospital, the race of the parents, etc. The short form is not the document created when the child is born. It may be called a birth certificate, but it is a substitute for the original and more detailed document.

        I do not know why you are so obsessed with this, or so obtuse and obdurate. You have made a simple mistake, natural enough for a while before it has been explained, but you are so frantic to have this become the truth that you are stuck on insisting it is.

        And this has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Not any more. He is the president, he has been sworn in as such, there is no process for unswearing-in, and no one wants to go through the hysteria, riots and other insanity that would occur if anyone were to try to challenge him at this late date. There are problems with the long form provided by Obama—for example, it uses wording that was not used in 1961 but which is politically correct today. But it doesn’t matter.

        You need to chill out a little, take breath, and drop this bizarre obsession. NO ONE CARES. Just get over it.

        As for Natural Born Citizen definition, you and I quoted the same source with contradictory conclusions, so it is clear that this is an issue that will have to be formally decided upon before any other candidates come forward whose parents were not citizens at the time of their birth. This will not affect Obama. You can relax.

        But you can quit quoting rulings that do not address this issue. Doing so merely makes you look silly and desperate and not very bright.

      • Amazona October 3, 2012 / 7:25 pm

        And Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status is a matter of opinion, not of fact. No matter how shrill and strident your opinion is, it is still just an opinion, and will remain so until the phrase has been adjudicated ON ITS OWN, SPECIFICALLY TO DEFINE IT .

        Passing references in other rulings which do not address this specific issue are not adequate to determine the legal status of this term, and such passing references are also erratic and inconsistent.

      • Ellen1 October 4, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        Re Obama’s Natural Born status being a matter of opinion. The fact that Obama received a majority of votes by the US Electoral College, was confirmed by the US Congress (unanimously) and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States is not a matter of opinion.

        On October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down two birther appeals of the Georgia court ruling, Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012). That court had ruled: “…that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        The effect of the US Supreme Court turning down these appeals is that the ruling of the lower court STANDS. The US Supreme Court allowed this to be the law in Georgia ” that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        There have been six other state and federal court cases that decided that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, and birthers may be attempting to appeal some of them, but I have lost track. They include:

        Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

        Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

        Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

        Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

        Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

        My point is that there have been many legal rulings that Obama (and McCain) are Natural Born Citizens due simply to their places of birth, in the USA, and none—not one—that says that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen or says that two citizen parents are required.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”— Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

        “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

        “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration….St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

        (Notice that the above refers simply to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were simply those who were born within a state.)

        And this from 1829:

        “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 11:35 pm

        None of your citations is an actual legal opinion on the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen. The only way such an opinion can be gotten is to have a hearing ON THAT SUBJECT, with evidence produced to argue the merits OF THAT CASE.

        A casual reference using that term, in the context of another case, is not adequate.

        And your bizarre obsession with this is becoming rather disturbing. The matter no longer affects Barack Obama. It is something that Conservatives would like a ruling on, as it might affect one or more of our own potential candidates.

        If you are so adamantly sure of the absolute rightness of your argument then you should have no problem with anyone asking a court for an official ruling ON THIS SUBJECT, regarding members of another political party.

        You really need to get a life.

      • Ellen1 October 5, 2012 / 9:31 am

        ALL OF THE CASES cited were the opinions of the courts after the birther side presented their claims that Natural Born Citizen status requires two citizen parents and their “evidence” that supports that position. And in ALL of the cases the birthers lost.

        Conservatives would like a “ruling on?” There have been seven state rulings on Obama and one federal court ruling on Obama and one state court ruling on McCain, a total of nine. And the birthers lost in every case, with the courts actually saying that that is not the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. And now the US Supreme Court has rejected a birther appeal of one of those cases, which actually said that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen. The effect of rejecting the appeal is that the ruling of the lower court STANDS. Moreover, it shows that the birther side could not get even four justices on the Supreme Court to support their allegation that two citizen parents are required.

        Re: “If you are so adamantly sure of the absolute rightness of your argument then you should have no problem with anyone asking a court for an official ruling ON THIS SUBJECT, regarding members of another political party.”

        NO problem, I agree. However, that is precisely what the NINE courts have already done. The question for birthers is, if they are so adamantly sure of the rightness of their arguments, why didn’t they appeal every one of those cases? When nine courts and the US Supreme Court’s rejection of one of those cases, and Meese and Hatch and the US Electoral College (NONE of whose members switched their votes) are all against you—–perhaps it is time to realize that you are dreaming.

      • Ellen1 October 4, 2012 / 9:14 pm

        Re: “However, the Certificate of Live Birth offered by an Obama surrogate did not contain even the information on my short form certificate, or on Romney’s.”

        I think that you are referring to Obama’s short form birth certificate, which is called a Certification of Live Birth, and it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people every year to get their US passports. The reason I can assume that you are referring to the short-form Certification is, of course, that the long form certificate says right on it that Obama was born IN KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL, which is in Hawaii.

        Here, is a copy of the birth certificate that Romney showed, and you will see that it also is a short-form birth certificate, not a long form birth certificate, and it does not show the name of the hospital or the name of the doctor.

        http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=831&tbm=isch&tbnid=lguEmmUjZm8Q3M:&imgrefurl=http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/romney-releases-putative-birth-certificate/&docid=882YcIBYsUBbpM&imgurl=http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RomneyBirthCertificate_Page_1_Image_0001.jpg&w=2550&h=1650&ei=uC9uUL6aKojF0QH6xoHACA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=470&vpy=144&dur=12&hovh=180&hovw=279&tx=137&ty=128&sig=112135085054767208052&page=1&tbnh=94&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=52&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:80

        A short form birth certificate is a legal birth certificate. Since it is accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA and by the branches of the US military, it is obviously valid. And since the short form is the only birth certificate that Hawaii and Michigan currently issue, meaning that people born today get a short form and people who ask for their birth certificates who were born when the long-form was issued get only a short form, the short form is official.

        Let me repeat, you are out of date. Many states now are only issuing short-form birth certificates. It means that all the information collected in the past is no longer collected now. And is this valid? Of course.

        For more information on birth certificates, short and long see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate#Types_of_certified_copies_issued

        But, that is past history. Obama has ALSO showed his long-form, the Certificate of live birth, a contemporary copy on security paper of the birth certificate that Hawaii issued in 1961, and it says right on it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital and it lists the name of the doctor. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor) have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, the fact that they sent it to Obama, and that a copy exists in their files. And this is further confirmed by the public Index Data file, and the fact that it was issued by Hawaii in 1961 is confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers at the time ONLY by the DOH and only for births in Hawaii.

        Moreover, Hawaii is thousands of miles away from the nearest foreign country, and the Kenyan government has said that it ran an investigation of the claim that Obama was born there, and found that it was not true.

        “Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

        “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

        http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged

      • Ellen1 October 5, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        Since my answer did not post but went into moderation, I will try to post it again without the links. If the moderator gets around to looking at the post, she or he may prefer to post the one with the links..

        Re: “However, the Certificate of Live Birth offered by an Obama surrogate did not contain even the information on my short form certificate, or on Romney’s.”

        I think that you are referring to Obama’s short form birth certificate, which is called a Certification of Live Birth, and it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people every year to get their US passports. The reason I can assume that you are referring to the short-form Certification is, of course, that the long form certificate says right on it that Obama was born IN KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL, which is in Hawaii.

        Here is a copy of the birth certificate that Romney showed, and you will see that it also is a short-form birth certificate, not a long form birth certificate, and it does not show the name of the hospital or the name of the doctor.

        (Go to Google Images and search for “Romney birth certificate.”

        A short form birth certificate is a legal birth certificate. Since it is accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA and by the branches of the US military, it is obviously valid. And since the short form is the only birth certificate that Hawaii and Michigan currently issue, meaning that people born today get a short form and people who ask for their birth certificates who were born when the long-form was issued get only a short form, the short form is official.

        Let me repeat, you are out of date. Many states now are only issuing short-form birth certificates. It means that all the information collected in the past is no longer collected now. And is this valid? Of course.

        For more information on birth certificates, short and long see the Wikipedia entry on Birth Certificates.

        But, that is past history. Obama has ALSO showed his long-form, the Certificate of live birth, a contemporary copy on security paper of the birth certificate that Hawaii issued in 1961, and it says right on it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital and it lists the name of the doctor. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor) have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, the fact that they sent it to Obama, and that a copy exists in their files. And this is further confirmed by the public Index Data file, and the fact that it was issued by Hawaii in 1961 is confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers at the time ONLY by the DOH and only for births in Hawaii.

        Moreover, Hawaii is thousands of miles away from the nearest foreign country, and the Kenyan government has said that it ran an investigation of the claim that Obama was born there, and found that it was not true.

        “Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

        “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

        (The citation is the site of the Washington Independent.)

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 11:30 pm

        The document you link to for Governor Romney states:

        “I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct representation
        of the birth facts on file with the Division of Vital Records, Michigan
        Department of Community Health

        That is, it certifies that it is a true and correct representation of the birth facts on file on the actual birth certificate. It is a substitute for the actual birth certificate, and it does pass muster as a legal representation of the information contained on the birth certificate.

      • Ellen1 October 5, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        No. By saying that it is a true and correct representation of the facts it was simply confirming that it is a birth certificate. It is not a substitute for the birth certificate; it is a certificate stating the facts, a birth certificate. See the definition of birth certificate in Wikipedia.

        When the US State Department asks you to provide your birth certificate to get a US passport, and the US military asks you to provide your birth certificate when you enlist, and they both accept short-form birth certificates, you know that short-form birth certificates are indeed birth certificates.

      • neocon1 September 23, 2012 / 12:33 pm

        ellen1degenerate

        REFUTE it with FACTS
        YOU CANT!!!!!

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:27 pm

      Bmitch

      marxist?….read HIS book written by Ayers
      racist? faracan, NBPP, wright
      muslim? yup

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 3:31 pm

      OOPS Bmitchie…. ALMOST forgot, .a DOPER and white owl smoker.

  13. mitch September 22, 2012 / 4:31 pm

    Neo:
    Obama was born in 1961. Kenya didn’t become a republic, let alone a country until 1964. So how is it possible he is a Kenyan? But you can think anything you want. After all, this is America. And, btw, money doesn’t impress me. And I seriously doubt that you personally made $200k in one month. Unless you’re a drug dealer. Your business might have had gross receipts for that much, but big whoop.

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 4:43 pm

      Bmitch

      not gross receipts,
      SALES;
      ever hear of gross margin?

      big whoop?
      lets see your checkbook big boy……. (nasal voice) fries wit dat burger??

      he was still born there, no matter what the name at the time, today it IS kenya.

      • mitch September 22, 2012 / 5:10 pm

        To measure the worth of someone by the amount of money they have shows how little class you have and how petty and small minded you are. Money is great, but character more so. And you have low character, but you are a character. Archie Bunker comes to mind.

      • neocon1 September 24, 2012 / 5:05 am

        . And you have low character, but you are a character. Archie Bunker comes to mind.

        STIFLE your self Edith Bmitch

      • neocon1 September 24, 2012 / 5:10 am

        PS

        YOU mentioned me being a contractor in a demeaning way as “an AC repair man” I simply responded That it pays well, YOU took it upon your self to believe that I am all about money. TYPICAL sore loserman leftist. full of envy…now run along boy and flip the burger while REAL MEN and women actually build this country.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 11:51 am

        mitche opines: “To measure the worth of someone by the amount of money they have shows how little class you have and how petty and small minded you are. Money is great, but character more so.”…..

        …..and then goes into hissy fits over how much money Mitt Romney has, and seems to find it an indictment of his character.

        Oh, wait, it’s not how much money he has that has mitche all sour, it’s how much money he GAVE AWAY.

        No, that’s not it. Hmmmm. Oh,yeah, what REALLY proves he is of low character is that he PAID TOO MUCH IN TAXES!!!

        mitche is such a hoot. He carries on about Romney’s money, and has all these goofball tinfoil-hat theories about all the eeeeeevil ways he got it, everything he snarls about the Romneys oozes sour resentment and envy, and then he sneers at an honorable profession as if it is somehow inferior. He’s not only an insufferable snob, he takes it both ways, hating those who are more productive and successful than he and also those whose jobs do not meet his standards of acceptability.

        Well, the only job that does not demand respect is one that is not well done. And it is so weird to see a Lefty sneering at a trade as if there is something shameful in working with your hands.

        I see this a lot on the Left. They call us racists, while their very political identity is based on the racism of seeing certain skin colors and ethnicities as so inherently inferior that they simply cannot compete with white people and so need a paternalistic hand up, or even lifetime care, as you would care for a pet. They call us the party of the rich, yet they sneer at the working man. They claim Mitt Romney “denigrated half of America” but find nothing wrong in ridiculing the half of America that is in some sort of trade.

        I also think there is some envy and resentment in mitche’s attack on contractors. He evidently has a job working for someone else, where his employment and his future are at the whim of a third party, where he is probably stuck in the lower middle class, where he can nurture his seething hatred and resentment for those who have broken out of this white collar prison and made their own way. Everything he has said about business shows the comprehension of a lower-level flunky, and oozes with surly resentment.

        When I managed a very high-class restaurant it never bothered me to go back to my office to change into different clothes I kept there and fill in for someone who had not made it to work that day. On the line in the kitchen, even as dishwasher, I never found any job beneath me. And I liked learning new skills, and also became a better manager for having hands-on experience doing what I hired people to do. I noticed that the people who thought I was lowering myself to do this work were Liberals, and my conservative friends got it—got it that honest work is valuable.

        When my funky old ranch house in Wyoming burned down and I needed an immediate house on the property, my options were limited in the mountains in the winter, so I brought in a 20-year-old double wide trailer. When I sold that property I bought a place back in Colorado, and like any true rancher based my decision on the land and the barns, but it happened to also come with a rather grand and impressive house. I am the same person in both houses, and found that only the Liberals thought the first was beneath me somehow.

        As a matter of fact, it has been the Liberals here who have sneered at me for living in a trailer, and it would probably be the Liberals who would find something nasty to say about me being just a rich Republican because of where I live now.

        Just as their politics are superficial, so are their judgments of other people.

  14. mitch September 22, 2012 / 4:35 pm

    Mitt Romney has given Democrats plenty of support for their claim he manipulated his deductions to keep his overall 2011 federal income tax rate above a certain threshold for political purposes.

    The Republican presidential nominee, whose wealth is estimated as high as $250 million, seems hemmed in by a comment to reporters in August that he had never paid less than 13 percent in taxes in any single year over the past 10. Had he taken the full charitable deduction last year, it would have pushed his tax liability below 13 percent.

    The former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, could have claimed more in deductions, the trustee of Romney’s blind trust said when the candidate’s 2011 tax returns were released.

    But, Brad Malt acknowledged, the couple “limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor’s statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.”

    The tax returns had become a distraction for his campaign, with Democrats and even some fellow Republicans this summer urging Romney, who earlier had released 2010 data and a preliminary 2011 return, to disclose more than two years of information. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had kept the issue alive by making an unsubstantiated and roundly criticized claim that Romney had not paid any taxes for 10 years. Romney’s statement about the 13 percent level had come in reaction to Reid’s assertion.

    Romney probably also will be reminded by the Democrats by something else he said in August. Defending his right to pay no more taxes than he owed, he said, “I don’t pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president.”

    The decision of Romney’s trustee to limit the use of charitable deductions in 2011 in order to adhere to the candidate’s claim raised the eyebrows of several tax law experts. They noted that the trustee’s use of numerous tax strategies gives Romney the rare ability to loosen or limit his tax payments at will.

    The Romneys donated roughly $4 million to charities last year, but only claimed a deduction of $2.25 million on their tax return, filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Friday.

    That information, Reid said, “reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he’s seen fit to show the American people – and then only to ‘conform’ with his public statements. That raises the question: What else in those returns has Romney manipulated?”

    (AP) Table shows comparisons between presidential candidates’ taxes for
    Full Image
    Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. That was a bit above the 13.9 percent rate paid on 2010 income.

    More precisely, the returns showed that the couple paid $1,935,708 in taxes on income of $13,696,951.

    Romney, one of the wealthiest candidates ever to seek the presidency, paid taxes at a rate lower than taxpayers whose income was mostly from wages, which can be taxed at higher rates.

    He released his 2010 returns in January, but he continues to decline to disclose returns from previous years – including those while he worked at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he co-founded.

    The Obama campaign and other Democrats have pushed for fuller disclosures, reminding the Republican candidate that his father, George Romney, released a dozen years of returns when he ran for president.

    (AP) Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks to supporters…
    Full Image
    Overall, the Romneys’ main tax return and separate forms for blind trusts totaled more than 800 pages. The blind-trust income came from hedge funds and other complex investment vehicles. The couple also reported $3.5 million in income “from sources outside the United States,” citing “various countries.” Their forms included filings on holdings in Switzerland, Ireland, Germany and the Cayman Islands.

    The Obama campaign accused Romney anew of profiting from millions invested overseas and “loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top.”

    Apparently hoping to resolve basic questions voters might have, the Romney campaign released a letter from his accountants saying that in the 20 years prior to 2010 the Romneys paid an average annual effective rate of 20.2 percent, never lower than 13.66 percent.

    On average, middle-income families – those making from $50,000 to $75,000 a year – pay 12.8 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. But many pay a higher rate.

    Romney is aggressively competing with Obama for the support of middle-class voters.

    Obama’s tax return for last year showed that he and his wife, Michelle, paid $162,074 in federal taxes on $789,674 in adjusted gross income, an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent. Their income plunged from $1.7 million in 2010, with declining sales of the president’s books. In 2009, the Obamas reported income of $5.5 million, fueled by the best-selling books.

    The Romneys’ tax bill could have been lower. They gave $2.6 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the documents show. They gave just over $2 million in noncash charitable contributions, including donations of stock holdings in Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin Donuts and Warner Chilcott, to a family trust.

    “It’s interesting he didn’t take the full charitable deduction,” said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor who has testified before Congress urging tightened oversight of private equity firms. “You’re in a pretty lucky position when you can pay more tax” to get up to a 13 percent rate. Fleischer and several others said it was doubtful Romney could later take any unclaimed deductions in future years.

    The Romneys had obtained a filing extension beyond the usual April 15 tax deadline.

    Most of their income is from investments held in a blind trust, and campaign aides have stressed that he makes no decisions on how his money is invested. Capital gains and dividend interest is now generally taxed at 15 percent whereas the top marginal rate for income from wages is 35 percent.

    The Romneys reported $6.8 million in capital gains, such as from the sale of stocks and other securities, and $6.37 million from dividends and taxable interest.

    Several tax law experts said the newly released tax returns would not be much help in resolving critics’ questions about his finances: whether he used aggressive tax-deferral strategies, what might be the specifics and tax advantages of his numerous offshore investments, what was the source of his massive retirement account and what are the details behind his now-closed $3 million Swiss bank account.

    Analysts said details about his investments could emerge only if Romney provided far more of his tax returns, including files dating back to his years at Bain, the private firm he left in 2001. Romney, who initially refused to disclose any tax returns, has drawn the line at providing those from the past two years.

    The Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and his wife, Janna, whose returns were also released Friday by the Romney campaign, paid $64,764 in taxes on $323,416 of adjusted gross income in 2011, for an effective rate of 20 percent.

    Just over half of their income came from Ryan’s congressional salary. Other income flowed from rental real estate and other investments, including a trust inherited by Janna Ryan. They donated $12,991 to charity, including to the Boy Scouts of America

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 4:44 pm

      BFD……..YAWN!!

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 4:48 pm

      OMG………..

      Romney Overpaid $500,000 Income Tax: Reid Cries ‘Manipulation’

      ya cant pay for this kind of entertainment.

    • Cluster September 22, 2012 / 8:29 pm

      You know Mitch, for someone who says he’s not obsessed with money, you sure do obsess about Romney’s money – a lot. What gives?

  15. chrissyann September 22, 2012 / 5:02 pm

    Ever see Biden’s charitable contributions?

    • Green Mountain Boy September 22, 2012 / 6:43 pm

      i think one year he donated $369.00 to one of bozo’s bake sales. Maybe it was a science fair. The book club felt cheated.

  16. Amazona September 23, 2012 / 7:36 pm

    “…show a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate or just for documents. There are none. There are simply a hundred or so lawsuits that tried to get him removed from the ballot or declared ineligible.”

    Declare ineligible BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION. And none of these were heard based on standing—that is, the courts determined that the people filing the suits had no legal standing, and no, I am not going to educate you on that. Look it up.

    Obama never prevailed on anything except squirming out of having to produce documentation.

    ******************************

    “The political action committee ‘Obama for America’ paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009, to fight every request to release Obama’s original birth records. Partial listing of cases courtesy of WND.com

    New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress did not properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of President.

    Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

    Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming that Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

    Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s Secretary of State, making a similar argument to Donofrio’s. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

    Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

    Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

    Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

    In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

    Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

    In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

    In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

    California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

    In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility: ”

    **********************

    For under $10.00 he could have had a certified copy of his birth certificate and for another $10.00 had it overnighted to the mainland. There has never been a credible explanation for his choice to spend more than a million dollars to get out of doing so.

    And as each of these suits is based on the lack of certified proof of his place of birth, except for one or two addressing the Natural Born Citizen aspect, yes, they WERE about his birth certificate.

    “WE AGREE”—–are you part of the hive at the Pitchfork? That would explain a lot.

  17. bagni September 24, 2012 / 11:07 am

    mark
    wtf?
    b4v now the new home for the re-birther movement
    nice…..

    • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 11:22 am

      baggy, go squealing to the Pitchfork if this upsets you. Ellen got all wound up and posted a lot of nonsense, and there is no responsibility on this blog to allow incorrect statements to stand unchallenged.

Comments are closed.