- Politico: Half of Iowa Republicans don’t believe Barack Obama was born in U.S.
Another quarter simply aren't sure. Iowa Republicans must be some of the dumbest people on Earth. - Rubular: A Ruby regular expression editor and tester
Enter a regular expression and a test string, and it evaluates the results. Marvelously useful. - Reuters: Swedish spruce may be world’s oldest living tree
A cluster of Norway spruces on the Swedish border are 8,000 years old. That was the beginning of the Copper Age, before the Sahara existed, when England was connected to Europe with a land bridge, and just before wine was invented.
Comments are closed.
If Obama would just show his birth certificate and prove the so called birthers wrong.It would be all over but he hasn’t wonder why not ? Does it have something on it he doesn’t want people to see ? Maybe his race is listed as white.You know his mom was white.Not that it would make ANY difference to me at all.His race doesn’t bother me one bit it’s his policies.I say go Herman Cain.
Tom, you know he has actually released his birth certificate, right? Way back in June of 2008. Not that it matters to the birthers; apparently no amount of evidence will change their minds.
No Noah where can we see that info ? Can you provide a link ?
Here you go:
For more information: PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and Snopes.
Also, even if we pretend that he was born on Mars—so what? His mother is American, he’s American. End of story.
@Waldo, While I don’t buy into any of that birther nonsense, being “American” just isn’t enough. You have to be a “natural born citizen” to qualify to be president. Thanks, Founders, for defining what you meant.
Good thing we have a living, breathing document so that the criteria can change over time. ;-)
Sure, but I think “American” is a pretty good shorthand here—nobody’s alleging that President Obama took a citizenship test in 1993. :)
Whether an individual born to an American citizen overseas is a “natural born citizen” as it relates to Article II is a question worthy of debate. While consensus seems to be that being born to an American citizen is enough, there is a case to be made that being born on US soil is a requirement. In fact, the State Department says in its Foreign Affairs Manual that “It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.” Probably, but there’s a case to be made.
Interestingly, the State Department also says that “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” So the McCain case? Kinda unclear.
But. . .Obama was born to an American parent in a US state. End. Of. Story. And even if this were a massive conspiracy? He’d be in the same boat as John McCain.
Changing topics, the trees in Sweden are clones of clones… of clones of the original. Not really the oldest organism and there is evidence that some aspens are much older, though also clones.
http://www.tree-facts.com/oldest_tree/oldest_tree.html
Btw, I’m sure the trees were born where they stand, though they do not have a birth certificate.
Yep,those Iowa GOPers are almost as loony as the 50% (or more?) of people who believe mankind — especially the ones in North America — is responsible for the slow, steady destruction of the planet.
Now that’s trolling.
If you look closely at the birth certificate that Waldo provide you can see that it was printed in 2007. It lower on the page in a reverse bleed from the other side. That means it’s a newer copy- which is still fine by me. Almost all birth certificates are copies of the original that lives in the file.
Seriously this is one the stupidest thing ever. In the last election only one candidate was born in the United States that was Obama- McCain was born in the Panama (under US control but not in the US). Secondly that Obama’s parents, in 1961, were actually looking make their son the a US president. Considering that segregation was the law of the land at the time his parents would also have had to be time travelers or clairvoyants to even attempt this type of deception. If his parents burning rationale was to make their son, president of the US, would they have named their son in 1961 Barrack? Lastly, if this was part of a master plan wouldn’t they have done everything in their power to make SURE that Barrack was born in the US so this would have never been an issue?
If anyone was looking to make their very own Manchurian candidate there would have been thousands of children who would have been easier to do this with.
In related news, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona vetoed a bill that would have required presidential candidates to submit their birth certificates in order to appear on Arizona’s ballot. John McCain applauded her for it; count on right-wing Obama-hating troglodyte Republicans to call Brewer “not a conservative” over this issue.
Damn! I thought the birthers were crazy.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/afterbirthers-demand-to-see-obamas-placenta,6866/
The McCain case isn’t unclear. The law at the time specified he was counted as being born in the US. I believe it has changed since though.
Don’t we have anything real and easy to talk about like the right way to trim the deficit? ;-)
The thing that is SO ridiculous about the “birther” conspiracy theories — well, one of MANY ridiculous things — is that even if Barack Obama had been born outside the US (which he was not — Hawaii is totally a US state), that fact would have absolutely no bearing on his ability to lead the country. It would not affect his policies, his decisions, his strengths or his weaknesses. The fact of where a person is born is 100% outside of their control.
The way that these conspiracy theorists keep harping so obsessively over one single (easily provable fact), you’d think they were Monarchists debating which Heir to the Throne was legitimate. It’s a conception of “who is a worthy leader” that is 100% based on a person’s genetic heritage, rather than their actual capabilities. Rather than making criticisms based on his actual verifiable actions as President — which would, I guess, actually involve paying attention to real-life events — they just keep repeating this silly conspiracy theory over and over again.
Why? Because it’s not actually about where he was born. Saying he’s “foreign” or claiming he’s a Muslim (although as an athiest, I personally find the idea of a Muslim President and a Christian President equally unappealing) is just another way of saying “he’s not one of “us”” — it’s a way of branding him as an “other,” which at the end of the day is just plain-and-simple race-baiting. Post-Civil Rights Movement, it’s considering impolite to use other terms, so they’ve substituted this silly game in place of what the phrases they would have been using 40 years ago. But the basic idea is the same.
also, that thing about the trees is Crazy.
This is not complicated James. I live amongst the birthers, am related to birthers, rub against the birthers, hear the birther refrain daily.
Let me break it down for you: In 2011 it simply isn’t cool, and it isn’t smart for even the most stupid racist WASP to dismiss the legitimacy of a Black man, with an odd African name to be their President. Therefore we have the subterfuge of this Birther thing. It’s just more of what the right wing trades in – bullshit, deception, and willful ignorance. What make it quintessential foolishness is that many of the birthers have actually bought their own bullshit, which, as we all know is the trademark of the fool.
Aaaaah, of course, racism.