Who has the best lights in town? Vote now for your favorite in our holiday lights contest.
Shot by Dan, from Bob Kinsey’s collection.
“Good things happen to those who hustle.”
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Sorry to bring up a worn-out topic, but I just can’t help it.
Tim Tebow’s passer rating while playing the whole second half for the Patriots against Tampa Bay?
Good thing there’s no sexism left in the U.S. I think all the racism is gone as well, except when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton is involved.
“Sexism can be a confusing and vexing concept, especially for some men.
That is the only plausible explanation for the lead Al.com food editor David Holloway placed on his story about an Mobile, Alabama event called, “Girls of Fall: A night of Food, Fashion and Football.” The event will “offer instruction in how to host the perfect game day party — either at home or at the stadium,” according to Holloway, who kicked the piece off with the matter-of-fact statement that “football can be a confusing and vexing concept, especially for women.”
We’ve had a lot of talk on this blog about the various steps the GOPTea Party is taking in order to make it harder to register and then vote. Below is a link to turnout percentages in federal elections since 1960. Not to be too depressing at the outset, but you will notice that since 1960 voter turnout in national elections has declined. As a matter of fact the 3 presidential elections occurring in the 1960s all had 60% or higher voter turnout. We’ve failed to approach those numbers since. 2008 was the closest we’ve come to matching that turnout. Another number you might notice in the chart is the total voting age population compared to the number of registered voters.
So, since I specialize in making waves, I’d like to propose that the GOPTea Party and the Democrats turn their heads away from making it harder to vote. Instead, I would propose that the two parties turn there attention to voter registration drives to increase the number of actual registered voters from the number of those who are part of the voting age population. Second, I propose that the two parties give significant attention to moving the percentage of those who actually vote from the mid 50s to the neighborhood of 75%. Do the work required, precinct by precinct, community by community, state by state to get people registered and to the polls.
That, in my humble opinion, would be a much better outcome for our nation that all these efforts focused on voter ID laws, reducing voting days, etc. Just a thought.
“two parties turn there attention”
Sorry that should be “their.”
I agree with you 100 percent, Ron May, but you’ll never get Republicans to go along, especially in areas where Repubs know that a heavy turnout means a Dem victory. An area, like, say, Virginia.
Another good quote Dan. She’s the author of a favorite poem of mine.
And then the day came,
when the risk
to remain tight
in a bud
was more painful
than the risk
— Anais Nin
They aren’t making it harder to vote. They are making it harder to commit voter fraud.
“I’d like to propose that the GOPTea Party and the Democrats turn their heads away from making it harder to vote. Instead, I would propose that the two parties turn there attention to voter registration drives to increase the number of actual registered voters from the number of those who are part of the voting age population.”
Ron, your optimism is commendable, but in a national election, the greater percentage of voters, the more likely the GOP is to LOSE. They know that. That’s why they’re heading in the opposite direction. The entire purpose of enacting photo ID and disallowing college students to vote where they go to school is to LOWER the percentage of people voting.
The “big lie” they’re telling is that it has to do with guarding against fraud. And anyone who espouses that is either a prevaricator or they’re stupid.
So I’ll renew a question I asked earlier:
Once the GOP has finished passing photo ID laws for voters (despite the argument/LIE that you need a photo ID to buy beer, cigarettes, write a check, take money out of your bank account or pay your bills or conduct ANY other business, so you should need one to vote, too);
And once college students can no longer voter in the town they go to college in;
And once the Republicans are STILL losing elections;
what will they do next to discourage younger and older voters from voting?
Will they require proof of citizenship when people REGISTER to vote?
And will all already registered voters who did not provide proof of citizenship when they registered have to re-register and provide that proof?
And what the hell constitutes proof of CITIZENSHIP, anyway? For someone born in this country, The only thing I can think of that might, possibly, is a birth certificate or perhaps a passport.
But as we already know, birth certificates don’t have photos on them. So those would be no good under the GOP photo ID argument/LIE.
So . . . will the Republicans want everyone to show a U.S. passport when they register to vote?
Perhaps that’s their ticket. Passports are a hassle to get — MUCH more of a hassle than a driver’s license.
In general, the lower in the income, and the older or younger the person, the more unlikely a person is to have a valid passport.
“The Huffington Post is to end anonymity for commenters by requiring them to use their real identities. The change was announced by the site’s founder, Arianna Huffington, after speaking at a conference yesterday (21 August) in Boston.
She said: “Trolls are just getting more and more aggressive and uglier and I just came from London where there are rape and death threats.”
Certain readers of this blog (I’m not talking about any regulars here) have attempted to post comments threatening both death and rape against me and my family, and in the sickest and most graphic terms possible.
But they never got approved, so you’ve probably never seen then.
I agree that anonymity breeds some cretins.
Henry, that is just not true. Voter fraud likely happens, but it is not and cannot be responsible for election outcomes. If indeed voter fraud was the focus, better voter databases, registrar systems and a national system to confirm one person, one vote would solve that issue. Instead the efforts are not to crack down on the absentee ballots where voter fraud has been proven, but to demand that in person people have a specific and not easy to get DMV Photo ID. That is solely so that they can eliminate as many voters as they can with that obstacle. I am just not sure who it is you people think you are fooling. Other than to your own echo chamber, your “voter fraud” mantra is pure straw,
#8 Why do you consider it a “LIE” that you don’t have to show photo ID to purchase beer, cigarettes, write a check, take money out of a bank account, ect.? How about adding in “getting welfare, food stamps, obamaphones ect”.
Allowing college students to vote where they attend school surely opens up the chance for double voting as they could also vote in their home town as well.
Dan, I encourage you and the RT to follow Huff Post’s lead on ending anonymity!!! Please!!!
BTW, couldn’t you report the threats to the police? Don’t they have a way to trace those threats back to the source?
#3 Your point of getting more people involved in the political process with their vote is a damn good point. It is not that hard to do and does not take all day just to vote. But like Dan has pointed out what the GOP wants and is working for is for folks not to vote, not to have a say. They are I guess not wanting a democracy but an oligarchy type of system, which flies in the face of what our forefathers had in mind.
As I have said before this blog is kind of like a front porch were we all meet and chew the fat. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not, sometimes say the hell with it. But to get nasty and threating someone is not the way to go. Maybe that is why the Huffington Post is requiring folks to use their real name now. And her phase “grown up internet” comes close to explain it.
Dan, I can only imagine what kind of e-mails or letters you get in the mail. Fear will never work for those that promote it. I was at a library now to long ago doing my e-mail and the table was full of other folks doing the same. Somehow someone muttered about the national health plan and the room soon became a tea party yelling convention. I tried to put in my two cents but was out yelled. I just looked at my screen and said, “outnumbered again” and laughed.
Between 2002 and 2005, the Justice Department made the investigation and prosecution of voter fraud a top priority. Out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast during that period, the department brought only 38 cases, only one of which involved impersonation fraud. When some U.S. attorneys refused to bring baseless prosecutions for voter fraud, the attorney general fired them. We all know the massive controversy that resulted.
Remember Henry, this was the Attorney General serving under Republican President George Bush and with support from a majority Republican Congress. The Republicans could find little fraud and they then knew their strategy had to change to suppress the vote. What has resulted are the steps taken to make it harder for people to register in the first place and then restrict the opportunity to vote.
If they truly want to foster the development of democracy in the U.S. as they seem to want to do in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, etc., they should get more people registered to vote and make sure those people have access to the voting booth.
Instead of rolling back voting rights, lawmakers should focus on modernizing our voting system and increasing access to the polls. Vote suppression is the real fraud in our election system. It’s time to fix it.
Dan, no one in general and certainly not someone who devotes as much personal time, energy and effort into a blog deserves to be or even feel threatened and I hope that you did indeed turn the cretins over to the cyberpolice and that they followed up on it.
In this age of internet anonymity making trolls and cretins feel ’10 feet tall and bullet proof’ I think it is past time for blogs to be proactive and for anonymity to go. We can attest that it does not enhance conversation, debate or civility. In fact, this blog alone has proved it does just the opposite.
The Roanoke Times should leave it up to the blog administrator and they should do everything in their power to protect their employees and expose these vermin to the light of day and justice when they cross the lines.
“Heritage president and former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint continued his campaign to convince Republicans to shut down the government in a ploy to defund the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, telling a town hall in Tampa, Florida that “This might be that last off-ramp to stop Obamacare before it becomes more enmeshed in our culture.” The law “is not about getting better health care,” he continued. Uninsured Americans “will get better health care just going to the emergency room.”
When they express their true feelings on issues, you get actual glimpses into the minds of GOPTea Party people. It goes a long way to explain why voter suppression is so important to them.
I really admire the far right – they have successfully convinced people like Henry that there is rampant voter fraud, that abortion clinics must have hospital sized hallways to be safe, that the only people who voted for President Obama were those who want handouts from the government, that Obamacare means healthcare rationing, and, in general, the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
When will the Henrys of this country demand that their chosen leaders actually come up with sensible solutions for real (not imagined) problems. The tea partiers are being sold a really sad and dangerous way of looking at our world, primarily to protect the interests of billionaires and welfare for big business. But worse than that, moderate and progressive leaders have failed to get their message across, maybe they need a comparable propaganda machine to counter the right.
Changing anonymity will not rid the interwebs of trolls. Ever been on sites where there are the facebook comments? It only gets worse and then everyone knows who you are, can trace and track you, stalk you and your family and make your life 20 times worse. This is a sick world we live in. Hell my wife was stalked and harassed in high school because her picture was in the paper with her name.
Be careful what you wish for.
Henry | August 22, 2013 at 9:47 am They aren’t making it harder to vote. They are making it harder to commit voter fraud. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/10/people_who_vote_twice.html – See more at: http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2013/08/thing-go-better-on-the-thursday-open-thread/#comments
Henry this is pure bull. You know it. You know there are very few documented cases of voter impersonation fraud. And Republican leaders
in Pennsylvania, ohio, and Florida have openly acknowledged the purpose
of the new voter ID laws.
Ron@16. . .on the other hand the ACA needs to be repealed. UPS and, now UVA, have indicated they are dropping spousal coverage in response to ACA. Maybe you should start shopping for coverage for your spouse?
#8 Dan, and what if you are an American citizen but your birth certificate is German b/c your parents were there while serving in the military and you don’t have a passport?
“#8 Why do you consider it a “LIE” that you don’t have to show photo ID to purchase beer, cigarettes, write a check, take money out of a bank account, ect.? How about adding in “getting welfare, food stamps, obamaphones ect”.
Allowing college students to vote where they attend school surely opens up the chance for double voting as they could also vote in their home town as well.”
What you hear over and over again is that:
1. You have to have photo ID to buy beer.
2. You have to have photo ID to buy tobacco.
3. You have to have photo ID to take money out of your bank account.
4. You have to have photo ID to get someone to accept your check.
5. You have to have photo ID to conduct almost any kind of business these days.
THEN WHY SHOULDN’T YOU HAVE TO HAVE PHOTO ID TO VOTE?! As if, duh!, it’s a no-brainer.
I was merely pointing out that 1-5 are falsehoods. I don’t need photo ID for any of those things, or to pay my bills, buy groceries, change my 401k mix, or other things.
Perhaps I went a little overboard calling them lies. Lies are deliberate falsehoods. Perhaps they are unintentional untruths, in which case they were uttered by fools.
But they’re one or the other.
With regard to your point about needing a photo ID for welfare or food stamps, I’ll assume that’s true (I have no personal experience with either). But those are regular government payments to individuals. We don’t get paid by the government to vote. It’s not the same thing.
With regard to “Obamaphones,” there is no such thing. (Was that deliberate, or unintentional?) That program was initiated under Reagan, and expanded under George W. Bush. And I don’t know if you need a photo ID to get one or not. I doubt that you know whether you need one to get a phone either.
What, no comment on Ted Cruz’s “eligibility” from Leon?
Leon, that would be dropping spousal coverage IF the spouse works at a place where he or she can already get coverage. They are NOT just being dropped into a void. Why don’t you try putting the whole truth out there?
Yes Ron, the whole debacle over “Obamacare” is illustrative of the mindset and lack of contingency in the Republican party.
Instead of the House wasting time literally voting 40 times to repeal the law, they COULD have been working on the fixes and transitions to make it better. They chose not to do that. Everyone so concerned about the problems, penalties and lack of information should take note of the lack of rescue, lack of effort, lack of improvement offered from the right wing. Obama hatred has apparently rendered many people incapable of rational thought.
Jerome, what did you call those free phones before Obama? Were they “Reaganphones”, then “Clintonphones”, then “Bushphones” to you?
Leon, please try to be honest. UPS and UVa are “dropping” spousal coverage IF the spouse is eligible for coverage with their own employer. That pretty much precludes much “shopping” for coverage for anyone. Overly large claims have always driven up the cost of group insurance. Employers get a yearly report of such charges, though not specific info on which employee they attach to. Not that smaller companies don’t know.
NOTHING that is “wrong” or problematic in “Obamacare” cannot be fixed, if Congress just had more people’s representatives and fewer obstructionist shills getting paid to disrupt our lives and prevent successful implementation of the law. Congress could have fixed every issue by now. They don’t want to.
Those phones didn’t exist before Obama, their favorite internet sites told them so. You know it’s against the law to lie on the internet.
“UPS and, now UVA, have indicated they are dropping spousal coverage in response to ACA.”
Not for employees whose spouse does not have employer provided coverage at their place of employment.
I do hope you report those threats as well.
And, I’ll be perfectly happy to sign my last name, if you ever change the policy to that.
Here’s a link to read Bradley Manning’s statement after his conviction. For a guy that’s so messed up, he sure seems wise to me regarding why he blew the whistle on our war crimes cover ups, and spying on our allies.
Who knew? Even Ben Franklin liked vegetarian choices…
I think the whole Bradley Manning debacle is just messed up. What he did was wrong, but his motivations are certainly understandable. I think he is a very confused young man/woman and I hope Obama pardons him, though I hold out little hope.
Since those who were on board with torture, Rendition, secret prisons, GITMO and Abu Ghraib have not been punished, it just seems specious to punish Manning to such a degree for choosing the wrong way to do the right thing. It just feels wrong.
gdad. What is your point about Tebow?
Russell Wilson and RGIII are Christians too, If that is where you are going…
Purdue@29. . .true, but this still raises the cost of healthcare to employees who now must maintain two plans nor the complexity of potentially dealing with two different plans. As of now; it does not affect kids but,
IMO, this will be the next ploy to trim the increased costs of the ACA to employers. First we see the trimming of the workforce to part time (no benefits) status and now we see the trimming of participants in the employer
offered plans. The ACA is bad law unless one has an exemption like our
Congress critters and is 100.0 percent a liberal boondoggle!
Dan@24. . .Ted Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS. He is not a Natural Born
Citizen as his father was Cuban.
“Instead of the House wasting time literally voting 40 times to repeal the law, they COULD have been working on the fixes and transitions to make it better. They chose not to do that. Everyone so concerned about the problems, penalties and lack of information should take note of the lack of rescue, lack of effort, lack of improvement offered from the right wing. Obama hatred has apparently rendered many people incapable of rational thought.”
I have a BETTER idea!
Instead of wasting time by voting 40 times to repeal the ACA, House Republicans COULD HAVE, BUT HAVE NOT passed a law closing the loophole that allows the interstate marketing of tainted medicines produced by compounding pharmacies that are state (not federally) regulated. If you recall last fall, 768 people in 23 states came down with fungal meningitis because of tainted medicine produced by a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. Of those, 48 DIED. Many of those who fell ill were from southwestern Virginia, and at least one person here died.
Since last fall, when the outbreak occurred, more recent outbreaks have occurred in Tennessee and New Jersey.
I would hate to think that others got sick or died because the House GOP twiddled their thumbs PRETENDING to do something about the ACA, rather than introducing/enacting legislation that could ACTUALLY STOP these rinky-dink operations that are poisoning Americans.
At the least, the House could have taken up action on a Senate bill targeted this outrage. But the House in its “wisdom” has not.
Think about it this way: Americans have died, or are getting sick, because the House has chosen to focus its voting on BS bills, rather than real ones.
The GOP’s desperation is palpable. They haven’t seen uncertain times like these since their risky assimilation of the Dixiecrats. They can either moderate their platform and alienate their extremist and fundamentalist base, or they can continue toward a path of possible extinction with their current policy of not governing and substituting near-constant complaining in its place.
I’m also starting to think that modern Republicanism is a form of schizophrenia. They’ve become increasingly hostile, paranoid and erratic and have developed odd and often ironic juxtapositions of their ideals.
Don’t regulate guns! Murder isn’t that bad of a problem, guns aren’t that dangerous and these kinds of things usually fix themselves.
Regulate abortion! Your personal choice is murder, a danger to human life, will result in the downfall of man and must be eliminated.
Don’t regulate business! Trust us to do the right thing. You’ll work however cheaply, dangerously and for as many hours as we tell you to. Those crushing regulations cost too much money, effort and time. We should be able to do whatever is necessary to eek out another 0.000001% profit.
Regulate voting! You can’t be trusted to do the right thing. You may only vote during these hours, on this date and at this location. We will put much money, effort and time into eliminating the unacceptable 0.000001% of fraudulent votes.
Obstruct! Shut down the government! We must ignore the welfare of the people, deviate from governing as it is intended and enact a policy of constant brinksmanship. The instability and uncertainty is good for morale and the economy. We must destroy the country in order to fix it.
Impeach Obama! He’s a dictator who doesn’t work within the system and is trying to keep the government from working as it was intended. His administration breeds instability and uncertainty in the populous and the economy. We can’t let him destroy the country.
Allow religion back our public schools! God is good. If we don’t teach our children about God’s pure love, their minds won’t be able to fully bloom and our country will come apart at the seams.
Keep Allah away from our public schools! Islam is evil. Even though it’s the same god, learning about him will poison the minds of our children and tear our country apart at the seams.
Where are all the smart people within the party, the strategic minds who have to see how untenable this path really is?
What is the long-term feasibility of this plan that (so far) has cost them eight years out of the White House and an embarrassingly low and currently flat-lined amount of public support?
Inquiring minds want to know…
Stay tuned, kids. The midterms are just around the corner and there could be an epic shift if things go badly for them.
“ACTUALLY STOP these rinky-dink operations that are poisoning Americans…..”
Oh, you mean like abortions….
Re: Ron May | August 22, 2013 at 9:31 am
I couldn’t agree more.
As I suggested in an earlier thread I would hope to see folk get involved in the entire process starting with the nomination process, also.
I don’t think that the population is as divided in the extremes that blogs and media make them to be. I think the “Who do I vote against?” and the “Why even vote?” is a results of far to few folk being involved well before the general election — allowing the extreme wings far too much say. Way too few folk get to pick the choices that the voters have at the general election, IMHO.
Dan Casey | August 22, 2013 at 11:54 am
I believe Leon has gone on record here stating that Cruz is ineligible. I’d locate the link, but a search on “Leon” and “eligibility” returns 15,232 results.
I reported the threats. (They didn’t threaten only me & my family, one threatened Obama as well). They all came in a distinct timeframe last year, in late spring, and they all proved untraceable via IP address because they were posted via different anonymous proxy servers based in Eastern Europe.
Leon | August 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Dan@24. . .Ted Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS. He is not a Natural Born
Citizen as his father was Cuban.
Whoops! Timestamp fail on me. Apologies.
It’s all for the better anyway. I wouldn’t want to be chastised by Leon again for speaking for him.
#23 Dan-You personally might not need a photo ID to purchase alcohol or tobacco because of your appearance-you look much older than 21 (nothing personal here-I do as well). Ask any of the students heading back to VA TECH this weekend how well they think it will work out for them? Go to my bank and try to cash a check and see how well that works out for you. There might me some instances where you might be able to get by not using photo ID’s, but it is not across the board.
In regards to welfare, food stamps, obamaphones ect., you would be correct when you assume that you need a photo ID. I would disagree with you that these are “regular government payments” to individuals. The government is not paying these individuals, but allowing them to have access to food, housing and phones. Why do you think that the government requires ID for these programs-I think we all know the answer to that-it’s fraud!
Yes, the phone program did indeed start under Reagan. The participation rate in the program was steady until 2008 (who became president then?). Since then, the participation rate has skyrocketed. The video that went viral showing the woman saying she supports Obama because he gave her a cell phone was what really started the “Obamaphone” term. She said “”Everybody in Cleveland — low, minority — got Obama phones,” she tells an interviewer. “Keep Obama in president (sic). He gave us a phone. He’s gonna do more.” There were several websites which promoted the phones using Obama’s name. During the Reagan, Bush, Clinton era’s, all of the freebies were not pushed on the public like they have been over the past 5+ years (cliches & anachronims were much less prevelent during their times)
Ron’s post @ 11:29 and Leon’s reply @ 11:41 neatly illustrate what’s wrong with the debate on health care delivery in America.
Ron’s post describes how Jim DeMint of the Heritage Foundation is criticizes the very health care plan his supposed “Think Tank” created, only now it’s being fronted by , horror of horrors, a black man. It’s also very telling that DeMint claims Americans will receive better care at the emergency room; there is absolutely no data to suggest that this statement is even remotely accurate. On the contrary, every single efficient health care delivery model in the world uses prevention, not treatment, as the single most cost effective way to treat their populance. There are no exceptions to what I just stated. Further, using the ER as the primary delivery of health care is a contributing factor to by far the largest single driver of personal bankruptcy in the world, destroying the financial future of roughly a half a million Americans annually. Again, this is an immutable fact, very similar to the law of gravity. The American system of delivering health care is by far the worst on the planet. Al Qaeda couldn’t design a worse model for our country.
The larger context is Leon’s response. Leon, supposedly a trained accounting professional and a guy who claims to be a fiscal conservative, is unable see the forest through the trees and makes this a partisan issue by ignoring the economics. Leon has stated before that he thinks the American system of health care is the “finest in the world”; nothing could be further from demonstrable fact. Again, our system of health care is statistically by far the worst in the entire world, except for one single metric, and that would be care provided at the ER. Of course, Leon does have some hare-brained basis for claiming that the ACA should be repealed; it is, after all, being fronted by, horror of horrors, a black man, and that is apparently a little too much for Leon’s fragile little psyche to deal with. OTOH, if that pasty idiot DeMint was schlepping this plan, Leon would be running over crippled seniors to be first in line to sign up.
Comparing and contrasting Ron and Leon’s posts merely illustrates that DeMint, Leon and all their Kool Aid quaffing delusional ilk hate our black president more than they care about their supposed fiscally conservative principles, or the American people for that matter. These fools have had 43 years to come up with a workable alternative to the ACA, and yet all we’ve gotten is Medicare part D, an unfunded mandate. They can pound sand know as far as I’m concerned. The ACA is the Law of the Land; deal with it.
Leon | August 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm - “Dan@24. . .Ted Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS. He is not a Natural Born Citizen as his father was Cuban.”
Leon – that has nothing to do with it. His mother is an American living in Canada. He is a citizen. The question arises about “natural born” because we have no idea how long she was away from the US before Cruz was born – that is the question regarding “natural born”
His father could have been a martian for goodness sake as long as his mother is an American who did not renounce her citizenship Cruz is a citizen – possibly just not “natural born”.
Fat People, Greedy Lawyers, and Illegals created the crisis. Fix those and then you got health care reform, but not possible
28% of Louisiana republicans polled thought President Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. 29% thought it was President Obama’s fault, even though he was a freshmen senator at the time of the storm.
Using this data, we can safely conclude that Leon must be from Louisiana.
“gdad. What is your point about Tebow?
Russell Wilson and RGIII are Christians too, If that is where you are going…”
pp, pp, pp. I don’t care about the Christianity angle on way or another. Plenty of pro athletes are Christians and plenty show their Christianity openly and that’s just fine by me. My point? We used to have some folks here who claimed that the ONLY reason Tebow isn’t a starting quarterback is because of his Christianity. I was suggesting there might be another reason.
#36 How’s that court case down in Alabama going, Leon? Has the president been thrown out of office yet?
“Presumably, no Supreme Court Justice would have wished to invalidate the votes of tens of millions of Americans to the embarrassment of the entire political system. Moreover, any potential plaintiff likely would have lacked standing to sue.”
I agree. This idea that the fantasies of the Leon’s of this nation will hold captive the vote of 50-55 million voters is just farcical. The notion that a certified birth certificate from any state in the United States would gain someone every benefit up to and including the highest levels of our government and be fraudulent is just beyond absurd.
Saying someone isn’t a natural born citizen makes them sound like test tube clones or something. There has to be a better way of phrasing it.
That is the language used in the US Constitution…to be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be “natural-born”.
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. … “
Dan, I think you may be using your own anecdotal experiences to “disprove” Jerome’s assertion. The FACT is, most people do have to show ID in all of those circumstances. IF you are not clearly over the age of 30, you do have to show ID to buy alcohol. IF you are a teen, you DO have to show ID to buy cigarettes. IF the bank teller doesn’t know you personally, they damn sure should make you show ID before allowing you to take money out of your account. The same with the grocery clerk accepting your check. (do you actually still use checks?)
Ironically, my next door neighbor is a poll worker at my voting precinct and despite the fact that I have known her for years, she still asks for my ID and cross references it with my address on their voter logs before letting me in. Strangely, I have never felt overly burdened or offended. You guys can hang your hat on the “there is no significant voter fraud” meme, but if you are going to claim that as a fact, you have to also acknowledge that the whole “requiring ID is too much of a burden on the elderly, poor, etc,” meme is just a red herring because there is no proof of that either.
I know, Hillary.
How can a president be responsible for a hurricane. Please enlighten me?
Show me the Virginia state law that says you must present photo ID when buying alcohol or tobacco. You can’t do it, because there is no such law.
Show me the law that says you must present photo ID when writing a check at a retailer. You can’t do it, because there is no such law.
Chuck, you can EASILY withdraw money from your bank account without photo ID. It’s called using a debit card and there is no Virginia law that says you need a photo ID in your possession when you do that.
Hillary@46. . .please reread my post @36 until you understand what I communicated. I did not indicate that Cruz was not a citizen. He is not;
and cannot be; a “natural born citizen”. The constitution requires one
to be a “natural born citizen” to be POTUS. BTW; Obama is not a “natural born citizen” either.
To be a “natural born citizen” one must be born of two (2) (II) (Dos) U.S. citizen parents (plural). Write it down Hillary; there is SC precedent to
back it up.
1. Bill Perdue | August 22, 2013 at 10:55 am
“Dan, I encourage you and the RT to follow Huff Post’s lead on ending anonymity!!! Please!!!”
I would add that bloggers would have to have photo IDs.
2. The sign above suggests that one should be in a bottle
while drinking Coke.
…if obama had a son, he’d look like James Edwards!
Very few people can go through their everyday life without presenting an photo ID at some point. Even the poorest of poor (this is who you say the requirement will affect the most) must present ID to get social services:
I still don’t understand how you think by having to provide ID is somehow unfair to anyone. This will not in any way suppress the voters who really want to vote.
PP, here’s a link to a USAToday article describing Tebow’s struggles with the Patriots; Hint; the article doesn’t mention religion.
People wouldn’t care if he worshiped Baby Jesus or Satan if he would just throw decent consistent passes like he’s being paid to. Personally, I like the Patriots, and if Tebow could prayfully celebrate 6 TD passes a game this season I couldn’t be happier.
Do you think maybe he’s just not praying hard enough? Wrong football deity, maybe? What if the big guy isn’t a football fan? If God hasn’t sorted out that peace in the middle east thingie yet after some 2013 plus years of recorded history I can’t imagine he’s got time to watch Tebow throw incomplete passes.
What about gaining lawful employment in the United States? What are the state and federal laws there in regards to ID?
“I still don’t understand how you think by having to provide ID is somehow unfair to anyone. This will not in any way suppress the voters who really want to vote.”
So is that it, Jerome? The move to require photo ID somehow separates the wheat from the chaff — those who “really want to vote” vs those who don’t really want to, but try to, anyway?
Can’t you open your eyes and see:
1. That there is no demonstrated problem with voter impersonation?
2. That ALL of the photo ID efforts have been waged in GOP-controlled states?
3. That the actual and admitted purpose of these measures, by certain loose-tongued GOP officials, is so Republicans will win elections?
Dan@56: Your post is laughable. While one may not be required to present ID (and proof of age) to purchase alcohol it is law that the seller
ensure they are not selling to underage patrons (better to have your ID with you). Tobacco is done same way and, as to writing a check. . .if my bank is
cashing my check I want them to verify the person receiving the cash is me.
One can go and get cash from an ATM. . .provided they remember their personal PIN # which is another form of ID.
Requiring ID to vote is basic common sense and does not inhibit or impair
anyone’s right to vote. It will reduce voter fraud which, despite all the claims
of the low info bloggers (LIBS), is a problem.
pistol pete @1255, How and why do you interpret gdad’s comment, “Sorry to bring up a worn-out topic, but I just can’t help it.
Tim Tebow’s passer rating while playing the whole second half for the Patriots against Tampa Bay?
How can you interpret that as someone picking on that kid for being a Christian? Perhaps Tebow just needs to retire and become a pastor or something. The professional football gig just isn’t working out for him.
#56 RESPONSE to the hurricane, not responsible for the hurricane itself, Robbie. Please attempt to read and comprehend before posting.
Well damn Steve C theres something we agree on the Patriots. Huge Fan here( and the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins). I like Tim Tebow and wish he would just become a running back which he would probably be great at.
#60 No, Frank, no. The Obamas are much too light-skinned to have a child as dark-skinned as Edwards. Or at least the odds would be against it.
Dan, why don’t we just allow all to vote online..any time over a 3 week window. That way it would not interfere with getting our news from Jon Stewart, learning who the next winner is on American Idol, or what’s happening with the Kardassians or Tim Tebow.
Seriously, substitute the word “registration” with “education”. If you can name your US Senators, marginally describe three pressing national or social issues facing the country, and name one book that you actually read over the last year…I couldn’t care less if you can produce a drivers license or passport or prison discharge papers.
Educated voters…oh if only….
Leon, Chuck, Jerome, or anyone else:
I’m more than willing to read any Virginia laws that require a buyer or alcohol or cigarettes or an customer at a bank, or a retailer to possess photo ID in order to complete a transaction.
Simply post the link in a comment and I’ll click on it and read the law.
BTW here’s the one that requires Virginia voters to have photo ID at the polls.
Y’all keep saying it’s the same as buying alcohol or withdrawing money at a bank b ut I don’t think so. There are no mandatory photo-ID laws for those purposes.
As I have said repeatedly, I have a 91 year old aunt who has indeed “gone through life” without a photo ID. What do you all have against the elderly, the disabled, and the transient Americans in this nation?
Just because you want poll tests doesn’t mean they’re not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled they are.
I’m not suggesting online voting.
Dan-using your premise that “there is no demonstrated problem with voter impersonation”, then there should not be an individual mandate in Obamacare since there has not been a demonstrated problem with individuals not getting insurance. There also has not been any demonstrated problem with individuals getting a photo ID or that by having a law which requires it would suppress the vote in any way.
You were basically trying to put word in my mouth when you added the statement “vs those who don’t really want to, but try to anyway”. You seem to be trying to twist things, but I am not buying it. If people want to vote, they will find a way even if there are rules that must be followed.
The rest of your comments concerning the GOP basically just proves your dislike for them, but no relevance to the issue of fairness of the voter ID law.
I am certain that poll tests are indeed unconstitutional. As far as I can determine all you have to be a US Citizen for at least 30 days, at least 18, a legal resident of the state in which you are voting and not be a convicted felon or declared mentally incompetent.
Nevertheless an issue-uneducated voting public gets the leadership it deserves….voter ID or no voter ID. Democrat or Republican.
And that’s just the way it is.
How about making it a requirement that folks who on welfare, food stamps, public housing not be allowed to vote? Seems like conflict of interest to me-keep the free stuff coming and I vote for you.
Leon | August 22, 2013 at 2:32 pm
“Article II says nothing at all about statutory citizens. It uses the term “natural born”, which was a well-known term to lawyers at the time, and meant birth in the country, also known as “jus soli”. The definition goes back hundreds of years in English Common Law to Lord Coke’s Case. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution must be understood in the language of the English Common Law.http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2…
The 14th amendment isn’t statutory, it’s Constitutional. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that birth on US soil (jus soli) is what defines natural born citizen. The Constitution and USSC say that there are only two kinds of citizens: Natural Born, and naturalized.
USSC has defined naturalized as born an alien and later become a citizen. A statutory citizen is one who has been naturalized. Period.
Natural born is born a citizen. US Code 1401 born on US soil
So there is no third category called “born in the US, but not a natural born citizen”. It’s born on US soil, or made a citizen through naturalization or the person is considered an alien.
So, under the nationality law in effect at the time of Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada i[December 1970 (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, part of Title 8 of the U.S. Cod]), in order for Ted Cruz’s mother to automatically confer citizenship on him at birth, these requirements need to have been met:
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
We do not yet know whether the last TWO requirements were met by Cruz’s mother.
It makes NO difference if his father was not a citizen. And actually the underlying document to verify his US citizenship would be his ‘registration of birth abroad’ which would establish his citizenship
Leon this is the site you need to look at. The above link is an older link – this is the correct one:
Sandy, theoretically if your grandmother wanted to purchase a handgun and they asked her for a photo ID, would you be opposed to that?
By the way, how do you come up with us having something against older folks (hell, I’m one) or disabled or non Americans? Typical liberal gibberish.
Rob Thommins @ 2:37 pm
Don’t try to draw me into the photo ID debate today…lol. Wouldn’t that sorta be like Facebook?
There is no such thing Leon. There have been cursory Supreme Court mentions, but no ruling and no precedent for what you assert. The Supreme Court opinions may in fact say that something is “the damnedest thing they have ever seen” if they so choose to state it, but that does not mean they have ruled on or set “the damnedest thing” as a precedent. I believe the problem here is that you absolutely have no clue how a Supreme Court ruling works and what a Supreme Court opinion means.
From my link above:
“Governor George Romney’s 1968 campaign for President prompted
the seminal study that set forth what is now the traditional approach to
deciphering the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. The Supreme Court expressed the basic notion of this approach many years prior to its publication: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had” to common law at the time of the Founding. Ascertaining the constitutional meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, therefore, is a matter of historical research. It is the same
methodology—original intent—that the Court adopted in what is perhaps
the most significant citizenship case it has ever decided, though that case
directly related only to the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Hillary is correct, the “precedent” has been and remains “jus soli”. Obama is more than eligible, he is duly elected.
Hillary@74and75. . .try Minor v Happerset (1875) which establishes SC precedent for the definition of “natural born citizen”. You’re out in left field.
At least one Republican gets what the GOPTea Party is doing.
“Dan-using your premise that “there is no demonstrated problem with voter impersonation”, then there should not be an individual mandate in Obamacare since there has not been a demonstrated problem with individuals not getting insurance.”
Jerome, are you kidding? Do you honestly believe there’s no demonstrated problem with individuals getting health insurance?
There’s a hell of a demonstrated problem, for anyone with a pre-existing condition. And it’s one of the things the ACA solves.
There also is a problem with young adults, just out of college, not getting insurance because they can’t get a job. the ACA takes care of that, too.
Get real man. And let’s stick to voting, OK? No need to work health insurance into this debate, especially when it’s clear your knowledge is lacking on that subject.
Voter ID is one issue. The biggest GOP trick (and very successful I will add) is gerrymandering. In the 2012 election, “Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin. This is only the second such reversal since World War II.” This was the direct result of the GOP plan called Redmap:
So, let’s broker a deal: Repubs get photo ID and we go back to the fair, non-gerrymandered House Districts. Repubs would ok with that wouldn’t they (haha).
“How about making it a requirement that folks who on welfare, food stamps, public housing not be allowed to vote? Seems like conflict of interest to me-keep the free stuff coming and I vote for you.”
OMG. Is this “Another Chuck,” posting under a new ID?
Minor v. Happerset again? That’s a joke, Leon. The only precedent it establishes is in your mind.
I agree with you that gerrymandering is a problem — but so far as I know the old days of “fair nongerrymandered House districts” is a myth. Have those ever existed?
Frank @ 2:43,
Sooo, …if Frank had a thug son that, like James Edwards, looked forward to visiting harm on innocent strangers, that son would look like DMatt!
James and the DMatt have much in common; they both appear to hate white people and obviously had poor role models growing up.
Regarding your Tim Tebow post.
It looks like Tebowmania is over. I, for one, will be happy when this phenomenon is a distant memory. Nothing personal against Mr Tebow. It’s just that 3rd string QBs don’t deserve the kind of attention he receives.
If the majority of the folks who would be affected by the voter I’d law voted republican, would we be discussing this right now?
You are basically unteachable.
For the very last time – embrace it or remain ignorant – a state you particularly seem to embrace.
Section 301(a)(7) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1401, as in effect in 1970, provided that the following shall
be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth
[A] person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United
States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States
or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least
five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods
of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may
be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”
If the majority of the folks who would be affected by the voter I’d law voted republican, would we be discussing this right now?”
What’s the point in engaging in ridiculous hypotheticals? The reality is bad enough.
We’ll deal with a Democratic-led attack on Republican voting rights when and if it happens.
Jerome, the only “gibberish” here is coming from you. Conflating facts and wanting to suppress votes is the motive and you admit as much with your “exclusion” offer. In truth, a large swath of the elderly would indeed vote Republican. My aunt is no liberal. They always have. This is about whether you believe in the right of suffrage or not and clearly, you do not believe in that for all Americans. “Typical” indeed.
“The reality is bad enough” The reality is that there is voter fraud going on all over the country and it can affect elections both for Democrats and Republicans. The most glaring example of this was in Minnesota with the Franken election. He won by 312 votes. There were numerous convictions and many still at trial on appeal two years later. The were almost 1100 convicted felons who illegally voted. Also remember, that after the election, Coleman was determined the winner. Franken sent out the liberal army to get rid of all the Republican votes that they could. After the first canvas, Colemans victory dropped to a 206 vote lead. After months of legal wrangling, some how Franken ended up winning. This was monumental as Franken ensured that the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate so that this train wreck called Obamacare could get passed.
I do not trust the voting system and any safeguards that can be put in place to ensure that the results are fair and accurate will be for the best.
Re: Leon | August 22, 2013 at 5:02 pm
One more time –
Let it go, man. Give it a rest. You are wrong!
What part of “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” [ Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) See: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html ] don’t you understand?
Read the preceding lines. The “. . . . these doubts” that they say that they were NOT solving (addressing or resolving) were the validity of other claims of being a natural born citizen based on other legal constructs. For the record SCOTUS went out of their way to point out what you are claiming is wrong.
The statement it is not necessary to solve these doubts” mean that SCOTUS said nothing about the other possible ways of being a “natural-born” citizen. It means that they only addressed the facts applicable to the actual case before them, at that time — not what you are claiming that they rejected.
This is very common in SCOTUS Opinions. SCOTUS often sidestepped making sweeping decisions and leaves open larger or/and additional Constitutional issues by only speaking to one set of facts directly applicable to the one case before it.
In Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) SCOTUS confirmed that one possibility and they very overtly did not dismiss or otherwise address the other possible ways of being a “natural born” Citizen – possibilities that that they clearly acknowledged existed.
Just because SCOTUS were to that 2+2=4 does not mean that there may not be other combinations that also equal 4 — such as 3+1=4. Just because they said “Yes that is one way to be a natural born citizen” doesn’t preclude there being other ways of being a natural born citizen.
Legal consensus existed at that time and still exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born” Citizen. One may also be a “natural born” Citizen if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from one of the person’s parents.
Until SCOTUS decides that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [ See: http://tinyurl.com/bnsxkrg ] is unconstitutional you are stuck with it.
It is the law of the land.
To this point, neither of you have shown any evidence that requiring ID suppresses voters in any way and you avoid the proven fact that fraud does occur.
Continuing one of my ongoing rants —
Or if you prefer: http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/22/not-exactly-an-outside-committee- to-review-nsa-surveillance-programs/
Not Exactly an “Outside” Committee to Review NSA Surveillance Programs
Orin Kerr • August 22, 2013 2:44 pm
According to ABC News, the panel of “outside experts” picked by the Obama Administration to review the NSA surveillance programs consists of the following:
Assuming that’s the whole group, it’s not exactly a list of “outside” experts. Morrell retired just two weeks ago from the CIA, where he was Deputy Director and Acting Director. Sunstein served in the Obama Administration as head of OIRA, leaving the Administration one year ago. Swire served as a Special Assistant to President Obama for the first two years of the first Obama Term.
SNIP [including some "to be fair" statements]
This is a smaller and less diverse group, and one with stronger ties to the Obama Administration than is helpful. Perhaps that was necessary because everyone needed to have a security clearance, which presumably they all have or recently had. But it’s not as large or diverse a group as I would like to see.
Oh Jerome -face plant! Is there a right wing meme you will not fall for?
Ramsey County prosecutor Phil Carruthers was quoted as admitting “Overwhelmingly, their statistics were not accurate.” regarding the “study” that you claim almost 1100 convicted felons who illegally voted“.
Disinformation is the right wing stock and trade.
“Ultimately, the county charged 38 felons who voted before their rights were restored — less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the roughly 665,000 votes cast.
Freeman said he believes most of those convictions were the result of mistakes, not attempts to influence the election.”
I bolded the important part Jerome. Pretty sure you would skip it otherwise. You remain a typical right winger, all trash and no substance.
And this is hilarious – sometimes it comes back to bite you, no?
Ted Cruz’s Ironic Birther Predicament
If birthers wanted to go after Ted Cruz’s citizenship, here are the many questions they could ask
Ever get the feeling the rights answer to everything is, “Facts, Shmacks”?
“Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID.” That alone confirms that demanding they all get a specific photo ID to be eligible to vote will suppress the votes of those who are unable to gain such an ID or are unwilling to pay the poll tax to insure that the less than 1/100th of 1 percent “voter fraud” you are so afraid of is eliminated (as if!). THAT is how requiring a specific photo ID will suppress eligible voters and why it is not about voter fraud. You all are only fooling each other. SOSO
Yes Hillary, I get that feeling every day that I beat my head against the brick wall that is right wing America. There are people in mental institutions with more open minds.
or just “minds”.
What studies are you talking about-some disinformation from the left wing stock and trade? How about DEMOCRATIC Rep. Marcia Fudge or the Brennan Center for Justice? That particular study was based on 987 voters. Why didn’t you add in the study done by American University for democracy and Election Management which used 2000 voters in their study and came up with 1.2 percent saying they didn’t have a drivers license, military ID or passport. Their study said “It seems clear that the requirement of photo IDs is not an impediment to voting; the problem is that not enough people register, and not all those who register vote,” the American University study said. “This was a problem before ID laws, and it remains a problem.”
Your typical leftist deception would say that 11 percent of eligible voters don’t have “government issued photo ID”, but what you don’t admit is that there are many other forms of ID that can be used to vote in Virginia such as:
Virginia voter registration card
Valid Virginia driver’s license
Any Federal, Virginia state or local government-issued ID
Employer issued photo ID card
Concealed handgun permit
Valid student ID issued by any institution of higher education located in the Commonwealth of Virginia
Current utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck indicating the name and address of the voter
Social Security card (*please see below as the social security card does not satisfy special federal ID requirements)
What percentage of your 11 percent can’t meet these requirements????
By the way, don’t break the poor bricks on the wall when beating your head against it.
Here we go again.
If obama had a son, he’d look like one of the perps in this poor fellow’s beating death.
As we know, “anonymous” online identities are hardly secure in hiding one’s true identity. Hackers have not only penetrated many large corporations, governments and militaries, but they’ve easily hacked ATM’s, caused nuclear turbines to self-destruct, and can secretly turn on a computer’s camera and record key strokes from the other side of the world. They’ve even figured out how to disrupt the computer chip in a heart pacemaker to kill the implantee.
Yet even while we’re increasingly being made to use electronic voting with no analogue proof of one’s vote, defenders of the GOTP’s voter ID measures still proceed as if live impersonation fraud is the biggest threat to voting security .
It’s awful, but laughable, how gullible those people are.
Jerome, Jerome, Jerome. What are we going to do with you? How can we get your head screwed on straight? Your information is old and outdated.
While it’s true that you can use anything on the list you cited as valid ID for voting in 2013 (and in prior years), the Virginia General Assembly THIS YEAR passed a law that takes effect July 1, 2014.
Under that law, the following are NO LONGER VALID ID FOR VOTING PURPOSES:
A Virginia voters registration card;
A utility bill;
A bank statement;
A Social Security card;
A concealed-handgun permit;
A government check showing the name and address of the voter
A paycheck stub showing the name and address of the voter.
All of those things have been valid in Virginia for some years now. NONE of them are valid beginning in 2014, under the law the Virginia General Assembly passed this year.
In fact, this law specifies that ONLY federal, state, employer, or valid state university photo IDS may be used as voter identification.
The Republicans in the General Assembly did this because, to their chagrin, Obama won the election in Virginia in 2012 despite efforts THEY MADE IN THAT YEAR, TOO, to tighten up voting requirements. (They spent millions of taxpayer dollars implementing those changes, btw).
The 2013 legislation is (big old GOP head slap) tantamount to an admission that they didn’t tighten the requirements enough in 2012.
Because, AS WE ALREADY KNOW FROM STATEMENTS BY REPUBLICANS, the purpose of requiring photo IDs at the polls is to FOSTER THE ELECTION OF REPUBLICANS. And they’re so brazen about it that they’re not even denying that. It’s not even an issue except among people like you, who are not thinking straight.
The law is right here. Scroll down to 24.2-643 B and you’ll see the changes in black and white.
Jerome | August 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm #93 “The reality is bad enough” The reality is that there is voter fraud going on all over the country and it can affect elections both for Democrats and Republicans. The most glaring example of this was in Minnesota with the Franken election. He won by 312 votes. There were numerous convictions and many still at trial on appeal two years later. The were almost 1100 convicted felons who illegally voted. Also remember, that after the election, Coleman was determined the winner. Franken sent out the liberal army to get rid of all the Republican votes that they could. After the first canvas, Colemans victory dropped to a 206 vote lead. After months of legal wrangling, some how Franken ended up winning. This was monumental as Franken ensured that the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate so that this train wreck called Obamacare could get passed. I do not trust the voting system and any safeguards that can be put in place to ensure that the results are fair and accurate will be for the best. – See more at: http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2013/08/thing-go-better-on-the-thursday-open-thread/#comments
Bush v. Gore 2000
Frank’s racist crap is getting old and stale. Time to put a sock in it Gomer.
Not to worry Jerome. The items you listed at 105 will qualify your provisional ballot which, per the law referenced by Dan@106, will be provided you if you do not have a photo ID at the polling place. In summary, your vote will be counted but it will be paper rather than electronic. Nice try Dan but you should really read what you cross reference. LOL
IMO the general assembly has done us all a tremendous service by clarifying
the election and voting law. Those that would try to commit voter fraud or support same will be discouraged and disgruntled over this law.
“Not to worry Jerome. The items you listed at 105 will qualify your provisional ballot which, per the law referenced by Dan@106, will be provided you if you do not have a photo ID at the polling place. In summary, your vote will be counted but it will be paper rather than electronic. Nice try Dan but you should really read what you cross reference. LOL”
Wrong again, Leon. Provisional ballots used to be counted, up through the 2011 elections, and they are still allowed. But one of the chief changes in the election-rules tightening the General Assembly did in 2012 was that provisional ballots SHALL NOT BE COUNTED unless the person who cast it appears before the electoral board of his voting jurisdiction within a few days of the election and offers documentary PROOF of his/her identification and registration. Beginning in 2014, that means, they’VE got to bring in the Photo ID that they don’t have or they wouldn’t have had to cast the provisional ballot in the first place.
Dave, Dave, Dave@96
You read law about as well as Dan. Minor v Happersett (1875) establishes the definition of “natural born citizen” as SC precedent. There is only one way to be an NBC and that is to be born to two US citizen parents.
If you’ll review again the case you will see that the court had to ascertain if
the plaintiff was a citizen. They concluded that the plaintiff was a natural born citizen and therefore had no need to go into other types of citizenship.
There is more than one type of citizen but natural born citizens are unique
and identifiable. Obama is not one; nor is Cruz.
I suggest you and Dan huddle up with Warlock when reading law as you need
guidance and Warlock needs the education.
Leon continues with his minor vs happensett fixation. never mind that not one of the dozens of wingnut suits against Obama has found a court which agrees with his delusion H e just keeps farting into the hurricane.
I know that hope springs eternal, but trying to convince Leon that he is wrong about anything is an such an exercise in futility.
Jerome, no doubt your anonymity gives you the gall to keep repeating nonsense. It is simply not true that the voter ID requirements will be the same in future Virginia elections and they are already changed to a DMV issued photo ID ONLY in other states. Stop being dishonest about the debate. We are not arguing about what IS the voting ID requirement, we are arguing over what the right wingers WANT the voter ID requirement to be based on facts like “The U.S. Department of Justice has launched more than 180 investigations into election fraud since October 2002.” Hardly a blip on the radar screen of “fraud” being a problem. Less than 1% is a hell of a good fraud rating in ANY effort!
Also “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” and requiring a DMV issued photo ID does NOTHING to fix that REAL problem.
You “…make sure this is accessible…make sure that it’s free to anyone who can’t afford it…make sure that it’s not another barrier” and I am all for DMV issued photo ID’s being required. Not until.
Also from your American University:
Granted if the more than 50 million Americans eligible to vote would register and do so, the margins would be so big that even you could not scream “fraud” as a reason for losing. Demographic changes and their own stupidity will sink the right wing in time. That is a known fact.
Now, will you join us in calling for improvements in the security and veracity of absentee ballots being free of voter fraud? Updating the national databases to catch whatever fraud there is? Proactive registration and identification efforts from Registrar offices?
Also from the study you cited:
“…there are serious problems in the way in which the ID laws have been drafted or applied that might have the effect of reducing voter participation, particularly of certain groups.”
“The Carter Baker Commission recommends an affirmative role by the states to expand the voter registration list and provide free photo IDs at the same time. That would widen access while strengthening the integrity of the election and thus raise confidence in the electoral process.”
There are ways to do it right…if you do it right, I have no problem with the requirement. Never said otherwise.
Dan@112: Suggest you read the law you referenced before you make broad incorrect statements. One can provide ID (non-photo) when completing provisional ballot and electoral board approves inclusion of ballot in count after review which does not include requirement of physical presence of the provisional voter. Obviously, easy way is to take your photo ID. . .I have three or four which would qualify and most people have
at least one (VA driver’s license).
Leon continues to prove he has no clue what the USSC does or how precedent is actually set. Hint, if you were right, Obama would not still be in office. Buy a clue Leon.
Wayne@114. . .since, per Clarence Thomas, the SC is avoiding the case(s)
the precedent has not been applied. It’s still valid.
Sandi@118. . .the SC has not heard the case or involved itself in the issue.
You do not know what you are talking about.
It’s my understanding that people are continuing to register youngsters at Virginia Tech move-in this week. Republicans really need to do something to stop this travesty. You know that all of these kids liberals who will vote 8 or 12 times.
“Over 150 years of judicial opinion and Constitutional amendments have helped solidify the definition of birthright citizenship in those terms. If you were born within the territorial boundaries of the United States, regardless of your parents’ citizenship status (diplomats excluded), you are a natural-born U.S. citizen and entitled to all the attendant rights and privileges. The Fourteenth Amendment indicates as much: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (The issue of who is a citizen by birth comes up in litigation mainly through interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which was put in place to reverse the Supreme Court’s pre-Civil War decision that black people were not citizens.)”
“The Supreme Court has hewed closely to this understanding of citizenship by birth. In 1898, the court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a man born in the U.S. to parents who were “subjects of the Emperor of China” was, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, a U.S. citizen by birth. In 1985, the court’s opinion in INS v. Rios-Pineda stated that the respondents, a married couple who were citizens of Mexico but residing in the U.S., “had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.” Lower courts have actually weighed in on the question of whether Obama qualifies as a natural-born citizen. In a 2009 ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals cited Wong Kim Ark in stating 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.”
Ron@121. . .your vain attempt to confuse the issue fails:
Wow, the Tebow news is even uglier than I had imagined. Honestly, I’m pretty shocked by this. He’ll do fine outside of football, though:
“To some who are watching Tim Tebow struggle to play quarterback for the New England Patriots—and struggle is a mighty generous way to describe what he’s doing—there is but one conclusion.
It’s not just that Tebow can no longer play quarterback, or any other skill position, in the NFL—it’s that unless Tebow switches to a strictly blocking position, he is not talented enough to play in leagues like the Canadian Football League and Arena Football League.
Tebow’s skills have eroded so quickly, so shockingly fast—think heavy boulder dropped from low orbit—that it has actually stunned several scouts who have watched him closely for years.”
Frank @ 10:28,
I find it peculiar that you’ll search far and wide, even as far as Kentucky, to find random acts of violence, but when your own boy DMatt threatens someone in our downtown area, you think that’s totally cool. I guess ol’ Hey Frank thinks that black kids shouldn’t be violent but’s it’s okay for the street thug AKA DMatt to go around threatening to beat people up down town.
Kind of sad ol’ Hey Frank sets up Google alerts for “Black on white crimes” but totally ignores his own child’s violent impulses right here in the city where we live.
So much for being a color blind society, I guess.
You are wrong again Leon.
It is interesting that the conservatives on here promoting photo ID didn’t know that Virginia passed photo ID and that for a provisional ballot to count, the voter would have to go back and show a photo ID.
That just goes to show how confusing the GOP has made the process.
Hey Frank, when DMatt goes out on the mean streets of the Star city to assault innocent people, does he wear thuggish low hanging baggy jeans with Timberland boots and accessorize with a bandana nattily cocked over one eye or does he just do the white trash real Slim Shady shtick? I’m thinkin’ DMatt’s probably more of a Marshall Mather’s kind of guy. Anywho, just wondering so I can keep the fish eye out for him when I’m downtown.
Leon, if you had a case, you would have won by now. Orly gave it her all and has been rejected at every court. Lay down and die lying birther meme!
Leon, brace yourself. YOU are the one who does “not know what you are talking about”. You clearly do not understand how to read a USSC decision, what an opinion means and how precedent is actually set. The USSC has not involved itself in this case, because there is no case. Dreams and fantasies are not cases. Ponderings in USSC opinions are not precedent. You have no basis in fact. None.
Sandi@129&130. . .you are wrong. IMO there are many reasons why this
issue has not been properly addressed; most of them having to do with fear and treason. On the other hand; the issue is not going away as too many
know the truth.
Ron May@126. . .please read linky @123 again (and again) for comprehension till you understand it is what it is.
Re: Leon | August 22, 2013 at 11:57 pm
Keep working at it Leon. You are getting close to understanding the case.
You are finally right in saying “that the court had to ascertain if the plaintiff was a citizen. They concluded that the plaintiff was a natural born citizen and therefore had no need to go into other types of citizenship.”
Therefore SCOTUS made no decision about other ways to be a natural born citizen. SCOTUS clearly stated that they were NOT solving (addressing or resolving) the validity of other claims of being a natural born citizen based on other legal constructs.
So, SCOTUS went out of their way to point out that they were NOT ruling that there is only one way to be a natural born citizen.
There is nothing in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) that says that there is only one way to be a natural born citizen.
Re: Debbie | August 23, 2013 at 6:35 am
We finally got him to admit “that the court had to ascertain if the plaintiff was a citizen. They concluded that the plaintiff was a natural born citizen and therefore had no need to go into other types of citizenship.”
That’s a start.
Maybe in a few more months we can get him to understand that that means that SCOTUS, did not “go into other types of citizenship” be that natural born or otherwise.
In any case, IMHO, it is important to beat him down on the issue for the sake of newcomers to the blog.
Letting fallacious claims stand un-rebutted might mislead some or encourage others who are predisposed to his nonsense.
Dave, Dave, Dave@133. . .words have meaning and natural born citizen means born of two US citizen parents. Guess one could go out on a limb
and also include “hatched” and; with a living constitution also include “cloned”. In each case Obama isn’t a NBC.
I will admit you LIBs will spin this in any manner, shape or form you can to avoid acknowledgment of the truth which you obviously find distasteful.
First you tried to twist the wording of the SC case but got shot out of the saddle. Now you try to claim there’s more than one way to be an NBC!
Sorry Dave but keep spinning; it’s amusing!
Keep fighting the good fight, Dave Hicks.
Thank you, Dave Hicks. The justices on that case, were they alive today, would stare in utter disbelief at people like Leon. My thought is that even if they were here to clear up this issue personally, they would just be ignored, shouted down and absorbed into yet another fold of the Grand Obama Conspiracy.
The AL SC is putting a lot of time, money and energy into this case. Meanwhile, the state of Alabama is going broke, its residents getting poorer and education is failing, all while the infrastructure of the state crumbles. One can’t help but be reminded of Nero and Rome.
Hey wayne goodman,
What troubles you about the links I provided, or about obama’s quote?
My purpose in posts #60 and #106 is to show folks like you the idiocy of your idol worship.
Judging by your response, I’d say I hit the nerve I wanted to hit.
Just for the record Leon, eventhough I know it’s a waste of time, Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, an American state, to an mother who was an U.S. citizen and a non citizen father. The first two elements make him a U.S. citizen by birth. I know it sticks in your craw, but he’s as much a U.S. citizen as are you. Live with it brother!!
Not only is Barack Hussein Obama “as much a U.S. citizen as are you” Leon, he is a natural born US citizen. Like I said, you do not understand precedent or the USSC opinions that establish it and you have seriously misunderstood the opinions in the one case you harp on. Is Orly a relative?
Ron May@138. . .I have not contested, although there are some questions,
as to whether Obama is a citizen. My point is, and has been, he is not a
natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to be POTUS. FYI, I am a natural born citizen and therefore, unlike Obama, am eligible to be POTUS.
For a University Administrator it appalls me that you make such blatant statements without support, documentation or review of info provided to you.
Assume is a bad word in my profession but it appears OK to teach what you
assume to be true even when it isn’t.
Sandi@139. . .where, oh where, is your proof? You have already been provided proof that he is not and also know from the Cold Case Posse that
the BC he posted is a complete forgery. What is the basis behind your
Re: Leon | August 23, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Show me a single quote from Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) that says that there is only one way to be a natural born citizen.
Dave Hicks @134: “it is important to beat (Leon) down on the issue for the sake of newcomers to the blog. Letting fallacious claims stand un-rebutted might mislead some or encourage others who are predisposed to his nonsense”
Exactly right, Dave.
Yet Debbie’s also right that it’s futile trying to change Leon’s mind; the proof is his statement @131 about “reasons why this issue has not been properly addressed; most of them having to do with fear and treason”. It illustrates how being a birther gives him a flattering sense of being brave and patriotic, validates his vague paranoia, and reinforces his need to have insight that others lack, meaning he can dismiss them as dim on that basis. Those psychological rewards are just too powerful for birthers like Leon to give up willingly.
Obama is not a natural-born citizen only in your mind. Your argument about that 19th-century, subsequently overturned Supreme Court case is fraudulent.
Dan@145. . .it’s easy to make a broad statement but what do you have to back it up. The case stands as SC precedent despite your disbelief. IMO,
LIBs have clearly indicated their ability to put blinders on for anything they don’t like or doesn’t fit their preconcieved notions. Your post is not backed
up by anything. Mine is backed up by a documented SC case.
Warren and Dave@44. . .unfortunately for you two losers(and all the rest of us) the issue isn’t nonsense. The harm being done to our country, our rights, and our economy by this administration is all intentional. Why you willingly buy into it and believe the liberal lie is either ignorance or wanton
disregard for the well being of the USA.
Dave@43. . .to look to a SC case for such a statement is ludicrous. However, the term natural born citizen is, in fact, a singular concept with one
specific definition. If you don’t like the definition too bad. Even LIBs at some
point need to face reality.
My proof is that Barack Hussein Obama has a state certified birth certificate and is the duly elected President of the United States of America. Your “proof” is what you think some kooks have “proven” and your own misunderstanding of the USSC precedent.
And how dare you hide in anonymity like a coward and attack Ron’s credibility! You prove the lack of substance in your beliefs and in your decency.
The 1898 Supreme Court decision I referenced made clear that among the requirements for being a natural born citizen is being born within the territorial limits of the U.S. That case even said the parents didn’t have to be U.S. citizens. Barrack Obama was born, and has a state certified birth certificate to prove, in the bounds of U.S. territory, that being the state of Hawaii. On top of that his mother was a U.S. citizen.
The case to which you refer was superseded by the 1898 decision which I referenced and has been reaffirmed several times since. I gave you the proof, you just refuse to accept it.
You are welcome to live in your make believe world as long as you wish Leon. Barrack Obama is your (and my) president!! He will be until January 20, 2017.
Re: Warren | August 23, 2013 at 4:40 pm
I agree with you and Debbie as to leading a horse to water . . . .
“There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See” — John Heywood, 1546
“There are none so positive as those who are but half right.” — William McDonnell, 1879
“None so empty as those who are full of themselves.” — Benjamin Whichcote, 1753
We can explain it TO you (over and over again) but we can’t understand it FOR you. I reckon we’re just going to have to leave it at that.
You, certainly, are unable to explain your strange belief about that overturned case to the satisfaction of anyone else here.
Leon | August 23, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Show me any SCOTUS opinion that holds that term “natural born citizen” is a singular concept with only one specific definition.
Re: Dan Casey | August 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Overturned by SCOTUS or overcome by subsequent events?
Re: my last:
In either case, as far as I can see SCOTUS never held want Leon thinks they held, in the first place.
You’re right, Dave Hicks. The case was overturned by subsequent events: specifically the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Leon is citing an old case in which SCOTUS ruled that states could deny women the right to vote. The justices SPECIFICALLY indicated in that case that their minor deviation into the subject of a “natural born citizen” SHOULD NOT be taken as the last word as to the qualifications of an NBC.
However, Leon is treating the case EXACTLY as the justices said nobody should — as the last word.It’s total BS; he’s got to realize that, but he’s not going to budge.
She must be related to Leon…
It warms my heart to see the TP types savage their own…kind of like eating their young.
Birther’ Orly Taitz: Ted Cruz Has ‘Basically the Same Issue as Obama’
“Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a likely candidate for president in 2016,
released his Canadian birth certificate over the weekend, but that’s unlikely to end discussion about whether he meets the Constitution’s ill-defined standard of natural-born citizenship.
“Clearly there is an issue of eligibility,” crusading skeptic of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate Orly Taitz told U.S. News. “It’s basically the same issue as Obama has.”
Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, in 1970, according to the document. He automatically acquired U.S. citizenship through his American mother, but he also likely gained automatic Canadian citizenship.” http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/19/birther-orly-taitz-ted-cruz-has-basically-the-same-issue-as-obama
So the fact that Rafael Edward Cruz was born on foreign soil – yes Canada is foreign soil – to an American-born mother – according to the TP,, he is not eligible to be president. Why? He is NOT a natural born citizen.
Additionally, President Obama, who was born to an American mother and born in the United States – yes birthers Hawaii is an actual American state -is also NOT a natural born citizen. according to the TP.
Is anyone eligible to be president according to the TP? They sound as confused as Leon.
“The justices SPECIFICALLY indicated in that case that their minor deviation into the subject of a “natural born citizen” SHOULD NOT be taken as the last word as to the qualifications of an NBC”
The case does not state this. What the justices did indicate was that there were other forms of citizenship but; since they had determined that the plaintiff was a “natural born citizen” (and thus defined it) they had no reason
to consider further any other forms of citizenship. Reality is quite different than Dan’s spin.
Obama’s problem with being eligible for office do not stop with consideration of the NBC issue. His schooling in Indonesia (and adoption by Lolo Soetoro)
would have required Indonesian citizenship. The country does not recognize
dual citizenship thereby requiring the forfeiture or renouncement of US citizenship to qualify for school and adoption in Indonesian. This means, at
best, Obama would now be a “naturalized” citizen and, accordingly, ineligible
The bottom line. . .none of us really know who, exactly, is sitting in the Oval office. IMO, as citizens, we have a right to know that elected officials are
vetted as to their qualification for office.
Leon, I submit that YOU do not know. Your hate won’t let you. We have no such delusion. You have no right, no standing and no credibility to question the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama. I know who is sitting in the Oval Office. The man I voted for and the man I still support. To pretend the unethical right wing loons would not have exhausted every source in “vetting” him is just plain idiocy. They could not prove he is ineligible, the Clintons who would have had access even the haters would not have had could not do it and Leon, YOU cannot do it.
Re: my request of / challenge to Leon at 5:00 pm, yesterday:
Namely, “Show me any SCOTUS opinion that holds that term “natural born citizen” is a singular concept with only one specific definition.”
So far nothing but crickets.
Until you can produce evidence to support the constructs that you claim as the bases of you contention, your collusion is suspect at best. If you cannot support you premises your conclusion is fatally flawed.
The premises of a logical syllogism must be supported as true before the conclusion is held to be true.
You did not seem to understand the example of 2 + 2.
Therefore, let me try to help you, yet again.
Greek philosopher Aristotle most famous syllogism is:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Were some men not mortal or were Socrates not a man, one could not conclude that Socrates is mortal, through logical debate, albeit his subsequent death would have resolved the issue, de facto.
Your premises are that:
Premise 1: SCOTUS declared that a person born of two US citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Premise 2: SCOTUS declared that the “term natural born citizen is, in fact, a singular concept with one specific definition”
You have supported / proven Premise 1.
You have not supported / proven Premise 2
Therefore you cannot logically support your conclusion that, “Therefore, SCOTUS has ruled that a person not born of two US citizen parents is not a natural born citizen.”
As with Socrates’ death having resolved the issue, were SCOTUS to subsequently rule that the “term natural born citizen is, in fact, a singular concept with one specific definition” then the issue would be settled.
Your argument is fatally flawed, until you can show that that SCOTUS has done so, or until SCOTUS does so rule.
You are welcome to your opinion as to what should be SCOTUS’s opinion.
However, you are not free to claim something as fact when that something is not supported by logic or fact.
Your wasting rationality and logic on the guy who uses false deductive logic throughout his posts – something like this:
*** define god ***.
1. god is love
2. love is blind
3. therefore Stevie Wonder is god
Re: Hillary | August 24, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Well done, Hillary!
A far more succulent explanation of Leon’s failed attempt at logic than my long-winded postings.
Leon, Dan’s point was correct, it is yours that is wrong: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Dan was correct “The justices SPECIFICALLY indicated in that case that their minor deviation into the subject of a “natural born citizen” SHOULD NOT be taken as the last word as to the qualifications of an NBC”” The words used “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts” make that clear!
And in point of fact Leon, the case opinion expressed “…the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.“. Clearly the very case you cite does not back you up.
#159 He was vetted. He’s president. That is all, Leon.
Re: my request of / challenge to Leon at 5:00 pm, two days ago:
So far nothing but crickets from Leon.
Come on, Leon.
Put up or man up.
Your challenge is irrelevant. Natural Born Citizen is a singular term with a specific definition. It was defined by the court in Minor v Happersett (1875). Naturalized Citizen is also a singular term with a specific definition. If you assume that I will join you in your self inflicted ignorance you are mistaken.
Perhaps you and your LIB buddies should ask yourself just why you want to
buy into the lies and corruption that are inherent in this present administration.
How can you ignore the multitude of scandals and the fact that Obama was not vetted? Why would a candidate for POTUS post on the internet a birth certificate that is blatantly false? Why was Hawaii sent an altered certification by the DNC about the validity of their candidates that was not sent to the other 49?
It seems, to you, that ignorance is bliss. . .enjoy!
of course Dave Hicks, did you expect an answer, they have none
HE WAS NOT VETTED GDAD, THAT IS A LIE
What barack obama has shown is certificate of live birth which is NOT a birth certificate…anyone can go to hawaii and get one…no info sandi, no ethics either
Sandi@164: The doubts to which you refer concerned other forms or classes of citizenship. For purposes of the case being ajudicated it was not
necessary to solve the doubts as they had determined the plaintiff was a natural born citizen being born of two US citizen parents. Since Obama does
not qualify as a natural born citizen there are, accordingly, doubts as to whether he is President.
Unfortunately, LIBs are not as smart as they think they are and Dan the spinmaster just can’t quite understand this SC precedent. Try a swirley;
it will help get the spin right!
It is not liberals who “are not as smart as they think they are” here Leon. It is you.
They clearly were discussing natural born citizens when they start the paragraph “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Your failure to grasp and comprehend the meaning of that is not our problem.
Wrong again pammala. The state vital records office in Hawaii has confirmed that they issued a State Certified Birth Certificate. You cannot accept it, but that remains the truth.
pammy @ 5:13,
“What barack obama has shown is certificate of live birth which is NOT a birth certificate…anyone can go to hawaii and get one…”
pammy, you told us the other day that you frequently travel between Va, NY and SCOTLAND; next time you are shuffling between continents, how ’bout stopping in “hawaii” and pick us up one of those certificate of live birth’s that anyone can get.
If you can bring me one back with your name on it, I’ll never call you an imbecile ever again. I will also sauté my shoe in butter, white wine and garlic and stick the damn thing in my mouth and publically beg your forgiveness for ever questioning your intelligence.
Re: Leon | August 26, 2013 at 4:56 am
“Naturalized Citizen is also a singular term with a specific definition.”
Do you have any evidence to backup that assertion? Any SCOTUS findings.
Opinions are opinions.
Statements posted in a declaratory manner should be supportable by some form of evidence, if they are to be believed — IMHO.
You can repeat that “x” is “y” as many time as you want, but that does not mean it is true.
Many folk in the world regularly repeat لا إله إلا الله (“La ilaha ilallah” or “La ilaha ill Allah” — “There is no deity except God, i.e., Allah”)
Would you conclude that their repeating their fervent belief makes it so?
If not, why do you believe that your oft repeated fervent belief makes it so?
Until you produce some evidence of you claim, you are like a child in a sand box spate, repeatedly canting “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so”, “Did so, . . . .”
pammala and Leon, sittin’ in a tree….
pammala, of course Obama was vetted. He was on the ballot and won.
“What barack obama has shown is certificate of live birth which is NOT a birth certificate…anyone can go to hawaii and get one”
Really, pammela? Anyone can go to Hawaii and claim they were born there and the state will give them a certificate of live birth? Why don’t you try it.
Forgive me if I don’t respect the intelligence of someone who thinks you can start rumors about anonymous blog entities, and that believes Dan would actually call a corporate CEO to check on whether said anonyous blog entity owned a franchise in his company.
The fact that he was elected twice is proof to me that he was vetted, Leon. For you to call liberals ignorant is quite humorous.
Sandi@173: The court acknowledged that the Constitution does not define
“natural born citizen”. They then proceeded to define the term. Keep trying Sandi; you may finally get it.
Dave Hicks@176. . .what kind of childish nonsense are you spouting?
Sandi@174: and your proof is?
Debbie@178: What will you do when it is ascertained he is not who he said he was and deemed ineligible? Certainly it would seem approrpriate to vet
him now before he does more damage to our country and economy.
Re: my last to Leon
Apply it to pammala | August 26, 2013 at 5:13 am, also.
I don’t think Leon actually believes any of this stuff. He’s just laughing at us as we repeatedly bang our heads against against the wall.
Is gdad right?
You just a troll making things up?
Re: my request of / challenge to Leon at 5:00 pm, three days ago:
So far nothing but evasions and meaning less repetitions from Leon.
The day the US Supreme Court rules that your opinions are correct, Leon, is the day I will let you know how I feel.
I’m with gdad: Leon doesn’t believe the garbage he’s slinging about natural born citizen-hood. He’s merely getting his jollies throwing that utter tripe in our faces. I refuse to engage him any more on the subject.
Re: Dan Casey | August 26, 2013 at 5:04 pm
I don’t know.
Although I do believe that Leon does get “his jollies throwing that utter tripe in our faces“, I suspect that he’s actually getting his jollies, because he actually believes that utter tripe and mistakenly thinks he is winning the debate. It is sad.
I suspect he sees himself a a righteous defender of what he has been conned into believing — sort of a kick-back to the true believer of Eric Hoffer famous discourse on the psychological causes of fanaticism.
Some of his comments do seem to fit the pattern of discontented people who place their locus of control outside their power and who also have no confidence in existing culture, Ditto, his apparently being only partly assimilated into mainstream culture.
I agree, Dave Hicks. I think he truly believes the stuff he writes.
debbie you have no idea of what you speak dear. You and other libbie coms take the bait so well it is better than going to a movie….lol
its true, show up with an electric bill and a baby and you got your certificate of live birth…not a birth certificate.
no he was not vetted
The logic I use when looking at Obama is this: if he wasn’t an eligible citizen, the Clintons would have found that out and destroyed him in the 2008 primary.
I agree, he believes it, he repeats it, he defends it and he preaches it. Sad.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:06:31 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.