Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

State Sen. Kent Sorenson (Photo by Dave Davidson, www.TEApublican.com).
State Sen. Kent Sorenson (Photo by Dave Davidson, www.TEApublican.com).

‘Birther’ legislation introduced by Sorenson

By Jason Hancock | 03.04.11 | 4:38 pm

Legislation that would require anyone running for president to produce a birth certificate and make it available for public inspection was introduced this week by state Sen. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), however the bill is considered dead this session.

Friday marked the self-imposed funnel deadline for legislation to clear a committee in order to remain eligible for debate this session. Sorenson, a favorite of evangelical conservatives and the tea party movement, introduced the bill Wednesday, and it was assigned to a subcommittee on Thursday, where it remains.

A poll released last month showed that 51 percent of likely 2012 Republican primary voters said they believe President Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. Those who falsely believe that Obama is foreign born and therefore not eligible to serve as president, known as “birthers,” have sparked a flood of legislation similar to Sorenson’s around the nation. In the last month, bills have appeared in Connecticut, Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Nebraska, Missouri and Montana that would all require anyone running for elected office to furnish a long-form birth certificate before being declared eligible as a candidate.

Obama was born in Hawaii, and in 2007 released a certified copy of his birth certificate. It did little to dampen the conspiracies, and birthers have filed three lawsuits since then before the U.S. Supreme Court. All were dismissed. Cases filed in lower courts have also not prevailed.

This isn’t the first time Sorenson has latched on to a widely discredited conspiracy theory, however. During debate over federal health care reform legislation, Sorenson used his Twitter account to push out an urban legend that the bill contained language giving power of choice over health care decisions to a “Health Care Commissioner.” PoltiFact, the Pulitzer Prize winning winning site run by the staff of the St. Petersburg Times, had already investigated the claim and found it to be what they classify as a “pants on fire” lie.

Sorenson did not respond to a request for comment.

Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter


Comments

  • Anonymous

    Frickin idiots….

  • Anonymous

    Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible

    Yet the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

    On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill — dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain’s cause.

    It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

    “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

    At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

    What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

    Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.

    • Anonymous

      So is a child born of American citizens in a country that claims citizenship for children born within its borders (like the U.S. does), e.g. born with dual citizenship, a ‘natural born citizen’? A number of sources say NO and I agree with them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/katie.l.berger Katie Berger Tremaine

        Of course you agree with them, they say something that you want to hear.

        • Anonymous

          Absolutely correct, Katie. I’m sure you would do the same. I feel that the position of POTUS and VP are too important to leave those who fill those positions open to foreign influence or usurpers who would lie and take advantage of loopholes to occupy the Oval Office. Too bad you’re blinded by your politics to see reason.

  • Anonymous

    “Obama was born in Hawaii, and in 2007 released a certified copy of his birth certificate.”
    ————————

    Jason, that was the most ignorant sentence I’ve ever read. Did you do ANY research before posting that unprovable, urban legend? Several SCOTUS judges, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment and Vatel, compiler of the legal reference work _The_Law_of_Nations_ all agree that a ‘natural born citizen’ is a person who was born on U.S. soil of ParentS who were CitizenS (plural). Under both British and U.S. law of the time, Obama was a British subject and born with dual citizenship at birth thus making him ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. We have a usurper in the Oval Office and if he WAS born in Hawaii, he’s also a traitor!

    • http://www.facebook.com/katie.l.berger Katie Berger Tremaine

      No, the ignorance is on the part of racist teabaggers, who are absolutely infuriated that anyone with a skin tone darker than a January snow might possibly become President.

      • Anonymous

        Ignorant opinion and foul mouth noted, Katie. Not good for your credibility.

        • Anonymous

          Actually. the teabag terminology allegedly originated within the Tea Party itself, with the action of mailing teabags to politicians. And, of course, this lady: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Q5GZe2kqdmg/S1kWE4r6ORI/AAAAAAAACho/AHTLYG8Glic/s1600-h/Teabaggging+for+Jesus.png

          I’m confused about the double-bagging; is this a pejorative against the prudent shopper?

          • Anonymous

            1. Allegedly being the operative word. IOW, you don’t have a clue and. . .
            2. The obvious observation that you are not using the term in the same way the lady with the sign was using it.

            Both your words and your excuses ring hollow.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I typically use it the same way as the tea party members do; as an easier term than ‘tea party members’. The fact that it coincidentally refers to a potentially quite ..ahem…distasteful act is hilarious and in some cases quite appropriate, as when the ISC justices were railroaded through a misinformation campaign funded with out of state money from religiously extreme groups, including some described as hate groups. Hence the lolcat, which nicely sums up my deep distaste for the hijacking of our retention system by out-of-staters while being thoroughly tongue in cheek.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

        Well Barack Obama is already President.

      • Anonymous

        I’d rather be a teabagger that a double bagger like you.

      • Anonymous

        I’d rather be a teabagger than a double bagger like you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_I6RF3FJGQQ4YMGGI2OP6SFVD5E Mark

    We are not distracted. Where are the jobs?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      That’s a good question for President Obama. You should ask him that question today.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_I6RF3FJGQQ4YMGGI2OP6SFVD5E Mark

        Wendy, you’re capable of better work. It’s genuinely a disappointment to give a failing score.

        When one of my students draws a cartoon on their test paper rather than answer a question, it reveals they haven’t done the required reading.

        We’ve both added a comment to an article about Iowa state senator Kent Sorenson. Emphasis: Mr. Sorenson is a senator at the STATE level.

        When Mr. Sorenson introduces legislation that would require anyone running for president to produce a birth certificate, it’s at the STATE level.

        My comment made the point that his proposal brings no jobs to Indianola. His proposal does nothing to improve conditions that might spur job growth. Today, I’m adding the comment that it’s challenging to perceive his proposal as anything other than political grandstanding done at the expense of Iowans.

        Wendy, if you were less intelligent, the comment you posted about asking Mr. Obama to come to Indianola and legislate on behalf of Mr. Sorenson might be forgivably cute or funny. But since you are intelligent, there’s an expectation that you’re paying attention to what you learned in Civics.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

          So if you are a professor you should teach the liberal Obama lovers how to create jobs, remember, you are the one who claims that “we are not distracted.”

          Hmmm. “We are not distracted.” That statement carries quite an intonation: One that signals that the liberal movement in this country will stop at nothing defending the ordinate liberal movement and its leader President Obama. 2012 is shaping up to be an interesting election year.

          Now I’ll agree with you that I’m pretty smart Mark and believe it or not I’ve had professors such as yourself attempt to lecture me with their personal beliefs when I didn’t agree with their agenda or opinion. So you can go ahead and give me all the F’s you want, perhaps you should even dismiss me from the Univ. I don’t really care.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, Wendy, I couldn’t let this one go. Intonation relates to musical patterns and melodies. I think you meant to say, “That statement carries quite a conotation.” Which is still problematic, however, conotation means the common understanding that a word or phrase carries in addition to the word’s explicit meeting. I don’t think i’d be asking to be dismissed from class, we could all use a few more lessons.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

            No I meant intonation. The dictionary definition of this word is as follows: “the pattern or melody of pitch changes in connected speech, especially the pitch pattern of a sentence, which distinguishes kinds of sentences or speakers of different language cultures.”

            Find the aforementioned definition at this web address:

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intonation

          • Anonymous

            Sooo you really meant to say that “We are not distracted,” carries a pattern or melody of pitch changes in connected speech? Intonation relates to sound, ie pitch and melody, (Do you physically hear a difference? Because I thought this was a message board. Conotation relates to significance, and content and, like it or not, that’s what you were saying. The term, “We are not distracted,” has a conotation that democrats collectively agree on, and like to throw around when complaining about republicans.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

            Read the dictionary definition professor. I used the word “innotation” correctly. The No. 1 meaning is pattern or pitch changes in connected speech. In other words, the statement doesn’t have to be in oral form to have innotation as “speech” is generally defined as oral or written language.

            I would ask who the “we” is in this statement: “We will not be distracted.” But I think we both know what I’m talking about. Your taking sides in the movement. So have you figured out how to teach your students to create jobs yet? Do you have more questions?

          • Anonymous

            Yes, one more question. Thank you for being so patient. Please identify the pattern and/or pitch change in “We are not distracted.”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

            Keep creating those jobs, professor, Mark, or whoever the hell you are.

  • Anonymous

    Voted for Obama? Ready to apologize yet?
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/votedfor-obama-ready-to-apologize-yet.html
    See Aristotle the Hun’s commentary at the end of this article!
    The Brokest Generation

  • Anonymous

    Can You Pass the Obama Eligibility Logic Test?
    Does This Document Make Me ELIGIBLE to be POTUS? (or get a passport to go on a Dream Cruise?)

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-this-document-make-me-eligible-to.html

  • Anonymous

    And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama’s COLB is different than other COLBs
    AKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted – Click Image For Full View

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-colb-filed-but-never-accepted.html

    • Anonymous

      I think I prefer a less biased resource:
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

      • Anonymous

        Snopes as an un biased source? This is satire or sarcasm, right?

        CNN and the NYT are less biased than Snopes!

        • Anonymous

          What’s your basis for that claim? And news organizations serve a vastly different function than debunking sites; unless you’re on the opinions page, all you should get are regurgitations of the opinions of others, factually described or quoted.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VC6QJ6NGIGS4NPGMLWFHSYUAYY Dancing Rabbit

    The Supreme Court has told us a natural born Citizen is born to citizen parents. The court has never told us a natural born Citizen is born to an alien and a citizen.

    Obama is a peregrine. He does not meet the subject to jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment, nor the standards in the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

    Peregrine Obama’s father was a transient alien student with no intention to remain in the US to become a citizen. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is not a citizen.

    The Supreme Court told us in 1973 the President must not only be a citizen he must be a natural born Citizen.

    A natural born Citizen is born to citizen parents. “A country cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born from citizens.”

  • Citizen Kane

    Where are the jobs? Again, this does what to promote employment?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      Liberals have to start asking President Obama where the jobs are. Since Barack Obama has been bad for America and bad for the economy, if liberals don’t want to face the truth, then in order to mask their insecurities liberals can baptize and crown a different hero figure in the future.

      What do more gun regulations and a women’s right to choose have to do with jobs? Liberals have love affairs with those issues but they are not responsible for creating an abundance of jobs.

      You can’t blame the conservatives for not creating jobs when President Obama has been tasked with the duty for over two years.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_I6RF3FJGQQ4YMGGI2OP6SFVD5E Mark

        Please stay focused, Wendy. We’re commenting about a legislator at the STATE level and legislation that’s merely at the STATE level.

        Yes, it’s tempting to repeat favorite talking points. But Mr. Sorenson’s proposed legislation at the STATE level is nothing more than political grandstanding.

        Introducing Mr. Obama into the discussion is just silly. Please pay attention to what you learned in Civics class.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

          Oh so now I’m not so stupid as Mark thinks I went to “Civics class.”

          We are watching the throne slowly slip of Barack’s weary head. Sorry that upsets you Mark, but anything can happen at the “STATE” level.

  • Anonymous

    Republicans used to care strictly about money; then, after the 1980′s (Thanks Ronnie!) they realized that their constituency was much smaller than it used to be–the nature of business is to make more money, it is in direct conflict with human interest–so most people are left in stagnant financial situations while CEO’s make billions, including duping the US govt. into providing them with even more money through bailouts. But Republicans still need policy on their side, which is in the direct hands of voters. Most voters (98% and rising) don’t share a billionaire’s interests. So now, in the 21st century, what is a Republican to do? Because he or she has been doing their darndest over the years to take more money, and in the process, relegate an entire segment of the population into near poverty through systematic denials of education, travel, and professional advancement, they’ve got few viable options. One, and the one they’ve focused on the most during the last 12 years, is God.

    People who are uneducated about the world, are typically fearful. Poor people, who have never been outside their home state, or country, who have never engaged in conversation with a person who has a fundemental difference in background, are nearly incapable of empathy. This is where fringe movements like the Tea Party come into political play. The Tea Party has taken on different faces and issues over the last few centuries, but the goal is always the same: manipulation of facts vis a vis political discourse.

    Tea Partiers, birthers, etc.know this– the real GOP (Strong fiscal conservatives) despises you. They put up with your backward, misinformed, fear mongering for one reason: You vote Republican. The Scott Browns and Chris Christies of the world are embarressed every time a camera catches you saying something like, “Well, why doesn’t he just release his college records? Or, he was raised in Kenya” (Genius, Huck, truly)

    They use your limited sense of the world against you. Because they know, in the end, your God, your hatred, your fear, are all perfect tools to get you to the ballot box.

    Kent Sorenson and his ilk got elected in November because they paid lip service to your ignorance; they engineeredit, they nurtured it, and now, thankfully, they’re reaping the consequences in places like Wisconsin, and Indiana.

    Tea Partiers take note: A billionaire, and his political “boy servant” will show you in 2012 just how little they actually care about a birth certificate, or a marriage license. Real conservatives care about creating policy that helps make certain individuals more money.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      The fallacy is presented once more today in this post that the Tea Party is “backward, misinformed, fear mongering” and furthermore that this movement is comprised of people “who have never been outside their home state, or country, who have never engaged in conversation with a person who has a fundamental difference in background, are nearly incapable of empathy.”

      Well that’s a description fits the neo-Nazi movement and the KKK, but to put the Tea Party into the same category is, well, backward, misinformed, fear mongering.

      For one thing the Tea Party now is a mainstream national movement. And if it bothers liberals to have such a movement because they are worried that their hero President Obama is at risk of being dethroned, that’s just too bad. Liberals have a history of supporting more regulation that does nothing to create jobs and are scared to face the truth that their ensconced leader President Obama has been terrible for the United States economy.

  • Anonymous

    The Hawaii Democratic Party refused to CERTIFY Obama as it did Gore & Kerry- why? Where is Obama’s hospital birth record- his camp said he was born in a hospital- but first they gave out Queens- then Kapi’olani- so was he born in TWO hospitals?!! This is not rocket science, folks!! Why did Obama seal all his records? if he’s not “NATURAL BORN,” he has to be removed from office- he’s an illegal president. ObamaCare & the legislation he signed- should be invalidated.

  • Anonymous

    I love the Tea Party. The more division you create in the GOP, the better it will be for the rest of us in 2012 when you quit hem hawing and just run your own candidate–making the GOP (And it’s Tea Party mutation) fully irrelevant in the general election. Cheers!

    Here’s a list of “issues,” you’ll want to tackle next in your endeavor to mock critical thinking, legitimate research, and primary sources as the means for decision making:

    1) Make is a criminal offense to claim to be the recipient of military medals and decorations

    2) Crack down on the abuse of handicap parkng permits

    3)Allow Iowans to legally own 4th generation savannahs and bengals (TIGERS)

    Start with those…oh wait, you already are.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      Another misinterpretation is that the Tea Party divides the GOP. You know, that really isn’t true either. When did a healthy conversation within a political party become bad for the political party as a whole? Perhaps that perception started to occur when President Obama was elected…

      • Anonymous

        I advocate for dissent within any political party–it keeps them all honest, and provides a platform for civil debate, which is exactly what the Tea Party is doing to the GOP; the problem here (for republicans) is that the Tea Party has a different agenda than traditional conservatism. Tea Partiers, largely (though not all, I admit) don’t have a ruidmentary understanding for governance–they do however have strong ‘feelings’ about traditional marriage, abortion, and Christianity’s influence on domestic and foreign policy. Historically, Republicans’, platforms consist of lowering taxes, and utilizing tax law to create capital in the private sector–this isn’t a bad thing, but does pose a problem for the Tea Party (and its historical equivalents) that neither understands nor empathizes with the opposing points of views.

        If you really believe that the Tea Party isn’t dividng the GOP then you haven’t been paying attention. Dick Cheney was booed and heckled as a war criminal by Tea Partiers this year at CPAC. Scott Brown told Sean Hannity that in his decades-long service for the US Military, he knew of several enlisted soldiers who were gay and deserved the right to serve openly. Newt Gingrich has been married three times–not exactly an ideal candidate to run on a “family values’ platform.

        So my question is: What happens when a non-neoconservative wins the GOP nomination–someone like say, Mitt Romney (who was the front runner at CPAC) who is considered the original architect of Obamacare, and a “sometimes” Mormon? Will the Tea Party really be able to stand back and merely watch? My guess is no.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

          Dick Cheney is currently not in office and was not popular even with some in the GOP. So I don’t understand why it is a sign of weakness and division in the GOP when the Tea Party boos and heckles him at a conference – almost three years after he left office! Isn’t that what healthy inter-party debate should be about? Promoting good candidates and not agreeing with others such as Dick Cheney?

          To answer your question, what happens when a non-neocon wins the GOP nomination, one can only speculate about the future and how the Tea Party will react. But as I have been “paying attention,” I know the Tea Party love to be underestimated.

          • Anonymous

            Dick Cheney isn’t office, and neither is Sarah Palin, Rick Santourum, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich–but they’re still members of the Republican Party. One sect is traditional, the other is sending chain e-mails asking people to send $99 to Hawaii to receive a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. There is a huge, ideological split in the Republican party–but that’s what happens when a party can no longer sell it’s trickle-down theory of economics to the majority of American people. They’ve got to find new folks, who don’t want Obama to be president for _______ fill in the blank reasons. It’s really irrelevant.

            What’s not irrelevant, however, is how fascinating their marketing, er, campaigning is. See, they know that people who identify themselves as Tea Partiers don’t do any real research. They watch the Fox Entertainment channel and base their opinions on whatever comes out of Beck’s, Hannity’s, or O’Reilley’s, mouths. They know that you won’t question it, because this ‘news” source also tells you that they’re the ONLY network that’s giving you the real story–doesn’t that ever seem strange Tea Party? That they’re constantly reminding you how little you can trust everyone else? Political Analysts find this all fascinating.

            And, because I believe that no argument without evidence should be taken seriously, let me remind you: The Tea Party issued a separate response to the SOTU, John Boehner is on record as saying that the budget cuts sought by Tea Party freshman are both politically, and practically unacheivable. Tea Partiers were told they were voting on the cont. of the Patriot Act as they entered the hill. 8 members of the GA in Wisonsin are now under threat of repeal because of Scott Walker’s over reach.

            The Tea Party got all fired up in 2010 like a high school football team, they had their pep rallies and borded their buses and got to the stadium and then realized, they had never played a game before. It would be sort of endearing, how ill-prepared, how excited the Tea Party is to “take the country back,’ if they weren’t currently attempting to grandstand and put forth meaningless legislation–from the national stage on down to poor Kent Sorenson, who won’t get reelected.

            So again, Tea Party, keep it up. All of this is good for Democrats. Look into the 1995 election if you don’t believe it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

            asebastian your post is a bunch of crap. I just saw Michelle Bachman on NBC’s Meet the Press doing the exact opposite of what you think the Tea Party does. You are literally backwards with regard to the Tea Party.

            Bachman was citing statistics and giving evidence for her statement that Obama is running a gangster government. And one more thing, 2012 is not 1995 and there was no national election in 1995, it was in 1996.

          • Anonymous

            My point is, and you prove this quite efficiently:, ‘Bachman was citing statistics and giving evidence for her statement that Obama is running a gangster government…” But have you ever sought to verify those statistics? Or Evidence? Do you even understand how to go about finding the primary documents to support these claims? Or do you, as I assume, merely treat politics like you do “entertainment?” You flip from the O’Reilley Factor to The Biggest Loser without batting an eye. You invest nothing of yourself into the actual political process, and as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding about governance, you get nothing in return. It’s your responsibility to verify what your leaders say–even the ones you like. I do. My government is not a reality TV show.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

            Just like that “election” back in ’95.

          • Anonymous

            Wow, you really have nothing to offer the conversation, except to call me out on the very crucial point that I made an error deciphering between 1995, and 1996, (So sorry) and in doing so have side-stepped my accusation: You do no research. You don’t know how. You want your leaders to pander to the very worst part of your personality because you’re too lazy to analyze your own prejudices. I’m done talking to you now. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

            You’re just plain wrong about me and the brand of politics that entertains you, asebastian, and furthermore I don’t like your innotation. Forward all to the election of 2011!

        • Anonymous

          There seems to be division even within the Tea Party. Are they about far-right politics? Escaping the political stereotype? Unfettered religious freedoms? Superimposing their religious values on others? Defending the little guy against big government? Imposing government restrictions on other little guys whose views and behaviors they dislike? Fiscal responsibility? Irresponsibly wasting time and money on bills they know are purely for show and, if passed, will not stand for long?

          The Republicans seem to be divided: the party of No, and the party of I Don’t Know. (Of course, to be fair, Obama has revealed his motto to be “yes we can…um…if that’s okay with you guys…no? OK. Um. I guess we can’t, then. Please re-elect me!”)

  • Irish_Wake

    Kids, if I may interrupt for a moment:
    After the pitter-patter of theories chasing a thought in search of a home…
    After all the discussion, facts, evidence, and court findings…

    People are still unashamed to treat assumptions as fact, court findings as fiction, and ‘Dancing With The Stars’ as a reality show.

    I know you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, want this to be true. But our parents (in some cases) taught us that wanting something to be true is different than something being true.

    These assertions, regardless of how tightly you hold them, or how loudly you proclaim them, have been repeatedly found to be false. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the appeal, calling it a “frivolous.”

    Just thought it should be pointed out.
    Please, carry on!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BVH7XVQ55FAVFH2ZPN6K6PJC34 old1

    The )o( has never presented a Birth Certificate to anybody. The posts on line are not worth the electrons used to display them. FACT! Daddy Obama was never an American Citizen! A Natural Born American Citizen has to be born of BLOOD and SOIL. Daddy gave him Kenyan Brit BLOOD. Thus he can never be considered a Natural Born American Citizen, thus he in ineligible to be or run for the office of POTUS. Simple facts so STOP THE LIES!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      Amen brother.

      • Anonymous

        I never said the Congress and the Supreme Court were “corrupt” and “paid-off” during the Bush era. This sounds like a conservative cartoon of liberals. I may have disliked what some in Congress did and disagreed with some Supreme Court decisions, but I never found Congress or the Court doing something unanimously that I disagreed with and Congress was unanimous in certifying the 2008 election.

        Except in a tiny number of anti-immigrant and pro-slavery writings, there has been no assertion that citizens of the United States had to have citizen parents in addition to being born in the country. There is nothing in all of US law and history that makes such a suggestion that this is a requirement for presidents. There is ample documentation from the founding period that natural born citizens are those born in the country without regard for the status of their parents. I cite William Rawle’s A View of the Constitution, and the New York Chancery Court’s decision in Lynch v. Clarke (1844). This was affirmed by President Lincoln’s Attorney General Bates, and just recently by an Indiana appeals court in Ankeny v Daniels.

        You cannot find a single Civics text book or scholarly work on the Constitution that supports this citizen parent nonsense. It’s a manufactured memory for many, but the idea didn’t exist before it was invented in 2008 by Leo C. Donofrio, an erstwhile attorney and blogger.

    • Anonymous

      “Blood and Soil”? Wasn’t that a Nazi slogan or something? That’s right, “Blut und Boden”. Nice Wikipedia article on it, but it was never true in America.

      It’s just something the birthers made up when it became apparent that they could never find any evidence to back up their rumor that Obama was born in Africa.

      If such a thing were really true, Congress would not have certified the 2008 election UNANIMOUSLY. Oh, I forgot, the whole Congress and Supreme court were afraid of the junior senator from Illinois.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      Amen brother.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting bill. It would have excluded John McCain because John McCain cannot provide a birth certificate certified by an official in the state where he was born, because John McCain wasn’t born in a state. He would have to provide a US Consular birth certificate, which apparently isn’t good enough for Iowa.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      So where was John McCain born according to you?

      • Anonymous

        According to John McCain himself, he was born on the Coco Solo submarine base in the Panama Canal Zone. [There is a birth certificate, filed in the Hollander v McCain lawsuit, that says he was born Colon, Panama, but I discount it as a fake.] There is some debate over McCain’s eligibility and the status of the Canal Zone as US Territory, but in any case, the Canal Zone is not a “state” as required by the bill.

    • Anonymous

      Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible

      Yet the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

      On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill — dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain’s cause.

      It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

      “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

      At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

      “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

      “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

      What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

      Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.

      • Anonymous

        Oh good grief. That’s such a common logical fallacy that it even has a formal name: denying the antecedent.

        Chertoff, speaking of McCain’s situation of being born OUTSIDE the United States but to US citizen parents, said that he believed that if you are born of American Parents, you’re a natural born citizen. He didn’t say that was the only kind of natural born citizen. If you take Chertoff’s statement as a “definition” the President doesn’t even have to be born in the US.

        Let me give you an analogy that exposes how silly this is:

        “My assumption and understanding is that if you own 100,000 shares of IBM, then you are filthy rich.”

        By your “logic” only those who own stock in IBM are filthy rich.

  • http://qcblue.blogspot.com/ UIGrad2010

    Wow this guy is a real winner…..ha not. What a neanderthal. Newsflash Senator, you are an idiot. Sorry to reduce it to that, but you led the way with your horrible low-ball policies.

  • Anonymous

    So, you would have us believe that the United States Senate, including AKA Obama, voted unanimously for a logical fallacy?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      No, no, that never happens.

  • Anonymous

    here’s the deal – that thing obama “released” is NOT a birth certificate…obama has lawyers in courts across the land BLOCKING YOU from seeing his birth certificate (if it even exists)

  • Anonymous

    here’s the deal – that thing obama “released” is NOT a birth certificate…obama has lawyers in courts across the land BLOCKING YOU from seeing his birth certificate (if it even exists)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      Well that’s because his birth certificate is a fake.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QDNPJIFG4RRUF3CYRXTGS6A4GU Parlorcity

    It isn’t just the obama COLB that is fake – when is an official date range important? When it’s missing……….copy and paste, then look at the images, you’ll be very surprised by what you see.

    myveryownpointofview. wordpress. com/2011/03/06/its-a-date

  • Anonymous

    I saw a great segment on The Daily Show two nights ago. Go see it on The Daily Show website (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-8-2011/indecision-2012—indecision-edition—reagan-os-911) because I can’t do it justice in this posting. Stewart was interviewing the Reagan OS 911 computer as part of his Indecision 2012 coverage. The “Reagan” was being interviewed as a potential republican/conservative candidate and towards the end of the segment, the issue of birth certificates came up. YOu really need to see the segment to hear how the computer gets trapped by the birther and fetus is a legal person arguments. In a nutshell, it goes like this.

    1. Obama’s parents where married in Hawaii in February, 1961
    2. Obama was born.
    3. He was born in August, 1961
    4. These dates indicate his mother was pregnant when they were married.
    5. Social Conservatives posit that a fetus is a person
    6. Obama was in the United States as a fetus
    7. Conclusion – either Barack Obama is an American Citizen or a fetus is not a person.

    Again, you really need to see the segment for a good laugh.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XEFGEOUH52QNNSCD233KGH7UE4 Wendy Peterson

      Liberals are programmed to like trash like that.

  • Anonymous

    Under the Iowa bill, Obama’s Certification of Live Birth arguably would suffice, since under Hawaii statutes a certified copy of a birth certificate is a birth certificate.

Switch to our mobile site