There were those, our own readers and commenters among 'em, who simply would accept no proof or argument that Barack Obama was a natural-born citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency he'd won in 2008. That story ended rather abruptly when this and this happened). Remember Donald Trump and Orly Taitz?
On her Thursday show, Rachel Maddow used the president's 50th birthday to hilariously tell the story of his life from the birther perspective—starting with his mother's travels to Kenya to give birth to him.
The family then, of course, returned to Hawaii. Rachel drew the birther conclusion: "now we have a foreign-born, innocuously named president-to-be terror baby presumably being indoctrinated for his eventual covert ascendance to secret illegitimate leader of the free world."
It's so prosaic, and thrilling (as a plotline, that is) we just wish it could have had the added advantage of being true. Woulda made that silly little debt ceiling story seem like a dachshund chewing on a postman. But alas...
With clips, Rachel showed the whole thrilling, but fake narrative that led to the president to ending the beautiful hoax and right-wing cottage industry by submitting his birth certificate to the public. (At one point in 2010, 45% of self-identified Republicans said they didn't believe or didn't know if Obama was really naturally born).
"It's now just the dead enders and the profiteers at this point," she said.
Huffington Post quickly asserted: "But wait! What about that clip of Rush Limbaugh saying there was 'no proof' that Obama was actually born on August 4th, 1961?
That came from Wednesday! Maddow put her head in her hands."
The birth announcement does not state that Obama was born in Hawaii only that he was born. The hospital has no record of his birth. No Dr, nurse, orderly, security guard has any memory of his being born there.
Can you imagine in the racist world of 1961 some white woman having a black child and nobody remembers?
The original birth cert has never surfaced.
Yes, some people still have doubts.
Posted by: chucks | August 05, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Who cares where Obama was born anymore? He's basically a Republican anyway.
I don't why the RW is continuing this birther stuff. DINO Obama does all their dirty work for them..they should be happy.
Oh, and Maddow is nothing more than an administration mouthpiece..
Posted by: Upton | August 05, 2011 at 01:36 PM
Right on Upton and chucks. RM is nothing in the ratings; I hope she gets nailed for the alleged defamation that she is being sued for. This is old news and should be put to rest. Speaking of putting to rest, may be it's time to do a RIP piece on this blog as it continues to get stale.
Posted by: StarTheWonderDog | August 05, 2011 at 01:46 PM
"The birth announcement does not state that Obama was born in Hawaii only that he was born. The hospital has no record of his birth. No Dr, nurse, orderly, security guard has any memory of his being born there.
Can you imagine in the racist world of 1961 some white woman having a black child and nobody remembers?
The original birth cert has never surfaced.
Yes, some people still have doubts.
Posted by: chucks | August 05, 2011 at 12:23 PM "

Posted by: Mike D | August 05, 2011 at 04:09 PM
know you guys think we are birther lunatics. But I think the previous poster is correct. Someone should have seen this brown baby borned at this hospital. We know the islands are full of brown people. However those brown babies are hatched behind a hooch.
Using my magnifying glass I see some mistakes on the birth certificate too. First, the race of Obama’s father is typed in as “African”. In 1961 black men in this country were called negrows, black, or cooon? Didn’t African Americans recently realize they were from Africa? It’s like this guy realized he was from Africa a long time ago. And “In Obama’s Selective Service [document], his social security is listed as a Connecticut Social Security number,” said our eternally dreamy eyed queen Orly Taitz. I’ve been to Connecticut, and Connecticut is not from this country. Hell, Hartford, it ain’t from this planet!
And remember, when you hang trucknutz on your hoveround, they’re called ScootNutz. And the wheelies are enormous.
Posted by: TruckNutz | August 05, 2011 at 06:06 PM
I think Chucks has a point. Can you imagine hospital workers in the most racially diverse state in the union not remembering a white woman having a black baby? Come on now! You can't convince me that anyone who has seen thousands of babys born could possibly forget such an amazing occurance. A black baby being born to a white woman in 1961. Unforgetable?
Posted by: gorkri | August 05, 2011 at 06:08 PM
Chucks has a point but its a moot point at best.
What is really disturbing is the news that Standards and Poors just downgraded the US to AA+. Another first for Obama. Will they ever stop.
On a positive note. The country added jobs. Yeah.
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | August 05, 2011 at 06:22 PM
S&P? You know, the folks that gave the AAA rating to the junk bonds that caused the economic collapse of 2008
Posted by: Coiler | August 05, 2011 at 07:00 PM
George, i think you are mistaken on the initials there. Its BF that gave the junk bonds the AAA rating. Thats BF for Barney Frank.
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | August 05, 2011 at 07:15 PM
Looks like Rachel was lead astray by Wing Nut Daily.
Posted by: excessive moderate | August 05, 2011 at 07:20 PM
When nothing else seems to work, RM goes back to the birther straw man - yawn... She's a long-nosed pinocchio shrew.
Thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the S & P rating going south and also Obama for signing that POS bill, the 2nd worst POS bill he has signed during his term in office. To rub more salt on the wounds, George Soros is smiling because his scheme is working.
Posted by: KS | August 05, 2011 at 07:25 PM
excessive progressive -its unusual when Rachel is not led astray.
Wing Nut Daily = Daily Kos/Huff & Puff Post/ Democratic Underground.
Posted by: KS | August 05, 2011 at 07:45 PM
looks like all you cons are sitting around in your own little circle jerk tonight. your so far out in right field,nobody with a brain is even bothering to reply to your abject stupidity.
Posted by: saint rudy | August 05, 2011 at 08:40 PM
Good evening KS, any new conspiracy theories today?
I have to say, the Maddow team buried the lead when they didn’t investigate the Wing Nut story. The head line should have been ‘Why is the Wing Nut Daily lying about Rush in order to push the lifeless Birther issue?’ Oh well, live and learn.
Posted by: excessive moderate | August 05, 2011 at 08:44 PM
saint rudy,
You either spoke to soon or I poster too late. Either way, I’m bored… but on the brighter side; I’ve been reading some of the past posts. Many interesting posters, no?
Posted by: excessive moderate | August 05, 2011 at 08:54 PM
Saint rudy: they're trying to destroy the blog by holding intelligence hostage
Posted by: Mike D | August 05, 2011 at 08:57 PM
Saint rudy - Trying to do a cheap imitation of Joanie ? Try pulling a cogent argument out of your posterior - haven't seen one from you yet.
excessive progressive - MSNBC is the gulag network that rates high on the freak show scale.
Posted by: KS | August 05, 2011 at 08:58 PM
Agreed - this post has become boring as hell.
Posted by: KS | August 05, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Re: the S&P
From Thom Hartman: Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
It’s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
Perhaps it’s just lazy – the bullet points at the beginning of the report don’t mention the Republicans or taxes, but instead just say, for example (part of one of six quick bullet-points): “[T]he downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges…”
In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that “Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report. It’s just too much effort for most reporters?
Although they do also mention this in the very first sentence of the report: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.” (Italics mine)
Or could it be that many reporters – and virtually all of the television talking heads – are themselves relatively high income-earners who don’t relish the idea of higher taxes?
Or could it be that reporters are afraid that if they report the actual language of the S&P Research Report, then Republicans will punish them by denying them “access” – i.e. refusing to show up on their programs – which is the career and show kiss-of-death for radio and TV programs that rely on big-name politicians to work?
I don’t know the reason, but it’s fascinating to see all the huffing and puffing about the S&P downgrade of America’s debt that all seems to be working so hard to avoid mentioning that critical sentence.
Inquiring minds want to know…"
Coiler is right..the S&P gave AAA ratings to junk bonds in 2007, a precursor to the economic disaster of early 2008.
Posted by: sparky | August 06, 2011 at 02:22 PM
Irrelevant rhetoric. The ONLY thing that matters in world minds is who was watch commander when this historic event happened. Chalk up another one liberals!
Posted by: StarTheWonderDog | August 06, 2011 at 02:44 PM
Compounded even further by the loss of so many best of the best Navy seals today in Godforsaken Afghan. Weren't we supposed to be outta there by now didn't our candidate for President promise us that. Again, the world will take note.
Posted by: StarTheWonderDog | August 06, 2011 at 03:07 PM
Illegal invasions take longer to leave, plus bush let binladen get away. The world knows who got him.
Posted by: Johnny Sombrerro | August 06, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Republicans will not agree to any increase in income taxes until Democrats agree to $4 trillion in spending cuts. Real spending cuts, not that Texas Two Step crap from last week.
I think that I will stay out of the politics of the loss of our warriors and Afghan allies. It is a huge loss to many families and our military. Sad and tragic.
Posted by: chucks | August 06, 2011 at 05:08 PM
Good dog...Bush was Commander in Chief in early 2008.
Posted by: sparky | August 06, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Sparky, your comments demonstrate exactly what's wrong with politics today...too much focus on who's to blame and not enough on how to fix this mess we're all in.
Posted by: Radio Queen | August 06, 2011 at 07:55 PM
Looks like Chuck S is running away from his own words, how far will he run I wonder? Heres your blast from the past…
Well, congratulations to Sarah, Peeroy and truck nutz. Those Tea Party people managed to get very little in these negotiations. Yes, they did throw a monkey wrench in to the whole process. After all of that, all they got was to move the Republican Party, the President, The Senate and Congress to the right. Yes, they were all kicking and screaming as they all went down, but down they went. The whole lot of them moved to the right. Them loser Tea Party people got virtually nothing out of this. Just no increase in taxes and budget cuts that seem to be somewhere between $900 billion and $2.2 trillion dollars. It is what they ran on. Too bad they got it. The big winners are the liberal Democrats. They got..........OK, but they did get.........Hell, I'm certain they got something. Anybody know what the liberal Democrats got out of this? Must have got something.
Posted by: chucks | July 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM
Just like Chuck s, very willing to take when it’s in his best interest.
Posted by: excessive moderate | August 06, 2011 at 07:58 PM
RQ - spot on with your last comment.
Coiler is right..the S&P gave AAA ratings to junk bonds in 2007, a precursor to the economic disaster of early 2008.
Posted by: sparky | August 06, 2011 at 02:22 PM
That is unimportant - apples and oranges 2007 was a different circumstance - BTW, the Democrats were more to blame then because they controlled both chambers of Congress after 2006, but I digress.
What is important here is that this is the beginning of a trend, until there are radical cuts and decreases in the deficit and soon - doesn't appear to be in the offing. Who will be next to lower our bond rating to AA ?
Posted by: KS | August 06, 2011 at 09:09 PM
It is in the nations best interest to eliminate debt excess moderate. Just the same as it is for you and I as individuals.
Money goes a whole lot farther when you recieve interest and don't pay finance charges.
I stand by my words.
Posted by: chucks | August 06, 2011 at 10:21 PM
Question is, which words do you stand by?
Posted by: excessive moderate | August 06, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Question also is, who told you to write that comment ?
Posted by: KS | August 06, 2011 at 11:07 PM
There was a strange incident at the grand casino across the street from my Hotel de Paris last night. Early morning here in Monaco. A big fat filthy rich Arab, a middle-aged, cigar-smoking clown who i've been watching for the past week or so, made an aas of himself at the roulette table. An American couple in their late twenties were standing next to him at the table, playing roulette. The Arab, who was sloshed on drinks from the bar, made a rude comment about the woman's cleavage, displayed in her low-cut gown. Her husband BECAME ENRAGED, reached across and bitch-slapped him, twice. The fat Arab started scraming and lunged toward the guy, but casino security grabbed him and escorted him out. Apparently he had been making comments liek this to women in the casino most of the night, causing several complaints. They like to just let him play if at all possible, since he's one of the "whales" of the Monte Carlo gambling houses, but he had reached his limit with the staff.
Posted by: Postcard from Monaco (Tommy008) | August 06, 2011 at 11:21 PM
You can't fix the economy with cuts alone, dingleberries. Cutting spending is fine, but beyond a certain point it starts to hurt the economy. Just like taxes. If you raise them too much it hurts the economy. You following? It's a delicate balancing act. Balance is required. If you just go chopping away at everything the economy will tank. Any economist that didn't go to Regents U will tell you that.
Eviscerating entitlements will not fix the economy. It will destroy it. Consumption is 2/3 of our economy. What makes our economy go is people buying things. If you take away entitlements people will be thrown into the poorhouse or the streets. They will stop buying. The economy will dry up. Not to mention when you cut spending thousands upon thousands of gov't jobs and gov't-connected private sector jobs are destroyed.
Wake up and get a clue.
Posted by: Mike D | August 06, 2011 at 11:35 PM
Not promoting no increase in revenue Mike. My opinion is to cut, trim, economise and re-prioritise spending first. After that, then we know how much more we need and can then figure out who to steal it from.
Cut first, raise taxes last.
If you do it any other way, then the rat bastard politicians won't cut as they don't want to risk losing the constituents that they have already bought and paid for.
Wake up and get a clue.
Posted by: chucks | August 06, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Tommy has been watching James Bond movies again.
Posted by: BruinKid | August 07, 2011 at 12:06 AM
Gawd, can you right wingers escape the draw of the nut pull?
Posted by: excessive moderate | August 07, 2011 at 12:13 AM
Entitlements have to be decreased in order to financially save this country, since they are the biggest drain on our debt. Those entering the public sector work force are no longer receiving pension, but instead are getting more Roth IRA, 401K's and the like, which will benefit over the long haul. However, that must be done in a gradual common sense approach and Congress and the President will have to approve this. Finally, Obamacare must be gutted and replaced with a more efficient without government dependence - a number have been proposed, but the Democrat House led by Nazi Pelosi refused to consider any of them. Greed is the core cause of a dysfunctional government in Washington DC.
In addition, the Tax Code must be revamped to produce more revenue and make it so that more people have skin in the game when it comes to paying Federal Income Tax. The liberal progressives are doing nothing but wringing their hands about this and their sheeple are mouthing their leftwing talking points about it being all the fault of the right, partly because they are lazy and economically challenged. If the left proposed their solutions to this massive problem, there could be a dialogue, but they don't have any and they are too lazy to think in a constructive way and they would rather shoot down other's ideas without offering suggestions - it's their MO.
Posted by: KS | August 07, 2011 at 08:32 AM
KS
Kind of hilarious how the same folks who wanted Obama Care on this blog also were happy that their Union got 'em a waiver out of it.
Or want to tell others that they have to live within their eco footprint but reserve for themselves multiple domiciles. Seems a little wasteful at least not to share with the many homeless we have.
Oh they talk a good game until the rubber hits the road. You know, against the Wars until a Democrat is President. Against USPATRIOT until a Democrat is President. Against GITMO until a Democrat is President.
Just funny the way that works.
I label em PINOs: Progressives In Name Only.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | August 07, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Not surprising, since you have a name for everyone, dontcha! You must be a treat to work with.
Posted by: Jovita | August 07, 2011 at 11:26 AM
KS since your ideas are so much better. why dont you run for office?
Posted by: Jovita | August 07, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Gotta go take my vitamins now, cuz I want to live long enough to see Ks n Ps reach the age where they start stickin their hands out.
Posted by: Jovita | August 07, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Social Security is in good shape - it'll need adjustments in the future but as of now there is no crisis. Medicare is so expensive because health care is so expensive. We have let the health and insurance industry become gigantic, costly out-of-control profit machines. Beaureaucracy and wasteful expenses (like pharmecutical advertising) are what's driving the cost of Medicare benefits up. The answer is cutting out the middleman (private insurance) and making health care non-profit. If you keep the system we have it's going to remain expensive. If you force people off the Medicare rolls or force them to pay more, it's merely going to shift the burden somewhere else in the economy, and we'll all end up paying for it anyway.
You teabaggers need to start thinking outside the box.
Posted by: Mike D | August 07, 2011 at 12:46 PM
bureaucracy, sorry
Posted by: Mike D | August 07, 2011 at 12:48 PM
mike d
why is it that over 1500 waivers have been issued?
if it is such a good deal, why are the teacher unions demanding waivers from the impact of obama-care?
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | August 07, 2011 at 01:09 PM
You got part of it right, Ps.
"The health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires that annual caps on how much an insurance plan will pay in benefits for an enrollee in any given year must be eliminated by 2014. Under the law, the Department of Health and Human Services is now phasing the coverage limits out. In 2011, yearly caps can be no less than $750,000; in 2012, they can be no less than $1.25 million; and in 2013, they can be no less than $2 million in 2013.
The waivers granted to the New York City UFT locals exempt them from having to comply with the phasing out of the annual benefits caps."
I only find information on this one union. Are you saying that ALL teacher's unions are asking for waivers? My daughter's union is not.
Posted by: Jovita | August 07, 2011 at 02:36 PM
'all' is a fairly inclusive word that i would shy away from absent additional facts.
but not too worry, we'll find out how many Pres Obama contributors receive 'waivers' in the upcoming congressional investigations.
as you know, the democrats managed to lose the House last year so the republicans we'll be on a feeding frenzy.
none of this is good for our country, just reality.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | August 07, 2011 at 02:52 PM
'all' is a fairly inclusive word that i would shy away from absent additional facts.
Where's the first fact? You made a massive generalization and tried to pass it off as a universal truth. You should shy away from blogging. Oh, and how's Arthur Anderson doing these days? Or the Smartest Guys it the Room - they were number crunchers right up your alley, huh? You're still an idiot.
As for chucks, why do you argue with Roger Ailes' puppet? His history has been put before every one of you: got taxpayers to bail him out of medical bills by declaring bankruptcy. Has a Rolls in the garage and yet never made good on the bills. Spent his life making way more money than his value to society earned - selling RVs. Finally, escaped his own prison of poverty when he saw his pension going south by running the WAMU tables and got lucky and by his marriage to a government employee whose job could just as well be done more cheaply in India and who makes sure he's got tax payer subsidized health care.
He should be ignored. Never since Bush has a fraud been more obvious.
KS is still klueless and the shame of it is that he, of all people, will need social security which he earns every time he makes a payment which comes out of his check. Hell of a lot more earned than anything chux has done.
Posted by: Back just in time to put things straight on this blog. | August 07, 2011 at 05:32 PM
It's Joanie, Ms. I heart George Soros. Too bad your ideas are all washed out and need to be flushed down the toilet. Did not miss your idiotic rants. You bring up social security even though there is nothing that was proposed in this shoddy deal that was signed by the POTUS - put down the bottle !!
Keep beating your head against the proverbial brick wall and someday, maybe you'll figure out that One-world order, Marxism and corporate greed toward the Democrats will only make life worse for the masses.
I question if you even care about stuff like that though.
Posted by: KS | August 07, 2011 at 06:59 PM
Joanie's back, just saying that you won't have to miss a beat as they now have 'wireless connection' over there at Shick Shadel. They probably have a 'back to school' special...
When you can bring some facts to the table we'll all take a look. I stated a fact, over 1500 waivers have been approved and Teacher Unions have demanded their 'share' of same.
I didn't say 'all.'
Get thy arse to Shick Shadel, Joanie. Just ten days and they'll give you back your life.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | August 07, 2011 at 07:22 PM
Of course, it's joanie. You idiots. Who else could take you on truthfully? Did you think you were Einsteins for a moment?
their Union got 'em a waiver out of it.
Easy to prove your lies. And that's why I call you Spewgit. BTW, over 1500 waivers have been approved - Source please.
Watch, excessively moderate. He doesn't have a credible one and we won't hear back. That's one.
Shick Shadel is the best he can do.
Posted by: joanie | August 07, 2011 at 07:38 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/health-care-waivers-now-at-1471.html
As of July 15, the number was at 1471. Whatcha think it is now, Ph(J)oanie?
Well pause as you scram. LMAO
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | August 07, 2011 at 07:55 PM