Is it…is it really April 15? Has the blessed day come at last?
Why, bless my soul — it has! It has! It’s Teabagging Day, everybody! It’s Teabagging Day!
Yes, that most sacred of days, when angry white men (plus a few token women, plus one token black guy) get together and proclaim how angry they are that they have to pay taxes, and all they get for it is roads, schools, courts, police, fire fighters, the military, safe food and medicine, a rudimentary safety net, a space program, weather monitoring, and about 50,000 other things.
Unfair! scream the white men, who are not only asked to pay taxes, but asked to pretend that women and minorities are their equals. Unfair! scream the straight men and women, who are really mad that somewhere, two men are fucking. Unfair! scream the rich, as they sneer at the lucky duckies who don’t have to pay as much in taxes, just because they only make 1/250th of what CEOs make.
What fun it will be!
Yes, we all know that the pure spirit of Teabagging Day has been undermined by its corporate origins, but hey, Valentine’s Day started out as a corporate holiday too. And what is Teabagging Day but the opposite of Valentine’s Day, a day we can all celebrate our hatred of our fellow man, our own selfish greed, and our anger that an inadequate black male is in the White House?
Yes, it’s very exciting. Already, the wise men and women of Teabagging Day are spreading out throughout the country to spread good cheer. St. Hannity is going to be there! And Goofy Glenn Beck! And the Hate Fairy, too! And of course, what is a Teabagging Day without a Dick Armey?
Neil Cavuto also may show up, I guess.
So come, my fellow Americans, let’s celebrate our hatred and mutual fear! Come, let’s pretend Barack Obama really is a secret Muslim! Let’s argue for the inherent superiority of the white man! Let’s babble incoherently about a grab-bag of grievances that mostly boils down to anger that the Republicans got smoked in 2008! Muffy, fire the help! Biff, move your money to an off-shore tax shelter! It’s Teabagging Day, everyone — the most wonderful day of the wingnut year.
His name is Dick Armey??? No way! This is the best protest EVAH.
I think you might have missed one, Jeff. This teabag planning meeting footage includes everything you need to fill up your wingnut bingo card. A tense confrontation between a Constitution Party activist and a Libertarian is narrowly averted! George Soros is baited! And wait until you learn the true purpose of those TV converter boxes …
h/t Edge of the American West
Our local am radio station was inundated with calls this morning decrying the marxist socialist tax scheme as if scripted. Interesting because Americans for Prosperity “better known as rich folks who don’t give a damn how you are really doing hosted” a tea party here on 4/7/09. Less than 100 people showed up. Here’s hoping for the same massiveturnout nationwide.
Tell me that the conservabigots are trollin’, they have to be. This is entirely too hysterical to not be a massive trolling effort.
as stupid as their protest is, it lets me turn on any news channel and giggle. man, i can’t wait till they teach this one to kids in school–“the reason no one took the protest seriously? well, johnny….” lol. i didn’t want to till now, but maybe i will pursue a teaching career. hahahahahaha
I think there must be some awareness of the absurd here. According to Michelle Malkin, a Seattle woman named Keli Carender started organizing tax protests on Feb. 15, a few days before the Rick Santelli meltdown over the idea of helping homeowners, and Carender is a longtime performer in the Seattle improv scene. Her theme was about pork, not tea bags. She seems like a creative and thoughtful person — it’s a pity that she’s gone away from the “solution revolution” she advocated for conservatives in her first blog post and now is back to the old Party of No stuff. Unsurprisingly, instead of mentioning Carender’s background in theater — which seems to have made her conscious of things like presentation, timing, etc. that are important to a good public message — or even her work as a math teacher for adults, every conservative’s description of Carender is “mom-blogger.”
Pingback: On The Tea Parties and the Collapse of the Conservative Movement | Prose Before Hos
Oh how much fun you guys down there get to have. I’d be jealous but lucky us, our Conservative PM and his cosy religious right friends are doing their best to copy their good neighbours to the south.
Has anybody seen news reports with actual numbers?
The Star Tribune ran an article with the word thousands in the headline, but no numbers (or attribution of the numbers) in the article that i could see. They usually say something like “the Park Service estimates attendance at…” or “Police say…”
It’s a little early to get totals for the day — the New York City one isn’t until 7pm ET. Conservatives who didn’t take a sick/ideology day can’t get to a protest until they get out of work (just as well — it was nasty weather this morning, but cleared up in the afternoon). Probably some similar post-work events on the West Coast, which means we wouldn’t get the info on those until midnight ET. I’d wait until tomorrow for attendance numbers.
Two of my colleagues who showed up at the local rally in Lisle, Illinois (about 20 miles west of Chicago) reported that they figured 2000 people were present. You don’t know them and I wasn’t there, but I’ll vouch that they are not the type to be prone to exaggeration. The crowd was addressed by Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL, 13th District).
My conserva-mom dragged me to the one in Fresno today, and since it was right next to my school and she had to pick me up, I couldn’t really object. It wasn’t quite as horrible as I expected, but the eeriest part is that Fresno is mostly a Hispanic county, and I have NEVER seen such a huge gathering of white people anywhere around here. Seriously, there were only a handful of POCs there. Everything was pretty civil while I was there,, but then on our way home we were listening to it on the radio, and some guy asked the crowd if they thought Obama was born here, which got a resounding “NO!” Ugh. Then they had some comedy routine involving horny Bill Clinton jokes, which are sooooo relevant right now, and a blatantly racist character named Mr. Immigrant. I shit you not. I am so glad I wasn’t there for that, because I would have started something and got my ass kicked. Of course my mother saw no problem with the joke at all. :(
and some guy asked the crowd if they thought Obama was born here, which got a resounding “NO!” Ugh.
So far I haven’t seen what I consider conclusive evidence that he was. It is my understanding – and if I’m wrong, please provide a link – that originals or certified copies of documentation proving that the official records state that President Obama was born in Hawaii have not been released. I find it interesting that the Supreme Court is taking the position that voters and citizens have no standing to bring suit to force a candidiate for President to prove that he or she meets the qualifications for the office. What I’ve heard is that only the candidate’s opponent can do that. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
Then they had some comedy routine involving horny Bill Clinton jokes, which are sooooo relevant right now,
True. Some of these people need to get over it. Come on, like he was the only President to get a BJ in the Oval Office.
and a blatantly racist character named Mr. Immigrant. I shit you not.
Hm – don’t know if I trust your evaluation of what’s racist and what isn’t.
Check Snopes. It turns out that Bush didn’t personally fly the jet into the WTC either.
And the escaped convict with the hook for a hand? I don’t think we have much to worry about.
—Myca
RonF,
1) Do you not find it odd that Obama is, so far as I know, the only presidential candidate we’ve had whose NBC status has been challenged? Do you remember seeing “originals or certified copies of documentation” of any prior president’s birth? I was attentive to the elections of Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., and somehow it never came up for those good ol’ boys. Have you ever thought about why people are questioning Obama’s and not anyone else’s?
2) Have you seen an explanation of why people think that Obama’s mother could have given birth to him outside the U.S.? Think about this: unlike someone giving birth in the continental U.S., she couldn’t just happen to be over the border in Mexico or Canada when she started having contractions. She was in freaking Hawaii. The only way to get somewhere else was on a plane. And the only way to get somewhere other than the U.S. was with a passport, which she did not possess until she applied for one to go to Indonesia after she re-married. You might also want to read this article about the mindset of conspiracy theorists, which is to render themselves incapable of perceiving facts that go against their theories. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
3) Your factual claims that no legitimate copy has been released are erroneous. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
4) I find it interesting that the Supreme Court is taking the position that voters and citizens have no standing to bring suit to force a candidiate for President to prove that he or she meets the qualifications for the office. What I’ve heard is that only the candidate’s opponent can do that. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
I really thought we’d gone over this already in a past thread. Article III courts under the Constitution are required to review only “cases or controversies,” and the very longstanding interpretation of that is that there is no such thing as taxpayer standing to challenge spending, nor voter/citizen standing to challenge political matters. Someone must have an injury in fact, one that is not equally true of every other person in America, for him to have standing.
Just as every person in America who is simply a citizen is equally (non) injured by the EPA’s refusal to regulate a particular pollutant, every person in America who is simply a citizen is equally (non) injured by the president’s not being a NBC, and it would be nonsensical for all Americans to have standing. Therefore, the suit must be brought by someone with a particularized injury: someone who doesn’t have the exact same level of injury as everyone else in the country. Such a person would be an opponent in an election, because the election is supposed to be limited to NBCs and the plaintiff is injured by having to face candidates who are not actually qualified.
This is not the Supreme Court somehow playing favorites for Obama. This is the Supreme Court following a doctrine of standing that was awfully popular with conservatives when it was used to keep black parents from litigating over the IRS’s failure to follow statute and remove the tax exemption from racially discriminatory private schools (see Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)). Requiring a particularized injury was a good idea when it obstructed civil rights litigation, but a bad idea now that it means Alan Keyes is the only guy with standing who’s willing to bring suit?
What’s interesting about this (particularly racist) conspiracy theory is that John McCain was actually born out of country, on a military base in Panama. Certainly, that doesn’t make him less American, but it’s interesting that somehow, nobody has an issue with it.
Why, I’ll bet it has nothing at all to do with the color of his skin!
—Myca
“Hm – don’t know if I trust your evaluation of what’s racist and what isn’t.”
Dude, the guy’s name was MR. IMMIGRANT. He also spoke in a ridiculous “Arabic” fake accent, and the entire point of the joke was that he was stupid, lazy, and didn’t deserve to live here. The entire point was to hate and demean immigrants. That is racist.
First, I don’t regard anything that’s come out during this controversy to constitute proof that Pres. Obama is NOT an American citizen, nor do I regard any of it as proof that there’s a conspiracy to hide such information.
Myca, with regards to the Snopes link:
… specious details such as … the lack of an embossed seal and signature.
When I got my passport the U.S. State Department demanded a certified copy with embossed seal and signature. They specifically informed me that a photocopy would not serve. They don’t seem to think that it’s a minor or specious detail. They don’t seem to think that a copy of a birth certificate without an embossed seal and signature is sufficient to certify citizenship. Why should I?
Those who have actually touched and examined the original certificate have verifed and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth.
The link documents that someone from a group called “Factcheck.org” examined the certificate. I’ve never heard of them before this moment. I have no way to verify either their reliability or knowledge or that of the people they had look at the certificate – or even that they actually did.
How is it that such a group would be able to gain access to the document but that ABC/CBS/CNN/Fox/NBC/etc. couldn’t? Let Pres. Obama call the Hawaiian Department of Vital Statistics granting permission and let, oh, say, someone from CNN and someone from Fox send out experts and they say “O.K.” and I’m done. Factcheck.org means nothing to me.
both of Honolulu’s major newspapers … published announcements in August 1961 documenting the birth, in Honolulu, of a son to ‘Mr. and Mrs. Barak H. Obama’ on 4 August 1961
followed by a reproduction of that announcement from what I’ll presume is one of those newspapers. However, all that excerpt says to me is that a son was born to such a couple who gave out the address of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway as their residence. It doesn’t say where the child was born.
Also in October 2008, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified the existence of Barak Obama’s original birth certificate:
Over the last 6 years Patrick Fitzgerald has put 138 Illinois officials, lobbyists, etc. in jail and has his second Illinois Governor lined up to join them. From what I can tell, my monthly paycheck might buy me someone at the level of “Health Department Director” here and leave enough change left over for two aldermen. I have no faith in state officials in a matter even close to being this serious. And I have not previously noted that Alas posters and commenters in general incline towards taking the statements of government officials regarding political controversies at face value.
PG:
Do you not find it odd that Obama is, so far as I know, the only presidential candidate we’ve had whose NBC status has been challenged? … Have you ever thought about why people are questioning Obama’s and not anyone else’s?
No and yes, respectively. IIRC President Obama is the first Presidential candidate in some time where his parents were not both American citizens. So the question “Is he a citizen?” seems to have plenty of logical justification without resorting to unverifiable accusations of racism.
Have you seen an explanation of why people think that Obama’s mother could have given birth to him outside the U.S.?
Nope. Haven’t really checked into the history of his mother’s travels. It seems to me that rather than trying to verify the location of someone 47 years ago who was then an obscure person it would be simpler to just let CNN and Fox have a gander at the birth certificate. The medical records from the hospital where she gave birth would be of interest as well.
Your factual claims that no legitimate copy has been released are erroneous.
See my note to Myca about what I see as deficiences in the Snopes article. Again, let the MSM have a look at it and bless it and I’ll consider the matter closed.
I really thought we’d gone over this already in a past thread.
I’m not disputing that this is the law. I’m stating a philosophical objection, not a legal one. I think that if the POTUS is not Constitutionally qualified to hold his or her office all American citizens are injured. The office belongs to all of us, not just the 2 or so people that the POTUS ran against. I think it’s absurd that only a couple of people have the right thave the issue examined.
Myca again:
What’s interesting about this (particularly racist) conspiracy theory is that John McCain was actually born out of country, on a military base in Panama. Certainly, that doesn’t make him less American, but it’s interesting that somehow, nobody has an issue with it.
Actually, I did see the issue raised. But it had no legs. If both your parents are American citizens then the location of where you were born is secondary, so there’s no real controversy.
Why, I’ll bet it has nothing at all to do with the color of his skin!
It doesn’t for me. I have no authority to answer for anyone else who has not explictly announced that they are motivated by racism, and neither do you.
What does the citizenship of Obama’s parents have to do with it? Anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Anyone born off U.S. soil, whose mother (married or unmarried) is a citizen, is a citizen. Anyone born off U.S. soil, whose married father is a citizen, is a citizen. Dukakis’s parents were immigrants born in Greece, yet no one challenged his citizenship.
Then how do you know that Hawaiian officials haven’t created a falsified birth certificate — complete with seals, signatures, etc. — in order to convince the American people that Obama is a natural-born citizen? They could hand that over to Fox News, Fox News (with their vast expertise in Hawaiian birth certificates) could say “That’s all proper” and you’d never know the difference.
You have to have some trust in people to do their jobs. If you think they’ve all been bought, then you never can know the truth.
I’m not sure I trust a birther’s evaluation of what’s racist and what isn’t.
It’s long been established on this site that RonF has a different evaluation of what’s racist and not than most of the bloggers and comment-writers here.
However, I don’t know what that term “birther” means. It sounds sort of insulting; if I’m right about that, please refrain from using it.
When I got my passport the U.S. State Department demanded a certified copy with embossed seal and signature. They specifically informed me that a photocopy would not serve. They don’t seem to think that it’s a minor or specious detail. They don’t seem to think that a copy of a birth certificate without an embossed seal and signature is sufficient to certify citizenship. Why should I?
Don’t you think that when young, nobody, private citizen Obama applied for his U.S. passport, they asked him for the same thing? I may not trust the government on everything, but I do trust the state department’s passport office not to cut corners for nobodies like you and me and the young man he was then.
Also, what PG said.
Amp,
“Birther” has become the shorthand for people who insist there’s a conspiracy around Obama’s birth certificate and that he’s not really a natural born citizen. Similar to “truther” for people who insist there’s a ongoing conspiracy around 9/11 (i.e. not the actual Al Qaeda conspiracy, the details of which apparently were tortured out of KSM) and that it was really an inside job or something. So far as I know, neither “birthers” nor “truthers” refer to themselves this way, so it’s probably insulting in the sense that referring to abortion prohibitionists as “anti-choice” is.
chingona,
V. good point.
Yes. My favorite comment in regards to this was by Jake Squid in the Miley Cyrus thread. Captured it perfectly.
It’s a tricky thing, Amp. ‘Birther’ is defined by UrbanDictionary as:
It’s used in the same way that ‘truther’ is used to refer to conspiracy-theorists who think that the US bombed itself on 9/11. So yeah, it’s kind of insulting, but only to the degree that you find having the underlying position ascribed to you insulting. Like, if you called me a racist or a birther, I’d be insulted, but also, we need to be able to actually refer to people who are racists and birthers.
—Myca
Never mind.
PG:
Anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.
Which is the issue at hand. The documentation so far cited would not satisfy the State Department as proof of citizenship if Obama offered it to support a passport application. Why should any of us accept a different standard?
Anyone born off U.S. soil, whose mother (married or unmarried) is a citizen, is a citizen.
That statement I haven’t seen offfered before. It was my understanding that if one of your parents was not a citizen and you were not born on American soil, then it was possible for you to not be a citizen. But I’m not an immigration law expert. So if that’s true then this issue is settled, since I’m not aware of anyone having challenged her citizenship. There was a statement made on Free Republic that this was NOT the case; that there were certain residency requirements as well as birth requirements involved. But then there are a number of minds operating on fevered illusions over there, so it’s not something that I’m going to offer or accept as fact.
Then how do you know that Hawaiian officials haven’t created a falsified birth certificate — complete with seals, signatures, etc. — in order to convince the American people that Obama is a natural-born citizen? They could hand that over to Fox News, Fox News (with their vast expertise in Hawaiian birth certificates) could say “That’s all proper” and you’d never know the difference.
The level of expertise it takes to create a falsified birth certificate far exceeds the level of expertise to lie about the fact that a true one exists. It also would involve more people having to keep their mouths shut. I don’t think that anybody at CNN or Fox has taken a look at too many Hawaiian birth certificates lately, but I figure they’d hire someone who had.
Don’t you think that when young, nobody, private citizen Obama applied for his U.S. passport, they asked him for the same thing?
The woman two cubes down from me has one and she was born in Bulgaria of Bulgarian parents. She came over here, got a green card, got her citizenship and got a passport. She is not, however, eligible to be POTUS.
The simple possession of a U.S. passport is not proof of being a natural-born citizen, which is part of the standard for eligibility to be POTUS.
Were I to wager on the point I’d bet that Obama is an American citizen and give odds to boot. But given the controversy over it I think it’s rather curious – and somewhat arrogant, frankly – not to permit examination of the document that will settle it for all but the most paranoid types for whom nothing will settle it.
Ron, they have permitted examination of the document. And all but the most paranoid types — or, more kindly and accurately, all except for a small number of political conservatives with a large and obvious bias against Obama — do consider the matter settled.
Why not? It’s a birth certificate with the state seal embossed on it, and the Hawaii government says it’s real. What else is required?
Given that Ron does not self-identify as a “birther,” I’m going to ask that no one refer to Ron as a birther in this forum.
It was my understanding that if one of your parents was not a citizen and you were not born on American soil, then it was possible for you to not be a citizen.
I think this may be the case if the U.S. citizen in question is your father, and he is not married to your mother. But if it’s your mother who is the citizen (and I have not yet heard any suggestion that his mother is not a citizen), you’re a citizen.
And yes, I am aware that naturalized citizens carry U.S. passports. But when someone is naturalized, it generates a paper trail. Do you really think if he was a naturalized citizen someone wouldn’t have come forward or leaked the paper work? And his mother couldn’t have somehow just skipped that step, because then he wouldn’t have the paperwork to get a passport.
RonF, please read the link that was attached to “Anyone born off U.S. soil, whose mother (married or unmarried) is a citizen, is a citizen.” It goes through the law on the matter. chingona is basically right: “I think this may be the case if the U.S. citizen in question is your father, and he is not married to your mother. But if it’s your mother who is the citizen (and I have not yet heard any suggestion that his mother is not a citizen), you’re a citizen.” Incidentally, this distinction based on sex was challenged several years ago in the Supreme Court and was upheld.
But since no one has come up with a plausible explanation, much less any evidence, that Obama was born overseas, whereas there’s plenty of evidence that he was born in the U.S. (and having his birth certificate handed to Fox News would do no good if you begin from the premise that Hawaii state officials have been paid off anyway), I don’t see much point in continuing to discuss this.
The level of expertise it takes to create a falsified birth certificate far exceeds the level of expertise to lie about the fact that a true one exists.
Yes, but it’s probably the kind of expertise you have if you work at the agency that creates and keeps the birth certificates. This is like saying that the UVA diploma office could much more easily lie about whether I was issued a diploma than they could create a new diploma for me — true (it’s generally easier to lie about anything than to take any non-verbal action), but trivial.
And again, about the “arrogance” — Obama is the only candidate who’s had to deal with this. Unless the GOP plans to make birth certificate inspection by competing cable news networks a regular part of the presidential campaign (hey, NEITHER of Jindal’s parents were citizens when he was born!), this comes off as petty at best.
Incidentally, this distinction based on sex was challenged several years ago in the Supreme Court and was upheld.
It’s like Jewish matrilineal descent. Your mother can lie (or just be wrong) about who your father is. It’s a lot harder to falsify who your mother is.
Amp:
Ron, they have permitted examination of the document. … It’s a birth certificate with the state seal embossed on it, and the Hawaii government says it’s real. What else is required?
Nothing cited in this thread has entailed public examination of the actual birth certficate by anyone except a state official and Factcheck.org. As far as the former goes, since when do we trust government officials not to cover up either errors or falsifications? Certainly not any Illinois residents who’ve been paying attention to the news the last few years. And who the hell is Factcheck.org, how do they get access that the MSM doesn’t and what track record do they have that I should trust them?
Did I miss something? Has anyone else had a look at this document? CNN? The Chicago Tribune? The L.A. Times? A Honolulu paper? Someone I’ve heard of?
All I said was that the documentation hadn’t been made public. So far I don’t consider that having been contradicted – certainly not by any citations in this thread. I’d hate to think that a major organization like the Democratic party screwed up this badly, but having paid regular attention to the news around here I’m pretty sour on the competence of political parties these days. Someone would have to show me positive proof that Obama isn’t a citizen for me to believe it, but I just do think it’s foolish that the one thing that could end this for good (again, absent the most extreme conspiracy theorists) is avoided.
PG, as far as Obama being the only candidate to have to deal with this, again he’s the only candidate where the possibility has come up. I predict that you’ll see Gov. Jindal produce his birth records if he decides to run.
RonF,
Factcheck.org is:
The people who run it are former journalists who worked at CNN, WSJ, AP, etc. I’m not sure why you think they’re less trustworthy now that they work for a nonprofit. Nor why a state official should be thought a liar for saying that the certificate is good, yet any certificate that official produces would be accepted as valid. Either you think state workers are presumed dishonest, in which case they can be dishonest in acts as well as words, or you presume them to be honest in the absence of countervailing evidence (and there is no countervailing evidence here, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly and you’ve failed to rebut).
I just find it absurd that you claim “the one thing that would end this for good” would be having an inspection of Obama’s birth certificate by CNN, yet that birth certificate could be manufactured by the very people you distrust — Hawaii state officials. They have all the equipment for making these certificates, you know. Moreover, what they gave Factcheck was a “short form” copy of the hospital record, which is the same thing the State Department accepts as proof (the State Department sadly lacking in your awareness of the rampant dishonesty of state Department of Health officials). It’s something they produce on request, not the aged document made in 1961.
Factcheck is very reputable, and the MSM journalists you want to hear from use them all the time as a reference or source.
To add to what PG said, FactCheck.org is extremely well-known; they have a long history of criticizing both parties, they’ve been cited by people in both parties and they are widely seen as non-partisan. The solution to a citation to an organization you haven’t heard of isn’t to say that if RonF from Chicago hasn’t heard of it, then it’s no good; it’s to do a google search to find out if the organization is legitimate or not.
I don’t find it “foolish” that the Obama people have limited access to the original document. Conspiracy-minded partisans are not acting in good faith, and will not be convinced by any level of evidence. Releasing further testimony would just give conspiracists more fodder for their nonsense, and keep the story alive longer; it would not resolve this issue for anyone who doesn’t already consider it resolved.
Imagine someone who thinks the Obama family and campaign, Hawaii’s government officials, and the people at Factcheck are all in on a conspiracy to hide Obama’s secret citizenship. Do you really think such a person would be convinced by the addition of a MSM reporter or two to the list of conspirators?
Hey, that darned elusive Birth Certificate has finally been found!
—Myca
And just when I was thinking “Damn, why don’t any of these leftists have a sense of humor?”
Pingback: O Frabjous Day! Callooh! Callay! | Alas, a Blog | U.S. Justice Talk