Yesterday, Mitt Romney raised the “birther” issue while taking a swipe at Obama:
Very unfunny, especially coming from a guy who attacks Obama with claims that Obama is running a rough campaign. And here is how Romney tried to minimize the damage:
Yesterday, Mitt Romney raised the “birther” issue while taking a swipe at Obama:
Very unfunny, especially coming from a guy who attacks Obama with claims that Obama is running a rough campaign. And here is how Romney tried to minimize the damage:
If I embarrassed the state, I apologize, but that certainly wasn’t my intent.
– Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (and Arizona Co-Chair of Romney’s campaign), who had threatened to remove Barrack Obama’s name from the presidential ballot in that state unless he received absolute “proof” from Hawaii that Obama was born there. When asked, Bennett admitted that the didn’t seek similar information from Michigan regarding Mitt Romney’s birth.
… the birther question was never really about citizenship; it was simply a proxy for those who never accepted the president’s legitimacy, for a toxic mix of reasons involving ideology, deep political anger and, most insidious of all, race. It was originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right, but mainstream Republican leaders allowed it to simmer to satisfy those who are inflamed by Mr. Obama’s presence in the White House.
Sarah Palin said the birth certificate issue was “fair game,” and the public was “rightfully” making it an issue. The House speaker, John Boehner, grudgingly said in February that he would take Mr. Obama “at his word” that he was a citizen, a suggestion that the proof was insufficient. He said, however, that it was not his job to end the nonsensical attacks. “The American people have the right to think what they want to think,” he said at the time. That signal was clearly received. Lawmakers in nearly a dozen states introduced bills requiring presidential candidates to release their full birth certificates.
It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious “other” would have been conducted against a white president.
There are new birther questions being raised on two fronts.
The first is not particularly serious, but I have discovered that Mitt Romney refuses to produce his birth certificate. Really.
Second, serious questions are finally being raised in the media (by someone other than Andrew Sullivan who has done his best) as to who is really the mother of Trig Palin. This has finally be ignited by a professor’s rather detailed analysis of the story so far.
I guess that these two new twists are a sort of tit-for-tat challenge from the left to the continuing (false) claims that Obama was not born in this country.

‘Nuff said.
Steven Thrasher, writing in The Village Voice, calls the date that white America went totally bonkers: January 20, 2009. The day that Obama was sworn in as President. Great read.
As with other forms of dementia, the signs weren’t obvious at first. After the 2008 election, when former House majority leader Tom DeLay suggested that instead of a formal inauguration, Barack Obama should “have a nice little chicken dinner, and we’ll save the $125 million,” black folks didn’t miss the implication. References to chicken, particularly of the fried variety, have long served as a kind of code when white folks referred to black people and their gustatory preferences—and weren’t many of us already accustomed to older white politicians making such gaffes? But who among us sensed that it was a harbinger that an entire nation was plunging into madness?
Who didn’t chuckle, after all, the first time they heard that white people had doubts that Barack Obama had even been born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president? It sounded like one of those Internet stories in which some (usually white) writer does his best to prove something everyone knows to be true is actually the exact opposite. And you go along with it for a few paragraphs to see how long the writer can convince you that what you know is right is actually wrong.

Here is a McCain ad against his primary opponent in the Arizona Senate race. Love the Orly Taitz clip. How does he think being anti-birther will help him in a Republican primary?
In an earlier post, I excerpted a decision by a Federal judge in Georgia denying Orly Taitz’s claims on behalf of an Army captain seeking to avoid deployment to Iraq based on the argument that President Obama (have been born abroad, of course) is not a legitimate commander-in-chief.
Despite the smackdown, Taitz files again before the same judge is is threatened with a $10,000 fine for violating his earlier order. The latest order from the court is worth a full read.
By the way, the judge in the case was appointed by George W. Bush.
Orly Taitz (lawyer/real estate agent/dentist/full-time birther) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a captain in the Army who is refused to follow orders ordering her to Iraq because we have an unlawful commander-in-chief. The unlawful person is President Barack Obama, who is known not to have been born in the United States. The US District Court, Central District of Georgia, is having none of it.
I highly recommend the full decision as delightful reading, but here is an excerpt:
After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel [the aforementioned Orly Taitz] is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
…
Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover, as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.) Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.
…
Plaintiff’s complaint is not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.
Update: Ms. Taitz, responding to this decision, is accusing the judge of treason and comparing herself to Nelson Mandela.
President Obama faces the (insane) wrath of the birther movement. But how about you?
Now you too can have an official Kenyan birth certificate, not just the bogus one for Obama, thanks to the magic of the interwebs. (h/t TPM)
Check out the birthers’ take on an Obama birthday card.