Shame on CNN’s Lou Dobbs and some GOP members of Congress for fanning the conspiracy theory that President Obama was born in Kenya and therefore isn’t eligible to be president. This canard has been thoroughly debunked, and they know it. Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has done his part by joking that Obama and God have something in common — the lack of a birth certificate. Kansas attorney general candidate Kris Kobach repeated that joke at a GOP gathering this month. But as smart Republicans are realizing, nutty conspiracies don’t help the GOP; they only make it look nutty.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- jbradley on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
111 Comments
No kidding. It’s over, Obama’s president, fair and square. Get over it.
Want to oppose his policies? That’s fair game, and there’s plenty to oppose. But this is just stupid.
All O’BAMA had to do is provide the requested copy of his birth certificate in that court case.
O’BAMA didn’t – he created his own dilemma.
The GOP looks nutty because they ARE nutty. A bunch of people that think the Earth is 6000 years old, that we staged the moon landing, that Ike Eisenhower was a secret Communist and that 9/11 was an inside job. And now this. Welcome to the loony bin of conservative Republican politics!
“”All O’BAMA had to do is provide the requested copy of his birth certificate in that court case.
O’BAMA didn’t – he created his own dilemma.”"”
He doesn’t have to show anybody a damn thing! He is the President of the United States.
#
Kev
Posted July 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
The GOP looks nutty because they ARE nutty. A bunch of people that think the Earth is 6000 years old, that we staged the moon landing, that Ike Eisenhower was a secret Communist and that 9/11 was an inside job. And now this. Welcome to the loony bin of conservative Republican politics!
————————-
Actually, we Pubs think you Libs are nutty for thinking such things about us as fact.
A bunch of people that think the Earth is 6000 years old, that we staged the moon landing, that Ike Eisenhower was a secret Communist and that 9/11 was an inside job.
I dont’ know who these folks are (occasionally one runs into them, BTW – you can tell by the tin hats) but they sure as he** aren’t Republicans.
I strongly suspect you’d find folks with these nutty ideal in neither party, or fairly evenly divided amoung both. I further would bet my next paycheck that a significantly more Democrats than Republican think “9/11 was an inside job.”
“we staged the moon landing,and that 9/11 was an inside job”
Describes the poster on DemUnderground and DailyKos pretty well.
“He doesn’t have to show anybody a damn thing! He is the President of the United States.”
Hmm. A Rule for all future Presidents to follow, I guess. Hope ya’all like the precedence.
He wasn;t President when he spent thousands to keep in concealed. WHy? I don;t know, and really don;t care. He won the election. Let’s go on from there. TIme to move on.
It’s probably on-line somewhere, but you should have seen Gee! Gordon Liddy and Chris Matthews last night.
Liddy is reduced to mumbling a birthers’ meme, “It’s not a ‘birth certificate’ it’s a ‘certificate of birth.’”
I mean, c’mon.
“GMC 70″ pleas ignorance (always a good choice for him) —
“I dont’ know who these folks [people that think the Earth is 6000 years old] are….”
“GMC70,” meet “HLP.”
Meet “Nathaniel.”
Meet all the twice-born CONs in this forum who frequently return to evolution-denying contributions to WE Blog.
(Maybe they don’t blog during your office hours so you’ve missed them. Nevermind. They have actual jobs during the day they work at.)
“littlejohn” contributes –
“He wasn;t President when he spent thousands to keep in concealed. WHy? I don;t know, and really don;t care.”
Who can argue with that?
Who can argue with that?
============================
“Oh yeah?! Well FUC# YOU!!!”
#
ANTI
Posted July 24, 2009 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
“Oh yeah?! Well FUC# YOU!!!”
============================================
Another birther offering up his all impotent opinion.
Another birther offering up his all impotent opinion.
===========================
I was quoting Monkeyhawk, DA.
July 22, 2009: The Born Identity
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-22-2009/the-born-identity
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
“‘Birthers’ need to get a life”
This line comes from an English major/journalist?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
I would also point out that “we want our country back” was originally a slogan of those who wanted the Republicans out of office. The Pukes are too stupid to make up their own dumb slogans. They have to steal the Rats’ dumb slogans.
“This line comes from an English major/journalist?”
I believe that’s a pun, Fleet.
On a recent epsiode of the view, Whoopi Goldberg expressed doubt regarding the reality of the moon landing because the picture of a “stiff” American Flag being planted moon. Everyone knows there is no air on the moon to blow the flag out from the pole, therefore, in her view, the picture must be a fake and there was no moon landing.
Whoopi is no Republican.
Yes, many young earthers are Republican. Why are they wrong?
#
Kev
Posted July 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
The GOP looks nutty because they ARE nutty. A bunch of people that think the Earth is 6000 years old, that we staged the moon landing, that Ike Eisenhower was a secret Communist and that 9/11 was an inside job. And now this. Welcome to the loony bin of conservative Republican politics!
____________
Since when did Rosie O’Donnel become a Republican.
She thinks 911 was an inside job. An astronught who landed on the moon is being call a denier much like those who thinks it was staged.
Please do keep up there Kev, or whatever your other nics are.
“Young Earthers”?
Peter said; “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.”
To me that says, God is not bound by the by time or time is irrelevant. Even Einstein believed time travel was possible.
“He wasn;t President when he spent thousands to keep in concealed.”
Nonsense – Obama’s birth certificate has been published and verified and his birth announcements have been published. Further, there is absolutely no evidence that he was born anywhere but Hawaii in 1961.
The fact of the matter is that Obama has never tried to “conceal” his birth information.
Kev doesn’t have anything useful to add to the discussion so he merely strings a bunch of unconnected disparaging remarks.
The age of the earth is a matter of faith. Not much to do with anything political. Being a fundy and having the ability to understand and discuss scientific theorys are not mutually exclusive.
Believing the moon landing ws staged has nothing to do with your political party affiliation. However, anyone dumb enough to vote for Obama would believe most anything.
Eisenhower was a secret Communist? Wow! I’m a republican and I’ve never heard that one! (He was more liberal than most people think though!)
More people on the left than on the right believe 9/11 was an inside job.
It is a fact that Obama spent over a million dollars on legal fees fighting disclosure of his birth certificate. Makes one wonder what he was trying to hide. Maybe he doesn’t want people to find out who his real father was. (you always know who the mother is!)
No, I think the real nut on this BLOG today is Kev. Only a nut would think that all the above myths can be believed by one classification of people.
It’s great for the Demos. I think
they’re letting it have legs so
it makes the gop loonies look
crazier than ever. By the way,
there are two birth annoucements
EMBEDDED in microfilm in the Hawaii
Public Library’s files than announce
Obama’s birth in two local newspaper.
I bet a quick carbon test could prove
that they’re from 1961.
They just want ratings.
At anybody’s expense.
#
minutelady
Posted July 24, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
It is a fact that Obama spent over a million dollars on legal fees fighting disclosure of his birth certificate. Makes one wonder what he was trying to hide. Maybe he doesn’t want people to find out who his real father was. (you always know who the mother is!)
=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A fact is verifiable. Can you offer any proof to verify this ‘fact?’
bowhowdy2,
I think you are on to something there. It’s in President Obama’s best interest to ignore this manufactured controversy and allow it to fester.
Rational people will dismiss it out of hand and folk like minutelady will continue to make ridiculous claims and the GOP will suffer as a result.
Daniel-Yeah, I wouldn’t put it past
Obama, in fact, to be happy at this
point to let this thing surface. By
the way, it’s pretty darn hard to
reembed microfilm, and if they were
to try, they would have to do it to
every copy of 1961 microfilm in the
state and each public library there
has a copy.
Minutelady says, The age of the earth is a matter of faith. Not much to do with anything political. Being a fundy and having the ability to understand and discuss scientific theories are not mutually exclusive.
*****
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, Madame.
If one chooses to believe a 17th century crackpot who “calculated” by the birth and death ages of the generations in the Pentateuch to calculate the age of the Earth to a specific date in October, that may be a “matter of faith.”
I personally don’t even think it rises to the low threshold of proof required for a faith-based argument because it shows an incredible ignorance of the Torah and how and why and when it was written.
However it has no absolutely no relationship to science or anything related to science.
One cannot, I repeat, cannot believe that methodology of science provides true conclusions about our world and also believe that the Earth is 6-10 thousand years old.
Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.
If the birthers don’t think Obama is President then they should stand up and threaten his life. It’s only a serious crime when the life of a President is threatened. If he isn’t a legit President then they can’t touch you.
So birthers, stand up for what you believe and mail a letter to President Obama and threaten his life. Or do you actually believe he’s really the President?
For instance, if one wants to use The Hebrew Bible as a science book, one might start with Moses’ father-in-law.
What’s his name?
Simple question. Moses married a woman. She had a name: Zipporah. She had a father, and he had a name.
What was it?
She had a name: Zipporah. She had a father, and he had a name.
What was it?
=====================================
Randy?
Linda–
The Daily Show link is hysterical–”The Born Identity”
****
While the American people continue to want a way out of recession, two wars and better health care, the party of NO gives them ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Anti–
Sorry, no.
Nor was it Gary or Steve.
Moe, Curly and Larry are also out.
Minutepuke- chortles: It’s only a serious crime when the life of a President is threatened. If he isn’t a legit President then they can’t touch you.
———————————————–
Try it on someone not the president maggotpunk….
hehe heheh….
nit.
A fact is verifiable. Can you offer any proof to verify this ‘fact?’
________________________________
Of course! That’s why I said it was a fact!
(by the way, truth is truth and facts are facts with or without ‘proof’)
“CapnAmerica” reveals –
“Moe, Curly and Larry are also out.”
Damn!
That would have explained a lot.
Dear CapnAmerica,
I said,
“Being a fundy and having the ability to understand and discuss scientific theories are not mutually exclusive.”
You don’t have to believe a theory to understand and discuss it.
MHawk–
Although Moe, Curly, and Larry were good Jewish boys.
I loved it when they got mad and launched into all the nasty yiddish. It got past the goyyim censors, heh.
You don’t have to believe a theory to understand and discuss it.
True . . . the crackpot theory which undergirds the 6,000 year old earth is easy enough to understand. Kinda like eclipses being caused by the sky dragon swallowing up the sun.
. . .the crackpot theory. . .
You mean Genesis?
MinuteLady to William James, father of the philosophic school of “pragmatism”–
“Isn’t it true, Mr. James, that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle?”
“I don’t think so, Madam. If the earth rested on the back of a turtle, what does the turtle rest on?”
“Oh, you can’t fool me so easily,” cries MinuteLady. “It’s turtles all the way down!“
You mean Genesis?
No, indeed. I mean the idiotic torturing of Genesis to make it mean what FundyCONs claim it means.
Capn,
How do you know how old the earth is?
If the Earth is 5.5 billions years old, how old is the material that formed the Earth? Shouldn’t it be older? Eventually we can stretch this back to eternity. Therefore, the dates could easily give eternity if there is no God and therefore matter has always existed.
The real question is when did life start on this earth.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
Anti–
Sorry, no.
Nor was it Gary or Steve.
Moe, Curly and Larry are also out.
===========================================
Well, OK.
How about Pedro?
The Earth is probably about 5.5 billion years old, that is correct.
The best estimate of the age of the Universe is 14.5 billion IIRC.
The infinitely old universe theory has been essentially disproven.
I retract my previous guess, as I now know the answer to your question, Capn’A.
His name is Jed, and he’s still alive.
#
minutelady
Posted July 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
A fact is verifiable. Can you offer any proof to verify this ‘fact?’
________________________________
Of course! That’s why I said it was a fact!
(by the way, truth is truth and facts are facts with or without ‘proof’)
=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Well, I supposed we could take your word for it or you could show us proof of this ‘fact.’ I may not be from Missouri, but I would prefer that you show me the proof, or at least provide a link to said proof.
LOL
Poor CapnAmerica!
Insists on arguing even when he has to provide both sides of the argument!
Did someone pi ss in your Wheaties this morning?
Just take my word for it, Daniel.
Or if you really care, GOOGLE it your ownself.
It’s a trick question, Anti.
Moses’ father-in-law has three names from three different parts of The Bible.
Why?
Because those three parts were written by three different authors–Y for the “Jehovah” authors, E for the “Elohim” authors, and P for the “Priestly” authors.
What do ‘FundyCONs claim it means’?
What do you think it means?
Insists on arguing even when he has to provide both sides of the argument!
It’s an old story. Guess you didn’t catch the reference.
Because those three parts were written by three different authors–Y for the “Jehovah” authors, E for the “Elohim” authors, and P for the “Priestly” authors.
————————————-
So, what is your point?
The Bible was written by many people.
MinuteL–
I think the Hebrew Bible represents the belief of the writers when it was written. It is a collection of stories going back to the Bronze Age and written down by various authors at various times for various ideological purposes during the Persian period at about the 6th Century BC.
Scholars have identified three major authors (or schools of authors), the aforementioned Y, E, and P with a fourth influence, the R or redactor who edited all the versions together.
So, what does Genesis mean to you?
So, what does Genesis mean to you?
==================================
The Beginning.
#
minutelady
Posted July 24, 2009 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
Just take my word for it, Daniel.
Or if you really care, GOOGLE it your ownself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I’ve googled and all I find are lots of allegations and absolutely no proof.
Link to some proof or we’ll just have to assume that this is one of those issues that come down to a ‘matter of faith.’
“Of course! That’s why I said it was a fact!”
Not factual – Obama’s birth certificate – unlike those of any other presidential – has been published and verified by the State of Hawaii.
What proof does anyone have that Obama was born any other place besides Hawaii?
What does Genesis mean to me?
You might as well ask what the entire Bible means to me.
It’s the document that justifies the ways of God to man.
How do you know how old the earth is?
The Earth is probably about 5.5 billion years old, that is correct.
Thanks for the answer, Capn. Of course, I trust your judgement, but some people may need a little more support.
The earth is aged by the process of Rock dating.
First there are a few assumptions to how the Earth actually formed originally.
1. It is assumed that the earth was once molten.
2. It is assumed that this molten state coincided with Earth’s first birthday.
The facts are that when igneous rocks are formed from cooling from a molten state to a solid state, they exclude certain daughter elements while not excluding certain parent elements.
3. It is assumed that no parent element or daughter element has moved into our out of the rock during the entire life of the rock (closed system assumed).
4. It is assumed that rocks that yield dates that do not fit into a pre-concieved theory can be rationally rejected.
At the present day, a geologist can gather a particular rock clock and determine its parent/daughter ratio. Assuming that all the assumptions are valid, the date is determined (or rejected).
All rocks collected and radiometrically dated yield ages in the millions or billions of years.
Even the rocks formed from aftermath of volcanoes less then 3 decades old (Mt St Helens for example) show ages in the millions. Of course those dates are rejected as assumption No. 3 is assumed to be wrong.
Ultimately, the geologist can select or reject any number of assumptions he needs to find the date which matches the desired age of the earth.
How you all got from birthers to fundies is is amazing.
Facts:
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. It’s made up of matter created by the super novas of dying stars, as are we.
The universe is 14.7 billion years old, and is expanding at a rate that in roughly 100 billion years it will be torn apart to the extent the atoms themselves will dissolve into photons. The cause will be everything accelerated to the speed of light by the effects of dark matter and dark energy. The only things left in this universe will be the photons, speeding off in every direction at the speed of light.
The bible says nothing about the age of the universe other than God made it in seven days. It makes no mention of how long each day is in God’s mind. To distort and ignore scientific facts and say the earth and the universe is less than 10,000 years old to to ignore the power of God.
I would also go so far as to say that when God said he created us in His image, it did not necessarily mean he looks anything like us. Our physical image is fleeting; His is eternal. His may be pure energy, as may ours, when we die. His words may have nothing to do with our physical beings.
Bottom line is I doubt God cares one bit whether or not anyone believes the universe is 1 day, 1 year, 1 century, or 100 billion years old. My assumption is He’s a whole lot smarter than anyone who posts here. We’ll be judged on our actions, not our beliefs, regardless of what the bible says.
Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old (“We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.”;
Therefore, even if the Earth was younger then 2 MY old, no rock dating method known to man could measure it. Conclusion: All young rocks that are measured have to be over 2 MY old.
Capn, how do you know for sure if a rock is over 2 MY old before dating it?
What is funny to me is that the cons can betch about Sarah Palin being investigated for legitimate claims, defend her dropping out of her job, and feel sorry for her ‘legal fees’, while having no problem outfitting her whole family and house on taxpayer money.
At the same time the same people will continue to claim Obama didn’t produce a birth certificate and wonders why he would pay a lawyer to dispute absolutely the most ridiculous claims.
They truly believe what they do is ok, and dismiss their own, but overexaggerate other’s perceived wrongdoings?
Is that because they believe their side is saved on God won’t punish them for being dooshes?
I mean if that were true as well, they would have to accept that both Clintons and Obama are also xians.
Ultimately, the geologist can select or reject any number of assumptions he needs to find the date which matches the desired age of the earth.
That is patently false, and why to be a FundyCon, one has to basically say that science is “just a bunch of assumptions.” It is, but it is a bunch of assumptions that designed the lightbulb and the engine that runs your car.
As Wiki states,
Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth’s mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.
Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.
Possible contamination problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation, leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination. Hundreds to thousands of measurements are done daily with excellent precision and accurate results. Even so, research continues to refine and improve radiometric dating to this day.
Chrisitans; “what you do is wrong…so get right with God so you can sin all day long!”
Also, the earth dating matches dating of metorites and the moon, which have not been eroded or subjected to plate techtonics.
“It’s the document that justifies the ways of God to man.”
So, does this mean it is the incontrovertible truth, or not?
Capn, how do you know for sure if a rock is over 2 MY old before dating it?
Irrelevant.
Not all rocks are equally useful for dating. Just because one clock does not match all the other clocks in someone’s house doesn’t mean that time doesn’t exist and it can’t be measured.
If 1,000 clocks match and a few don’t, one would naturally assume that the 1,000 are probably right.
Also, age of rocks on the moon can be measured by the effects of cosmic rays (independent of radiation dating). And what do they show? 4.5 billion years old, same as Earth.
So, does this mean it is the incontrovertible truth, or not?
Hi, Steven, you hell-bound heathen you (kidding)
It’s true in essence, the way Milton’s poem Paradise Lost is “true.”
The woman in the YouTube video is representative of the idiots in the birther stupidity.
Dennis
“It’s true in essence, the way Milton’s poem Paradise Lost is ‘true.’”
So, does this mean if I happen upon a burning bush that tells me to take off my shoes, I can ignore it? Or not?
I thought you had a good answer for the attempts to say religious faith and science derive meaning in generally the same way, BTW.
“So, does this mean if I happen upon a burning bush that tells me to take off my shoes, I can ignore it?”
If you come across a burning bush (not the George kind) leave your shoes on and grab a water hose.
If the burning bush is really God, He’ll tell you to cut it out.
#
YellowdogLiberal
Posted July 24, 2009 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
The woman in the YouTube video is representative of the idiots in the birther stupidity.
Dennis
================================================
The woman in the video is also proof positive that you just can’t fix stupid.
Moses’s father-in-law was Jethro, unrelated to Jethro Bodene of the Beverly Hillbillies.
“Even the rocks formed from aftermath of volcanoes less then 3 decades old (Mt St Helens for example) show ages in the millions. Of course those dates are rejected as assumption No. 3 is assumed to be wrong.” [RFL]
And you believe that Mt. St. Helen’s is less than 3 decades old because??? LOL
CapnAmerica
Posted July 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
It’s a trick question, Anti.
Moses’ father-in-law has three names from three different parts of The Bible.
===============================================
Actually, CapN, there are four OT Traditions… usually referenced as J, D, E, & P.
J = Jawist; D = Deuteronomist; E = Elohist; and P = Priestly….
Just thought I would toss that in there…
Yup, that’s right, Chas.
I forgot about D.
Oops.
******
Regular–
Correct, his name was Jethro.
Or Reuel.
Or Heber.
Take your pick. Fundies try to explain that some of these are titles and not names, except that nobody else seems to have one name and two titles except for this one guy.
The explanation I’ve always heard was that people back in the Biblical days had multiple names, because they were addressed by people from multiple languages.
It’s like my name James. It Spanish it would be Diago. In Germany and Germanic cultures, I would be known as Jakob or Jacob.
Of course, there are the standard variations of Jim, Jimmy, etc.
Like Charles can be Chuck and etc.
John F. Kennedy was known as Jack Kennedy.
In genealogy searching, it got really tricky, especially with women’s names. Mary could be Peggy or some other form or Margaret could be Mary or Peggy. It was quite difficult to search through all the variations.
Different names in different languages . . . interesting idea.
But then why doesn’t Moses have a couple of different names, or Abraham, or Jacob, or Noah, or any of the prophets?
There are three names because writers couldn’t agree on the right name based on their different sources.
BTW, I think James in Spanish is more commonly Jaime. But Iago and Diego are also related via Heb. Ya’akob.
“There are three names because writers couldn’t agree on the right name based on their different sources.”
————
Ah, CapnAmerica authoritatively clears up a scriptural discrepancy for us. Of course he knows, he was there. And God spoke to him. What? He wasn’t? He didn’t?
As we might expect from his track record, Capn comes down on the non-faith side.
I’m glad it is the cons who attract nuts like the birthers.
Noah also went by Noyuch or Noyach, probably more names than I realize.
Abraham was also known as ????????? in Hebrew – probably won’t let me use Hebrew here, but will try it. The Arab tribes called him Ibrahim.
Jacob was Ya?aqov of Yisra?el(Israel).
There weren’t a lot of “J’s” or Latin style letters used back in those days. :)
The Scots used to have a tradition of naming their eldest son after the Grandfather. At one point in my family I had a zillion Samuels and cousins named Samuel, it drove me nuts sorting all that out.
German names are even worse as they were anglicized by their Parishioner elders once they arrived in the colonies.
Different names for the same person never really bothered me, it’s repeated all through history.
outlander is right on cue with his gratutious insults.
Would those be Christian insults or just ordinary secular insults?
I guess by “non-faith side,” you mean the non-Fundy ahistorical side.
Dude, if you have nothing to offer–and you don’t–then just stay out of it.
CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers at the cable news network Thursday night that the supposed controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead” story after anchor Lou Dobbs drew attention for raising the issue repeatedly on his radio program.
The website TVNewser reported today that Klein sent an e-mail to staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” just as the program went to air, informing them that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded all paper documents in 2001. A long-form birth certificate with details about the doctor who delivered Obama no longer exists, they reported. The shorter Certificate of Live Birth noting Obama’s birth on Aug. 4, 1961, that has been made public is the official record.
“It seems to definitively answer the question,” Klein wrote, according to TVNewser. “Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead — because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.”
In his show Thursday, Dobbs did note the explanation from Hawaiian officials, though he went on to devote another segment to the topic, interviewing CNN contributor Roland Martin and Rep. Ted Poe, a co-sponsor of a bill that would require future presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.
From the LA Times
Capn: What’s the matter? Can’t handle the mirror I’m holding up?
My point is that you just state something as fact when you don’t have a clue. As far as the subject, here is a perfectly reasonable explanation:
Who was Moses’ father-in-law? Was it Jethro (Exodus 3:1; Exodus 4:18; 18:1, 5) or Hobab (Judges 4:11; Numbers 10:29) or Reuel (Exodus 2:18-21)? Is there a contradiction?
Response:
Several texts identify Jethro as Moses’ father-in-law, perhaps the most pointed being Exodus 18. Five times (v 1, 2, 5, 6, 12), we are told that Jethro was Moses’ father-in-law.
And yet, the first time we read about Moses’ father-in-law, he is referred to as Reuel (Exodus 2:18). Which is correct? Jethro, or Reuel? Both. This man was known by both names, Reuel and Jethro. A friend of mine is called Keith by almost everyone who knows him, yet his legal name is Louis (Keith is his middle name). Another friend’s legal name is William, but he is usually referred to as Tom (his middle name being Thomas). I could provide several more examples where an individual can be known by more than one name.
Who then is Hobab? Was Moses’ father-in-law known by three different names? No, this is not Moses’ father-in-law, but rather his brother-in-law. In Numbers 10:29, we read:
Now Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ‘We aer setting out for the place of which the LORD said, I will give it to you. Come with us, and we will treat you well; for the LORD has promised good things to Israel.’ NKJV)”>Numbers 10:29
Numbers identifies Hobab as the son of Reuel, and Reuel as the father-in-law of Moses.
But then we find Judges 4:11, which begins:
Now Heber the Kenite, of the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses…
Surely this is an error. Yes, a translator error, not an error in the original text of Scripture. The ASV, BBE, WEB, and perhaps other translations correctly render this “brother-in-law”. Hobab was the son of Reuel (a.k.a. Jethro), and thus Moses’ brother-in-law.
How could such an error appear in so many English translations? The Hebrew word chathan is most commonly translated as “father-in-law” (21 of 33 occasions). However, the word is more generic, appropriately used of any relationship via marriage. It can be use of “marriage” (Genesis 34:9; Joshua 23:12), “mother-in-law” (Deuteronomy 27:23), “son-in-law” (1 Samuel 18:21, 22, 23, 26, 27), “affinity” (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chronicles 18:1; Ezra 9:14), and “brother-in-law” (Judges 4:11).
Although some English translations incorrectly render the Hebrew word chathan< there is no contradiction with regard to who Moses’ father-in-law is.
———
The difference, if you notice is that those of faith look for a reasonable explanation.
Noah, Moses, Superman and Spiderman. What do they all have in common? They all have superpowers and are works of fiction.
‘nuf said.
outlander–
Wow, you can google. For every complex question, there’s a simple wrong answer.
This is the simple wrong answer. It’s not what the best informed, most pre-eminent Biblical scholars believe.
As I mentioned before, it doesn’t make sense for Jethro/Reuel to have two names when nobody else in the Bible at his time does.
Actually Capn, the names we have aren’t really very accurate anyway. DNA would be more accurate, but a bit time consuming in introductions and in signing events.
What’s the first thing they take away in prison, besides personal effects – your name.
How are people identified with the U.S. Government?
social security number
Do souls have names? I dunno – probably nothing we could pronounce or recognize.
Then, one must ask the question, “Who am I?”
No, not the name your parents gave you or what some number says you are.
“Who am I?”
Ask yourself.
“Regular” asks –
“Who am I?”
Thank you, Admiral Stockdale.
A document was presented which is the same one that the State Department uses when issuing passports.
Obama did at one time have a duet citizenship of American and Kenya. But that was the legal formality that anyone who had one of their parents was native born in Kenya. The child would automatically have a Kenya citizenship until they turn 18. ( Not sure why I am going into such detail since logic, reason and facts have nothing to do with those demanding an answer) Once they turned 18 they could only keep that citizenship by requesting it.
BUT I have already solve this! My birth certificate has State of Kansas at the top and I am a United States citizen. Obama’s said State of Hawaii, that means he is not a U.S. Citizen or his would say State of Kansas!
Man all this when it is so simple to solve!
Now it is getting hard to maintain Kansans are sane with Brownback wanting to pass anti-mermaid laws and then arguing that we should not act on what we can prove or disprove we should act on what ever we believe! And now we are discussing something that has been proven to the level our Government insist on for passport. Yeah these balls sure are getting a good bounce in the rubber rooms these days!
Moon landing, 9-11, the age of the earth, what no one wanting to talk about who killed JFK?
Hey I believe that there is the possibility of Bigfoot may in fact exists!
Lets all take off our tinfoil hats and really go at it.
Elvis lives.
The power is in Obama’s hand. All he has to do is show his birth certificate. I have to show my birth certificate just to get a job for 8.50 an hour. If the little guys have to prove their citizenship, then by all means, the President must surely do the same thing, especially since it clearly states in the Constitution that one must be natural born in the USA to become a president.
I think it is time that you Obama brown nosers get over it. You know it’s the truth so you go back to your same old mantra, “the right wing conservatives are all conspiracy nuts. I could just see that kind of argument brought up in a debate tournament.
What do they do, teach that to you in Debate 101? What to do when one can’t win the argument, throw out the conspiracy nut card. Oh yeah, that’s going to change everyone’s mind.
Senile old criminal birther made to look like a complete fool on Hardball.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/24/birther-g-gordon-liddy-embarrasses-himself-on-hardball/
Such is the brain trust of the birther movement.
“Maggotpunk” –
You gotta wonder about Gee! Gordon Liddy.
My favorite moment was when he said, “That’s not a ‘birth certificate,’ it’s a ‘certificate of live birth.’”
WTF?!
Years ago I interviewed someone who said if it hadn’t been for Liddy, Nixon would’ve gotten away with Watergate. It was Liddy who applied the scotch tape on the door horizontally instead of vertically during the break-in.
It was the horizontal tape, extending out beyond the door jamb, that caught the interest of Frank Willis.
If it hadn’t been for Gee! Gordon Liddy Richard Nixon would be President today!
(Okay, Tricky Dick is dead. But he’s been dead before.)
You can’t get a passport without providing a birth certificate, so I have a hard time believing the application to run for President, or any other office that requires citizenship overlooks such a basic requirement. Keep in mind, the Dems didn’t want Obama at first, and if ANYONE had this argument to make, you can be damn sure Billary would’ve played this card after Super Tuesday. Certified copies aren’t hard to get from the state, no different than certified death certificates are. So, imho, it’s political theater. But I do get a kick out of the upthread application of all things conspiratorial being GOP owned…guess the left loons like Ventura, Rev Wright, Rosie O’Donnell, etc that promote the 9/11 being an inside job, or how the govt planted AIDS in minority communities, or that the Bush family was in bed with Hitler don’t count..huh, weird, have heard the last one promoted by progressive posters here…
With that being said, let’s just say it’s true that he’s not a citizen….which is scarier….Pres Obama, or Pres Biden??
The Laundry List
Human Events
According to published reports, Barack Obama’s legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
* Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
* Passport files
* University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
* Harvard Law Review articles
* Harvard Law School records
* Columbia University records
* Columbia University senior thesis, “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”
* Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
* Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
* Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register — but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
* Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
* Obama’s client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
* Illinois State Bar Association records
* Baptism records
* Obama/Dunham marriage license
* Obama/Dunham divorce documents
* Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
* Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980’s, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship — and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block us. He doesn’t want anyone to see those records. He’s STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released.
WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn’t he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President — especially his actual birth certificate?
Reg – maybe he got poor grades like Gore, so he’ll lose the “genius” status the media applies to all Dem Presidents/candidates… :)
Well,
certainly the WE Blog has its own representatives of the con kook fringe.
But so far? I haven’t seen any of them out and out post that they believe that our President was not born in America. Oh, a few flirt with the edge. “Borghunter” came close.
But none of them seem willing to take the plunge. Dive the dive into the ridiculous.
BlueJay shouts…
Jump! You might fly, you don’t know!
I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. I believe that is what you will find with a lot of us conservatives. That is one of the basic foundations of our society. However, it does seem as though a lot of liberals have been so easily persuaded by the mainstream media who most definitely want to accuse someone of being guilty before they have all of the facts in. That is what is meant by journalism has died. When I was on the school newspaper, it was about getting the facts.
All Americans are asking of Obama is to do what all of the rest of us do, that is show proof of citizenship. The only reason why it has become such a big story is because he will not do it. The constitution actually states that a person must be born in America to become the president. If he really wanted this story to go away, then he would have shown his birth certificate by now. What you should be asking yourself is, why hasn’t he?
If your answer it’s because he’s the president, that is where you go wrong. It’s because he is the president that he must, since it is required to be born in America to become president.
He is the leader of our country. He goes to other countries and puts us down yet he is our leader. As president of the US, he is our representative. He doesn’t follow the rules and he thinks that every person in the US is dumb, stupid and lazy. Believe it or not, he is just not referring to the conservatives, but everyone and that includes everyone on this blog.
“every person in the US is dumb, stupid and lazy. Believe it or not, he is just not referring to the conservatives, but everyone and that includes everyone on this blog.”
Dead on. Unfortunately, most often he’s proven correct. Unfortunately, it’s not a monopoly of Obama’s…most politicians believe this as well. They count on us having the memory of a goldfish. Congressional incumbent re-election rates are still above 90%..we prove them right in their beliefs in virtually every election cycle. They know all votes count the same..the thoughtful, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, and most convenient, the useful idiots.
“All Americans are asking of Obama is to do what all of the rest of us do, that is show proof of citizenship. The only reason why it has become such a big story is because he will not do it. The constitution actually states that a person must be born in America to become the president. If he really wanted this story to go away, then he would have shown his birth certificate by now. What you should be asking yourself is, why hasn’t he?”
Bullsh*t, and stupid bullsh*t at that. Birth announcements in the local papers, and a birth certificate that has seen. No reasonable person, repeat, no REASONABLE person has any cause whatsoever to assume that Barack Obama is not a citizen unless her personally shows them his birth certificate.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Borghunter and her husband continue to demonstrate that they are right wing wackadoodles. And that’s a fact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Hot off the wires! Photograph of Gates under arrest and in custody!
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6821/policegate.jpg
Surely some of you have heard of FactCheck.com? They are neither conservative or liberal. They are people respected by both sides of the political spectrum.
Early on, when the birth certificate became a “topic” for discussion, they sent some of their employees to Honolulu to get at the truth of the matter. The department that handles such things showed them the original birth certificate and allowed them to take pictures of it. The pictures (or maybe just one) is on their web site. Also, 2 newspapers in that state came up with the original birth announcements.
During the campaign, did you every hear Hillary or any other Democratic candidate or ever hear John McCain or any other Republican candidate raise this issue. Don’t you think they would have if there were any truth to it?
But don’t let facts get in the way of your conviction that the Pres. is hiding his dastardly true citizenship! Enjoy it as long as it gives you pleasure.
http://www.kxma.com/News/Politics/291624.asp
Should be:
“No reasonable person, repeat, no REASONABLE person has any cause whatsoever to assume that Barack Obama is not a citizen unless he personally shows them his birth certificate.”
Besides, it deserves to be said again.