If you guessed Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney you win the prize!
The foreign-born father? According to Fox News:
Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.The alias? Romney's real first name is Willard, which is seered into the conscious of a generation as the name of a horror flick from 1971, when Romney was 24. In the movie Willard learns to control rats and uses them to attack this enemies. In the end the rats turn on Willard and eat him alive. Now, any parallels between Willard's rats and Romney's political minions are purely incidental...
The middle name? Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney was named after J. Willard Marriott and George Romney's cousin, Milton (nicknamed "Mitt"), who played for the Chicago Bears.
The link to the devil? John Milton wrote Paradise Lost, considered one of the greatest works in the English language, which is about Satan's fall from grace.
The birth certificate? Romney says his middle name really is Mitt, but he refuses to produce his long-form birth certificate to prove it.
Donald Trump should get on this case and dispatch some private investigators to Michigan to dig up Mitt Romney's purported birth certificate. But instead Trump is still blathering about Obama being born in Kenya. The simple truth is, Obama's mother was an American. Ergo, he's an American. End of discussion.
Now, thousands of people are after Romney to make him prove he's not a unicorn. Of course that's just a joke, just like the whole birther conspiracy. But with all these Republicans around the country demanding that states pass laws that require presidential candidates produce their birth certificates, why haven't we seen Romney's?
It may be that he really does have something to hide...
21 comments:
But instead Trump is still blathering about Obama being born in Kenya.
Where? That claim is not in the link you provided.
The simple truth is, Obama's mother was an American. Ergo, he's an American. End of discussion.
Except that's not end of discussion. Naturalized citizen, citizen and natural born citizen are all different things. Trying to simplify something that even you should know is more complex is dishonest.
Let alone confusing the issue of whether or not someone meets the Constitutional qualifications for being elected president with whether or not someone goes by their middle name, or, Gasp!, a contraction of their middle name. Good Lord, this is even dopier than most of Mark's posts.
Oh, and Romney did release his birth certificate.
Hey Guard Duck, before you go flapping your gums any further about this, why haven't I seen an admission of fault from you (or Dr. F for that matter) on this post?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/05/still-waiting.html
And where's Kevin's response to you?
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2012/05/vetting-obama.html
Put up or shut up, Mr. President? Yeah, he did that already and so did I. So, why hasn't Kevin? He talks a big game about admitting fault but all I'm hearing are crickets. What a fucking fraud.
After you've eaten your plate of crow, perhaps you can explain to us exactly what the fuck you are talking about with all you natural citizen horseshit. The president was born in Hawaii. He's a citizen of the US. Even if he wasn't, he still is and eligible for president. If my parents went to France on vacation and I was born there, I'd still be a citizen, dumb ass.
Admission of what fault Mark? Are you putting words in my mouth again?
As for Kevin? Why don't you ask him? I don't know - maybe he doesn't check old threads.
OK ass wipe
What is the difference between a naturalized citizen, a citizen and a natural born citizen?
Do you even know? Here's a hint mister social studies teacher- if you think there is no difference you are the dumb ass.
"In the end the rats turn on Willard and eat him alive."
Thanks for ruining the ending, fuckface. I was halfway through the movie...
GD, in this thread...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/05/well-i-guess-it-had-to-happen.html
you wrote
Really? Two of the sixteen not true (and there is debate about those as well), and you think the list is dishonest?
You also requested that I present specific links to prove that the items on the list were wrong. I did so. And your response is...?
What is the difference between a naturalized citizen, a citizen and a natural born citizen?
Let's see...when I make I claim (as you did above) like this one..
Naturalized citizen, citizen and natural born citizen are all different things.
I have to back it up. But when you do...I still have to back it up? I get it. I'm the one that always has to answer the questions and provide evidence..not you. Seems pretty fair...NOT!!!
I'll tell you what, GD. Why don't you explain what the difference is between the three in relation to President Obama? YOU made statement. Back it up.
Really? Two of the sixteen not true (and there is debate about those as well), and you think the list is dishonest?
Ahhhh. I see where you're coming from.
Let me refresh the conversation in order to establish the context.
Mark: Kevin's list is full of lies, here is a link to a search result of over two hundred things that may or may not prove some or many of Kevin's things wrong. (Implication: Mark hasn't read through all the links to prove or disprove the list.)
GuardDuck: Dude, I'm not going to go through two hundred links to find those that may or may not prove that list wrong. (Implication: Dude, I'm not going to go through two hundred links to find those that may or may not prove that list wrong)
Dr. F: These ones are wrong, these are true, some are unmentioned by snopes. (Implication: Dr. F read through and matched the links to the list, then presented his results)
Eric: Thanks Dr. F for admitting the wrong items on the list. (Does not mention that he thinks Dr. F was wrong in his assessment of the 'correct' items.) Had no problem with Mark's presentation of the search result, says the links are there that refute some things on the list. Calls the list very dishonest. (Implication: Eric agrees with Dr. F on his assessment of the veracity of the list and has himself went through the links. Yet also calls the list dishonest?)
GuardDuck: (Responding to Eric) How can you call the list very dishonest when you've tacitly agreed with Dr. F's response that claims only two of the sixteen items are incorrect.
Perhaps I could have been more clear in my response. As I said, and I never changed that position, I was not going to do Mark's work and go through the links. So I would not and could not be a position to gauge the veracity of the item on the list. Therefore I was not proclaiming any items true or false. I was responding to the tacit approval and implied agreement present in the context of the conversation.
I guess I should have said something more along the lines of: "Eric, how can you call the list very dishonest when you've practically agreed with Dr. F's assessment that only two of the sixteen items are false? Are there other items that you can show are false and that Dr. F was incorrect in presenting as true?
You also requested that I present specific links to prove that the items on the list were wrong. I did so. And your response is...?
What? That you should have done that in the first place? Want a cookie?
I'll tell you what, GD. Why don't you explain what the difference is between the three in relation to President Obama? YOU made statement. Back it up.
Ok, context again.
Nikto: "The simple truth is, Obama's mother was an American. Ergo, he's an American. End of discussion. "
GuardDuck: Not so fast – Just because someone's mother was an "American" does not mean the person is an "American" and just because someone is an "American" does not mean that person is eligible to be president.
I think it is a rather simple concept, and hence Nikto was either being intentionally dishonest in his over simplification or he doesn't understand the differences. I believe it is the former as I believe Nikto is relatively intelligent and understands the differences and the specifics. I believe you do too. So do you really need me to explain that further?
. As I said, and I never changed that position, I was not going to do Mark's work and go through the links.
And now that I have done that work? Ah, yes. Personal insults. Not "Hey, Mark is right and Kevin is wrong" type of credit. Different rules do indeed apply to me.
So do you really need me to explain that further?
No, because I know the little game you are playing here. What I want to know is if you think that the president is a citizen of the United States, was born here, and is eligible to be president. If you think he was born in Kenya, I want to know if you think he is still eligible to be president.
Not "Hey, Mark is right and Kevin is wrong" type of credit.
After all your bullshit and lies over the years? Yea, not today buddy. If you want to convince somebody of your argument you have to actually make an argument. Failing to do so will earn ridicule. Actually making an argument when needing to make an argument? Well I guess we do praise toddlers when they make poo-poo in the potty.
What I want to know is if you think that the president is a citizen of the United States, was born here, and is eligible to be president. If you think he was born in Kenya, I want to know if you think he is still eligible to be president.
Well, let's see. The first 'birth certificate' he release was a form that the state department won't accept from you or me for getting a passport and wouldn't be accepted by the military or local police departments for the purposes of background checks. The second 'birth certificate' he released looks photoshopped at a glance. Professionals have stated as much. Both released after long delay and much hand wringing. When I have a potential gov't employer who requires my birth cert. they get it and get it fast. Why couldn't Mr. O provide his in a timely manner? His claims of transparency are not observable in actual practice.
That leads me to believe he is hiding something. Is he hiding his citizenship? Doubtful. Despite the first released certificate not being adequate for a passport, it does establish citizenship to an reasonable degree. Of course the second released 'certificate' appearing to be faked brings the entire enterprise into question.
After all your bullshit and lies over the years? Yea, not today buddy.
So, you're holding a grudge. How logical!
. If you want to convince somebody of your argument you have to actually make an argument.
That's what I did in this link.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/05/still-waiting.html
Failing to do so will earn ridicule.
Well, I succeeded in doing so and I was still ridiculed. Gee, I'm shocked:)
As to the rest, as I suspected you are pretty much full on birther. None of the things you say are true and have been refuted many, many times.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/indeed-born-in-the-u-s-a/
That short-form document is what Hawaii releases to citizens who request a copy of their birth certificate, and we confirmed that it meets legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport.
Here is the full entry at FactCheck which has more on the birth certificate and various claims.
http://www.factcheck.org/tag/birth-certificate/
Here is a link from back in 2008 before he was even elected.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Raised seal and all. So this statement...
Both released after long delay and much hand wringing.
and this one...
Why couldn't Mr. O provide his in a timely manner?
are false.
Here is another link for further support...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
This link has video examinations as well.
Take some time and examine all the evidence I have provided here. After you have done so, I'd like to hear your admission of error. If you don't think you have erred, please provide supporting evidence to your claims that are as detailed, fact based and non biased as my links.
full on birther
does establish citizenship to an reasonable degree
Having problems with reading comprehension today?
and I was still ridiculed
No, you were ridiculed for expecting praise for doing what you should have done in the first place.
non biased
????
Count how many times your links used the pejorative term 'birther' and tell me they aren't biased.
How about something small first? Admit that you were wrong when you said...
The first 'birth certificate' he release was a form that the state department won't accept from you or me for getting a passport and wouldn't be accepted by the military or local police departments for the purposes of background checks.
Perhaps we can build from there.
military
Nope - true.
local police
All of my local police require it.
state department
Well, start with this statement from the State Dept.
Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
Without them actually stating which versions may or may not be acceptable. Combine that with the actual federal code 22 CFR § 51.45. Department discretion to require evidence of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.
The Department may require an applicant to provide any evidence that it deems necessary to establish that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national, including evidence in addition to the evidence specified in 22 CFR 51.42 through 51.44.
This, in conjunction with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate#Acceptance_of_short_forms
State does not accept short form certificates from California and Texas. They also will not accept short forms from certain areas of New Jersey.
So at the very least State will not accept a short form from about 20% of the US population. Beyond that, and despite the claims of what is acceptable for a short form, the language of the CFR leaves each individual short form application's acceptance to the 'discretion' of the State Dept. Discretion does not equal accepted.
Now I don't know where you were born, so I guess I may be wrong to state that you couldn't get a passport with a short form.* I can't get one with a short form.
*But I bet if you called up your local passport office and asked if they wanted you to bring in your short form or your long form BC, 9 out of 10 times your answer will be for the long form. Why would that be?
Let's repeat the line from above since you seem to have trouble admitting fault.
That short-form document is what Hawaii releases to citizens who request a copy of their birth certificate, and we confirmed that it meets legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport.
So, the part of your statement about the passport is wrong. Admit it.
Obviously, you didn't read the rest of the information in the links. Here's something regarding the State Department.
Trump is also mistaken about what legally qualifies as a "birth certificate," which is actually a broad generic term with no specific legal meaning. The U.S. Department of State uses the term "certified birth certificate" to refer to exactly what Obama produced, which Hawaii calls a "Certification of Live Birth." The State Department accepts a state-certified photocopy of a hospital-generated document, as was commonly used in the past.
But Hawaii, like many other states, now uses computer-printed documents instead, and Hawaii's form also meets State Department standards for establishing citizenship.
U.S. Department of State: A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/
So, your statements about the State Dept are also wrong. Admit it.
We're getting to the point of where facts don't seem to matter to you. Again, I would ask that you review all the information I have presented and admit that the president is a legal citizen of this country, is eligible to run for president, and that all documents he has presented prove this unequivocally and are not fake.
We're getting to the point of where facts don't seem to matter to you.
Me?
You don't even seem to be reading the facts I've presented. Try again.
(sigh) So much for me saving you the embarrassment. I want you to remember that I offered you every opportunity to be honest and swallow your pride.
You do not have to be a US Citizen to serve in the military. As long as you are a legal immigrant, you can serve.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/noncitizenjoin.htm
So there is no need for a birth certificate.
Here is a list of the things you need to join.
http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/boot-camp-checklist.html
If the president decided to join the military, he would have all the those things...including a certified copy of his birth certificate (the first one he released 4 years ago. The long form would be overkill)
Finally, you do not need a copy of your birth certificate for a background check. In fact, there are several free services online where all you need is a person's name and address. When checks have been done on me, I simply went to the police station, showed them my driver's license, and they took finger prints. Nothing else was required.
So, time to admit your now multiple errors. Really, GD, this is getting tiresome.
security clearance you idiot
Post a Comment