(This snark brought to you by the 3 reasons Orly Taitz Fever exists: Nativism, fear, and prejudice. Thank you, Orly.)

IMHO, these pinheads, of which Orly is the pointiest, are just channeling their general hate through a convenient valve; i.e. the intersection of the "natural born citizen" clause and the understandable ambiguity inherent in the phenomenon of state records going digital. These guys just love it when people who would normally ignore them are cornered by circumstance into paying attention to them.

Sorry for snarking not clearly enough!

I Barach Hussein Obama II swear (or affirm) that I was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, considered to be a State of the Union, to an American mother and a Kenyan father, so, technically, I am a citizen of the United States. And even though I ran for public office before I signed this document (affirmation) I hold this to be retroactive to November 3, 2008.

If he sings this on national TV, THEN I'll be satisfied.

This is the very definition of preposterous argument; the fundamental propositions prohibit meaningful debate.

Of course, the very notion that critical information about a ticking time bomb can be elicited by torturing another human being, and that that serves as ex post facto justification for it (the 24 mentality) just diverts our attention from the main point: What kind of people are we, and what kind of people do we want to be?

Think about it for a second. Look at some of the many ways lately that the Republicanism has become a religion: The "true" believers of the party "resist" the dilution of core principles by the admission into the fold of moderate thinkers. Entertaining dissenting thought within the ranks is viewed at best as a challenge of critical values and at worst as heretical behavior worthy of excommunication. Speaking out against anointed spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, regardless of intent, has an awful lot in common these days with stepping out of line with your local pastor (or in the case of Rush, the pope!) on matters of party doctrine. Sure you can disagree with Rush, but don't expect to be considered a true Republican for very long. Cheney's recent comments comparing the bona fides of Colin Powell and Rush is a fine example of the shift of the party from an association for political advancement to a haven for ideology and perhaps demagoguery. How else to explain the political sympathy of a former vice president for a talk show host over a former cabinet member, Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs chairman? Ideology victorious over pragmatic politics. And as with defectors from a religious community, Brian Rogers is met with disgust and vituperation at a level so blood-curdling that the principles supposedly violated and ideals at stake seem to transcend what we consider to be politics as usual. And in the case of religious community, though increase in numbers is a purported goal, fealty to common purpose is several factors more important than "inclusiveness" or "gathering folks under a big tent."
For these reasons I am less concerned that the Democrats and the country are missing a competing party (a reasonable opposition group will likely emerge as part of natural political evolution... just look at American history past the Bush era and into the 19th century); what chills me is
how a political organization with such a rich history can be so insidiously transformed into a ideologically strait-jacketed social force, so much like a religious denomination, but with the very occasional rule stripped straight from a cult playbook.

Professor, you are correct on so many points. May I add to your laundry list the obvious absurdity of the cry against "taxation without representation" and the baseless comparisons of the issues in 1773 vs. today.

My only real criticism of your approach in this case, sir, is the obvious disconnect between your intellectual response to what was in my view a visceral, anti-intellectual expression of political hostility. The intellectual power of the teabaggers was on full display during a CNN reporter's exchange with a placard-holding marcher, who, when pressed on why he was referring to Obama as a fascist and socialist and yet could neither explain why that were so nor provide his definition of fascism, became hostile and threatening to the reporter.
Long live right-wing demagoguery!

"Obama's gonna halve the deficit in 5 years? Well, we're gonna, we're gonna halve it again! And again after that! And we'll do it in 2 years!"

"Obama's gonna create jobs? We'll create twice the number of jobs in half the time!"

"How we gonna pay for all that? Well, we'll get back to ya. Hey, Obama took a few days... we'll take a few days too."

These guts are pathetic.

I was in class in college once (and only once!). The lecturer gave a somewhat longish, but splendid, exhortation on a point raised. He was excellent. First question came from someone in the row behind me: "Well, Professor, based on what you are saying, right now, isn't that the case?" The prof paused, looked a little funny, and said, "Well, yes, that's why I said it."

His look was identical to Geithner's, Tinklenberg's and Carville's. He had The Look!