Type to search

14 Fake News Stories Created Or Publicized By Donald Trump

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post Media Politics Top News US

14 Fake News Stories Created Or Publicized By Donald Trump

Pence, Trump, Fake News

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

Donald Trump tried to present himself as a paragon of journalistic virtue at Wednesday’s press conference, and if you were trapped in a bunker the last two years, from another planet, a frequent impulse buyer of bridges, or a Trump supporter, you might have believed him. Over the hour-long circus, Trump railed against the “very, very dishonest people” working in media, said he has “great respect for freedom of the press and all of that” and bemoaned fake news—seven times. “It’s a very sad thing,” Trump stated at one moment. “So, all I can ask for is honest reporters.”

There’s nothing inherently funny about the words Trump used, but they are absolutely hilarious coming out of his mouth. Fake news is the one thing Trump hasn’t claimed to have invented that he actually deserves at least partial credit for inventing. He has been spreading fake news since it was just called “lies,” and he’s shown that winning the presidency will only increase his fake news output. Trump puts out so much misinformation he is a fake news factory unto himself, an artisan of lies, a curator of untruths. Real estate may be his job, but lying is his career, hobby and passion project.

Trump has put thousands of fake news stories out there, some enormous and others so small you wonder why he bothers. Here are 14 fake news stories from the recent and distant past that Trump has created or promoted.

1. Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who never attended Columbia University.

Trump began courting his base in 2011, when he assumed a position as a lead voice among the birthers, a group of racists and Islamophobes desperate for any reason to delegitimize the first black president. For half a decade, Trump relentlessly peddled birtherism and other overtly racialized lies. He suggested that President Obama fabricated his time at Columbia University, a favorite contention among a right-wing that reserves a particularly visceral hatred for educated “elites” of the uppity black variety. Trump also demanded—demanded, with all the gall and entitlement of a mediocre “self-made” white trust fund kid—that Obama prove he was good enough and American enough to hold the office. To ensure this demand was as demeaning as possible, Trump offered Obama $5 million (he would later lie and say it was $50 million) to show his passport and longform birth certificate, as if Obama would shuck and jump at the money. When Trump finally dropped all the birther stuff earlier this year, he tried to slither out of it via more fake news, and invented a story pinning the whole thing on Hillary Clinton.

2. Hillary Clinton was too ill to serve as president.

Like his income taxes, Trump has never released his medical records, and now that 66 million idiots and one hostile foreign power have made him president, he definitely never will. You know who did release her medical records, though? Hillary Clinton. Hypocrisy being one of Trump’s most recognizable traits, the GOP presidential candidate launched a sustained health scare about Clinton, claiming she lacked the “mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS,” and saying she “sleeps a lot.” When Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia after fainting at a 9/11 memorial event, Trump told a crowd of supporters, “She’s supposed to fight all of these different things, and she can’t make it 15 feet to her car, give me a break.” He further capitalized on the moment by releasing an ad that accused Clinton of falling short on “fortitude, strength [and] stamina.” In short order, Trump followers were matter-of-factly telling telling TV personalities that Clinton had AIDS and passing around conspiracy-theory memes that confused a lapel mic with a “cough-prevention machine.”

3. Ted Cruz’s father was involved in a plot to kill President Kennedy.

For two days and across four press outlets—a mere fraction of the $3 billion in free ad space the media gave him—Trump insinuated that Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael, had a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy. He didn’t state this outright, but instead used a favorite trick of the right, which is to pose an outrageous question and then pretend it wasn’t fully loaded with innuendo and suggestion. “What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible,” Trump said on an episode of Fox & Friends. The next day, he got extra weaselly by announcing, “I’m just referring to an article that appeared, it has nothing to do with me.”

That article, by the way, was published by the National Enquirer, whose publisher and CEO is Trump’s good friend David Pecker. Trump has even written for the tabloid. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that the Enquirer paid one of Trump’s sexual harassment accusers for her story in order to bury it, and actress Salma Hayek says the rag let Trump plant a fake story about her after she turned him down for a date. Yes, it’s true that the Enquirer has broken political scandals, such as Rush Limbaugh’s drug addiction. It is also true that it has published many, many stories that have ended with retractions, court-ordered payments to celebrities, public apologies, and out-of-court settlements. Since the election, the Enquirer has become a propaganda arm of Trump’s transition team, an honor it shares with Breitbart.

In the end, Trump admitted on CNN that even he didn’t believe the conspiracy theory he’d helped to propagate. Ted Cruz responded by memorizing and reciting a joke written for him by an human staffer, telling reporters, “Yes, my dad killed JFK, he is secretly Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in his backyard.” Which led millions of wide-eyed Trump supporters to whisper to themselves, “Oh my god, he finally admitted it.”

4. The Central Park 5 are guilty and deserve the death penalty (1989).

Three decades ago, Trump took out a full-page ad in the New York Daily News calling for the summary execution of five African-American and Latino teenagers aged 16 and under, who were falsely accused of raping a white jogger in the late 1980s. Police used every abusive and coercive method to extract confessions from the Central Park 5, and Trump fanned sky-high racial flames with the ad, which left no room for the fact that the five teens might be innocent. It was precursor to Trump the master race-baiter of the 2016 presidential campaign. “He was the fire-starter,” Yusef Salaam, one of the erroneously accused, told the Guardian during Trump’s presidential campaign. “Common citizens were being manipulated and swayed into believing that we were guilty.”

5. The Central Park 5 are still guilty, against all evidence (2013 to present).

Exonerated by DNA evidence, the Central Park 5 were released after serving years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. Trump — who is neither a lawyer, forensics expert or decent person — has continued to publicly prosecute the case, tweeting out disproven information and calling the state’s settlement with the group “the heist of the century.” This belief that black and brown people must be innately guilty of something is what Trump and his supporters call “law and order.”

6. ‘Thousands and thousands of [Muslims] were cheering’ on 9/11.

The first time Trump spread fake news about American Muslims in New Jersey rejoicing at the death and destruction of 9/11 was at a 2015 rally in Birmingham, Alabama, where he told supporters, “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.”

After cops said it wasn’t true, he told George Stephanopoulos he saw the “Arab population” jubilantly celebrating the towers falling “on television.” Shortly thereafter, Trump tweeted a video clip that actually discredited his story, proving himself wrong.

7. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered.

Another example of Trump pretending that he’s just “putting the question out there.” After the death of Justice Scalia in February 2016, Trump went on the radio show of nutty conspiracy theorist par excellence Michael Savage (who has accused Obama of #WhiteGenocide and said Trump was a victim of vicious racism. Trustworthy, in other words). When Savage asked Trump about a conspiracy theory suggesting the 79-year-old justice was murdered, Trump played his designated role. “I’m hearing it’s a big topic. But they say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow,” Trump said, repeating a bit of fake news to help it grow wings and fly all over the right-wing blogosphere.

8. Black people kill all the white people.

Deciding that his campaign wasn’t quite racist enough, Trump retweeted a graphic, below, containing completely fabricated numbers for black murder rates. All of the data in the image are wrong and the supposed source, the Crime Statistics Bureau of San Francisco, doesn’t exist. The information was passed to Trump by one of the white nationalists he pals around with online (not to be confused with the white nationalists he pals around with on his transition team) who uses a swastika as an avatar. During an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, Trump’s excuse for tweeting disinformation was that he doesn’t know if things he tweets are true, but also he doesn’t care. “Am I going to check every statistic?” Trump asked. “All it was, was a retweet. It wasn’t from me.”

Trump’s fake figures went out to his millions of followers, many of whom are already hateful, racist adherents of stereotypes of black crime. Dylann Roof, who hunted nine black people as they worshipped in church, cited similar fake numbers as his justification for black death in his video confession and manifesto. Breitbart, helmed by Trump senior adviser and white nationalist sympathizer Steve Bannon, became the favorite of neo-Nazis and white supremacists thanks to sections tagged “black crime.” Trump is helping—doing his damndest, in fact—to radicalize white extremists, the greatest terrorist threat to the United States.

9. The members of this one random black family are Trump supporters.

In June, Trump retweeted a photo that juxtaposed a family photo of “the blacks” with the words “American Families for Trump: We Need A Common Sense President.” Twitter responded by noting that the picture first appeared in an article by Ohio broadcaster WCPO about its annual “Midwest Black Family Reunion” arts and entertainment festival. When Buzzfeed reached out to the dad in the photo, he told the outlet, “When I saw it, I immediately knew it was political propaganda. Why use it without asking for someone’s permission? Why use our image without asking?”

10. Millions of people in the U.S. voted illegally on November 8.

In the final countdown to election day, Trump rejiggered his claims of a rigged election to focus on undocumented immigrants illegally voting. “We have voters all over the country where they’re not even citizens of the country and they’re voting,” Trump said, his lies made obvious by the movement of his lips. “There is tremendous voter fraud.”

Post-election, Trump’s unceasing insecurity over losing the popular vote led him to defensively tweet, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” This is exactly like my contention thatIwon the popular vote if you ignore the many millions of people who voted. Like all 138.8 million of them. Those claims strike me as on a par, validity wise.

11. Climate change is a trick pulled on us by the Chinese.

During a presidential debate in September, Trump lied and said he’d never claimed climate change was a hoax. He’s contradicted by his 2012 tweet stating global warming “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”; a 2014 tweet in which he called climate change “bullshit”; another 2014 tweet in which he called climate change a “hoax”; and dozens of other tweets expressing the same sentiment. On a side but related note, Trump has also been lying about receiving nameless “environmental awards” since 2011.

12. Vaccines cause autism.

Trump has been a vocal anti-vaxxer on social media since 2012, once tweeting that a “healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn’t feel good and changes – AUTISM. Many such cases!” In 2015, he declared autism “an epidemic.” Though countless people with real scientific credentials have debunked the myth linking vaccines and autism, Trump earned his PhD in the school of reality TV, which has no science department. “I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied,” he tweeted in 2014. “Save our children & their future.”

Earlier this week, Trump announced that he has asked Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a king among anti-vaxxers, to “chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity.’’

13. Marco Rubio is ineligible to be president.

On several occasions during the Republican primaries, Trump questioned whether Ted Cruz, by dint of his Canadian birth, was ineligible for the presidency and threatened to sue him over the issue. Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, making him a natural-born citizen, and in 2016 he renounced his Canadian citizenship. Maybe all that information is hard for Trump to juggle at once—seems plausible—but less clear is why on more than one occasion he promoted the fake news that Marco Rubio’s eligibility was in question. Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, in the United States, which makes him a citizen from birth, without question. The only reason to suggest otherwise is if you believe only people with anglo names can be U.S. citizens. Trump may have assumed this was the rule in the Constitution’s Article XII, which he reportedly promised to protect as president. (There is no Article XII.)

14. Paid rabble-rousers protested the election results.

Two days after the election (one day after we all woke up realizing it wasn’t just a nightmare), Trump got on Twitter to give some debunked fake news life again. “Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting,” Trump wrote about those demonstrating against his win. “Very unfair!”

The “paid Trump protester” was birthed by paranoid right-wing types, but gained widespread attention when prolific fake news writer Paul Horner wrote a fake news article on the topic. During the campaign, Trump spokesatan Kellyanne Conway, campaign flunky Corey Lewandowski and spawn Eric all tweeted the fake news story out to followers. Although it had widely been recognized as fake news by the time of the election, here was Trump tweeting it out again, clearly uninterested in its veracity or lack thereof. His approach to the truth—which is to throw rocks at it, hard—was one of the things that drew many of his like-minded followers to his campaign.

“My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time…His followers don’t fact-check anything—they’ll post everything,” Horner, a self-described Clinton supporter, told the Washington Post after the election. “I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters—they just keep running with it!”

Kali Holloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet.

IMAGE: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (R) and vice presidential candidate Mike Pence speak in an overflow room at a campaign event in Roanoke, Virginia, U.S., July 25, 2016.  REUTERS/Carlo Allegri



  1. Just A Citizen January 13, 2017

    Trump’s questioning of Cruz’ eligibility was valid. As was the questions about Obama’s.

    Some folks need to do more detailed research on the meaning of “natural born”.

    I don’t remember the details of Rubio’s citizenship but he might have had problems meeting the criteria as well.

    1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 13, 2017

      We need to investigate your background as well. Aside from insisting on beating dead horses re: a person’s provenance, being compelled to dig under rocks to substantiate your lurid fantasies demands that you vist a psychiatrist to probe the depths of your troubled mind.
      While you’re at it, you should take it upon yourself to investigate Trump(Drumpf’s) grandfather who entered the country illegally while escaping from the reach of German law-enforcers for grandpa’s refusal to register for military service. Trump inherited grandpa’s lack of courage to serve in the military on a lame excuse.
      Which makes Trump, for numerous other reasons, hardly fit to be qualified as an outstanding citizen, not to mention that he gained the presidency through a lot of help from his pal, Putin. Maybe you’re an agent for Putin as well by regurgitating more crap about Obama’s birth. Where’s your BC, “Just a Citizen”??

      Dobryy den’, tovarishch

      1. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


        There is substantial academic study and publication on the subject. It has nothing to do with place of birth but the status of the PARENTS at the time of birth.

        So your concern about Trump’s grandparents is a waste of your energy. Your focus should be on his parents.

        Otherwise, nice typical left wing rant.

        1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 14, 2017

          Thank you for that one-dimensional binary rant. For you and your ilk your constipated minds have been solely reduced to Left Wing/Right WIng, Zero or One, Up/Down, and other binary world views.
          Sorry pal, but you’re of no benefit in your present state of mind to humanity, both in America and in the rest of the world.

          Thanks again, for trying. Come back when your myopia clears up and your vision can take in the entire planet.

          1. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


            How funny. You auditioning for comedy central or Sat. night live?

            I guess intellectual pursuit is not in your tool box. Sorry I tried.

          2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 15, 2017

            On the contrary, intellectual pursuit was awakened in me by the time of was in kindergarten on seeing a group of friends a year older than me go to 1st grade and come back with books in their hands to the church to pick up siblings. I was motivated from that point on to read and study nature and observe human behavior.
            Right now and during the past few years I’ve discovered the desolation and bleakness of the minds of conservatives in America.
            You’ve provided me with more data with which to further construct my model. Thanks for your bleak viewpoint—a view offering no clues of the ability for higher thought.

      2. idamag January 14, 2017

        I would say anyone who still perpetuates the lie of Obama’s birth after an affidavit from former medical staff at the hospital and his birth certificate was out there for everyone to see, is a racist troll. Block the functionally illiterate.

    2. charleo1 January 14, 2017

      Instead of wasting our time on politically motivated claptrap about the circumstances of this or that potential President’s birth. What we should be worrying about is that person in question’s qualifications, temperament, and vision, to be leader of the Free World. The thing we should be questioning is the wisdom of the antiquated, “natural birth,” requirement in the first place. Seeing as how no-one can decipher what exactly that is. And, consider the statute was included two hundred years ago, for reasons that make no sense in our World today. Plus, it smacks of an ethnic based paranoia, we see is once again gaining a foothold in our Nation. A Nation that has always welcomed that which has been the source of our Country’s greatest strength. Which is the deal we make here in America. That it’s not where one is born, to which rich, aristocratic family, or under what lowly circumstances one might start out that determines his or her fate. But in this extraordinary place, America, it is the value of one’s initiative, contribution, and willingness to work hard to reap the full benefits of universal liberty, and being viewed equally under the law that makes the difference.

      Look. Whether we believe America is no longer a great Country, and long to make it great again. Or we believe that America is still a great Country, but can always be a greater Country. Before either of those things can happen, we must remember, and encourage those things that made America great right from the beginning.

      1. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017

        So typical. Whether you feel it applies today or not is irrelevant. It is a provision of our Constitution. If you do not like the restriction then AMEND the Constitution.

        And the reasons that provision was included ARE just as valid today. Maybe more so. It was to assure that anyone elected was in fact loyal to America and not influenced or partial to another nation. Influenced means linked by loyalties of blood lines, not having dinner or speaking someplace.

        Many scholars have deciphered what “natural born” means. The only dispute is whether the status goes to both parents or only the father. And that is the real issue, not the place of birth. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.

        In fact, the biggest fear at the time was immigration of the German population with their culture that was “foreign” to that of the liberty minded English descendants.

        The rest of your comment, while nice and fairly accurate, is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with the issue of “natural born”. I was pleasantly surprised to see your focus on individual actions and not the “collective”.

        Perhaps the biggest flaw today is thinking that we are looking for someone to “lead the free world”. Maybe we should instead be looking for someone who can run govt. efficiently and effectively and adhere to the Constitution and other laws our representatives passed.

        1. idamag January 14, 2017

          Linked by blood lines? That means everyone is suspect. We all have bloodline ties to other countries.

          1. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


            Blood of the parents. You having trouble with reading comprehension?

          2. charleo1 January 14, 2017

            Exactly! With DNA technology, mixed with a lot of hateful racism. Who knows how many of us could eventually be ethnically disqualified right out of our citizenship? After all, Homer Plessy was only 1/8 Negro, when the United States Supreme Court (7-1) upheld the State of Louisiana’s contention that African Americans ride in the back of the bus/or train as it were. And so they did as a matter of the law of the land for the next 70 years. They hope we think they are kidding you know? You and I know they are not.

          3. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


            Who is this “they” you are talking about. Your off the rails man. Bring it back to earth please.

          4. charleo1 January 15, 2017

            My sense is you’re an honest guy who has no idea what we’re about to start dealing with in this Country. And my comments were effected by that. But I continue to see the natural born requirement as an antiquated statute that Trump, and a handful of conspiracy theorist and propagandists have used, and will continue to use as a wedge issue, and political cudgel, to advance what is obviously a White Neo Nationalist agenda. Starting with this element’s outrageous and unprecedented questioning of the citizenship of a sitting President. Which was only surpassed in its incredulity, by the refusal of these same propagandists, and their minions, to accept the legal certified proof, debunking their theories of his illegitimacy. So my point is, if one’s President may be questioned in this manner, and that serves one purpose, Why would it not be possible to question the legitimacy of millions, on the same basis, who hold the same certification? By simply impugning the same system we all use that was rejected in the Birther Lie? Well, I am White, and was born in KS. Well, so you say…. But let’s see something other than what you have to prove all that..

          5. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            I stated pretty clearly, I thought, at the beginning of my comment on this that Trump had the right question for entirely the wrong reason. Which showed me he had zero understanding of the Constitution.

            The Birth Certificate or his place of birth was not a concern to me regarding Natural Born. It was his, and Cruz’s, Father’s citizenship. I think I was pretty clear on that all along.

            By the way, there were several “scholars” who claim to be on the left politically who were also claiming Cruz was not eligible. At least with Cruz, Trump was hitting the right issue. Because by then the smart people had given him the questions.

            As for the coming years, I fear where we were headed under the current administration and Progressive Democrats far more. I think much of the howling about Trump will be found unwarranted. Not that I think him great or smart or any such thing. He simply will not be able to do the harsher things he talks about. Which I think was just political posturing anyway.

            All this crying about voter registration and ID is hilarious to me. I have spent my life in western states where proof of citizenship and residency along with a picture ID has been required to vote for decades. I honestly believe it is just another issue inflamed by propaganda.

            Expunging names from registration roles could be an issue, depending on how the State and County Clerks handle the process for getting registered again. Even in red neck Idaho you can register the day you vote, IF you provide the needed documents. Picture ID and a utility bill to show you live in the precinct.

            I suggest you chill out a little, take a deep breath and relax. The coming couple of years may be far better than you think and certainly entertaining.

        2. charleo1 January 14, 2017

          Scholars don’t make laws, or interpret the Constitution. So there’s that. But to your larger point defending the natural birth statute, What does the term, “liberty minded,” mean to you? Do you believe the English are any more liberty minded than say the Greeks? Who after all, established most of the tenets adopted by the Romans passed down to the French, and borrowed by the American Revolutionaries as a basis for such founding documents as our own Declaration of Independence. So what is it you believe is so typical, and I’m guessing from the way you used the description, distasteful about my premise that freedom is a natural inclination of all humans? Or the presumption that any one race is somehow special in this? Their desire for, or their understanding of the basics of egalitarianism is any stronger in one people than another. In fact, that doesn’t seem all that particularly liberty minded, or enlightened to me.
          So you want efficiency, go live in a dictatorship. The point of self rule is not finding the shortest distance between two points. Businesses are not democracies. Businesses have bosses. They are the guy that controls the money. The U.S. has elected leaders. They are called representatives who garner the most votes from the most people.
          Geez. Sometimes when I hear such ideas, which is too often, I think a good part of this country should go back and re-take their 5th grade Civics Class.

          1. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


            Boy, distorting and jumping to conclusions seems a specialty with you.

            The liberty minded English I referred to were the people who founded our country. That should have been obvious. They were mostly of English decent but more importantly is was the philosophies of the English folks like Locke that informed their efforts. I never said they did not borrow from history. They were far more versed in History that any politician or average citizen today.

            Where did I say freedom is not an natural inclination? But you might want to rethink that slightly since your weighing in on history so heavily. Emphasis on “slightly”, so you don’t hurt yourself.

            You raised an ethnic strawman. I simply pointed out that at the time of our founding the framers/founders were more concerned with German immigration due to their differences in philosophy and culture. Which is obviously not an ethnic group, and certainly not racial.

            You are constructing your own windmills to joust with.

          2. charleo1 January 14, 2017

            Who instructed Mr. Locke. Mr. English only advocate? And it is you who are defending the natural born stuff. When it actually makes no logical sense in determining anything. But only serves to stratify, and thus divide, and thus weaken the very ideals of equality upon which the Country was founded. Doubtful if you read my response. “Typical..”

          3. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017

            When did I advocate for English only?

    3. idamag January 14, 2017

      The question is: Does having one parent, who is a U.S. citizen count as natural born or do they have to be born on U.S. soil? Either way, Obama would be a natural born citizen. Hawaii is in the United States. Canada is not. Cruz’s mother held dual citizenship, but voted in Canadian elections. I would say that constitutes her giving up her U.S. citizenship.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

        My Dad was born in Italy. My Mom’s parents in Austria-Hungary. She was born in the US. I am an American citizen with only one American born parent.

        Mary Ann Trump, Donny Boy’s Mommy is also an immigrant from Tong, Scotland. His daddy, Fred, was born in the Bronx, NY. So Trump is also a son of one immigrant parent.

        1. idamag January 14, 2017

          If blood lines determine loyalty to this country, none of the Founding Father’s parents were born in this country. In fact, the founding fathers were not born in The United States of America. My mother’s family is only four generations back. My father’s family 1700’s. That is totally irrelevant to whether or not I am a better or worse citizen than anyone else. One of the most dangerous things to democracy is ignorance and just a citizen is one of those hateful people who are not a credit to this country. They are proud of their ignorance.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

            Trump is one two faced boil on the butt of humanity. When Conway has to interpret “what Mr. Trump meant was….” you know she is part of a major Cover Up Trump is hoping won’t sideline his swearing in.

      2. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


        Yes, that is the question. The scholarship mostly points to the FATHER having to be the citizen. Some scholars claim both parents. But I think the proper interpretation would be Father, given this term is rooted in English law at the time of their empire. And we all know that the men held the power.

        Holding dual citizenship is not giving up citizenship. If she voted in Canada and they allowed it that is fine. Just as she could have voted if she lived in the USA. That is how the dual thing works. There is a lot of cloudiness, however, around the Cruz question. Which simply adds to my original comment that questioning both Cruz and Obama’s “natural born” status was valid.

        What was not so valid in my opinion was all the focus on where Obama was born. He could have been born in Kenya of American parents and still been “natural born”. Contrary to the interpretation of some right wing pundits, by the way.

        1. charleo1 January 14, 2017

          “Scholarship mostly points to the Father having to be the citizen.” Really in what court? Shira Court? King Henry the 8th’s give me a boy or I’ll cut off your pretty little head, Court? If it’s the Constitutional one we live in accordance with, gender would have absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

          1. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017

            The Constitution says “natural born citizen”. It says this in ONLY ONE PLACE. When the document was written that term had a meaning based on English Law, which the Founders and Framers used in writing the document.

            This meaning can be discovered by scholarship, which it has.

            This does not change because of your ranting.

          2. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            You clearly don’t understand the Constitution “natural born citizen” does not mean ‘born in America” – it means “born to at least one American citizen.’ And it doesn’t matter where in the world that birth takes place, as long as one of the parents ARE A BONE FIDA AMERICAN CITIZEN.

            The whole birther thing on Obama is nothing but a joke – because even if he was born in Kenya, he was eligible to be president because his mother was a bone fida American citizen and she qualified to be that because she had lived in America for more than 5 years after her 14th birthday. And Barack Obama had lived in America for more than 5 years after his 14th birthday.

            If you were born in America and then moved to another country (like Canada) before your+14th birthday and therefore did not live in America for 5 years after you were 14 – YOU ARE NOT A ‘NATURAL BORN AMERICAN’. And therefore, even though you were ‘born in America’ you would not be eligible to run for president.

          3. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


            Good grief. Another reading impaired antagonist.

            I never said Natural Born had anything to do with where the person was born. I said it depends on whether the Parents were citizens at the time of birth. Specifically, the father. Making both Obama and Cruz ineligible, per the original meaning of “natural born”.

            Your argument is also flawed in that a child born of US citizens who move to Canada later does not change the childs status as Natural Born. Nor does it change their status as a Citizen. That changes when the parents change theirs or the child’s.

            Keep in mind that the term Natural Born derives from rules of citizenship and inheritance of British subjects born in foreign lands, or British subjects born of parents who were not.

            The presidential candidate must first be Natural Born, and then must have lived within (been a resident) the US for fourteen years, and be 35 or older.

          4. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            Both parents do not have to be citizens. And it matters not where they are born

            We have thousands of Americans living out of the country. If one of them marries a foreigner and has a child and brings that child back to the U.S. such that that child is here in the U.S. for more than 5 years after its reached age 14, that Child is eligible to be president provided it meets all the other presidential criteria.

            And if a child born in America moves to Canada before age 14 and does not return for years and live in America for 5 years after 14, he/she IS NOT Automatically an American Citizen.

          5. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017

            You are confusing Citizen with Natural Born Citizen.

          6. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            No I’m not. Only from the standpoint with respect to Naturalized vs Natural Born as I described. Naturalized is someone who comes to America from a foreign country and has to go through a waiting period and a procedure to become an American citizen; vs someone who is born an American citizen because he or she is the child of at least one American Citizen.

            If two foreigners come to America and become Naturalized American Citizens and then have a child, whether it’s born here or anywhere else in the world, that child is a Natural Born Citizen.

            Benjamin Franklin spent a lot of time in France as America’s ambassador to France. Had Ben married a French woman and had a son born in Paris and then brought him to America to live before he was 14; when his son grew up and satisfied the requirements of being president, are you moronic enough to believe there’s even one of our founding fathers who would have told Ben his son didn’t qualify to be president because he wasn’t a ‘Natural Born Citizen’?

          7. Just A Citizen January 14, 2017


            Your example is correct. Because both parents are citizens before the child is born.

            However, the meaning of Natural Born did not mean either parent. It means Father or Both. That is where there is differences in the scholarship.

            The Supreme Court has actually never ruled on the definition.

          8. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            Sorry but not true! It means either parent. Do you seriously believe many Constitutional scholars wouldn’t have made an issue of that with Obama over the past 8 plus years?

            Sorry BUT YOU ARE WRONG!!!

          9. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            Several did take issue. But they did not get a voice in the debate because it was taken over by the “birthers”.

            The same thing happens on many issues involving the Constitution. The politics doesn’t allow all opinions to surface or for some to get more than an initial mention.

          10. Independent1 January 15, 2017

            Yes I know, Because there are always those, who even claim to be experts, who live in their own fantasy worlds of the past and fail to take into account reality and what our founding father’s intentions really were – not what British law had always mistakenly intended.

            Just like there are supposed presidential scholars who will claim Ronald Reagan was some kind of great economic genius when in reality he was an economic failure because he governed during the decade of the personal computer revolution when any idiot could have driven our economy far better than he did. And they fail to take into account all the destructive effects that his many social and economic destructive fantasies have created for America making Reagan in fact the worst president America ever had. Proving clearly that even supposed experts can themselves be totally wrong.

            The many ills that America is suffering even at this moment were created in large part by many of Ronald Reagan’s destructive brain washings of today’s conservatives’ minds.

          11. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            The ills of this country are not rooted in Reagan’s administration. I don’t fall into the worshiping Reagan camp but he was not that bad a President.

            The computer boom impact to the economy was more Bush II and Clinton by the way. Reagan got some at the end by the real turn around was primarily due to Volker stopping the Stagflation.

            I do not know any serious economic experts who think Reagan was “wonderful”. Primarily due to his increasing the DEBT, when he could have set the stage for reducing it. But also remember he had to deal with a Democratic House and Tip O’Neal to get stuff done. Hence why they basically pushed the Soc. Sec. problem into the future. Which by the way was predicted back then to be about 50 years.

            Today’s conservatives are not the product of Reagan. But then again there is not a solid THING called Conservative that you can apply to a large number of identifiable people. Kind of like the word “progressive”. It has different meaning to different people.

          12. Independent1 January 15, 2017

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5647c6f4837feb53c019e0a4ab3e81a3ac6eb743fbac966556b1ff561fefa746.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97d6eb5e34d083898d3691ebd317836c838524e0db5973d4210d2ae242b48a47.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9e4fbc46edeb25913f4615f3b8da301d4da77ac662921ccfba3d7aa39ece78b.jpg Sorry, but once again you’re wrong – virtually all America’s ills today are because of Ronald Reagan:. Income inequality; destroyed unions; companies that work people part time and refuse to give them livable wages and benefits; America’s 19 plus trillion in debts; politicians who believe in the fantasy of trickle-down economics; millions of Americans who believe our government is the problem when it’s the political party they keep voting into office that’s the problem and on and on. Ronald Reagan was a pariah to America.

            Ronnie cutting the max tax rate virtually in half while then raising taxes on the middle class 11 times, not only sent America off on today’s enormous income inequality ; it also started America off on being a truly debtor nation. (I’ll post a graph which shows how money going to the upper 10% skyrocketed as soon as Ronnie made that 1st tax cut.)

            And you’re clearly wrong about the computer boom not being a driver of the economy under Reagan. IBM announced its PC in the month Ronnie’s first misguided tax cut went into effect 7/81 which started the devastation of the middle class and incidentally 7/81 was the starting month of the recession Ronnie’s failure to apply any stimulus for 6 months after taking office created.

            IBM announcing the PC in 7/81 prompted every major company that drives technology in America today (Apple, IBM, HP, Intel, Del etc etc etc) to either be created during Ronnie’s 1st term or to be greatly expanded to move from the mainframe computing world to support people owning personal computers in the office and at home.

            It was a revolution which Ronnie stymied for a while with his failed governance (when only 4 million jobs were created his 1st term after Carter had created over 10 million in 4 years just before him). And the reason 12 million jobs were created in Ronnie’s 2nd term was in spite of/rather than because of anything Ronnie had done. The great jobs growth in Ronnie’s 2nd term was due to pent up demand for the personal computer and technology companies that simply could not be restrained any longer.

            Not only did Ronnie start the destruction of unions by conning the ATCU to illegally strike and then firing every air traffic controller; he deliberately worked to destroy unions by appointing two union haters like himself to the NLRB.

            I think you’re getting the picture, I could go on and on pointing out terrible things Ronnie did – he was the most devious person to ever sit in the Oval Office.

            Here’s just a hash of things someone created to show how much of a criminal Ronnie was:

            It took the Gipper no time to start dealing with the Ayatollahs,
            illegally fund death squads in El Salvador, order one of the most embarrassing cuts and run in U.S. history in Lebanon after 271 U.S. Marines were slaughtered, it took him no time to provide intelligence, training and WMDs to the Saddam Hussein regime during the Iran-Iraq war and support Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against the Iranians; it took him no time to grant amnesty to 4 million illegal immigrants, it took him no time to deregulate and cause the near collapse of the Savings and Loan industry, it took him no time to increase the Federal government deficits by 189% and increase the national debt 18 times, and the list goes on.

            And keep in mind more than 100 Reagan administration people were indicted for felonies with a number going to jail.

          13. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            Let me address your first fallacy. Money did not start “going” to the rich due to the tax bracket reductions. The rich simply got to keep more of their money.

            Their share of the total tax burden “paid” has continued to climb.

            Reagan is not responsible for debt beyond his administration. First of all Congress controls the purse strings and taxation. Second, every Congress and POTUS can reverse those trends if they choose.

            I also love the irony of how people rip on Reagan for the bombing in Lebanon when his response was exactly what many on the left have been screaming for. He pulled out.

            Reagan had nothing to do with the loss of power by labor unions in this country. They can thank themselves primarily for that problem.

          14. Jan123456 January 14, 2017

            Just, Here’s the thing…

            At the time the Constitution was written, the legal concept of “coverture” applied. This means that a woman really didn’t have independent legal standing as a citizen. She held the citizenship of her father, then when she married, she automatically took on not only her husband’s surname, but also his citizenship. So, for all practical purposes, it was not possible for a child to have parents of differing citizenship.

            It wasn’t until the early 20th century that US law allowed a woman to have citizenship independent of her husband.

          15. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            The work I have read separated two aspects and “coverture” was not one of them. Although it is slightly related. In short, I am not positive that citizenship automatically was bestowed upon the wife.

            But lets assume it was and thus that rule would apply. Then both Obama and Cruz would not be eligible because both their fathers were NOT US Citizens at the time of their birth.

            The tow areas were legal status, such as citizenship or actually being “subjects of the King” and the rules and rights of inheritance.

            Google Professor Rob Natelson’s work on the subject. Let me know if you find something related to “coverture”.

          16. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            Just, (Thank you for your polite response.)

            Here is the history of the Cable Act of 1922. (Emphasis added)

            “Through much of U.S. history, a married woman took on her husband’s legal identity. Among other things, the husband gained control over his wife’s wages and property and her right to sue and make contracts; she was essentially legally dependent on him. That was also the case when it came to citizenship. As a result of laws in place by the early 20th century, women in the U.S took on the citizenship of the men they married. Therefore, foreign women who married American men automatically became U.S. citizens, while American woman who married foreigners lost their American citizenship. That changed with the passage of the Cable Act in 1922, which made married women’s citizenship independent of their husbands’.”


            But lets assume it was and thus that rule would apply. Then both Obama and Cruz would not be eligible because both their fathers were NOT US Citizens at the time of their birth.

            The issue here is do we apply the arcane mores of the 18th Century to 20th (and 21st) century law? Especially since positive US law (Cable Act of 1922) renders it obsolete.

            The founding fathers had no reason to even consider that a woman might have independent citizenship (thus the use of the plural “parents” in many citations you may read) as the British Common Law assumed she didn’t.

            As you requested, I have read from what Prof. Natelson had to say about the subject of “natural born”. He said that Congress cannot alter the meaning of the term. And it hasn’t. Nowhere in US law is the term defined, much less altered. We turn to SCOTUS and its rulings on the subject.

            “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.” ( Minor v Happersett)

            All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born
            subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. (Wong Kim Ark v US citing US v Rhodes)

          17. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            The reason that what was understood in 1779 matters is because it is the Constitution and not just civil law.

            That is why my position always is that if you want things to change then amend the document. The Natural Born provision was pretty well understood for a long time. The political powers started pushing their own goals and like many other “non specific” items, became more and more subject to interpretation.

            I have never said whether I thought these people should be eligible, only that I did not think them eligible under the original meaning of the phrase. I think Natelson’s work, and some others, supports that view.

            Natelson also points out that the definition or meaning itself has never been the focus of any legal challenge. Almost like some folks want to avoid getting an answer they do not want.

            The problem, as I understand, with Wong is it really did not deal with the definition and the statement made in the ruling was not attached to the legal question. I would have to go back and study that again, but I did twice before on this issue and sided with many who do not think it changed the definition. Partly because it would be saying that any person born here would be a citizen and thus natural born. But that opens up the whole can of worms about being born on US soil or territory, which was not part of Natural Born.

            This by the way, is where the “right wingers” get it completely wrong They want to say Both parents and has to be Born on US Soil. That is not more supportable than the other view that any citizen is also natural born.

            My bigger point in all this was to try and show that some of these questions are legitimate. People on both sides dismiss them as ludicrous based on their political ideology and not the scholarship.

            Another pet peeve of mine is the “living document theory”. As a legal precedent this was invented in the early to mid 1900’s to justify changing the Constitution via SCOTUS rulings. This is where the rhetoric usually shows up about “why should we follow 1800 laws, because things have changed.”

            If that were true regarding a Constitution then in affect there is little need for such a document. Because it becomes subject to the whims of politicians and appointed judges, not the people who sanctioned it in the first place.

          18. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            (btw, this is a fun debate…we stick to issues and exchange our thoughts)

            The reason that what was understood in 1779 matters is because it is the Constitution and not just civil law.

            Again, I point to previous SCOTUS decisions as they are responsible for interpreting the law. Well prior to the mid 1900s, the court pointed to English Common Law to interpret what the founders meant in the Constitution.

            “There is no common law of the United States in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its
            local law and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes…There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the
            fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” (Smith v Alabama, 1888)

            Now, what did English Common law have to say about the phrase “natural born”.

            “The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of
            England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.” (William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62)

            Now, there is an argument that we are not “subjects”, but “citizens”. Also well before the mid 1900s, SCOTUS addressed that issue.

            “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.” (WKA v US)

            I believe I am addressing the scholarship and not ideology.

          19. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


            I agree with your view on your approach. The next step is that which Natelson summarized in his article to “republicans” warning that questions about Cruz were legit. Which leads to his deeper dive.

            That is that under English common law, being a subject also carried with it this issue of what allegiance the Father had. All subjects of the crown were not the same, as I recall. Despite what Blackstone wrote.

            Obviously, the great concern of the Framers was allegiance to the country. Thus they conveyed eligibility to those here and who had become citizens before ratification and only Natural Born after that. It was pretty common in those days to view a son born of a foreigner to have his fathers allegiance, that is to his father’s country. Natelson’s work addresses this. He is not the only one but I do not recall the others.

            One of the modern disputes is that the courts and Congress have skirted this natural born issue, that is the direct question. Logically, if there was an understood meaning when written then Congress cannot redefine it. Neither can the Supreme Court, because it is not their authority to “interpret” the Constitution but to interpret whether laws or Gov.t action comply with it. Yes, sometimes this means trying to figure out what was meant when written.

            There is another thing to consider. If the Framers were using Natural Born to simply separate naturalized citizens from citizens born here, then why did they use those terms in other places but Natural Born ONLY with regard to eligibility to be President.

            We will probably not agree on the original meaning but I do enjoy that you engaged in a calm debate with me on this. I am curious, though, what you think it really should be. Is simply being born here and living in the country for 14 years enough to guarantee a person’s allegiance to the USA? Regardless of their parent’s citizenship or connections?

            Also, do you agree that a person born of US citizens is Natural Born regardless of where they are born? If so, should it be both parents or only one?

          20. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            I have seen many sites that cite Prof. Natelson. Will you please include the one you’re referring to when you talk about Cruz?

            If the Framers were using Natural Born to simply separate naturalized
            citizens from citizens born here, then why did they use those terms in
            other places but Natural Born ONLY with regard to eligibility to be

            That is a very good question and one I would put above my pay grade to answer. It sure would have made this whole issue easier if they hadn’t or if they had explicitly defined the term.

            Logically, if there was an understood meaning when written then Congress cannot redefine it.

            That’s where I go back to my last post. I believe there was an understood meaning back in the 1700s and it was born a citizen with no need for naturalization.

            I am curious, though, what you think it really should be. Is simply
            being born here and living in the country for 14 years enough to
            guarantee a person’s allegiance to the USA? Regardless of their
            parent’s citizenship or connections?

            That and being at least 35 years of age.

            I have a strong belief in US law. The law that defines citizenship at birth is 8 USC 1401. As much as I have a dislike of Ted Cruz, I have to acknowledge that he meets the criteria of law.

          21. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017

            Yes, as a “citizen”. But on the issue of “natural born” you and I will have to agree to disagree at this point.

          22. Jan123456 January 16, 2017

            OK, thank you for the polite discourse.

          23. Just A Citizen January 16, 2017


            You are welcome. I hope we can do it again sometime.

          24. Just A Citizen January 16, 2017


            Here is a reference that includes a statement about the need for the Father to be a citizen. I think it contains a link to that other source as well.

          25. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            Wait Indy….I am confused over what you wrote. Is it possible you’re talking about the mother and not the child?

            If a US citizen mother has a child overseas and the woman has not lived in the US for five years after age 14, the child is not a US citizen at birth

            8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
            a person born outside the
            geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of
            parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United
            States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in
            the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods
            totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after
            attaining the age of fourteen years:

          26. Independent1 January 15, 2017

            When I wrote the previous post, it was my thought that if a child born in America of either American Citizen or foreign parents did not satisfy the provision of living in America for five years with as you point out at least 2 being after age 14, the child would not automatically be an American citizen years later. But I came across this example which proves even that not true.

            See this:

            Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on “natural-born citizen”. The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[35] which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents’ nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

            Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[36]

          27. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            It’s my understanding anyone meeting any of the requirements of 8 USC 1401 is also eligible for POTUS.

            I still think the 14 years old/5 years/2 years requirement applies to the parent and not the child.

          28. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            Pure unadulterated hogwash!!!

    4. Independent1 January 15, 2017

      I think you need to see this example too:

      Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on “natural-born citizen”. The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[35] which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents’ nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

      Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[36]

      1. Just A Citizen January 15, 2017


        That is a quote I had not seen before. Although the comment was not made by a court that had any binding affect. But very interesting.

        I will have to try and find that case to see if there is further backup with it.

        I find it hard to believe that the Framers would have considered the hypothetical person eligible given they left the country.

        But I am open to new information and have no problem changing my mind if solid evidence can be found.

      2. Just A Citizen January 16, 2017
  2. Maggie Murphy January 13, 2017

    Take a look at following report to discover how an individual parent was able to make $89,844/year in her extra time on her personal pc without selling anything>>>

  3. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 13, 2017

    Drumpf(Trump) has a lot of nerve. Given his natural inclination for lying, changing facts to suit his needs as fast as a squid changes color, Donald makes it impossible to ever know if he’s telling the truth on anything besides how big his feet are—and that’s no guarantee.
    If Donald were to soil himself while walking down Penn Ave, he would blame it on the media for planning the mishap.

    1. mike January 14, 2017

      T-6 days to the end of the Obama abomination era.
      A-aron still at it! Funny.
      Every time Obama starts talking you can bet a lie is about to roll off his lips.
      Whatever Trump has said pales in comparison to the Obamacare lies he spewed.

      1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 14, 2017

        Hello mikey, I’m so happy that you’re able to count backwards. Now, if we can only get you to think in a progressive manner. Try practicing counting from 1 to 100.
        Yes, I’m looking forward to the Groper-in-Chief ascending the throne as America’s 1st Emperor as much as you are. Don’t forget to leave your doors unlocked—His lordship Trump would like, as his first order of business, to exercise “the right of king” by being the first monarch to grope the female members of your household. Do you and Donald share notes about the best way to grope and grab?

        Cheerio, pal—-Aaron

        1. mike January 14, 2017

          A-aron A-aron
          Your silence is deafening on the Obama lies. Just another inconvenient truth about the failed legacy of Obama.
          Couldn’t deny the Obama lies so back to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

          1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 14, 2017

            Do your fingers have a stutter? The upcoming events are about the future,mikey, not the past “Obama lies”(?).
            Maybe your Russian background prevents you from reading English well, but you failed to address my concern for your women-folk. Do you lack any consideration for your wife, daughter, and sisters? Is Donald’s sexual predatory nature OK with you and are you OK with the groper fondling your wife?

            Please direct your attention to the present and don’t wallow in the hog pen of past perceptions of yours.

          2. mike January 14, 2017

            Your silence was deafening when Obama was caught in his many lies all those years. You ignore the fact the lies perpetuated by obama on ACA is the cause of the collapse of ACA and it’s death spiral. You remember, keep your doctor, hospital, insurance. premiums going down not up, All Lies and not a word from the left. If Trump is accused of lying the sky is falling.
            You seem to ignore the millions women and men that decided it was not an issue for their future. Get Over.
            In your eyes billy boy clinton did nothing wrong.

          3. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

            Obama was NEVER caught in any lies, You lying piece of trash. All your attempts to smear President Obama and Hillary to put them on the same level as that low life BUM Trump are not working.

            When the ACA passed, moron. I was still employed and KEPT my employer’s healthcare with Aetna. So did millions of others who were not dominated by right wing BS artists in Republican states hellbent on screwing their own constituents out of decent, affordable healthcare.

            I am NOT planning to pay for your healthcare you thieving, covetous moron. They can repeal it but right now 3 million Americans are so pissed off at the Republicans they won’t be able to leave a Congressional session without being mobbed. And you big mouths are next on that list.

          4. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 15, 2017

            Mike, you’re a treasure trove of insights into the devastation that racism and butt naked bigotry can have on the human heart and mind.
            To wit—I direct your attention to this response to another far more enlightened than you:

            “I agree that “mike” with small caps is extremely ill and is consumed by malice and ill-will for humanity.
            But I find him amusing and he serves another useful role—of being the “canary in the coal mine”, reminding us of how toxic the fumes are in his social world, and serves as a warning to steer clear of physical contact with “mike”. ”

            Y’all have a nice day, “mike” with small caps—Ya ‘hear?

          5. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            Aaron. Mike has proven in a recent blogfest with me that he has absolutely no compassion or apathy whatsoever for anyone but himself. It’s clear he’s either a white supremacist or fascist or both; and we’d do better on the NM to not give me anymore latitude to spew his outright hate rhetoric against Obama, Hillary and others here. I’d suggest most NM bloggers just start blocking his nonsensical rants.

          6. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 15, 2017

            I agree that “mike” with small caps is extremely ill and is consumed by malice and ill-will for humanity.
            But I find him amusing and he serves another useful role—of being the “canary in the coal mine”, reminding us of how toxic the fumes are in his social world, and serves as a warning to steer clear of physical contact with “mike”.

          7. Independent1 January 15, 2017

            Well, he ends up making me almost want to vomit with his narcissistic rants downing everything that’s humane. I personally will block him out. Have you noticed that since mike has appeared, Otto the Goat hasn’t?

      2. bobnstuff January 14, 2017

        You used this sight as fact so here are the full ratings.
        Obama’s 26% mostly false to pants on fire, he go 2% pants on fire.
        Trump’s 69% mostly false to pants on fire with 18% pants on fire. He only told the truth 31% to Obama’s 74%.
        Trump only got true 4% of the time. Obama 21% true.
        We will soon have the Liar and Chief in charge.

        1. mike January 14, 2017

          Keep trying! No cigar!
          Even you can understand this. Obama lied about Obamacare and its effect on 1/5 of the economy makes everyting trump says look minuscule. Obama lies about his own policies. You forget he was named LIAR OF THE YEAR. ISIS is a JV team.
          Obama lies have a far greater impact on the US and the World than anything Trump has ever said.

          1. bobnstuff January 14, 2017

            It did effect 1/6 of the economy and that’s why there is a problem with just repealing it. The national debt will jump, in Pennsylvania alone 196,000 jobs will be lost if they repeal the law. Trump got liar of the year both this year and last.

          2. mike January 14, 2017

            Time will tell as to healthcare.
            As to lying, nothing touches obama’s lies as to his policies which are far more serious.

          3. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

            No time will not tell There IS one other option. Put all those the Republicans uninsure on THEIR government healthcare plan. As for you you selfish ingrate. You live off our tax dollars in that hick state you live in.

          4. mike January 14, 2017

            What time is Hillary Coronation? The old hag got her clocked clean.
            As you usual you have no clue what is happening in the real world. You on what you think will happen. Exaggerations, Assumptions, Guessing that’s your life.

          5. Independent1 January 14, 2017

            And where’s the Swastika avatar? You know full well that Hillary didn’t lose: you right-wingers stole just one more election!!

          6. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

            The only jerks affected live in Republican states. Why? Why not the Dem states? I’ll tell you why the Dem states are NEVER hurt by Republican spite…because we don’t sit still and wait for jobs to come to us. When there are NO jobs, we make jobs.

            It is ONLY in the Republican states where they gerrymandering and redistrict voting polls that they have no jobs. Now, ask yourself if you want to go out and buy a coal scuttle to convert BACK to coal heat so they can have jobs. Ask yourself if you want another 1.6 million miles of underground pipelines, benzene in your fracked water so they can say they have jobs.

            This is what they call taking their country back. We take our country forward by refusing to suck up to Big Oil, Fracking or Coal mining.

            Trump claIms he saved thousands of jobs. He didn’t. Trump claIms he never did business in Russia. He did and so did his son Donny Boy Jr in 2008. He claims he would build a wall and FORCE Mexico to pay for it. Now, he back tracks and says he’ll dump that on US taxpayers. The guy is NUTS.

            Trump will be lucky if he makes it to the Inauguration. That event could become Trump’s very own personal bloodbath thanks to that mouth he can never keep shut.

          7. The lucky one January 14, 2017

            How does Obama lying mitigate the fact that Trump is a serial liar whose strategy when confronted with evidence proving his lie either denies he said it (despite video evidence he did) or doubles down and just lies some more.

          8. Jan123456 January 14, 2017

            You forget he was named LIAR OF THE YEAR-WP fact-checker.

            No, he was not. Please re-read it. They did not call him “liar of the year”.

            But, since you accept the validity of fact checkers, what do they have to say about Trump?

            Even his sycophant, Kellyanne, says not to judge him on what he says.


            And I have to laugh at you posting that National Review article as one of Obama’s “lies”.

            “They’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol, or
            they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they’ll
            want alligators in the moat.”


          9. mike January 14, 2017

            I guess in your warped world when someone makes an outright lie and is considered to be the top lie of the year by multiple sources he isn’t the Top Liar. hmm
            Let’s put in a way even you understand. 2013 he not only had the TOP LIE OF THE YEAR but he had another TWO LIES on that Top !0 list by Washington Post fact-check.
            Any normal person could easly come to the conclusion with 3 out 10 of the top doozies for that year he had to be Liar of the Year. You can try and parse the words all you want but the fact is on his own policies he lied to the American people.



            What is evident is the lie of the year award went to the lying liar that lies constantly.

            T-6 days and counting. No Hillary, No Barry and a party of lefties with little to no polwer. Happy days are here again.

          10. Jan123456 January 14, 2017

            Ahhh, I think you found your error and are trying to backpedal (unsuccessfully).

            Here is what you said, “HE was named liar of the year WP fack-checker”

            No, HE was not named by WP. That’s something you came to all by yourself.

            So, what do you think of Washington Post’s 2016 list? Five of them belong to one person. Does that, in your mind, make Donald Trump “liar of the year”? Even though the Post included the following,

            “There has never been a serial exaggerator in recent American politics like the president-elect. He not only consistently makes false claims but also repeats them, even though they have been proven wrong. He always insists he is right, no matter how little evidence he has for his claim or how easily his statement is debunked.”

            Probably not.


          11. mike January 14, 2017

            And yet he was caught in 3 lies of which one was a Huge lie to the American people which affected millions of American lives with higher premiums, out of pocket and deductibles and less coverage and a program in a death spiral.
            At least you agree that Obama lied something insane Eleanore can’t admit.
            Did you forget Trump won. Voters could care less about his warts. Voters voted their pocketbooks by voting for trump.
            T-6 days and no Hillary administration. ????

          12. Jan123456 January 14, 2017

            C’mon Mike, that’s a steaming pantload of hypocrisy.

            Using your logic….in 2008 and 2012, did you forget the Obama won?

            I knew that you would not apply the same standards to Trump that you did to Obama. My mind was warped at three of the top 10, you’re totally justified at 5 of 10.

            (Edit, Trump had three in 2015. He was not elected that year. Would that make him “liar of the year” just like you believe Obama was in 2013?)

          13. mike January 15, 2017

            As usual you miss the point. Eleanore and Independent1 said that Obama never lied about ACA. Which is pure crap.
            You are trying to equate Trumps lies as being more important than the lies of Obama. Obama was President, lied about the make up of his signature program to the American people. Trumps lies pale in comparison to President Obama lies about his policies.

          14. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            Mike, Neither of us can control what Indy or Eleanore say.

            You said, “Any normal person could easly (sic) come to the conclusion with 3 out 10 of
            the top doozies for that year he had to be Liar of the Year.”

            In 2015 Trump had “3 out 10 of the top doozies for that year”, but you don’t consider him “liar of the year.”

            In 2016, Trump had five of the ten top doozies for that year, but you still don’t consider him “liar of the year” because he was elected????

            I am not making Trump’s lies more important than Obama’s, I am using your exact standards for Obama and saying you are hypocritical because you don’t apply them to Trump.

          15. mike January 15, 2017

            I never said he wasn’t! This thread is about whether he lied about Obamacare. He lied, period.
            What a private citizen says doesn’t even come close to a sitting president who deliberately lied to the citizens to get his signature program passed. A program in a death spiral because what he said was not true.

          16. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            I never said he wasn’t!

            So, are you now saying that you do consider Trump “Liar of the Year”? It appeared by your statement, “Did you forget Trump won.” that you were defending his lies.

            Your initial statement about Obama had nothing to do with the magnitude of the lie. You simply relied on the numbers (3 of 10 doozies) and only took it further when, using the same standard, Trump would have won your award two years running.

            I was trying to keep to your original standard. The objection I raised to you (not being able to control what any other posted says) is that you said Obama was named “Liar of the Year”. He was not any more than Trump was.

          17. mike January 15, 2017

            Like 62.8 million other voters i ignored his despicable behavior and voted trump over Hillary knowing she was a continuation of the failed policies of obama.
            Millions wanted a new direction and hope.
            Biggest Lie=Biggest Liar.

          18. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            I will take that as a “yes”, Trump won your “Liar of the Year” award.

          19. mike January 15, 2017

            I will take that as a “yes”, Obama was Liar of the year?
            Trump will be president in 5 days proving Voters ignored trumps flaws.

          20. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            I will take that as a “yes”, Obama was Liar of the year?

            According to you. You provided the definition and Obama won your award once and Trump for the last two years.

          21. mike January 15, 2017

            Trump is going to be the 45th President of the United States of America. Why did he win? Because of the failed policies of Obama and a terrible candidate that told the world she was going to be an extension of the Obama years.

          22. Jan123456 January 15, 2017

            Trump is going to be the 45th President of the United States of America.

            I never said he wasn’t. However, he came a lot closer to actually being named Liar of the Year by the WP than Obama did.

            And I know you need to deflect and change the subject because you lost the debate on Trump’s lies.

            Watch, we will be in a global recession by summer due to Trump.

          23. mike January 15, 2017

            Bravo Sam

        2. Independent1 January 14, 2017

          Bob, don’t buy these lies accusations from this fascist you’re blogging with – Obama did not lie about anything with respect to Obamacare and I’m surprised an organization like Politifact would fall for that BS.

          Obama simply informed the American people of what was part of the ACA legislation. And had the Health Insurance industry kept their word (the promised Obama after a meeting in the WH that they would abide by what ACA said, there would have been no discrepancies between what Obama told the American people and what actually happened.

          But as is virtually always the case these days with supporters of the GOP, they simply can’t keep their word. ACA grandfathered in all policies written after 2010, including any benefit and doctor arrangements currently in force on 1/1/14. Which means, had the health insurers not tried to defraud their insureds by deliberately revising policies and forcing millions of people to switch plans – which the health insurers did not have to do – what Obama told the American people would have been fact.

          The fact that Politifact ignored the fact that the health insurers violated their agreement with Obama, and in fact, many companies were actually caught in their fraudulent acts and were fined millions of dollars, only proves even Politifact’s fact check is even flawed.

      3. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

        T-6 days till we watch that lying moron Trump put his hand on a Bible with one hand and cross his fingers with the other …and then…Hillary will laugh in his face. Then, those 3 million very angry protestors will step on his and ConHag’s faces and turn them into mashed potatoes.

        You asked for what you are about to get Mr. Big Mouth. And I will be first to remind you of how big you thought you WERE.

        1. mike January 14, 2017

          “laughing in his face” will that be before or after Hillay has a hacking fit?
          No Coronation so sad.
          Just love seeing your meltdown continue. Look forward to more of your tempe tantrums, irrational statements,hate, anger, snarky comments, bile and the rest of your impotent comments.
          What is even better knowing trump won because of a complete collapse of the democratic party.

        2. Independent1 January 14, 2017

          Eleanor, let’s do our best to ignore this fasicist/white supremacist named Mike. Blogging with him is a total waste of time;he’s not going to accept any explanations and it only gives him a billboard to post more of his fallacious lies. NM bloggers are just better off blocking him out.

      4. Independent1 January 14, 2017

        And there you go spreading more of your own fallacious lies about Obama. It’s a sad state that even Politifact’s fact checking isn’t sometimes worth a plug nickel. Politifact actually fell far short in checking out their own flawed assessment of what Obama had said to the American people – basically exactly what was in the ACA legislation.

        How can Obama truly be accused of lying when he was only quoting from the ACA legislation as it was written. He couldn’t be lying, therefore it was the Health Insurance CEOs who had promised Obama they would follow the ACA legislation – and then deliberately did not so they could try to defraud their own insureds!! Typical right-wing supporters – they are all cheats!!!!!

        1. mike January 15, 2017

          Your nuts.
          So now its the fault of the Democratic Congress not Obama for the lies. Obama knew nothing just followed Congress script, Right? Bull Sh*t.

      5. Independent1 January 14, 2017

        And please. Why are you shy about identifying yourself as a fascist/white supremacist?? Where is your KKK or Swastika avatar??

        Only KKK people and fascists are people who are as inhuman as you are.

  4. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 14, 2017

    Of all the unmitigated gall of those terrible “libtards” making up fake news and blaming it on his lordship Donald J. Trump. I’m besides myself with rage, and will have to take a walk outside to calm down.

    1. idamag January 14, 2017

      We have a fantastic newspaper in my community. We also have pockets of tiny isolated communities surrounded by desert with sagebrush and BLM land. Our newspaper editor, in the wake of the pizza story, decided to run a series of articles on fake news. R. Grant Hunter took him to task claiming that all the media outlets are liberal and did lots of fake news. He listed most of the television stations, leaving out fauz news. R. Grant is from one of those isolated communities.

      1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth January 14, 2017

        Sounds like a great and outstanding group of people at that newspaper. People like R. Grant are pretty much a lost cause. Their minds are so twisted and rotted out by political fanaticism that there is no earthly antidote to help someone that far gone.
        So, the task is to interact with the women, youth, and children—Women will be critical as first educators of children to prepare the young so that they don’t contract the same disease as Grant, Trump, etc. ; the youth are at a critical stage where they have the drive, energy, and ability to use electronic media to start dialog among themselves to counter the divisiveness and myths floating around contributing to Trumpism and related illnesses, and the children will form a social foundation based on the spiritual nurturing of their mothers in collaboration with other women to change the toxic social atmosphere we have to breathe in everyday.

        Just my 2 cents worth.

        1. CPAinNewYork January 16, 2017

          Not worth that much.

    2. Jmz Nesky January 15, 2017

      Well don’t do it on the 21st else he and the pubs may just find a way to charge you for the air it takes to do that rage walk..

  5. The lucky one January 14, 2017

    “National Enquirer, whose publisher and CEO is Trump’s good friend David Pecker” The publisher is the recipient of the most aptly named award.

  6. idamag January 14, 2017

    lying isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, but trump has perfected it and probably outdone any liar living or dead.,

    1. charleo1 January 14, 2017

      Trump’s proclivity for telling absolutely outrageous whoppers, would make guys like Ron L. Hubbard, (Founder, Church of Scientology) Either blush in shame, or fall down applauding in total amazement.

      1. idamag January 14, 2017

        Both of them tell lies for the same reason. $$$$$$

        1. charleo1 January 15, 2017

          And self aggrandizement. Neither ever making the mistake of under estimating the vast numbers of gullible ignorant willing to believe whatever came out of their mouths. Hubbard: I hold the answers to all the secrets of the universe! Trump: Only I can save you!

        2. CPAinNewYork January 16, 2017

          Also, they’re both crap.

  7. Eleanore Whitaker January 14, 2017

    Trump is going to be in “Meltdown Mode” now that Congressman John Lewis has publicly stated what we all think, “Trump is not a legitimate president.”

    How he got elected is what the GOP is hiding. They are far more guilty of election rigging and looking the other way at the Russian hacking.

    This is a worse Republican Cover UP than WaterGate EVER was. But, it does seem to have the same exact fermentation phase.

    1. Independent1 January 14, 2017

      My sense has become that there’s more than one reason why the GOP in state after state has drastically reduced the number of voting places beyond making it harder for minorities to vote, it make is a lot easier for they to hack the vote counts that allow them to win elections. It’s pretty obvious now why Trump won states CNN’s exit polls said Hillary should have won.

      See this article:

      Hacking voting machines: Easier than ever imagined

      Millions of Americans are already waiting for hours outside of polling places to vote for the next president of the United States. All of that might not matter though, as some security pros say the entire election can be rigged all too easily.

      In one example, it wouldn’t take much more than ten dollars’ worth of parts from any RadioShack store to steal and manipulate votes. It’s called a man-in-the-middle attack and the computer program that logs the results on electronic voting machines isn’t even compromised.

      “It’s a classic attack on security devices,” Roger Johnston tells Popular Science. “You implant a microprocessor or some other electronic device into the voting machine, and that lets you control the voting and turn cheating
      on and off. We’re basically interfering with transmitting the voter’s intent.”

      According to the magazine, anyone from a high-school student to an octogenarian could corrupt the voting process. Johnston is the head of the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory and has done it himself, even on camera. It wouldn’t be hard for others, he says, and some fear that that could easily be the case on Election Day. And with many prediction polls estimating a close contest between President Barack Obama and Republican Party challenger Mitt Romney this year, it wouldn’t take much to render the entire contest corrupted.


      The only way the GOP can win elections is by cheating.

      1. InformedVoter January 19, 2017

        My my ID1, how low information you continue to be. In order for the above scenario to occur, one would have to have physical access to ALL the voting machines, something that is impossible.
        HilLIARy lost because President Trump had a better message and plans for the country and the voters voted him in and gave him a MANDATE in the process. Just look at the voting map of the US and all you see is a couple of small pockets of blue and nothing but red for the rest of the country.
        By posting unbelievable schemes like the one above just reinforces your low information status.
        The non-fake polls showed Trump leading. The only polls that showed HilLIARy leading were fake and she even paid several pollsters to create fake polls and publish them in an attempt to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

        1. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2017

          Everyone is low on the info pole but you? Isn’t that just a tad too revealing of what a mental defective you are? Hillary didn’t lose this election. Shove it. Trump had the Russians rig the election and you know it and you will puke violet daisies if you have to just to keep denying the truth. Sorry moron …doesn’t cut it anymore. We will force feed truth down your throat if you don’t learn to accept reality and facts.

          1. InformedVoter January 22, 2017

            Sorry Elle, but HilLIARy not only lost the election, she got trounced! All those fake polls that she paid for that showed she was leading came back to haunt her.
            The Russians didn’t rig the election. It is impossible for any one to rig the election. In fact the only proven voter fraud was in HilLIARy’s favor.
            You can try to force feed your lies down your own throat.
            You lost because the majority of the voters saw through the failures of the Obozo years. President Trump’s 304-227 victory is a MANDATE. Many political scientists, in the light of the fact that HilLIARy was to easily win, are calling President Trump’s victory a LANDSLIDE! She had 250 EC votes LOCKED up yet she only received 227. She’s a joke. And now that HilIARy has stated that she never wanted to run in the first place, how do you feel? She conned you! But you are easily conned because of your weak education and work experience.

          2. Eleanore Whitaker January 23, 2017

            Liar liar liar liar liar…You aren’t sorry about anything you moron fleabag. Hillary won that popular vote. You want to challenge the FEC on their final tally that she won by the highest popular vote in any US election? You just can’t EVER tell the truth can you liar?

            Trump didn’t win so easily for any reason but that he did what he always does…paid those Republican Electors off. Now, eat that one before someone finds you, super glues your stupid mouth.

            By the way, get help for that mental problem…You keep insisting I am lying when I know what I post can be proven and what you post can’t. Do yourself a favor you mental defective. Stop trying so hard to control the world. YOu can’t and you never will. Least of all the likes of a power woman like me who suffers no BS from your or your Baron of Bs.

          3. InformedVoter February 6, 2017

            Poor Elle, “power woman” only in you dreams. You were nothing but a coffee fetcher as all your claims of knowing someone who actually was important have been proven to be nothing by fabrication.
            All your FAKE statements that you know that President Trump will be arrested, etc. or that he didn’t win a MANDATE, have been debunked. NO intel agency will say they can prove that the Russians did the hacking. Meanwhile ALL intel agencies state that the Russians had nothing to do with the election outcome.
            You really need to find that crying room.

          4. Eleanore Whitaker February 6, 2017

            Okay, go to my FB page moron. YOu will note there are several of my former dance students, several journalist friends and dozens and dozens of people who will make an ass out of you,.

            You are a liar. Not just a liar but a pathological vindictive bastard liar. You don’t dare let anyone know who YOU really are do you pigface? Because if you did, we’d know that you are not even an American Citizen but a screwball Russian hacker paid by HUMPTY TRUMPTY to do his bidding.

            Have you always had to kiss asses of others to get anywhere? See? I never had to. I am skillful, talented and have been more successful, self-reliant than a pigfaced moron like you can ever.

            Your Moron in Chief already has 3 petitions for impeachment in just 14 days.

            Crowdstrike was the first Intel agency that uncovered the hacking. Read and weep asshat: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

            The FBI and CIA also investigated the hacking and that was the reason sanctions were placed on Russia. Better see a doctor for that Alzheimers. This is well known to everyone but a pigfaced liar like you.

          5. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            Poor Elle, but the FBI and CIA and ALL the other intel agencies have stated that the Russians did not interfere with or influence the election. You lefties are in self-denial and just keep saying “HilLIARy lost the election because of “fill in the blank”.
            Hell, they can’t even prove who did the hacking, they just say they believe the Russians did it, but no proof.
            So now you’ve come up with yet another career for yourself. This makes at least 7 different careers that you did for 40 years each!
            You apparently are suffering from memory loss! You can’t even keep your lies straight!
            You are one sick puppy. Get yourself to one of those crying rooms and have a good cry.

    2. InformedVoter January 19, 2017

      Sorry Elle, once more you show ignorance. Lewis made the same claims when GW was elected (Lewis did not attend that ceremony either) and what became of the effort in 2001? Duh, the same thing that will occur now – nada!

      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 20, 2017

        Sorry Louis Allen…You have to hide your real identity don’t you faker? You have to because if you had any sense of informed voting, we’d laugh our butts off at who you really are. Not the big mouth big KNOW IT ALL you pretend to be. But a lily livered, chicken crap coward who hides behind several names so no one will know that you have a prison number.

        As to your post, I am informed by 6 Intel agencies in the US and at least 5 abroad that your boy loves for his prostitutes to pee on his head which he loves to call his “Golden Showers.”

        So tell us..what are in the pen for? Child molesters? Rapist? CONartist? Thief or that good ole good ole southern and corn pone fakery…bribery and election rigging.

        I am informed enough about your Titan of Trickery to know that he was an expert at rigging the gaming tables at the Taj Mahal for which he was warned several times to cease and desist. But do go ahead in your little wussy informed voting mentally diseased mine and believe he wasn’t capable of rigging an election the same way he rigs his casinos. The only one who proves your low low low morals, ethics, values and principles is you jackass.

        1. InformedVoter January 20, 2017

          Poor Elle, such a hate-filled post that contained nothing of value. But it does reveal that you were nothing but a low level clerical worker who was constantly passed over by others. You are informed by nobody who really knows anything.
          In the year that the intel group had the fake story, written by a person who wrote for Planned Parenthood (yup, that’s who wrote the fake report), with all their investigative resources, they were not able to prove that even one of the actions written about was true.
          So tell me some more lies about your fake intel sources.
          Time for you to seek out one of those safe rooms the Dems set up so folks could have a space to go to and cry! Crying is about all you seem good at.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 20, 2017

            Poor Louis Allen…Can’t stand that someone disclosed who he really is…I never waste time on hate. But, I will state that cretons like you are as repulsive as boa constrictors and just as venomous to our kids.

            I know more than you hope for don’t I? Screwy Louie?

            Now..Chaffetz your Mormon Republican Koch prostitute, admitted he used a video to try and condemn Planned Parenthood that he edited to suit his agenda. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/planned-parenthood-videos/ and in case you can’t get to this link proving what I just posted, here is another: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jason-chaffetz-planned-parenthood-funding_us_5616ed01e4b0dbb8000de134

            Chaffetz not only used fake evidence but he used it in a federal investigation which he knew was a violation of the Constitution and the Justice Dept.

            I don’t have fake intel sources moron…just two relatives as I’ve posted many times before who work for the FBI and Law Enforcement. I know who you are and I know you are not the Informed anything you pretend to be. That a phony like you can’t admit that proves that you are a liar and can’t face what a pimple on the butt of humanity you really are. Get a job faker.

          2. InformedVoter January 20, 2017

            Sorry Elle, but Louis Allen died in 1964.
            As usual, your sources are full of fake facts.
            The story was made up by the dude who wrote material for Planned Parenthood. When he couldn’t substantiate ANY of his work of fiction, he dropped the dossier.
            The dossier was resurrected and they tried to confirm the fake facts. They were unsuccessful. Hence, your so called intel sources are probably nothing other than other low level clerks like you who sat around the coffee room swearing that it seems that only the men get promoted. And your two relatives are floor sweepers and waste basket emptiers.
            Poor, low information, full of hate and full of lies Elle.
            Think about it, nobody is doing anything with the information in the dossier. It has been completely debunked even by buzzfeed and USA Today, who said “we knew the dossier was fake but we decided to publish it anyway”.
            So you still believing it’s accurate and making fake claims about it’s validity, really makes you look foolish.
            Do yourself a favor and stop making absurd posts that are made up.

          3. Eleanore Whitaker January 20, 2017

            Do you spend ALL of your time in denial Liar BOY? Or do you just fantasize you are master of the universe and can’t handle a bowel movement on your best day?

            6 Intel agencies in the US confirmed what they found…Trump’s son was in Moscow on Business in 2008 at a meeting of the Russian Investors. Trump has been in and out of Russia and the evidence is proven by FAA records of his flights. No one even on a private TRUMP jet gets out of the US without clearance from the FAA. Try again moron.

            I hate your lies. But what I hate most is that you actually think you are intelligent. You are a COWARD WUSS. That is proven by the fact that your page is kept as secret as Trump’s sex club memberships back in the 80s everyone here in the NY/NJ area all knew about just like we’ve seen photos of the coke nose Trump snorting at Club 54. Go ahead informed liar…that is the ONLY thing you are informed about…YOUR lies. But, we know why you have to lie don’t we? That orange jumpsuit you wear and the fact that you are a paid Commie troll.

          4. InformedVoter January 21, 2017

            Why do you insist on making yourself look so stupid! I never said President Trump didn’t visit Russia. What I said was that the dossier about the golden showers etc are ALL lies.
            You claim these lies are true and even smeared your supposed friends by saying they told you they are true. Well, Elle, you and your insiders are lying dummies.
            EVERY US intel agency, including the ones you claim your fictitious friends work for, have openly stated the dossier contains NOTHING but LIES. The source of the dossier, buzzfeed and USA Today have admitted they knew the dossier was fake before they published it.
            So go ahead and make more lying statements. All you’ve done is to reinforce your image as a hate-filled, low level, worthless clerical worker who was constantly picked over for promotions because you do nothing but spew hate and ignorance.
            Get yourself to that crying room!

          5. Eleanore Whitaker January 22, 2017

            You are not just a fool. But you are a traitor. Here is what Article III of the U.S. Constitution states:
            Treason againt the United States shall consist ONLY in levying war agaInst tem, or, IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING AID AND COMFORT.

            When your Money Messiah did all that big mouth sweet talking about Putin knowing all along the Russians hacked into the DNC emails, you condone that treason. Your Baron of BS not only adheres to Putin and the Russians by insisting he is going to “work with them” for a “better relationship” but he also gives aid and comfort by his pro Russian and Pro Putin support.

            Are these lying statements? Are you too chicken livered to admit we ALL HEARD him tell the world how “smart” Putin is?

            Go flush your face in Trump’s turds. You are as worthless to this country as he is. And we will take you, your right wing enemies of our country and the Republicans down.

            900,000 protestors worldwide showed YOU who they don’t support. No woman is going to allow morons like you to tell us what we can and can’t do. Get off that bully act before you get lynched by gangs of women you made angry enough to shave your head and your balls.

          6. InformedVoter January 22, 2017

            Why are you quoting what constitutes treason? It is not treason or illegal to do business with foreign countries. But, oh I forgot, President Trump does NOT have any business dealings with Russia!
            President Trump pre-warned the DNC that many sources were trying to hack into their system. But wait, Podesta’s password was “password”, so one really didn’t have to hack very hard to gain access to his emails.
            Talk about charging someone with treason, HilLIARy was warned that her server was not properly protected, but she chose that route because she knew that by using a private server that the Clinton Foundation emails could not have to be produced during an investigation.
            So 900,000 protesters showed up? Wow. That meant that 360 million stayed home! Yup, a great turn out. BTW, the crowd for President Trump’s inauguration was larger than Obozo’s 2013 crowd. And 55% of white women voted for Trump!
            You can protest all you wish, but really, what do you think will come of the protests? Do you think that they’ll bring back pantyhose and make you wear them?
            Gangs of women lynching and shaving heads, boy that shows how peaceful and law abiding they are. Too bad, but that action will never happen.
            Using terms that you have heard all too often in your failed career, your penis envy is responsible for your faulty logic.

  8. Billabob Johnson January 14, 2017

    This is a very sad period for America. Trump – killing as many truths a day as Duterte kills political opponents, will completely undermine the prestige and power of the office of the American Presidency. I thought GW Bush was a buffoon, but still THE President. Trump has demolished my sense of respect for the office as it is clear more than half of America is waiting for the result of the battle he has started by attacking his government, ignoring global realities about climate change, automation, cyber security and energy. He is supposed to lead. However his form of leadership is to attack anyone who questions him – and the questions are mounting from all sides.

  9. OriginalUpmuuchtoolate January 14, 2017

    Trump is a lying sack-o-crap.

    1. Jmz Nesky January 15, 2017

      We all know that Upmuuuch, the challenge is to try and convince his slime ball followers that they’re keeping this slug in power by defending every word he spews. I would have said believe but I doubt even they’re that stoopid, anyway why take away their racists fun by revealing facts? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c64d6c170538e1d0b5a9963502d564f878b943d21410ddd3e8647dab0755367.jpg

  10. ivory69690@yahoo.com January 15, 2017

    now you just wait for the real news and the kind of first SCREWING DONNY DUMP will be giving the government when he sends the USA a bill in the 100’s of $$$$ million dollars for all the bull crap he has been doing in his DUMP TOWER’S all this he will call work (really just feeding his addiction to attention he seeks and needs so much its his fix ) either way he will bill the government im thinking in the 100’s of $$ million dollars for on a job he dosent even have yet . and one can know the POS will be trying to put it in his own pocket it will be the DUMPSTER’S breaking of the ice of the beginning of screwing the country out of as much money he can . people do you thing the DONNY DUMP CLOWN can fool the IRS too ?

  11. InformedVoter January 19, 2017

    I find it interesting that at least 9 of these supposed fake stories are actually true! And the remaining 5 stories are still not conclusive that they’re not also true.
    Leave it to the left to blindly follow the fake stories the MSM publishes just so folks will follow them or buy their papers. I guess one could properly conclude that most lefties are just too lazy to actually verify news stories.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.