Presenting the last decade in media and film: Part two

Photo: A movie stub from the film "Inglourious Basterds"/Paul Heaberlin, used under Creative Commons license

The Underground is proud to present a review of film and media trends of the last decade by local film critic Robert Roten. This is the first part of a four part series. Part two details the movie that best represents the decade.

The film that best sums up the decade

Robert Roten
Saturday, March 6, 2010 2:13 PM MDT

Quentin Tarantino's much-ballyhooed film Inglourious Basterds is a film which reflects the decade of 2000-2010 better than any other. That is one of the reasons I didn't like this film as much as many critics did. It reminded me too much of a decade I would just as soon forget.

It was a decade in which the horrible 9/11 attacks happened, and that was one of the worst days of my life. It was a decade in which it was revealed the United States government condoned practices which resulted in kidnapping, murder and torture. The decade in which America screwed up its best chance to catch Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a misbegotten war in Iraq. It was a decade in which the housing bubble burst and the entire world's economy nearly toppled because strange financial dealings in things called credit default swaps and derivatives, allowed by recent banking deregulation, overturning rules put in place after the great depression 60 years earlier. It was decade in which the U.S. government went from a budget surplus into deep debt. A near depression was caused by deficit spending, financial deregulation, wars and tax cuts. Naturally, some politicians now propose more war, more tax cuts and more deregulation to get us out of the mess they got us into in the first place.

“Inglourious Basterds” fits right into this decade. It shows us that murdering and torturing prisoners of war is not only fun, but it is an effective way to get information and win wars. Either that, or it is a clever satire on what U.S. forces did to prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also re-writes history, showing us a version of World War II in which the Allies win the war years before they really did by the clever tactic of murdering prisoners of war, civilians, and torture. They also win with the help of a high-ranking German officer who betrays his own leaders.

This is not the only time history has been re-written. There are those who say the U.S. would have won the war in Vietnam, if not for the American news media. This has led to increasingly strict military control over the media in subsequent wars. There are also those who say that the depression of the 1930s and the current recession would (or will) go away on their own without any government intervention. They say that deregulation and tax cuts did not cause the collapse of our financial system, or the huge deficits we face and it would all just fix itself, because that is the way capitalism works. It fixes everything by itself in its own magical mysterious ways, including, presumably, health care. It's like Stevie Wonder once sang, “When you believe in things you don't understand ... ” that's just superstition.

History is continually being re-written. If history is, in fact, merely an “agreed-upon fiction,” then Mr. Tarantino's account of World War II is as good as any other, and some do view history that way. However, that isn't what happened. The war went on for years after the time in which the movie was set. The United States did not sanction the death and torture of prisoners of war. They had rules against that, and those rules stayed in effect until the administration of George W. Bush re-wrote the rules in an attempt to legalize torture. This was done despite the fact that torture is known to produce unreliable, sometimes disastrously wrong, information. So why was it done? More on that in the subsequent feature on the representative drama of the decade.

“Inglourious Basterds” not only celebrates American torture and murder, it is a nightmare for the Anti-Defamation League and other organizations trying to hold down the rising tide of anti-Semitism in America and elsewhere. In re-writing history, “Inglourious Basterds” casts Jews in the role of aggressors, as well as victims. This depiction of Jewish aggression aids the rising tide of anti-Semitism both here and abroad. The film reflects the view of Jews held by many in the Muslim world. The film has also been seized upon by anti-Semitic factions on both extremes of the political spectrum to further stir up more hatred against the Jews. When I remarked to a friend that I didn't like the fact that “Inglourious Basterds” makes Americans look worse than the Nazis, my friend replied, “Those weren't Americans, those were Jews.”

The anti-Semitic interpretation of the film fits right in with certain Neo-Nazi views about Jews, fueled by the so-called “Christian Identity” theology (more on that in this essay about the Christian Identity movement and how it has been adopted by elements of the violent radical far right). It also fits in with views of Jews among some elements of the far left wing, the so-called “9/11 Truthers” who hold that the attacks of 9/11 were an “inside job” by the U.S. Government, aided or orchestrated by Israel. Like the film itself, this is a re-imagining of history, which is becoming increasingly popular. Abraham H. Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, said 2009 was the worst year for global anti-Semitism he's ever seen in his 40+ years in the organization. Here is further deconstruction of the film along anti-Semitic lines. This is not how I viewed the film when I saw it, but it seems to be a film which lends itself to this interpretation for those who are anti-Semitic.

When America was attacked on 9/11, Americans wanted revenge, and the nation lashed out. People who looked like Muslims (including a Sikh) were murdered by revenge seekers. “Inglourious Basterds” is a movie all about hatred and revenge. One woman in the movie locks an entire crowd of moviegoers into a theater and then sets fire to the theater in revenge for the Nazis killing her family. The squad of soldiers in the film, composed mostly of American Jews, with one anti-Nazi German soldier added, celebrate revenge by killing Germans, scalping the corpses and bashing German soldiers' heads in with a baseball bat and carving swastikas into their foreheads.

Revenge movies are nothing new. There is the “Death Wish” series of films, the “Dirty Harry” series, and more recently, there was “Taken.” People are angry in this country. When President Obama was elected, there was a huge increase in gun sales. The membership in hate groups increased greatly as well. The “Tea Party” movement is brimming with hatred. There are lots of angry people who want revenge and “Inglourious Basterds” dishes it out. The aught years, 2000 through 2009, were dark years in America and this film reflects that darkness.

Robert Roten is a journalist with over 25 years of newspaper experience, including 20 years as a reporter, editor, photographer, columnist and editorialist at the Laramie Daily Boomerang. Since retiring from the Boomerang in 2000, Roten has been president of the Laramie Film Society and the Laramie Astronomical Society and Space Observers (LASSO). He has operated his own movie journalism web site, Laramie Movie Scope, for the past 13 years. He also has a weekly movie show, Laramie Movie Scope News, on KOCA radio in Laramie. He is also a member of the Online Film Critics Society and contributes frequent movie reviews to rottentomatoes.com. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Roten is a resident of Laramie, Wyo.

On life support: Reforming the healthcare industry

Photo: A sign at the 9/12 project's march on Washington D.C./Andrew Aliferis, used under Creative Commons license

On life support: Reforming the healthcare industry
Meg Lanker
Monday, November 30, 2009 9:22 PM MDT

No one could have predicted the peculiar turns the healthcare debate took.

One of the most jarring sprung from the plethora of town-hall meetings in August. Gun-rights advocates claimed that the healthcare debate is bizarrely and inextricably tied to an imaginary push to deprive Americans of the right to bear arms, illustrated by a man who carried an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back outside a town hall meeting with the president in Phoenix, Ariz.

This followed national coverage of a New Hampshire man openly carrying a gun in a thigh holster at another Obama town hall meeting while holding a sign stating, “It’s time to water the tree of liberty,” – a partial quote from Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Another claim about gun rights fired up the masses again when Gun Owners of America began circulating the claim that the Baucus health care bill would ban guns used for self defense. The group derived this from provisions in the bill allowing for higher premiums for tobacco users – this provision is then extrapolated by the group and right-wingers to include other “risky” behaviors like gun ownership. Non-partisan group PolitiFact.com rated the claim as “false” and said, “Every behavioral factor explicitly cited in the bill concerns pure medical issues, such as a lowered cholesterol level, maintenance of a certain body mass index, quitting smoking or losing a specified amount of weight.”

Gun owners continue to show up and pack heat at what should be peaceful town hall gatherings and rallies but have become free-for-all melees of shouts about socialism and racism and fascism and every fear-mongering “ism” in the book. The consequence of the town hall debacles in August have led to a serious reluctance to even consider speaking to constituents on anything related to health care reform.

Thankfully, these self-styled guerillas of freedom haven’t killed anyone – indeed, there were no arrests for gun violence, but police have arrested a few for unlawful possession of a firearm. But, as one Phoenix police officer explained to the Associated Press the simple presence of a man with a large rifle “sparked a lot of emotions.”

Perhaps those Americans who were angry, or distressed, or sickened by the sight of a man with an assault rifle at a presidential event recalled what happened when another man brought a rifle to a presidential parade in Texas. Or when a man brought a rifle to hear a Baptist preacher speak about civil rights in Tennessee. Or possibly the sight evokes the unmerciful memory of hearing a heart-lurching knock at the door in the early morning hours after being identified as the next-of-kin.

And the pundits and politicians. The cries of socialism and marches to communism and the figurative beating of breasts deserve an Oscar or ridicule, depending on which side Americans take. Glenn Beck weeps as he speaks of rationing and whether or not citizens will be considered valuable enough to keep alive. Sarah Palin warns us of the death panels that would have decreed her son, born with Down Syndrome, not important enough to birth. Representative Michele Bachmann warns of schools allowing 13-year-olds to receive abortions and then be put back on the bus to go home, with mom and dad none the wiser. Americans were warned by health insurance companies that a shadowy government entity would come between them and their doctors – warned by the very industry of bloodsuckers spawned by coming between patients and doctors.

The most outrageous lies are the ones most readily believed by the right-wing desperate to get the government out of their Medicare – forget the ridiculousness of that statement because the fear, to them, is real.

Thanks in part to the scare tactics, and in part to the powerful health insurance lobby, the U.S. House passed a watered down bill Nov. 7 with a weakened public option and insurance mandates. The bill also included sweeping abortion restrictions under the Stupak amendment, added at the last minute to appease Blue Dog Democrats, several of which voted for the amendment and not the final bill. The new legislation has little cost controls and opens a market previously unavailable to the health insurance industry of impoverished Americans. The lone Republican who voted for the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana is now targeted as a traitor by his own party.

The House bill is an insurance company’s wet dream.

How did it get to this point?

Way back in 2008, in a campaign that seems hazy from the almost-euphoric high generated by the possibility of change, the Republican Party painted Barack Obama with the pinko tint of socialism or communism, depending on the crowd. John McCain and Sarah Palin fervently assured us that Obama wanted to take away our freedoms to worship, to choose our doctors, to stroll around in a public place with an assault rifle. He was not one of us, and probably a terrorist, dontcha ya know? He pals around with bad dudes and they probably even have a book club led by that Saul guy.

After the election, the Republican Party was eager to prove it was not in the death throes of a movement long past its era or usefulness. It jumped on the opportunity to become the party of Americans who want things to stay the way they were, back when credit was plentiful and so was the cheap plastic crap at Wal-Mart. Back then, the free market throbbed with excitement as houses were erected one right after another and purchased with no down payment and credit terms arranged.

But that was way, way back in 2005, when everyone wanted flip houses and flipped for house they couldn’t afford, either through enticement into sub-prime mortgages or pure unencumbered desire. Americans didn’t notice the spiraling cost of health care as much because they all had jobs and money, and besides, the emergency room treats anyone who walks in. U.S. citizens didn’t really need all those silly civil rights and those inane leftists had themselves in a tizzy over Gitmo. Remember, kids, it’s the first and second amendment rights that really get things done.

It’s this last principle that sees America in its present predicament. It’s my first amendment right to shout the loudest at the nearest town hall, to warn my fellow citizens of impending socialism and I’ve got the second amendment to back that one up should some peacenik think otherwise. The right-wingers have transformed the blissfully ignorant into the fearfully ignorant and unleashed the Tea Party people, the birthers, the conspiracy theorists, and the garden-variety lunatics upon the issue of “socialized medicine,” leading disgruntled seniors to scream about the government keeping their hands out of their goddamned Medicare and Sarah Palin to write on Facebook about evil Obama’s plan for “death panels.”

Their scare tactics bordered on the barely factual to the absurd. In the barely factual column, the right-wing continues to warn of rationing, which already happens when insurance companies decide to cover treatment or not, which treatment is appropriate, and how long patients need treatment. Dismiss the silly rationing idea based on rich versus poor since all the poor have to do is go to the ER or ask their church for help. In the absurd column, there’s the reviewed and revised summary of HR 3200, “adapted on July 29, 2009, by the Liberty Counsel from the original authored by Peter Fleckenstein and posted on FreeRepublic.com.”

These claims, embraced and distributed by conservative groups like the national 9/12 Project, include this gem: “Sec. 2511, Pg. 992 – Government will establish school-based ‘health’ clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!”

I highly doubt this – typical school health clinics include first-hand education on not putting rocks in your nose versus putting tab A into slot B; plus, an abortion is fairly time-consuming procedure requiring a physician and not many students can get out of class long enough to surreptitiously smoke cigarettes, much less abort their unborn.

These claims, which seem to have originated with Mr. Fleckenstein, continue to appear in chain emails supposedly authored by this or that constitutional scholar urging people to call their congressman and tell them to vote no on reform.

These are also the alarmist assertions parroted by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. She insists that creationism is valid science and claims swine flu originated with Democratic administrations, and yet, people still take her seriously. She also said she will run for president in 2012 if God tells her she should. Let’s hope God doesn’t get the hint.

Bachmann also spurred a large “press conference” (read: protest rally) Nov. 5 on the steps of the Capitol Building – a rally which featured signs depicting Obama as Hitler and Mao. Among the most distasteful was a large banner depicting naked concentration camp victims piled in a mass grave with a caption reading “"National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany 1945." Several of her fellow Republicans stood grinning behind the podium. This is apparently the new base for the GOP.

These incongruous declarations do not seem to be based in any kind of reality. Instead, they surface from a deep, dark alternate universe – a place fixed in the psyche of many white, working class, older Americans. It’s the persistent fear of the other, of change, of deviation from the norm. These are the folks that lost their jobs at the plant after they went overseas to kill little yellow people to bring them freedom. Their children and grandchildren are going into the desert to bring freedom to more ungrateful foreigners. These folks come home from a hard day’s work and see this smooth-talking black president on television telling them that he’s going to make him pay for the health care for other people’s children and grandchildren with their hard-earned paycheck.

That guy, with all the opportunities their children should have had but didn’t, is now telling Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe to give their money willingly to support people that they think have never known an honest day’s work. And it makes them angry. America is the land of bootstrap opportunity, not government-based handholding. And they’ll be damned if it will become a nanny welfare state.

So when they’re told to shout at their congressmen at the nearest town hall, or to rally on Sept. 12 or Nov. 5 in Washington D.C., then, by God, they’ll do what it takes to stop the socialists, the welfare cheats and the academic elitists in their tracks. They heard the horror stories about rationing in Canada and the months spent waiting for bypass surgery. Joe Schmoe can’t bear to think of his granddaughters going to kindergarten and learning how to slide on condoms instead of learning the alphabet. Jane Doe agonizes over the thought that her aged mother might have to face one of those death panels that Sarah Palin talks about in her folksy manner. So they’ll stop this day of reckoning from coming to fruition.

This is irrational, and yet, this stroking of panic over a long, strange summer was effective. The public option appeared to be headed for an unceremonious death several times. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. even felt comfortable enough to assure the people of this state that if it wasn’t for him, Wyomingites would have national health care. Perhaps the good senator may want to consider Health Care for America Now’s report on the health insurance industry currently bankrupting this country and Wyoming residents.

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is comprised of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states “representing 30 million people dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care.” According to their report released in June, the average combined cost of health insurance premiums paid by employers and workers climbed to $16,771 in 2009 for a family of four. This represents nearly one-third of a U.S. family’s median income.

How is this sustainable? HCAN points out that in Wyoming, insurance premiums rose 129 percent from 2000 to 2007, 4.6 times faster than median earnings rose in Wyoming. This is the fastest and highest rate of premium increase in the nation. For family health coverage in Wyoming during that time, the average annual combined premium for employers and employees rose from $5,605 to $12,824 - 26 percent of the median family's income and projected to reach 47 percent by 2016.

In Wyoming, 72,821 of 520,500 residents are uninsured. These are Sen. Enzi’s constituents, the people to which he proudly announced his blocking of national health care.

Of course, all this is under normal circumstances. When a family member becomes ill, the problem of underinsured policy holders becomes clear. In 2007, 62 percent of Americans filing for bankruptcy said inability to pay medical bills was the key reason. Three-quarters of those filing had health insurance. In no universe does it make sense for working class people to oppose this reform.

But fear will make a person do peculiar things.

In August, Missouri resident Kenneth Gladney was allegedly involved in a fight at a town hall with members of the Service Employees International Union and later went to the ER claiming to have sustained multiple injuries. He was shown on a video of the incident quickly springing to his feet after appearing to trip on a curb. After jumping up from the ground, Gladney continued to shout at the SEIU representatives. He appeared later at another town hall to plead for donations to cover his mounting medical bills in a wheelchair, supposedly unable to speak – until he emerged on Fox News the next day. His appeal came at a protest against health care reform that would provide him with insurance, despite the fact he was recently laid off from his job. The irony was completely lost on the conservatives and rally attendees.

Hopefully the Republicans, the pundits, the tea partiers, and the right-wing, volatile fringe movement are pleased with what they hath wrought. Americans now know they’ve been spared the awful, horrible, inhumane health care the residents of Britain receive and would never trade for our current boondoggle of a system bankrupting citizens.

This health care “debate” is no longer a debate. It represents a strange and possibly dangerous turn in politics. This is potential mob rule via the ignorant and the U.S. Congressmen stirring this populist frenzy are playing with fire. The Democrats do not understand the fury either. They cannot comprehend the trepidation felt by many Americans because the liberal mentality does not deal in individual morality – it boasts the common good of society as its goal and the individual morality is intertwined with the benefit to society. It is no challenge to the GOP to paint “collectivism” to the uninformed as a horrible step toward communism.

At Bachmann’s health care rally, attendees held signs advocating violent revolution, compared the U.S. Congress to Nazi Party members, and several hanging effigies of various congressmen were the norm and not the exception. When did any of this become the desired political discourse? All this, as Congress debates health care reform that will surely benefit many of these people. They are patsies in a terrible corporate lie, as it has always been. The GOP must continue to count on populist dread since its remake as the party of big business or risk complete dissolution.

Greg Sargent wrote of a telling conference call in August where a Tea Party organizer stated: “The purpose of Tea Parties is not to find a solution to the health care crisis — it is to stop what is not the solution: ObamaCare.” The tea parties, for all the talk about “astroturf” and “faux populism,” do attract Americans who are worried about what the reforms will bring and who are angered over the bailouts, rising health care costs, unemployment, etc. However, simply blocking reform of any kind benefits no one but the health insurance industry.

Their rage is understandable and familiar. We liberals felt it for eight years under the Bush regime. But these folks are directing at the wrong people. Direct the anger at the insurance companies, the corporations who were "too big to fail," Ronald Reagan and his beginning of the end with the institution of neoliberal economic reforms. But do not throw it at the people trying to institute beneficial improvements to health care successfully for the first time in our nation’s history.

The real tragedy in the health care debate is that due to these horrendous bailouts coupled with two unwinnable wars running rampant over the national deficit, it is doubtful the U.S. can afford massive reforms of any kind. But we cannot afford to continue the way we have. A classic Catch-22 and too little, too late. The time for reform was with Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Nixon, even Clinton. Ted Kennedy must be weeping in the afterlife over this mess.

The U.S. Congress is not completely altruistic. Nearly every member is bought and paid for, courtesy of lobbyists sashaying through the aisles guaranteeing cushy campaign contributions. Are watered down bills and wrath-fueled tea parties the solution? Absolutely not. But no one seems to have an unambiguous solution and the 9/12 Glenn Beck acolytes are promised that what they’re being told to do is the solution.

Storming Nancy Pelosi's office and being arrested.

Holding signs about "Kenyan Obama", socialism, fascism, and Nazism.

Chanting "Kill the Bill" at the top of their lungs after Michele Bachmann told them on Sean Hannity’s show to come to D.C. and “scare” their congressmen into not voting for the bill.

The thought of the chaos possibly inherent in the 2010 elections is chilling. The U.S. Senate is beginning their debate on their own version of the bill today. Already, Beck and Hannity are calling for more marches in tirades laced with violent, revolutionary metaphors and absolutes.

There is no denying this is getting frightening.

Click here and here to view photos from Tea Party protests across the nation

Letter to the Editor: Parents angry over Obama speech set bad example

Editor:

I'm disheartened by the devolution and polarization of American politics we've seen in recent years--particularly as seen in the public outcry over a message from President Obama to our school children about the importance of their education that was both harmless and important. I challenge those parents who feared that his message would transfer a message of socialism to their children to watch the President's speech online or read the transcript. Incidentally, I find it quite telling that when Ronald Reagan did the same in 1986 or George H.W. Bush did the same in 1991, there was no such public outcry.

As both a parent and an educator, I'm truly disappointed at the lack of courage shown by school officials in caving to a vocal minority of parents. Sometimes, choosing the right and doing what is right means doing what is unpopular without respect toward the political consequences and being a vocal advocate for our democracy. Part of the duties of citizenship mean that we pass a healthy respect for the outcomes of elections and our democratic institutions to our children, especially when we don't agree with those outcomes. It's what distinguishes us as a democracy and makes this nation great.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Voltaire's biographer, said in 1906 in a quote widely misattributed to Voltaire, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Isn't the freedom we have to engage in difficult and controversial dialogue over political issues precisely what distinguishes our republic from other countries where citizens are denied this basic civil liberty? How far we've come from a point where we could vigorously disagree with each other and engage in snappy emotional repartee but still retain respect for our fellow citizens with whom we've disagreed. We could yet share a mutual pride, love, and respect in that great nation that gave us the freedom to do so...

Shame on you parents! Shame on you school officials for caving to them! How do your actions teach our children healthy respect for our democratic process and elections? How soon might our children within generations take up arms instead of the ballot or the pen or speak their minds when they disagree with each other?

Respectfully,
A Wyoming teacher
Green River, Wyo.

Letter to the Editor: An open letter to Obama

An open letter to President Barack Obama –

Mr. President, your goal of health care reform is in jeopardy and a change of strategy is required if that goal is to be saved. You have tried to work with Congress and that strategy has run its course.

If any health care legislation comes out of Congress, public option or not, it will simply add more people to the broken health care system we have now and increase the profits of the insurance industry without providing better care or cutting costs. I see nothing coming out of Congress that would start reducing health care costs, and that is key.

As you know, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, even though our national life expectancy is relatively low and our high infant mortality rate is a crime. Far too many people die because of hospital-acquired infections and malpractice. Large segments of our population receive little or no health care, primarily because of cost. Far too many families sink into bankruptcy because of health care debt.

Instead of letting health care policy be dictated by the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and other players in the medical-Congressional-complex, pick a plan and stick with it. The Wyden-Bennett bill is an example of the kind of legislation that would address the fundamental problems in our health care system, namely incentives that drive up costs and drive down quality of care. Find a bill you can get behind, or create one of your own.

Once you find a bill, get the Democrats behind it and push it through. I know it’s like herding cats, but at least it is easier than herding Republicans. You ought to know by now Republicans won't accept any plan that actually addresses the fundamental problems with our health care system. Republicans refuse to be part of the solution.

I don't know if Democrats will unite behind you, but you have to try. If you succeed, health care will be on the right track, thousands of lives will be saved, and the Republicans will deservedly be out of power for at least 20 years. If you fail, you just might lose your next election and the country will sink deeper into the black hole of health care debt.

Robert Roten
Laramie, Wyo.

US Rep. Cynthia Lummis does not support "birther" movement

Lummis does not support “birther” movement
Meg Lanker
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:41 PM MDT

US House Representative Cynthia Lummis-R Wyo. is no friend of the “birther” movement.

Rep. Lummis believes President Barack Obama is an American citizen, his birth certificate is valid, and he is qualified to be president under the native-born citizenship requirement of the US Constitution.

Orly Taitz, a California dentist and attorney, is challenging the validity of Obama’s birth certificate and US citizenship in the media and in court. Taitz wrote on her official blog Monday that she had made “high-profile” friends in the GOP on the social networking website Facebook, including House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, and Rep. Lummis.

Taitz said she was “greatly honored” to see leaders in the Republican Party become her friends on Facebook. “To me it means that the leadership of the Republican party understands the importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward. I hope more congressmen and senators join and either become additional plaintiffs or bring to the House and Senate judicial committee hearings the issues of Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency as well as suspected illegal activities by Obama and his supporters,” she said.

Tuesday, Rep. Lummis’ Press Secretary Ryan Taylor said in a phone interview that Rep. Lummis receives friend requests as a representative frequently, and it is common practice for legislators to add people as friends. He said this does not imply an endorsement or support of the person’s views and, as of Tuesday, Taitz had been removed from Lummis’ list of friends on Facebook.

Taylor said Lummis absolutely does not support the belief that Obama is not an American citizen and said, “His birth certificate was authenticated by the State of Hawaii and by factcheck.org.”

Factcheck.org describes itself on its website as a “non-partisan, non-profit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters,” and is run by The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a community of scholars that addresses public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

Taylor also said that Lummis feels this is a needless distraction from other much more important issues at hand, citing the need for a solid plan for health care reform, and that questions about Obama’s citizenship are a “non-issue.”

This is not the first time Lummis has dealt with the matter of Obama’s citizenship. In April, Rep. Lummis held a town hall meeting in Cheyenne at her alma mater, East High School. When a member of the audience asked her about Obama’s citizenship, Lummis said she had seen nothing to refute the birth certificate that places his birth in Hawaii. According to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, Lummis said, “I’m not questioning your concern. I am questioning whether there is credible evidence.”