August 25, 2009

Democratic Strategist Involved in Bombing

Going with the Bill Ayers model of community activism, I guess.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

I'll be very interested to see how today's revelations about various left-wing bomb plots will raise a cry in the media about the dangers of left wing terrorism... you know, the kind the Southern Poverty Law Center can't be bothered to Google up a fake report about for the Justice Department to disseminate as propaganda.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Must be One of Those Right Wing Terrorists

Ready it quickly, before Katyanne Marie Kibby's threat to murder a bomb plot informant goes down the memory hole:

A Texas woman faces trial this month in Austin on charges she threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated an Austin-based group that planned to bomb the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., last fall.

Katyanne Marie Kibby, 25, was indicted in June by a federal grand jury in Austin. She is accused of retaliating against Brandon Darby, the community activist-turned-informant who helped federal prosecutors win convictions against Bradley Neal Crowder, 24, and David Guy McKay, 23.

Prosecutors say the e-mail threat was made Jan. 10. That was two days after Crowder reached a plea bargain with federal prosecutors in Minneapolis for his role in the plot to build Molotov cocktails and attack the GOP convention in September 2008.

Crowder and McKay were part of a group of activists that had gone to the Twin Cities to take part in street demonstrations. The FBI had infiltrated the group with Darby. Crowder and McKay built eight of the gasoline firebombs but didn't use them, a fact law enforcement officials credited to Darby.

Members of the Austin protest community heaped scorn on Darby, saying he had betrayed longtime friends and colleagues.

Note that the Statesman mentions the target of the bomb plot was Republican, but declines to state to which political affiliation the bomb-building activists subscribe.

As Glenn Reynolds notes, it's all about protecting the narrative.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 24, 2009

At War with the CIA

The CIA sent out a press release today disavowing any knowledge of the President's upcoming fishing accident.

Hey, it could happen.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:56 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 22, 2009

MoveOn.Org, SEIU, ACORN To Infiltrate/Disrupt Recess Protests

As you may know, there are currently recess protests in all 435 Congressional districts, for the majority of American citizens that oppose the government-run health insurance.

MoveOn-Org, SEIU union thugs, and ACORN members are moving to infiltrate and disrupt these events.

Here is a copy of an MoveOn.org email promising a "hearty welcome" to the majority of who don't want Obamacare rammed down their throats.

Counter-protesting is perfectly acceptable and encouraged, as it should be.

But I have a contact who claims to have seen unofficial communications from ACORN, SEIU, and MoveOn.Org members not to just protest for the government option, but it infiltrate the anti-government protesters and attempt to stir up trouble. Precisely what kind of trouble was not specified, and was no doubt communicated verbally.

Keep your eyes open folks, and don't allow yourselves to be provoked. Also, keep an eye on the more excitable and antagonistic folks protesting Obamacare.

If they're acting provocatively in front of news crews or private video cameras, they may not be on your side at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:20 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 21, 2009

Pressure Mounts Against MSNBC's Faked Racial Conspiracy

By now you've all heard about how MSNBC doctored video in order to push the fabricated narrative that open carry advocates at health care events were racially motived. MSNBC had tightly cropped an African-American open carry advocate with a Carbon-15 rifle slung over his shoulder so that you could not see his race, in order to argue that "white people showing up with guns" brought racial overtones to these protests.

Americans for Limited Government called for those involved in "a blatantly racist broadcast" to be fired on Tuesday, at which point MSNBC offered a pathetically weak non-apology attempting to claim that they were talking open carry advocates generally, even though the shot was focused on the carefully cropped image of an African American man the majority of the time.

Brent Bozell of the Media Resource Center added his thoughts today, stating that MSNBC must apologize for fomenting racial discord:

"This goes beyond 'sloppy' reporting by MSNBC. This was a deliberate effort to brand conservatives as racists – and now as violent racists.

"Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, this so-called 'news' network has tried desperately to convince viewers that opposition to Barack Obama must be race-based. Now they are actually producing deliberately misleading stories to push that agenda. As a 'news' network, MSNBC is a disgrace.

"MSNBC owes this man and the tens of thousands of protestors a public apology. It should also extend that apology to its tens of thousands of viewers."

MSNBC is guilty of attempting to incite racial strife. They obviously hoped find some sort of political silver lining in labeling opponents as white racists, even when those that oppose them are black.

I do think Bozell must have misstated MSNBC's appeal, however.

Do they really have tens of thousands of viewers?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:08 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Cult on the Verge of Failure

Cults of personality are dangerous things. Those inside them develop strong bonds and a shared belief system that so distorts their world view that they create their own reality... or at least their own reality-based community.

Despite all the celebrity and cultism that has attached itself to the self-indulgent mythology of Barack Obama, and the bullet-proof Democratic majorities he has in the House and Senate, the President has utterly failed to unite the country behind his vision of government-run health insurance. The reason for this failure is quite simple: the majority of Americans have seen the kind of rushed incompetence that has marred every effort of the current Congress and President, and they do not want any part of more of it, thank you very much.

And so perhaps a smarter President and his supporters would be patient and try to implement an incremental approach toward achieving their. They could, with some little compromise just within the Democratic Party, get some of what they want. It would not take much; all they need is the support of their own. They do not need one Republican vote in the House or Senate. All they need to do is make the health care bill palatable to the moderates and conservative Blue Dogs within their own party.

But the frenzied cult of Obama on the far political left are dogmatic, and will not compromise.

While they claim the mantle of "liberal" and "progressive," their views and desires are fixed, inflexible, and (dare I say it?) conservative beyond all rationality. They are so rigidly locked into their belief system that they are willing to lose the possibility of even incremental changes if they cannot bully government-run insurance onto all of us. The fact of the matter is that they are anything but the free-thinkers they like to think they are, and cannot accept any deviation from their chosen path.

And so in the days and weeks ahead as town hall protesters continue to let their elected representatives know that they will not tolerate the radical shift that the far left wants, the left faces getting nothing instead of something.

The cult seems strong and powerful to those inside it.

Too bad the majority of us just think they're delusional nuts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:07 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 20, 2009

Blackwater USA: Your Preferred PowerPoint Presentation Vendor Solution

Mark Manzetti claims in the New York Times that the Central Intelligence Agency hired Blackwater USA in 2004 to locate and kill top al Qaeda members. He backs this up by claiming that various alleged anonymous sources told him so.

But as an embarrassed CIA Director Leon Panetta was forced to admit, the program was little more than a PowerPoint presentation and a collection of ideas within the CIA. It never got off the ground, and was never operational.

What, then, did Blackwater actually do?

Manzetti's article certainly has an accusatory tone, but it doesn't seem to provide any evidence that they did anything at all, other than to give the reactionary left a reason to collectively freak out once more at the mention of Blackwater's name.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:39 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Is the Media Rooting for an Obama Tragedy?

I first asked that question back on January 11, 2008, and at that time dark fantasies of a Barack Obama martyrdom had already been hopefully forecast in the left-leaning media for a year. It's been two-and-a-half years, and they're still trying to hype his pending demise, if not engineer it.

Now we have MSNBC caught red-handed doctoring video in order to push an inflammatory racist narrative. It is fraud perpetrated by a news organization for propaganda purposes, pure and simple.

Contessa Brewer, her editors, and producers at MSNBC should all be fired for this purposeful deception of their viewership, and the cable network itself should hold a open and transparent investigation into how the biases they've encouraged in their newsroom have led to such lies. It will never happen, of course.

They lack the integrity to even feign ethics anymore.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 19, 2009

Dishonest MSNBC Edits Out Face of Protestor in Order to Push Narrative of Racism

Via Hot Air, it has to be seen to be believed.

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.

The reason we're talking about this—a lot of talk here Dylan—because people feel like yes, there are Second Amendment rights, for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. You have a man of color in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."

White people?

This is Chris, the racist white person that had the Carbon-15 carbine on a sling over his shoulder and a gun on his hip that Brewer was talking around in order to keep her talking point intact. Note that in the beginning of this video, MSNBC went to great pains to edit out Chris's head (and race) so that they could provide a race-baiting narrative.

And journalists wonder why people don't find them credible...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:58 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Selective Grasp of History

Josh Marshall is usually pretty level-headed as far as progressives go, which is why I find his TPM post claiming that "the American right has a deep-seated problem with political violence" somewhat surprising.

Granted, he is wise enough to make sure he confines himself to the American right, because it is beyond dispute that globally, it is leftist movements that win the dubious prize of being the most violent in human history, putting 120 million human beings on ice in the last century alone.

And there is indeed some truth to claims that rightist groups have been responsible for much of the political violence in the country. The Ku Klux Klan—a conservative supremacist organization even though it was a formation of and ally to the Democrat Party in the majority of its iterations—was behind much of the political violence in this country for the better part of a century. And yes, there was a militia movement during the Clinton Presidency, which did lead to the murderous terrorist bombing orchestrated by Timothy McVeigh in 1995.

But Marshall is delusional—or perhaps just dishonest—if he doesn't believe that the American left is equally responsible for political violence in America.

We can start with union-organized violence if you would prefer, and I'm not just referring to the physical assaults SEIU members have committed in recent weeks. Or we could talk about the thuggish actions of Black Panthers during the most recent election, and their leftist allies in the Holder Justice Department that refuse to prosecute them.

Or we can talk about the police officers killed by leftists over the years in assassinations by the likes of IndyMedia's Andrew Mickel or other left wing radicals. Should we discuss the Park Police Station bombing in San Francisco? How about the Nyack, NY armored car robbery that left police officers and security guards dead?

We could also discuss the leftist plots to murder dozens of soldiers and their civilian dates at Fort Dix, or the attempt on the Detroit Police Department and its Benevolent Association that would have wiped out a restaurant filled with African-American families as well.

Or we could discuss the plans of radical leftists who desired to set up their own concentration camps in the American southwest:

I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Perhaps it is a bit unfair of me to focus on those events. After all, those who would have carried out these plots did so in the late 1960s and early 1970s for the most part, and their attempts, while in earnest, were as incompetent then as their desire to socialize medicine is today.

Should we allow them a pass on their intent since they failed to kill the dozens of soldiers, police officers, and civilians that were the targets of their pipe and propane bombs? Or should we hold them responsible just for the relative handful of murders they were able to successfully commit? Or should we hold them responsible for both the murders they intended and those they were successful in? I'd suggest that our law demands the later, but it seems that leftist political violence is afforded a different standard in the eyes of the media, and certainly in the mythology they attempt to create.

If you follow the links I provided, you'll note that the bombings of the non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix and the targeting of various police stations can be traced back to the leadership of the Weather Underground, a left wing terrorist group. The leaders of that group, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, threw Barack Obama his first political fundraiser after Ayers and Obama spent time together on the boards of various left-wing groups.

Obama, of course, in now President, and overseas a government that has attempted to label common American values as those of extremists even as it refuses to investigate groups such as the Black Panthers, ACORN, or the unions that are behind much of the thuggish behavior we've seen within recent months.

Americans of all walks of life know extremism when they see it, and they learned long ago fear it when it takes control of the government. Americans have purchased millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition since Barack Obama and his progressive allies swept into power, and yet, there has been only sporadic right wing violence. The fact of the matter is that freedom-loving Americans on the right will not accept tyranny without a fight, but we will not start the battle. It is a purely defensive posture that the right has taken, despite continued leftist provocations.

The simple fact of the matter is that our radicalized left wing government and their sympathies to true radicals is a far greater threat to or way of life than those Americans who have chosen to take precautions against tyranny.

That our current President has sympathies and relationships with those who fantasized about putting their Americans in concentration camps is a far greater threat to this nation's future than those who have chosen to arm themselves against the possibility of a government that has forgotten it is exists to serve the people.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Debunking the Latest Violence Policy Center Propaganda

The VPC — an organization funded by Obama when he sat on the Joyce Foundation — invents their own reality with an assault on gun rights.

Seems rather fitting, considering how much of the progressive agenda is based upon a community-based reality.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:00 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 18, 2009

About Those Open Carry Advocates in Phoenix, and the Liberals Who Loathe Them

As I hopefully made clear last night, I think that open-carrying firearms at political protests—even when perfectly legal—is needlessly provocative and counter-productive. While the open carry advocates are attempting to get across a message that open-carrying guns is legal and hope to normalize the practice, doing so at an event where there is already political controversy is going to have the opposite effect and polarize those who might otherwise be more accepting of their message.

But while I disagree with the idea of open-carrying at political events, I must say that I was impressed with how these open carry advocates conducted themselves. They coordinated their display with the Phoenix Police Department, who provided them with a liaison officer. They were also courteous to those around them, remaining calm and well-behaved (with the exception of the mysterious "other" rifle-carrying man that only one CNN employee seems to have seen).

And despite the shrieking we're hearing for the hyperbole-prone left, there is not a double-standard at play between the security afforded this President and the last.

One blogger at Firedoglake whined:

Once again we see how irony deficiency maims the conservative's ability to reason: those most terrified of The Negro Socialist Non-Citizen Grandmother-Killing President taking away their assault weaponry [roll eyes here] are free who to openly carry them at Obama events without fear of reprisal.

Could you even begin to imagine that sort of apparently lackadaisical approach during Bush's Orwellian tenure? Contemplate what would have happened to audience members had they shown up at one of Bush's "socha scurty" town halls packing heat. People wearing even vaguely anti-Bush t-shirts were summarily ejected from his little Potemkin village affairs and those whose cars brandished "liberal" bumper stickers were no doubt assigned to some DHS anti-American no-fly list. Anyone with a firearm at a Bush event would have found himself wearing an orange jumpsuit and shackles faster than you could say "Dick Cheney's man-sized safe."

Maha wails a similar lament:

The forces of civility already are bowing to the pressure of the mob. We might remember that people wearing anti-Bush T-shirts were not allowed to be within view of Dear Leader, whereas law enforcement can do very little about visibly angry people carrying loaded firearms in the streets.

Both of these bloggers are making false comparisons, without any merit whatsoever.

The armed protesters at events in Arizona and New Hampshire were never "at" Obama's meetings. They were never inside of the security perimeter that the Secret Service establishes for Presidential appearances. They weren't ever close.

The protester in New Hampshire who had a gun in a tactical drop-leg rig was on private property well away from the Obama appearance (I've heard estimates of ½ to ¾ mile away) and was never in direct line of sight of either the venue or the motorcade. He never remotely a threat to the President, nor did he intend to be.

Likewise, those open carry advocates at yesterday's event in Arizona arranged for a police liaison the day before the event, and were constantly afforded security by the Phoenix Police Department and had at least one known Secret Service agent shadowing them to assure they were following the law. These citizens were never anywhere near the President, nor did they attempt to go anywhere near the Secret Service's security perimeter that cordoned off the event and the building in which it was held.

As for the citizens ejected by the Secret Service during President Bush's meetings in the past, I can't claim to know much about the specific instances they refer to, but they do make clear these were citizens inside the event location when they were ejected.

It is always well within the Secret Service's discretion to eject unruly citizens or suspected agitators from Presidential appearances as a matter of security, just as it is their duty to arrest and detain anyone who attempts to breach the perimeter with a potential weapon (As they did another protester in New Hampshire last week).

These mewling cries of left-wing bloggers that the Secret Service is somehow applying a double-standard isn't remotely "reality-based." It is an attempt to make an apples and oranges argument, and a weak one at that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:19 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 17, 2009

A Bad Idea Escalates

The lefty blogs are beside themselves (indeed, Gawker John Cook seems like he is about to lose bladder control) over the fact that about a dozen open carry advocates attended the protest outside Barack Obama's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, AZ today. Much to the dismay of the commenters at many of those sites, openly carrying firearms is completely legal in Arizona.

It also appears that protestors on both sides may have been armed.

As much as I support the open carry movement in theory, I have a very hard time seeing open carry at a political event full of people as anything other than a very bad idea. It is needlessly provocative (and I suspect in many instances, purposefully so), and potentially dangerous.

While the protestors themselves may not have any intent to use the firearms they are carrying, open carry in dense, emotional crowds opens up a whole host of possible scenarios that could end in disaster. I'd be rather surprised if any were using holsters with any sort of locking retention devices.

The man who got the greatest amount of attention was carrying a Carbon-15 rifle with a 30-round magazine and an EOTech sight slung over his back; not the best way to retain and control your weapon in a crowd.

The people on both sides were of course well within their legal rights to carry at this event.

Whether or not openly carrying firearms to a political protest is intelligent is another matter entirely.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 PM | Comments (60) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama Administration Distances Itself, From Itself, On Health Care " Public Option"

Repeats of performances like this may lead to a Presidency that reaches "lame duck" status in record time.

That isn't the proverbial fat lady you hear singing, but Hillary clearing her pipes for her next run at the Oval Office four years earlier than anticipated.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:51 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 16, 2009

Blogger's Presidential Aspirations Crushed

Dang.

So much for that Owens-Treacher dream ticket.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:36 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 14, 2009

"War Ramping Up"

From Michael Yon, two hours ago with no further explanation:

On the move but will Twitter this right now!

War ramping up here in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:40 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Source of All Reports that Radical Hate Groups Are Forming on the Right is ONE GUY...

...who is a radical left wing former journalist and Huffington Post blogger, at that.

Mark Potok has made quite the career for himself at the Southern Poverty Law Center finding right-wing hate behind every tree to ensure that donations to his non-profit keep rolling in. But as Sweetness & Light note in the link above, Potok bases his claims that right wing hate groups are exploding by his claims of online growth, even as web traffic to the web sites of hate groups remain remarkably constant and in some cases has regressed.

The truly pathetic thing about Potok is that "news" organizations know very well that Potok is a former journalist with an ideological axe to grind.

They have every reason to suspect that the quality and objectivity of his findings are hopelessly biased and are no doubt heavily influenced by his need to raise funds for the organization, which long ago ceased existing for any reason other than to collect money to regurgitate a continual stream of reports to bring in more donations. The SPLC's reports are nothing more than a vicious circle of predictable fear-mongering trotted out at regular intervals to raise funds.

It's a nice racket, I suppose. Potok gets to get his hate on and get paid for it. In doing so, the left wing radical gives reliably dim reporters like Brian Ross and his peers a canned story to run every so often that validates their own biases and preconceptions. They consider it a "win-win" I'm sure.

And it all comes from one guy, who quite his job as a report and declared himself a civil rights expert.

Must be nice work, if you can get it.

Update: Some of that right wing hate. Dave Chapelle would be proud.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:41 PM | Comments (51) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Above 10,000 Feet, You're Supposed to Use Oxygen

But it obviously wasn't making it to her brain:

...in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) - recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee - made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I'm boating.

Via Michelle Malkin, who wonders who will play the dowdy ditz Stabenow on SNL.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:33 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Lib Talker Ed Schultz Says Conservatives "Want Obama to Get Shot;" Ignores Fact Most Presidential Assassins are Leftists and/or Nuts

Fresh off of liberal talker Mike Malloy calling for Glenn Beck to commit suicide live on television, liberal blowhard Ed Shultz has the gall to claim that conservatives want President Obama murdered, apparently for Marxism that Shultz seemed ready to concede:

SCHULTZ (04:53): Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do! I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out. They *fear* socialism, they fear Marxism. They fear that the United States of America won't be the United States of America anymore.

It's nice for Shultz to admit Obama's ideology is somewhere between socialism and Marxism, but let's get to his key claim, that conservative broadcasters want President Obama to be shot.

In a nation of more than 300 million people, there are always extremists to either side of every sitting President who would like to think their problems would go away if the President was killed, but who acts upon these impulses, and who rarely goes beyond rhetoric? The evidence beyond the rhetoric is clear.

There have been more than 83 (and as many as 90) attempted Presidential assassinations or plots, and four assassination attempts were successful.

John Wilkes Booth's Ford Theater killing of Abraham Lincoln was the murder of a liberal Republican President by a conservative southern Democrat. James Garfield's killing was the work of a deranged Charles Guiteau. The other two successful assassinations were the work of leftist radicals Leon Czolgosz (McKinley) and Lee Harvey Oswald (Kennedy). 50-percent of successful assassinations were carried out by leftists.

In a quick scan of Wikipedia's list of assassination attempts and plots, we find that of those attempts listed, eight were carried out by people with leftist ideologies, while just two had a clearly conservative ideology (the rest were had unclear ideologies, were criminals, terrorists, or had a wide range mental health issues). The list provided by Wikipedia is of course very incomplete, but it is clear in showing that the most committed assassins (in a non-mental health facility sort of way) have been various leftists.

Any why, praytell, would any conservative boradcaster (or any conservative, for that matter) want Barack Obama assassinated?

The death of the 44th President would leave us with President Joe Biden. No conservative—no American—wants that horror foisted upon us. And even if a plot could be devised to remove both the current President and Vice President, then we would be left with something even worse: President Nancy Pelosi.

Shultz can prattle on insanely on MSNBC as he is wont to do, but the simple fact of the matter is that no conservative wants anything but a long life for President Obama.

The thought of the incompetent alternatives waiting in the wings is too much to bear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:57 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 13, 2009

My Fellow Citizens Confuse Me

According to a new poll, only 54-percent of North Carolinians believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Overall, 26-percent says he wasn't, and 20-percent said they weren't sure.

Obama won North Carolina in 2008 with 49.9-percent of the vote to McCain's 49.5.

Does that mean that quite a few people voted for him even though they weren't sure he was eligible? Or were they simply so fed up with Republicans (and John McCain's poor imitation of one) that they'd rather elect a "foreigner" than a RINO?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:06 AM | Comments (49) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Fifty four is more than 49.9.

Posted by: Jesse Taylor at August 13, 2009 09:31 AM (Y6FOc)

2 Jesse, how is your grasp of basic math relevant? Do you arrogantly assume that everyone who thought Obama was a U.S. citizen voted for him?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 13, 2009 09:34 AM (gAi9Z)

3 Bob, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. He could still be a natural born citizen born outside the US.

Posted by: Tony Brusletten at August 13, 2009 09:36 AM (Zqwkx)

4 Maybe some people have changed their minds and now believe that he is not a citizen -- at the time of the election these people had not given the issue much attention.

It's Obama's own actions that keep suspicion growing, though I think the b.c. is a red herring and whatever he is trying to conceal is in his student records. Perhaps he received scholarship money as a foreign student after being adopted by his step-father. I wish we could get an all-fronts push to have his sealed records opened.

Posted by: Anon at August 13, 2009 09:41 AM (2jLYm)

5 I like your latter theory. Impossible to overestimate the disgust for Bush and the ersatz conservative McCain. I think many people at the time would have made conscious decision to overlook questionable nationality in their eagerness for something different, even foreign and exotic. Enormous frustration out there, which now, with the betrayals and frauduences and downright dstructiveness of the new guy being revealed, has grown tenfold.

Posted by: rrpjr at August 13, 2009 09:48 AM (ukaUO)

6 Was there some massive statewide party on voting day and everyone in North Carolina got drunk?

Posted by: Joe at August 13, 2009 10:33 AM (0Gde6)

7 Don't blame me, I voted for Palin and that old guy. I still got Obama and Etheridge.

Posted by: Larry at August 13, 2009 10:58 AM (v9zij)

8 Maybe, as a product of our wonderful government school system, a lot of people think Hawaii is not a US State?

Posted by: William Teach at August 13, 2009 11:13 AM (7yTel)

9 BTW, Joe, based on the election results, the answer to your question would have to be yes.

Posted by: William Teach at August 13, 2009 11:15 AM (7yTel)

10 We can assume that Barrack was born naturally, whether as a citizen or not, I guess is somewhat of moot point. The ramifications of any 'corrective' measure might be a cure that is worse than the disease at this point in time. I suppose he could impeached and removed form office but the chaos that would ensue might be too disruptive. However, if we can ever learn his hidden histories regarding his foreign travels, academic activities, and other secrets his power to inflict ideological agendas could be muted.

Posted by: JohnFLob at August 13, 2009 11:46 AM (7R0dI)

11 No one can possibly fathom what lurks in the minds of Obama-believers, although it is reasonably certain their thought processes have little to do with fact or logic.

Posted by: Kathy at August 13, 2009 01:53 PM (WyF1i)

12 "The ramifications of any 'corrective' measure might be a cure that is worse than the disease at this point in time."

I remember the same argument being made on the verge of Nixon's impeachment. Instead what we got was Walter Cronkite intoning "the Constitution has worked". Regardless, we survived, but the damage done by the "Watergate babies" in Congress was incalculable.

Posted by: Locomotive Breath at August 13, 2009 03:09 PM (5Tjtz)

13 I think you have to ask your self if it is worth fighting over and realize the battle will be all about the color of his skin and not the content of his character. We are hearing it already.
It is the Constitution and in my humble opinion it needs to be upheld.

I do wonder though, why he doesn't make this go away? It makes no sense but it occurs to me if you give a dog something to chew on it usually won't go digging something else up.

Posted by: mxdg at August 13, 2009 05:18 PM (bFNvP)

14 I can only speak for Asheville... we had scores of people voting that spoke no english...

Posted by: Blue at August 13, 2009 05:20 PM (G2Jt0)

15 Can't be impeached from an office you don't lawfully hold. You are just simply removed and every function or act you performed is null and void, but, subject to review and ratification.

Presume the Grand Plaigerizer would assume the office, yet the whole thing just stinks.

Even if Barry was born in Hawaii, there's something very embarrasing about his BIRTH CERTIFICATE....I think it says Franklin Davis is his daddy.

If so, Barry's whole tale unravels, "Dreams of My Father" becomes a knowing falsehood and subject to Jack Cashill's easy knock-down.

Its like the first small leak in the dike that grows to mammoth proportions; the Dems are washed up and washed away with the Big Lie from Barry!

Its the CHICAGO WAY!

Posted by: Earl T at August 13, 2009 05:25 PM (newZS)

16 His citizenship wasn't questioned until after the election.

Did you see the story a week or two ago where Johnny Mac didn't pursue it?

Posted by: Veeshir at August 13, 2009 07:14 PM (Btpo6)

17 Veeshir @7:14 "His citizenship wasn't questioned until after the election."

That is a lie.

Posted by: Mark E at August 13, 2009 07:55 PM (neE9I)

18 Don't feel bad...12% of the Conservatives asked didn't think or are not sure Hawaii is a state. Kinda funny stuff right there.

Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 08:01 PM (OX5qU)

19 One of his parents was a Kenyan. A natural born citizen should be born to two American citizen parents. Either naturalized or natural. The idea was there would be no possiblity of some loyalty to a foreign nation. Obama idolizes his father who abandoned him. It will never see its day in court but Obama is not a natural born citizen. Whether or not he was born in Kenya.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at August 13, 2009 08:18 PM (T02D5)

20 It is impossible to under estimate the intelligence of the average citizen in regards to US geography, American history, knowledge of the Constitution, how many Senators each state has or even the name of their own Congressman.

For years I've been amazed when I read "polls" such as the one to which you refer. I'm not being an elitist when I say this. It's just a fact.

Posted by: Dude at August 13, 2009 11:12 PM (byA+E)

21 Case Study in why historically bastards are, ummm, bastards?

Posted by: Druid at August 13, 2009 11:12 PM (Gct7d)

22 "....One of his parents was a Kenyan. A natural born citizen should be born to two American citizen parents.....Obama is not a natural born citizen......"

You'll be hard pressed to show us a SCOTUS decision, that still stands, to support your mistaken belief.

Posted by: Dude at August 13, 2009 11:24 PM (byA+E)

23 Dude, respectfully and out of curiosity, just when did you swear allegiance to SCOTUS?

Posted by: Druid at August 14, 2009 12:18 AM (Gct7d)

24 Aw crap! We tossed the Birthers a scrap and now look.

Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 14, 2009 12:40 AM (bhNGz)

25 Druid,

It isn't that I've sworn allegiance to the SCOTUS. Rather, I recognize that in our legal system SCOTUS rulings/opinions when interpreting the Constitution are, in fact, the Law of the Land, even when I disagree with them. And, I frequently do disagree.

Posted by: Dude at August 14, 2009 09:53 AM (byA+E)

26 It's possible, as somebody above remarked facetiously, that these people don't realize Hawaii is a state.

You really want to piss off a Hawaiian (by which I mean a person living in Hawaii, and not "Native Hawaiian"), call the Mainland "The States."

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 14, 2009 11:50 AM (Vcyz0)

27 "It's possible, as somebody above remarked facetiously, that these people don't realize Hawaii is a state."

I don't doubt for a minute that a certain percentage of the population doesn't know that Hawaii is a state.

Several years ago I was going out to New Mexico to work for a while. A neighbor asked me: "Is that in America?" She was serious as a heart attack, too.

This is not a liberal vs conservative issue. This is simply ignorance, for which there is no excuse.

For years, poll after poll have shown contradictions between given facts and the public's perception of the facts. It's astonishing!

The link below is to an article written in 2006 by Paul Craig Roberts: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

In other words, we're not talking about some liberal, commie, whacko. We're talking about an intelligent person with conservative credentials who is also befuddled by the ignorance of "the people".

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm

We are an ignorant society, sad to say.

Posted by: Dude at August 14, 2009 12:37 PM (byA+E)

28 Kind of a side topic, but... Since Barry was born to citizens of two countries, did he recieve citizenship from both? And if so, does he still hold duel citizenship? If he did receive duel citizenship, but does not now, when did he relinquish?

Posted by: Rather Stay Anonymous at August 14, 2009 12:58 PM (d0kBA)

29 Arrgghhh.... "duel" should be "dual".... Preview is my fried.

Posted by: Rather Stay Anonymous at August 14, 2009 01:42 PM (d0kBA)

30 That's a fair question. Though it doesn't necessarily apply to Obama's status (because we don't know if he is or has ever been a dual citizen. He IS, by all legal standards recognized as a natural born US citizen), the links below may address some of your questions about dual citizenship, in general:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#noway

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

Hope this helps............

Posted by: Dude at August 14, 2009 02:44 PM (byA+E)

31 <a href="UGG'>http://www.retailike.com/">UGG Boots Sale</a><a href="ugg'>http://www.retailike.com/">ugg shoes</a><a href="ugg'>http://www.retailike.com/">ugg classic</a><a href="cheap'>http://www.retailike.com/">cheap ugg</a><a href="UGG'>http://www.retailike.com/">UGG UK</a>

Posted by: ugg boots at September 29, 2009 08:14 PM (oDASl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.1893 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1374 seconds, 361 records returned.
Page size 267 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.