A GOP pollution test
Since Republicans seem to shy away from ideological “purity tests,” let me propose a reasonable GOP pollution test:
Resolved: The Republican Party should leave Rosie O’Donnell/Van Jones 9/11 Trutherism to the Left and the Democrats. If they want to pollute the air with their “just asking questions” conspiracies, let them “ask” their cockamamie “questions” locked in Alex Jones’ tinfoil-covered studio and leave the Right alone.
Can we all agree?
Now: Say hello and goodbye to Truther-friendly Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
A-jad spews 9/11 Trutherism to U.N.; U.S. delegation walks out
September 23, 2010 04:28 PM by Michelle Malkin
60 Comments
About the Pentagon shooter; Update: Stop playing games, MSM. John Patrick Bedell was a registered Democrat
March 5, 2010 10:14 AM by Michelle Malkin
106 CommentsAndrew Sullivan’s staffer: Yes, my boss is deranged
December 8, 2008 11:48 AM by Michelle Malkin
76 Comments
Supreme Court turns down Obama citizenship appeal
December 8, 2008 10:39 AM by Michelle Malkin
270 CommentsReport: 9/11 suspects will confess guilt at Gitmo
December 8, 2008 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
55 Comments
This is what certifiably unhinged looks like
December 5, 2008 11:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
130 Comments
Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right
December 5, 2008 06:53 AM by Michelle Malkin
326 Comments
Categories: Truthers
Pundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentNice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNRO
» Unleash Biden!NewsBusters.org
» Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’Nice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of America
Do you believe in man-made global warming or in sun-cycle caused climate change?
Do you believe the Government spendng money for jobs, or in the Government getting out of employers way?
Do you believe the Bible and the Constitution say what they mean and mean what they say?
How did this kooky chick even get on the political radar screen? Is it her money? Can someone be that dimwitted to suggest that the US government had a hand in 9/11?
She really has to have been raised in a bell jar.
Please, Please GOP power brokers. Let this one alone…..Please?
off topic….Bill Clinton hospitalized in NYC…breaking story….
This is why I can’t understand why Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul. He’s a frequent guest on Alex Jones’ show and has made statements saying 9/11 was a complicated issue with “truth on both sides”.
Each philosophy, conservative or leftist, has its own lunatic fringe.
Just wondering, does this test extend to birthers?
“There exists a shadowy government with it’s own Airforce, it’s own Navy, it’s own fund raising mechanism and the ability to pursue it’s own ideas in the national interest, free from all checks and balances and free from the law itself.”
Senator Daniel Inouye speaking in 1987
about what he called the “shadow government”.
I’m not a truther, but you would think this statement would have brought alot of questions his way. Questions about his ability to lead whilst harboring such conspiracy thoughts. I guess questions are just out of the question huh?
ooops….that was a question.
IMHO, yes. Until they 1) Produce some form of credible evidence and 2) get rid of Orly Taitz. The lady is a fruitcake. Not a good front person for the cause, or any other.
It is certainly not in the league with the tin foil truthers (lunatic fringe), but the fact that it is dubbed birthers means that is how it is projected perceived. Unless and until there is some new compelling evidence, it is detrimental to the conservative cause. If you want to pursue it, more power too you. I hope you succeed. Just keep it under the radar.
It would be best to leave unproven, unsubstantiated, issues out of the Tea Party movement. Perhaps they will once it’s shown what this does to her ambitions.
There are no arguments from me about the effects of out of control taxation, healthcare revision, destruction of the Constitution and a myriad of other issues that will destroy this country. Myths and unproven theories won’t get you elected – but will tarnish the movement.
In this case, as Hope-a-Dope himself would say…
Yes. We. Can!
There is nothing that will destroy the tea party movement faster than it giving credibility to either the birthers or the truthers. If you believe BHO was born in Kenya, who do you think his mother was? Hint: a US citizen. Giving birth outside the continental US does not deprive a child of his mother’s citizenship. Remember Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, one-time contender for the presidency? Where was he born? Mexico. His parents were US citizens, however, so he was eligible to run for and be elected president (until he caught foot-in-mouth disease during the primary.) John (shudder) McCain? Born outside the continental United States. Eligible for president? Sadly, yes. Get over it, you dang fools, BHO is who he is and he’s in place legally (for now.) And truthers? You can’t be serious. No one could hide a conspiracy that big, certainly not GWB. And then there are the pictures, and admissions of guilt by the truly guilty parties, etc. It’s a mental illness to believe in this nonsense.
And of course, by “they” you mean “Obama” producing credible evidence… right?
Actually, in my mind, all the evidence needed has been provided. For 220 years “natural born citizen” has mean a citizen born on American soil, to parents that were BOTH American citizens. EVERY* President born after the adoption of the Constitution has met that standard.
The senate held a hearing, debated and voted on John McCain’s eligibility.
The senate held a hearing, debated and voted on Barry Goldwater’s eligibility.
THis President is born of a father who was NEVER an American citizen. Why no hearing?
* some argument over Chester A. Arthur
Ed at Hot Air has an update / response from Medina. It’s a nice try but comes up way short. Best case scenario is she can’t articulate her positions very well, which is not so good. Worst case, she doesn’t have a problem with truthers. Either way she’s likely toast.
McCain didn’t meet that standard. He was born in Panama.
The issue with Obama isn’t that he COULDN’T be a natural born citizen, thru his mother, but that he won’t show a simple piece of paper and put the question to rest.
The Tea Party zealots on the Dick Aremy thread certainly do not have a problem with “purity tests.”
It was like the “Is she a witch?” scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I vote that more effort be spent informing and less in “purifying.”
I propose a “nutter test”.
But I’m good with “pollution test”….
Is that like…turn your head and cough?
Medina is a disciple of Ron Paul.
http://txconservative.wordpress.com/2010/02/
We might as well just throw them all in the Potomac and start over.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Thank you, DA.
Why should the burden be only on others to produce credible evidence; and why not also on B. Hussein Obama?
What is he hiding?
Why the phalanx of interference-runners and the big chunk of change that they are being paid to prevent release of records about this puppet?
This puppet passes neither the laugh test, nor the smell test.
The ‘Tea Party’ movement is going to implode. It’s more interested in judging people than anything and it really has no clout at all. It is amazing that the non-entity even registers in ‘polls’.
As for the ‘GOP purity’ test, I don’t really care what the GOP does. I do think there is an unhealthy hatred among some (especially at Hot Air) to demonize the most grass roots and most fiscally conservative congressman ever to walk Capitol Hill in Ron Paul.
Instead of the fascination with running someone against Ron Paul, maybe you should consider taking this new ‘clout’ of conservatism to try to run a Scott Brown against Nancy Pelosi. Wouldn’t that produce better legislation than wasting time against Ron Paul?
That said, the Truther movement is ridiculous and I don’t really care who believes what about it. Van Jone’s Truther crap wasn’t his problem, it was his Communist crap that should have been the problem.
The Truther debate is stupid and nothing will ever come of it. HOWEVER, people here talk a lot about the ‘birther’ movement as though believing a person was not born where he thinks he was born is as bad as believing a government killed 3000 of its own people (for whatever reason) misses a LOT of points.
One thing I know for certain about Obama’s birth is that nobody who was there is alive today except Obama. Maybe he’s a bit different from me, but I don’t remember where I was born. They just tell me.
For Obama to say he was born in Hawaii because he was told he was born in Hawaii doesn’t close the case. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be president if he wasn’t born in the US (though it is in the Constitution), but I am saying that it isn’t crazy to think that he likely was born in Kenya and falsified documents to become an American citizen for his single mother to qualify for benefits. Please understand that Obama brings this up more than anyone. It obviously bothers him and I guarantee he don’t really remember. Anyone can put a birth announcement in the paper from anywhere in the world too. I guess in this case, the main stream media qualifies as official documentation though. I’m sure they researched birth announcements.
Obama would be the ONLY person to have ever falsified documents concerning someone’s ID in America, right? His short form birth cert can’t be falsified because nobody ever fakes official documents in America, right? /s
If you want a purity test, fine. Just understand that when you point your finger at someone, you have 4 more pointed at you. I try to make a point not to judge someone who might simply be wrong. I guess that’s too much for most Christians to comprehend though.
Since qualifications for high office is in the Constitution, providing a proof of same is a good place to start. The proof lies with the one seeking high office. It’s easy and doesn’t cost much either.
Beck did a number on Debra Medina.
Sorry, no.
The people have the Right, and DUTY, to hold its own government accountable.
As of now, they don’t even have the ability to formaly ask question, or use any form of Petition for Redress, because the courts say they do not have “standing”.
In fact, one court went so far as to asy that ONLY the Congress, has the power to even ASK if the Fed Gov is doing their job!
No matter how silly “SOME” people may think a question, if a citizen asks it, it should be answered.
So, we get to the question, of WHO gets to decide what questions Conservatives can ask? Because if its say… McCain? Neither you, nor I, would like that answer.
Medina is done…for the primary.
There will be he!! to pay if she shows up as an Independent and splits the vote in the regular election. (Perot crap again!)
Barry produced the exact document I received when applying for a passport. It is accepted as proof of citizenship, and Hawaian officials have testified there is an original. That’s why some evidence needs to be produced. If you are accusing credible public officials of lying, you need evidence.
Is there evidence of large ammounts of money being paid to prevent release of records? I have not seen it, and certainly an accusation like this requires evidence as well.
I just don’t see where this can go. The courts have refused to rule on it, thank God. Do we really want a precident that some circuit judge can rule on the eligibility of the president? Wait until the next conservative is elected.
So the Senate needs to decide. If they would consider it (a HUGE if), how do you really think the 59 Dems and certainly some Repubs would decide?
We all knew before the impeachment that Clinton had perjured himself at least twice – a felony for which he was later disbarred – and which would land you or I in prison. We also knew the 2/3 vote required to remove him would never happen. Regardless of the facts, the vote went party lines. Not pretty, but reality.
As I’ve said before, I would love for this to get traction, I just don’t see where it will.
Interesting!
San Antonio 9/11 Truther Activist Group w/ Medina on their calendar.
I’d like to find out more about this meeting!
Check out Dec. 5, 2009 at the bottom of the page.
http://www.sanantoniotruth.org/
Texan have known that Medina is a libertarian billing herself as a conservative. There’s a huge difference in these parts. So, not only do we have to fight the fascists, we have to fight the Paulnuts and Medinaites.
It’s a two front political war here in Texas.
I was starting to look on Medina favorably myself, until I looked at her website and found out that at least one of the groups endorsing her is a bunch of “independent” leftists. She also suffers from Obama disease – a shortage of experience. I’m no real Perry fan either, but KBH isn’t an option and Medina looks very, very shaky.
Hey MadMonk,
Hasn’t Paul voted against all government spending bills? Wasn’t he known as congressman ‘no’ because he always votes ‘no’ for spending bills?
you ‘fighting’ Paul? How exactly are you fighting the long time incumbent? You must be getting your butt kicked since he’s been in office since the mid-70s. You want to find someone who will support fiscal responsibility in government? Good luck.
Yeah, there must be a difference around those parts. One is a Johnny-Come-Lately who decides he wants to fight against someone who has fought for him for the past 30 years.
That’s gratitude for ya. He stopped his private practice in medicine to fight for you. I thought the saying for guys like you madmonk was ‘all hat and no cattle’.
Paul’s problem is that he’s all cattle and no hat. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way because people like Kabuki theater. Medina was Kabuki – yay tea party.
Ron Paul is a libertarian and as such opposes most government spending. I don’t have any problem with that. On the other hand, he’s a nutcase and a tendentious ass, with few if any friends in or out of Congress. He keeps getting re-elected the same way Kennedy did – momentum.
He was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone which was, at the time, US property. John S. McCain III did meet the standard.
Transcript of the Glenn Beck Medina interview:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/36197/
The money I am referring to is the cost of the legal team that is running interference; which amount, the last time I had heard, was somewhere north of $1 million, I believe between $1.25 and $1.5 million.
I have never, am not, and will not make any “accusation” that money was paid to someone to prevent release of some information.
Wow….
I challenge anyone to disprove even a single one of
the TRUTH statements here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRO6fRibQO0
The audio of the interview on youtube
…….and while we’re at it, let’s add these to the pollution test:
1) The Earth…..and the universe…..is much, much older than 10,000 years. (….paging Mike Huckabee…)
2) There were no dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden….
On February 11th, 2010 at 8:26 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:
Wrong. The hospital at Coco Solo Naval Air Station was built several years after McCain was born. The birth certificate that McCain released shows that McCain was born at Colon Hospital in the city of Colon, Republic of Panama (R. P.).
It is factually incorrect to claim that McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station.
The city of Colon was not part of Coco Solo Naval Air Station, and it was not even in the Panama Canal Zone. There can be no claim that McCain was born on U.S. soil, so there can be no legitimate claim that McCain is a natural born Citizen.
There were three candidates who are not natural born Citizens of the United States yet were allowed to be on ballots for the office of President.
One of the three, the Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States on the ballot in several states, was born in Nicaragua.
The Republican party candidate was born in Panama.
And the Democratic party candidate was called a “Son of This Soil”
in official proceedings of the Kenyan government.
From Medina’s statement in response to the Beck interview and the resulting big stink:
Reading the transcript and hearing the audio, it seems to me that she was telling the truth in that regard. Medina seemed genuinely surprised and flabbergasted by the question.
The question is: was she flabbergasted because she has something to hide or because she was asked a loaded and irrelevant question.
Only time will tell.
If Medina is going to repudiate the “truthers” she needs to do a better job of it than that.
My son was born in Germany when I was on active duty. As far as I know, he meets the constitutional standard, too.
What in the world does that have to do with the ability to be a public servant?
What does it have to do with low taxes, personal liberty, gun rights, small government, or any other conservative cause?
Can you link a source for this? I’d like to see it. Sorry if I misunderstood…
Perhaps you can see how someone might interpret this to mean “large ammounts of money being paid to prevent release of records?” Who are these legal teams, how are they interfering and who is paying them?
I’m not being facetious, I’d really like to know.
What other conspiracy theories does this woman hold to her heart that we have not heard? I was considering donating to her campaign until I heard the live Glenn Beck interview. Debra Medina is a lot like Barrack Hussein Obama. Both hold back their true beliefs, hoping to be elected and then begin their crazy agenda. With rumors flying around about her 911 Truther beliefs, no one but Glenn Beck had the balls to ask? Where the hell was the liberal or conservative media on this lunatic?
On February 11th, 2010 at 8:26 pm, Elm Creek Smith said;
Exactly,some on here post with out knowing the facts. A lot more lately it seems.
Suddenly insisting that Republicans return to their conservative roots is now reworded into a sinister sounding “purity test”. It’s a RINO tactic. Every time we Tea Party people back a candidate instead of the one the RNC has picked for us, they protest. Our candidate is usually too “extremist” and so “unelectable”. Until they win.
When we protested the nomination of McCain in 2008, how many times were we attacked by the noseholders for being puritst? That no one could meet our standards? That “perfection is the enemy of the good” as an argument for wasting our votes on a grotesquely flawed candidate?
This is such a phony issue. The attacks against us are being waged mostly by the Republican establishment, not Democrats. I read the left blogs and MSM. I assure you, the left “gets” the significance of the Tea Party better than the establishment Republicans who are determined to either take it over or destroy it.
I linked to this Bloomberg article on the establishment Republicans’ treating Sarah Palin and the Tea Party with the same attitude as they did the Christian Coalition. They want our vote by don’t want us elected or involved with the party machinery. Worth posting again.
On February 11th, 2010 at 9:48 pm, Reg.conservative said:
Except Elm Creek Smith got the facts wrong.
John Sidney McCain III was born at Colon Hospital in Colon, R.P. (Republic of Panama).
The birth certificate he released says so.
Another nutjob pol who wont give a straight answer to a straight forward question, and thinks we are too stupid to know they are dancing. Long live and God bless conservatives on cable and the internet for exposing nuts like this.
I could care less about Obama’s birth place- what I want to know is:
“Do you think the federal government has a RIGHT to taxes or do citizens deserve specific value for their money?
On February 11th, 2010 at 10:24 pm, SpeakEasy said:
Then that means you could care less about the Constitution.
It’s pointless for you to even ask that question after admitting that you could care less about the Constitution.
Yeah, and McCain isn’t President, is he? Coincidence? I think not!
All right, all jokes aside, seriously, McCain was eligible to be President because he was born to American parents who were on US government property (an army base) overseas. Legally speaking, he was born on “US soil”. By the same token, if the US Ambassador to Outer Mongolia and his wife have a child while stationed there, that child is considered to be born in the US.
flenser,
“Legally speaking”, how do you make the claim that Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama was “US soil”?
McCain was born a U.S. Citizen, but not a “natural born Citizen”.
*I heard her live this morning on Beck; I thought something was quirky about her right from the get go, then after the truther question I knew she was toast; You can’t possibly walk back from that; The poor man’s Schizofavva, that’s what she is!
My point is that you want to give the other side as little ammo as possible. Basically, I’d prefer someone who is in favor of what you’ve mentioned but who also has the brains & intelligence to separate fantasy from reality.
You would think that since the GOP has gotten trounced in the last 2 elections, they might have gotten a clue by now. Not to mention the phone calls, emails, faxes, snail-mail, angry townhallers, tea partiers…
They just don’t get it. Too many liberal establishment elephants in the tent. Time for a safari hunt and ivory harvest.
By writing a law to that effect. See the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 301(g). Also see the US Constitution, which grants Congress the power to “establish an uniform rule of Naturalization”.
The fantasy you speak of is merely a matter of perspective. You live, and it is not a science experiment. Your desires for the people of faith to disappear would leave you in a perpetual minority. Better to find a way to tolerate us, or join the progressives.
No. A “natural born citizen” is simply one who is a citizen from birth, as McCain is. The alternative is the “naturalized citizen” – meaning people who came here later in life and were granted citizenship. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for instance. Those people cannot be President.
The “birther” issue could be resolved in no time if the media, including Fox News, wasn’t scared to death to mention it. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is working it’s magic on the perfectly logical desire of millions of Americans to see actual proof that Obama is a natural born citizen, or a citizen period, for that matter. Just ridicule them and they will shut up….or, in the case of the media talking heads, fire them, as in Lou Dobbs.
Forget the birth certificate and there are still all kinds of uncertainties, lies and distortions in Obama’s past…from the adoption, to the name change to Barry Soetoro, and was it legally changed back to Obama?…. to virtually every school record, medical records…law papers, you name it and it is either destroyed or locked up. His two self-serving books are full of lies. How in God’s name can there not be investigative journalist with enough courage to take this on?
There are “birthers: and there are “gullibles”.
Go here for a great definition of the “gullibles”:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
There was just a tread on MM about Obama lying every time his lips move, and yet even “conservatives” believe the verifiably false Hawaii COLB while ignoring dozens of news articles from different sources referring to Obama as “Kenyan Born”….and they are still available.
There is a link to these articles from the link posted above, and lots of other information. Will somebody please check it out? Don’t be a “gullible”.
Even if you believe the Obama story and think everything is OK with his eligibility, how can it hurt to take a look at the evidence?….There is a lot of compelling evidence and this issue does not need to remain unresolved.
Bob… it would not surprise me in the slightest to wake up one day, find that it has been discovered that Obama is not legally able to fullfill his presidency, but be allowed to remain in the position because it would be too much of a hassle to do a do-over. Mainly because he’s the black guy… and who wants to see riots in the streets and cars on fire?
If this article still applies to Michelle Malkin, it sounds like “birthers” are “truthers” the same as 911 deniers:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/05/truthers-to-the-left-of-me-truthers-to-the-right/
On February 11th, 2010 at 11:14 pm, flenser said:
That is a commonly-believed falacy.
The “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to “natural law”.
Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
McCain was a U.S. citizen by statute, by man-made law (as you have already admitted), and not by natural law.
He was a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen.
BOB,
I wrote a post that responded directly to what Michelle wrote in that “Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right” post you linked…
On February 11th, 2010 at 11:26 pm, jangar said:
What’s most interesting to me is that any and all of Obama’s nominations, including judicial nominations up to and including the Supreme Court, would all be null and void becuase he is/was a usurper who did not have Constitutional authority to hold the office and make those nominations.
Actually it does, in many cases.
You’re losing it, Mr. Pill. Regardless of whether he should have been sworn in or not, he is now the lawful President of the United States.
You raise some interesting questions about the proper definition of “natural born”. I don’t think you’re right, but those are valid points of discussion.
However, this stuff about Obama being kicked out of office and all his actions nullified is just plain crazy. Among other problems, what body is capable of doing it?
Read up on Quo Warranto.
An excerpt frm that link:
Who in their right mind would spend millions on legal fees as opposed to say – producing their birth certificate?
Did he claim Indonesian citizenship (or Kenyan) in order to get into college?
Kerry din’t produce his military record – why is that?
Why do people hide anything?
Am I a nut for asking?
On February 11th, 2010 at 6:30 pm, swede said:
I propose a “nutter test”.
Is that like…turn your head and cough?
Isn’t a “nutter test” part of the tea bagging initiation rites?
Michelle -
While I am all for dropping the mono-topical 911 & BC kooks, I also for fair & impartial application all around.
So on this:
I have to wonder how expounding trutheresque takes under “Just wondering” differs from posing them under “just asking”?
Not picking on you, but rather just pointing out that we all jump to very wrong conclusions at one time or another. And in regard to the question at hand, you’re ahead in having dropped your previous erroneous take while others are still stumbling along in the darkness of their own “smog-caused pollution”.
At any rate, it’s a “just sayin’” thing; your proposed test would have excluded you from participation!
What I don’t get is the fear, or perhaps just not caring, that makes so many people refuse to look at the obvious evidence that something is badly wrong with Obama’s eligibility to be president. I am not just making this up, or just saying it because I want someone to call me crazy. Neither will I be quiet and ignore the evidence.
Under any other cicumstances with any other president the uncertainties that exist in Obama’s past would result in mutiple investigiations and 24/7 news coverage. “Experts” from both sides would explain the Constitutional requirements and how they affect Obama from the information we know as fact.
Instead, we take the word of a proven liar and ridicule those who actually look at all the evidence and conclude, at the very least, an independent investigation should be done.
If we are willing to overlook this the Constitution, which is already in critical condition, is officially dead.
As far as being “mono-topical”, I’m willing to talk about all kinds of stuff…the problem is none of it is as important as this, or has as much potential to derail the “progressive” destruction of America.
Getting to the truth on this is not a “distraction”, everything else is.
The “fantasy I speak of…”…?
Which one would that be?
Fantasy: The Earth/universe is less than 10,000 years old.
Fantasy: There were dinosaurs in the garden of eden.
“Your desires for the people of faith to disappear….”
??????????????
Who said that?
FYI: I’m Catholic.
I didn’t have anybody in mind there with that, BOB. I pass by comments by anyone who is obsessed with any one issue. That’s boring, eyerolling territory to me.
That’s good, cuz folks hereabouts gab about all things great & small, from A to Z. On Fridays, food and drink are popular topics. Well, moreso “drink”. (Hmmm…reminding self to stop by the likker store…)
Anywho, I would advise not looking for “insult shoes” in folks comments to try and see if they fit or not. Never works out well.
So there’s suddenly a list of questions we’re not allowed to ask the government? Medina didn’t say she believed the Truthers. She said they had the right to ask questions.
Oh the horror!!!
Tea parties were supposed to mean that despite our differences, we all felt “taxed enough already.” The people that think that creationism is a fabrication were as welcome as people who think that we are created under God.
So now the GOP is taking over the Tea Parties, while promising big change. This leaves Texas with only a pair of RINO candidates. Perry, who believes that your daughters need to be vaccinated forcibly by the state, and KBH, who thinks that life is best protected by leaving Roe v Wade intact.
But they’re the lesser evils? I can see how this change is going to work out.
We’re being played by the party again.
Michelle, the following video was made (by a Philadelphian, I believe…) during the Bush administration, but I think it captures the questioning, by the citizenry, that is necessary at all times (due to the humanness of our leaders) if the Republic is to survive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHsjYgGJj4g
To draw a bright line and say certain questions cannot be asked of our government (for example: Did the FDR administration have warning of the Pearl Harbor attack? Did the a military program create AIDS? Did the Bush Administration sit on information that could have prevented 9/11, not knowing the extent of damage and loss of life that would be incurred?) really puts us in a spot where we have to blindly trust our leaders…. That sort of blind, unquestioning trust is not wise, in my view. And the consequences of such closed-eye trust would be much more severe than any reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt that could be raised by questions.
Would you really want to trust President Obama like that on climate change, on Middle Eastern policy, domestic taxation, on China (Communist) diplomacy? Then why would you trust some other party leader? And why would you stop questioning when the stakes are higher, even if they are remote?
@ItooktheRedPill: Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the power to judge “Elections, Returns and Qualifications” of its own members. So while voiding a Senate election is in their power, I’m not sure that judging a Presidential election is. They could, however, pass legislation and grant the authority to do so to the SCOTUS. They’re allowed to do that, too.
But here’s what the Birthers and the Truthers have in common: no evidence will ever convince them. They’ll simply insist that it’s all fabricated. It’s just what conspiracy nuts do.
They don’t hurt anybody, and at least they might help foster an intense distrust of big government. IMHO we can’t get enough of that in this country.
OK…(smiley if I knew how to put one here).
Red Pill, your reply to Michelle’s article was great, thanks for the link.
Sorry, Swede, I haven’t any links; and, no time to hunt now, unfortunately.
What I’ve read about the large amount of money expended by the ?puppet? and/or (more likely)his handlers, I’ve read at other blogs and websites…where, after an estimated $amount is listed, I’ve seen comments in the same vein as the following by AG:
P.S.
It is blatantly – overwhelmingly – obvious that this does not pass the smell test.
I have never seen the fascists/socalists say that there is no difference between the “birth certificate” and the “certification of live birth”.
I have never seen the fascists/socialists say that they’ve got nothing else.
And if there be nothing else, and if it be no big deal; and if there is nothing in B. Hussein Obama’s “records” (including whether they are nonexistent), and if that would be no big deal…then, why wouldn’t the fascists/socialists just say so and show us?
Something is being ferociously, expensivley hidden from us.
As I said, this does not pass the smell test.
And, anyone who can’t see that this doesn’t pass the smell test, cannot himself pass the laugh test.
That’s actually not true. Babies born to foreign nationals on military bases aren’t granted citizenship, and the children of diplomats are excluded even if they’re born here.
Oops! I misread that as “Diplomat *from* Outer Mongolia.” Drat the lack of an edit function!
Alex Jones is a sniveling coward.
Absolutely not true. No one knows if the evidence is sufficient to convict, what we do know is that the evidence, tons of it, has not yet been presented to a jury….Why?, in every case it was stated that the parties do not have “standing” to question the legitimacy of a sitting president. In plain English, once elected the president is above the law.
Here is a great non-political website on eligibility:
http://groups.google.com/group/constitutional-eligibility-questions
and here for a log of information:
http://www.theobamafile.com/
or here:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
and follow the links in the article to see more than 10 references from news sources around the world, printed from the beginning of Obama’s Illinois Senate run all the way up to 2009, that refer to Obama as “Kenyan born”. It appears the USA is the only place that doesn’t know the truth about Obama’s birthplace.
How do you know there is “no evidence”?
I had to go Google Medina. Wow – she was a real Tea Party candidate, too. A political neophyte who was within 4 points of KBH in the polls?
What a shame she waffled the question. It sounded like she didn’t simply want to insult anybody.
Looks like Irving Kristol’s Marxist leanings are serving the old guard well. Ridicule them out of existence rather than actually discuss issues.
Bob, I didn’t say there was no evidence. I said there was no evidence that would convince them. If Obama opened up the records tomorrow, half of us would insist they were fabricated.
I did a significant amount of internet research on this during the primary season and I reached conclusions that I’m comfortable with, one being that if this was true, Hillary would have pounced on it.
Did/do Hillary and her thugs have as much juice, $, and Soros’s support as the current fascist/socialist gang that is in power?
@granite – Well, I suspect they did at the time.
The point here is that I not going to ridicule people who don’t believe the official rhetoric, no matter what topic we’re discussing.
I don’t live in Texas so I don’t have any real interest in the race, other than Perry scared me with big government stuff like forced vaccines.
I’d vote for somebody who believed in the Easter Bunny over that unapologetic self-serving power broker.
I heard this woman on Beck yesterday. She had every chance to say what she issued in her later statement. She did not. Beck even asked her if she would keep a person whom she knew was a truther, on her staff. She said that she did not want to practice mind control on her staff.
Early in the interview with her, she sounded quite competent. As the interview progressed, I realized that she talked incessantly and Beck couldn’t get a word in edgewise. I started to turn off even before the truther question came up.
Good for Beck to expose these people.
Let’s look at what she did say, Marco:
Glenn Beck:
“Do you believe the government was in any way involved in the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?”
Medina:
“I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that…I’m not going to take a position.
Of course, within a few hours, when the spit hit the spam over her answers she released her position paper finally blaming “Muslim terrorists”, disowning the troofer claim to the contrary.
I’m thinkin’ a person would have to be awfully naive to believe Medina had some great sudden revelation that miraculously led her to stating her position within hours after her “I’ve fallen and I can get up” moment.
Didn’t want to insult the terrorists that flew into the buildings or other truthers?
MarcoPolo, a person sometimes just has to take a stand. The subject of 9-11 is a perfect one to make it on.
Beck mentioned something that may help anyone who has an inkling of question about 9-ll. He asked, “do you believe your country is evil?”
I lived in Texas for a good part of my life and respect the independent spirit (wish I saw more of it here in Missouri.)
Texans and the Tea Partiers don’t need this woman.
I agree we have to take a stand, but if I still lived in Texas, I wouldn’t discount her on this alone. I heard what I heard, you heard what you heard. We’re just going to have to disagree on what litmus tests we choose to apply. Mine put a priority on taxes and individual freedoms.
In any event, I doubt she was going to win anyway – she’s too green, and the interview certainly proves that.
Probably not now!
My litmus is close to yours MP and may I add our country’s security at the top of the list.
OK Marco, I’m going to try to be quiet after this comment. It is your opinon that not enough evidence exist for conviction, and…it’s true that destroying and/or locking up your paper trail, as Obama has, makes it more difficult.
Did you look at the links I provided?…Just one small example, do you believe the multiple news sources from different countries, and even from Hawaii before the article was changed, referring to Obama as “Kenyan born”, are all fabrications…lies or whatever.
Once again…here is the problem. I do not believe that anyone can credibly argue there is not great uncertainty about Obama’s past, including his eligibility. The amazing thing is that the media, including Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Rush, Beck and O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc., do not see enough questions to be answered to allow even a discussion of the subject. The discussion is, IMO, stamped out to the greatest extent possible, because if this was covered like, for example, Sarah Palin’s use of state e-mail for personal use, or GWB’s National Guard records, the average person who may now believe the official story, and perhaps not even know there are Constitutional requirements, would say, “Wow, I didn’t know that…and the number of people who doubt his eligibility would increase greatly. So, through ridicule and intimidation the discussion is minimized, protecting Obama from the truth.
No, I didn’t look at your links. I’m sure I’ve seen them in some form over the past few years. I did see that a newspaper in Hawaii published a birth announcement, and I spent hours upon hours researching immigration law, both constitutional and old English common law, which apparently is the basis for our legal system.
I made a decision based on the things that I learned while doing that
Can you honestly say that if the Governor of Hawaii showed us the birth certificate tomorrow that the Birthers would be satisfied?
Absolutely. Classic Alinsky. Which is why I don’t condone using those techniques no matter what questions are being asked. I was always taught that there’s no such thing as a stupid question. I guess the rules in politics are quite different, though.
I’d just like the SCOTUS to make a ruling. Is a person born of a British subject parent a “natural born citizen” or not? If the definition is not “a citizen born in the country to parents that are both citizens of the country”, as it has been for over 200 years, what is it?
Where now is the line?!
This is exactly what I have heard and read, with no corroborating information, which is my problem with this. Do you not see that asserting some sort of sinister cash laden cabal exists for the purpose of burrying an evil truth at the top tier of government, but with no credible evidence to support it, might sound to some like – say – truthers?
As previously said, I do not put birthers in league with truthers, but many do. I agree, something does not smell right, but so far all evidence I’ve seen is either manufactured, (by nutroots to perpetuate this) circumstantial or heresay travelling through blogland.
Again, if I am wrong, help me out. I would be very pleased to eat my words. But again, at the end of the day the issue must be decided by the present Senate who are not at all likely to even hear it, and if they did would almost certainly decide Barry eligible. Then what? SCOTUS?
Even if you’re right, I really don’t see where this can go.
Fun fact. The ‘Birthers’ Began on the Left. The PUMA’s to be exact, to get Hillary through the primarys.
Lawyers don’t work for free. Dozens of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility have been filed, and the teams of lawyers drafting counter-briefs and arguing in court have to be paid. The $1.5M estimate is based on the number of lawyers involved, the amount of work they’ve done, and what they likely charge for their time.
How much money would I pay to fight somebody accusing me of NOT being born in the state of Kansas? $20.42. Twenty dollars for a copy of my long-form birth certificate (the one with the doctor’s signature and name of the hospital) from the Vital Records office, and a 42 cent stamp.