Patterico's Pontifications

3/9/2011

NPR Update: CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns (Updated With Proof of the Obvious)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:58 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

And they say pretty much it is one of those cases where it was either quit or be fired:

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned after NPR’s board of directors decided that she could no longer effectively lead the organization.

This follows yesterday’s news that then-NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller (no relation) was videotaped slamming conservatives and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding during a lunch with men posing as members of a Muslim organization (they were working with political activist James O’Keefe on a “sting.”)

Vivian Schiller quickly condemned Ron Schiller’s comments, and he moved up an already-announced decision to leave NPR and resigned effective immediately. But Ron Schiller’s gaffe followed last fall’s dismissal of NPR political analyst Juan Williams, for which Vivian Schiller came under harsh criticism and NPR’s top news executive, Ellen Weiss, resigned.

(Source.)  I think we are well past the point where it is time to cut off funding for public broadcasting.  In theory it sounds good—a nice, neutral arbiter that makes sure that there are basic, publicly-needed elements somewhere on our dial, such as educational programming for children and neutral news at night.  I mean I used to joke that Barney the Purple Dinosaur was vital to enabling my sister to get to work as a single mother, as it represented the “humane alternative to nailing my niece down to the carpet.”  She would just plop my niece down, turn on an episode of Barney and go get ready for work, confident that her daughter will not have moved an inch while she was out of the room.

But the fact is that there is little doubt that a show like Barney would get incredible ratings if on commercial television.  After all, other educational shows like Blue’s Clues and Dora the Explorer are found on commercial television.  And when you throw in things like merchandising, there is little doubt that a Sesame Street would have no trouble finding a home on commercial TV—if it came to that.  And as the video reveals it is far from self-evident that if federal funding was cut off, public broadcasting would have to shift to the typical commercial TV format.  They might survive on donations alone.

And the reality is that this is not the neutral arbiter that we might have hoped.  Which is bad in and of itself.  It should be unthinkable to take money from everyone and funnel it into an organization that takes sides in our political debates.  And we should feel that way whether our side benefits or not.

Update: In case there is any doubt on the subject of whether NPR or others in the public broadcasting arena take sides in our politics, there is this:

Fiore is talented, but this cartoon is just a mean-spirited attack on people who think differently than he does and doesn’t broaden the debate. It engages in the same kind of name-calling the cartoon supposedly mocks.

And why is NPR running a cartoon from just one perspective?

And who was this evil conservative who wrote that?  Well, look and see.

But really if you doubt that public broadcasting has taken sides, I have two words for you: Bill Moyers.

You have to be singularly deluded or dishonest not to notice a liberal bias, there.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

135 Responses to “NPR Update: CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns (Updated With Proof of the Obvious)”

  1. Somewhere in the back rooms of Fox News studios, Juan Williams is laughing his ass off.

    John425 (848837)

  2. and i suspect he will be tonight on o’reilly, too.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. It should be unthinkable to take money from everyone and funnel it into an organization that takes sides in our political debates.

    What evidence do you have that NPR takes sides in political debates?

    I mean, it is on 24/7. Do you have links to clips. recordings, etc.?

    Kman (5576bf)

  4. Tweet from Jake Tapper:

    PBS Sr VP or Development also met with fictitious group. PBS wont comment on whether he said anything that could prove embarrassing.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  5. Caiman the Croc Clown strikes again!

    Icy Texan (73021e)

  6. Kman, how about their executives calling TEA Party activists “racist” ? That’s evidence. Oh, I forgot, your act is to pretend to have never heard anything about a controversy and ask stupid questions.

    Like that one you asked above.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  7. Bias? Two words, Gwen Ifill

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  8. “What evidence do you have that NPR takes sides in political debates?”

    Kman – “More NPR Video: We Only Cover Global Warming Deniers as Political Story, Not Scientific Story”

    Self explanatory.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  9. I do not care how far left they are,i only object to paying for that drivel and their claim to be the publics voice. Will they change their name to leftist trash talk when they lose taxpayer funds or maybe soros singers?

    dunce (b89258)

  10. Not THE Bill Moyers! The man that worked inside a liberal White House, and routinely displays his leftist spleen on NPR/PBS. Not the guy that makes Gwen Ifill look like a centrist!

    Say it isn’t so!!!

    Icy Texan (73021e)

  11. Given the 30 or so “birther bills” that have have been introduced by recently-elected TEA Party state legislators, I think that calling them xenophobic is quite accurate. Ignoring the racism of the birther thing with our first black president is a pretend game, like putting your head in the sand.

    I don’t really see the biggie with an official at NPR having liberal political opinions. Anyway, if it gets them defunded, that’s a good thing in any case. Big deal, they have to generate around $90 million from ad sales.

    Also, Pam Geller (Atlas Shrugs) was also apparently fooled into thinking that the O’Keefe muslim website was real. Which is something to consider if the politics of ‘sting operations’ like this continue. Lefties could do it just as easily, and then we can take turns being outrageously outraged over covertly-filmed idiocy.

    carlitos (01d172)

  12. That’s a pretty damn broad brush, carlitos.

    JD (d48c3b)

  13. I wish it wasn’t JD, but really the introduction of all of these local bills is what got me.

    carlitos (01d172)

  14. Given the 30 or so “birther bills” that have have been introduced by recently-elected TEA Party state legislators, I think that calling them xenophobic is quite accurate.

    What’s xenophobic about closing a wide-open loophole in the nomination process, now that our faces have been rubbed in it? If presidential candidates don’t have to prove their eligibility, and nobody has the standing to make them do so, then what’s to stop Schwartzenegger from brazening it out and just running? “I vas born in Kenzes”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  15. Milhouse, the US Constitution sets out the eligibilty requirements for candidates for the US Presidency. It’s not simply that the “birther” bills enforce the eligibility requirements as interpreted by federal Courts and the US Congress. The “birther” bills go farther, in some cases, and add additional requirements/restrictions (such as defining “natural born”) which, in some cases, conflict with the federal interpretations.

    Jim (ad29d8)

  16. OK, Hold it!

    The very idea that a news network paid for by the government would be neutral is so absurd that only a 20th Century Western Intellectual could believe it.

    For that matter, the notion that a news show run by human beings that is without bias is even POSSIBLE is ridiculous.

    That PBS has, for much of its existence, run news that was A) paid for in large part by the government and at the same time B) biased against the administration in office, can only be described as a farce of Cosmic proportions.

    It is high time that we began to expect that A) News will be biased. B) Those who own the media will dictate the bias, and C) If we don’t like the available range of bias, we need to buy some news outlets.

    C. S. P. Schofield (71781e)

  17. So that means that in 30 different States, there is at least 1 person that thinks someone should have to produce a copy of a birth certificate, and that makes them racists? Not to mention that there are reasons to think that which have nothing to do with race. The whole birther equals racist construct bugs me, even if I think birthers are silly. Ironic that the birther movement was the Hillary Clinton camp.

    JD (29e1cd)

  18. JD, if that’s your argument, all you have to do is type a comment like “So that means that in 30 different States, there is at least 1 person that thinks someone should have to produce a copy of a birth certificate, and that makes them racists?” Why haven’t you done so?

    carlitos (01d172)

  19. Maybe I was not clear. The existence of a state legislator in 30 states that introduced such a bill , to me, means very little, as in, next to nothing. And I fail to see what how race is the factor, as you apparently do. Hillary and the pumas are clearly racists. YMMV

    JD (822109)

  20. Not one penny of taxpayers money should go to support this Bullhorn of Bolshevism. Let them sink or swim on their own.
    (Think of the final moments of the Titanic)

    Douglas Leaon (392f36)

  21. JD, if that’s how you feel, then just go ahead and say “The existence of a state legislator in 30 states that introduced such a bill , to me, means very little, as in, next to nothing.” I don’t know what you’re hiding by refusing to do so. Maybe I’ll elect a legislator to demand that future commenters say just those words, since you refuse to do it.

    carlitos (01d172)

  22. Maybe they should replace Vivian Schiller with George Bush. He has a lot of experience running a large political based organization that depends on tax dollars.

    Huey (65df69)

  23. What am I hiding, or afraid to say? You lost me.

    JD (d56362)

  24. In this bitter March
    Vivian was bit in ass
    Karma is a bitch

    The Haiku Avenger (5a4fb2)

  25. I feel so sorry for Viv
    How, oh how, will she live?
    Her job is now gone,
    It’s time to move on
    And to NPR I will not give

    The Limerick Avenger (5a4fb2)

  26. The whole “birthed” controversy spins around concerned people annoying their betters. Dragging race into it only convicts the dishonest race-baiter.

    What does this have to do with NPR? No one can yell squirell like a lefty.

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  27. I was using sarcasm demanding that you do something you already did. Like when people demand that Obama prove his birthplace.

    Just to clarify:
    – Andrew Sullivan obsesses over Sarah Palin’s uterus for years; I think he has mommy issues.
    – Joseph Farah obsesses over one and only one candidate’s birth certificate for years, when his opponent (a white guy named McCain, as it happens) was the one not born in the USA; I question Farah’s motives. And Jerome Corsi’s. And these TEA party legislators. Heck, and the PUMAs, or at least some of them.

    carlitos (01d172)

  28. McCain was born on an American base, on a US territory, to two American citizens and yet he actually had to show his documents. I think it’s
    one of the least productive avenues of inquiry, but fair is fair.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  29. Ag80, I apologize for the derail, but the NPR guy mentioned the TEA Party thing. Joseph Farah’s birther rants went over quite well at the TEA Party convention. Watch for yourself.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291955-1

    carlitos (01d172)

  30. One of us wonders
    how many scalps O’Keefe gets?
    The libs are worried.

    The Haiku Avenger (5a4fb2)

  31. “I was using sarcasm demanding that you do something you already did.”

    carlitos – That was very nuanced sarcasm. It is racist to demand liberals to prove their qualifications, but not conservatives. Nicely done.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  32. carlitos – It is also racist to demand fair elections by ensuring only people eligible to vote actually vote. Toss that on the pile as well.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  33. We’ll build up a big pile a straw and then JD can torch it.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  34. Haiku Avenger
    speak the truth O’Keefe firm grip
    on NPR ballz

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  35. Schiller Moscow trained
    hatchet-faced dead-ringer for
    the Eleanor Clift

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  36. _________________________________________

    I have two words for you: Bill Moyers.

    I recall Dan “phony-documents” Rather once pointing to Bill Moyers — who was working for CBS at the time — as a sign of the non-liberal slant of CBS News. Hilarious. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    If we lived in an alternative universe, where Fox News was being being funded by the government, I’d totally understand it if liberals complained about that. But I don’t expect many of them to see the phoniness of their stance when it comes to NPR. After all, look at all folks on the left who proclaim “I’m not liberal—I’m progressive!!” Or: “The New York Times is slanted to the left?! No way! It’s too sophisticated and compassionate to be guilty of partisan biases!”

    Mark (411533)

  37. Colonel have contempt
    for Prairie Home Companion
    piss on Keillor’s head

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  38. Colonel have contempt
    for Prairie Home Companion
    piss on Keillor’s head grave

    There… I fix

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  39. Colonel have it on
    good authority Moyers
    not a square shooter

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  40. one time Colonel call
    PBS pledge drive ask for
    Prince Albert in can

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  41. Colonel apologize
    mad haikus send him off to
    earlybird dinner

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  42. Schiller ancestors
    turning in their graves because
    of Ron and Viv’s mouths

    elissa (a249ee)

  43. NPR can get
    all private funding it wants
    just leave us alone

    The Haiku Avenger (5a4fb2)

  44. You know a professional’s done
    When Colonel and Avenger have fun
    Making bad verses
    While Vivian curses
    And O’Keefe laughs ’cause he has won

    The Limerick Avenger (5a4fb2)

  45. NPR pledge drive
    after Ron opened his mouth
    might not do too well

    The Haiku Avenger (5a4fb2)

  46. I wish it wasn’t JD, but really the introduction of all of these local bills is what got me.

    None of the bills would even have been proposed if our feckless gov’t would at least make a semblance of trying to enforce our borders with Mexico, and I think you know that. You’ll get no argument from me regarding the Birthers, and every political movement has their share of crazies – but there is no other country that allows it’s sovereign status to be repeatedly violated in this manner, and that particularly includes Mexico. I’m beyond fed up when Mexico’s hefe has the stones to come here and lecture us on our immigration policies, when he damn well knows that his country is widely known for asking anyone for their papers and then summarily dumping them outside their borders – but only after an extended stay at one of their posh 5 – Star hellholes. Then we have the thousands of people who are waiting in line for years just for the chance to come here, and doing it legally. This system is broken and beyond repair at this point, and the only way we can begin to repair it is to enforce the borders, period – then we’ll talk.

    Dmac (b9fd74)

  47. At least one Schiller
    has a new job to go to
    Ron really bon’d Viv

    The Haiku Avenger (5a4fb2)

  48. Once I sat reading
    All the useless rage
    Nothing accomplished, nothing gained
    Oh, look a squirrel
    Preditable, but inane they spew and fret

    Ag, the blank verse imitator, 80 (efea1d)

  49. There is an interesting update to the NPR version of the story that Aaron linked to (look for the 11:40 am update): Ron Schiller, the douchebag fundraiser whom O’Keefe’s crew punked, has announced that he won’t be taking that position at the Aspen Institute that he was leaving NPR for after all. Looks like O’Keefe has two scalps in this latest sting.

    Who wants to bet where the Schillers end up next? My guess is Vivian becomes the politics editor for the Daily Beast and Ron ends up as a staff member for Chuck Schumer.

    JVW (1a2602)

  50. DMac,

    If those bills are in response to the lack of border controls, and not the Obama / birth certificate thing, that’s news to me. Sincerely. If you can enlighten me, please do. In the meantime I’ll look into it. I tuned out for a while and maybe I missed that.

    I keep passing one of Farrah’s “where’s the birth certificate” billboards and it makes me ashamed to be American, let alone a conservative. The god damn thing is posted on line. I want these idiots out of the mainstream.

    carlitos (c8cb53)

  51. Aaron, I was much amused at the BBC World Service’s segment today on the NPR controversy. Not only did the Beebs’ guys testify to NPR’s moderation and fairness, they basically repackaged and the republished the same “Tea Partiers are racists/Republicans hate Islam” meme that Ron Schiller had sounded during the lunchtime sting. No mention of the fact that the Beeb faces even more severe peril from cutbacks in public funding in the U.K.

    Beldar (d162eb)

  52. (Meant “Tea Partiers,” of course.)

    Beldar (d162eb)

  53. ____________________________________

    there is no other country that allows it’s sovereign status to be repeatedly violated in this manner

    The one good thing about such a demographic transformation — and meltdown too—if forever-dysfunctional Mexico is a window into our future — is that blue-state California won’t be sending an additional member of Congress (ie, loon of the left) to Washington DC.

    New York Times, March 8, 2011:

    Perhaps the legendary beaches here are losing their pull. California, once the very symbol of sun-drenched American growth, had a population increase of only 10 percent in the last decade, the slowest rise in the state’s history. And for the first time since California became a state in 1850, it will not gain a Congressional seat.

    The recent growth in the state has been largely fueled by Hispanics, who continued to increase in numbers, though at a slower rate than in the 1990s. The number of whites continued to decline. They now make up just 40 percent of the state, compared with 47 percent in 2000.

    The number of white children in California dropped by 21 percent in the last decade, with a similar decline in the number of black children. Kenneth M. Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire, said this was the biggest drop in census data so far for a white-child population in any state.

    Mark (411533)

  54. I was using sarcasm demanding that you do something you already did. Like when people demand that Obama prove his birthplace.

    Except that he hasn’t. I think it very likely that he was born in Hawaii, and therefore he can easily prove it, but he refuses to do so. Which fuels the suspicion. If you want to see this argument made in great detail, Tim McGuire has done so far better than I can; go search his blog and read it there.

    I haven’t been following Joseph Farah closely for the past few years, so I can’t be 100% certain that he’s never said something, but as far as I know he is not a birther. He’s just a skeptic, who like Tim McGuire says “you’re probably telling the truth, but why should we take your word for it?”. OK, maybe he omits the “you’re probably telling the truth” part. But I’ve never seen Farah claim Obama was born in Kenya, or even that he’s likely to have been born there. Everything I’ve seen from him is consistent with not expressing an opinion without proof.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  55. Not only did the Beebs’ guys testify to NPR’s moderation and fairness

    Compared to Auntie, NPR is a model of moderation and fairness.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  56. “I confess to thinking the term ‘tea bagger’ was just a slang term for Tea Party supporters and had even heard conservatives referring to themselves that way.”

    Hmmm … and if I said a similar thing about blacks or gays and other words, it would be OK?

    Kevin M (298030)

  57. if you ask for a “double tea-bag” then your tea is just that much stronger it’s just it costs extra

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  58. Ever since we found out about the Urban Dictionary
    definition, only the left refers to us, that way.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  59. At Starbucks if you get a large tea it comes with two bags, and you can mix them. I like to get one “Awake” and one “Refresh”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  60. Milhouse, the President posted his birth certificate on the internet and let fact-checking organizations see and touch the thing. Why are you and others allowing yourselves to seem willfully delusional on this issue?

    I haven’t read McGuire’s blog in a while, and your posting doesn’t give me much reason to do so.

    carlitos (049b4f)

  61. As far as I know, TEA Party people have never referred to themselves as “tea baggers”. They’ve used “tea bag” as a verb, but that’s not at all the same thing.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  62. Carlitos, that is entirely false. Despite repeated demands, the President has not released his birth certificate. The document that he showed (but only to his friends at Annenberg Political Fact Check, whose word I am not willing to take) was not a birth certificate. What we skeptics want to see is a copy of the original certificate. For one thing, it will say where the information it contains came from, which would go a long way to convincing us that what it says is true.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  63. The teabagger word really spread from the snickering talking heads at MSNBC. There is an interesting history of the word here:

    Rise of an ephithet

    carlitos (01d172)

  64. carlitos – If you have such a hard on for Farah, why don’t you take up your issues with him. I can’t recall anyone here supporting him. Your obsession and unsupported allegations of racism seem over the top to me, but what do I know.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  65. You’re wrong Milhouse. And in your comment, you note that you wouldn’t believe the source (factcheck.org) even if they did release what you claim to want. So what would you accept? If a video of Obama’s mama giving birth with a Honolulu Star Advertiser dated August 4, 1961 on her belly was shown to you, what would your next question be?

    Calling yourself a “skeptic” is a bit rich.

    carlitos (01d172)

  66. Carlitos, that is entirely false. Despite repeated demands, the President has not released his birth certificate. The document that he showed (but only to his friends at Annenberg Political Fact Check, whose word I am not willing to take) was not a birth certificate. What we skeptics want to see is a copy of the original certificate. For one thing, it will say where the information it contains came from, which would go a long way to convincing us that what it says is true.

    Comment by Milhouse — 3/9/2011 @ 8:31 pm

    Just to clarify, the bold part is a lie.

    carlitos (01d172)

  67. What does carlitos’ ministrations about birthers have to do with NPR?

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  68. Why would the Annenberg Political Fact Check be the ones to release the birth certificate (which they haven’t got)? And why would you expect me to accept anything they did release? If Obama were serious about this he would sign a release authorising the State of Hawaii to send a copy of his birth certificate to anyone on request, and/or to post a copy on an official State web site. Just as we expected John Kerry to sign the form to let the Navy send a copy of his records to anyone who asked; Kerry reneged on his promise and has still not done so.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  69. Carlitos, you’re the liar. If the birth certificate has been released, point to where I can see a copy. The document posted by APFC is not a birth certificate.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  70. NPR takes our tax money, to spread the same message,that the schools, journalism and major leftwing foundations spout, Schiller (both of them),Lilley,
    and the new boss, Slocum, are of the same basic mindset. And it is, we must coddle criminals, abandon industrial development, and accomodate ourselves to terrorists, that’s the highlights

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  71. daleyrocks, this topic is about how awful the NPR guy is because he called the TEA Partiers xenophobic, stupid and racist, along with other liberal views. Truth is a defense to libel. I am a prime candidate for the TEA Party; honestly, I should be at their events. I am a registered republican, fiscal conservative. I have actually voted Libertarian more than once; I dislike the SCOTUS’ “living constitution” stance; I am against hate speech laws; I prefer power delegated to the states, or the people; I think that the latest Federal power grabs like czars and GM bailouts are unconstitutional. All that said, I can’t support them, because they appear to me to be a bunch of illogical racist dumbasses, obsessed with the birth certificate of a certain mulatto preznit and not the other 90 or so major-party candidates for said office since 1789.

    Almost every word of Farah’s speech to the TEA Party convention exonerates the NPR guy – “so great to be here among like-minded folks” … “where’s the birth certificate” … yada yada. If I’m “obsessed” with this issue, what is the point of this topic?

    carlitos (01d172)

  72. Even if NPR was to the right of the TEA Party there still is no justification to fund it or PBS. Especially when the deficit is beyond imagining. There is no justification to borrow money for them. If it’s not a core function of government then it should not be funded at this time. Spend only to the amount the government collects for the next five years or so until the economy recovers. We don’t want to be beholden to China and others.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  73. Who is Farah, and why should I care what he says?

    JD (855f87)

  74. Amen, cubanbob. I agree with you and wish to subscribe to your sandwich.

    carlitos (01d172)

  75. Many of the tea partiers are current or former veterans, lawyers, scientists, engineers, economists, uneasy with the domestic and foreign
    policy positions, not only with this administration,
    but with the drift in the previous one.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  76. NPR is the point of this topic.

    I think Johnny may have a lovely Timex watch for playing, though.

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  77. Who is Farah, and why should I care what he says?

    Comment by JD — 3/9/2011 @ 9:01 pm

    He’s the asshole who put up the “where’s the birth certificate” billboards. I know that you drive around the midwest, but maybe you missed the one on I-90.

    carlitos (01d172)

  78. carlitos – I haven’t seen any birther bullsh*t at tea party events I have attended. Farah is obsessed with the issue. People seem to make too much of the “tea party convention” when there is not any organized party. EricPW claims Sarah Palin is racist for not denouncing Tom Tancredo’s speech as he misinterpreted it even though she was speaking later at the convention. BFD. Farah’s a nut.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  79. Farah’s a nut.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/9/2011 @ 9:37 pm

    Hey daley, we agree.

    I’m glad to hear your take on things. Like I said, I’m the kind of guy that should be in the TEA party wheelhouse. This birther shit keeps me out of the fold. I might give it another shot based on your take.

    carlitos (01d172)

  80. What am I hiding, or afraid to say? You lost me.

    Reena (9ddf7e)

  81. Daley,

    Please show the citation where I directly called or accused Palin of being a racist?

    I think I was talking about leadership over profiteering

    EricPWJohnson (6a2bb1)

  82. carlitos – If you have such a hard on for Farah, why don’t you take up your issues with him. I can’t recall anyone here supporting him. Your obsession and unsupported allegations of racism seem over the top to me, but what do I know.

    Ruce (7e2160)

  83. One thinks carlitos has let NPR and CBS set the template, for who he shall support, it’s as if hanging around here, has no effect.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  84. The reason we haven’t seen President Obama’s birth certificate is obvious: he doesn’t want the real copy, with a big, red “ILLEGITIMATE” stamp on it, made public.

    The Dana who engages in gross speculation (3e4784)

  85. Dana

    or… maybe it says “religion: muslim” on it.

    i do suspect he has something to hide. but i am satisfied that he is eligible to be president.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  86. Carlitos

    > Given the 30 or so “birther bills” that have have been introduced by recently-elected TEA Party state legislators, I think that calling them xenophobic is quite accurate.

    If demanding that a president prove he is a natural born citizen is xenophobic, then THE CONSTITUTION is xenophobic.

    Besides, bluntly, I think you have it exactly backwards. they don’t push these birther bills because they are afraid of foreign born presidents. they push it because they think OBAMA is a terrible president, and want to use this to get him out of there. i mean i think some of this is unconscious. they care because the implication is to save us from this nightmare that is the obama presidency. and i can really, really sympathize with that, but not agree with their birther objection.

    Ironically, though, i do think as a matter of principle a president should have to prove he is qualified for office before taking the job. and that doesn’t necessarily mean a birth certificate. in law we deal with lost documents all the frickin’ time. i am satisfied with the evidence that Obama was born here.

    and as for whether the constitution is xenophobic, the fact is we have enemies in the world today and we did back in 1789. by requiring the president to be domestically born, it makes it extremely difficult for a foreign agent to come into the united states and take over the most powerful political position in this country. without this clause, for instance, a person might theoretically be trained by the KGB in the 1980’s, sent to America and run for president, and win. of course it is possible to do that even to native born persons. For instance, one of the men we detained in afghanistan for fighting american troops was technically born in louisiana, but pretty much spent all his life in the middle east. he would be eligible to be president, too. but it is an order of magnitude harder for a foreign power to put one of their agents in the presidency with this natural born requirement.

    naturally this crude rule robs us of many potentially great presidents. And indeed, i often say that the most outwardly patriotic americans are very often first generation immigrants, because they know what it is like in the rest of the world. but it is not self-evidently xenophobic, given that a phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear of something.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  87. Carlitos, you’re the liar. If the birth certificate has been released, point to where I can see a copy. The document posted by APFC is not a birth certificate.

    Comment by Milhouse — 3/9/2011 @ 8:45 pm

    The reason we haven’t seen President Obama’s birth certificate is obvious: he doesn’t want the real copy, with a big, red “ILLEGITIMATE” stamp on it, made public.

    Comment by The Dana who engages in gross speculation — 3/10/2011 @ 5:28 am

    Dana

    or… maybe it says “religion: muslim” on it.

    i do suspect he has something to hide. but i am satisfied that he is eligible to be president.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 3/10/2011 @ 6:02 am

    The birth certificate is ONLINE people. You HAVE seen it. This is what Hawaii uses. Records have been digitized. All they can do is generate a COLB. That’s it. Just because, in your state in your birth year, the hospital gave you a cute little thing with baby footprints on it, has nothing at all to do with what Hawaii does in 2008.

    80 cases have gone to court and been dismissed for lack of merit. One particularly persistent birther lawyer, Orly Taitz, has been sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits and forged documents. She’s on the verge of being disbarred over this.

    Ironically, though, i do think as a matter of principle a president should have to prove he is qualified for office before taking the job.

    Aaron, if the state of Hawaii isn’t allowed to record the birth and thus determine the citizenship of Hawaiians, what are the constitutional implications?

    carlitos (01d172)

  88. Colonel used to have
    hard on for Farah
    had shrine and poster

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  89. Colonel need coffee
    no rhythm in morning and
    no mojo without

    ColonelHaiku (4e36de)

  90. The reason we haven’t seen President Obama’s birth certificate is obvious: he doesn’t want the real copy, with a big, red “ILLEGITIMATE” stamp on it, made public.

    I doubt it. I assume you don’t mean a literal big red stamp, of course. But we already know he’s illegitimate, even by his own account.

    or… maybe it says “religion: muslim” on it.

    Did Hawaiian birth certificates of the time list a child’s religion?

    i do suspect he has something to hide.

    So do I, but it may also be that he’s just messing with people’s heads.

    in law we deal with lost documents all the frickin’ time. i am satisfied with the evidence that Obama was born here.

    But the certificate isn’t lost, at least as far as we know. Hawaii presumably has it, and can let us see it as soon as Obama gives permission; his failure to do so should create a legal presumption that he’s ineligible. He should not be able to rebut that presumption with other evidence unless it’s first established that the birth certificate has indeed gone missing. And then Hawaii should be required to explain how it went missing, if similar certificates purportedly issued to other people at the same time and place did not. Only once that is explained should other evidence for native birth be admissible. I don’t believe that in a normal contract dispute he would be allowed to get away with this shtick.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  91. Just imagine if Fox News got government funds.

    Kevin M (298030)

  92. carl

    the constitutional implication is that no state decides who is qualified to be president, the federal government does.

    And my understanding is that the original is not available to view. that is what i meant.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  93. You have to be singularly deluded or dishonest not to notice a liberal bias, there.

    Just as I expected. “Liberal bias” here means the absence of a markedly conservative bias.

    Kman (5576bf)

  94. Kman

    > Just as I expected. “Liberal bias” here means the absence of a markedly conservative bias.

    Proving you didn’t even read the links. Fail!

    Or you are too stupid to comprehend them.

    or you did and you are lying.

    Of course responding without reading the links is stupid, too, as is telling that lie. So no matter how you slice it, you are stupid.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  95. Aaron,
    I really am sorry to beat a dead horse, but if Obama produced “the original” thing that was handed to his mother 50 years ago (if it still exists), the birthers would just call it a forgery. These people have already created fake Kenyan documents and had them admitted as evidence in court cases. There is no benefit. Why should he pander to racist dirtbags?

    As for the state of Hawaii, if they can’t certify births in their own state, I think you have a Constitutional issue with the full faith and credit clause? (IANAL) Am I wrong? How would this affect things like marriage or election law?

    carlitos (01d172)

  96. Proving you didn’t even read the links. Fail!

    Of course I read the links. They were laughingly bad if the premise was to support the “obvious” liberal bias of NPR.

    Your first one was related to a cartoon (Really? A cartoon? To show bias within National Public RADIO?? That’s your Exhibit A? A cartoon?!?)

    The second was a link to an interview of Rev. Jeremiah Wright by Bill Moyers. I can’t see where the “liberal bias” was in that interview. Moyers asked the questions; Wright answered. That’s how interviews typically go.

    Kman (5576bf)

  97. This is a pathetic Example of performance art even for you, kmart.

    JD (855f87)

  98. Kman

    > Of course I read the links.

    no one believes that.

    > Your first one was related to a cartoon

    which was declared by their own ombudsperson to be unfair, uncivil and one sided, directly contradicting your assertion.

    > Moyers asked the questions; Wright answered. That’s how interviews typically go.

    and when interviewees say things that directly contradict the facts, good interviewers point that out. moyers pretended the man was mainstream when he was in fact an anti-american racist radical. and i would add, a man whose behavior on the pulpit should disqualify him from wearing the cloth. Or do you think it is appropriate for a minister to be simulating sex in front of his congregation to make a cheap joke about clinton. it would be funny if bill maher did it, but a reverend should never be that irreverent.

    And that is meant as only one of many examples of Moyers’ obvious bias.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  99. Kmart is demanding proof that water is wet, despite having had a bucket of water dumped over it’s pointy head.

    JD (855f87)

  100. moyers pretended the man was mainstream when he was in fact an anti-american racist radical.

    Thus proving my original point in comment #94…. “Just as I expected. ‘Liberal bias’ here means the absence of a markedly conservative bias.”

    Thank you.

    Kman (5576bf)

  101. Aaron, you know very well that Kman doesn’t truly post about the topic at hand. There is quite a different agenda in play, and it seems to involve you quite directly.

    Simon Jester (75ae81)

  102. Dance, kmart. Dance.

    JD (855f87)

  103. Kman

    1) that doesn’t refute the cartoon example.

    2) are you maintaining that saying that “god damn america” is a mainstream opinion? That humping a pulpit is mainstream? that saying that god should be for black people and against white people is mainstream?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  104. The honorable Mr Worthing wrote:

    i am satisfied that he is eligible to be president.

    Whether he is qualified, on the other hand, remains an issue. Whether he is capable has already been answered, in the negative.

    Howsomever, I look at it differently. While the Constitution specifies that no one may be elected President who is not a natural born white male American citizen who is at least 35 years old, the Framers, honorable men that they were, and never suspecting that they might be succeeded by less honorable men, failed to provide any enforcement mechanism. If the Electoral College voted for a 17 year old Tibetian boy who spoke no English and had never been to the United States to be the next President, and the Congress approved that vote, our next President would be a 17 year old Tibetian boy who spoke no English and had never been to the United States

    The Dana qualified to be President (3e4784)

  105. 1) that doesn’t refute the cartoon example.

    It doesn’t, but the cartoon example’s lameness speaks for itself.

    are you maintaining that saying that “god damn america” is a mainstream opinion? That humping a pulpit is mainstream? that saying that god should be for black people and against white people is mainstream?

    I’m saying that a truly unbiased journalist interviewing a subject shouldn’t be deciding for his audience what is and isn’t “mainstream” and then treat his subject accordingly. Bill Moyers, in your link, wasn’t treating his subject with favorable or disfavorable bias. Sadly, your OWN conservative bias prevents you from seeing that.

    Anyway, your post described NPR as, among other things, an “organization that take sides in our political debate”. I asked for some supporting examples, and you gave me (1) a cartoon on the NPR website (a cartoon which nobody believes represents NPR’s views) and (2) a balanced interview in which Bill Moyers allowed Reverend Wright to answer questions and state his position, rather than calling Wright a “racist” to his face (which you seem to think is required to show neutrality)

    I would call that a “fail”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  106. Except that the Framers (honorable men that they were!) reserved such powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states, or to the people. The state of Hawaii Department of Health certified that Obama was born there. So he’s not exactly a 17 year old Tibetan boy. So there’s that.

    carlitos (01d172)

  107. Kman

    > It doesn’t, but the cartoon example’s lameness speaks for itself.

    Lame or not, you lied about what it meant. Its that simple.

    > I’m saying that a truly unbiased journalist interviewing a subject shouldn’t be deciding for his audience what is and isn’t “mainstream”

    Of course not. But for instance, this is what he said about Black Liberation theology:

    > BILL MOYERS: Lots of controversy about black liberation theology. As I understand it, black liberation theology reads the bible through the experience of people who have suffered, and who then are able to say to themselves that we read the bible differently, because we have struggled, than those do who have not struggled. Is that a fair bumper sticker of liberation theology?
    > REVEREND WRIGHT: I think that’s a fair bumper sticker. I think that the terms “liberation theology” or “black liberation theology” cause more problems and red flags for people who don’t understand it.
    > BILL MOYERS: When I hear the word “black liberation theology” being the interpretation of scripture from the oppressed, I think well, that’s the Jewish story–

    Either moyers is a fool when he says that, or a liar. Here’s what it is really about, according to its founder:

    > Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

    Moyers doesn’t even mention this.

    And again, that is one example of many.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  108. carl

    the power has been given to the federal government by obvious implication.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  109. Really? The power to certify births in the state of Hawaii has been given to the feds? You believe that? I’m asking sincerely (and candidly I find this discussion more interesting than Kman’s inanity) – could you elaborate?

    I remember the chick with the mascara certifying Florida’s electoral votes, for instance. Was that power given to the feds by obvious implication? Or just births? What about marriages?

    carlitos (01d172)

  110. carl

    no, the power to determine whether a person is qualified to serve in federal office is a federal power.

    hawaii can call him a natural born citizen all they want. and their records is properly considered strong evidence on the subject. but they don’t get the final say.

    > I remember the chick with the mascara certifying Florida’s electoral votes, for instance. Was that power given to the feds by obvious implication?

    Article 2, section 1 says specifically that this is a state matter.

    and who is married to whom has been a state question from the beginning, with the obvious exception being in the federal territories. but then again, whom is married to whom doesn’t appear to be tied to any qualification for federal office (although it seemed de facto to result in hillary clinton becoming a senator).

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  111. Lame or not, you lied about what it meant.

    The fact that the NPR ombudsman noted the “bias” means that the cartoon was, at worst, an outlier — i.e., not part of systemic bias within NPR. Guess you haven’t figured that out yet.

    And again, that is one example of many.

    Yes, yes. You keep saying that Moyers should have attacked, or at least contradicted, Wright — which is what a conservative journalist would have done.

    Fine for you to say that, but you’re only proving NPR’s lack of conservative bias.

    Kman (5576bf)

  112. Kman

    > The fact that

    Don’t distract. You lied, plain and simple.

    > which is what a conservative journalist would have done.

    Ftfy. If you think it is a journalist’s job to let an interviewee make misrepresentations unmolested, you are wrong. It is not conservative bias to correct the record on what Black Liberation Theology is about and to challenge him on it.

    I mean how would this question be baised:

    “You say that Black Liberation Theology is just saying God is on the side of the oppressed. But that isn’t how Cone said it. He said that God [should be] for black people and against white people. Do you adopt that view? Do you believe that is a racist view? And if not, why not?”

    That is what a journalist would ask, if he was being fair.

    And you know it.

    [correction after the fact. –Aaron]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  113. Dance, kmart. Dance!

    JD (855f87)

  114. Carl

    i mean let’s turn this around. suppose hawaii tomorrow said, “you know what, obama was not born here. he isn’t eligible to be president.” So obama has to step down? no matter what evidence he might have to the contrary.

    For instance, [hypothetically speaking] hawaii says he was not born there. But obama’s father happened to film the entire thing, starting with outdoor shots that were clearly shot in hawaii, and ending with baby barack getting his finger and footprints, on the real original birth certificate, and showing them closely enough that you can literally use that image to match with his adult prints. and 20 nuns swear they saw it, and on and on. but hawaii says no. so even if the american people unanimously want him to be president, outside of hawaii, hawaii can veto that determination, on specious evidence?

    [fixed after the fact. –Aaron]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  115. I think you have the burden of proof completely reversed. He was born there. Hawaii says so, all the evidence points to it, and there is NO evidence to the contrary.

    Hawaii is a state. A natural-born citizen of Hawaii is a citizen of the United States. Hawaii certifies births, marriages, elections, lots of things. They affix the state seal to those documents. The Constitution is clear – states must recognize “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states. Are you saying that states have to recognize these things, but the Federal government does not? How would this impact electoral and marriage law?

    carlitos (01d172)

  116. It is not conservative bias to correct the record on what Black Liberation Theology is about and to challenge him on it.

    *Facepalm* Being a theology, reasonable people can differ on what black liberation theology is. Much like Catholics can disagree about definitional aspects of catholicism, two people can hold differing opinions, or emphasize differing aspects, regarding black liberation theology. In doing so, neither is making a “misrepresentation” which needs to be called out — they are simply explaining how they see it.

    You want Moyers to pick out a definitive definition of “black liberation theology” and to challenge Wright, as if Wright’s vision is “wrong”. And THAT’S where your bias comes in. Not Moyer’s.

    As I said.

    Kman (5576bf)

  117. carl

    I think you are confusing evidence with burden of proof.

    you write:

    > I think you have the burden of proof completely reversed. He was born there. Hawaii says so, all the evidence points to it, and there is NO evidence to the contrary.

    And i agree with all of that. so in any federal determination, obama should properly sail through. but what i am saying is that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES THE CALL. and no, no one is qualified until they prove they are.

    You are saying, “the evidence is conclusive.” and i am talking about who gets to make the judgement about the quality of the evidence. that is two different discussions.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  118. Kman

    First, you ignored this comment:

    > Don’t distract. You lied, plain and simple.

    Will you for once admit to lying?

    > Being a theology, reasonable people can differ on what black liberation theology is

    If you are claiming to follow Black liberation theology as outlined by Cone, then no, reasonable people cannot debate that, unless what he says is ambiguous, you moron.

    And even despite that reality, the question I proposed gave him the opportunity to disavow what cone said.

    Liar.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  119. You realize, Aaron, that this is what the fellow wants, right?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHe3GYQp_8&tracker=False

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  120. First, you ignored this comment:

    > Don’t distract. You lied, plain and simple.

    AW, I ignore most of your ad hominen comments. And when I do, you can take it as read that I deny them.

    This is especially true when it comes to your allegations of “lie”. If you say “red” and I say “blue” and you say “red”, and I ignore that particular point, it doesn’t mean I “lied” when I said “blue” the first time. It just means I stand by what I’ve said, and don’t care to repeat myself.

    If you are claiming to follow Black liberation theology as outlined by Cone, then no, reasonable people cannot debate that…

    Really? Did Wright claim to be Cone to the letter in that interview? Ever?

    No.

    You know, it takes a certain sort of arrogance to think that if a journalist doesn’t attack an interviewee they way YOU would, that journalist must be biased.

    Kman (5576bf)

  121. Water is wet. NPR is decidedly left. Only a pig ignert stalker would argue otherwise.

    JD (7e4dc3)

  122. Snippet of the day:

    “…it takes a certain sort of arrogance …”

    Indeed it does, from this character.

    And Aaron? He won’t be ignored.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  123. And i agree with all of that. so in any federal determination, obama should properly sail through. but what i am saying is that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES THE CALL. and no, no one is qualified until they prove they are.

    1 – Prove to whom?
    2 – If it’s the feds call, how do the states determine who appears on the ballot? Do they ask the FEC? How would the birther bills affect this?

    carlitos (01d172)

  124. *Facepalm* Being a theology, reasonable people can differ on what black liberation theology is. Much like Catholics can disagree about definitional aspects of catholicism, two people can hold differing opinions, or emphasize differing aspects, regarding black liberation theology. In doing so, neither is making a “misrepresentation” which needs to be called out — they are simply explaining how they see it.

    Hows about giving an example of your “disagreement with the definitional aspects” of Catholocism, and then a similar example using BLT? I’m sure you’ll be eager to share your wealth of knowledge regarding your statement.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  125. Kmart should be in Wisconsin showing it’s solidarity with it’s rioting brothers and sisters.

    JD (7e4dc3)

  126. kman

    > AW, I ignore most of your ad homine[m] comments

    Okay try this. Did you accurately describe the comic or not?

    And if you didn’t what is your excuse?

    > Ever?

    His own church website said they followed Cone’s theology. From their own website (before they tore it down):

    > The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

    And the question I proposed gave him the ability to say, “gosh, I didn’t know he said that.” but he doesn’t even ask the question. shouldn’t moyers ask him about cone’s racist philosophy that Wright sure as hell sounds like he is endorsing?

    I mean a few years back Trent Lott jokingly said he wished that Strom Thurmond would have become president. And everyone assumed that meant he preferred segregation. And as I recall, you joined in that chorus, too. If memory serves, I more mildly said I didn’t think he meant it that way, but he should resign if only for making a stupid and unforced error like that. But today you have Rev. Wright endorsing a racist theological movement, and you don’t even want anyone to ask if he endorses the racist part of it. and according to you it is an attack on him to even mention that ugly truth, that Cone was himself an out-and-out racist.

    You and I both know this is bull. You cannot be a competent litigator and not realize this is bull. And the fact that you haven’t once even criticized the wording of my proposed question is proof of that.

    Here it is, again:

    “You say that Black Liberation Theology is just saying God is on the side of the oppressed. But that isn’t how Cone said it. He said that God should be for black people and against white people. Do you adopt that view? Do you believe that is a racist view? And if not, why not?”

    So there are two factual predicates. One: that wright said that all BLT is “is just saying God is on the side of the oppressed.” Agree or disagree?

    Second: that Cone said “that God should be for black people and against white people.” Agree or disagree?

    And then I ask 3 questions.

    1) do you adopt that view?
    2) do you believe that is a racist view?
    3) and if not, why not?

    If there is anything wrong with that question it is that 2 is too wishy-washy. I think there is no question that cone is a racist.

    You misinterpret asking tough questions, of pressing the issue, of bringing up evidence to the contrary as something other than what journalists should do. you are wrong.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  127. gotta love how kman dishes out ad homs and then hides from reasoned points by lying those were ad homs.

    kman also hides his demented blog. he is ashamed of his own words.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  128. “Daley,

    Please show the citation where I directly called or accused Palin of being a racist?”

    EricPW – Ask and you shall receive:

    “Tank forever discredited the good people (but now I’m not so sure) who are considered Tea Party Patriots who gave this hate filled racist a standing ovation

    He was followed by Palin who should have denounced him but didnt

    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 1/13/2011 @ 6:41 pm”

    “Not ONE Tea Party group denounced Tank’s and Palins(well her obvious failure to denounce it) racism at the rally

    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 1/13/2011 @ 7:06 pm”

    You also still have not apologized for yur characterization of Tancredo’s speech. You linked to a Guardian article to support your description, which did not support it at all. Your record of azzhattery continues unabated.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  129. carlitos – The only people I see trying to keep the birther issue in the public eye are Chris Matthews and the gang at PMSNBC. It is just not a mainstream deal.

    What do the 30 bills in the state legislatures you brought up say? Are they about future elections or about Obama specifically? Do you have any links?

    You were also throwing racism allegations around back in January without adequately distinguishing your targets, creating a lot of ill will:

    “To elaborate, in #90 / 4:06, I said that Obama was annoying racists, and good for him. I certainly didn’t mean to lump SPQR in with racists, though he clearly perceived it that way. I guess I can see why, but I use the words I use for a reason. . While I wrote that post, I referred to the racists that started this mess, and honest conservatives as “just asking questions” keeping it in the news. Maybe there is some overlap, but I’m not claiming that and don’t care to research it.

    Comment by carlitos — 1/26/2011 @ 8:42 pm”

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  130. The esteemed Mr Worthing wrote:

    i mean let’s turn this around. suppose hawaii tomorrow said, “you know what, obama was not born here. he isn’t eligible to be president.” So obama has to step down? no matter what evidence he might have to the contrary.

    Even if Hawaii came out and said, no, he wasn’t born here, and there was no contrary evidence, why would the President have to step down? The only enforcement mechanism that would exist is impeachment.

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  131. Mr Worthing also wrote:

    what i am saying is that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES THE CALL. and no, no one is qualified until they prove they are.

    Other than the Electoral College deciding for whom it will give a majority of its votes, and the Congress certifying the results of the Electoral College vote, there is no call being made at all. We assume that the Electors will vote for someone constitutionally qualified, and we assume that the Congress will certify the electoral vote only of a qualified candidate, but there is no requirement for proof at all. No one has to prove he is qualified; that winds up being the decision of the voters and the Electors.

    The technical Dana (3e4784)

  132. why would the President have to step down? The only enforcement mechanism that would exist is impeachment

    I’m not a birther by any stretch of the imagination: I am certain that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    That said, if it were ever proved that any sitting President were not a natural born citizen (or somehow failed to meet any of the other Constitutional requirements for eligibility), I would urge my Representative to draw up Articles of Impeachment,because that President had clearly failed to protect and defend the Constitution.

    I hope that any Representative of any party would feel the same way.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  133. Dana

    i don’t think you are right that impeachment is the only way. now, mind you i consider this entire academic–obama was born in the u.s. but if it was ever shown he wasn’t would the courts, for instance, declare everything he did a nullity or what?

    i honestly don’t know. but i don’t think its obvious its impeachment or nothing.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  134. daley,

    There is a lot of innuendo about Obama along the lines of “we don’t know who this guy really is.” Do you believe that the “secret Muslim / born in Kenya” line of questions would be asked of a white guy? Seriously?

    I firmly believe that this entire line of reasoning for the mysterious Obama is based on racism. I am (again) not calling anyone here a racist. I can see how someone would get caught up in the details without realizing what was driving the meme in the first place. To be completely transparent, the first “birther” was a liberal Democrat named Phil Berg, who probably wasn’t / isn’t a racist; however he dishonestly edited videos with Obama’s relatives talking about his birth to make it sound like it happened in Kenya.

    However, it was latched upon by guys like Illinois’ own Andy Martin, an insane racist bigoted piece of shit who was quoted in Jerome Corsi’s book.

    You say that birtherism is a fringe thing, not mainstream. I have read numbers as high as 50% for Republicans believing that Obama was born outside the USA.

    Birthers make a majority among those voters who say they’re likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don’t think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise.

    If I create ill will, so be it. My main point was and is – entertaining thoughts such as “what is Obama covering up” is enabling racists. It makes mainstream Republicans and TEA partiers look like bigots.

    carlitos (01d172)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7571 secs.