Further News in “Birther” World

Rep. Paul Broun had an interview with Sirius XM radio host Pete Dominick on Thursday. The interview was first flagged by the liberal blog Think Progress. During the interview Dominick asked Broun if he thought President Obama was “an American citizen and a Christian.

Broun first responded, “I’m not going to get involved in that.”

But pressed on whether he thought Obama is a citizen, he said “I don’t know.”

“Is he a Christian?” Dominick then asked.

“I don’t know that,” Broun responded, explaining that “I’m a Christian but only me and the Lord know that for sure.”

It sounds like Broun might be joining Deal in the ranks of Birthers. Broun is unsure if Obama is an American citizen (must be natural born to be President), which means he isn’t sure if he qualifies for office. Well, has Broun been sworn in yet? Conspiracies everywhere, the plot thickens…


  1. ByteMe says:

    It seems almost unfair … until you realize that people like Broun and Bachmann are in positions to affect government policy.

    • AubieTurtle says:

      Considering that the Flat Earth Society continues to have members, no, it isn’t a shock at all that you believe the President was born in Kenya.

  2. Red Phillips says:

    Tyler, what does it mean to be a Christian? If the intent of the question was something like “Do you think Obama is secretly a Muslim?” then my answer would be no. Obama is a Christian in the sense that he self-identifies as a Christian. In the sense that he isn’t a Buddhist or a Hindu or whatever. But he attended a United Church of Christ church in Chicago which is a notoriously liberal denomination. To be a member of the UCoC you do not have to affirm the historic creeds of the Faith. You could be a member of the UCoC and for example deny the Virgin birth, the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ? Is someone who denies the Deity of Christ and the Trinity a Christian? Conservative Christians, backed up by the Bible and historic Christianity, would obviously say no. Obama discussed his faith at one point (I will try to dig up a link), and he did not seem to be endorsing Creedal Christianity.

    • Tyler says:

      The thread is pointing out the birther issue. I included the entire quote b/c some would complain that I did not.

      In reference to being a Christian and what it means to be one? I would answer by saying that a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, came down from Heaven, died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. And that in Christ is our salvation. He is our mediator with the Father. “…whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”

      But this isn’t a place to debate religion.

      • Red Phillips says:

        My point was that Broun’s answer re. Obama’s Christianity was imminently reasonable. But that will not keep liberals and “respectability” obsessed “conservatives” from seizing the opportunity to ridicule Broun about it.

      • I Am Jacks Post says:

        “But this isn’t a place to debate religion.”

        No, this is clearly a place for you to bang on candidates you don’t like.

        Seriously, dude. We get it. You’ve got your candidate(s). But how about you make an effort once-in-awhile to pass along a news update without including your witty, “I’ll teach them for picking me last for kick ball,” snark. That would be awesome.

        Feel free to go back to ogling your Handel brochure, if you can still get the pages apart.

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        Sure it is. President Obama went to church with Reverend Wright for 20 years, but didn’t hear what he was saying.

  3. Old Vet says:

    Frankly, I haven’t seen anything in the behavior of Christians that would remotely entice me to even consider becoming one. Creeds are meaningless. Actions speak.

    So now the wingnuts are not only doubting that Obama is a “natural born” American, they’re denying that he’s an American citizen at all? Gotta love ’em.

    • Red Phillips says:

      “Creeds are meaningless. Actions speak.”

      Tyler is probably right that this isn’t the best place to discuss theology, but historic Christianity does believe creeds (what you believe) are important. This is in line with the Bible which warns Christians many times to be vigilent about doctrine and beware of false gospels.

  4. Memo: To GOP Officials.
    RE: 2010 Elections
    Subject: SHUT THE HECK UP!

    Dear GOP Officials,

    It appears the Democrats in Washington are working day and night to hand control of the Congress back to the Republicans. In some cases GOP challengers will be able to win simply by being on the ballot without an “I” next to their name. The GOP needs to do several things but first and foremost most GOP Elected Officials simply need to SHUT THE HECK UP!

  5. John Konop says:


    Politico….But inflammatory rhetoric such as former congressman Tom Tancredo’s racially tinged speech at this month’s tea party convention, reports of the involvement of right-wing militia groups and the continued propagation of conspiracy theories about Obama have sometimes cast the movement in an unfavorable light.

    Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers — conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president — from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)

    “At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson…..


    • Red Phillips says:

      Erickson definitely qualifies as what I identified above as “respectability” obsessed “conservatives.” They are more concerned with purging people to their right than they are with actually conserving anything.

      • Harry says:

        Yeah, Erickson, Tyler etc. can ban me from this blog but he sure can’t ban me from the party or shut me up. He’s the divisive force here – not us. I’m willing to accept other people’s opinions that they don’t don’t have a problem with Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president, but I sure have a problem with it.

    • Mozart says:

      Erickson also banned Paulistas but later discovered they were 100% correct. And, 100% correct people should never be allowed on any of Erickson’s blogs because that would interfere with the production of propaganda.

      • Game Fan says:

        Many “Paulistas” have boycotted Red State. Way too “boxy”. Too many lines everywhere. Not to mention being banned by Erick. How is he so influential anyway? He hardly ever makes a comment. And when he’s on TV, he ain’t exactly the most exciting guy I’ve ever seen. Not to knock his efforts or anything. I’m sure there’s some hard work and all those tech skills, ect…

        • Bill Greene says:

          GF, you are asking the question that many, many, many have asked. But I’m afraid it’s no more answerable than, How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?

          RedState.com is a beehive of neo-“conservative” hypocrisy, and much to my chagrin, I’ve learned that Erick not only tolerates the hypocrites… he endorses them. 🙁

    • Game Fan says:

      “Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers”

      Why not just distance himself from the tea parties? I mean folks who are OFFICIAL Republicans, wouldn’t this be more prudent? So which is it, distance yourselves from the tea parties or hijack and control them, or maybe a little of both, eh?

  6. Doug Deal says:

    I think you guys are blowing this comment out of proportion. What Deal has said in the past was moronic. This is simply passing on the question.

    Will there be a sunrise tomorrow?

    The one and only 100% accurate answer is “I don’t know”. Anything else is wrong, since there is a non zero chance that it won’t, however small that chance is.

    The same thing with Obama. Is he a citizen. None of us know for certain, but most of us don’t care on lick and are satisfied with Hawai’i validating it. That does not mean we know anything.

    Broun clearly thought the question was foolish. Stop being ridiculous because you have an axe to grind against him.

    • brettbittner says:


      Therein lies the problem. Almost a month ago, a similar answer by Debra Medina (whose campaign was on the rise) sunk her campaign and got the “respectability” conservatives all in a tizzy because she didn’t immediately and emphatically denounce those in the “9/11 Truth” movement. Interestingly, she was trying to unseat an incumbent governor, but Broun’s similar miscue/out of context remark/whatever spin is placed is coming from a sitting U.S. Congressman.

      I have nothing against Broun personally, but I think it’s interesting that some of the people who slammed Medina 3 weeks ago are remaining conspicuously silent or are standing up to defend Broun.

  7. John Konop says:

    The problem is by pandering to ideas like this, only fires up a part of the base that makes the GOP look bad. If the GOP does not take back the House it will be issues like this that scare people from voting with the GOP.

    And I do believe it is obvious that is the agenda of the politicians is about winning a primary over what is best for the country.

    • Doug Deal says:

      I don’t see the pandering on this one John. Just seems to be some interested in talking about something other than birther nonsense.

    • Game Fan says:

      Certain issues can’t be judged based on the polls. Because if you believe in the issue, the “issue” is actually the worst enemy of the politician who’s involved with the “issue”. So there’s a certain credibility factor about the politician that tends to erode, which would be the primary goal of the grassroots which promote this or that issue. Bottom line, why would anybody waste a bunch of time defending a low life scumbag politician by sidetracking the issue without even addressing the issue itself? What’s bad for Republicans (or Democrats) is a bunch of poll watchers who don’t actually give a whit about what type of low-life scums (from both parties) which are actually engaged in a massive criminal heist of epic proportions.

  8. rightofcenter says:

    I would agree this is not the place to discuss the finer points of Christianity, but many conservative churches don’t use creeds either (no creed but Christ), while many liberal churches do (the Episcopal Church, for instance). In the final analysis, it’s not for me (or you, or Paul Broun) to decide whether someone is Christian or not. I personally will take someone at their word on it, and leave it to Higher Powers to sort out the truth.

    • Red Phillips says:

      I know they don’t use creeds, but they accept the historic creeds. (When I reference the creeds what I am getting at is orthodoxy with a small o.) You can’t be a conservative Baptist and disbelieve the Trinity, for example. The problem with the Episcopal Church is that they say the creeds, but don’t seem to require that you actually believe them.

  9. Red Phillips says:

    The problem with purging “extremists” is that in the current climate, all authentic conservatives are extremists. The notion that we should follow the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders is considered a fringe position. Just look at the treatment Ray McBerry and his supporters get on this generally centrist blog.

  10. Wow, this post really blows that quote out of proportion.

    And these comments really blow that post out of proportion.

    (Ron Paul, health care, soiled Karen Handel literature, and the Nicene Creed? WTF?!?)

  11. Progressive Dem says:

    “Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers …”

    “At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson…..

    How about banning secessionist and nullifiers? Are they crazy enough? Chip Rodgers and Judson Hill introduced Senate Resolution 632. For Georgia these two are pretty mainstream Republicans. Oxendine was all in and said he would have been a sponsor. Johnson voted for it. Handel and McBerry were good with it. Only Autin Scott opposed the resolution.

    With Birthers, secessionist, States Rights and assorted conspiracy theorist, the Georgia GOP has more crazies than a dog has fleas.

    • Mozart says:

      You guys still got Nancy Pelosi, and she counts for at least 3000 crazy Republicans all on her own.

      • Progressive Dem says:

        That’s a false equivalency. If you had cited Cynthia McKinney, I’d give you a point, but Pelosi is in the mainstream of most Democrats. She is no more of a kook than Cantor or tanning boy Boehner. She might be a little left leaning compared to most Democrats, but (like Cantor and Boehner) she isn’t off wandering in the woods like the secessionists, birthers and conspiracists.

        • B Balz says:

          Either the Bloody Mary’s are too strong or you’ve lost some cred with me, Prog Dem:

          “… but Pelosi is in the mainstream of most Democrats.” = FAIL.

          • Progressive Dem says:

            Pelosi was elected speaker by her peers. Those members represent a broad cross section of districts. Doesn’t her election to the speaker prove she is in the mainstream of her party caucus? I have my issues with her effectiveness and you may dislike the Dems policy positions, but she was described in a post above as a crazy in juxstaposition to the GOP radicals who believe secession is a viable option, don’t believe Obama is constitutionaly qualified, and conspiracy theorists. That is a false equivalency. She isn’t as far to the left as those on the right who believe in the above examples of whackiness.

    • Red Phillips says:

      Thanks for making my point progressive dem. If you support the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders, then you support the right of nullification and secession. If you purge the “extremist” you will purge the authentic conservatives.

        • Red Phillips says:

          Good point benevolus. Thanks for at least making a historical point instead of inchoately rambling about dreaded extremists. Some of the more nationalistic Founders like Hamilton certainly viewed nullification and secession skeptically. But the point is that their position did not prevail. They lost at both the Constitutional Convention and at the State Ratifying Conventions. The historical record is unambiguously clear about this. If you or Progressive Dem disagree then make your historical case. None of the so-called anti-States’ Rights “conservatives” here have been willing and/or able to.

          • benevolus says:

            I could dispute that, but no time right now. But all I was really trying to challenge is the attempt to cloak oneself in some sort of aura of The Founders, as if by invoking them you automatically win. The Founders differed on many things. It would be the rare issue in which you could say “The Founders intent” and have it support one side of an argument.

              • ByteMe says:

                They would also be appalled at automobiles. But we like those.

                The problem with your argument, Red, is that what they thought in the 1780s has no real bearing on what we do here in the 2000s. That’s like saying that because Jesus lived in a time when crucifixion was a normal method of punishment that we should follow that example because he would be appalled that we don’t. It’s projecting your beliefs on people who have only a weak relationship to the here and now.

                • Red Phillips says:

                  BM, the Constitution is a contract in black and white. If there is some part of it that is antiquated and needs to be changed then it is incumbent open the people who think change is needed to attempt to amend it. You can’t just ignore it.

                  • Icarus says:

                    Acutally, it’s not in black and white. It was made to be amended with changes in our country. Like allowing for black folks to eventually becoming actual humans, after passing thru a stage where they were but 3/5ths of a human.

                    But, you also don’t acknowledge the existence of many of the amendments. Yet you wonder why we won’t debate the Constitution with you.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      I certainly acknowledge the amendment process because it is in “black and white.” Some have been good (the 10th), and some have been bad (the 16th and 17th). The only one I have said was not legitimate was the 14th. But there has never been an amendment to overturn the 10th, repudiate original intent, or repudiate enumerated powers. Someone wants the Cent Gov involved in health care. Then amend the Constitution. Otherwise there is no authority. The fact that the Constitution can be amended does not mean it doesn’t have to be. And bringing up slavery is, as I have said before, a PC grandstanding ploy. You are better than that Ic. Make an actual argument. Don’t resort to the left-wing Cultural Marxist playbook.

                    • Sign Guy says:

                      The 3/5ths rule was put in place in order to limit the representation of the southern states and make it easier to abolish slavery. Just as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness was changed from pursuit of property for the same reason. That is a straw man argument.

                  • ByteMe says:

                    Red, yes, it’s a contract, but as with all political documents, there are many vague statements and clauses in it that are wide open for interpretation or re-interpretation as the times change and our social compact changes.

                    Just so you know, your POV is similar to the “Bible Literalists” and I am easily bored by them as well.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      “there are many vague statements and clauses in it that are wide open for interpretation or re-interpretation as the times change and our social compact changes.”

                      It is nowhere as vague as you would like to believe. Constitutional “literalists” are in a very real sense like Biblical literalists. I one case they are trying to determine the actual intent of the authors, and in the other the actual intent of the Author. And in both cases they are working against modernist who would like to reinterpret the document on whim according to changing times. Of course, getting the Bible right is much more important than getting the Constitution right.

                    • griftdrift says:

                      “Constitutional “literalists” are in a very real sense like Biblical literalists.”

                      And we finally get to the nut of the philosophy. It always comes out.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Yeah, it was a “forehead slapping moment” for me when I realized it.

                      Seems worthy of a good blog posting, doesn’t it?

                    • Game Fan says:

                      Vagueness or the “blurry lines” isn’t really an issue when the “lines” have been completely smothered by an out of control Federal Government. So, (says the liberal) the (new) point is the Constitution is no longer applicable to today’s reality. Get it? It’s “living” and “breathing” and “flexible” but it’s “out of date” and “no longer valid” all at the same time. And I’m accused of performing mental gymnastics.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      GF, if you don’t like how well we’ve evolved over the past 100 years, you’re free to move to a country where they interpret the constitution the way you want it. However, you’re here and the rest of the country wants what we have now relative to where we were in the 1700s. Perhaps you didn’t stretch before performing your mental gymnastics this time and pulled a muscle.

                    • Bill Greene says:

                      “the rest of the country wants what we have now relative to where we were in the 1700s.”

                      So they want overarching, overbearing, overtaxing, overspending, overreaching, Big Government which believes it has the power to do absolutely whatever it wants to, rather than a government with actual restraints on its powers?

                      Yeah, right.

                    • “the rest of the country wants what we have now relative to where we were in the 1700s.”

                      I would argue that we can have the conveniences of modern day – like computers, blogs, facebook, cars, etc. without having such a behemoth of a government.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Of course you could argue it!

                      But please indicate what size is possible (if not “behemoth”) with a governed consisting of 300 million people spread across 9 time zones with an economy of over $10 trillion and running two wars while being the dominant force on 70% of the planet’s surface…

                    • I don’t believe it was ever anyone’s intent when creating the United States that we become the dominant force on over 70% of the planet. I thought the original intent was to escape another country’s overbearing rules and taxation. Maybe I’ve just got my history confused.

                      What size is possible? Are you saying that everything our government does should be a function of government? Are you saying that boat ramps are a required function of government? That marinas couldn’t possibly handle those types of things privately? What about astroturfing high school football fields? Should the parents of the school not pay for that if that’s what they want, or possibly use the proceeds of high school football games to pay for it? What about fishing licenses? (Those rods and reels are awfully dangerous after all…) What about stocking lakes and rivers with fish raised in fisheries? And stadium building? (After all, would we really want a sports team to have to self-fund a stadium? How would it possibly be able to pay it’s players millions of dollars each if they had to do that?)

                      If you’re truly happy with the size of the government we have now, then good for you. I would rather people that prefer a behemoth of a government move to a country that already has one though instead of transforming the US into the debt monster that it is. All these pet projects have to be paid for somehow. Our current legislators certainly don’t appear to be thinking about where the money is going to have to come from to pay for these projects either. Or if they are, they’re not concerned about asking the taxpayer for more money. Heaven forbid we allow people to actually spend their own money as they see fit!

                    • ByteMe says:

                      You act as though what we have for a government is somehow an accident or nefarious design instead of a clear expression of the will of a majority of the people who keep electing the same people to the job of figuring out how to size government to the exact size we want.

                      That’s the “obvious” thing Bill is missing as well. We have what we have because we wanted it. There are very few accidents in life. The size of our government is not one of them.

                    • I totally agree with you. We have what we have because that’s what people want. (Note that a need is different than a want.)

                      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. – Alexander Tytler”

                      And that’s exactly where we’re headed. We’ve got all these things that people want, and we’re headed to bankruptcy because of it. People bought houses they couldn’t afford, but I’m pretty sure they wanted them. Should we just pat them on the back, offer our sympathy, and hand over a check?

                      “We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them. – William L. Comer”

                      “It seems that wherever the Welfare State is involved, the moral precept, “Thou shalt not steal,” becomes altered to say: “Thou shalt not steal, except for what thou deemest to be a worthy cause, where thou thinkest that thou canst use the loot for a better purpose than wouldst the victim of the theft.” – F. A. Harper”

                    • ByteMe says:

                      You can quote all the people you want, but history is littered with people who made predictions that turned out to be wrong and I could quote some of the more famous of those just as well and it would be just as meaningful (which is to say, it’s not meaningful at all).

                      Heck, even the founding fathers got it wrong with their first attempt at forming the country’s government.

                  • IndyInjun says:

                    You can’t just ignore it.

                    Sure you can. Can we say Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and Executive Order #51?

                    Red, commenting on your “one issue” is violating my “one issue” posting.

                    I am with Erick on the ‘birthers’ and I agree that Broun should not be playing with this issue.

              • benevolus says:

                Ah yes, the infamous Lost Amendment: If anyone claims at any time that any one of the Founders would be appalled at something in today’s society, it is justification to dissolve the Union.

                • Progressive Dem says:


                  The fundamental interpretation of the 10th amendment says it is a truism that added nothing to the Constitution. You are willing to completely overlook the Commerce Clause which adds significant power to the federal government. You ignore and reject cooperative federalism where the feds make funds available to states to implement a national policy, but withhold funds if the state fails to adopt specific rules and regulations. You would return to backroom deals to determine senators. The 17th amendment allowed the federal government to collect taxes and not apportion it back where it was derived. This was an essential modernization step. Without it, the US would never have been able to win WWII and protect ourselves from the Soviets.

                  I think the founding fathers would be shocked to know the Constitution is still largely the same as they wrote it. These men were heroes, but they were not clairvoyant. Very early in our history, Marbury v. Madison established judicial review and improved the checks and balances concept. (Madison was on the losing side.) The Reconstruction amendments changed the arc and direction of the original Constitution. The 3/5ths rule was a compromise and proof they couldn’t resolve all issues. This document is outstanding, but it isn’t perfect and overtime we’ve seen the need to modify it. This history and need to interpret, modify and adapt is evidence that basing decisions on the intent of the founding fathers is a shallow doctrine. Their intent was to allow slavery and deny women the right to vote. Their intent was not always correct and certainly not always appropriate. They gave us a good foundation of fundamentals, but it is up to us to make democracy work.

                  • Bill Greene says:

                    ProgDem… point by point:

                    No it’s not. No it doesn’t. That’s called extortion. Better than backroom deals IN DC to determine senators. No, that was the 16th Amendment. And it was an essential step IF you want big government with unlimited powers. Without it, we probably wouldn’t have had to deal with WWII, and the Soviets would have fallen on their own.

                    I think you’re wrong. They were heroes, but it was because they understood human nature, and had no need for clairvoyance to know that men would try to take more power to themselves than they ought. The concept didn’t need improving, unless you think that “giving courts the power to make law” is an improvement. That’s true, but who says that’s good? Yes, it was a compromise, but one that proved they COULD resolve all issues. No, it’s not perfect, which is why they gave us the ability to modify it – through amendments, not through re-interpretation. The history of modifying it through other means proves that basing decisions on the original intent is the only sound doctrine to be pursued. Their intent was to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity – nothing else. Their intent was correct and 100% appropriate. They gave us not only a good foundation of fundamentals, but they made sure NOT to give us what too many people have since tried to force us into: A Democracy (as Franklin said, they gave us a Republic… if we could keep it).

                    See, I can free-associate in journaling, too!

                    • benevolus says:

                      “Their intent was to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity – nothing else.”

                      Weird. You left out “promote the general welfare”.

                    • Progressive Dem says:

                      Apparently BG is only ok with the Constitution except for the parts he doesn’t like: commerce clause, necessary and proper clause and general welfare clause. And judicial review is ok except when it doesn’t fit his paradigm:
                      ““giving courts the power to make law”.

                      Bill may have written a PP classic statement: “Without it [federal income tax], we probably wouldn’t have had to deal with WWII, and the Soviets would have fallen on their own.”

                      Wow Bill. Wow. That’s a mouthful of …. predictions.

                      You can rewrite history without the US participating in WWII and the Cold War. And then come to the conclusion we’d all be better off. That’s either clairvoyant or dangerously close to being sympathetic to the Nazi’s. Finally you are absolutely naive to believe the Soviets wouldn’t have used nuclear weapons against us if we didn’t have a defense and deterrent. Your understanding of history is warped.

    • Game Fan says:

      IMHO there’s some real secessionists, however, as a part-time member of the tinfoil hat crowd, methinks this secessionist thing is artificially enhanced. And then there’s the darling of the neocon/corporatist/globalists Governor Rick Perry (boy ain’t he good looking?) , who magically all the sudden becomes a secessionist? I’m sure the establishment has thrown him under the bus too, right? And where was the outrage when Vermont was talking secession under Bush? So let’s not confuse the legitimate right of all states to regain some of their rights, especially in the context of the rampant federal power grabs over the last 20 years.

  12. Progressive Dem says:

    “Authentic conservatives”…true Americans who worry about the country being taken over by multi-racial, socialists whose first order of business will be to confiscate all guns and then restrict Christianity at every opportunity. Does that about sum up the challenge you’re facing, Red?

    • Red Phillips says:

      See my post above PD. Either make the historical case against secession and nullification or keep quite. What matters here is not your oh so pristine PC sensibilities. (Anyone with a problem with Obama must be a racist. Whatever.) What matters is what the Founders intended.

      • Progressive Dem says:

        “What matters is what the founders intended.” See above.

        Here’s your history lesson for the day, Red. It comes from a Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White. The opinion was written by Samuel Chase, when Republicans were truly concerned about preserving and perfecting the Union.

        “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”

        If you want out, you have to have a revolution, and you better be certain you are going to you win becuase you will in all liklihood be charged with treason.

        • Game Fan says:

          Simply because someone asserts a right (for himself, for his State, for another state for another person, for another country) this doesn’t equate to actually using this or that right to the fullest extent. It’s an ideological question which applies today under many different circumstances, with the “control” crowd and the “centralizers”. These are the ones who don’t seem to have any solid foundation. Frankly I feel much safer with the old School variety. Ron Paul says freedom unites people and equates freedom with decentralization and States’ Rights. How is this so difficult to understand? As far as being applicable to today’s circumstances, advocates of the WTO are suggesting that any member country is free to drop out at any time. (yeah right) And you’re saying this was never part of the “incentive package” to the States to form a more perfect Union?

          • Progressive Dem says:

            GF, I don’t understand your post. I’m sure there is point in there, but I don’t get it.

              • Game Fan says:

                OK guys, I’ll attempt to explain it SLOWLY.

                “If you want out, you have to have a revolution, and you better be certain you are going to you win becuase you will in all liklihood be charged with treason.”

                Sadly, you’ve jumped the gun in assuming that anyone taking “the other side” of the argument wants a revolution or secession. It’s really sad and amusing at the same time to see so many Liberals make such assumptions. Like I tried to explain, this is the other side of the argument, a side which has and always will be there. The Patrick Henry side of the argument. The side of the “suspicious” folks and freedom lovers who’s opinions comprised the anti-federalist papers and led to the Bill of Rights. People who understood that freedom and representative government go together and is best served with less (not more) central authority. The concept itself can be applied on any scale and is particularly pertinent today as “the centralizers” are surrendering more and more power and authority to global institutions. Get it?

                • Progressive Dem says:

                  GF, Red took this side: “If you support the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders, then you support the right of nullification and secession.”

                  There is no right of secession or nullification. Period.

  13. IndyInjun says:

    While they are looking for Obama’s birth certificate maybe another contingent can see whether George W. Bush did coke and went AWOL.

    This is idiocy worthy of a good dose back the other way.

    Bush and Obama might very well prove to the the 1-2 punch that destroyed America, but it will be their disastrous rendition of holding office that killed her, not what they did at birth or in their teens.

    Next thing you know, we will be examining playground taunts and whether they picked their noses.

    Both of them were elected POTUS (yeah I know, you Dems, Bush was seeeeeeeeeelected – RIGHT…….)

    Get over it.

    You too, Broun.

    Endorsing Deal has not exactly endeared you and you are my rep.

  14. Republican Lady says:

    The Constitution is a living document to be changed as society and technology changes, with the most contested Amendment being the Fourth. Maybe it would be helpful to go back and read “The Federalist Papers” and Thomas Payne’s “Common Sense.”

  15. The “birther” issue is a distraction. If a miracle were to occur and irrefutable evidence were produced that President Obama is not a US citizen then none of the current issues go away. VP Biden would continue down the same course with added support from liberals and progressives and Obama would become a political martyr. The situation is probably worse than it is now.

    If you feel like you must challenge Obama’s citizenship because you want the truth, then go ahead. As for those of us who believe it is not possible to prove your point, please pardon us if we don’t get on the bandwagon and even feel your bandwagon is blocking the street.

    • kyleinatl says:

      For many, it’s a matter of getting the black man out of office…there’s no other reason for it, sad as that is.

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        For most, it’s not. Any criticism of him is instantly portrayed are a race issue. I’m sick of it.

        • benevolus says:

          Jeez, and it’s only been a year! Just think how tough it must be for somebody who has had to listen to racist comments for 50 years!

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            Are you talking about Rev. Wright? But the President didn’t listen to what he had to say for the last 20 years.

            • benevolus says:

              No, I wasn’t, but I don’t understand your comment anyway. Which may explain why I don’t see the humor that someone seems to think is there.

              • polisavvy says:

                Sorry, but I thought his comment was a tad funny (whether relevant to your post or not). I wasn’t exactly sure who you were referring to either so that may explain GOPGeorgia’s confusion.

                • benevolus says:

                  I find that many conservatives are like that. It’s very Pavlovian. All you have to do is mention Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, immigrants, or any number of other triggers that Frank Luntz and Rush Limbaugh have identified, and the reaction is very predictable. Sad, but predictable.
                  Works the other way too. Say “patriot” or “liberty” or “The Founding Fathers” and conservatives apparently get a boner. Well, most of them.

                  • polisavvy says:

                    True in everything you said. I think that the door swings both ways. There are just as many Democrats bashing Republicans as there are Republicans bashing Democrats. It’s kind of dog eat dog. All one has to do is watch Olbermann or Maddow and you hear the same rhetoric as the others you mentioned spew. No one side has the lock on this type of reaction. There is no tolerance of different ideas or ideals anymore without the need for berating or criticism. When the posters get too far out there, I immediately tune them out and move on to the next. I try not to engage them at all.

              • GOPGeorgia says:


                You are basically stating that any criticism our President has endured is all founded in race or racism. I say hogwash to that. I disagree with his policies, not his pigmentation.

                I pointed out Rev. Wright for several reasons: to show that racism can come from blacks to white and not just the other way around, to show that our President has selective hearing or just didn’t show up on THAT Sunday, and no one told him what was said, it’s fun to show radicals and hypocrisy of the left, and to see if you have a hard time tuning out Rev. Wright’s racism.

                • polisavvy says:

                  I don’t think benevolus wants to see that. He assumes that if you make any mention of this President in anything but glowing terms that you are doing so just based on the color of his skin. To that, as you so eloquently stated, I say hog wash, too. I knew that the point you were trying to make is that Wright made the racist comments. Too bad people think that when you mention Wright you are talking about the President instead of Wright’s rants. Oh well, maybe one day.

                  • ByteMe says:

                    It’s certainly one of Hannity’s fixations.

                    What I don’t get is people who think that if you belong to a church that you go every single Sunday. Growing up, I don’t think I went more than 2 or 3 times a year and yet we still “belonged”. And I can’t recall a single sermon, although one was always given.

                    Maybe it’s just a Southern thing.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Would you have remembered the preacher saying “not God Bless America but GD America?” Or after 9/11, that the chickens have come home to roost? Do you think people would talk about that for a while? Those are not average sermons pulled from the bible. I’m fairly certain that the President implied he visited the church more than 3 times a year.

                      Oprah quit that church. Why didn’t the President?

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Perhaps you should ask him. If you can get past the really beefy looking guys protecting him from crackpots.

                      And you’re talking about only a few sermons from 52 sermons a year for 20 years. Hard to know from the sensationalistic stories whether it was an “every-week thing” or just a “once in a while thing” whenever something set him off. If you have evidence that Obama was in the church nodding his head, then I’ll be right next to you yelling about Obama’s racism. But you don’t.

                      The point is that you don’t take sides or comment when it comes to Republican asshats in your district, but you want to bring up Reverend Wright as a way to go after the President. Which makes you shameless.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:


                      Are you tying to imply that the comment “that the chicken have come home to roost” was not heard about by the President? I have evidence the president knew about them and did not quit the church afterwards.


                      The presidents own words from meet the press:

                      “They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

                      “My commitment, as I said, Tim, is to the church, not to a pastor.”

                      “And, as a consequence, when Reverend Wright, who married me and baptized our, our children, when he made those statements, or I learned of those statements that I found so objectionable, I, I felt that they didn’t define him.”

                      My job as a Chairman requires me to be neutral in GOP races statewide and in my district. It does not prevent me from commenting on the President. That doesn’t make me shameless, it makes you clueless if you can’t understand that.

                      I bring up Rev. Wright because it was said that every criticism of the President is based on pigmentation, not policy. The President abided racism coming from his spiritual leader because he felt it didn’t define him. I am pointing out hypocrisy. Now please tell us I am wrong on these facts.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      So what you’re saying is that you want a personal pass on the actions of Republican officials in your district for stupid/unethical/illegal things they do but aren’t willing to give the same pass to the President for his pastor.

                      And it’s called: shameless.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:


                      Other than comment on here, what have you ever done to try to improve your community? If nothing, what does that make you?

                      I am not anyone’s puppet. I decided that the best thing for Georgia and my community, platform for platform, is to elect Republicans. My self appointed issue is to keep the GOP unified after the primary and to beat the other major party’s candidate. I think the best way for me to do that is to try to stay out of the primaries. The GOP candidates make mistakes and there are plenty of people pointing them out. That’s not my roll in this election cycle. If I didn’t think that would be the best thing for me to do, I would not have ran and/or would resign.

                      If I want lessons on how to login under an anonymous name and throw rocks, I’ll ask you for advice. That wouldn’t be shameless, that’s called being a coward.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      “If you have evidence that Obama was in the church nodding his head, then I’ll be right next to you yelling about Obama’s racism. ”

                      I have proven that he knew about it. Why aren’t you yelling?

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      What can I say Byte? I’ve given you quotes from the President and cited the source. If you don’t think he was telling the truth and don’t accept that as proof, I’m not sure I can fault you for that.

                      Shameless is the spending going on in DC. I’m proud to say I think most of the GOP candidates are better than the other major party‘s candidates, especially when they stick to the platform.

                      Shameless is the way you suck up for President Obama, when even he himself admits that Wright was wrong. I’m just saying he didn’t go far enough.

                    • polisavvy says:

                      GOPGeorgia — any announcement yet? I’ve not been around much lately — walking pneumonia. Sorry to digress but wondering about your news. Thanks!

                    • Republican Lady says:

                      Me too, what is the news?

                      Poli, sorry you are still sick. How many days now before you post your puppy?

                    • “If I want lessons on how to login under an anonymous name and throw rocks, I’ll ask you for advice.”

                      GOPGeorgia – Does your driver’s license really say GOPGeorgia on it? Funny, I thought GOPGeorgia was just as anonymous of a name as ByteMe or various others on here.

                    • ByteMe says:


                      I know his real name. Most people who have been here a while do. He just gets all uppity (heh heh) whenever I call him shameless or a disgrace for trying to peddle smut about anyone other than his beloved Republican candidates.

                      He just tries to claim the high ground by claiming that “at least he’s doing something instead of throwing rocks under a pseudonym” canard. Sociopaths also are “doing something” repulsive to me. And I’ll call them out just the same way.

                    • Yep, I figured most people here probably know his real name. I personally don’t, but his real name doesn’t really matter to me. I just found it ironic that the pot was calling the kettle black when it came to using a name other than one’s own.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Poly and Republican lady, we’ll see how Monday night goes. If it goes well, I’ll send it in over the tip line. If it doesn’t go that well, perhaps I’ll announce something else at the beginning of next month.

                      David, most bloggers here know who I am and it’s my pic. GOPGeorgia is not on my drivers license, but it is part of my e-mail address. You get points with me for using your real name. I like the way you post. You say what you think regardless of it’s popular or not. I use the screen name of GOPGeorgia to represent a goal. You can call me Doug anytime you like. Last name’s Grammer.


                      You still aren’t calling him out for not doing enough about racism. But I didn’t expect you to. You are all talk with a little name calling thrown in. Shameless.

                • benevolus says:

                  GOP, that is the most blatant projection I have ever seen. YOU are the one who said “Any criticism of him is instantly portrayed are (sic) a race issue”. But that’s not even the part that I challenged anyway because I saw that as an obvious exaggeration.
                  My response didn’t really have anything to do with Obama, but with any minority person who has had to personally suffer from racist remarks and actions for their whole life. I was trying to contrast that with your disgust after just a year of WATCHING what you see as some sort of reverse racism. You’ve exaggerated the problem and then made yourself sick from your own exaggeration.

                  I don’t know if Wright is racist or not, I haven’t really paid attention to his comments, but I am sure there are racist blacks in any case. So what? Is Obama racist from listening to him? Is that what you want to say?

                  • GOPGeorgia says:


                    On March 8, kyleinatl said “For many, it’s a matter of getting the black man out of office…there’s no other reason for it, sad as that is.”

                    I replied “For most, it’s not. Any criticism of him is instantly portrayed are a race issue. I’m sick of it.”

                    Yes, the word “Any” was an exaggeration, but for some the word “any” will be true.
                    Your comment on March 9 at 3:37 PM seems to put you in that camp.

                    Your comment on March 9 at 7:58 PM suggests that you are referring to the President. You can say that you weren’t, but then what would the “it’s only been a year” refer to?

                    People like you who say they don’t know if Rev. Wright is a racist or not is what makes me sick. The president admits that Wrights comments are inexcusable. I am saying that President Obama did not go far enough by just condemning Wrights comments. He should have quit that church and talked more about racism before people starting bring up Rev. Wright. Then again, he let William Ayres hold a fundraiser for him in his home. I am saying the President has had some very suspect people around him that he did not condemn hard enough and that he did not distance himself from.

                    BTW, what do you mean that I am watching some sort of reverse racism? Van Jones was a communist and an advocate for blacks after hurricane Katrina. I would have been more impressed if he had been an advocate for all Louisianans after the hurricane. Please explain this reverse racism I am watching. I was unaware of it until now, and now I am concerned.

                    • B Balz says:


                      Are you gonna say most folk up your way think it is just great America has an African American President? I doubt that.

                      I hear a lot of clearly racist comments down here in lib’ral Atlanta. Unfortunately, race has a lot to do with everything in America.

                      I think that KyleinAtlanta made a gutsy observation. Nobody wants to speak about racism, it is raw, even impolite. I especially love when white folk proclaim ‘it’s not about racism’ as if we know what it is like to be driving in a rural county, as a black man, at night.

                      And yes, we see racism from folk like Rev. Wrong and is is not right, either. I feel it everyday I have to deal in ATL and I HATE it.

                      I also hear many folks that voted for the President are not happy with that choice, and it has nothing to do with race.

                      You make great points, I too am disgusted.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      I have never asked them about having an African American for President, unless you are referring to a birth in Kenya. I don’t go out of my way to discuss his race, and I have not had anyone, to my recollection, discuss his race with me, with one exception.

                      Many people have discussed disapproval over his policies. I was driving over rural Georgia with a black man last night. He was the exception because he stated that many people knew he was black and in politics in Georgia, they assumed he voted for President Obama and he had to straighten them out. It’s about the content of his character (or policies), not the color of his skin. I think Melvin Everson is a great guy, and it doesn’t matter to me what color his skin is either.

Comments are closed.