Suck It Birthers (Again); Kemp Keeps Obama On Ballot

In a surprise to no one with even a borderline concept of reality, Secretary of State Brian Kemp has announced that President Barack Obama will remain on Georgia’s Presidential Preference Primary Ballot.  From his press release:

“After careful consideration of Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi’s initial decision and all record evidence based on the criteria set forth in this process, I find that the Respondent, President Barack Obama, meets the State of Georgia’s eligibility requirements. President Barack Obama’s name shall remain on the Democratic Party’s 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot.”

Several of our reality challenged friends here stated that Malihi was a Muslim in response to his ruling last week.  One can only guess that they will now descend on Athens to check out the Madrasa where Brian Kemp obviously went to school.

32 comments

  1. Loren says:

    It should be pointed out that one of the challengers who is promising to appeal this determination is Carl Swensson, who is the head of the Clayton County Republican Party. Which means that the appeal will be Clayton County’s GOP leader suing the Republican Secretary of State, demanding that the incumbent Democratic President be declared constitutionally ineligible.

    And who is going to be filing the pleadings making this demand? Rep. Mark Hatfield (R – Waycross). Moreover, he’s going to be engaging in this charade *during the legislative session*.

    And what has Mr. Swensson been saying online about this decision? How has he been conducting himself as a party leader? These are actual quotes of his posted in the last four days:

    “This was just round one as this will move up on appeal. Yep, incomprehensible but what do you really expect from a Muslim, Iranian Judge?”

    “All I can say is that it ain’t over till it’s over and this was merely round one of four round fight. This will next be heard on appeal where yet another Judge will have the opportunity to A: Line his pockets or B: Succomb to the political pressure of Washington or C: Force a ruling in favor of Obama because his life and family were threatoned or D: Stand up for the rule of Law as it has existed for over 200 years.”

    “We fight for our Constitution every way we can and I’m here to tell you, as I always have, this is the last peaceful means of redress at our disposal.”

    Let me repeat that last one for emphasis: “this is the LAST PEACEFUL MEANS of redress at our disposal.”

    All conservatives and Republicans in this state who want to continue to be taken seriously ought to disavow this kind of behavior, and Swensson and Hatfield need to be held accountable for engaging in such actions.

  2. SallyForth says:

    Sigh. Somebody please tell me this fruit cake is an import from somewhere like Idaho or Oklahoma, not a born-and-bred Georgian. He’s downright embarrassing.

  3. CNFPP says:

    I guess going after Obama’s citizenship beats trying to reach out to minorities who may actually be a little disenchanted with the way the Democrats have run that county into the ground.

    • KD_fiscal conservative says:

      If the GOP doesn’t drop their “southern strategy,” they will never win black or hispanic support.

      • Calypso says:

        And if the GOP doesn’t shed itself of the religious wackos, i.e. Santorum voters, it will never keep the socially moderate, fiscally conservative support either.

        • CNFPP says:

          What’s your definition of “religious wacko” Calypso? Is that all people with faith or just the ones with political views you don’t agree with?

          Is Obama a religious wacko for saying a few days ago that Jesus would have wanted us to pay more taxes?

          • Calypso says:

            Fair question. Let me preface by saying that as an atheist, I believe no one’s particular religious/myth system is more bizarre than another. Mormons, Methodists, United Church of Christ (Obama & Rev. Wright’s denomination), and Lutherans are not cults anymore than are Baptists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and all the rest. Any institution based on belief, faith, myths and supernatural powers all have the same degree of credibility with me.

            Religious folk fall under my definition of ‘wacko’ when they become zealots and let their religious beliefs turn to furvor and take the place of rational sense and logical thought which they then endeavor to use to try to usurp the laws of the land, a theocracy, if you will.

            That is my belief whether it occurs in the liberal United Church of Christ, the Southern Baptists, Catholics or any other religious entity.

            Yes, I would say Obama’s statement about Jesus and taxes was wacko.

            I’ll leave my lack of ‘belief’ not only out of my politics, but yours as well. I ask others to do the same.

            • CNFPP says:

              There are plenty of people in both parties whose non-religious beliefs turn into a furvor and take the place of rational sense and logical thought which they then endeavor to use to try to usurp the laws of the land. Enviornmental extermists come to mind.

              True atheist or do you really lean more agnostic?

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                And that there is a damn good point.

                It ain’t just the religious that are driving this country into the ground.

                I put the blame on the power we have instilled in a throne, a position of power. Some people want to blame the person sitting on the throne, whomever it happens to be at the time. I blame the power, not the person wielding it.

          • Engineer says:

            I don’t know about Calypso, but I know my definition of “religious wacko” is a highly religious person that wants the government to enforce their specific religious beliefs and/or values on others through law. (ex: Views on sexuality, homosexuality/same sex marriage, abortion [truth be told, is a tricky issue], and drug and/or alcohol policy)

              • Ed says:

                I don’t think the two of you realize how bad and utterly Pollyanna this definition is. It is virtually impossible for it to happen for anyone who has even slight religiosity.

                    • Calypso says:

                      Ed, I thought we were, but whatever your point may be is going over my head.

                      I have nothing more to elaborate.

                    • CNFPP says:

                      We have had periods in our history when there was far more open display of religious belief by our leaders and citizens, however, America is still not, nor ever has been, a Theocracy. To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

                    • benevolus says:

                      “Open displays of religious belief” really have nothing to do with theocracy. It’s only when those beliefs are codified into the law that we would get into trouble. We can argue about whether we are more or less theocratic than other countries or than we were in the past, but there are certainly many laws that have specific religious sources, and one would be justified in contemplating more of that in a Santorum administration.

                  • Harry says:

                    “It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.” –Mohandas Gandhi

                    • Engineer says:

                      I think you misunderstand my reason for posting that quote, the point is, you can’t force philosophy or religion. You are welcome to guide them in your own spare time, but in the end, it is up to the individual to make that very personal decision.

                  • I’m reminded of an old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

                    That’s usually not an issue in a theocratic legal imposition…. it’s more like having a thirsty horse and plenty of water, but he’s not allowed to drink, because it’s Sunday… or he won’t drink the way I drink… or he wants to drink with a horse of the same sex. None of which affects the “wacko” directly… but is seen by the “wacko” as being against his moral institution and therefore wants to use the power of government to ban or forbid something.
                    Government should protect us from such zealotry… and never facilitate or incorporate the”wacko’s” wishes into law.

                    • CNFPP says:

                      We need to be making these comments on the “Culture Crusades” thread before we are all accused of thread-jacking.

                      So how about ’em Birthers? 🙂

                    • Engineer says:

                      I agree strongly with your last sentence. I only used that quote after I was reminded (mentally of course) to the nature of those “wacko” types. For example, a person that routinely pressures somebody regarding their religious/moral beliefs may end up pushing the person away from those religious/moral beliefs and in the end, it is still up to the individual to decide their beliefs. For that matter, the government shouldn’t act in that way either.

                      It seems the more I try to stay brief in my comments to more I end up having to clarify.

Comments are closed.