Birther Ad Is Not Raaaaacist, It’s Just Stupid
As usual, a far left web site has gone stark raving bonkers. Yes, yes, I know, this isn’t actually shocking or special. But, yesterday, Think Progress has ramped up the bat s**t crazy to level 8
Washington Times Runs Anti-Obama Birther Ad Featuring Racial Undertones
This latest national edition of the Washington Times features a full-page ad that claims that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. The ad was purchased by the anti-Obama website ProtectOurLiberty.org. While the group has placed several birther ads in the Washington Times in recent months, the version that ran this morning contains far more inflammatory imagery — three monkeys, apparently intended to represent the U.S. Congress, courts, and the media:
What is the ad?
Scared Monkeys responds to Think Progress with
Hmm, I guess the liberal intellectuals at Think Progress do not get the reference of the “see no, hear no and speak no evil” monkeys and comparing them to Congress, the Courts and the MSM. Even your own post says that the monkeys represent Congress, Court and Media.
Everything is raaaaacism in Liberal World. Except when they are beating up Black Conservatives at TEA Parties and calling them racist names. When a Democrat candidate for President calls another candidate, who is half Black, “articulate and bright and clean.” When the same candidate makes a remark (technically, this is bigoted) about Indian’s owning 7/11’s. When there is a “most respected” Democrat who used to be a leader with the KKK, and stated he would never serve with Blacks in the military. When they are blocking the Civil Rights Act. And when they do everything they can to pander to minorities, then keep same minorities poor and beholden to the Government.
Really, the ad is not racist. The Three Wise Monkeys apparently go back to the 8th century, and have several meanings along the same lines, none of them racist. Those of us who are not wackadoodle nutjob race baiters understand the meaning of the use of the three monkeys in the ad. Still, the ad is idiotic in content. Regardless of what any British law says, the U.S. Constitution says that anyone born on American soil, of which Hawaii was in 1961, is a natural born citizen (I’m not going to discuss natural born and certain US properties outside of the 50 States, not relevant). Obama is a natural born citizen. The only way he would not be is if he was not born in the 50 States.
While the argument about Obama’s eligibility can be interesting, it’s time to move on. The media, the Congress, and the courts have no interest in why Obama has fought so hard to release his long form birth certificate. Oh, maybe that’s sorta what the monkeys represent.
Apparently, Think Progress doesn’t like Free Speech.
Oh, and speaking of barking moonbat unhinged crazy, Excitable Chucky has a screed up saying why he left the Right. Like he was ever there. The Other McCain, Jules Crittenden, The Jawa Report, and Israel Matzav destroy Mad King Charles’ whiny girly man looooooonacy.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
Email This
Posted by William Teach on December 1, 2009 8:45 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Anti-free speech, Barack Obama, Constitution, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Elections, Fraud/misrepresentation, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Liberal Media/Bias, Liberal World, MSM Censorship, News, Obama Birth Certificate, President, States Rights, Stupidity, U.S. Constitution, Unhinged, Voter/Election Fraud, race baiting, transparency/accountability
Trackback URL:
- On Charles Johnson’s retreat from the Right | Political Byline pinged this post.
Comments
17 Responses to “Birther Ad Is Not Raaaaacist, It’s Just Stupid”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Obama is a natural born citizen.”
Obviously, people disagree. At least, they would like to see some actual evidence. Obama could end it himself by releasing his records, you know.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
Few issues here…
1. They aren’t birthers they are constitutionalists… they simply want the constitution followed and want to double check that it was followed.
2. The whole “settle science” argument used for global warming is the same argument used by ppl claiming obama is a natural born citizen…which amounts to “trust us were the media”.
3. Many states have passed laws requiring that in order to be put on the ballot they must submit their “long form/original” birth cert… this means that obama is spending money to prevent the release of his Docs even though in 2012 he will be required to release them if he runs for a 2nd term.
Their is no logical reason at this point for obama to hide his birth cert other then he says he wasn’t born in hawaii. It will come out in 2012 or he will not appear on about 15 state ballots.
this is a stupid post written by people who dont want to see the truth. even though the image doesn’t directly use monkeys to reference obama, it certainly evokes the imagery. racist conservatives, which are in much larger quantity than racists in the comparatively much smaller group SEIU, will connect the monkeys in the ad to the birther accusation made in the ad. its funny though how the article doesn’t speak about how the birther accusation is a fundamentally racist accusation. why don’t you guys find the first black guy you know and tell him he wasn’t born in america and that he was born in africa.
Also this
“the U.S. Constitution says that anyone born on American soil, of which Hawaii was in 1961, is a natural born citizen”
is wrong… you are a citizen not a natural born citizen… they are different.
cheney-limbaugh 2012!!!!
Steme, before calling something stupid, you might want to work on your Grammar skills.
Robotech, I have to disagree. Our Constitution is set up so that anyone born inside America is considered natural born, regardless of parentage.
The term “Natural Born Citizen” needs to be clarified. Like yesterday!
There is confusion because some sources claim both parents must be American citizens, and the child be born on U.S. soil (or territory) in order for a person to be natural born.
Why this has not be clarified, and why Obama refuses to show his personal records, is beyond me.
As a citizen myself, I’d like clarification and resolution of this issue.
“Law of Nations” Book One, Chapter 19, 212 (1758)
http :// www. constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
To William Teach
I’m sorry but you should review the history of the constitution more carefully.
First it wasn’t until the 14th amendment that being born in US soil equals being a US citizen… the problem is the 14th amendment in fact DOESN’T support that idea.
The writers of the 14th amendment were very clear that it was strictly for the current issue(slavery). The idea that the 14th amendment applies to everyone was created by the supreme court.
The supreme court has NEVER stated that the 14th amendment creates natural born citizens under the constitutional definition.(in fact in wong kim ark the pretty much first ruling on the issue they are very clear in not calling the ppl born on US soil “natural born citizens”)
Constitutionalists are asking the court to make a ruling(one way or the other) the court has so far refused.
Anyone that opposes the constitutionalists in demanding the supreme court make a ruling on the issue is in fact opposed to the constitution…
Everyone that believes in the US Constitution and that the US Constitution is the highest law in the land that must be obeyed no matter the outcome MUST demand the courts make a ruling.
The vast majority of ppl simply want the courts to do they’re job… thats not a conspiracy theory…
Those that say its a non-issue are in fact saying that the US Constitution is a minor set of guide lines that should only be obeyed when it fits the current political agenda.
If the courts ruled in good faith on the issue it would go away. However the courts are very afraid that they would have to rule against obama thus causing massive civil unrest.
This issue will come up in 2012 and it will likely go to court… unless obama decides not to run.
If its shown in 2012 that obama isn’t legally allowed to run… your talking civil war. If the courts address the issues now your looking at rioting.
I frankly would like to have the issue settled without massive blood shed or civil war.
Also…
The great irony of this whole debate is the fact that the writers of the US Constitution wrote the “Natural Born Citizen” clause SOLELY to keep BRITISH CITIZENS from “buying” elections and turning the US back over to the king…
Obama HAS ADMITTED TO BEING A BRITISH CITIZEN.
The sad fact that the natural born clause was in fact written almost completely to keep ppl like obama from becoming president…
This little FACT is always overlooked by anti-constitutionalists ppl.
Would you please point to the part of the Constitution that says “anyone born on American soil is a natural born citizen”? TIA.
This is an unfortunate post. Take a few hours and study the information added here today. You can choose to run with the pack and focus on the “red herring” birth certificate issue, or you can join a quiet and growing body of lawyers, constitutional scholars, historians and well informed citizen activists in what will ultimately become the defining issue of the Obama Presidency.
Take a few hours and study the legal activity on this matter in the month of November 2009 and then ask, why did the President state ~10 days ago that he may not be running in 2012?
Look into the recent actions of State Assemblymen in New Hampshire and consider why new election criteria are quietly being moved into legislation across this country.
Or, keep falling like a sucker for Obama’s red herring trap – his birth certificate.
And to be clear, this matter is not settled for one side or the other…it demands Constitutional review ON THE MERITS by our courts. The disgrace for our nation is the complicity across all branches of government – to DECIDE FOR US what our Constitution means … and lack of integrity of our media who mocks people who are standing up for the Constitution.
You could choose to become a leader and take the time to understand this Constitutional crisis and use this blog platform to help educate others. You may be surprised when learn about company you will be keeping.
To Kpoddi
Maybe you should speak more… umm more straight forwardly. You seem to be repeatedly contradicting yourself.
I believe it is wrong and presumptuous to argue conclusively that Obama is not an American citizen. However, the fact that this question still lingers is equally unacceptable. As I’ve argued, the burden is not on the American people to prove he is not a natural born citizen. The burden is on Obama to release the documents–his Certificate of Live Birth, his hospital birth records, his citizen status in Indonesia, his citizen status upon reentering the U.S. from Indonesia, and his college/law school applications, that would settle these matters conclusively.
I made this argument in my recent article on the topic, and I am hopeful that this will be embraced as the sensible conservative position on this matter. Absent these documents, I believe it is inappropriate to reach any speculative conclusions about what they might reveal. But nor do I believe that we should accept Obama’s now multiple million dollar effort to conceal these documents, as we appear to be doing. What exactly is he concealing and why? The burden (as I argue in the article below) is on him to release them, and we should insist that he do so. We also should insist, going forward, that FEC policy require candidates to present the documents related to their Constitutional eligibility when they register their candidacy. That this is not now required is scandalous:
http://michaeljohnsonfreedomandprosperity.blogspot.com/2009/09/release-birth-documents.html
Thanks to you guys for staying on top of this important issue.
I regret if my comment came across as contradictory. My intent was to be supportive.
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Charles Johnson Completes Auto-Excommunication From the Entire Conservative Blogosphere’.
So basically it all still comes down to the original Birth Certificate & college records.