NC new hotbed for "birther" candidates. Are they for real?

1. 75

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   I saw this Dr. John Whitley on Anderson Cooper tonight. I will have to find that clip. Anderson chewed him up good and spat him out.
   But the real question is -- do they honestly have nothing better to offer the citizens of North Carolina than Trump redux? Really?
   
   
   North Carolina is apparently ground zero of the latest resurgence of the birther movement, as a number of Republican candidates in the state are expressing doubts about President Obama’s birthplace.
   
   ThinkProgress has previously noted that Richard Hudson, running for a congressional seat in the state’s 8th district, said Obama is “hiding something on his citizenship,” while the Charlotte Observer rescinded its endorsement of Jim Pendergraph, running in the 9th district, after he expressed his own doubts about Obama’s birth certificate.
   
   Now, the Observer reports that Dr. John Whitley, one of Hudson’s opponents in tomorrow’s GOP primary, has also gone birther. He declared Obama’s birth certificate a “poorly reproduced forgery” after comparing it to the Hawaiian birth certificate of one of his campaign workers. “There is a tremendous amount of smoke here,” Whitley said. “In fact, it’s called a smoke screen.”
   
   Meanwhile, Ilario Pantano, running the 7th district, also has “real questions” about Obama’s birthplace. “The way I see this is whether he was born on the moon or Nicaragua or Honolulu, the bottom line is he has to be defeated in November,” Pantano said.
   
   
   Tags:
   Birthers
   Election 2012
   North Carolina

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently it doesn't take much to excite a bunch of hillbillies. Even an email rumor that circulated in 2007.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Georgie Loweryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There could exist a proven authentic video of Obama's birth with beaches, palm trees and a 'Welcome to Hawaii' sign in the background, and it would all be 'fake.'
      
      I bet this is the same crowd that keeps seeing Elvis (and Jesus) at the Dunkin' Donuts.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I've seen both Elvis and Jesus at Dunkin' Donuts.
         And Tupac. Although he's more of a Krispy Kreme guy.
         

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Georgie Loweryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I heard all the 'thugs' hit up the Krispy Kreme from time to time.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               This requires a song on the subject.

               replyreport
   3. 69

      TomBlalockposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As a native North Carolinian, let me assure you that you are indeed correct. There are people that stupid here. You should be here for the Amendment One stuff, its like a miniature civil war on facebook right now!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not picking on you per se, but can you explain the new anti-gay marriage initiative that passed there?

         replyreport
         1. 93

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I just don't get the problem with gay marriage, and I'm a Christian. Who are they hurting? Even my hubby, who's much more conservative than I am (and from NC), has no prob with gay marriage. If it's a sin, isn't it up to God to decide? And, BTW, there ARE gay Christians. I can't imagine not being able to marry the person I'm in love with. Why all the animosity? Are straight people afraid that making gay marriage legal will turn everyone gay?? I don't think it's catching.
            
            I found this interesting, too. I read that a majority of African Americans are against gay marriage. That surprised me. When I was teaching, I noticed that my AA students were generally more accepting of students who were "different" -gay, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, etc.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               idratherbeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               President Obama says it's his opinion that gay marriage should be allowed, but with it not being a federal issue, it's up to states rights to make that determination. And I'm with you Habee! As a Christian, i have no problem with gay marriage! Let God decide!

               replyreport
         2. 69

            TomBlalockposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sure, I can. Sorry about the late reply. Basically, there are two sides. One I can understand, the other I can't. We'll start with the one most people see:
            
            North Carolina is a Bible Belt, fundamentalist Christian state, in many places. Many of them lack the perspective, or care, to realize that the establishment clause separates the affairs of the church from the affairs of the state, and vice versa. They think it acceptable to enforce Christian laws and beliefs onto the laws of the state, a la Sharia law.
            
            The second reason, which is hard to understand if you don't live here, or aren't a conservative Christian, is slightly more understandable. I'll use myself as an example, since I'm nearer the middle than most. I don't approve of many aspects of gay culture, or the way they act. I am perfectly alright with them having equal legal rights and status, and in fact even see the fourteenth amendment as a mandate for that as being the norm. However, to many people in the gay community, it is not enough that I accept them, I must also approve of them, or I am a bigot.
            
            Personally, I can handle that, although it occasionally makes me angry. Others, though, the anger gets the better of them, and as many creatures do when angry, they lash out. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I too wanted to vote for Amendment One, not because I believed it was right, but because I was angry at people who would not let me believe what I wish, and still respect their beliefs.
            
            Unlike many in my state, though, I knew it to be unethical, and unconstitutional, whats more, so I did not vote for it.
            
            So, there you are:
            Reason One: Belief that citizens of the U.S. should be held to the laws of the Bible
            Reason Two: Anger at the actions of the gay community.
            
            I will stress that the first reason had far more to do with it, and that some also voted for it simply because they hate homosexuals. What I've said by no means covers all people, either, there are other reasons I'm sure, but those are the two I've seen.

            replyreport
2. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Oh, I wish the far right would drop the birther thing! They're the right's version of the left's 9/11 truthers. You know it's bad when O'Reilly tells them to "Get over it. Obama was born in Hawaii." Must be the only time when the far right doesn't believe Bill. lol

   replyreport
3. 75

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/birther-movement/
   
   These "gotcha" questions by Anderson Cooper are reminiscent of Katie Couric and Sarah Palin. Painful.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ouch. It's really scary when someone as smart as a neurosurgeon believes that crap.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         When he was introduced as a neurosurgeon I had high hopes that he would bring something new to the debate.
         It was pathetic. Shellacked by Anderson, who could barely contain his annoyance.
         And there's not just one NC birther candidate, either. A whole nest of em.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe the state is trying to make up for going for Obama in 2008. They're trying to prove that they're real southern rednecks.

            replyreport
   2. 80

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, Palin was offered the questions that Couric would ask her several days before the interview. She turned CNN down because she said it was insulting--even though everyone else takes the questions ahead time. Palin should be celebrated for her chutzpa and her take charge attitude, not for her mistakes. Just sayin...

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Have you seen the movie "Game Change?"
         Chutzpah and take-charge attitude with the media.
         Oh lawdy, lawdy!
         

         replyreport
4. 81

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   It's not only NC. Remember this?
   
   Benjy Sarlin-December 30, 2011
   "Mitt Romney’s son, Matt Romney, suggested on Thursday that President Obama should release his birth certificate and grades before his father releases his tax returns."
   
   Update: Matt Romney quickly clarified his remarks on Twitter via a brand new account that had never been used before. A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign confirmed to TPM that the account was indeed Romney’s son and that he had created it expressly to apologize.
   
   “I repeated a dumb joke. My bad,” he tweeted.
   **********
   
   There---all is forgiven, right? Wrong.
   
   Btw...I went to Washington Post to link this, because it's a right-wing paper, and didn't want to be accused of bias...know how their article put it?
   
   "Matt Romeny suggested Obama release his grades "among other things"....
   Taking away the birth certificate from his comment! How sweet..giving cover for Matt. Honest reporting in America. Hardly.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      WaPo a right-wing paper??? They endorsed Obama and used to be called "Pravda on the Potomac."

      replyreport
      1. 81

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "The Post's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.
         
         In "Buying the War" on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations.
         
         In 1992, the PBS investigative news program Frontline suggested that The Post had moved to the right in response to its smaller, more conservative rival The Washington Times, which is owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate owned by the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America. The program quoted Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the conservative activist organization the Moral Majority, as saying "The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And The Washington Times has forced The Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence." In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer also mentioned competition from the Washington Times as a factor moving The Post to the right.
         
         On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".
         
         We all have our opinions, don't we.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's not an opinion that they endorsed Obama in 2008. It's a fact.
            
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03436.html

            replyreport
            1. 81

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "As Katharine Graham noted in her autobiography Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for political candidates. However, since at least 2000, The Washington Post has occasionally endorsed Republican politicians, such as Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich. In 2006, it repeated its historic endorsements of every Republican incumbent for Congress in Northern Virginia."
               
               And? One endorsement for Obama vs Every R Incumbent for Congress in Northern Virginia. You think it's not right-wing, I think it is. Opinions.

               replyreport
            2. 75

               Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Somehow, I cannot see the Washington Post endorsing a ticket with Sarah Palin on it. Can you?
               The key will be to see who they endorse in 2012.

               replyreport
            3. 0

               idratherbeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Really, there's no way they would have backed McCain with Sarah Palin on the ticket. So they picked the best of two evils. Sound Familiar? Republicans picking Romney, even though they don't like him, but dislike President Obama more!

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I think the WaPo is fairly balanced. I certainly don't see them as right-wing, as does LMC.

                  replyreport
5. 60

   Xenonlitposted 12 years ago

   I loved that Anderson Cooper interview. He is usually very even handed, even a bit pandering to some interviewees, but this one infuriated Anderson because of the man's blatant lying, juvenile level of question dodging, and stubborn refusal to give up any facts to support his false claims.
   
   No, these people are not for real. They are blatant liars and irrational racists who refuse to admit that they hate other races and religions so much that they would libel, slander and defame to get their way.
   
   We have paid far too much attention to that useless, extremely repulsive, morally depraved, and tiny fringe minority.
   
   I'm done here. Great topic, Mighty Mom.

   replyreport
6. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   It is all you are going to hear until the election, as derisive exploitation of minority anything, to pump the peasants with inanity while never ever discussing a single thing that has any merit, to get them to the voting booth to vote
   for the ruling class by proxy.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Please tell me the peasants are not really that stupid.
      Bush me once, shame on you.
      Bush me twice, shame on me.
      Bush me again with Romney just to kick out the black guy?
      That's beyond shameful.
      But they do say we get the government we deserve...

      replyreport
7. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Well I don't blame the people when 100% of the national news does nothing but spew propaganda in support of the top tier. Whose got time to figure
   out what is really going on? Wonder for how long
   the book '1984' has been the underground governing stragedy of American culture and politics? Certainy since 1963.The technology is now here to make it all so much more real.

   replyreport
8. 72

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   I will not rest until someone provides proof that Chester Arthur was not born in Canada.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
      
      
      [I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of  "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006  ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792  192 pages. ]
      
      I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress.   He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
      
      Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843.  But Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
      
      He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
      
      http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com … -at-birth/

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ah. But Arthur was a Republican.
         *ducks*
         Hi RB -- good research!
         

         replyreport
9. 72

   Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years ago

   The problem is your politicians are too wrapped up into looking after their lobbyists for their districts.
   America is in deep doo doo, and these d#ckheads need to start looking at how to get your country back on track rather than worry about inconsequential crap like where Obama was born.

   replyreport