THE FIRST 36 PRESIDENTS HAD NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Why should it Matter With the 44th?
THE FIRST 36 PRESIDENTS HAD NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Why should it Matter With the 44th?
The election of Jimmy Carter as the 37th President of the United States marked several milestones, the perhaps least noticed one being that he was the first person so inaugurated who had been born in a hospital.
In other words, the first 36 presidents were either born at their families’ homes, or under the roof of a mid-wife.
Few if any of those 36 would have been issued a birth certificate; of those who might have, the issuance would have occurred weeks –sometimes months—after the actual birth. If any such documents do still exist, they would have been written out by hand, in ink, by the local county registrant, and most likely bear many words that, by today’s standards, would be seen as "misspellings"
On top of that, eight of the first nine presidents were born British citizens, born on British soil.
Consider it: the American colonies were the property of the British monarchy, all its people subjects of King George III; since the nation of America does not come into existence until 1776 or thereabouts, its first presidents would have HAD to have been "foreign-born" and could not have produced a birth certificate that said otherwise under any circumstance.
In its over 230 year history, America has never questioned the birthright of any of its elected presidents, why should it do so now that Barack Hussein Obama is its leader?
The answer is clear and inescapable: the racist right cannot abide the fact that a Black man now sits in the most powerful position in the world. And, since they can’t employ old school forms of attacking him (say, like using the N-word), they have had to come up some new way to impugn his character.
The whole birther movement is the smoke and mirrors of clumsy stealth-racists (are your ears burning, Lou Dobbs and Rush Lumbaugh?) seeking to rabble-rouse the gullible, unread masses of this country, persons who possess about as much personal dignity and moral backbone as a collection of scraggly alley cats haunting the filthy dumpster behind the local greasy spoon diner on a hot August night.
Those of you who support this insanity, please stop and reflect how future generations are going to look back on this time and see it for what it is, low, petty racism.
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach -
Credibility
-
READ MORE: Jimmy Carter, King George III, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, James Monroe, Barack Hussein Obama, the N-word, Lou Dobbs, Rush Lumbaugh
Related Allvoices Contributions
-
By: Sherrill_Fulghum
Ever since United States President Barack Obama was elected President in November 2008 a group of people known as "birthers" have been trying to convince the rest of the United States and the world that the newly elected President is not a citizen of the United States and therefore; not eligible to hold the office of President of the United ...
2 months ago
-
No decision for birthers on proof of Obama's citizenship
By: kimberlydvorak
In a Santa Ana, California Federal Court today, Judge David Carter put off ruling on President Obama’s birth certificate. At the end of the two-hour hearing there was no ruling on the Motion to Dismiss or the plaintiff’s bid to grant discovery leaving only a glimmer of hope this case will move forward. The plaintiff’s and their ...
about 1 month ago
-
'Unfriend' is chosen 'word of the year'
By: newsnow
'Unfriend' has been named the word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary, chosen chosen from a list of finalists with a tech-savvy bent. Unfriend was defined as a verb that means to remove someone as a 'friend' on a social networking site like Facebook. "It has both currency and potential longevity," said Christine ...
11 days ago
-
Who will mainstream right-wing attacks with Beck's lieutenant gone ...
By: BiodunIginla
Friday, November 13, 2009 by Biodun Iginla of the BBC and the Economist http://mediamatters.org/items/200911120062<
16 days ago
News Stories
- News Source: Androscoggin News | 3 months agoKezia Obama, 66, was on a vacation in Britain seven years ago when her kidneys suddenly failed. She spent two months recovering in a London hospital thanks to the country's National Heath Service (NHS), she told the News of the World. "If it wasn't...
- News Source: MarketWatch | 3 months agoI used to laugh off CNN anchor Lou Dobbs' eccentricities. I chalked up his bluster and preening to the concept of television news meets show biz. But now, I'm sorry to say, I can no longer chuckle at the spectacle of Dobbs' antics. Quite simply, the...
Blogs
>
- Blog Source: bspontifications.blogspot.com"We, the undersigned, would like to see the official birth certificate of Lou Dobbs. His daily attacks on immigrants and suggestion that President Obama is an 'undocumented' alien have lead us to believe that Dobbs is actually ...
- Blog Source: www.citizenorange.comAccording to the Media Matters website, dobbsconspiracy.com, 20000 people have signed the petition "calling on CNN to credibly address Lou Dobbs' frequent promotion of fringe conspiracies about President Obama's birth certificate," ...
- Blog Source: sorryalltheclevernamesaretaken.blogspot.comI haven't watched CNN in quite a long time and, until recently, was not aware of Lou Dobbs' opinion on the Obama birth certificate controversy. Radio talk show host, Neal Boortz mentioned Dobbs not long ago and I searched the Internet ...
- Blog Source: videocafe.crooksandliars.comObama should be disqualified as president...not for his lack of birth certificate, but because he broke his oath of office when he voted for the Patriot act, ...which gave federal agents the authority to write their own seach warrants ...
Images
>
-
Image Source: citizenwells.files.... -
Image Source: aconservativeedge.f... -
Image Source: fromtheleft.files.w... -
Image Source: americasvoiceonline...
Post a Comment Comments: 24
The US has been using standardized birth certificates since 1900, with the responsibility for registry lying with the midwife, or delivering doctor, if the child wasn't born in a hospital.
There isn't any reason for anyone to accept anything, until it has been proven to their satisfaction. It may seem foolish to others, but it's still within our rights.
When anybody appoints a crew of lawyers to keep all of their personal history absolutely secret, I always think they probably have to be hiding something. But maybe that's just me, but I never saw ANY politician who wasn't hiding something.
There isn't any reason for anyone to accept anything, until it has been proven to their satisfaction. It may seem foolish to others, but it's still within our rights.
When anybody appoints a crew of lawyers to keep all of their personal history absolutely secret, I always think they probably have to be hiding something. But maybe that's just me, but I never saw ANY politician who wasn't hiding something.
Would you know what the federal number of this law is, and does it's language directly focus at any point at the office of the president?
And certainly it is the right of everyone to have something proven to one's satisfaction, just as I have the right to demand to know why it is that no other president before this one had his birthright challenged.
Still my main question remains, irrespective of the 1900 law, why is this a question now, at this time, with this president?
And I strongly suggest that you, firesisle, look more closely at the document that is the main image of my article. It is an official letter from the head of Hawaii's Health Dept, and it states that, by law, he cannot release the birth certificate of anyone born in the state of Hawaii without a compelling reason.
Using your own argument, I insist that you show clear and irrefutable proof that Mr. Obama or someone representing him hired lawyers to keep his personal history secret.
And of course every politician has something to hide, they're human, after all. But there is a distinct difference from a Larry Craig, who makes a career of supporting antigay legislation but then cruises public bathrooms for unprotected sex with strangers, and Barack Obama, whose deepest 'offense'seems to be that he was born with brown skin.
And certainly it is the right of everyone to have something proven to one's satisfaction, just as I have the right to demand to know why it is that no other president before this one had his birthright challenged.
Still my main question remains, irrespective of the 1900 law, why is this a question now, at this time, with this president?
And I strongly suggest that you, firesisle, look more closely at the document that is the main image of my article. It is an official letter from the head of Hawaii's Health Dept, and it states that, by law, he cannot release the birth certificate of anyone born in the state of Hawaii without a compelling reason.
Using your own argument, I insist that you show clear and irrefutable proof that Mr. Obama or someone representing him hired lawyers to keep his personal history secret.
And of course every politician has something to hide, they're human, after all. But there is a distinct difference from a Larry Craig, who makes a career of supporting antigay legislation but then cruises public bathrooms for unprotected sex with strangers, and Barack Obama, whose deepest 'offense'seems to be that he was born with brown skin.
First off, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution directly refers to your claim of ineligibility of our first eight Presidents:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
Secondly, the certificate of live birth produced by Obama would not be an acceptable document of identification should he even apply for little-league baseball, let alone the Presidency. The reasoning behind the inquiry is, as you put it; "clear and inescapable," though not for the same reason that you suggest. Should the Obama be found not to be a natural born citizen, he would be deemed an usurper of the Presidency. All acts ranging from the signing of the stimulus to military operations would be null and void. Obviously, such a tumultuous incident would be best exposed early.
If you remember, John McCain has had his presidential eligibility dredged up numerous times, culminating in the Senate unanimously defining his birth in the Panama Canal while under U.S. jurisdiction as sufficiently "natural-born". This declaration however is non-binding, and should McCain have been elected would have been an enormous issue. Surely a sensible person would not deem the inquries into McCain's case as motivated by race. Why, then, is Obama allowed to deflect legitimate questions and concerns through assertion that those who would ask are racist?
The usurpation of the Presidency is a serious claim, with potentially devastating possibilities. To simply lump Americans who have actual questions as racist is utterly distasteful. It ignores the legitimacy behind their claims and instead focuses on bringing the discussion into the gutter.
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
Secondly, the certificate of live birth produced by Obama would not be an acceptable document of identification should he even apply for little-league baseball, let alone the Presidency. The reasoning behind the inquiry is, as you put it; "clear and inescapable," though not for the same reason that you suggest. Should the Obama be found not to be a natural born citizen, he would be deemed an usurper of the Presidency. All acts ranging from the signing of the stimulus to military operations would be null and void. Obviously, such a tumultuous incident would be best exposed early.
If you remember, John McCain has had his presidential eligibility dredged up numerous times, culminating in the Senate unanimously defining his birth in the Panama Canal while under U.S. jurisdiction as sufficiently "natural-born". This declaration however is non-binding, and should McCain have been elected would have been an enormous issue. Surely a sensible person would not deem the inquries into McCain's case as motivated by race. Why, then, is Obama allowed to deflect legitimate questions and concerns through assertion that those who would ask are racist?
The usurpation of the Presidency is a serious claim, with potentially devastating possibilities. To simply lump Americans who have actual questions as racist is utterly distasteful. It ignores the legitimacy behind their claims and instead focuses on bringing the discussion into the gutter.
A) I listed those criteria in my article, Finding In Fact, but even then you choose to ignore the fact that the issue is the single sheet of paper called a birth certificate. With that artificial demand uppermost in the minds of the irrational right, the fact remains that of all presidents from Washington to Nixon (ironically, Gerald Ford might be considered to be exempt from this listing, since he wasn't elected to the presidency, he gained it by fiat of RMN's resignation) very, very likely could not have produced a birth certificate.
B) So now, according to you, even if Mr. Obama produced a birth certificate, it would not be an 'acceptable document' for what reason, exactly? Well, in any event, your declaration that 'All acts ranging from the signing of the stimulus to military operations would be null and void' would be applicable to all the previous presidents for whom no acceptable document could be found. So, how many laws would have to be re-presented to the Senate, argued over, and signed by the next president, the one who will replace Mr. Obama (and what's with calling him 'the Obama'? Is that like calling Donald Trump 'the Donald'?).
I'm willing to bet you didn't say 'boo' when Bush stole the election, did you? But now Barack Obama is 'usurping' the presidency.
The only reason that this discussion is in the gutter at this stage is because that's where it came from to begin with.
B) So now, according to you, even if Mr. Obama produced a birth certificate, it would not be an 'acceptable document' for what reason, exactly? Well, in any event, your declaration that 'All acts ranging from the signing of the stimulus to military operations would be null and void' would be applicable to all the previous presidents for whom no acceptable document could be found. So, how many laws would have to be re-presented to the Senate, argued over, and signed by the next president, the one who will replace Mr. Obama (and what's with calling him 'the Obama'? Is that like calling Donald Trump 'the Donald'?).
I'm willing to bet you didn't say 'boo' when Bush stole the election, did you? But now Barack Obama is 'usurping' the presidency.
The only reason that this discussion is in the gutter at this stage is because that's where it came from to begin with.
I apologize, "the Obama" was a typo.
Aside from that, should Obama produce a long-form, original birth certificate, the whole matter would cease to exist. It would prove beyond reasonable doubt his eligibility instantaneously. Regardless of political motivations the entire question would be rendered suitably settled.
Obama is not an usurper of the Presidency, for nothing in regard to his ineligibility has been conclusively substantiated as of yet. He does have the possibility of being such, however the odds are against that in my eyes. Should any past President be convicted as ineligible, their enactments as President should, and would become invalid. This would no doubt cause unimaginable difficulties for the country to overcome, but they would be necessary. The Importance of upholding our Constitution outweighs any amount of inconvenience.
I am merely of the opinion that calling people whom you do not know racist is disgraceful. You obviously have not delved into the base behind their arguments, and want to play the race game as a matter of conveniently attempting to nullify arguments. It only detracts from productive political discourse, ignoring your opponents substantialities by instead falsely attacking motives.
Aside from that, should Obama produce a long-form, original birth certificate, the whole matter would cease to exist. It would prove beyond reasonable doubt his eligibility instantaneously. Regardless of political motivations the entire question would be rendered suitably settled.
Obama is not an usurper of the Presidency, for nothing in regard to his ineligibility has been conclusively substantiated as of yet. He does have the possibility of being such, however the odds are against that in my eyes. Should any past President be convicted as ineligible, their enactments as President should, and would become invalid. This would no doubt cause unimaginable difficulties for the country to overcome, but they would be necessary. The Importance of upholding our Constitution outweighs any amount of inconvenience.
I am merely of the opinion that calling people whom you do not know racist is disgraceful. You obviously have not delved into the base behind their arguments, and want to play the race game as a matter of conveniently attempting to nullify arguments. It only detracts from productive political discourse, ignoring your opponents substantialities by instead falsely attacking motives.
I'm disgraceful because I call a racist a racist? Cool, so be it. And the very fact that I keep asking WHY this President, WHY at this time is delviing into the basis of their arguments-- AND since none of the supporters of this over-hyped non-issue haven't seen fit to give any stronger response than "Well, Mr. Obama should just do it, that's all" is pretty indicative of how poor the reasoning is behind this whole thing.
And accusing me of 'nullifying arguments' by playing the race card, are we? Fine, now you have the opportunity to nullify my arguments by explaining fully and completely why is Mr. Obama the very first man in the nearly 240 year history of the United States to have his birthright as an American challenged.
Finally, flipping the script by pretending I have to hold myself to a higher standard for the sake of 'productive political discourse' when I'm been demanding the birthers' 'substantialities' from the outset is more tnan a little disengenuous; their motives are PRECISELY the essential point here, and your trying to make it otherwise is disgraceful.
And accusing me of 'nullifying arguments' by playing the race card, are we? Fine, now you have the opportunity to nullify my arguments by explaining fully and completely why is Mr. Obama the very first man in the nearly 240 year history of the United States to have his birthright as an American challenged.
Finally, flipping the script by pretending I have to hold myself to a higher standard for the sake of 'productive political discourse' when I'm been demanding the birthers' 'substantialities' from the outset is more tnan a little disengenuous; their motives are PRECISELY the essential point here, and your trying to make it otherwise is disgraceful.
There becoems a point when answering the exact same question becomes monotonous and ridiculous.
As for the legitimate births of Senator McCain and President Obama:http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3762892-obamas-citizenship
As for the legitimate births of Senator McCain and President Obama:http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3762892-obamas-citizenship
When democrats questioned McCain's "right" to be president (because of where he was born) the democrats were in total orgasmic ecstasy and they pushed the matter for months...
Now, when Obama refuses to provide solid "proof" that a LEGAL birth certificate exists - anyone who even "thinks" about bringing it up is branded a traitor... (Oh darn... I guess that makes me a traitor...)
But it's really no surprise - the people who "put him in office" would do anything (and I mean ANYTHING...) to get him there - fortunately, people are already starting to see him for what he really is...
His "Approval" rating is dropping like a rock (from 65% to 47% since he took his office) and now there are actually MORE people who DISAPPROVE of him than approve... only hard core (brainwashed) fanatics will be supporting him much longer...
Now, when Obama refuses to provide solid "proof" that a LEGAL birth certificate exists - anyone who even "thinks" about bringing it up is branded a traitor... (Oh darn... I guess that makes me a traitor...)
But it's really no surprise - the people who "put him in office" would do anything (and I mean ANYTHING...) to get him there - fortunately, people are already starting to see him for what he really is...
His "Approval" rating is dropping like a rock (from 65% to 47% since he took his office) and now there are actually MORE people who DISAPPROVE of him than approve... only hard core (brainwashed) fanatics will be supporting him much longer...
The people who put Mr. Obama in office were a majority of the public who voted that fateful night, unlike Mr. Bush's first term, when the presidency was awarded to him the rightists sitting on the Supreme Court. So, who exactly did all that brainwashing, Rupert Murdock's mudracking squad at Fox? Or maybe Al Franken, John Steward, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs?
No, Mr. Obama's biggest supporters in this last campaign was George W. Bush, who took us from a $5 trillion surplus to an $11 trillion deficit, who lied to us about Iraq and has caused the needless deaths of 4,400 and 35,000 casualties of our own young people, and brought this nation to the brink of the 2nd Great Depression. John McCain helped a lot, too, with his incredibly bad choice of a running mate.
Too, I'm willing to bet you a quarter, instgtr, that Obama's ratings will never fall as far as Bush's did.
No, Mr. Obama's biggest supporters in this last campaign was George W. Bush, who took us from a $5 trillion surplus to an $11 trillion deficit, who lied to us about Iraq and has caused the needless deaths of 4,400 and 35,000 casualties of our own young people, and brought this nation to the brink of the 2nd Great Depression. John McCain helped a lot, too, with his incredibly bad choice of a running mate.
Too, I'm willing to bet you a quarter, instgtr, that Obama's ratings will never fall as far as Bush's did.
Don't people have anything better to do than keep arguing about Obama's place of birth?They need an excuse to point fingers at him just because he's the first coloured President!Why can't they accept him as he is?It's simply disgraceful.
When you write 'GW', firesisle, do you mean GW Bush, or the first president, George Washington? It would be far and away more interesting an insight if you did mean the Father of this country, but I'll take it here to mean GWB.
To call Obama stupid is perfectly fair, so long as you qualify just where he is being stupid.
I'd love to read someone on this or any of the other sites I visit to take the Obama Admin to task for their flaws in a specific area, like the Housing Market meltdown. His giving all that money to those people did nothing for us little people, I can tell you that. My wife and I saw our financial situation take a nearly fatal blow in just the first half of this year alone. We've crunched the numbers as best we can, tightened our belts to the max, but it's no good, we'll have to move out of the house we currently live in by the end of this year.
We read/heard all the stuff in the papers, magazines, and on TV that said we could expect help just as soon as Obama's money hit the real estaters' bank accounts -- I'm here to tell you, that was a lot of hype. No one will help us because they want to either keep that money in their companies' accounts or help their rich clients, who don't realy NEED the help.
But, does anyone want to discuss how it seems that the two most important pieces of real estate those companies own is the White House and Congress? No, so many want to go on and on about a thinly disguised personal attack against the man and his family as if it actually MEANT something.
It doesn't.
Stop living in the last century and let's discuss how those career politicians in DC can and SHOULD do something that'll REALLY help the people who need that help the most.
I'll be mightily impressed if I see anyone do that.
To call Obama stupid is perfectly fair, so long as you qualify just where he is being stupid.
I'd love to read someone on this or any of the other sites I visit to take the Obama Admin to task for their flaws in a specific area, like the Housing Market meltdown. His giving all that money to those people did nothing for us little people, I can tell you that. My wife and I saw our financial situation take a nearly fatal blow in just the first half of this year alone. We've crunched the numbers as best we can, tightened our belts to the max, but it's no good, we'll have to move out of the house we currently live in by the end of this year.
We read/heard all the stuff in the papers, magazines, and on TV that said we could expect help just as soon as Obama's money hit the real estaters' bank accounts -- I'm here to tell you, that was a lot of hype. No one will help us because they want to either keep that money in their companies' accounts or help their rich clients, who don't realy NEED the help.
But, does anyone want to discuss how it seems that the two most important pieces of real estate those companies own is the White House and Congress? No, so many want to go on and on about a thinly disguised personal attack against the man and his family as if it actually MEANT something.
It doesn't.
Stop living in the last century and let's discuss how those career politicians in DC can and SHOULD do something that'll REALLY help the people who need that help the most.
I'll be mightily impressed if I see anyone do that.
"Stop living in the last century and let's discuss how those career politicians in DC can and SHOULD do something that'll REALLY help the people who need that help the most."
Amen and about time!
Amen and about time!
*LOL* fair enough... I'm not really saying he's stupid; I'm saying that if somebody claims he's stupid, it's not racism, any more than if they were calling anybody else stupid.
I used to teach at a vocational school, and most of our students were minorities. One student in particular, who was black, always liked to pull the race card on one of our instructors. I got together with our counselor, who was also black, and we had a heart-to-heart with the young man. What we explained to him was that the reason his instructor didn't like him wasn't because he was black, but rather because he was an a******. It actually changed his perspective, and he never tried that approach again...
I used to teach at a vocational school, and most of our students were minorities. One student in particular, who was black, always liked to pull the race card on one of our instructors. I got together with our counselor, who was also black, and we had a heart-to-heart with the young man. What we explained to him was that the reason his instructor didn't like him wasn't because he was black, but rather because he was an a******. It actually changed his perspective, and he never tried that approach again...
Yes, because the entire basis of his ineligibility is due to his race. Please, stop demonizing any form of opposition to Obama as racist, it is simply ridiculous. When does it stop? By the same trail of logic, If I were to disagree with literally ANYTHING Obama says, it might be construed as racist because you lack the initiative to investigate the actual motivations behind a movement.
Then why aren't there any substantive arguments against Mr. Obama's projects?
When Charles Krauthammer writes that Obama's postitive numbers in his healthcare projections are illusory, that's substantive -- I also think it flawed because he ignores that, in this capitalistic society, a healthier national workforce will miss less workdays and stay in the market longer is by its nature anybody's guess, but it IS worth reading and considering seriously.
When Sarah Palin throws out a term like 'Death Panel' in a public speech but doesn't follow that accusation up with a well thought-out argument, then few thinking people will give it any real weight.
When Obama is attacked purely and singly for his birthright as an American, when no other president before him has had to deal with such a thing, that has the same odor wafting off of it as this week's cover article of the National Enquirer.
And how does anyone 'lack the initiative to investigate the actual motivations behind a movement' when that's exactly what's being demanded of the birthers? What it the motive behind this faux 'movement'?
When Charles Krauthammer writes that Obama's postitive numbers in his healthcare projections are illusory, that's substantive -- I also think it flawed because he ignores that, in this capitalistic society, a healthier national workforce will miss less workdays and stay in the market longer is by its nature anybody's guess, but it IS worth reading and considering seriously.
When Sarah Palin throws out a term like 'Death Panel' in a public speech but doesn't follow that accusation up with a well thought-out argument, then few thinking people will give it any real weight.
When Obama is attacked purely and singly for his birthright as an American, when no other president before him has had to deal with such a thing, that has the same odor wafting off of it as this week's cover article of the National Enquirer.
And how does anyone 'lack the initiative to investigate the actual motivations behind a movement' when that's exactly what's being demanded of the birthers? What it the motive behind this faux 'movement'?
Boy, oh boy. The pettiness of it all. I'm a supporter of President Obama and will continue to be since I don't believe in being a "fair-weathered" anything. It took a lot longer than 8 months to get this country into the position it's in now, and it will take more than 8 months to get us out. People need to be patient for a change. I suppose that's the way of our generation now - instant gratification - and if we don't instantly get what we want, our patience evaporates. Pretty shameful for all of us.
I do agree, incidentally, that it's crazy to say that all questions posed about President Obama are racist. Let's face it ... he's only 1/2 african-american. Last I heard, his mother was white. I'm not really sure why everyone continues to look at him as being "african-american" or "black" or "colored" or whatever you want to call his ethnicity. He's neither all of one or all of the other, which can be a good thing since it affords him the opportunity to see things from each side's perspective. He's the President - pure and simple, won that position through a fair election in this country and should be respected for it. It's time everyone get over their association to the "left wing" or the "right wing" and come together in support of what's best for this country. After all, that's what we all want, right? I'm a democrat but understand there are zealots in my party as well as in the republican party, who will do or say anything to inflame prejudices against those who hold a powerful position but are not of their own affiliation. This is exactly why I wish there were NO parties. People - deal with it, get over it, and move on. Let's start putting our heads TOGETHER and start solving this wonderful nation's problems.
I do agree, incidentally, that it's crazy to say that all questions posed about President Obama are racist. Let's face it ... he's only 1/2 african-american. Last I heard, his mother was white. I'm not really sure why everyone continues to look at him as being "african-american" or "black" or "colored" or whatever you want to call his ethnicity. He's neither all of one or all of the other, which can be a good thing since it affords him the opportunity to see things from each side's perspective. He's the President - pure and simple, won that position through a fair election in this country and should be respected for it. It's time everyone get over their association to the "left wing" or the "right wing" and come together in support of what's best for this country. After all, that's what we all want, right? I'm a democrat but understand there are zealots in my party as well as in the republican party, who will do or say anything to inflame prejudices against those who hold a powerful position but are not of their own affiliation. This is exactly why I wish there were NO parties. People - deal with it, get over it, and move on. Let's start putting our heads TOGETHER and start solving this wonderful nation's problems.
Amen, brother.
Reported by EddieBuddha3
Cell phones use report code: Most Popular Reports
Related Tweets
-
@kenrudin ScuttleButton returns! Our American way of life survives! http://tinyurl.com/n7lv98
3 months ago
Related Allvoices Reports
Related People
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner
