"True Americans" and the Bill of Rights.

It should surprise no one that FreeAmerica is a staunch right to lifer. I can definitely respect that. But she said something I thought was interesting:

Well I am sorry but the Right to Life is in the Constitution Bill of Rights and true Americans believe in the Constitution and they believe in the right to life.

Now...I hate to be picky, but quite often liberals are accused of "interpreting" the constitution. Conservatives often use the "separation of church and state isn't in the constitution" argument. I've spent a little time studying the constitution and I don't remember seeing those words or anything that could be interpreted as such.

Lastly, this "true Americans" stuff is hard to stomach. It's funny that she has a blog called "Freedom to Speak" where she claims that only true Americans agree with her. So I thought a couple questions needed to be asked:

Just a couple questions:
-Exactly where in the Bill of Rights is the right to life?
-Since you seem to know what defines a "true American" could you list some of the other ways I should think in order to be a true American? The idea of a "true American" fascinates me.

Imagine if you will...

...my meaningless comments seem to be shaping her posts. But first, a little follow up. In her reply to my most recent comment, she maintains her "Hitler" theme. But, that was to be expected. She also ties my comments to her liberal media [including cspan...which really made me laugh]. But, that wasn't even the most interesting part. So, I give you my comments:

Sorry about the link. Here's the appropriate link to the January report. I realized after I posted my comment that it didn't work and fixed it on my blog. Happy to help. I'm sure after you read it that you'll agree that the Bush Administration thought that the ASPCA is a bunch of terrorists.

I'm not sure what "pro abortion groups with bumper stickers" or "those who support the gay movement" have to do with anything. But I can definitely see why it's a real stretch to imagine pro-life groups or homophobes might conduct any kind of terrorism.

Lastly, could you point me to anything in the DHS report or anything the President has said which "condemn's all military vets as terrorist’s [sic] wanabees"
P.

So, I dropped a little jab about the Walter Reed scandal. It was really part of a MUCH larger point, which apparently she missed because she cut and pasted a worldnetdaily.com that she thinks proves...well, I'm not sure what. So, without laughing at the irrelevancy of the report and the nature of the source, I found one other thing funny. Apparently she had the text from the report stashed away somewhere, but couldn't manage to find the link:

Sorry I don't have the URL so I will have to post it so you can be informed on who was involved in the "Rats in Walter Reed" episode.

So, I thought I'd offer a little help.

Let me help you. Here's the link to the story.

I found out about this thing called google.com. It's a web site where you can search for words and phrases on the internets. You type in a word or phrase into the little box on their web page and it travels through the tubes to a computer. That computer shoots back web pages where those words can be found. All I had to do was copy the first sentence of the story into that box and there the site was. Crazy.

It took my 5 seconds. But, I understand you're a busy woman.

She just can't help herself...

It's like she has Tourette's....only instead of swearing, she makes Hitler references.

He has had 100 days and with every other president if they hadn't succeeded in something their approval rating was way down but not the Hitler like Obama.

Read the history of the rise and fall of Hitler and see how Obama is following his mesmeric control over a nation. It is truly remarkable how close Obama follows Hitler's plan to become a world dictator and I think he is even improving Hitler's plan which began by making people hate a certain group of people, the Jews, which now is Christians and the elimination of the family into robot slaves following everything he says mindlessly.

The rest of the post is fairly typical of the right wing noise machine. However, I thought she had failed to notice a few key points about the issue of right wing organizations targeting veterans [see the report]. Besides the fact that the report doesn't say that veterans are terrorists, I think she's aiming her ire in the wrong direction:

You know what's interesting about this post? It's very reflective of what is coming out of the conservative noise machine. So, even though I had hoped for better from you than the Hitler comparisons, you aren't doing much worse. You can relish the fact that you're in the same league as Rush, Hannity, and Fox News. This is as good as they can do.

Regardless, I'll simply address one point. Regarding the "War Vets are terrorists" meme...Firstly, of course you understand that the the report you reference was commissioned during the Bush administration.

But, that wasn't the only one. The report, "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11" dated July 7, 2008 stated; "Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color. FBI cases also document instances of active duty military personnel having volunteered their professional resources to white supremacist causes."

So...why did the Bush Administration feel that veterans were terrorists? Maybe those are the ones they had sleeping with rats at Walter Reed.

Oh, and there was also that report in January which warned against left wing groups. I'm sure that one is just as alarming to you.

Is this twice now?

I could be wrong, but this is the 2nd time I've agreed with her...or almost, at least.

First, a little background: Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a no-win question by a jack-hole of a pageant judge, "Perez Hilton"...




...and to make matters worse, he posted this video after the pageant.



Now, FreeAmerica and I probably agree on some version of the following premise: Miss California shouldn't have been punished for honestly answering a question she was asked. She has every right to her opinion and to express it when asked for it. But, that's where our agreement ends. Like many other things, FreeAmerica has chosen to turn this into a freedom of religion/speech straw man [See: "War on Christmas"]. She just couldn't resist. I understand.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but comment:

I suppose, that if Miss California could prove that she lost the pageant based solely on her answer to that question, she might be able to make a case for religious discrimination. However, I see a few problems with that idea. First, she never mentioned her faith. She mentioned "in my country and in my family", so it would be hard to claim that they were using her religion against her...because she never mentioned it. A person could be opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons other than religion. Second, she was asked a question and allowed to give her answer. Some in the audience appreciated it, some didn't. Hilton obviously didn't. But, here's the catch; he too has the right to his opinion and to express it as he likes. No one is stopping either of them from expressing their opinion. In fact, I've seen some pretty harsh criticism of Hilton from liberals and conservatives. Simply disagreeing with someone, no matter how crass and/or cruel that disagreement may be, doesn't constitute an infringement of speech or religion. The more any group, Christians or otherwise, makes week claims like this, the more a "boy who cried wolf" scenario becomes likely. When your freedoms are really being threatened, no one will listen.

Tea-bagging leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Protest all you want. Inflate your numbers. Get Fox News on board to pump up the base. This is all part of the American quilt. However, I'd have a lot more respect for your tantrum had you not been silent about spending for the better part of the Bush years. Let's move on.

So FreeAmerica decided to either not read my latest comment, ignored it and commented anyway, or didn't understand it. I'm not sure and I won't speculate, but her response was a little weird. So, I had to explain something to her:

No. The headline they presented was a hook. It's a tool used by the media every day to reel in people who don't know any better or create a buzz. Unfortunately, you either fell for it or decided it worked for your agenda and ran with.

...or both. I'm not sure which is worse.

It's a little like when a guy like Glen Beck puts a picture of the President on the screen with something like, "Is he Satan?" below. Everyone knows the President isn't Satan. Glen Beck even know it...we hope. But, it's an effective hook nonetheless.
P.

In her newest post, she uses a stunt staged by out otherwise unemployable political hack John Ziegler to prove that the right is being silenced. She also links to the HSA report which discusses increased activity in right wing extremest groups. Here's the thing; I'm all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But she has to understand one very important distinction.

We agree on one thing; USC probably should have handled Ziegler differently. But, understand one thing; This is not a free speech issue. John Ziegler was standing on the grounds of a private university. He was there for the sole purpose of, at best confronting those who were attending, at worst, heckling them. USC had no obligation to allow him to do so, let alone allow him on campus. It would be no different than me standing in your driveway calling you out for the stuff you put in your blog. Sure, I'd have some things to say, but would I have a constitutional right to be there.

No.

P.

Paper Tiger 2.0

We Christians are so beaten down, demoralized, and spat upon, that I can't believe I make it to church on Sunday. So, our friend FreeAmerica feels that this article claims that we are no longer a Christian nation. I felt it was neccesary to point out a very important part of the article which she missed:

While yes, the article does discuss a poll that claims "the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent", if you read past the title, it also states:
Let's be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Being less Christian does not necessarily mean that America is post-Christian. A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants, led the ARIS authors to note that "these trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." With rising numbers of Hispanic immigrants bolstering the Roman Catholic Church in America, and given the popularity of Pentecostalism, a rapidly growing Christian milieu in the United States and globally, there is no doubt that the nation remains vibrantly religious—far more so, for instance, than Europe.

P.

But there's a whole other piece to this. To me, there's a difference between being a nation of [overwhelmingly] Christians and being a "Christian Nation". While the numbers don't lie, I don't believe we are the latter. But this stems from my larger support for the principle of separation. , I'm guessing this would be in the top 10 glaring differences between me and FreeAmerica.

Also, if you ask the question, "Are we a Christian Nation?", it has very different meanings depending on the person. The aforementioned connotation is just one. A wingnut evangelical might claim we aren't after the election of President Obama...simply due to the utter depression they that has overcome them since the election [See: Right America: Feeling Wronged].

But, when you're trying to prop up the straw man that Christians are being persecuted [ala the war on Christmas], none of these nuances are important to you. You simply need to make yourself a victim. Otherwise, you won't be able to scare your constituency into voting against something or someone, regardless of how ridiculous the alternative may be.

I'm an Obamaniac

...and I didn't even know it. This is the problem with people who like to regurgitate talking points, spread innuendo, or half-cocked ideas; If you point out inaccuracies you are wholeheartedly for "the other side".

It is your "tone" I don't like. If you want to say that you believe Obama's policies are great and discuss why you believe so that is fine when you take what I say and throw bits and pieces back at me that is not dialog.

Again, I give credit where credit is due; FreeAmerica is publishing my comments, even though she said she wasn't even going to read them...

Why would I say I believe Obama's policies are great? That would be silly. I don't feel that way. In fact, I typically don't feel I'm smart enough to really know. I am, however, smart enough to do a little research and detect blatant, or possibly ignorant, misinformation. Putting information out there that is so far from the overwhelming evidence, is sad if it wasn't so darn funny sometimes. So, in that respect, you're right, I don't throw a lot of my own opinion into my comments.

On the flip side, if you feel strongly enough about your opinions and you feel they are backed by fact, you should be strong enough to be told you are wrong. You should welcome it as debate.

P.

I feel very important...

Two very important developments; First, she's decided she's no longer going to post my comments. In fact, she might not even read my posts. I think the funniest thing about this is that she's alienating the one of the few, if not the only reader she has. Not sure what that proves, but hey, it's her blog.

...and this is mine.

The second thing is that she finally admitted she was wrong. In her original blog, she tells us that the President has sold out to foreign governments.

This is an "I told you so" moment. We were a sovereign nation who took our own council on how to conduct our business but now we are ordered by vice president of the Philippines as to how we may proceed, and if our U.S. Citizen dies in the process so what, Americans deserve to die.

The next day she takes a different tone...but in her other blog.

I am very happy that President Obama said to heck with the U.N. and allowed the Navy Seals to do their jobs. I feel for the moment anyway much better. President Obama has acted like a President of a Sovereign Nation which I have to admit I never felt would happen.

Ok, may be she did admit being just a little bit wrong...

Nonetheless, I thought logic was important in at this moment. Herein lies the comment:

That's your proverbial straw? Really. I quote you and that's what pushes you over the edge? Let me see if I follow you. You have an unbelievably small number of readers [one that I've noticed], and you choose to alienate that reader. You would rather turn a reader away, simply because, at best you disagree with his/her opinion, at worst you don't like his/her tone.

It's your blog. Do whatever you feel is right.

P.

Here's a little known fact...

I first came across our friend, FreeAmerica last year when she started posting at the WIZM Forum page under the pseudonym, freedom44. The thing about well run forum and is that it can be a very good place to exchange ideas, disagree, and even get a little petulant from time to time [present company included]. WIZM is one of those forums. But, it isn't a place for someone who can't deal with being told they are wrong.

If you look at her posts on that forum, you'll note something that also rings true with her blogs: Unbelievably wacky content rarely supported by facts. She hasn't been around there much lately. I'm fairly convinced it's why she started her blog life. She can only exist in a world where she gets to control when and how she's told she's wrong. She can repeatedly insult a person's intelligence, but refuse any retort to the contrary.

She's developing a habit...or should we call it a "tick". Her latest post, written to me personally, is an example of all of the above. If she doesn't like my choice of words, perhaps she's willing to listen to her own. My comments:

You obviously have a problem with my words. Since you also have problem with our democratically elected President and legislature, perhaps you'd prefer your own words:

"It is a sad day today to see that we are no longer a free country to make the laws that we people feel are right. If you don't like the laws that we the people of the United States Of American decide on then go somewhere else, I suggest France or England, there is a place in this world for everyone the whole world doesn't have to be the same"

I wonder if you're considering your own advice.

This is crazy...even for her.

But, I'm confident it isn't the limit of her nuttiness. Take a look...

I wonder if Obama could have orchestrated this confrontation to show he could handle a crisis and agreed in advance to pay off the terrorists or arranged ahead of time to have a conversation with the terrorists who would realise what a wonderful man he is then miraculously let the hostage go. Which would show the country that he could handle a crisis. All of this contrived ahead of time with the terrorists who he could have paid off in advance.

Since the utter ridiculousness of this post speaks for itself, here's my comment:

This is no different than the crazies who thought Fmr. President Bush orchestrated 9/11.

Once again, you're welcome for the plug.

Who didn't see this coming?

...but I have a feeling that title is going to sound like a broken record after a while. Predictably, she's hopped on the "Obama Bowed" bandwagon...and used the word "obeisance". With the latter, I must say I'm impressed. With the former, I'm amused.

I have absolutely no idea what he's doing. In fact, I can see why some might see it as a bow. It may actually be. But, on the list of things that my President can do that would make me lose confidence in him, this is number 1,236,865. Right after lying about getting a hummer from an intern. Surprisingly, I agree with Power Line, that the only real issue here is that the White House feels the need to give a ridiculous explanation of a "two handed handshake" or the President's height.

Regardless, I defer to Tommy Christopher on this issue [minus the dirty words]:

You wanna know what is a national embarrassment? The way the republicans have played politics with our national economic crisis, refusing to support the stimulus even after the Democrats made enormous cuts and concessions, refusing to support the President’s budget (along with the Gang of 15 a#%holes), presenting a joke budget of their own, wasting time in the House knocking freshmen’s books out of their hands, and drawing little yellow circles on Youtube screencaps to try and embarrass our President in the eyes of the world.

I say, enough! Off to the re-education camps with all of them!

There’s a big difference between principled opposition and just being a dick.

Heck. The Saudis have had us bent over for quite some time now...pimped out by BushCo. I suppose facing them during it is a step up. At least in that position we can do a little damage.

GREAT NEWS!!!

As if my life wasn't full enough, she's started another blog; Global Warming-The Other Side of the Story. Apparently, the lovely and talented FreeAmerica feels that the level of hackery was falling dangerously low in the field of Global Warming/Climate Change. Now she's going to enlighten us with her [sarcasm] well reasoned, thoroughly researched opinions on the topic. I can't wait!! [/sarcasm] I did drop her a comment on her first post:

Your welcome, for the plug

Yes, I do realize the irony of that comment, given that I managed to plug my own blog.

On a slightly different note, last night Jon Stewart pretty much summed up my thoughts on the right's new found outrage over "tyranny". "It's supposed to taste like a sh$% taco" just about made me fall out of my chair.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Karma is vicious...

Remember when she claimed that I couldn't read. Well, let's take a look at her latest:

North Korea test is successful

Again as I said Security Council will do nothing because there is nothing they can do. We need to keep Obama and the Congress from making us vulnerable.

2000 mile missile range could hit Alaska.

Again, I should be impressed that she's providing "sources". Ok, it's Newsmax, but she's linking to something. I'm proud of her. Unfortunately, she missed one minor detail. If you actually read the story...

Even more ominously, David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Times that the missile developed by North Korea — which has already tested a nuclear device — could eventually deliver a 2,000-pound warhead a distance of some 3,700 miles, far enough to reach parts of Alaska. And in Iranian hands it would place all of Europe under the threat of a missile attack from the Islamic Republic, which is widely believed to be seeking to develop nuclear weapons. [Emphasis added]

Again, I understand it's nit picky...but those who throw rocks, bla bla bla. So...here's my comment:

Wait...how far is North Korea from Alaska?

P.

Update 4/7/08: Ask a direct question, get a rambling answer:

I am sure they knew we were watching do you think they would let us know all they can do? And with China helping out along with Iran what is the possibility that this was a little short of it's target to keep us sleeping as to the danger? This is why America is so vulnerable we think we can not be touched.

So I asked the same question again.

Update 4/8/09: Ask that question again...and wait. To her credit, she continues to post my comments on this post. But, for some reason, she doesn't answer it. I guess we'll never know the truth.

She's beginning to show improvement...

I've seen it in some posts, but she's obviously figured out how to to post links and occasionally site sources...even if they usually are Foxnews.com or worse. She also fails to post a later story which highlights the fact that, when utilizing diplomacy, patience is important.

Diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia and China -- plus Japan were meeting Monday afternoon to discuss future steps. A U.S. official traveling with President Obama said the permanent member nations and Japan met privately late Sunday after the Security Council adjourned and are reconvening after diplomats from these nations run their discussion by their governments.

"We are making decent progress," the official said. "But this is going to take days. Nothing is going to be resolved today or tomorrow."

If there's one thing the lead-up to the Iraq war taught us, it's that neo-cons and their ilk have neither the patience nor the subtlety which diplomacy requires. In fact, as you can plainly see from her post, they view it as a weakness.

My comment merely contained the above quote.

Straight out of the hackery playbook

When you disagree with a theory, when you disagree with a strategy, or when you disagree with a plan, rather than debating it's merits, claim that it isn't there.

Ambassador Rice today on ABC news said absolutely nothing to every question. Where is the transparency that Obama was supposed to have in his administration. Asked about 10 times what was the U.S going to do about North Korea,s launch of a nuclear missile. She keep saying that "we are conferring with our allies, Russia, China and Japan. We need a plan and this administration is stupid and trembling and we know that nothing will be done.

One thing that has amused me in the "War on Terror" [© Bushco], and now, our financial catastrophe, is watching politicians point fingers at each other. But, that's rule #1 in the hackery playbook; "Find blame and divert it". Democrats are all too willing to point the finger at Fmr. President Bush for 9/11. However, any idiot knows that something like that operation doesn't happen over night. Probably longer than 9 months. Now, we have Republicans anxious to forget 6 years of Republican rule leading up to our financial collaps. Fortunately for us, the lovely FreeAmerica is no different. She would love to point the finger at Obama for N. Korea launching its most recent missile. However, a 17 year old physics student knows that it takes a lot longer than 60 days to arrange a missile test. That same high school student could also read the transcript and understand what the administrations plan is.

As a side bar, it just has to be tearing her apart inside to see the President and First Lady getting so much love in Europe. Jealousy and dogmatic pride is an ugly ugly mixture.

And the comment is...

Simply disagreeing with a plan does not make the plan magically disappear. You may disagree with dealing with the problem through the UN. You may disagree with utilizing diplomacy, multilateral or otherwise. You may believe that another UN resolution would be useless. It is, however, a plan. It is, however, a change from the previous administration. Diplomacy is, as you've noted, exactly what the President campaigned on. It is, among other things, what the American people voted for.

P.

That's twice now..

...that she's had posts directed at me. The weird part is that, since she publishes so few of my comments, the average person who stumbles across her blog will never know who the heck she's referring to. Then again,readability has never been a priority for Free America, as is once again displayed by her insistence upon questioning Obama's birth certificate . Only the nuttiest of the wing nuts are perpetuating this myth...but that doesn't stop our friend. She trudges on:

All I require is for Obama to show a legal birth certificate. A certificate of live birth is not enough, I know he was born alive because I watch him destroy America one freedom at a time.

Again, I refer to factcheck.org which has twice refuted this hackery. In fact, while discussing the discovery of a birth announcement in the Honalulu Advertiser, they close with this little gem.

Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear:
Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

So, I give you my comments...

Of course your question is permitted. That doesn't mean it hasn't been addressed. FactCheck.org cleared up this issue and even tied in more evidence than you're asking
for. They even discussed the process by which a birth certificate is obtained in Hawaii. I'm fairly certain this won't be enough for you, but it's only fair to mention.

Why do I feel like I'm being baited?

In her latest post, Ms. FreeAmerica continues her all to predictable "Obama is a Muslim" line. This time, she's thrown us a little curve ball by appearing to have a little knowledge about Islam. Heck, she even threw in a link to an outside "source".

Does Obama have a Muslim past and why does it matter? Muslims are suggesting that Sharia "Koran Law" be added to our Constitutional law and practiced side by side. Sharia law uses public beatings, decapitation, limb removal and other very unacceptable punishments, is this what Americans want in our country?

I can't be positive, but I think I know where she's getting this from. Rather than me trying to explain where she got this latest reason to don her tin foil hat, I'll let Fox News "do the talkin' for me".

ALISYN CAMEROTA (Fox anchor): The White House is defending its nominee to be State Department Legal Adviser. Now, some of the criticism of this nominee, Harold Koh, is based on remarks that he reportedly made saying that Islamic Sharia law should apply in U.S. courts, even though those laws are used in some countries to justify stripping women of basic rights and even worse, frankly.
...
He reportedly back in 2007 told the Yale Club in Greenwich, Connecticut, that, quote, “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” What might that appropriate case be?

There's a great piece in Slate that takes this little piece of hackery apart at the seams:

The New York Post today published a letter from Robin Reeves Zorthian, who actually organized the Yale Club dinner to which Stein refers. In that letter, Zorthian writes that "the account given by Steve Stein of Dean Koh's comments is totally fictitious and inaccurate" and that she, her husband, "and several fellow alumni ... are all adamant that Koh never said or suggested that sharia law could be used to govern cases in US courts." Why should we believe her and her colleagues over Stein? Well, for one thing, Koh in all his academic articles and many public statements has never said anything to suggest some dogged fealty to sharia. But the right-wing blogs have yet to take note of Zorthian's version of events; the sharia fable is chuffing along on its own steam now; and Fox can continue to pass along Stein's account of the story in a breathless game of sky-is-falling telephone. [Emphasis Added]

Since I've already tried to get her off the "Obama is a Muslim" bandwagon by reminding her that it really just makes her look crazy [which, to her credit, she published], I thought I'd keep my comments simple this time:

I can't be positive where you're going with this, but I'm begging you to do a little research before you go any further. Just in case you don't want to, I've given you a little start here.

Let's face it, anytime you can be compared to the "He's an Arab" lady and you don't even flinch, you need help. I'm just trying to pull her back from the edge.

Dang! It's like I'm Karnak. Where's my envelopes?

Well, I'm claiming 1 1/2 correct in my predictions. And, I have confidence that FreeAmerica will fulfill the other predictions soon.

G20, Obama turns over the United States to Europe

I don't have the time right now to give info to those who didn't watch or listen to the G20 meetings and the results that have taken away the sovereignty of America but Obama has allowed foreign nations the right to oversee our economic doings in the United States. The liberals are rejoicing over the European takeover of America without one shot fired Obama gave it to them making the G20 a grand success for the world but bad for every American citizen. You were warned about the one world government, Christians and all who voted for Obama, it has now happened. I know that China, Russia and Iran are very concerned with the citizens of America's well being so we will be well taken care of! George Washington and our founding fathers sure wasted their time trying to make us a free nation because we gave our freedom away at the last election. Especially as Obama stole the election through fraud and corruption. Obama is not a natural born American therefore does not have the right to be president and the only reason he is sitting in the presidents chair is because of the corruption of Acorn his right hand "man". He can't talk he stumbles like an idiot, he is Muslim and has Muslim interests being his first priority, and he hates America and the Capitalist system. He also resents the Constitution and ignores it like it isn't there. Just keep watching folks as the country is changed and we are helpless to stop it but I guess that is what you want, you voted for him, Pelosi, Reid and Barny Frank. Enjoy your loss of Freedom. [Emphasis added]

I'm giving myself 50% credit for the Global Currency prediction. I'll also admit that the Muslim hackery was like shooting fish in a barrel...but it's my blog. Here's the comment I submitted:

All the other straw men aside, I can't help but look back to the confused looking woman who told John McCain, "He's an Arab". Personally, I felt sorry for her. Thankfully, McCain wouldn't even let her proceed. Why? Well, one could assume that it was because he new it was bad for his campain. But, I'm fairly certain that he's smart enough to know that there isn't an ounce of truth to that. But, in the end, it's a good thing for her that he took the mic away from her. If he had let her continue, it would have only made her look more crazy.

I'm getting bored...

...but that happens fairly easily when it comes to political hackery, or in this case, the lack thereof. So, I thought I'd start a list of predictions as to what straw man our friend, FreeAmerica will prop up next. Feel free to add your own odds:

• Global Currency
• H.R. 1388 (GIVE Act) will force people to volunteer and prohibit volunteers from attending church
• Green Economy legislation is going to cost families $3100 a year.
• The all encompassing "Obama is a Socialist, baby hating, muslim, terrorist who is going send the U.S. into the dark ages". I feel like I'm missing something.
  

Ok, this one's just plain funny...

Where do I start...?

Obama Reaches Across the Isle

Obama is ready to overturn 200 of President Bush’s executive orders. Reaching across the isle? What a lie. Obama the Puppet King for the United Nations and the European Nations has no intention of reaching across the isle and instead is slapping the Republicans stupid enough to believe a word the liar had to say. He agrees with murdering the most innocent of children; the preborn, any moral law to keep babies from being murdered will be overturned. Any Christian cases that come up will be adjudicated against Christian rights while any Muslims ones will become law. Obama is not a Muslim? Watch and see.

I'm no genius. I've never won a spelling or grammar bee. But, the first time I read this post, had a little chuckle. Not only does she believe Obama is a super double secret Muslim, she thinks he claimed to have super long arms which can reach across a small island. Since Ms. FreeAmerica thought we needed definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary to get on board the "Obama is a Socialist" bandwagon, I thought a few other definitions might be helpful:

• Aisle= NOUN: 1. A part of a church divided laterally from the nave by a row of pillars or columns. 2. A passageway between rows of seats, as in an auditorium or an airplane. 3. A passageway for inside traffic, as in a department store, warehouse, or supermarket

• Isle= NOUN: abbr. I. An island, especially a small one.

Yes. I realize it's petty. But, when you accuse me of being unable to read, you kind of open the door. And, let's face it. Given the quality of writing we're talking about here, I think I'm being fairly restrained.