Deborah Lawrence was offered an opportunity, by the Congress and the White House, to make an ornament for the White House tree.
She said the offer "nauseated" her at first -- because she hates Christmas, and presumably because she also hates any notion of American unity -- and then she decided to take the opportunity to show just how much hate she has in her heart by creating a Christmas ornament that called for the impeachment of President Bush.
Of course, as any sane person, no matter their political views, would agree the ornament was properly rejected. Even Jim McDermott said the ornament was inappropriate.
But if that's not enough, Lawrence also showed that she hates the very right that allows her to create her gauche piece: on the phone to KING5, she said that because the ornament was not instantly rejected, she thought that maybe "the Bush administration appreciates the First Amendment."
Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with the First Amendment must hate the Constitution so much that they've never bothered to actually find out what it means.
It barely needs stating that calling yourself an "artist" does not mean you're smart, or have any sense of aesthetics, but I feel like stating it anyway.
I appreciate contrarian and protest art more than most people. But I'd hope it be done with some sense of dignity and intelligence.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at December 02, 2008 10:39 PM | Email ThisBut not as much as the fact that McDermott's allowed her to be choden by a group that "picked her because of her social engagement - feminism, anti-war, anti-poverty - and knew she'd think of it as an opportunity."
They wanted her to do something inappropriate -- to use Christmas as a soapbox -- and that's what they got.
As usual pudge is throwing around the word "hate".
As usual you're lying about me.
It is clear this artist treasures the Constitution and America
That is not clear at all. She does not say one thing that has anything to do with the Constitution -- only her complete misunderstanding of what it actually says -- and her only statements about America are hateful ones.
Thanks, pudge, for spreading the word of this cleverly subversive protest.
It's unsurprising you, Bruce, think this is in any way clever. But it's clearly not. It's merely an attention-seeker with no class taking a dump in the middle of the room at a party. That's not subversive, it's just stupid.
Putting up the fringe spew of a left wing nutter, such a "cherished" right if Bruce is to be believed in this instance makes as much sense as Mr. Obama putting up some sort of hooded, KKK decoration. Or does that crap Bruce is spewing only apply to the left wing?
See, Bruce, just because the Constitution gives idiots like you the right to act boorish, self-centered and childish; that doesn't mean that you, or the cretin behind that "ornament," is compelled to do so. That was her playground stupidity at work.
There. You see the difference now?
Posted by: Hinton on December 3, 2008 12:17 AMThe entire country is talking about Deb's art.
Never in the history of this country has the right to freedom of speech been more honored than it has by the media handling of Deb's orb.
It should be noted that freedom of speech is different than "imperative to publish". Deb is very confused.
Proof being that so few of this group's opinions have ever been published in the P-I or the Times.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on December 3, 2008 01:54 AMbut--just like that famous local travel guy from WA, none of these leftie America critics ever relo to europe, mid east, africa or any place they hold in higher esteem; "bad" as it is, they coinicidently stay in their little comfy homes here;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 3, 2008 03:34 AMI remember the Westneat column where a Port of Seattle manager said "we don't want to know" what a particular art project had cost, because they were afraid they might be forced to spend more under state law.
Posted by: russell garrard on December 3, 2008 05:51 AMOh yes, she's also a socialist.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 06:16 AM"Does Seattle realize it's become a laughingstock?" ~ Ragnar
It doesn't appear to care given the past couple of weeks of the crazed atheists, this bozo artist and the raving loon Richard Sanders drunken outburst at a dinner party. A hat-trick of lunacy in just the last 2 weeks Seattle, Take a bow.
The rest of the country has viewed Seattle as the land of Kooks and assorted nuts since WTO -I know, I was living on the East coast at the time-
Anyway, people like her makes me just want to move out of this state. The hyperbole displayed in this blog post doesn't help either.
PS - Bruce @4 - Hate isn't pudge's signature word, the one you're thinking of is "you're lying".
False. All of them are backed up in the text of the story. You may disagree with what I said, but the backing is provided.
Posted by: pudge on December 3, 2008 08:46 AMSeattle is just filled with people like this lady.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 09:09 AMDog bites man.
Posted by: jimg on December 3, 2008 09:18 AMShe's in the same class of "artists" that make giant paper mache heads. Legends in the own minds.
Why is this kooky? What's to say that a GOP ornament would not make a Christmas Ornament that contained scraps of stained blue dresses and send it to Clinton? How about an ornament listing all names of the people the Clinton's have supposedly killed.
Loons exist on both sides, just look at all the GOP loons trying to convince Electoral College members that Pres-Elect Obama is not an American Citizen. Or the Ann Rand institute claiming that then Sen. Obama is Malcolm X's love child. Time to get a clue Bill.
Or maybe that only happens when someone dares to ask a question of The One. That's probably it.
Of course, pretty soon we'll be hearing from the poor dear about all the "hate" that's being directed at her and what a "chilling effect" that *gasp!* criticism of her has on her free speech rights.
Like someone said, typical petulant, juvenile liberal.
Posted by: Frank Black on December 3, 2008 10:31 AMYou mean other than the fact that nobody from our side of the aisle did those things when given the chance?
Posted by: jimg on December 3, 2008 10:54 AMWe're you given a chance? I wouldn't put it past someone, the Clinton Derangement Syndrome was pretty intense in the late 90's. Of course back then we didn't have obsessed GOP bloggers who have nothing better to do that rant & rave about non-stories like this one.
I think not, but we have 3 cities just on the west coast that are chock full of leftist loons such as that charming woman who graces the front of the P-I.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 11:28 AMHmmm Petulance seems to be a innate liberal trait.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2008 11:52 AMNutjob Lawrence is a disgrace to the State. What kind of stupid statement is over the top for those like Cato?
Posted by: swatter on December 3, 2008 12:20 PMThe 2d embarrassment results from the selection of ding-dong artist, Deborah Lawrence, to design and craft the official Washington State Christmas tree ornament for the White House tree. He blatant political statement is outrageous.
The other 49 States submitted ornaments that were accepted and displayed. None contained any sort of political symbol or message. Those involved on behalf of 49 States have the good sense to provide ornaments that suit the occasion.
Why is it that our elected officials have neither the sound judgment nor the courage to present our State and its citizens favorably?
Posted by: Paddy on December 3, 2008 12:35 PMWhy is this kooky?
Because it is an expression of hate, made for a Christmas tree.
If you need further explanation you're beyond hope.
Why does he need to address something that is clearly false? If so, then should Bush address the 9/11 conspiracy theorists?
There's more than enough evidence to prove that both groups are misguided in their beliefs.
Hmmm, is there a city anywhere filled almost entirely with extreme right wing nutburgers of the sort Cato mentions?
Sure, just look at Melanie Siewert of Kernersville, N.C., I'm sure she's have no problem creating an anti-Obama ornament...nor would half the folks who post on the freerepublic.com if asked to do so.
Nutjob Lawrence is a disgrace to the State.
That's your opinion, and you have every right to express it much like Lawrence. Clearly there are a lot of rights the right-wing would like to curtail, freedom of expression being right on the top of that list.
I believe it was specific to each Congressional District, so we lucked out, those of us not in Seattle: it only represents Seattle, not the rest of us. :)
Cato:
Why does he need to address something that is clearly false?
Some of the claims are false. Some are not. That he has not produced a physical copy of his birth certificate is true.
There's more than enough evidence to prove that both groups are misguided in their beliefs.
I am unsure. I do not believe Obama is not a natural-born citizen, but I've looked at a lot of the evidence against him and I think more answers are warranted, even though my opinion has not been changed.
So too are answers against the Truthers warranted ... which is why they HAVE been answered. Not by Bush himself, but this is different, obviously, because it's something personal to Obama.
Clearly there are a lot of rights the right-wing would like to curtail, freedom of expression being right on the top of that list.
You're lying.
She is so typical of the Iiberal mindset here, inject politics into every topic, every conversation. Remember her name and boycott her work.
Posted by: LCRW on December 3, 2008 12:57 PM
Deborah Lawrence is a total slag.
She is so typical of the Iiberal mindset here, inject politics into every topic, every conversation. Remember her name and boycott her work.
Posted by: LCRW on December 3, 2008 01:00 PM
I'm sure it's in Hawaiian file cabinet somewhere, there is more that enough proof available to dismiss all the claims about his supposed foreign birth. No one demanded to see McCain's birth certificate, even though he was physically born in Panama.
Not by Bush himself, but this is different, because it's something personal to Obama.
Depends on what type of truther you ask, some believe that Bush personally ordered the supposed missile that struck the Pentagon. That seems fairly personal.
You're lying.
Haha, am I? Maybe you should re-read the comments above this post.
Posted by: Cato on December 3, 2008 01:03 PMAs for the birth certificate, I think he was born in the USA, though his relatives claim he was born in Kenya. However, there was something wrong with the certificate the guy produced. Aren't you the least bit curious? Or would you be willing to overlook that piece of the Constitution to keep the ONE as president?
BTW, if a Republican type were to do something stupid and disgraceful like this, my opinion would be the same. But, if you recall, Clinton trashed the White House when he left and Bush is insuring a solid transition. Go figure, Cato. You need the practice.
Posted by: swatter on December 3, 2008 01:47 PMLiberals are nothing if not predicatable.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 02:03 PMI'm sure it's in Hawaiian file cabinet somewhere
Probably. Also, Obama has a physical copy of it. It just hasn't been produced. It should be.
Depends on what type of truther you ask, some believe that Bush personally ordered the supposed missile that struck the Pentagon. That seems fairly personal.
And there's no evidence it happened. There IS evidence that Obama was born in Africa (though admittedly much weaker than the evidence he was born in Hawaii).
Haha, am I? Maybe you should re-read the comments above this post.
Yes, you're lying. Not a single comment I read implied that anyone's freedom of expression should be revoked. Care to point out an example? And even if you could find one here (or certainly you could find one elsewhere), such opinions do not represent the Right. However, the Fairness Doctrine and Hate Speech laws and other similar intrusions into free speech are supported by the Left and its leadership.
They're having wet dreams about imposing the so-call "fairness doctrine" to muzzle Limbaugh and Hannity. These people are not only deranged and sick, they are downright dangerous. I do believe that Obama is fully aware that anything resembling the "fairness doctrine" is tantamount to a political kiss of death. In my opinion they are not going to attempt it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 02:39 PMThis has clearly reached urban legend status now, guess what, it's never going to happen. Meanwhile the GOP would love nothing more than to shut people up who disagree with them. Look no farther than this thread from yesterday.
However, there was something wrong with the certificate the guy produced.
What was wrong with it again? Oh wait, nothing.
Clinton trashed the White House when he left and Bush is insuring a solid transition.
Humans learn from the mistakes of others. Even I feel Clinton's staff went overboard, but removing W's from keyboards is hardly "trashing" the White House. More of a bad joke that went sour.
It just hasn't been produced. It should be.
Ummm, why? No other President has been asked to produce his birth certificate.
There IS evidence that Obama was born in Africa
Uh huh, what evidence is that?
Not a single comment I read implied that anyone's freedom of expression should be revoked.
Clearly you missed comment #35..."the Governor's unwillingness to remove a bigoted, hateful, anti-religious message from the Capital."...clearly this person want's a free expression of one groups display of their choice to display a non-religious message censored. How typical of the Hypocrisy Party.
That's why the left plays this game every December.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 03:14 PMEvidence to you may not be evidence to me, so what is the point? I can say that people have relatives on record as saying he was born in Kenya. Do I believe it? The claim is out there, so I believe the Supremes (like they are going to do) will at least look at to see if it deserves consideration by the whole court. Good enough for me.
Cato of the breed known as checking each vote and checking it twice, we are going to find out who is naughty and nice, the voting weasels are coming to town. At least the Obama citizenship is a subject that should be looked into.
And Cato, once you have removed said head from ___, the trashing of the WH was more than a couple of keys on a keyboard. At least Google it; I refuse to do the work for you.
Lastly, Lawrence was on the Dori radio today; you can catch it on podcast. Wouldn't hurt Cato.
Posted by: swatter on December 3, 2008 03:21 PMUh huh, why don't you show me where I said that Bill?
If you want to put a Christian display in the Capitol that's fine with me...just don't exclude the Atheist group or a Jewish group if they so desire to put their display up as well. All or nothing seems to be work quite well till the Right Wing starts throwing their annual hissy fit over nothing.
This has clearly reached urban legend status now, guess what, it's never going to happen.
You're lying. Many prominent Democrats have said they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Yes, it may not happen, but that Democrats want to do it is not an urban legend: it's fact. Schumer and Feinstein are two of the more well-known examples.
Meanwhile the GOP would love nothing more than to shut people up who disagree with them.
You're lying.
Look no farther than this thread from yesterday.
Just perusing the thread quickly I see no example. Even if I found one, though, you would not find ANY example of the Republican leaders, or a majority of their base, wanting to curtail free speech.
removing W's from keyboards is hardly "trashing" the White House. More of a bad joke that went sour.
Um, they did more than that (though the initial reports of the level of trashing were inflated).
It just hasn't been produced. It should be.
Ummm, why?
Because there are outstanding reasonable questions that have not been answered.
No other President has been asked to produce his birth certificate.
None other had such questions.
Uh huh, what evidence is that?
An eyewitness relative saying so.
Clearly you missed comment #35..."the Governor's unwillingness to remove a bigoted, hateful, anti-religious message from the Capital."
That has nothing to do with freedom of speech. No one is saying they do not have the right to say those things, only that the government has no obligation to display them, which is absolutely true. And they should be removed, because while I have no problem with an atheist display, I do have a problem with one that is overtly bigoted against others.
clearly this person want's a free expression of one groups display of their choice to display a non-religious message censored.
Clearly you do not understand the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
Surely it wouldn't be the same people who are still in mourning over the demise of the Soviet Union and take to the streets over virtually any leftist cause wearing their Che t-shirts.
Couldn't possibly be any of those people, could it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 03:42 PMActions speak louder than words...even if it got brought up in the House it's unlikely it would ever reach the White House, much less be signed by Pres. Bush or future Pres. Obama.
I can say that people have relatives on record as saying he was born in Kenya.
I can say that people have said that Bush ordered a missile fired into the side of the Pentagon, the claim is out there but that doesn't make it true or worthy of consideration by a court of law.
At least the Obama citizenship is a subject that should be looked into.
Why? The facts are quite clear that Obama is a US Citizen. No other President has been asked to produce their birth certificate.
At least Google it
I did, guess what, it's totally untrue.
Lastly, Lawrence was on the Dori radio today
And Goldie was on O'Riley last night, do I care...No.
I don't know any of "THOSE" people, so I really couldn't tell you. All I know is it's posted here and it was on O'Riley so obviously it has legs. Last year it was some BS about a Christmas Tree at an airport, either way no one really gives a damn and as long as it keeps in line with the all or nothing principle I as a citizen and resident am fine with it.
You on the other hand clearly have some issue with it and like Paddy @ #35 would enjoy seeing the Constitutionally given right Freedom of Expression marginalized by outlawing all non-secular displays not to mention the wearing of Che t-shirts. Thank you for proving my point.
What is wrong with the certificate Obama produced ??? simple... The border on these certificates changes each year and an expert has noted that the border on the certificate provided to Annenberg project is not the border that was used in the year on the certificate...
BTW... The state of Hawaii would not accept that document if one was making a claim to be Native Hawaiian...
But there is much more than that...
Did his Indonesian step-father adopt him ? if so, he would have become an Indonesian citizen and would have had to renounce same to reassume US citizenship after reaching age of majority (Indonesia doesnt permit dual status).
In order to go to a public school in Indonesia, you have to be an Indonesian citizen... unless he went to a madrassah, which is private... So where DID he go to school in Indonesia ??
Hopefully the Berg lawsuit will be heard by SCOTUS in time... I can deal with a President Biden if that is the end result..
cheers, Mike in the Original Vancouver
Posted by: Mike in America's Vancouver on December 3, 2008 04:16 PMWell you've certainly devoted a fair amount of band space to the subject, haven't you?
The reality is you hate to see Seattle wacko leftism paraded before the entire country. A country who does not entirely apprectiate the left's annual assault on Christmas.
It really once was a wonderful time of the year but you people can't leave anything alone. It's always agenda, agenda, agenda.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 04:18 PMObama has been, by court order, told to produce a birth certificate before December 7th (if memory serves). If he has one, I'm not sure why the dragging of feet in producing it. From what I've read, the "certificate of live birth" in the HI archives is simply that...the person could have been born on Mars and attained such a document if the parents requested one after relocating to the state at that time. Either this is a whole lot of nothing that could be cleared up rather quickly if we were dealing with adults, or a Constitutional crisis in the making.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2008 04:19 PMI fine with it. You and others keep replying and #35 certainly has an issue with it. You have a problem with my right to Freedom of Speech as well?
A country who does not entirely apprectiate the left's annual assault on Christmas.
You mean the imaginary war waged by right wing pundits and bloggers who overstate even the most minor indecent to claim that there is a war? No war, just equal rights for all as guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution.
It really once was a wonderful time of the year but you people can't leave anything alone.
Why can't you be tolerant of others beliefs and /or non-beliefs instead of insinuating that a single plaque in one Capitol Building is somehow threatening your right to celebrate the myth of Jesus' birth. You have every right to celebrate any way you choose in the privacy of your own home and at shopping malls around the nation. I see no reason why you have to have the Govt. involved in pushing one religion over another. All or nothing is the only fair solution.
Obama has been, by court order, told to produce a birth certificate before December 7th
Ummm why? No one doubted his citizenship for 47 years (including the US Govt.), now he's about to be President all the loons come out of the woodwork. Not that I have any doubt some left wing loon would challenge McCain's citizenship should he have won as he was born in Panama.
When that campaign gets exposed beyond the comfy confines of the territories your socialist armies hold such as Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland, you get more than a wee bit upset.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 05:02 PMActions speak louder than words...even if it got brought up in the House it's unlikely it would ever reach the White House, much less be signed by Pres. Bush or future Pres. Obama.
You're lying again. Not about this, you're right, of course, it is unlikely to happen. But you are lying in that you are using a different standard for the wishes of those on the left to curb free speech, than those on the right.
For the right you say some idle comments on a web page -- which don't even call for violating anyone's rights, not even close -- are evidence, but for the left, it's not evidence unless it has a chance of being signed by the President.
Why can't you be tolerant of others beliefs and /or non-beliefs instead of insinuating that a single plaque ...
Um. The plaque itself is a bigoted display of INtolerance.
All or nothing is the only fair solution.
Not really; however, this is not "fair." The Christians certainly would not be allowed to put up a plaque saying "gays are going to hell," right? So why is THIS mean-spirited display allowed?
BTW... The state of Hawaii would not accept that document if one was making a claim to be Native Hawaiian...
"Native Hawaiian" does not mean "someone born in Hawaii." To be Native Hawaiian you have to have Native Hawaiian ancestry. So that's uninteresting.
Did his Indonesian step-father adopt him ?
There's no evidence of that.
if so, he would have become an Indonesian citizen and would have had to renounce same
I do not believe your father can remove your right to American citizenship without your consent, which Barry couldn't give as a minor anyway. You have a Constitutional right to that citizenship, it cannot be taken from you except in very specific circumstances. Even if his father said Barry renounced his American citizenship, it would be a violation of Barry's rights as an American for America to recognize that renunciation.
In order to go to a public school in Indonesia, you have to be an Indonesian citizen... unless he went to a madrassah, which is private... So where DID he go to school in Indonesia ??
Most likely, his step-father lied and said he was an Indonesian.
They lie and get away with it so often it has become second nature.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 05:29 PMPersonally, I could care less. I don't speak for the "leftists"
It's not about tolerance of other beliefs, it's about the lefts' endless campaign against the traditions that most Americans hold dear
I see, even if those traditions go against what's written in the Constitution and the law of the land? We once had a tradition in this country of burning people alive who were accused of witchcraft...does that mean we should start doing that again? I mean it was a tradition that prior Americans once held dear. How about slavery? Many of the early Americans owned slaves, it was a tradition, should we reinstate that because they once held it dear?
When that campaign gets exposed beyond the comfy confines of the territories your socialist armies hold such as Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland, you get more than a wee bit upset.
Oh yeah, you got me pinned. I'm totally distraught about the moronic yapping of conservative pundits and useless yammering idiots like yourself who can't seem to wrap their head around the idea of Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Religion. I'm all shook up about it.
You're more than welcome to move some other country since you clearly hate America and the values laid forth by our founding fathers in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Where would you go though, I don't know if there are any Christian Theocracy's left in the world outside the Vatican, they all seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.
Those next few paragraphs sure show a lot of I could care lessing.
And what exchange of ideas with a leftist could be complete without a personal insult?
Waah!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 05:37 PMSaying your stated belief that there is no God is intolerant? Give me a break.
The Christians certainly would not be allowed to put up a plaque saying "gays are going to hell," right?
They stand on the corner at Westlake Center all day and do it, they show up at soldiers funerals and hold placards saying that. No one seems to have a problem, I personally just ignore them.
It's a little late to go changing your nativity scene now. Maybe you can petition to have baby Jesus holding a sign saying that next year. Rev. Phelps nativity scene, now with extra bigotry. =)
Actually your twisting my words, but I'd expect nothing less coming from you.
And what exchange of ideas with a leftist could be complete without a personal insult?
I'm happy to exchange ideas with you when you stop lumping me in with broad stereotypes and/or groups of people who I have no association with.
Oh course that's never going to happen, so I'm just going have to continue on mirroring your childish behavior since arguing with you rationally seems to have no effect on the tone of your replies.
You're confusing the two things, Cato. The question is whether he is a 'natural born citizen'.The founding father's felt it was necessary to put it in the Constitution of the United States as a requirement to become President, don't you think we may want to uphold the document that this country was founded upon? If you don't like it, there is always the amendment process.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1No 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.
So far, Mr. Obama hasn't satisfied the question of whether he was a Natural born citizen as outlined in the Constitution. The McCain question on the other hand is not even close as he satisfies three of them while only needing to satisfy one (McCain is a natural born citizen because the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, he was born on a U.S. military base, and both of his parents were U.S. citizens.)
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2008 05:56 PMHave a fun evening arguing with yourself. =)
I think that Deborah is a wonderful American, who LOVES the constitution
Then why does she pretend the First Amendment says something it doesn't say?
and that is why she created such a wonderful piece of true civic art.
If you think taking a dump in the middle of a room at a party is "wonderful," then your opinion is not very valuable.
As Jackie Gleason used to say after taking a sip from that tea cup that surely held something a bit stronger, "how sweet it is!".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 06:23 PMSaying your stated belief that there is no God is intolerant?
Their comments were a direct attack on other faiths. So yes, it was intolerant. If it had said something like, "Let all people come together at solstice to enjoy the natural world without respect toward beliefs in the supernatural," that would be one thing. Instead, it was a full frontal attack of other faiths.
(And I use the word "faith" intentionally here: these people have their own "non-rational" belief system, because reason and logic do not back up their claims.)
It's a little late to go changing your nativity scene now.
I have no nativity scene, and you are intentionally avoiding answering the question, because you know that your answer would further reveal your hypocrisy.
Posted by: pudge on December 3, 2008 06:25 PMWhatsamatter sweetie, NEA not paying you enough for your junk?
We'll certainly remember your name when art show season heats up. I certainly hope you aren't planning to apply for the Gasparilla Festival of The Arts... a family member sits on the board.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 3, 2008 06:32 PMThey live to create some sort of fantasy socialist utopia where the government serves as a womb to the tomb mommy to everyone.
I always wonder what the leftists trolls here actually do for a living. My guess? Either they are academics, work for the government, or they are lawyers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 06:42 PMDefinately the type of person who would vote for Baghdad Jim McDimwit for any office for the rest of her miserable life if given the chance.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2008 06:50 PMThey are UNION slaves... probably working for state, city or county slave masters.
to quote ME
The real message of today's unions (which is distinctly different from some of the good they did before labor laws) is that a worker is just too stupid to think for himself, too simple to negotiate the best work/benefits package and incapable/unqualified and/or lazy to perform or KEEP their particular job WITHOUT paying for the help of thugs.Unions are the SLAVE MASTERS of the modern world.
And the liberal democrats are their slave traders.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 3, 2008 06:55 PMMs. Lawrence is 55. The same age I am. I grew up with these people. We were all caught up in the leftist ideology of the Vietnam War days. Most of them ended up like this sad, anger filled lady. I saw it coming at the time.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 07:03 PMI think leftists tend to become increasingly bitter and angry as they grow older. Back in 1969 they had this idiotic socialist utopian dream where we'd all be vegetarians and shop at the local co-op and on and on. It all seemed pretty cool when we were 20. But somehow so many of these people still believe the same immature nonsense in their mid-fifties. I'm the only one of my old friends who quit drinking the kool-aid long ago.
It's kind of sad, really. But you can't talk to these people. The last thing they'd ever admit is that they have been wrong all of their lives.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 07:28 PMAs I understand it you could be born on the moon and if one of your parents is a US citizen you are a US citizen.
My suggestion to those on the far right who evidently harbor some idea that Obama can be denied the Presidency because of where he was born is to give it up. You look like idiots.
Leave that territory to the left.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 07:40 PMCato, no one is suggesting that "Judge" Sanders be prevented of making himself look like an idiot. No one is suggesting Ms. Lawrence be prevented from making herself look like a laughingstock. Conversely everyone has the right to express their opinion about how moronic they are. If they keep talking we'll keep laughing.
Posted by: Dave on December 3, 2008 08:02 PMYou are fixated on this, pudge. She is referring to the spirit of the first amendment, not claiming the constitution gives her the right to have her ornament on the tree. Why do you hate reading things in context?
... and draws an analogy to "taking a dump in the middle of a room at a party"
Great analogy! Except an ornament with proposed legislation in fine print is considerably less repulsive than a poop, and the public owns the White House as opposed to most private party venues.
Obama won the election. If you persist in attempting to disqualify him the best outcome is President Biden, or even worse, President Pelosi.
For crying out loud give it a rest.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2008 08:23 PMOf course they would. And I strongly suspect they are. These people don't play fair. The more they can make the right look like kooky extremists the better.
She is referring to the spirit of the first amendment
Except that putting her ornament on the tree is completely unrelated to the letter OR spirit of the First Amendment.
So you're not helping her case.
an ornament with proposed legislation in fine print is considerably less repulsive than a poop
No, indeed, he ornament was far MORE repulsive. It was an obvious (and admitted) attempt to take away from Christmas, to ruin it, for everyone she hates (which is a great many people).
and the public owns the White House as opposed to most private party venues.
Why do you think this has any relevance whatsoever? You appear to also believe that the First Amendment has some relevance here. It doesn't. Why do you hate the Constitution?
Posted by: pudge on December 3, 2008 09:16 PMAs I understand it you could be born on the moon and if one of your parents is a US citizen you are a US citizen.
Your understanding is incorrect. If only one of your parents is a citizen, then there are certain other requirements for you to be a natural-born citizen, having to do with length of time living in the U.S. Specifically: "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."
That is, his mother had to have lived in the U.S. for five years total, at least two of which after turning 14. That would work for Obama's mother.
However, that was not the law when Obama was born: it was 10 years, at least FIVE of which had to be after turning 16. That would NOT work for Obama's mother.
So if Obama was not born on U.S. soil, having only one parent a U.S. citizen, who had not lived five years in the U.S. after turning 16 ... he would not be a natural-born U.S. citizen, according to the clear text of the law.
My suggestion to those on the far right who evidently harbor some idea that Obama can be denied the Presidency because of where he was born is to give it up. You look like idiots.
Since I just proved you wrong, well ... you might wanna revise and extend your remarks. :-) Indeed, if it were shown that Obama were not born in the U.S., I see no way around it, according to what the law says: he is perpetually ineligible to be President, barring an amendment to the Constitution. Well, perhaps a law could be written that retroactively makes him a natural born citizen, but that would be terribly corrupt.
Posted by: pudge on December 3, 2008 09:18 PMI don't consider adhering to the Constitution as being a "rabid right winger" nor a "kooky extremist" position to hold either...
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2008 09:43 PMAnd the liberals want to claim they are the adults in charge?
It's almost worth the entertainment value of this upcoming three stooges presidency... if it wasn't just so darned scary.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 3, 2008 11:22 PMHowever I continue to believe that this fight does the conservative cause more harm than good. Remember, in politics perception is everything.
A big legal fight over Obama's citizenship makes us look petty, and gives the left and its media another opportunity to play the race card. It also gains us nothing.
I believe we need to be careful about the battles we choose. There is plenty of territory to be gained if we return to conservative principles.
That's my opinion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 08:14 AM
Also, the main lawsuit against Obama is from a Democrat, Philip Berg.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 08:34 AMThe lawsuit is going nowhere, as we evidently will see tomorrow.
For the good of conservatives everywhere I think this should be given a rest. It makes our side look like we are a bunch of wacked out 911 truthers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 08:41 AMIf this gains public traction it won't be seen as something initiated by Democrats. That won't get any mention. It will be portrayed by the media as an attempt by Republicans to "disenfranchise" the will of the people.
It's dangerous territory. And we will look doubly ridiculous when it's shown that Obama indeed was born in Hawaii.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 08:57 AMI won't refrain from it just because of how it might be perceived.
Also, yes, the press will make this out to be Republican. Hell, when Charlie Rangel tries to give us a military draft, most people end up thinking it's Republicans doing it.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 09:05 AMI am worried about how Americans will perceive the Republican Party and conservatism in general.
It's not fun to think about but we have to constantly realize that the Democrats own the balls, the bats, the playing field, and make up the rules.
They control the media, the schools, Hollywood, and television.
As a result the average voter thinks Republicans are greedy, rich homophobes who hate poor people and blacks, want to cut down every tree in the country, and destroy the environment.
We aren't going to make a bit of headway by getting all exited about a loopy attempt to invalidate Obama's election on the basis of some silly claim that he isn't a citizen.
That's all I'm wearily trying to say here. I'd much rather be talking about the original topic.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 09:30 AMHe also previously filed a lawsuit against President Bush claiming he was responsible for 9/11. He's a loon.
If this gains public traction it won't be seen as something initiated by Democrats.
It's apparently going to a full Supreme Court review session on Friday where it will more than likely be rejected.
It's dangerous territory. And we will look doubly ridiculous when it's shown that Obama indeed was born in Hawaii.
By all means, keep it up...it's not the Hillary supporters pushing it, it's GOP housewives sitting in NC, it even has local misguided folks like Ragnut and Rick D.
He's a loon.
Yes.
It's apparently going to a full Supreme Court review session on Friday where it will more than likely be rejected.
It's not certain, but it is likely.
By all means, keep it up...it's not the Hillary supporters pushing it
Um. Again, Berg is a Hillary supporter.
Bill @ 80 - "Ms. Lawrence is 55. The same age I am. I grew up with these people. We were all caught up in the leftist ideology of the Vietnam War days. Most of them ended up like this sad, anger filled lady. I saw it coming at the time."
On behalf of 55 year old conservative women of Western WA - I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!!! We try SO hard not to be included in that stereotype. But around this area, most men assume if you're a woman of "a certain age" and single (in my case, widowed), you must be a loser 60's feminazi. Please don't give up on the rest of us!!!!
Posted by: Winsome Wanda on December 4, 2008 11:08 AMMy advice: Don't look for boyfriends anywhere south of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and don't even consider those guys with the gray ponytails unless they live in the country and drive a pick-up.
Seriously, Bush has shown some love of free speech from the get go even though though his staff and inner circle have done everything in their power to protect him from it. Absolutely amazing that the orneryment was sent back or noted at all - wouldn't a sane person have "accidentally dropped" or "lost" it?
But liberal media? Hardly.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1703
"If you think liberals don't want to take away Christmas, you aren't paying attention!"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 12:36 PMI fully expect him to take the oath of office January 20th 2009, where the 2nd term of James Earl Carter shall commence.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 12:39 PMHawaiian Patriots Contact Hospitals: Obama & Mom Never There?
True or false something stinks... and it's not Harry Reids inconvenient fellow citizens.
Baby beary should just reveal the darn thing and stop the nonsense... if he can. Of course, his nutburger pals do him no favors.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 4, 2008 12:42 PMI do believe Obama also released his birth certificate some time ago.
Please, please stop it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 12:59 PMSeriously, Bush has shown some love of free speech from the get go
True.
even though though his staff and inner circle have done everything in their power to protect him from it.
False.
Absolutely amazing that the orneryment was sent back or noted at all
False.
wouldn't a sane person have "accidentally dropped" or "lost" it?
No.
Bill:
I do believe Obama also released his birth certificate some time ago.
Last I checked, no, he didn't. He released a scanned copy.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 01:05 PM
Say Obama really was born in Kenya and technically he is not constitutionally eligible to become President. What positive outcome do you foresee for Republicans and conservatives in general should that be the case?
And please don't respond that it shows that we honor the Constitution. That's clearly a straw man.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 01:15 PMRagnut likely still believes that crazy Clinton death list that claimed the Clinton's killed something like 50 people over the course of their political history.
Pudge, allow me to approach this Obama birth certificate thing from another perspective since you seem unwilling to let it go.
I am just responding to you, here. Don't project your unwillingness to let it go onto me.
Say Obama really was born in Kenya and technically he is not constitutionally eligible to become President. What positive outcome do you foresee for Republicans and conservatives in general should that be the case?
I put my nation and its laws before my party, so I frankly couldn't care less about what outcomes will exist in this regard. And I don't think you know what "straw man" means.
Cato: you actually think a digitial picture of someone holding something is proof, when it's already clear that the scan itself isn't proof? Come on, you're not that stupid.
Clearly you didn't click on the links. Thanks for playing.
..and since when is adhering to guidelines set forth in the Constitution constitute a "straw man" argument? Very bizzare stuff
The silver lining is, at least Cato and Bill can find common ground on one issue.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 04:26 PM
Cato: Clearly you didn't click on the links.
Um. I did. And it wouldn't matter if I didn't, because clearly you do not understand the principle involved: a picture of someone holding it is no more reliable than the scan itself. Your claim makes no sense.
Therein lies the rub. Apparently it has been altered and that is the reason this case is still being adjudicated in a court of law.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 04:43 PMI think your comments and posts here are often right on the money. I also feel that you have a tendency to take disagreements very personally.
We all say things in the heat of battle we might wish later to not have said. I'm just offering a friendly word of caution here.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 05:06 PMPudge, you know exactly what I was talking about.
I absolutely do not. I said nothing that was any more personal than your comment that I was replying to.
We all say things in the heat of battle we might wish later to not have said.
I took offense at nothing you said, and do not regret anything I said in response to you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 06:07 PM
Still having reading comprehension difficulty, I see.
"True or false something stinks... and it's not Harry Reids inconvenient fellow citizens.
Baby beary should just reveal the darn thing and stop the nonsense... if he can."
Until the courts declare the issue dead, it will continue because Obama hasn't been forthcoming in making it go away. What's to hide?
Bingo!
The toddler president allowed this to go forward by not addressing it. Surely someone as internet savvy as he claims to be would know that if not thoroughly debunked, it would take on a life of its own... whether or not it is a legitimate issue does not matter once it started spreading. He could have halted it months ago, which begs the logical question of why didn't he.
I agree that this battle is not one that would create a good outcome for the country. Biden? Are you kidding me??
And for me, it's not the birth certificate, it's the cover up over what should be a simple request for/from ANY citizen. Hells bells, I have at least THREE certified copies for all 5 members of our immediate family in the safe!
I like beer.... super frosty cold.
They are doing exactly what the liberal media does when this sort of story has the potential to damage Democrats. They are ignoring it.
Interestingly Ragnar I've learned just this past weekend that there is a difference between what the hospital of birth records and an actual certified birth certificate. All this because of a very ill brother in-law who happened to have been born in Hawaii...back when it was still a US Territory.
We'll see what happens today. I honestly hope this goes nowhere.
I think the conservative side gains much more when we publicly point out leftist idiocy such as illustrated in the original topic of this thread. Most of the country is on our side when we fight the "war on Christmas".
If we ever get together, and I hope we do, the cold beer is on me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 08:36 AMThen there are people like me, who really never thought he wasn't eligible but thinks that something smells fishy when Obama simply refuses to provide the documents that would make this whole issue go away...
BINGO!
Fact: People are suing for the documents. Fact: The court's are having to decide on the merits of each case filed. Fact: Some people, Americans, have questions they want answered. Fact: Major newspapers are reporting on the court's decisions. Fact: Barack Obama has not offered the simple documents that would put this issue to rest once and for all.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:29 AMDo any of the facts above mean Obama is not eligible to be the president? NO
What the facts above do show is that this issue, whether you agree, have questions, do not agree or think it is silly, is news and is something that could have and should have been dealt with way before now by Barack Obama by simply producing the vault copy of his birth certificate
The man was born in Hawaii. He was elected President.
I'm not happy about his election. I am not happy about how the media, and our institutions that have been taken over by the left brainwashed people into voting for him.
I'm also not happy about people on our side acting like 911 truther goofballs or the leftist kooks that used to say Bush was "selected, not elected".
My advice is to stop this before the mainstream media uses it to brainwash yet another generation against conservatism. Please.
If there are valid questions, there are valid questions.
I couldn't care less about the appearance or politics of it.
BUT it is eerily reminiscent of Kerry and those military records he kept promising and has yet to deliver.
It simply just begs the question: why not deliver and end it all?
I absolutely think people have the right to ask. And he has the right to ignore the question.
But it doesn't change the consequence of his ignoring it: the questions will persist and more question will be asked.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 12:08 PMI couldn't care less about the appearance or politics of it."
Aye lad, and methinks ye might be a bit wet behind the ears.
There's an old saying my friend...you can be right, and then you can be dead right.
Perhaps the best coach the Seahawks ever had was a crusty fellow named Chuck Knox. He said it over and over, "play the hand your dealt".
Aye lad, and methinks ye might be a bit wet behind the ears.
Just the opposite.
I tease pudge for a reason.
Those readers of a certain age probably get it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 02:43 PMI know you were kidding. But I also know you were attempting to imply that I was being naive in what I said, perhaps counterproductive to my goals. And I am saying, no, quite the opposite.
Posted by: pudge on December 5, 2008 02:54 PMThe Americans who would demand inauguration of President Obama, whether he is a citizen or not, would not hesitate to subject the United States to a power that is not limited by the consent of the governed. If the "natural born" provision in the Constitution is irrelevant, then so is the provision that limits the power of the government.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 11:22 AM
I surely don't get why anyone would believe that a President Biden, or heaven forbid a President Pelosi wouldn't do all of those things as well.
If Obama really turns out to have been born in Kenya and becomes disqualified that may well be correct in terms of the Constitution.
It's an old saying, but a wise one: "be careful what you wish for".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 11:51 AMI'd prefer the Constitution retain its integrity and deal with the consequences. We're adults, we can deal with consequences. Our country won't be with a constitution that stands for nothing or worse stands for whatever is expedient.
What I am saying is that I believe there is nothing to this. I think it's highly likely the man was born in Hawaii as was reported back in 1961.
I think we run the risk of looking ridiculous when there is no concrete evidence to the contrary.
That's why I said earlier that the Constitutional issue was a straw man. The real issue is we don't want Obama to be President because we don't agree with his politics. I get that. I don't want him to be President either. He's going to be and we need to accept it. Or we can choose to act just like whiney Democrats do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 02:11 PMAnd again, you are misusing "straw man."
A "straw man" is when someone attacks an argument you didn't make, and uses that to try to win the debate.
So if you said you were against gay marriage, and someone said, "that's stupid, society won't fall apart if we have gay marriage," that's a straw man, because you never said society would fall apart.
You are the one using a straw man argument here -- at least, in regards to me -- because you say, "the real issue is we don't want Obama to be President because we don't agree with his politics," but that is not MY issue at all: my issue is truth and facts and law. I would have the exact same view of this if it were about McCain, or if I favored Obama. (Note, for example, above where I actually corrected misperceptions about Obama @ 61.)
As I believe I've said more than once even as recently as my last post on this subject, if Obama was indeed born out of the country and is not eligible to be President then there is a Constitutional issue. Until then, perhaps the "straw man" analogy is not appropriate entirely but I do believe you get my drift.
I honestly don't know why you're all steamed up about this.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 04:38 PMPudge are you really certain your only issue here is as you put it, "truth and facts and law."?
Yes.
I honestly don't know why you're all steamed up about this.
I honestly don't know why you think I am.
You're right pudge and I am wrong.
Let's give it a rest.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 05:05 PMYou're allowed to make your point, but if I disagree and dare to express my disagreement, then I am being a bad guy and you get to play the martyr.
Now I know for next time.
It's just a political blog. And I think we even might be on the same side.
Goodness.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 05:35 PMIt is what it is. As adults, no matter what happens we will handle it as adults.
Play nice.
Love, Mom
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 05:36 PMI am not the one getting bent out of shape here. I'm just fine. But there's a pattern: you comment, I respond to what you say, and you get upset about me responding. And looking back, you won't find me being rude or nasty or emotional in any way.
The only thing I have done is state my opinion, dispassionately, about what you are posting. And for this, you respond saying silly things like "You're right pudge and I am wrong" and "Give it a rest."
Obviously you are a bit emotional here. Maybe you should stop commenting if you can't handle people replying to you.
Actually Bill, that is exactly what you were saying. I understand your argument about what can of worms we're opening if he were to be disqualified, but isn't it alot more egregious to have a commander in chief who willfully disregarded the Constitution just so he could pursue his own personal ambitions? Not to mention that Obama was a Constitutional law professor at Harvard and would have known full well he was ineligible the entire time.
As I said earlier, the courts will likely rule on his side regardless and bury this under the rug to avoid the social upheaval that would result in this action, but it is nontheless a serious offense he would have committed. When the courts decide, either way the matter will be settled.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 7, 2008 09:35 AMIt just seems to me that there is a conspiratorial eagerness to bring Obama down over this issue.
Again I don't know how many ways I can say it, I certainly do not believe we should in any way ignore the Constitution, even if the ulitimate outcome might be President Biden, an horrid vision which would keep me up at night.
I think the chance he isn't a citizen is rather remote. This issue hasn't gained much traction in conservative circles, which ought to be some indication of its lack of merit on factual grounds.
By the way, this is the first thread I've ever commented on where another member of our SP community has suggested that I not venture my opinion here.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 10:17 AMI think the chance he isn't a citizen is rather remote.
Yes. So what? If people want to investigate this on the remote possibility that the Constitution is being terribly violated, more power to them.
this is the first thread I've ever commented on where another member of our SP community has suggested that I not venture my opinion here.
I did not suggest you not venture your opinion. I suggested you consider not doing it IF you cannot handle rather benign results -- e.g., that people might end up disagreeing with you! -- without getting upset and defensive.
You falsely accused me of being "steamed up," but you're the one who is being quite personal about it all.
The COLB has been examined by forensic people that do this stuff everyday in criminal labs and have determined it to have been altered and thus invalidated (see it in print in the photo provided above by Cato). We aren't making this stuff up just so we don't have to have an Obama presidency, I simply want the Constitution to be upheld. Otherwise, the end result is we can use it when it suits us and ignore it when it doesn't, which is not a very pragmatic approach to Governing in my opinion.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 7, 2008 10:36 AMYou all keep going back to that but for a Constitutional issue to exist there has to be some "there there". From what I've read about this that is not the case.
I have no intention of "attempting to shut down the concept that Obama is not a natural born citizen". It's not a "concept". He either is, or he isn't. If he isn't he can't be President. What I am saying is that in my opinion it is a very weak case that has the potential to reflect conservates in a bad light.
If there was no "there there", Bill, it would not still be being adjudicated in a court of law. The fact that is is signifies there is certainly some there there.
It really doesn't matter what our opinons are as they won't factor into the final decision. History will be the final judge.
Supreme Court to Uphold or Ignore the Constitution?
That Bleeping Birth Certificate
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 7, 2008 10:46 PM
