A recent post right here on Political Pistachio, Definition Natural Born Citizens, drew a lot of interesting feedback. Within a few hours I had a whole handful of comments, every one of them filled with name calling and profanity. I received Emails too from people angry I was willing to write about such a topic, again.
Interestingly, not a single comment or Email addressed what I actually wrote in the post.
The title of the blog post was enough to anger the hateful liberal tools. But, based on the fact that none of the attacks addressed what I wrote, it told me they were reacting to the subject matter, not about what I actually had to say on the topic. (I will admit, however, that on Facebook one of the commenters doubting my position did address what I had to say directly - therefore, telling me that she, at least, read the entirety of the article).
How objective can one be when at the mere mention of a topic the blood veins in the neck begin to burst, but none of the evidence presented is even considered.
Sounds like Congress voting on the nationalization of the private sector - nobody is reading the bills, they are just voting for them because Obama said to.
Tools.
My favorite commenter, who I normally ignore (I say favorite because of how insane and obsessive he is) because his comments are usualy filled with vile hatefulness, left a comment that is a pretty good example of what all of the outcry against me was like:
"Just a couple days ago, the officials in Hawaii responsible for keep track of such things have stated that the birth certificate is correct, and have affirmed over and over and over again that Obama was born in Hawaii. You people are just f***ing jokes..You do know that.. don't you? We're pointing and laughing at you most of the time.. but every so often, you get irritating as f**k as well. This who stupid-as-f**k "birther" thing is just irritatin now. You're not "touching a nerve". You're just stupid as f**k, pushing the same debunked stupid crap over and over and over."
And this is a person that also likes to criticize my writing skills. His writing is barely intelligible.
Notice, not a word was presented in his inane comment about what I specifically wrote. His offering was just a reactionary, recycled, eye-bleeding, maniacal, angry attack filled with talking points fed to him by all of the other crazy liberals.
The mere mention of the words "Obama" and "birth certificate" in the same sentence makes these people's heads explode. Notice, too, they are now calling folks who question Obama's eligibility "birthers" in an attempt to denigrate the issue (same tactic they use on just about everything else, too - jeez, they never change).
Non-birthers that launch into profanity-laced rants of hate and discontent anytime someone dares to speak out against their precious Obama, I have a message for you: "They have trained you well. You are like a show dog rolling over on command."
How does it feel to no longer be an independent thinker?
I am still wondering what happened to those Hippie Liberals that used to proclaim that they would defend my right to free speech no matter what, despite their disagreement with me. I guess their willingness to defend the freedom of political speech only applies when they say it does.
Now, if conservatives dare to voice a few words of dissent against the Obamessiah, we are attacked in ways that are so vile and hateful that I feel more sorry for these people, than feeling any anger.
The point of view I took in that article that these liberals failed to catch (and I am assuming by this point in this particular post none of them are still reading) was that it may be very well that whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii does not matter. Don't get me wrong. I think there is something being covered up based on Barack's shady response to this issue, but what if the definition of a Natural Born Citizen is such that by having a non-citizen father, it doesn't matter where Obama was born because in order to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be American Citizens?
Hmmmm, something to think about.
Having a parent from another country opens up the opportunity for dual loyalties, and the founding fathers desired that the president's loyalties be 100% to the United States of America.
So, what has all this to do with WMDs?
If you will remember, the Democrats claimed that Bush's whole excuse for going into Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. When no actual WMDs were produced, the Democrats and liberals claimed that the absence of WMDs was proof the WMDs never existed. Verbal testimony by General Sada, who was formerly of the Hussein Regime, that the WMDs were moved to Syria in 2002 was rejected by the Left. Verbal verification was not good enough. Then, when evidence was found, primarily mustard gas, the liberals argued that the chemical weapons were not the real thing. They wanted proof of major weapons of mass destruction, not a history of using such weapons, or evidence of mustard gas.
Regarding Obama's birth certificate, note that no actual birth certificate has been produced, but regardless, the Democrats and liberals claim that Obama's word is proof enough of his eligibility. Verbal testimony by Obama's paternal grandmother that she was in the delivery room in Kenya when Barack Obama was born is not good enough, but the testimony of a Hawaii state worker is enough for them to declare that without a doubt Obama was born in Hawaii. When a birth certificate is produced, it was not produced by Obama, but by a liberal website, and it is a computerized short-form that does not include pertinent information such as the name of the hospital, or the name of the attending physician. However, they were willing to accept this questionable birth certificate as undeniable proof of eligibility, regardless of a history, Obama's actions to fight the issue, or mounting evidence pointing to the contrary.
In short, when it comes to WMDs, they need to see the real thing. When it comes to Obama's birth certificate, they don't.
Verbal testimony by a high ranking official in Saddam Hussein's government was not good enough for them regarding the WMDs, nor is the testimony of Obama's paternal grandmother regarding the location of Obama's birth. However, a state worker's testimony that she has "seen" the real birth certificate (while still not producing the real thing) is good enough for the liberals.
Proof of mustard gas weapons of mass destruction was unacceptable to the liberals, but a computerized, incomplete birth certificate provided by a biased liberal web site is absolutely acceptable as the real deal.
The history of Hussein's past use of WMDs was not enough to convince the Democrats that the presence of WMDs in Iraq may have been possible. A lack of history of Obama's past, and the sealing of all of his records, is not enough to convince Democrats that it is possible he is not eligible.
Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
No comments:
Post a Comment