51% of Republican Primary Voters are Birthers

This country is in SO much freak'n trouble if ignorance like this is widespread.


15, 2011 AT 07:45 PM EST
51% of Republican primary voters are birthers
byBarbara Morrill
What a shock. More than half of Republican primary voters think ... using the term loosely ... that President Obama isn't a natural born American citizen:

In the poll, 51% of all likely Republican primary voters erroneously believed that President Obama was born outside of the U.S.
"Erroneously believe"? Baloney. Ignoring the reality of Obama's certificate of live birth is nothing more than a way to pretend they're not racists, which simply makes them look stupid and racist.

And not surprisingly, among Sarah Palin fans, that number is is even higher:

For example, among the two-thirds of likely Republican primary voters with a favorable opinion of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, 83% said Obama was not born in the U.S.

So a "birther" is someone who believes Obama is not an American? Well, one may not be able to argue his citizenship, but one can question whether or not his "values" are "American". lol.

From a blog on this subject.

shryock 15 minutes ago (9:34 PM)
213 Fans
honestly, that headline is the scariest thing i have read in a long long time.
(and i read vampire stories and apocalypti c literature !)
we strayed so very far from reality, i am not sure we can even still see reality from where we are.
what happened to the idea of an "educated" electorate ?

And one more blogger


Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took...

But I do know one and one is three
And if this world would just listen to me,
What a wonderful world it would be....

President Obama Praised for Sticking to American Values on Counter-Terrorism
Security experts want US to better anticipate terrorist attacks
Ravi Khanna | Washington January 19, 2010


As President Obama completes his first year in office, security experts give him high marks for sticking to American values and trying to win the hearts of Muslims while taking steps to avert terrorist attacks. But they also say the U.S. must not wait to fix a weakness until after it is exposed by an attack.

"While passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands, we are at war," President Obama said.

And that war is against the kind of terrorism that authorities say a Nigerian man attempted when he allegedly tried to bomb a US airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day [December 25]. President Obama promised to use "every element of national power" to keep Americans safe.

Some security experts say that President Obama avoids comparing the war on terrorism to conventional war between nations, but he has taken several steps to contain the threat.

Clark Irwin is with the Aspen Institute:
"People don't realize that President Obama has really intensified the effort to go after al-Qaida central in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The drone strikes have really intensified under his tenure. He famously, after much deliberation, is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan," Irwin said.

President Obama is doing something that his predecessor did not do, says Irwin.

"The struggle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim community here in the U.S. and around the world," Irwin said.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accuses Mr. Obama of pretending not to be at war with terrorist organizations. But Jacob Shapiro at Princeton University says the use of the word "war" actually helps the terror groups.

"It plays into the narrative that they are trying to construct for the population they are appealing to of this ragged band of brave individuals fighting the mighty power that is oppressing their society. And it also helps their efforts to create fear and anxiety in our population," Shapiro said.

Paul Pillar at Georgetown University says if it is not war, then the Obama administration needs to spell out the exact nature of the struggle. The former CIA veteran says there should be an open debate about what price Americans are willing to pay for security against terrorism.

"It might be privacy, it might be personal liberty, it might be the convenience of the traveling public. It might be monetary cost, it might be cost in blood and treasure for military operations overseas, as in Afghanistan," Pillar said.

Michael German of the American Civil Liberities Union says the American public does not fully understand what is at stake in the war against terrorism.

"I think that is something that this administration needs to address immediately, and it is already a year behind," German said.

But he says the Obama administration should get credit for not giving up on American values while fighting against terrorists.

"Our policies and procedures do express American values - tolerance, transparency, respect for rule of law and due process. Those things will ultimately keep us stronger and protect us better than any sort of effort to stomp out who we perceive as the bad guys," German said.

First things first, what's a birther? Secondly, did you see that the house scrapped a $450 MM defense program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birther


I believe the final vote for killing the F-35 2nd engine program was something like 220's to 190's.

Now adding: It was 223 to 198 with 110 Republicans and 123 Democrats voting against the program.
Thats what i call bipartisanship.

First Posted: 02/16/11 03:48 PM Updated: 02/16/11 05:44

WASHINGTON -- More than half of the House Republicans voted on Wednesday to earmark $450 million in funds for a duplicative fighter-jet engines that the Department of Defense has repeatedly said it does not need. But a bipartisan coalition, including just over half of GOP freshmen, voted against the F-35 engines, approving an amendment to strip an expenditure long bemoaned as pure pork, but defended by members of Congress from the states who would benefit from the project.

Support for or opposition to the project had more to do with region than party. Members from Ohio and Indiana, where General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce would build the fighter engines, unanimously backed the extra engine. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio is an outspoken supporter of the jet engine, but didn't cast a vote, observing the speaker's tradition of abstaining. The opposition from inside his party to a pet-project of Boehner's is a rebuke to the speaker.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), who introduced the amendment, told The Huffington Post that he was heartened that members took the chance to live up to their campaign promises.

"What it comes down to is what was the November election about?" he said after the vote. "What were you sent here to do? And that was to cut spending. I have $450 million we can cut today. The speculation that over the next 50 years, two engines might drive down costs, is just that -- it's speculative."

Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, praised the vote, saying it was important "to demonstrate that nothing should be off limits when it comes to cutting wasteful spending."

The Pentagon largely escaped the deep spending cuts proposed in the House GOP's continuing resolution, which set out to trim more than $60 billion from current spending levels. But Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Congress to add an amendment to the budget bill to cut funding for the program, calling it unnecessary and wasteful.


After the vote, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell tweeted that Gates was "gratified that the House has recognized merits of DoD's position in opposing the extra engine."

Lobbyists from both sides tried to win over freshmen Republicans, many of whom were torn between dueling priorities: fiscal responsibility and support for military funding. Rolls-Royce and General Electric representatives descended on Capitol Hill in the days before the vote to lobby against the amendment, which they said would allow for a monopoly on fighter engines by Pratt & Whitney, the current manufacturer.

You'd think I'd have heard of this on Fox Business News???

?????? Are you saying there has been no mention of Obama's birth certificate issue on Fox
or are you talking about the military weapons issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

You'd think I'd have heard of this on Fox Business News???

---

Please explain. ??????