[...] Not Hiring Makes you wonder if all these small business owners Obama claims to speak to are real Polling Conservative Bloggers On Gay Marriage, Impeachment, Birtherism, Secession, And Health Care I got my two cents [...]

[...] John Hawkins recently polled right-of-center/conservative bloggers asking questions copied from a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll. Here’s why. The poll results were treated as suspect mainly because some controversial questions were asked the results featured what many conservatives perceived as an unusually high percentage of flaky answers. [...]

This poll is good for showing me why i can not identify with the GOP on any level anymore.

70% or more of who was polled think:
obama is not a racist, acorn did not steal the election, gays in the military, no impeachment?

If it wasn’t for the question about whether or not obama was a socialist i would have thought these results came from KOS or DU.
Hell for that matter they could with the realization that they want a socialist and think being one is a positive thing.

It is small wonder why the GOP “conservatives” get their asses handed to them. They are too interested in looking reasonable and playing nice with people that aren’t afraid of fighting dirty.
Oh wait… wasn’t that what John Hawkins was claiming not long ago was needed?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-right-needs-to-play-as-dirty-as-the-left/

And you sit there wondering why the GOP or whatever title the conservatives walk under seem leaderless…
You cant handle a fight, you all talk big and run fast from a real fight. Even John “Kung fu” Hawkins cant handle the idea of calling obama to task over the idea that his birth records are not in order, much less the acts of treason he has committed and oaths he has broken since becoming POTUS.

[...] Hawkins at Right Wing News conducted a poll of Conservative bloggers (including yours truly) that mirrored the questions of a [...]

[...] John Hawkins recently polled right-of-center/conservative bloggers asking questions copied from a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll. Here’s why. The poll results were treated as suspect mainly because some controversial questions were asked the results featured what many conservatives perceived as an unusually high percentage of flaky answers. [...]

[...] John Hawkins over at Right Wing News once again took the temperature of the right end of the blogosphere, this time in response to a rather kooky Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of “self-identified ‘Republicans’”. I honestly don’t remember whether it was Shoebox or I that provided the answers for the blog (it’s been that kind of week), but I’ll fire in my two-cents’ worth (my answers are bolded, and the “not sures” from the Kos poll, which are not tabulated in the RWN straw poll, are not copied here): Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English? (RWN – 24% favor/76% oppose, Kos – 26% favor/59% oppose) [...]

[...] from the Kos poll, to see if conservative bloggers were nearly as nutty as the Left thinks. The results speak for themselves. Categories: Uncategorized Tags: DailyKos, nutroots, Right Wing News Comments (0) [...]

Surprising result on the military considering the other responses, but I happen to agree. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a Clinton-era policy based on a lie (go figure), and our military deserves more respect than being forced to conceal not just their sexuality, but their relationships and communications from loved ones.

I’ve never been in the military, but I find it difficult to believe that serving with an openly gay person would be worse for morale than serving with somebody constantly living in fear of being found out and having to conceal their affection for their partner back home. How can it build teamwork and unit cohesion to force gay people to lie in order to serve?

Even as a compromise, why not treat them as women? Keep them out of frontline combat roles where privacy is low. That seems to be the situation most opponents point to, and at least they would be able to serve openly in other roles.

Even John “Kung fu” Hawkins cant handle the idea of calling obama to task over the idea that his birth records are not in order, much less the acts of treason he has committed and oaths he has broken since becoming POTUS.
Posted by Mr_e_m_t
2010-02-12 07:36:58

TIn foil alert.

Even as a compromise, why not treat them as women?
Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-12 09:16:24

I would think they would like that a lot :)

[...] the rest here:  Polling Conservative Bloggers On Gay Marriage, Impeachment … AKPC_IDS += "6253,";Popularity: unranked [...]

[...] Check it out here. [...]

[...] View original post here: Polling Conservative Bloggers On Gay Marriage, Impeachment … [...]

[...] included, as Miss Piggy would say) to find their views on today’s issues.  The results are here.  Where do you fit in with the crowd? Share With [...]

As always, my answers, this time with explanations:

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?
Oppose. There are no “illegal immigrants”. The term “immigrant” means one who has come to a country legally with the intention of learning its customs and becoming a citizen. The people we are talking about are not “illegal immigrants”,m but illegal aliens.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

sorry about the faulty tags …

What ever happened to the preview button?

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Here’s an improved version of my answers, and the old one can be safely deleted (due to faulty tags)…

I’ve included explanations.

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?
Oppose. There are no “illegal immigrants”. The term “immigrant” means one who has come to a country legally with the intention of learning its customs and becoming a citizen. The people we are talking about are not “illegal immigrants”,m but illegal aliens.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Yes. However, only in the sense that he belives that white people control the wealth in this country, a “fact” that he hates with every ounce of his being.

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes. Not because of any particular evidence, but because of the nature of organizations like ACORN and those for which Obama once worked. They are evil to the core, and I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past them.

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
Yes. However, I also believe that they should be segregated from the rest of the military due to the close quarters required of those in military service.

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
No. We don’t need to be redefining marriage to accomodate people who wish they fit the description of maritable people. The definition of marriage was dictated to us by God, and people do not have the power to change that. I do believe, however, that these people have legitimate concerns that actually affect all of us, such as hospital visitation and inheritance/insurance. These concerns must be addressed, as addressing them will ease the need for these people to be trying to gain unneeded additional acceptance of their lifestyle.

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
No. Impeachment is not intended for those not legitimately in office. Should Mr. Obama find himself losing the current lawsuits against him and the various attorneys-general regarding his citizenship status, he should immediately be removed from office without impeachment proceedings, along with Mr. Biden (an illegitimate contender for office cannot legitimately choose a running mate). From there, a new campaign and election should take place.

As to whether he should be impeached because of his seemingly deliberate sabotage of the American economy, I say no to that as well. If he is legitimate, which is remotely possible, then he was legitimately elected (though procedure should be addressed for future elections), and the people must sleep in the bed they have made unless fraud can be established regarding election procedures under the current rules.

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
No. This is not really the main crux of the “birther” issue anyway. It’s only important because if it can be established that his Kenyan birth certificate currently being analyzed in California turns out to be the real deal, it saves us the hassle of having to deal with his dual citizenship, which must be evaluated by the courts against the Founders’ original intent. With so many anti-Federalists on the courts, it is questionable whether the Founders’ original intent (consistent with the Vattel definition) would be observed.

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes. At best. He is clearly a radical progressive in the socialist/communist/fascist model. There’s just no denying that.

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
No. My state has been part of the problem, and must repair itself in extremely short order, or face the fate that is now imminent in Califormia.

Do you think the Democrats are going to pass a health care bill?
Yes, they’ll get it through. Constitution be damned, they’ll get it through.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Posted by RightWingRocker
2010-02-12 12:29:46

Ah look another birther, lol thats good stuff.

Ah look another birther, lol thats good stuff.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-12 12:45:03

All you can do is put down one-third of this country and call them evil and traitors, that my friend is not patrotic.
Posted by crthns
2007-02-10 12:37:17

Its amazing to me how effective a tiny but loud portion of the population has been at manipulating and influencing public opinion without ever making one persuasive or logical argument.

Its amazing to me how effective a tiny but loud portion of the population has been at manipulating and influencing public opinion without ever making one persuasive or logical argument.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2010-02-12 13:13:44

CT,

Thats because they are fanatical. Nothing Obama can do will change their minds. They will just say that he is lying, or its a forgery, or claim some law says that he isnt a citizen, even though they cant point to that law. The best one is the insistence that to be a natural born citizen both parents have to be American citizens. They will claim that this a law and yet when pressed, cant actually point to it. Never mind that it doesnt exist. Then they accuse the SC of being in on the conspiracty and every judge who has heard a case. Its amazing, similar to the “truthers”

Thats because they are blind. Nothing reality shows you can be seen with your own eyes. You will just claim obama is the one, he is your savior, that he would never lie, that he will put gas in your car and pay your mortgage and disability so you can inhabit your mothers basement.

Seriously if you dont know what it means to be a natural born citizen, you are too confused to have a chance in hell at having an intelligent discussion/debate with.

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Posted by Mr_e_m_t
2010-02-12 13:26:04

I am well aware of the qualifications. Now can you tell us what a natural born citizen is, give us the definition found in the Constitution. Seriously you cant be this dumb.

Now can you tell us what a natural born citizen is, give us the definition found in the Constitution. Seriously you cant be this dumb.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-12 13:32:38

This could be a first, crthns is wanting to use the COTUS as the basis for his argument.

Looks like he can be taught.

“It’s only important because if it can be established that his Kenyan birth certificate currently being analyzed in California turns out to be the real deal, it saves us the hassle of having to deal with his dual citizenship, which must be evaluated by the courts against the Founders’ original intent.”

I still don’t see how having a Kenyan birth certificate disqualifies him. Even if Obama has dual citizenship (as a British subject due to Kenya’s status) at birth by means of his father, he would still be a natural born US citizen because of his mother. The dual citizenship would then be moot unless some evidence is produced that he at some point renounced his US citizenship, took an oath of loyalty to the British or Kenyan government, or served in the government or military of either.

These kind of dual citizenship arguments sound ominous on paper, but there’s just no legal basis to back them up. A child born to a US citizen has always been considered natural born, so Obama is a US citizen even if he was born in Kenya and smuggled into Hawaii later. The only way he’s not is either if his mother is somehow now a citizen, or if he at some point renounced or forefitted his US citizenship.

Last sentence should read: ” if his mother is somehow *not* a citizen”, obviously.

[...] John Hawkins polled right-wing bloggers on a bunch of controversial issues. If you’re curious, I voted with the majority in each question. Apparently Kos polled on a [...]

The Founding Fathers would have understood the tern “natural-born citizen” to be defined according to Vattel’s definition. They are well-documented to have used Vattel’s reference in their own law practices prior to the ratification of the US Constitution.

For your own understanding, here is Vattel’s definition:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

- Vattel The Law of Nations Ch. XIX Section 212

I do believe the Founders trump the rest of us.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:
For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Obama’s mother was born in November 1942. Obama was born in December 1961, when she was 19 years and one month old. Her family moved to Hawaii after it became a state. Therefore, she was able — albeit just barely — to transmit her citizenship to the child, even if he had been born in another country. Even if Obama was born on the freaking Moon, his mother was a US citizen and had lived the requisite 5 years in the US before his birth, so this issue is as dead as moondust. Now, if you want to claim that he’s hiding something else on his birth certificate, like “Religion: Muslim,” you might be on to something. But whatever he’s hiding, he is a natural-born US citizen as far as I can tell, so let’s please drop this stupid issue once and for all.

Actually I was refering to this:

4) Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes: 53% (41 votes)
No: 47% (37 votes)

Tiny group, disproportionately influential, no logic or reason attempted.

Posted by RightWingRocker
2010-02-12 15:07:26

except that they didnt put that definition in the Constitution now did they. Had they wanted it there they would have put it there. Keep going RWR, you show every post how much more idiotic you are on this subject matter. Vattel’s definitions have no place in US law, for a reason.

I do believe the Founders trump the rest of us.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Posted by RightWingRocker
2010-02-12 15:07:26

Actually I believe that the Constitution trumps All of us, including the founders. Had they wanted that definition in there, they would have included it, they didnt, why do you think that is?

Tiny group, disproportionately influential, no logic or reason attempted.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2010-02-12 15:38:07

Perhaps that is because deep down most Americans have a sense of fairness and doing what is right.

Actually I believe that the Constitution trumps All of us, including the founders. Had they wanted that definition in there, they would have included it, they didnt, why do you think that is?
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-12 16:02:04

Question, crthns. You you also beleive that regarding “separation of church and state”? What about the 2nd Amendment?

Question, crthns. You you also beleive that regarding “separation of church and state”? What about the 2nd Amendment?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-12 16:10:11

Stan,

As a proud gun owner myself I support the 2nd amendment. Also I do believe that there should be a separation of church and state, I have seen to many relegious zealots in this country.

Also I do believe that there should be a separation of church and state, I have seen to many relegious zealots in this country.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-12 16:28:24

But since there is no “separation of church and state” in the COTUS, how does that square with your “I believe that the Constitution trumps All of us, including the founders”?

Also I do believe that there should be a separation of church and state,

Did the founders put that language in the Constitution?

I have seen to many relegious zealots in this country.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-12 16:28:24

Probably while looking over your shoulder.

You have to be mentally disturbed to demand government action be taken because people believe in their faith more strongly than you figure they should.

except that they didnt put that definition in the Constitution now did they. Had they wanted it there they would have put it there. Keep going RWR, you show every post how much more idiotic you are on this subject matter. Vattel’s definitions have no place in US law, for a reason.

They didn’t have to. It was understood to mean that universally. Like the definition of marriage.

Nice try, though.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

I am well aware of the qualifications. Now can you tell us what a natural born citizen is, give us the definition found in the Constitution.

Obviously you are not “well aware” of the qualifications of becoming POTUS. Otherwise you would not stand there like the village idiot you are asking for information you profess does not exist.

14th amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . . .

Read the rest yourself.
Famous contraversial examples of children who were born in foriegn lands to American citizens who were denied citizenship?

Vietnamese war babies.
Same time era.
US Soldiers were not allowed to give their children citizenship, and obama’s momma couldn’t shine a serviceman’s boot with her reputation.

Obama refuses to submit a single shred of proof of any of his validity backing his education and birth.
Regardless of where he was born and what he has achieved, to sit in public office those are MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS you people are too chickenshit to make him adhere to.
Don’t call yourself conservative near me while claiming such.
You are enablers of a fraud and lack the backbone to make an elected dog catcher do their job.

[...] on, man!" I'm thinking exactly that about some of my conservative brethren right now, because of John Hawkins' most recent poll. Seventy-nine right-of-center bloggers (myself included) responded, and I gotta tell you, I'm… [...]

[...] Polling Conservative Bloggers On Gay Marriage, Impeachment,Right Wing News is the best source on the net for conservative news, views, & interviews. … Polling Conservative Bloggers On Gay Marriage, Impeachment, Birtherism, Secession, And Health Care; (Read WP posts from John Hawkins) | (Read MT posts from John Hawkins) | rss… [...]