Althouse: "Let me be clear. I will let no one question my love of this country."

August 20, 2008

"Let me be clear. I will let no one question my love of this country."

Not going to let us question him? Why that's unAmerican in itself!

78 comments:

Anonymous said...: Hmmmm.

I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism?; 8/20/08, 9:42 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Blah, blah, blah. If he was a serious contender he would not have gone to Europe or Hawaii. He would have stayed here and stopped his incompetent staff from negotiating his convention away to the Clintons. He would have stopped her phony nomination process dead in the water.

Good leaders keep their eyes, ears, and hands in things. He failed his first real test of power. He let the loser win.; 8/20/08, 9:44 AM
Joe M. said...: Perfect.; 8/20/08, 9:45 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: "Not going to let us question him? Why that's unAmerican in itself!"

But it is not unDemocratic...

Party.; 8/20/08, 9:46 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Let me be clear Mr. Obama, your associations, past and present, give me plenty of reason to question your love of this country.

What a pompous ass.; 8/20/08, 9:47 AM
Unknown said...: Is the country he loves the one that's now broken and not what it once was, or the country that his wife wasn't proud of until now?; 8/20/08, 9:48 AM
Simon said...: What's really funny is that this video, in which Obama says that we have to move past the idea that "people can't disagree without challenging each other's character or their patriotism," is hosted by Talking Points Memo. How is the leftosphere going to react to this brutal attack on their preferred modus operandi by their candidate?

Oh, that's right... He's not talking about challenging Republicans' character and patriotism. All is right with the world again, and the TPM crowd - like the nutsroots generally - can continue accusing the administration of screwing America, screwing the Constitution, and all manner of other unpatriotic behavior.; 8/20/08, 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Let me be perfectly clear about this. It is now abundantly clear that this man is not fit to be President of the United States.

Should he be elected, his presidency is going to be a disaster for this country whose destruction will exceed anything we have experienced politically thus far.

Mark my words...; 8/20/08, 9:52 AM
Fen said...: "I will let no one question"

Heh. Nicely done.; 8/20/08, 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: "Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country now that my wife is finally proud of it for the first time in her life."; 8/20/08, 9:53 AM
Simon said...: Yachira said...
"Should he be elected, his presidency is going to be a disaster for this country whose destruction will exceed anything we have experienced politically thus far."

That overstates it. I think the failure of the nation to eliminate slavery without the need for a civil war might qualify as a bigger disaster; the Seventeenth Amendment certainly would; the New Deal's exile of the Constitution; Roe v. Wade's ushering in of the mass slaughter of a generation; the corruption of the Congressional Republican Party after 2001... Oh -- and Hugh Jackman.; 8/20/08, 9:59 AM
Triangle Man said...: It must be Amelia Bedelia day because this couldn't possibly be idiomatic.; 8/20/08, 9:59 AM
Bill said...: "... and starting next year, I'll be able to back up my threats with the full force of the government."; 8/20/08, 10:00 AM
Spread Eagle said...: John Hinderaker at Powerline put it best when he led off his post on this with:

"Samuel Johnson wrote that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Those were the good old days; now, the last refuge of a scoundrel is pretending that his patriotism has been impugned."

But actually the scoundrels have several last refuges nowadays, that's only one of them. Claims of racism. Claims of sexism. Probably a couple of others too.; 8/20/08, 10:06 AM
Joan said...: Oh, Simon, that's so unfair.

Hugh Jackman is a totally cutie. And he's Australian, so I'm not sure what he has to do with anything.; 8/20/08, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: The Best of the Web Today dude has been doing a riff on this for years. You are placing your own patriotism into question whenever you say, "Don't question my patriotism!" It's a rhetorically dumb thing to do.

I guess Democrats never read Best of the Web Today.; 8/20/08, 10:12 AM
Anthony said...: Did he say which country?; 8/20/08, 10:13 AM
Roger J. said...: Obama has now let the McCain camp define him--this dude is toast. when you have to have a press conference to tell the voters you are a patriot, its all over Cant wait to hear the nutroots explode in November; 8/20/08, 10:15 AM
chickelit said...: Ann Althouse: How about equal time for McCain- same venue?

I would like to compare VFW audience response.; 8/20/08, 10:15 AM
Sprezzatura said...: Is it possible that he's saying that he will stand up for himself when attacked. I know, I'm going on a limb.

This is along the lines of McCain saying that he will defeat evil, where BHO correctly, and indisputably, stated that only God can defeat evil--we must all fight against evil, but we will never achieve victory. I don't believe that McCain meant to claim that he is God (even though he is planning trips to the gates of hell, when Pakistan would suffice.) Likewise, BHO isn't claiming that he's coming armed and dangerous to all the homes of all right wing attackers who question his love of the US.

I suspect that this post is meant to be banter bait. But, it's stupid bait. I'm sure that some right wing folks will not grasp the absurdity of taking this comment literally, they're just that stupid.; 8/20/08, 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember what Michelle said? This is just the latest in a whole list of things Obama won't let us do.; 8/20/08, 10:26 AM
Simon said...: Joan - it was just alluding to a skit on Scrubs, a bit of humor to leaven an otherwise serious list. I don't myself have anything against him.; 8/20/08, 10:28 AM
Crimso said...: "Remember what Michelle said? This is just the latest in a whole list of things Obama won't let us do."

He will require us to work, though. Presumably because that will make us free.; 8/20/08, 10:29 AM
rhhardin said...: ``Let no one question my...'' is a cliche.

I'd be surprised if Kerry didn't use it.; 8/20/08, 10:32 AM
Joe M. said...: 1jpb:

I suspect that this post is meant to be banter bait. But, it's stupid bait.

This is hardly stupid with respect to its bait-ness. So it's not correct to call it "stupid bait." C'mon, man, it's nuance.; 8/20/08, 10:43 AM
DaLawGiver said...: How do you stop someone from questioning your love of this country?; 8/20/08, 10:48 AM
ricpic said...: For all us citizens of the world love of country is so yesterday, man.; 8/20/08, 10:53 AM
Sprezzatura said...: joe m.

I was thinking of bait for catching stupidity. This bait was very good for that purpose. So, it could be called "brilliant stupid bait."; 8/20/08, 10:54 AM
Joe M. said...: 1jpb:

That's a pretty good description of the whole political theater.; 8/20/08, 11:02 AM
Henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/20/08, 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: How do you stop someone from questioning your love of this country?

I think it works something like summoning spirits from the vasty deep.; 8/20/08, 11:09 AM
Crimso said...: "How do you stop someone from questioning your love of this country?"

That's easy: you silence them by whatever means necessary.; 8/20/08, 11:10 AM
Henry said...: Is it not clear what Obama means?

In the first half of the clip he states that it is John McCain's perogative to criticize him.

The highlighted statement, in context, is clearly conditional -- "I will let no one question my love of this country..." without responding to it. And so he does.; 8/20/08, 11:10 AM
The Drill SGT said...: The logic of Obama's argument is breathtaking.

It is one thing to say as you normally find in a campaign that

"Yes, I have done X, but my opponent has done Y which is even worse"

But Obama wants to say:

"I won't attack my opponents patriotism, because he's a certified hero, so he can't attack mine because I'm not attacking him"

laughable logic.

I thought that coming back from Iraq, that Obama stuck with his anti-surge position when asked, "The surge has been a success. If you knew then what you knew now, would you have supported the surge in 2007, given the alternative would be withdrawal and possible defeat"

Obama as I recall says he would still oppose the surge.

That in my mind is a consistency for political gain.; 8/20/08, 11:10 AM
TJ said...: "given the alternative would be withdrawal and possible defeat"

That's a helluva conditional, Sarge. No one knows what would have happened if the surge hadn't happened. You're also assuming a meaningless distinction between winning and losing in Iraq, which still remains subjectively defined.; 8/20/08, 11:15 AM
former law student said...: But McCain puts country first! So clearly the US is way down on Obama's list of priorities.

What McCain isn't telling us -- the country he puts first is his native Panama. :); 8/20/08, 11:23 AM
Joe M. said...: Panama first!; 8/20/08, 11:31 AM
Simon said...: former law student said...
"What McCain isn't telling us -- the country he puts first is his native Panama."

McCain's birth certificate shows that he was born on Colon. Which is in the PCZ, an area over which the United States exercises "all the rights, power and authority ... [that it] would possess and exercise[ ] if it were the sovereign of the territory." If there was ever an argument that the PCZ doesn't count as sovereign U.S. territory, and thus that McCain isn't a natural-born citizen, it died in -- ironically enough -- Boumedienne.; 8/20/08, 11:37 AM
kjbe said...: Oh, but Henry, we don’t listen to entire quotes or conversations, here. That would take all the fun out of it.; 8/20/08, 11:45 AM
wiley fowler said...: Me thinks the laddie doth protest too much.; 8/20/08, 11:53 AM
Kirk Parker said...: memomachine, these days I think it's the other way around:

Patriotism is the highest form of dissent.; 8/20/08, 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/20/08, 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/20/08, 12:13 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Let me be clear about this ...

* sprays Windex™ *

* wipes furiously *

* assumes oratory voice *

I will allow no one to tell me what I can not question, without raising another series questions.

* drops oratory voice *

* pets kitten *

Please excuse me, I must now go look up Amelia Bedelia.; 8/20/08, 12:17 PM
former law student said...: simon: "as if it were sovereign" is the key phrase here. Panama was granted sovereignty over the Canal Zone when Panama was created; Panama grants citizenship to all those born on its soil; ergo McCain was born a Panamanian citizen, and would be the first dual-national to be elected President.

Does anyone know if Lieberman is an Israeli citizen? Then we would have the first dual dual-national national ticket.; 8/20/08, 12:50 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: This election was a referendum on the democrat. The conventional wisdom was that this is a democrat year so the candidate only needs to meet the minimum qualifications.

It is clear that Obama is failing the minimum.

I don't think Obama will be able to come back from the fall he has taken this month.

The events in Russia are going to be in the news from now until the election. Why would someone vote for a freshman senator with no other national experience to handle this issue.

Maybe Althouse is right, Obama could lose all the Democratic leaner states as well.; 8/20/08, 1:08 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: ergo McCain was born a Panamanian citizen, and would be the first dual-national to be elected President.

Wern't the first 9 presidents born in what was then Great Britain?; 8/20/08, 1:12 PM
The Drill SGT said...: You guys never learn...

drag out the Panama thing. Son of a serving officer and his American spouse, born in a US Military hospital on US territory, etc, etc.

keep pounding away. Don't you guys know that every time you come at McCain with a weak attack like that on his service, or POW, or birth, you lose more votes from the center and energize the right?

more, more, more :); 8/20/08, 1:12 PM
Original Mike said...: This is along the lines of McCain saying that he will defeat evil, where BHO correctly, and indisputably, stated that only God can defeat evil

Yes, but McCain will arrange the meeting.; 8/20/08, 1:20 PM
Simon said...: FLS, as I said above, I don't think that argument survives Boumedienne. Natural born citizenship derives at least from birth on U.S. sovereign soil (my co-blogger has argued that it may in limited circumstances derive from jus sanguinis); that includes not only states, but also the District of Columbia, territories, and so forth. And it includes the PCZ. I would argue that even absent Boumedienne, the PCZ qualified as soerign U.S. territory by force of the terms of the treaty, but I no longer have to. Boumedienne's functional test demands that the PCZ would be treated as sovereign territory. that's deliciously ironic because it means that McCain is impervious from the "not a citizen" litigation because of a decision he opposed, and that the Democrats can't use that as an issue because a case that they loudly celebrated stands squarely in the way.; 8/20/08, 1:21 PM
Simon said...: Sloanasaurus said...
"Wern't the first 9 presidents born in what was then Great Britain?"

No, they were born in the colonies, and although Article II says that "[n]o person ... [shall] be eligible to that office who shall not have ... been fourteen Years a resident within the United States," it would be an absurd result to construe "United States" there as excluding anyone who wasn't born in a country that didn't exist when it was written. "United States" must be read to include the colonies.; 8/20/08, 1:31 PM
chickelit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/20/08, 1:41 PM
Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...: "or a citizen at the time of adoption of this document" is the other qualifier, I believe.

So foreign-born citizens in 1787 could have become president.; 8/20/08, 1:41 PM
Simon said...: Ben (The Tiger) said...
"[Article II also has a grandfather clause, so] foreign-born citizens in 1787 could have become president."

Oh, then McCain's definitely in, then. If they get to make "McCain's really old" jokes, so do we!; 8/20/08, 1:48 PM
former law student said...: simon, read Boumedienne again. It merely holds that Guantanamo Bay is not a Constitution-free zone. The determination of what US Constitutional rights extend to territories over which the US exercises de facto sovereignty but not de jure sovereignty has little to do with the applicability of the laws of the host state. The Court simply points out that the courts of the host state Cuba are unavailable for the relief of the detainees.

But the decision (actually Kennedy's concurrence) cites the Insular Cases for the proposition that territories not destined to become US states could retain their existing legal systems -- which would naturally extend to the practice of ius soli in the case of Panama, as a legacy of its Colombian origin. Consider also that the US did not treat the Canal Zone or even Guantanamo as its own soil by granting citizenship to any and all who happened to be born there. Naturally, Panama would want to prevent its natives from being stateless, and would fill this void.; 8/20/08, 2:07 PM
Roger J. said...: Drill--right on--the nutroots simply don't understand that the rest of the country is on a different page--by all means: bring this stuff up, the cross in the sand, McCain's conduct as a pow--those are all winning issues with the people that vote! what a bunch of morons.; 8/20/08, 2:13 PM
former law student said...: roger j--right on--the nutroots simply don't understand that the rest of the country is on a different page--by all means: bring this stuff up, the birth certificate, what his Hyde Park neighbor did thirty years ago, his pastor's jeremiads, Obama's conduct in high school--those are all winning issues with the people that vote! what a bunch of morons.; 8/20/08, 3:03 PM
Cedarford said...: "Not going to let us question him? Why that's unAmerican in itself!"

Obama has inserted a string of arrogant diktats into his speeches recently as The One Messiah believes he is entitled to.

"I will let no one....."
"Let no one dare say...."
"There is no honest argument on the matter of....."
"I will not stand for any criticism of my wife because ...
(meanwhile listing his wife as a senior policy advisor and as one of the three most influential people on his decsion-making)
"I will not tolerate...."
"Some (set up as stupid, racist, and or bitter in previous speech lines) people will say that I, Barack Obama am wrong on ......"

It's a very negative pattern. And Axlerod's speechwriters are doing their latest black orator client no favor by talking down to, and effectively issuing ultimatums of diktat to the independents and Hillary democrats that have growing doubts about him.

The Team Axlerod stylists and image-makers component of the Team are likely going a little nuts as the tabula rasa with no paper trail or resume` they molded & cast as the warm, silver-tongued, likable man who "transcends race and the politics of the past" is being transformed by writers and senior campaign officials into the Autocratic Messiah that brooks no doubt, impugnes other's motives, and issues commands of others...

==================
Simon - "my co-blogger has argued that it may in limited circumstances derive from jus sanguinis."

Your co-blogger forgets that jus solis was stupidly inserted as a broad stroke in the 14th Amendment clause meant to give slaves born on US soil to non-citizens, citizenship.

Before that, all Americans considered native-born derived their citizenship from blood birth.

Which lawyers have since twisted to mean that illegals, even an invading foreign army that brings their women could plant anchor babies that must be considered full citizens by the just solis clause that debate records show was only intended for slaves.

Indeed, until the courts meddled and more broadly interpreted the 14th we did not recognize jus solis for Chinese rail workers. When the guest labor work was done, the men, their women, and all the anchor babies spawned here were all packed up and shipped back to Lotusland.
In 1898, in the case of Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS said birthright citizenship applied to the Chinaman because though he went back to China with his parents, his birth happened in America because the Will of the US government in creating the situation of legal guest workers the occasioned his birth.

Meanwhile, jus sanguinus was never limited. It was the 1st and most accepted proof of citizenship that was not canceled in any way by the 14th linking ex-slave citizenship to soil.
You are born anywhere to an American citizen, you are a citizen.

Specious arguments that being born to Americans abroad or in an American territory does not make you "native-born" was settled long ago by not just the 9 born on British territory before America existed, but also those Presidents, VPs, and candidates that were born on US Territories, like Barry Goldwater, VP Charles Curtis (our 1st elected minority on a Presidential ticket) - and by Mexican-born to US parents George Romney.

I don't think that argument survives Boumedienne.

Aside from a few lawyers niggling about it, the matter was long-settled by precedent before the Muslim Boumedienne was even born.

It's also a real loser argument for Dems to fall into that they are seen by over 10 million Americans directly affected plus a vast number of people that would rally to them - that Dems wish to diminish the citizenship rights of children of American diplomats, peace corps volunteers, & military serving abroad, and Americans engaged in important economic, scientific, and missionary work abroad..

Dual citizenship, dual loyalty questions are another matter, as the Jonathan Pollard Affair proved it to be a real danger for national security, people in important positions in America being warped by a higher loyalty to another nation or cause. The Chinese are now as high a concern as the Muslims and Jews on the "loyalty" matter. While the vast majority of all three groups are loyal to this country, the outliers have inflicted great damage on America.

But the more the Dems threaten the rights of Americans by threatening a legal nitpick over McCain's being a "true American" the bigger and deeper the hole they are digging themselves.

=====================; 8/20/08, 3:15 PM
Roger J. said...: fls: you are grasping. Obama is already sliding as voting americans get to know him. If you (not you personally BTW) don't understand who Americans are you will go down the path blazed by Adlai Stevenson--you will have to look that up because you probably werent around then.; 8/20/08, 3:28 PM
Roger J. said...: C4: great post as usual. Looks to me like the dems are already grasping--like Canute ordering the tide not to rise.; 8/20/08, 3:31 PM
Methadras said...: I won't question your love of this country, Mr. Barely, but I will question what you will love to do to this country should you happen to become President of it.; 8/20/08, 4:09 PM
holdfast said...: So what would Obambi say about what Democrat Pete Stark said last year? would that be part of the "old politics"?

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6912.html

The fact that a Chicago Machine politician can throw around phrases like "the same old politics" to describe his opponent shows that Obama has no internal irony detector at all.; 8/20/08, 4:49 PM
Meade said...: Over at amba's, PatHMV made what I think was a particularly astute observation:

"Notice that Sen. Obama, while quick to chastise people for questioning his own character, has never once told people he won't tolerate people questioning the character of America itself."

He defends himself eloquently. When with such eloquence has Obama defended his country?; 8/20/08, 7:16 PM
vbspurs said...: This is ridiculous. What has he ever done IN DEFENCE of his country?

I'm not talking of taking up arms and literally defending her, though that would've been nice.

But just say, "This is the best country in the world. No other comes close."

Once. Without qualification. In 47 years of life.

No?

Cheers,
Victoria; 8/20/08, 9:18 PM
KCFleming said...: "Let me make this perfectly clear!"
Richard M. Nixon; 8/20/08, 9:38 PM
Synova said...: I suppose he's trying to sound tough. (Don't have the plug-in to watch the clip.) Certainly it's that he won't let it be done without responding to it.

It could also be that he will demonstrate his Patriotism to prevent that accusation... that usage of language works in sort of an archaic manner... I wouldn't put any money on it though.

Heh... time for a "war story"... being stationed overseas is a bit of a challenge. The Philippines was interesting and maddening. Our inprocessing included warnings that in court the truth was not a defense against the charge of defamation of character. If you called someone what they were but those in hearing didn't know that... you had defamed their character.

I'd consider this an exaggeration except that there were some government scandals were journalists from other asian nations (I think it was Japan, but don't recall) called some high official a corrupt liar (the person investigating the lottery for fraud... *won*) and it was all, "How dare this person insult me!!"

Some cultures do apply pressure not to question. In ours the truth is always a defense. In ours, actions and reality are more important than public face. And all Obama would really have to do is just exactly what Victoria has said.

Express Patriotism.

It's really not at all hard to do. Has nothing at all to do with the "fake" Patriotism of wearing flag pins. All it takes is a public confession.; 8/20/08, 10:28 PM
Revenant said...: Is it possible that he's saying that he will stand up for himself when attacked. I know, I'm going on a limb.

I'll say. All he does when "attacked" is whine about it. His flunkies do the "standing up".; 8/20/08, 10:33 PM
vbspurs said...: Some cultures do apply pressure not to question. In ours the truth is always a defense. In ours, actions and reality are more important than public face. And all Obama would really have to do is just exactly what Victoria has said.

At this point, the guy is boxing with both hands behind his back.

He is deathly scared of alienating this house of cards coalition of voters he's secured, whilst not doing anything to antagonise prospective voters.

Nothing in his past life has prepared him to be emotionally patriotic in his country. His Socratic legal mind doesn't help.

No wonder he finds it nearly impossible not to understand both sides.

Cheers,
Victoria; 8/21/08, 12:21 AM
Fen said...: This is along the lines of McCain saying that he will defeat evil, where BHO correctly, and indisputably, stated that only God can defeat evil--we must all fight against evil, but we will never achieve victory.

Wrong. I've fought against evil and achieved victory. Several times.; 8/21/08, 12:40 AM
Sprezzatura said...: Fen,

If you had defeated evil, there would be no need to repeat the task.

For Christians evil still exists, it has a name, and you haven't (and can't) defeat it. If you don't understand this situation I must assume that you haven't spent a lot of time reading the Bible.

Even so, God bless you for your past confrontations with evil (I'm being uncharacteristically sincere here.); 8/21/08, 1:50 AM
KCFleming said...: If you had defeated evil, there would be no need to repeat the task.

You speak as if evil were only singular.
It is Medusa's head, a hydra, a kudzu seeking all possible entries, a multi-armed Vishnu saying "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.".

There are evils, of which Fen writes, which can be defeated (and must, by our duty). And then there is Evil, which endures until it is vanquished in the end.; 8/21/08, 6:54 AM
Meade said...: And then there are the Clintons...; 8/21/08, 7:44 AM
Revenant said...: If you had defeated evil, there would be no need to repeat the task.

That makes no sense at all. None of the major religions view evil as a singular entity; neither do any of the major secular belief systems. It is entirely possible to defeat evil in some circumstances while evil continues to exist in others.; 8/21/08, 12:03 PM
Fen said...: If you had defeated evil, there would be no need to repeat the task.

You mean Evil, not evil.

For Christians evil still exists, it has a name, and you haven't (and can't) defeat it. If you don't understand this situation I must assume that you haven't spent a lot of time reading the Bible.

One, I'm not a Christian.

Two, I've been hearing your talking points around the net - its a justification for staring down at your shoelaces while Russia, Iran and China menace helpless peoples. Because if "only God can defeat evil, then its above your paygrade.

Total bullshit. Utter cowardice. Is this a result of Black Liberation Theology hooking up with Marxism?; 8/21/08, 4:52 PM
Fen said...: There are evils... which can be defeated (and must, by our duty).

Pogo nails it. Your position is merely a way for you to shirk any duty you have to civilization and the humanity.

But you believe! in World Peace, right?; 8/21/08, 4:55 PM
Joe M. said...: Fen (or anyone else for that matter), though this probably isn't the appropriate venue, I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

Your position [that E/evil can't be defeated, &c.] is merely a way for you to shirk any duty you have to civilization and the humanity.

A question I've been wondering about for a while, but can't seem to find an answer for: how does an atheist justify any "duty you have to civilization and to humanity"?

A Big Question, I know, but I ask in good faith and wonder if you have a ready answer, 'cause I haven't been able to think of one.

Thanks,
Joe M.

P.S. In the case that it assures you of my good faith, I am not a confirmed theist myself, just a troubled agnostic.; 8/21/08, 5:07 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The reason that the divided loyalty argument doesn't work here is that McCain (III) was born of an American officer (John McCain, Jr.) and his American wife while defending this country.

And, indeed, I would consider it a public policy disaster if John McCain (III) were not allowed to run or be President for this reason. This would mean that by entering the military of our country, and putting your life at risk, put your kids' chances at the Presidency at risk.

Indeed, we seem to work the other way as far as citizenship is concerned, granting citizenship on an expedited basis to those serving in the military.; 8/21/08, 6:46 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The other thing to keep in mind here is that Obama really does have worries here. Is he patriotic?

Obama apparently worked closely for maybe five years with someone (Bill Ayers) who, with his wife (Bernadine Dohrn) was a member of an organization (Weathermen) dedicated to the violent overthrow of our government. Ayers was apparently responsible for Obama's job at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And there is some indication that the Obamas babysat for the Ayers/Dohrns.

At least his (former) pastor Rev. Wright served honorably before he started to publicly condemn the U.S. in his sermons. But the Obamas sat in his congregation for some 20 years listening to this.

And finally, not only were his Weathermen friends communists, but so was apparently Obama's father, apparently thrown out of government because of his radical communist inspired economic plans.

So, yes, maybe Obama is patriotic, but maybe only so if you grant his close friends that attribute, and consider their attempts to bring down our government by force equivalent morally to John McCain (III) spending 5 1/2 years as a POW and 57k+ making the supreme sacrifice in that war.; 8/21/08, 6:59 PM