Heartache: Tea Party candidate in Texas a 9/11 truther; Update: Medina responds

posted at 12:15 pm on February 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Six days ago, the big news out of Texas was that Tea Party activist and gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina came within the margin of error with Kay Bailey Hutchison, who barely clung to second place against incumbent Rick Perry. Today, Glenn Beck suffers heartbreak when Medina more or less cops to being a 9/11 Truther as well as a “constitutional conservative” candidate. “I think some very good questions raised have been raised in that regard,” Medina replies when Beck asks whether she believes that the American government was in any way involved in bringing down the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Medina says she won’t take a position on a question where “good questions have been raised and haven’t been answered,” even though they have been answered for years. Beck and the others in his studio can’t quite believe their ears:

This is the same way Ron Paul has played footsie with the Truthers for the last few years as well, and it’s not uncommon among Paul followers. Given the fact that conservatives demanded that Barack Obama remove Van Jones for essentially saying the same thing — something Beck doesn’t hesitate to point out — shouldn’t conservatives rebuke Medina for the same thing? Beck jokes about french-kissing Rick Perry after hearing from Medina and calls him a “good-looking man” in comparison, so he’s already given his answer to the question.

I’d say that Medina’s hit the apex of her political career today.

Update: Medina has issued the following statement:

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it’s Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that’s the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.

No, the question wasn’t whether people “have the right to question our government.”  No one is locking up Truthers for asking foolish questions and spinning conspiracy theories.  Play the audio again, and you will hear Beck ask a specific question: do you believe that the government was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11?  Medina’s answer was “I think some very good questions raised have been raised in that regard.”

If Medina believes that, then she hasn’t paid attention to the answers that have long been in the public domain.  If she doesn’t, then she’s terribly inept at handling media interviews.  Either way, Medina’s responsible for her answers and their implications, not Glenn Beck or anyone else.  Any candidate who thinks that a nutcase conspiracy theory about the US government destroying the WTC is within the realm of reasonable speculation is a candidate that richly deserves the obscurity she will shortly enter.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9

I like you, but that was just crazy. You don’t understand the eligibility issue and you seem happy to perpetuate the insane myth that anything was “produced” – as having a digital image show up on Kos at 1am is not “producing” anything in a serious way.

Hollowpoint, if you don’t know the details and issues of the eligibility issue and what has been happening around it then you are better off just not commenting on it.
neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I’m more than familiar with the details and issues involved. I’ll spare you the mockery I usually reserve for Birthers. For now.

However, I also know that you and your fellow Birthers can’t be reasoned with on the subject. You keep shifting the goalposts, just as all conspiracy theorists do. Trying to argue facts with Birthers is no less futile than arguing with the Truthers or Bigfoot fans.

What started as a reasonable demand that he provide evidence that he’s eligible to be President (he did) has evolved to a convoluted theory that anyone who at some point in his life held dual-citizenship and/or had one non-citizen parent isn’t really a “natural born citizen”.

Once the evidence became overwhelming that Obama was born in Hawaii, the demands expanded to his “original” birth certificate, school records, passport records, travel records, hospital records, his shoe size, a urine sample and a notarized letter from his kindergarten teacher’s favorite janitor.

What do the Birthers hope to gain by making themselves (and by association the rest of us who are opposed to Obama) look like paranoid, delusional extremists? Anyone who thinks that the Birthers will miraculously convince the un-named conspirators to release hypothetical evidence that would somehow get Obama removed from office isn’t a rational human being.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM

GWB: Simultaneously an evil genious and a dolt.

“Dumbest man in America pulls off ingenious plan to involve America in two wars”

BobMbx on February 11, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Yeah, I never got past that one either. South Park’s spoof on it was brilliant.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Some Behringer’s Zinfandel might help, too. And a couple of these Trolls need some serious medication.

kingsjester on February 11, 2010 at 4:48 PM

My wife loves that stuff.

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM

If Obama isn’t really the Precedent what does that mean for the warranty on all those new Dodge conspiracy clown cars?

Doorgunner on February 11, 2010 at 4:52 PM

WTF do you people want?

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Competency.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 4:53 PM

HornetSting on February 11, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Some Behringer’s Zinfandel might help, too. And a couple of these Trolls need some serious medication.

kingsjester on February 11, 2010 at 4:48 PM

I’m not sure medication can help these trolls. We should put them out of their misery and buy some more!
Zin sounds good. Pass the salt!

HornetSting on February 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM

I’m not entirely surprised. Her take on taxes in Texas is not sound. She’s recommending going to entirely sales tax. Please. It would be above 15%-20%!

AnninCA on February 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM

WTC Building 4 hit directly by falling debris. Still standing. http://yfrog.com/11fig37j

WTC Building 5 burning. http://yfrog.com/1gfig413j

WTC Building 5 still standing after burning and being hit with debris. http://yfrog.com/6zfig412j

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM

alteredbeat dropped on head as a baby. Still commenting.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Some Behringer’s Zinfandel might help, too. And a couple of these Trolls need some serious medication.

kingsjester on February 11, 2010 at 4:48 PM
I’m not sure medication can help these trolls. We should put them out of their misery and buy some more!
Zin sounds good. Pass the salt!

HornetSting on February 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM

These aren’t Trolls, they are a bunch of feeble minded maroons.

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Competency. Purity.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 4:53 PM

There, I fixed that for you.

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Hornet, here’s the salt. Thom, my bride loves Behringer’s, too.

kingsjester on February 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM

alteredbeat, let’s accept your premise for the sake of this conversation(sic), what then? WTC7 brought down in a controlled explosion.

Who
What
When
Where
Why

daesleeper on February 11, 2010 at 5:01 PM

We need her gone before the left uses this to bludgeon us.

RightWinged on February 11, 2010 at 5:01 PM

The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans.

The hell it’s not relevant. Texas is on the South Line when it comes to terrorism on American soil, it’s sons are overseas battling our enemies, and we don’t need a freak as governor of this vital state!!

Maquis on February 11, 2010 at 5:01 PM

There, I fixed that for you.

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 4:57 PM

No, you really didn’t, but then you don’t know me and seem intent on judging everyone who doesn’t think like you do.

I’m fine with Scott Brown. I’m fine with Rudy and so many others who don’t share my views 100%. But Truthers cannot be trusted with running a government.

Are you even a Texan?

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Medina is done. We have too many idiotic politicians already. Anyone who doesn’t take the opportunity to denounce trutherism is not smart enough to be trusted with a leadership role.

JustTruth101 on February 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Do you actually have a link that proves Obama’s eligibility was never tested?

Check out the D’onofrio court filing. I can only find images of it, right now. You can read them yourself. See where Wells’ office said, on several occassions, that they didn’t bother to check eligibility – which is, as I said, how a non-American could be running for President in New Jersey. The same is found in the Keyes case.

As to what he needed to present, there is no law on that, which is why this case had to go to the SCOTUS to at least get some resolution in terms of an operational definition of ‘natural born citizen’.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Aren’t you then admitting that having a dual citizenship might not be a disqualifier?

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 4:45 PM

I never said that it surely was. That is for the SCOTUS to decide. But, it’s clear that dual citizenship was not allowed when the Founders wrote ‘natural born citizen’ and the intent of that clause was specifically to disallow anyone who was not an American by birht and never anything but American, to become President and Commander-in-Chief. Of course, the SCOTUS can wimp out and punt, if they took a case, and declare that dual citizens can be natural born citizens. The only problem is that no one with a brain would want to have that sort of idiocy imprinted in history.

Frankly, the idea that the Founders would have been okay with someone who holds citizenship in 132 other nations to become President (which is what the “dual citizens can be natural born citizens” argument leads to) is insane.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Let’s accept your premise for sake of advancing the conversation. WTC7 was brought down by intent.

What is the next premise we have to accept?

daesleeper on February 11, 2010 at 4:49 PM

The fact is that the lease holder of the WTC complex, Silverstein, acquired an insurance policy that covered acts of terrorism six weeks before the attacks. He then legally won the right to two full insurance claims because it was “two” attacks. He made $6.2 billion from the attacks.

The premise would be that he couldn’t carry this out on his own.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

What started as a reasonable demand that he provide evidence that he’s eligible to be President (he did) has evolved to a convoluted theory that anyone who at some point in his life held dual-citizenship and/or had one non-citizen parent isn’t really a “natural born citizen”.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM

He did not provide anything and your idea that dual citizens should be eligible to be President is insane. If you think the Founders would accept that (even though they rejected the idea of American dual citizens) then you are just clueless.

I don’t know what’s wrong with you anti-eligibility people, but it’s pretty serious.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

which is, as I said, how a non-American could be running for President in New Jersey.

Yes, but you’re talking about running for office, but being seated.

and the intent of that clause was specifically to disallow anyone who was not an American by birht and never anything but American, to become President and Commander-in-Chief.

Except there were none who had always been an American an nothing but when the country was founded.

Frankly, the idea that the Founders would have been okay with someone who holds citizenship in 132 other nations to become President (which is what the “dual citizens can be natural born citizens” argument leads to) is insane.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Why 132?

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

The premise would be that he couldn’t carry this out on his own.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

So he hired Atta and his crew to cash in on an insurance claim? Wow!

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

So, if some court hypothetically ruled that for whatever obscure or not reason Barack Obama was somehow not a “natural born citizen,” what would be the upshot of it?

A) Constitutionally, what gives any court the right to rule on the eligibility of a sitting president, one whose election has already been certified by both houses of Congress?

and

B) Constitutionally, what course of action could the Federal Courts actually take?

(I’ll save you some time: A) nothing and B) nothing. A sitting president can only be removed through the impeachment process.)

The only thing a federal court could rule on (and quite possibly not even this) is whether Obama committed some sort of a crime in intentionally hiding some aspect of his citizenship, knowing that it would automatically render him ineligible. And this would require a DOJ indictment.

The lawsuits all go nowhere, because A) Congress has already determined his eligibility (as per the 12th amendment) and B) there is no Constitutional redress that could possibly be ordered by a court at this date.

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Clearly, al Qaeda terrorists plotted and executed 9/11. They flew planes into the buildings, which caused the buildings to collapse. Clearly, Bush and Cheney were not in on the plot and had no prior knowledge of the attack other than the usual vague warnings that our enemies were planning to attack us at some point.

However, we have watched members of Congress lie to our faces about numerous issues. We have seen the military keep promoting a known al Qaeda sympathizer who eventually went on a murderous rampage in Fort Hood. We know that our enemies plan to harm us by infiltrating our institutions. It is naive to believe that everyone involved with the 9/11 investigation was patriotic, honest, and pure, and that we have all the relevant details.

No one should make baseless accusations, but in light of the lies we have been told by those in our government, we should also not shout down and ridicule those who question whether we have all the facts.

Cara C on February 11, 2010 at 5:10 PM

alteredbeat dropped on head as a baby. Still commenting.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM

alteredbeat is such an idiot…silverstein always held insurane policies on all of his porperties, as all responsible comemrcial real estate owners do, that insures against all reasonably foreseeable harm including terrorism. The fact that he changed policies a few weeks befor the attack means nothing. Property owners frequently change policies. It’s called free market competition.

And he did not make any money, what are you, an idiot? He lost quite a bit. I studied the cases in law school.

Don’t discuss what you don’t research yourself, and reading troofer web sites is not actual research. Grow up.

JustTruth101 on February 11, 2010 at 5:11 PM

So he hired Atta and his crew to cash in on an insurance claim? Wow!

thomasaur on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Atta and his crew (up to six of them) trained at US military bases inside the US. Reported by Newsweek and other media days after 9/11.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:11 PM

The premise would be that he couldn’t carry this out on his own.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

so, he got KSM to round up a whole bunch of Saudis to learn to fly planes to take the buildings down….. was he an insurance policy holder in …1993 ?????!!!!!

runner on February 11, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Atta and his crew (up to six of them) trained at US military bases inside the US. Reported by Newsweek and other media days after 9/11.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:11 PM

er, no.

runner on February 11, 2010 at 5:12 PM

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:09 PM

If The Precedent were found to be ineligible, then the oath he took (twice, because a few words were messed up the first time) would never have been valid or operative. He woudl just, “not be President”. The best guess is that the US would act as if the President had just died (which we have dealt with before) and normal succession would occur. Now, as to things The Precedent had signed while illegally occupying the office, that is a legal no-man’s land, so far.

But, the gist is that an ineligible person cannot take the oath fo office, so if he were ruled ineligible that would mean that the oath was never taken – like a 7 year old signing a contract with a signature taht is not binding or valid.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Sorry I asked! Lol

daesleeper on February 11, 2010 at 5:16 PM

And he did not make any money, what are you, an idiot? He lost quite a bit. I studied the cases in law school.

JustTruth101 on February 11, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Um what? His partnership group’s winning bid for the properties in April of 2001 was $3.2 billion and they collected $6.2 billion from insurance. And you’re saying they didn’t make money? Produce the numbers that prove they didn’t then.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Yes, but you’re talking about running for office, but being seated.

You can’t be serious, Esthier. I mean, really.

Except there were none who had always been an American an nothing but when the country was founded.

This is not serious stuff. There was a clause in the eligibility constraints that grandfathered in people who were alive and American before the Constitution was ratified.

Frankly, the idea that the Founders would have been okay with someone who holds citizenship in 132 other nations to become President (which is what the “dual citizens can be natural born citizens” argument leads to) is insane.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Why 132?

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

It’s an arbitrary number, just as people like you who think that other citizenships don’t impact on natural born citizen status, don’t have any problems with.

I really don’t expect you to understand.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM

I would assume that Texas has a boatload of “Truther” types. But that doesn’t mean she’s winning.

What’s far more interesting to me is that Kay Hutchenson can’t get within 10 points of Perry, and as far as I can tell being new here, NOBODY likes Perry.

That’s just how annoyed people are with congresspeople. LOL*

AnninCA on February 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

A heist where 3000 had to die? Chump change compared to what Obama has stolen…. And no one had to die

daesleeper on February 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 5:03 PM

But Truthers cannot be trusted with running a government.

Ummm, she’s not a Truther. But why let facts ruin a good lynching?

Are you even a Texan?

No I’m not. What’s you’re point?

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM

He did not provide anything and your idea that dual citizens should be eligible to be President is insane. If you think the Founders would accept that (even though they rejected the idea of American dual citizens) then you are just clueless.

I don’t know what’s wrong with you anti-eligibility people, but it’s pretty serious.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Perhaps you can do us a favor and consult your favorite psychic (might as well go all-in on the kookyness) on the matter. Until then, we’ll never really know with 100% certainty what the Founding Fathers would have to say about a candidate born to an American mother, on American soil who spent his entire adult life living in the US as a US citizen after holding dual-citizenship as a child.

I guess we’ll just have to rely on the Constitution, which does not define “natural born citizen” exclusively as someone born on US soil, to two American parents, never having held dual-citizenship as a child.

To believe that the Supreme Court would rule Obama ineligible (or even hear arguments to that effect) while he’s still in office- especially based on such flimsy reasoning- doesn’t fall in the realm of the sane.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

AnninCA on February 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Mainly we have birthers. In CA is where all the truthers are. Essentially you can guess who belongs to what depending on what political persuasion they are. By and large the majority of truthers are on the left while the right has the birthers. I would bet it would be the opposite if the other political party was in power at the time of 9/11 or it was a Republican president.

It wouldn’t matter if God himself came down and said Obama was born in the US or he gave us video footage of the inside of Tower 7 on 9/11. People will always believe the worst about the other party while believing that theirs only has the purest of hearts.

txaggie on February 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I guess we’ll just have to rely on the Constitution, which does not define “natural born citizen” exclusively as someone born on US soil, to two American parents, having held dual-citizenship as a child.
Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Corrected- the “never” in “never having held dual-citizenship as a child” was an editing error.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Corrected- the “never” in “never having held dual-citizenship as a child” was an editing error.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Dammit, ignore the above post- had it right the first time.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

It’s an arbitrary number, just as people like you who think that other citizenships don’t impact on natural born citizen status, don’t have any problems with.

That’s not what I think.

I really don’t expect you to understand.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM

You’re obviously not understanding me either, so we can just drop it at that.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Ummm, she’s not a Truther. But why let facts ruin a good lynching?

Didn’t say she was, and I’m not lynching anyone. You sure are p!ssed for no reason though.

No I’m not. What’s you’re point?

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Only that this isn’t your election.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

The best guess

By whom?

But, the gist is that an ineligible person cannot take the oath fo office, so if he were ruled ineligible that would mean that the oath was never taken – like a 7 year old signing a contract with a signature taht is not binding or valid.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Sorry, but while that may seem like a nice logical theory in your mind, in point of fact, it’s pretty much crap. The oath was administered and taken in good faith after Congress accepted the votes of the Electors, as per the 12th amendment. Congress, not the courts nor anyone else, is the Constitutional authority whose decision matters.

And again, who would be ruling him ineligible? The U.S. Supreme Court, in violation of the direct will of Congress, and with absolutely no Constitutional authority?

Whether you like it or not, the Court system is not above the other branches.

I can guarantee exactly how Scalia, Thomas and the other Originalists would come down on this, and if you read up a bit on actual Constitutional Law, you’d know it, too.

You might want to peruse this document, also.

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Perhaps you can do us a favor and consult your favorite psychic (might as well go all-in on the kookyness) on the matter.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Try reading what the Founders actually said.

In his July 1787 letter to George Washington, John Jay wrote about the ‘natural born citizen’ clause:

Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:34 PM

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Are you claiming that an ineligible person can take the oath and have it be valid and operative? Really?

If that were true, why did Roberts bother to readminister the oath over the minor issue of a couple of misread words? What would be the point?

So, by your thinking, one can be ineligible for a position but take the oath for it and have everything perfectly legal and okay. However, if an eligible person messes up one or two words of that same oath, it’s inoperative.

Hmmmm.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

You might want to peruse this document, also.

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Sorry, that’s completely the wrong link and the wrong country — it’s Singapore, and has nothing at all to do with the President of the US.

(I’ll try to find the right one.)

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

If you’re spending your poltical energy either espousing or refuting Trutherism or Birtherism, you deserve the government you’ve got.

SlimyBill on February 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM

If that were true, why did Roberts bother to readminister the oath over the minor issue of a couple of misread words? What would be the point?

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

As Roberts said at the time, just so no one could possibly bother the court systems with stupid challenges.

Also, this was an act taken post-certification, and the question of eligibility is decided by the certification of Congress.

I note that you’re ignoring entirely the 12th amendment, and the role of Congress, and the question of who could possibly make this “ineligibility” argument.

But continue in your very logical (to you) fantasy world.

Just don’t be surprised when very few other people want to play with you.

And it might be good, out of honesty if nothing else, to recognize that those who don’t want to join you in your make-believe are not all “ignoramuses” and “idiots” and everything else you continue to call them (us.)

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

NoStoppingUs on February 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Troll Alert.

Go back to your cave…. TROLL

maggieo on February 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

And by taking the oath, despite the obvious fact that there are questions being raised that need clarification, such that certification should never have taken place…. but that is another story and a done deal…. someone has left himself open to perjury.

The issue is not going away for a simple reason…. something is being hidden. There are people who are not part of the birther movement (I am one of them) who simply want to see the hidden documents – all of them, including the education documents and the passport documents.

The man has always been surrounded by Communists – Marxists. He is a Marxist. Let’s stop beating around the bush.

maggieo on February 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Please. The 12th amendment says nothing about eligibility or natural born status, other than requiring that the VP also satisfy the requirements for President, just in case. But that is all it says. You seem to think that the electors have the operational definition of ‘natural born citizen’? I don’t know where you get that idea.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Name one.

Jaibones on February 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Now it’s my f-ing job to name one? It’s her opinion, jackass, not mine. I’m just not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which evidently is heresy to those demanding purity tests. She fiscally conservative, a strict constitutionalist, and supports open carry! WTF do you people want?

Someone who doesn’t pander to lunatics.

So she wasn’t willing to alienate the Truthers. Big f-ing deal! What a bunch of pussies you people are. You think she’s embarrassing, you’re f-ing embarrassing because you’re not even strong enough to have someone around who doesn’t believe 100% what you believe. What a sad lot you are.

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM

I for one will happily admit that I am terrified of being associated with truthers. I find the idea that conservative thought could be linked to this insanity very frightening.

It is healthy and natural to be afraid of things that are genuinely real and dangerous. Once upon a time the right was associated, in the minds of the public, with the fevered delusions of the John Birch Society. This had real consequences, and kept us out of power for decades and gave us cradle-to-grave welfare, affirmative action, price controls, and the Great Society. It took years of work by Buckley and others to flush these people out of our movement.

But apparently, only a pussy would want to keep nutjobs out of our party.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Well this is the most disappointing Hot Air post I ever read. I was actually on her website (no Trutherism on that) just last night pondering donating or at least getting a yard sign…for the first time in my life.

This is terrible news, or good news I guess, since it wont come out after the fact now. Guess I have to vote Perry…again.

Vigilante on February 11, 2010 at 5:54 PM

As Roberts said at the time, just so no one could possibly bother the court systems with stupid challenges.

notropis on February 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

That’s a real laugh. No one seems to have standing to bring any case about eligibility or legitimacy of Presidential power, let alone “bother the court systems”.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Unless you believe in the notion that a US citizen, born on US soil to a US citizen mother and legally residing in the US since the age of 18 is a “foreigner” and not a “natural born citizen”, then that quote doesn’t really advance your attempt at an argument at all, does it?

What you did prove is my point that it’s futile to even bother trying to engage in rational debate with loony conspiracy theorists, be they Truthers or Birthers.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Taken from AISC Steel Design Guide #19:
The ability of a column to continue to carry
load has been confirmed as long as the fire exposure does
not cause the average temperature at any cross section to
elevate above 1,000 °F (538 °C)1,2. Fire test standards
impose an additional temperature limit of 1,200 °F (649
°C) at any one location along the member. This 1,200
ºF (538 ºC) temperature is often referred to as the critical
temperature which typically represents the temperature
when a 50 percent strength loss occurs.

If normal building fires burn at 2,000 degrees F, lets say this fire only burned at a temperature of half that, it still approaches the 50% strength loss.

Taking into account the strength loss, damaged columns, missing columns (both interior and exterior) and overloaded columns (due to those missing) it doesn’t take a genius to see why the towers collapsed.

tommer74 on February 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Name one.

Jaibones on February 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Now it’s my f-ing job to name one? It’s her opinion, jackass, not mine. I’m just not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which evidently is heresy to those demanding purity tests. She fiscally conservative, a strict constitutionalist, and supports open carry! WTF do you people want?

Someone who doesn’t pander to lunatics. If she really is conservative on policy and she panders to nutjobs, that’s almost worse – we don’t need people to associate that stupidity with conservative ideas.

So she wasn’t willing to alienate the Truthers. Big f-ing deal! What a bunch of pussies you people are. You think she’s embarrassing, you’re f-ing embarrassing because you’re not even strong enough to have someone around who doesn’t believe 100% what you believe. What a sad lot you are.

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM

I for one am terrified of being associated with Truthers, and so should anyone else on the right with any knowledge of recent history.

It is natural and healthy to fear things that are real and dangerous. Cranks like those in the John Birch Society kept conservatives out of power for years, giving us the all sorts of fun liberal and leftist programs, including the Great Society. They did arguably more damage to the movement than even the most liberal of RINOS. It took years of work by Buckley and others to purge them from the right, and now fools like Medina would welcome them back.

We aren’t talking about alienating people who don’t agree 100%, or 90%, or 80% with us. We are talking about alienating people who are mind-numbingly crazy, and who will be used to discredit the movement.

But no, you’re right, only pussies would want to distance themselves from the insane.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM

After giving it a quick read while at work, I can say that this document puts forth a collapse hypothesis based that basically boils down to fire and debris may have weakened the steal which led to a column collapse on the eastern side, leading to global collapse. This hypothesis is nothing new. It doesn’t explain however how Buildings 3-6 which were closer to Buildings 1 and 2 and hit by debris more directly than Building 7 did not collapse.
alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Good Lord help me. A quick read? I’m sure you’ve plumbed the depths of all there is to understand there.

I can’t give you the length and breadth of what you’d need to understand a forensic analysis of the building, which are available to you in the references to that article. But you should be aware that there are some very unique attributes to the way WTC was stuctured (in particular some novel beam connection details which when analized in retrospect made them more susceptible to becoming unstable during a fire) that make comparisons between it and other buildings difficult at best. Compound that difficulty with our lack of information on what exactly was damaged on the structure, and you will see that reconstructing an accurate picture or model of the as-damaged, burning building prior to collapse is a matter of engineering judgment and informed assumptions.

Even still, the model as constructed shows remarkable conformity to the observed phenomena of the collapse.

It should be interesting to you that there has never been a professional structural engineer who claims to see anything amiss in the collapse of a structurally damaged steel building subjected to an intense 8-hour fire. Because there isn’t.

TexasDan on February 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Paranoid Personality Disorder or Conspiracy theorist?

Interesting article. Some of you should have a read.

Others might want to click this link:

Psychologist Locator

Rod on February 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Unless you believe in the notion that a US citizen, born on US soil to a US citizen mother and legally residing in the US since the age of 18 is a “foreigner” and not a “natural born citizen”, then that quote doesn’t really advance your attempt at an argument at all, does it?

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM

John Jay would call someone who held another citizenship, “a foreigner”, as would the rest of the Founders. Take a gander at the US oath of citizenship and explain to me how the idea of split allegiances works there. It doesn’t. But just ignore that as you ignore everythign else. Your idea that someone who holds 147 other citizenships is still a person that the Founders were specifying in their ‘natural born citizen’ requirement is just loony.

Tell me, do you REALLY believe that the Founders wanted people who held other citizenships to be President of the US? Do you really believe that? If so, why weren’t there any American dual citizens for a very long time and why did Chester Arthur worry enough to hide all of his documentation that showed that his father was not a naturalized American when Arthur was born?

You don’t know and I’m sure that you don’t care. But, congratulations, you are a true citizen of the world – unlike our Founders who preferred American sovereignty.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Do you have any links to credible constitutional scholars who believe Obama is not eligible to be POTUS?

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM

What is the relevance of that? I presented the reasoning behind my position.

But, even leftist turds like Jonathan Turley (who thinks The Precedent is eligible) think that a court should have ruled on one of the eligibility cases based on the merits and not made a mockery of the issue of standing – especially for an issue such as eligibility, that should have been proven to someone offical and would require nothing more than just having that reviewed in court. Of course, the problem with that is that NO ONE actually verified eligibility, so instead we get long fights in court to stop something that should have been done 50 times over (57 times, if you believe the ‘natural born citizen’) and should require nothing but presenting any of those non-existent verifications.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM

With your knowledge of physics and structural engineering I’m sure you will explain forthright how Buildings 3-6 that were hit with the same shockwave you just attributed to Building 7’s collapse, did not collapse.

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 4:21 PM

There are many factors, the interaction of which could cause such a phenomenon.
Chief among them is the fact that the ground of Manhattan Island isn’t homogenous. The shock of that much mass hitting the ground didn’t spread through it evenly. There are many structures,both natural and man made, that would affect how a shock wave propagates through the ground. The shock wave could have been focused under B7 while not even passing under the others.
Differences in the architecture of the various buildings was also a major factor in how they were affected.

You never did answer the question I asked in my first post:
Were the moon landings faked?

single stack on February 11, 2010 at 6:33 PM

People will always believe the worst about the other party while believing that theirs only has the purest of hearts.

txaggie on February 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Well, where does that leave those of us that believe the worst about both?

CC

CapedConservative on February 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM

What is the relevance of that? I presented the reasoning behind my position.

Forgive me if I consider the source. Random dude on the internet vs. a credible expert in the field. I think I’ll go with the expert, but maybe that’s just me.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Forgive me if I consider the source. Random dude on the internet vs. a credible expert in the field. I think I’ll go with the expert, but maybe that’s just me.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Good for you. No thinking involved. No reasoning necessary. Just grab an “expert” and follow whatever he says. The Precedent is allegedly a “Constitutional scholar” – even having been Precedent of the esteemed Harvard Law Review. Go ask him.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:52 PM

You don’t know and I’m sure that you don’t care. But, congratulations, you are a true citizen of the world – unlike our Founders who preferred American sovereignty.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Yes, I do know- namely that you’ve outed yourself as a nutjob conspiracy theorist. And no, I don’t care that Obama held dual-citizenship when he was a child, before living in the US full time at the age of 18.

I also know that association with the Birther loons distracts hurts the more legitimate cause of opposing Obama’s leftist policies. I do care about the fact that Obama is a tax and spend leftist ideologue with a heavy dose of narcissism thrown in.

Do I care that his American mother took him abroad and got him dual-citizenship when he was in freaking grade school? Not so much.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 6:53 PM

My first impression of her was that she was an idiot.

terryannonline on February 11, 2010 at 6:54 PM

What happened? Hijacked planes flew into buildings. Buildings caught on fire. Fire burned…Buildings fell down.

Who did it? Terrorists.

Why’d they do it? Is it because of our evil imperialist agenda which has devastated nations around the world? No: terrorism goes back a long time. If America wasn’t here, they’d be taking their aggression out on someone else, and they are. We were attacked because they hate our way of life and want to impose their own on us. Simple.

But Narutoboy, how would Muslims with some box cutters pull something like this off? Doesn’t this seem like an inside job? No. Reason: Governments can’t even keep random pary crashing socialites from entering into their building, let alone stop information from leaking that exposes their role in 9/11. Also, if they really did have a role in it, the people or person who put that idea in your head would probably be dead.

Idiots guide to understanding 9/11. :-)

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Yes, I do know- namely that you’ve outed yourself as a nutjob conspiracy theorist.

Hollowpoint on February 11, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Yes, that darned US Constitution that is the basis of so many conspiracies …

Of course, to citizens of the world, like yourself, our quaint Constitution and its prescriptions are of little import.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Medina got sliced up badly in that interview.

It’s kind of her own fault though since all Beck did was ask questions.

Spathi on February 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM

It’s better to ferret out these nuts early rather than letting them wander around contaminating everything they touch.

rplat on February 11, 2010 at 7:13 PM

After that all I can say is Rick Perry all the way

AusTex girl on February 11, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Mike Church is pretty ticked off at Beck, and HotAir:

Michelle Malkin Orders Medina Burned At The Stake – Flashback – Malkin Sounded Like A “Truther” Before She Libeled Debra Medina As One

DeceptiCons Dance on Her Candidacy’s Grave Here

Can’t wait for his show tomorrow!

Rae on February 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM

This part should have been in blockquotes:

Michelle Malkin Orders Medina Burned At The Stake – Flashback – Malkin Sounded Like A “Truther” Before She Libeled Debra Medina As One

DeceptiCons Dance on Her Candidacy’s Grave Here

Rae on February 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

With all due respect to John Jay’s opinion on the subject, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution has addressed this issue. Section 1 states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Having been born Aug 4, 1961, in Hawaii, the issue becomes whether Hawaii qualifies as being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Hawaii was recognized as a state on Aug 21, 1959. This means at the time of his birth, he was born on United States soil and by law is a natural born citizen. This makes any references to either of his parents’ citizenship irrelevant.

As to the questions about his dual-citizenship:

1) Is there any evidence that he revoked his United States citizenship?

2) Dual citizenship for a natural born citizen should not, in my opinion, disqualify one from holding the Office of the President of the United States. I have not researched the case law, but an example is my wife. She was born on a United States military base in England. By law, she was born on United States soil, yet she is also a citizen of England. She carries both citizenships, would she be disqualified?

There are numerous reasons to question the President. Unless it can be shown that he did revoke his United States citizenship, this does not seem to be one.

As to Debra Medina, she is not getting my vote (yes, I do live in Texas).

rukiddingme on February 11, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Mike Church is pretty ticked off at Beck, and HotAir:

Michelle Malkin Orders Medina Burned At The Stake – Flashback – Malkin Sounded Like A “Truther” Before She Libeled Debra Medina As One

DeceptiCons Dance on Her Candidacy’s Grave Here

Can’t wait for his show tomorrow!

Rae on February 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Please point out in the link exactly where she suggested a cover-up of anything more than incompetence.

Alternatively, you could admit that your accusation of trutherism is bullshit.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM

As to the questions about his dual-citizenship:

1) Is there any evidence that he revoked his United States citizenship?

That wouldn’t matter. It’s just a question of having held other citizenships, not whether one relinquished his US citizenship. If someone relinquishes his US citizenship, then he loses natural born citizen status (if he had had it) regardless of anything else. But that is the issue I am addressing, just that holding another citizenship obviates any possiblity of natural born citizen status.

2) Dual citizenship for a natural born citizen should not, in my opinion, disqualify one from holding the Office of the President of the United States. I have not researched the case law, but an example is my wife. She was born on a United States military base in England. By law, she was born on United States soil, yet she is also a citizen of England. She carries both citizenships, would she be disqualified?

By my thinking she is ineligible to be President. Of course, in lieu of any amendments that detailed the operational definition of ‘natural born citizen’ or specifically assigned the responsibilty to define that to Congress (which it didn’t – the Constitution only gives Congress the power to make uniform laws of naturalization, not to define ‘natural born citizen’), as was done with ‘piracy’, for instance (“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”) or as was specifically left with Congress as “high crimes and misdemeanors”, the only way to find the operational definition of the specifically Constitutional term of ‘natural born citizen’ is through the SCOTUS.

There are numerous reasons to question the President. Unless it can be shown that he did revoke his United States citizenship, this does not seem to be one.

rukiddingme on February 11, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Well, no one knows what happened with Indonesia, though we do know that The Precedent used his stepfather’s name “Soetoro” for a long time, which is often a good indicator that he was adopted. But whether he lost his American citizenship or not is generally beside the point.

And the 14th amendment only detailed who is a US citizen at birth, not what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’. They are very different concepts.

All anyone has to do is take a quick glance at our oath of citizenship to see the attitude that our government held towards split allegiances – they are not allowed for naturalized Americans (though many naturalized Americans have maintained other citizeships in defiance of their oath)

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I don’t care what gymnastics anyone thinks he can do with that bolded sentence, it’s meaning is perfectly clear. Now, people are trying to claim that the same folks who wrote an oath like that had no problem allowing dual citizens (split allegiances) to be President. That is laughable, really. Don’t you think?

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Bye, Debbie Truther.

Philly on February 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Rae on February 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM

With all due respect, asking questions six months after the attack when the questions posed hadn’t been answered yet hardly constitutes “sounding like a Truther”

catmman on February 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Please point out in the link exactly where she suggested a cover-up of anything more than incompetence.

Alternatively, you could admit that your accusation of trutherism is bullshit.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM

You’re quoting Mike Church, not me. I neglected to add the blockquotes in my OP, thus my post immediately following (February 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM) where I said, “This part should have been in blockquotes.”

HTH!

But, if you would like Mike to retract his “accusation” (which it wasn’t, since he did use scare quotes around “Truther”), call him up during his show tomorrow! I’m sure he’d be delighted to talk to you…

Rae on February 11, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Yes, and play the audio again, and you will hear her say she did not believe our government had anything to do with it. Yes, play the audio again, and you will hear Beck talk about how much he likes Perry right before the interview and mock Medina after the interview, agree with his buddy that even if you are a truther, you don’t admit it when you’re asked. Hmmmm-this from the QUESTION BOLDLY guy, this from the “All we want is the truth” guy. I’ve been a huge fan of Beck’s, but he revealed himself today, and he’s not better than the slick politicians he rails against. But, on the bright side, Medina was invited back on the station to speak more on the topic and acquitted herself very well. Seems like the radio station thought she was ambushed also. So he actually got her more attention and more on air time. Thanks, Beck.

texanpride on February 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM

The birther folks have Obama’s evasive actions and expenditures to hide the totality of his life’s records on their side. You decide. The truthers as far as I can see have nothing.

Mason on February 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Scared of the left using this to bludgeon us? Very telling statement. The left has had the conservatives on the run far too long with that kind of cowardice. I could care less what the left wants to bludgeon us with. If they can’t find something truthful to use, they make something up. Go ahead, turn against her, you wouldn’t last in the long run anyway. Go with Slick Rick and the rest of the career politicians.

texanpride on February 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM

I’ve been trying to read the comments, really, but trutherism is just too much to take. It requires far too much suspension of disbelief. I’m convinced it is a mental illness. I’ve dealt with several folks with mental illnesses, including paranoid schizophrenics. They make the same types of points, and violently deny that they have any mental illness.

Buford Gooch on February 11, 2010 at 7:58 PM

To me, the real hole in their argument is the fact that Truthers exist and are still alive. They claim to have this horrible secret about how our government is capable of mass murdering thousands of us, and yet, no one’s taken them down.

Esthier on February 11, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Yes, this is a big one. But I also think two bigger ones are:

1. For this to be a conspiracy (in the sense of cooperation) there absolutely has to be a vow of silence from literally thousands of people. Federal, state, and even local conspirators would have to be able to pull it off without one single whistle blower who may be disgusted with plans to murder thousands. There is no argument compelling enough to ever suggest that this would be possible.

2. The conspiracy theorist must convince me (us) that what we all saw, witnessed by the world many times over, was in fact not what happened. We are instead supposed to believe what some complete stranger(s) suggests no matter the preposterousness of his claims.

anuts on February 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Good for you. No thinking involved. No reasoning necessary. Just grab an “expert” and follow whatever he says. The Precedent is allegedly a “Constitutional scholar” – even having been Precedent of the esteemed Harvard Law Review. Go ask him.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Now you’re just being obtuse and kind of a jackass to be honest. Let me try this a different way. Are you an expert in constitutional law, and if so, what are your bona fides? Or maybe you’re just an expert in everything? A know-it-all so to speak.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM

A professor!

Coronagold on February 11, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Neurosculptor:

It is necessary for the birther side to understand that all the letters from Jay, etc. to whomever, etc. are not law. The US Constitution is. Either you feel that there has not been adequate enough proof of eligibility shown by Obama at which point the argument is done. The law (Constitution) does not consider this. Or you may feel that what he did show as proof was somehow a fake and/or forgery at which point it shall up to someone to prove this violation.

anuts on February 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM

A professor!

Coronagold on February 11, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Can’t say that. Professor is the new “N” word.

“The idea is that he’s not one of us,” Ogletree says of the professor label. “He has these ideas that are left wing, that are socialist, that he’s palling around with terrorists — those were buzzwords, but the reality was they were looking at this president as an African American who was out of place.”

Thomas L. Haskell, a professor emeritus of history at Rice University, agrees that racial bias may be implicit in the attack on Obama’s professorial past.

“For me and a lot of other academic types, we identify with Obama precisely because he is an intellectual,” Haskell says. “But what does that mean to John Q. Public? I don’t know. John Q. Public may be frightened of these people, especially because this particular intellectual is a black.

mizflame98 on February 11, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Now you’re just being obtuse and kind of a jackass to be honest. Let me try this a different way. Are you an expert in constitutional law, and if so, what are your bona fides? Or maybe you’re just an expert in everything? A know-it-all so to speak.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM

I told you, I presented my arguments. What would it mean if some Constitutional expert agreed with me? Nothing, unless he provided a better argument. If one disagrees with me, then you should be able to find a counter argument to mine in his. But what is the point of “the source”?

But, in any event, I gave you one. Wasn’t that good enough? And he disagreed with me, but he thought that the lack-of-standing rulings were doing serious damage to the system.

It is necessary for the birther side to understand that all the letters from Jay, etc. to whomever, etc. are not law. The US Constitution is.

Yes. We are well aware of that. And all we have with natural born citizen is a clause at the primary level of Constitutional language – i.e. a purely Constitutional clause. No one knows exactly what it means and only the SCOTUS can provide an operational definition for it. As I have said before, the SCOTUS can just rule (when they get a case) that holding other citizenships has no effect on the determination of an American natural born citizen. That would be easy and the whole problem is over (assuming the Hawaii birth is fine and in order – which should take all of 3 seconds for the Court to do). But … that ruling would really go against the idea of sovereignty (which I illustrated by showing our oath of citizenship and what we force people to say in order to become US citizens) – but the SCOTUS can do it, if they want, and the whole eligibility issue disappears.

Either you feel that there has not been adequate enough proof of eligibility shown by Obama at which point the argument is done. The law (Constitution) does not consider this. Or you may feel that what he did show as proof was somehow a fake and/or forgery at which point it shall up to someone to prove this violation.

anuts on February 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM

The Precedent admits to having been a dual citizen. Eligibility is in question from that and only the SCOTUS can rule on it. And they really shoudl – they would with anyone else. But people are scared of the cities burning, so many are terrified to even touch this issue and do their best to scare others away.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

A life long Texan, I have never been that enamored of Rick Perry, and was hoping Kay Bailey Hutchison would be
a strong candidate who I could get behind. However, the whole rationale of her candiacy is a joke (she’s essentially saying Texan’s need change/an outsider when she’s the ultimate Washington insider. With news that Medina was surging to Hutchison’s support level, I was intrigued and wanted to learn more about her, hoping for an
alternative to Perry. But if she’s a “truther” I guess I am
back to my de facto position of skipping the primary and voting reluctantly for Perry in the fall.

HGFinley on February 11, 2010 at 8:29 PM

The only aspect of 9-11 I question is who (outside of the Al-Qaeda that is) may have known about it beforehand?

I find it hard to believe that such an ambitious operation could be carried out without someone somewhere spying on Al-Qaeda learning about it, at least in general terms.

And, if such knowledge did exist beforehand who would think that the government would have jumped all over this? Roll back to 9-10 and this would sound preposterous and somehow amateurish.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9