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 6 7 8 9

The Precedent admits to having been a dual citizen.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

This, even if I am to accept that this happened, is not proof of anything.

anuts on February 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM

“…and as far as I can tell being new here…”

AnninCA on February 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Surely, you do not mean you are in Texas?

publiuspen on February 11, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Debra has certainly disappointed with this latest revelation.

jediwebdude on February 11, 2010 at 8:38 PM

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Seriously, you can’t be as dense as you come off here. If I want an informed, credible opinion on a particular subject (and I don’t happen to be an expert on that subject), I seek out experts in that subject. How hard is that to understand? When you have a medical problem do you just read up on the condition and then treat yourself?

As a self-proclaimed expert in constitutional law, I’m sure you’re familiar with the following, but if not, check them out Professor Neurosculptor:

US v. Wong Kim Ark

Article IX, Section 1 of Alexander Hamilton’s Plan of Government

Ted Olson and Larry Tribe’s writings on the matter

Than go back and read Article 2 and the 14 Amendment of the Constitution and see if you can’t wrap that great big brain of yours around this thing. I’m sure at that point, however, you’ll start ranting about Kenya and a forged COLB.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 8:39 PM

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Those issues have all been gone over in eligibility threads here, ad nauseum. If you want the arguments, go back and read the old eligibility threads. Except for your reference of Olson and Tribe – the experts! So, you have your expert opinion on the issue, why are you asking me for references to Constitutional experts then? What’s the point of that? If you want to find other expert opinions, you can search for them like anyone else.

You are more concerned with the speaker than the content of the speech.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM

“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?”

Now why would Barack Obama have a “dual allegiance” to a country he never set foot in until he was an adult? Are you claimning he has a dual allegiance to Kenya or the UK NOW?

Are you saying he pledged allegiance to some other country?

When was he ever “under the jurisdiction” of Kenya or the Brits, let alone at birth?

What if some postage stamp country declares that “henceforth, all people born in the USA are automatically citizens of our country”. Would that mean that all Americans born in the US, to citizen parents, be ineligible to run for POTUS, as they would hold dual citizenship?

In any case, setting standards for granting citizenship to people who are NOT “natural born” tells us nothing about what “natural born” means. Just how old is the wording of that oath? I seriously doubt that it goes all the way back to the Founding.

fulldroolcup on February 11, 2010 at 8:47 PM

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM

You’ve exposed yourself as a fundamentalist on this issue neuro. LIke most conspiracy theorist nuts, you’ve convinced yourself that your some sort of expert on the issue and ignore the opinions of real experts and all evidence and logic running counter to your version of THE TRUTH. This is really not even a close case my man. If one of these cases ever found its way to the Supremes, it would be a 9-0 decision. BTW, I got A’s in Con Law I and II at a top 10 law school. How’d you do?

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM

BTW, I got A’s in Con Law I and II at a top 10 law school. How’d you do?

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM

I did math, which is something lawyers don’t understand. But we have always gotten a kick out of what passes for logic among lawyers.

So, tell me again why you were asking me for expert opinions. Is that how you debate? Yep … that’s how law school teaches you, I guess.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Eight pages about how this lady stepped in it?

Or is it two or three pages on that and infinite pages on truther, trolling morons rehashing every conspiracy theory for the past decade?

catmman on February 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM

If she’s not a Truther, why did she attend a Texans for Truth meeting in December?

SnarkVader on February 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Interesting. Glenn Beck torpedoed Debra Medina, who gave a strong interview until the Truther question. She said she was not a Truther, but that there were some good questions out there that haven’t been answered. Beck didn’t ask her, “Like what?” to find out what she was talking about. He quickly ended the interview and started mocking her as a Truther.

Beck’s behavior with Medina reminded me of the day after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts when Beck said, “This one could end with a dead intern.” That wasn’t a joke; it was an attack disguised as humor.

I’m starting to believe those who claim that Beck is the controlled opposition, whose role is to get out in front of the Tea Party and try to take it in the direction the establishment wants it to go.

Cara C on February 11, 2010 at 9:25 PM

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 9:04 PM

dakine the Lonely Boy is not a lawyer. He just works for them. And he thinks their “intelligence” rubs off on him.

atheling on February 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM

If she’s not a Truther, why did she attend a Texans for Truth meeting in December?

SnarkVader on February 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Is that was it says? On the page, all I see is information about a town hall meet up, not a truth meeting.

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Why did Glenn Beck blindside and torpedo a Tea Party candidate?

Why would he ask such a question if he didn’t have prior information?

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 9:53 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

My apologies, I interpreted your comment to be endorsing Church’s position.

In any case, no where in the article does Malkin suggest that the government had anything to do with the attacks, so it’s an absurd comparison, and Church is being ridiculously dishonest. Perhaps he thinks people will glance at the title “Just wondering” and only skim it, without realizing that it has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. Unlike Medina, who, after being asked point blank if she thought the government was behind 9/11, said that people had raised “very good questions”.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Apologizes in advance to Hot Air for participating in the thread subject changing.

That wouldn’t matter. It’s just a question of having held other citizenships, not whether one relinquished his US citizenship.

Disagree. Obtaining dual citizenship in my opinion does not alter the status of being a United States citizen. Unless the United States citizenship is revoked (voluntarily or involuntarily). Not convinced that the act of obtaining citizenship, by itself, in another country automatically invalidates standing as a US citizen.

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.

Agree. If citizenship is relinquished, one can no longer be considered a citizen of United States.

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’),

Disagree, she was born on US soil by law. She meets the requirements of the 14th amendment. Keep in mind she did not swear allegiance to either country, but was granted citizenship in both at time of birth.

And the 14th amendment only detailed who is a US citizen at birth,

Agree.

not what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’. They are very different concepts

Agree, but the difference seems to be immeasurable. Born is specifically addressed in the 14th amendment. While natural born is never specifically addressed, the implication seems to be that born and natural born are equal.

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…

No need to copy the whole thing. I love this oath. Keep in mind, neither you, I, Obama, or my wife have ever been required to proclaim this because it is implied at birth. Also, keep mind that my wife never proclaimed an allegiance to England either but it is implied there as well.

I don’t care what gymnastics anyone thinks he can do with that bolded sentence, it’s meaning is perfectly clear.

Its’ meaning is perfectly clear, but as stated above, we have never been required to proclaim it. Should we believe it and adhere to it, absolutely. Its’ purpose at the time of the Founding Fathers was to swear allegiance to a new country being formed. The oath today is required to be proclaimed by those not born on US soil that are attempting be naturalized as citizens.

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?

Agreed. The Founding Fathers were concerned with dual citizenship at the time the country was founded for obvious reasons. But I am not convinced that the situation faced by the Founding Fathers applies to this situation.

Assuming it is applicable (although I do not believe it be) to finish:

Since he is a citizen by birth, we are left with the question of: Does obtaining citizenship in another country invalidate a United States citizenship?

I believe that answer to be no in this case because:

1) He obtained United States citizenship at birth by definition
2) He obtained dual citizenship after that
3) He never renounced his United States citizenship
4) His United States citizenship has never been revoked

Here is another example:

If I go to England for another job, obtain citizenship in England, do not renounce my United States citizenship, and then come back, would I be required to reaffim (swear an oath) United States citizenship, or is that status still in good standing?

I say no, the caveat being I am not a Constitutional law expert.

rukiddingme on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Why did Glenn Beck blindside and torpedo a Tea Party candidate?

Why would he ask such a question if he didn’t have prior information?

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Why not? Do you think the Tea party benefits from imbeciles who embrace the lunatic fringe?

Do you think she shouldn’t have been torpedoed?

How is it blindsiding to ask a question like that? Why should anyone have any difficulty whatsoever saying “No, Glenn, what a silly question”?

As for having prior information, he pointed out that there were rumors, then gave her a chance to repudiate them, which she didn’t take, because she’s a kook, or likes to pander to kooks.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Narutoboy, check this link out:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=34956268&blogId=528026296

SnarkVader on February 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM

So she is running for the same office formarly held by someone she blames for 9/11? What a nut job.

lavell12 on February 11, 2010 at 10:09 PM

NAFTA, Trans Texas Corridor, turning over sovereignty to the Mexican Gov’t for their various ‘ports’ inside the USA (outside Kansas City for example), and paving the way for a North American Union.

These are NOT PRO-AMERICA positions, and they are all those of Governor Rick Perry.

Are either Kay or Medina any better I don’t know yet. But Perry? Are voters of Tejas going to left with the choices of Demon # 1, Demon # 2 or Demon # 3 in the primary?

Too bad for my friends in the Lone Star State.

PappyD61 on February 11, 2010 at 10:11 PM

The Precedent admits to having been a dual citizen. neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I wasn’t going to jump in, but…fulldroolcup, I believe Obama went to a madrassa in Kenya, didn’t he? I remember reading this during the election; trying to find a link. Apparently it was a school only Kenyan nationals could attend.

The US prohibits dual citizenship except in a few cases – Canada & the UK, perhaps another? Perhaps there’s nothing untoward, but I think it could have been dealt with a little more openly during the campaign. Since natural citizenship is a requirement for the Presidency, and as far as I understand you cannot renounce your citizenship and then reinstate and still qualify for higher office, it’s pertinent. So the circumstances under which he was granted citizenship in Kenya – if indeed he was – are germane to whether or not he is qualified to hold the office.

It’s not just Obama – I think every candidate the runs for the Presidency needs to make available original copies of their birth certificate, and records supporting that birth be made public. It is a Constitutional requirement, so that request isn’t out of line.

linlithgow on February 11, 2010 at 10:12 PM

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=34956268&blogId=528026296

SnarkVader on February 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Don’t get me wrong, she’s “friendly” to that cause. But I’m just not seeing what you’re talking about. I’m half way into the video and all I’ve seen is her talking about not supporting “nwo” and three guys planning to advertise for her. Does the vid show her at a truth meeting?

Narutoboy on February 11, 2010 at 10:15 PM

neurosculptor at 9:04
At one top 10 law school, at least, math is the undergraduate degree that correlates highest with high law school performance.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 11, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Why did Glenn Beck blindside and torpedo a Tea Party candidate?

Why would he ask such a question if he didn’t have prior information?

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Why not? Do you think the Tea party benefits from imbeciles who embrace the lunatic fringe?

Do you think she shouldn’t have been torpedoed?

How is it blindsiding to ask a question like that? Why should anyone have any difficulty whatsoever saying “No, Glenn, what a silly question”?

As for having prior information, he pointed out that there were rumors, then gave her a chance to repudiate them, which she didn’t take, because she’s a kook, or likes to pander to kooks.

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM

.
Thank you RINO for speaking some sense here!!
.
I listen to Beck’s show on the way home today and just because Medina has co-opted the Tea Party, doesn’t mean she should be elected. A kook will hurt the movement, and she, my friends, is a kook.
.
She, not only would not deny the Birther label, she would not say she would fire someone on her staff if he was determined to be a Birther.

JeffVader on February 11, 2010 at 10:23 PM

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Too many unaswered questions regarding 9-11 for me to label “truthers” kooks. But keep playing “follow the leader”, RINO.

Until the gov’t releases everything they have to debunk the “Truthers’, then questions will remain.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 10:38 PM

If I go to England for another job, obtain citizenship in England, do not renounce my United States citizenship, and then come back, would I be required to reaffim (swear an oath) United States citizenship, or is that status still in good standing?

I say no, the caveat being I am not a Constitutional law expert
rukiddingme on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Sorry this is not clear. I should have said that my standing as a US citizen is still valid under these circumstances. I say no to having to reaffirm it.

Night all.

rukiddingme on February 11, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Like believing in a super being that lives in the clouds, or the ether, or wherever and loves us but sometimes lets really horrible things happen to us because he has a “plan” that we’re just incapable of understanding?

wtaft on February 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Show me your proof that God does not exist.

massrighty on February 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM

I’m starting to believe those who claim that Beck is the controlled opposition, whose role is to get out in front of the Tea Party and try to take it in the direction the establishment wants it to go.

Cara C on February 11, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Yep!

I don’t trust that fat, drunken Mormon.

I don’t trust any Mormons, actually.

I have them in my family….so if you don’t……….save the “PC lecture” responses cuz you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 PM

I almost got in a physical fight with two 911 truthers.

Just when I was warming up to Medina, she destroys her political career with this cr*p.

Nice go extremist.

Advice to Tea Partiers:

Stick to the Constitution and Kirk Conservatism, that’s it! Follow it, we save the country.

Medina just proved she can’t stand for TRUTH.

Goodbye.

Sapwolf on February 11, 2010 at 11:19 PM

The Tea Party should distance itself from her ASAP.

I was in Nashville and didn’t even hear ONE word of anything to do with 911 truth nonsense.

Freek!

Sapwolf on February 11, 2010 at 11:21 PM

I’m starting to believe those who claim that Beck is the controlled opposition, whose role is to get out in front of the Tea Party and try to take it in the direction the establishment wants it to go.

Cara C on February 11, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Yep!

I don’t trust that fat, drunken Mormon.

I don’t trust any Mormons, actually.

I have them in my family….so if you don’t……….save the “PC lecture” responses cuz you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 PM

—————–

Golly ! ! You scare easily and WOW such
the word man . What a convincing smooth
talking dude. LOL Boo ! !

Texyank on February 11, 2010 at 11:27 PM

atheling on February 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM

This from a chick who claims to be a certified Mensa genius, yet is limited to pushing paper in some low level clerical job for the USN. You got some onions on ya atheling…I’ll give you that.

neuro, you’re way, way out there on an island only inhabited by unhinged conspiracy nuts. This is not a close legal case, and the logic is not that complicated. Math major or not, you should probably stay out of the deep end and stick to whatever it is you do in real life.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM

You’ve got a hamster wheel running in your head about this, lonely boy.

And you are seriously stunted if you equate intelligence with achievement. Marxist.

atheling on February 12, 2010 at 12:30 AM

And you are seriously stunted if you equate intelligence with achievement. Marxist.

atheling on February 12, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Guessing you really don’t understand the term “Marxist”. So you’re a genius, but have simply wasted your massive intellect in a sea of underachievement. Nice…way to use what God gave you atheling.

dakine on February 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Ger rid of her. Quite frankly, she’s an idiot if she believes that. Hopefully she and that racist scumbag Ron Paul will watch their political careers die before their eyes, and soon. If she thinks President Bush did that, she should move to be with the innocent, peace loving Saudis.

Virus-X on February 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM

shouldn’t conservatives rebuke Medina for the same thing?

Absolutely yes. Thank you Glenn Beck.

AshleyTKing on February 12, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Swell.

Hawkins1701 on February 12, 2010 at 1:22 AM

All Medina had to say is “No, I don’t believe in any conspiracy theory.” Simple as that..end of story and career…as far as I’m concerned. And evveryone berating Beck for asking it…someone in the media would have asked about it sooner or later. It’s probably better that it was Beck than the Far Left media who would have made all the Tea Partiers out to be Truthers.

Deanna on February 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Ron Paul and his racist cohorts have NOTHING to do with the Tea Party. The failed Ron Paul rEVOLution crowd is desperately trying to attach itself to the Tea Party in a parasitic attack – but there are few tea party people who support Ron Paul to any degree.

At best Tea Party people think he has an idea or two they could support if a crazy racist troofer wasn’t the person behind the message.

Mr Purple on February 12, 2010 at 1:32 AM

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

The Constitution does not exist for you to interpret it in any such way that suits you.

Were the Constitution written in such a way that those who AS A CHILD held dual-citizenship while living outside the US as a child were ineligible, I’d be right there with you.

As it stands, the Constitution neither states or loosely implies such a thing. What your’e looking for is an activist decision (that will never, ever happen) because it suits your nutty cause. A cause that only enables Obama and his supporters to label his opponents as extremist nutjobs.

Obama was legitimately elected and certified as eligible to hold office, but he is beatable in 2010. No loony Birther conspiracy theories necessary.

Hollowpoint on February 12, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Oops- beatable in 2012 I meant.

Hollowpoint on February 12, 2010 at 2:15 AM

*Sigh*

I can’t decide who is worse, Kay Bailey or Rick.

V-rod on February 12, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Ron Paul and his racist cohorts have NOTHING to do with the Tea Party. The failed Ron Paul rEVOLution crowd is desperately trying to attach itself to the Tea Party in a parasitic attack – but there are few tea party people who support Ron Paul to any degree.

At best Tea Party people think he has an idea or two they could support if a crazy racist troofer wasn’t the person behind the message.

Mr Purple on February 12, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Ron Paul is a weak, gullible pacifist, but I know he isn’t racist.

V-rod on February 12, 2010 at 2:59 AM

You’ve got a hamster wheel running in your head about this, lonely boy.

And you are seriously stunted if you equate intelligence with achievement. Marxist.

atheling on February 12, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Seriously? While intelligence and achievement aren’t identical, they tend to be highly correlated, and usually it’s the people who don’t see that that are Marxists.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 3:04 AM

Ron Paul is a weak, gullible pacifist, but I know he isn’t racist.

V-rod on February 12, 2010 at 2:59 AM

He might not be racist, but by letting racists publish things in his name, he opened the door to that criticism. I do agree that he probably isn’t personally racist, but its hard to imagine something like that getting published in his name without him being aware of it. One would think a friend would have brought it to his attention, unless all of his friends are racists, in which case he is either very cynical or very naive.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 3:20 AM

I see the Ron Paul truthers are infesting the InterWebz at any site who has the Glenn Beck audio posted.

The site who first posted the clip has a 300 post thread with 95 percent of the posters (truthers) hyperventilating over the fact that Medina has outed herself.

Brass on February 12, 2010 at 5:09 AM

Titanic Conspiracy

How could a ship that’s made out of metal be sunk by an iceberg?

View with an open mind.

Brass on February 12, 2010 at 5:18 AM

Didn’t Sarah Palin say as much about the birthers? I believe she said they too asked good and legitimate questions. She got a pass from everyone here, including myself because I fully understood what she meant. http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002387/

Does Ed accept her comments and her clarification afterwards but not Medina’s?

I find this GOP insider mentality somewhat disappointing.

True_King on February 12, 2010 at 5:58 AM

Eight pages about how this lady stepped in it?

Or is it two or three pages on that and infinite pages on truther, trolling morons rehashing every conspiracy theory for the past decade?

catmman on February 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Oh Boy! Another HotAir Poll!

Um. Let’s see.

I pick number “B”!

“B” should include the well-meaning but misguided folks who argue with them.

Sooner or later they will realize it’s like arguing with a dog trying to convince him that cats are really not evil alien warlords intent on dominating the earth.

No matter what you say, he still goes into a barking frenzy every time he sees one.

And these guys bark. A lot.

Rod on February 12, 2010 at 7:27 AM

True_King on February 12, 2010 at 5:58 AM

so you are a birther? color me surprised.

Bradky on February 12, 2010 at 7:49 AM

I find the Truthers are much the same crowd who think the Freemasons are secretly establishing a one world order.

Most of them mean well but are hopelessly clueless.

Disturb the Universe on February 12, 2010 at 7:53 AM

True_King on February 12, 2010 at 5:58 AM

Believing your government was behind a terror attack that killed thousands of Americans is quite a bit different than acknowledging the fact that Zero is hiding his long form BC and his college transcripts.

That is simply a fact.

Just because critics want to associate 9/11 conspiracy theorists with people who believe in upholding the Constitution doesn’t mean the two groups of people or their questions are equivalent.

Mr Purple on February 12, 2010 at 7:58 AM

True_King, well-put.

Paging Michelle Malkin.

dtestard on February 12, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Truther, birther – bah. Medina made an excellent point: the fact that distrust of government has become so widespread that many people can even entertain these notions is symptomatic of a deeper problem. People on both sides of the political spectrum have grave doubts that our government is being conducted along constitutional lines. The question is not whether people believe the federal government is corrupt, but instead whether it is corrupt enough to allow an attack on US soil that could have been prevented, or a foreign-born person to become POTUS.

I don’t think that these questions are irrational. There have been many documented cases of “false flag” operations – Hitler faked a Polish invasion of Germany to offer as the reason for his invasion of Poland in 1939. And there is considerable evidence to show that FDR knew enough of the operational details of the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack plan to have ordered a full alert. In light of his documented desire to enter the the war to give assistance to Britain, is it unreasonable to question his motives?

I think that the people who absolutely believe the truther/birther theories are acting on faith and emotion rather than reason. But I don’t think that the unshakable faith of the naysayers is justified, either. We really don’t know how corrupt our government is. Historians will eventually offer interpretations based on more complete evidence, but even these interpretations will be theories rather than facts.

Asking questions is not bad. Thinking out of the box is good. Believing without sufficient evidence is whack no matter what your conclusion is.

Venusian Visitor on February 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM

So you noticed his frothing-at-the-mouth bigotry too?

atheling on February 11, 2010 at 4:41 PM

That’s one thing that has amazed me about so many atheists.
That they can’t stop thinking about religion.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM

That is why 9/11 trutherism or any speculation of FDR knowing the attack on Pearl Harbor was about to occur is absolute nonsense.

technopeasant on February 11, 2010 at 4:42 PM

From what I’ve read FDR was expecting an attack, but everyone thought it would be in the Phillipines.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM

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.

You really work hard at not getting it don’t you.
Just because they were hit does not prove that they suffered an equal amount of damage. As your pictures prove, they did not.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM

I was probably going to vote for Medina here in Texas. Not any more!

WannabeAnglican on February 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM

Check out the D’onofrio court filing.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

A court filing is proof?????????

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM

From what I’ve read FDR was expecting an attack, but everyone thought it would be in the Phillipines.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM

If that’s true then there was a really big screwup, because the Air Corps in the Phillipines was wiped out while parked wingtip-to-wingtip the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Venusian Visitor on February 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM

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

alteredbeat on February 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

A premise that is trivially easy to demonstrate.

If it’s so obvious that the collapse was not the result of the terroristic acts, why did the insurance companies pay out?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:51 AM

He did not provide anything and your idea that dual citizens should be eligible to be President is insane.
neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

One trait I have found in almost all birthers, is rampant xenophobia.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM

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

Wow, total disconnect from any form of reality.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:54 AM

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.

The words you use, don’t mean what you think they mean.
This can also be read as saying that they do not want someone who is a naturalized citizen from becoming president.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM

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

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

If congress rules him eligible, he’s eligible.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Five posts in a row? Let someone else respond, MarkTheGreat, you’re spamming.

Venusian Visitor on February 12, 2010 at 9:02 AM

John Jay would call someone who held another citizenship, “a foreigner
neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

you would

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:05 AM

I did math, which is something lawyers don’t understand. But we have always gotten a kick out of what passes for logic among lawyers.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 9:04 PM

In your opinion, all mathemeticians are better lawyers than the lawyers?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Five posts in a row? Let someone else respond, MarkTheGreat, you’re spamming.

Venusian Visitor on February 12, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Or I’m reviewing the 300 or so posts added since I signed off last night, at a time when few other people are up and active.

Do you have something substantive that you want to add, or is sounding stupid the heights of your rhetorical ambitions?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Why did Glenn Beck blindside and torpedo a Tea Party candidate?

Why would he ask such a question if he didn’t have prior information?

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM

If such an innocuous question is enough to blind side a candidate, then she isn’t ready for prime time, and it’s better to know it now.

Why does it matter if Beck had prior info? Isn’t that what interviewers are supposed to do?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Not convinced that the act of obtaining citizenship, by itself, in another country automatically invalidates standing as a US citizen.

rukiddingme on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM

I thought there was a requirement that before you can accept citizenship in another country, you have to revoke your US citizenship. This requirement does not affect those who have automatic citizenship through birth.
Secondly, a child cannot legally revoke his citizenship, nor can parents do so on his behalf.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:18 AM

linlithgow on February 11, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Indonesia, not Kenya.
A child cannot renounce his citizenship, so your entire point is moot.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:21 AM

“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.”

What you exact answer was is “I don’t have all the facts” and she never once stated no during the Beck interview, so it sounds like she is trying to backtrack now that this has come out.

JeffinSac on February 12, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Too many unaswered questions regarding 9-11 for me to label “truthers” kooks.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 10:38 PM

There are no unanswered questions regarding the events of 9-11.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:22 AM

I don’t trust that fat, drunken Mormon.

I don’t trust any Mormons, actually.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Another fool who has totally disqualified himself, and perhaps earned the ban hammer.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:24 AM

I don’t trust that fat, drunken Mormon.

I don’t trust any Mormons, actually.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Do you know any Mormons? What an ignorant statement!

mizflame98 on February 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM

I don’t trust that fat, drunken Mormon.

I don’t trust any Mormons, actually.

David2.0 on February 11, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Another fool who has totally disqualified himself, and perhaps earned the ban hammer.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:24 AM

What MTG said. I’m not a Mormon and I find this disgusting.

DRPrice on February 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM

but he is beatable in 2010.
Hollowpoint on February 12, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Obama isn’t running in 2010. Sad to say.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Just because critics want to associate 9/11 conspiracy theorists with people who believe in upholding the Constitution doesn’t mean the two groups of people or their questions are equivalent.

Mr Purple on February 12, 2010 at 7:58 AM

For a surplus of reasons the 9-11 nuts are far worse in their detachments from reality, but the idea that questioning Obama’s birth certificate equates with “upholding the Constitution” is madness and should cease. If one truly respects the Constitution, then he/she would drop the issue. There is nothing within the document that mandates he ‘prove’ anything beyond what he already has. That’s the birther detachment. Demanding a sitting POTUS to show a BC is above and beyond any eligibility requirement from the Constitution. Therefore, any argument for this demand is premised upon something else. Until one reveals the ever elusive ‘birth certificate clause’; pick something else. It’s insulting to the actual document and those that truly defend it.

anuts on February 12, 2010 at 9:30 AM

From what I’ve read FDR was expecting an attack, but everyone thought it would be in the Phillipines.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM

No better use of intelligence in the Philippines than in Pearl Harbor resulted in MacArthur leaving our troops to suffer the Bataan Death March and American citizens made prisoners of war with all Westerners by the Imperial Japanese torturers for the duration of WWII.

maverick muse on February 12, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Yikes, see this is why we need to fully vet Tea Party candidates who aren’t well known. This is a powerful movement that any false prophet or nutjob would love to exploit. Kudos goes to Beck here for stomping this one out.

Daemonocracy on February 12, 2010 at 9:43 AM

anuts on February 12, 2010 at 9:30 AM

A thousand pardons, your highness, I will be more reticent if ever I would seek to stand for my rights or those of others. I will be sure to seek your approval of my actions. Or you could just stuff it. I need your permission like I need Obooboo in the White House.
 
In other news, Mrs. Medina was on news talk this morning with yet another different reason for why she fumbled the question with Beck. I was holding out for her that she botched it and now it’s time to recover the ball. So far I’ve heard her live on the radio with FOUR different explanations. That’s just not going to cut it. Her campaign was in a pissing contest with Pags last night.
 
I’ve reviewed Beck’s set up before and after he had Medina on, and I’m certain that he dug up or was provided a little dirt on the ‘new girl’ in town. Does setting up your opponent sound like something Governor Good Hair would do? You betcha. Does setting up your opponent sound like something Key BAILOUT would do? You betcha. While I was hoping for a Perry vs Medina run off in April, this is going to sink her chances.
 
Now what we need is a leash for Perry to keep him away from the idiot who talked him into the Mandatory Vaccine Order. We also need Perry to walk back the TransTexas Corridor. Hold on to hope that we get Ted Cruz for Lt. Governor.

Blacksmith8 on February 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM

I thought there was a requirement that before you can accept citizenship in another country, you have to revoke your US citizenship.

Apparently not:

Naturalization in a foreign country

Because a legal application for naturalization in a foreign country must be made, obtaining citizenship in a foreign country by an automatic act of law will not result in the loss of US citizenship. If, in making the oath to the new country, the person is required to renounce allegiance to the US, and does so with the intent of losing US citizenship, he will. However, if the person makes such an oath believing that it will not impact his US citizenship, it is not a renunciating act. In those cases where the new country does not require a renunciation of loyalty to the country of original citizenship, it is very difficult to prove that a person has renounced his US citizenship.

This requirement does not affect those who have automatic citizenship through birth.

Agreed.

Secondly, a child cannot legally revoke his citizenship, nor can parents do so on his behalf.

Agreeed as well, which would make any dual-citezenship issues before he was 18 a moot point. He became a US citizen by birth.

There seems to be some that believe he obtained citizenship in another country after 18. Is there any merit to those claims? Even then it would not seem to matter according to the information above.

OT from the OT:

Learned much from you in reading your points about AGW. You have considerable knowledge of the issue. Profession? Passion? Both?

rukiddingme on February 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Agreeed as well, which would make any dual-citiezenship issues before he was 18 a moot point. He became a US citizen by birth.

Oops! Must get coffee.

rukiddingme on February 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM

No, the question wasn’t whether people “have the right to question our government.”

Yes it was.

No one is locking up Truthers for asking foolish questions and spinning conspiracy theories.

Medina never said or thought that. You’re only as good at putting words into her mouth as Beck for fabricating sensationalism to somehow support your bias. But since you address the audience response to so-called “truthers” who never doubted that Islamofascist Jihadists attacked America on 9/11, recognize your own role fueling a witch hunt, Ed Morrissey.

Of course Medina’s platform is the Tea Party Constitutional stand to protect our nation’s liberty by demanding transparency from our legislators and our Chief Executives. And Medina is wise enough to know what the Tea Party must do in TEXAS for Texans.

There are those career politicians with their pro-establishment corrupted PACs that buy support and bribe media personalities. Medina most certainly is not part of that.

Beck was weird to invest his entire dialogue with Medina on 9/11, demanding that she “out” any supporters who distrust the propaganda from Washingtonians. Beck, who knows NOTHING about Texan issues, chose to make the GOP 2010 Texas Governor Primary Election entirely based upon 2001 and the disconnect between the Clinton and Bush transfer of power.

The Bush administration’s demand to create the ill conceived unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security leaves no doubt that prior to 9/11, our federal government failed to protect America (intelligence community not communicating with themselves and not communicating with the Chief Executive, according to the Bush/Cheney administration). Creating the DHS has not guaranteed any national security given the Obama administration literally using the DHS to target conservative American citizens while simultaneously empowering Islamofascist Jihadists to further terrorize America.

Of course the Tea Party is the outcry from conservative independent US citizens against special interests who buy government policies that not only interfere with our public safety, but rescind our Constitutional Rights.

To the extent that the corrupt GOP establishment usurps the Tea Party, then the effort to re-affirm the Constitution and the original Republican Platform has failed AGAIN, just as occurred by the GOP sabotage to “eliminate the Dept. of Education” among five promised to be rescinded in Newt’s so-called Contract With America. Newt’s respect for so-called contracts foreshadowed Obama’s. Note well that this entire Beck-spun debacle paints the progressive neoconservative intolerance for Tea Party conservatives. Dhimmiwits fear public ridicule, and Alinsky disciples love to dish it out.

Medina is no “truther” and is no coward.

maverick muse on February 12, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Years ago, closely following the 9/11/01 attacks in America, Glenn Beck was targeted as a so-called “truther”.

What a weasel.

maverick muse on February 12, 2010 at 10:10 AM

In other news, Mrs. Medina was on news talk this morning with yet another different reason for why she fumbled the question with Beck. I was holding out for her that she botched it and now it’s time to recover the ball. So far I’ve heard her live on the radio with FOUR different explanations. That’s just not going to cut it. Her campaign was in a pissing contest with Pags last night.

It’s safe to say, she’s done in this race.

Now what we need is a leash for Perry to keep him away from the idiot who talked him into the Mandatory Vaccine Order. We also need Perry to walk back the TransTexas Corridor. Hold on to hope that we get Ted Cruz for Lt. Governor.

Blacksmith8 on February 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM

I don’t see how Perry is going to lose. I thought Dewhurst is still running unopposed in the primary.

anuts on February 12, 2010 at 10:15 AM

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Beck posed a question. Medina answered well, honestly denying that she is a “truther” or that this had anything to do with her campaign. But Beck wanted to take Medina down. So AFTER he disconnects the call, he shot her in the back. And Dhimmiwits follow the crowd in group think.

Beck fabricated the “truther” smear against Medina.

All the while, the most powerful interests attempting to own the political arena are funding propaganda to convert the Tea Party movement into the corrupted GOP.

Beck’s on the take. So sorry to see.

But Medina is NOT.

And regarding Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., Sarah Palin endorses him because they agree on the majority of issues. “There is no such thing as the perfect candidate.”

maverick muse on February 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Have coffee now, noticed a second oops!

rukiddingme on February 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM

This post should have been addressed to

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:18 AM

rukiddingme on February 12, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Now what we need is a leash for Perry to keep him away from the idiot who talked him into the Mandatory Vaccine Order. We also need Perry to walk back the TransTexas Corridor. Hold on to hope that we get Ted Cruz for Lt. Governor.

Blacksmith8 on February 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM

I don’t see how Perry is going to lose. I thought Dewhurst is still running unopposed in the primary.

anuts on February 12, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Blacksmith8,

Did you miss Perry’s promise in debate to repeat his mistakes?

You failed to hear Perry insist that he would repeat his executive order to vaccinate all Texas girls with Gardasil — despite permanent paralysis, strokes and death, and despite NO LONG TERM STUDIES – in the second GOP primary debate. Perry had the gall to claim that his executive order to inoculate all girls with Gardasil, regardless of ANY concerns, is “pro-life” as if we’re all going to jump on that bandwagon to inject everyone with Gardasil. It takes a Dhimmiwit to fall for that unconstitutional line.

maverick muse on February 12, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Medina’s platform addresses the complaints that Texas Tea Party conservatives have with extending the Rick Perry PAC Governorship beyond the already unprecedented 10 years rife with kickback corruption that ALREADY attempted to rescind our constitutional rights. Four more years means we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Perry has had 10 years to make TxDOT transparent to tax payers. That’s only the tip of his corruption iceberg.

maverick muse on February 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Now what we need is a leash for Perry to keep him away from the idiot who talked him into the Mandatory Vaccine Order. We also need Perry to walk back the TransTexas Corridor. Hold on to hope that we get Ted Cruz for Lt. Governor.

Blacksmith8 on February 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Isn’t Ted Cruz in the mix for Attorney General should Abbott be appointed to replace Hutchison?

Back to the topic: I have no doubt that Beck launched his torpedo to help Perry. But the fact remains, whether she’s a “truther” or not, Medina’s inexperience came to the forefront with her exceedingly poor answer.

If Beck is a more than a pawn, he should now ask Perry if the abominable TransTexas Corridor is in fact, dead. Many Texans think it’s merely in an induced coma.

One other thought: I wonder if any these posters talking about Medina co-opting the Tea Party would have been disturbed at the way Perry pranced about during the April 15 rally in Fort Worth (sponsored by the GOP).

itsacookbook on February 12, 2010 at 10:44 AM

anyone closely associated to the Paultard should be suspected at a minimum of being a soft-Troofer idiot with little character if any.

jp on February 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Ron Paul is a weak, gullible pacifist, but I know he isn’t racist.

V-rod on February 12, 2010 at 2:59 AM

if he’s not, he certainly has no problem building a Political base and profiting from blatant Racism and wild, idiotic Conspiracy theories.

Which speaks volumes as to the Character and wisdom of the man

jp on February 12, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Why does a kook hide the fact she is a kook?
It just shows you that Paulnuts are liars…they will dodge an answer because they know the answer (that they believe) won’t get them elected.
That is exactly what the tea party is against…lying, deceiving politicians from any party.

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9