WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
WORLD wishes all its Twitter followers a happy and safe Independence Day.
ACLU angry about terrorist watch list
Here’s something to think about as some of you may be heading through airport security this Thanksgiving. I followed a link to the American Civil Liberties Union site yesterday. There I learned that there are one million people on the Transportation Securities Administration’s terrorist watch list. Then follows a little quiz with some leading questions.
The answers to all the questions: false! More people than just “true terrorists” are on the list!
In fact, the terrorist watch list includes hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans with common names like Robert Johnson and even Senator Ted Kennedy.
I’m pretty sure they’re not saying that the senator is on the terrorist watch list, but that the name “Ted Kennedy” might be on it.
Your name might be on the list, too….Yet, there is almost no disclosure about where the information is coming from, how to know if your name is on it and how to get off it.
Come on, Feds! Why won’t you provide more disclosure about who is on the terrorist watch list? Tell us who you’re watching! 
I did very little digging and discovered that the TSA doesn’t have a terrorist watch list, and that the list they do have of people who need more “intense scrutiny” at airports contains 16,000 names, according to Homeland Security.
I don’t pretend to know all the background to this debate. Many serious discussions have and will take place about the issues with the Patriot Act, where the government gained access to private information in the name of the war on terror.
But from a superficial standpoint I have to laugh about the ACLU demanding more disclosure on a terrorist watch list. Isn’t the point of watching a suspected terrorist that they don’t know you’re watching?
back to top53 Comments to “ACLU angry about terrorist watch list”
I thought the ACLU would be busy defending Joe the Plumber from the state of Ohio.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t the point of watching a suspected terrorist that they don’t know you’re watching?
In that case, you would let the suspect on the airplane so you could keep watching.
Report comment to moderator
Now, if President-elect Obama put suspected ministers of “hate speech” and fanaticism on this list, would you want to know more about who’s on the list?
Report comment to moderator
Oh… You mean like Louis Farakahn or Jeremiah Wright?
Report comment to moderator
No, I mean Campus Crusade and InterVarsity, who are apparently going to be banned from campuses after Obama takes power (James Dobson predicted it in his “Letter from 2012.”)
Report comment to moderator
I am violating my suggestion, but not to comment on anything today. I am just reminding “rebels” of my request that you take one day’s break from posting.
Scroop Moth, one comment does not really count if you hold off for the rest of the day.
You are on my “watch list,” but nothing will happen to you if you don’t do as I request.
We tell my granddaughter to say “Please.” Scroop Moth, please take one day break from posting any more. We tell RG to say “Thank you.” Thank you.
I am setting a good example for RG.
Report comment to moderator
I’m pretty sure they’re not saying that the senator is on the terrorist watch list, but that the name “Ted Kennedy” might be on it.
No Emily. The name Ted Kennedy IS on it, and the Senator has had trouble because of it.
the ACLU’s 1 million number may be wrong … without the transparency you mock the need for, there’s no way to really know or verify… but that innocent people have been kept off flights, viewed with suspicion and otherwise affected by their names appearing on it is indisputable.
Report comment to moderator
And that innocent person may have been a little old lady or a mother with kids.
A few years ago, when they were pushing to make the security checkers federal employees, I said;
“If you thing Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Nero were despots, wait till you get a GS-3 with authority.”
Report comment to moderator
Yet, if the plane had been blown up with Ted Kennedy on board, the family would have been to first to want to know why additional precautions had not been taken.
Report comment to moderator
The ACLU is essentially an organization of pansies that lack the cojones to fight a serious war against out jihadist mass murder enemies.
Report comment to moderator
the ACLU does have the cojones to fight for the civil rights of all Americans, Peter … even people like you who use your freedom of speech to demonize one of the few organizations that cares about making sure you keep it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, we don’t need the ACLU to protect our free speech. That protection comes basically from the First Amendment and the guts of individuals and orginizations who are willing to speak out. Probably the chief threat to free speech just now stems from the liberal fascists among the tenured radicals who are imposing leftist politically correct speech in the schools and colleges, about which the ACLU pansies are usually quiet.
Report comment to moderator
If we’re not careful, it’ll be a replay of East Germany, where all it took was a suspicious or malicious neighbor to land you on the hit list. We’ll need to put checks in place to prevent our country from turning each citizen against the other. We are on a slow but sure road to dictatorship
Report comment to moderator
Teddy Kennedy does belong on the terrorist list. He is a well known killer of at least one innocent American. Most terrorists have not been so successful as ‘Terrorist Teddy’.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, the ACLU has supported many things I disagree with, and I would be more than glad to see it disappear. However, it has supported at least one good thing. Read this essay to find out what “good work” it actually did. The essay is a good one, so you may want to download it as a PDF, especially if you don’t have the time to read it at the moment (the link to do so is on the page). http://www.teddekker.com/site.php?em817=190883_-1__0_~0_-1_11_2008_0_0&content=news_news
By the way, Sinner, mentioned in the essay, is Ted Dekker’s latest novel, which has free speech as a theme.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt: I see you and Xion drink from the same paranoid fantasy fountain.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, read the 9-11 Commission report which remarks that the question of another major terrorist attack on American soil is a question of if, not when. Those who advocate rigorous border security including an imperfect terrorist watch list are being rather realistic, as opposed to the ACLU pansies who have their heads in the sand.
If anyone takes the louche position of drinking at a “fantasy fountain,” it would be you and loony left friends.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT — . . . we don’t need the ACLU to protect our free speech. That protection comes basically from the First Amendment and the guts of individuals and orginizations who are willing to speak out.
The ACLU is an organization that is willing to speak out at times when pansies like Pumpkin don’t.
FYI, the ACLU defends students’ free speech rights and rights to pray in the schools. Whenever a teacher allows children to choose their own topics for an assignment (such as which book to read, which song to sing, or which topic to study for a presentation), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so. Schools may also offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works.
The ACLU this year filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity after park rangers threatened to arrest them for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach in California.
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit against the Needville Independent School District in Texas for punishing a five-year-old American Indian kindergarten student for practicing and expressing his family’s religious beliefs and heritage by wearing his hair long in violation of school rules.
The ACLU argued against the Texas Family and Protective Services’ retaining custody of the children of 38 mothers from the Yearning For Zion Ranch.
The ACLU this year filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals supporting an individual’s right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
Last year the ACLU argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event in St. Petersburg, where the city had proposed limiting opposition speech to restricted “free speech zones.” After receiving the ACLU’s letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
Nobody has ever caught the ACLU not defending an individual’s free speech or exercise of religion.
Report comment to moderator
If you get detained at the airport, are groped, or have your laptop and cellphone seized, the only organization that will help you is the ACLU.
Report comment to moderator
#19 Scroopy. Yeah and I got some Ocean front property in Anarctica to sell you now that the world is worming too
Oppssss. Forgot the earth has not warmed since 1995 - 13 years ago and now is getting very cold indeed. You lefties forgot to tell the truth about that and then gave your Head Global Warming Liar alGore the Nobel for being sucha good liar - as usual right?
Report comment to moderator
Moth, most of the time the pansy ACLU is involved in such scurrilous activities as protecting jihadis who are on the terrorist watch list. Its protection of conservative students in schools and colleges ruled by tenured radicals is minimal. Anyhow people with cojones don’t need civil liberties protection from loony leftist outfits including the ACLU.
The liberal fascists in this country, including you and your anti-Christian/American trolls on this blog, don’t care a whit for the liberties and senibilities of religious conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
The ACLU is essentially an organization of pansies that lack the cojones to fight a serious war against out jihadist mass murder enemies.
Pumpkin lacks the brains to realize that Guantanamo is a self-inflicted wound rather than a weapon against terrorism. All Peter knows today is balls. If he wants to see some, he should look up at the big ones on Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, who was denied a promotion to full-blown commander because he sued the White House on behalf of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdam. The client is being released today to Yemen.
Report comment to moderator
I see, Osama Bin Laden’s driver is being released today to Yemen. Another victory for the left that deals with the war on terror as a legal problem. Another 9/11 will throw cold water on this fevered illusion. Any country that has a hard time saying “Merry Christmas” and treats jihadis with kid gloves will in the long rum pay a wicked price.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop at #18: As you can see, we can post a hundred or a thousand examples of the ACLU siding with believers, and it won’t make a dent in the fact-resistant skulls of Peter Leavitt and his ilk. They have their particular view of the world, and any actual reality that contradicts it must be rejected.
Leavitt: The concern of liberals, including the ACLU, is the rights of those ACCUSED of things but not proven guilty. You sneeringly refer to “protect jihadists,” and it doesn’t occur to you that the issue isn’t jihadists, but innocent people unfairly penalized.
Your contempt is for American ideals themselves. It’s the Constituion that guarantees those accused of crimes with various rights to confront their accusers, see the evidence against them, require the government to prove the charges, etc. If you despise those principles, then get your fascist self out of my America.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, Bin Laden’s driver was an irregular enemy combatant who, the legitimate authorities at Guantanimo argued, had no legal right or standing in American courts. The fact that they lost their case doesn’t ipso facto mean that the case was wrong. I’m sure that dispassionate and disinterested historians in the future will have much to say about this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Peter … I didn’t say one word about bin Laden’s driver. I’m more concerned with your contempt for American ideals of justice.
Report comment to moderator
>>>>>>
read the 9-11 Commission report which remarks that the question of another major terrorist attack on American soil is a question of if, not when. Those who advocate rigorous border security including an imperfect terrorist watch list are being rather realistic, as opposed to the ACLU pansies who have their heads in the sand.
>>>>>>
So, knowing that another attack is going to happen on American soil you propose no limit or oversight on any laws that might prevent a terrorist attack?
Everyone knows that not all risks can be eliminated, but only managed to reduce their likelihood or reduce their eventual consequence should they happen.
Terrorist attack is one such risk that can never reach a probability of zero. So where does one stop?
Have you never dealt with giant gov’t buracracies? You don’t think they might accidentally put innocent people on there who can never get their name off the list again? Seriously, you don’t believe this?
If someone is asking if they are on the list, can’t the FBI investigate and then answer them? Look, if there aren’t many false positives, as you seem to think, then the FBI won’t be wasting much time. If there are a lot of false positives, then the list is hurting a lot of people anyway.
Ok, back to your regularly scheduled it-the-ACLU-it-must-be-bad program.
Report comment to moderator
From CNN, so i’m SURE it is all made up (sarcasm):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/19/tsa.watch.list/index.html
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link, God.
Report comment to moderator
In the days leading up to the Iraq war Ted Kennedy was the chief speech writer for terrorists around the world.
Obama is not a terrorist, but he has no problem associating with them. I think they should both be on the list.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Obama is not a terrorist, but he has no problem associating with them. I think they should both be on the list.
>>>>
You’ve just made my point. Giving irresponsible people the power to add people to the list because they don’t like them or their politics is exactly the abuses that are going on.
What are you going to do when the Dems have the power to arbitrarily add people to the watch list?
They “hate” christians so much you might end up on the list.
(You should back up your assertions with some proof so people don’t think you are dishonest)
Report comment to moderator
(You should back up your assertions with some proof so people don’t think you are dishonest)
Too late.
But Xion has been going out of his way to be nastier and more hate-filled than usual lately, and the bar was already pretty high.
Report comment to moderator
#32 If I have said anything nasty or hate-filled I apologize. As far as I know, I have only disagreed with you. Do you find that offensive?
#31 Have you ever heard of Google? I don’t feel like rehashing months of lengthy discussion and the thousands of links that were exchanged providing that data.
Report comment to moderator
Calling Ted Kennedy the “chief speech writer for terrorists around the world” is hateful, and a lie to boot. I know you probably believe you’re making some kind of legitimate point, but really, you just sound like a jerk.
I used to think of many people around here that while I may disagree with them on matters of theology and politics, I would probably like them as people and enjoy their company around the dinner table.
I am thinking that less and less often lately.
Report comment to moderator
That is kind of ironic since there are few people here who spew more hate and ridicule than you. Your whole purpose in life is to riducule and tear down other people. How can you sleep at night?
Kennedy in fact was the chief speech writer for terrorists. That is neither a lie, nor hateful since it is true.
During the lead up to the Gulf war terrorists took Kennedy’s speeches and parroted back exactly what he said. The war was all about oil. Bush was seeking veangeance for his daddy. Bush had special sessions in Texas to concoct a lie for war. He said it was wartime for America, but peacetime for the rich. He called Bush a failure and a disgrace while our troops were readying themselves. Terrorists simply used Kennedy’s words.
Of course, to you anything that criticizes leftist ideology is hateful. Sorry, I can’t help you with that. Personally, I think you need to grow up a little. Your immature rage is tiring.
Report comment to moderator
Kennedy in fact was the chief speech writer for terrorists. That is neither a lie, nor hateful since it is true.
Kennedy had no control over what other people did with his words. Phrasing it as you did implies an intention that was not there. It suggests that he sympathizes with terrorists and, in one of the right’s favorite accusations of the past few years, “hates America.”
I don’t believe Bush invaded Iraq for oil … I don’t believe it was the right strategic choice, but I actually do think his motives were good. I disagree with his critics on that score.
But if Kennedy expressed perfectly legitimate political opinions and our enemies used his words, that doesn’t imply that he in any way supports terrorism or America’s defeat. This is precisely the same guilt-by-association, which you also invoke in the same post, about Obama and Ayers.
Criticize leftist ideology all you want on the merits of it, and I have no quarrel with you. I will probably disagree with your positions, but I will have no grounds on which to label the very existence of the argument out of bounds. So your final paragraph is wrong … and again, you leap straight to personal attack rather than ideas.
I have no objection to people arguing for or against various ideas. But when you start attacking people’s patriotism based on nothing more that what you have about either Kennedy or Obama, then I think you cross the line of civility.
Report comment to moderator
That is kind of ironic since there are few people here who spew more hate and ridicule than you. Your whole purpose in life is to riducule and tear down other people. How can you sleep at night?
I sleep just fine. And (again) you misdiagnose my purpose.
But I may have grown frustrated over the past few months. I am well past tired of hearing sneering attacks on Obama based on William Ayers, the incessant repetitions of “socialist” and “Marxist” by some on the right here who apparently have no idea what those words actually mean, and a few other things.
If I have grown less patient with those particular forms of annoyance, then I should regroup.
Report comment to moderator
#36 Nicely said actually. I said nothing about Kennedy’s intentions. I did not call him anti-American. However, there was no discernable difference between the words of Kennedy and terrorists, since they quoted him directly. It is not incorrect then to call him terrorists chief speech writer, since terrorists quoted him.
My point is that the hatred of liberals and the hatred of terrorists aligns when conservatives are in power. Now that a liberal will be in power, you will not see conservatives aligning with America’s enemies. Just an observation.
Report comment to moderator
#37 You accuse me of becoming nasty when I observe the same about you. I know you are not, but you seem less patient these days, as you freely admit. I mean no ill will. We go way back. I like you as a matter of fact. Let’s have a beer and work it out!
Report comment to moderator
Now that a liberal will be in power, you will not see conservatives aligning with America’s enemies. Just an observation.
But a fallacious one. You have never seen liberals “aligning with” America’s enemies.
Again, to use those terms implies an intention and shared value system … it is a guilt-by-association tactic intended to suggest that liberals are sympathetic to the goals and means of the terrorists. You are in effect accusing Kennedy of treason, at least implicitly.
Unless you’re prepared to really make that accusation, and accuse him of deliberately colluding with terorrists and cheering for America’s defeat … as in WANTING America to fail rather than having a different opinion than you do as to how best make America triumph … then I think the insinuation is sleazy.
You won’t make the overt accusation because you know it’s baseless and slanderous. But you can make the implicit one because, when called on it, you can plead innocent and say you’re just pointing out that terrorists used similar words. But come on … if that were all you were doing you wouldn’t phrase it in a way that implies intentional collaboration.
Report comment to moderator
#40 You have never seen liberals “aligning with” America’s enemies.
You mean like lawmakers being paid by a tyrant to trash America on enemy soil? Nah, you’re probably right.
Did liberals spend eight years trashing America, cheering for its defeat and hoping it would fail in order to get elected? Absolutely. Hey it worked. Good for you. But repeating the obvious to you ad nauseum is getting tiring.
I am happy that Obama won. The turn around in the press is like night and day. The press suddenly is gushing with nice things to say about America now. And I rejoice right along with them. The double standard is obvious to everyone except you. I rejoice in your candidate, but you spew hatred night and day against anything and everyone who doesn’t read from the same script as you. You accuse others about what is in your own heart.
Regardless, I consider you a friend, though the feeling can never be mutual. Happy Thanksgiving nevertheless. We have much to be thankful for.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, that article you linked to is exactly what I’m talking about. Look:
The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators “have no information whatsoever” any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.
“Obviously, we didn’t know it at the time,” McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. “The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That’s the only reason we went.”
So what happened is: Saddam funneled some money through a front charity, and the lawmakers took the trip having no idea Saddam had paid for it.
YOU describe as if the members of Congress conspired with Saddam to take the trip and willingly served as spokesmen for his regime. You are implying treasonous acts that never happened and anti-American motives that didn’t exist.
You don’t think that’s just a little bit questionable on your part?
During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Though such weapons ultimately were never found, the lawmakers drew criticism for their trip at the time.
And they were right, weren’t they?
Apparently, your definition of pro-American is to support the Republican president’s claims no matter how wrong they are, and level ugly insinuations at members of the other party who were right.
And then you say this: Did liberals spend eight years trashing America, cheering for its defeat and hoping it would fail in order to get elected? Absolutely.
Absolutely not. That’s a vicious lie. And as I am a liberal, I have a hard time not taking it personally.
I wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving as well. We do indeed have much to be thankful for. But I hope we can move past these kinds of divisive political tactics soon.
Report comment to moderator
Whether or not the lawmakers knew who funded it, they still had a photo op, arm-in-arm with Saddam Hussein. Jim McDermott praised Saddam in Baghdad with a big smile and called the American president a liar on foreign soil just prior to a war. Imagine a Congressman doing that with Hitler just prior to WWII!
Can you not even admit that this is even the slightest bit questionable? No, you cannot. You will continue reading from your script, because that is your whole purpose for being here. You are not interested in dialog or give and take. I am free to speak for or against either political side according to what I believe is true. You are not. Truth is secondary to your agenda, which you are incapable of deviating from.
If liberals in Congress and in the media have not spent eight years trashing America, then why the remarkable turn around now? We are starting to see positive news about America and our troops. This about face will be fully apparent after Jan 20th. That is proof positive that they were being disingenuous before.
After Jan 20th you will not hear the word recession again, except in reference to the past. You will only hear the word recovery. And when it happens you will forget that we ever had this conversation.
Report comment to moderator
But what really happened and the way you portray it, Xion, are very different.
You make it sound like the lawmakers took money from Saddam in exchange for their support of him, acting as paid spokesperson in opposition to their own country.
This is the version you want to believe, and want other people to believe. If that had been what happened, they might well have been guilty of treason, or something very close to it.
But it’s not what happened. They had sharp disagreement with Bush’s policy and deep skepticism about the Bush administration’s case for war — and they were completely right in their skepticism, don’t forget. They did not knowingly take anything from Saddam, and were already opposed to the war drums.
One other point to keep in mind: Sheila Jackson-Lee was the only member of Congress of any party to oppose our military action in Afghanistan. Almost no one objected to our retaliating against the regime from which the 9/11 attacks were planned and controlled. Iraq was always much less a consensus.
Put it this way: When people concerned about civil liberties express opposition to things such as warrantless wiretaps, on the grounds that they provide too little oversight or transparency to guard against them being used against innocent Americans, are you one of those who somehow translates that into “Liberals don’t want us to listen in on terrorists?”
Because if you are, that is a mindset I cannot respect. It is fundamentally dishonest and inherently divisive.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve already asked you this and so I already know the answer. Is there anything a liberal could possibly do that you wouldn’t defend?
Report comment to moderator
Is there anything a liberal could possibly do that you wouldn’t defend?
Absolutely.
As a matter of fact, I don’t defend the trip to Iraq we’ve been talking about. I don’t think they should have gone, and I don’t think they should have spoken against Bush’s policies there … their opposition was principled and honorable, but there are times and places to express such things and that was the wrong time and place.
BUT … what I do defend is their patriotism and loyalty to their country. I do not accept, and cannot respect, the efforts to imply that they knowingly took anything from the Hussein regime, let alone “being paid by” Saddam, in your words, as if they took bribes or payments in exchange for their support.
You can oppose what they did without making it appear to have been orders of magnitude more nefarious than it really was. And it would be far more honorable of you to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! I am proud of you Steve. I didn’t think you could do it. Good for you. You see, now we are having a dialog.
If we wind this conversation all the way back to #30, I obviously don’t think Ted Kennedy and Obama should be on the watch list. I was being facetious. I just thought it was ironic that Kennedy was on the list seeing how far the ‘Hate Bush’ rhetoric took him and numerous other Democrats. And Obama’s campaign’s schmoozing with representatives of Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention Ayers. But should the president be on a watch list? Of course not. It was tongue in cheek.
The good news is that liberals only rail against the evils of American policies (like our enemies do) when they aren’t in power. Now that they are in power, we can all work together for the good of America. I love hearing all the positive news now. Their duality is legion, but I’ll enjoy this four year respite from the incessant negativity.
When Al Qaeda recently criticized Obama, I heard liberal commentators strongly denounce it. That’s good. When they did the same to Bush, liberals reported it but then went into a spiel about how America was at fault for causing the world to hate us. When Chavez called Bush Satan himself, leaving burning sulpher wherever he stood, liberals laughed in agreement.
Well, now Americans can finally stand together again, seeing that no one has to hate the president anymore. We can call evil evil and good good. Of course, the ACLU will never get that message.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I’d like to hear how you — as a Christian and an American — justify taking a real incident:
Three members of Congress visited Iraq shortly before the war, and while there, expressed their doubts that Iraq really had the weapons stockpiles the Bush administration was alleging as one of the justifications for war (and their doubts were well-founded, it turned out), and only later did it come to light that Saddam had paid for the trip, operating secretly through a front organization.
And present it as:
Saddam paid three lawmakers to come to Iraq and speak against US policy.
As I said, I agree with criticism of them for being dumb enough to get duped and for opposing US policy while in Iraq. But you insist on portraying them as willing sell-outs.
I still see that as dishonest. How do you justify it?
Report comment to moderator
The good news is that liberals only rail against the evils of American policies (like our enemies do) when they aren’t in power. Now that they are in power, we can all work together for the good of America. I love hearing all the positive news now. Their duality is legion, but I’ll enjoy this four year respite from the incessant negativity.
You’re kidding, right? Now the right wing noise machine will ramp up to deafening levels. It’s already going on … witness Victoria’s obsession with Obama’s birthplace and her credulous belief that Obama could have just lied about his citizenship and somehow not been caught and disqualified long before the election.
The negativity won’t fade one bit, it will just shift directions.
Report comment to moderator
Kenya: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama born in U.S.
Ambassador suggests question be put to American government
November 26, 2008
By Chelsea Schilling
Kenyan Ambassador Peter N.R.O. Ogego is saying he’s “infuriated” by a radio program’s efforts to “misquote” him on the subject of President-elect Barack Obama’s birthplace – but he refused to confirm whether Obama was born in the United States.
In an exclusive interview with WND today, Ogego was specifically asked whether Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
“I don’t know,” he said with a tone of irritation. “You should ask your government. I know his father is Kenyan.”
He continued with a rhetorical question: “Obama is an American, isn’t he?”
Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
Now Ogego is saying the hosts misquoted and edited the audio recording of his comments.
READ THE REST
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you’re already flogging this dead horse in one thread. Please don’t try to derail this one.
Xion, I await your responses to #48 and the several other times I asked the same question.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg - 51
YOU WRITE:
“Victoria, you’re already flogging this dead horse in one thread. Please don’t try to derail this one.”
You brought it up yourself in post 49 - I hadn’t even posted on this thread ——–
“You’re kidding, right? Now the right wing noise machine will ramp up to deafening levels. It’s already going on … witness Victoria’s obsession with Obama’s birthplace and her credulous belief that Obama could have just lied about his citizenship and somehow not been caught and disqualified long before the election.”
Steveg, you do a good job of “derail” all by YOURSELF - you bring something up, add my name to it, and then cry over my posting the proof. LOL
Report comment to moderator
>>>>>>
The good news is that liberals only rail against the evils of American policies (like our enemies do) when they aren’t in power. Now that they are in power, we can all work together for the good of America. I love hearing all the positive news now. Their duality is legion, but I’ll enjoy this four year respite from the incessant negativity.
>>>>>>
I for one, hope this isn’t true. There is room for criticism in the marketplace of ideas. Criticism is working together. Hearing only good news just means that the “Bad” things are not being fixed. When you are an athlete your coach tells you how to get better by telling you what things need to be improved (the bad things). As long as it is done in a supportive way it is a positive thing.
Attacking ideas because they don’t match up with the party line is far more destructive than anything else. You want to sabotage and weaken a project? Tell everyone involved that everything is going well and everything is perfect. Set all of the gauges in a car or airplane to always read “positive” or good values and see what happens.
The real reason America is so much weaker now is that it is impossible to have a dialog about REAL problems our country faces without the Media or people in power distorting and misdirecting the problems. Instead we spent a lot of time and energy on hyped and imagined problems and ignore the actual problems (Iraq instead of Afghanistan + Pakistan for example).
Anyone know the leading killer in the US? (it’s not terrorism, nor sexual predators, nor drugs)
Report comment to moderator