The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Faith and Freedom Coalition: Is Obama Greater Threat than Nazis?

By Hatewatch Staff on March 22, 2012 - 4:59 pm, Posted in Uncategorized

OK, time for a survey. First question: How much danger do you think liberty is in right now as a result of President Obama’s policies, actions and agenda for America’s future?

  1. More serious that the threats we faced in World War II from Nazi Germany and the Japanese because the attack on liberty is from our own government.
  2. More serious than the threat we faced from the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
  3. More serious than the Civil War.
  4. All of the above.
  5. Serious, but not as serious as the threats to liberty listed above.
  6. President Obama is not an enemy of liberty.
  7. Undecided.

If you picked A, B, C or, especially, D, go to the head of the class.  You’re a prime candidate for the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Battle Plan to ‘Save Freedom’ in 2012.” If you chose F, not so much.

Because, according to the Coalition, Obama wants a society where “bureaucrats micromanage every aspect of your life,” the “IRS seizes most of what you earn,” and health care rationing boards decide “ultimately whether you live or die.

The question above is part of a “survey” contained in a Faith and Freedom Coalition fund-raising letter that arrived this week.  What any of it has to do with faith is a mystery. But it sure resembles the same type of absurd attacks we’ve seen from far-right extremists – attacks that bear no resemblance whatsoever to any actual policies pushed by the administration.

It’s no surprise. The letter comes from the Faith and Freedom Coalition, an outfit  founded and run by Ralph Reed, the longtime conservative activist and former head of the Christian Coalition. In 2004, amid the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, it came to light that Reed’s public relations and lobbying companies took $4.2 million from Abramoff, who later spent four years in federal prison, to mobilize Christians to fight Indian casinos. It was all a big subterfuge. The beneficiaries were other gambling interests Abramoff represented, who simply were trying to quash the competition by ginning up outrage among anti-gambling Christians.

So let’s see what other questions the survey asks.

One is, “Do you think Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro see President Obama as an ally of theirs? Or do you think Chavez was just joking about President Obama’s Communist beliefs?”

Oh, my. That might be bad. Is it true? A quick check reveals that in 2009, Chavez joked that when GM filed for bankruptcy and gave the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the company that he and Castro were going to end up to the right of Obama. Operative word: joked. In December, 2011, Chavez referred to Obama as a “clown” and an “embarrassment” after Obama criticized Venezuela’s links to Iran and Cuba.  So, we choose answer B: “I think Hugo Chavez was just joking.”

In a follow-up question, the Coalition asks: “When Fidel Castro hailed the passage of ObamaCare as a ‘miracle’ do you think this is because he is honestly concerned with the well-being of Americans? Or is it more likely that Castro sees ObamaCare as the fastest, surest way to bring Socialism (or worse) to America?”

Let’s check.  According to the March 25, 2010, Havana Journal, Castro did praise the American health care act, stating that it was remarkable that the most powerful country on Earth took more than 200 years to pass something as basic as health benefits for all its citizens, something Cuba did 50 years ago. Castro then used the opportunity to criticize Obama for a variety of other things, including the environment and the war in Afghanistan. Looks like Castro seeing “ObamaCare” as the fastest way to bring Socialism to America is the wrong answer there.

Yet another question asks us to identify Obama’s true political ideology. Our choices: Mostly Conservative, Moderate, Mostly Liberal, Far-Left, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Not Sure, and Other.

We’re guessing that answering “Moderate” or “Mostly Conservative” disqualifies you from helping to “Save Freedom.” Answering “Socialist,” “Communist” or “Fascist” will probably keep you on the mailing list, however, and subject to yet more surveys. So we’ll say Moderate.

  • tristan

    If you get the survey answer the Obama destroying liberty question be sure to answer other and say “crack is really bad for your health maybe you should stop smoking it”
    In addition, they if they even try to compare Obama to Hitler, they would essentially be complimenting his HIGHLY CONSERVATIVE agenda, because Nazism is the second most RIGHT-WING philosophy, just behind fascism. If they wanted to compare Obama to a European dictator, it would be more plausible to call him Stalin or Lenin.

  • http://twitter.com/AronL Aron

    Jonas!

    Good to see you back. Just yesterday I was wondering where you had gotten off to. Now all we need is SkinnyMinnie for the old gang to all be here!

  • Gregory

    Jonas, I knew where he was going with his babble. That is why I tag many of my comments, /snark /sarcasm /etc.

  • Jonas Rand

    @Gregory:

    I think that he means that the military is threatening to hold the US under martial law, or that the police is becoming too much like the military. The reason that military action against Americans would be strange is the original “Posse Comitatus Act”, and because living under military occupation is a violation of our rights. Of course, the military didn’t care about this when they occupied Iraq, so why should they care when they militarize the police or spy on us?

  • Gregory

    Paul,
    Why would it be unusual for the American army to be on American soil?

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Paul, next time try thinking before posting, and write something more coherent.

  • http://twitter.com/AronL Aron

    Paul,

    So you are saying that President Obama IS in fact a bigger threat than any of the Axis leaders? I think it might be time to turn off Alex Jones…

  • Paul Rain

    How many armies did Hitler have on American soil? Pretty sure that even when you add in those of Hirohito and Mussolini, it’s still less than Obama. It’s pretty irrational to believe that Nazi Germany, that creation of Woodrow Wilson, his European allies, and the Soviets, would have continued to exist intact as late as the mid 50′s, even assuming no American involvement in the war. There certainly would have been no threat of the invasion of America.

  • http://twitter.com/AronL Aron

    Ruslan,

    As usual, you couldn’t be more right. I’m simply hoping that in his second term the President decides to grow a pair. (I’m REALLY getting tired of writing that. Ugh.)

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Aron, both parties enthusiastically support NDAA. That should show you what the problem is. When the question is how to help Americans out of work, it’s non-stop bickering. When it’s time to declare pizza a vegetable, fund a war, or lock up American citizens indefinitely under suspicion of support for terrorism- they suddenly close ranks and push it through.

  • http://twitter.com/AronL Aron

    Hey Ryan,

    And what if he hadn’t signed it? The Rupugs would tear him apart. Just like they are doing for signing the document with the stipulation THEY put in it.

  • Sam Molloy

    CM, thanks for the clarification. I know generally it has been Republican policies that have resulted in the widening wealth gap over the last 30 years.

  • Ryan

    “OK, time for a survey. First question: How much danger do you think liberty is in right now as a result of President Obama’s policies, actions and agenda for America’s future?”

    Quite a bit, if his signing of the NDAA – even with the egregious attacks on due process he supposedly wanted removed – is anything to go by.

  • CM

    Sam,

    To expand a little on what Ruslan mentioned: The claim that the banking/housing crisis was caused by government regulators forcing lenders to make bad loans is a myth that continues to be recited by Republicans in an effort to exonerate Wall Street and the banking sector. In fact, if you were to read the lenders’ own internal memos from the period of the housing bubble, you would learn that they knew they were writing mortgages that would go into default. They didn’t care, however, as long as they could get their upfront fees and then securitize the loans and sell them to investors by making false claims about the default risk.

    Careful studies have shown that loans made by Fannie and Freddie, and loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act, were lower-risk on average than those made by commercial lenders such as Countrywide.

    But again, the relevance of all this to Obama’s economic policies is nil, since the housing bubble burst long before he took office. That bubble, its subsequent collapse and the banking bailout were all products of the Bush administration and Bush appointees like Henry Paulsen, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive who was Bush’s last treasury secretary – and also a product of the anti-regulation movement that remains so near and dear to conservatives’ and corpocrats’ hearts.

  • Ed

    This kind of BS from the far right could even be a deliberate muddying of the waters. The followers of right-wing demagogues show a remarkable lack of logic and basic thinking capability; they are exquisitely exploited by these demagogues.

    I personally think that Obama has been a threat to freedom in ways very different from the ridiculous ones discussed above. I mostly agree with the critiques of Obama cited by organizations like Amnesty International and the ACLU. The “muddying of the waters” I mentioned before is a threat (by demagogues and their useful idiot followers) to the reasonable arguments put forth by these constructive groups.

    I say that the right-wing arguments are so weak because they are desperate and at the end of their rope. Calling their bluffs would knock them down quite decisively. There is no need to be polite and treat them with kid gloves. I’m not advocating physical violence; I’m advocating unrestrained ridicule and satire.

  • Gregory

    Sam, really? Some validity? Oh, I forgot, “The Liberals” owned no homes or property and, therefore, would suffer no ill effects when their evil plan came to fruition. A blind man could see this a mile away. [head smack]

    The only information that Limbaugh can offer of instructive value is how to get your maid to illegally acquire prescription narcotics for you.

  • Lone Wolf

    The top letter to the editor this morning in the Spokesman-Review is from John Birch Society member Curtis E. Stone from Colville describing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a communist front organization, President Obama bent on banning all firearms, and Democratic presidents responsible for the upsurge in militia activity nationwide… Stone goes on to say that the Democratic Party should be listed as an extremist group..I find this to be quite laughable, factually inaccurate, and playing the politics of fear to the hilt however, many in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho believe this rhetoric and historically, it has been the fuel that extremists use to justify their illegal and dangerous behavior, that poses a risk to public safety and to members of law enforcement…

  • red-diaper baby 1942

    As Josh says, the President gets criticism from both left and right. Speaking as a committed lefty myself, I sometimes wish he could do more, and I’m pretty sure he wishes the same. But the current extreme polarization and gridlock of Congress and the whole American political scene, and the deliberate obstructionism practiced by the Republicans, makes it almost impossible to get anything done.
    He’s also been criticized by many African Americans for not doing enough about racial injustice. The fact is, he has to be extremely careful here; if he tried to speak out, the far right would go insane. (Or even more insane than they already are.)
    Anyway: if everyone’s criticizing him, He must be doing something right!

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Wow, he made that argument in 2011? That’s like only 3 years after it was originally and thoroughly debunked by people who are actually qualified to speak on such things(Limbaugh is still nothing more than a DJ).

  • Sam Molloy

    CM, I hate to think Rush Limbaugh had a coherent thought, but in a Dec 2011 interview he seemed to make a rational argument. Bear with me. The theory goes, that it was Liberals tampering with the free market that caused the real estate bubble, that set off the current recession when it burst through the actual value of the collateral and collapsed. The Liberals had encouraged home ownership to the point of forcing Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac- guaranteed loans to be approved to people two paychecks away from the street, who possibly did not understand what it costs to maintain a house, and were on the margins jobwise. Obviously he ignores the greedy lenders salivating over the smell of fresh money but the point , I think, has at least some validity.

  • Shadow Wolf

    “I am also an anarcho communist so….Does it make me an extremiat[sic]”

    No, but it makes you far less unpopular than the average Anarchist, which are non-Anarcho Communist. And the fact, that you’ve been banned from participating in most Anarchist rallies/marches/and book fairs.

  • Josh

    President Obama seems to be caught between a right-wing rock and a left-wing hard place. No matter what policy he creates, he receives criticism from both sides. His record in office is surprisingly moderate, and he has compromised wherever reasonable in the interests of American peace and unity. The difference between the criticism coming from the right and the criticism coming from the left is that the left criticizes him for weak policy and inconsistent messages, while the right criticizes him just for existing.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “Still waiting for how obama has helped increase our gun rights Amirkhanov.

    Cat got your tongue?”

    I explained this twice; you chose to ignore it both times. Just as I said, conservatives block out facts which contradict their worldview. In response, you posted an article from a long-ago-discredited source.

  • Reynardine

    I note herein that the moderators of this blog are somewhat prudish. Nonetheless, Louie, you might have used a less evocative phrase about where you thought you had Ruslan. I am genuinely concerned about your state of mind.

  • http://twitter.com/AronL Aron

    Hey Charlie, how’s that worldwide proletarian revolution coming? Oh, right. It’s only in your mind…

  • Concerned Citizen

    Anytime any group believes they can micromanage your life liberty is in jeopardy. However, I believe that we need a closer look at who all is behind the policies that appear to be in contradiction to our ‘American beliefs and values. It’s easy and the American way to blame just the man on the top but when you look at the supporters behind some of this legislation you just might be surprised at who all is raising their hands saying, “Yea!”

  • charlie baltimore

    Obama and Bush have done more to undermine personal liberty than any other presidents in modern history. That is a fact. How can this even be a question.

    However, I am also an anarcho communist so….Does it make me an extremiat because I read bakunin, berkman, goldman? If so I could care less. I probably have more in common with libertarians than Democrats who supposedly care about personal freedom and attempt to defend what their party is doing..

  • DrMJG

    One more thing to look up re: Lott that had long faded into memory. Lott created a fake persona “Mary Rosh” to be a student researcher of his who backed up the voracity of Lott’s scholarship. “Rosh” also wrote favorable reviews of Lott’s work and his book “More Guns, Less Crime” is ways that praised the reliability and validity of the research. The end result were charges of academic fraud.

  • DrMJG

    Louis Stouch: please cite your sources better. To simply say “article: does nothing.

    BTW, Jon Lott’s work has been shown time and time again to be full of false assumption, shoddy research and poor and unreliable statistical models. I know YOU believe it, but time and time again neutral professional journals have questioned his basic scholarship. Lott does indeed have his defenders, but they seem to be less fully supportive.

    Pardon me if I remain suspicious of the full validity of your claims.

  • Sam Molloy

    Ruslan, and Louis. I believe in 2008, then-candidate Obama promised to lay off the 2nd Amendment. He has done so, at least directly, although some of his appointees were picked from a liberal pool of people. I would like to see what he says now, when the question comes up in some debate. I am hoping he makes the same pledge.

  • Louis Stouch

    “Stouch, thanks for backing up what I was saying about gun-obsessed morons rushing out to buy guns despite the fact that Obama has actually helped increase gun rights, not restrict them.”

    Still waiting for how obama has helped increase our gun rights Amirkhanov.

    Cat got your tongue?

  • CM

    Lou,

    Just a quick reminder: the “Great Recession” started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. Obama took office in January 2009.

    And quoting John Lott on gun control or Obama’s economic record, really? Are you going out of your way to cause people not to take you seriously?

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Actually Stouch, your rebuttal is full of the same logical fallacies.

  • Gregory

    Louis,
    Considering that “gunwalking” operations began in 2006, I think your criticism of Obama should be that he didn’t shut it down fast enough. Even someone of your capacity should be able to remember who was President in 2006.

  • J Charles Ferrari

    I didn’t realize than “Santorum” is spelled “O”, “b”, “a”, “m”, “a”.

    If you want someone who wants to micromanage the lives of Americans, that’s Santorum. He wants to micromanage the most intimate aspects of the lives of Americans, from their sex lives to their spiritual beliefs.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “Please Ruslan, explain just how obama has increased gun rights? I thought that was being done at a local level.

    Oh, how silly of me – you must be referring to gun rights for the Drug Cartels via Fast & Furious.”

    I already alluded to the two FEDERAL bills Obama approved, one allowing the carry of weapons in national parks, the other allowing carrying on Amtrak trains. So far, he has not introduced, nor has he even suggested, any new gun control legislation.

    Of course you never bothered to check because like most conservatives, finding facts like these would upset your fantasy world. Obama is gonna take your guns because that’s what Democrats do! Even if they don’t.

    “Regardless, there seem to be plenty of business folk that dont like his policies:

    New business startups are at the lowest levels in 30 years.”

    What a strange logical disconnect here- new start-ups are extremely low…so that must mean businessmen hate Obama’s policies. BRILLIANT! Say, have you ever heard of this thing called a “credit crunch”, which was a part of the current crisis we are still experiencing? Starting a business requires credit.

    “(And before you simply disregard this, look at the Truth-o-meter at the bottom – its true.)”

    The statement may be true but attributing to Obama’s policies(which have been as corporate-friendly as those of any Republican) is simply a leap of logic.

  • Louis Stouch

    Ruslan, afraid I have you by the short hairs on obama’s support for guns. My butt:

    President Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Shows No Sign of Stopping

    By John Lott

    Published December 28, 2011

    President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.

    His push as been quiet but relentless.

    Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called “signing statement,” a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.

    Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.

    But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?

    Obama has had numerous false starts on gun control. Just in November, his administration moved to ban target practice on public lands, but the opposition was so swift and strong they immediately backtracked.

    A couple of weeks ago the Obama administration suffered another embarrassment. It was discovered that the Obama administration oversaw the sale of guns to Mexican drug gangs in its Fast & Furious program to bolster statistics of guns crossing over to the border to these very drug gangs.

    This scandal is quite incredible as the Obama administration ordered gun dealers to make sales to Mexican drug gangs against their wishes to help the administration’s push for more gun control. And this follows the revelation in July that the Obama administration had pushed federal agents involved in the Fast & Furious scandal to support gun control regulations during their congressional testimony……………….

    Still the administration has successfully manage to push through gun control regulations in many, less visible ways: — The Obama administration instituted a ban on importing “historic” semi-automatic rifles into the US. — In sharp contrast to the Bush administration, President Obama strongly supports the UN Arms Trade Treaty even though he knows that any such treaty are unlikely to obtain the two-thirds vote in the Senate needed for ratification. What the regulations will do is lead to severe restrictions on private gun ownership around the world.

    The administration instituted new rules on selling “high-powered rifles,” defined as a caliber of greater than .22. — The administration nominated Andrew Traver, someone who supports gun bans, as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

    Obama has stuck by Traver despite his nomination being stalled in the Senate for a year and the fierce opposition it has generated.

    Obama’s most lasting impact on gun control is likely to be through the federal court judges he appoints. His most visible appointments have been the gun-control advocates he has made to the Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan headed up President Clinton’s push for gun control when she worked for his White House during the 1990s. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor has signed on to a Supreme Court opinion stating that there is no individual right to “private self-defense” with guns.

    The pro-gun control views of Obama’s nominees have played a role the Senate filibustering of two Appeals Court nominees. Caitlin Joan Halligan was particularly controversial when nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because she opposes an individual’s right to self defense and – even more damning — she was one of the trial lawyers who had sued gun makers. Thus in New York v. Sturm & Ruger, she argued that gun makers should be liable for the criminal acts of third parties but not given any credit for the benefits from self-defense.

    If elected to a second term, Obama will end up appointing over half the federal judges. That sure can make a big difference.

    Obviously, Americans concerned about their Gun Rights have taken notice. Good for them!

    Rebuttal, please.

  • Louis Stouch

    Please Ruslan, explain just how obama has increased gun rights? I thought that was being done at a local level.

    Oh, how silly of me – you must be referring to gun rights for the Drug Cartels via Fast & Furious.

    Regardless, there seem to be plenty of business folk that dont like his policies:

    New business startups are at the lowest levels in 30 years.”

    (And before you simply disregard this, look at the Truth-o-meter at the bottom – its true.)

    U.S. House Speaker John Boehner says new business startups are at the lowest levels in 30 years

    Its fate in the Senate and its potential economic impact remain unclear, but the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS, produced a rare show of bipartisanship when it was passed by the House of Representatives on March 8. House Republicans and the White House cooperated on the Republican initiative, after larger jobs measures stalled.

    Sponsors said they hoped the bill would lift the low approval ratings of Congress. House Speaker John Boehner said he hoped it would make it easier for small firms to raise investment capital.

    The West Chester Republican said it would help to encourage job creation in Ohio and elsewhere “at a time when new business startups are at the lowest levels in 30 years.”

    Thirty years goes back to the recession of the early 1980s, which would make sense. But PolitiFact Ohio had also seen a recent report that business startups were booming. We asked Boehner’s office for more information.

    They pointed us first to a recent study by the outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. The study found that the number of unemployed managers and executives starting their own businesses in the second half of 2011 failed to rebound from the record lows recorded over the first half of the year.

    The study also cited numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that “it’s not just the unemployed who seem turned off — self-employment in general has decreased significantly during the recession.” The BLS reported there were 8.6 million self-employed Americans in July 2011, compared to almost 10 million in June 2007, prior to the recession.

    Boehner’s staff additionally referred us to an article in Bloomberg Businessweek reporting that many indicators of startup activity are at record low levels. The per capita rate of formation of firms with employees in 2009, the most recent year tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau, was less than half its 1977 level.

    Those figures, however, seemed at odds with the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, a widely cited annual study measuring U.S. business startup activity at the individual owner level. It comes from the nonpartisan Kauffman Foundation, which works to foster entrepreneurial activity.

    Its latest report, issued March 19, said that the rate of new business creation dipped during 2011, but still remained “among the highest levels of entrepreneurship over the past 16 years,” and showed that “entrepreneurship is alive and well in the wake of the Great Recession.”

    A previous report of the Kauffman Index said that more Americans had started businesses since the start of the recession than at any period over the previous decade and a half.

    Wondering how this apparent conflict could be explained, we asked a leading authority on the subject: Scott Shane, chairman of the economics department and professor of entrepreneurial studies at Case Western Reserve University.
    The numbers do look contradictory, he said, but they measure different things. Using an analogy, “it’s like measuring water in a bathtub.”

    The Kauffman Index, he said, uses data from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) of the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure the percentage of the adult population, not self-employed, starting a business each month.

    Using the bathtub analogy, he said, it’s like putting a meter on the faucet — the Kauffman Index measures the water’s flow.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, meantime, track the number of people who are self-employed, Shane said — it’s like measuring the water level in the tub — and that number has declined, because of the people who quit self-employment. (Or who, extending the analogy, go down the drain.)

    But more pertinent to the employment issue addressed by the JOBS Act and Boehner, Shane pointed out that there are two types of businesses: employer firms, which have employees, and non-employers, which do not.

    Non-employer firms are 80 percent of U.S. businesses, but have much less economic impact, Shane said. Employer firms account for 97 percent of gross domestic product.

    Using data from the Census Bureau and U.S. Small Business Administration, Shane found that the per capita rate of new employer business formation in 2009 (the most recent year available) was 1.32 per thousand people — “an astonishing 51.4 percent of the rate in 1977,” he said. “That is, Americans are starting new businesses with employees at half the rate they did 30 years ago.”

    Not only the rate, but the raw numbers have declined, he said. In 1977, SBA figures show, Americans started 563,325 businesses with employees. In 2009, despite an increase in the population, they started 403,765.

    And no previous valleys dipped so low. A spreadsheet from Shane shows that neither the rate nor number of startups since 1977 ever hit the most recent level.

    On the Truth-O-Meter, Boehner’s statement that new business startups are at the lowest levels in 30 years gets a rating of True.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Stouch, thanks for backing up what I was saying about gun-obsessed morons rushing out to buy guns despite the fact that Obama has actually helped increase gun rights, not restrict them.

  • http://twitter.com/AronL Aron

    Well, considering these folks are crypto-fascists, I wouldn’t have thought they considered Nazi Germany very much of a threat…

  • Godlesspanther

    I have become so confused about history. Now Obama is really Adolph Hitler and he is responsible for the holocaust? But I thought it was the Planned Parenthood folks who orchestrated the whole ghastly thing. Oh — no, wait a minute — it was the gay agenda that triggered the Nazis and the holocaust, that’s it!. Ooops, maybe I was wrong — now I’ve got it right — the Nazis and the holocaust are to be blamed on Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution! Well, whatever, all those damn liberals are the same anyway, and no matter what they are Hitler-Nazi-holocaust-creating satanist who should be stopped.

    And accurate history? Well — that’s a tool of the devil as well.

  • Sam Molloy

    Cuba supposedly has good Government Health Care, but so do a lot of western Democracies. Health Care does not make a country Socialist any more than building schools and sidewalks does.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Experience has taught me that these people have no sense of moderation when making political claims. If you can call Obama a liberal, in a pejorative sense, it is nothing to call him a socialist, a Communist, or a Nazi. The specific meaning of these words, and their mutual exclusiveness, are not the issue. The bottom line is that Obama is evil. The right has created a mythology and Obama will be forced into it regardless of his actual actions.

    According to conservatives, libruls(socialists, Communists, Nazis, whatever) want to raise your taxes and take your guns. Now when we look at his actual record, Obama has actually INCREASED gun rights by signing two bills into law which allow citizens to carry guns in national parks, and on Amtrak trains, respectively. He has proposed zero gun control legislation. It makes no difference; conservatives “know” that liberals take guns, even if they don’t.

    Then there’s the matter of taxes. Democrats raise taxes, period. Even if they lower taxes, they somehow raise them. Conservatives will talk your ear off about taxes but ask them if they ever looked at US tax rates through history and they go blank. Many of them don’t know the difference between payroll, income, and sales taxes. The idiotic claim that 51% pay no taxes proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Conservatives repeat claims from their trusted sources without checking. As for Obama’s record, he has talked about raising taxes on the top bracket, he allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue.

    Again, facts don’t matter.

  • April

    Are any of these upstanding citizens involved with Republicans currently running doe President? The code words sound familiar. After so much freedom/patriotism/god/country, my eyes cross. Suspect I’m dealing with a politician or a bigot; yes, even here in New York City. One way Obama will never fit the description is he THINKS. If you watch TV you can catch him doing it. Scandalous! He must be an elitist, uppity, or both! One thing that sickens me is the More Christian Than Thou Face Offs during our campaigns. Any way to eliminate them? Aside from their being offensive to Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians and atheists like me. Jefferson and Adams are spinning in their graves. Ben Franklin rolling his eyes.

  • Louis Stouch

    First question: How much danger do you think liberty is in right now as a result of President Obama’s policies, actions and agenda for America’s future?

    Answer:

    Boom times roll on for U.S. gun business

    Sturm Ruger stops taking new orders, citing enormous backlog

    By William Spain, MarketWatch

    CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Sturm Ruger & Co.’s announcement that it would stop taking orders until it clears an enormous backlog serves as the latest sign of the boom times for the U.S. firearms business.

    Late Wednesday, Sturm Ruger said that in the first quarter, it had received orders for more than 1 million units.

    Whoa, 1 million units in 3 months! Of course, thats just 1 manufacturer. Good to see that obamas economic policies are having a positive influence in at least one industry.

    Gun confiscation in this country? Doesnt look like it.

  • Reynardine

    Of course, the thing is a push poll. As for Mr. Reed, his habitual expression suggests he is the kind of person who vents silent but virulent flatulence and then blames it on the dog.