OBAMA WAS SELECTED, NOT ELECTED ... Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter Dot Com ^ | 4 June 2008 | Ann Coulter

[Rummyfan]

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[ctdonath2]

Life, for a liberal, is one never-ending game of Calvinball.

Insightful comment of the month!

[Ramius]

All I know is we will be rid of Bubba and his old lady!!!!

I too have dreamed of the day when we were finally rid of the Clintons. Imagine my disappointment when it dawned on me that the next President, Obama, will be even worse.

Had Hillary won, it would suck but it would have been survivable. It could be undone later. But President Obama and a wholly-socialist Congress will do things that will never be fixed.

Medicine will be nationalized. Taxes will be at a new record high. The market will tank. Guns will be confiscated. Iran will get the bomb... And use it. Al-Queda will claim victory (and be correct). Iraq will be abandoned on the verge of victory, descend into anarchy, and no nation will trust us again, ever.

And then he'll nominate Hillary to the Supreme Court.

Me... I'm just stocking up on ammo. It might be useful to set up our underground now while we can.

[Candor7]

(Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Poetics in action.

Ouch.

That left a mark.

( I bet Annie writes some pretty good poetry, we should ask.)

[Candor7]

Great picture of the "Mandingo" caucus.

I wonder if Jefferson is still their bag man for kick backs from Federal Aid to Africa?

Photo caption:

" Keep the money! We want our broccoli back!"

[highlander_UW]

So he claims to be a uniter...he can't even unite the democrat party...he needs Hilary for that. And, as an apostate muslim he has 1.3 Billion muslims honor bound to kill him. Furthermore, he's the most liberal senator there is. He is incapable of delivering what he promises, and his word has proved to be of no value whatsoever in the past anyway.

[Rummyfan]

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga’s follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more. Obama’s cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burn ed Christians’ homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth

The scariest by far. We should be able to destroy this guy, if McCain doesn't totally blow it (a big if I know...).

[Prov1322]

Much better. Denver is going to be fun.

Yup! Stocking up on popcorn and M & M's now...!

[Rennes Templar]

Lol thats hysterical

[ChessExpert]

You wrote:

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya, his father’s family
was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro).

I mentioned this to my wife and she told me to look at the picture of Obama's father. I found one, and he looks to be African - not Arabic.

I went to the website that you linked to in paragraph 6. It says:

Further, at only 6.25% African Negro, would he even be the first President who was part black? Not at all! Our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson was our first part black President. And he's not alone, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were also part black.

President Andrew Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. Andrew Jackson was such a high percentage black that his oldest brother was sold as a slave!

President Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of an African man, he had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother also allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents.

President Warren Harding never even denied claims that he was black, because he had black ancestors between both sets of parents and he attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.

President Calvin Coolidge was proud of his heritage and claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor" and in Europe the name "Moor" was given to all blacks just as "Negro" was used in America.

I find much of this to be unbelievable, which is why I don't believe it.

Thanks for trying to unearth significant facts. But I think you have been mislead in this particular instance. We all lose credibility when we make or repeat claims that are false. Then the true statements we make are ignored.

[Lancey Howard]

Ann BUMP!

[Lancey Howard]

[CPT Clay]

Wosg

Have you seen sthe links in this post?

Amazing

[OPS4]

This was posted on monday before my post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021389/posts
Then there is the Arab blood problem.
Hussein has more Arab blood than Black Blood. Some say he is Arab American rather than African American.

Being black is a lie, being white is true, being Arab is true

“What Game is This?

“Barack Hussein Obama - Arab-American, only 6.25% African
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya, his father’s family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro). “