This comes as a follow up to my last article where I introduced our readers to the absolute insanity that is The Confluence, a blog run by a minuscule pro-Hillary political group that has now decided the deep end wasn’t crazy enough and has dived full force off the ocean shelf into bizarre conspiracy theories.

Last week they ran an article on how the Democratic Primary was rigged for Obama, and in fact had been rigged years ago, in their own words:

The nomination was rigged, long ago. The people responsible for ignoring the will of the voters and selecting Barack Obama as the nominee have been plotting and planning for years. This was no accident. The full scope of what happened may never be known, but in hindsight some of it is obvious.

I’m a bit confused as to how they can even make such a leap… the other posts on the blog are insane, true, but this one steps into grounds of convoluted illogical assumptions that are so deep they stagger me. Have they forgotten that it was Hilary Clinton that led the charge to have the delegates unseated? Do they realize what they are suggesting? Their claim that the election was rigged via the treatment of Michigan and Florida is a claim that Hillary rigged the election for Obama


They actually believe that Hillary Clinton, in their mind the rightful presidential nominee for the Democratic party, rigged the Democratic Primary so that her opponent, Barack Obama, would win. In what sort of universe does a conspiracy theory like this even make sense!?! It’s like claiming that Kennedy hired his own assassin! This sort of stuff reaches so far down the well of crazy that I am really excited to see what they come up with next. It’s like watching a car wreck, I can’t stop reading their blog. It’s a whole new level of insanity, and while it creeps me out, like the patron of a good horror movie I keep coming back for more.

If the crazy half-baked conspiracy theory wasn’t enough, the author has the absolute audacity to suggest that Hillary’s campaign is akin to the Civil Rights Movement. I’m sorry, but at that point the dose of crazy goes from funny to pathetic. If you really think you can compare a race’s struggle to not only have the right to vote, but the right to attend the same schools, live and work where they want, and not have to live in constant fear for their lives, you are just pathetically misinformed.

Edit:They’re even running an article today about how Obama was “supposed to pay” for Hillary’s debt. Um, when was this decided? I know Hillary asked him to, but why should he? She didn’t have the decency to bow out when it was clear to everyone else she had lost. She needs to pay her own damn bills. Obama is not liable for her irresponsibly continued campaign.

-Angry Midwesterner

While it should come as no surprise to me that the sort of people who would support the kinds of evils Hilary has helped bring forth over the years, would still be whining about how she lost the popular vote, I had no idea how delusional these folks really were. I recently ran across a blog called The Confluence, which has lowered my opinion of Hilary supporters even further. The writer claims to be part of a group called PUMA, a barely notable blip on the political radar that is having a hissy fit because voters chose Barack Obama over Hilary Clinton. What is hilarious and sad at the same time is the lack of grip on reality that the writer and many of the commenters exhibit. Come along with me and I’ll take you on a tour of their madness.

First and foremost I am amused by the comment the author makes that Liberty has died “with thunderous applause”. Evidently she’s unsure of the definition of Liberty. You see Obama won the popular vote, and led in the popular vote for practically the entire primary. The voters of America chose him. To pick Hilary over Obama when the voters have chosen Obama would resemble the death of Liberty. But as for allowing the popular vote to stand? That’s preserving Liberty. What makes this misunderstanding of Liberty even more confusing is the existance of other posts on the blog where the author advocates encouraging the Democratic super-delegates to deal a finishing blow to Democracy by overriding the popular vote. I think perhaps the author is mistaking Oligarchy for Democracy, because otherwise I don’t see how wanting a bunch of elite old white guys to override the popular vote would preserve Liberty at all.

But the madness doesn’t stop there. Oh no. It gets deeper and deeper, earlier in another post our friendly crazed Hilary blogger said:

What we have witnessed this year seems to have set back the clock for the rights of women by 40 years.

Really? Forty years? How exactly does Hilary’s losing the election to the better candidate set back human rights? Why is it any surprise that Hilary, who opposes free speech, supports censorship, supports Bush’s position on executive authority, supports the death penalty, wants to weaken and destroy public education, supported the war in Iraq, AND the Patriot Act, didn’t exactly play well with a lot of Democrats and concerned moderates? Hilary is basically just a pro-choice version of George Bush, hell she was head of the College Republicans on her campus during her University years!

I’d encourage everyone to head over to The Confluence and have a look around, you’ll find all the Hilarious Hilary Hijinks we enjoyed during the campaign and even more. The level of insanity and self deception is simply astounding, here are some brief highlights of the points I don’t have room to cover in detail:

Well, keep the good comedy coming in “The Confluence”, and don’t worry, we won’t try to win your vote. Even if all five of PUMAs members vote for McCain this November, it won’t be noticed one bit.

-Angry Midwesterner

A lot of time has been spent recently, mostly by folks who have nothing better to do with their time, arguing about the citizenship of Obama and McCain. While the accusations against Obama are completely without merit and were caused by a hoax, and gullible Republicans (hey, if you’ll vote for Dubya, you’ll pretty much buy into anything I guess), the questions about McCain’s status are unfortunately very real. Now this isn’t to say that I think McCain should be ineligible for the presidency. I’m pretty sure McCain bleeds red, white, and blue, and personally wouldn’t be upset if he was elected. He’s a fine citizen and would probably make a pretty good president. The problem, as always is Congress.

The problem with McCain’s questionable status stems from those crazy kooks on Capitol Hill, as John Adams reminds us in the musical 1776:

…one useless man is called a disgrace, …two are called a law firm, and …three or more become a Congress!

You see, back in 1790, Congress had the whole issue solved and cleared up. The United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” There we go, case closed, all with a simple easy to understand law that is hard to abuse. This could have been the end of the story, but no, we have a whole Congress of useless men in this country which meant that 5 years later, things got more complicated.

In 1795, Congress complicated immigration issues by issuing the United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795. This act, which says nothing of natural born Citizens, explicitly repealed the US Naturalization Law of 1790, throwing the question of who was a natural born Citizen back up into the air.

But don’t worry, the Act of 1795 isn’t in play any longer either, today we have 8 USC 1401 to define Citizenship for us, and with a name like “8 USC 1401” you know it’s liable to be easy to understand! And simple and easy it is… if you’re a lawyer… maybe. 8 USC 1401 is written in essay format, and does not conform to the 500 word limit. To sum up the verbose law:

  • A person born outside the US whose parents are both US citizens is a citizen

    • IF one of them is a resident of a US State, Territory, or Possession prior to the birth.
    • OR one of them was physically present in a US State, Territory, or Possession for a period of no less than one year prior birth.

  • OR A person born outside the US whose parents include a citizen and a US national (but non-citizen)

    • IF the parent who is a citizen was physically present in a US State, Territory, or Possession for a period of no less than one year prior birth.

  • OR a person born outside the US whose parents include a citizen and an alien

    • IF the parent who is a citizen was physically present in a US State, Territory, or Possession for a period of no less than five years prior birth, at least two years of which must have been after the parent turned 14 years of age
    • PROVIDED that the citizen was honorably serving in the US Military, or working for the US Government those periods may be used to fulfill the five years if the person was born after December 24, 1952.

  • OR a person born outside the US whose parents were an alien father and a citizen mother, and the individual was born before May 24, 1934.

Clear enough? To make matters worse that just includes folks born OUTSIDE of the US. Aptly named 8 USC 1401 also covers every other case of citizenship, but makes absolutely no mention of what it means to be a naturally born Citizen.

I don’t know about you folks, but I thought the law of 1790 did a fine enough job defining things, why we need the obfuscated 8 USC 1401 is beyond me. Thanks to Congress we’ve eschewed a simple and fair law that would make it clear McCain is a natural born citizen, in favor of a confusing loopy law that leaves his status as subject to inane and stupid Internet debate.

-Angry Midwesterner