NASHVILLE — Nearly half of Tennesseans believe President Barack Obama is a socialist, while one out of three think he wasn’t even born in the United States, according to a poll released Wednesday.
Poll respondents also don’t appear to think much of the General Assembly’s expansion this year of places where handgun-carry permit holders can go armed: Fifty-four percent oppose allowing permit holders to tote their loaded guns in state parks. Eighty percent don’t want permit holders bringing their guns into bars.
Those were among several dozen findings in the Middle Tennessee State University survey. The poll of 716 adults was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 10 by MTSU students under the supervision of university professors. MTSU poll officials say the survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
The poll found that rumors about President Obama had found fertile ground in Tennessee, a state which the black Democrat lost.
“It’s really strange stuff that this large a number of people believe some of these things that have been pretty thoroughly debunked,” said MTSU poll associate director Jason Reineke.
Thirty-four percent of those polled subscribe to a theory that holds that Mr. Obama was born outside the U.S., thus making him ineligible to be president. Fifteen percent said they don’t know whether President Obama was born in another countr. Fifty percent said the president was either probably or definitely not born in another country.
Count state Rep. Frank Nicely, R-Strawberry Plains, among the skeptical. Earlier this year, the lawmaker joined a lawsuit to force the president to cough up his birth certificate. The Obama campaign had posted the birth certificate on the Web earlier, but Rep. Nicely remains unconvinced.
“Gaddafi introduced him the other day as his Kenyan-born son, so I rest my case,” Rep. Nicely said of Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi.
President Obama’s father was Kenyan, but he says he was born in Hawaii, which Hawaiian officials have said records show is the case. The nonpartisan group Fact Check said in June that “birthers” who believe Mr. Obama is not American “so far have produced what we judge to be zero credible evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, or that he later gave up U.S. citizenship.”
Meanwhile, 46 percent of Tennesseans surveyed said it probably or definitely is true that Obama is a socialist, with 11 percent saying they don’t know. Only 42 percent of Tennesseans think this is probably or definitely not true. Seventy-one percent of the state’s Republicans think Obama is probably or definitely a socialist.
Text Size:
“It’s really strange stuff that this large a number of people believe some of these things that have been pretty thoroughly debunked,” said MTSU poll associate director Jason Reineke. And with a smirk on his face, Mr. Reineke simply dismisses those who disagree with his liberal mind.
The only things so far that have been debunked are the fabricated stories the WH continually comes up with to dismiss the mounting evidence that Obama and his administration have surrounded themselves with vile, perverted Advisors (Czars) like Kevin Jennings (the "queering" of American children) and Van Jones, an avowed Marxist, to name a couple. The list is long, leading many to believe the word "Socialist" may be a wee bit too weak in describing this hoodwinker of a president.
Many of us are not "birthers", yet what the Hawaiian gov't released and posted on the WH website was a mere copy or statement of birth, not an original, sealed document. Maybe if they had just released the right document in the beginning, like it was demanded of John McCain, these birthers would not be complaining, no?
Remarking only on the guns in bars... Where in the bill of rights does it say your rights are protected provided the government gives you permission or you pay a fee? It's a slippery slope. Paying court costs to contest a ticket (happens in some cities) is paying for due process. Churches can loose tax exempt status if pastors preach about politics. That's the IRS using money to coerce a surrender of the first amendment. I'm working on a paper about "licensing the bill of rights", which I will eventually post at http://duck4gov.com/. This is the nature of the topic I want to discuss.
Why not allow guns in bars from a government level? A business owner can declare, "no shoes, no shirt, no service" Can he not declare no guns, no service? A man can declare "no guns in my home." Is it not a home invasion if one violates that? Sure, guns and alcohol are a foolish combination, but we should not be in the business of legislating foolishness. If someone murders another, severely punish the murderer. If someone has done nothing but do something foolish, that to this point has hurt no one but himself leave him alone. If someone brings a gun into a bar (or anywhere else for that matter) against the business owner's permission, that's tresspassing with a deadly weapon. Let the bar owner make the choice. That's all that bill does.
Now regarding socialism... One of many differences between socialism and capitalism is, the socialist not only believes his opinion is better than other opinions (which I am proudly guilty of myself), the socialist also tries to force others to comply with his opinions (which I oppose). Yes, Obama and _many_ others exhibit socialist traits, because we think we can tell others what to do and enforce the with fines, taxes, and imprisonment.
Personally, I'd hope nearly every bar owner would say, "no guns in my bar". Let the owner make the choice. Maybe he wants one just for himself. I think it would be dangerous to even have a gun in the bar, because he could loose it in a fight, but let that be his choice. It's not mine. It's not yours. It's not the government's. It's the choice of the bar owner. Period.
I agree with most of your premises samuelduck. I too, believe that private business owners should have the right to tell customers what they can or cannot bring into their business. Most business owners know their customers and are attuned to their unique situation(s). Plus, in a bar, restaurant or recreation facility, the owner has to consider the safety of all his/her customers and their families.
In the case of a government owned facility, we should respect the laws the government has instituted, whether we agree or not.
I also believe in respecting the 2nd amendment and the rights therein. What I think is wrong, is that some in our society believe they have the 'right' to do whatever they want, even if that 'right' disrespects or harms others.
For your paper, look into gun rights, laws and their effects in the UK the last 40 years or so (if you haven't already). Many find it interesting that since the British Parliament banned weapons in public due to the loud protests of the Left, violence of all kinds has increased greatly. Moreover, Islamic cells plotting violence and death have succeeded in killing many because the British police are not properly armed and could not fight back. Where the Brits and Scottish are strong is in intelligence gathering. The average British citizen or business owner could never hope to protect themselves or their families. In the ghettos of California and the Southwest, the same 'phenomenom' occurs. The criminals win.