They’ve been watching Red Dawn again
The paranoia and racism of the unhinged fringe ought to be taken seriously, and it seems the Secret Service is doing exactly that. According to a report in the Boston Globe, President Obama has drawn an unprecedented number of threats against his life, overwhelming the ability of the Secret Service to check out all the lunatics to see how serious they are.
The domestic threat is also growing, fueled in part by Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president, according to specialists who study homegrown radical movements.
Obama, who was given Secret Service protection 18 months before the election – the earliest ever for a presidential candidate – has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors.
UPDATE: Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan says that while there was a rise in threats right after the inauguration, the number of threats against Obama is now “within the range” of the number of threats against the last two presidents.
On the other hand, there are moments when the paranoia of the wingnuts is almost comical. A new group called Oath Keepers has pledged to keep the feds from violating the Second Amendment by confiscating weapons.
Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.
“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.
Hey, people believe what they want. That’s what makes this a great country. But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
106 comments Add your comment
dewstarpath
October 20th, 2009
4:21 pm
- Alexander Haig thought “Red Dawn” was one of
the greatest movies of all time back in ‘84. They’re
remaking it again, filming in Detroit. It’s even crazier
now, but entertaining back then.
jconservative
October 20th, 2009
4:37 pm
“Obama…has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors.”
I am not surprised. Even though most citizens of the US say they believe in the Constitution & the rule of law there are a large number who do not. But as you say, people believe what they want to believe.
And here is the sad part the Oath Keepers do not understand. No one would bother to take away their guns to establish a “manchurian dictatorship” (great phrase Cynthia). Instead they would take away their bank accounts, 401K’s, unemployment checks, social security checks and, most important, availability of gasoline. Taking away guns is early 19th century stuff. This is the 21st century.
libertarian
October 20th, 2009
4:57 pm
It doesn’t matter. It’s all academic. After the 2010 elections Obama will be a powerless President, having lost BOTH houses of Congress, and after 2012, he’ll be relegated to the ash heap of history as a do-nothing President along the lines of Jimmy Carter, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and Ulysses Grant, among others.
Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee
October 20th, 2009
4:58 pm
I would never want anything to happen to our President or another man but I still think this guy is corrupt. A lot of those threats probably have to do with his race by the crazies out there, the others are from crazies who don’t like what this guy or his administation is doing. Maybe there is a couple from senior citizens who voted for him because of his promise for change and ending income tax for all seniors making less than $50,000 a year. Well this promise has turned out to be a lie so maybe hard working Grandma and Grandpa out there are angry. Maybe some are coming from the many people who are out of work who voted for him because of change and the promise to create 3 million jobs when they haven’t created 30,000 jobs yet. Maybe some are from mothers who are worried about the kind of future their kids have when the deficit goes up by the day and in the schools their kids are taught to sing an Obama propaganda song or hear one of his advisors express her admiration for Mao Tse Tung, a man who is responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Maybe people are tired of the government putting their hands into everything. Just this week with all the the problems we have there are people in our government concentrating on changing the College Football Bowl system. Maybe it is because the government is more worried about steroids in baseball then the millions and millions of dollars spent every month on wars. The administration is now influencing television, complaining about free speech news organizations, and next they are going for the internet. People are getting angry and are looking forward to 2010 and some are even more anticipating 2012.
Richard Roma
October 20th, 2009
5:03 pm
I think Cynthia may be the paranoid one. She thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a racist. She isn’t the only one, though, who has a knee-jerk reaction to throw that word around. I think it has lost it’s meaning.
Joan
October 20th, 2009
5:14 pm
I don’t dislike Obama because of his color. It goes a lot deeper than that. The man lies every time he opens his mouth, and he is being outed left and right. Naturally people are fearful for the terrible tax hikes that are expected, for the polarization of the people by this out in left field White House group, by the dismissal of those who work hard, apparently in favor of those who are content to set back and relax, and whose only real job is to vote Democrat every few years. It is easy to hate him, Rahm, Anita, and all the other loonies in the White House. They are destroying a great country and we are forced to watch it happen.
Davo
October 20th, 2009
5:17 pm
“…the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
With statements like that, it’s a wonder why Tucker and her ilk frown on slavery, because that’s exactly what she asks for.
Joan
October 20th, 2009
5:22 pm
About that “Manchurian takerover”. I think that is what is going on now. Obama was the perfect Manchurian Candidate. An empty suit, high on himself, and low on leverage. The guy doesn’t even make his own liberals happy. He can do no right. I wonder if he has even figured out yet that he is simply a cog in the machine. Pelosi probably threatens to spank him if he talks out of turn.
Paul
October 20th, 2009
5:26 pm
Ms McKinney
Do you have a cite from this Oath Keepers group that says they pledge to disobey orders with which they disagree?
I took a look at their web site. There are a lot of currently serving military, as well as police. Given you’ve stated that these professionals who’ve sworn to uphold the law will willingly disobey the law…. well, I’d sure be interested in that citation.
Randall W. Capps
October 20th, 2009
5:26 pm
What does this woman do for a living? It sure isn’t writing. Can’t she make one blog post with out half of it having been written by someone else?
She’s obviously making a veiled reference to obama’s off-handed remark about people in Penn. clinging to their religion and guns.
She is right about one thing: WE LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP. And I wrote that without using the cap button but the “old-fashioned” way: The shift key.
This is prize winning writing?
Bruce Krafft
October 20th, 2009
5:34 pm
I find it fascinating that there are people who seem to feel threatened (and if you don’t feel threatened, why refer to them as paranoid wingnuts?) by a group of folks who say they will obey their oath to protect the Constitution.
As for Cynthia’s last point:
1) That is why the Second Amendment protects military style weapons, not just hunting weapons. And
2) I think Cynthia discounts the utility of a hunting rifle. A reasonably skilled marksman can hit a man-sized target out to 500 yards, a skilled marksman can hit out to 750 yards, and an excellent marksman can hit out to 1,000 yards. This means that with a “hunting rifle” one person can control about 162 acres, 365 acres, and 649 acres (or about 1 square mile) respectively.
Oh, and remember that the pilots of those F-16s may well be Oath-Keepers themselves . . .
Paul
October 20th, 2009
5:42 pm
Ms Tucker
My apologies for the incorrect surname in my 5:26.
Steve in Arizona
October 20th, 2009
5:50 pm
“Threats against President Obama are increasing.” — Obama Administration Press Release
Translation: “Whaaaaa………nobody likes me! Is it because I’m trashing the country like East German leaders did, or (sniffle, sniffle) is it because I’m a black man?”
Obama is a pathetic liar. Only naive foreigners and fools still fall for his stupid press release talking points like his paranoid “they’re threatening me” daily whines to the press. Even “liberal” Americans have caught on to this clown. “Liberals” have just discovered what the rest of us knew: Barack Obama is a hard-lined leftist like Hugo Chavez. He’s not the “ushy-squshy liberal” that many thought he was.
Peter
October 20th, 2009
5:53 pm
Oath Keepers’ “ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY”: “We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.”
That line tends to suggest a contradiction with… um… the Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 on its face. But there’s more…
Since they say “invade”, they imply that their idea of asserting “sovereignty” is secession, as otherwise “invade” would not be an appropriate term.
Their slogan says: “Guardians of the Republic… Honor Your Oath. Join us.” But if they won’t take action against a state that secedes (their idea of state sovereignty), then they are not defending the Constitution. The Constitution exists “to form a more perfect Union.” The Oath Keeper refusal above implies dissolution.
The Oath Keepers need to either re-word their refusal, or change their name and purpose, as in its current form, it is clear they do not exist to defend the Constitution. In fact, they seem to be implicitly arrayed against both it and the Union.
Paul
October 20th, 2009
6:05 pm
Peter 5:53
Cite? Link?
Paul
October 20th, 2009
6:15 pm
Peter
I saw it on the right side of their lead page.
Looks like it’s time for Sec Gates and some police chiefs to exercise some adult leadership.
But I still do not see corroboration of Ms Tuckers claims.
Sean
October 20th, 2009
6:22 pm
Here we go again. Cynthia Tucker wasting our time with a pointless article about who cares.
Paul
October 20th, 2009
6:36 pm
Well Sean, it’s a pretty big deal.
Ms Tucker asserts we have a fair number of currently-serving military personnel who would willingly disobey lawful orders. Same with police officers.
The Second Amendment point is pretty silly. All sorts of highly improbably events would have to occur. More the stuff of cheap novels.
But her first assertion: that is quite serious. She says, in effect, many serving military cannot be trusted.
El Jefe
October 20th, 2009
6:46 pm
It really does not surprise me at all. Take any President that deals in unpopular policies and there will be threats.
You must wonder, if the threats are because he is acting against the common good or if some folks don’t like Progressivism.
Most of us older folks, take an immediate dislike to anything that smacks of socialism, Marxist, Maoist or even Stalinist and embrace the words and concepts housed in the Constitution.
Kamchak
October 20th, 2009
6:49 pm
Paul
Getting a link here? Most don’t know how or what you’re talking about, and posting a link here may get you moderated.
@@
October 20th, 2009
6:53 pm
:-OMG, Paul. I just took a look at Cynthia’s blog.
You called her Ms. McKinney!!?!!
(IHSH)
Paul
October 20th, 2009
7:02 pm
@@
For which I duly apologized.
I read her post, then a friend called. So I was listening to that talk and began typing and got names mixed.
And I was NOT thinking of the ex-Congresswoman! Yikes!
Kamchak
Thanks much for the heads up.
I notice Ms Tucker referenced ex-military while the Oath Keepers references currently serving. Makes me wonder if there are separate oaths or if her source material is suspect.
Still and all, there’s a club for nearly everyone, isn’t there?
Off to a football game.
Pleasant evening to you both.
malg64
October 20th, 2009
7:24 pm
You people are absolutely insane…no wonder only 20% of the country will say they are with you…what a paranoid joke you all have become.
Kevin
October 20th, 2009
7:38 pm
Let’s see. A Pulitzer Prize winning writer (Cynthia) resorts to third grade name calling:
Unhinged fringe
Lunatics
Wingnuts
I have about as much respect for the Pulitzer committee as I do the Nobel committee.
John Bates Thayer
October 20th, 2009
8:30 pm
Threats against Obama’s life?
Why worry?
Be happy!
Tax payer funded Public Option, NEVER!
October 20th, 2009
9:17 pm
“wingnuts”? mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm, Barack INSANE Obama
Yo'mama Obama
October 20th, 2009
9:19 pm
Somewhere deep in the jungles of Kenya, a village is missing its idiot……
Grob Hahn
October 20th, 2009
9:32 pm
Wingnuts??? Tsk tsk
Dr. R
October 20th, 2009
9:33 pm
Cynthia, why are you so obsessed with the fringe? Address issues with people who can offer sound arguments to the contrary and you’ll have a civil debate. But you seem intent on taking the lunatic ravings from the margins and focusing on those as if they are the mainstream of opposing thought. You elevate those arguments while at the same time fail to engage those who have honest and well-reasoned disagreements with the majority view. Apparently you don’t feel you can match those argyuments effectively. I suppose choosing to debate with braind-dead morons is easier than taking on those with intellectual heft, but it isn’t wehat I’d expect from a prize-winning olumnist.
Elder Speaker
October 20th, 2009
9:35 pm
Cynthia,
Will you please attempt to refrain from name-calling. Name-calling is incendiary and serves no intelligent purpose.
“Course I know she never bothers to read her responders so I’m wasting my time.
godless heathen
October 20th, 2009
9:36 pm
“But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
Yup. Nuclear weapons and F-16s can’t seem to beat a bunch of cave dwelling Afghans so Bubba and me with our deer rifles will do alright.
Obama should quit whining, apologizing, and taking Michelle out on date nights and get to leading _all the people_.
Dr. R
October 20th, 2009
9:43 pm
True Elder, I’ve never known Cynthia to engage bloggers in a conversation, as Jay Bookman and others do. I thought that was the idea of a blog. If you believe in your ideas, you should be willing to discuss it with others and not hide behind the gray walls on Marietta Street. Guess when you got a Pulitzer you’re too good to swap notions with the rabble on the streets.
Jordan
October 20th, 2009
9:47 pm
Get used to it Barack Obama will serve an 8 year term! Who you crackers going to run Palin? Our president took over a damn train wreck. There is NO ONE who could fix this mess in 10 months. I disagree with everything he is doing with the banks big time but I don’t claim to understand running a country. Your guys are going to be out of power for about sixteen years. Get used to it!
MikeB
October 20th, 2009
9:48 pm
I don’t wish Obama any harm. I do wish that you Ms. Tucker would quit playing your “race” card. We have not forgotton that he is some % African American………. I could care less. Its his policies and his kissing up to every leader in th world that I am concerned about.
So far nothing he has done internationally has made Americans, safer or more respected abroad.
Ms. Tucker…….. Please don’t distract the readers from this with your race baiting. Most intelligent conservatives see right through this BS smoke & mirrors act. And there are plenty of intelligent conservatives. Contrary to wingnut liberal belief. See? Conservatives can use that word too
Whatever
October 20th, 2009
9:55 pm
I wouldn’t respond to your right-wing drivel either if was her. Mt-suit, socialist, communist, marxist, blah! State some intelligent, independent facts and then maybe you’ll get a response. No predictions no forecasts, no Rush-Beck-Hannity talking points, just facts.
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
9:58 pm
Let’s hope it is all just a lot of bluster and blood is never shed.
Kevin
October 20th, 2009
9:59 pm
I read today that the NYT laid off 100 in their newsroom. The AJC high-tailed it out of downtown to the ‘burbs. And Cindy moves to DC to cover this “historic presidency.”
I hope Cindy’s making some connections in DC, because, having no real marketable skills and no real writing talent, she’s going to need a cushy government job.
Jarhead1982
October 20th, 2009
10:02 pm
Actually Cynthia, if one looks at the reality of such a conflict, yes, rifles will wim! Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and such will not be unleashed on the continental US by the government unless they are truly insane. Nor will concentrated artillery fire, mortar fire, mass bombings by B-52’s, B-1, or B-2’s. The conflict will be pretty much conventional and the civilian population no matter how cowed by the Obamalamadingdong Prozac Koolaid, will not stand for the messy results of collaterall damage on American soil!
Today there just over 3 million military and police personnel in US service. There are however over 100 million law abiding gun owners in the US.
For all those military and police to be active on US soil, all oversea’s military facilties and commitments would have to be abandoned. All police and military would have to be counted on to subdue the 100 million law abiding gun owners. Indeed, how many of those police and military personnel would refuse to attack US citizens, fire upon, put into re-education camps, hmmmmm. How many military personnel do you KNOW, I know many, past and present.
We see how effective brutal and concentrated military force is at stopping determined insurgencies in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is still going on 8 years later! They sure seem to be able to communicate, travel, supply, and fight even with our technological advantage.
Now how many of those retired military personnel took their knowledge with them? How many of those military supplies and equipment will end up in the oath keepers hands?
Yep, you are really a leading Military strategist that has a clue about what it takes to defeat even a small percentage of the 100 million.
After all the last simple fact remains, those 100 million gun owners would only have to kill the approximately 5,000 politicians to solve that little problem of tyrrany, wouldnt they? Some reason, the numbers just dont add up to support your position that we lowly peasants wouldnt stand a chance!
Whatever
October 20th, 2009
10:03 pm
Joan
October 20th, 2009
5:14 pm
I don’t dislike Obama because of his color. It goes a lot deeper than that. The man lies every time he opens his mouth
___________________________________________________
And you discredit yourself just by saying somethng that stupid.
James from Oklahoma
October 20th, 2009
10:08 pm
Anyone who is a member of this organization and is a member of law enforcement or the military should be relieved of their position immediately, fired if law enforcement, kicked out of the military, and tried for sedition. This organization is made up of traitors against the union and they should be prosecuted. These are the same kind of scum that blew up the Murrah building. Tell me? How many children have to die this time? What’s the body count? If you don’t think it can’t happen, ask any government employee who works in Oklahoma City what if felt like to have the shock wave go through their body.
ken
October 20th, 2009
10:09 pm
Cindy, please, there is not on Military Pilot that would shoot a U.S. Citizen and the police will never take our guns.
NObama is like the used car salesman. Good talk, no walk.
Whatever
October 20th, 2009
10:11 pm
Jarhead, you’re from another planet apparently. Why analyze a scenario that’s never going to take place? And even if it does, do you really think it’s going to happen in the next few years? Get a grip man. The black boogieman president is not coming to take your guns. He even responded to that dumbass question during the campaign stating, “Even I I wanted to, how would we be able to get 200 million guns off the streets” (paraphrase) You all have really lost it. In 10 months the president has “destroyed the country”. I see your internet is still working.
Mike Vanderboegh
October 20th, 2009
10:14 pm
“Hey, people believe what they want. That’s what makes this a great country. But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
Cynthia, you really didn’t pay attention to the story, did you? Oath Keepers are current and former military and police. Oath Keepers are the guys and gals you Obamanoids are counting on to oppress the rest of us. Get it? The whole point of reminding oath takers that the oath they took to the Constitution — not to a man, not a regime, but to the Founders’ Republic — is to prevent the F16s and nuiclear weapons from being used, you twit. And tell me, what kind of bloody-minded moron uses weapons of mass destruction on his or her own people and own soil? I’ll tell you what kind — exactly the tyrannical type that the Oath was designed by the Founders to prevent. You really don’t think things though, do you?
Mike Vanderboegh
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
October 20th, 2009
10:30 pm
Yes, the Oath Keepers are a pathetic bunch, but mentally deficient folks with guns are never funny.
Relax
October 20th, 2009
10:45 pm
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 20th, 2009
11:25 pm
We have bigger concerns, like how come Bad Company has not been inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame?
I mean really, can you name one bad song?
I think not.
Guy Fawkes
October 20th, 2009
11:31 pm
When stimuli fail and times are just plain hard, go on, Cynthia, and play the race card.
And when the spotlight shines on Obaman duplicity, count on Cindy to go off flogging ethnicity.
While China and Russia have the West in their sights, Ms. Tukcer’s worst fear is–gun-toting whites.
Oh count on dear Cindy to play the race card, that time-worn and trusted liberal canard.
Statistics don’t matter and facts need not apply; everyone’s a racist when race dominates your eye.
Chris
October 21st, 2009
12:50 am
Owning a gun and publicly vowing to continue to exercise that right does not make one a lunatic. Vowing to hold the government accountable does not mean one intends to do physical combat against fighter jets and nuclear bombs. Among the delightful exaggerations in this editorial, it is also humorous to see a claim about the number of threats against the President, followed immediate by an “update” that directly contradicts the claim. We used to call those “retractions” or “corrections” but, as they say, WHATever.
Ed Hansen
October 21st, 2009
1:59 am
From my close reading of the Oath Keepers “About” page tinyurl.com/nje3tp, it is a group of hypocritical seditionists.
In fact, their first section states, “Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.”
Of course, Article 2, Section 2 tinyurl.com/3hbxa “Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments,” plainly states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Therefore, their “oath to the Constitution” means they are definitively subject to the direction of the civilian President.
If they “will not ‘just follow orders,’” they intentionally insubordinate their Oath. It is the very antithesis of the stated “oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. *Please* reference the definition of “hypocrisy,” tinyurl.com/q7gbp.
Further, the following passage meets the definition of “sedition” in both the Random House Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary tinyurl.com/34wvor:
“The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.”
Are they still watching the infamously re-edited prints of “The Birth of a Nation”?
The second “About” section proceeds to backpedal with nine statements of what they “are not”. It reads quite like a scene from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”. tinyurl.com/93vfz:
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace – shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there’s one. But otherwise, we’re solid.
Ah, personal memories of being accosted as I left a screening of “Brian” by congregants of Jack Hudson’s cult of personality Northside Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC in 1979. Sorry, back on topic…
Ms. Tucker’s use of the colloquial term “wingnut” might be inflammatory, but is not entirely off-base. The defacto leader of this great mass of these people, Rush Limbaugh, has been credited with saying, “he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it.” tinyurl.com/3degf The Oath Keepers are doing the same thing. So have and are virtually all of the “conservative” thought leaders and commentators in all of their various ideological crusades.
Ms. Tucker and former President Jimmy Carter are only partially correct when they claim that racism is the basis of the tide of paranoid pantopragmatism.
In fact, the correct umbrella term for these groups is “Christian Identity.”
tinyurl.com/z4p2r If you’ve never heard the term, it is your righteous duty to yourself to read the afore linked page from religioustolerance.org. Anita Bryant, Timothy McVeigh, Unibomber Ted Kaczynski, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church/God Hates Fags cult, and most every U.S. hate group fall into this devilish brew.
Hence, all of the disclaimers in the Oath Keepers second “About” section are demonstrably hypocritical lies that are diametrically opposed to their true beliefs.
Like President Obama standing up against Fox News, it is time for all reasonable Americans to stand up against this most dangerous and absurd idealism. Enough is enough.
In this post, I have strived to avoid ad hominem discourse and to provide copious reference links for the illumination of all. Still, I’m confident that this post will be attacked.
Thomas
October 21st, 2009
2:51 am
Based on Cynthia Tucker’s article, I would say that she is the fringe. Most Americans now believe, according to recent polls, that Obama’s policies are wrong. And to Ed- defending the constitution is not radical, nor should it constitute the term “wingnut”. It the base that this country was built on.