6 year-old gives ten reasons not to vote for President Obama (VIDEO)

This is sad for multiple reasons.

I’m not sure what’s more disconcerting about this video: the fact that a 6 year-old was allowed/made to be a prop in an anti-Obama video, or the fact that the arguments for voting against President Obama can be summed up by a 6 year-old.


Related Articles

31 thoughts on “6 year-old gives ten reasons not to vote for President Obama (VIDEO)

  1. Not sad, Z. Frightening, as is its source – “Patriot” Update. It is but one small exempla of how the internet has been flooded with right wing propaganda – nearly to the exclusion of anything else. Goebbels is dancing the ‘happy dance” in his grave over how thoroughly the Tea Party has utilized his methods. Unfortunately, Tea Party disinformation and demonization work. I would point out how intensified and broadly distributed Tea Party propaganda has become. The distortions and uncompromising attitudes embedded within it will lead its vehemently irrational followers into instigating a Second Civil War.

    The parents of this hapless child consider indoctrination better preparation for the world than allowing him to develop his own ideas and opinions. Using children to wage political warfare by disseminating blatantly propagandist lies indicates how vile and base the Pro-Ignorant Tea Party Junk Head base has become.

    Don’t be saddened by this video. Be frightened by it.

    1. Agreed. This kid has been brain washed. I doubt he even understands what has been fed to him. I know adults who have been fed this from childhood on. Since out RW media has control over the air waves, this will only get worse.

      Shame on our MSM for NOT reporting facts and shame on our corporations…including the Koch Bros…for feeding this stuff into the media. And shame on the Americans who are too lazy or busy to check out the facts.

      I am tired of being dragged down to the gutter because they are just plain stupid.

      1. Overly dramatic much?

        PJ: “the internet has been flooded with right wing propaganda – nearly to the exclusion of anything else.” Last I checked there wasn’t a limited amount of print space on the internet. Its inclusion isn’t at the expense of excluding anything else.

        And djpat, right wing media? Seriously? Here’s just one blatant and recent example: ABCNews couldn’t wait to fact check anything before almost gleefully going on the air and linking the Colorado shooter with the Tea Party. But did you even hear about the group that tried to blow up the bridge in Ohio actually DOES have ties to the Occupy movement? How about the media picking at everything Romney says or does but gives Obama a pass? They worship the ground he walks on. They spent months in Alaska in ’08 looking for overdue library books and didn’t follow up any leads in Chicago. The man has been president for four years and there’s still much we don’t know. Setbacks in the economy are “expected” under Obama, but they would have crucified Bush or any Republican with the same data.

      2. Also, since you both are highly offended about the parents and brainwashing their kid with propaganda, how about you check the link below and see if you are as offended by the Capitol parents doing the same with their kids in a liberal cause. Oh no, then it’s just showing them “what democracy looks like.”

    1. #10,9,7,6,5,and 2 are true statements.
      #8 and 3 appear to be true to some extent.

    1. FMSN,
      Allow me to preface my response with two points. First, the two situations here are similar, but not comparable. Second, I don’t condone the practice of parents taking children to protest events. On the first note: The two children in the Capitol video may have been old enough to make their own choice on whether or not to engage in an act of civil disobedience in order to protect their right to free speech. Clearly, the situation at hand was one embedded with the question of denial of free speech. If those children were on their own, without the supervision of their parents, that would be one thing. And the parents did give them a choice about removing the sign, but ultimately it is the parents who were responsible for complying with the officer’s request. I wouldn’t agree with how these parents handled this situation at all. With that said, the level of coercion is hardly comparable to that of the 6 year old who clearly has no comprehension of the complex matters behind the words he’s being coached to say. This kind of coercion is hardly unprecedented among Conservative Extremists. They will even haul pre-coached children into assembly chambers in order to plea their case. To me, it is a matter of using children as pawns – it is bad enough to do so rhetorically, but the situation here exceeds any level of decency.

      Perhaps you would be so good as to translate for us this 6 year old’s big ideas with which you concur? You appear to speak propaganda fluently. You may even be able to enter into discussion over these ideas you support just as competently as the 6 year old in the video. Have at it.

      Please explain, for instance, what makes numbers 3 and 8 “true to some extent.” To which extent it is true and to which extent it is not true.

      Detail the gun laws that Obama has put in place which take guns away from good guys. Who are good guys and who are bad guys?

      Please explain how Obama lets bad guys into our country and who those bad guys are.

      Verify the claim that in order to get votes Obama wants to keep people on welfare and food stamps.

      Describe how Obama bows down to leaders from other countries and why this is embarrassing. Maybe you can make a really cogent argument about how Republican leadership did so much to enhance our global standing after we became the laughing stock around the world during G.W. Bush’s presidency, but even better – after Romney’s world tour of buffoonery. Maybe you’d be better apt than a 6 year old to discuss that particular matter by contrasting Obama’s esteem around the globe.

      Explain, if you will, how Obama takes from people who work hard – and explain how you measure working hard – to give to people who don’t work at all.

      Please put into perspective Obama’s wish for everyone to wait in a long line to see a doctor.

      Explain how it is that during Obama’s presidency drilling and mining have increased, yet he doesn’t want Americans drilling or mining?

    2. None of the kids in the video you cited are 6 years-old, nor are they the “stars” of the video in question, as opposed to the 6 year-old who is very clearly the “star” of the video in this entry.

      1. So what’s the age where its ok to use your kid as a prop? In the other video, the kids were very much the impetus or “star” of the video. Those sick parents stand by filming their kids. It was hardly incidental, as they had plenty of cameras, a crowd, and even an attorney on hand. So give me a break. They used their kids as props, hoping to bait the cops into fining the kids themselves and turning the whole thing into a lawsuit.

        You failed to point out the identies of those parents as well. I wonder if they ever paid the $200 fine. I am surprised such lowly public employees such as them have that kind of money to burn after those big Walker cuts. If they were any decent parents, they would have taken it out of their kids allowance. Since the parents allowed them to choose to be cited, they should have followed through and shown them that actions (especially such a stupid action such as this) have consequences.

        I don’t know how you can honestly think there is a distinction between the two videos. I’m sure you don’t, but either your bias or pride prevents you from admitting it. In fact, I would venture to say the other one is worse in that the parents encourage the kids to break the law unnecessarily and cheer them for it.

  2. That kid will grow up, evolve, and be liberal by the time he’s eligible to vote at age 18. Sort of like that kid who addressed CPAC at 13, and then was supporting Obama and gay marriage and other more progressive causes by 17. Proves yet again that Republicans are really just overgrown children.

    1. So then you must also believe that the Sargent children will be conservatives in adulthood.

  3. FMSN,
    Our media is owned by 5 or 6 corporations. Our talk radio is 90% conservative. To believe anthing they say without checking facts is just plain stupidity. Recently, both Fox Noise and CNN reported that the Healthcare Act had been overturned. They got it wrong. They were more interested in ratings and being the first to break the news than actual facts.

    The Ohio Bridge bombers? It may have been reported on Fox but everyone knows they never get there facts correct. USA Today reported that the nuts used OWS as a cover. OWS was not violent enough for them. OWS knew nothing of their plot. I bet Fox did not report that one.

    As for the media going after Romney…maybe if he quit putting his foot in his mouth they would have nothing to report. And not releasing his taxes even has Republicans wondering what he is hiding.

    1. Despite media ownership, most of those writing and reporting are liberal because major media outlets are out of NYC or LA. Show me the conservative slant in the NY Times, which is where most other media get their stories from. Talk radio is mostly conservative because that’s what the marketplace demands.

      I get your point about sloppy journalism to rush to be the first to get the scoop. Misreporting the health care decision for a few seconds is hardly evidence of a conservative media.

      I see you ignored my point about ABCNews rushing to find a link to the Colorado shooter and the Tea Party. That is both sloppy journalism and a liberal bent by Snuffleufflegus. My point about the Ohio bridge bombers is that there was NO rush to find a link to Occupy, even though there was one. Why didn’t that story flood the airwaves? Heck, I didn’t even hear about it until last week, while incidentally tuning in to talk radio (which I don’t listen to much of). You act like OWS is an offical organization by saying it “knew nothing of their plot.” I am sure you would say the same if it was the reverse and it was the Tea Party. If that had been the case, it would have made the front of every magazine — oh, the violent right wingers, what are we do?!

  4. I’m assuming FMSN’s inability to defend the verity of this 6 year old’s assertions means that FMSN simply can’t figure a way to find any truth in the lies this poor child has been forced to regurgitate. Therefore, I will be happy to illuminate the sick, twisted, propagandist lies this child-pawn is being coerced into promoting.

    Obama trying to take guns away from people? Hogwash. He hasn’t signed one law to do any such thing. Obama has actually expanded gun rights in America. In 2009 in a sick compromise made to persuade the Do-Nothing Republicans to pass the credit card holders’ bill of rights Obama agreed to an amendment allowing concealed and loaded guns into National Parks. The measure which made it easier for gun toters (be they good or be they bad) to travel between state and federal territory. Rational opponents of the bill include police groups and the Association of Park Rangers who rightly point out the measure’s weakness for the real world: facilitating the ease of gun toters between state and federal lands increases the chances of vandalism and poaching on federal lands, and also poses significant ssafety threats to park staff and park visitors.

    Has the Obama administration renewed the Clinton ban on assault weapons? No.

    So what is this child talking about? Obviously not the reality of the Obama Administration’s stance on gun control – which is lax and too conciliatory to the NRA lobby. Yes, the NRA lobby that actively promotes its twisted, fear-mongering propaganda that Obama is secretly plotting to obliterate the 2nd Amendment. Now, if the NRA were discussing my views on the 2nd Amendment, they’d have a good case, but in relation to the Obama Administration, no – it is just pure propaganda designed to ease all gun regulations in this country.

    Again, what is this child talking about? I think it’s pretty obvious to all people who engage in rational thought that this child has distilled into the very simplest terms, terms that Conservative, Low-to-No-Information-Voters can understand: the Fast and Furious Conspiracy Theory, fast and furiously whipping about the Right Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber. This is, to use Zach’s term, the Tinfoil Hat Brigade in its most extreme form, that noxious brigade which touts the conspiratorial notion that the Bush Administration’s Fast and Furious policy – continued by the Obama Administration – is actually a program intended to purposefully arm Mexican drug cartels with American weapons so that gun violence on the border will increase which would in turn sway public opinion toward more stringent gun control laws…. uh, yeah…. right….

    Then again, maybe this child is referring to the beyond the pale conspiracy theorists in the Right Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber which insists that the Obama Administration was behind the Aurora tragedy. Uh, yeah… right.

    But has Obama taken a strong stance on gun control since Aurora? No. He’s called for restricting the ability of the mentally unstable and criminals from acquiring assault weapons by strengthening the process of background checks when purchasing firearms. Is Obama calling for new laws? No. He’s indicated merely enhancing enforcement of existing laws. He’s called for Congress to open the debate on gun control. The response by Congress? No way.

    Obama wants to take guns away from the mentally unstable and from criminals. So who are the good guys in this child’s scenario? The mentally unstable? Criminals?

    Who, in Obama’s view, is ultimately responsible for gun violence in America? Parents. Note Obama’s own words: “…when a child opens fire on other children, there’s a hole in his heart that no government can fill.” He placed the responsibility of curbing gun violence in America not on stricter gun regulation but on community – parents, teachers, neighbors… so young people “do not have that void inside them.”

    So, how to avoid the void that contributes to gun violence in America? Maybe we could start by not drilling toxic NRA propaganda into the minds of children, children like this 6 year old child so obviously saturated with the NRA disinformation, lies, and propaganda.

    1. PJ, no inability on my part, I do have other things to do. But here’s what I have to say:

      #10 — “Spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that” statements about sum it up.
      #9 — People will necessary wait in line when Obama’s ultimate dream of single payer health care comes to fruitition. Think Congress acts slowly now? Wait until they are debating the merits of paying for your operation.
      #8 — If you support abortion, you must think children are a burden at least some of the time.
      #7 — Food stamps are at an all-time high under Obama. Don’t tell me he won’t be out there promising all sorts of benefits to get votes. Don’t forget, the money comes from “Obama’s stash.”
      #6 — Utility rates will neceesarily rise, as Obama said himself. Oil and coal are evil, whether Obama really believes that or has to pretend to appease the enviro coalition is to be determined.
      #5 — If you are not serious about immigration reform and securing the border, some bad guys will get in.
      #4 — I haven’t heard Obama say too much about gun control, unless he has made new statements after Colorado? I know he doesn’t like when people cling to guns and religion though.
      #3 — Michelle Obama was only proud of America for the first time in her life four years ago. Obama’s overall attitude does not appear to favor American exceptionalism.
      #2 — Bowing to leaders? The evidence speaks for itself.
      #1 — I’m never been a proponent of the birth certificate conspiracy.

      1. #9 – Universal health care was the dream of the GOP until Jan. 21, 2009. Back in the day, people went through the trouble of cost benefit analyses, and they found that fortunes could made in a mandated environment. But then some black guy got in the way. The ACA was practically written by the health insurance industry. And the USA continues to have the most expensive and least effective healthcare system in the developed world. All the others above us? You know the answer.
        #8 – That’s your opinion, for whatever that’s worth.
        #7 – Citation please. Also remember the circumstances and who put us there.
        #6 – This may go past your depth of reasoning, but alternative energy continues to grow at remarkable rates, despite the efforts of politicians to thwart them. Something called the “free market”.
        #5 – Again, your opinion.
        #3 – Citation please.
        #2 – And who was that muslim that GWB kissed at Camp David one hot summer day? Just sayin’.

        1. #9 — I am talking single payer (which Obama and other libs admit is the ultimate goal after the incremental ACA doesn’t cut it). I never heard of the GOP supporting that.
          #8 — Most reasons given by supporters of exterminating children are a matter of inconvenience.
          #7 — Still blaming Bush? Really? Here’s your citation, sir: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/number-of-americans-on-snap_n_1074344.html (again, just a simple google search)
          #6 — Alternative energy is growing only because of govt mandates and subsidies, not because they are necessarily viable. That’s hardly free market. I am all for all sorts of energy, but I don’t want a politician telling me that my utility rates will necessarily rise because he has some insane political agenda.
          #5 — Well I suppose everything is my opinion, your opinion, or someone else’s. But let me ask you, what has Obama done to ensure that illegal immigrants won’t cross our borders? Some of them are bound to be criminals.
          #3 — Again, I think google is easily found on your computer. Mrs. Obama even made those statements in this state: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/michelle-obam-1-2/
          And consider the statements made by Jeremiah Wright, who was a close personal friend of the Obamas for many years.
          #2 — How does that excuse Obama? I may have some qualms with a kiss, but one could argue that is a greeting, while a deep bow is putting oneself subservient to the other.

          1. #9 – Oh come off it, we’ve been through this before. Gingrich pushed a nearly identical bill as the alternative to “Hillarycare” back in the ’90s.
            #7 – Again, what brought us to that?
            #6 – Wrong again. Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html
            #3 – Context.
            #2 – Seriously. I see your Obama with a Nixon (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/15/799629/-Guess-What-Other-President-Liked-To-Bow-Updated-w-Nixon-Bow) and raise you an Eisenhower (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2009/11/the-dwight-d-eisenhower-bowing-hour). Boom.

            Ain’t Google great?

      2. FMSN,

        Haven’t heard Obama’s stance on gun control? With all due respect – Get your head out the Conservative media that does not report, but instead just distorts. Make a little effort to try wade through the Right Wing Disinformation glut on the internet and you may be able to find something that puts the matter into better perspective. You’re simply regurgitating the hate campaign against the president, it is that simple. Can’t stand the idea that Obama actually supports the 2nd Amendment, eh? Contradicts NRA propaganda, doesn’t it?

        “Spread the Wealth Around” and “You didn’t build that” – both taken out of context by the Right Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber. Considered honestly and contextually – Obama’s “you didn’t build that” statement referred to public infrastructure that supports private business. And it’s actually a foundational concept most clearly articulated by Thomas Paine in 1795:

        “Personal property is the effect of society; and it is impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own’s hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civllization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequences of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.”

        This view of “spreading the wealth around” is shared by Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson among other Enlightenment founders. Don’t like it, huh? I, for one, do like it. These are principles that inspired positive growth of our Republic through its entire history. Conservative Radicals will now simply obliterate all of it. Radical Conservative Extremism is a travesty. There is nothing Conservative about Right Wing Extremism – they seek to conserve nothing the Founding Fathers and their loyal descendants enacted. Don’t like the idea of spreading the wealth around? Plutocratic oligarchies never do. That’s the principle that Conservatism preserves. Not the principles of a Democratic Republic.

        1. PJ, I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I am saying I HAVE NOT heard Obama make any statements about supporting new gun control measures. How is that evidence of my head in the conservative media? So unless he’s made statements after Colorado that contradict his previous position, I think you and I agree on this one. I also have no idea what the NRA has to say about the matter, nor do I care.

          1. If I am in error, I apologize, FMSN. It is quite possible that I’ve misunderstood you. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

      3. FMSN,

        One must be serious about securing our borders and immigration reform, insinuating, of course, that the Obama Administration is not… there’s a propagandist twist if ever there was one. I would urge you again to get your head out of the Conservative fog that blinds you. The Obama Administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous Republican Administration – this is public record. Look it up. The Administration has also prioritized the deportation of convicted criminals, persons who are known security risks, and individuals who defraud the visa system. Don’t like the Dream Act? Yeah, well… that concept originated from the Republican side of the aisle. Distasteful and not so serious a concept now that Obama supports it, huh?

        Apparently you don’t keep up with or have much experience with DHS, TSA, or U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. I do. If you did, you’d be keenly aware of the great many measures, some quite massive that the government has undertaken to secure our borders and you would also likely discuss the impressive number of issues that border control encompasses – but you and this 6 year old child know only enough to spit out propagandist nonsense about “bad people” coming through our borders. To simple- minded, linear-thinking Conservatives, it’s all just so easy isn’t it? Just put up a fence and turn those illegals away at the door. When you discuss immigration issues in terms other than apiculate propagandist memes, I will take you seriously. Until then you are simply regurgitating undigested platitudes that look suspiciously close (that’s facetiousness); that look identical to the uncritical “criticism” reverberating through the Right Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber.

    2. PJ, depsite your reponse being largely about the gun issue, you will note that in my origial post I did not list that issue as having merit.

      1. My retort was in response to my query to you about translating this 6 year old’s assertions. My mistake, perhaps. My apologies.

  5. That kid can’t be a real Tea Partier or he would have been sporting a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round drum magazine. And no one knows where Obama is from? C’mon! He was born in a thatched hut in Kenya and read the Communist Manifesto as a child by Jeremiah Wright! Give me a break! This was obviously made by liberals hoping to discredit the real Gadsden Flag crowd.

    Nice try, ” Patriot Update” or whoever you people REALLY are!

  6. FMSN,

    More SNAP enrollments? Could it be that the necessity remains high? Yes, of course it could. If we had something other than a Do-Nothing-Obstructionist-Will-Consider-Anything-Except-Comprehensive-Employment-Policy Conservative Blockade in Congress, our economy would be moving forward. Obama is not solely to blame, or even mostly to blame, for our economic doldrums that are exacerbating the need for assisting the poorest among us. The lion’s share of fault there lies with Republicans. I’ll grant you this much, though, Obama has been far too conciliatory to Conservative concerns in resolving our economic issues – therein lies his fault. He’s too Conservative.

    At any rate, you would consider high SNAP enrollments a bad thing, of course. An odd idea from one who leans toward the Red end of the political spectrum considering it is the Red States that consume more federal funding of all kinds including “welfare” than blue states. In other words, Red States pay fewer taxes but receive more federal monies. Something peculiar going on there, I think. Perhaps it isn’t Obama you or that 6 year old economic genius should be concerning yourselves with, but with Blue states subsidizing Red States.

    Higher SNAP enrollments is a bad thing? Yes, perhaps it is. I think It points as much to a systemic problem with Conservative policy going back 30 years – policies adopted by Conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans. Blaming Obama for systemic decline that is reaching a tipping point is preposterous; likewise, I didn’t find anything in the article to indicate a secret Obama election plot behind the increase, but rather an increase in awareness and – lo and behold – Better Administration Of Benefits.

    But, maybe SNAP is a bad thing. SNAP recipients constitute solely people who don’t work or work hard enough? Is that the point you are making? You are aware that SNAP is a program eligible only for the very poorest segment of our population -its recipients are primarily families with children, persons with disabilities on fixed incomes, and low-income senors. Oh, and low-wage working families participate in this program, perhaps you were unaware. It is America’s most effective Anti-Hunger program in existence. It is a program DESIGNED to expand during times of economic need. Its expansion hasn’t anything to do with Obama’s election campaign.

    But back to SNAP. It is extremely efficient – 92% of all SNAP spending is spent on benefits. And it betters the entire economy: it increases demand (the real reason for our economic slump after Obama’s stimulus package has run out) and the boost is distributed through state government. It is extremely effective for stimulating a weak economy: for every $5 dollars in SNAP benefits distributed, $9.20 is generated in community spending. So, who’s zooming who with this idea that Obama is taking from hard working people and giving to people who don’t work at all? For shame.

    1. It would never dawn on FMSN in a thousand years that he would ever have a need for it. I mean, what can possibly happen? He’s got his. Screw everyone else.

      Problem is, nobody is alive today who can remember life before our social safety nets. And our schools are too busy teaching to tests to give a damn about our own history.

Comments are closed.