Former Obama groupie burns her 2008 campaign T-shirt; tells off ‘criminal-in-chief’

WedlerSaying she was once among President Obama‘s “most hysterical supporters,” Carey Wedler wants the world to know she has come to see the president in a different light these past five years.

Wedler, who now calls Obama “the criminal-in-chief,” posted a video Thursday on her Youtube channel titled, “Why I’m burning my last bridge with Obama.” In the video, she is seen burning an Obama t-shirt she wore on the night he was first elected in 2008.

Insulted sheriffs walk out of meeting at Okla.
capitol after being told to remove guns

Idealistically, the shirt refers to Obama as her “homeboy.”

The video includes a well articulated rant of her displeasure with the man she once revered. Rooted in what seems to be left-wing anarchism, her views are not very conservative, but do include some familiar complaints.

Tom Tillison

Tom Tillison

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review.
Tom Tillison

Comments

385 thoughts on “Former Obama groupie burns her 2008 campaign T-shirt; tells off ‘criminal-in-chief’

  1. Dean Scholl says:

    did she just have a wardrobe malfunction when she pulled the shirt off

  2. Three Friends says:

    Most of the benefits of modern civilization result from our own ability to make use of more knowledge than we could ever know personally.

  3. BadWhisky says:

    Seems that college students these days are liberal and enjoy being charitable with mom and dad’s money; but, they get out of school and start earning their own money and most become stingy conservatives……

  4. Reese Barnes says:

    Rooted in left wing anarchism ? What kind of neo-con fascist nonsense is this fool blabbing ? It’s called libertarian volunteerism through non violent mutual cooperation …. And is the most moral forum of social interaction possible.

    1. Phillip says:

      I always enjoy a re-terminology, which is all your commentary. My commentary is that she “woke up” and got sucked into the delusional thought of this anarchy-capitalistic world that could be in existence from her boyfriend, Adam Kokesh…

      1. Reese Barnes says:

        I think you meant “an extension of her boy friend ?”

        Not sure what terms I re-defined, since what I described is anchro-capitalism – which is the most moral form societal organization. Government is nothing without the threat of state sanctioned unopposable violence for non-compliance. As a Christian I find this morally repugnant. There are better ways. Why dont try them before writing them off out of hand because a bunch of career criminal politicians have sold us some line of bull that world would degenerate into chaos without them constantly threatening us into compliance …. talk about delusional.

        Adam Kokesh is hardly the poster child for Anarcho-capitalism.

        Stefan Molyneux is much smarter and articulate on the subject

        1. Phillip says:

          I’ll see what he says,Molyneux, but I’m almost certain it will never sway me from Locke, ““where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.”

        2. Phillip says:

          Yes I did mean “extension” I was auto corrected. thanks.

        3. Phillip says:

          In the volunteer society of an anarchy-capitalistic society, what would inhibit violence in your opinion, it seems to me the answer is always “waking up” but as a pragmatic person I just need more, I am sure you can understand. If one commune has food, and the other doesn’t, what would prevent war? It’s hard to just assume in regards to survival the food would just be easily rationed.

          Is it just survival of the fittest when there is a natural disaster? or any need? If those in this moral society chose not to volunteer with their own volition to help people who lost homes, or loved ones?

          1. Reese Barnes says:

            This is a very common mis-argument.

            this has been proven not to be true, across multiple cultures and history. In time of need or natural disasters humans instinctively reach out and help each other. You show me the natural disaster and I will show you hordes of people that voluntarily turned out to help each other, without government force needed

            everything else you described naturally works itself out in market economies, what one group has and the other wants usually works out in mutually beneficial trade.

            over and over throughout history wars are not caused by “tribes” vying for resources but by “leaders” that want nothing more than to extend their power over others.

          2. Phillip says:

            Some do, I’ll agree but in a lot of ways the American Red Cross, commercials, and the news help feed the “coercion” of “volunteering”. I’m not convinced, at this point but I will tell you Reese, I’ll think more on it, and at least you just don’t end it with “waking up” I’m very well educated, very well read and the issue that I have is that many who choose this as their creed label me as “brainwashed” instantly. This is not a convincing way to convert me in any movement.

          3. Phillip says:

            Reese I’ve been looking into this, It seems that Anarchist have the best refutation in regards to Anarcho-capitalism, It’s still a form of the state. So my question is for you, Do you believe in property? Voluntarism it appears is a contradiction in so that it argues the cases for those to volunteer “contracts” with other human beings. Yet who upholds said contracts? Also is it voluntary to submit to said agreements such as paying rent when you inhabit the earth not by choice? You are then coerced to pay for property or rent to a landowner, isn’t that what Anarchist call voluntary slavery?

            “… it is clear that the voluntaryists who hold to this ideology have nothing to do with Anarchism… . What is consensual is necessarily voluntary, but what is voluntary is not necessarily consensual.” – See more at: http://isocracy.org/node/107#sthash.OT45bWD0.dpuf

            In that regard its still landlordism isn’t it?, which would still a system of government of authority.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts